An exploratory study of verbal feedback on occupational performance for improving self‐awareness in people with traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Impaired self-awareness negatively impacts on how well persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI) learn and use strategies needed in daily life. Verbal feedback is a component of metacognitive strategy training recommended for addressing impaired self-awareness in TBI rehabilitation. Yet, it remains unknown how effectively verbal feedback on occupational performance improves self-awareness for the specific occupation involved. This study investigated the effect of verbal feedback on task-specific self-awareness for individuals with TBI. METHODS: A secondary analysis was conducted on selected data extracted from a randomised, assessor-blinded controlled trial in which 36 participants with impaired self-awareness post-TBI were allocated into two feedback intervention groups, verbal feedback and a control condition of experiential feedback only. All participants engaged in four sessions of meal preparation with an occupational therapist using a metacognitive strategy training approach. Participants in the verbal feedback group received feedback on their performance in a discussion with the occupational therapist following each session. Task-specific self-awareness was measured using discrepancy scores (therapist ratings minus self-ratings) on a Meal Independence Rating Scale (MIRS). Data were analysed using a mixed 2 × 2 analysis of variance. RESULTS: Positive MIRS discrepancy scores at pre-intervention reflected the propensity of participants to over-estimate their abilities There was a significant main effect of time, indicating overall gains in task-specific self-awareness at post-intervention (p = .01), but no significant group-by-time interaction. Changes in participants' self-ratings post-intervention were minimal. Instead, reduced MIRS discrepancy scores resulted largely from changes in therapists' ratings, indicating improvement in occupational performance. CONCLUSION: Participants in both groups demonstrated improvements in occupational performance, but this did not correspond with changes in task-specific self-awareness. In this small sample, there was no statistically significant improvement in self-awareness associated with the provision of verbal feedback after occupational performance over and above the benefits of experiential feedback.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".