Free
Research Article
Issue Date: May/June 2001
Published Online: May 01, 2001
Updated: April 30, 2020
Psychometric Properties of the Second Version of the Occupational Performance History Interview (OPHI-II)
Gary Kielhofner; Trudy Mallinson; Kirsty Forsyth; Jin-Shei Lai
Author Affiliations
  • Gary Kielhofner, DrPH, OTR/L, FAOTA, is Professor and Head, Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1919 West Taylor Street, Chicago, Illinois 60612
  • Trudy Mallinson, PhD, OTR/L, NZROT, is Research Specialist, Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Illinois at Chicago
  • Kirsty Forsyth, PhD, OTR, SROT, is Research Specialist, Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Illinois at Chicago
  • Jin-Shei Lai, PhD, OTR/L, is Research Assistant Professor, Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Illinois at Chicago
Article Information
Assessment Development and Testing / General
Research Article   |   May 01, 2001
Psychometric Properties of the Second Version of the Occupational Performance History Interview (OPHI-II)
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, May/June 2001, Vol. 55, 260-267. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.55.3.260
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, May/June 2001, Vol. 55, 260-267. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.55.3.260
This content is PDF only. Please click on the PDF icon to access.
Abstract

Objective.This study examined the validity of the Occupational Identity, Occupational Competency, and Occupational Behavior Settings scales of the second version of the Occupational Performance History Interview (OPHI-II). The study also asked whether the scales’ items were targeted to and could effectively discriminate between persons at different levels of adaptation.

Method.Data were collected from 151 raters on 249 subjects from eight countries and in six languages. Many-faceted Rasch analysis was used to analyze the data.

Results.The items of each scale worked effectively to measure the underlying construct for which they were designed. All three scales validly measured more than 90% of the subjects, who varied by nationality, culture, age, and diagnostic status. Each scale’s items were appropriately targeted to the subjects, and all three scales distinguished subjects into approximately three different levels. More than 90% of the raters used the three scales validly and had approximately the same degree of severity or leniency. The scales were valid across subjects with physical dysfunction and psychiatric conditions as well as subjects with no active diagnosed condition.

Conclusion.The three scales of the OPHI-II are valid across age, diagnosis, culture, and language and effectively measure a wide range of persons. Raters can readily use the OPHI-II validly without formal training.