Enhancing Occupational Therapists’ Intervention Capabilities With Adolescents With Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Adolescents with neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) have an increased risk of participation limitations. Occupational therapy faces knowledge-to-practice gaps among this population. Purpose. To examine the effectiveness of a continuing-education program for occupational therapists working with adolescents with NDDs. Method. The study used a mixed-method design, including pre–post comparisons of competence and sense of self-efficacy of occupational therapists to work with adolescents with NDDs. Interviews regarding the program's perceived contribution to practice were conducted. Results. Post-program results showed significantly ( p < .001) higher professional competence and self-efficacy for interventions and evaluation skills with NDD's adolescents and transition programs as well as higher knowledge about adolescence and NDDs characteristics. Contrary, there was no change in competence and self-efficacy regarding client-centred interventions with adolescents. Program participants increased their professional confidence and incorporated evidence-based methods into routine practice. Implications. The continuing-education program that was examined expanded the occupational therapy practitioner's knowledge and professional skills, resulting in a change in their capacity to practice with adolescents narrowing the knowledge-to-practice gap. Future studies involving the client perspective, regarding their participation may validate and support continuing-education program for occupational therapists.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".