Effectiveness of Cognitive–Functional (Cog–Fun) Occupational Therapy Intervention for Young Children With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of the Cognitive-Functional (Cog-Fun) intervention for young children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: Nineteen children ages 5-7 yr diagnosed with ADHD were allocated to treatment and wait-list control groups. After the 12-wk intervention, the control group was crossed over to treatment. Follow-up was conducted 3 mo after treatment. Outcome measures included the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. RESULTS: Before crossover, significant differences were found between groups in change scores on the outcome measures. After crossover, no significant differences were found in treatment effects, and significant moderate to large treatment effects were found for both COPM and BRIEF scores. Treatment gains were maintained at follow-up. CONCLUSION: The study supports the effectiveness of the Cog-Fun intervention in improving occupational performance and executive functions in daily life for young children with ADHD.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".