MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2056837355 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2011.05.422

P1‐142: Reliability of the Canadian occupational performance measure in Brazilian older adults with mild cognitive impairment

2011· article· en· W2056837355 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Giseli de Fátima dos Santos Chaves, Orestes Vicente Forlenza, Breno S. Diniz, Alexandra Martini de Oliveira, Juliana Aparecida dos Santos Chaves, Paula Villela Nunes

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOccupational therapyActivities of daily livingMedicinePhysical therapyInter-rater reliabilityDementiaCorrelationTest (biology)Cognitive impairmentReliability (semiconductor)PsychologyCognitionGerontologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryRating scaleInternal medicineDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) is a scale used in occupational therapy to assess clients’ perceived performance of daily activities and their satisfaction with their performance. This scale can be used in diverse populations, including geriatric patients with dementia, mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and other neuropsychiatric disorders. This is the first study of reliability of this scale in MCI patients both in Brazil and worldwide. 55 older adults with MCI (Petersen's criteria) were assessed using the COPM. Test-retest was accessed in 27 MCI patients. An occupational therapist made the COPM interview and repeated the test 2 weeks later. The reliability of inter-rater agreement was accessed in the remaining 28 patients, which were interviewed with COPM by two different occupational therapists in the same day . Pearson's correlation test was used in the analysis. Correlation of the problems identified (ex.: climbing stairs, paying bills, etc) in the performance of daily activities in the test-retest was 0.74 (p < 0.001) and for inter-rater agreement was 0.72 (p < 0.001). For the problems identified a score was given for the level of performance. In the test-retest the correlation of this score was 0.09 (p = 0.776) and in the inter-rater evaluation it was 0.66 (p < 0.001). A score of satisfaction with the performance is also given through the COPM and in the test-retest the correlation was -0.11 (p = 0.715) and in the inter-rater it was 0.67 (p < 0.001). Results showed that the COPM has generally a good reliability both in the test-retest and in the inter-rater agreement for problems identified. Less consistent results were found to the performance perceived and level of satisfaction with the problems in the test-retest, perhaps because it depends on more subjective parameters and a longer period (2 weeks) has passed between interviews. The COPM can be used to evaluate problems in the performance of daily activities in MCI elderly patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→