Promoting Participation and Self-Efficacy Among Youth with Disabilities in Community-Based Vocational Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Occupational therapy, with its focus on participation, contextual adaptation, and strength-based practice, is uniquely suited to support the growth and inclusion of youth in transition (Angell et al., 2018; Cahill et al., 2020; Carroll et al., 2025). Research indicates that transitional-aged youth (TAY) with disabilities, ages 14-24, are less likely to graduate from high school, pursue postsecondary education, or live independently (BLS, 2024; Cheng & Shaewitz, 2022; Cook et al., 2015). These disparities are compounded by occupational deprivation, or limited opportunities for meaningful participation, which can negatively impact long-term self-efficacy and belonging (Arbesman & Logsdon, 2011; Cahill et al., 2020). With ongoing cuts to federally funded transitional education, these gaps are likely to widen. The goal of this capstone is to assist a non-profit community organization which offers opportunities for animal assisted interventions, in expanding their vocational education program for TAY with disabilities with an emphasis on participation and self-efficacy. This project explores the question: How does engaging in community-based vocational education influence occupational participation and self-efficacy for TAY with disabilities? Grounded in the Canadian Model of Occupational Participation (CanMOP), which centers occupational participation as the core focus of practice, this program was evaluated and expanded to emphasize autonomy, meaning, and engagement across levels of context (Egan & Restall, 2022). By incorporating an occupational therapy lens, the program aims to enhance goal-directed engagement, accessibility, and self-determined skill-building while promoting sustainability and inclusivity (Cook et al., 2015). Objectives include identifying evidence-based strategies to enhance participation and self-efficacy, creating and supporting staff training to build capacity, and applying the CanMOP to guide inclusive program development. Together, these objectives support the development of a sustainable, evidence-informed program model that advances participation and self-efficacy for TAY with disabilities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".