A comparison of goal attainment scaling and the Canadian occupational performance measure for paediatric rehabilitation research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it