Perceived Efficacy and Goal Setting in Young Children
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 it