The purpose of this study was to propose a process for the study of clinical utility and to illustrate its implementation in the development of an assessment.
Method:
A mixed methods approach was used to understand the clinical utility of an assessment in development. An exploratory qualitative/quantitative (QUAL?QUANT) approach was used to identify perspectives of the clinical utility of the assessment. The design placed equal status on the two methods used: focus groups and surveys.
Results:
The proposed process for the study of clinical utility resulted in targeted revisions based upon data obtained from 21 practitioners in three focus groups during a systemised examination of clinical utility.
Conclusion:
A mixed methods process can be used to ensure the clinical utility of assessments during the development process.
American Occupational Therapy Association (2002) Occupational therapy practice framework: Domain and process. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56(6), 609–39.
2.
AtkinHJonesDSmithKWelchADawsonPHargreavesG (2007) Research and development capacity building in allied health: Rhetoric and reality.
3.
International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 14(4), 162–66.
4.
BensonJClarkF (1982) A guide for instrument development and validation. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 36(12), 789–800.
5.
BlenkironE (2005) Uptake of standardised hand assessments in rheumatology: Why is it so low?British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68(4), 148–63.
6.
BowyerPKramerJMKielhofnerGMaxiero-BarbosaVGirolamiG (2007) Measurement properties of the Short Child Occupational Profile (SCOPE). Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 27(4), 67–85.
7.
ChungKJJungJKSooHLKimTHHanDHLeeSW (2010) Development and validation of the Korean version of the expanded prostate cancer index composite: Questionnaire assessing health-related quality of life after prostrate cancer treatment. Korean Journal of Urology, 51(9), 601–12.
8.
CreswellJWPlanoCGutmannMLHansonWE (2003) Advanced mixed methods research designs. In: TashakkoriATeddlieC, eds. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 209–40.
9.
DuncanEHagedornR (2006) Foundations for practice in occupational therapy. 4th ed. London: Churchill Livingstone.
10.
EcclesM, Improved Clinical Effectiveness through Behavioural Research Group (2006) Debate: Designing theoretically-informed implementation interventions. Implementation Science, 1, 1–8.
11.
ForsythKKvizFJ (2006) Survey research design. In: KielhofnerG, ed. Research in occupational therapy: Methods of inquiry for enhancing practice. Philadelphia: FA Davis.
12.
GustafssonSSunnerhagenKSDahlin-IvanoffS (2004) Occupational therapists‘ and patients’ perceptions of ABILHAND, anew assessment tool for measuring manual ability. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 11(3), 107–17.
13.
KielhofnerG (2008) Model of Human Occupation: Theory and application. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.
14.
KramerJBowyerPKielhofnerGO'BrienJMaziero-BarbosaV (2009) Examining rater behavior on a revised version of the Short Child Occupational Profile (SCOPE). OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 29(2), 88–96.
15.
LawMBaumCDunnW (2000) Measuring occupational performance: Supporting best practice in occupational therapy. Thorofare, NJ: Slack.
16.
LeeSWTaylorRRKielhofnerGFisherG (2008) Theory use in practice: A national survey of therapists who use the Model of Human Occupation. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62(1), 106–17.
National Board for Certification in Occupational Therapy (2004) A practice analysis study of entry-level occupational therapist registered and certified occupational therapy assistant practice. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 24(Suppl. 1), S1–S31.
19.
PattonMQ (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
PayneS (2002) Standardised tests: An appropriate way to measure the outcome of paediatric occupational therapy. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56(3), 117–22.
21.
PernerosGTroppH (2009) Development, validity, reliability of assessment of occupational performance (POP): A new instrument using two dimensions in the investigation in back pain. Spine Journal, 9(6), 486–98.
22.
SamarakkodyDCFernandoDNPereraHMcClureRJDe SilvaH (2010) The child behaviour assessment instrument: Development and validation of a measure to screen for externalizing child behavioural problems in community settings. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 4, 1–8. Available at: http://www.ijmhs.com/content/4/1/13 Accessed 09.04.10.
23.
StrongSBaptisteSColeDClarkeJCostaMShannonHReardonRSinclairS (2004) Functional assessment of injured workers: A profile of assessor practices. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 71(1), 13–23.
24.
ToomeyMNicholsonDCarswellA (1995) The clinical utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62(5), 242–49.
25.
WimpennyKForsythKJonesCMathesonLColleyJ (2010) Implementing the Model of Human Occupation across a mental health occupational therapy service: Communities of practice and a participatory change process. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 73(11), 507–16.
