Co-constructing engagement in pediatric rehabilitation: a multiple case study approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To explore engagement principles and contextual conditions in high-engagement therapy sessions involving youth with disabilities and service providers.Method From a larger project on therapy engagement, a dyadic case analysis was conducted involving three youth ages 8–15 with disabilities and their service providers. Participants were interviewed about their engagement experiences after high-engagement sessions focusing on speech articulation, transition goals, and physical mobility. Data were analyzed thematically, with an emphasis on engagement principles illustrated by the cases.Results There were four service provider engagement principles: (a) clients differ in what engages them and in how they display engagement (Individual Variation Principle), (b) there are multiple ways to engage clients (Personalizing Principle), (c) engagement is cultivated through relationship (Relationship Principle), and (d) it is important to monitor and be attuned to the client’s level of engagement over a session (Monitoring Principle). Service providers’ use of engagement strategies varied due to contextual conditions, including therapy type and youths’ interests and preferences.Conclusions The findings indicate the value of providers’ awareness of the dynamics of engagement, their use of personalized strategies to engage clients, and the fundamental importance of cultivating a good relationship and monitoring client engagement during therapy.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONService providers may benefit from being aware of common principles underlying the co-construction of engagement between service providers and clients.Service providers can use a variety of personalized strategies to heighten client engagement, and can work to cultivate a positive relationship.It is important to monitor clients’ non-verbal and verbal signs of engagement and respond to signs of disengagement during therapy.Contextual conditions affecting service providers’ use of engagement strategies include the nature of the therapy being provided and youths’ interests and preferences.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".