Efficacy of CO-OP Approach With and Without Parental Coaching: RCT Study Protocol: Efficacité de l’approche CO-OP avec et sans coaching parental : protocole d’essai clinique randomisé
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND.: Developmental coordination disorder (DCD) leads to decreased occupational performance and restricted participation. Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance Approach (CO-OP) is effective, and as parental support is a key element, it seems relevant to investigate. PURPOSE.: To describe a study protocol that will compare CO-OP with and without Occupational Performance Coaching (OPC) on activity and participation of children with DCD. METHOD.: Randomized controlled with seven to 12-year-olds, assigned to either experimental (CO-OP+OPC) or control (CO-OP) group, both receiving traditional CO-OP, with four additional parental group sessions for the experimental group. KEY ISSUES.: Actual and perceived occupational performance and satisfaction of children's chosen goals and participation, motor performance and executive function. Measures will be obtained at baseline, post-intervention, and at 3-month follow-up. IMPLICATIONS.: Detailed description of an intervention protocol may help further replication and may contribute to clarify if a boost on parents' participation promotes better outcomes for children with DCD. TRIAL REGISTRATION.: Clinical Trials, NCT02893852. (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02893852).
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".