Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM-TR) for People with Multiple Sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) is a generic questionnaire based on a semi-structured interview. We aimed to translate a Turkish version of the COPM (COPM-TR) and assess its reliability and validity. The COPM-TR was administered to 82 participants (42.2 ± 11.6 years and 32.9% of the participants were male) with multiple sclerosis (MS) for convergent validity and reliability analysis. The COPM-TR was administered with the Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life-54 (MSQoL-54), and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) to determine its convergent validity. Test-retest reliability (a week interval) was assessed by the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). There were moderately strong negative correlations between EDSS and performance and satisfaction score of COPM-TR. There were moderately strong positive correlations between MSQoL-54 physical and performance of COPM-TR and moderate positive correlations between MSQoL-54 physical and satisfaction of COPM-TR. Moderate positive correlations found between the MSQoL-54 mental and COPM-TR performance and satisfaction scores. Test re-test reliability of COPM-TR performance indicated excellent reliability. The current study demonstrates that the COPM-TR is a valid and reliable tool for measuring the perceived occupational performance and satisfaction of people with MS.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".