The Effectiveness of Occupational Performance Outcome Measures within Mental Health Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The routine use of outcome measures is essential to the maintained delivery of quality care and the continued commissioning of mental health occupational therapy services. Occupational therapists are required to demonstrate that intervention is successful in an evidence-based, valid and reliable way. Therefore, this critical review aims to address the issue of choosing an appropriate occupational performance outcome measure for use within mental health services. Method: Evidence was critically appraised for the effectiveness of the Assessment of Communication and Interaction Skills (ACIS), Occupational Therapy Task Observation Scale (OTTOS), Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS), all recommended for use by occupational therapists within mental health practice. Findings and discussion: The review identifies that there are a limited number of clinically based studies evidencing the validity and reliability of occupational performance outcome measures. It also identifies a paucity of literature concerning service user experience of outcome measures, bringing into question how client centred and meaningful these tools are.
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 | 0.117 | 0.307 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".