The effect of a training programme in creativity on developing the creative abilities among children with visual impairment

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the effects of a training programme in creativity on developing creative abilities among 9-10-year-old children with visual impairment in Jordan. The study sample consisted of 41 students from fourth and fifth grades, who were randomly selected and divided into two experimental groups and two control groups. To achieve the study objectives, a 50-item inventory was developed by the researchers and used as pre-and post-tests. The result of multivariate analysis of variance showed statistical differences at the level of p = .01 in the study inventory between the performance of both the experimental groups and the control ones in favour of the experimental group at the overall dimensions and sub-dimensions. Furthermore, there are no significant differences at p = .01 due to gender at the overall dimensions and sub-dimensions. In the light of these results, the researcher addressed a number of suggestions and recommendations.

Interventions to improve functioning, participation, and quality of life in children with visual impairment: a systematic review

“…The available fulltext articles were screened on inclusion and exclusion criteria and assessed for eligibility. Together with articles identified through searches in reference lists of previously retrieved reviews and the gray literature, this resulted in 64 articles, describing 66 different studies (28 RCTs, 3,7,13,16,19,21,32, 33,39,47,50,54,56e58,61,62,66,69,72,78,83,85,93,98,111,121,124 18 non-RCTs, 1,2,6,11,15,20,27,35,44,51,55,65,74,75,82,89,96,104 and 20 before-after comparisons (BAs) 8 articles of McMahon and Kederis described 2 different studies. 57,58,70,71 The 66 included studies were published between 1964 and 2018, and 37 (56.1%) of them were published in the last decade (2008e2018) 1e3, 13,15,16,19e21,27,28, 30,32,33,35,39,40,43,46,51,54,62,65,69e71,73e75,78,82,83,85,89,91,96,98,104,110,111,124 ( Table 1).…”

“…57,58,70,71 The 66 included studies were published between 1964 and 2018, and 37 (56.1%) of them were published in the last decade (2008e2018) 1e3, 13,15,16,19e21,27,28, 30,32,33,35,39,40,43,46,51,54,62,65,69e71,73e75,78,82,83,85,89,91,96,98,104,110,111,124 ( Table 1). Most of the studies were conducted in the United States, 7,11,12,26,35,44,47,55e58,61,65,66,70e72,78,84,91,93,95,121 1 in Canada, 8 11 in Europe (i.e., United Kingdom, 50,108,119 Germany, 6 the Netherlands, 13,27,51,83,89 and Greece 69,82 ), 28 in Asian countries (i.e., Iran, 54 Turkey, 1,15,16,30,104,110,111,123,124 India, 20,21,28,39,40,43,46,62,74,75,90,96 Jordan, 2 Pakistan, 85 Japan, 97 Taiwan, 19 and Thailand 3,98 ), a...…”

“…3,7,16,61,69,78,83,85 From all RCTs, the studies of Qureshi and coworkers and Platje and coworkers were rated as having the least risk of bias, 83,85 whereas the study of Sacks and Gaylord-Ross was rated as having the most risk of bias. 93 All BAs and most of the non-RCTs 1,2,11,15,20,27,35,51,65,74,89,96,104 were rated as having serious risk of bias due to confounding. For BAs, this is linked to the study design chosen, whereas for non-RCTs, most studies did not control or correct for all possible confounders.…”

“…Five studies used proper matching techniques to control for confounding. 6,44,55,75,82 Almost all non-RCTs 1,2,11,20,35,44,51,55,65,74,75,82,89,96,104 and BAs 8,12,26,28,30,46,70,71,73,84,90,95,97,108,110,119,123 were rated as having low bias in selection of participants because all eligible participants were included. Bias in the selection of participants was rated as moderate for 3 non-RCTs, because of low response rates 15,27 or the intervention and follow-up did not coincide for all participants.…”

“…27,74,75 Seven studies were rated as having moderate risk because it was unknown whether the assessors were blinded, but it was thought to have minimal influence on the outcome, 20,35,44,51,82,89,104 whereas 7 studies were rated as having serious risk (i.e., unknown whether the assessor was blinded and a subjective outcome or different time points of measurements for groups). 2,6,11,15,55,65,96 The study of Aki and colleagues was rated as having unclear risk of bias in measurements of outcome because it was unclear who the assessors were. 1 In the BAs, 9 studies were rated as having moderate risk of bias, 12,26,28,46,71,90,97,108,110,123 whereas the remaining studies were rated as having serious risk of bias.…”