Mary Ann McColl, Celine Boyer Denis, Kate-Lin Douglas, Justin Gilmour, Nicole Haveman, Meaghan Petersen, Brittany Presswell, Mary Law
{"title":"COPM 的临床显著差异:综述。","authors":"Mary Ann McColl, Celine Boyer Denis, Kate-Lin Douglas, Justin Gilmour, Nicole Haveman, Meaghan Petersen, Brittany Presswell, Mary Law","doi":"10.1177/00084174221142177","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background.</b> The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) assists occupational therapists to identify occupational performance problems using a client-centred approach. Since its first publication in 1991, there has been abundant evidence of the ability of the COPM to detect a <i>statistically</i> significant difference as an outcome measure. There has also been a tacit understanding that a difference of 2 points from pre-test to post-test on either Performance or Satisfaction COPM score represents a clinically significant difference. There is however, some confusion about the origins of this claim. <b>Purpose.</b> To ascertain empirical evidence for the claim that a clinically significant difference is a change score ≥2 points. <b>Method.</b> We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature (1991-2020) for intervention studies using the COPM as an outcome measure and examined intervention type and change scores. <b>Findings.</b> One hundred studies were identified. The COPM was used to assess effectiveness of eight types of occupational therapy interventions. The common belief, however, was not empirically supported that clinical significance can be asserted on the basis of a two-point change in COPM scores. <b>Implications.</b> Further research is needed to test alternative approaches to asserting clinical significance or a minimal clinically important difference.</p>","PeriodicalId":49097,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy-Revue Canadienne D Ergotherapie","volume":"90 1","pages":"92-102"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/2d/be/10.1177_00084174221142177.PMC9923202.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Clinically Significant Difference on the COPM: A Review.\",\"authors\":\"Mary Ann McColl, Celine Boyer Denis, Kate-Lin Douglas, Justin Gilmour, Nicole Haveman, Meaghan Petersen, Brittany Presswell, Mary Law\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00084174221142177\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background.</b> The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) assists occupational therapists to identify occupational performance problems using a client-centred approach. Since its first publication in 1991, there has been abundant evidence of the ability of the COPM to detect a <i>statistically</i> significant difference as an outcome measure. There has also been a tacit understanding that a difference of 2 points from pre-test to post-test on either Performance or Satisfaction COPM score represents a clinically significant difference. There is however, some confusion about the origins of this claim. <b>Purpose.</b> To ascertain empirical evidence for the claim that a clinically significant difference is a change score ≥2 points. <b>Method.</b> We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature (1991-2020) for intervention studies using the COPM as an outcome measure and examined intervention type and change scores. <b>Findings.</b> One hundred studies were identified. The COPM was used to assess effectiveness of eight types of occupational therapy interventions. The common belief, however, was not empirically supported that clinical significance can be asserted on the basis of a two-point change in COPM scores. <b>Implications.</b> Further research is needed to test alternative approaches to asserting clinical significance or a minimal clinically important difference.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49097,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy-Revue Canadienne D Ergotherapie\",\"volume\":\"90 1\",\"pages\":\"92-102\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/2d/be/10.1177_00084174221142177.PMC9923202.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy-Revue Canadienne D Ergotherapie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00084174221142177\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy-Revue Canadienne D Ergotherapie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00084174221142177","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
A Clinically Significant Difference on the COPM: A Review.
Background. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) assists occupational therapists to identify occupational performance problems using a client-centred approach. Since its first publication in 1991, there has been abundant evidence of the ability of the COPM to detect a statistically significant difference as an outcome measure. There has also been a tacit understanding that a difference of 2 points from pre-test to post-test on either Performance or Satisfaction COPM score represents a clinically significant difference. There is however, some confusion about the origins of this claim. Purpose. To ascertain empirical evidence for the claim that a clinically significant difference is a change score ≥2 points. Method. We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature (1991-2020) for intervention studies using the COPM as an outcome measure and examined intervention type and change scores. Findings. One hundred studies were identified. The COPM was used to assess effectiveness of eight types of occupational therapy interventions. The common belief, however, was not empirically supported that clinical significance can be asserted on the basis of a two-point change in COPM scores. Implications. Further research is needed to test alternative approaches to asserting clinical significance or a minimal clinically important difference.
期刊介绍:
The Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy was first published in September 1933. Since that time, it has fostered advancement and growth in occupational therapy scholarship. The mission of the journal is to provide a forum for leading-edge occupational therapy scholarship that advances theory, practice, research, and policy. The vision is to be a high-quality scholarly journal that is at the forefront of the science of occupational therapy and a destination journal for the top scholars in the field, globally.