Exploring the impact of a clinical dance therapy program on the mobility of adults with a neurological condition using a single-case experimental design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study built upon previous quasi-experimental design research studying the effectiveness of a 12-week dance therapy program for persons with a physical disability (DTPD) aiming to improve mobility. METHODS: We conducted a single-case experimental design (SCED), including pre- and post-interventions measures, with seven participants with repeated measures during pre-dance (A1), dance program (B) and post-dance phases (A2). RESULTS: Five participants completed the study and significantly (p < 0.05) improved their scores on the MiniBESTest; 2/5 and 4/5 improved scores for the 4 Square Step Test and the Multidirectional Reach Test-Behind, respectively, with very large effect size (ES). Aggregated ES (A1-A2) went from moderate to very large. CONCLUSIONS: Results support the effectiveness of the DTPD program for adults with neurological conditions, and for the use of SCED to explore effectiveness of dance interventions for heterogeneous cohorts.
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".