Case study on effect of household task participation on home, community, and work opportunities for a youth with multiple disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This case study explored how household task engagement influenced participation in the home, community and work for a youth with multiple disabilities. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were the first author's single father and her brother, who has spina bifida and intellectual disability. METHODS: Researchers used a case study design with mixed methods. Quantitative repeated measures included the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), the Children Helping Out: Responsibilities, Expectations, and Supports (CHORES), and the Arc's Self-determination Scale (SDS). Qualitative data was collected from interviews and observations and was analyzed using a constant comparison method. RESULTS: Visual analysis revealed gains in self-determination and in performance and satisfaction on the COPM. At follow-up, the father reported his son did more self-care household tasks and was more independent with these tasks. Family-care household task performance declined and father reported relatively no change in assistance. Qualitative findings illuminated the strategies and the processes that evolved through collaboration amongst the youth, the therapist, and the father. CONCLUSIONS: The son's competence with a daily household task increased positive perceptions of his capabilities that led to increased participation and independence in home, community, and work activities. Interventions addressing adaptations, development of self-determination skills, and parental education promoted these changes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".