Looking into the Content of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM): A Danish Cross-Sectional Study

Abstract

Purpose. To examine the content validity of the Danish version of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM-DK). Materials and Methods. This cross-sectional study was performed in a hospital and a community rehabilitation centre. The content validity of the COPM was assessed by relating the clients’ prioritized occupational performance issues (OPIs) to the conceptual model of the Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and Engagement (CMOP-E) and the levels of the Taxonomic Code of Occupational Performance (TCOP). Six occupational therapy lecturers participated in classifying the OPIs using the TCOP. Results. A total of 112 clients from a regional and community-based rehabilitation participated. The 56% regional participants came from a hospital’s hand and knee surgery department. The remaining 44% participants came from a community-based rehabilitation centre with in- and outpatient departments. There were 44% males, with a mean age of 65.2 years. They prioritized 495 OPIs, of which 40% concerned self-care, 32% productivity, and 28% leisure. The prioritized OPIs were divided into a total of 224 different OPIs. There were significant differences in which areas were prioritized in the various population groups. Of the OPIs, 64.3% could be classified into the TCOP levels of occupation and activity, i.e., 1/3 of the OPIs were related to tasks and actions, and thus beyond the scope of the COPM. The interrater agreement of the OPI classification was only fair (kappa 0.3). Conclusion. The content validity of the COPM seems to depend on how and with which clients it is administered. Caution must be taken to secure OPIs on the higher levels of the TCOP, while maintaining the clients’ right to nominate OPI preferences. Therefore, an introductory course and on-going support are recommendable. Bearing this in mind, the COPM seems useful to identify individual clients’ prioritized OPIs in a Danish context.

The responsiveness of the Danish version of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure

“…The data in this study were collected as part of the overall cross-cultural validation process of the COPM-DK, in which all clients were offered intervention. Details of study flow and the overall design can be found in the papers on the COPM-DK’s validity (Enemark Larsen et al 2020c; 2020a) and reliability (Enemark Larsen et al 2020b).…”

“…However, as former versions were never examined for cross-cultural validity, this process was initiated in 2015 with a new translation, the COPM-DK (Enemark Larsen et al 2019a). Since then, the COPM-DK’s utility (Enemark Larsen et al 2019b), validity (Enemark Larsen et al 2020c; 2020a) and reliability (Enemark Larsen et al 2020b) have been found adequate. Now the intent of this study was to examine the responsiveness of the COPM-DK in a group of clients from different parts of Danish health care who all had an intervention.…”

The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM): a valuable tool for children with cerebral paresis

“…The authors grouped the individualized COPM goals at baseline into 10 themes 1 . However, in the conceptual understanding of the COPM, issues of occupational performance are identified based on the Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and Engagement (CMOP‐E) 2,3,5 . Problems with performance components, related to tasks or body functions, are not the focus here.…”

“…Problems with performance components, related to tasks or body functions, are not the focus here. Themes like stairs, jumping, and gross motor skill may go beyond the measurement's content validity, nevertheless identifying lower‐level OPIs is a common misconception 3,5 . This is possibly caused by using an obsolete edition of the COPM manual, in which so‐called OPIs at lower levels than occupation were included 3,5 .…”

“…Themes like stairs, jumping, and gross motor skill may go beyond the measurement's content validity, nevertheless identifying lower‐level OPIs is a common misconception 3,5 . This is possibly caused by using an obsolete edition of the COPM manual, in which so‐called OPIs at lower levels than occupation were included 3,5 . However, in the most recent edition of the COPM, examples of OPIs are more in line with a conceptual understanding of the CMOP‐E 3…”