This paper introduces the key issues that occupational therapists need to cover when selecting outcome measures for their workplace. It indicates the properties required for a standardised tool and describes how data are usually collected and analysed. Consideration is given to the advantages and disadvantages of using a standardised tool to measure the outcome of occupational therapy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BowlingA (1997) Measuring health: a review of quality of life measurement scales. 2nd edBuckingham: Open University Press.
2.
BowlingA (2002) Research methods in health: investigating health and health services. 2nd edBuckingham: Open University Press.
3.
BowlingANormandC (1998) Definition and measurement of outcome. In: SwashM, ed. Outcomes in neurological and neurosurgical disorders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 14–34.
4.
BurtonJ (1989) The Model of Human Occupation and occupational therapy practice with elderly patients. Part 2: Application. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52 (6), 219–21.
5.
Collins (1987) The new Collins dictionary and thesaurus in one volume. Glasgow: HarperCollins.
FisherA (1992) Functional measures, part 2: selecting the right test, minimising the limitations. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 46 (3), 278–81.
8.
GompertzPPoundPAbrahimS (1993) The reliability of stroke outcome measures. Clinical Rehabilitation, 7, 290–96.
9.
JamesS (2001) A study to investigate the validity and clinical utility of the Morriston Occupational Therapy Outcome Measure (MOTOM). Unpublished MPhil thesis. Cardiff: University of Wales College of Medicine.
10.
JamesSCorrS (2004) The Morriston Occupational Therapy Outcome Measure (MOTOM): measuring what matters. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67 (5), 210–16.
11.
King's Fund (1988) Treatment of stroke. British Medical Journal, 297, 126–28.
12.
LawM (1987) Measurement in occupational therapy: scientific criteria for evaluation. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 54 (3), 133–38.
13.
LawMLettsL (1989) A critical review of scales of activities of daily living. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 43 (8), 522–28.
14.
LawMBaptisteSCarswellAMcCollMAPolatajkoHPollockN (1998) The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. 3rd edOttawa, ON: CAOT Publications ACE.
