Article

The efficacy of two different goal-setting approaches (children's
self-identified goals and goals identified by parents) were compared on a
goal-directed, task-oriented intervention. METHOD: In this assessor-blinded
parallel randomized trial, 34 children with disabilities (13 males, 21 females;
mean age 9y, SD 1y 4mo) were randomized using concealed allocation to one of two
8-week, goal-directed, task-oriented intervention groups with different
goal-setting approaches: (1) children's self-identified goals
(n=18) using the
Perceived Efficacy and Goal-Setting System, or (2) goals identified by parents
(n=16) using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). Participants
were recruited through eight paediatric rehabilitation centres and randomized
between October 2011 and May 2013. The primary outcome measure was the Goal
Attainment Scaling and the secondary measure, the COPM performance scale
(COPM-P). Data were collected pre- and post-intervention and at the 5-month
follow-up. RESULTS: There was no evidence of a difference in mean characteristics
at baseline between groups. There was evidence of an increase in mean goal
attainment (mean T score) in both groups after intervention (child-goal group:
estimated mean difference [EMD] 27.84, 95% CI 22.93-32.76; parent-goal group: EMD
21.42, 95% CI 16.16-26.67). There was no evidence of a difference in the mean T
scores post-intervention between the two groups (EMD 6.42, 95% CI -0.80 to
13.65). These results were sustained at the 5-month follow-up. INTERPRETATION:
Children's self-identified goals are achievable to the same extent as
parent-identified goals and remain stable over time. Thus children can be trusted
to identify their own goals for intervention, thereby influencing their
involvement in their intervention programmes.
CI - (c) 2015 Mac Keith Press.

Langue : ANGLAIS