Transfer of skills acquired through Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance (CO‐OP) approach in children with executive functions deficits following acquired brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Children with acquired brain injury (ABI) often have executive function (EF) deficits that affect their ability to carry out activities efficiently. Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP) is a cognitive approach to problem-solving. It has demonstrated effectiveness in a variety of populations, most recently with children with EF deficits following ABI. One of the challenges of rehabilitation is transferring skills acquired during sessions into everyday life. The literature suggests that CO-OP enables transfer of skills to untrained tasks, but research on transfer following its use with children with ABI is limited. The aims of this study were (1) to determine whether skills acquired during CO-OP transfer to new untrained activities, (2) to study the possible influence of parental involvement in CO-OP on children's attainment of transfer goals, and (3) to determine if the degree of difference between trained and untrained goals is associated with achievement of transfer. METHODS: A quasi-experimental design was used. Eleven children with EF deficits following ABI took part in the study. At the end of CO-OP intervention, children identified three new goals. These 'transfer' goals were assessed at baseline (immediately post-intervention) and at 2-, 4- and 6-month, using the Goal Attainment Scale (GAS) and the self- and parent-rated Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). Children did not receive any specific intervention during this time. CONSUMER AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: There was no consumer and community involvement. RESULTS: At 6 months, GAS indicated that 22 of 32 transfer goals had improved by at least one level. COPM showed a significant increase in (1) child perception of performance and satisfaction for 24/31 and 25/31 goals, respectively, and (2) parent perception of performance and satisfaction for 19/29 of goals. CONCLUSION: This study showed that CO-OP facilitates transfer of acquired skills to new, untrained activities, even after the end of the intervention.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".