Documenting change with the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure for children with cerebral palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim To assess the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure's (COPM) ability to document change over 3 years in children with cerebral palsy (CP). Method This was a prospective study with ambulatory children with CP, aged 2 to 6 years. Caregivers set one to three COPM goals which were rescored annually over 3 years. A ceiling effect for performance goals was operationalized as a score of 8. A Wald χ2 generalized estimating equations model adjusted for age, sex, and Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) level, evaluated change over time. Results In total, 124 children (47 [37.9%] females, 77 [62.1%] males; mean age 3y 11mo [SD 1y 1mo]; GMFCS level I [n=78, 62.9%], II [n=21, 16.9%], and III [n=25, 20.2%]) were set 345 COPM goals at baseline. By Year 3, 106 participants (85.5%) rescored 287 of the goals (83.2%). Performance scores increased between baseline mean (SD) 2.93 (0.56), Year 1 5.98 (0.58) with 34.8% at ceiling; Year 2 6.74 (0.60) 48.3% at ceiling; and Year 3 7.37 (0.60) 59.6% at ceiling (Wald χ2 [3]=607.18, p<0.001). Satisfaction scores increased between baseline 4.42 (0.59), Year 1 6.82 (0.60) with 48% at ceiling; Year 2 7.53 (0.60) with 62.2% at ceiling (Wald χ2 [3]=208.48, p<0.001); with no significant increase by Year 3 7.82 (0.62) with 66.9% at ceiling. Interpretation COPM performance scores increased steadily over 3 years. By Year 2, a ceiling effect was seen in about half of the goals. The COPM may have utility to measure change over 3 years; periodic resetting of the descriptors of goal success are required to minimize ceiling.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".