The reliability of the Danish version of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This study aims to assess the reliability of the Danish version of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). Method: : 4.9, range: 2-27) either by the same (intra-rater) or two different occupational therapists (inter-rater). Data were analysed with intra-class correlation coefficients, coefficient of repeatability, and Bland-Altman plots. Results: 823 occupational performance issues were prioritized of which 41%, 338 occupational performance issues (95% CI: 37.7-44.5), were mentioned in both interviews. The intra-class correlation coefficients were 59.8 (95% CI-intra-class correlation coefficients: 49.3-69.5) (COPM), 73.5 (95% CI intra-class correlation coefficients: 65.5-80.2) (COPM-Performance), and 71.8 (95% CI intra-class correlation coefficients: 63.4-78.8) (COPM-Satisfaction). The limits of agreement were -2.83 to 3.05 for the COPM-Performance and -3.50-3.53 for the COPM-Satisfaction. The COPM-Importance scores were highest when obtained by two raters, but opposite for the scores of the COPM-Performance and COPM-Satisfaction. The coefficient of repeatability roughly showed a change in +/- three points (COPM-Importance: 2.67; COPM-Performance: 2.94; and COPM-Satisfaction: 3.52). Correspondingly, Bland-Altman plots showed limits of agreement for the mean values of -2.71 and 3.53, respectively. Conclusions: The intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of the COPM were moderate across settings, clients and rater experiences.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".