Abstract
This session will discuss the outcomes of a study conducted to evaluate the test–retest reliability and internal consistency of the Occupational Resilience Measure (ORM 1.0). Results show that ORM 1.0 and its four subtests have good test–retest reliability and internal consistency. ORM 1.0 may be used in pre- and postintervention occupational resilience measurement, enabling clinicians and researchers to test the efficacy of interventions. Single measures may be used in clinical decision making.
Primary Author and Speaker: Bernard Austin Kigunda Muriithi
Additional Authors and Speakers: Kara Gore
The purpose of this study was to determine if the Occupational Resilience Measure (ORM 1.0) has good test-retest reliability and internal consistency. ORM 1.0 measures one’s capacity for persistence in an occupation, termed as occupational resilience (OR), which signifies the degree to which one is likely to continue a specified occupation when faced with adversity. OR naturally varies between occupations and persons, and this produces different health effects. A recent study found that a high degree of resilience in specifiable occupations influenced general resilience during COVID-19 lockdowns. This makes measurement of OR an important step in developing effective intervention strategies to optimize OR for building general resilience, promoting overall health, or advancing quality of life. The snowball sampling method was used to select 94 participants. ORM 1.0 was administered face to face or virtually, measuring 340 occupations which varied extensively. 305 occupations evaluated were viewed by participants as promoting health, but 35 of the occupations included were viewed by participants as impacting health negatively (e.g., using drugs or drinking excessively). The ORM 1.0 was readministered after 2-3 weeks to obtain new scores for the exact same occupations. No intervention was provided between the tests. ORM 1.0 is a 20-item self-report form that provides an overall score for up to 4 occupations. It also provides scores for its 4 subscales (History, Experience, Benefits, and Adaptation). Participants’ ORM 1.0 test and retest scores were recorded in an Excel spreadsheet. Participants unable to complete both tests within the 2-3 week testing interval were removed from the study. SPSS (version 28) was used to conduct the statistical data analysis. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with a 95% confidence interval was 0.88 for ORM 1.0. ICC subtest values were 0.83, 0.86, 0.85, and 0.75 for History, Experience, Benefits, and Adaptation respectively. These results indicate good test-retest reliability for ORM 1.0 and all its subtests. Lastly, Cronbach’s alpha scores were 0.711 (test) and 0.768 (retest) indicating that ORM 1.0 has good internal consistency. Results show that ORM 1.0 has good test-retest reliability and internal consistency and may be a useful assessment for clinical practice and research.
Killgore, W. D., Taylor, E. C., Cloonan, S. A., & Dailey, N. S. (2020). Psychological resilience during the COVID-19 lockdown. Psychiatry Research, 291, 113216.
Muriithi, B. A. K., & Muriithi, J. (2020, March). Occupational resilience: A new concept in occupational science. Poster accepted for presentation at American Occupational Therapy Association Annual Conference & Expo, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2020.74S1-PO3508
Santoso, T. B., Ito, Y., Ohshima, N., Hidaka, M., & Bontje, P. (2015). Resilience in daily occupations of Indonesian mothers of children with autism spectrum disorder. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 69(5), 6905185020p1–6905185020p8.