MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104637860 · doi:10.3109/01942638.2013.842200

Effectiveness of Experiential Life Skills Coaching for Youth with a Disability

2013· article· en· W2104637860 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sarah Keenan, Gillian King, C. J. Curran, Amy C. McPherson

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical & Occupational Therapy In Pediatrics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsGoal Attainment ScalingCoachingExperiential learningPsychological interventionPsychologyIntervention (counseling)Life skillsClinical psychologyEmpirical evidenceEducational attainmentOccupational therapyApplied psychologyPsychotherapistPedagogyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: There is little empirical evidence about the effectiveness of life skills programs in preparing youth with disabilities for successful participation in adult life. This retrospective study examined the effectiveness of an experiential life skills coaching intervention. METHODS: Using Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) as outcome measures, we compared the effectiveness of group-based and one-to-one interventions on goal attainment, and explored whether this was affected by gender or goal domain. RESULTS: We found that goal attainment was statistically and clinically significant for all genders and intervention formats. No differences in goal attainment were found between group and one-to-one interventions. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide evidence for the effectiveness of goal-focused, community-based experiential life skills interventions to support skill development in youth with a disability and help them prepare for transition to adult life.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.385 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical & Occupational Therapy In PediatricsSame topicOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchFrench-language works237,207