Reliability of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in patients with ankylosing spondylitis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) is a client-centered measure, designed to detect changes in occupational performance over time. The main aim of our study was to examine the test-retest reliability of the Norwegian version of the COPM in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) in 3 different retest modes of data collection. METHODS: A total of 119 patients with AS completed the baseline COPM interview before randomization into one of 3 modes of retest data collection performed 2 weeks later: by personal interview, telephone interview, or mailed questionnaire. Scores were computed for Performance and Satisfaction, and the 2 sets of scores were examined for reliability by intraclass correlations (ICC), and by the Bland-Altman procedure for calculation of smallest detectable difference (SDD). RESULTS: The ICC coefficients for Performance and Satisfaction were as follows: 0.92 and 0.93 (rescoring by personal interview), 0.73 and 0.73 (rescoring by telephone interview), and 0.90 and 0.90 (rescoring by mail). SDD for the Performance and Satisfaction scores were 1.47 and 1.80, respectively, for rescoring by personal interview; 3.14 and 4.00 for rescoring by telephone interview; and 2.20 and 2.41 for rescoring by mailed survey. CONCLUSION: The results confirm that the COPM is a reliable instrument for use in clinical practice in patients with AS, and may serve as an instrument to promote a patient-centered approach in the planning and evaluation of rehabilitation programs. Mailed questionnaires may replace personal interview in followup examinations, while rescoring by telephone interview is less reliable.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".