PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify whether the Occupation-Centered Intervention Assessment (OCIA) is an effective tool for occupational therapy students in designing occupation-centered interventions.

HYPOTHESIS: OCIA training for intervention planning will increase occupational therapy students’ confidence, satisfaction, and ability when designing an intervention that is occupation centered.

RATIONALE: The use of occupation in occupational therapy practice aims at improving performance and patient participation through meaningful activity, which is central to the profession. However, the student witnesses disconnect between occupation emphasized in the classroom and intervention methods used in practice. This leaves the current occupational therapy student with less practice on integrating occupation into interventions before graduation. The OCIA is a tool that serves as a self-assessment tool for the student when creating and revising interventions to increase occupation centeredness.

DESIGN: This mixed-methods study utilized a quasi-experimental and phenomenological research design.

PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-eight participants were initially included in the study. Participants were female 2nd-yr occupational therapy students in an entry-level doctoral occupational therapy program ages 22–30 yr.

METHOD: Participants were divided into a control group (CG) and an experimental group (EG). Groups were given the Occupation-Centered Intervention Planning Satisfaction and Confidence Questionnaire (OCIP–SCQ) at the beginning and end of the study. The EG also received OCIA training through instructional videos. Intervention planning assignments from before and after EG OCIA training will be analyzed to compare scores on the OCIA for both groups.

ANALYSIS: Responses from the OCIP–SCQ were analyzed using independent-samples t tests. The phenomenological question responses were coded and themes identified. The research team will score the intervention planning using the Mann–Whitney U test to compare composite scores of the OCIA between groups.

RESULTS: Significant differences were found between groups on questions from the second OCIP–SCQ. Confidence about current ability for designing occupation-centered interventions in groups was higher for EG than for CG (p < .05). Satisfaction on current ability for designing occupation-centered interventions independently was higher for EG than for CG (p < .05). Satisfaction of identification of occupation-centered interventions was higher for EG than for CG (p < .05).

This series of tests shows that the EG rated their confidence or satisfaction higher on the second survey than the CG. Differences from the first OCIP–SCQ to the second OCIP–SCQ in each group were also calculated using independent-samples t tests. Satisfaction of identification of occupation-centered interventions from first to second OCIP–SCQ was greater for EG than for CG (p < .05) showing a higher rating of satisfaction after training. Phenomenological results support the above findings. Overall, the results support the original hypothesis for satisfaction and confidence in some areas.

DISCUSSION: The use of the OCIA as a tool for the student when developing occupation-centered intervention plans is shown to be beneficial. Student confidence and satisfaction on creating occupation-centered intervention plans increased for the experimental group.

IMPACT STATEMENT: The trend for occupational therapy is a return to occupation. The OCIA provides the student with a tool to create and reflect on occupation-centered intervention plans affecting future patient care, which is supported by the current study.