LSVT BIG in late stroke rehabilitation: A single-case experimental design study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND.: Late stroke rehabilitation interventions often target impairment with limited carryover to daily occupation. PURPOSE.: This study explored whether the LSVT BIG program could lead to improved performance in client-identified occupations and decreased impairment late poststroke. METHOD.: A single-case experimental design with one repetition was completed. Participants were two adults who had experienced a stroke 3 and 12 years previously. Each participant selected up to six occupational goals, and the intervention was applied to half. Repeated measures were taken using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure and the Rating of Everyday Arm-Use in the Community and Home. Additional measures of performance and impairment were applied pre- and postintervention. FINDINGS.: Performance improved on either self-assessment or blinded-rater assessment for all but one activity (trained or untrained). IMPLICATIONS.: LSVT BIG is a promising intervention to improve occupational performance. Further research is required to clarify elements of the program essential to improving occupational performance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".