Occupational Therapy Outcomes for Clients With Traumatic Brain Injury and Stroke Using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether 155 ethnically diverse clients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and stroke (cerebrovascular accident; CVA) who received occupational therapy services perceived that they reached self-identified goals related to tasks of daily life as measured by the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). This study found that a statistically and clinically significant change in self-perceived performance and satisfaction with tasks of daily life occurred at the end of a client-centered occupational therapy program (p < .001). There were no significant differences in performance and satisfaction between the TBI and CVA groups. However, the group with right CVA reported a higher level of satisfaction with performance in daily activities than the group with left CVA (p = .03). The COPM process can effectively assist clients with neurological impairments in identifying meaningful occupational performance goals. The occupational therapist also can use the COPM to design occupation-based and client-centered intervention programs and measure occupational therapy outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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".