The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) is an individualised outcome measure intended to detect change in a client's perception of occupational performance over time. The aim of this study was to test the clinical utility of the Swedish version of the COPM. Data was collected from 27 occupational therapists in six focus groups.
Emerging themes included goal-setting, preparations, limitations, interactions with clients, and impact on practice. The results indicated that the COPM is helpful in the goal-setting process and in planning treatment interventions. Therapists need knowledge about the theoretical foundation of the instrument and a personal interview technique. Problems were found using the instrument with clients who had poor insight or in acute settings. The COPM facilitated feedback on improvement over time. In summary, the COPM ensures a client-centred approach, facilitates communication within the rehabilitation team, and encourages therapists in their professional role.
AsburyJ-E. (1995). Overview of focus group research. Qualitative Health Research, 5, 414–21.
2.
BodiamC. (1999). The use of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure for the assessment of outcome on a neurorehabilitation unit. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 123–26.
3.
Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists (1991). Guidelines for client-centred practice of occupational therapy. Toronto, ON: CAOT Publications ACE.
4.
Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists (1997). Enabling occupation: An occupational therapy perspective. Ottawa, ON: CAOT Publications ACE.
5.
CareyM.A. (1995). Comment: Concerns in the analysis of focus group data. Qualitative Health Research, 5, 487–95.
6.
ChanC.C.H.LeeT.M.C. (1997). Validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Occupational Therapy International, 4, 229–247.
7.
IvanoffS. DahlinSjöstrandJ.KleppK.I.LindL. AxelssonLindqvistB. Lundgren (1996). Planning a health education programme for the elderly visually impaired person - a focus group study. Disability and Rehabilitation, 18, 515–22.
8.
Förbundet Sveriges Arbetsterapeuter, (Swedish Association of Occupational Therapists) (1999). Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Swedish version. Sweden: Nacka.
9.
GubaE.G.LincolnY.S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
10.
KruegerR.A. (1998). Analyzing & reporting focus groups results. Focus group kit 6. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
LawM.BaptisteS.CarswellA.McCollM.A.PolatajkoH.PollockN. (1998). Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (3rd ed.) Toronto, ON: CAOT Publications ACE.
12.
LawM.BaptisteS.McCollM.A.OpzoomerA.PolatajkoH.PollockN. (1990). The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: An outcome measure for occupational therapy. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57, 82–87.
13.
LawM.PolatajkoH.PollockN.McCollM.A.CarswellA.BaptisteS. (1994) Pilot testing of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: Clinical and measurement issues. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61, 191–197.
14.
McCollM.A.PatersonM.DaviesD.DoubtL.LawM. (2000). Validity and community utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67, 22–30.
15.
MewM.M.FosseyE. (1996). Client-centred aspects of clinical reasoning during an initial assessment using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 43, 155–166.
16.
MorganD.L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. (2nd ed). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17.
MorganD.L. (1995). Why things (sometimes) go wrong in focus groups. Qualitative Health Research, 5, 516–23.
18.
NeistadtM.E. (1995). Methods of assessing clients priorities: A survey of adult physical dysfunction settings. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 49, 428–36.
19.
NorthenJ.G.RustD.M.NelsonC.E.WattsJ.H. (1995). Involvement of adult rehabilitation patients in setting occupational therapy goals. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 49, 214–20.
20.
PowellR.A.SingleH.M. (1996). Focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 8, 499–504.
21.
StraussA.CorbinT. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Grounded theory techniques and strategies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
22.
SumsionT.SmythG. (2000). Barriers to client-centredness and their resolution. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67, 15–21.
23.
ToomeyM.NicholsonD.CarswellA. (1995). The clinical utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52, 242–249.
24.
WardG.E.JaggerC.HarperW.M.H. (1996). The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: What do users consider important?British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 3, 448–52.
25.
WatersD. (1995). Recovering from a depressive episode using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 278–82.
26.
WressleE.SamuelssonK.HenrikssonC. (1999). Responsiveness of the Swedish version of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 6, 84–89.
