MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

American and Canadian therapists’ perspectives of age and cognitive skills for paediatric power mobility: a qualitative study

2019· article· en· W6958847187 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionPower (physics)Qualitative researchCognitive skillCognitive developmentQualitative property

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To explore the views of paediatric occupational therapists and physical therapists in Canada and the USA related to (1) the rationale for the age at which power mobility is considered for children and (2) the cognitive skills considered when trialling power mobility. Materials and methods: This study was part of a larger web-based survey study and analyzed responses to two open-ended survey questions: one related to age and one related to cognitive skills. Data were analyzed using the constant comparative method. Results: Analysis revealed four unique themes in the question related to age: (1) ‘Power Mobility Should be Introduced at a Specific Age or Stage’; (2) ‘Child Requirements’; (3) ‘Developmental Impact of All Forms of Independent Mobility’; and (4) ‘Benefits of Power Mobility’. In the question concerning cognitive skills, two unique themes were identified: ‘Cognitive Skill Requirements?’ and ‘Non-Cognitive Requirements’. Two additional themes were identified in both questions: (‘Non-child Requirements’ and ‘Power Mobility Trials, Use, and Options Are Dependent on Age and Goal’). Conclusions: Data indicate wide variability in respondents’ views related to the provision of power mobility. Additional research is needed to explore both therapists’ reasoning regarding power mobility use for children and how to best facilitate knowledge translation in this area.Implications for RehabilitationWide variability exists related to the provision of power mobility for children.Children’s age or stage in life influences therapists’ consideration of power mobility.Many respondents considered cognitive skills when trialling power mobility but some did not. Wide variability exists related to the provision of power mobility for children. Children’s age or stage in life influences therapists’ consideration of power mobility. Many respondents considered cognitive skills when trialling power mobility but some did not.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0270.013
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.419 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research→French-language works237,207→