MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003420883 · doi:10.1177/030802260506800903

Developmental Coordination Disorder and Self-Esteem: Do Occupational Therapy Groups Have a Positive Effect?

2005· article· en· W2003420883 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Steve McWilliams

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of ManchesterUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsSelf-esteemOccupational therapyPsychologyClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) have motor difficulties that impede the acquisition of both functional and academic skills and evidence suggests that these children may also have reduced self-esteem. One approach to treatment often adopted by occupational therapists is in the form of group therapy. Anecdotal evidence indicates that although these groups may produce little improvement in motor skills, there may be an associated increase in the children's self-confidence and self-esteem. This pilot study aimed to evaluate whether this was the case. A mixed methodology was used to evaluate the self-esteem of 12 children with DCD and to obtain the views of their parents/carers. A repeated measure design was used to assess the children using a validated measure of self-esteem, the Culture-Free Self-Esteem Inventories (CFSEI-2, Battle 1992), at initial assessment and pre and post therapy group. The parents/carers of the children were asked to complete a questionnaire during the last therapy group session and this formed the basis of a post-group interview. The results indicated that for this group of children the therapy groups did have a positive effect on their self-esteem in the majority of cases. Although it is unreasonable to draw definite conclusions from this pilot study because of the small sample size, possible implications for policy and practice are discussed and suggestions for further research are given.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations21
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207