Effects of a collaborative intervention process for children with disabilities on parent-therapist interaction, parent empowerment, and child performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite research supporting family-professional collaboration, strategies and processes that optimize collaboration are limited. The aims of this research were to determine 1) whether interactions between parents and therapists who are instructed on the collaborative intervention process differ from interactions between parents and therapists in the comparison group, 2) whether the collaborative intervention process improves parent empowerment and child performance, and 3) describe parents and therapists experiences. Participants were 18 children with physical disabilities, their mothers, and 16 physical therapists. Therapists randomized to the experimental group were instructed in the collaborative intervention process. Each family-therapist dyad participated in 6 weekly sessions. Four sessions were videotaped and combined (1st and 2nd for planning, 3rd and 5th for implementation) to code parent-therapist interactions using Response Class Matrix. Outcomes were measured using the adapted Family Empowerment Scale (FES) and Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). A questionnaire was completed by parents and therapists to rate and describe their experiences. Therapists in the experimental group demonstrated higher frequency of 'seeking information' (p<.01), 'giving information' (p<.05), 'positive behavior' (p<.01) and lower frequency of 'child-related behavior' (p<.001) than therapists in the comparison group during planning and implementing intervention. Parents in the experimental group demonstrated a higher frequency of 'giving information' than parents in the comparison group (p<.01) during planning and implementing intervention. Mean scores on the FES (p<.05) and COPM (p<.001) increased after intervention for both groups, however, there was no between group difference (p>.05). Effect sizes for change in child performance and satisfaction with performance on the COPM were .73 and 1.08 respectively, favoring the experimental group. Parents in the experimental group felt more confident in carrying out activities during daily routines (p=.011) and perceived they worked together with therapists to a greater extent than parents' in the comparison group (p=.014). Parents in both groups perceived setting an activity goal was most beneficial. Findings show that parents and therapists instructed in the collaborative intervention process interacted more with each other, whereas parents and therapists in the comparison group focused more on the child. Findings also emphasize the importance of shared goal setting for children's activities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".