Examining the construct validity of the Cognitive Competency Test for occupational therapy practice / Évaluer la validité de construit du Cognitive Competency Test en fonction de la pratique de l’ergothérapie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Enhancing occupational therapy practice requires critical examination of assessment tools and the conclusions being drawn from their use. When working with cognitively impaired older individuals, judgments about occupational competence are often informed by an assessment of cognitive competence. PURPOSE: The Cognitive Competency Test (CCT) is a frequently used measure in Canada to inform predictions of occupational competence. However, there is an absence of published evidence that addresses its validity. METHODS: To appraise validity of the CCT, a retrospective chart review (n = 107) of CCT reports for inpatient and outpatient clients with cognitive impairment was conducted. Data were subjected to exploratory factor analyses to examine the factor structure, and the measure was compared with commonly used clinical variables reflecting cognitive and occupational competence. FINDINGS: Results suggest that the CCT measures a unitary construct and provide some support for its predictive capacity. IMPLICATIONS: CCT scores can add incremental validity to cognitive screens, such as the Mini Mental State Exam, when evaluating occupational competence.
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 | 0.026 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".