摘要:

No abstract available for this article.

ISSN:0164-212X    

DOI:10.1300/J004v08n04_01

出版商:Taylor&Francis Group    

年代:1989

数据来源: Taylor

摘要:

An instrument development study comparing two similar interview instruments, the Assessment of Occupational Functioning (AOF) (Brollier&Watts, 1985; Watts, Kielhofner, Bauer, Gregory,&Valentine, 1986) and the Occupational Case Analysis Interview and Rating Scale (OCAIRS) (Kaplan, 1983, 1984; Kaplan&Kielhofner, 1985) is reported. Correlations of scores from the two instruments when used with 41 patients diagnosed with schizophrenia and qualitative feedback from practicing OTRs were analyzed. The two instruments seem to measure subjects similarly, and therapists report belief in their otential clinical value. Their suggestions for revisions are included.

ISSN:0164-212X    

DOI:10.1300/J004v08n04_02

出版商:Taylor&Francis Group    

年代:1989

数据来源: Taylor

摘要:

Eleven re istered occupational therapists who were considered knowledgeab f e about the model of human occupation served as content validity raters for the Assessment of Occupational Functioning (AOF) (1st rev.) (Brollier&Watts, 1985; Watts, Kiel- hofner, Bauer, Gregory,&Valentine, 1986). The results were tested to determine the amount of agreement between content experts and the authors of the AOF. Overall, the AOF was found to adequately cover the domain of content for the six model of human occupation components.

ISSN:0164-212X    

DOI:10.1300/J004v08n04_03

出版商:Taylor&Francis Group    

年代:1989

数据来源: Taylor

摘要:

In this study the concurrent validity of the Assessment of Occu ational Functioning (AOF) (1st rev.) (Brollier&Watts, 1985; katts, Kielhofner, Bauer, Gregory,&Valentine, 1986) and the Occupational Case Anal sis and Interview Ratin Scale (OCAIRS) (Kaplan, 1983,1984; d p l a n&Kielhober, 1 9 8 8 was assessed, using scores on the Global Assessment Scale (Endicott, Spitzer, Fleiss,&Cohen, 1976), a well-known measure of psychosocial health-illness. Forty-one chronic schizophrenic sub-jects were tested with these three measures. Both the AOF and the OCAIRS were found to have adequate concurrent validity.

ISSN:0164-212X    

DOI:10.1300/J004v08n04_04

出版商:Taylor&Francis Group    

年代:1989

数据来源: Taylor

摘要:

The second revision of the Assessment of Occupa- tional Functioning (AOF) (Brollier&Watts, 1985; Watts, Kielhof- ner, Bauer, Gregory,&Valentine, 1986) is described, with refer- ence to research study findings that ided the changes. The second 8" AOF revision is presented along wit suggestions for further devel- opment of this and other occupational therapy evaluations.

ISSN:0164-212X    

DOI:10.1300/J004v08n04_05

出版商:Taylor&Francis Group    

年代:1989

数据来源: Taylor

摘要:

The need for ongoing development and use of stan- dardized patient evaluations is discussed. Possible reasons that these are not being used are explored. Finally, a case example demon- strates the use of the Assessment of Occupational Functioning (1st rev.) (Brollier&Watts, 1985).

ISSN:0164-212X    

DOI:10.1300/J004v08n04_06

出版商:Taylor&Francis Group    

年代:1989

数据来源: Taylor

摘要:

No abstract available for this article.

ISSN:0164-212X    

DOI:10.1300/J004v08n04_b

出版商:Taylor&Francis Group    

年代:1989

数据来源: Taylor