The application of client‐centred occupational therapy for Korean children with developmental disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper was to investigate the effectiveness of client-centred occupational therapy using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS). Eight girls and 23 boys from Korea, with developmental disabilities and from 3 to 10 years of age participated in this study. Each child participated in 20 to 24 sessions of client-centred occupational therapy. Both the COPM and the AMPS change scores demonstrated statistically significant improvement (p < 0.01) in occupational performance. Significant correlations were found between COPM - Performance and AMPS - Motor skills (r(s) = 0.64, p < 0.05), and COPM - Satisfaction and AMPS - Process skills (r(s) = 0.62, p < 0.05) in a group positive towards client-centred occupational therapy. The COPM was a valuable tool in guiding and measuring the client-centred occupational therapy for children with developmental disabilities. The small sample size of 31 children limits the generalizability of the study's results. Future research needs to use a larger and more diverse sample of children to further validate the effectiveness of client-centred occupational therapy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".