Effect of Cognitive Intervention on Children with ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although not considered a diagnostic criterion in DSM-IV, motor difficulties in children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) are commonly reported. Prevalence of co-morbidity of ADHD and Developmental Coordination Disorder is as high as 50%. Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP) is a problem-solving approach originally developed for children with Developmental Coordination Disorder. In this approach, therapists support children to use cognitive strategies in a process of guided discovery to solve occupational performance problems. A single case experimental design (multiple baselines) was used to examine the influence of a 12-week intervention using CO-OP with six children with ADHD. Outcome measures included the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), Goal Attainment Scaling and the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency and Performance (BOTMP). The results of this study demonstrated improvements in both goals and motor performance in the participants due to the intervention. These results provide some support for the use of CO-OP with children with ADHD. Further research into the application of CO-OP with children with ADHD is warranted based on these preliminary positive findings regarding the efficacy of this intervention to address motor-based performance difficulties.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".