Administration of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: Effect on practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) is recommended as a systematic approach to identify issues and determine client progress in occupational therapy, yet little empirical evidence is available that supports this practice. PURPOSE: To determine if COPM administration was associated with changes in eight dimensions of occupational therapy practice. METHODS: Twenty-four occupational therapists on eight geriatric rehabilitation sites completed a before-and-after study with a repeated baseline. The eight practice dimensions were assessed after three months of usual care (no COPM use) and after three months of intervention (COPM use) using chart stimulated recall (CSR) interviews and chart audit. FINDINGS: Mean practice scores for CSR interviews indicated a statistically significant practice improvement (p < .0001) across the eight dimensions, including knowledge of client perspective, clinical decision making, clinician ability to articulate outcomes, and documentation. Chart audit indicated that COPM use resulted in identifying more occupation-focused issues. IMPLICATIONS: COPM administration could improve occupational therapy practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".