Evidence for outcomes of motivational rehabilitation interventions for children and adolescents with cerebral palsy: an American Academy for Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study reviewed evidence regarding the effect of motivational rehabilitation interventions on outcomes in children with cerebral palsy. Six databases were searched for literature published up to May 2012. Included studies measured the purported motivating effects of motor-based rehabilitation interventions and the measured impact on outcomes. The American Academy for Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine (AACPDM) systematic review methodology was used as a framework. Eight studies evaluated outcomes of studies using virtual reality interventions and one in a functional therapy context. Conflicting evidence from three (level II and level III) studies exists about the impact of these motivating interventions on motor outcomes measured in body functions. No statistical evidence regarding activity and participation outcomes exists. A single level II study found no significant difference in participants' motivation between motivational and conventional interventions. This review revealed a paucity of research on the effects of motivational interventions. Weaknesses include a lack of consistency in the examination of motivational interventions, limited use of definitions or theories to ground the concept of motivation, and reliance on non-validated methodological tools. This body of evidence would be strengthened by the use and development of robust outcome measures of motivation.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".