Enabling Personal Occupation through Sensory Interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with developmental disabilities and/or mental illness are predisposed to having a co-occurring sensory processing disorder. Many adults and children with sensory processing disorder have never been assessed or treated. Consequences of untreated sensory processing disorder include decreased ability to engage in meaningful occupations or healthy relationships, leading to lowered self-esteem and perception regarding quality of life. A literature review defines sensory processing, sensory processing disorders, consequences of sensory processing disorder dysfunction, sensory processing disorder co-morbidity, sensory processing disorders in individuals with mental illness and/or developmental disabilities, interventions for sensory processing disorders, the role of occupational therapy, deficiencies in knowledge, and controversies. This scholarly project presents a guide created for occupational therapists to utilize in assisting them to determine which assessments and interventions may be best for clients who exhibit sensory processing difficulties. The guide is entitled "A Practitioners Guide to using Sensory Based Assessments and Interventions for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities and/or Mental Illness." It is a compilation of sensory processing assessments and sensory-based interventions intended to guide occupational therapists and their clients who have sensory processing deficits. Its ultimate purpose is to support these clients to have greater success in completion of valued daily occupations and improved quality of life. The Canadian Model of Occupational Performance (CMOP) was selected to guide the project based on the essential components of Person, Occupation and Environment. The CMOP is a dynamic model of practice in which the person, occupation and environment are interconnected, with spirituality at the core. Principles of Knowles' andragogical model of learning were followed in development of the product, both for the practitioner and client. The constructivist approach of teaching and learning was used in development of the client self-rating tool, log and journal.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".