Reliability and validity of the Canadian Occupat189ional Performance Measure in stroke patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To research test-retest reliability and discriminant validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), a client-centred outcome measure, in stroke patients. DESIGN: The COPM was administered twice with a mean interval of eight days (SD 2.5, range 5-16). On both occasions the patient identified a maximum of five problems in daily activities. The problems of both interviews were compared. The problems identified during the first COPM were rated by the patient on a performance and satisfaction rating scale on both occasions. The individually identified items with use of the client-centred COPM were compared with the fixed items of standardized measures (Barthel Index, Frenchay Activities Index, Stroke Adapted Sickness Impact Profile-30, Euroqol 5D and Rankin Scale). SETTING: Patients were interviewed at their place of residence. SUBJECTS: Twenty-six stroke patients participated, 11 men and 15 women, aged from 26 to 83 years (mean 68, SD 15). Twenty-four patients were six months, two patients were two months post stroke. RESULTS: Of the 115 problems identified during the first COPM, 64 (56%) were also identified the second time. Correlation coefficients for the scores were 0.89 (p < 0.001) for performance and 0.88 (p < 0.001) for satisfaction. Of the individual problems identified with the COPM, 25% or less were present in the standardized measures. Correlations between the scores on the COPM and the standardized measures were low and nonsignificant, while all standardized measures correlated significantly with each other. CONCLUSIONS: Test-retest reliability of the COPM was moderate for the item pool but was good for the performance and satisfaction scores. Discriminant validity was confirmed. Many patient-unique problems identified with the COPM were not evaluated by standardized measures.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".