Sensory Integration therapy Evaluation and Intervention in Clients With Goldenhar Syndrome : A Case Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
본 연구는 전반적인 발달지연, 감각 예민성, 촉각 방어와 작업수행의 문제를 가진 골덴하르 증후군 아동에게 감각통합치료를 적용하여, 골덴하르 증후군 아동의 감각통합 치료적 중재 개입방향을 제시하고자 하였다. 본 증례 아동은 만 7세 10개월 남아로 학교와 일상생활에서, 놀이와 학습에 대한 어려움, 운동발달 지연을 주 호소로 하여 검사가 의뢰되었다. 감각통합치료를 위한 평가로 캐나다 작업수행 측정(Canadian Occupational Performance Measure)시 바른 자세로 한글 읽고 쓰기가 첫째 작업수행 목표로 나타났고, 단축 감각프로파일(Short Sensory Profile) 과 감각 인터뷰에서는 감각 예민성과 촉각 처리영역에서 확연한 차이로 감각통합치료 중재가 요구되었다. 발달 프로파일 -3(Developmental Profile -3)은 5개 발달영역에서 전반적인 발달 지연이 나타났고, 운동 숙련도 검사 (Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-2)에서 운동발달 수준이 평균 이하로 나타났다. 본 증례 아동에 대한 감각통합 치료를 통해 전반적인 발달, 감각예민성, 촉각방어와 같은 감각조절 기능이 향상되고, 작업수행이 개선되는데 도움이 되었다. 본 사례연구를 통해서 국내 골덴하르 증후군 아동의 감각통합치료 접근법에 기초 자료가 될 것이라고 사료된다. This case study was to examine the effect of the sensory integration therapy on the Goldenhar syndrome child with tactile defensiveness, developmental delay and occupational performance difficulties. The child was 7.10 year old boy. For intervention, four evaluations were used and the results are as follows. First, in Canadian Occupational Performance Measure showed occupational performance goal as reading and writing in upright position. Second, in Short sensory profile and sensory history, significant differences between sensory sensitivity and tactile processing. Third, in Developmental Profile-3 showed delay. Fourth, in Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-2 showed below average. After intervention, the results of which showed a positive changes. Therefore, this case study is found that the sensory integration therapy is effective in the Goldenhar syndrome child with tactile defensiveness and developmental delay.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".