Effectiveness of Cognitive–Functional (Cog–Fun) Intervention With Children With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The executive function (EF) deficits of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) hinder their performance of complex daily functions. Despite the existing evidence-based pharmacological interventions for ADHD symptoms, no intervention has yet been found that deals directly with EFs in daily tasks. Fourteen children and their parents participated in the Cognitive-Functional (Cog-Fun) program in occupational therapy, which is tailored to the executive dysfunction of ADHD and focuses on enabling cognitive strategies for occupational performance. The study included initial assessment of EFs (Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functions; Tower of London(DX)), occupational performance (Canadian Occupational Performance Measure), 10 sessions of Cog-Fun intervention with each child-parent dyad, and postintervention and 3-month follow-up assessments. We found significant improvements with medium to large effects on outcome measures after intervention, and most effects were maintained at follow-up. The findings warrant controlled studies examining the effectiveness of this intervention for 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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".