Measurement properties of the Spanish COPM in older adult rehabilitation inpatients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To analyse the measurement properties of the Spanish version of the COPM (Canadian Occupational Performance Measure) in older adult rehabilitation inpatients. METHOD: A sample of 172 users from 17 inpatient care facilities for older adults (47% nursing homes) participated in a quantitative prospective study. We examined validity by correlating the COPM with the Barthel Index (BI), the Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living scale (IADL), the EuroQol-five domains-three level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L), and the Client-Centred Rehabilitation Questionnaire (CCRQ) and by examining associations with demographic variables. Reliability was evaluated through test-retest and responsiveness through differences in change scores in two types of care facilities. RESULTS: Participants prioritised 637 occupational performance problems, mainly in the area of self-care (70.5%). The COPM scale scores were significantly correlated with BI, IADL, EQ-5D-3L (except the pain dimension), and CCRQ (except the family involvement and continuity dimensions). COPM scores did not show statistically significant differences concerning educational level. Regarding reliability, high test-retest correlations were obtained (>.80). Nursing home users showed less responsiveness to rehabilitation than other users (change score < 2 vs. > 2 points). CONCLUSION AND SIGNIFICANCE: The Spanish COPM provides satisfactory measurement properties as a client-centred instrument in older adult rehabilitation inpatient.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".