Norwegian version of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in patients with hand osteoarthritis: Validity, responsiveness, and feasibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the Norwegian version of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) for validity, responsiveness, and feasibility in patients with hand osteoarthritis. METHODS: Seventy-nine patients completed a COPM interview and several self-reported health status questionnaires, including Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales 2, modified Health Assessment Questionnaire; Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and the Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index. Rescoring of the same instruments was performed 4 months later, after an intervention. RESULTS: The COPM detected a great variability of occupational performance problems. The hypotheses for testing validity were confirmed. Mean COPM change was 1.51 (P < 0.001) in performance score, and 2.22 (P < 0.001) in satisfaction score. The median time spent on the COPM interview was 30 minutes (range 10-70 minutes). The patients found the questions easy to understand, but 37% reported problems performing the scoring procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The Norwegian version of the COPM is a valid and responsive instrument for use in clinical practice in osteoarthritis patients. It may serve as an instrument to promote a client-centered approach and as a supplement to other health measures in the planning and evaluating of interventions. Feasibility regarding scoring needs to be improved.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".