Occupational therapists are prolific creators and users of assessments. However, many of us accept an ‘assessment’ form at face value without really considering the reliability or validity of the assessment method. The use of unreliable assessments seriously diminishes the credibility of the profession. Unfortunately, testing assessments for reliability and validity is time consuming. Therefore, it is suggested that occupational therapists make use of the many published assessments, which already provide evidence of their reliability and validity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GrangerCVGreshamGE.Functional assessment in rehabilitation medicine. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1984.
2.
DinnersteinAJMilton-LowenthalMDDexterM.Evaluation of a rating scale of ability in ADL. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1965; Aug: 579–84.
3.
HolbrookMSkilbeckCE.An activities index for use with stroke patients. Age Ageing1983; 12: 166–70.
WadeDTLangton HewerRSkilbeckCEDavidRM.Stroke: a critical approach to diagnosis, treatment and management. London: Chapman and Hall, 1985.
6.
DuckworthD.The measurement of disability by means of summed ADL indices. Int Rehab Med1980; 2: 194–98.
7.
GhiselliEECampbellJPZedeckS.Measurement theory for the behavioural sciences. San Francisco: W H Freeman, 1981.
8.
KeithRA.Functional assessment measures in medical rehabilitation: current statusArch Phys Med Rehabil1984; 65(2): 74–78.
9.
KatzSFordABMoskowitzRWJacksonBAJaffeMW.Studies of illness in the aged. The index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. J Am Med Assoc1963; 185: 914–19.
10.
WilliamsHGAJohnstonMWillisLABennettAE.Disability: a model and measurement technique. Br J Prevent Soc Med1976; 30(2): 71–78.
11.
MahoneyFIBarthelDW.Functional evaluation: the Barthel index. Maryland State Med J1965; 14: 61–65.
SheikhKSmithDSMeadeTWGoldenbergEBrennanPJKinsellaG.Repeatability and validity of a modified ADL index in studies of chronic disability. Int Rehab Med1979; 1: 51–58.
14.
GrangerCVAlbrechtGLHamiltonBB.Outcome of comprehensive medical rehabilitation: measurement by PULSES profile and Barthel index. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1979; 60: 145–54.
15.
SchoeningHAAndereggLBergstromDFondaMSteinkeNUlrichP.Numerical scoring of self-care status of patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1965; 46: 689–97.
16.
WadeDTLegh-SmithJHewerRL.Social activities after strokeInt Rehab Med1985; 7(4): 176–81.
17.
WylieCMWhiteBK.A measure of disability. Arch Environ Health1964; 8: 834–9.
18.
WylieCM.Measuring end results of rehabilitation of patients with stroke. Public Health Rep1967; 82: 893–98.
19.
WylieCM.Gauging the response of stroke patients to rehabilitation. J Am Ger Soc1967; XV: 797–805.
