Can Interventions Have Negative Impacts? The Importance of Seeing the Bigger Picture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When children and youth are referred to rehabilitative services, they, along with their families and teachers, often engage in the rehabilitation process with the belief that, with enough effort, the deficits will decrease or even disappear (Carlsson, 2009). What happens, though, when the deficit issue is not—or cannot be—resolved, regardless of what the client or the therapist does, and the child remains unable to engage in daily life tasks in a typical form? In an ethnographic research study with school-based therapists, Carlsson conveyed one therapist’s observation: “I think that [fixing] has some covert messages in it to the child, and I think those messages are about ‘you need fixing’ and ‘you are not quite right”’ (Carlsson, 2009, p. 7). When it comes to working with children, we need to remember that Raising children ... is vastly more than fixing what is wrong with them. It is about identifying and nurturing their strongest qualities, what they own and are best at, and helping them find niches in which they can best live out these strengths (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 6). It is critical that we consider the messages we communicate to the children, youth, families, and communities in which we work. If we don’t, we may run the risk that the outcome of therapy is experienced as “unhelpful at best and harmful at worst” (Kielhofner, 2005, p. 487), with our clients interpreting our drive to fix as a statement of their lesser value, worth, and potential contribution to their communities. With this “fix-it factor” comes the view that there is something that is broken and correctable (Carlsson, 2009, p. 7), a perspective at odds with the World Health Organization’s (WHO) emphasis on participation for children and youth (WHO, 2007). Priestley has labeled the tendency to focus on fixing rather than participation as the “tyranny of ‘normal’ child development” (Priestley, 2003, p. 64), recognizing the trend flowing from stage-based development theories to compare children’s abilities to some physical, cognitive, and social standard of what it means
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".