Validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: a client-centred outcome measurement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the convergent and divergent validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: The occupational therapy departments of two university hospitals in Amsterdam. SUBJECTS: One hundred and five consecutive outpatients. OUTCOME MEASURES: The COPM is a measure of a client's self-perception of occupational performance in the areas of self-care, productivity and leisure. Outcome measures of the COPM are: the client's most important problems in occupational performance and a total score for performance and a total score for satisfaction for these problems. Problems reported in the COPM were compared with the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP68), the Disability and Impact Profile (DIP) and an open-ended question. RESULTS: Complete data were obtained for 99 clients. The identification of occupational performance problems with the COPM surpassed the items reported in the SIP68, the DIP and the open-ended question, which confirms the surplus value of the COPM. Divergent validity was further demonstrated by the low correlation coefficients between the total SIP68 scores and the COPM. Seventy-four per cent of the occupational performance problems reported in the COPM had a corresponding item in the DIP and 49% had a corresponding item in the SIP68. Convergent validity was supported by the fact that 63% of the corresponding problems in the DIP were reported to be a disruption of quality of life and 74% of the corresponding problems in the SIP68 were identified as a disability. CONCLUSION: The results of this study provide supportive evidence for the convergent and divergent validity of the COPM. The data support the assumption that the COPM provides information that cannot be obtained with current standardized instruments to measure health.
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 | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".