Individualized Outcome Measures for Evaluating Life Skill Groups for Children with Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The challenge of evaluating life skill groups is the need to assess skills reflecting the priorities and abilities of the individuals as well as the program focus. PURPOSE: This study describes the feasibility and utility of goal menus and individualized outcome measures in two life skill groups for children with disabilities. METHODS: Eleven children were evaluated at baseline and 5 weeks post-program using a modified Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and modified Goal Attainment Scaling (mod-GAS). FINDINGS: COPM satisfaction median scores across all goals increased post-program by 3.0 points (P=0.001) and performance scores by 1.0 point (P=0.002). Mod-GAS scores for all participants were at least -1 (partial achievement), and 55% of participants achieved their functional goal (Mod-GAS = 0) with carryover into their community environments. IMPLICATIONS: This study supports the positive contribution of individualized measures to evaluate outcomes within life skill programs for children with disabilities.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".