Primary Image

Researchers work with therapists & patients in meaningful trials and studies

Canadian Occupational Performance Measure

Last Updated

Purpose

The COPM assesses an individual’s perceived occupational performance in the areas of self-care, productivity, and leisure.

Link to Instrument

Instrument Details

Acronym COPM

Area of Assessment

Activities of Daily Living
Functional Mobility
Life Participation
Occupational Performance

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Not Free

Actual Cost

$225.45

Cost Description

A 45-minute DVD and Workbook with COPM manual and 100 Forms is $225.45 (Canadian) or a Manual/Form Kit for $52.45 (Canadian) can be purchased from the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists (cost determined in November, 2012)

Diagnosis/Conditions

  • Brain Injury
  • Cerebral Palsy
  • Pain Management
  • Spinal Cord Injury
  • Stroke Recovery

Key Descriptions

  • The assessment involves a 5-step process nested within a semi-structured interview, typically conducted by an Occupational Therapist.
  • The interview focuses on identifying activities within each performance domain that the client wants, needs, or is expected to perform.
  • Following Step 3, the patient and therapist create goals for therapeutic interventions.
  • The interviewer may need to supplement information gathered during the COPM interview through other techniques including direct observation, administration of standardized tests, or an assessment of the patient's environment (Law et al., 1990).
  • The COPM has been translated into 35 languages and is used in over 35 countries. Also available in Pediatric, French, Hebrew, Icelandic, Japanese, German, Danish, Swedish, Greek, Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, Korean, Russian, Slavic, Italian, Portuguese and Norwegian versions.
  • A caregiver/proxy may respond on the patient’s behalf, but they may not identify the same deficits or problems as the patient would and there may be differences in option in regard to the importance of activities.

Number of Items

9 (3 subgroups with three items in each)

Equipment Required

  • Paper and Pencil
  • Computer
  • Manual

Time to Administer

10-45 minutes

Required Training

Reading an Article/Manual

Age Ranges

Child

6 - 12

years

Adolescent

13 - 17

years

Adult

18 - 64

years

Elderly Adult

65 +

years

Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed by the Rehabilitation Measures Team;

Updated with references from the TBI population by Anna de Joya, PT, DSc, NCS, Coby Nirider, PT, DPT, and the TBI EDGE task force of the Neurology Section of the APTA in 2012;

Updated with references for Arthritis, Pediatrics, and Ankylosing Spondylitis by Brianna DeBois, SPT, Samantha Dillon, SPT, and Jennifer Kick, SPT in 11/2012.

Updated by Maggie Bland PT,DPT,NCS and Nancy Byl PT,MPH,PhD, FAPTA and the StrokEdge II task force of the Neurology Section of the APTA in 2016.

Updated by Bridget Hahn, OTD, OTR/L, Kia Ashley Burks, OTS, Jordan Ginsburg, OTS, Kathryn Riggilo, OTS in summer 2019.

ICF Domain

Participation

Measurement Domain

Activities of Daily Living
General Health
Motor
Participation & Activities

Professional Association Recommendation

Recommendations for use of the instrument from the Neurology Section of the American Physical Therapy Association’s Multiple Sclerosis Taskforce (MSEDGE), Parkinson’s Taskforce (PD EDGE), Spinal Cord Injury Taskforce (PD EDGE), Stroke Taskforce (StrokEDGE), Traumatic Brain Injury Taskforce (TBI EDGE), and Vestibular Taskforce (Vestibular EDGE) are listed below. These recommendations were developed by a panel of research and clinical experts using a modified Delphi process.
 
For detailed information about how recommendations were made, please visit: http://www.neuropt.org/go/healthcare-professionals/neurology-section-outcome-measures-recommendations

Abbreviations:

HR

Highly Recommend

R

Recommend

LS / UR

Reasonable to use, but limited study in target group  / Unable to Recommend

NR

Not Recommended

Recommendations for use based on acuity level of the patient:

 

Acute

(CVA < 2 months post)

(SCI < 1 month post)

(Vestibular < 6 months post)

Subacute

(CVA 2 to 6 months)

(SCI 3 to 6 months)

Chronic

(> 6 months)

StrokEDGE

UR

R

R

Recommendations based on level of care in which the assessment is taken:

 

Acute Care

Inpatient Rehabilitation

Skilled Nursing Facility

Outpatient

Rehabilitation

Home Health

MS EDGE

UR

UR

UR

UR

UR

StrokEDGE

NR

UR

UR

UR

UR

TBI EDGE

NR

NR

NR

LS

LS

Recommendations for use based on ambulatory status after brain injury:

 

Completely Independent

Mildly dependant

Moderately Dependant

Severely Dependant

TBI EDGE

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Recommendations based on EDSS Classification:

 

EDSS 0.0 – 3.5

EDSS 4.0 – 5.5

EDSS 6.0 – 7.5

EDSS 8.0 – 9.5

MS EDGE

UR

UR

UR

UR

Recommendations for entry-level physical therapy education and use in research:

 

Students should learn to administer this tool? (Y/N)

Students should be exposed to tool? (Y/N)

Appropriate for use in intervention research studies? (Y/N)

Is additional research warranted for this tool (Y/N)

MS EDGE

No

No

No

Yes

StrokEDGE

No

No

Yes

Not reported

TBI EDGE

No

Yes

Yes

Not reported

Considerations

  • The COPM can be time consuming and difficult to administer  (Toomey et al, 1995)
  • Requires that the therapist using the tool be comfortable with a client-centered approach to both assessment and practice (Law et al, 1994)
  • May not be appropriate for children under 8
  • The interview process is of critical importance both in eliciting relevant information and devising patient-centered therapeutic interventions. However, the interview process is not standardized and both the quality and adequacy of information obtained from interviews may vary considerably between interviewers.
  • Initially was not considered appropriate for children under 8 years of age, but more recent research supports it use with children
  • (Galvin et al 2010). Twenty six children with ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke ( 5-16 years of age) participated in this study to identify the functional tasks of concern and identify the most valued functional activities as measured by the COPM when completed by the children and by the parents). The satisfaction and performance parts of the COPM were not administered. A total of 103 goals were identified.

  • Preschool aged children had the most concerns about self care (45%) and productivity (36% ) with less concern about leisure (19%)

  • School aged children had the most concerns about self care (46%) and leisure activities (36%)

  • Parents had concerns about their children’s self care (47%), productivity (27%) and leisure activities (26%)

The COPM was designed for use with all clients regardless of diagnosis (Law et al, 2004).

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!

Brain Injury

back to Populations

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Acquired Brain Injury:
(Jenkinson et al, 2007; Community dwelling individuals; n=34 (TBI=21; CVA=11; Others=2); total of 15 patients with ABI were involved in the stability study, ABI)

  • Consistency of self- and relative ratings for no intervention group:
  • No significant difference in COPM performance ratings for participants (M=4.62 (1.72)) and relatives (M=4.49 (1.86)); t=0.30, p=0.77)
  • No significant difference in COPM satisfaction ratings for participants (M=4.24(1.89)) and relatives (M=5.01 (1.57)); t =-1.79, p =0.078)
  • Participants rated their functional abilities on the Patient Competency Rating Scale (PCRS) (M=111.92 (17.58)) at a higher level than their relatives (M=105.75 (20.46)); however, no significant difference (t (62)=1.29, p =0.20)
  • Participants’ self-ratings relatively consistent with their relatives’ ratings

Test–re-test reliability coefficients for the COPM ratings over the 8-week interval were all significant

  • Excellent (r=0.75–0.86) for relative ratings; Adequate (r=0.53–0.67) for self-ratings

Construct Validity

Acquired Brain Injury:

(Jenkinson et al, 2007; Community dwelling individuals; n=34 (TBI=21; CVA=11; Others=2) , ABI)

 

PCRS Discrepancy

HADS Depression

HADS Anxiety

Health and Safety Subtest of the Independent Living Scale

COPM Performance

0.21 -0.23 -0.3 0.18

COPM Satisfaction

0.2 -0.33 -0.42* -0.02

*p<0.05, two-tailed (PCRS: Patient Competency Rating Scale; HADS: Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale)

  • Lower self-ratings of satisfaction were associated with higher levels of anxiety
  • No significant difference between self-ratings of satisfaction with measures of awareness, depression and cognitive function
  • No significant difference between self-ratings of performance with awareness of deficit, mood state, and cognitive function

Content Validity

The COPM assessment focuses on measuring a mismatch between a person’s abilities and the demands of a task leading to functional impairment. (Macedo et al, 2009)

Responsiveness

Research (Law et al 2004) suggests:

  • A change of 2 or more points is clinically significant
  • Changes in scores from assessment to re-assessment tend to be meaningful

Acquired Brain Injury:

(Phipps et al, 2007; n=155 (TBI=38, CVA=117); Time from admission to discharge (TBI=141.26 (85.10); Right CVA=97.45 (72.99); Left CVA=96.47 (65.97), ABI)

  • Significant change in performance ratings and satisfaction ratings from admission to discharge for entire sample and also for each diagnostic group

(Jenkinson et al, 2007; Community dwelling individuals; n=34 (TBI=21; CVA=11; Others=2); total of 10 patients involved in an 8-week intervention group, ABI)

  • Significant improvement in COPM performance self-ratings (p=0.018) and satisfaction self-ratings (p=0.013) between the pre- and post-assessment
  • Significant improvement in relatives’ ratings of performance between the pre- and post-assessment (p=0.008)
  • Improvement for relatives’ ratings of satisfaction between the pre- and post-assessment was not significant (p>0.05)

Traumatic Brain Injury:

(Trombly et al, 1998; Outpatient therapy services; n=16; gender=7 female and 9 male; mean age=43 (12.6); time since injury=22 (5.4), TBI)

  • Performance self-ratings were significantly better (p<0.001), and satisfaction self-ratings were significant as well (p=0.001) after treatment than before (discharge: 4-23 weeks after admission; mean=12.3 weeks)
  • No significant difference from discharge to follow up (4-8 weeks after discharge)

(Trombly et al, 2002; outpatient rehabilitation; n=31; mean age=37.03 (12.16); gender=75% male; onset more than equal to 12 months=55%; onset less than equal to 3 months=19%; mixed level of severity, TBI)

  • Performance self-ratings: significantly greater gain t(10)=5.029, p<0.001, r=0.84, during the treatment versus no treatment periods
  • Satisfaction self-ratings: significantly greater gain t(10)=6.325, p<0.001, r=0.89 during the treatment versus no-treatment periods

Arthritis

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Ankylosing Spondylitis:

(calculated from statistics in Kjenken et al, 2005; Rescore by personal interview, n=17, mean age 46.4 (12.8) years; Rescore by telephone, n=25, mean age 48.7 (13.3) years; Rescore by mail, n=24, mean age 46.6 (12.5) years; 2 weeks between assessments, Ankylosing Spondylitis)

  • Personal interview
    • SEM for performance=0.66
    • SEM for satisfaction=0.84
  • Telephone interview
    • SEM for performance=1.41
    • SEM for satisfaction=1.86
  • Mail
    • SEM for performance=0.99
    • SEM for satisfaction=1.13

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Ankylosing Spondylitis:

(calculated from statistics in Kjeken et al, 2005)

  • Personal interview
    • MDC for performance=1.59
    • MDC for satisfaction - 1.80
  • Telephone interview
    • MDC for performance=2.33
    • MDC for satisfaction=2.63
  • Mail
    • MDC for performance=1.95
    • MDC for satisfaction=2.08

Osteoarthritis:

(calculated byMacDermid et al, 2009 from Kjeken et al, 2005; n=87, women, mean age=62.7 (5.4) years, Hand Osteoarthritis)

  • MDC= 5

Normative Data

Test/Retest Reliability

Ankylosing Spondylitis:

(Kjenken et al, 2005)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability by personal interview (ICC=0.92 performance and ICC=0.93 satisfaction)
  • Adequate test-retest reliability by telephone (ICC=0.73 performance and ICC=0.73 satisfaction)
  • Excellent test-retest reliability by mail (ICC=0.90 performance and ICC=0.90 satisfaction)

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Arthritis:

(Ripat et al, 2001; n=13, stage 2 or stage 3 RA, Rheumatoid Arthritis)

  • Total Perfomance Scores on the COPM were not significantly correlated to total scores on the disability index of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ)
    • r =-0.37*, p=0.22
  • 36 out of 50 activities identified on the COPM exactly matched activities included in the disability dimension of the HAQ. Individual performance scores on the COPM were significantly related to scores on the matched HAQ components and matched HAQ activities
    • r=-0.52*, p<0.01
    • r=-0.67*, p<0.01

*Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient

Responsiveness

Arthritis:

(Macedo et al, 2009, Rheumatoid Arthritis)

  • Means Changes in Satisfaction and Performance were found to be both clinically and statistically significant

Stroke

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Stroke:

(calculated from statistics in Cup et al, 2003, Acute Stroke) 2 to 6 months post onset

  • SEM for performance=1.2 points
  • SEM for satisfaction=1.9 points

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Stroke:

(calculated from statistics in Cup et al, 2003, Acute Stroke) 2 to 6 months post onset

  • MDC for performance=1.7 points
  • MDC for satisfaction=2.7 points

Normative Data

Acute Stroke:

(Cup et al, 2003; n=26; mean age=68 (15) years; mean time between assessments=8 days (2.5) days, range 5–16 days, Acute Stroke)

Mean performance and satisfaction scores Mode number of problems identified over two assessments 3 to 5

  • Interview 1: mean performance score 3.5 (SD 1.8, range 1.0–7.0) 
  • Interview 2: mean performance score 3.7 (SD 1.9, range 1.0–6.8)
  • Interview 1: mean satisfaction score 3.3 (SD 1.9, range 1.0–7.5)
  • Interview 2: mean satisfaction score 3.5 (SD 2.1, range 1.0–7.4)

Test/Retest Reliability

Stroke:

(Cup et al, 2003; 2 to 6 months post onset, Acute Stroke)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability
    • r=0.87 performance
    • r=0.88 satisfaction

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Stroke:

(Cup et al, 2003; n=26; mean age=68 (15); gender; 11 males, 15 females; time post stroke: 24 patients 6 months post stroke, 2 patients 2 months post stroke, Stroke)

Test retest reliability: interval=8 days

  • Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient for the performance scores=0.89 (<0.001) and for the satisfaction scores 0.88 (< 0.001)

Internal Consistency

Stroke:

(Cup et al, 2003, Acute Stroke)

26 participants were asked to identify problems over the course of two interviews. During the initial COPM interview 115 problems were identified. In the second interview 112 problems were identified. 64 problems (56%) mentioned in the first interview were also mentioned in the second interview.

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

(Martini et al 2014) Adults post stroke (6 community dwelling,> one year post stroke) and children post stroke (8 children performing below the 15th percentile on the Movement Assessment Battery for Children) were videotaped and rated twice (separated by two weeks) by 3 different raters (research assistant, Occupational Therapist [OT] and OT student). The objective was to determine responsiveness, inter rater and test retest (2 weeks) reliability for the PQRS (Operational Definitions [OD] and Generic systems-[G]) as well as convergent validity between the PQRS-OD, the PQRS-G and the COPM Performance Scores. In terms of convergent validity there was:

  • PreTest

    • Poor, virtually no convergent validity between PQRS-G or PQRS-OD with COPM Performance (-0.37 to 0.10) and COPM Satisfaction (-0.23 to -0.07)

  • Post test:

    • Poor to Adequate convergent validity based on multiple raters for PQRS-G and PQRS-OD and COPM Performance ( 0.20 to 0.53)

    • Poor convergent validity for PQRS-G and PQRS-OD and COPM Satisfaction (0.04 to 0.29 )

  • Change scores

    • Poor to Adequate correlations between PQRS-G and PQRS-OD and COPM Performance (-0.12 to 0.35) and COPM Satisfaction (017-0.58)

    • Correlations between change scores on the PQRS and the COPM were higher for research assistant raters (-0.14 to 0.58) and OT student raters (-0.20 to - 0.47) compared to licensed OT’s (-0.12 to -0.21)

(Hill et al, 2014). This study evaluated 49 community dwelling individuals (mean age of 59.67 (14.14), 72 (58.8) months post stroke to determine if there was a correlation between sensory discrimination (Touch-Test, similar to Semmes Weinstein Monofilaments) and valued activities (functional performance on the COMP).

  • Good to excellent correlations were found between individuals who scored high on the COPM (5.9-9.6) and low on the Touch-Test (X2=9.80 (P<0.05);

  • No significant relationships were reported between the COPM scores below the median (1.2-5.8) and overall hand sensation ((X2=.523; P=0.97)

  • Little to no correlations were reported between touch sensation of the hand and performance of valued activities for those who scored low on the COPM

  • No significant relationships were reported for subjects scoring above or below the median for specific hand testing locations and COPM scores

  • Subjects with minimal to moderate sensation impairments did not report speech or communication as a valued activity

Subjects with severe impaired sensation did not report exercise as a valued activity.

Construct Validity

Stroke:

(Cup et al, 2003, Acute Stroke)

COPM performance scores:

  • Poor correlation with Barthel Index r=–0.225*
  • Poor correlation with Frenchay Activities Index r=–0.115*
  • Poor correlation with the Stroke Adapted Sickness Impact Profile (SA-SIP30) r=0.102*
  • Poor correlation with the Euroqol 5D (EQ-5D) r=0.143*
  • Poor correlation with the Rankin Scale r=0.209*

In other words, standardized performance measures did not correlate with the COPM indicating strong evidence of discriminate validity.

*(Spearman rho)

  • Poor correlation with the Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) measure compared to COPM Performance score, r=-0.16 and COPM Satisfaction score, r=-0.13
  • COPM performance and satisfaction scores are highly correlated, r=0.5, p=0.0012

Content Validity

The COPM assessment focuses on measuring a mismatch between a person’s abilities and the demands of a task leading to functional impairment. (Macedo et al, 2009)

Mixed Populations

back to Populations

Test/Retest Reliability

Adults with impairment in 1 or more ADL:

(Eyssen et al, 2005; n=95; mean age 47 (15) years; various diagnoses; COPM administered twice, 7 days between assessments)

  • Adequate test-retest reliability (ICC=0.67 performance and 0.69 satisfaction)

COPD:

(Sewell & Singh, 2001, COPD)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC=0.81 performance and ICC=0.76 satisfaction)

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Community Dwelling Disabled Individuals:

(McColl et al, 2000; n=61; disability unspecified, Community Dwelling Disabled Individuals)

  • Participants identified 481 problems on the COPM and the Perceived Problem Check List (PPCL)
  • 54 similar problems were identified on both measures:
    • 24% of PPCL problems were similar to COPM
    • 21% of COPM problems were similar to PPCL
  • Problems mentioned on both measures include:
    • Transportation and errands
    • Dressing
    • Toileting
    • Climbing stairs
    • Cooking
    • Cleaning
    • Socializing

Construct Validity

Mixed Population (Disorders of wrist, hand and arm, Central neurological disorder, neuromuscular diseases, other diagnosis):

(Eyssen et al, 2011; Dutch version; n=138; mean age=51 (13), Mixed Population)

  • Significant positive correlations between the COPM scores and the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP68), Disability and Impact Profile (DIP), and Impact on Participation and Autonomy (IPA) scores

Flexor Tendon Injury, Extensor Tendon Injury, and Dupuytren Disease (Van de Ven-Stevens, Graff, Peters, Van der Linde, & Geurts, 2016; n=72)

  • Adequate correlations between the COPM performance scale and the DASH questionnaire (r= -.447).
  • Adequate correlations between the COPM performance scale and the MHQ (r= .419).
  • Adequate correlations between the COPM satisfaction scale and the DASH questionnaire (r= -.579).
  • Adequate correlations between the COPM satisfaction scale and the MHQ (r= .593).
  • Excellent correlations between the COPM satisfaction scale and the MHQ (r= -.744).

 

Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Assessments per Diagnosis and Overal a

Population 

COPM Performance Scale-DASH Questionnaire 

COPM Performance Scale-MHQ 

COPM Satisfaction Scale-DASH Questionnaire 

COPM Satisfaction Scale-MHQ 

DASH Questionnaire-MHQ 


 


 


 


 


 

Correlation 

Correlation 

Correlation 

Correlation 

Correlation 

Flexor tendon injury 

41 

−.506b 

41 

.496b 

41 

−.621b 

41 

.602b 

43 

−.625b 

Extensor tendon injury 

.084 

 6 

−.251 

 6 

.064 

 6 

.083 

 8 

−.831c 

Dupuytren disease 

16 

−.137 

16 

.169 

16 

−.352 

16 

.606c 

21 

−.621b 

Total 

63 

−.447b 

63 

.419b 

63 

−.579b 

63 

.593b 

72 

−.744b 

aCOPM=Canadian Occupalonal Performance Measu e; DASH=Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand; MHQ=Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire.

bCorrelation was significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

cCorrelation was significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

Content Validity

The COPM assessment focuses on measuring a mismatch between a person’s abilities and the demands of a task leading to functional impairment. (Macedo et al, 2009)

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Flexor Tendon Injury, Extensor Tendon Injury, and Dupuytren Disease (Van de Ven-Stevens, Graff, Peters, Van der Linde, & Geurts, 2016)

  • Excellent floor or ceiling effects were observed for the COPM, DASH questionnaire, or MHQ.

Responsiveness

Mixed neurologic sample:

(Bodium, 1999; in-patient rehabilitation; n=17; admission to discharge=10 weeks, Mixed Neurologic Sample)

  • significant differences in improvement in self-ratings of performance and satisfaction

Mixed neurological, orthopedic and cardiology sample:

(Wressle et al, 2002; n=155 experiment group and 55 in control group within geriatric, stroke and home rehabilitation; median age=80 experiment group and 79 control group; assessment after discharge=2-4 weeks with 88 patients in control group; 30 in control group, Mixed patients)

  • Significant differences between groups: more patients in the experiment group perceived that treatment goals were identified, were able to recall the goals, felt that they were active participants in the goal formulation process, and perceived themselves better able to manage after completed rehabilitation compared with patients in the control group

Mixed Population (Disorders of wrist, hand and arm, Central neurological disorder, neuromuscular diseases, other diagnosis):

(Eyssen et al, 2011; Dutch version; n=138; mean age=51 (13), Mixed Population)

  • Significant differences between assessment and reassessment scores (p<0.001)
  • The AUC ranged from 0.79 to 0.85, and the optimal cut-off values for the performance scores and satisfaction scores ranged from 0.9 to 1.9

Neuro Rehabilitation:

(Chenq et al, 2002; n=12, 7=cerebrovascular accident, 2=spinal cord injuries, & 3=TBI; mean age 42.5; Taiwanese sample, Neuro Rehabilitation)

  • Mean changes in Satisfaction and Performance were found to be both clinically and statistically significant

Cerebral Palsy

back to Populations

Internal Consistency

Cerebral Palsy:

(Cusik et al, 2007; n=42; mean age=3.9 years; time post diagnosis unknown; GMPM Level 1, Spastic Hemiplegic Cerebral Palsy)

  • Using an adapted form of the COPM competed by a parent proxy (deleted the categories of ‘‘paid/unpaid work’’ and ‘‘household management”), internal consistency reliability was found to be acceptable for Performance (Cronbach’s α=0.73) and Satisfaction (Cronbach’s α=0.83).

Content Validity

The COPM assessment focuses on measuring a mismatch between a person’s abilities and the demands of a task leading to functional impairment. (Macedo et al, 2009)

Responsiveness

Cerebral Palsy:

(Cusick et al, 2007, Spastic Hemiplegic Cerebral Palsy)

  • The adapted COPM demonstrates an ability to detect change above the published minimum clinically important difference of 2 points

Chronic Pain

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Chronic Pain (Calculated from sats in Nieuwenhuizen, de Groot, Janssen, van der Maas, & Backerman , 2014; n= 87; mean age = 41.7 (11.4) years; PDI score 34.9 (7.72);

  • SEM for entire group  (n= 87): 1.22

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Chronic Pain (Calculated from stats in Nieuwenhuizen, de Groot, Janssen, van der Maas, & Backerman, 2014)

  • MDC for entire group (n=87): 3.35

Construct Validity

Chronic Pain (Nieuwenhuizen, de Groot, Janssen, van der Maas, & Backerman , 2014)

  • Poor construct validity with the PDI (r= -0.260).
  • Poor construct validity was found with all subscales of the RAND-36: physical functioning (r= 0.106), social functioning (r= 0.125), physical role limitations (r= -0.007), emotional role limitations (r= 161), mental health (r= 0.206), vitality (r= 0.248), pain (r=0.184), & general health perception (r=0.106).

Outcome Measure

COPM-P Score

PDI

-0.260

RAND-36

 

    Physical Functioning

0.106

    Social Functioning

0.125

    Role Limitations (Physical)

-0.007

    Role Limitations (Emotional)

0.161

    Mental Health

0.206

    Vitality

0.248

    Pain

0.184

    General Health Perception

0.106

 

Construct validity: Spearman correlations between Canadian Occupational Performance Measure performance scale (COPM-P) and Pain Disability Index (PDI) and RAND 36-Item Health Survey (RAND-36) domains at start of treatment.

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Chronic Pain (Nieuwenhuizen, Nieuwenhuizen, de Groot, Janssen, van der Maas, & Backerman , 2014)

  • Excellent floor/celing effects were found. 

Responsiveness

(Carpenter et al, 2001; n=87 completed the COPM at baseline, end of program and 3 month post intervention; mean age=44, range=19 to 72 years, patients undergoing pain management treatment)

  • Changes in satisfaction and performance scores were found to be statistically and clinically significant

Chronic Pain Patients: (Nieuwenhuizen, et al., 2014; assessed at week 1 and week 12 during the program)

  • There is a negative correlation between the COPM-P and PDI (r= -0.380, p < 0.001)
  • There is a negative correlation between the COPM-P and the subscale of vitality for the RAND-36 (r= -0.031, p < 0.001).
  • There is a positive correlation between the COPM-P and the subscale of physical functioning for the RAND- 36 (r= 0.388).
  • There is a positive correlation between the COPM-P and the subscale of social functioning for the RAND-36 (r= 0.302, p < 0.005).
  • There is a positive correlation between the COPM-P and the subscale of physical role limitations for the RAND-36 (r= 0.381).
  • There is a positive correlation between the COPM-P and the subscale of the emotional role limitations for the RAND-36 (r= 0.139).
  • There is a positive correlation between the COPM-P and the subscale of mental health and the RAND-36 (r= 0.084, p < 0.005).
  • There is a positive correlation between the COPM-P and the subscale of pain and the RAND-36 (r= 0.160).
  • There is a positive correlation between the COPM-P and the subscale of general health perception (r= 0.273, p < 0.05)

 

 

 

Outcome Measure

ΔCOPM-P Score

ΔPDI

-0.380

ΔRAND-36

 

   Physical Functioning

0.388

   Social Functioning

0.302

   Role Limitations (Physical)

0.381

   Role Limitations (Emotional)

0.139

   Mental Health

0.084

   Vitality

-0.031

   Pain

0.160

   General Health Perception

0.273

Older Adults and Geriatric Care

back to Populations

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Community Dwelling Older Adults: (Tuntland, Aaslund, Langeland, Espehaug, & Kjeken, 2016;  n=225; mean age = 80.8 (6.7) years)

 

Participants who reported “a little improved” after 10 weeks; Performance and Satisfaction scale

  • MCID for COPM-P = 3.0 points
  • MCID for COPM-S = 3.2 points

 

 

The mean change scores (SD) for occupational performance and satisfaction with performance scored on a numerical rating scale (range 1–10), according to participants’ answers in the global rating scale of perceived change

Global perceived change

Number of participants

Mean change score (SD)

COPM-P

 Much improved

97

4.6 (2.1)

 A little improved

74

3.0* (2.0)

 No change

28

1.6 (2.2)

COPM-S

 Much improved

96

4.8 (2.1)

 A little improved

73

3.2* (2.1)

 No change

28

2.2 (2.2)

Notes: Independent samples t-tests performed.

*The MIC.

Abbreviations: COPM, Canadian Occupational Performance Measure; COPM-P, COPM measuring occupational performance; COPM-S, COPM measuring satisfaction with performance; MIC, minimal important change; SD, standard deviation.

Cut-Off Scores

Community Dwelling Older Adults: (Tuntland, Aaslund, Langeland, Espehaug, & Kjeken, 2016)

  • Recommended cut-off value for distinguishing between older adults that experience minimal important change in performance and satisfaction is 3 points

Construct Validity

Community Dwelling Older Adults: (Tuntland, Aaslund, Langeland, Espehaug, & Kjeken, 2016)

  • Moderate Construct Validity (Spearman's correlation ICC = .22, confirming the hypothesis of discriminant validity)
  • “Moderate correlation found between COPM-P and EQ-5D usual activities, indicating that these two indices partly measure the same construct.”

 

Construct validity hypotheses and results

Instrument

Dimension

COPM dimension

Hypothesesa

Results

Confirmed hypotheses (yes/no)

SPPB

Sum score physical function

Performance

Low

0.22*

Yes

SPPB

Single-item score, gait test

Performance

Low/moderate

0.13

Yes

EQ-5D

Single-item score, usual activities

Performance

Low/moderate

−0.36*

Yes

EQ-5D

VAS score health today

Performance

Low/moderate

0.23*

Yes

SOC-13

Sum score coping

Performance

Low

0.02

Yes

SOC-13

Sum score coping

Satisfaction

Low

0.04

Yes

MHC-SF

Sum score mental health

Performance

Low

0.03

Yes

MHC-SF

Sum score mental health

Satisfaction

Low

−0.02

Yes

Notes:

aExpected level of Spearman’s correlations.

*Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (two-tailed).

Abbreviations: COPM, Canadian Occupational Performance Measure; SPPB, Short Physical Performance Battery; EQ-5D, European Quality of Life Scale; VAS, visual analog scale; SOC-13, Sense of Coherence questionnaire; MHC-SF, Mental Health Continuum – Short Form.

Content Validity

Community Dwelling Older Adults: (Tuntland, Aaslund, Langeland, Espehaug, & Kjeken, 2016)

  • Pattern of prioritized occupations in line with what would be expected in an older adult population, therefore confirming content validity..

Responsiveness

Community Dwelling Older Adults: Tuntland, Aaslund, Langeland, Espehaug, & Kjeken (2016) suggests:

  • Statistically significant change scores between groups who answered  “no change” versus “a little improved” and “a little improved” versus “much improved” within 3 out 4 hypothesis
  • Moderate responsiveness

Responsiveness hypotheses and results

Instrument

Hypotheses

Result

Confirmed hypotheses (yes/no)

Global rating scale

Significant mean differencea in COPM-P change score for “no change” versus “a little improved”

−1.45*

Yes

Global rating scale

Significant differencea in mean COPM-S change score for “no change” versus “a little improved”

−1.12

No

Global rating scale

Significant differencea in mean COPM-P change score for “a little improved” versus “much improved”

−1.53**

Yes

Global rating scale

Significant differencea in mean COPM-S change score for “a little improved” versus “much improved”

−1.61**

Yes

SPPB (sum score)

Low correlationb between SPPB change scores and COPM-P change scores

0.40**

No

EQ-5D (single-item score)

Low correlationb between EQ-5D self-care change scores and COPM-P change scores

−0.33**

No

SOC-13 (sum score)

Low correlationb between SOC-13 change scores and COPM-P change scores

0.11

Yes

MHC-SF (sum score)

Low correlationb between MHC-SF change scores and COPM-P change scores

0.17

Yes

Notes:

aIndependent samples t-test.

bPearson’s correlation coefficient.

*Statistically significant at 0.05 level (two-tailed).

**Statistically significant at 0.01 level (two-tailed).

Abbreviations: COPM, Canadian Occupational Performance Measure; COPM-P, COPM measuring occupational performance; COPM-S, COPM measuring satisfaction with performance; SPPB, Short Physical Performance Battery; EQ-5D, European Quality of Life Scale; SOC-13, Sense of Coherence questionnaire; MHC-SF, Mental Health Continuum – Short Form.

Pediatric Disorders

back to Populations

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Pediatrics: (Verker, Wolf, Louwers, Meester-Delver, & Nollet, 2006; n=80; Psychomotor retardation = 34 (42.5); Cerebral palsy = 14 (17.5); Congenital syndromes = 10 (12.5); Congenital hand/arm deformities = 6 (7.5); Neuromuscular diseases = 3 (4); Other = 13 (16); mean age = 3.7 (1.8); age range = 1 - 7.5; average interval between the interviews = 7 days (2.8))

 

Interrater

  • The limits of agreement for performance scores were -2.4 to +2.3 and for satisfaction scores -2.3 to +2.6.

Construct Validity

Pediatrics: (Verker, Wolf, Louwers, Meester-Delver, & Nollet, 2006)

Discriminant

  • 157 (71%) of 221 problems reported matched the prioritized problems reported in the COPM.
  • 66 (30%) of the 221 matched problems concerned temperament or impairments and behavior of the child, but not activities.

  Convergent

  • Of the 196 (50%) problems prioritized in the first COPM, there was a comparable item in the PEDI-NL and for 151 prioritized problems (39%) there was a comparable item in the TAP(C)QOL
  • 144 (95%) of corresponding items were also ticked by the parents on the TAP(C)QOL.
  • 142 (36%) of prioritized problems in the COPM not comparable item could be found in either the PEDI-NL or the TAP(C)QOL

Bibliography

Bodiam, C. (1999). "The use of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure for the assessment of outcome on a neurorehabilitation unit." The British Journal of Occupational Therapy 62(3): 123-126.

Bowie, C., Shackleton, T., et al. (1999). "Exploring the responsiveness of the COPM in an outpatient rehabilitation program." Unpublished manuscript.

Carpenter, L., Baker, G. A., et al. (2001). "The use of the Canadian occupational performance measure as an outcome of a pain management program." Can J Occup Ther 68(1): 16-22. Find it on PubMed

Cheng, Y. H., Rodger, S., et al. (2002). "Experiences with the COPM and client-centred practice in adult neurorehabilitation in Taiwan." Occup Ther Int 9(3): 167-184. Find it on PubMed

Cup, E. H., Scholte op Reimer, W. J., et al. (2003). "Reliability and validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in stroke patients." Clin Rehabil 17(4): 402-409. Find it on PubMed

Cusick, A., Lannin, N. A., et al. (2007). "Adapting the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure for use in a paediatric clinical trial." Disabil Rehabil 29(10): 761-766. Find it on PubMed

Cusick, A., McIntyre, S., et al. (2006). "A comparison of goal attainment scaling and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure for paediatric rehabilitation research." Pediatr Rehabil 9(2): 149-157. Find it on PubMed

Dedding, C., Cardol, M., et al. (2004). "Validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: a client-centred outcome measurement." Clin Rehabil 18(6): 660-667. Find it on PubMed

Galvin J, Randall M, Hewish S, Rice J, MacKay MT. (2010) Family-centred outcome measurement following paediatric stroke. Australian occupational therapy journal. 57(3):152-8.Find it on PubMed

Hill VA, Fisher T, Schmid AA, Crabtree J, Page SJ. (2014) Relationship between touch sensation of the affected hand and performance of valued activities in individuals with chronic stroke. Topics in stroke rehabilitation. 21(4):339-46.Find it on PubMed

Eyssen, I. C., Beelen, A., et al. (2005). "The reproducibility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure." Clin Rehabil 19(8): 888-894. Find it on PubMed

Jenkinson, N., Ownsworth, T., et al. (2007). "Utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in community-based brain injury rehabilitation." Brain Inj 21(12): 1283-1294. Find it on PubMed

Kjeken, I., Dagfinrud, H., et al. (2005). "Activity limitations and participation restrictions in women with hand osteoarthritis: patients' descriptions and associations between dimensions of functioning." Ann Rheum Dis 64(11): 1633-1638. Find it on PubMed

Kjeken, I., Dagfinrud, H., et al. (2005). "Reliability of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in patients with ankylosing spondylitis." J Rheumatol 32(8): 1503-1509. Find it on PubMed

Law, M., Baptiste, S., et al. (2004, 2005). "COPM Questions and Answers." from http://www.caot.ca/copm/questions.html.

MacDermid, J. C., Grewal, R., et al. (2009). "Using an evidence-based approach to measure outcomes in clinical practice." Hand Clin 25(1): 97-111, vii. Find it on PubMed

Macedo, A. M., Oakley, S. P., et al. (2009). "Functional and work outcomes improve in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who receive targeted, comprehensive occupational therapy." Arthritis Rheum 61(11): 1522-1530. Find it on PubMed

Martini R, Rios J, Polatajko H, Wolf T, McEwen S. (2015) The performance quality rating scale (PQRS): reliability, convergent validity, and internal responsiveness for two scoring systems. Disability and rehabilitation. 37(3):231-8. Find PubMed

McColl, M. A., Paterson, M., et al. (2000). "Validity and community utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure." Can J Occup Ther 67(1): 22-30. Find it on PubMed

Nieuwenhuizen, M.G., Groot, S.D., Janssen, T.W., Maas, L.C., & Beckerman, H. (2014). Canadian Occupational Performance Measure performance scale: validity and responsiveness in chronic pain. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 51(5), 727-46. Find on PubMed

Phipps, S. and Richardson, P. (2007). "Occupational therapy outcomes for clients with traumatic brain injury and stroke using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure." The American journal of occupational therapy 61(3): 328-334.

Ripat, J., Etcheverry, E., et al. (2001). "A comparison of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure and the Health Assessment Questionnaire." Can J Occup Ther 68(4): 247-253. Find it on PubMed

Sewell, L. and Singh, S. (2001). "The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: is it a Reliable Measure in Clients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease?" The British Journal of Occupational Therapy 64(6): 305-310.

Toomey, M., Nicholson, D., et al. (1995). "The clinical utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure." Can J Occup Ther 62(5): 242-249. Find it on PubMed

Trombly, C. A., Radomski, M. V., et al. (1998). "Achievement of self-identified goals by adults with traumatic brain injury: Phase I." The American Journal of Occupational Therapy 52(10): 810-818.

Trombly, C. A., Radomski, M. V., et al. (2002). "Occupational therapy and achievement of self-identified goals by adults with acquired brain injury: phase II." Am J Occup Ther 56(5): 489-498. Find it on PubMed

Tuntland, H., Aaslund, M. K., Langeland, E., Espehaug, B., & Kjeken, I. (2016). Psychometric properties of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in home-dwelling older adults. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 9, 411–423. doi:10.2147/JMDH.S113727 Find on PubMed

Van de Ven-Stevens, L., Graff M.J.L., Peters M.A.M, Van der Linde, H., Geurts, A.C.H. (2016). Construct validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in participants with tendon injury and dupuytren disease, Physical Therapy, 95(5), 750–757. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20130590

Verkerk, G. J., Wolf, M. J. M., Louwers, A. M., Meester-Delver, A., & Nollet, F. (2006). The reproducibility and validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in parents of children with disabilities. Clinical Rehabilitation, 20(11), 980-988.

Wressle, E., Eeg-Olofsson, A. M., et al. (2002). "Improved client participation in the rehabilitation process using a client-centred goal formulation structure." Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 34(1): 5-11.

Save now, read later.