The reproducibility and validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in parents of children with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the reproducibility (inter-rater agreement), the construct and criterion validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) in the parents of children with disabilities. DESIGN: The COPM was administered twice by two different occupational therapists. The inter-rater agreement of the content of the prioritized problems was explored. Data analysis of the reproducibility of the scores was based on the Bland and Altman method. Measures used: The construct validity was studied by comparing the results of the COPM with the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory, and a quality of life questionnaire. The criterion validity was verified with an open-ended question. SETTING: Occupational therapy departments of a university hospital and three rehabilitation institutes. SUBJECTS: One hundred and twenty-nine consecutive parents of children referred for occupational therapy. RESULTS: Data were obtained for 80 children with a mean age of 3.7 years (range 1-7.5). Of the prioritized problems identified in the first interview, 80% were also prioritized in the second interview. The limits of agreement were - 2.4 to +2.3 for the mean performance score and - 2.3 to + 2.6 for the mean satisfaction score. Assumptions about the construct and criterion validity were confirmed. CONCLUSIONS: The inter-rater agreement of the prioritized problems is good enough for client-centred occupational therapy. The reproducibility of the performance and satisfaction scores is moderate. The results support the construct and criterion validity. The COPM identifies many child-unique problems that are not assessed with existing standardized measurement instruments or with a simple open-ended question.
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 | 0.025 | 0.133 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".