Enabling Outcomes for Students with Developmental Disabilities through Collaborative Consultation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collaborative consultation has been widely adopted in school-based occupational therapy practice; however, limited research has examined how collaboration between educators and occupational therapists contributes to students’ outcomes. The purpose of this study was to describe the nature of collaborative working in two cases of school-based occupational therapy service delivery. This paper reports a cross-case analysis, comparing findings about the nature of a joint effort in each case study to identify workplace practices that facilitated educator-occupational therapist collaboration. Ethnographic case study methods (Stake, 1995; Wolcott, 2008) and socio-cultural activity theory (SCAT; Engeström, 2001) were used to examine multiple perspectives concerning school-based occupational therapy collaborative consultation for two students with developmental disability in one region of Ontario, Canada. Cross-case analysis (Stake, 2006) facilitated examination of the similarities and differences in teamwork. Specific ways that educator-occupational therapist collaboration can be facilitated were identified in three areas: (a) focus for educational programming; (b) communication practices; and (c) leadership practices of educators. SCAT provided a robust framework for describing the depth, quality, and context of interactions from multiple stakeholder perspectives. As such, this research contributes to the development of theoretical and empirical perspectives on the processes of collaborative working and the relationship of these processes to outcomes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".