ASSESSMENT, HOME SAFETY AND THE COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE TEST: A DISCONNECT IN PRACTICE OR PURPOSE?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Home safety is crucial for older adults. Occupational therapists use performance-based assessments (PBAs) to predict clients’ occupational capacity and provide recommendations for needed supports to ensure safety. Occupational therapists face barriers with using PBAs in practice due to their complexity and variability. The Cognitive Performance Test (CPT) is a widely sourced standardized PBA, regularly utilized with the older adult population, and is reportedly challenging to administer and score. Currently there is a lack of knowledge about challenges associated with the use of PBAs. This study will explore occupational therapists’ perspectives on challenges they experience when using the CPT, and aim to produce strategies to remediate the disconnect of the CPT’s use in practice. Six occupational therapists, from various clinical programs at a geriatric hospital, participated in scoring of a recorded CPT administration and an audio-recorded focus group. Participants discussed the challenges and strategies associated with the CPT in practice. Using multiple analyst triangulation, the transcribed recordings underwent thematic analysis to uncover main themes. Clinicians expressed personal qualities influencing their practice of “being” an occupational therapist, influences of the environment affecting their use of the CPT and identified patterns that they noticed while participating in the occupation of “doing” the CPT. The knowledge gained from this study can enhance clinician awareness of challenges associated with using the CPT and provide opportunity for occupational therapists to reflect upon their fit as clinicians within their practice environment, while utilizing a standardized assessment to help with the significant challenges that often accompany discharge.
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 | 0.014 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".