Evidence for Pre-printing Interventions: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An integral part of occupational therapy practice in early intervention involves assessment and treatment of pre-printing challenges and determination of printing readiness; however, the evidence to inform best practice has not been thoroughly investigated. This paper is part of a larger scoping review that focused on theoretical frameworks for printing readiness and evidence for pre-printing development and skills. This companion paper undertook a critical evaluation of pre-printing interventions and programs, based on a new proposed integrated theoretical framework outlined in Klein et al. (2021, same issue). Of the 98 articles included in the scoping review, 12 were intervention-based studies. Most of these intervention studies were rated at a low level of evidence and often utilized a bottom-up approach for intervention, which is maligned with current best practice principles. Direct task-based learning is considered best practice for handwriting interventions; however, there is a paucity of research studies at higher levels of evidence that evaluate this approach for pre-printing intervention. Commercially available pre-printing programs that incorporate tenets of an integrated theoretical framework for printing readiness exist; however, there is a gap in the literature evaluating their effectiveness. Empirically evaluated pre-printing interventions and programs that are rooted in an integrated approach are needed, drawing on principles from emergent literacy and neurodevelopmental frameworks, embracing top-down, task-based learning. Development and use of these programs in early intervention will facilitate collaborative partnerships between occupational therapists, educators, and parents for developmentally appropriate pre-printing intervention that fit within curriculum expectations. As so few evidence-based pre-printing programs exist, once developed, there will be a critical need to research their effectiveness.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".