A Pilot Community Living Skills Group: An Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents the findings of a 12-week pilot community living skills (CLS) group for eight adults with enduring mental health needs; five of these adults met the inclusion criterion for the study. The group was established to promote skills for home management, community living, personal care and safety, and social and interpersonal functioning. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and a client satisfaction questionnaire were used as broad measurement tools: the COPM was scored pre-group and post-group and the questionnaire was completed following the final session. A follow-up home visit was carried out by therapists to gauge further the skill transfer from group to home environment. In the tasks identified according to the COPM pre-group and post-group, performance and satisfaction scores were improved slightly. The questionnaire results indicated high levels of client satisfaction. The topics rated as most helpful were of a practical nature and those enjoyed less were of a discursive nature. The post-group home visits demonstrated an improvement in the majority of group members in effective task management within the home. The implications for future occupational therapy and research are considered on the basis of the findings. These demonstrate that a basic form of evaluation can be used effectively to promote good clinical practice and, on this occasion, the need for future CLS groups. They also serve to demonstrate the need for a larger scale, more in-depth evaluation of CLS groups within mental health practice.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".