Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial Investigating Cognitive Strategy Use to Improve Goal Performance After Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The authors compared changes in client performance on three goals poststroke after the Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP) intervention or standard occupational therapy (SOT) to determine the magnitude and direction of change. METHOD: Eight people living in the community following a stroke were randomly assigned to receive CO-OP (n = 4) or SOT (n = 4). CO-OP is a 10-session, cognitive-oriented approach to improving performance that uses client-driven cognitive strategies. SOT was therapist driven and combined task-specific and component-based training. Goal performance was measured by the therapist-rated Performance Quality Rating Scale (PQRS) and the participant-rated Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). RESULTS: Using Mann-Whitney U test, we found that CO-OP participants showed significantly greater improvement in performance (PQRS, p = .02; COPM Performance, p = .02) compared with SOT but no improvement in satisfaction (COPM Satisfaction, p = .38). CONCLUSION: The CO-OP group demonstrated larger performance improvements than the SOT group. Because of the promising results, an investigation using a larger sample is warranted.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".