Measuring the Effects of Interventions on Participation in Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose of Review The 2019 International clinical practice recommendations for developmental coordination disorder” recommended setting goals, and targeting interventions, at the activity and participation level. This review will explore how clinicians can make a positive move towards participation focused practice by measuring the impact of interventions at a participation level. Recent Findings Few studies have been published where the primary outcome measure is participation in activities which reflect child and family goals. The challenge of measuring the impact of participation focused interventions is setting goals and finding measures to capture both attendance and engagement from the child’s perspective. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) is frequently used to set goals and measure outcomes but does not consider levels of attendance and engagement. Summary Participation is a difficult construct to measure. There are tools available aimed at measuring participation, but they capture the parent/carer voice rather than the child’s. The recent publication of national survey studies on the impact of DCD provides valuable data in support of the development of participation focused services in multiple countries. Future research should continue to explore ways of capturing the child’s voice in measures of participation and continue to drive a better understanding of how participation focused practice can help mitigate some of secondary consequences reported in recent impact data.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it