Report Viewer
NINDS CDE Notice of Copyright
Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM)
Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM)
| Availability |
Please visit this website for more information about the instrument: Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM)
|
| Classification |
Supplemental - Highly Recommended: Cerebral Palsy (CP)
Supplemental: Spinal Cord Injury (SCI), SCI-Pediatric (age 2 and over for parent report; age 6 and over for child report) and Stroke
Exploratory: Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) and Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD)
|
| Short Description of Instrument |
The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) is a generic outcome measure used to measure performance and satisfaction in leisure, productivity and self-care from the client perspective. It identifies the five most urgent everyday issues restricting day to day life performance.
|
| Comments/Special Instructions |
The COPM is designed to detect change in an individual's self-perception of occupational performance over time. The instrument has been validated for ages 6-65+. The COPM has been translated into over 36 languages and is used in more than 40 countries around the world.
|
| Scoring and Psychometric Properties |
Scoring: Importance is ranked, performance and satisfaction are scored separately from 1-10. Scores (importance and performance/importance and satisfaction) can then be multiplied for a maximum of 100.
Psychometric Properties: Reliability and validity of the COPM is well established. Since the first edition of the COPM was published in 1991 (Law et al., 1990; Pollock et al., 1990), there has been abundant evidence of the responsiveness of the COPM to detect a statistically significant difference or change over time (Carswell et al., 2004; McColl et al., 2006; McColl et al., 2023).
Other studies have featured psychometric properties including clinical utility, validity and responsiveness (Eyssen et al., 2011). The results were very positive, demonstrating support for the reliability and validity of the COPM. Clinical utility, examined through several different studies supports the use of the COPM with a wide variety of clients in various settings (Dedding et al., 2004; Verkerk et al., 2006). This measure has moderate inter-rater agreement and mean performance and satisfaction score reproducibility, but poor reproducibility for separate problem scores (Eyssen et al.,2005).
|
| Rationale/Justification |
Strengths/Weaknesses: Some authors have commented that the tool can be time consuming and difficult to administer; requires the administrator to be comfortable with a patient centered approach; and due to the non-standardized interview, quality and consistency may vary between administrators. The COPM may be used for all levels and severities of injury but may be less appropriate for acute and early Phase trials/interventions.
The COPM has been well-established in adult and pediatric clinical samples (Cup et al., 2003; Dedding et al., 2004; Eyssen et al., 2005; Cusick 2006). Although it was adapted for very young children (Cusick et al., 2007), the COPM focuses assessment of performance in self-care, productivity and leisure (Law et al., 1990). The COPM has been used in SCI studies, several of which demonstrated its responsiveness to change (Mulcahey et al., 1995; Wangdell & Friden, 2010)
Administration: The COPM is typically administered by an Occupational Therapist to either the participant or caregiver responding on the participant's behalf. Time to administer is 10-20 minutes, no equipment is required, training can be conducted by reading an article/manual.
|
| References |
Key References:
Law M, Baptiste S, McColl M, Opzoomer A, Polatajko H, Pollock N. The Canadian occupational performance measure: an outcome measure for occupational therapy. Can J Occup Ther. 1990 Apr;57(2):82-7.
Law M, Baptiste S, Carswell A, McColl MA, Polatajko HJ, Pollock N. (2014). Canadian occupational performance measure (5th ed.). CAOT Publications.
Law M, Baptiste S, Carswell A, McColl MA, Polatajko HJ, Pollock N. (2019). Canadian occupational performance measure (5th ed. revised.). COPM Inc.
Pollock N, Baptiste S, Law M, McColl MA, Opzoomer A, Polatajko H. Occupational performance measures: a review based on the guidelines for the client-centred practice of occupational therapy. Can J Occup Ther. 1990 Apr;57(2):77-81.
Additional References:
Bickes MB, Deloache SN, Dicer JR, Miller SC. Effectiveness of Experiential and Verbal Occupational Therapy Groups in a Community Mental Health Setting. Occup Ther Mental Health. 2001;17(1):51-72.
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(3):123-126.
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 Feb;68(1):16-22.
Carswell A, McColl MA, Baptiste S, Law M, Polatajko H, Pollock N. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: a research and clinical literature review. Can J Occup Ther. 2004 Oct;71(4):210-22.
Cup EH, Scholte op Reimer WJ, Thijssen MC, van Kuyk-Minis MA. Reliability and validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in stroke patients. Clin Rehabil. 2003 Jul;17(4):402-9.
Cusick A, Lannin NA, Lowe K. Adapting the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure for use in a paediatric clinical trial. Disabil Rehabil. 2007 May 30;29(10):761-6.
Dedding C, Cardol M, Eyssen IC, Dekker J, Beelen A. Validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: a client-centred outcome measurement. Clin Rehabil. 2004 Sep;18(6):660-7.
de Groot V, Beckerman H, Uitdehaag BM, de Vet HC, Lankhorst GJ, Polman CH, Bouter LM. The usefulness of evaluative outcome measures in patients with multiple sclerosis. Brain. 2006 Oct;129(Pt 10):2648-59.
Edwards M, Baptiste S, Stratford PW, Law M. Recovery after hip fracture: what can we learn from the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure? Am J Occup Ther. 2007 May-Jun;61(3):335-44.
Enemark Larsen A, Wehberg S, Christensen JR. The Validity of the Danish Version of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Occup Ther Int. 2020 Apr 22;2020:1309104.
Eyssen IC, Beelen A, Dedding C, Cardol M, Dekker J. The reproducibility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Clin Rehabil. 2005 Dec;19(8):888-94.
Eyssen IC, Steultjens MP, Oud TA, Bolt EM, Maasdam A, Dekker J. Responsiveness of the Canadian occupational performance measure. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(5):517-28..
Kirsh B, Cockburn L. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: a tool for recovery-based practice. Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2009 Winter;32(3):171-6.
McColl MA, Denis CB, Douglas KL, Gilmour J, Haveman N, Petersen M, Presswell B, Law M. A Clinically Significant Difference on the COPM: A Review. Can J Occup Ther. 2023 Mar;90(1):92-102.
McColl MA, Carswell A, Law M. (2006). Research on the Canadian occupational performance measure: An annotated resource. CAOT Publications.
McColl MA, Law M, Baptiste S, Pollock N, Carswell A, Polatajko HJ. Targeted applications of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Can J Occup Ther. 2005 Dec;72(5):298-300.
Verkerk GJ, Wolf MJ, Louwers AM, Meester-Delver A, Nollet F. The reproducibility and validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in parents of children with disabilities. Clin Rehabil. 2006 Nov;20(11):980-8.
Wangdell J, Fridén J. Satisfaction and performance in patient selected goals after grip reconstruction in tetraplegia. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2010 Sep;35(7):563-8.
SCI-Pediatric-Specific References:
Cusick A, Lannin NA, Lowe K. Adapting the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure for use in a paediatric clinical trial. Disabil Rehabil. 2007 May 30;29(10):761-6.
Cusick A, McIntyre S, Novak I, Lannin N, Lowe K. A comparison of goal attainment scaling and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure for paediatric rehabilitation research. Pediatr Rehabil. 2006 Apr-Jun;9(2):149-57.
Mulcahey MJ, Smith BT, Betz RR, Weiss AA. Outcomes of tendon transfer surgery and occupational therapy in a child with tetraplegia secondary to spinal cord injury. Am J Occup Ther. 1995 Jul-Aug;49(7):607-17.
Stroke-Specific References:
Beckelhimer SC, Dalton AE, Richter CA, Hermann V, Page SJ. Computer-based rhythm and timing training in severe, stroke-induced arm hemiparesis. Am J Occup Ther. 2011 Jan-Feb;65(1):96-100.
Hill V, Dunn L, Dunning K, Page SJ. A pilot study of rhythm and timing training as a supplement to occupational therapy in stroke rehabilitation. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2011 Nov-Dec;18(6):728-37.
Kirton A, Andersen J, Herrero M, Nettel-Aguirre A, Carsolio L, Damji O, Keess J, Mineyko A, Hodge J, Hill MD. Brain stimulation and constraint for perinatal stroke hemiparesis: The PLASTIC CHAMPS Trial. Neurology. 2016 May 3;86(18):1659-67.
Mann G, Taylor P, Lane R. Accelerometer-triggered electrical stimulation for reach and grasp in chronic stroke patients: a pilot study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011 Oct;25(8):774-80.
McCall M, McEwen S, Colantonio A, Streiner D, Dawson DR. Modified constraint-induced movement therapy for elderly clients with subacute stroke. Am J Occup Ther. 2011 Jul-Aug;65(4):409-18.
McEwen S, Polatajko H, Baum C, Rios J, Cirone D, Doherty M, Wolf T. Combined Cognitive-Strategy and Task-Specific Training Improve Transfer to Untrained Activities in Subacute Stroke: An Exploratory Randomized Controlled Trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015 Jul;29(6):526-36.
Page SJ, Hill V, White S. Portable upper extremity robotics is as efficacious as upper extremity rehabilitative therapy: a randomized controlled pilot trial. Clin Rehabil. 2013 Jun;27(6):494-503.
Polatajko HJ, McEwen SE, Ryan JD, Baum CM. Pilot randomized controlled trial investigating cognitive strategy use to improve goal performance after stroke. Am J Occup Ther. 2012 Jan-Feb;66(1):104-9.
Skidmore ER, Holm MB, Whyte EM, Dew MA, Dawson D, Becker JT. The feasibility of meta-cognitive strategy training in acute inpatient stroke rehabilitation: case report. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2011 Apr;21(2):208-23.
Yang SY, Lin CY, Lee YC, Chang JH. The Canadian occupational performance measure for patients with stroke: a systematic review. J Phys Ther Sci. 2017 Mar;29(3):548-555.
Document last updated October 2024
|