Comparing three coaching approaches in pediatric rehabilitation: contexts, outcomes, and mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This Perspectives paper advances understanding of coaching in pediatric rehabilitation. We compare three coaching approaches designed for pediatric rehabilitation: Coping with and Caring for Infants with Special Needs (COPCA), Occupational Performance Coaching (OPC), and Solution-Focused Coaching in Pediatric Rehabilitation (SFC-peds).Objectives Our objectives are to contrast the theory underpinning the approaches, discuss the evidence for outcomes and hypothesized mechanisms of change, consider the necessary mindsets of effective coaches, and propose directions for research and practice.Summary The coaching approaches have different theoretical bases and are designed for specific contexts, yet are similar in their mechanisms of change and intended outcomes. There is growing evidence of important effects of coaching on coachees’ goal achievement, empowerment, and capacity building. Studies indicate that stakeholders value coaching, and provide a preliminary understanding of the mechanisms, including engagement and self-efficacy, by which coaching approaches support clients’ self-directed and sustained change. Open, curious, and client-centered practitioner mindsets are fundamental to effective coaching.Conclusions Coaching is a distinctive group of relational, goal-oriented, and evidence-based approaches that support goal achievement and empowerment. These approaches reflect and advance an ongoing paradigm shift in pediatric rehabilitation—a movement from therapist-as-expert approaches to those that build empowerment and capacity.Implications For RehabilitationCoaching is a distinctive group of theory-based approaches that support clients’ goal achievement and empowerment, and build capacityCoaching practitioners are collaborative facilitators who assist clients and families with their own discovery of solutions that fit their everyday contextsThe evidence suggests that coaching triggers engagement and self-efficacy, which are the mechanisms by which changes in longer-term outcomes occurOpen, curious, and client/family-centered practitioner mindsets are fundamental to effective coaching
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".