Satisfaction with Daily Occupations: Construct validity and test–retest reliability of a screening tool for people with mental health disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Aim: In occupational therapy research and in clinical practice there is a need for valid, reliable and easily administered measures. For research and screening purposes, the Satisfaction with Daily Occupations (SDO) instrument was developed. It addresses work, leisure, domestic tasks and self‐care and generates a satisfaction and an activity level score. This study investigated its construct validity, internal consistency and test–retest reliability in 55 clients visiting occupational therapists in outpatient mental health care. Methods: The SDO was administered on two occasions with a 1‐week interval, and data on the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), psychosocial functioning and self‐rated health were collected on the first of these occasions. Results: In contrast to what was expected, the relationships between the SDO scores and the COPM scores were low. The strongest relationship between the SDO satisfaction score and any other variable was to psychosocial functioning. These variables shared 23% of the variance. Internal consistency for the satisfaction score was acceptable, alpha = 0.75 on the second occasion, and the test–retest reliability was good; r s = 0.84 for the satisfaction score and r s = 0.92 for the activity level. Conclusions: The results indicated that the SDO has satisfactory reliability. The instrument targets a specific construct, as compared to the COPM and the measurements of self‐rated health and psychosocial functioning. Thus, the SDO and the COPM satisfaction scale seem to assess different phenomena, probably because the SDO has predefined items, not specifically targeting a certain client's problematic occupations, whereas the COPM is based on self‐defined problems. The instruments may therefore supplement each other.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".