Cognitive Orientation to Daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP): 1-week Group Intervention with Children Referred for Motor Coordination Difficulties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to explore the effectiveness of a Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP) intervention delivered in a group format in a 1-week summer day camp program for children referred for motor coordination difficulties. Transfer of learned skills to self-selected tasks not addressed in the group intervention was also explored. Method: A quasi-experimental one group pretest-posttest design with a 1-month follow-up was used. Changes in nine children’s self-selected occupational performance goals, as well as their sense of self-efficacy for these goals, were determined using nonparametric statistics. Results: Findings indicate a significant performance improvement at both posttest and follow-up, with large effect sizes. Self-efficacy also significantly changed across sessions on tasks directly addressed, with large effect sizes. No statistically significant changes for any of the measures were noted for the tasks that were not addressed during camp. Conclusion: The CO-OP in group format in an intensive 4-day summer day camp was effective in improving performance of self-selected camp goals, as well as self-efficacy, but less effective for transfer of learned skills to other tasks.
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) | 0.000 | 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".