A Comparison of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure and the Health Assessment Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) is receiving international attention as an important assessment for directing occupational therapy interventions and measuring client-centred outcomes. The COPM measures individuals' perceptions of disability by identifying those tasks that are important to them and difficult to perform. The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) has been used extensively with persons with arthritis and measures individuals' perceived difficulty in performing predetermined tasks of daily living. The HAQ has been shown to correlate with actual performance and has reported concurrent validity with a number of similar scales. In this study, 13 participants diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis were assessed with the COPM and the disability dimension of the HAQ. Participants scored performance limitations on both the COPM and the HAQ; the correlation coefficient between the scores was not statistically significant. However, when the COPM and the HAQ scores for similar activities were compared, a statistically significant correlation was found. These findings support the use of the COPM as a valid measure of self-reported performance.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".