Early motor skill interventions for children with autism; secondary effects on parents and families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motor skill interventions can improve the motor proficiency of children with autism, however, the secondary effects associated with these interventions are not well understood. The aim of this study is to describe 1) parents’ experiences with an early motor skill intervention for their children with autism, and 2) the secondary effects of the intervention on parents and families. Parents (n = 8) of four-year-old children with autism who participated in a 12-week motor skill intervention were invited to take part in a semi-structured interview to discuss their experiences. The study was grounded in descriptive phenomenology. Three themes emerged from the data. Theme 1: Parent Attendance - observing the motor skill intervention was essential in order for parents to benefit from the experience themselves (e.g., socializing with the other parents), Theme 2: Eye-Opening Experience - the intervention shed light on the children’s capabilities and the importance of motor skill development, Theme 3: Positive Experience - parents expressed a desire for more opportunities like this within the community. These findings indicate that early motor skill interventions for children with autism can also benefit parents and families. In order to better meet the needs of families of children with autism, clinicians should educate parents on the importance of motor skill development early, and highlight opportunities for active engagement at home and in the community.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".