Individualized Outcome Measures: A Review of the Literature
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The client-centred nature of occupational therapy acknowledges the individual as the central element of treatment. This philosophy, however, challenges the therapist to choose an outcome measure that is capable of reflecting this individualized perspective. Recent papers published in the rehabilitation literature have reported on the increased responsiveness of such measures over traditional self-report questionnaires. Although the need for a comprehensive review of individualized outcome measures has been identified in the literature, none exists to date. The purpose of this paper is to review six individualized outcome measures that have been identified in the rehabilitation and psychology literature. The measures include: the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills, McMaster (MAC) Toronto Arthritis, Goal Attainment Scaling, Target Complaints and the Patient Specific Functional Scale. The reliability, validity, responsiveness and clinical utility of each outcome measure was examined and critiqued. Each tool, to a varying degree, met the description of a standardized, client-centred outcome measure.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it