A randomized controlled trial of routines-based early intervention for children with or at risk for developmental delay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Routines-based early intervention (RBEI) for children with or at risk for developmental delay encourages collaboration between professionals and families to enhance children's participation in family routines with family-selected goals. We conducted the first single-blinded randomized control trial to examine the effectiveness of a 6-month RBEI vs. traditional home visiting (THV), which uses a curriculum focused on children's developmental domains. Thirty-one families with children aged 5-30 months (mean age 17.4 months) with or at risk for developmental delay were randomly assigned to an RBEI group (n=15) or a THV group (n=16). The enrolled children were evaluated using the Chinese version of Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI-C) and the Comprehensive Development Inventory for Infants and Toddlers (CDIIT) at 5 time points. Two-way mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine the group by stage interactions. Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) were applied to explore between-group differences on individualized goal achievement. PEDI-C showed that the RBEI group had a faster progress rate in self-care functions and independence in social functions in the first 3 months of intervention and at the 6-month follow-up. The RBEI group also scored higher on the GAS in the first 3 months of intervention. However, between-group differences in changes in the developmental domains on the CDIIT were not significant. Thus, RBEI was more effective than THV in promoting functional outcomes and reaching family-selected goals, while both interventions allowed equal improvement in developmental domains.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".