Occupational performance status and reliability of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in children with cystic fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Aims Cystic fibrosis affects the respiratory system and may interfere with an individual's occupational performance. This study intended to evaluate the reliability of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in children with cystic fibrosis and to compare the occupational performance of children with cystic fibrosis to that of healthy participants. Methods A total of 21 children with cystic fibrosis were included in the reliability and comparison phases of this study and 30 healthy children were recruited for the comparison phase. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure was used to collect data on occupational performance and satisfaction. Intraclass correlation coefficients and standard error measurements were obtained to evaluate the reliability of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. An independent t-test was used to compare the occupational performance of the two groups. Results The test–retest reliability using a 7-day interval was 0.86–0.87 (standard error: 1.79–1.91). The agreement between therapists' scores for inter-rater reliability ranged from 0.87 to 0.90 (standard error: 1.44–1.68). There was a significant difference in performance subscale scores between children with cystic fibrosis and healthy children (P<0.05). There was no significant between-group difference in satisfaction scores. Conclusions The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure is a reliable tool for evaluating the occupational performance of children with cystic fibrosis. Cystic fibrosis directly and indirectly affects occupational performance. Children with cystic fibrosis and their parents may require help and education in the performance and organisation of activities and occupations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".