The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: its use with clients with schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted with nine clients who were referred to a community-based occupational therapy service with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Data were collected before and after each individual had undertaken a 12-week period of occupational therapy intervention. Clients' self-perceived level of performance and satisfaction with this performance were recorded using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). Their initial self-perceived occupational performance problems were also recorded using the Community Occupational Therapy Initial Assessment (COTIA). At the time of reassessment, information from the COTIA was compared with documentary evidence of client change as reflected in therapists' reports and/or discharge letters. Both tools identified a similar range of client-perceived occupational performance problems. In addition, the COPM showed a clinically significant and quantifiable change in client performance and satisfaction over time. Despite the limited nature of this study, these findings suggest that the COPM may be a useful tool for occupational therapists to use with individuals who have schizophrenia in a community setting.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".