The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: Does it Address the Cultural Occupations of Ethnic Minorities?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is the first to examine the cultural sensitivity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), as reported by occupational therapists who have used it with people from an ethnic minority background. The research was conducted as part of a Master's degree, held in Boston, USA, and funded by the Elizabeth Casson Trust, UK. Twenty-five practising occupational therapists from North America answered an emailed survey and, from this sample, three were interviewed by telephone. The findings showed that the practitioners perceived the COPM as able to address the cultural occupations of ethnic minorities; however, they felt that including examples of cultural occupations and children's occupations and modifying the rating scales would improve the tool. Two of the three therapists interviewed worked with children and, because of this, there was a focus on children's occupations that was only revealed in the second part of the research. The nature of the tool, its ability to focus on occupation and the therapist's interview skills were identified as the reasons that the COPM is effective in addressing the cultural occupations of ethnic minorities. Additional research is needed using a larger sample to validate these findings.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".