Short-term, Intensive Neurodevelopmental Treatment Program Experiences of Parents and Their Children With Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Parents' perspectives on intervention and functional changes in children were investigated following an intensive neurodevelopmental treatment (NDT) program of 1 to 2 weeks (5 consecutive days per week; 2-4 h/d). METHODS: Thirteen parents and their children (aged 1-17 years) with neuromotor conditions participated in a short-term, intensive program conducted by NDT certified pediatric therapists. A mixed-method design was used: a qualitative phenomenological approach of inquiry for parent perspectives and a pre/posttest quasi-experimental design for weekly intervention changes using Goal Attainment Scaling and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. RESULTS: Through interviews, parents reported positive experiences with the intensive NDT program. Child participants demonstrated significant improvements in Goal Attainment Scaling (P < .001) and Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (P < .001) scores pre- to postintervention. CONCLUSIONS: A short-term, intensive NDT program was perceived by parents as beneficial and supported functional improvements. Valued were expert, compassionate therapists; collaboration; objective goals; home programming; and individualized intervention. Scheduling, financial support, and fatigue were 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".