School-Based Occupational Therapy for Children with Fine Motor Difficulties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consultative occupational therapy services are becoming widely used in the school environment. However, few studies have evaluated the utility of and the process by which these services are delivered. This study examined whether the written communication and fine motor skills of 23 children with fine motor difficulties improved after receiving school-based occupational therapy from a program whose mandate was to deliver services according to a consultation model of service delivery. In addition, the study assessed the process of service delivery, including treatment fidelity, or the extent to which consultation services were implemented as intended. Statistically significant and practically meaningful improvement was found in written communication on the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales-Classroom Edition (VABS-C) and School Functional Assessment-Version 3.0 (SFA), and in fine motor skills on the SFA, but not on the VABS-C. An examination of the service delivery process revealed that therapists deviated from a purely consultative model, with 86% providing some direct therapy to children. Parents were mostly satisfied with services received, whereas teachers were indifferent or somewhat dissatisfied. Treatment fidelity is taken into consideration when discussing study findings. Recommendations to enhance school-based occupational therapy services delivered according to a primarily consultative model, and suggestions for future research, are provided.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".