MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321748700 · doi:10.1111/1440-1630.12864

Assessing children to identify developmental coordination disorder: A survey of occupational therapists in Australia

2023· article· en· W4321748700 on OpenAlexafffund
Jacqui Hunt, Jill G. Zwicker, Erin Godecke, Annette J. Raynor

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Occupational Therapy Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research ChairsEdith Cowan UniversityBC Children's Hospital
KeywordsOccupational therapyPsychosocialContext (archaeology)Intervention (counseling)Best practiceMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)Clinical psychologyPsychologyPhysical therapyPsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Developmental coordination disorder (DCD), a prevalent neurodevelopmental disorder with motor and psychosocial consequences, can significantly impact children's quality of life. In Australia, most children with diagnosed/suspected DCD have received occupational therapy services, more so than any other health service. As such, occupational therapists are key in identification and treatment and require a sound knowledge of diagnostic criteria and the best evidence for practice. This study explored current occupational therapy services for children with DCD. Areas for development are identified to improve the identification of, and subsequent intervention for, children with DCD. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, an online survey was completed in September and October 2020 by 175 occupational therapists working in Australia. RESULTS: Although all therapists worked with children who met the criteria for DCD diagnosis, 70% worked with children with no specific diagnosis and 50% worked with children with outdated diagnostic labels. Australian occupational therapists used similar models/frameworks (commonly a multisensory/sensory processing approach) to guide practice with children with DCD, regardless of therapist characteristics, practice setting (clinic/community, rural/urban), how therapy is funded, or the state where the therapists completed their training/currently practiced. Although assessment practices did not differ significantly, therapists with greater years of paediatric practice and those who studied and/or practiced in Western Australia were more likely to assess to identify DCD. Half of the therapists did not assess to identify DCD; however, 60% of assessing therapists reported best practice methods in assessment for DCD, indicating emerging best practices in the Australian context. CONCLUSION: The findings from this study suggest that small adaptations to current occupational therapy practice may enhance the early identification of children with DCD in Australia. The existing gaps in evidence to practice must be addressed to improve current Australian practice and increase access to appropriate services and ultimately improve the quality of life for children with DCD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.161
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Occupational Therapy JournalSame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207