Goal setting in paediatric rehabilitation for children with motor disabilities: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The three objectives of this scoping review were to (1) identify key conceptual/theoretical frameworks and the extent to which they are used to inform goal setting related to rehabilitation goal setting with children with motor disabilities, (2) describe research that has evaluated goal setting processes and outcomes, and (3) summarize the purposes of goal setting described in paediatric rehabilitation literature. METHODS: The scoping review process described by Arksey and O'Malley was used to guide article selection and data extraction. RESULTS: A total of 62 articles were included in the final review. While the concept of family-centered care was well represented, theoretical frameworks specific to goal setting (i.e. goal setting theory described by Locke and Latham, mastery motivation, social cognitive, personal construct, and self-determination theories) were rarely addressed. No articles reviewed addressed prominent behavior change theory. With the exception of the description of tools specifically designed for use with children, the role of the child in the goal setting process was generally absent or not well described. Few studies ( n = 6) discussed the linkage between goals and intervention strategies explicitly. Only two studies in the review evaluated outcomes associated with goal setting. The primary purpose for goal setting identified in the literature was to develop goals that are meaningful to families ( n = 49). CONCLUSION: The results highlight significant gaps in the literature explicating a sound theoretical basis for goal setting in paediatric rehabilitation and research evaluating the effects of goal qualities and goal setting processes on the achievement of meaningful outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.151 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".