Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Occupational dysfunction affects daily life and well-being, requiring valid assessment tools. Cross-cultural adaptation ensures their applicability across populations. This study adapts the Classification and Assessment of Occupational Dysfunction into Turkish (CAOD-T) and evaluates its validity, reliability, psychometric evaluation and clinical compatibility. A total of 224 participants were recruited, including 179 individuals without disabilities and 45 individuals with physical disabilities. Construct validity was tested via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Known-groups validity compared scores between groups. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and McDonald’s ω. Sensitivity and specificity were analyzed via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. CFA confirmed the four-factor structure (comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.934, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.0373). CAOD-T demonstrated strong internal consistency (α = .758), test–retest reliability (ICC = .756), and clinical compatibility (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.953, sensitivity = 93.3%, specificity = 91.11%). CAOD-T is a valid, reliable, and clinically applicable tool for assessing occupational dysfunction in Turkish populations. Future studies should explore its use across different age groups and cultures.

Plain Language Summary

Understanding Participation Challenges: An Evaluation of the Validity, Reliability, Psychometric Properties, and Clinical Compatibility of the Turkish Classification And Assessment of Occupational Dysfunction Scale

This study aimed to adapt and validate the Classification and Assessment of Occupational Dysfunction (CAOD) for use in Türkiye. Occupational dysfunction occurs when individuals face difficulties in daily activities due to health conditions, disabilities, or social barriers. The goal was to ensure the Turkish version (CAOD-T) is a valid and reliable tool for assessing these challenges. Participation in meaningful activities is essential for well-being, but individuals with physical disabilities often struggle with work, self-care, and social life, reducing their quality of life. Despite the need for standardized assessment, no validated Turkish tool existed. This study filled this gap by adapting the CAOD, providing health professionals with a tool to assess and support individuals experiencing participation difficulties. The study included 224 adults (179 without disabilities, 45 with physical disabilities). The CAOD was translated and culturally adapted, ensuring clarity and relevance. Participants completed the CAOD-T, and researchers analyzed its effectiveness in measuring occupational dysfunction and distinguishing between groups. Findings confirmed that CAOD-T is a valid and reliable tool. It successfully identified differences between individuals without disabilities and those with disabilities. Occupational marginalization, or feeling excluded from meaningful activities, was the most significant issue for individuals with disabilities. The CAOD-T is the first validated Turkish tool for assessing occupational dysfunction. It can help occupational therapists and health care professionals improve rehabilitation strategies. Future research should explore its applicability across different age groups and cultural settings to enhance its impact.

Keywords

occupational alienation occupational deprivation occupational imbalance occupational marginalization psychometrics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alve

Y. A.

Begum

Yousuf

Ikiugu

M. N.

Bontje

(2024). Inclusivity in occupational participation: Life stories of Bangladeshi with spinal cord injury. OTJR: Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 44(2), 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/15394492231206994

Ballan

M. S.

Freyer

(2020). Occupational deprivation among female survivors of intimate partner violence who have physical disabilities. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 74(4), 7404345010p1–7404345010p7. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2020.038398

Bartolac

Sangster Jokić

(2019). Understanding the everyday experience of persons with physical disabilities: Building a model of social and occupational participation. Journal of Occupational Science, 26(3), 408–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/14427591.2018.1522597

Beaton

D. E.

Bombardier

Guillemin

Ferraz

M. B.

(2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186–3191.

Bentler

P. M.

Chou

C. P.

(1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 78–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124187016001004

Bonett

D. G.

(2002). Sample size requirements for estimating intraclass correlations with desired precision. Statistics in Medicine, 21(9), 1331–1335. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1108

Brown

T. A.

(2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford publications.

Christiansen

Baum

Bass

J. D.

(2014). Health, occupational performance and occupational therapy. In Christiansen

Baum

Bass

J. D.

(Eds.), Occupational therapy: Enabling function and well-being (4th ed., pp. 16–29). SLACK Incorporated.

Durocher

Gibson

B. E.

Rappolt

(2014). Occupational justice: A conceptual review. Journal of Occupational Science, 21(4), 418–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/14427591.2013.775692

10.

Durocher

Kinsella

E. A.

McCorquodale

Phelan

(2016). Ethical tensions related to systemic constraints: Occupational alienation in occupational therapy practice. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 36(4), 216–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1539449216665117

11.

Günal

Pekçetin

Demirtürk

Şenol

Håkansson

Wagman

(2020). Validity and reliability of the Turkish Occupational Balance Questionnaire (OBQ11-T). Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 27(7), 493–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2019.1673479

12.

Hair

Black

Babin

Anderson

(2010). Multivariate data analysis: Pearson college division. Pearson.

13.

Hammell

K. R. W.

Iwama

M. K.

(2012). Well-being and occupational rights: An imperative for critical occupational therapy. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 19(5), 385–394. https://doi.org/10.3109/11038128.2011.611821

14.

Hammell

K. W.

(2019). Building globally relevant occupational therapy from the strength of our diversity. World Federation of Occupational Therapists Bulletin, 75(1), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14473828.2018.1529480

15.

İnan

Çelik

(2023). Evaluation of the accessibility of the disabled in urban areas on the sample of the National Library. Gazi University Journal of Science Part B: Art Humanities Design and Planning, 11(3), 423–439.

16.

Journalists and Writers Foundation. (2020). Rights of persons with disabilities in Turkey. https://jwf.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/JWF-Policy-Brief-RIGHTS-OF-PERSONS-WITH-DISABILITIES-IN-TURKEY-1.pdf

17.

Kassberg

A.-C.

Nyman

Larsson Lund

(2021). Perceived occupational balance in people with stroke. Disability and Rehabilitation, 43(4), 553–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2019.1632940

18.

Kielhofner

(2009). Conceptual foundations of occupational therapy practice. FA Davis.

19.

Kyougoku

Teraoka

(2019). Bayesian analysis of the relationship between belief conflict and occupational dysfunction. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 73(6), 7306205040p1–7306205040p9.

20.

Letts

Bosch

(2024). Measuring occupational performance in basic activities of daily living. In Law

Baum

Dunn

(Eds.), Measuring occupational performance (pp. 269–303). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2019.027615

21.

Loh

S. Y.

Than

Quek

K. F.

(2011). Occupational pressure–targeting organisational factors to ameliorate occupational dysfunction. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21, 493–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-011-9287-3

22.

Morimoto

Murakami

Sasaki

Yokoyama

Ishii

Ikeda

(2024). Relationship between social networking service addiction and occupational dysfunction in young adults. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 15394492241282790. https://doi.org/10.1177/15394492241282790

23.

Silvestri

(2017). Effects of chronic shoulder pain on quality of life and occupational engagement in the population with chronic spinal cord injury: Preparing for the best outcomes with occupational therapy. Disability and Rehabilitation, 39(1), 82–90. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2016.1140829

24.

Smith

D. L.

(2024). Social and environmental determinants of occupation: An intersectional concept focused on occupational justice and participation. Journal of Occupational Science, 31(2), 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/14427591.2023.2212676

25.

Steber

A. W.

Skubik-Peplaski

Causey-Upton

Custer

(2017). The impact of caring for persons with stroke on the leisure occupations of female caregivers. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics, 35(3–4), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/02703181.2017.1350778

26.

Tavakol

Dennick

(2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd

27.

Teraoka

Kyougoku

(2015). Development of the final version of the Classification and Assessment of Occupational Dysfunction Scale. PLOS ONE, 10(8), Article e0134695. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134695

28.

Teraoka

Kyougoku

(2019). Structural relationships among occupational dysfunction, stress coping, and occupational participation for healthcare workers. Work, 64(4), 833–841. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-193045

29.

Wagman

Håkansson

(2014). Introducing the Occupational Balance Questionnaire (OBQ). Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 21(3), 227–231. https://doi.org/10.3109/11038128.2014.900571

30.

Whiteford

Jones

Weekes

Ndlovu

Long

Perkes

Brindle

(2020). Combatting occupational deprivation and advancing occupational justice in institutional settings: Using a practice-based enquiry approach for service transformation. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 83(1), 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308022619865223

31.

Wilcock

Hocking

(2024). An occupational perspective of health. Taylor & Francis.

32.

Wilcock

A. A.

(2007). Occupation and health: Are they one and the same? Journal of Occupational Science, 14(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/14427591.2007.9686577

33.

Wilding

Whiteford

(2007). Occupation and occupational therapy: Knowledge paradigms and everyday practice. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 54(3), 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1630.2006.00621.x

Psychometric Evaluation of the Turkish Classification and Assessment of Occupational Dysfunction Scale

Abstract

Plain Language Summary

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References