Psychometric properties of t e Canadian occupational performance measure in older individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/aim: The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) is a person-centered assessment tool frequently used to identify occupational problems in older individuals and establish goals for geriatric rehabilitation. This study aims to assess the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of COPM (COPM-TR) in older people. Materials and methods: One hundred older people completed the COPM-TR, and 25 of them participated in a retest within two weeks. The convergent construct validity analyses of the COPM-TR included conducting correlation analyses between the COPM-TR and the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and Lawton Brody Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (Lawton-IADL) scales. The Performance and Satisfaction subscales were subjected to an item analysis for the internal consistency of the COPM-TR. A test-retest analysis was conducted to investigate the reliability. Results: According to convergent construct validity analysis, it was found that there is a moderate correlation between COPM-TR performance and FIM (r = 0.51), and a strong correlation between Lawton IADL (r = 0.62). Similarly, there was a strong correlation between COPM-TR satisfaction and FIM (r = 0.61) and Lawton IADL (r = 0.61). Test-retest reliability was excellent for performance score and good for satisfaction score (ICC values 0.92; 0.78, respectively). COPM-TR showed excellent-high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.92 for performance and 0.88 for satisfaction). Conclusion: COPM-TR is a valid and reliable tool that can be used to assess occupational performance in older people.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".