Utilisation de la MCRO auprès d'enfants et de leurs parents : une expérience suisse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This descriptive and exploratory study examined the use of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) involving 33 children and their parents in French speaking Switzerland. The overall aim of the study was to determine the utility of the measure in order to objectivize the impact of the treatment. METHOD: The COPM was administered twice (initial assessment and reassessment) in order to measure the change in occupational performance and satisfaction over time. The interviews were conducted by 18 occupational therapists, either separately or with both the parents and children together. RESULTS: The analyses highlight the statistically significant changes that occured between the initial assessment and the reassessment, in both the occupational performance and satisfaction. It appears that occupational therapists plan to use the COPM more as a guide when interviewing the parents and the children, rather than as an evaluation tool. Only 17 % of the occupational therapists indicated that they intended to use the point rating scale, but the majority said that the COPM would be useful in establishing a better partnership between parents and professionals. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The contribution of this study lies not only in the results of the research confirming the relevance of the COPM in measuring the impact of practice, but also in the influence of its use on occupational therapy practice, with a greater focus on the needs of the clients and on their independance in daily life.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".