Can personal and environmental factors explain dimensions of child participation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: One of the main goals of paediatric occupational therapists and other health professionals is to enhance child participation in age-related activities within their communities. According to theoretical models, the act of participation has numerous dimensions, affected by personal and environmental factors. However, there have been relatively few studies undertaken to validate this theory. The purpose of this study was to explore the extent to which personal and environmental factors explain each of five distinct dimensions of child participation, which are: diversity, intensity, independence, enjoyment and subsequent parental satisfaction. METHOD: A convenient sample of 70 kindergarten children without developmental disabilities together with their parents participated in the study. Data were collected using standardized assessments for personal factors and questionnaires for environmental factors. RESULTS: The findings confirmed our hypothesis and revealed that with typical children, motor and cognitive abilities affect participation diversity. Moreover, performance skills and self-perceptions of competence affect their independence levels, while environmental factors contribute to frequency of participation and parental satisfaction. However, these factors on their own do not fully explain the degree of enjoyment experienced by children. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight the importance of measuring the full range of participation dimensions, and provide empirical evidence about the nature of child participation. Further studies are warranted to validate this approach for children with developmental 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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".