MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999435810 · doi:10.5014/ajot.2015.014795

Effectiveness of a Cognitive–Functional Group Intervention Among Preschoolers With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Pilot Study

2015· article· en· W1999435810 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lori Rosenberg, Adina Maeir, Aviva Yochman, Idit Dahan, Idit Hirsch

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGoal Attainment ScalingRating scalePsychologyAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderOccupational therapyCognitionExecutive functionsIntervention (counseling)Clinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To test functional improvement after a group cognitive-functional occupational therapy intervention for preschoolers with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: Seventeen preschooler-parent dyads attended 11 weekly group sessions focused on acquiring executive strategies through occupational performance. Functional improvement was measured using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS); executive function, using the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Pediatric; ADHD symptomatology, using Conners' Parent Rating Scale-Revised and Conners' Teacher Rating Scale-Revised; and social functioning, using the Social Participation scale of the Sensory Processing Measure. RESULTS: Significant improvement was found on the COPM and GAS measures, whereas mixed results were found on the other measures, with improvements found in children whose scores indicated impairment at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive-functional group intervention appears to significantly improve daily functioning, executive function, and social functioning for children who demonstrate clinical impairment. Further research with a larger sample, a control group, and follow-up is required.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207