Goal setting within a tertiary-level early developmental intervention program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the domains of parent-therapist collaboratively set goals for intervention within a family-centered, tertiary-level early developmental intervention (EDI) program. To report changes in ratings for performance and satisfaction of performance pre- and postintervention for the set goals. METHODS: This study includes all children with complex developmental disabilities (30 ± 3 months of age, 61% boys) registered in a tertiary-level EDI program from 2009 to 2012 whose parents completed the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) to evaluate goal setting. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: Children & Youth version (ICF-CY) domain for each goal was recorded. Pre- and postintervention ratings for individual and averaged goals per child were calculated. Positive changes in ratings were determined by an increase of ≤2 and presented as a proportion and as means (standard deviation). Student t test, Fisher Exact and chi-square tests compared groups. RESULTS: Of 483 individual goals set for 168 children, 65.4% were in the ICF-CY activity domain, 16.4% participation, 10.3% body function, 7.4% environment and 0.4% body structure. Positive changes in ratings for performance occurred in 70%; for satisfaction, 68%, with no difference in relation to domain. Positive changes in average ratings per child showed: performance, 67%; satisfaction, 66%. CONCLUSION: Intervention goals for disabled children within tertiary-level EDI are primarily those of activity, not participation as ICF-CY recommends; two-thirds of goals show positive change. These results suggest the need for further evaluation of goal setting within EDI programs with the expectation of increasing goals of participation and improving ratings for performance and satisfaction.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".