Intervention with the CO-OP Approach leads to a transfer effect over time to untrained goals for children with cerebral palsy or spina bifida
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aims to investigate whether the treatment effects, in terms of goal attainment, transfer effects and impact on executive functions, of an intervention in children with cerebral palsy or spina bifida using the Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP) Approach are maintained over time, from immediately after the intervention to three months afterwards. METHOD: A three-month follow-up study, from an intervention using CO-OP. Thirty-four children (7-16 years) each identified four goals (one untrained to examine transfer) and participated in an eleven-session intervention. Assessments were performed at baseline, immediately after the intervention and at a three-month follow-up using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure and the Performance Quality Rating Scale. Executive function and self-rated competence were assessed at the same timepoints. RESULTS: Statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in goal achievement were demonstrated for both trained and untrained goals after the intervention and were maintained at follow-up. The clinically relevant improvement in untrained goals continued to increase until follow-up. Self-rated competence increased after the intervention and was maintained at follow-up. CONCLUSION: The CO-OP intervention was effective in achieving and maintaining the children's own goals over time. The transfer effect was confirmed by higher goal attainment for the untrained goals.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".