Free
Research Article  |   May 2010
Rehabilitation Research
Author Affiliations
  • Trudy Mallinson, PhD, OTR/L, NZROT, is Assistant Professor, Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
  • Heidi Fischer, MS, OTR/L, is Clinical Research Coordinator, Center for Rehabilitation Outcomes Research, Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago
Article Information
Centennial Vision / Evidence-Based Practice / Health and Wellness / Home Accessibility/Environmental Modification / Neurologic Conditions / Rehabilitation, Participation, and Disability / Departments / Centennial Vision
Research Article   |   May 2010
Rehabilitation Research
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, May/June 2010, Vol. 64, 506-514. doi:10.5014/ajot.2010.09080
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, May/June 2010, Vol. 64, 506-514. doi:10.5014/ajot.2010.09080
The Centennial Vision of the American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA; 2007a) marks a significant step forward in occupational therapy by creating a clear statement about what the practice of occupational therapy will look like in the future. In 2007, several ad hoc work groups were assigned the task of translating this vision into actionable goals for key areas of practice. The panels met to answer key questions that would provide a road map to guide research and practice in those areas. Each panel produced a report for the AOTA Board of Directors. In its report, the Ad Hoc Work Group on Rehabilitation, Disability, and Participation concluded that to achieve the Centennial Vision, occupational therapists in rehabilitation need to focus on supporting lifelong participation through implementation of context-based assessments and interventions. The work group determined that occupational therapy’s essential skills and knowledge must be used to address individual and environmental issues that impede a person’s ability to engage in occupations and, ultimately, to fully participate in society. To meet this goal, the profession will need to continue to develop evidence-based interventions and assessment tools that are focused at the level of activity and participation and that occur in context-rich environments (AOTA, 2007b).
The work group praised the alignment of the Occupational Therapy Practice Framework: Domain and Process (AOTA, 2008) with the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (World Health Organization, 2001) and the importance of an expanded view of functional performance to include “freedom and citizenship … contributing to communities of choice” (Hammel, Jones, Gossett, & Morgan, 2006, p. 43). It suggested that in the future, occupational therapy would need to develop an expanded focus on access to the community and barriers to participation, which will require an increased emphasis on regaining occupational skills in real-world environments and research that focuses on developing and testing participation-level outcomes and interventions.
Activity- and participation-level interventions that focus on developing skilled performance in the context of everyday activities and environmental modifications will increasingly require that therapy explore and exploit the similarities and differences between real-world and therapy environments. The field of motor control is examining the role of adaptation, that is, calibrating the brain’s prediction of how the body will move and how learning transfers between therapy environments, such as treadmills and robotic reaching devices, and real-world environments (Bastian, 2008).
Several measures of underlying capacity are widely used in occupational therapy (e.g., dynamometers, pegboard tests). Such assessments are often easily administered in any environment and require little equipment. Activity- and participation-level assessments can be more challenging to administer and interpret because they are more influenced by the environment and contextual factors. For example, even simple tub transfers can be influenced by the height and width of the tub, the availability of handrails and tub chairs, and the presence or absence of water. With respect to patient-reported measures, if the therapist asks an individual to rate his or her difficulty with dressing, is the person thinking about putting on work clothes or sweatpants? Are the clothes already laid out, or do they need to be retrieved from the closet? To date, most assessments of activity and participation either ignore the role of context or control it to such a degree that relevance to real-life situations may be limited.
Clinicians also frequently comment that the rating scales associated with activity- and participation-level assessments do not always capture the changes in performance being achieved in therapy. Because impairment-level assessments tightly control the performance requirements and elements of the environment, they are useful for capturing small discrete changes in capacity. In the world of slow progress that can be rehabilitation, such assessments can be appealing and motivating for both therapists and patients. Yet such assessments do not capture the true goals of rehabilitation, which are to have the person return to the least restrictive level of functioning and to participate in personally meaningful activities. Occupational therapy will face a growing need to challenge current measurement paradigms, to find ways to measure both person ability and environmental supports and barriers simultaneously, and to describe performance outcomes as an interaction of both of these factors, not just in terms of person capacity.
In summary, future occupational therapy research will need to focus on the promotion of activity and participation, conducted in real-life contexts, and should evaluate the impact of the environment on occupational performance.
Method
In this article, we report on the systematic review of 14 occupational therapy rehabilitation research articles published in the American Journal of Occupational Therapy (AJOT) between January 2008 and September 2009 in the practice areas of work and industry and rehabilitation, disability, and participation (Table 1). A separate review (Gillen, 2010) published in AJOT addressed rehabilitation research studies in the areas of stroke and traumatic brain injury.
Table 1.
Summary of Research in Disability, Rehabilitation, and Participation and Work and Industry
Summary of Research in Disability, Rehabilitation, and Participation and Work and Industry×
Author and YearSystematic or Narrative ReviewEffectiveness StudyEfficacy StudyBasic ResearchInstrument Development and TestingLink Between Occupational Engagement and HealthQuantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed MethodLevel of Evidence
Baker & Redfern (2009) XQuantitative
Canny, Thompson, & Wheeler (2009) XQuantitative
Darragh, Harrison, & Kenny (2008) XQuantitativeII
Dunn, Carlson, Jackson, & Clark (2009) XQualitative
Finlayson, Garcia, & Cho (2008) XQuantitative
Gentry (2008) XQuantitativeIII
Jang, Chern, & Lin (2009) XQuantitative
Kay, Bundy, & Clemson (2008) XQuantitative
Kielhofner, Braveman, Fogg, & Levin (2008) XQuantitativeII
Lindstrom-Hazel, Kratt, & Bix (2009) XQuantitative
May-Lisowski & King (2008) XQuantitative
Poole, Willer, & Mendelson (2009) XQuantitative
Rallon & Chen (2008) XQuantitative
Warren, Moore, & Vogtle (2008) XQuantitative
Table 1.
Summary of Research in Disability, Rehabilitation, and Participation and Work and Industry
Summary of Research in Disability, Rehabilitation, and Participation and Work and Industry×
Author and YearSystematic or Narrative ReviewEffectiveness StudyEfficacy StudyBasic ResearchInstrument Development and TestingLink Between Occupational Engagement and HealthQuantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed MethodLevel of Evidence
Baker & Redfern (2009) XQuantitative
Canny, Thompson, & Wheeler (2009) XQuantitative
Darragh, Harrison, & Kenny (2008) XQuantitativeII
Dunn, Carlson, Jackson, & Clark (2009) XQualitative
Finlayson, Garcia, & Cho (2008) XQuantitative
Gentry (2008) XQuantitativeIII
Jang, Chern, & Lin (2009) XQuantitative
Kay, Bundy, & Clemson (2008) XQuantitative
Kielhofner, Braveman, Fogg, & Levin (2008) XQuantitativeII
Lindstrom-Hazel, Kratt, & Bix (2009) XQuantitative
May-Lisowski & King (2008) XQuantitative
Poole, Willer, & Mendelson (2009) XQuantitative
Rallon & Chen (2008) XQuantitative
Warren, Moore, & Vogtle (2008) XQuantitative
×
To evaluate how well studies published in AJOT meet the Centennial Vision for rehabilitation research, we read and reviewed the articles and classified them by level of evidence and types of research as previously described by Gutman (2008, Table 2): systematic or narrative reviews, effectiveness studies, efficacy studies, basic research about disability, instrument development and testing, and studies with a link between occupational engagement and health.
Table 2.
Summary of Study Design and Methodology of Research in Disability, Rehabilitation, and Participation and Work and Industry
Summary of Study Design and Methodology of Research in Disability, Rehabilitation, and Participation and Work and Industry×
Author and YearResearch Methodology UsedLevel of EvidenceSample Selection MethodSample Characteristics and Inclusion– Exclusion CriteriaInstruments or Interventions UsedStatistics UsedResultsStudy Limitations
Baker & Redfern (2009) Descriptive, correlationalConvenience sample from the universityAdult keyboard users between ages 18 and 65 with no history of upper-extremity fracture or traumatic injury that limited upper extremity useK–PeCS, videotapingχ2, Spearman’s rank correlations ρSignificant difference in hand posture between right and left handsExternal validity, moderate intrarater reliability, hand dominance not identified
Canny, Thompson, & Wheeler (2009) Prospective, test–retest, and interrater reliabilityConvenience sample from treatment centerN = 60 Age: 20–68 yr Dx: fibromyalgia, healthy control participants Gender: femaleBox and Block Test of Manual DexterityICC Paired t testTest–retest, .90; interrater,.85; fibromyalgia patients scored significantly below control group and normed values.Convenience sample may not be representative; both treatment and control groups scored well below norms.
Darragh, Harrison, & Kenny (2008) Quasi-experimental, pretest–posttestIIConvenience sample from facility where study took placeFull-time production workers who were microscope operatorsLaboratory Assessment Checklist, Employee Comfort Survey, ergonomic education and trainingANOVA, ANCOVASignificant increase in body positioning and workstation design in the education + training group and lesser increase in the education-only group compared with control groupNot blinded, inflation, participant bias, external validity (limited generalizability)
Dunn, Carlson, Jackson, & Clark (2009)Qualitative, secondary analysisParticipants of previous study who developed pressure ulcers19 men and women with spinal cord injury who developed pressure ulcersN/AN/A46 pressure ulcer events in a 1- to 5-yr period; 8 main response categories with subcategories identified that described response to pressure ulcer eventsLimited generalizability (only looked at people who developed ulcers, not those who did not and compared); categorization of pressure ulcer not confirmed in medical record.
Finlayson, Garcia, & Cho (2008) Prospective cohortDirect mail to consumer groups, advertising in care centersN = 1,282 Age: 63.8 ± 9.4 yrDx: Multiple sclerosisStructured telephone interviewProportional odds model38% of participants used occupational therapy since diagnosis; occupational therapy services considered important to well-being; more activity limitations and urban location associated with use of occupational therapy in past year.Limited geographic region, participant recall of service use only, details of occupational therapy service use not collected
Gentry (2008) CohortIIIConvenience sample from local clinic and local chapter of the Multiple Sclerosis SocietyCommunity-dwelling people with multiple sclerosis who had cognitive impairmentRBMT–E, COPM, CHART–R, PDA checklist or occupational therapists trained participants to use PDAs as cognitive aid at homeRepeated-measures ANOVA, t testSignificant increase in performance and satisfaction; significant increase in mobility, cognitive and social subscales; no significant change in behavioral memorySample not fully representative, not randomized, subjective report; treating clinician also conducted evaluations.
Jang, Chern, & Lin (2009) Prospective, reliability, and validityConvenience sample from two schools, three employment services, and local high schoolsN = 130 Age: 15–28 yrDx: intellectual disability and healthy control participantsLOTCA Pictorial IQ test
  • Confirmatory factor analysis

  • Cronbach’s α

  • Spearman’s ρ

  • Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis

  • Mann–Whitney U

  • ANOVA with Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference

Confirmed structure of LOTCA with confirmatory factor analysis, low internal consistency for motor praxis scale. LOTCA subscales correlated .26–.63 with Pictorial IQ test.None acknowledged. Convenience sample may not be representative.
Kay, Bundy, & Clemson (2008) Retrospective, cohortAll clients referred to center over a 10-yr period.N = 838 Age: 53 ± 20 yr Dx: orthopedic, neurologic, cognitive impairment, traumatic brain injury, vision impairment, otherVRST–USyd on-road driving assessmentRasch Analysis (including MnSq fit statistics, point–measure correlations, principal-components analysis of residuals)All items fit the Rasch model; test does not cover full range of driving competence; principal-components analysis provided evidence of unidimensionality; reliability = .95, no significant DIF for gender; prediction of road performance sensitivity = 77%, specificity = 92%, PPV = 67%, NPV = 95%Convenience sample may not be representative. On-road assessors were not blinded to off-road performance results. Reliability information of on-road test was limited.
Kielhofner, Braveman, Fogg, & Levin (2008) Quasi-experimental, pretest–posttest with standard of care controlIIConvenience sample from four local supportive living facilitiesAdults with HIV or AIDS who are homeless or at risk for homelessnessSSC–HIV/ ESD program Productive participationχ2; odds ratioSignificantly higher levels of productive participation in model program participants.Nonrandomized; 29% attrition rate; standard-of-care control group may not be equivalent to true standard of care.
Lindstrom-Hazel, Kratt, & Bix (2009) Prospective, interrater reliabilityConvenience sample of studentsN = 73 Age: not given Dx: healthyJamar hydraulic dynamometer, B&L Engineering pinch gaugeICCICCs for Jamar dynamometer ranged from .996 to .998; for pinch gauge, from .949 to .99Pairs of raters were not screened, so they might have seen what other rater scored. Convenience sample of raters may not be representative.
May-Lisowski & King (2008) Within-subjects repeated measuresConvenience sample from local universityUniversity students, right‐ hand dominant, no history of upper‐extremity injuryMotion monitor, videotaping, measures of shoulder flexion, abduction, internal rotationPaired t-tests; Cohen’s d effect sizeSignificant increases in shoulder flexion/abduction during wrist immobilization; no significant difference with internal rotationGeneralizability to population with upper-extremity injuries
Poole, Willer, & Mendelson (2009) Cross-sectionalAdvertised for participants from national scleroderma foundation and local chaptersMothers with scleroderma with children (birth to 18 yr) living at homePDI, VAS, HAQ, MAFSSpearman ρ correlation coefficients between instrumentsPoorer health, higher levels of pain, fatigue, and more activity limitation were related to greater parenting difficultySample was not representative; author did not collect ages of children.
Rallon & Chen (2008) Prospective, cohortConvenience sample from local clinicN = 30 Age: 56 ± 11.9 yr Dx: orthopedic handMAM–36 TEMPA
  • Rasch Rating Scale analysis

  • Spearman’s ρ

  • Unpaired t test

Moderate to strong correlations between MAM–36 and TEMPA, significant differences between dominant and nondominant hands for TEMPA unilateral tasksConvenience sample may not be representative. Severity of hand dysfunction not categorized.
Warren, Moore, & Vogtle (2008) Cross-sectionalConvenience sample from local community81 healthy adults between ages 20 and 90Brain Injury Visual Assessment Battery for Adults, visual search strategies, and checking work or time2-factor ANOVA, 2-factor χ2Horizontal, left-to-right, top-to-bottom search pattern found to be predominant with no significant differences in age or gender; older adults (>age 60) took longer to complete tests; older adults more likely to check work.External validity regarding ethnicity and culture
Table Footer NoteNote. ANCOVA = analysis of covariance; ANOVA = analysis of variance; CHART–R = Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique–Revised; COPM = Canadian Occupational Performance Measure; DIF = differential item function; Dx = diagnosis; ESD = Enabling Self-Determination; HAQ = Health Assessment Questionnaire; ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient; K–PeCS = Keyboard Personal Computer Style; LOTCA = Loewenstein Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment; MAFS = Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue Scale; MAM–36 = Manual Ability Measure; N/A = not applicable; NPV = negative predictive value; PDA = personal digital assistant; PDI = Parent Disability Index; PPV = positive predictive value; RBTME = Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test–Extended; SSC–HIV = Sign and Symptom Checklist for People With HIV/AIDS; TEMPA = Test d'Evaluation de la Performance des Membres Supérieurs des Personnes Âgées; VAS = visual analog scale; VRST–USyd = Visual Recognition Slide Test–University of Sydney.
Note. ANCOVA = analysis of covariance; ANOVA = analysis of variance; CHART–R = Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique–Revised; COPM = Canadian Occupational Performance Measure; DIF = differential item function; Dx = diagnosis; ESD = Enabling Self-Determination; HAQ = Health Assessment Questionnaire; ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient; K–PeCS = Keyboard Personal Computer Style; LOTCA = Loewenstein Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment; MAFS = Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue Scale; MAM–36 = Manual Ability Measure; N/A = not applicable; NPV = negative predictive value; PDA = personal digital assistant; PDI = Parent Disability Index; PPV = positive predictive value; RBTME = Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test–Extended; SSC–HIV = Sign and Symptom Checklist for People With HIV/AIDS; TEMPA = Test d'Evaluation de la Performance des Membres Supérieurs des Personnes Âgées; VAS = visual analog scale; VRST–USyd = Visual Recognition Slide Test–University of Sydney.×
Table 2.
Summary of Study Design and Methodology of Research in Disability, Rehabilitation, and Participation and Work and Industry
Summary of Study Design and Methodology of Research in Disability, Rehabilitation, and Participation and Work and Industry×
Author and YearResearch Methodology UsedLevel of EvidenceSample Selection MethodSample Characteristics and Inclusion– Exclusion CriteriaInstruments or Interventions UsedStatistics UsedResultsStudy Limitations
Baker & Redfern (2009) Descriptive, correlationalConvenience sample from the universityAdult keyboard users between ages 18 and 65 with no history of upper-extremity fracture or traumatic injury that limited upper extremity useK–PeCS, videotapingχ2, Spearman’s rank correlations ρSignificant difference in hand posture between right and left handsExternal validity, moderate intrarater reliability, hand dominance not identified
Canny, Thompson, & Wheeler (2009) Prospective, test–retest, and interrater reliabilityConvenience sample from treatment centerN = 60 Age: 20–68 yr Dx: fibromyalgia, healthy control participants Gender: femaleBox and Block Test of Manual DexterityICC Paired t testTest–retest, .90; interrater,.85; fibromyalgia patients scored significantly below control group and normed values.Convenience sample may not be representative; both treatment and control groups scored well below norms.
Darragh, Harrison, & Kenny (2008) Quasi-experimental, pretest–posttestIIConvenience sample from facility where study took placeFull-time production workers who were microscope operatorsLaboratory Assessment Checklist, Employee Comfort Survey, ergonomic education and trainingANOVA, ANCOVASignificant increase in body positioning and workstation design in the education + training group and lesser increase in the education-only group compared with control groupNot blinded, inflation, participant bias, external validity (limited generalizability)
Dunn, Carlson, Jackson, & Clark (2009)Qualitative, secondary analysisParticipants of previous study who developed pressure ulcers19 men and women with spinal cord injury who developed pressure ulcersN/AN/A46 pressure ulcer events in a 1- to 5-yr period; 8 main response categories with subcategories identified that described response to pressure ulcer eventsLimited generalizability (only looked at people who developed ulcers, not those who did not and compared); categorization of pressure ulcer not confirmed in medical record.
Finlayson, Garcia, & Cho (2008) Prospective cohortDirect mail to consumer groups, advertising in care centersN = 1,282 Age: 63.8 ± 9.4 yrDx: Multiple sclerosisStructured telephone interviewProportional odds model38% of participants used occupational therapy since diagnosis; occupational therapy services considered important to well-being; more activity limitations and urban location associated with use of occupational therapy in past year.Limited geographic region, participant recall of service use only, details of occupational therapy service use not collected
Gentry (2008) CohortIIIConvenience sample from local clinic and local chapter of the Multiple Sclerosis SocietyCommunity-dwelling people with multiple sclerosis who had cognitive impairmentRBMT–E, COPM, CHART–R, PDA checklist or occupational therapists trained participants to use PDAs as cognitive aid at homeRepeated-measures ANOVA, t testSignificant increase in performance and satisfaction; significant increase in mobility, cognitive and social subscales; no significant change in behavioral memorySample not fully representative, not randomized, subjective report; treating clinician also conducted evaluations.
Jang, Chern, & Lin (2009) Prospective, reliability, and validityConvenience sample from two schools, three employment services, and local high schoolsN = 130 Age: 15–28 yrDx: intellectual disability and healthy control participantsLOTCA Pictorial IQ test
  • Confirmatory factor analysis

  • Cronbach’s α

  • Spearman’s ρ

  • Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis

  • Mann–Whitney U

  • ANOVA with Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference

Confirmed structure of LOTCA with confirmatory factor analysis, low internal consistency for motor praxis scale. LOTCA subscales correlated .26–.63 with Pictorial IQ test.None acknowledged. Convenience sample may not be representative.
Kay, Bundy, & Clemson (2008) Retrospective, cohortAll clients referred to center over a 10-yr period.N = 838 Age: 53 ± 20 yr Dx: orthopedic, neurologic, cognitive impairment, traumatic brain injury, vision impairment, otherVRST–USyd on-road driving assessmentRasch Analysis (including MnSq fit statistics, point–measure correlations, principal-components analysis of residuals)All items fit the Rasch model; test does not cover full range of driving competence; principal-components analysis provided evidence of unidimensionality; reliability = .95, no significant DIF for gender; prediction of road performance sensitivity = 77%, specificity = 92%, PPV = 67%, NPV = 95%Convenience sample may not be representative. On-road assessors were not blinded to off-road performance results. Reliability information of on-road test was limited.
Kielhofner, Braveman, Fogg, & Levin (2008) Quasi-experimental, pretest–posttest with standard of care controlIIConvenience sample from four local supportive living facilitiesAdults with HIV or AIDS who are homeless or at risk for homelessnessSSC–HIV/ ESD program Productive participationχ2; odds ratioSignificantly higher levels of productive participation in model program participants.Nonrandomized; 29% attrition rate; standard-of-care control group may not be equivalent to true standard of care.
Lindstrom-Hazel, Kratt, & Bix (2009) Prospective, interrater reliabilityConvenience sample of studentsN = 73 Age: not given Dx: healthyJamar hydraulic dynamometer, B&L Engineering pinch gaugeICCICCs for Jamar dynamometer ranged from .996 to .998; for pinch gauge, from .949 to .99Pairs of raters were not screened, so they might have seen what other rater scored. Convenience sample of raters may not be representative.
May-Lisowski & King (2008) Within-subjects repeated measuresConvenience sample from local universityUniversity students, right‐ hand dominant, no history of upper‐extremity injuryMotion monitor, videotaping, measures of shoulder flexion, abduction, internal rotationPaired t-tests; Cohen’s d effect sizeSignificant increases in shoulder flexion/abduction during wrist immobilization; no significant difference with internal rotationGeneralizability to population with upper-extremity injuries
Poole, Willer, & Mendelson (2009) Cross-sectionalAdvertised for participants from national scleroderma foundation and local chaptersMothers with scleroderma with children (birth to 18 yr) living at homePDI, VAS, HAQ, MAFSSpearman ρ correlation coefficients between instrumentsPoorer health, higher levels of pain, fatigue, and more activity limitation were related to greater parenting difficultySample was not representative; author did not collect ages of children.
Rallon & Chen (2008) Prospective, cohortConvenience sample from local clinicN = 30 Age: 56 ± 11.9 yr Dx: orthopedic handMAM–36 TEMPA
  • Rasch Rating Scale analysis

  • Spearman’s ρ

  • Unpaired t test

Moderate to strong correlations between MAM–36 and TEMPA, significant differences between dominant and nondominant hands for TEMPA unilateral tasksConvenience sample may not be representative. Severity of hand dysfunction not categorized.
Warren, Moore, & Vogtle (2008) Cross-sectionalConvenience sample from local community81 healthy adults between ages 20 and 90Brain Injury Visual Assessment Battery for Adults, visual search strategies, and checking work or time2-factor ANOVA, 2-factor χ2Horizontal, left-to-right, top-to-bottom search pattern found to be predominant with no significant differences in age or gender; older adults (>age 60) took longer to complete tests; older adults more likely to check work.External validity regarding ethnicity and culture
Table Footer NoteNote. ANCOVA = analysis of covariance; ANOVA = analysis of variance; CHART–R = Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique–Revised; COPM = Canadian Occupational Performance Measure; DIF = differential item function; Dx = diagnosis; ESD = Enabling Self-Determination; HAQ = Health Assessment Questionnaire; ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient; K–PeCS = Keyboard Personal Computer Style; LOTCA = Loewenstein Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment; MAFS = Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue Scale; MAM–36 = Manual Ability Measure; N/A = not applicable; NPV = negative predictive value; PDA = personal digital assistant; PDI = Parent Disability Index; PPV = positive predictive value; RBTME = Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test–Extended; SSC–HIV = Sign and Symptom Checklist for People With HIV/AIDS; TEMPA = Test d'Evaluation de la Performance des Membres Supérieurs des Personnes Âgées; VAS = visual analog scale; VRST–USyd = Visual Recognition Slide Test–University of Sydney.
Note. ANCOVA = analysis of covariance; ANOVA = analysis of variance; CHART–R = Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique–Revised; COPM = Canadian Occupational Performance Measure; DIF = differential item function; Dx = diagnosis; ESD = Enabling Self-Determination; HAQ = Health Assessment Questionnaire; ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient; K–PeCS = Keyboard Personal Computer Style; LOTCA = Loewenstein Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment; MAFS = Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue Scale; MAM–36 = Manual Ability Measure; N/A = not applicable; NPV = negative predictive value; PDA = personal digital assistant; PDI = Parent Disability Index; PPV = positive predictive value; RBTME = Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test–Extended; SSC–HIV = Sign and Symptom Checklist for People With HIV/AIDS; TEMPA = Test d'Evaluation de la Performance des Membres Supérieurs des Personnes Âgées; VAS = visual analog scale; VRST–USyd = Visual Recognition Slide Test–University of Sydney.×
×
We also summarized studies by methodology, sampling design, analytic methods, and findings (see Table 2). Levels of evidence in Tables 1 and 2 are based on AOTA’s levels of evidence rating system (Lieberman & Scheer, 2002):
  • Level I: Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials

  • Level II: Two groups, nonrandomized studies (e.g., cohort, case-control)

  • Level III: One group, nonrandomized (e.g., before and after, pretest and posttest)

  • Level IV: Descriptive studies that include analysis of outcomes (single-subject design, case series)

  • Level V: Case reports and expert opinion that include narrative literature reviews and consensus statements.

In addition, we further classified the studies according to our interpretation of the priority areas identified by the Ad Hoc Work Group on Rehabilitation, Disability, and Participation (see Table 3). These categories included use of activity- and participation-level measures, use of activity- and participation-level interventions, context-based interventions, and environmental modifications.
Table 3.
Summary of Centennial Vision Priority Areas Related to Research in Disability, Rehabilitation, and Participation and Work and Industry
Summary of Centennial Vision Priority Areas Related to Research in Disability, Rehabilitation, and Participation and Work and Industry×
Author and YearActivity or Participation MeasuresActivity or Participation InterventionsContext-Based InterventionsEnvironmental ModificationsNone of These
Baker & Redfern (2009) X
Canny, Thompson, & Wheeler (2009) X
Darragh, Harrison, & Kenny (2008) XXXX
Dunn, Carlson, Jackson, & Clark (2009)X
Finlayson, Garcia, & Cho (2008) X
Gentry (2008) XXXX
Jang, Chern, & Lin (2009) X
Kay, Bundy, & Clemson (2008) XXX
Kielhofner, Braveman, Fogg, & Levin (2008) XXX
Lindstrom-Hazel, Kratt, & Bix (2009) X
May-Lisowski & King (2008) X
Poole, Willer, & Mendelson (2009) X
Rallon & Chen (2008) X
Warren, Moore, & Vogtle (2008) X
Number of studies (N = 14)74427
Table 3.
Summary of Centennial Vision Priority Areas Related to Research in Disability, Rehabilitation, and Participation and Work and Industry
Summary of Centennial Vision Priority Areas Related to Research in Disability, Rehabilitation, and Participation and Work and Industry×
Author and YearActivity or Participation MeasuresActivity or Participation InterventionsContext-Based InterventionsEnvironmental ModificationsNone of These
Baker & Redfern (2009) X
Canny, Thompson, & Wheeler (2009) X
Darragh, Harrison, & Kenny (2008) XXXX
Dunn, Carlson, Jackson, & Clark (2009)X
Finlayson, Garcia, & Cho (2008) X
Gentry (2008) XXXX
Jang, Chern, & Lin (2009) X
Kay, Bundy, & Clemson (2008) XXX
Kielhofner, Braveman, Fogg, & Levin (2008) XXX
Lindstrom-Hazel, Kratt, & Bix (2009) X
May-Lisowski & King (2008) X
Poole, Willer, & Mendelson (2009) X
Rallon & Chen (2008) X
Warren, Moore, & Vogtle (2008) X
Number of studies (N = 14)74427
×
Results
Of the three effectiveness studies, none could be classified as Level 1 systematic reviews or randomized controlled trials. Two studies could be classified as Level 2 nonrandomized studies. One study could be classified as a Level 3 nonrandomized, one-group pretest–posttest design. No studies were Level 4 descriptive studies (see Table 1).
Fourteen articles included in this review were classified into the following categories: 5 instrument development and testing studies, 3 effectiveness studies, and 5 basic research studies. None could be classified as an efficacy study or systematic review. One study established a link between occupational engagement and health. One study was qualitative, and the remaining 13 were quantitative (see Table 2).
Only half of the studies could be classified according to the priority areas established by the AOTA working group (see Table 3). Six studies used activity- or participation-level measures, 4 incorporated activity- or participation-level interventions, 4 used context-based interventions, and only 2 included environmental modifications. Seven of the 14 studies did not fall into any of these areas.
Discussion
In recent years, most studies in this area of rehabilitation have tended to focus on instrument development and validation. In addition, the instrument development studies typically used small (between 30 and 130) convenience samples from a single setting or geographic region that are not necessarily representative of the patient groups they address. The three intervention studies used quasi-experimental and cohort designs, in part, their authors noted, because of the challenge of randomizing in real-world community and employment contexts (Darragh, Harrison, & Kenny, 2008; Gentry, 2008; Kielhofner, Braveman, Fogg, & Levin, 2008). Occupational therapy has a long tradition in qualitative methods, so the limited number of studies using this methodology is somewhat surprising. By contrast, occupational therapy has had less of a tradition of population-level studies, so it is encouraging to see epidemiologic methods such as those used in Finlayson, Garcia, and Cho (2008)  beginning to be reported in the literature.
Activity and Participation and Context-Based Interventions
Few of the studies used strong methodological designs such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs allow for a level of explanation of causal agents that other designs do not and often reflect the culmination of knowledge gained from numerous earlier, more exploratory studies. As such, RCTs can reflect a level of maturity and organization in thinking about a particular area of inquiry that demonstrates that a field is systematically building its knowledge base. Of the 14 studies, 3 were treatment effectiveness studies (Darragh et al., 2008; Gentry, 2008; Kielhofner et al., 2008). All 3 included activity- and participation-level interventions, and all 3 were context based. Although not a randomized controlled trial, Gentry’s (2008)  study embodied how occupational therapy uses knowledge of underlying capacity to provide context-based, participation-level interventions that improve occupational performance. Participants with multiple sclerosis were trained to use personal digital assistants to compensate for cognitive impairments and to enhance participation in everyday life tasks at home and in the community. In more rigorous research studies that included control groups, Kielhofner et al. (2008)  and Darragh et al. (2008)  provided interventions to increase productivity in community settings, supported living facilities, and the workplace, respectively. These kinds of studies, although not RCTs, exemplify the Centennial Vision for occupational therapy research by promoting participation in real-world environments.
In other studies, the use of occupation was more tangential. For example, May-Lisowski & King (2008)  had able-bodied people pick up brownie pieces to analyze upper-extremity movement. The rationale for using this food was not described. It was not clear that substituting brownies for apples or even a foam block would have made any meaningful or substantive difference to the interpretation of the study.
Activity and Participation and Context-Based Assessments
Of the 14 studies, 6 included activity- or participation-level assessments as the primary focus or outcome measure. The assessments included self-reported self-care and instrumental activities of daily living limitations (Finlayson et al., 2008); off- and on-road driving assessments (Kay, Bundy, & Clemson, 2008); the Laboratory Assessment Checklist (Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2001), used in Darragh et al. (2008); upper-extremity function during everyday activities, using the Manual Ability Measure (Chen, Kasven, Karpatkin, & Sylvester, 2007) and the Test d’Evaluation de la Performance des Membres Supérieurs des Personnes Âgées (Desrosiers, Herbert, Dutil, & Bravo, 1993), both used in Rallon and Chen (2008); the Parent Disability Index (Katz, Pasch, & Wong, 2003), used in Poole, Willer, and Mendelson (2009); the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM; Dedding, Cardol, Eyssen, Dekker, & Beelen, 2004) and the Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique (CHART; Whiteneck, Charlifue, Gerhart, Overholser, & Richardson, 1992), both used in Gentry (2008); and participation in work, school, training, or volunteering (Kielhofner et al., 2008).
Three of the studies used a combination of both impairment-level and activity- or participation-level measures. For example, Gentry (2008)  used the Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test–Extended (Wilson, Cockburn, Baddeley, & Hiorns, 1989) to evaluate memory and the COPM and the CHART–Revised to capture activity and participation levels. Kielhofner et al. (2008)  evaluated both symptoms with the Revised Sign and Symptom Checklist for people with HIV/AIDS (Holzemer, Hudson, Kirksey, Hamilton, & Bakken, 2001) and productive participation with self-reports of employment status, school and training, volunteer involvement, or all of these. Poole, Willer, & Mendelson (2009)  captured impairment-level pain with a visual analog scale and fatigue with the Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue Scale (Tack, 1991), while capturing activity or participation level with the Health Assessment Questionnaire (Fries, Spitz, Kraines, & Holman, 1980) and a parenting tool, the Parent Disability Index.
Eight of the 14 studies used only assessments that evaluated impairment-level constructs such as manual dexterity (Keyboard Personal Computer Style instrument, Baker & Redfern, 2005, used in Baker and Redfern, 2009, and the Box-and-Block Test, Cromwell, 1976, used in Canny et al., 2009); cognition (Loewenstein Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment; Itzkovich, Elazar, Averbuch, & Katz, 2000) and general intelligence (Pictorial IQ test; Hsu & Lu, 1995), both in Jang, Chern, and Lin (2009); grip strength (dynamometer; Lindstrom-Hazel, Kratt, & Bix, 2009); kinematics through motion monitoring of upper-extremity movement (May-Lisowski & King, 2008); and visual function (Brain Injury Visual Assessment Battery for Adults; Warren, 1998) used in Warren et al. (2008) . Although understanding impairment is indeed relevant to occupational performance, this level of assessment predominates the occupational therapy studies reviewed here. More important, information from this level of performance evaluation is not being translated into greater understanding of activity- and participation-level interventions. The authors of these studies have generally not made explicit how such assessments help understand the person–task–environment interaction that is at the heart of human occupation.
Environmental Modifications
Only 2 of the 14 studies included environmental modifications. Darragh et al. (2008)  and Gentry (2008)  modified work and home environments, respectively, to improve their clients’ functional participation. To prevent work injuries, Darragh et al. (2008)  altered workstations to improve body position and ergonomic design of workstations for workers manufacturing microscopes. Gentry (2008)  modified clients’ home computers and gave them personal digital assistants to use at home to enhance their functional memory to perform everyday life tasks.
One of the most telling statistics about these articles is not reported in the tables. Five of the 14 studies did not acknowledge a funding source, 2 reported funding internal to their organization, 2 were student or PhD research, 1 was funded by a national society, 2 were funded by National Institutes of Health career development K-awards, 1 was funded by a government science award (Taiwan), and 1 was funded by a National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research field-initiated award. Only the last three categories represent research proposals that receive significant external peer review. The career development awards are encouraging because these awards build the next cadre of researchers. However, building a systematic body of rehabilitation research requires investigation over multiple years, requiring sustained research funding not generally reflected in this group of articles.
Conclusions
Occupational therapy research in the areas of rehabilitation, disability, and participation and work and industry is showing progress toward meeting the Centennial Vision, with several studies focusing on context-based interventions that result in changes in client activity and participation. Activity- and participation-level outcome measures were the focus of several studies, yet most studies continue to use impairment-level measures as the primary outcome.
An area of concern for an intervention-focused profession such as occupational therapy is the paucity of rigorous effectiveness studies, that is, Level 1 research. In an era of increasing accountability and public reporting, clear evidence-based demonstrations of the effectiveness of occupational therapy research will be critical to the profession’s continued credibility and value. For example, Medicare is increasingly requiring public reporting of quality indicators (Rhoads, Konety, & Dudley, 2009). As we have noted previously, quality indicators require that we define and demonstrate the effectiveness of our interventions, deliver them consistently to all relevant clients, and routinely document their outcomes (Mallinson, Fischer, Rogers, Ehrlich-Jones, & Chang, 2009). These concerns are also reflected in the new priorities of the AOTA/American Occupational Therapy Foundation Research Advisory Panel (2010), which noted that in the next decade it will be “imperative that efficacy and effectiveness of occupational therapy interventions be ascertained” (p. 1).
We found evidence that a handful of rehabilitation studies focused on the effectiveness of occupational therapy in promoting occupational engagement and well-being. These studies highlight the importance of context in producing therapeutic change. Yet, a major concern remains that enough of these kinds of studies simply do not exist to build a coherent system of knowledge that serves as a foundation for advancing the Centennial Vision.
References
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2007a). AOTA’s Centennial Vision and executive summary. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61, 613–614. [Article]
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2007a). AOTA’s Centennial Vision and executive summary. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61, 613–614. [Article] ×
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2007b). Rehabilitation, Disability, and Participation Ad Hoc Work Group: Recommendations for education and practice. Bethesda, MD: Author.
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2007b). Rehabilitation, Disability, and Participation Ad Hoc Work Group: Recommendations for education and practice. Bethesda, MD: Author.×
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2008). Occupational therapy practice framework: Domain and process (2nd ed.). American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 625–683. [Article] [PubMed]
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2008). Occupational therapy practice framework: Domain and process (2nd ed.). American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 625–683. [Article] [PubMed]×
American Occupational Therapy Association and American Occupational Therapy Foundation Research Advisory Panel. (2010). Occupational therapy research agenda. Washington, DC: Author.
American Occupational Therapy Association and American Occupational Therapy Foundation Research Advisory Panel. (2010). Occupational therapy research agenda. Washington, DC: Author.×
*Baker, N. A., & Redfern, M. S. (2005). Developing an observational instrument to evaluate personal computer keyboarding style. Applied Ergonomics, 36, 345–354. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2004.11.003 [Article] [PubMed]
*Baker, N. A., & Redfern, M. S. (2005). Developing an observational instrument to evaluate personal computer keyboarding style. Applied Ergonomics, 36, 345–354. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2004.11.003 [Article] [PubMed]×
Baker, N., & Redfern, M. (2009). Potentially problematic postures during worksite keyboard use. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 386–397. [Article] [PubMed]
Baker, N., & Redfern, M. (2009). Potentially problematic postures during worksite keyboard use. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 386–397. [Article] [PubMed]×
Bastian, A. J. (2008). Understanding sensorimotor adaptation and learning for rehabilitation. Current Opinion in Neurology, 21, 628–633. [Article] [PubMed]
Bastian, A. J. (2008). Understanding sensorimotor adaptation and learning for rehabilitation. Current Opinion in Neurology, 21, 628–633. [Article] [PubMed]×
*Canny, M. L., Thompson, J. M., & Wheeler, M. J. (2009). Brief report—Reliability of the Box and Block test of manual dexterity for use with patients with fibromyalgia. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 506–510. [Article] [PubMed]
*Canny, M. L., Thompson, J. M., & Wheeler, M. J. (2009). Brief report—Reliability of the Box and Block test of manual dexterity for use with patients with fibromyalgia. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 506–510. [Article] [PubMed]×
Chen, C., Kasven, N., Karpatkin, H., & Sylvester, A. (2007). Hand strength and perceived manual ability among patients with multiple sclerosis. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 88, 794–797. [Article] [PubMed]
Chen, C., Kasven, N., Karpatkin, H., & Sylvester, A. (2007). Hand strength and perceived manual ability among patients with multiple sclerosis. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 88, 794–797. [Article] [PubMed]×
Cromwell, F. (1976). Occupational therapists manual for basic skill assessment: Primary prevocational evaluation. Altadena, CA: Fair Oaks Printing.
Cromwell, F. (1976). Occupational therapists manual for basic skill assessment: Primary prevocational evaluation. Altadena, CA: Fair Oaks Printing.×
*Darragh, A. R., Harrison, H., & Kenny, S. (2008). Effect of an ergonomics intervention on workstations of microscope workers. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 61–69. [Article] [PubMed]
*Darragh, A. R., Harrison, H., & Kenny, S. (2008). Effect of an ergonomics intervention on workstations of microscope workers. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 61–69. [Article] [PubMed]×
Dedding, C., Cardol, M., Eyssen, I. C., Dekker, J., & Beelen, A. (2004). Validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: A client-centred outcome measurement. Clinical Rehabilitation, 18, 660–667. doi:10.1191/0269215504cr746oa [Article] [PubMed]
Dedding, C., Cardol, M., Eyssen, I. C., Dekker, J., & Beelen, A. (2004). Validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: A client-centred outcome measurement. Clinical Rehabilitation, 18, 660–667. doi:10.1191/0269215504cr746oa [Article] [PubMed]×
Desrosiers, J., Herbert, R. D., Dutil, E., & Bravo, G. (1993). Development and reliability of an upper extremity function test for the elderly: The TEMPA. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 60, 9–16. [Article]
Desrosiers, J., Herbert, R. D., Dutil, E., & Bravo, G. (1993). Development and reliability of an upper extremity function test for the elderly: The TEMPA. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 60, 9–16. [Article] ×
*Dunn, C. A., Carlson, M., Jackson, J. M., & Clark, F. A. (2009). Response factors surrounding progression of pressure ulcers in community-residing adults with spinal cord injury. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 301–309. [Article] [PubMed]
*Dunn, C. A., Carlson, M., Jackson, J. M., & Clark, F. A. (2009). Response factors surrounding progression of pressure ulcers in community-residing adults with spinal cord injury. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 301–309. [Article] [PubMed]×
*Finlayson, M., Garcia, J. D., & Cho, C. (2008). Occupational therapy service use among people aging with multiple sclerosis. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 320–328. [Article] [PubMed]
*Finlayson, M., Garcia, J. D., & Cho, C. (2008). Occupational therapy service use among people aging with multiple sclerosis. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 320–328. [Article] [PubMed]×
Fries, J. F., Spitz, P., Kraines, R. G., & Holman, H. R. (1980). Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 23, 137–145. DOI:10.1002/art.1780230202 [Article] [PubMed]
Fries, J. F., Spitz, P., Kraines, R. G., & Holman, H. R. (1980). Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 23, 137–145. DOI:10.1002/art.1780230202 [Article] [PubMed]×
*Gentry, T. (2008). PDAs as cognitive aids for people with multiple sclerosis. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 18–27. [Article] [PubMed]
*Gentry, T. (2008). PDAs as cognitive aids for people with multiple sclerosis. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 18–27. [Article] [PubMed]×
Gillen, G. (2010). Centennial Vision—Rehabilitation research focused on neurorehabilitation. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64, 341–356. [Article] [PubMed]
Gillen, G. (2010). Centennial Vision—Rehabilitation research focused on neurorehabilitation. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64, 341–356. [Article] [PubMed]×
Gutman, S. (2008). From the Desk of the Editor—State of the journal. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 619–622. [Article]
Gutman, S. (2008). From the Desk of the Editor—State of the journal. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 619–622. [Article] ×
Hammel, J., Jones, R., Gossett, A., & Morgan, E. (2006). Examining barriers and supports to community living and participation after a stroke from a participatory action research approach. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 13, 43–58. doi:10.1310/5X2G-V1Y1-TBK7-Q27E [Article] [PubMed]
Hammel, J., Jones, R., Gossett, A., & Morgan, E. (2006). Examining barriers and supports to community living and participation after a stroke from a participatory action research approach. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 13, 43–58. doi:10.1310/5X2G-V1Y1-TBK7-Q27E [Article] [PubMed]×
Holzemer, W. L., Hudson, A., Kirksey, K. M., Hamilton, M. J., & Bakken, S. (2001). The revised Sign and Symptom Check-List for HIV (SSC–HIVrev). Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, 12, 60–70. doi:10.1016/S1055-3290(06)60263-X [Article] [PubMed]
Holzemer, W. L., Hudson, A., Kirksey, K. M., Hamilton, M. J., & Bakken, S. (2001). The revised Sign and Symptom Check-List for HIV (SSC–HIVrev). Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, 12, 60–70. doi:10.1016/S1055-3290(06)60263-X [Article] [PubMed]×
Hsu, C. W., & Lu, C. Y. (1995). The Pictorial IQ Test: Examiner’s manual. Taipei, Taiwan: Chinese Behavioral Sciences Corporation.
Hsu, C. W., & Lu, C. Y. (1995). The Pictorial IQ Test: Examiner’s manual. Taipei, Taiwan: Chinese Behavioral Sciences Corporation.×
Itzkovich, M., Elazar, B., Averbuch, S., & Katz, N. (2000). Loewenstein Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment (LOTCA) battery manual (2nd ed.). Pequannock, NJ: Maddack.
Itzkovich, M., Elazar, B., Averbuch, S., & Katz, N. (2000). Loewenstein Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment (LOTCA) battery manual (2nd ed.). Pequannock, NJ: Maddack.×
*Jang, Y., Chern, J., & Lin, K. (2009). Validity of the Loewenstein Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment (LOTCA) in people with intellectual disabilities. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 414–420. [Article] [PubMed]
*Jang, Y., Chern, J., & Lin, K. (2009). Validity of the Loewenstein Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment (LOTCA) in people with intellectual disabilities. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 414–420. [Article] [PubMed]×
Katz, P., Pasch, L. A., & Wong, B. (2003). Development of an instrument to measure disability in parenting activity among women with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 48, 935–943. [Article] [PubMed]
Katz, P., Pasch, L. A., & Wong, B. (2003). Development of an instrument to measure disability in parenting activity among women with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 48, 935–943. [Article] [PubMed]×
*Kay, L. G., Bundy, A. C., & Clemson, L. M. (2008). Predicting fitness to drive using the visual recognition slide test (USyd). American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 187–197. [Article] [PubMed]
*Kay, L. G., Bundy, A. C., & Clemson, L. M. (2008). Predicting fitness to drive using the visual recognition slide test (USyd). American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 187–197. [Article] [PubMed]×
*Kielhofner, G., Braveman, B., Fogg, L., & Levin, M. (2008). A controlled study of services to enhance productive participation among people with HIV/AIDS. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 36–45. [Article] [PubMed]
*Kielhofner, G., Braveman, B., Fogg, L., & Levin, M. (2008). A controlled study of services to enhance productive participation among people with HIV/AIDS. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 36–45. [Article] [PubMed]×
Lieberman, D., & Scheer, J. (2002). AOTA’s Evidence-Based Literature Review Project: An overview. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56, 344–349. [Article] [PubMed]
Lieberman, D., & Scheer, J. (2002). AOTA’s Evidence-Based Literature Review Project: An overview. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56, 344–349. [Article] [PubMed]×
*Lindstrom-Hazel, D., Kratt, A., & Bix, L. (2009). Interrater reliability of students using hand and pinch dynamometers. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 193–197. [Article] [PubMed]
*Lindstrom-Hazel, D., Kratt, A., & Bix, L. (2009). Interrater reliability of students using hand and pinch dynamometers. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 193–197. [Article] [PubMed]×
Mallinson, T., Fischer, H., Rogers, J. C., Ehrlich-Jones, L., & Chang, R. W. (2009). Human occupation for public health promotion: New directions for occupational therapy practice with persons with arthritis. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 220–226. [Article] [PubMed]
Mallinson, T., Fischer, H., Rogers, J. C., Ehrlich-Jones, L., & Chang, R. W. (2009). Human occupation for public health promotion: New directions for occupational therapy practice with persons with arthritis. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 220–226. [Article] [PubMed]×
*May-Lisowski, T. L., & King, P. M. (2008). Effect of wearing a static wrist orthosis on shoulder movement during feeding. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 438–445. [Article] [PubMed]
*May-Lisowski, T. L., & King, P. M. (2008). Effect of wearing a static wrist orthosis on shoulder movement during feeding. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 438–445. [Article] [PubMed]×
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2001). Laboratory Assessment Checklist. Retrieved July 6, 2001, from www.osha.gov
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2001). Laboratory Assessment Checklist. Retrieved July 6, 2001, from www.osha.gov×
*Poole, J. L., Willer, K., & Mendelson, C. (2009). Occupation of motherhood: Challenges for mothers with scleroderma. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 214–219. [Article] [PubMed]
*Poole, J. L., Willer, K., & Mendelson, C. (2009). Occupation of motherhood: Challenges for mothers with scleroderma. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 214–219. [Article] [PubMed]×
*Rallon, C. R., & Chen, C. C. (2008). Relationship between performance-based and self-reported assessment of hand function. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 574–579. [Article] [PubMed]
*Rallon, C. R., & Chen, C. C. (2008). Relationship between performance-based and self-reported assessment of hand function. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 574–579. [Article] [PubMed]×
Rhoads, K. F., Konety, B. M., & Dudley, R. A. (2009). Performance measurement, public reporting, and pay-for-performance. Urologic Clinics of North America, 36, 37–48, vi. doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2008.08.003 [Article] [PubMed]
Rhoads, K. F., Konety, B. M., & Dudley, R. A. (2009). Performance measurement, public reporting, and pay-for-performance. Urologic Clinics of North America, 36, 37–48, vi. doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2008.08.003 [Article] [PubMed]×
Tack, B. (1991). Dimensions and correlates of fatigue in older adults with rheumatoid arthritis. San Francisco: University of California.
Tack, B. (1991). Dimensions and correlates of fatigue in older adults with rheumatoid arthritis. San Francisco: University of California.×
Warren, M. (1998). Brain Injury Visual Assessment Battery for Adults test manual. Birmingham, AL: visAbilities Rehab Services.
Warren, M. (1998). Brain Injury Visual Assessment Battery for Adults test manual. Birmingham, AL: visAbilities Rehab Services.×
*Warren, M., Moore, J. M., & Vogtle, L. K. (2008). Search performance of healthy adults on cancellation tests. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 588–594. [Article] [PubMed]
*Warren, M., Moore, J. M., & Vogtle, L. K. (2008). Search performance of healthy adults on cancellation tests. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 588–594. [Article] [PubMed]×
Whiteneck, G. G., Charlifue, S. W., Gerhart, K. A., Overholser, J. D., & Richardson, G. N. (1992). Quantifying handicap: A new measure of long-term rehabilitation outcomes. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 73, 519–526. [PubMed]
Whiteneck, G. G., Charlifue, S. W., Gerhart, K. A., Overholser, J. D., & Richardson, G. N. (1992). Quantifying handicap: A new measure of long-term rehabilitation outcomes. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 73, 519–526. [PubMed]×
Wilson, B., Cockburn, J., Baddeley, A., & Hiorns, R. (1989). The development and validation of a test battery for detecting and monitoring everyday memory problems. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 11, 855–870. doi:10.1080/01688638908400940 [Article] [PubMed]
Wilson, B., Cockburn, J., Baddeley, A., & Hiorns, R. (1989). The development and validation of a test battery for detecting and monitoring everyday memory problems. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 11, 855–870. doi:10.1080/01688638908400940 [Article] [PubMed]×
World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: Author.
World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: Author.×
*indicates studies that were systematically reviewed for this article.
indicates studies that were systematically reviewed for this article.×
Table 1.
Summary of Research in Disability, Rehabilitation, and Participation and Work and Industry
Summary of Research in Disability, Rehabilitation, and Participation and Work and Industry×
Author and YearSystematic or Narrative ReviewEffectiveness StudyEfficacy StudyBasic ResearchInstrument Development and TestingLink Between Occupational Engagement and HealthQuantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed MethodLevel of Evidence
Baker & Redfern (2009) XQuantitative
Canny, Thompson, & Wheeler (2009) XQuantitative
Darragh, Harrison, & Kenny (2008) XQuantitativeII
Dunn, Carlson, Jackson, & Clark (2009) XQualitative
Finlayson, Garcia, & Cho (2008) XQuantitative
Gentry (2008) XQuantitativeIII
Jang, Chern, & Lin (2009) XQuantitative
Kay, Bundy, & Clemson (2008) XQuantitative
Kielhofner, Braveman, Fogg, & Levin (2008) XQuantitativeII
Lindstrom-Hazel, Kratt, & Bix (2009) XQuantitative
May-Lisowski & King (2008) XQuantitative
Poole, Willer, & Mendelson (2009) XQuantitative
Rallon & Chen (2008) XQuantitative
Warren, Moore, & Vogtle (2008) XQuantitative
Table 1.
Summary of Research in Disability, Rehabilitation, and Participation and Work and Industry
Summary of Research in Disability, Rehabilitation, and Participation and Work and Industry×
Author and YearSystematic or Narrative ReviewEffectiveness StudyEfficacy StudyBasic ResearchInstrument Development and TestingLink Between Occupational Engagement and HealthQuantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed MethodLevel of Evidence
Baker & Redfern (2009) XQuantitative
Canny, Thompson, & Wheeler (2009) XQuantitative
Darragh, Harrison, & Kenny (2008) XQuantitativeII
Dunn, Carlson, Jackson, & Clark (2009) XQualitative
Finlayson, Garcia, & Cho (2008) XQuantitative
Gentry (2008) XQuantitativeIII
Jang, Chern, & Lin (2009) XQuantitative
Kay, Bundy, & Clemson (2008) XQuantitative
Kielhofner, Braveman, Fogg, & Levin (2008) XQuantitativeII
Lindstrom-Hazel, Kratt, & Bix (2009) XQuantitative
May-Lisowski & King (2008) XQuantitative
Poole, Willer, & Mendelson (2009) XQuantitative
Rallon & Chen (2008) XQuantitative
Warren, Moore, & Vogtle (2008) XQuantitative
×
Table 2.
Summary of Study Design and Methodology of Research in Disability, Rehabilitation, and Participation and Work and Industry
Summary of Study Design and Methodology of Research in Disability, Rehabilitation, and Participation and Work and Industry×
Author and YearResearch Methodology UsedLevel of EvidenceSample Selection MethodSample Characteristics and Inclusion– Exclusion CriteriaInstruments or Interventions UsedStatistics UsedResultsStudy Limitations
Baker & Redfern (2009) Descriptive, correlationalConvenience sample from the universityAdult keyboard users between ages 18 and 65 with no history of upper-extremity fracture or traumatic injury that limited upper extremity useK–PeCS, videotapingχ2, Spearman’s rank correlations ρSignificant difference in hand posture between right and left handsExternal validity, moderate intrarater reliability, hand dominance not identified
Canny, Thompson, & Wheeler (2009) Prospective, test–retest, and interrater reliabilityConvenience sample from treatment centerN = 60 Age: 20–68 yr Dx: fibromyalgia, healthy control participants Gender: femaleBox and Block Test of Manual DexterityICC Paired t testTest–retest, .90; interrater,.85; fibromyalgia patients scored significantly below control group and normed values.Convenience sample may not be representative; both treatment and control groups scored well below norms.
Darragh, Harrison, & Kenny (2008) Quasi-experimental, pretest–posttestIIConvenience sample from facility where study took placeFull-time production workers who were microscope operatorsLaboratory Assessment Checklist, Employee Comfort Survey, ergonomic education and trainingANOVA, ANCOVASignificant increase in body positioning and workstation design in the education + training group and lesser increase in the education-only group compared with control groupNot blinded, inflation, participant bias, external validity (limited generalizability)
Dunn, Carlson, Jackson, & Clark (2009)Qualitative, secondary analysisParticipants of previous study who developed pressure ulcers19 men and women with spinal cord injury who developed pressure ulcersN/AN/A46 pressure ulcer events in a 1- to 5-yr period; 8 main response categories with subcategories identified that described response to pressure ulcer eventsLimited generalizability (only looked at people who developed ulcers, not those who did not and compared); categorization of pressure ulcer not confirmed in medical record.
Finlayson, Garcia, & Cho (2008) Prospective cohortDirect mail to consumer groups, advertising in care centersN = 1,282 Age: 63.8 ± 9.4 yrDx: Multiple sclerosisStructured telephone interviewProportional odds model38% of participants used occupational therapy since diagnosis; occupational therapy services considered important to well-being; more activity limitations and urban location associated with use of occupational therapy in past year.Limited geographic region, participant recall of service use only, details of occupational therapy service use not collected
Gentry (2008) CohortIIIConvenience sample from local clinic and local chapter of the Multiple Sclerosis SocietyCommunity-dwelling people with multiple sclerosis who had cognitive impairmentRBMT–E, COPM, CHART–R, PDA checklist or occupational therapists trained participants to use PDAs as cognitive aid at homeRepeated-measures ANOVA, t testSignificant increase in performance and satisfaction; significant increase in mobility, cognitive and social subscales; no significant change in behavioral memorySample not fully representative, not randomized, subjective report; treating clinician also conducted evaluations.
Jang, Chern, & Lin (2009) Prospective, reliability, and validityConvenience sample from two schools, three employment services, and local high schoolsN = 130 Age: 15–28 yrDx: intellectual disability and healthy control participantsLOTCA Pictorial IQ test
  • Confirmatory factor analysis

  • Cronbach’s α

  • Spearman’s ρ

  • Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis

  • Mann–Whitney U

  • ANOVA with Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference

Confirmed structure of LOTCA with confirmatory factor analysis, low internal consistency for motor praxis scale. LOTCA subscales correlated .26–.63 with Pictorial IQ test.None acknowledged. Convenience sample may not be representative.
Kay, Bundy, & Clemson (2008) Retrospective, cohortAll clients referred to center over a 10-yr period.N = 838 Age: 53 ± 20 yr Dx: orthopedic, neurologic, cognitive impairment, traumatic brain injury, vision impairment, otherVRST–USyd on-road driving assessmentRasch Analysis (including MnSq fit statistics, point–measure correlations, principal-components analysis of residuals)All items fit the Rasch model; test does not cover full range of driving competence; principal-components analysis provided evidence of unidimensionality; reliability = .95, no significant DIF for gender; prediction of road performance sensitivity = 77%, specificity = 92%, PPV = 67%, NPV = 95%Convenience sample may not be representative. On-road assessors were not blinded to off-road performance results. Reliability information of on-road test was limited.
Kielhofner, Braveman, Fogg, & Levin (2008) Quasi-experimental, pretest–posttest with standard of care controlIIConvenience sample from four local supportive living facilitiesAdults with HIV or AIDS who are homeless or at risk for homelessnessSSC–HIV/ ESD program Productive participationχ2; odds ratioSignificantly higher levels of productive participation in model program participants.Nonrandomized; 29% attrition rate; standard-of-care control group may not be equivalent to true standard of care.
Lindstrom-Hazel, Kratt, & Bix (2009) Prospective, interrater reliabilityConvenience sample of studentsN = 73 Age: not given Dx: healthyJamar hydraulic dynamometer, B&L Engineering pinch gaugeICCICCs for Jamar dynamometer ranged from .996 to .998; for pinch gauge, from .949 to .99Pairs of raters were not screened, so they might have seen what other rater scored. Convenience sample of raters may not be representative.
May-Lisowski & King (2008) Within-subjects repeated measuresConvenience sample from local universityUniversity students, right‐ hand dominant, no history of upper‐extremity injuryMotion monitor, videotaping, measures of shoulder flexion, abduction, internal rotationPaired t-tests; Cohen’s d effect sizeSignificant increases in shoulder flexion/abduction during wrist immobilization; no significant difference with internal rotationGeneralizability to population with upper-extremity injuries
Poole, Willer, & Mendelson (2009) Cross-sectionalAdvertised for participants from national scleroderma foundation and local chaptersMothers with scleroderma with children (birth to 18 yr) living at homePDI, VAS, HAQ, MAFSSpearman ρ correlation coefficients between instrumentsPoorer health, higher levels of pain, fatigue, and more activity limitation were related to greater parenting difficultySample was not representative; author did not collect ages of children.
Rallon & Chen (2008) Prospective, cohortConvenience sample from local clinicN = 30 Age: 56 ± 11.9 yr Dx: orthopedic handMAM–36 TEMPA
  • Rasch Rating Scale analysis

  • Spearman’s ρ

  • Unpaired t test

Moderate to strong correlations between MAM–36 and TEMPA, significant differences between dominant and nondominant hands for TEMPA unilateral tasksConvenience sample may not be representative. Severity of hand dysfunction not categorized.
Warren, Moore, & Vogtle (2008) Cross-sectionalConvenience sample from local community81 healthy adults between ages 20 and 90Brain Injury Visual Assessment Battery for Adults, visual search strategies, and checking work or time2-factor ANOVA, 2-factor χ2Horizontal, left-to-right, top-to-bottom search pattern found to be predominant with no significant differences in age or gender; older adults (>age 60) took longer to complete tests; older adults more likely to check work.External validity regarding ethnicity and culture
Table Footer NoteNote. ANCOVA = analysis of covariance; ANOVA = analysis of variance; CHART–R = Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique–Revised; COPM = Canadian Occupational Performance Measure; DIF = differential item function; Dx = diagnosis; ESD = Enabling Self-Determination; HAQ = Health Assessment Questionnaire; ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient; K–PeCS = Keyboard Personal Computer Style; LOTCA = Loewenstein Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment; MAFS = Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue Scale; MAM–36 = Manual Ability Measure; N/A = not applicable; NPV = negative predictive value; PDA = personal digital assistant; PDI = Parent Disability Index; PPV = positive predictive value; RBTME = Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test–Extended; SSC–HIV = Sign and Symptom Checklist for People With HIV/AIDS; TEMPA = Test d'Evaluation de la Performance des Membres Supérieurs des Personnes Âgées; VAS = visual analog scale; VRST–USyd = Visual Recognition Slide Test–University of Sydney.
Note. ANCOVA = analysis of covariance; ANOVA = analysis of variance; CHART–R = Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique–Revised; COPM = Canadian Occupational Performance Measure; DIF = differential item function; Dx = diagnosis; ESD = Enabling Self-Determination; HAQ = Health Assessment Questionnaire; ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient; K–PeCS = Keyboard Personal Computer Style; LOTCA = Loewenstein Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment; MAFS = Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue Scale; MAM–36 = Manual Ability Measure; N/A = not applicable; NPV = negative predictive value; PDA = personal digital assistant; PDI = Parent Disability Index; PPV = positive predictive value; RBTME = Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test–Extended; SSC–HIV = Sign and Symptom Checklist for People With HIV/AIDS; TEMPA = Test d'Evaluation de la Performance des Membres Supérieurs des Personnes Âgées; VAS = visual analog scale; VRST–USyd = Visual Recognition Slide Test–University of Sydney.×
Table 2.
Summary of Study Design and Methodology of Research in Disability, Rehabilitation, and Participation and Work and Industry
Summary of Study Design and Methodology of Research in Disability, Rehabilitation, and Participation and Work and Industry×
Author and YearResearch Methodology UsedLevel of EvidenceSample Selection MethodSample Characteristics and Inclusion– Exclusion CriteriaInstruments or Interventions UsedStatistics UsedResultsStudy Limitations
Baker & Redfern (2009) Descriptive, correlationalConvenience sample from the universityAdult keyboard users between ages 18 and 65 with no history of upper-extremity fracture or traumatic injury that limited upper extremity useK–PeCS, videotapingχ2, Spearman’s rank correlations ρSignificant difference in hand posture between right and left handsExternal validity, moderate intrarater reliability, hand dominance not identified
Canny, Thompson, & Wheeler (2009) Prospective, test–retest, and interrater reliabilityConvenience sample from treatment centerN = 60 Age: 20–68 yr Dx: fibromyalgia, healthy control participants Gender: femaleBox and Block Test of Manual DexterityICC Paired t testTest–retest, .90; interrater,.85; fibromyalgia patients scored significantly below control group and normed values.Convenience sample may not be representative; both treatment and control groups scored well below norms.
Darragh, Harrison, & Kenny (2008) Quasi-experimental, pretest–posttestIIConvenience sample from facility where study took placeFull-time production workers who were microscope operatorsLaboratory Assessment Checklist, Employee Comfort Survey, ergonomic education and trainingANOVA, ANCOVASignificant increase in body positioning and workstation design in the education + training group and lesser increase in the education-only group compared with control groupNot blinded, inflation, participant bias, external validity (limited generalizability)
Dunn, Carlson, Jackson, & Clark (2009)Qualitative, secondary analysisParticipants of previous study who developed pressure ulcers19 men and women with spinal cord injury who developed pressure ulcersN/AN/A46 pressure ulcer events in a 1- to 5-yr period; 8 main response categories with subcategories identified that described response to pressure ulcer eventsLimited generalizability (only looked at people who developed ulcers, not those who did not and compared); categorization of pressure ulcer not confirmed in medical record.
Finlayson, Garcia, & Cho (2008) Prospective cohortDirect mail to consumer groups, advertising in care centersN = 1,282 Age: 63.8 ± 9.4 yrDx: Multiple sclerosisStructured telephone interviewProportional odds model38% of participants used occupational therapy since diagnosis; occupational therapy services considered important to well-being; more activity limitations and urban location associated with use of occupational therapy in past year.Limited geographic region, participant recall of service use only, details of occupational therapy service use not collected
Gentry (2008) CohortIIIConvenience sample from local clinic and local chapter of the Multiple Sclerosis SocietyCommunity-dwelling people with multiple sclerosis who had cognitive impairmentRBMT–E, COPM, CHART–R, PDA checklist or occupational therapists trained participants to use PDAs as cognitive aid at homeRepeated-measures ANOVA, t testSignificant increase in performance and satisfaction; significant increase in mobility, cognitive and social subscales; no significant change in behavioral memorySample not fully representative, not randomized, subjective report; treating clinician also conducted evaluations.
Jang, Chern, & Lin (2009) Prospective, reliability, and validityConvenience sample from two schools, three employment services, and local high schoolsN = 130 Age: 15–28 yrDx: intellectual disability and healthy control participantsLOTCA Pictorial IQ test
  • Confirmatory factor analysis

  • Cronbach’s α

  • Spearman’s ρ

  • Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis

  • Mann–Whitney U

  • ANOVA with Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference

Confirmed structure of LOTCA with confirmatory factor analysis, low internal consistency for motor praxis scale. LOTCA subscales correlated .26–.63 with Pictorial IQ test.None acknowledged. Convenience sample may not be representative.
Kay, Bundy, & Clemson (2008) Retrospective, cohortAll clients referred to center over a 10-yr period.N = 838 Age: 53 ± 20 yr Dx: orthopedic, neurologic, cognitive impairment, traumatic brain injury, vision impairment, otherVRST–USyd on-road driving assessmentRasch Analysis (including MnSq fit statistics, point–measure correlations, principal-components analysis of residuals)All items fit the Rasch model; test does not cover full range of driving competence; principal-components analysis provided evidence of unidimensionality; reliability = .95, no significant DIF for gender; prediction of road performance sensitivity = 77%, specificity = 92%, PPV = 67%, NPV = 95%Convenience sample may not be representative. On-road assessors were not blinded to off-road performance results. Reliability information of on-road test was limited.
Kielhofner, Braveman, Fogg, & Levin (2008) Quasi-experimental, pretest–posttest with standard of care controlIIConvenience sample from four local supportive living facilitiesAdults with HIV or AIDS who are homeless or at risk for homelessnessSSC–HIV/ ESD program Productive participationχ2; odds ratioSignificantly higher levels of productive participation in model program participants.Nonrandomized; 29% attrition rate; standard-of-care control group may not be equivalent to true standard of care.
Lindstrom-Hazel, Kratt, & Bix (2009) Prospective, interrater reliabilityConvenience sample of studentsN = 73 Age: not given Dx: healthyJamar hydraulic dynamometer, B&L Engineering pinch gaugeICCICCs for Jamar dynamometer ranged from .996 to .998; for pinch gauge, from .949 to .99Pairs of raters were not screened, so they might have seen what other rater scored. Convenience sample of raters may not be representative.
May-Lisowski & King (2008) Within-subjects repeated measuresConvenience sample from local universityUniversity students, right‐ hand dominant, no history of upper‐extremity injuryMotion monitor, videotaping, measures of shoulder flexion, abduction, internal rotationPaired t-tests; Cohen’s d effect sizeSignificant increases in shoulder flexion/abduction during wrist immobilization; no significant difference with internal rotationGeneralizability to population with upper-extremity injuries
Poole, Willer, & Mendelson (2009) Cross-sectionalAdvertised for participants from national scleroderma foundation and local chaptersMothers with scleroderma with children (birth to 18 yr) living at homePDI, VAS, HAQ, MAFSSpearman ρ correlation coefficients between instrumentsPoorer health, higher levels of pain, fatigue, and more activity limitation were related to greater parenting difficultySample was not representative; author did not collect ages of children.
Rallon & Chen (2008) Prospective, cohortConvenience sample from local clinicN = 30 Age: 56 ± 11.9 yr Dx: orthopedic handMAM–36 TEMPA
  • Rasch Rating Scale analysis

  • Spearman’s ρ

  • Unpaired t test

Moderate to strong correlations between MAM–36 and TEMPA, significant differences between dominant and nondominant hands for TEMPA unilateral tasksConvenience sample may not be representative. Severity of hand dysfunction not categorized.
Warren, Moore, & Vogtle (2008) Cross-sectionalConvenience sample from local community81 healthy adults between ages 20 and 90Brain Injury Visual Assessment Battery for Adults, visual search strategies, and checking work or time2-factor ANOVA, 2-factor χ2Horizontal, left-to-right, top-to-bottom search pattern found to be predominant with no significant differences in age or gender; older adults (>age 60) took longer to complete tests; older adults more likely to check work.External validity regarding ethnicity and culture
Table Footer NoteNote. ANCOVA = analysis of covariance; ANOVA = analysis of variance; CHART–R = Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique–Revised; COPM = Canadian Occupational Performance Measure; DIF = differential item function; Dx = diagnosis; ESD = Enabling Self-Determination; HAQ = Health Assessment Questionnaire; ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient; K–PeCS = Keyboard Personal Computer Style; LOTCA = Loewenstein Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment; MAFS = Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue Scale; MAM–36 = Manual Ability Measure; N/A = not applicable; NPV = negative predictive value; PDA = personal digital assistant; PDI = Parent Disability Index; PPV = positive predictive value; RBTME = Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test–Extended; SSC–HIV = Sign and Symptom Checklist for People With HIV/AIDS; TEMPA = Test d'Evaluation de la Performance des Membres Supérieurs des Personnes Âgées; VAS = visual analog scale; VRST–USyd = Visual Recognition Slide Test–University of Sydney.
Note. ANCOVA = analysis of covariance; ANOVA = analysis of variance; CHART–R = Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique–Revised; COPM = Canadian Occupational Performance Measure; DIF = differential item function; Dx = diagnosis; ESD = Enabling Self-Determination; HAQ = Health Assessment Questionnaire; ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient; K–PeCS = Keyboard Personal Computer Style; LOTCA = Loewenstein Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment; MAFS = Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue Scale; MAM–36 = Manual Ability Measure; N/A = not applicable; NPV = negative predictive value; PDA = personal digital assistant; PDI = Parent Disability Index; PPV = positive predictive value; RBTME = Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test–Extended; SSC–HIV = Sign and Symptom Checklist for People With HIV/AIDS; TEMPA = Test d'Evaluation de la Performance des Membres Supérieurs des Personnes Âgées; VAS = visual analog scale; VRST–USyd = Visual Recognition Slide Test–University of Sydney.×
×
Table 3.
Summary of Centennial Vision Priority Areas Related to Research in Disability, Rehabilitation, and Participation and Work and Industry
Summary of Centennial Vision Priority Areas Related to Research in Disability, Rehabilitation, and Participation and Work and Industry×
Author and YearActivity or Participation MeasuresActivity or Participation InterventionsContext-Based InterventionsEnvironmental ModificationsNone of These
Baker & Redfern (2009) X
Canny, Thompson, & Wheeler (2009) X
Darragh, Harrison, & Kenny (2008) XXXX
Dunn, Carlson, Jackson, & Clark (2009)X
Finlayson, Garcia, & Cho (2008) X
Gentry (2008) XXXX
Jang, Chern, & Lin (2009) X
Kay, Bundy, & Clemson (2008) XXX
Kielhofner, Braveman, Fogg, & Levin (2008) XXX
Lindstrom-Hazel, Kratt, & Bix (2009) X
May-Lisowski & King (2008) X
Poole, Willer, & Mendelson (2009) X
Rallon & Chen (2008) X
Warren, Moore, & Vogtle (2008) X
Number of studies (N = 14)74427
Table 3.
Summary of Centennial Vision Priority Areas Related to Research in Disability, Rehabilitation, and Participation and Work and Industry
Summary of Centennial Vision Priority Areas Related to Research in Disability, Rehabilitation, and Participation and Work and Industry×
Author and YearActivity or Participation MeasuresActivity or Participation InterventionsContext-Based InterventionsEnvironmental ModificationsNone of These
Baker & Redfern (2009) X
Canny, Thompson, & Wheeler (2009) X
Darragh, Harrison, & Kenny (2008) XXXX
Dunn, Carlson, Jackson, & Clark (2009)X
Finlayson, Garcia, & Cho (2008) X
Gentry (2008) XXXX
Jang, Chern, & Lin (2009) X
Kay, Bundy, & Clemson (2008) XXX
Kielhofner, Braveman, Fogg, & Levin (2008) XXX
Lindstrom-Hazel, Kratt, & Bix (2009) X
May-Lisowski & King (2008) X
Poole, Willer, & Mendelson (2009) X
Rallon & Chen (2008) X
Warren, Moore, & Vogtle (2008) X
Number of studies (N = 14)74427
×