Background.Measures reflecting occupational therapy's conceptualization of occupational performance support the profession's contribution to evidence-based practice and fiscal accountability.Purpose.This study compared measures of performance-based activities of daily living (ADL) with principles of occupational therapy practice and intended outcomes.Methods.Using an action research study design, occupational therapists and researchers (N=13) systematically clarified the clinical problem, identified occupational therapy principles inherent to the assessment of daily living activity via nominal group technique; defined the key principles as constructs; and reframed these constructs as a questionnaire against which 18 published standardized ADL measures were evaluated.Findings. Participants identified six measures as most congruent with principles of occupational therapy practice: ADL Profile, Assessment of Motor and Process Skills, Functional Performance Measure, Rivermead ADL Assessment, Edmans ADL Index, and Melville-Nelson Self-Care Assessment. Implications.Findings guide occupational therapists' search and use of performance-based ADL measures that demonstrate the profession's distinct health care contribution.
BackmanC. L. (2005). Outcomes and outcome measures: Measuring what matters is in the eye of the beholder. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72, 259–261.
2.
BaldelliM. V.BoiardiR.FerrariP.BianchiS.HunscottBianchi M. (2004). Occupational therapy and tools for monitoring the effectiveness of therapy. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics - Supplement, 9, 45–50.
3.
BaumC. M.LawM. (1997). Occupational therapy practice: Focusing on occupational performance. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 51, 277–288.
4.
BodeR.K.HeinemannA.W.SemikP.MallinsonT. (2004). Relative importance of rehabilitation therapy characteristics on functional outcomes for persons with stroke. Stroke, 35, 2537–2542.
5.
CarswellA.CarsonL. J.WalopW.ZgolaJ. (1992). A theoretical model of functional performance in persons with Alzheimer disease. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 59, 132–140.
6.
CarswellA.DulbergC.CarsonL.ZgolaJ. (1995). The Functional Performance Measure for persons with Alzheimer disease: Reliability and validity. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 62–69.
7.
ChristiansenC. (1991a). Occupational therapy: Intervention for life performance. In ChristiansenC.BaumC. (Eds.), Occupational therapy: Overcoming human performance deficits. (pp. 3–43) Thorofare, NJ: Slack Inc.
8.
ChristiansenC. (1991b). Occupational performance assessment. In ChristiansenC.BaumC. (Eds.), Occupational therapy: Overcoming human performance deficits. (pp. 377–424) Thorofare, NJ: Slack Inc.
9.
CorrS.SiddonsL. (2005). An introduction to the selection of outcome measures. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68, 202–206.
10.
DenscombeM. (1998). The good research guide for small-scale social research projects. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
11.
Department of National Health and Welfare, & Canadian Association of Occupational Therapy (Eds.). (1987). Toward outcome measures in occupational therapy. Ottawa, ON: National Health and Welfare.
12.
DobleS. E.FiskJ. D.LewisN.RockwoodK. (1999). Test-retest reliability of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills in elderly adults. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 19, 203–215.
DonnellyC.CarswellA. (2002). Individualized outcome measures: A review of the literature. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 69, 84–94.
15.
DunnW. (2005). Measurement issues and practices. In LawM.BaumC.DunnW. (Eds.), Measuring occupational performance: Supporting best practice in occupational therapy (2nd ed., pp. 21–32). Thorofare, NJ: Slack Incorporated.
DutilE.ForgetA.VanierM.GaudreaultC. (1990). Development of the ADL Profile: An evaluation for adults with severe head injury. Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 7, 7–22.
18.
EdmansJ. A.WebsterJ. (1997). The Edmans ADL Index: Validity and reliability. Disability and Rehabilitation, 19, 465–476.
19.
FinkA.KosecoffJ.ChassinM.BrookR.H. (1984). Consensus methods: Characteristics and guidelines for use. American Journal of Public Health, 74, 979–983.
20.
FisherA.G. (2001a). Assessment of Motor and Process Skills: Volume 1 - Development, standardization, and administration. Fort Collins, CO: Three Star Press.
21.
FisherA. G. (2001b). Assessment of Motor and Process Skills: Volume 2 - User manual. Fort Collins, CO: Three Star Press.
22.
FisherA.G.LiuY.VelozoC.A.PanA.W. (1992). Cross-cultural assessment of process skills. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 46, 876–885.
23.
GilletteN. P. (1991). Research directions for occupational therapy. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45, 563–565.
24.
GutmanS. A. (1998). The domain of function: Who's got it? Who's competing for it?American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52, 684–689.
25.
HeinemannA.HamiltonB. B. (2000). Relation of rehabilitation intervention to functional outcome. Journal of Rehabilitation Outcomes Measure, 4, 18–21
26.
HeinemannA. W. (2000). Functional status and quality of life measures. In ElliotT.R. (Ed.), Handbook of rehabilitation psychology (pp. 261–286). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
27.
JetteD.U.WarrenR. L.WirtallaC. (2005). The relation between therapy intensity and outcomes of rehabilitation in skilled nursing facilities. Archives of Physical Medical and Rehabilitation, 86, 373–379.
28.
JohnstonM. V.WoodK. D. (2000). Medical rehabilitation programs: Factors related to effectiveness and efficiency. Journal of Outcome Measures, 4, 21–25.
29.
JosephssonS.BackmanL.BorellL.NygardL.BernspangB. (1995). Effectiveness of an intervention to improve occupational performance in dementia. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 15, 36–49.
30.
KielhofnerG. (1995). A model of human occupation: Theory and application (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
31.
LawM. (1993). Evaluating activities of daily living: Directions for the future. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47, 233–237.
32.
LawM. (2002a). Participation in the occupations of everyday life. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56, 640–649.
33.
LawM. (2002b). Assessing roles and competence. In TromblyC. A.RadomskiM.V. (Eds.), Occupational therapy for physical dysfunction (5th ed., pp. 31–45). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
34.
LawM.BaumC. (1998). Evidenced-based occupational therapy. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 65, 131–135.
35.
LawM.BaumC.DunnW. (2005). Measurement in occupational therapy. In LawM.BaumC.DunnW. (Eds.), Measuring occupational performance: Supporting best practice in occupational therapy (2nd ed., pp. 45–47). Thorofare, NJ: Slack Incorporated.
36.
LawM.LettsL. (1989). A critical review of scales of activities of daily living. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 43, 522–528.
37.
LettsL.BoschJ. (2005). Measuring occupational performance in basic activities of daily living. In LawM.BaumC.DunnW. (Eds.), Measuring occupational performance: Supporting best practice in occupational therapy. (2nd ed., pp. 179–189). Thorofare, NJ: Slack Incorporated.
38.
LettsL.LawM.RigbyP.CooperB.StewartD.StrongS. (1994). Person - environment assessments in occupational therapy. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 48, 608–618.
39.
LincolnN. B.EdmansJ. A. (1990). A re-validation of the Rivermead ADL Scale for elderly patients with stroke. Age and Ageing, 19, 19–24.
40.
LuriaA. R. (1973). The working brain-An introduction to neuropsychology. New York: Basic Books.
41.
McDowellI.NewellC. (1996). Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press.
42.
NelsonD. L. (1996). Therapeutic occupation: A definition. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 50, 775–782.
43.
NelsonD. L.MelvilleL. L.WilkersonJ.D.MagnessR.A.GrechJ.L.RosenbergJ.A. (2002). Interrater reliability, concurrent validity, responsiveness, and predictive validity of the Melville-Nelson Self-Care Assessment. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56, 51–59.
44.
PolatajkoH. J.MandichA.MartiniR. (2000). Dynamic performance analysis: A framework for understanding occupational performance. American Journal of Occupational Performance, 54, 65–72.
45.
PolgarJ. M. (1998). Critiquing assessments. In NeistadtM. E.CrepeauE. B. (Eds.), Willard and Spackman's occupational therapy. (9th ed., pp. 169–184). Philadelphia: Lippincott.
46.
PollockN.BaptisteS.LawM.McCollM.A.OpzoomerA.PolatajkoH. (1990). Occupational performance measures: A review based on the guidelines for the client-centred practice of occupational therapy. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57, 77–81.
47.
PortneyL.G.WatkinsM.P. (1993). Reliability. In PortneyL. G.WatkinsM.P. (Eds.), Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice (pp. 53–67). Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lange.
48.
PriceP. (2005). Measuring occupational performance within a sociocultural context. In LawM.BaumC.DunnW. (Eds.), Measuring occupational performance: Supporting best practice in occupational therapy. (2nd ed., pp. 347–365). Thorofare, NJ: Slack Incorporated.
49.
ReedK.L. (1984). Models of practice in occupational therapy. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.
50.
RousseauJ.DutilE.LambertJ. (1994). Fidelite inter-examinateurs du “Profile des AVQ-Mise en situation” chez la personne tramatisee cranio-encephalique Partie 1: Etude sur la cote globale. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61, 149–158.
51.
ShahS.VanclayF.CooperB. (1989). Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel Index for stroke rehabilitation. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 42, 703–709.
52.
SladeA.TennantA.ChamberlainM.A. (2002). A randomized controlled trial to determine the effect of intensity of therapy upon length of stay in a neurological rehabilitation setting. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 34, 260–266.
53.
StewardB. (2001). Using nominal group technique to explore competence in occupational therapy and physiotherapy students during first-year placements. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64, 298–304.
Tickle-DegnenL. (1999). Organizing, evaluating, and using evidence in occupational therapy practice. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 53, 537–539.
56.
TownsendE.StantonS.LawM.PolatajkoH.BaptisteS.Thompson-FransonT., (1997). In TownsendE. (Ed.) Enabling occupation: An occupational therapy perspective. Ottawa, Canada: CAOT Publications ACE.
57.
Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation (1993). Guide for the Uniform Data Set for Medical Rehabilitation (Adult FIM: Version 4.0). Buffalo: State University of New York.
58.
UnsworthC.A. (1993). The concept of function. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56, 287–292.
59.
UnsworthC.A.CunninghamD.T. (2002). Examining the evidence base for occupational therapy with clients following stroke. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 65, 21–29.
60.
WallisS. (1998/99). Changing practice through action research. Nurse Researcher, 6, 5–15.
61.
WatsonR.FourieM. (1994). Occupation and occupational therapy. In WatsonR.SwartzL. (Eds.), Transformation through occupation. London: Whurr Publishers Ltd.
62.
WelchA.ForsterS. (2003). A clinical audit of the outcome of occupational therapy assessment and negotiated patient goals in the acute setting. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 66, No pagination specified.
63.
WhitingS.E.LincolnN. (1980). An ADL assessment for stroke patients. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 43, 44–46.
64.
World Health Organization (1999, July). International classification of functioning and disability. (Beta-2 Draft, Full Version), [Online]. Geneva: Author. Retrieved from: http://www.who.int/icidh
