Evaluation of Occupational Therapy School-Based Consultation Service for Students with Fine Motor Difficulties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This paper describes a 2-year study that addressed the perceived occupational performance changes among students with fine motor difficulties receiving occupational therapy school-based consultation (OTSBC) services. METHOD: The sample included 52 stakeholders of students with fine motor difficulties who received occupational therapy services. Six exploratory focus groups and one participatory and action-based focus group were conducted with parents, teachers, occupational therapists, and Community Care Access Centre case managers. RESULTS: Results supported the benefits of OTSBC. Key concerns identified were the wait for service, confusion about service expectations, inadequate communication among stakeholders, school board issues, and constraints in the health care system. Recommendations identified were to train teachers, provide early intervention, address service delivery issues related to health and education systems, and promote awareness of occupational therapy service and its effectiveness. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Occupational therapists working with students with fine motor difficulties could consider providing formal education programs for teachers, promoting early intervention of fine motor problems, and communicating to stakeholders regarding the expectations and effectiveness of OTSBC.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".