Teaching Transfer Skills to Older Adults: Identification of Strategies Used by Occupational Therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Community occupational therapists frequently teach transfer skills to older adults. The teaching strategies used should be documented because they can affect the outcomes of interventions. Objective: The objective of the study was to identify the strategies used by community occupational therapists when teaching transfer skills to older adults. Method: Eleven community occupational therapists were recruited from six health and social services centres in Québec, Canada. Data were collected through observations of transfer interventions (n = 31), followed by in-depth interviews (n = 12). Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and grounded theory methods. Findings: Strategies consisted of nine methods, eight tools and nine intensity adjustments. The methods were explaining, demonstrating, having the client try, giving feedback on performance, involving the client, seeking and obtaining client's feedback, questioning, and involving a teaching assistant. Tools varied according to the teaching method. These tools were gestures, equipment, visual aids, written, verbal and somatosensory instructions, assistant as client and occupational therapist as client. Finally, intensity adjustments were related to the scope, directedness, duration, frequency and pace of teaching. Conclusion: A range of teaching strategies used by community occupational therapists were identified. Three methods, five tools and nine intensity adjustments were identified for the first time.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".