Adapted Dance Improves Motor Abilities and Participation in Children With Down Syndrome: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This pilot study measured effects of an adapted dance program on motor abilities and participation in children with Down syndrome (DS) and explored caregivers' qualitative feedback regarding its benefits. METHODS: Children with DS participated in 20 weekly 1-hour adapted dance sessions. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM) Dimensions D and E were administered before and after the program. Caregivers completed a survey at the last session. RESULTS: Six children completed pre- and postassessments. Significant improvements were noted in GMFM-88 measures. Caregivers of 5 participants reported improved scores on the COPM that were not significant. Caregivers reported physical, cognitive, and emotional improvements. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports use of an adapted dance program to improve motor abilities and participation in children with DS. VIDEO ABSTRACT: For more insights from the authors, access Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/PPT/A231.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".