Development and Validation of Occupation Based Practice Measure (OBPM)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Occupation based practice (OBP) is the central core of occupational therapy. Therefore, measuring its usage and influencing factors seems necessary. Purpose. To develop and validate the occupation based practice measure (OBPM). Method. OBPM was developed in two phases: (I) following a qualitative study, a literature review was conducted. The item pool was revised by expert panel; (II) The face, content, construct validity, internal consistency, and test–retest reliability were assessed. Findings. The 142 items derived through the qualitative study were integrated with the 42 items derived from the literature review. The item pool was reduced by expert panel to 78 items and finalized to 37 items through face, content, and construct validity. Cronbach's alpha was greater than 0.70 and intra-class correlation coefficient showed good to excellent reliability. Implications. OBPM is a valid and reliable questionnaire that evaluates the occupational therapists’ knowledge, attitudes, interest, usage, and contextual factors influencing the OBP.
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 | 0.033 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".