Variations in motor ability in children with autism spectrum disorder and influences on caregiver experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Difficulties in motor development, with implications for motor dominance and performance, have been well documented in children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). In addition, caregivers of children with ASD often report caregiver burden, although benefits to their experiences also do exist. Possible links between the motor development of children with ASD and the experiences of their caregivers have yet to be explored. Five children (2 male, 3 female, ages 6-8) with ASD participated in the following tasks to assess motor performance and dominance: the WatHand Cabinet Test, involving a series of unimanual tasks; the Large and Small Grooved Pegboard, involving placing a series of pegs into key-shaped holes; Eyedness Tasks, such as looking through a tube with one eye; and Footedness Tasks, such as kicking a ball. The five married female primary caregivers (ages 35-46) of these children participated in one-on-one, semi-structured interviews regarding the costs and benefits of their experiences, as well as their perceptions of their children’s functioning. Caregivers of children with more clearly defined motor dominance and better performance had often accessed services for their children (such as occupational therapy), and also experienced fewer day-to-day struggles with regards to their children’s overall functioning. Caregivers of children with greater motor impairment and more ambiguous motor dominance were more likely to report difficulties managing their children’s everyday routines and express concerns over their children’s functioning. Results have implications for understanding how differences in motor ability in children with ASD manifest in caregiver experiences.Acknowledgments: NSERC
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".