Construct Validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in Participants With Tendon Injury and Dupuytren Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In patient-centered practice, instruments need to assess outcomes that are meaningful to patients with hand conditions. It is unclear which assessment tools address these subjective perspectives best. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to establish the construct validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) in relation to the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire and the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) in people with hand conditions. It was hypothesized that COPM scores would correlate with DASH and MHQ total scores only to a moderate degree and that the COPM, DASH questionnaire, and MHQ would all correlate weakly with measures of hand impairments. DESIGN: This was a validation study. METHODS: The COPM, DASH questionnaire, and MHQ were scored, and then hand impairments were measured (pain [numerical rating scale], active range of motion [goniometer], grip strength [dynamometer], and pinch grip strength [pinch meter]). People who had received postsurgery rehabilitation for flexor tendon injuries, extensor tendon injuries, or Dupuytren disease were eligible. RESULTS: Seventy-two participants were included. For all diagnosis groups, the Pearson coefficient of correlation between the DASH questionnaire and the MHQ was higher than .60, whereas the correlation between the performance scale of the COPM and either the DASH questionnaire or the MHQ was lower than .51. Correlations of these assessment tools with measures of hand impairments were lower than .46. LIMITATIONS: The small sample sizes may limit the generalization of the results. CONCLUSIONS: The results supported the hypotheses and, thus, the construct validity of the COPM after surgery in people with hand conditions.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".