MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062021123 · doi:10.1177/000841740206900104

Clinical Utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure - Swedish Version

2002· article· en· W2062021123 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Ewa Wressle, Jan Marcusson, Chris Henriksson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOccupational therapyPsychological interventionRehabilitationPsychologyPerceptionFocus groupGoal settingTest (biology)Applied psychologyMedicinePhysical therapyNursingMedical educationSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) is an individualised outcome measure intended to detect change in a client's perception of occupational performance over time. The aim of this study was to test the clinical utility of the Swedish version of the COPM. Data was collected from 27 occupational therapists in six focus groups. Emerging themes included goal-setting, preparations, limitations, interactions with clients, and impact on practice. The results indicated that the COPM is helpful in the goal-setting process and in planning treatment interventions. Therapists need knowledge about the theoretical foundation of the instrument and a personal interview technique. Problems were found using the instrument with clients who had poor insight or in acute settings. The COPM facilitated feedback on improvement over time. In summary, the COPM ensures a client-centred approach, facilitates communication within the rehabilitation team, and encourages therapists in their professional role.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.277
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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 head0.434
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.076 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations87
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchFrench-language works237,207