As Students Become Adults: The Role of Occupational Therapy in the Transition Process As Students Become Adults: The Role of Occupational Therapy in the Transition Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Under The Individuals with Disability Education Improvement Act of 2004, transition services for students with disabilities should be designed within a results-oriented process that facilitates a student's movement from school to postschool activities based on the student's individual strengths, needs, and preferences. As school to postschool transition encompasses myriad changes in life roles, demands, and skills, choosing a suitable high school placement is a crucial decision in preparation for transition from student to adult. Occupational therapy has essential and unique professional skills to collaborate with teams to support, improve, and address the varied factors that encompass the transition process. However, school-based occupational therapists tend to discontinue services earlier in a student's career, with fewer than 40% of school-based occupational therapists addressing the unique needs of adolescents (Schmitz, 2005; Brubaker, 2001; Kardos & White, 2005). This case study describes the collaborative process of one middle school student, his family, and his school team in search of the most suitable and beneficial high school placement to meet his individual needs and goals. Integral to this project was the experiential exploration of barriers, challenges, the resolving of miscommunications, the collaborative goal-setting process, the creation of the occupational profile, and a working therapeutic relationship. The parents perceived that the involvement of an occupational therapy perspective in transition planning for their child resulted in an improved experience in working with school staff and an appropriate high school placement and provided the groundwork for the development of a suitable and challenging high school program.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".