Occupational Therapy Coaching in Foster Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The goal of foster care is the reunification between the child(ren) and their biological parents. Several interventions are beneficial in achieving reunification, including parent coaching (Bullen et al., 2016; Palmer et al., 2014; Schein et al., 2017). The purpose of this study was to explore parent perspectives of a coaching intervention and its impact on parental self-efficacy, perceived participation, and satisfaction with parenting occupations.Methods: This study is a single case study that incorporated both qualitative and quantitative data. Researchers implemented and evaluated a virtual three-session parent coaching intervention with a mother whose child was in foster care. They administered the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and Parent Empowerment and Efficacy Measure (PEEM) pre- and post-intervention. Researchers also collected qualitative data through semi-structured interviews with the parent. They used descriptive statistics and content analysis to analyze the data.Results: The overall scores on the PEEM decreased from pre- to post-intervention. The COPM results demonstrated an increase in satisfaction and performance within the three target areas. The participant also provided reflections on the coaching experience, including benefits and knowledge gained from the resources provided to her and challenges faced due to the limited timeline of the intervention.Conclusion: Researchers found many positive outcomes from the coaching intervention including increased perceived parental performance and satisfaction with parenting occupations, collaborative goal setting between coaches and parent, and overall parent satisfaction with the coaching intervention. Coaching allowed researchers to truly be client-centered in their intervention approach. This case has demonstrated the positive effects of coaching interventions and illustrates how occupational therapy practitioners can integrate coaching into their sessions when working with parent-child dyads surrounding major life experiences and transitions.This project was approved by the Midwestern University Institutional Review Board #23043 and funded by the OT Program.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".