Minimal Important Change in Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) recognizes a significant clinical shift with a minimum two-point alteration post-intervention. However, there is sparse evidence supporting this criterion's clinical significance. To investigate and report minimal important change (MIC) and minimal detectable change (MDC) within the COPM in various populations. In May 2023, a search was conducted to locate studies that calculated MIC and MDC in the COPM using multiple databases. Studies were screened and extracted to assess bias risk in the final article selections. After screening 229 included studies, five studies were selected; four studies calculated MIC (performance: 0.20-3.20 points, satisfaction: 1.45-3.20 points) and one study calculated MDC (performance: 1.47-3.14 points, satisfaction: 1.80-3.98 points) within the COPM. The study populations, reassessment periods, and risk of bias varied. To effectively use COPM's MIC and MDC as references, clients and intervention conditions must be considered.
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 | 0.014 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".