Collaborative Home-Visit Program for Young Children With Motor Delays in Rural Taiwan: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Caregiver engagement and collaborative team early childhood intervention (ECI) services are international trends; however, relevant evidence of collaborative home-visiting ECI in rural areas is as yet undetermined. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of a collaborative ECI program in a rural area of Taiwan. DESIGN: The study was a pilot randomized control led trial. METHODS: Children aged 6 to 33 months experiencing motor delays and their caregivers were enrolled in Taitung, Taiwan. Using stratified randomization, 24 participants were allocated to either experimental or control groups, and both received 5 home visits within 3 months. The experimental group received ECI services based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health framework and family-centered approaches. The control group received regular home visits by local social workers. Child outcomes included Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory Chinese Version and Peabody Developmental Motor Scale, 2nd edition. Family outcomes included the Disability-Adapted Infant-Toddler version of Home Observation for Measurement, and Chinese versions of the Knowledge of Infant Development Inventory and Parental Stress Index-Short Form. A tester blinded to the study conducted assessments at baseline, postintervention, and 3-month follow-up. Two-way mixed analysis of variance was used with α = .05 (2-tailed). RESULTS: The experimental group improved scores on the Disability-Adapted Infant-Toddler version of Home Observation for Measurement significantly more than the control group with an effect size of 0.64 at follow-up. In other outcomes, both groups showed no significant differences. The follow-up rate was 69%, and adherence to the ECI program was acceptable. LIMITATIONS: A limitation of the study was the heterogeneity of the sample. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study revealed possible effectiveness in implementing collaborative ECI programs based on family-centered approaches and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health in rural areas. Larger field studies are needed to confirm our 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".