A Psychometric Study of the Model of Human Occupation Screening Tool (Mohost)

Abstract

Objective

This study examined the psychometric properties of the Model of Human Occupation Screening Tool (MOHOST) using item response theory and classical test theory approaches for clients with psychiatric disorders.

Methods

Data, including demographic variables and scores on the MOHOST and a version of the Health of the Nation Outcomes Scale, were retrieved from case records of 1039 adult psychiatric service users.

Results

Participants ranged in age from 18 to 102 and 57% were female and 43% were male. Most (94%) were unemployed, retired, or receiving other education or training. The items that make up each of the MOHOST subscales demonstrated good discriminant validity and excellent goodness of fit showing that the items measured the MOHO constructs unidimensionally. All subscales were able to distinguish clients into at least three statistically distinct strata and showed convergence with an independent measure of functioning.

Conclusion

Findings from this study must take into account implicit limitations associated with the use of Rasch analysis and classical test theory. At the same time, results did support use of the MOHOST for research and clinical purposes. The MOHOST demonstrated good construct validity, item separation reliability, and concurrent validity. As a measure of occupational participation, the MOHOST offers practitioners and researchers a valid and reliable measure of volition, habituation, communication/interaction skills, process skills, motor skills, and environmental influences on participation.

Keywords

Assessment psychometrics Model of Human Occupation Model of Human Occupation Screening Tool (MOHOST)Participation assessment

References

Asgari

, & Kramer

J. M.

(2008). Construct validity and factor structure of the Persian Occupational Self-Assessment (OSA) with Iranian students. Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 22, 187–200.

Bray

, Fisher

A. G.

, & Duran

(2001). The validity of adding new tasks to the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55, 409–415.

Campbell

D. T.

, & Fiske

D. W.

(1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.

de las Heras

C. G.

, Geist

, Kielhofner

, & Li

(1998). The volitional questionnaire (version 4.1). Chicago, IL: Model of Human Occupation Clearinghouse, Department of Occupational Therapy, College of Applied Health Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago.

Fan

C. W.

(2008). The Study of Psychometric Properties of the Model of Human Occupation Screening Tool (MOHOST). Unpublished Master's Thesis, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Folstein

M. F.

, Folstein

S. E.

, & McHugh

P. R.

(1975). Mini-mental state: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198.

Forsyth

, Salamy

, Simon

, & Kielhofner

(1998). The assessment of communication and interaction skills (version 4.0). Chicago, IL: Model of Human Occupation Clearinghouse, Department of Occupational Therapy, College of Applied Health Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago.

Kielhofner

(2006). Developing and evaluating quantitative data collection instruments. In Kielhofner

(Ed.) Research in Occupational therapy: Methods of inquiry for enhancing practice, 169. Philadelphia, PA: F. A. Davis.

Kielhofner

(2008). Model of Human Occupation: Theory and Application. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

10.

Kielhofner

, Fogg

, Braveman

, Forsyth

, Kramer

, & Duncan

(2009). A factor analytic study of the Model of Human Occupation Screening Tool of hypothesized variables. Occupational Therapy in Mental Health, 25, 127–137.

11.

Kramer

, Kielhofner

, Lee

S. W.

, Ashpole

, & Castle

(2009). Utility of the Model of Human Occupation Screening Tool for detecting client change. Occupational Therapy in Mental Health, 25, 181–191.

12.

Kramer

, Smith

, & Kielhofner

(2009). Rating scale use by children with disabilities on a self report of competence: A mixed Rasch model approach. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 20, 1–7.

13.

Kyngdon

(2004). Comparing factor analysis and the Rasch model for ordered response categories: An investigation of the Scale of Gambling Choices. Journal of Applied Measurement, 5, 398–418.

14.

Mok

M. M. C.

(2004). Validation of scores from self-learning scales for primary students using true-score and Rasch measurement methods. Journal of Applied Measurement, 5, 258–286.

15.

Parkinson

, Forsyth

, & Kielhofner

(2006). The Model of Human Occupation Screening Tool (Version 2.0). Chicago, IL: Model of Human Occupation Clearinghouse, Department of Occupational Therapy, College of Applied Health Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago.

16.

Rasch

(1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

17.

Rasch

(1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests (revised and expanded ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

18.

Taylor

, Lee

S. W.

, Kramer

, Shirashi

, & Kielhofner

(in press). A psychometric study of the Occupational Self Assessment with post-infectious adolescents. American Journal of Occupational Therapy.

19.

Velozo

C. A.

, Kielhofner

, & Lai

J. S.

(1999). The use of Rasch analysis to produce scale-free measurement of functional ability. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 53, 83–90.

20.

Wing

, Curtis

, & Beevor

(1996). Honos Health of the Nation Outcome Scales: Report on research. London: College Research Unit, Royal College of Psychiatrists.

21.

Wing

, Beevor

, Curtis

, Park

, Hadden

, & Burns

(1998). Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS): Research and development. British Journal of Psychiatry, 172, 11–18.

22.

Wolfe

E. W.

, & Smith

E. V. J.

(2007). Understanding Rasch measurement: Instrument development tools and activities for measure validation using Rasch models: Part II—Validation activities. Journal of Applied Measurement, 8, 204–234.

23.

Wright

, & Linacre

(1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8, 370.

24.

Wright

B. D.

, & Masters

G. N.

(1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago, IL: MESA Press.

25.

Wright

, & Stone

(1979). Best test design. Chicago, IL: MESA Press.