Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance to improve occupational performance goals for children with executive function deficits after acquired brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To determine the effectiveness of the Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP) approach in improving the occupational performance goals of children and young people with executive function deficits after acquired brain injury (ABI) (e.g. etiologies such as stroke, encephalitis, brain tumor, and traumatic brain injury). METHOD: A replicated single-case experimental study using a randomized multiple baseline design across participants and goals was used. Three clusters of four participants (12 participants, nine males and three females, aged 8-16 years) were included. The intervention consisted of 14 individual CO-OP sessions. Each participant chose four goals; three goals were trained during the intervention sessions and a fourth goal served as the control. The Goal Attainment Scale (GAS) was used as a repeated measure to determine goal achievement while the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) was used to identify the perceived goal achievement of children, young people, and their parents. RESULTS: For 26 of the 35 trained goals, the intervention led to statistically significant improvements in the GAS. Perceived occupational performance and satisfaction improved significantly for the trained goals (30 out of 35 goals for the COPM performance and satisfaction of participants; 26 out 31 goals for the COPM performance of parents; 24 out of 31 goals for the COPM satisfaction of parents) and were maintained at the follow-up. Almost all COPM control goal results were significant, but these changes were not supported by the GAS measures or the statistical analysis. INTERPRETATION: The generally positive results of this study provide evidence of the benefits of using the CO-OP approach with this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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.
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".