Effectiveness of Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance for autistic children with developmental coordination disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To determine if the Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP) intervention is effective in improving motor skills of autistic children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD), and whether motor gains are maintained 3 months after therapy. METHOD: In this quasi-experimental study, we recruited 27 autistic children (8-12 years) with DCD without intellectual disability. The treatment group received CO-OP intervention once weekly for 10 weeks, focusing on three child-chosen motor goals. The waitlist group received CO-OP 3 months later. Outcome measures included the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (child ratings of motor performance and satisfaction), Performance Quality Rating Scale (therapist-observed movement quality), and the Bruninks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, Second Edition (motor ability). RESULTS: Non-parametric analyses showed significant improvements (p < 0.013) in all outcomes. Follow-up analysis revealed significant improvements in performance (p < 0.001, W = 0.69), satisfaction (p < 0.001, W = 0.72), and movement quality (p < 0.001, W = 0.62). Despite slight declines at follow-up, overall improvements from pretest remained evident. INTERPRETATION: The CO-OP intervention effectively improved motor skills of autistic children.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".