MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376615226 · doi:10.1080/09638288.2023.2209743

Initial evaluation of an environment-based intervention for participation of autistic children: a randomized controlled trial

2023· article· en· W4376615226 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lin-Ju Kang, Hsiang‐Han Huang, Yen‐Tzu Wu, Chia‐Ling Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChang Gung Memorial Hospital
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)PsychologyAutismDevelopmental psychologyPhysical therapyClinical psychologyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose To evaluate the efficacy of environment-based intervention on participation outcomes and parent efficacy in autistic children.Materials and methods Twenty-one autistic children 6–10 years old and their parents were randomized to environment-based intervention (n = 11) or usual care (n = 10). The environment-based intervention targets individualized participation goals in leisure and community activities through changing environment and activity demands. The study outcomes were Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), Goal attainment scaling (GAS), and Parent Empowerment and Efficacy Measure (PEEM). Assessments included baseline, 12 weeks (post-test), and 24 weeks (follow-up). Mixed ANOVAs were used to examine within-group and between-group effects in outcome variables.Results The COPM performance and satisfaction scores and GAS T-scores increased after environment-based intervention from baseline to 12 weeks and 24 weeks (p < 0.001) but did not significantly differ from usual care. The medium to large effect sizes of COPM performance and GAS T-scores favored the environment-based intervention. For the PEEM scores, no significant differences were found.Conclusions Environment-based intervention may support school-age autistic children to participate in self-chosen activities over time. The intervention effects on participation goals and parent efficacy, however, were inconclusive and need further research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207