Exploring the Effects of Power Mobility Training on Parents of Exploratory Power Mobility Learners: A Multiple-Baseline Single-Subject Research Design Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study investigated the effects of power mobility training provided to exploratory power mobility learners with cerebral palsy (CP; Gross Motor Function Classification System Level V) on (1) parenting stress, (2) parents’ perceptions of their children, and (3) children’s attainment of power mobility skills. Method: A non-concurrent, multiple-baseline A–B single-subject research design study was conducted with three participants. The target behaviour was changes in the magnitude of parenting stress as measured by the Parenting Stress Index–Short Form. Parents’ perceptions of their children were assessed using the Caregiver Priorities and Child Health Index of Life with Disabilities Questionnaire and a parent interview. Children’s attainment of power mobility skills was assessed using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), the Assessment of Learning Powered mobility use, and the Wheelchair Skills Checklist. Power mobility training was provided twice a week for 8 weeks using an alternative power mobility device. Results: Positive and negative changes in both magnitude of parenting stress and parents’ perceptions were identified post-intervention. All participants gained power mobility skills, assessed with the COPM. Conclusions: Power mobility training provided to exploratory power mobility learners with CP may influence levels of parenting stress.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".