How do parents and families benefit when their child(ren) with autism participate in an early motor skill intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:Motor skill interventions have been shown to improve the motor skill proficiency of children with autism, however the secondary effects associated with them are not well understood- both for the children and their family members. The purpose of this study was to examine parents' perspectives on the secondary effects of an early motor skill intervention for their children with autism. Methods:Parents of four year-olds with autism who completed a 12-week fundamental motor skill intervention- where motor skill proficiency was measured pre- and post-test using the Test of Gross Motor Development-2 -, were invited to participate in a one-time-only interview session (N=8). A semi-structured interviewing technique was employed and data analysis was grounded in interpretive phenomenology. Results:The mean Gross Motor Quotient among the children (n=9) was 78.67 + 17.13 pre-test and 94.67 + 14.45 post-test; showing a 20% increase in motor skill proficiency on average. Parents identified several secondary effects of the intervention during their interviews. Theme 1:Awareness and Engagement(parents developed an understanding/appreciation for the importance of motor skills for child development and began engaging their families in more active play). Theme 2:Increased Outings and Decreased Feelings of Isolation(a combination of secondary effects allowed parents to feel more comfortable going places with their children). Theme 3:Witnessing Success and Changing Perspectives (witnessing their children succeed during the intervention, positively influenced parents' perceptions of their children, and their future). Conclusions:These findings suggest that parents and families can also benefit from the experience of an early motor skill intervention for their child(ren) with autism.
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 | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".