Objective: To study the convergent and divergent validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM).
Design: Cross-sectional study.
Setting: The occupational therapy departments of two university hospitals in Amsterdam.
Subjects: One hundred and five consecutive outpatients.
Outcome measures: The COPM is a measure of a client's self-perception of occupational performance in the areas of self-care, productivity and leisure. Outcome measures of the COPM are: the client's most important problems in occupational performance and a total score for performance and a total score for satisfaction for these problems. Problems reported in the COPM were compared with the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP68), the Disability and Impact Profile (DIP) and an open-ended question.
Results: Complete data were obtained for 99 clients. The identification of occupational performance problems with the COPM surpassed the items reported in the SIP68, the DIP and the open-ended question, which confirms the surplus value of the COPM. Divergent validity was further demonstrated by the low correlation coefficients between the total SIP68 scores and the COPM. Seventy-four per cent of the occupational performance problems reported in the COPM had a corresponding item in the DIP and 49% had a corresponding item in the SIP68. Convergent validity was supported by the fact that 63% of the corresponding problems in the DIP were reported to be a disruption of quality of life and 74% of the corresponding problems in the SIP68 were identified as a disability.
Conclusion: The results of this study provide supportive evidence for the convergent and divergent validity of the COPM. The data support the assumption that the COPM provides information that cannot be obtained with current standardized instruments to measure health.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1 Sumsion T (ed.) Client-centred practice in occupational therapy. A guide to implementation. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1999.
2.
2 Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists. Enabling occupation: an occupational therapy perspective. Ottawa: CAOT Publications, 1997.
3.
3 Law M, Baptiste S, Carswell A, McColl MA, Polatajko H, Pollock N. Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, third edition. Ottawa: CAOT Publications ACE, 1998.
4.
4 Cardol M, De Haan RJ, De Jong BA, Van den Bos GAM, De Groot IJM. Psychometric properties of the ‘Impact on Participation and Autonomy (IPA) questionnaire. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2001; 82: 210-216.
5.
5 Carpenter L, Baker GA, Tyldesley B. The use of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure as an outcome of a Pain Management Program. Can J Occup Ther2001; 68:16-22.
6.
6 Cup EHC, Scholte op Reimer WJM, Thijssen MCE, Van Kuyk-Minis MAH. Reliability, validity and utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in stroke patients. Clin Rehabil2003; 17: 402-409.
7.
7 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.
8.
8 Ripat J, Etchevery E, Cooper J, Tate R. A comparison of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure and the Health Assessment Questionnaire. Can J Occup Ther2001; 68: 247-253.
9.
9 Chan CCH, Lee TMC. Validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Occup Ther Int1997; 4: 229-247.
10.
10 McColl M, Paterson M, Davies D, Doubt L, Law M. Validity and community utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Can J Occup Ther1999; 67:22-30.
11.
11 Pfennings LEMA. Health-related quality of life in patients with multiple sclerosis. Dissertation Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, 1999.
12.
12 Lankhorst GJ, Jelles F, Smits RC et al. Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: the disability and impact profile (DIP). J Neurol1996; 243: 469-474.
13.
13 Post MWM, De Bruin AF, De Witte L, Schrijvers A. The SIP68: a measure of health-related functional status in rehabilitation medicine. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1996; 77: 440-445.
14.
14 De Bruin AF, Diederiks JPM, De Witte LP, Stevens FCJ, Philipsen H. The development of a short generic version of the Sickness Impact Profile. J Clin Epidemiol1994; 47: 407-418.
15.
15 Polit DF, Hungler BP. Nursing research. Principles and methods. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 1999.
16.
16 Badley EM. An introduction to the concepts and classifications of the international classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps. Disabil Rehabil1993; 15: 161-178.
17.
17 Townsend E, Brintnell S, Staissey N. Developing guidelines for client-centred occupational therapy practice. Can J Occup Ther1990; 57:69-76.
