Positive Effects of Surfing on Psychological Wellbeing for Children with Developmental Difficulties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children with developmental disorders or disabilities often experience a wide range of difficulties and reduced quality of life. Surfing is gaining popularity as a sport that can promote psychological well-being, but research is still scarce. The current study aimed to investigate the effects of surfing on the quality of life of children with developmental difficulties. Participants were 84 children with Down syndrome, autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Quality of life was measured by a parent-rated questionnaire (KIDSCREEN-27) before and after a series of three adapted surfing lessons. Additionally, responses on an evaluation questionnaire were qualitatively analysed to gain more insight into the experiences of children and parents. Results of the KIDSCREEN showed a significant increase in the children's quality of life after 3 surfing lessons for the Total score, as well as subscale scores for Psychological well-being, Social support & peers and School. A trend towards significance was found for the subscale Autonomy & parent relation. Qualitative analysis of evaluation data showed consistent positive experiences by children as well as parents. According to parents, surfing improved the child's mood, self-confidence, self-esteem and social-emotional functioning. They saw their child enjoy the lessons, conquering their fears, feeling safe and free. According to many parents, effects transferred into their child's daily life. Surfing in a safe, structured and positive environment holds promise to improve the quality of life for children with developmental difficulties. Findings provide valuable insights into the scope of these effects and possible working mechanisms underlying the effects.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".