The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: Is it a Reliable Measure in Clients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) is now a widely used and accepted outcome measure for clients with chronic conditions. The aim of this study was to examine the reproducibility of the COPM in clients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Test-retest reliability of the performance and satisfaction scores has yet to be established in this population. The reasons for examining reliability are discussed. Fifteen clinically stable clients (eight men and seven women, mean age 67.1 years) were interviewed by an occupational therapist and their COPM performance and satisfaction scores recorded. A reassessment of the performance and satisfaction scores then took place about 7 days later. The scores were analysed using the mean difference, 95% confidence intervals and correlation coefficients. The results were as follows: performance score 1 and performance score 2: mean difference = 0.14 (95% CI: −0.39 to 0.68); and satisfaction score 1 and satisfaction score 2: mean difference = 0.42 (95% CI: −0.18 to 1.01). The intraclass correlation coefficients between test 1 and test 2 were high (r = 0.92 for performance and r = 0.90 for satisfaction). This study indicates that the COPM is a reliable tool in clients with COPD.
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 | 0.010 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".