A comparison of goal attainment scaling and the Canadian occupational performance measure for paediatric rehabilitation research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the relative utility of Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) (adapted for children) and Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) as outcome measures for paediatric rehabilitation. METHODS: A two-group pre-post design investigated the impact of a 3-month programme. Forty-one children with spastic hemiplegic cerebral palsy (mean 3.9 years; GMPM level 1; 21 boys, 10 girls) were randomized to occupational therapy only and occupational therapy plus one Botulinum Toxin A injection. The latter was considered a 'proven' intervention for the purpose of this instrumentation study. Intervention impact was investigated using GAS and COPM. Instrument sensitivity, convergent validity, goal/problem profiles and administration were evaluated. RESULTS: Both instruments were sensitive to within group change and detected significant between group change. Likert scale coding for GAS scores was more sensitive than the traditional weighted GAS or COPM. Different constructs were measured by each instrument. COPM was more time efficient in training, development and administration. CONCLUSION: Study aim, logistic and resource factors should guide the choice of COPM and/or GAS instruments as both are sensitive to change with a proven intervention and both evaluate different constructs.
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 | 0.013 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".