Child-Focused and Context-Focused Behaviors of Physical and Occupational Therapists during Treatment of Young Children with Cerebral Palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To (1) describe the child- and context-focused behaviors of physical and occupational therapists, and (2) compare the behaviors of therapists in a standard therapy session with those of therapists trained to deliver child- and context-focused services. METHOD: Videos of 49 therapy sessions provided by 36 therapists were analyzed using the intervention domains of the Paediatric Rehabilitation Observational measure of Fidelity (PROF) to examine the therapeutic behaviors of physical and occupational therapists with young children with cerebral palsy (CP) (24 to 48 months) in a Dutch rehabilitation setting. The PROF ratings of 18 standard therapy sessions were compared with the ratings of 16 child- and 15 context-focused therapy sessions. RESULTS: Therapists who provided standard therapy demonstrated a mix of child- and context-focused behaviors. PROF ratings indicated fewer child- and context-focused behaviors during standard therapy sessions compared with sessions where therapists were instructed to use either child- or context-focused behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: A sample of Dutch physical and occupational therapists of young children with CP demonstrated a mix of child- and context-focused therapy behaviors during standard therapy. Further research is recommended on clinical reasoning and the effect of setting to better understand therapists' use of child- and context-focused behaviors during therapy sessions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".