Broadening the Occupational Therapy Toolkit: An Executive Functioning Lens for Occupational Therapy With Children and Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Attention to executive functioning (EF) and its effect on occupational performance is increasing in the occupational therapy literature. This study explored occupational therapists' perceptions of how EF is recognized and addressed within occupational therapy for children and youth. METHOD: Inductive qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the in-depth interview data from 13 occupational therapists with a range of practice contexts and experience. RESULTS: EF should be explicitly considered during clinical reasoning. System and professional barriers create challenges to occupational therapists, constraining their ability to recognize, label, and address EF performance issues. Occupational therapists who have integrated EF into their practice perspective have acquired knowledge and skills through interprofessional collaborations, client interactions, and professional development opportunities. CONCLUSION: Occupational therapists working with children and youth need an occupational EF framework and practice resources if they are to integrate an EF lens to more broadly enable occupational performance.
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 | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".