Validity, responsiveness and feasibility of an Italian version of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure for patients with ankylosing spondylitis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present study was to produce an Italian version of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) in a group of patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) and examine the psychometric properties of this version, evaluating its internal consistency, external validity and reliability. Responsiveness and feasibility were also taken into account. METHODS: The Italian COPM, the Italian version of the COPM, was administered to 30 Caucasian patients affected by AS (24 males, 6 females, median age 48 yrs, range 32-67, median disease duration 14 yrs, range 1-30 yrs) together with the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI), the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity (BASDAI) and the Italian version of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). Internal consistency was evaluated with Cronbach's alpha for reliability. Construct validity of the COPM was evaluated by a correlation between the BASFI, BASDAI and HAQ scores. Test-retest reliability was assessed by the Intraclass correlation coefficient. Responsiveness and feasibility were also considered. RESULTS: All patients completed the validation study. The questionnaire was internally consistent (alpha coefficient=0.774). A significant correlation was recorded between the COPM and the BASFI (rho=-0.566, p<0.01), BASDAI (rho=-0.491, p<0.01). Test-retest reliability showed a good correlation coefficient and it was confirmed by Bland-Altman method. CONCLUSIONS: The Italian COPM is a valid and reliable instrument focused to detect change in a client's perception of occupational performance over time, in AS patients. Our results confirm the utility of this questionnaire to measure outcome and in planning treatment intervention for patients with AS.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".