The Validity of the Danish Version of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose. To establish the construct validity of the Danish version of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). Methods. A cross-sectional study was performed in two settings, a regional hospital and a rehabilitation centre in a community. Including adult clients with a variety of diagnoses, we assessed construct validity by correlating the COPM to the Occupational Self-Assessment (OSA), the five-item World Health Organization Well-Being Index (WHO-5), and the EuroQol-five domain-five level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L). Further examination of the comparability of the OSA and the COPM was performed in two ways. First, an interrater agreement of the theoretical correlation of the 21 OSA items and the three areas of the COPM was conducted. Secondly, we examined the compliance between the prioritized occupational performance issues (OPIs) and items of the OSA prioritized for change. Results. The study included a total sample of 112 participants with more than half of the participants (56%) recruited from the hospital. 109 participants had measurements for both COPM and OSA (44% males) with a mean age of 64.7 years (range 16-96 years). All correlations, between the COPM and the OSA, the WHO-5, and the EQ-5D-5L, were low or negligible ( r<0.50 ). Manual examination confirmed a difference in the constructs of the OSA and the COPM. This was demonstrated by a negligible interrater agreement between the items of the OSA and the areas of the COPM, and differences in the prioritized OPIs and OSA items, even if there were some resemblances, were found. Conclusions. This study suggests that the construct of the COPM provides data different to those obtained with the standardized measurements included for comparison. The present study supports the assumption that the COPM can detect unique OPIs that clients want to do, need to do, must do, or are not satisfied with the way they do.
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 | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".