Research Article  |   May 2014
Internal Structure of the Children Helping Out: Responsibilities, Expectations, and Supports (CHORES) Measure
Author Affiliations
  • Louise Dunn, ScD, OTR/L, is Associate Professor, School of Occupational Therapy, Brenau University, 999 Chestnut Street, Suite 70, Gainesville, GA 30501; ldunn@brenau.edu. At the time of this study, she was Assistant Professor, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
  • Lívia C. Magalhaes, PhD, OTR, is Professor, Department of Occupational Therapy and Graduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
  • Marisa Cotta Mancini, ScD, OT, is Professor, Department of Occupational Therapy and Graduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Article Information
Assessment Development and Testing / Rehabilitation, Participation, and Disability / Children and Youth
Research Article   |   May 2014
Internal Structure of the Children Helping Out: Responsibilities, Expectations, and Supports (CHORES) Measure
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, May/June 2014, Vol. 68, 286-295. doi:10.5014/ajot.2014.010454
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, May/June 2014, Vol. 68, 286-295. doi:10.5014/ajot.2014.010454
Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the internal structure of the Children Helping Out: Responsibilities, Expectations, and Supports (CHORES), an assessment of household task participation for children. Rasch analysis was used to examine patterns of item response and scale structure with data collected from caregivers of 132 children and youth ages 6–14 yr with and without disabling conditions. Internal consistency was strong for the total measure and the subscales. The items in both subscales fit the measurement model, and the item difficulty order matched the expected pattern from harder to easier household task performance and degree of caregiver assistance. The sample distribution in the hierarchical continuum showed that younger participants and those with physical disabilities tended to score lower. Some inconsistencies in rating scale use suggest a need for further clarification of the scoring criteria for measurement coherence.