Implementing the Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance (<scp>CO</scp>‐<scp>OP</scp>) approach in a group format with children living with motor coordination difficulties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Children with developmental coordination disorder demonstrate limited participation in daily occupations which negatively impacts on their physical and psycho-social wellbeing. Literature is emerging supporting the use of the Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP) within a group format. The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility of the CO-OP approach in a group format for children with motor coordination difficulties. METHODS: A single group mixed-method approach was employed. Four children with motor coordination difficulties between seven-to-nine years of age and their mothers, participated in a CO-OP group intervention once a week over 10 weeks. The study examined performance (perceived and actual) and satisfaction of family-chosen goals, gross and fine motor functioning and parental experience of participating in the intervention. RESULTS: Improvements in performance (perceived) and satisfaction ratings of family-chosen goals bordered on achieving statistical significance. Fine and gross motor functioning and performance (actual) improved, however, the change in performance was variable between participants and among the overarching goals. Semi-structured interviews were thematically analysed. Themes included: formation of the group, moving from disenabling to enabling, belonging and the importance of small successes. CONCLUSIONS: CO-OP offers a feasible intervention approach when delivered in a group format. Parental perceptions are valuable in shaping the delivery of the CO-OP in future studies. More research is needed to support these findings and contribute to evidence-based practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".