Exploring the comparative responsiveness of a core set of outcome measures in a school‐based conductive education programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conductive education (CE) is a holistic educational system that uses an active cognitive approach to teach individuals with motor disorders to become more functional participants in daily activities. While CE's popularity continues to grow in North America and Europe, its effectiveness has not been established. The lack of definition of responsive outcome measures for evaluation of CE programmes has limited the interpretability of conclusions from earlier studies evaluating effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To determine which measures from a core set were most responsive to physical, functional and psychosocial changes associated with a school-based CE programme. METHODS: This was a one-group before and after data collection design using an 8-month follow-up period. We enrolled a referral sample of nine children with cerebral palsy in Kindergarten or Grade 1 (Gross Motor Function Classification System levels 3, 4 or 5). The study took place within a school-based CE programme at a Canadian children's rehabilitation centre. Children participated in a CE full-day class for an entire school year. Physical, functional, psychosocial and participation measures included: Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM), Quality of Upper Extremity Skills Test (QUEST), Peabody Developmental Motor Scales, Paediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI), Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance for Young Children, Individualized Educational Plan, and Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS). Four children from the study's second year were also evaluated on the Impact on Family Scale (IFS), GAS and School Function Assessment. RESULTS: The Gross Motor Function Measure, QUEST, PEDI (Caregiver Assistance) and IFS were most responsive to change. GAS was useful in documenting and quantifying goals. Problems were encountered in evaluating self-esteem and school participation. CONCLUSIONS: Several strong measures of outcome were identified. Further work is needed to find valid and sensitive psychosocial and school participation measures for these young children.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".