MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060980531 · doi:10.1080/09638280600929201

Adapting the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure for use in a paediatric clinical trial

2006· article· en· W2060980531 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeasure (data warehouse)Occupational therapyMedicinePsychologyPhysical therapyGerontologyComputer scienceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.468
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.295 · 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