Sentences with phrase «social inclusion scale»

Overall, the reliability coefficient for the entire Social Inclusion Scale is 0.85.

Not exact matches

(1997) E652: Current Research in Post-School Transition Planning (2003) E586: Curriculum Access and Universal Design for Learning (1999) E626: Developing Social Competence for All Students (2002) E650: Diagnosing Communication Disorders in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students (2003) E608: Five Homework Strategies for Teaching Students with Disabilities (2001) E654: Five Strategies to Limit the Burdens of Paperwork (2003) E571: Functional Behavior Assessment and Behavior Intervention Plans (1998) E628: Helping Students with Disabilities Participate in Standards - Based Mathematics Curriculum (2002) E625: Helping Students with Disabilities Succeed in State and District Writing Assessments (2002) E597: Improving Post-School Outcomes for Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders (2000) E564: Including Students with Disabilities in Large - Scale Testing: Emerging Practices (1998) E568: Integrating Assistive Technology Into the Standard Curriculum (1998) E577: Learning Strategies (1999) E587: Paraeducators: Factors That Influence Their Performance, Development, and Supervision (1999) E735: Planning Accessible Conferences and Meetings (1994) E593: Planning Student - Directed Transitions to Adult Life (2000) E580: Positive Behavior Support and Functional Assessment (1999) E633: Promoting the Self - Determination of Students with Severe Disabilities (2002) E609: Public Charter Schools and Students with Disabilities (2001) E616: Research on Full - Service Schools and Students with Disabilities (2001) E563: School - Wide Behavioral Management Systems (1998) E632: Self - Determination and the Education of Students with Disabilities (2002) E585: Special Education in Alternative Education Programs (1999) E599: Strategic Processing of Text: Improving Reading Comprehension for Students with Learning Disabilities (2000) E638: Strategy Instruction (2002) E579: Student Groupings for Reading Instruction (1999) E621: Students with Disabilities in Correctional Facilities (2001) E627: Substance Abuse Prevention and Intervention for Students with Disabilities: A Call to Educators (2002) E642: Supporting Paraeducators: A Summary of Current Practices (2003) E647: Teaching Decision Making to Students with Learning Disabilities by Promoting Self - Determination (2003) E590: Teaching Expressive Writing To Students with Learning Disabilities (1999) E605: The Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP)(2000) E592: The Link Between Functional Behavioral Assessments (FBAs) and Behavioral Intervention Plans (BIPs)(2000) E641: Universally Designed Instruction (2003) E639: Using Scaffolded Instruction to Optimize Learning (2002) E572: Violence and Aggression in Children and Youth (1998) E635: What Does a Principal Need to Know About Inclusion?

We need to sustainability proof the future EU budget and make it serve the public good, promote social inclusion and strengthen European values, instead of wasting taxpayers» money on dirty fossil fuel investments, harmful and outdated farming practices, and large scale infrastructure projects that damage our health, destroy our environment, and jeopardise the safety and prosperity of our children.

Many of the scales demonstrated weak psychometrics in at least one of the following ways: (a) lack of psychometric data [i.e., reliability and / or validity; e.g., HFQ, MASC, PBS, Social Adjustment Scale - Self - Report (SAS - SR) and all perceived self - esteem and self - concept scales], (b) items that fall on more than one subscale (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version), (c) low alpha coefficients (e.g., below.60) for some subscales, which calls into question the utility of using these subscales in research and clinical work (e.g., HFQ, MMPI - A, CBCL - 1991 version, BASC, PSPCSAYC), (d) high correlations between subscales (e.g., PANAS - C), (e) lack of clarity regarding clinically - relevant cut - off scores, yielding high false positive and false negative rates (e.g., CES - D, CDI) and an inability to distinguish between minor (i.e., subclinical) and major (i.e., clinical) «cases» of a disorder (e.g., depression; CDI, BDI), (f) lack of correspondence between items and DSM criteria (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version, CDI, BDI, CES - D, (g) a factor structure that lacks clarity across studies (e.g., PSPCSAYC, CASI; although the factor structure is often difficult to assess in studies of pediatric populations, given the small sample sizes), (h) low inter-rater reliability for interview and observational methods (e.g., CGAS), (i) low correlations between respondents such as child, parent, teacher [e.g., BASC, PSPCSAYC, CSI, FSSC - R, SCARED, Connors Ratings Scales - Revised (CRS - R)-RSB-, (j) the inclusion of somatic or physical symptom items on mental health subscales (e.g., CBCL), which is a problem when conducting studies of children with pediatric physical conditions because physical symptoms may be a feature of the condition rather than an indicator of a mental health problem, (k) high correlations with measures of social desirability, which is particularly problematic for the self - related rating scales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsiscales demonstrated weak psychometrics in at least one of the following ways: (a) lack of psychometric data [i.e., reliability and / or validity; e.g., HFQ, MASC, PBS, Social Adjustment Scale - Self - Report (SAS - SR) and all perceived self - esteem and self - concept scales], (b) items that fall on more than one subscale (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version), (c) low alpha coefficients (e.g., below.60) for some subscales, which calls into question the utility of using these subscales in research and clinical work (e.g., HFQ, MMPI - A, CBCL - 1991 version, BASC, PSPCSAYC), (d) high correlations between subscales (e.g., PANAS - C), (e) lack of clarity regarding clinically - relevant cut - off scores, yielding high false positive and false negative rates (e.g., CES - D, CDI) and an inability to distinguish between minor (i.e., subclinical) and major (i.e., clinical) «cases» of a disorder (e.g., depression; CDI, BDI), (f) lack of correspondence between items and DSM criteria (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version, CDI, BDI, CES - D, (g) a factor structure that lacks clarity across studies (e.g., PSPCSAYC, CASI; although the factor structure is often difficult to assess in studies of pediatric populations, given the small sample sizes), (h) low inter-rater reliability for interview and observational methods (e.g., CGAS), (i) low correlations between respondents such as child, parent, teacher [e.g., BASC, PSPCSAYC, CSI, FSSC - R, SCARED, Connors Ratings Scales - Revised (CRS - R)-RSB-, (j) the inclusion of somatic or physical symptom items on mental health subscales (e.g., CBCL), which is a problem when conducting studies of children with pediatric physical conditions because physical symptoms may be a feature of the condition rather than an indicator of a mental health problem, (k) high correlations with measures of social desirability, which is particularly problematic for the self - related rating scales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsiSocial Adjustment Scale - Self - Report (SAS - SR) and all perceived self - esteem and self - concept scales], (b) items that fall on more than one subscale (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version), (c) low alpha coefficients (e.g., below.60) for some subscales, which calls into question the utility of using these subscales in research and clinical work (e.g., HFQ, MMPI - A, CBCL - 1991 version, BASC, PSPCSAYC), (d) high correlations between subscales (e.g., PANAS - C), (e) lack of clarity regarding clinically - relevant cut - off scores, yielding high false positive and false negative rates (e.g., CES - D, CDI) and an inability to distinguish between minor (i.e., subclinical) and major (i.e., clinical) «cases» of a disorder (e.g., depression; CDI, BDI), (f) lack of correspondence between items and DSM criteria (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version, CDI, BDI, CES - D, (g) a factor structure that lacks clarity across studies (e.g., PSPCSAYC, CASI; although the factor structure is often difficult to assess in studies of pediatric populations, given the small sample sizes), (h) low inter-rater reliability for interview and observational methods (e.g., CGAS), (i) low correlations between respondents such as child, parent, teacher [e.g., BASC, PSPCSAYC, CSI, FSSC - R, SCARED, Connors Ratings Scales - Revised (CRS - R)-RSB-, (j) the inclusion of somatic or physical symptom items on mental health subscales (e.g., CBCL), which is a problem when conducting studies of children with pediatric physical conditions because physical symptoms may be a feature of the condition rather than an indicator of a mental health problem, (k) high correlations with measures of social desirability, which is particularly problematic for the self - related rating scales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsiscales], (b) items that fall on more than one subscale (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version), (c) low alpha coefficients (e.g., below.60) for some subscales, which calls into question the utility of using these subscales in research and clinical work (e.g., HFQ, MMPI - A, CBCL - 1991 version, BASC, PSPCSAYC), (d) high correlations between subscales (e.g., PANAS - C), (e) lack of clarity regarding clinically - relevant cut - off scores, yielding high false positive and false negative rates (e.g., CES - D, CDI) and an inability to distinguish between minor (i.e., subclinical) and major (i.e., clinical) «cases» of a disorder (e.g., depression; CDI, BDI), (f) lack of correspondence between items and DSM criteria (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version, CDI, BDI, CES - D, (g) a factor structure that lacks clarity across studies (e.g., PSPCSAYC, CASI; although the factor structure is often difficult to assess in studies of pediatric populations, given the small sample sizes), (h) low inter-rater reliability for interview and observational methods (e.g., CGAS), (i) low correlations between respondents such as child, parent, teacher [e.g., BASC, PSPCSAYC, CSI, FSSC - R, SCARED, Connors Ratings Scales - Revised (CRS - R)-RSB-, (j) the inclusion of somatic or physical symptom items on mental health subscales (e.g., CBCL), which is a problem when conducting studies of children with pediatric physical conditions because physical symptoms may be a feature of the condition rather than an indicator of a mental health problem, (k) high correlations with measures of social desirability, which is particularly problematic for the self - related rating scales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsiScales - Revised (CRS - R)-RSB-, (j) the inclusion of somatic or physical symptom items on mental health subscales (e.g., CBCL), which is a problem when conducting studies of children with pediatric physical conditions because physical symptoms may be a feature of the condition rather than an indicator of a mental health problem, (k) high correlations with measures of social desirability, which is particularly problematic for the self - related rating scales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsisocial desirability, which is particularly problematic for the self - related rating scales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsiscales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsiscales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsivity).

Relationship quality was indexed as both general perceptions of social support (e.g., the extent to which participants felt they had someone who is «around when I am in need» or «who cares about my feelings»), and the degree of closeness individuals felt with their romantic partner (i.e., the Inclusion - of - Other - in - the - Self (IOS) scale).

Although weakened, the beneficial effect of breastfeeding remained significant after inclusion of social class and education for the McCarthy GCI and the child PPVT - R at 4 years and the WISC - R Verbal and Full Scale IQs at 11 years (Table 3), confirming the results of Lucas et al. 15 However, the inclusion of two direct measures of parental input, maternal IQ and the HOME score in the next step of the regression, reduced the breastfeeding, social class, and educational influences to nonsignificant levels.

Aspects of the concept of social inclusion may also be measured within the connectedness scales.

As a measure of social inclusion or exclusion the scale only examines relationships with others and therefore potentially overlooks key elements of inclusion and exclusion.

The following inclusion criteria was used: (a) a confirmed ASD diagnosis from available clinician reports or the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS; Lord et al. 2008), as well as scores above the cut - off on the Social Communication Questionnaire (SCQ; Rutter et al. 2003) or the Social Responsiveness Scale, Second Edition (SRS - 2; Constantino and Gruber 2012); (b) at least average intellectual functioning (IQ > 79) 1 on the two - subtest scale (FSIQ - 2: vocabulary and matrix reasoning) of the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence - 2nd Edition (WASI - II; Wechsler 2011); (c) between the ages of 8 and 12 years; and (d) demonstrated willingness to attend research assessments and 10 weekly therapy sessScale, Second Edition (SRS - 2; Constantino and Gruber 2012); (b) at least average intellectual functioning (IQ > 79) 1 on the two - subtest scale (FSIQ - 2: vocabulary and matrix reasoning) of the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence - 2nd Edition (WASI - II; Wechsler 2011); (c) between the ages of 8 and 12 years; and (d) demonstrated willingness to attend research assessments and 10 weekly therapy sessscale (FSIQ - 2: vocabulary and matrix reasoning) of the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence - 2nd Edition (WASI - II; Wechsler 2011); (c) between the ages of 8 and 12 years; and (d) demonstrated willingness to attend research assessments and 10 weekly therapy sessScale of Intelligence - 2nd Edition (WASI - II; Wechsler 2011); (c) between the ages of 8 and 12 years; and (d) demonstrated willingness to attend research assessments and 10 weekly therapy sessions.