Comparing Telerehabilitation and In-Person Interventions in School-Based Occupational Therapy for Specific Learning Disorder A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study investigated the efficacy of telerehabilitation (TR) in school-based Occupational Therapy (OT) for children with Specific Learning Disorder (SLD), focusing on occupational competence and parental satisfaction, aiming to contribute empirical insights to the discourse on the educational well-being of this population. Materials & Methods: The study adopted a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) design involving 31 children diagnosed with SLD, implementing TR and in-person interventions alongside a control group. Outcome measures included the School Self-Concept Inventory, Child Occupational Self-Assessment (COSA), and Canadian Occupational Performance Measurement (COMP), analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics (ANOVA, post hoc tests). Results: Both TR and in-person interventions exhibited significant enhancements in academic self-efficacy (F=23.96, p<0.001, Partial ȵ²=0.461), occupational competence (F=70.59, p<0.001, Partial ȵ²=0.716), and parent satisfaction (F=17.03, p<0.001, Partial ȵ²=0.378) compared to the control group. Notably, no significant differences emerged between the TR and in-person groups, emphasizing their comparable effectiveness in improving outcomes. Conclusion: In conclusion, the study demonstrated the efficacy of TR and in-person interventions in school-based OT for children with SLD. The cohesive outcomes in academic self-efficacy, occupational competence, and parental satisfaction highlight TR as a versatile modality. This research, grounded in robust methodology, encourages further exploration of TR's transformative role in enhancing the holistic well-being of children with SLDs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 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".