Outcomes of Team-Centered, Occupational Adaptation-Based Versus Traditional Dementia Workforce Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Dementia workforce training aligned with Occupational Adaptation (OA) theory may facilitate teams resolving challenges in the care environment more than traditional skills-based (SB) training, although comparisons are needed. Purpose. This pilot study compared effectiveness of an OA and SB program on relative mastery and team development for dementia care teams at a continuing care retirement community. Method. In a quasi-experimental study, employees underwent nine sessions in an OA or SB program. Relative Mastery Measurement Scale and Team Development Measure results were collected pre-, mid-, post-intervention. A 3 × 2 ANOVA determined differences in group score changes across time. Findings. Data from 28 employees (14/group) showed group-by-time interaction reached statistical significance for both relative mastery ( F = 3.17, df = 2, p = .05) and team development ( F = 8.38, df = 2, p = .001). Implications. OA-based training may improve dementia care teams’ collaborative mastery over real-world challenges. While preliminary findings inform program developers, further research must explore clinical effectiveness.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".