Perceived Efficacy and Goal Setting in Young Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the central tenets of client-centred occupational therapy is to enable clients to select goals to work on in therapy (Law, 1998). The process of identifying and prioritizing goals is fairly abstract, therefore occupational therapy goals for children are often prescribed by the therapist or by parents and teachers. The purpose of this study was to pilot test a measure and a process that would provide young children with the opportunity to assess their performance on daily tasks and to establish goals for occupational therapy intervention. Parents and children completed the Perceived Efficacy and Goal Setting System (PEGS), a measure of children's perception of their competence performing fine and gross motor tasks. Children 5-9 years of age were able to discriminate among tasks and to rate whether or not they were able to perform each task competently. They were also able to use this information to select and prioritize goals for intervention. While parents often rated the child's competence lower than the child did, there was a high level of agreement regarding which tasks were difficult for the child. Parents and children often did not agree about the specific selection or priority of these tasks for intervention, however, which highlights the need for further research.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".