2014
DOI: 10.1682/jrrd.2012.12.0221
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Canadian Occupational Performance Measure performance scale: Validity and responsiveness in chronic pain

Abstract: Abstract-The construct validity and construct responsiveness of the performance scale of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) was measured in 87 newly admitted patients with chronic pain attending an outpatient rehabilitation clinic. At admission and after 12 wk, patients completed a COPM interview, the Pain Disability Index (PDI), and the RAND 36-Item Health Survey (RAND-36). We determined the construct validity of the COPM by correlations between the COPM performance scale (COPM-P), the PDI, … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
22
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 58 publications
(96 reference statements)
1
22
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Other evidence-based outcome assessments included the Occupational Performance History Interview (OPHI-II) ( n =3; 5.8%) and the Assessment of Pain and Occupational Performance (POP) ( n =2; 3.8%). The following assessment methods were mentioned in only one source: the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) [ 60 ]; the Milliken Activities of Daily Living Scale (MAS) [ 47 ]; the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) [ 75 ]; the Assessment of Life Habits Questionnaire (LIFE-H) [ 68 ]; the Impact on Participation and Autonomy (IPA) [ 58 ]; and the Pain and Functional Performance Assessment (PFPA) [ 38 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other evidence-based outcome assessments included the Occupational Performance History Interview (OPHI-II) ( n =3; 5.8%) and the Assessment of Pain and Occupational Performance (POP) ( n =2; 3.8%). The following assessment methods were mentioned in only one source: the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) [ 60 ]; the Milliken Activities of Daily Living Scale (MAS) [ 47 ]; the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) [ 75 ]; the Assessment of Life Habits Questionnaire (LIFE-H) [ 68 ]; the Impact on Participation and Autonomy (IPA) [ 58 ]; and the Pain and Functional Performance Assessment (PFPA) [ 38 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… 38 , 39 It is even more difficult when a patient-specific instrument is involved, as instruments such as the COPM may capture a wide variety of occupations, which thereafter are compared to instruments with a more limited number of fixed occupational domains. 21 Thus, it is hard to predict which occupations will be chosen and prioritized by the older adults during the COPM interview. This illustrates that there is a random factor involved, which under other circumstances, might have resulted in 75% of the hypotheses being confirmed.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some studies suggest that the COPM assessment may be performed by health professionals other than occupational therapists, 20 , 21 but none of the authors have explored the various professions’ self-perceived competence in conducting COPM assessments. For this reason, investigation of competence required to conduct COPM assessments, which is considered to be a part of feasibility, is warranted.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) [34] Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale (IADLS) [35]…”
Section: Daily Functioningmentioning
confidence: 99%