Occupational therapy metacognitive intervention for adolescents with ADHD: Teen Cognitive-Functional (Cog-Fun) feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder face neurocognitive impairments that impede their occupational functioning. The Cognitive-Functional model is a metacognitive occupational therapy intervention for individuals with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder that harnesses self-awareness and strategy behavior to support participation in an individualized occupational context. This study explored preliminary feasibility and efficacy of the Cognitive Functional model adapted for adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, the Teen Cognitive-Functional intervention. Method A mixed method feasibility study including 22 adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and their parents was conducted. Pre–post assessments included: occupational performance (Canadian Occupational Performance Measure); executive functioning (Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function); self-awareness and strategy behavior (Self-Regulation Skills Interview). Results Modest attrition and high satisfaction from Teen Cognitive-Functional intervention were found. Significant improvements were reported in adolescents’ occupational performance, executive functioning and strategy behavior. No significant gains were found in adolescents’ self-awareness. Adolescents’ strategy behavior was correlated with parent-rated occupational performance. Qualitative analysis of the strategies reported by the adolescents after intervention revealed three categories: “self-determined choices”; “plan and organize” and “adaptations.” Conclusion This study provides initial support for feasibility of the Teen Cognitive-Functional intervention and its potential efficacy in promoting occupational performance, executive functioning and strategy behavior. Controlled studies are needed to further validate these findings.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".