The reproducibility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure

Clinical Rehabilitation

Volumn 19, Issue 8, 2005, Pages 888-894

  Eyssen, I C J M ^a   Beelen, A ^b,d   Dedding, C ^b   Cardol, M ^b,c   Dekker, J ^d  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c NETHERLANDS INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH   (Netherlands)

^d VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANADA; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH; OCCUPATIONAL THERAPIST; PATIENT REFERRAL; RELIABILITY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SCORING SYSTEM; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TASK PERFORMANCE; WORK CAPACITY;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADULT; CHRONIC DISEASE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASES; NERVOUS SYSTEM DISEASES; OBSERVER VARIATION; OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY; PATIENT SATISFACTION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 28444462208     PISSN: 02692155     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1191/0269215505cr883oa     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Sumsion, T. A revised occupational therapy definition of client-centred practice. Br J Occup Ther 2000; 63: 304-309.
2. Law M, Baptiste S, Mills J. Client-centred practice: what does it mean and does it make any difference? Can J Occup Ther 1995; 62: 250-57.
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 Med 2002; 34: 5-11.
4. Donnelly C, Carswell A. Individualized outcome measures: a review of the literature. Can J Occup Ther 2002; 69: 84-94.
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. Sumsion T ed. Client-centred practice in occupational therapy: a guide to implementation. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1999.
7. Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists. Enabling occupation: an occupational therapy perspective. Ottawa: CAOT Publications, 1997.
8. Bodiam C. The use of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure for the assessment of outcome on a neurorehabilitation unit. Br J Occup Ther 1999; 62: 123-26.
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 Ther 2001; 68: 16-22.
10. Gilbertson L, Langhorne P. Home-based occupational therapy: stroke patients' satisfaction with occupational performance and service provision. Br J Occup Ther 2000; 63: 464-68.
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 Sci 2000; 55: 578-84.
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 Ther 2001; 68: 247-53.
13. Samuelsson KA, Tropp H, Gerdle B. Shoulder pain and its consequences in paraplegic spinal cord-injured wheelchair users. Spinal Cord 2004; 42: 41-46.
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. Spine 2004; 29: 87-93.
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: 161-68.
16. Lohr KN, Aaronson NK, Alonso J et al. Evaluation quality-of-life and health status instruments: development of scientific review criteria. Clin Ther 1996; 18: 979-92.
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 Care 2001; 17: 479-87.
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 Int 2003; 10: 269-77.
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 Rehahil 2003; 17: 402-409.
20. Dedding, C. Cardol M, Eyssen ICJM, Dekker J, Beelen A. Validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, a client-centred outcome measurement. Clin Rehabil 2004; 18: 660-67.
21. Van Duijn HM, Niezen AA, Cardol M, Corder-Bartels IE, Verkerk GJQ. Canadees meetinstrument voor handelingen en vaardigheden. Amsterdam: AMC/VU, 1999.
22. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 8: 307-10.
23. Cohen, JA. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1960; 20: 37-46.
24. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical resarch. London: Chapman & Hall, 1991.
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 Rehabil 2002; 83: 1524-29.
26. Chan CCH, Lee TMC. Validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Occup Ther Int 1997; 4: 229-47.
27. Lee J, Koh D, Ong CN. Statistical evaluation of agreement between two methods for measuring a quantitative variable. Compute Biol Med 1989; 19: 61-70.