MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407277226 · doi:10.1080/19411243.2025.2463362

Factors associated with participation in different activities among children with ASD: caregiver perspectives of participation

2025· article· en· W4407277226 on OpenAlexafffund
Danielle Salters, Sara M. Scharoun Benson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational Therapy Schools & Early Intervention · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyOccupational therapyDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) generally experience lower levels of participation compared to typically developing children. The purpose of the present study was to explore characteristics of participation among different activities based on social and emotional skills, motor skills, and child characteristics (e.g. age, gender). Caregivers of children with ASD completed four survey instruments to assess motor skills, social skills, and characteristics of participation in different activities. Two activity scales were used to assess different types of activities, including social, physical, education, and recreational activities. Different characteristics of participation were explored, including the frequency of participation, who initiates participation, child enjoyment, and parental satisfaction. Multiple regressions were conducted to assess the predictability of motor skills, social skills, age, gender, and birth order on participation in different activities. Results demonstrated that social skills of children with ASD had the most consistent influence on participation in various activities. Findings provide insight into the factors associated with participation in a range of activities among children with ASD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational Therapy Schools & Early InterventionSame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207