Reliability and validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure for clients with psychiatric disorders in Taiwan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to examine the reliability and validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) in Taiwanese clients with psychiatric disorders. The COPM was translated into Mandarin and tested on 141 Taiwanese clients. The average age of the clients was 35.6 years; 94% were diagnosed with schizophrenia. The results of the study showed that the test retest reliability of the COPM was r = 0.842. The COPM identified occupational performance problems that included self-care (37%), productivity (25%), and leisure occupations (20%). Fifty percent of the therapists were receptive in adapting the client-centred approach and applying the COPM in their clinical practice. It was concluded that the COPM can be applied reliably to Taiwanese clients. Furthermore, the COPM was valuable in identifying information related to occupational performance that could not be identified elsewhere. Since 50% of the therapists felt reluctant about the appropriateness of the client-centred approach in their culture, it was important to examine the gap between clients' judgements and actual performance, as well as to evaluate the feasibility of the client-centred concept in clinical practice. Finally, the concept of the client-centred approach needs to be disseminated and communicated to the occupational therapy profession in order that the COPM can be adequately applied in mental health practice.
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 | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".