Assessment practices of Canadian occupational therapists working with adults with mental disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about assessment practices of occupational therapists working with adults with mental disorders. PURPOSE: This study investigates the assessment practices of occupational therapists working with clients experiencing symptoms of schizophrenia or major depressive disorder. METHOD: We conducted a national survey of assessment practices using case vignettes of hypothetical clients. FINDINGS: From 343 vignettes completed by 286 respondents, 68.4% included the use of one or more standardized measures during treatment. Measures were rarely repeated. Results showed that the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure was the most frequently used, suggesting a focus on assessing global functioning, while the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills was listed as the most desired assessment tool. Implementing nonstandardized assessments was common. IMPLICATIONS: Despite wide variations in occupational therapists' assessment practices, the use of standardized assessments is prevalent. The low rate of repeated measures (0% to 25.9%) suggests a need to better monitor changes and treatment 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".