MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W841501580 · doi:10.25772/jkd9-f675

Effectiveness of Sensory Integration and Behavioral Interventions on Nonengagement in Preschool Aged Children

2012· article· en· W841501580 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tiffany Kuyper

Bibliographic record

VenueVCU Scholars Compass (Virginia Commonwealth University) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral and Psychological Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionSensory systemPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPerceptionCognitive psychologyNeurosciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract EFFECTIVENESS OF SENSORY INTEGRATION AND BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTIONS ON NONENGAGEMENT IN PRESCHOOL AGED CHILDREN By Tiffany Ann Kuyper, OTR/L A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Occupational Therapy at Virginia Commonwealth University Virginia Commonwealth University, 2012 Director: Marie Anzalone ScD, OTR, FAOTA This single subject pilot study explored a combination of sensory-based interventions and behavioral interventions in a preschool aged child identified with Sensory Over-Responsivity (SOR). Children often display nonengagement associated with escaping and avoiding tactile and/or vestibular information because they perceive sensory input as negative or aversive. The subject was a 3-year old child who engaged in alternating treatments over the course of six weeks of occupational therapy. The first condition was a sensory-based intervention (SB), a widely used intervention approach for sensory over-responsivity. The alternating condition was a sensory-based intervention combined with behavioral interventions (SBB). The behavioral intervention used tangible reinforcement as the primary technique to facilitate engagement in sensory intensive play that was part of the sensory-based interventions. It was hypothesized that nonengagement behaviors would decrease during the SBB condition and play engagement behaviors would increase during the SBB condition. It was also hypothesized that the subject would demonstrate an improvement in perceived performance and satisfaction of daily living activities. The outcomes of this study included frequencies of nonengagement, play engagement and the family’s perceived performance and satisfaction of a child’s performance of occupations. The frequency of nonengagement behaviors was assessed when the subject was presented with sensory intensive play that was part of sensory-based interventions in each condition. The frequencies of nonengagement and play engagement were coded over each session to determine if there was any change between and within conditions. Also, performance and satisfaction with occupations were compared from the initial evaluation and the last intervention session. Results of this study revealed that the subject’s nonengagement behaviors actually increased throughout the interventions. This finding did not support the first hypothesis that nonengagement behaviors would decrease in the condition using a combination of sensory-based interventions and behavioral interventions. It was also found that the subject’s number of play engagement behaviors decreased within both conditions. This finding did not support the second hypothesis that play engagement behaviors would improve as result of participating in a combination of sensory-based interventions and behavioral interventions over time. However, the qualitative improvements as identified by the subject’s mother when using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM; Law, Baptiste, McColl, Polatajko, & Pollock, 2005) improved significantly across both interventions in the home and community settings. As a result of participation in this study, the subject made improvements with regard to all occupational performance areas as initially collaborated upon in the initial evaluation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.915

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVCU Scholars Compass (Virginia Commonwealth University)Same topicBehavioral and Psychological StudiesFrench-language works237,207