MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332121680 · doi:10.1177/000841740907600107

Exploring a Cognitive Intervention for Children with Pervasive Developmental Disorder

2009· article· en· W2332121680 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Shanon Phelan, Laura Steinke, Angela Mandich

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Rating scaleCognitionOccupational therapyPsychologyAffect (linguistics)Clinical psychologyPerceptionCognitive InterventionPervasive developmental disorderDevelopmental psychologyMedicineDevelopmental disorderAutismPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pervasive developmental disorders (PDD) affect approximately 3-4% of the childhood population. PDD pervades every aspect of a child's life, having significant adverse effects on occupational performance. PURPOSE: This study investigates a new treatment approach to treating children with PDD, the Cognitive Orientation to Occupational Performance (CO-OP). CO-OP emphasizes problem-solving strategies and guided discovery of child- and task-specific strategies. METHOD: Three goals were established in collaboration with the parents and the child. Pre- and post-measures of parents'perceptions of child performance were identified using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). Repeated measures were taken using clinical observations, video analysis, and the Performance Quality Rating Scale (PORS). FINDINGS: Improved COPM ratings of performance and satisfaction were observed, and these results were paralleled by improved PQRS scores. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Self-report and observer report together provide preliminary evidence of the effectiveness of the CO-OP approach with children who have PDD supporting the use of CO-OP and suggesting further investigation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.618

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.437
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.062 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchFrench-language works237,207