An Evaluation of the Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in Mental Health Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) is a client-centred outcome measure designed for use by occupational therapists to demonstrate change in a client's self-perception of occupational performance over the course of occupational therapy. A review of the literature indicated that there had been limited research into the use of the COPM in mental health practice. The aim of this study was to formulate an occupational therapy assessment form based on the Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and incorporating the COPM and to evaluate its effectiveness in mental health practice. A qualitative approach was used in this two-phase study with seven occupational therapists working in mental health practice. First, semi-structured interviews were completed to gain occupational therapists' reflections on the use of the COPM. Headings were then collated to devise an occupational therapy assessment form that incorporated the Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and the COPM. The second phase involved piloting the form in a variety of mental health settings. The form was evaluated by a second interview to highlight the factors that facilitated or hindered the use of the form in mental health practice. This study indicates that the combination of the COPM with other assessment categories based on the Canadian Model of Occupational Performance has produced an occupational therapy assessment form that can be used 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 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 | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".