Effect of Cognitive Orientation to Daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP) for Cognitive Development on School Functioning and Daily Living of School-Age Children With Developmental Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to examine the effects of the Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP) on school functioning and daily living of school-age children with developmental disabilities. This study employed a single-case AB design, applying the CO-OP intervention. Changes in task performance quality were evaluated during baseline and intervention periods, with assessments conducted using the School Function Assessment, Functional Independence Measure for Children, and Canadian Occupational Performance Measure as preand post-evaluation. Session evaluations were analyzed through visual and trend line analyses, and the intervention's effects were examined based on pre- and post-evaluation scores. The evaluation of changes in task performance quality revealed that the trend line slopes for all three activities of both Child A and Child B increased substantially during the intervention period compared to the baseline period. The School Function Assessment results showed increased scores in physical and cognitive/behavioral tasks for both participants. Similarly, the Functional Independence Measure for Children indicated an increase in total functional independence scores for both children. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure results revealed increased performance and satisfaction scores for occupational performance from pre- to post-evaluation. The CO-OP intervention positively influenced clinical improvements in occupational performance quality, functional independence, school functioning, and daily living skills among school-age children with developmental disabilities. This study provides foundational data supporting the use of CO-OP to enhance school functioning and daily living in this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".