Utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in community-based brain injury rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) for community-based individuals with acquired brain injury (ABI). METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Thirty-four individuals with ABI (M = 5.32 years post-injury, SD = 3.92) were administered the COPM with self- and relative ratings of performance and satisfaction obtained. Relatives completed the Brain Injury Community Rehabilitation Outcome 39 (BICRO-39) scales. Measures of awareness of deficits, emotional status and cognitive function were obtained. A sub-group of participants was randomly allocated into a no-intervention group (n = 15) or an 8-week treatment group (n = 10). Initial assessments and 8-week follow-up assessments were conducted. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: A pre- and post-assessment comparison for the treatment group identified a significant improvement on most COPM ratings (p < 0.05), but not the BICRO-39 (p > 0.05). However, self-ratings of satisfaction improved for the no-intervention group (p < 0.05). Self-ratings of satisfaction were significantly correlated with anxiety (r = -0.42, p < 0.05), although there were no other significant associations between COPM ratings and awareness, mood state and cognitive function. CONCLUSIONS: The findings generally support the utility of the COPM in community-based rehabilitation; however, the need for self-ratings to be interpreted in the context of other outcome indicators is recommended.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".