A Clinically Significant Difference on the COPM: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) assists occupational therapists to identify occupational performance problems using a client-centred approach. Since its first publication in 1991, there has been abundant evidence of the ability of the COPM to detect a statistically significant difference as an outcome measure. There has also been a tacit understanding that a difference of 2 points from pre-test to post-test on either Performance or Satisfaction COPM score represents a clinically significant difference. There is however, some confusion about the origins of this claim. Purpose. To ascertain empirical evidence for the claim that a clinically significant difference is a change score ≥2 points. Method. We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature (1991–2020) for intervention studies using the COPM as an outcome measure and examined intervention type and change scores. Findings. One hundred studies were identified. The COPM was used to assess effectiveness of eight types of occupational therapy interventions. The common belief, however, was not empirically supported that clinical significance can be asserted on the basis of a two-point change in COPM scores. Implications. Further research is needed to test alternative approaches to asserting clinical significance or a minimal clinically important difference.
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 | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".