Preliminary mixed‐methods investigation: Impact and acceptability of a combined life skills and adventure therapy program for adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Meaningful occupational therapy interventions for neurodivergent, transition-age adolescents are understudied, and novel intervention approaches that are motivating to this population are needed. Accordingly, in this study we explored the acceptability and impact of a combined life skills/adventure therapy (LS/AT) intervention program for addressing self-identified goals for adolescents with regulation- and sensory-based challenges. METHODS: We used a convergent mixed-methods design. All adolescents accepted into the intervention program were invited to participate. We described our sample using data from the Child Occupational Self-Assessment. Participants created and rated goals through a modified Canadian Occupational Performance Measure interview before intervention, after intervention and 3 months post-intervention and participated in semi-structured interviews pre- and post-intervention. We calculated COPM change scores, analysed qualitative interview data, and integrated findings into a joint display for interpretation following recommended procedures for mixed-methods data. RESULTS: Ten adolescents consented to participate (n = 6 males, n = 4 females; mean age 13.92 years, SD = 0.54). Mean COPM performance change scores were 3.72 (SD = 1.39) from pre- to post-intervention and 2.40 (SD = 1.19) from pre- to 3 months post-intervention, with the largest change scores for goals related to life skills. Data from semi-structured interviews expanded on these findings, revealing that participants made changes related to being in the moment, finding a sense of purpose and achieving a sense of belonging. Participants reported high acceptability of the intervention. CONCLUSION: This exploratory research supports the use of combined LS/AT intervention with transition-age adolescents experiencing sensory and regulation-based limitations on participation. Preliminary data shows positive changes in performance and satisfaction in self-identified goal areas as well as changes related to mindfulness, a personal sense of competence and relatedness. In practice, occupational therapists should consider integrating elements of this LS/AT intervention to support this population, including addressing life skills through engagement in unique and motivating activities.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".