Solution-Focused Coaching for Friendship in Pediatric Rehabilitation: A Case Study of Goal Attainment, Client Engagement, and Coach Stances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To examine goal attainment, engagement, and the stances used by coaches providing a solution-focused coaching intervention (SFC-peds) for young people with cerebral palsy pursuing friendship goals. METHODS: The case study involved two clients with cerebral palsy (a young child and his mother, and a youth) and their service providers. An interpretive descriptive approach was used to analyze quantitative and qualitative data. Friendship goal attainment was assessed by the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure and goal attainment scaling, and client engagement was assessed using the Pediatric Rehabilitation Intervention Measure of Engagement-Service Provider version. Information from post-intervention client interviews was used to identify coach stances and relationships with client engagement. RESULTS: Participants met their friendship goals and were considered to be highly engaged by their coaches. Four coach stances were identified: Respectful Inquiry, a Strengths Presupposition, Implementation Curiosity, and Inspiring Commitment. These stances, and aligned tactics, engaged clients on affective, cognitive, and behavioral levels, and impacted the client's stance toward their goal. CONCLUSIONS: SFC-peds appears to be an effective and engaging approach for young people with disabilities working on friendship goals. The findings illustrate how the coach's stances and tactics engage clients, thus impacting the client's own stances toward change.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".