Occupational Therapy for Children with DCD and Academic Difficulties: A Pan-Canadian Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) often experience academic challenges. Although children with DCD are frequently referred to Occupational Therapy (OT) to help alleviate some of their motor and functional challenges, the actual practices of OTs regarding academic activities remain underexplored in this group. Purpose. This study aimed to describe the nature and extent of Canadian OT practices regarding academic activities in children with DCD. Method. A survey was sent to pediatric OTs through national and provincial OT associations and licensing organizations, to gather information on assessment and intervention practices related to core academic activities in children with DCD. Findings. A total of 229 OTs completed the survey (170 females, 74%). Occupational Therapies reported assessing or providing intervention for academic activities, most frequently handwriting (96% assessed and 85% intervened), writing (74% and 65%), mathematics (72% and 68%), and reading (66% and 59%). With respect to intervention services, up to 78% of OTs provided direct intervention, compared to 51% for indirect or consultative services. Conclusion. Most Canadian pediatric OTs typically assess and provide intervention for handwriting and, to a lesser extent, other academic activities. These practices vary depending on work setting and experience.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".