Effects of a collaborative intervention process for children with disabilities on parent-therapist interaction, parent empowerment, and child performance
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Despite research supporting family-professional collaboration, strategies and processes that optimize collaboration are limited. The aims of this research were to determine 1) whether interactions between parents and therapists who are instructed on the collaborative intervention process differ from interactions between parents and therapists in the comparison group, 2) whether the collaborative intervention process improves parent empowerment and child performance, and 3) describe parents and therapists experiences. Participants were 18 children with physical disabilities, their mothers, and 16 physical therapists. Therapists randomized to the experimental group were instructed in the collaborative intervention process. Each family-therapist dyad participated in 6 weekly sessions. Four sessions were videotaped and combined (1st and 2nd for planning, 3rd and 5th for implementation) to code parent-therapist interactions using Response Class Matrix. Outcomes were measured using the adapted Family Empowerment Scale (FES) and Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). A questionnaire was completed by parents and therapists to rate and describe their experiences. Therapists in the experimental group demonstrated higher frequency of 'seeking information' (p<.01), 'giving information' (p<.05), 'positive behavior' (p<.01) and lower frequency of 'child-related behavior' (p<.001) than therapists in the comparison group during planning and implementing intervention. Parents in the experimental group demonstrated a higher frequency of 'giving information' than parents in the comparison group (p<.01) during planning and implementing intervention. Mean scores on the FES (p<.05) and COPM (p<.001) increased after intervention for both groups, however, there was no between group difference (p>.05). Effect sizes for change in child performance and satisfaction with performance on the COPM were .73 and 1.08 respectively, favoring the experimental group. Parents in the experimental group felt more confident in carrying out activities during daily routines (p=.011) and perceived they worked together with therapists to a greater extent than parents' in the comparison group (p=.014). Parents in both groups perceived setting an activity goal was most beneficial. Findings show that parents and therapists instructed in the collaborative intervention process interacted more with each other, whereas parents and therapists in the comparison group focused more on the child. Findings also emphasize the importance of shared goal setting for children's activities.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,015 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».