Objective: To assess the reproducibility (reliability and inter-rater agreement) of the client-centred Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM).
Design: The COPM was administered twice, with a mean interval of seven days (SD 1.6, range 4-14), by two different occupational therapists. Data analysis was based on intraclass correlation coefficients, the Bland and Altman method and Cohen's weighted kappas.
Setting: Occupational therapy departments of two university medical centres.
Subjects: Consecutive clients, with various diagnoses, newly referred to the outpatient clinic of two occupational therapy departments, were included. They were all over 18 years of age and perceived limitations in more than one activity of daily life. Complete data on 95 clients were obtained: 31 men and 64 women.
Results: Sixty-six per cent of the activities prioritized at the first assessment were also prioritized at the second assessment. The intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.67 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-0.78) for the mean performance score and 0.69 (95% CI 0.56-0.79) for the mean satisfaction score. The limits of agreement were-2.5 to 2.4 for the mean performance score and-2.3 to 2.7 for the mean satisfaction score. For the separate prioritized problems, the weighted kappas ranged from 0.37 to 0.49.
Conclusions: Inter-rater agreement of the prioritized problems was moderate. The reproducibility of the mean performance and satisfaction scores was moderate, but it was poor for the scores of the separate problems. Therefore, the mean scores should be used for individual assessment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1 Sumsion, T. A revised occupational therapy definition of client-centred practice. Br J Occup Ther2000; 63: 304-309.
2.
2 Law M, Baptiste S, Mills J. Client-centred practice: what does it mean and does it make any difference?Can J Occup Ther1995; 62: 250-257.
3.
3 Wressle E, Eeg-Olofsson AM, Marcusson J, Henriksson C. Improved client participation in the rehabilitation process using a client-centred goal formulation structure. J Rehabil Med2002; 34: 5-11.
4.
4 Donnelly C, Carswell A. Individualized outcome measures: a review of the literature. Can J Occup Ther2002; 69: 84-94.
5.
5 Law M, Baptiste S, Carswell A, McColl MA, Polatajko H, Pollock N. Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, third edition. Ottawa: CAOT Publications ACE, 1998.
6.
6 Sumsion T ed. Client-centred practice in occupational therapy: a guide to implementation. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1999.
7.
7 Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists. Enabling occupation: an occupational therapy perspective. Ottawa: CAOT Publications, 1997.
8.
8 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.
9.
9 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.
10.
10 Gilbertson L, Langhorne P. Home-based occupational therapy: stroke patients' satisfaction with occupational performance and service provision. Br J Occup Ther2000; 63: 464-468.
11.
11 Richardson J, Law M, Wishart L, Guyatt G. The use of a simulated environment (easy street) to retrain independent living skills in elderly persons: a randomized controlled trial. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci2000; 55: 578-584.
12.
12 Ripat J, Etcheverry E, Cooper J, Tate RB. A comparison of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure and the Health Assessment Questionnaire. Can J Occup Ther2001; 68: 247-253.
13.
13 Samuelsson KA, Tropp H, Gerdle B. Shoulder pain and its consequences in paraplegic spinal cord-injured wheelchair users. Spinal Cord2004; 42: 41-46.
14.
14 Walsh DA, Kelly SJ, Johnson PS, Rajkumar S, Bennetts K. Performance problems of patients with chronic low-back pain and the measurement of patient-centered outcome. Spine2004; 29: 87-93.
15.
15 Bot SDM, Terwee CB, Van der Windt DAWM, Bouter LM, Dekker J, De Vet HCW. Psychometric evaluation of self-report questionnaires; the development of a checklist. Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Research Methodology. Amsterdam: VU University, 2003: 161-168.
16.
16 Lohr KN, Aaronson NK, Alonso J et al. Evaluation quality-of-life and health status instruments: development of scientific review criteria. Clin Ther1996; 18: 979-992.
17.
17 De Vet HC, Bouter L, Bezemer PD, Beurskens AJ. Reproducibility and responsiveness of evaluative outcome measures. Theoretical considerations illustrated by an empirical example. Int J Technol Assess Health Care2001; 17: 479-487.
18.
18 Pan AW, Chung L, Hsin-Hwei G. Reliability and validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure for clients with psychiatric disorders in Taiwan. Occup Ther Int2003; 10: 269-277.
19.
19 Cup EHC, Schole op Reimer WJM, Thijssen MCE, Van Kuyk-Minis MAH. Reliability and validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in stroke patients. Clin Rehabil2003; 17: 402-409.
20.
20 Dedding, C. Cardol M, Eyssen ICJM, Dekker J, Beelen A. Validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, a client-centred outcome measurement. Clin Rehabil2004; 18: 660-667.
21.
21 Van Duijn HM, Niezen AA, Cardol M, Corder-Bartels IE, Verkerk GJQ. Canadees meetinstrument voor handelingen en vaardigheden. Amsterdam: AMC/VU, 1999.
22.
22 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet1986; 8: 307-310.
23.
23 Cohen, JA. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas1960; 20:37-46.
24.
24 Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical resarch. London: Chapman & Hall, 1991.
25.
25 Cardol M, Beelen A, Van den Bos GA, De Jong BA, De Groot IJ, De Haan RJ. Responsiveness of the Impact on Participation and Autonomy questionnaire. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2002; 83: 1524-1529.
26.
26 Chan CCH, Lee TMC. Validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Occup Ther Int1997; 4: 229-247.
27.
27 Lee J, Koh D, Ong CN. Statistical evaluation of agreement between two methods for measuring a quantitative variable. Compute Biol Med1989; 19: 61-70.
