Evaluation of a Tennis Program for Children and Youth with Autism Spectrum Disorder using the Quality Participation Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children and youth with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often experience poor health outcomes and restricted participation within sport settings compared to those without ASD. Through application of the Quality Participation (QP) framework, sport program features which foster quality experiences (i.e., promote building blocks) for children and youth with ASD can be identified for inclusion in program structures. The purpose of this study was to examine participation experiences of parents and coaches in an 8-week tennis program designed for children and youth with ASD. Guided by a constructivist paradigm and case study methodology, six weeks of session observations, including informal conversations with children and youth (n=5) during breaks, were conducted. Semi-structured interviews with a coach (n=1) and parents (n=5) were performed starting in the final week of the program. Data was analyzed using thematic analysis, with patterns in relation to program feedback as well as perceptions and priorities of the six QP building blocks across data collection methods being identified. Both the coach and parents prioritized the QP engagement building block followed by belongingness, however the coach perceived the program as providing challenge, while parents perceived enhanced support in mastery. Session structure flexibility, providing encouragement and constructive feedback, and promoting social interaction within a small group were identified, through session observations and interview data, as necessary for program implementation. The findings contribute to disability sport literature by identifying engagement and belongingness as areas coaches should focus on to foster quality experiences within sport for children and youth with ASD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".