Routine administration of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: Effect on functional outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Routinely using outcome measures as an integral component of practice has been encouraged for decades yet has not been widely adopted. There are many reasons to measure outcomes yet any positive effect of measurement on our programs or clients has not been substantiated. If the time-consuming nature of outcome measurement is to be encouraged, we need to begin addressing larger questions of the value of outcome measurement on care and outcomes. This cohort study evaluated the impact of routinely administering the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure on client outcomes on a geriatric rehabilitation unit. METHODS: Changes in Functional Independence Measure™ scores between an experimental group (n = 45) that received the routine use of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure for evaluation/planning versus a historical comparison group (n = 58) that received 'usual' care were analysed using generalised linear modeling. RESULTS: Both groups had significant changes in Functional Independence Measure™ scores over time. Results for differences between groups were inconclusive with a significantly underpowered analysis; however, results suggest that a medium to large effect of this intervention cannot be expected. CONCLUSIONS: Results are significant for the field of routine outcome measurement, suggesting that when adding the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure to routine assessment within an inpatient rehabilitation setting, substantially improved Functional Independence Measure™ score outcomes should not be expected. The value of routine outcome measurement on client outcomes remains largely unexplored. Routinely, using outcome measures requires additional research to determine the specific benefits to our programs and client outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".