Practice, play, repeat – individualized outcomes after the “intensity matters!”-program for children with disabilities – a descriptive multicase study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine and categorize individual outcomes after the "Intensity matters!"-program, a new, cross-professional intensive intervention for children with disabilities across Norway. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 84 children and their parents/legal guardian were enrolled in this multicase study. Participants were active in defining goals, and hereby the content of the intervention. The pre-settled goals were grouped into the categories of body functions and structure, activities and participation inspired by the components of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). The pre-settled goals were assessed pre- and post-intervention by using The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). A clinically important change was predefined as a change ≥2 points. RESULTS: = 626). Post-intervention assessment of the COPM ratings of child performance and satisfaction showed a mean change of 3.7 (range -0.25;8.5) and 3.8 (range 0.25;10), respectively. CONCLUSION: The majority of participants in the "Intensity Matters!"-program had a clinically important change in their individual goals after only three weeks of intervention. This study supports the use of client-centered measures in rehabilitation for children with disabilities, but a further examination of long-term outcome is warranted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".