Convergent validity of a newly developed occupational performance assessment: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: This pilot study aimed to investigate the validity of an assessment for instrumental use of the mind: the Assessment and Intervention Instrument for Instrumentalism in Occupational Therapy (AIIIOT). The AIIIOT is used to guide individuals being assessed in developing personal mission statements to guide their lives. The individuals then assess themselves on perceived frequency, adequacy, satisfaction, and belief in ability to perform occupations that would help them achieve the stated missions. Method: The validity of the AIIIOT in evaluating occupational performance was investigated by comparing it with the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). Eleven people, aged 19–58 years, comprising of nine women and two men, participated in this convergent validity study. Data were gathered using the AIIIOT and the COPM. Pearson moment correlation and linear regression analyses were conducted to determine the convergent and predictive validities. Results: The participants' AIIIOT belief scores were correlated with the COPM performance and satisfaction scores, indicating that the AIIIOT belief scale had convergent validity. The AIIIOT belief scores were good predictors for the performance and satisfaction with performance of prioritised occupations as measured on the COPM. The AIIIOT adequacy scores were good predictors for the AIIIOT Frequency scores. Adequacy scores were also good predictors of the AIIIOT satisfaction scores. Conclusion: The above findings suggested that the AIIIOT had reasonable convergent and predictive validities. Further research with larger, more representative samples is indicated to confirm these findings.
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 | 0.028 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".