The client-centred nature of occupational therapy acknowledges the individual as the central element of treatment. This philosophy, however, challenges the therapist to choose an outcome measure that is capable of reflecting this individualized perspective. Recent papers published in the rehabilitation literature have reported on the increased responsiveness of such measures over traditional self-report questionnaires. Although the need for a comprehensive review of individualized outcome measures has been identified in the literature, none exists to date.
The purpose of this paper is to review six individualized outcome measures that have been identified in the rehabilitation and psychology literature. The measures include: the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills, McMaster (MAC) Toronto Arthritis, Goal Attainment Scaling, Target Complaints and the Patient Specific Functional Scale.
The reliability, validity, responsiveness and clinical utility of each outcome measure was examined and critiqued. Each tool, to a varying degree, met the description of a standardized, client-centred outcome measure.
BattleC.ImberS.Hoehn-SarioA.NashE.FrankJ. (1966). Target complaints as criteria of improvement. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 20, 184–192.
2.
BergnerM.BobbitR.A.CarterW.GilsonB. (1981). The Sickness Impact Profile: Development and final revision of a health status measure. Medical Care, 19, 787–805.
3.
BernspangB.FisherA. (1995). Differences between persons with right or left cerebral vascular accident on the Assessment of Motor and Process. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 76, 1144–1151.
4.
BinkleyD. (1998). Measurement of functional status, progress and outcome in orthopaedic clinical practice. Orthopaedic Division Review, Sept/Oct, 7–17.
5.
Bodiam (1999). The use of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure for the assessment of outcome on a neuro rehabilitation unit. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 123–127.
6.
BondG.BlochS.YalomI. (1979). The evaluation of a “Target Problem” approach to outcome measurement. Psychotherapy: Theory and Research Practice, 16, 48–54.
7.
BoschJ. (1995). The reliability and validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Unpublished Master's Thesis. McMaster University, Hamilton, ON.
8.
Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists. (1997). Enabling Occupation: An Occupational Therapy Perspective. Ottawa, ON: CAOT Publications ACE.
9.
ChanC.LeeT. (1997). Validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Occupational Therapy International, 4, 229–247.
10.
ChatmanA.HyamsS.NeelJ.BinkleyJ.StratfordP.SchombergA.StablerM. (1997). The patient-specific functional scale: Measurement properties in patients with knee dysfunction. Physical Therapy, 77, 820–829.
11.
CookeK.Z.FisherA.G.MayberryW.OakleyF. (2000). Differences in activities of daily living process skills of persons with and without Alzheimer's disease. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 20, 87–104.
DickersonA.E.FisherA.G. (2000). Age differences in functional performance. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47, 686–692.
14.
DobleS.E.FiskJ.D.FisherA.RitvoP.MurrayT. (1994). Functional competence of community-dwelling persons with multiple sclerosis using the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 75, 843–851.
15.
DobleS.E.FiskJ.D.LewisN.RockwoodK. (1999). Test-retest reliability of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 19, 203–215.
DuranL.FisherA. (1996). Male and female performance on the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 77, 1019–1024.
18.
FairbankJ.CouperJ.DaviesJ.O'BrianJ. (1980). The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy, 66, 271–273.
19.
FisherA. (1995). The Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS). Fort Collins, CO: Three Star Press.
20.
FisherA.G.LiuY.VelozoC.PanA.W. (1992). Cross-cultural assessment of process skills. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 46, 876–885.
21.
GoldmanS.FisherA.G. (1997). Cross-cultural validation of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS). British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 46, 77–85.
22.
GotoS.FisherA.G.MayberryW.L. (1996). Assessment of Motor and Process Skills applied cross-culturally to the Japanese. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 50, 798–806.
23.
GrangerC.HamiltonB.SherwinF. (1988). Functional Independence Measure. Buffalo, NY: State University of New York Press.
24.
GrenvilleJ.LyneP. (1995). Patient-centred evaluation and rehabilitative care. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 22, 965–972.
25.
GuyattG.KirshnerB.JaeschkeR. (1992). Measuring health status: What are the necessary measurement properties?Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 45, 1341–1345.
26.
HartmanM.L.FisherA.G.DuranL. (1999). Assessments of functional ability of people with Alzheimer's disease. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 6, 111–118.
27.
HeavlinW.Lee-MerrowS.LewisV. (1982). The psychometric foundations of goal attainment scaling. Community Mental Health Journal, 18, 230–241.
28.
HesbacherP.RickelsK.WeiseC. (1968). Target Symptoms: A promising improvement in psychiatric drug research. Archives of General Psychiatry, 18, 595–600.
29.
KeithR.GrangerC.HamiltonB.SherwinF. (1987). The Functional Independence Measure: A new tool for rehabilitation. In: EisenbergN. & GrzesiakR. (Eds.), Advances in Clinical Rehabilitation. New York: Springer.
30.
KiresukT.LundS. (1978). Goal attainment scaling. In: AttkissonC., HargreavesW., HorowitzM. & SorensenJ. (Eds.), Evaluation of Human Service Programs. (p. 341–370) New York: Academic Press.
31.
KiresukT.ShermanR. (1968). Goal attainment scaling: A general method for evaluating comprehensive community mental health programs. Community Mental Health Journal, 4, 441–453.
32.
KirshnerB.GuyattG. (1985). A methodological framework for assessing health indices. Journal of Chronic Disease, 38, 27–36.
33.
KleinR.BellB. (1979). The Klein-Bell ADL Scale Manual. Seattle, Washington: University of Washington Medical School, Health Science Resource Centre/SB-56.
34.
LaborskyL.MintzJ.AuerbachA.ChristophP.BachrachH.ToddP.JohnsonM.CohenM.ObrienC. (1980). Predicting the outcome of psychotherapy: Findings of the Penn Psychotherapy Project. Archives of General Psychiatry, 37, 471–481.
35.
LangR.LloydC.FiqiaN. (1985). Goal attainment scaling with hospitalized sexual offenders. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders, 173, 527–537.
36.
LawM.BaptisteMcColl M.OpzoomerA.PolatajkoH.PollockN. (1990). The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: An outcome measure for occupational therapy. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57, 82–87.
37.
LawM.PolatajkoH.CarswellA.McCollM.PollockN.BaptisteS. (1998). The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (3rd ed). Ottawa, ON: CAOT Publications ACE.
38.
LawM.PolatajkoH.PollockN.McCollM.CarswellA.BaptisteS. (1994). Pilot testing of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: Clinical and measurement issues. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61, 191–198.
39.
LawM.RosenbaumP.RussellD.PollockN.WalterS.KingG. (1997). A comparison of intensive neurodevelopmental therapy plus casting and regular occupational therapy program for children with cerebral palsy. Development Medicine and Child Neurology, 39, 664–670.
40.
MagalhaesL.FisherA.BernspangB.LinacreJ. (1996). Cross-cultural assessment of functional ability. The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 16, (1), 45–63.
41.
MalecJ.SmigielskiJ.DePompoloR. (1991). Goal attainment scaling and outcome measures in post-acute brain injury rehabilitation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 72, (Feb), 138–143.
42.
McCollM.PatersonM.LawM. (2000). Validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67, 22–29.
43.
MintzJ.KieslerD. (1982). Individualized measures of psychotherapy outcome. In KendallP. & ButcherJ. (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
44.
MirkopolousC.ButlerK. (July 1994). Quality assurance: Clients' perceptions of goal performance and satisfaction. Paper presented at the International Congress of the World Federations of Occupational Therapists. London, UK.
45.
MitchellT.CuisickA. (1998). Evaluation of a client-centred paediatric rehabilitation program using goal attainment scaling. Australian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45, 7–17.
46.
OakleyF.SunderlandT. (1997). Assessment of Motor and Process Skills as a measure of IADL functioning in pharmacologic studies of people with Alzheimer's disease: A pilot study. International Psychogeriatrics, 9, 197–206.
47.
OttenbacherK.CusickA. (1989). Goal attainment scaling as a method of clinical service evaluation. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 44, 519–525.
48.
PackerT.XiaopingY. (1997). Needs of people with disabilities used to determine clinical education. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 20, 303–313.
49.
PalisanoR.HaleyS.BrownD. (1992). Goal Attainment Scaling as a measure of change in infants with motor delays. Physical Therapy, 72, 432–437.
50.
PanA.W.FisherA.G. (1994). The Assessment of Motor and Process Skills of persons with psychiatric disorders. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 48, 775–780.
51.
RobinsonS.FisherA.G. (1996). A study to examine the relationship of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) to other tests of cognition and function. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 59, 260–63.
52.
RothM.MountjoyC.HuppertF.HendrieH.VernaS.GoddardR. (1986). CAMDEX. The Cambridge Examination for Mental Disorders of the Elderly. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
53.
SanfordJ.LawM.SwansonL.GuyattG. (1994). Assessing clinically important change in an outcome of rehabilitation in older adults. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Society of Aging. San Francisco. CA.
54.
SeabergJ.GillespieD. (1977). Goal Attainment Scaling: A critique. Social Work Research and Abstracts, 13, 4–9.
55.
StaufferL.M.FisherA.G.DuranL. (2000). ADL Performance of black Americans and white Americans on the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 54, 607–613.
56.
StolleeP.StadnykK.MyersA.M.RockwoodK. (1999). An individualized approach to outcome measurement in geriatric rehabilitation. Journals of Gerontology. Series A, Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences, 54, M641-7.
57.
StoneA.FrankJ.NashE.ImberS. (1961). An intensive five-year follow-up of treated psychiatric outpatients. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders, 133, 410.
58.
StratfordP.GillC.WestawayM.BinkleyJ. (1995). Assessing disability and change on individual patients: A report of a patient specific measure. Physiotherapy Canada, 47, 258–262.
59.
ToomeyM.NicholsonD.CarswellA. (1995). The clinical utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 242–249.
60.
TugwellP.BombardierB.BuchananW.GoldsmithC.GraceE.HannaB. (1987). The MACTAR patient preference disability questionnaire: An individualized functional priority approach for assessing improvement in physical disability in clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis. Journal of Rheumatology, 14, 446–451.
61.
WestawayM.StratfordP.BinkleyJ. (1998). The patient-specific functional scale: Validation of its use in persons with neck dysfunction. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 27, 331–338.
62.
WrightJ.YoungN. (1997). A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 50, 239–246.
