Personal and environmental pathways to participation in young children with and without mild motor disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Participation in everyday activities has a positive influence upon health and well-being and is considered as an outcome measure. According to recent models child participation is the product of the dynamic interaction between health states and both individual and environmental factors. Children with mild developmental disabilities often present decreased participation in everyday activities. The purpose of this study was to explore the extent to which individual and environmental factors explain the participation of young children, with and without mild motor disabilities. METHODS: The study population included 58 kindergarten children together with their parents (29 children with mild motor disabilities who were referred to occupational therapy and 29 children without motor disabilities). Both groups of children were matched for: age; gender; age of parents; and socio-economic status (SES). We assessed participation using the Child Participation Questionnaire (intensity, diversity, independence, child enjoyment and parental satisfaction) and we assessed children's self-efficacy and motor abilities for individual factors. Parental self-efficacy and SES were collected by questionnaires. RESULTS: Participation diversity (number of activities) was predicted by child and mother self-efficacy and by SES. Child independence and enjoyment as well as parental satisfaction were predicted by child motor ability but mainly by maternal self-efficacy. Results suggest that the total explained variance is more than double when the environmental variables (parental self-efficacy and SES) are inserted to the participation model. CONCLUSIONS: Maternal self-efficacy and SES serve as facilitators to increased participation and well-being of children with mild motor disabilities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".