↓ Skip to main content

Development and construct validation of the Client-Centredness of Goal Setting (C-COGS) scale

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Development and construct validation of the Client-Centredness of Goal Setting (C-COGS) scale
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, February 2015
DOI 10.3109/11038128.2015.1017530
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emmah Doig, Sarah Prescott, Jennifer Fleming, Petrea Cornwell, Pim Kuipers

Abstract

Abstract Background: Client-centred philosophy is integral to occupational therapy practice and client-centred goal planning is considered fundamental to rehabilitation. Evaluation of whether goal-planning practices are client-centred requires an understanding of the client's perspective about goal-planning processes and practices. The Client-Centredness of Goal Setting (C-COGS) was developed for use by practitioners who seek to be more client-centred and who require a scale to guide and evaluate individually orientated practice, especially with adults with cognitive impairment related to acquired brain injury. Aims: To describe development of the C-COGS scale and examine its construct validity. Material and methods: The C-COGS was administered to 42 participants with acquired brain injury after multidisciplinary goal planning. C-COGS scores were correlated with the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) importance scores, and measures of therapeutic alliance, motivation, and global functioning to establish construct validity. Results: The C-COGS scale has three subscales evaluating goal alignment, goal planning participation, and client-centredness of goals. The C-COGS subscale items demonstrated moderately significant correlations with scales measuring similar constructs. Conclusion: Findings provide preliminary evidence to support the construct validity of the C-COGS scale, which is intended to be used to evaluate and reflect on client-centred goal planning in clinical practice, and to highlight factors contributing to best practice rehabilitation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 132 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 16%
Student > Bachelor 19 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 13%
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 27 20%
Unknown 25 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 38 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 16%
Psychology 9 7%
Social Sciences 8 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 32 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 January 2016.
All research outputs
#15,325,004
of 22,792,160 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy
#292
of 457 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,796
of 254,710 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy
#9
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,792,160 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 457 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 254,710 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.