Adapting the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure for use in a paediatric clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) is a commonly used outcome measure in rehabilitation. In this study it was adapted for very young children by deleting paid/unpaid work and household management categories and having parents act as proxies to rate child performance and their own satisfaction. PURPOSE: To assess the internal consistency reliability, content and construct validity, responsiveness, and impact of half scores (20 not 10-point scale) of the adapted COPM. METHOD: Parent proxies of subjects aged 2 - 8 (mean 3.9) years with spastic hemiplegic cerebral palsy (n = 41) participating in a clinical trial. There was a total of 214 occupational performance problems for analysis and an additional 56 which had used half score ratings. Internal consistency reliability and construct validity were evaluated using Cronbach alpha statistic. Proxy views explored content validity. Responsiveness was evaluated using pre-post intervention scores and a comparison with Goal Attainment Scaling scores which were assumed to be a suitable benchmark measure. The effect of half scores was assessed by two-sample t-tests. RESULTS: The COPM adaptations did not have a negative impact on internal consistency reliability as this was acceptable for performance (0.73) and satisfaction (0.83). The high Cronbach alpha scores indicated good construct validity. Content of occupations and rating approach was considered valid by proxies. Use of half scores did not result in significantly different performance ratings, but mean satisfaction ratings were significantly higher when half scores were used (p = 0.0001). This suggests that half scores may provide more precise proxy satisfaction ratings, but at the cost of rigour as internal consistency with satisfaction half scores was lower (0.63 vs. 0.82). Responsiveness to change in clinical status was demonstrated by significant pre-post scores and moderate correlations with goal attainment scores. CONCLUSION: The adapted COPM is a psychometrically robust tool and the use of half scores is not recommended.
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 | 0.060 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".