The Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP): A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP) approach-now trademarked as the CO-OPApproach-was introduced in the literature in 2001 as an intervention to improve real-world performance in children with developmental coordination disorder. CO-OP has since appeared in numerous publications and has seen adoption with various populations. No compilation of the CO-OP literature is available. PURPOSE: The purpose of this scoping review was to examine the extent (number) and nature (features and characteristics) of the literature on CO-OP. METHOD: Using the scoping review methodology outlined by Arksey and O'Malley, 10 online databases were searched for materials discussing CO-OP. Materials found were reviewed by two reviewers, independently. Articles were categorized according to identified study characteristics. FINDINGS: In all, 94 documents were found, including 27 research articles examining application and adaptations of CO-OP with eight populations. In all cases, the approach was deemed useful; however, in many cases, adaptations to the CO-OP protocol were recommended. IMPLICATIONS: CO-OP has been applied with a number of populations. There is now sufficient research to warrant a systematic review of the research literature.
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 | 0.012 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".