Validity and Community Utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study addressed the validity and community utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) (Law et al., 1991; 1994; 1998): a measure that now represents a national standard in clinical practice and research in occupational therapy in Canada. The study employed a crossectional design. Participants for the study were former consumers of occupational therapy services, recruited from the Queen's University catchment area (Kingston, North Bay, Oshawa, Perth, Peterborough). A sample of 61 disabled individuals living in the community were recruited. Each individual was sent a package of self-administered measures including the Satisfaction with Performance Scaled Questionnaire, the Reintegration to Normal Living Index, the Life Satisfaction Questionnaire, and the Perceived Problems List. An interview was also arranged with the project coordinator, which was based on the COPM and the Consumer Utility Questionnaire. Multivariate analyses showed that construct validity was supported; scores on the COPM were significantly related to theoretically related constructs: satisfaction with performance, reintegration to normal living and life satisfaction. In addition, criterion validity was supported. A majority of participants (53%), when asked about problems of daily living, spontaneously reported at least one of the problems raised on the COPM. Community utility was evaluated highly by participants, 75% of whom found the COPM useful in identifying and rating their problems, and 100% of whom reported no problems in understanding the COPM.
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 | 0.015 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".