The Belief in Goal Self‐Competence Scale (Bi<scp>GSS</scp>) – Exploring a new way to support individual goal pursuit and document occupational therapy outcomes in paediatric practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) is an outcome measure of clients' self perceptions of performance and satisfaction with occupational performance and is widely used in paediatric research. The aim of this study was to explore how a new outcome measure, the Belief in Goal Self-Competence Scale (BiGSS), was perceived by paediatric occupational therapists to compliment the COPM as a way of documenting client confidence in goal pursuit. METHODS: Two hundred and forty-one occupational therapists participated in an online survey through paediatric listserv groups and professional networks. Therapists' views about goal setting and the utility of the BiGSS were analysed descriptively and open ended questions were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Overall, goal setting was viewed as a highly important aspect of therapy (n = 221, 90.7%) although only 22% (n = 52) of respondents indicated using formal goal setting tools. For the subset of respondents who frequently used the COPM (n = 101, 42%) almost all (97.87%) indicated that they would find the BiGSS to be moderately or highly useful to their current practice. Suggestions for improvement of the measure involved wording and formatting. CONCLUSION: This study supports existing evidence that goal setting is highly valued by occupational therapists, however, formal tools are not always used. There was preliminary support for a measure such as the BiGSS as a means of documenting children's and families confidence in goal pursuit.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".