Parents’ Experience with the CO-OP Approach: A Consolidation of Three Qualitative Investigations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND.: In the cognitive orientation to daily occupational performance (CO-OP) approach, parent involvement is critical for transferring skills from therapeutic settings to everyday contexts. PURPOSE.: This study aimed to gain insight into the experience of parents whose children with developmental coordination disorder participated in CO-OP intervention. METHOD.: This consolidation of three small qualitative studies investigating parents' experience involved an inductive qualitative content analysis of 10 parent interviews and 1 parent focus group. FINDINGS.: Four overarching themes emerged as depicting parents' experience. Although parents recognized the improvements their children made with the intervention, they also expressed several challenges, such as incorporating CO-OP tasks into daily routines, shifting of parent-child relationship and feeling self-efficacious with the approach. IMPLICATIONS.: This study highlights that parent observation of intervention sessions is not enough to support parents applying CO-OP at home. Research is needed to understand how to best engage parents in the CO-OP approach.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".