↓ Skip to main content

Should Schools Expect Poor Physical and Mental Health, Social Adjustment, and Participation Outcomes in Students with Disability?

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Should Schools Expect Poor Physical and Mental Health, Social Adjustment, and Participation Outcomes in Students with Disability?
Published in
PLOS ONE, May 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0126630
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sharmila Vaz, Reinie Cordier, Marita Falkmer, Marina Ciccarelli, Richard Parsons, Tomomi McAuliffe, Torbjorn Falkmer

Abstract

The literature on whether students with disabilities have worse physical and mental health, social adjustment, and participation outcomes when compared to their peers without disabilities is largely inconclusive. While the majority of case control studies showed significantly worse outcomes for students with disabilities; the proportion of variance accounted for is rarely reported. The current study used a population cross-sectional approach to determine the classification ability of commonly used screening and outcome measures in determining the disability status. Furthermore, the study aimed to identify the variables, if any, that best predicted the presence of disability. Results of univariate discriminant function analyses suggest that across the board, the sensitivity of the outcome/screening tools to correctly identify students with a disability was 31.9% higher than the related Positive Predictive Value (PPV). The lower PPV and Positive Likelihood Ratio (LR+) scores suggest that the included measures had limited discriminant ability (17.6% to 40.3%) in accurately identifying students at-risk for further assessment. Results of multivariate analyses suggested that poor health and hyperactivity increased the odds of having a disability about two to three times, while poor close perceived friendship and academic competences predicted disability with roughly the same magnitude. Overall, the findings of the current study highlight the need for researchers and clinicians to familiarize themselves with the psychometric properties of measures, and be cautious in matching the function of the measures with their research and clinical needs.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 17%
Student > Bachelor 15 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 22 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 11%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Sports and Recreations 3 3%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 26 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 May 2015.
All research outputs
#23,183,846
of 25,839,971 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#204,314
of 225,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,205
of 280,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#5,983
of 6,892 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,839,971 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 225,328 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,050 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6,892 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.