Complementary contribution of parents and therapists in the assessment process of children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Traditional developmental models assume that the underlying capacities of children contribute to their participation. In this framework, preschoolers who are referred for occupational therapy services usually undergo an assessment intended to identify capacities in certain domains. Contrary to this, newer ecological models assume that child participation is a consequence of a multidimensional interaction between personal and environmental factors. As a result clinicians are increasingly focusing their assessment on performance and participation. This study aimed to assess the correlation between children's performance skills, their capacities and participation; and to explore whether parents' observations, alongside therapist observations and standardised assessments, contribute to an enhanced understanding of child participation. METHOD: Participants included 188 parents and their children, aged 4-6 years, with and without mild developmental difficulties. Data were collected using standardised assessments for child capacities, and questionnaires completed by parents and occupational therapists regarding child participation and performance skills. RESULTS: Significant correlations were found between parent assessments of child performance skills and child participation, but not with child capacities. The opposite was found to be true for occupational therapist assessments of child performance skills which were found to correlate with child capacities, but not with participation. Additionally, an interaction effect was found for both groups. Occupational therapists reported higher performance skills as compared to parents, but the difference was only significant for children without mild difficulties. CONCLUSION: As suggested by ecological models of child participation, the findings highlight the importance of parent-therapist collaboration in the assessment process of children.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".