Cited by 81Occupational Therapy Practice and ResearchHealth Education and ValidationSchizophrenia research and treatment

Reliability and validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure for clients with psychiatric disorders in Taiwan

Pan, Ay‐Woan, Chung, Lyinn, Hsin‐Hwei, Grace·2003·Occupational Therapy International

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to examine the reliability and validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) in Taiwanese clients with psychiatric disorders. The COPM was translated into Mandarin and tested on 141 Taiwanese clients. The average age of the clients was 35.6 years; 94% were diagnosed with schizophrenia. The results of the study showed that the test–retest reliability of the COPM was r=0.842. The COPM identified occupational performance problems that included self‐care (37%), productivity (25%), and leisure occupations (20%). Fifty percent of the therapists were receptive in adapting the client‐centred approach and applying the COPM in their clinical practice. It was concluded that the COPM can be applied reliably to Taiwanese clients. Furthermore, the COPM was valuable in identifying information related to occupational performance that could not be identified elsewhere. Since 50% of the therapists felt reluctant about the appropriateness of the client‐centred approach in their culture, it was important to examine the gap between clients' judgements and actual performance, as well as to evaluate the feasibility of the client‐centred concept in clinical practice. Finally, the concept of the client‐centred approach needs to be disseminated and communicated to the occupational therapy profession in order that the COPM can be adequately applied in mental health practice. Copyright © 2003 Whurr Publishers Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/oti.190

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pan, A., Chung, L., & Hsin‐Hwei, G.
Affiliations
  • National Taiwan University (TW)
  • Yuan Ze University (TW)
Corresponding author
Pan, Ay‐Woan
Venue
Occupational Therapy International
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-11
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
269-277
ISSN
  • 0966-7903 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-0703
OpenAlex
W2075218335
Cited by
81
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 7
FWCI
7.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Occupational Therapy International (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Therapy Practice and Research
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
Keywords
Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, occupational performance, schizophrenia, mental illness, Mandarin translation, test-retest reliability, person-centered approach, occupational therapy assessment, self-care, leisure occupations, labor productivity
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Mental Disorders, Canada, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Disability Evaluation, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Occupational Therapy, Taiwan, Reproducibility of Results, Patient-Centered Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review