Comparison of the Executive Functions, Occupational Performance and Perceived Occupational Proficiency in Children with Neurodevelopmental Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the executive functions (EFs) and occupational performance and perceived occupational proficiency (POP) in children with neurodevelopmental disorders. In this study, 72 children diagnosed with cerebral palsy (CP; n = 22), specific learning disabilities (SpLD; n = 26) or attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; n = 24) were included in the study group and 84 typically developed children were included in the comparison group. All children were evaluated with the Child Occupational Self-Assessment (COSA) and all parents were evaluated with The Executive Function and Occupational Routines Scale (EFORTS) and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). Accordingly, statistically significant differences were found between the study group and the comparison group in terms of total scores of the COSA and EFORTS (p < 0.05). In addition, there was a significant difference between the CP, ADHD, and SpLD diagnosis groups and the comparison group in terms of sub-parameters of COSA and EFORTS score (p < 0.05). The findings showed that children with different diagnoses within neurodevelopmental disorders have difficulties in different EFs and occupational performance areas. Also, the pattern of association between EF and POP was different for each group. Therefore, therapists need to consider occupational performance and POP with EFs in their assessments before planning their intervention.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".