Systematic review of measurement properties of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in geriatric rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) is used to inventory problems experienced by the patient to set goals and evaluate treatment. We aimed to make a systematic overview of measurement properties for people in geriatric rehabilitation. METHODS: Seven electronic databases were searched for psychometric studies investigating content validity, construct validity, responsiveness, or reliability of the COPM in geriatric rehabilitation populations aged ≥ 60 years. Two reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed methodological quality from included studies. RESULTS: Of 292 identified articles, 13 studies were included. The COPM showed good test-retest reliability (two studies), moderate inter-rater reliability (one study), and good content validity (one study with some risk of bias). Four studies with minimal risk of bias showed good construct validity as their hypotheses were confirmed. Responsiveness was moderate in three studies with adequate methodological quality. CONCLUSION: All measurement properties have been studied in geriatric rehabilitation populations, and indicate that the COPM gives relevant information for geriatric rehabilitation, and scores can be assessed reliably and are responsive to change. Although there were many studies on construct validity, authors had different opinions on what exactly COPM-scores tell us, as they used a variety of comparator instruments and different hypotheses. Consensus on exact interpretation of the scores is needed.
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 | 0.026 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".