Effects of Ball-Vests for Children Exhibiting Sensory Seeking Behaviour: A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children with challenges processing sensory information can have difficulties affecting their ability to participate in school activities, which may affect their potential for learning. The aim of this study was to examine the possible effects of an intervention with three weeks use of ball-vests that provide proprioceptive-tactile stimulation for children exhibiting sensory seeking behaviour. Methods: The study was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial that included 142 children (105 boys and 37 girls, mean age 8.9 years) with dysfunction in sensory processing and sensory seeking behaviour. The children´s ability for attention was measured with the “Test of Everyday Attention-Children” (TEA-Ch), their occupational competence in school activities with the “Child Occupational Self-Assessment” (COSA) and the extent of off-task behaviour with the “Observational off-task Behavior among School-children” (OBS-Children). Data was analysed using linear mixed model regression. Results: Children in the intervention group had a significantly larger increase in self-assessed occupational competence than children in the control group (B = 5.78, p = 0.004). No differences regarding attention or extent of off-task behaviour between intervention and control group were found.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04173871..
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".