Canadian Occupational Performance Measure Supported by Talking Mats: An Evaluation of the Clinical Utility.

Only six clients were included, and the results were based on professionals' ratings of filmed interviews, not on client-reported outcomes or treatment results. The study only used the perspective of professionals; client views were not the main data source, even though the aim was client-centred participation. Each client had two interviews 10 days apart, and there was no strategy to counterbalance the order, so practice effects or time differences could have influenced the comparison. The therapists were relatively inexperienced in using Talking Mats, and the interviews with Talking Mats took 10 to 50 minutes longer, which may have affected completion of later steps. Only three therapists met the inclusion requirements, and all results came from one community centre, so they may not apply to other settings or more experienced users. One client clearly did not benefit, and the evaluation team said Talking Mats was not used as intended for him, showing the method depends on fit and interviewer skill.

Do not conclude that Talking Mats makes the COPM effective for all clients with brain injury. The study included six clients, and one client was less reflective and more constrained when using Talking Mats; the findings describe interview process, not patient outcomes.