MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1997695120 · doi:10.1111/dmcn.12179

Motivation and paediatric interventions: Is it a predisposition, a mechanism for change, or an outcome?

2013· letter· en· W1997695120 sur OpenAlexaff
Jenny Ziviani, Anne A. Poulsen, Gillian King, Daniel Johnson

Notice bibliographique

RevueDevelopmental Medicine & Child Neurology · 2013
Typeletter
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Établissements canadiensHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychological interventionPsychologyConceptualizationCerebral palsyAutonomyIntervention (counseling)Mechanism (biology)Construct (python library)Developmental psychologyApplied psychologySocial psychologyPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

SIR–The recent article by Tatla et al.1 attests to the growing awareness of, and interest in, the role of motivation in the delivery of interventions for children with developmental disabilities such as cerebral palsy. In this article the authors undertook a systematic review to evaluate the impact of 'purportedly' motivational interventions on outcomes of children with cerebral palsy. For this purpose motivational rehabilitation intervention was defined as one that 'promotes the initiation and persistence of goal-directed motor behaviour'. As such, the focus was on the motivating or engaging effects of motor-based rehabilitation interventions. We commend the authors in this undertaking and wish to raise several challenges to be faced in further advancing this important line of enquiry. We were struck by the potential confusion about the construct under investigation and more importantly how it is conceptualized in the process of delivering interventions. At times, Tatla et al.1 appeared to be discussing children's achievement motivation as a trait, at other times motivation appeared to be an aspect of the intervention provided or the 'right level of challenge' (person-environment fit), and at other times motivation was considered an outcome. There are numerous theories about motivation and it is clearly important to articulate theories in order to advance research in this field. Our own work has drawn on Self-Determination Theory as a way of understanding the key mechanisms which can affect how effectively a child engages in therapy.2 In this conceptualization Autonomy (individual goal choice), Relatedness (connection with meaningful others) and Competence (belief in and ability to achieve goals) are presented as ways of understanding children's motivation to engage in therapy. Thus, motivation to engage is optimized by various elements of the therapeutic intervention, including providing choice, social interaction and support, and fostering self-confidence to achieve goals. Theory, therefore, provides direction concerning the key elements of a range of interventions that describe themselves as motivational. Various client-centred approaches and interest-based interventions include these basic motivational elements. We would suggest that motivation is not inherent in a specific activity but is a changing state that results from the interaction between an individual's interests, social environment, and nature of the activity involved. Hence there is probably no one size fits all description of an intervention as being motivational or engaging. Interestingly, eight of the nine interventions reported by Tatla et al.1 employed a virtual-reality-based product. Only one intervention was described as addressing skills within the context of a child's family environment which parents felt their child was motivated to improve. Our own research has provided evidence of the satisfaction of needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness as key motivators for engagement with video games.3 This research was conducted with adults in a non-therapeutic setting so it would be necessary to determine if similar findings apply to children and whether satisfaction of these needs also improves motivation for engagement with therapeutic activities embedded in virtual environments. We have also reported on current limitations in the way motivation is measured for children with motor difficulties.4 Without psychometrically sound measures of motivation it is difficult to ascertain the extent of individual differences, aspects of individual strengths which may be better addressed by specific intervention strategies, or the extent to which motivational disposition can be modified over time. As with all things that are perceived to be important contributors to outcome, robust measurement is necessary. We have also begun to consider the nature of engagement in paediatric rehabilitation interventions (rather than motivation per se) drawing on preliminary work in mental health.5 Engagement can be considered to be a multifaceted state of affective, cognitive, and behavioral investment in the client role over the intervention process, rather than an intervention-specific state. The construct of engagement may be useful in understanding changes in motivational state over a single session and/or a series of sessions. We look forward to research which further describes interventions in light of a motivational rationale, addresses the measurement of motivation and engagement, includes a means of examining engagement in therapy over time, and looks at the interaction between intervention and level of engagement on therapeutic outcomes.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,016
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,016
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,084

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0160,075
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,004
Communication savante0,0030,004
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,111
Tête enseignante GPT0,348
Écart entre enseignants0,237 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations14
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDevelopmental Medicine & Child NeurologyMême sujetMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsTravaux en français237 207