Investigation of Activity Preferences of Children with Specific Learning Disorders and Their Families: Cross-sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the activity preferences of children with specific learning disability and their caregivers as well as their perfor- mance and satisfaction in these activities. Materials and Methods: A total of 60 children with specific learning disability (34 males and 26 females) and their caregivers (12 males and 48 females) were included to the study. The demographic information of both the children and the caregivers were recorded. Data regarding the self-identified and caregiver- identified problematic activities as well as the performance and satisfaction in these activities, the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure were used. Results: The mean age of the children was 10.7 ± 2.38 and the mean age of the caregivers was 33.5 ± 3.27. The self-reported problematic activities were most fre- quently related to productivity (86.67%), followed by recreation (66.67%) and self-care (53.33%). The caregiver-reported problematic activities were most frequently related to self-care (90%), followed by productivity (73.33%) and recreation (60%). The mean self-reported performance and satisfaction from the reported activities were 5.49 ± 2.4 and 4.14 ± 2.5, respectively, and the caregivers scores performance and satisfaction from their reported activities as 3.55 ± 1.5 and 3.08 ± 1.1, respectively. Conclusion: It is valuable to work toward a consensus between the children and the caregivers when determining the problematic activities of children with specific learning disability in order to establish a truly person-centered approach and cause meaningful and valuable improvements in activity performance and satisfaction. Cite this article as: Barkın K, Ege T, Kaya Özgün K, Koray K, Sedef Ş. Investigation of activity preferences of children with specific learning disorders and their families: cross-sectional study. Arch Health Sci Res. 2023;10(2):125-128.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".