MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396673893 · doi:10.5014/ajot.2024.050487

Response Shifts in the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: A Convergent Mixed-Methods Study

2024· article· en· W4396673893 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kanta Ohno, Riho Oi, Ai Harada, Kounosuke Tomori, Tatsunori Sawada

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRehabilitationPhysical therapyOccupational therapyAffect (linguistics)PerceptionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: A response shift (RS) is a phenomenon in which there is an individual perceptual gap between pre and post assessments. RS effects were not considered in the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) development process. OBJECTIVE: To detect the effects of RS on the COPM. DESIGN: Convergent mixed-methods research. SETTING: Subacute rehabilitation hospital in Japan. PARTICIPANTS: Nineteen adult patients with a range of neurological and musculoskeletal conditions recruited from a subacute rehabilitation hospital. OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: In the qualitative analysis, patients' perceptions regarding occupation identified by the COPM were compared between the initial assessment (Time 1 [T1]) and a reassessment (Time 2 [T2]). In the quantitative study, patients were asked to re-rate the occupations in which the RS had occurred, giving feedback on their perceptions at T1 (T2'). The difference between T2 and T2' was calculated to clarify the magnitude of the RS. RESULTS: Of the 19 patients, 18 had an RS in at least one occupation. The RS effects were classified into five categories: Replacing, Adding, Reducing, Unspecified, and Embodiment. Ninety occupations were extracted from all the patients, and 46 (51.1%) were affected by RS. The percentages of occupations for which the change in score due to RS exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (±2 points) was 26.1% (12 of 46) for COPM-Performance scores and 30.4% (14 of 46) for COPM-Satisfaction scores. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Diverse RS effects have been identified in the COPM, which also affect score interpretation. Plain-Language Summary: The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure has a potential measurement bias that is due to a response shift in which there is an individual perceptual gap between pre and post assessments. The results of this study reveal a need to establish more accurate measurement methods to reduce the impact of response shifts on COPM scores.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.056
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.088
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0560.088
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.181
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.360 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchFrench-language works237,207