Clinical Utility of the Combined Use of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure and Goal Attainment Scaling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We investigated the clinical utility of combined use of Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) to plan goals and measure progress in a community rehabilitation setting. METHOD: Fourteen participants with traumatic brain injury completed an outpatient, goal-directed 12-wk occupational therapy program; 53 goals were generated. Performance and satisfaction self-ratings and GAS ratings were collected before and after intervention. Self-awareness, motivation to change, and perceived client-centeredness measures were taken before intervention. RESULTS: Sensitivity to change was demonstrated by significant improvements after intervention for total performance self-ratings on the COPM and GAS Tscores. CONCLUSION: Combined use of these tools, although time consuming, resulted in goals that were perceived almost unanimously as client centered, despite most participants' having moderate or severe impairment in self-awareness. The process also enabled subjective and objective demonstration of goal achievement, thereby supporting the clinical utility and treatment validity of the combined use of these tools.
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".