Development, construct validation and reliability of a new scale: the client-centredness of goal setting scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Client-centred philosophy is integral to occupational therapy practice and client-centred goal planning is considered fundamental to rehabilitation. Evaluation of whether goal-planning practices are client-centred requires an understanding of the client’s perspective about goal-planning processes and practices. The Client-Centredness of Goal Setting (C-COGS) was developed for use by practitioners who seek to be more client-centred and who require a scale to guide and evaluate individually orientated practice, especially with adults with cognitive impairment related to acquired brain injury. Aims: To describe development of the C-COGS scale and examine its construct validity. Material and methods: The C-COGS was administered to 42 participants with acquired brain injury after multidisciplinary goal planning. C-COGS scores were correlated with the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) importance scores, and measures of therapeutic alliance, motivation, and global functioning to establish construct validity. Results: The C-COGS scale has three subscales evaluating goal alignment, goal planning participation, and client-centredness of goals. The C-COGS subscale items demonstrated moderately significant correlations with scales measuring similar constructs. Conclusion: Findings provide preliminary evidence to support the construct validity of the C-COGS scale, which is intended to be used to evaluate and reflect on client-centred goal planning in clinical practice, and to highlight factors contributing to best practice rehabilitation.
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 | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".