A Review of Measures to Evaluate Participation Outcomes Post-Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Stroke is one of the most common disabling conditions of adulthood. Participation problems are extremely common post-stroke. Occupational therapists, by virtue of their commitment to enabling occupation, are in a strong position to help stroke survivors improve their participation. To demonstrate effectiveness, occupational therapists must be able to provide evidence of post-treatment changes in participation. Objective: The objective of this paper was to identify participation measures that have been developed for, or tested with, individuals who have experienced a stroke and to review them for use as occupational therapy outcome measures. Method: A literature review was carried out to locate relevant tools. These tools were then rated for psychometric and clinical properties that are critical for clinical outcome measurement. In addition, the theoretical fit of each evaluation with occupational therapy's commitment to client-centredness was considered. Results: Ten evaluations were identified and rated. These ratings were designed to assist occupational therapists to choose a participation measure for their practice. Conclusion: Selection and use of such a measure will help occupational therapists to document its effectiveness in improving participation among stroke survivors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".