A review of goal setting theories relevant to goal setting in paediatric rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Goal setting in paediatric rehabilitation is influenced by shifting parent, sibling, caregiver, and child roles over time and evolving child developmental capacity for participation in the process. A theoretical and evidence-informed approach to goal setting, specific to paediatrics, would provide a framework for goal setting in practice and facilitate systematic evaluation of the effects of goal-setting processes on child and family outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of relevant goal-setting theories and their implications for paediatric rehabilitation. METHODS: Prevalent theories were identified from relevant rehabilitation, motivation, behaviour change, and goal-setting literature. Implications for goal setting in paediatrics are summarized according to goal-setting and action-planning phases: (1) preparation, (2) formulation of goals, (3) formulation of action plan, (4) coping planning, and (5) follow up. RESULTS: Social cognitive theory, self-determination theory, Health Action Process Approach, Mastery Motivation, and goal-setting theory are reviewed. Examples of implications for goal setting include, sharing information with families about the purpose of goal setting; identifying goals that are specific, proximal, challenging, and important to the child; and addressing self-efficacy. CONCLUSION: The theories reviewed have clear implications for paediatric rehabilitation research and practice. They address considerations not typically discussed in adult rehabilitation such as observing children to obtain information about meaningful goals when they are unable to communicate them directly and the importance of establishing flexible processes that will accommodate changing family roles over time. Research is needed to evaluate the effects of goal-setting processes and strategies on outcomes in paediatric rehabilitation.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".