MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081474642 · doi:10.1177/0008417420941980

CO-OP for Children with DCD: Goals Addressed and Strategies Used

2020· article· en· W3081474642 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Sara P. Schwartz, Sarah R. K. Northrup, Sara Izadi‐Najafabadi, Jill G. Zwicker

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBC Children's Hospital
KeywordsOccupational therapyCognitionTask (project management)Intervention (counseling)PsychologyGoal orientationApplied psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION.: Developmental coordination disorder (DCD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder that impacts motor coordination and interferes with participation in everyday activities. Cognitive Orientation to Occupational Performance (CO-OP) is a client-centered treatment approach that focuses on skill acquisition through cognitive strategy use. OBJECTIVES.: To determine which types of goals a sample of children with DCD choose most frequently and which domain-specific strategies were most commonly used to address these goals. METHODS.: Retrospective chart review of 50 children (8-12 years) with DCD who completed CO-OP intervention was conducted to identify goal types and strategy use. RESULTS.: Leisure was the most common goal type. Supplementing task knowledge, body position, and task modification were the most frequently used strategies. CONCLUSIONS.: Results confirm the types of goals that are commonly selected by children with DCD and highlight commonly used strategies used to meet these goals. Findings will help guide occupational therapists in selecting appropriate strategies to meet children's goals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207