Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM): A client- centered interview in parents and children with movement disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Therapeutic goal setting in children with movement disorders usually has its focus on improvement of body function. Often an intensive training program for children and their parents is mandatory. Rarely an evaluation of the effect for the everyday life is performed. We present our experience with the use of a standardized and client-centered interview, the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), for goal setting on the participation level. Methods: We performed the COPM in two children aged 10 and 12 Years (f/m) with bilateral and unilateral spastic cerebral palsy GMFCS-Level 3 and 1and in 6 mothers with children aged 2 to 12 years with cerebral palsy or developmental movement disorder. The COPM evaluates the client's self-perception of occupational performance. All problems, needs and wishes in the fields of self-supply (body, mobility) productivity (learning, playing, kindergarten, school), and leisure time are regarded. The client is asked how good he think he could perform a task, how satisfied he is with this and how import it is for him. By this the goals are specified and quantified and the COPM can be used as an outcome measure. The therapeutic goals of our patients on the level of body function were: regulation of tone, improvement of fine and groß motor coordination and joint mobility. Results: With the use of the COPM 1) parents easily defined their goals on participation level, they felt comfortable, competent and engaged. However, on function level they felt incompetent and disengaged 2) goals of parents, children and therapists could be matched and the meaning of the physical activity for everyday life became visible 3) parents and children were better motivated for therapy 4) the children experienced themselves as persons with skills and weakenings, the deficit and diagnosis aspect played a minor role 5) goals were better specified and quantified and linked to precise interventions on the different ICF levels (function, participation and environment). Therapeutic goals after COPM were: to be able to conduct a spoon to the mouth, to clean one's self on the toilette, to put the jacket on by one's self. Conclusion: To our experience with a small group of children with movement disorders the COPM is a helpful tool for goal setting on the participation level in the children's everyday life. The participation of children and parents by identifying beneficial and obstructive factors improves their motivation for therapy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".