An exploration of the ‘Partnering for Change’ model as a strategy to address participation for children with Developmental Coordination Disorder.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developmental coordination disorder affects 5-8.5% of children aged 5-11 in the United Kingdom. Children with developmental coordination disorder can experience motor impairments, reduced participation in everyday occupations and are liable to develop social and psychological issues such as anxiety, depression and reduced self efficacy. \nThe Scottish Government supports early intervention to identify and support wellbeing for children experiencing difficulties such as developmental coordination disorder. Traditionally children with developmental coordination disorder are diagnosed when they start to attend school. They are then referred to occupational therapy services in order to receive individualised treatment. \nPartnering for Change is a Canadian based model with potential for implementation within the United Kingdom. The model recognises the need for early identification, the collaborative management of symptoms and the promotion of participation. This in turn helps to prevent secondary issues arising for children with developmental coordination disorder. Partnering for Change supports collaborative practice between occupational therapists, teachers, parents and children. This provides support that enables increased participation in everyday activities at school, at home and in the community. \nThe literature review identifies reduced participation as a concern for children with developmental coordination disorder, demonstrates the effects and consequences of reduced participation and how effective school based models are in combating these consequences. \nThe proposed research aims to explore the perspectives of parents and teachers by using focus groups, when considering the use of Partnering for Change. In order to address reduced participation for children with developmental coordination disorder within United Kingdom primary schools.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".