Objective: To research test–retest reliability and discriminant validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), a client-centred outcome measure, in stroke patients.
Design: The COPM was administered twice with a mean interval of eight days (SD 2.5, range 5–16). On both occasions the patient identified a maximum of five problems in daily activities. The problems of both interviews were compared. The problems identified during the first COPM were rated by the patient on a performance and satisfaction rating scale on both occasions. The individually identified items with use of the client-centred COPM were compared with the fixed items of standardized measures (Barthel Index, Frenchay Activities Index, Stroke Adapted Sickness Impact Profile-30, Euroqol 5D and Rankin Scale).
Setting: Patients were interviewed at their place of residence.
Subjects: Twenty-six stroke patients participated, 11 men and 15 women, aged from 26 to 83 years (mean 68, SD 15). Twenty-four patients were six months, two patients were two months post stroke.
Results: Of the 115 problems identified during the first COPM, 64 (56%) were also identified the second time. Correlation coefficients for the scores were 0.89 (p < 0.001) for performance and 0.88 (p < 0.001) for satisfaction. Of the individual problems identified with the COPM, 25% or less were present in the standardized measures. Correlations between the scores on the COPM and the standardized measures were low and nonsignificant, while all standardized measures correlated significantly with each other.
Conclusions: Test–retest reliability of the COPM was moderate for the item pool but was good for the performance and satisfaction scores. Discriminant validity was confirmed. Many patient-unique problems identified with the COPM were not evaluated by standardized measures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Townsend E ed. Enabling occupation. Ottawa: CAOT Publications ACE, 1997.
2.
Pollock N. Client-centred assessment. Am J Occup Ther1993; 47: 298–301.
3.
Pollock N, Baptiste S, Law M, McColl M, Opzoomer A, Polatajko H. Occupational performance measures: a review based on the guidelines for the client-centred practice of occupational therapy. Can J Occup Ther1990; 57: 77–81.
4.
Cardol M, Brandsma JW, Groot de IJM, Bos van den GAM, Haan de RJ, Jong de BA. Handicap questionnaires: what do they assess?Disabil Rehabil1999; 21: 97–105.
5.
de Haan R, Limburg M, Schuling J, Broeshart J, Jonkers L, van Zuylen P. Klinimetrische evaluatie van de Barthel Index; een meetinstrument voor beperkingen in activiteiten vn het dagelijks leven. Ned Tijdschr Geneesk1993; 137: 917–921.
6.
Schuling J, de Haan R, Limburg M, Groenier KH. The Frenchay activities Index; assessment of functional health status in stroke patients. Stroke1993; 24: 1173–1177.
7.
van Straten A, de Haan RJ, Limburg M, Schuling J, Bossuyt PM, van den Bos GAM. A Stroke Adapted 30-item version of the Sickness Impact Profile to assess quality of life (SA-SIP30). Stroke1997; 28: 2155–2161.
8.
de Haan R, Limburg M, Bossuyt P, van der Meulen J, Aaronson N. The clinical meaning of Rankin ‘handicap’ grades. Stroke1995; 26: 2027–2030.
9.
Dickerson AE. Should Choice Be a Component in Occupational Therapy Assessments?Occup Ther Health Care1996; 10: 23–32.
10.
Gibson W, Schkade JK. Occupational Adaptation Intervention with patients with cerebrovascular accident: a clinical study. Am J Occup Ther1997; 51: 523–529.
11.
Law M, Baptiste S, Carswell A, McColl M, Polatajko H, Pollock N. Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, third edition. 1998, Toronto: CAOT Publications ACE, 1998.
12.
CAOT. Occupational therapy guidelines for client-centred practice. Toronto: Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists, 1991.
13.
Davis SE, Mulcahey MJ, Smith BT, Betz RR. Outcome of functional electrical stimulation in the rehabilitation of a child with C-5 tetraplegia. J Spinal Cord Med1999; 22: 107–113.
14.
Bailey A, Starr L, Alderson M, Moreland J. A comparative evaluation of a fibromyalgia rehabilitation programme. Arthr Care Res1999; 12: 336–340.
15.
Law M, Russell D, Pollock N, Rosenbaum P, Walter S, King G. A comparison of intensive neurodevelopmental therapy plus casting and a regular occupational therapy programme for children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol1997; 39: 664–670.
16.
Bodiam C. The use of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure for the assessment of outcome on a neurorehabilitation unit. Br J Occup Ther1999; 62: 123–126.
17.
Carpenter L, Baker GA, Tyldesley B. The use of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure as an outcome of a pain management programme. Can J Occup Ther2001; 68: 16–22.
18.
Gilbertson L, Langhorne P. Home-based occupational therapy: stroke patients'satisfaction with occupational performance and service provision. Br J Occup Ther2000; 63: 464–468.
19.
Trombly CA, Radomski MV, Davis ES. Achievement of self-identifi ed goals by adults with traumatic brain injury: phase I. Am J Occup Ther1998; 52: 810–818.
20.
Chan CCH, Lee TMC. Validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Occup Ther Int1997; 4: 229–247.
21.
McColl MA, Paterson M, Davies D, Doubt L, Law M. Validity and community utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Can J Occup Ther2000; 67: 22–30.
22.
Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. New York: Oxford Medical Publications, 1998.
23.
Wressle E, Samuelsson K, Henriksson C. Responsiveness of the Swedish version of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Scand J Occup Ther1999; 6: 84–89.
24.
Effing T, Dirx M, Sleegers E, van Meeteren N. De responsiviteit van de COPM, ARA en SODA voor veranderingen in handvaardigheid bij plastisch-chirurgische handpatiënten. Ned Tijdschr Ergother1999; 27: 109–116.
25.
Group TE. Euroqol: A new facility for the measurement of of health related quality of life. Health Policy1990; 19: 199–208.
26.
Ottenbacher KJ, Cusick A. Goal attainment scaling as a method of clinical service evaluation. Am J Occup Ther1990; 44: 519–525.
