The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: A Research and Clinical Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has been 13 years since the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) was published. In that time there has been a remarkable growth in its acceptance as an outcome measure within the occupational therapy practice and research. PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to review the emerging research and clinical literature related to the COPM since 1994 and to document its impact upon occupational therapy practice and research throughout the world. METHOD: A systematic search was conducted to the professional and research literature in English publications (primarily occupational therapy). Eighty-eight papers that met the inclusion criteria were reviewed, 86% of which examined the COPM in relation to its psychometric properties (19 papers), research outcomes (33 papers) or practice (33 papers). RESULTS: Overall, although there are a few limitations discussed in the review, the conclusion is that the COPM is a valid, reliable, clinically useful and responsive outcome measure acceptable for occupational therapist practitioners and researchers. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The COPM is used with a wide variety of clients, enables client-centred practice, facilitates evidence-based practice and supports outcomes research.
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 | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.036 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".