Effectiveness of a Cognitive–Functional Group Intervention Among Preschoolers With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".