centennial vision children and youth instrument ... · ward aota’s centennial vision goals. they...

CENTENNIAL VISION

Children and Youth Instrument Development and TestingArticles Published in the American Journal of OccupationalTherapy, 2009–2013: A Content, Methodology, andInstrument Design Review

Ted Brown, Helen Bourke-Taylor

MeSH TERMS

� adolescent medicine

� diagnosis

� occupational therapy

� pediatrics

� reproducibility of results

� symptom assessment

We extracted 35 articles published between January 2009 and September 2013 in the American Journal

of Occupational Therapy (AJOT) that focused on children and youth instrument development and testing,

summarized study details and traits of the 37measures reported in them, and then critiqued themeasures. Most

of the articles contained Level III evidence (one-group nonrandomized and noncontrolled). The most common

types of reliability reported in the articles were internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and interrater

reliability; the most frequent types of validity reported were discriminant validity and construct validity. Most

pediatric assessment tools were designed for school-age children between ages 5 and 12 yr. The two most

common purposes for the assessments were reported as descriptive and discriminative. The continued

publication of instruments that measure children and youth participation in meaningful occupations and life

roles in home, school, and community environments is recommended.

Brown, T., & Bourke-Taylor, H. (2014). Centennial Vision—Children and youth instrument development and testing

articles published in the American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 2009–2013: A content, methodology, and

instrument design review. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68, e154–e216. http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/

ajot.2014.012237

Ted Brown, PhD, MSc, MPA, OT(C), OTR, is

Associate Professor, Undergraduate Course Convener,

and Department Postgraduate Coordinator, Department

of Occupational Therapy, School of Primary Health Care,

Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences,

Monash University—Peninsula Campus, Frankston,

Victoria 3800, Australia; [email protected]

Helen Bourke-Taylor, PhD, MSc, is Senior Lecturer

in Occupational Therapy, School of Allied Health, Faculty

of Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University,

Melbourne Campus (St Patrick’s), Victoria, Australia;

[email protected]

To commemorate the American Occu-

pational Therapy Association’s (AOTA’s)

100th anniversary in 2017, the AOTA

board of directors endorsed the imple-

mentation of the Centennial Vision, whichwas “designed to be a road map for the

future of the profession” (AOTA, 2007a,

p. 613). The Centennial Vision challenges

the field of occupational therapy to gen-

erate high-quality evidence documenting

its effectiveness and impact in six pri-

mary practice areas: (1) productive aging;

(2) rehabilitation, disability, and participa-

tion; (3) children and youth; (4) work and

industry; (5) health and wellness; and

(6) mental health (Corcoran, 2007).

Gutman (2008b) articulated that achiev-

ing the goals identified in AOTA’s Centen-nial Vision would require adhering to five

primary research priorities: (1) providing

evidence of the efficacy of occupational

therapy practice; (2) testing the reliability

and validity of occupational therapy as-

sessment instruments; (3) examining the

connection between engagement in occu-

pation and health and well-being; (4) using

fundamental and basic research to explain

how disability experiences affect people’s

participation in community life; and (5)

asking and answering topical questions that

will provide insights for the occupational

therapy profession’s ongoing development

and evolution. “The sagacity of the Cen-tennial Vision is that it has charged the

profession to produce research needed to

support the efficacy of practice in all major

practice areas” (Gutman, 2008a, p. 501).

In 2006, AOTA’s Children and

Youth Ad Hoc Committee generated a list

of 11 research areas they deemed important

to inform occupational therapy practice

with children and youth (AOTA, 2006)

and in turn outlined AOTA’s Centennial

Vision for pediatric occupational therapy:

e154 September/October 2014, Volume 68, Number 5

Downloaded From: http://ajot.aota.org/ on 09/05/2014 Terms of Use: http://AOTA.org/terms

1. Basic and applied scientific studies

related to skills, processes, and

foundations for childhood and

adolescent occupations.

2. Factors that contribute to the

success or failure of a specific

frame of reference.

3. Both qualitative and quantitative

methodologies to address mul-

tiple facets of the above.

4. Efficacy studies that examine

interventions (efficacy, effective-

ness, outcomes development).

5.Theory development and de-

velopment of conceptual models

that promote integration of the-

ory and practice.

6. Empirical studies conducted in

context.

7.Translational research providing

information on applications to

practice, policy development, sys-

tems change, programdevelopment.

8. The roles and participation of

parents, siblings, and other family

members within family centered

services.

9. Longitudinal studies of the par-

ticipation of children with special

needs in their daily lives as they

transition through childhood and

adolescence into adulthood.

10. Studies that examine factors central

to the children, youth, and their

families such as finding a friend,

participating in community life, and

procuring and maintaining jobs.

11. Studies that examine the emotional

and social cost of occupational

deprivation and occupational in-

justice for children and youth

such as depression, alcohol and

substance abuse, and suicide in

disenfranchised youth, and what

this is costing emotionally to youth

and family as well as to society.

(AOTA, 2006, p. 8)

Progress Toward Meeting theCentennial Vision: Children andYouth Instrument Developmentand Testing

The American Journal of OccupationalTherapy (AJOT) is a significant vehicle to

assist AOTA in achieving the Centennial

Vision’s mandate (AOTA, 2007a). To

monitor how AJOT is fulfilling this pur-

pose, Sharon A. Gutman, AJOT’s Editor-

in-Chief, commissioned several AJOT

authors to write a series of review articles

that chart the journal’s progress toward

achieving the Centennial Vision. Several of

these articles have focused on the identified

primary practice area of children and

youth. Examples of reviews published in

AJOT focusing on this practice area include

those written by Brown (2010a), Bendixen

and Kreider (2011), Hilton and Smith

(2012), and Hilton, Goloff, Altaras, and

Josman (2013).

Many of the previous review articles

published in AJOT have used the level of

evidence hierarchy system developed by the

AOTA Evidence-Based Literature Review

Project (Lieberman & Scheer, 2002;

Sackett, Rosenberg, Gray, Haynes, &

Richardson, 1996) to classify articles in-

cluded in them. Level I involves systematic

reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized

controlled trials. Level II consists of two-

group pretest–posttest designs in which

controls are used (e.g., cohort designs, case

control studies) and randomization is not.

Level III designs involve neither control

nor randomization but instead use a one-

group pretest–posttest design. Level IV

includes single-subject designs, descriptive

studies, case series, and case reports. Fi-

nally, Level V involves only expert opinion

and is not based on any systematic research.

Children and Youth

Brown (2010a) completed a review and

critique of 39 articles published in AJOT in

2008 and 2009 that fell under the practice

area of children and youth. He found that

the most frequent type of research pub-

lished was basic research, accounting for

38.5% (n5 15) of all studies published on

the topic of child and youth practice issues.

Instrument development and testing and

effectiveness studies were the next twomost

frequently noted research approaches, ac-

counting for 25.6% (n 5 10) and 20.5%

(n 5 8), respectively. Quantitative studies

were the predominant research paradigm

used, with 76.9% (n 5 30) of the studies

dealing with children and youth. Studies

using a qualitative approach accounted for

only 12.8% (n5 5), and 10.3% (n5 4) of

the studies used a mixed-methods ap-

proach. When considering the level of ev-

idence of children and youth studies

published in AJOT in 2008–2009, Level

III articles were the most common, ac-

counting for 46.2% (n5 18). None of the

39 studies published in the 2008 and 2009

volumes of AJOT that focused on children

and youth practice examined the link be-

tween health and well-being and occupa-

tional engagement.

Bendixen and Kreider (2011) con-

ducted a systematic review of AJOT articles

that focused on the practice category of

children and youth published from2009 to

2010. They used the International Classi-fication of Functioning, Disability and

Health (ICF; World Health Organization

[WHO], 2001), ICF: Child and Youth

Version (ICF–CY;WHO, 2007), and Posi-

tive Youth Development (PYD; Catalano,

Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, & Hawkins,

1999) frameworks to monitor how occu-

pational therapy research was tracking to-

ward AOTA’s Centennial Vision goals.

They sorted 46 AJOT articles by research

type and categorized them into either the

ICF–CY or the PYD framework. Of the

46 articles, 12 reported on instrument de-

velopment and testing, 15 were classified as

basic research, 4 were designated as efficacy

studies, and 15 involved evaluating the ef-

fectiveness of occupational therapy inter-

vention. The ICF–CY breakdown of the

variables that the 46 studies focused on was

as follows: Body Functions, 31%; Activity,

31%; Participation, 16%; Environment,

12%; and Personal, 10% (Bendixen &

Kreider, 2011). “Most of the effectiveness

studies reported in AJOT during 2009–

2010 focused on activity-based outcomes

such as visual–motor integration, motor

skill, feeding, and handwriting. As a whole,

most treatment effectiveness studies mea-

sured clinical and activity-based outcomes

of the intervention” (Bendixen & Kreider,

2011, p. 356). The authors concluded that

to best meet the Centennial Vision goals,

occupational therapists need to “document

changes in children’s engagement in ev-

eryday life situations and build the evi-

dence of occupational therapy’s efficacy in

facilitating participation” (p. 357).

The American Journal of Occupational Therapy e155


Hilton and Smith (2012) examined

22 articles published in the 2011 AJOTvolume that dealt with the practice area of

children and youth. Similar to the ap-

proach used by Bendixen and Kreider

(2011), Hilton and Smith sorted the ar-

ticles by type of research (Gutman, 2008b),

level of evidence (Lieberman & Scheer,

2002), and the ICF categories expanded byBaum (2011) to incorporate levels of re-

habilitation science.

Of the 22 articles analyzed, 10 were

intervention effectiveness studies, 5 were

instrument development and testing stud-

ies, 6 were basic research studies, and 1 was

a professional issues study. “The most

common evidence level was Level III

(36.4%), followed by Level IV (31.8%),

Level II (18.2%), and Level I (13.6%)”

(Hilton & Smith, 2012, p. e49). The dis-

tribution of ICF rehabilitation levels in the

22 articles was as follows: Body Func-

tions and Structures, 50%; Functional

Limitations, 32%; Environment, 23%;

Participation, 18%; Activity, 14%; and

Biomedical, 5% (Hilton & Smith, 2012).

Similar to Bendixen and Kreider’s (2011)

findings for articles published in 2009–

2010, Hilton and Smith (2012) reported

that the largest percentage of children and

youth articles published in 2011 presented

results of intervention effectiveness studies

classified as Level III or IV, with the ma-

jority focusing on the ICF Body Functions

and Structures components. However,

they noted that “longitudinal, efficacy, and

qualitative studies, as well as studies ex-

amining adolescents and the transition to

adulthood, were absent from articles in this

review and are important areas for future

investigation” (Hilton & Smith, 2012,

p. e39).

Whitney and Hilton (2013) ana-

lyzed 11 intervention effectiveness studies

related to children and youth published

in the 2012 AJOT volume using evi-

dence level (Lieberman & Scheer, 2002)

and Baum’s (2011) expanded ICF cate-

gories. They also rated the 11 articles

on four additional criteria outlined by

Reichow, Volkmar, and Cicchetti (2008):

efficacy, effectiveness, comparative effective-

ness, and pragmatic methodology. Of the

studies,4 (36.4%)wereLevel I, 2 (18.2%)were

Level II, 3 (27.3%) were Level III, and

2 (18.2%) were Level IV. The studies

addressed five of the seven ICF rehabilitation

science mechanisms: Body Functions and

Structures (n 5 3; 27.3%), Functional

Limitations (n 5 5; 45.5%), Activity

(n 5 3; 27.3%), Participation (n 5 1;

9.1%), and Environment (n5 1; 9.1%).

Note that some of the studies fell under

more than one of the expanded ICF

categories.

Whitney and Hilton (2013) found

that 63%of the studies used pragmatic trial

methodology (e.g., assessing treatment in

context as it ismeant to be delivered), and 1

study dealt with comparative effectiveness.

They noted that the 11 studies included

in this review “showed improvement in

their ability to guide practitioners to make

evidence-based decisions by increasing the

understanding of the pragmatic relevance

of intervention and the extent to which

intervention promotes participation in

childhood and adolescent occupations”

(p. e163).

Instrument Development and Testing

Hilton et al. (2013) examined two groups

of studies published in AJOT: 12 articles

from the 2012 AJOT volume that con-

centrated on both children and youth and

instrument development and testing and

11 AJOT articles published during 2009–

2013 that reported on instrument de-

velopment and testing studies with a spe-

cific focus on children and youth activity

and participation scales. Hilton et al.

wanted to investigate whether these in-

struments facilitated the production of

credible evidence that endorsed the

Centennial Vision principles. Among the

12 instrument development and testing

studies published in 2012, 7 (58.3%) were

Level II and 5 (41.7%) were Level III; 11 of

the studies were on instruments that were

the subject of the studies on child and

youth activity and participation scales

published from 2009 to 2013:

• School Version of the Assessment of

Motor and Process Skills (Fisher, Bryze,

Hume, & Griswold, 2007)

• Do–Eat (Goffer, Josman,&Rosenblum,

2009)

• Evaluation Test of Children’s Hand-

writing–Manuscript (Amundson, 1995)

• School Function Assessment (Coster,

Deeney, Haltiwanger, & Haley, 1998)

• McDonald Play Inventory (McDonald,

1987)

• Children’s Leisure Assessment Scale

(Rosenblum, Sachs, & Schreuer, 2010)

• Children’s Assessment of Participation

and Enjoyment/Preferences for Activi-

ties of Children (King et al., 2004)

• Quality of Life in School (Weintraub&

Bar-Haim Erez, 2007)

• Child Occupational Self Assessment

(Keller, Kafkes, Basu, Federico, &

Kielhofner, 2005)

• Pediatric Evaluation of Disability In-

ventory (Haley, Coster, Dumas, Fragala-

Pinkham, &Moed, 2012).

• Sensory Experiences Questionnaire

(Baranek,David,Poe, Stone,&Watson,

2006).

Hilton et al. (2013) reported an in-

crease in the number of instrument de-

velopment and testing studies overall:

More than half of the studies involved

higher levels of evidence, external funding,

and larger sample sizes. They also reported

that blinding was a research method fea-

ture.Hilton et al. noted that “these findings

indicate that the profession is moving in

the right direction in instrument devel-

opment and testing” (p. e34).

Meeting the Centennial Vision forInstrument Development andTesting in the Practice Area ofChildren and Youth

The occupational therapy profession

worldwide seeks to consolidate theoretical

underpinnings that explain, justify, vali-

date, and develop existing models as

well as to develop psychometrically sound

instruments that will measure and sub-

stantiate occupational therapy practice.

The end goal of achieving an evidence-

based profession in occupational therapy is

reliant on the development of psychomet-

rically robust instruments, tests, and mea-

sures (Brown, 2010b). AOTA’s Centennial

Vision itself charges the profession to produce

both high-quality research evidence and

substantive impact within practice. Conse-

quently, occupational therapists having ac-

cess to and being conversant with a range of



psychometrically vigorous assessment tools

and scales is crucial to achieving this aim

(Coster, 2006a, 2008).

Assessment tools developed within

occupational therapy have four main

purposes: descriptive, discriminative, pre-

dictive, and evaluative (Brown, 2012;

Fawcett, 2007). A tool’s purpose will in-

fluence the ensuing need for psychometric

development and evaluation. Any research

investigating an instrument’s psychometric

properties should state the assessment’s

purpose to guide potential clinicians or

researchers who may want to use the in-

strument. Descriptive tools provide “in-

formation which describes the person’s

current functional status, problems, needs

and/or circumstances” (Fawcett, 2007,

p. 98). Descriptive assessments provide

a baseline or way of describing a child’s

functional status to plan intervention.

Examples of descriptive assessments in-

clude the Child Occupational Self As-

sessment (Keller et al., 2005), Assessment

of Life Habits for children (Noreau et al.,

2007), Paediatric Activity Card Sort

(Mandich, Polatajko, Miller, & Baum,

2004), and the Self-Observation and

Report Technique (Rintala et al., 1984).

Discriminative assessments are usu-

ally norm based and distinguish between

individuals or groups on some character-

istic or underlying dimension (Fawcett,

2007). Examples include any norm-based

developmental assessment such as the Move-

ment Assessment Battery for Children–

Second Edition (Henderson, Sugden, &

Barnett, 2007), the Peabody Develop-

mental Motor Scales–Second Edition

(Folio & Fewell, 2000), or the Vineland

Adaptive Behavior Scales–Second Edition

(Sparrow, Cicchetti, & Balla, 2005). Dis-

criminative assessments seek to accurately

determine whether a child or youth is

within a specified range of typical de-

velopment or performance. The assessment

seeks to discriminate between children

who may or may not be presenting with

suspected occupational performance chal-

lenges. Consequently, the discriminant

validity of such assessments becomes an

extremely important part of their psy-

chometric evaluation.

Predictive assessments “classify people

into pre-defined categories of interest in an

attempt to predict an event or functional

status in another situation” (Fawcett, 2007,

p. 99). An example is the Sensory Profile

(Dunn, 1999), which predicts sensory

responsiveness in other situations and

also categorizes the child accordingly.

Moreover, children’s performance on the

Beery–Buktenica Developmental Test of

Visual–Motor Integration (Beery, Buktenica,

& Beery, 2010) in kindergarten has been

shown to be predictive of future academic

performance in subsequent grades (Kurdek

& Sinclair, 2000). The Functional In-

dependence Measure for Children (Wee-

FIM; Uniform Data System for Medical

Rehabilitation, 2006) has also demonstrated

the ability to predict future functional out-

comes of children with neurological injuries

(Msall et al., 1994). Consequently, the pre-

dictive validity of assessment tools and scales

that are used for this specified purpose is

crucial.

The fourth type of purpose is evalu-

ative. Evaluative assessments detect the

magnitude of change over time within

one person or a group of people after

an intervention or event (Fawcett, 2007).

Evaluative assessments may be designed

with the purpose of measuring changes in

performance, competence, or satisfaction

over time from the client’s perspective and

are known as outcome measures. Examples

include the Canadian Occupational Per-

formance Measure (Law et al., 2005) and

the Perceived Efficacy and Goal Setting

System (Missiuna, Pollock, & Law,

2004). Other tools are designed to detect

both development and progress over

time, such as the Pediatric Evaluation

of Disability Inventory (Haley, Coster,

Ludlow,Haltiwanger,&Andrellos, 1992).

Consequently, evaluative tests require

sound test–retest and interrater reliability

before thorough investigations of their

responsiveness to change over time. For

example, the Melbourne Assessment of

Unilateral Upper Limb Function second

edition (MAUULF–2; Randall, Johnson,

& Reddihough, 2010) had established

test–retest, intrarater, and interrater re-

liability before evaluation of its sensitivity

to change over time. With such established

properties as an outcome measure, the

MAUULF–2 has been used to measure

change in the functional status of children

after occupational therapy intervention

(Wallen,O’Flaherty,&Waugh, 2007) and

botulinum toxin A (Rameckers, Duysens,

Speth, Vles, & Smits-Engelsman, 2010;

Speth, Leffers, Janssen-Potten, & Vles,

2005).

It is important to note that many

assessment tools and scales have dual or

multiple purposes. The usefulness of an

instrument or tool in occupational therapy

practice and research increases when it has

two or more purposes. Examples include

the Movement Assessment Battery for

Children–Second Edition, which discrim-

inates between children with and without

motor differences and predicts whether

a child exhibits the signs of developmental

coordination disorder. Therefore, assess-

ment tools with more than one purpose, as

well as substantiated and appropriate psy-

chometric evaluation, are the most robust

instruments available to both clinicians and

researchers in the field. The development

of such instruments, scales, and tools is

imperative for the future of occupational

therapy in the evidence-based health care

and education arena.

Finally, given the assessment tool’s

purpose, it is important to describe the

methods involved in establishing its psy-

chometric body of evidence, namely its

reliability and validity. Reliability refers to

a test’s ability to collect data on a consistent

basis, and validity refers to the available

body of evidence indicating how well test

items represent the construct they claim to

assess. Specific subtypes of reliability include

internal consistency, correlations between

subscales and total scale score, test–retest

reliability, intrarater reliability, interrater

reliability, split-half reliability, and alternate-

form reliability (Mertler, 2007). Usually,

a test needs to have established validity

before its reliability can be investigated;

however, preliminary reliability scores

are frequently reported (e.g., internal

consistency, split-half reliability) before

formal construct validity evidence is

published. In other words, a test’s items

can appear to reliably measure a construct

without evidence that the items ade-

quately represent the construct being as-

sessed. Subtypes of validity include content

validity, criterion-related validity, pre-

dictive validity, convergent validity, divergent



validity, discriminant validity, and fac-

torial validity (Brown, 2012; Fawcett,

2007).

In this article, we review 35 articles

published in AJOT between January 2009

and September 2013 that were in the

practice areas of children and youth and

instrument development and testing. The

purpose of this review was to describe these

articles and their level of evidence (Gutman,

2008a). We also critique the specific pedi-

atric assessment instruments cited in these

articles, which provide a gauge of how well

AJOT is meeting the challenges set forth in

AOTA’s Centennial Vision.

Method

The AJOT Editor-in-Chief identified 35

articles published in AJOT between Janu-

ary 2009 and September 2013 that ad-

dressed both children and youth and

instrument development and testing. We

used a content analysis approach to sum-

marize the characteristics of the 35 articles

(Table 1).pTable 2 provides specific details

about the pediatric instrument being in-

vestigated. Table 3 profiles and critiques

the pediatric assessment instruments in-

cluded in the 2009–2013 AJOT articles.

Among other details, Table 3 includes the

stage of instrument development and

evaluation, which we based on DeVellis’s

(2003) 10 stages of scale development:

1. Content domain specification (litera-

ture review, interviews with relevant

audience, focus group) to ensure exis-

tence of construct

2. Item pool generation or reports on ini-

tial development of items

3. Content validity evaluation (content

experts, relevant audiences) to ensure

representativeness

4. Questionnaire development and eval-

uation and evaluation of scoring

5. Pilot study questionnaire

6. Sampling and data collection

7. Reliability assessment

8. Validity or dimensionality assessment

(factorial, dimensionality, conver-

gent, divergent, discriminant: sta-

tistical analysis and statistical evidence

of construct)

9. Wider application of scale to new

populations

10. Evaluation of scale’s measurement

properties by others than the scale’s

authors.

We classified each study according to the

level of evidence hierarchy system used

by the AOTA Evidence-Based Literature

Review Project (Lieberman&Scheer,2002).

The Person–Environment–Occupa-

tion (PEO) model is a prominent occupa-

tional therapy model that drives client-

centered practice and explains a person’s

performance as the dynamic interaction

among these three components (Law &

Baum, 2005; Law et al., 1996). The person

characteristics include physical, cognitive,

affective, and other characteristics and ca-

pabilities. Environmental aspects are the

social, cultural, physical, and institutional

environment around the person, and oc-

cupations are classified as self-care, pro-

ductivity, or leisure and play. The PEO

model concepts operationalized in the oc-

cupational therapy assessment tools are

listed in Table 4.

The ICF provides an international

framework that transcends professional

boundaries, cultures, and countries. The

ICF acknowledges and conceptualizes the

influence of environmental (human and

physical) and personal (i.e., characteristics

and background of the person’s life such as

age, gender, education level, socioeco-

nomic status) factors on the health, capa-

bilities, and capacity of the person to

engage in activities and participate in op-

portunities available in his or her home and

community (WHO, 2001). Environmen-

tal factors such as physical and human re-

sources and personal factors such as age,

gender, culture, and the person’s values,

interests, life roles, habits, and self-efficacy

provide a highly influential backdrop that

affects what a person does and how a person

interacts with the world around him or her.

The ICF has had a significant impact on

the development of assessment tools within

and outside the field of occupational ther-

apy. We used the ICF to categorize the

assessment tools from the 35 AJOT articles

(see Table 4).

To summarize, the assessment tools

for children and youth included in the 35

AJOT articles published between January

2009 and September 2013 are summarized

in Table 2, critiqued in Table 3, and clas-

sified using the PEO model and ICF

framework in Table 4.

Results

We reviewed 35 journal articles that

addressed some aspect of the psychometric

development of 37 occupational therapy

assessment tools or classification scales.

Two articles reported information

about the Weekly Calendar Planning Ac-

tivity (Toglia & Berg, 2013; Weiner,

Toglia & Berg, 2012). Two articles were

also published about the Comprehension

Observations of Proprioception (Blanche,

Bodison,Chang&Reinoso, 2012; Blanche,

Reinoso,Chang,&Bodison, 2012). Similarly,

the Evaluation Tool of Children’s Handwrit-

ing was the subject of two articles (Brossard-

Racine, Mazer, Julien &Majnemer, 2012;

Duff & Goyen, 2010). Brown, Unsworth,

and Lyons (2009) reported details of four

visual–motor integration tests: Test of

Visual–Motor Integration, Developmental

Test of Visual–Motor Integration, Test of

Visual–Motor Skills–Revised, and Slosson

Visual-Motor Performance Test (SVMPT).

Tsai, Lin, Liao, andHsieh (2009) published

an article about two visual perceptual tests:

the Motor-Free Visual Perception Test–

Revised and Test of Visual–Perceptual

Skills–Revised. Kuijper, van der Wilden,

Ketelaar, and Gorter (2010) reported about

the Manual Ability Classification System

and the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability

Inventory (PEDI) while Kao, Karamer,

Liljenquist, Tian, and Coster (2012) re-

ported about a newer version of the PEDI

referred to as the Pediatric Evaluation of

Disability Inventory–Computer Adaptive

Test (PEDI–CAT). However, only the

PEDI–CAT was reported about in detail.

This accounted for the difference between

the number of published articles reported in

Table 1 and the number of published tests

described in Tables 2–4.

All tools were developed and evaluated

by occupational therapists, except for the

Manual Ability Classification System

(Eliasson et al., 2010, discussed in Kuijper,

pAll tables appear at the end of this article, after thereferences.



van derWilden, Ketelaar, &Gorter, 2010),

which was evaluated by physicians. The re-

search projects described in the articles were

international (see Table 1): American (18

articles, 51.4%), Israeli (6 articles, 17.1%),

Australian (5 articles, 14.3%), Finnish (1

article, 2.9%), Swedish (2 articles, 5.7%),

Taiwanese (1 article, 2.9%), Belgian (1 arti-

cle, 2.9%), and Canadian (1 article, 2.9%).

The life stage of the participants varied, with

the majority of participants falling into the

following age ranges: preschool (£4 yr; 5 ar-ticles, 14.3%), school age (5–14 yr; 22 ar-

ticles, 62.9%), and youth (15–18 yr; 4

articles, 11.4%). Three studies (8.6%) were

dedicated to families, and 1 study (2.9%)

involved only therapists.

From January 2009 to September 2013,

AJOT published articles outlining the initial

measurement properties of nine new scales:

theHealthPromotingActivities Scale (Bourke-

Taylor, Law, Howie, & Pallant, 2012),

Adolescents and Adults Coordination Ques-

tionnaire (Saban, Ornoy, Grotto, & Parush,

2012), Quality of Life in School (Weintraub

& Bar-Haim Erez, 2009), Children’s Leisure

Assessment Scale (Rosenblum et al., 2010),

McDonald Play Inventory (McDonald &

Vigen, 2012), Sense and Self-Regulation

Checklist (Silva & Schalock, 2012), Com-

prehensive Observations of Proprioception

(Blanche et al., 2012), Do–Eat (Josman,

Goffer, & Rosenblum, 2010), and Life Par-

ticipation for Parents (Fingerhut, 2013).

The majority of studies described

evaluation of the instrument’s reliability,

validity, or both (see Table 1). A total of 19

(54.3%) articles dealtwithboth the reliability

and the validity of an instrument, whereas 7

studies focused only on its reliability and 9

focused only on its validity. The specific

subtypes of reliability assessed were internal

consistency (n 5 15), test–retest reliability

(n 5 15), intrarater reliability (n 5 2), and

interrater reliability (n 5 10). The types of

validity assessed were face validity (n 5 2),

content validity (n 5 6), criterion-related

validity (n 5 1), discriminant validity (n 5

15), construct validity (n5 19), concurrent

validity (n 5 7), and factorial validity (n 5

4). No longitudinal studies investigated pre-

dictive validity.Only 1 study reported details

of an instrument’s responsiveness to change

(sensitivity) over time. All articles provided

advancement of the psychometric properties

of the instruments and measures on which

they reported. Two articles were primarily

authored by physicians (Kuijper et al., 2010;

Silva & Schalock, 2012), and the others

were all authored by occupational thera-

pists (n 5 33).

Thirty-five assessments are described

in Table 2. The assessments are based on

a variety of practice models, theories, and

frameworks, with some instruments in-

corporating more than one: cognitive–

behavioral (n52), occupational performance

(n 5 6), ecological (n 5 6), PEO (n 5 6),

play (n 5 2), perceptual–motor (n 5 6),

Model of Human Occupation (MOHO;

n 5 5), motor control (n 5 2), sensory

processing (n 5 3), ICF (n 5 8), biopsy-

chosocial (n 5 1), the Occupational TherapyPractice Framework:Domain and Process (2nd

ed.; AOTA, 2008; n 5 4), occupational ad-

aptation (n5 2), sensory integration (n5 2),

and biomechanical (n5 1).

In terms of client age groups, 18 scales

are aimed at children from birth to age 4,

28 are designed for children between ages

5 and 12, 10 are meant for use with

adolescents between ages 13 and 17, and 5

are designed for clients age 18 and older.

Note that some of the scales covered more

than one age group. For example, the

Adolescents and Adults Coordination

Questionnaire can be used with adoles-

cents and adults, and the Assessment of

Children’s Hand Skills can be used with

children ages 3–12. The scores for the as-

sessments are derived from a variety of

perspectives: Eight scales are self-report, 10

are third party (usually completed by par-

ents or caregivers who know the child or

adolescent), and 22 are based on pro-

fessionals rating the client’s performance

on the basis of a set of criteria. Some in-

struments use a combination of third-party

input and professional ratings.

Regarding DeVellis’s (2003) stages of

scale development, we noted the following

combinations: Stage 8 validity studies, n55; Stage 7 reliability studies, n 5 5; both

Stage 7 and 8,n5 10.One studywas Stage 3

(content validity evaluation), and 3 studies

were both Stages 7 and 10 (reliability studies)

completed by those other than the scale de-

velopers. Thirteen studies were Stage 8 and

10 validity evaluations completed by re-

searchers other than the original scale au-

thors. No studies investigated responsiveness

to change over time or changes in ratings over

time to detect sensitivity.

No studies contributed Level I evi-

dence. Thirty-three articles described

studies at Level III (one-group non-

randomized and noncontrolled), 1 study

was Level II (two-group nonrandomized),

and 1 study was Level IV (single-subject or

descriptive study; see Table 3). The pur-

poses of most assessments were clearly

multifaceted, with only 2 assessments

seemingly designed to meet only one pur-

pose. Twenty-nine assessments were clearly

under development as descriptive mea-

sures, 32 tools were being developed as

discriminative measures, 21 tools were

being designed as predictive measures, and

27 tools were clearly under development as

evaluative measures.

As shown in Table 4, we classified the

tests and measures under the components

of the PEO model and the ICF (i.e., Body

Functions and Structures, Personal Factors,

Environmental Factors, Activity, and Partici-

pation). Under the PEO model classifica-

tion, 34 (91.9%) of the tests and measures

included the Person, 12 (32.4%) included

the Environment, and 19 (51.4%) included

theOccupation. The ICF components were

distributed as follows: Body Functions and

Structures,n525 (67.6%);PersonalFactors,

n5 8 (21.6%); Environmental Factors, n510 (27.0%); Activity, n 5 18 (48.6%); and

Participation, n5 12 (32.4%).

Discussion

As evidenced by this review, considerable

research activity has occurred within the

field of occupational therapy to develop and

evaluate tests and measures related to

children and adolescents. In line with

previous commentary, the occupational

therapy profession remains committed to

child- and youth-focused studies (Brown,

Rodger, & Brown, 2005; Case-Smith,

2007; Gutman, 2008b). Before the period

of time selected for this current review,

Gutman (2008b) reported that instrument

development and testing was a common

research approach used in a large proportion

(26%) of the studies published in AJOT in

2008 and 2009. Moreover, the current re-

view concurs with results from other articles



published inAJOT focusing on the children

and youth practice area (Brown, 2010a;

Bendixen & Kreider, 2011; Hilton &

Smith, 2012; Hilton et al., 2013).

Characteristics of Children and YouthInstrument Development and TestingArticles

As noted in the Results section, the ma-

jority of the children and youth in-

strument development and testing articles

(48.6%) were completed in the United

States. However, researchers from several

other countries also published articles

dealing with pediatric assessment tools,

including Israel (6 articles, 17.1%), Aus-

tralia (5 articles, 14.3%), and Sweden (2

articles, 5.7%), thus demonstrating that

AJOT has both a domestic and an inter-

national scope in articles about assessment

tools aimed at children and adolescents.

The majority of pediatric assessment

tools were designed for children between

ages 5 and 12 (80.0%), and fewer were

aimed at children ages birth–4 (51.4%) or

youth ages 13–17 (28.6%). Several in-

struments were designed for use by more

than one age group. For example, the Oc-

cupational Self Assessment can be used

with adolescents and adults, and the School

Version of the Assessment of Motor and

Process Skills, Developmental Test of

Visual–Motor Integration, and Evaluation

of Social Interaction can be used with

preschool-age and school-age children.

Although identified as a priority in the

Centennial Vision, youth have received

substantially less attention in the sphere

of scale and instrument development. The

findings of this review suggest that future

directions might emphasize instrument

development for youth who receive occu-

pational therapy services.

Three instruments focused on the

perspective of families (Family L.I.F.E.

[Looking Into Family Experiences], Life

Participation for Parents, and the Health

Promoting Activities Scale). AOTA has

previously recognized the importance of

caregivers and families in the lives of

people with disabilities (AOTA, 2007b).

The Children and Youth Ad Hoc Com-

mittee (AOTA, 2006) identified the need

for research that would inform occupa-

tional therapy practice to address the roles,

occupations, and participation of parents,

siblings, and families of children and youth

with disabilities. The findings of the cur-

rent review suggest that, with only 3 pub-

lished studies addressing instruments in

this area of occupational therapy research

and practice, further attention is indicated

to successfully achieve AOTA’s Centennial

Vision.

Of the 35 articles published in AJOTfrom January 2009 to September 2013, 10

reported the initial measurement proper-

ties of 9 new scales. Four of the 9 scales

(McDonald Play Inventory, Sense and

Self-Regulation Checklist, Comprehensive

Observations of Proprioception, and Life

Participation for Parents) were by U.S.

authors, and5weregeneratedby international

authors: 4 fromIsrael (Adolescents andAdults

Coordination Questionnaire, Quality of Life

in School, Children’s Leisure Assessment

Scale, and Do–Eat) and 1 from Australia

(Health Promoting Activities Scale).

Practice Models, Theories, andFrameworks on Which Children andYouth Assessment Tools Are Based

The pediatric assessment tools included in

the AJOT articles are based on a number of

different practice models, theories, and

frameworks. The most frequent ones were

occupational performance (17.1%), eco-

logical (17.1%), PEO (17.1%), perceptual–

motor (17.1%),ModelofHumanOccupation

(14.3%), ICF (23.0%), and the Occupa-tional Therapy Practice Framework (11.4%).

Several of the assessment toolswerebasedon

more than one practice model or theory,

and several did not explicitly state on which

practice theory they were based; thus, it had

to be inferred.

Stage of Instrument Development andLevel of Evidence of Children andYouth Assessment Tools

The extent of psychometric evaluation that

an instrument has undergone contributes

substantially to clinicians’ and researchers’

confidence in its utility (Fawcett, 2007).

We used DeVellis’s (2003) stages of in-

strument development to evaluate how

rigorous and advanced studies were in the

psychometric evaluation of their measure-

ment properties. Of the studies, 54.2%

(n 5 19) reported details on both the re-

liability and the validity of pediatric tests

and measures, whereas 20.0% (n 5 7) fo-

cused solely on instrument reliability and

25.7% (n 5 9) focused solely on in-

strument validity. Given that 10 articles

published the initial measurement prop-

erties of 9 new pediatric assessment tools, it

is not surprising that more than half of the

articles reported both reliability and val-

idity data. The most common combined

stages of instrument evaluation reported by

external authors were Stages 8 (validity)

and 10 (evaluation of scale’s measurement

properties by other than the scale’s authors;

37.1%). It is commendable that Stages

8 and 10 were most frequently reported,

because it provides evidence that researchers

other than the original test authors are crit-

ically evaluating the validity of pediatric

instruments used by occupational thera-

pists. This evaluation contributes to the

overall body of psychometric knowledge

about these assessments.

Reliability studies indicate the degree

of consistency or repeatability that a test’s

scores achieve betweenTime 1 andTime 2.

Researchers often report several subtypes of

reliability. The most common types of re-

liability reported in the AJOT articles were

internal consistency (42.9%, n5 15), test–

retest reliability (42.9%, n 5 15), and in-

terrater reliability (28.6%, n 5 10). No

information was reported about split-half

reliability or alternate-form reliability of

the 37 instruments.

Evaluations of validity indicate how

well a test measures the ability, trait, or

construct it purports to measure. The most

common types of validity reported in

the AJOT articles were discriminant va-

lidity (48.6%, n 5 17) and construct va-

lidity (54.3%, n5 19). Other less frequently

reported types included face validity (5.7%,

n 5 2), content validity (17.1%, n 5 6),

criterion-related validity (2.9%, n 5 1),

concurrent validity (20.0%, n 5 7), and

factorial validity (11.4%, n 5 4). None of

the studies were longitudinal studies that

involved investigating the instrument’s pre-

dictive validity.

Although all articles provided ad-

vancement in the psychometric data for the

instruments andmeasures they reported on,



further studies are needed at the later stages

of an instrument’s psychometric de-

velopment, namely evaluation of scoring

and constructs within the assessment tools

using advanced statistical techniques such as

Rasch analysis or structural equation mod-

eling. Evaluation of instruments and wider

application to similar, different, or con-

trasting populations from scale developers

and other unrelated researchers are needed.

Only 1 study (3%) reported details of

an instrument’s responsiveness to change

(sensitivity) over time, and no studies in-

vestigated changes in ratings over time to

detect test sensitivity.

Many of the assessments reported

in the 35 articles were designed to meet

more than one purpose. For example, 29

assessments were clearly designed as de-

scriptive measures, 32 were developed as

discriminative measures, 21 could be used

as predictive measures, and 27 were po-

tential evaluative measures. None of the

articles provided comprehensive and de-

finitive evidence that the assessment was

entirely capable of measuring a characteris-

tic or issue for the purpose for which it

was intended. Rather, all articles provided

substantial evidence that the tools were

contributing to a growing body of evidence

supporting their psychometric properties.

No studies contributed Level I evi-

dence. Only 1 study was Level II (two-

group nonrandomized), and 1 study was

Level IV (single-subject or descriptive

study). Most of the articles on pediatric

assessment tool articles (94.3%) were at

Level III (one-group nonrandomized and

noncontrolled).

In sum, analysis of the type of instru-

ments under development, stage of psy-

chometric evaluation, and level of evidence

illuminates future directions for occupational

therapy researchers who are involved in

ongoing development of psychometrically

sound and clinically useful tools. First, the

type of instrument is an important issue in

the ongoing psychometric evaluation of a

tool, as well as of its clinical utility. Ensuing

evaluation of a tool must systematically

confirm the purpose for which it was de-

veloped. Considering that 21 (56.8%) of the

instruments appeared to be under de-

velopment for predictive purposes and 27

(73.0%) were under development for eval-

uative purposes, relatively few studies in-

vestigated aspects of the instruments that

would confirm their utility for these purposes.

Worldwide, occupational therapy must de-

fend and substantiate the need, impact, and

efficacy of its interventions; therefore, psy-

chometrically robust predictive and evaluative

instruments are urgently needed.

Second, existing instruments require

ongoing and higher stage evaluation to

provide evidence of their measurement

properties. Studies that complete evalua-

tion at Stages 7–10 are important and are

featured in the articles published in AJOT

in this review period. However, ongoing

evaluation is needed and might be pub-

lished in future issues of AJOT. Finally, in

addition to ongoing psychometric evalua-

tion of instruments is the need for more

rigorous research designs that produce

higher levels of evidence. Considering that

the highest level of evidence in the

35 articles was Level II (Kao, Kramer,

Liljenquist, Tian, & Coster, 2012), re-

searchers in the field would be well advised

to consider research designs that contribute

to higher level evidence and publications.

Such studies are more likely to require

larger cohorts and funding levels.

PEO and ICF Classification of Childrenand Youth Assessment Tools

The tests and measures reported in the 35

articles were classified under the compo-

nents of one practice model, the PEO

model, and one practice framework, the

ICF. Under the PEO model, 97.1% (n 534) of the tools included the Person, 34.3%

(n 5 12) involved the Environment, and

54.3% (n5 19) included the Occupation.

In other words, nearly all the pediatric as-

sessments published in AJOT included as-

pects of the person from the PEO model.

The ICF components were distributed

as follows: Body Functions and Structures,

71.4% (n 5 25); Personal Factors, 22.9%

(n 5 8); Environmental Factors, 25.7%

(n 5 9); Activity, 51.4% (n 5 18); and

Participation, 31.4% (n 5 11). By far the

most common component of the ICF that

was assessed with the pediatric instruments

was Body Functions and Structures, with Ac-

tivity also being assessed by more than 50%

of the instruments. These findings suggest

that the majority of instruments currently

published in AJOT and under development

for use with children continue to focus on

traditional reductionist approaches to as-

sessment involving components of child-

ren’s body functions and structures (as

defined by the ICF).In their review of 46 child- and youth-

oriented articles published in AJOT during

2009–2010, Bendixen and Kreider (2011)

found that the distribution of the articles

over the ICF domains were as follows: Body

Functions and Structures, 31%; Personal

Factors, 10%; Environmental Factors, 12%;

Activity, 31%; and Participation, 16%.

Of the 46 articles in the Bendixen and

Kreider article, 12 focused on children

and youth instrument development and

testing. These 12 articles were classified

in the following ICF categories: Body

Functions and Structures, 25%; Personal

Factors, 0%; Activity, 17%; and Participa-

tion, 58%. Bendixen and Kreider noted that

“the higher levels of testing and development

of Participation-level measures implies facil-

itation of the much-needed measurement of

occupational performance in real-world life

situations” (p. 356).

Similar to other reviews of AJOTpublications, we found that although sub-

stantial attention was paid to PEO or ICFconcepts of Activity and Occupation,

a particular paucity of instruments under

development and review were operation-

alized to evaluate either Participation or

Environment. Participation has long been

an important aspect of the assessment and

intervention process for children with dis-

abilities and other occupational therapy

clients (King et al., 2003; Law, 2002).

Growing evidence has supported the im-

portance and influence of Environmental

Factors, rather than issues around Body

Functions and Structures, with regard to

the Participation of children and youth in

life situations at home, at school, and in the

community (Coster et al., 2013; Fauconnier

et al., 2009; Heah, Case, McGuire, & Law,

2007; Law et al., 2004).

In response to evidence suggesting that

children and youth with disabilities require

interventions aimed at altering environ-

mental and contextual factors, occupational

therapy as a profession has commenced

developing instruments that assess and



measure participation (such as the Partici-

pation and Environment Measure for

Children and Youth; Coster et al., 2012,

2013) or an aspect of environmental sup-

port that enables participation (such as the

Assistance to Participate Scale; Bourke-

Taylor, Law, Howie, & Pallant, 2009;

Bourke-Taylor & Pallant, 2013). The

challenges of developing instruments that

measure participation, involvement, enjoy-

ment, and performance of children and

youth with disabilities have been described

(Coster, 2006b; Coster & Khetani, 2008)

and continue to be discussed inside and

outside of the profession (Granlund, 2013;

King, 2013; Raghavendra, 2013). Finally,

given that the AOTA Child and Youth

Ad Hoc Committee (AOTA, 2006) high-

lighted the importance of research in-

vestigating the participation or consequences

of lack of participation for children and

youth in 4 of its 11 targeted areas, we rec-

ommend future support for the development

and evaluation of measures of participation

in future AJOT issues.

Limitations

Limitations of this review include that the

classification of the 35 articles includes

both subjective and objective judgment on

our part. We did complete our ratings in-

dependently and then compared them to

minimize influencing each other. Differences

of opinion were negotiated between us until

we reached a consensus.

We evaluated 37 instruments from

the perspective of the information pro-

vided in the 35 articles. We did not oth-

erwise confirm facts and data because the

aim of this article was to summarize,

synthesize, and comment on the research

published in AJOT to date. Therefore, the

descriptions of some instruments may have

limitations and minor errors because we

did not review the original test manuals,

nor did we conduct a literature search to

locate, peruse, and evaluate research pub-

lished in other journals or manuals. Con-

sequently, clinicians and researchers using

this article to determine the current status

of development of individual tools are en-

couraged to perform literature searches for

up-to-date subsequent studies and contact

the authors of the instrument. Researchers

and clinicians are also advised to liaise with

and consult colleagues about the clinical

utility and practicalities of different in-

struments in their work setting and for

their client group.

Recommendations for OccupationalTherapy Practitioners

Occupational therapy practitioners who

work with children and youth have both the

need and the professional responsibility to

access psychometrically vigorous tests, mea-

sures, and instruments. As Brown (2009)

asserted, “If we [occupational therapists] are

using assessment tools that do not have

strong psychometric properties, then the

test results that we use to inform our clinical

reasoning and intervention planning are not

sound or valid either” (p. 519). Practitioners

need access to a variety of tools depending

on the client group (specific disability, age

group, ethnicity, etc.), individual thera-

pists’ points of reference (MOHO, PEO,

perceptual–motor, theFramework, cognitive–

behavioral, etc.), and the practice setting

(early intervention, school, private practice,

rehabilitation setting, youth-oriented ser-

vice, mental health community service for

children and adolescents, etc.). This review

demonstrates that a diverse set of assessment

tools to address practitioners’ needs is being

developed and evaluated.

AJOT has published studies that

demonstrate the ongoing development

of a substantial number of occupational

therapy–specific assessment tools. Clini-

cians may feel confident that researchers

and clinicians are working in collaboration

to increase the number of psychometri-

cally valid, reliable, sensitive, descriptive,

discriminative, predictive, and evaluative

tools. However, clinicians have the re-

sponsibility to use instruments for the

purposes for which they are intended and

to understand what validity and reliability

studies have been completed and what still

needs to be completed. For example, it is

imperative that a test designed to be de-

scriptive and discriminatory be used for

such purposes and not as an evaluative or

predictive test. Researchers and clinicians

alike need adequate knowledge of assess-

ment tools to critically evaluate research

such as the AJOT articles included in this

review. Moreover, clinicians might be en-

couraged to become involved in research or

collaborate with researchers in the field to

promote development of tests and mea-

sures that are clinically useful, practical,

responsive, reliable, and valid.

Recommendations for Researchers

Researchers in the field of occupational

therapy might be commended for taking

charge of a discipline-specific instrument

development and classification system

(e.g., Manual Ability Classification Sys-

tem). The results of this review indicate

that more work remains to be done, spe-

cifically in the areas of providing more

rigorous evaluation of tools to obtain

higher levels of evidence and evaluating

existing tools in the field to provide re-

liability and validity studies that are con-

ducted by experts other than the authors.

Similarly, wider application of the tools

and instruments to other populations (e.g.,

age, diagnosis, disability) is essential to

inform practitioners about their clinical

utility among other children and youth.

Other recommendations were de-

scribed in the discussion and include the

need for continued development of instru-

ments that will measure salient aspects of

the environment as well as operationaliz-

ing and measuring participation for chil-

dren and youth who receive occupational

therapy services. Within the profession,

a need also exists for further development

of self-report or rated scales that are im-

plicitly client centered and for outcome

measures that are otherwise described as

evaluative scales or instruments. More-

over, we suggest that occupational therapy

researchers use the ICF–CY (WHO, 2007)

as a point of reference when developing

new assessment tools because it more spe-

cifically focuses on the participation and

function of children and adolescents than

the initial version of the ICF.

Summary and Conclusion

We extracted and summarized 35 articles

published in AJOT between January 2009

and September 2013 that focused on the

Centennial Vision categories of both children

and youth and instrument development



and testing. The articles addressed some

aspect of the psychometric development

of 37 occupational therapy assessments

or classification scales.

The majority of the articles contained

Level III evidence. Themost common types

of reliability reported in the articles were

internal consistency, test–retest reliability,

and interrater reliability, and the most

common types of validity reported were

discriminant validity and construct validity.

Most of pediatric assessment tools were

designed for children between ages 5 and

12. The practice models and theories that

the pediatric assessment tools were most

frequently based on were occupational per-

formance, ecological, PEO, perceptual–

motor, MOHO, ICF, and the Framework.Many of the assessments were designed to

meet more than one purpose; however,

the two most common purposes were

descriptive and discriminative.

We recommend seven preferences for

future research articles addressing the

Centennial Vision: (1) increased instrument

development addressing younger children,

youth, and families; (2) more rigorous

research designs to contribute stronger

research evidence; (3) increased client-

centered or self- or proxy report measures;

(4) higher level evaluation of instruments,

including longitudinal studies, to address

predictive and evaluative instrument prop-

erties; (5) international collaborations to

further develop instruments; (6) consolida-

tion and expansion of instruments that serve

to address frameworks or models; and (7)

emphasis on the publication of instruments

that targetmeasurement of the participation

of children and youth in meaningful occu-

pations and life roles in home, school, and

community environments.

The occupational therapy profession

is responsible for providing effective and

best practice, value for money, and

valuable services to all occupational

therapy clients. In the context of children

and youth, the client may be the child or

youth, the family, the school, the com-

munity, the agency, or any other natural

environment in which the child or youth

participates in his or her daily occupa-

tions. AOTA’s (2006) Children and

Youth Ad Hoc Committee targeted 11

areas for research development, and all of

them rely on the development and eval-

uation of psychometrically sound mea-

surement instruments.

As described by Moyers (2010), harm is

more than actually causing injury.Harm also

results when “our clients receive ineffective

intervention or intervention not as effective

as an alternative method in improving oc-

cupational performance and participation in

daily life” (p. 457). It has been more than

a decade since Cusick (2001) encouraged

occupational therapists to reflect,

Am I doing the right thing, in the

right way, with the right person, at

the right time, in the right place,

for the right result and am I the

right person to be doing this . . .

and is it at the right cost? (p. 103)

Instrumentation permits evaluation

that guides intervention, substantiates

the conceptual models that underpin the

profession, and provides objective mea-

surement of the efficacy and effectiveness

of occupational therapy interventions

and services. Further development and

evaluation of stellar occupation-focused,

participation-based tests, measures, and

instruments is imperative to the future of

the profession. s

References

American Occupational Therapy Associa-

tion. (2006). Children and Youth Ad Hoc

Committee—Recommendations for education

and practice. Bethesda, MD: Author.

American Occupational Therapy Association.

(2007a). AOTA’s Centennial Vision and

executive summary. American Journal of

Occupational Therapy, 61, 613–614. http://

dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.61.6.613


(2007b). AOTA’s statement on family

caregivers. American Journal of Occupa-

tional Therapy, 61, 710. http://dx.doi.

org/10.5014/ajot.61.6.710


(2008). Occupational therapy practice frame-

work:Domain and process (2nd ed.). American

Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 625–

683. http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.62.6.625

Amundson, S. J. (1995). Evaluation Tool of

Children’s Handwriting: ETCH examiner’s

manual. Homer, AK: O.T. Kids.

Baranek, G. T., David, F. J., Poe,M. D., Stone,

W. L., & Watson, L. R. (2006). Sensory

Experiences Questionnaire: Discriminat-

ing sensory features in young children with

autism, developmental delays, and typical

development. Journal of Child Psychology

and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 47,

591–601. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.

01546.x

Baum, C. (2011). The John Stanley Coulter Me-

morial Lecture—Fulfilling the promise: Sup-

porting participation in daily life. Archives of

Physical Medicine, 92, 169–175. http://dx.

doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2010.12.010

Beery, K. E., Buktenica, N. A., & Beery, N. A.

(2010). Beery–Buktenica Developmental

Test of Visual–Motor Integration (6th ed.).

Minneapolis, MN: Pearson.

Bendixen, R.M., & Kreider, C. M. (2011). Re-

view of occupational therapy research in

the practice area of children and youth.

American Journal of Occupational Therapy,

65, 351–359. http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/

ajot.2011.000976†Blanche, E. I., Bodison, S., Chang, M. C., &

Reinoso, G. (2012). Development of the

Comprehensive Observations of Proprio-

ception (COP): Validity, reliability, and

factor analysis. American Journal of Occu-

pational Therapy, 66, 691–698. http://dx.

doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2012.003608†Blanche, E. I., Reinoso, G., Chang, M. C., &

Bodison, S. (2012). Proprioceptive process-

ing difficulties among children with autism

spectrum disorders and developmental dis-

abilities. American Journal of Occupational

Therapy, 66, 621–624. http://dx.doi.

org/10.5014/ajot.2012.004234

Bourke-Taylor,H.,Law,M.,Howie,L.,&Pallant,

J. F. (2009). Development of the Assistance

to Participate Scale (APS) for children’s play

and leisure activities. Child: Care, Health and

Development, 35, 738–745. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2009.00995.x†Bourke-Taylor, H.M., Law,M., Howie, L., &

Pallant, J. F. (2012). Initial development

of the Health Promoting Activities Scale

(HPAS) to measure the leisure participa-

tion of mothers of children with disabil-

ities. American Journal of Occupational

Therapy, 66, e1–e10. http://dx.doi.org/

10.5014/ajot.2012.000521

Bourke-Taylor, H., & Pallant, J. F. (2013). The

Assistance to Participate Scale to measure

play and leisure support for children with

developmental disability: Update follow-

ing Rasch analysis. Child: Care, Health

and Development, 39, 544–551. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1111/cch.12047

†Indicates studies that were reviewed for this article.



†Brossard-Racine, M., Mazer, B., Julien, M., &

Majnemer, A. (2012). Validating the use

of the Evaluation Tool of Children’s

Handwriting–Manuscript to identify hand-

writing difficulties and detect change in

school-age children. American Journal of


dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2012.003558

Brown, G. T., Rodger, S., & Brown, A. (2005).

Publication practices of English language

occupational therapy journals. British Jour-

nal of Occupational Therapy, 68, 85–92.

Brown, T. (2009). Assessing occupation: The

importance of using valid tests and mea-

sures. British Journal of Occupational Ther-

apy, 72, 519. http://dx.doi.org/10.4276/

030802209X12601857794655

Brown, T. (2010a). Child and youth practice

area publications in the American Journal

of Occupational Therapy in 2008 and 2009:

A content analysis, methodology overview,

and summary. American Journal of Occu-

pational Therapy, 64, 814–819. http://dx.

doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2010.09192

Brown, T. (2010b). Construct validity: A unitary

concept for occupational therapy assess-

ment, evaluation, and measurement. Hong

Kong Journal of Occupational Therapy, 20,

30–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1569-

1861(10)70056-5

Brown, T. (2012). Assessment, measurement,

and evaluation: Why can’t I do what ev-

eryone expects me to do? In S. J. Lane &

A. C. Bundy (Eds.), Kids can be kids: A

childhood occupations approach (pp. 320–

348). Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.†Brown, T., Unsworth, C.,&Lyons, C. (2009).

Factor structure of four visual–motor instru-

ments commonly used to evaluate school-age

children. American Journal of Occupational

Therapy, 63, 710–723. http://dx.doi.org/

10.5014/ajot.63.6.710

Case-Smith, J. (2007). Deriving practice impli-

cations from this issue’s sample of pediatric

occupational therapy literature. American

Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61,

375–377. http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.

61.4.375

Catalano, R. F., Berglund,M. L., Ryan, J. A. M.,

Lonczak, H. S., & Hawkins, J. D. (1999).

Positive youth development in the United

States: Research findings on evaluations

of positive youth development programs.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services, National

Institute of Child Health and Human

Development.†Chien, C. W., Brown, T., & McDonald, R.

(2010). Examining content validity and

reliability of the Assessment of Children’s

Hand Skills (ACHS): A preliminary study.


64, 756–767. http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/

ajot.2010.08158

Corcoran,M. (2007). AJOT and theCentennial

Vision. American Journal of Occupational


10.5014/ajot.61.3.267

Coster, W. J. (2006a). Evaluating the use of

assessments in practice and research. In

G. Kielhofner (Ed.), Research in occupa-

tional therapy:Methods of inquiry for enhanc-

ing practice (pp. 201–212). Philadelphia:

F. A. Davis.

Coster, W. J. (2006b). Guest editorial—The

road forward for better measures for prac-

tice and research. OTJR: Occupation, Par-

ticipation and Health, 26, 131.

Coster, W. J. (2008). Embracing ambiguity:

Facing the challenge of measurement

(Eleanor Clarke Slagle Lecture). American



62.6.743

Coster, W., Deeney, T. A., Haltiwanger, J. T.,

& Haley, S. M. (1998). School Function

Assessment user’s manual. San Antonio:

Therapy Skill Builders.

Coster, W., & Khetani, M. A. (2008). Measur-

ing participation of children with disabil-

ities: Issues and challenges. Disability and

Rehabilitation, 30, 639–648. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1080/09638280701400375

Coster, W., Law, M., Bedell, G., Khetani, M.,

Cousins, M., & Teplicky, R. (2012). De-

velopment of the Participation and Envi-

ronmentMeasure for Children and Youth:

Conceptual basis. Disability and Rehabili-

tation, 34, 238–246. http://dx.doi.org/

10.3109/09638288.2011.603017

Coster,W., Law,M., Bedell, G., Liljenquist, K.,

Kao, Y.-C., Khetani, M., & Teplicky, R.

(2013). School participation, supports and

barriers of students with and without dis-

abilities. Child: Care, Health and Develop-

ment, 39, 535–543. http://dx.doi.org/10.

1111/cch.12046

Cusick, A. (2001). OZ OT EBP 21C: Australian

occupational therapy, evidence based practice

and the 21st century.AustralianOccupational

Therapy Journal, 48, 102–118. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1046/j.0045-0766.2001.00281.x

DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory

and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.†Duff, S., & Goyen, T. A. (2010). Reliability

and validity of the Evaluation Tool of

Children’s Handwriting–Cursive (ETCH–C)

using the general scoring criteria. American

Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64, 37–46.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.64.1.37

Dunn, W. (1999). The Sensory Profile. San An-

tonio: Psychological Corporation.

Eliasson,A.C.,Krumlinde-Sundholm,L.,Rosblad,

B., Beckung, E., Arner,M., Ohrvall, A.M.,

& Rosenbaum, P. (2010). Manual Ability

Classification System (MACS) for children

with cerebral palsy 4–18 years. Retrieved

from http://www.macs.nu/files/MACS_

English_2010.pdf

Fauconnier, J., Dickinson, H. O., Beckung, E.,

Marcelli, M., McManus, V., Michelsen,

S., . . . Colver, A. (2009). Participation

in life situations of 8–12 year old children

with cerebral palsy: Cross-sectional Euro-

pean study. British Journal of Medicine,

338, 1116–1121.

Fawcett, A. L. (2007). Principles of assessment

and outcome measurement for occupational

therapists and physiotherapists. West Wes-

sex, England: Wiley.†Fingerhut, P. E. (2013). Life Participation for

Parents: A tool for family-centered occu-

pational therapy. American Journal of Oc-

cupational Therapy, 67, 37–44. http://dx.

doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2013.005082

Fisher, A.G., Bryze, K.,Hume,V.,&Griswold,

L. A. (2007). School AMPS: School Version

of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills

(2nd ed.). Fort Collins, CO: Three Star

Press.

Folio, M. R., & Fewell, R. R. (2000). Peabody

Developmental Motor Scales: Examiner’s

manual (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.†Gantschnig, B. E., Page, J., Nilsson, I., &

Fisher, A. G. (2013). Detecting activities

of daily living differences between children

with and without disabilities. American Jour-


http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2013.007013

Goffer, A., Josman, N., & Rosenblum, S.

(2009). Do–Eat: Performance-based assess-

ment tool for children. Haifa, Israel: Uni-

versity of Haifa.

Granlund, M. (2013). Participation—Chal-

lenges in conceptualization, measurement

and intervention. Child: Care, Health and

Development, 39, 470–473. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1111/cch.12080†Griswold, L. A., & Townsend, S. (2012). As-

sessing the sensitivity of the evaluation of

social interaction: Comparing social skills

in children with and without disabilities.


66, 709–717. http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/

ajot.2012.004051

Gutman, S. A. (2008a). From the Desk of

the Editor—Research priorities of the



profession. American Journal of Occupa-

tional Therapy, 62, 449–501. http://dx.

doi.org/10.5014/ajot.62.449

Gutman, S. A. (2008b). From the Desk of the

Editor—State of the journal. American



62.6.619

Haley, S. M., Coster, W. J., Dumas, H. M.,

Fragala-Pinkham, M. A., & Moed, R.

(2012). PEDI–CAT: Development, stan-

dardization, and administration manual.

Boston: CRECare.

Haley, S. M., Coster, W. J., Ludlow, L. H.,

Haltiwanger, J. T., & Andrellos, P. J.

(1992). Administration manual for the Pe-

diatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory. San

Antonio: Psychological Corporation.

Heah, T., Case, T., McGuire, B., & Law, M.

(2007). Successful participation: The lived

experience among children with disabilities.

Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy,

74, 38–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.2182/cjot.

06.10

Henderson, S. E., Sugden, D. A., & Barnett,

A. L. (2007).Movement Assessment Battery

for Children–2 examiner’s manual. London:

Harcourt Assessment.

Hilton, C. L., Goloff, S. E., Altaras, O., &

Josman, N. (2013). Review of instrument

development and testing studies for chil-

dren and youth. American Journal of Occu-

pational Therapy, 67, e30–e54. http://dx.

doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2013.007831

Hilton, C. L., & Smith, D. L. (2012). Research

focused on children and youth. American


e39–e51. http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.

2012.004325†Honaker, D., Rosello, S. S., & Candler, C.

(2012). Test–retest reliability of Family

L.I.F.E. (Looking IntoFamily Experiences):

An occupation-based assessment. Ameri-

can Journal of Occupational Therapy, 66,


2012.004002†Hwang, J. L., & Davies, P. L. (2009). Rasch

analysis of the School Function Assess-

ment provides additional evidence for the

internal validity of the Activity Perfor-

mance Scales. American Journal of Occupa-


doi.org/10.5014/ajot.63.3.369†Jongbloed-Pereboom, M., Nijhuis-van der

Sanden, M. W., & Steenbergen, B.

(2013). Norm scores of the Box and Block

Test for children ages 3–10 years. Ameri-



2013.006643†Josman, N., Abdallah, T. M., & Engel-Yeger,

B. (2011). Using the LOTCA to measure

cultural and sociodemographic impacts on

cognitive skills in two culturally diverse

groups of children. American Journal of

Occupational Therapy, 65, e29–e37. http://

dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2011.09037†Josman, N., Goffer, A., & Rosenblum, S.

(2010). Development and standardization

of a “Do–Eat” activity of daily living per-

formance test for children. American Jour-


http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.64.1.47†Kao, Y. C., Kramer, J. M., Liljenquist, K.,

Tian, F., & Coster, W. J. (2012). Com-

paring the functional performance of

children and youths with autism, develop-

mental disabilities, and no disability using

the Revised Pediatric Evaluation of Disabil-

ity Inventory itembanks.American Journal of


dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2012.004218

Keller, J., Kafkes, A., Basu, S., Federico, J., &

Kielhofner, G. (2005). The Child’s Occu-

pational Self Assessment. Chicago: MOHO

Clearinghouse.

King, G. (2013). Perspectives on measuring

participation: Going forward.Child: Care,

Health and Development, 39, 466–469.

King, G., Law, M., King, S., Rosenbaum, P.,

Kertoy, M. K., & Young, N. L. (2003). A

conceptual model of the factors affecting

the recreation and leisure participation of

children with disabilities. Physical and Occu-

pational Therapy in Pediatrics, 23, 63–90.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/J006v23n01_05

King, G., Law, M., King, S., Hurley, P.,

Rosenbaum, P., Hanna, S., . . . Young,

N. (2004). Children’s Assessment of Partici-

pation and Enjoyment and Preferences for

Activities of Children. San Antonio: Psy-

chological Corporation.†Kramer, J. M., Kielhofner, G., & Smith, E. V.,

Jr. (2010).Validity evidence for theChildOc-

cupational Self Assessment. American Journal

of Occupational Therapy, 64, 621–632.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2010.08142†Kuijper,M.A., van derWilden,G. J., Ketelaar,

M., & Gorter, J. W. (2010). Manual Ability

Classification System for children with cere-

bral palsy in a school setting and its relation-

ship to home self-care activities. American



2010.08087

Kurdek, L. A., & Sinclair, R. J. (2000). Psycho-

logical, family, and peer predictors of aca-

demic outcomes in first- through fifth-

grade children. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 92, 449–457. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1037/0022-0663.92.3.449

Law, M. (2002). Participation in the occupa-

tions of everyday life. American Journal of


dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.56.6.640

Law, M., Baptiste, S., Carswell, A., McColl,

M. A., Polatajko, H., & Pollock, N.

(2005). Canadian Occupational Perfor-

mance Measure (4th ed.). Ottawa: CAOT

Publications.

Law, M., & Baum, C. (2005). Measurement

in occupational therapy. In M. Law, C.

Baum, & W. Dunn (Eds.), Measuring

occupational performance supporting best

practice in occupational therapy (2nd ed.,

pp. 81–92). Thorofare, NJ: Slack.

Law, M., Cooper, B., Strong, S., Stewart, D.,

Rigby, P., & Letts, L. (1996). The Person–

Environment–OccupationModel: A transac-

tive approach to occupational performance.

Canadian Journal of Occupational Ther-

apy, 63, 9–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/

000841749606300103

Law, M., Finkelman, S., Hurley, P.,

Rosenbaum, P., King, S., King, G., &

Hanna, S. (2004). Participation of children

with physical disabilities: Relationships with

diagnosis, physical function and demo-

graphic variables. Scandinavian Journal of


dx.doi.org/10.1080/11038120410020755

Lieberman, D., & Scheer, J. (2002). AOTA’s

Evidence-Based Literature Review Project:

An overview. American Journal of Occupa-


doi.org/10.5014/ajot.56.3.344†Little, L. M., Freuler, A. C., Houser, M. B.,

Guckian, L., Carbine, K., David, F. J., &

Baranek, G. T. (2011). Psychometric valida-

tion of the Sensory Experiences Question-

naire. American Journal of Occupational


10.5014/ajot.2011.000844

Mandich, A., Polatajko,H.,Miller, L.,&Baum,

C. (2004). Paediatric Activity Card Sort. Ot-

tawa: CAOT Publications.

McDonald, A. E. (1987). The construction of

a self-report instrument to measure play

activities and play styles in 7 to 11 year

old children. Unpublished master’s thesis,

University of Southern California, Los

Angeles.†McDonald, A. E., & Vigen, C. (2012). Reli-

ability and validity of the McDonald

Play Inventory. American Journal of



Occupational Therapy, 66, e52–e60. http://

dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2012.002493

Mertler, C. A. (2007). Interpreting standardized

test scores: Strategies for data-driven instruc-

tional decision making. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Missiuna, C., Pollock, N., & Law, M. (2004).

Perceived Efficacy and Goal Setting System

(PEGS). San Antonio: Pearson Education.

Moyers, P. (2010). Competence and professional

development. In K. Sladyk, K. Jacobs, &

N. MacRae (Eds.), Occupational therapy

essentials for clinical competence (pp. 457–

468). Thorofare, NJ: Slack.

Msall, M. E., DiGaudio, K., Rogers, B. T.,

LaForest, S., Catanzaro, N. L., Campbell,

J., . . . Duffy, L. C. (1994). The Func-

tional Independence Measure for Chil-

dren (WeeFIM): Conceptual basis and pilot

use in children with developmental disabil-

ities. Clinical Pediatrics, 33, 421–430. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1177/000992289403300708†Mulcahey,M. J.,Merenda, L., Tian, F., Kozin,

S., James, M., Gogola, G., & Ni, P.

(2013). Computer adaptive test approach

to the assessment of children and youth

with brachial plexus birth palsy. Ameri-



2013.008037†Munkholm, M., Berg, B., Lofgren, B., &

Fisher, A. G. (2010). Cross-regional vali-

dation of the School Version of the As-

sessment of Motor and Process Skills.


64, 768–775. http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/

ajot.2010.09041

Noreau, L., Lepage, C., Boissiere, L., Picard, R.,

Fougeyrollas, P., Mathieu, J., . . . Nadeau,

L. (2007).Measuring participation in chil-

dren with disabilities using the Assessment

of Life Habits. Developmental Medicine

and Child Neurology, 49, 666–671. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2007.

00666.x†Ohl, A. M., Butler, C., Carney, C., Jarmel, E.,

Palmieri, M., Pottheiser, D., & Smith, T.

(2012). Test–retest reliability of the Sen-

sory Profile Caregiver Questionnaire. Amer-

ican Journal of Occupational Therapy, 66,


2012.003517†Parham, L. D., Roley, S. S., May-Benson,

T. A., Koomar, J., Brett-Green, B., Burke,

J. P., . . . Schaaf, R. C. (2011). Develop-

ment of a fidelity measure for research on

the effectiveness of the Ayres Sensory In-

tegration intervention. American Journal of


dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2011.000745†Potvin, M., Snider, L. M., Prelock, P. A.,

Kehayia, E., & Wood-Dauphinee, S.

(2013). Psychometrics of the Children’s

Assessment of Participation and Enjoyment

for those with high functioning autism.


67, 209–217. http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/

ajot.2013.006288

Raghavendra, P. (2013). Participation of

children with disabilities: Measuring

subjective and objective outcomes. Child:

Care, Health and Development, 39,

461–465.

Rameckers, E. A., Duysens, J., Speth, L. A.,

Vles, H. J., & Smits-Engelsman, B. C.

(2010). Effect of addition of botulinum

toxin-A to standardized therapy for dy-

namic manual skills measured with kine-

matic aiming tasks in children with spastic

hemiplegia. Journal of Rehabilitation Med-

icine, 42, 332–338.

Randall, M., Johnson, L., & Reddihough, D.

(2010). The Melbourne Assessment 2. Mel-

bourne, Victoria, Australia: Royal Child-

ren’s Hospital.

Reichow, B., Volkmar, F. R.,&Cicchetti,D.V.

(2008). Development of the evaluative

method for evaluating and determining

evidence-based practices in autism. Journal

of Autism and Developmental Disorders,

38, 1311–1319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/

s10803-007-0517-7

Rintala, D. H., Uttermohlen, D. M., Buck,

E. L., Hanover, D., Alexander, J. L., &

Norris-Baker, C. (1984). Self-Observation

and Report Technique: Description and

clinical applications. Functional assessment

in rehabilitation (pp. 205–221). Baltimore:

Paul H. Brookes.†Rosenblum, S., Sachs, D., & Schreuer, N.

(2010). Reliability and validity of the

Children’s Leisure Assessment Scale. Amer-

ican Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64,


2010.08173†Saban,M. T., Ornoy, A., Grotto, I., & Parush,

S. (2012). Adolescents and Adults Coordi-

nation Questionnaire: Development and

psychometric properties. American Journal of


dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2012.003251

Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M., Gray, J. A.,

Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996).

Evidence basedmedicine:What it is andwhat

it isn’t. British Medical Journal, 312, 71–72.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71

†Silva, L. M., & Schalock, M. (2012). Sensory

and Self-Regulation Checklist: Initial psy-

chometric evidence and findings. Ameri-



2012.001578

Sparrow, S. S., Cicchetti, D. V., & Balla, D. A.

(2005). The Vineland Adaptive Behavior

Scales (2nd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: Amer-

ican Guidance Service.

Speth, L. A., Leffers, P., Janssen-Potten, Y. J., &

Vles, J. S. (2005). Botulinum toxin A and

upper limb functional skills in hemiparetic

cerebral palsy: A randomized trial in

children receiving intensive therapy.

Developmental Medicine and Child Neu-

rology, 47, 468–473. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1017/S0012162205000903†Spirtos, M., O’Mahony, P., & Malone, J.

(2011). Interrater reliability of the Mel-

bourne Assessment of Unilateral Upper

Limb Function for children with hemiple-

gic cerebral palsy. American Journal of Oc-

cupational Therapy, 65, 378–383. http://

dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2011.001222†Taylor, R., Lee, S.W., Kramer, J., Shirashi, Y.,

& Kielhofner, G. (2011). A psychometric

study of the Occupational Self Assessment

with post-infectious adolescents. Ameri-


e20–e28. http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.

2011.000778†Toglia, J., & Berg, C. (2013). Performance-

based measure of executive function: Com-

parison of community and at-risk youth.


67, 515–523. http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/

ajot.2013.008482†Tsai, L.-T., Lin, K.-C., Liao, H.-F., & Hsieh,

C.-L. (2009). Reliability of two visual–

perceptual tests for children with cerebral

palsy. American Journal of Occupational


10.5014/ajot.63.4.473

Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilita-

tion. (2006). WeeFIM II system clinical

guide, Version 6.0. Amherst, NY: Author.†Vanvuchelen, M., Roeyers, H., & DeWeerdt,

W. (2011). Objectivity and stability of

the Preschool Imitation and Praxis Scale.


65, 569–577. http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/

ajot.2010.ajot00000414

Wallen, M., O’Flaherty, S. J., &Waugh, M. C.

(2007). Functional outcomes of intramus-

cular botulinum toxin type a and occu-

pational therapy in the upper limbs of

children with cerebral palsy: A random-

ized controlled trial. Archives of Physical



Medicine and Rehabilitation, 88, 1–10.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2006.

10.017†Weiner, N. W., Toglia, J., & Berg, C. (2012).

Weekly Calendar Planning Activity

(WCPA): A performance-based assessment

of executive function piloted with at-risk

adolescents. American Journal of Occupa-


doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2012.004754

Weintraub, N., & Bar-Haim Erez, A. (2007).

Quality of Life at School (QoLS) Question-

naire. Unpublished measure, School of

Occupational Therapy of Hadassah and

the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel.†Weintraub, N., & Bar-Haim Erez, A. (2009).

Quality of Life in School (QoLS) question-

naire: Development and validity. American

Journal ofOccupationalTherapy,63,724–731.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.63.6.724

Whitney, R., & Hilton, C. L. (2013). Centen-

nial Vision—Intervention effectiveness for

children and youth. American Journal of

Occupational Therapy, 67, e154–e165.

World Health Organization. (2001). Interna-

tional classification of functioning, disability

and health. Geneva: Author.

World Health Organization. (2007). International

classification of functioning, disability andhealth:

Child and youth version. Geneva: Author.



Table1.Sum

maryof

ArticlesDescribingDevelop

men

tan

dTe

stingof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

th,P

ublished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary20

09–S

eptembe

r20

13

Author/Year

Study

Objectives

Design/Participants/Recruitm

ent

Strategy/StatisticsUsed

Instrument/To

olBeing

Investigated

Measurement

CharacteristicsInvestigated

Results

Blanche,Bodison,Chang,&

Reinoso

(2012)

Todo

cumentthedevelopm

entof

theCOP,an

instrumentforiden-

tifying

prop

rioceptiveprocessing

issues

inchildren

Design

Prospectivescaledesign

over

3ph

ases:(1)

scaleconstructionand

contentvalidity,(2)

establishm

ent

ofvalidity

andreliability,and(3)

factor

analysis

Participants

130childrenwith

know

ndevelopm

entaldisabilitiesages

2–9yr

Recruitm

ent

Not

repo

rted

StatisticsUsed

Factor

analysis,P

earson

’scorrelationcoefficient,ICC

COP

•Interrater

reliability

•Face

validity

•Con

tent

validity

•Constructvalidity

•Criterion

validity

•Factor

analysis

•Content

validity:18itemswere

originallyderivedfrom

theexisting

literature;9OTs

who

wereexperts

insensoryintegrationratedthe

COPitems;4itemswererejected.

•Constructvalidity:C

hildrenwith

developm

entaldisabilitieshad

sign

ificantlyhigh

ertotalscores

andindividualitem

scores

onthe

COPthan

childrenwithou

tprop

rioceptivedifficulties

(ps<

.01)

except

forItem

17(overly

passive;p5

.12).

•Criterion

validity:E

stablished

throughcomparisonoftheCOP

withtheSensory

Processing

Measure–HomeForm

andthe

KinesthesiaandStandingand

Walking

Balance

subtestsof

the

Sensory

IntegrationandPraxis

Test;resultsindicatedthatthe

COPmeasured2distinct

influ

enceson

prop

rioception

functions:m

otor

performance

andsensoryseeking.

•Interrater

reliability:Four

OTs

rated420-m

invideotapes;total

scoreICCbetweenthe4raters

was

.91,indicatingthatvariation

amon

gtheraters

was

minimal.

•Exploratoryfactor

analysis:

Resultsof

thefactor

analysisre-

vealed

4factors:Tone

andJoint

Alignm

ent(Factor1),B

ehavioral

Manifestations

(Factor2),

PosturalM

otor

(Factor3),and

Motor

Plann

ing(Factor4)

Blanche,R

einoso,Chang,&

Bodison

(2012)

Todescribe

theproprioceptive

difficulties

ofchildrenwith

ASD

Design

Retrospectivegrou

p-comparison

design

TheCOP,ascalethat

measures

prop


inchil-

dren

bydirect

observation

•Abilityof

COPto

discriminatebe-

tweengrou

psofparticipantswith

know

ndifferences(discriminant

validity)

•Childrenwith

ASDpresentwith

prop


dif-

ficultiesthataredifferentfrom

thoseof

typically

developing

(Con

tinued)



Table1.

Sum

maryof


men

tand

Testingof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

th,P

ublished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary20

09–S

eptembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Author/Year

Study

Objectives


ent


Instrument/To

olBeing

Investigated

Measurement


Results

Participants

32childrenwith

ASD(noadditional

motor

difficulties),26

childrenwith

developm

entaldisabilities(excluding

ASD),28

typically

developing

children(m

atched

control)

Recruitm

ent

De-identified

datawerecollected

from

achartreviewat2occupational

therapyclinics.Thede-identified

dataofthematched

controlchildren

werecollected

inanaturalsetting.

Statistics

ANOVAforthe3-groupcomparison

andaposthocanalysiswith

Tukey-

Kramer

methodforpairwisecom-

parisonwereapplied.

childrenandchildrenwith

de-

velopm

entaldelays.

•Th

e3grou

psweresignificantly

differentonall16oftheindividu

alCOPitems,on

thetotalC

OP

score,andon

the4COPfactors.

•Posthocanalysisindicatedthat

childrenwith

ASDanddevelop-

mentaldisabilitieswerenotsig-

nificantly

differenton4COPitems

(feedback-relatedmotor

planning,

tiptoeing,pushing

otheror

objects,andcrashing,falling,and

running)

andon

2COPfactors

(Factor1,Tone

andJoint

Alignm

ent,andFactor

3,Postural

ControlandGrading

ofForce).

Bourke-Taylor,Law

,How

ie,&

Pallant

(2012)

Todescribe

theinitialdevelopm

ent

andpsycho

metricevaluationof

theHPAS

Design

Mixed

methodology

usingan

initial

qualitativestudyandexpertsto

generatescaleitemsandmailout

questionn

airewith

follow-upph

one

callto

collectdata;cross-sectional

research

design

includ

ingwithin-

grou

pcomparisons

Participants

152mothersofchildrenwith

devel-

opmentaldisabilitiesinVictoria,

New

South

Wales,A

ustralia

Recruitm

ent

Self-selected

sampling,including

asnow

balldesign

(“Recruita

girlfriend”).Inclusion

criteria:m

other

ofaschool-agedchild

with

adisability

Statistics

Descriptive,correlations,evalua-

tionof

norm

alcy,factoranalysis,

andMann-Whitney

Ucomparisons

TheHPAS,which

measuresthe

frequencywith

which

mothers

caring

forascho

ol-age

child

with

adisabilityparticipatein

self-

selected

leisureoccupations


•Discriminantvalidity

•Internalconsistency

•Factor

structure

•Th

eHPASshow

edgo

odinternal

consistency(Cronbach’s

a5

.78).


was

supported

bymoderatecorrelations

with

subjectivematernalm

entaland

generalhealth

(Sho

rtForm

–36,

Version

2)andby

differentiation

inleisureparticipationam

ong

grou

psof

mothers

reportingdif-

ferences

inmentalhealth

status

andsleepinterrup

tion. (Con

tinued)



Table1.

Sum

maryof


men

tand

Testingof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

th,P

ublished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary20

09–S

eptembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Author/Year

Study

Objectives


ent


Instrument/To

olBeing

Investigated

Measurement


Results

Brossard-Racine,Mazer,Julien,&

Majnemer

(201

2)To

determ

ineET

CHscores

forcut-

offpo

ints

todeterm

inechildren

who

doanddo

notrequ

irein-

terventionforhandwritingissues

andtodeterm

inethepercentage

ofchange

forclinicalsignificance

Design

Cross-sectional,nonrandomized

reliabilityandvalidity

study

Participants

34therapistsjudg

edandcompared

35pairsof

hand

writingsamples

from

26children

Recruitm

ent

Convenience

sampleof

pediatric

OTs

working

ingreaterMon

treal,

Quebec

OTs

wereincluded

ifthey

had>1

yrexperience

working

with

children

with

hand

writingprob

lems.

Thehand

writingsamples

wereob

-tained

from

agrou

pof

children

involved

inacoho

rtstudyof

school-age

childrenwith

attention

deficithyperactivity

disorder.C

hil-

dren

wereages

7–9yrandroutinely

used

manuscriptwriting.

Statistics

ROCanalyses,m

inimalclinically

importantdifference

(MCID),de-

scriptivestatistics,Shrout-Fleiss

reliabilityICC

ETCH


•Interrater

reliability

•Discriminativevalidity:W

ord

legibilityhadacrud

earea

under

thecurveof

.86(95%

CI[.84

,.88])andan

adjusted

area

of.96

(95%

CI[.95

,.97

]).Letter

legibilityhadacrud

earea

under

thecurveof

.82(95%

CI[.80

,.84])andan

adjusted

area

of.96

(95%

CI5

.95,.97).

•Interrater

reliabilitybetween

therapistswas

relativelygood

(ICC5

5.53

).•Adifference

of10

.0%–1

2.5%

for

totalw

ordlegibilityand6.0%

–7.0%

fortotalletterlegibilitywere

foun

das

cutoffpo

intsforMCID.

•ForchildreninGrades2and3,

75.0%

totalw

ordlegibilityand

76.0%

totalletterlegibilityon

the

ETCH–M

anuscriptaresugg

ested

asthecutoffvalues

todiscrimi-

natebetweenchildrenwith

hand

writinglegibilitydifficulties

who

shou

ldbe

seen

inrehabili-

tationforevaluationandtreat-

mentand

thosewho

have

nosuch

difficulties.

Brown,Unsworth,&

Lyon

s(200

9)To

exam

inethefactor

structureof

4visual-m

otor

integrationinstru-

ments

throughfactor

analysis

Design

Prospectivecross-sectional

evaluation

Participants

400childrenages

5–12

yrinmet-

ropo

litan

Melbo

urne,V

ictoria,

Australia

Recruitm

ent

Lettersweresentto95

5childrenin

6participatingstateschools.

•TV

MI

•VMI

•Testof

Visual-Motor

Skills–

Revised

(TVSM–R

)•SVMPT



•Cronb

ach’sasfortheVMI,TV

MI,

TVMS–R

,and

SVMPTwereall

>.80

.•VMIdisplayeda6-factor

structure.

•TV

MIdisplayeda3-factor

structure.

•TV

SM–R

displayeda4-factor

structure.

•SVMPTdisplayeda3-factor

structure.

(Con

tinued)



Table1.

Sum

maryof


men

tand

Testingof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

th,P

ublished

intheAmerican

JournalofO

ccupationalTherapy,Jan

uary20

09–S

eptembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Author/Year

Study

Objectives


ent


Instrument/Tool

Being

Investigated

Measurement


Results

Statistics

Factor

analysis,d

escriptivestatis-

tics,Cronbach’sa

•All4visual–m

otor

integration

instrumentsexhibited

multidimension

ality.

Chien,B

rown,&McD

onald(2010)

Toassess

theinterrater

andtest–

retestreliabilityof

theAssessm

ent

ofChildren’sHandSkills

(ACHS)

Design

Prospective,reliabilitystudy

Participants

54childrenparticipated

inthestudy;

30wereintheinterrater

reliability

component

ofthestudy,and44

wereinthetest–retestreliabilitypart

ofthestudy.

Recruitm

ent

Aconveniencesamplingapproach

was

used;ofthe

54participants,30

weretypically

developing

children

who

wererecruitedfrom

1child

care

center

and2preschoo

lsin

southern

metropo

litan

regionsof

Melbourne,V

ictoria,Australia;the

remaining

24childrenwerere-

cruitedfrom

2specialschoo

lsif

they

presentedwith

hand

skill

difficulties

caused

bydisorders

such

asASD,D

ownsynd

rome,or

developm

entaldelay.

Statistics

Cronbach’sa,Spearman’scoefficient,

weightedk

ACHS

•Interrater

reliability

•Test–retestreliability

•Content

validity

•TheACHS’stest–retestreliability

was

satisfactoryattheindividual

item

level(.42<k>.79)

andthe

totalscalelevel(Spearman’sr5

.78,p<.01).

•Mod

erateinterrateragreem

entof

thetotalscalescores

was

dem-

onstrated(r5

.63,p<.01),but

individu

alitemsexhibitedvaried

interrater

agreem

ent.

•TheACHS’scontentvalidity

was

establishedthroughan

extensive

review

oftheliterature,thecon-

ceptualizationof

ahand

skill

fram

eworkon

which

tobase

the

ACHSskillitems,severalrounds

ofreview

andrevision

basedon

expertfeedback,and

preliminary

fieldtesting.

Duff&Goyen

(201

0)Todeterminethereliability

and

valid

ityoftheETCH–Cursive

(ETC

H-C)u

sing

thegeneralscoring

criteria

Design

Cross-sectional,semirando

mized


study

Participants

Purpo

sive

samplingfrom

rand

omly

selected

schools.Participantswere

63typically

developing

10-to

12-

yr-oldchildrenfrom

10schools

inSydney,New

South

Wales,

Australia:3

3participantswith

ETCH-C,astandardized

assess-

menttool

toevaluate

cursive

hand

writing

•Interrater

reliability

•Intrarater

reliability



•Concurrentvalidity

•Reliability:ICCsforintrarater

reliabilityrang

edfrom

.55to

.80

forthe3subscales.ICCsforin-

terraterreliabilityranged

from

.57

to.84forthe3subscales.ICC

test–retestreliabilityranged

from

.24to

.65forthe3subscales.

•Discriminantvalidity:3

cutoff

scores

weredeterm

ined

todiffer-

entiatebetweenstudentswith

(Con

tinued)



Table1.

Sum

maryof


men

tand

Testingof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

th,P

ublished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary20

09–S

eptembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Author/Year

Study

Objectives


ent


Instrument/To

olBeing

Investigated

Measurement


Results

hand

writingdifficulties

and30

withou

t.

Recruitm

ent

Asked

teachers

inrandom

lyselected

scho

olstoidentifyGrade

5and6studentswith

andwithou

thand

writingdifficulties.

Statistics

Descriptivestatistics,ICC,R

OC,

Pearson

correlationcoefficient,

ANOVA,Tukey’spo

stho

canalysis

andwithou

thand

writingdifficul-

ties:totalletterscorecutoff592

;totalw

ordscorecutoff585

;total

numberscorecutoff5

95.

•Concurrentvalidity:ETC

H-C

total

letter

scorewas

moderately

correlated

with

theTestofLegible

Handw

riting(r5

.6,p

<.001).

Fing

erhu

t(201

3)To

psycho

metrically

evaluate

and

continue

ongo

ingdevelopm

entof

theLP

Ptool

Design



study

Participants

162parentsor

caregivers

ofchildrenwith

specialneeds

receivinginterventionataprivate

practiceclinic

Recruitm

ent

Convenience

sampling

Statistics

Descriptivestatistics,nonparam

et-

ricKruskal–W

allis

one-way

ANOVA,

Spearman

rank-order

analysis,

factor

analysis

LPP,ameasurementtool

tofa-

cilitatefamily-centeredpediatric

practice




•Internalstructure:2-factor

solution,resulting

in2subscales,

SatisfactionWith

Efficiency

(Cronbach’sa5

.90)

and

SatisfactionWith

Effectiveness

(Cronbach’sa5

.70).Internal

consistencyfortotalscalewas

strong

(Cronb

ach’sa5

.90).

•Test–retestreliability(r5

.89)


supported

throug

hmod

erateinversecor-

relation(r5

2.51)

betweenLP

PandParentingStressIndexscores

Gantschnig,Page,Nilsson,&Fisher

(2013)

Todetect

differencesin

ADLs

be-

tweenchildrenwith

andwithou

tdisabilities

Design

Retrospective,involvingsecond

ary

dataanalysisof

existingdatabase

Participants

AMPSdatabase

used

10,998

4-to

15-yr-oldchildrenwith

andwithou

tdisabilitiesfrom

11worldregions.

Recruitm

ent

Convenience

samplingfrom

existing

database

AMPS,astandardized

observa-

tionalassessmentthat

measures

quality

ofmotor

processing

ability

during

ADLs



•Discriminantvalidity:S

ignificant

maineffectforage,b5

.139,

confi

denceinterval[.12

9,.149

],p<.001,t

526

.187

,R25.361

.Significantdifferenceswere

foun

dinADLperformance

be-

tweenchildrenwith

andwithou

tdisabilitieson

thebasisof

motor

abilityateveryagebu

t4yr

with

effectsizesrangingfrom

smallto

large.Significantdifferences

werefoun

dinADLperformance

(Con

tinued)



Table1.

Sum

maryof


men

tand

Testingof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

th,P

ublished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary20

09–S

eptembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Author/Year

Study

Objectives


ent


Instrument/To

olBeing

Investigated

Measurement


Results

Statistics

Descriptivestatistics,ttests,

regression

analysis

betweenchildrenwith

andwith-

outdisabilitieson

thebasisof

processing

abilityateveryage,

with

effectsizesrang

ingfrom

mod

erateto

very

large.ADLmo-

torandprocessing

scores

were

significantlyhigher

fortypically

developing

children.

•Constructvalidity:The

AMPS

can

detectandmeasuremotorand

processing

abilitydifferencesam

ong

childrenwith

andwithoutdisabilities

from

age5yr,w

ithincreasing

differences

aschildrenage(£15

yr).

Processing

abilitydifferences

canbe

detected

atage4yr.

Grisw

old&Townsend(2012)

Todeterm

inethesensitivity

ofthe

Evaluationof

SocialInteraction

(ESI)to

discriminatebetween

childrenwith

andwithoutd

isability

asthey

engage

insocialexchanges

inanaturalcontextwith

typical

socialpartners

Design

Quasi-experimentalvalidity

study

Participants

46children(34bo

ys,12girls)

betweenages

2and12

yr,h

alf

typically

developing

andhalfwith

adisability

Recruitm

ent

Aletter

requestingparticipation

consentwas

sentto

parents

of

childrenattend

ingpreschool,

kindergarten,readiness,1st-grade,

and2n

d-gradeclassroom

sat

alocalelementary

scho

olinthe

northwestern

United

States.

23pairs

ofage-andgender-m

atched

childrenwith

andwithouta

disability

wereincluded

intheresults.

Statistics

Raw

scores

convertedto

log-odd

probabilityunits,pairedttest

ESI


todifferen-

tiatebetweenchildrenwith

and

withoutdisability

•Pairedt-testanalysisrevealed

astatisticallysignificant

differ-

ence,t(22)

524.065,p5

.001,

inthequ

ality

ofsocialinteraction

forchildrenwith

andwithou

tadisability,indicatingsensitivity

todiscriminatebetweengrou

ps.

Honaker,R

osello,&

Candler(2012)

Toexam

inethetest–retestre-

liabilityandconstructvalidity

ofthe

Family

L.I.F.E.(Loo

king

IntoFamily

Experiences)

andto

exam

inethe

Design



study

Family

L.I.F.E.



•Internalconsistencywas

good

(Cronbach’sa5.9),andtest–

retestreliabilitywas

strong

(r5

.89).

(Con

tinued)



Table1.

Sum

maryof


men

tand

Testingof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

th,P

ublished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary20

09–S

eptembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Author/Year

Study

Objectives


ent


Instrument/To

olBeing

Investigated

Measurement


Results

perceivedefficiency,effectiveness,

andsatisfactionratings

forfamily

occupations

Participants

Interviewof15

families

with

achild

with

ASD(4

girls,11

boys,between

ages

4and11

yr2mo).Twofami-

lieseliminated

from

datacollection.

Recruitm

ent

Participantswereaself-selected

conveniencesampleof

15families

from

4venues.

Statistics

Wilcoxonsigned-ranktest,

Spearm

an’sr

•92

%of

thefamilies

identified

the

sameoccupations

asimportant

attestandretest,1

wkapart.

Hwang&Davies(200

9)To

exam

inetheinternalconstruct

validity

oftheSchoolFunction

Assessm

ent(SFA)by

exam

ining

itsun

idimension

ality

andhierar-

chicalstructure;thestudyfocused

onPartIII,know

nas

theActivity

Perform

ance

Scales.

Design

Prospective2-grou

p,no

nrando

m-

ized,non

controlleddesign

Participants

64elem

entary

scho

olchildren(35

with

disabilities,29

without

disabilities)

betweenages

6and

15yr

Recruitm

ent

Participantswererecruitedfrom

severalschooldistrictsinwestern

New

Yorkviaconvenience

sampling.

Statistics

Rasch

analysis

SFA

•Internalvalidity


•25

2items(of266

)on

theActivity

Perform

ance

Scalesmetcriterion

setforRasch

goodness-of-fit

statistics.

•15

of18

oftheSFA’sActivity

Perform

ance

Scaleswerefound

tobe

unidimensional,m

easuring

asing

leconstruct.

•Item

difficulty

analysisyielded

ahierarchicalstructureof

the

Activity

Perform

ance

Scales

similarto

theexistinglayout

oftheSFA.

Jongbloed-Pereboom,N

ijhuis-van

derSanden,&Steenbergen

(201

3)To

determ

ineno

rmscores

forthe

Box

andBlock

Test

forchildren

(3–1

0yr)

Design



study

Participants

215typically

developing

Dutch

childrenages

3–10

yrwho

were

representativeon

socioeconomic

variablesandethnicity

Recruitm

ent

Convenience

sampling;children

wererecruitedthroughlocal

schoolsandplaygrou

ps

Box

andBlock

test

forchildren

(astandardized

gross

manual

dexteritytest)



•Con

currentvalidity


•Discriminantvalidity:N

odiffer-

ence

betweenbo

ysandgirlsor

left-andright-handed

children

withingrou

psof

childrenstrati-

fiedforage(i.e.,3-year-olds,

4-year-olds).A

significant

and

largeeffectsize

was

foun

dfor

childrenaged

3–8yr

forbo

ththe

dominant,F(7,20

7)5

77.07,

p<.001,r

5.82,andno

n-do

minanthand

s,F(7,20

7)5

77.07,p<.001

,r5

.85.

•Test-retestreliability:ICC5

.85

(Con

tinued)



Table1.

Sum

maryof


men

tand

Testingof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

th,P

ublished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary20

09–S

eptembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Author/Year

Study

Objectives


ent


Instrument/To

olBeing

Investigated

Measurement


Results

Statistics

Descriptivestatistics,Spearman’s

orPearson

’scorrelationcoeffi-

cients,ICCs,ttests

•Con

currentvalidity:correlations

betweenbo

thdo

minant-and

nondom

inant-hand

Box

and

Block

Testscores

andtheMove-

mentAssessm

entBattery

for

Children–2manualdexterity

subtestsweremoderatetostrong

forchildrenages

3–6yrandweak

tomod

erateforchildrenages

7–10

yr.

•Constructvalidity:Finding

ssupp

orttheuseof

theBox

and

Block

testas

ameasure

ofgross

manualdexterityam

ongchildren

ages

3–10

yr.

Josm

an,A

bdallah,&Engel-Yeger

(201

1)To

usetheLo

ewensteinOccup

a-tionalTh

erapyCog

nitiveAssess-

ment(LOTC

A)to

measure

cultural

andsociod

emog

raphiceffectson

cognitive

skillsin

2groups

ofchildren

Design



study

Participants

226typically

developing

children

representativeof

Israelicensus:

101JewishIsraelichildrenand125

Muslim

Palestinianchildren

Recruitm

ent

Convenience

samplingfrom

Israeli

schoolsinwhich

OTs

trainedin

theadministrationof

theLO

TCA

worked

Statistics

Descriptivestatistics,MANOVA

betweenidentified

grou

ps

LOTC

A,astandardized

assessment

ofcognitive

ability



•Discriminantvalidity:The

LOTC

Adetected

differencesbetween

grou

psof

childrenwith

know

ndifferencesinculture,parental

educationlevel,yearsofschooling,

andageofthechild.

•Constructvalidity:The

LOTC

A’s

validity

asatoolthatmeasures

thecogn

itive

functionof

youn

gchildrenwas

supp

orted.

Josm

an,G

offer,&Rosenblum

(201

0)To

exam

inereliabilityandvalidity

oftheDo–

Eatassessmenttoolfor

childrenwith

DCD

Design



study

Participants

59childrenaged

5–6.5yr

(30

diagno

sedwith

DCDas

determ

ined

byMovem

entAssessm

entBattery

forChildrenscores

belowthe15

thpercentile)

Do-Eat:Dynam

icassessmentof

child

makingasand

wich,

pre-

paring

chocolatemilk,andcom-

pletingahand

writingtask

inthe

child’snaturalcontext


•Interrater

reliability


•Con

currentvalidity

•Contentandface

validity:Process

ofliteraturereview

andexpert

consultation—

5OTs

and5expert

consultants

•Interrater

reliability:Higham

ong

3blindedoccupationaltherapy

assessors(rs5

.92).

• Internalconsistency:H

ighforD

o-Eatcompo

nents:performance

(Con

tinued)



Table1.

Sum

maryof


men

tand

Testingof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

th,P

ublished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary20

09–S

eptembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Author/Year

Study

Objectives


ent


Instrument/To

olBeing

Investigated

Measurement


Results

Recruitm

ent

Convenience

sampleof

5-and6-

year-oldchildren;30

childrenwith

adiagnosisofDCDand29

typically

developing

children

Statistics

Descriptivestatistics,Mann–

Whitney

Utest,C

ronbach’sa,

ttests,Pearson

correlation

coefficients

skills(Cronbach’sa5

.93),

sensory-motor

skill(Cronbach’s

a5

.90),and

executivefunction

(Cronbach’sa5

.89).

•Constructvalidity:S

ignificant

between-grou

psdifferenceson

theDo-Eat,t(57)5

14.09,

p<.001,and

theParent

Questionn

aire,t(57)

53.64,

p<.001.

•Con

currentvalidity:S

ignificant

correlation(r5

2.086,p

<.001

)betweenchildren’sscores

onsensory-motor

compo

nentofthe

Do-EatandMovem

entAssess-

mentBattery

forChildrenfin

alscore.

Kao,K

ramer,L

iljenquist,Tian,&

Coster(201

2)To

compare

thefunctionalperfor-

mance

ofchildrenandyouthwith

autism,developm

entald

isabilities,

andno

disabilityusingtherevised

PED

I–Com

puterAdaptiveTest

(PED

I–CAT)

item

banks

Design

Cross-sectional,nonrandomized,

second

arydataanalysis,reliability,

andvalidity

study

Participants

Participantswerepurposively

sampled

from

anexistingnationally

representativedataset(N5

2,205)

thatinclud

ed10

8childrendia-

gnosed

with

ASDand15

0children

with

intellectualand

developm

ental

disabilities(IDD).Threeagegroups

wereselected

from

thedataset—

5years,10

years,and15

years—

althou

ghthesamplesize

foreach

grou

pwas

notreported.

Recruitm

ent

Representationalsam

plingof

families

with

1or

morechild

youn

gerthan

age21

yranddata

collected

viatheInternet

Statistics

Descriptivestatistics,analysisof

covariance

PED

I–CAT



•Discriminantvalidity:S

ocial–

cogn

itive

domaindifferentiated

betweenchildrenwith

andwith-

outdisabilitiesatages

10and15

yr(p

<.001),butnotatage5yr.N

osignificantdifferences

werefound

betweenscores

ofchildrenwith

ASDor

IDDatanyage.

•Dailyactivities

domaindifferen-

tiatedbetweenchildrenwith

and

withoutdisabilitiesatages

10and

15yr

(p<.001

),bu

tno

tatage

5yr.Nosignificantdifferences

were

foundbetweenscores

ofchildren

with

ASDor

IDDatanyage.

•Respo

nsibilitydo

maindifferen-

tiatedbetweenchildrenwith

and

withoutdisabilitiesatages

10and

15yr(p<.001)butno

tatage

5yr.

Nosignificant

differenceswere

foundbetweenscores

ofchildren

with

ASDor

IDDatanyage.Th

elargestdifference

betweenchil-

dren

with

ASDandtypically

de-

veloping

childrenwas

foundto

occuratage15

yr.

(Con

tinued)



Table1.

Sum

maryof


men

tand

Testingof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

th,P

ublished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary20

09–S

eptembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Author/Year

Study

Objectives


ent


Instrument/To

olBeing

Investigated

Measurement


Results

•Constructvalidity:Thisstudysup-

portstheconstructvalidity

ofthe

PED

I–CATtodifferentiatebetween

childrenaged

10and15

yrwith

and

withoutdisability.The

PED

I–CAT

didnotdifferentiatebetweenchil-

dren

with

andwithoutdisabilityat

age5yr.M

oreover,no

significant

differenceswerefoundbetween

thescores

ofchildrenwith

ASDor

IDDon

anydomain,indicatingthat

thePED

I–CATisnota

disability-

specificmeasure.

Kramer,K

ielhofner,&Smith

(2010)

Todeterm

inetheconstructva-

lidity,reliability,

andgo

odness

offit

oftheChild

Occup

ationalSelf

Assessm

ent(COSA)andother

factors(child

factors,

values,ad-

ministrationtim

e,andapplication)

Design



study

Participants

98practitioners

(OTs

andph

ysical

therapists)andresearchersfrom

acentraldatabasecompleted

the

COSAon

502childrenwith

disabilitiesbetweenages

6and

17yr

from

5coun

tries.

Recruitm

ent

Researchers

andclinicians

from

around

theworldwerecontacted

throughem

aildistributionlistsand

websiteanno

uncementsanddu

-ring

professionalmeetings

and

training

andinvitedto

sharechil-

dren’sCOSArespon

seswith

acentraldatabase.

Statistics

Descriptivestatisticsofpopulation,

demog

raph

icinform

ation,Rasch

PartialC

reditmod

el,param

etric

andnonparam

etricstatisticsto

obtainvalidity

evidence

COSA,with

2scales,Occup

ational

Com

petenceandValues

•Internalreliability

•Item

fit•Internalandexternalvalidity


•Con

currentvalidity

•Mostchildren’sresponsesto

the

COSAcanbe

validlyinterpreted

asindicators

ofoccupational

competenceandvalueforevery-

dayactivities.

•Th

eCOSAhasgo

odconstruct

validity

inthefollowingareas:

content,structural,and

sub-

stantivevalidity

asgivenby

item

andchild

fitstatisticsandunidi-

mension

ality

evaluation.

•Evidence

forexternalvalidity

was

mixed,depending

onsome

demog

raph

icandassessment

administrationvariables.

•Item

fit:A

llOccup

ationalC

om-

petenceitemshadpo

sitivepo

int-

biserialcorrelations

rangingfrom

.30to

.53.Childrenrepo

rted

the

leastam

ount

ofcompetence

andthemostdifficulty

forself-

regu

lationandcogn

itive

tasks,as

wellaschores.T

heitem

separationindex

was

6.18,

whichtranslates

to8.57strata;

thereliabilityofitem

separation

was

.97.

•Valuesitems:Allitemshad

positivepo

int-biserialcorrela-

tions

rangingfrom

.42to

.61.

Childrenwereless

likelyto

(Con

tinued)



Table1.

Sum

maryof


men

tand

Testingof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

th,P

ublished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary20

09–S

eptembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Author/Year

Study

Objectives


ent


Instrument/To

olBeing

Investigated

Measurement


Results

indicatevalueforactivities

typi-

cally

regu

latedanddemandedby

adults.V

aluesitem

separation

across

thecontinuum

was

3.96,

which

transformsto

5.6strata;

item

separationreliabilityacross

thatcontinuu

mwas

.94.

•Child

fit:Of502childrenwho

completedtheOccupational

Competence

ratings,59did

notmeetfitrequirem

ents

(11.75%).AllttestsandANOVAs

werenonsignificantusing

aBonferroni-adjustedaof.01.

•PersonFittoValuesitems:Of496

childrenwho

respon

dedto

the

Valuesratingscale,76

didno

tmeetfit

requirem

ents(15.3%

).

Kuijper,van

derW

ilden,Ketelaar,&

Gorter(201

0)To

investigatetherelationshipbe-

tweenthemanualabilitiesof

chil-

dren

withcerebralpalsy

(as

categorizedusingtheMan

ual

Ability

ClassificationSystem

[MACS])andcaregiverassistance

usingtheSelf-Carescaleof

the

PED

Iandto

assess

theinterrater

reliabilityof

theMACS

Design



study

Participants

61Dutch

childrenwith

cerebral

palsybetweenages

5and14

yrParentalcon

sent

was

obtained.

Recruitm

ent

Convenience

samplingof

children

attendingspecialized

schools

Statistics

Descriptivestatistics,Spearman’s

rank-ordercorrelationcoefficient(r),

linearweigh

tedk

MACS,Self-Caredo

mainof

the

PED

IPart2,

Caregiver

Assistance

scale


•TheMACScategories

dem-

onstratedsensitivityto

different

levelsof

caregiverassistance

requ

ired

forself-care,asmea-

suredby

thePED

I.•Th

eSpearman

rank-order

cor-

relationcoefficient

betweenthe

MACSlevels(asscored

bythe

therapists)andscores

onthe

PED

ICaregiver

Assistancescale

forself-care

activities

weresig-

nificant(r

52.72)

atthe.01

level(two-tailed),although

the

useof

even

nonp

aram

etriccor-

relationstatisticshere

isques-

tionableandun

orthodox.

•Thestudyalso

drew

conclusions

aboutthe

children’sskilllevelin

self-care,although

theresearchers

didnotuse

thePED

IPart1,w

hich

wouldallowthisassertion.

•Weightedk(with

linearw

eighting)

fortheinterobserverreliabilityof

theMACSbetweenthetherapists

andphysicians

was

foundto

be.86(CI[.78,.94]).

(Con

tinued)



Table1.

Sum

maryof


men

tand

Testingof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

th,P

ublished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary20

09–S

eptembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Author/Year

Study

Objectives


ent


Instrument/To

olBeing

Investigated

Measurement


Results

•50children(82%

)wereclassified

atthesameMACSlevelbythe

therapistandtherehabilitation

physician,andtheremaind

erwerewithin1level.

Littleetal.(2011

)To

evaluate

thepsycho

metric

properties(reliability)

ofthe

Sensory

ExperiencesQuestion-

naire(SEQ

)

Design

Prospective,no

nrando

mized,

noncontrolled

Participants

358parentsof

childrenages

6–72

mobelong

ingto

1of

3grou

ps:(1)

childrenwith

autism,(2)

children

with

developm

entaldelay,or(3)

typically

developing

children

Thetest–retestreliabilitysub-

sampleconsistedof

24caregivers,

each

ofwhom

completed

a2n

dqu

estionn

aire

within2–

4wkof

the

1stqu

estionn

aire.

Recruitm

ent

Conveniencesampling;aletterand

SEQform

weredistributed

tocaregiversby

adesignated

contact

person

atpreschools,early

interventionprograms,daycare

centers,or

diagnosticandevaluation

centersthroughoutruraland

metropolitan

areasinNorthCarolina,

aswellasthroughauniversity-based

research

registry

Statistics

Cronbach’saandICC

SEQ




excel-

lent;C

ronb

ach’sawas

reported

tobe

.80.

•Totalscore

test–retestreliability

was

excellent

(ICC5

.92).

•Subscaletest–retestreliability

scores

ranged

from

.68to

.86.

•Th

eSEQ

canbe

used

asan

early

toolforidentifying

sensorypat-

ternsinyoun

gchildrenwith

autism

andotherdevelopm

ental

disabilities.

McD

onald&Vigen

(2012)

Todescribe

theinstrumentdevel-

opmentprocessof

theMcD

onald

PlayInventory(M

PI)andexam

ine

theMPI’s

internalreliabilityand

discriminativevalidity

amongboth

neurotypicalchildrenandchildren

with

know

ndisabilities

Design

Prospective,no

nrando

mized,non

-controlledreliabilityandvalidity

study

Participants

124childrenbetweenages

7and

11yr(89neurotypical,35with

dis-

abilities);1

7parentsparticipated.

MPI,which

ismadeup

of2parts:

(1)McD

onaldPlayActivity

Inven-

tory

(MPAI)andMcD

onaldPlay

Style

Inventory(M

PSI)



•Con

currentvalidity


•Theself-reportinstrument

yieldedreliableandvalid

measuresof

achild’sperceived

play

performance

and

discriminated

betweentheplay

ofchildrenwith

andwithou

tdisabilities.

•Item

analysisandinter-

correlations:Eachitem

was

(Con

tinued)



Table1.

Sum

maryof


men

tand

Testingof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

th,P

ublished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary20

09–S

eptembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Author/Year

Study

Objectives


ent


Instrument/To

olBeing

Investigated

Measurement


Results

Recruitm

ent

Convenience

sampling;participants

draw

nfrom

acamp,elem

entary

school,and

2privatepracticeclinics

intheUnitedStates;participants

recruitedover

a1-yr

period

Statistics

Forinternalconsistency,Cron-

bach’sa;for

test–retestreliability,

Pearson

correlationcoefficient;for

concurrent

validity,P

earson

cor-

relationcoefficient

andpaired-

samplettests

moderatelycorrelated

(.27–.75)

with

therespectivesubscale

score.Moderateto

strong

correlations

(.47–.81)were

foundbetweeneach

subscaleand

totalscalescore.

•Intercorrelations

betweenthe

subscalesranged

from

low(<.25)

tomod

erate(.50

–.71

).•Th

eintercorrelationbetweenthe

totalinventory

scores

was

inthe

mod

eraterange(.49

).•Internalconsistency:Internal

consistencywas

acceptable—a5

.84fortheMPAIanda5

.79

fortheMPSI.

•Test–retestreliability:Pearson

correlationcoefficient

forthe

MPAIwas

.69;fortheMPSI,.82;

indicatesresults

wereconsistent

over

1-moperiod

.•Constructvalidity:N

ostatistically

significant

differenceswere

foundby

gender

orpresence

ofdisabilityon

theself-reported

play

activities

oftheMPAItotal

inventoryor

subscalescores.

•Con

currentvalidity:For

parent–

child

respon

ses,theMPAI

show

edalowcorrelation(r5

.04)

andtheMPSIshow

edamoderatecorrelation(r5

.49).

Mulcaheyetal.(20

13)

Toexam

inethepsycho

metric

propertiesof

upper-extrem

ityand

activity

item

poolsandto

evaluate

theitem

banksandsimulated

5-,

10-,and15

-item

compu

teradap-

tivetests(CATs)

Design

Multicentercross-sectionalstudy

Participants

200childrenwith

brachialplexus

birthpalsybetweenages

4and

21yr;1

-timedatacollection

occurred

atthepo

intof

care.

Recruitm

ent

Convenience

samplingapproach

PediatricOutcomes

DataCollection

Instrument(PODCI)


•Differentialitem

functioning

•Con

currentvalidity

•Discriminativevalidity

•IntheEFAoftheactivity

items,the

1stfactorexplainedapproximately

55%

ofthetotalvariance.

•In

theEFAof

theup

per-extrem

ityitems,the1stfactor

explained

58%

ofthetotalvariance.

•Three

itemsshow

edDIF,2

upper-

extrem

ityitems(“Mychild

can

usean

eraser

withou

ttearing

paper,”“Using

onlyhis/her

hand

s,mychild

canpu

llup

the

( Con

tinued)



Table1.

Sum

maryof


men

tand

Testingof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

th,P

ublished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary20

09–S

eptembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Author/Year

Study

Objectives


ent


Instrument/To

olBeing

Investigated

Measurement


Results

Statistics

Confirmatoryfactor

analysis(CFA)

andexploratoryfactor

analysis

(EFA);DIFthroughtheuseof

or-

dinallogistic

regression;1-way

ANOVAtestswith

postho

ccomparisons

tabon

acanof

soda”)and1

activity

item

(“Cleaningtheflo

orwith

abroo

manddu

stpan”).

Theseitemswereretained

owing

totheimportance

oftheircon

tent.

•Con

currentvalidity

was

estab-

lishedwith

amod

eratecorrela-

tionwith

theBox

andBlock

Test

andthePODCI.

•Themajority

ofthePODCIitems

wereableto

differentiatepartici-

pantswith

aknow

nclinical

difference.

Mun

kholm,Berg,Lofgren,&Fisher

(201

0)To

evaluate

whether

theSchool

versionof

AMPSisvalid

foreval-

uatingstud

ents

indifferentworld

region

s

Design

Cross-sectionalretrospectivestudy

Participants

984studentsranginginagefrom

3to

13yr

from

North

America,

AustraliaandNew

Zealand,United

Kingdom

,and

Nordiccountries

(246

studentsfrom

each

region

)

Recruitm

ent

Participantswereselected

from

the

sampleofallstudentsages

3–15

yrlocatedintheSchoolA

MPS

database.

Statistics

Many-facetedRasch

analysis

SchoolAMPS

•Many-facetedRasch

analyses

togenerateitem

difficulty

calibra-

tions

byregion

andevaluatefor

sign

ificant

DIFanddifferential

testfunctioning


•SchoolAMPSitems(walk,moves,

endures,andnavigates)

demon-

stratedDIFbutresultedinno

dif-

ferentialtestfunctioning.

•Th

eSchoo

lAMPScanbe

used

toevaluatestudents’qualityof

schoolworktask

performances

across

regionsbecauseitisfree

ofgeographicbias

associated

with

worldregion

.

Ohletal.(2012)

Toexam

inethetest–retestrelia-

bilityandinternalconsistencyof

theSensory

ProfileCaregiver

Questionn

aire

Design

Prospective,no

nrando

mized,

noncontrolled

Participants

55caregiversofchildrenrangingin

agefrom

36to

72mo

Recruitm

ent


6nu

rseryschoolsandchild

care

centersintheNew

York

metropo

litan

area.

Sensory

ProfileCaregiver

Questionn

aire



•Test–retestreliabilitywas

good

across

quadrant

scores

(ICCs5

.80–

.90)

andmoderateto

good

across

factor

(ICCs5

.69–.88)

andsectionscores

(ICCs5

.50–

.87).


high

across

quadrant

scores

(as5

.89–.95)

andfactor

scores

(as5

.82–

.93)

andmoderateto

high

across

sectionscores

(as5

.67–

.93).

(Con

tinued)



Table1.

Sum

maryof


men

tand

Testingof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

th,P

ublished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary20

09–S

eptembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Author/Year

Study

Objectives


ent


Instrument/To

olBeing

Investigated

Measurement


Results

Parentsof

childrenattend

ingthe

centersweresent

aflyer,thena

research

pack.C

ompleted

assess-

mentswerepo

sted

back

tothe

researcherinself-addressedstam

ped

envelope.Participationwas

voluntary.

Statistics

Descriptivestatistics,ICCs,

Cronbach’sa

Parham

etal.(20

11)

Todevelopareliableandvalid

fidelity

measureforuseinresearch

ontheAyres

Sensory

Integration

(ASI)intervention

Researchquestions:

DoestheProcess

sectionof

the

FidelityMeasure

show

acceptable

interrater

reliability?

DoestheProcess

sectionof

the

FidelityMeasure

have

acceptable

internalconsistency?

DoestheProcess

sectionof

the

FidelityMeasure

demon

strate

adequatevalidity

indifferentiating

ASIfrom

otherintervention

approaches

inoccupational

therapy?

DoestheentireFidelityMeasure

demonstratecontentvalidity

inaddressing

keyelem

entsof

ASI

intervention?

Design

Instrumentdevelopm

ent

Participants

14expertsinsensoryintegration

from

6differentcountrieswho

completed

6-hr

training

Content

validity

was

established

through19

expertsinsensoryin-

tegrationfrom

6differentcountries.

Recruitm

ent

Content

expertswererecruitedto

assistwith

thedevelopm

entof

the

FidelityMeasure.

Statistics

Interraterreliability,contentvalidity,

internalconsistency,Cronbach’sa,

ICC

Ayres

Sensory

IntegrationFidelity

Measure

•Interrater

reliability


•Con

tent

validity

•Reliabilityof

theProcess

section

was

strong

fortotalfidelityscore

(ICC5

.99,Cronbach’sa5

.99)

andacceptableformostitems.

•To

talscore

significantlydifferen-

tiatedASIfrom

4alternative

interventions.

•Expertratings

indicatedstrong

agreem

entthatitemsinthe

Structuraland

Process

sections

representASIintervention.

Potvin,Snider,Prelock,K

ehayia,&

Woo

d-Dauphinee

(201

3)To

establishthepsychometric

prop

ertiesof

theChildren’sAs-

sessmentof

Participationand

Enjoym

ent/Preferences

forActivi-

ties(CAPE/PAC)relatedtochildren

with

high

-fun

ctioning

autism(HFA)

Design

Mixed

metho

dology,including

qualitativeresearch

toevaluate

contentvalidity

andfeasibilityof

use

Participants

30childrenwith

HFA

betweenages

7and13

yr(with

IQ>8

0or

adap-

tivefunctioning

score>60)

and31

typically

developing

peers

CAPE/PAC

•Con

tent

validity



•CAPE/PACcanbe

used

toassess

participation(recreational)am

ong

childrenwith

HFA.

•Con

tent

validity

was

assessed

asadequateafterqualitative

evaluation.

Test–retestreliability

ofoverallscoreswas

adequate

(r>.7),except

thesocialaspect

dimension

,which

was

low

(r>.196).

(Con

tinued)



Table1.

Sum

maryof


men

tand

Testingof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

th,P

ublished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary20

09–S

eptembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Author/Year

Study

Objectives


ent


Instrument/To

olBeing

Investigated

Measurement


Results

Recruitm

ent

Childrenwererecruitedthroug

hmultiplesources(parentsupp

ort

grou

p,therapists,h

ealth

depart-

ment)andinform

almodes.

Statistics

Descriptivestatistics,correlation,

Mann–

Whitney

Utest

•Parents’agreementw

ithmostof

theirchildren’sself-ratings

onthis

assessmentprovidedan

estim

ate

ofinterraterreliability(in

HFA

group,75%

ofparentsagreed

orstronglyagreed

with

theirchild’s

ratingon

theCAPE,and50%

ofparentsagreed

orstronglyagreed

with

theirchild’sratingforthe

PAC).

•Th

eCAPE/PAChasadequate

discriminantvalidity

andtest–

retestreliabilityandisableto

discriminatebetweenchildren

with

andwithou

tHFA.Therefore,

results

sugg

estthattheCAPE/

PACisapplicableforusewith

childrenwith

HFA.

Rosenblum

,Sachs,&

Schreuer

(201

0)To

exam

inetheinternalconsis-

tencyandconstructvalidity

ofthe

Children’sLeisureAssessm

ent

Scale(CLA

SS)

Design



study

Participants

249childrenandadolescentsin

Israel(114

boys,135

girls)

Recruitm

ent

Stratified

snow

ballsampling

Inclusioncriteria:typically

devel-

opingpu

blicscho

olstudents

Statistics

Descriptivestatistics,Cronbach’s

a,factoranalysis,M

ANOVA,ttests

CLA

SS;measuresmultidimen-

sional

participationin

children’s

andadolescents’leisureactivities


•Face

validity

•Con

tent

validity



•Faceandcontentvalidity:O

riginal

assessmentreviewed

by5expert

consultantsand5experienced

pediatricOTs.

•Internalconsistency:Leisure

factors(instrum

entalind

ooracti-

vities,outdooractivities,self-

enriched

activities,gam

esand

sportsactivities)show

edac-

ceptablelevelsof

internalrelia-

bility(Cronbach’sarang

edfrom

.57to

.83).

•Constructvalidity:D

iscriminant

validity

basedon

gender;girls

participated

insignificantlymore

activities

than

theboys

(65%

and

56%,respectively),w

ithgreater

frequencyandwith

greaterpre-

ferenceforself-enrichmentand

instrumentalindooractivities.

Boysparticipated

insignificantly

moregames

andsportsactivities.

Saban,O

rnoy,G

rotto,&Parush

(201

2)To

describe

thedevelopm

entofthe

Adolescents

andAdults

Co-

ordinationQuestionnaire

(AAC–Q

)

Design

Prospective,rand

omized,instru-

mentdevelopm

entstudy

AAC–Q

•Con

tent

validity




•Con

tent

reliability:12

AAC–Q

itemshad>9

5%interrater

agreem

entfrom

8OTs.

(Con

tinued)



Table1.

Sum

maryof


men

tand

Testingof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

th,P

ublished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary20

09–S

eptembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Author/Year

Study

Objectives


ent


Instrument/To

olBeing

Investigated

Measurement


Results

anddescribe

itspsycho

metric

prop

erties

Participants

Convenience

samplingof

(1)28

adolescentsandyoungadults

diagno

sedwith

DCD(betweenages

16and35

yr)inIsraeland(2)28

age-

andgend

er-m

atched

parti-

cipantswho

hadno

diagno

sisof

DCDandwho

hadneverbeen

referred

ortreatedformotor

coor-

dinationprob

lemsinIsrael

Random

samplingof

2,379partic-

ipantsages

19–2

5yr

from

Israel

Military

Service

Recruitm

ent

TheDCDgrou

pwas

recruitedby

contactingprofession

alswho

workedwith

adults.The

control

grou

pwas

recruitedthroug

hadvertisem

entsintheuniversity

settingandworkplace.

Statistics

Descriptivestatistics,independent-

samplettests,constructvalidity,

Cronbach’sa,P

earson

’scorrelationcoefficients

•Internalconsistency:High;

Cronb

ach’sa5

.88

•Test–retestreliability:r5

.94,

p<.001

•Constructvalidity:Ind

ependent-

samplettestsrevealed

significant

differencesbetweenparticipants

with

andwithoutDCD,t(27)

59.37,p

<.001.A

high

significant

correlationwas

foundbetweenthe

scores

ofthe2scales

(r5

.973,

p<.05),indicatingthatalthough

separate,the

scales

assess

the

sameconstruct.Resultedinre-

movalof

theDegreeor

Intensity

scalefrom

theAAC–Q

.

Silva&Schalock(201

2)To

validatetheSense

andSelf-

RegulationChecklist(SSC),a

parent–caregiver

measure

ofsen-

sory

andself-regulatory

responses

ofchildrenwith

autism

ineveryday

life

Design



study

Participants

265children<age6yr

with

typical

developm

ent(n

513

8),autism

(n5

99),or

otherdevelopm

ental

delay(DD;n

528

);theinform

ants

werethechildren’scaregivers.

Recruitm

ent

Convenience

samplingforall

grou

ps.C

hildrenwith

autism

and

DDhadalreadybeen

involved

inotherstudieswith

researchers.

They

wererecruitedfrom

6region

al

SSC




•Internalconsistency:Overall

scores

wereacceptable.

Cronb

ach’sa5

.87forchildren

with

ASD,.89

fortypically

de-

veloping

kids,and

.85forchildren

with

otherDD.Inthesensory

domain,a5

.81forchildrenwith

ASD,.80

fortypically

developing

children,and.58forchildrenwith

otherDD.Intheself-regulation

domain,a5

.79forchildrenwith

ASD,.86

fortypically

developing

children,and.83forchildrenwith

otherDD.

•Test–retestreliability:After

4-mo

follow-up,sensoryimpairment

test–retestcoefficient

5.595,

(Con

tinued)



Table1.

Sum

maryof


men

tand

Testingof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

th,P

ublished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary20

09–S

eptembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Author/Year

Study

Objectives


ent


Instrument/To

olBeing

Investigated

Measurement


Results

earlychildhood

specialeducation

prog

ramsacross

Orego

n.

Parentsof

typically

developing

childrenwererecruitedthrough1

child

carecenter,3

mothersupp

ort

grou

ps,and

1todd

lerdrop

-inplay

center

inOrego

n.

Statistics

Descriptivestatisticsof

partici-

pants,x2test,P

earson

correlation

coefficient,m

ultipleregression,

Cronbach’sa,A

NOVA,postho

ctests

self-regulation5

.831,and

over-

allscore

5.677.

•2newfin

dingsdiscriminated

autism

from

othergrou

ps:(1)

multifocaltactile

sensory

impairment,characterizedby

hypo

reactivity

toinjuriousstimuli

andhyperreactivity

tono

ninjuri-

ousstimuli,F(2,26

2)5

86.8,p

<.001,and

(2)globalself-regulatory

delay,F(2,262)

5122,p<.001.

•TheSSCreportsaprevalence

ofsensoryandself-regu

latory

findingsapproaching10

0%(96%

and98%,respectively)

intheautism

grou

p,raisingthe

possibilitythatsensoryandself-

regulatory

difficulties

represent

acore

partof

autism.

Spirtos,O’Mahony,&Malone(2011)

Tofurtherexam

inetheinterrater

reliabilityof

theMelbourne

As-

sessmentof

UnilateralU

pper

Limb

Function(M

AUULF)

Design


reliabilitystudy

Participants

3OTs

who

independ

ently

scored

34videotaped

assessmentsof

11childrenwith

hemiplegiccerebral

palsyages

6yr

1mo–14

yr5mo.

Alltherapistshadused

the

MAUULF

inclinicalpracticeand

hada3-hr

training

session.

Recruitm

ent

Convenience

sampleof

3experiencedOTs

with

honors

degreesinoccupationaltherapy

who

wereworking

inthesame

center

forchildrenandadultswith

physicaldisabilities

Written

inform

edconsentwas

obtained

from

theparentsof

the

childrenforblindscoringof

their

child’sassessmentsas

partof

alarger

stud

y.

MAUULF

•Interrater

reliability

•To

talscores:Th

ecorrelation

betweenraters

was

high

forthe

totalscore

(ICC5

.961

).•Testcompo

nents:Th

ehigh

est

correlationbetweenraters

was

foun

dforflu

ency

(ICC5

.902

),followed

byrangeof

movem

ent

(ICC5

.866

),andthelowest

correlationwas

foundforquality

ofmovem

ent(ICC5

.683).

•Individualtestitem

scores:T

heICCsvaried

andrang

edfrom

.368

to.899.

(Con

tinued)



Table1.

Sum

maryof


men

tand

Testingof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

th,P

ublished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary20

09–S

eptembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Author/Year

Study

Objectives


ent


Instrument/To

olBeing

Investigated

Measurement


Results

Statistics


confidenceintervals

Taylor,Lee,K

ramer,S

hirashi,&

Kielhofner(201

1)To

cond

uctapsycho

metricex-

amination(reliability,

sensitivity,

andvalidity)of

theOccupational

SelfAssessm

ent(OSA)by

focus-

ingon

anadolescent

population

Design

Prospectivescaleevaluationstud

y

Participants

296adolescentsbetweenages

12and18

yrwith

recent

diagno

sisof

acutemonon

ucleosis

Follow-upsamplewas

31participantswho

didno

tconsider

them

selves

fully

recoveredand59

matched

controlparticipantswho

didconsider

them

selves

fully

re-

coveredfrom

monoat12

moafter

initialenrollm

entandafterthe

acutephase.Tw

omatched

controls

wereidentified

foreach

participant

with

persistent

fatigue.

Recruitm

ent


schools,ho

spitals,o

utpatient

cli-

nics,and

privateph

ysicianprac-

tices

inChicago.

Statistics

ItemResponseTheory;Rasch

Rating

ScaleModel

OSA


•Sensitivity


•Con

currentvalidity

•OSAitemscoalescedto

capture

theintended

constructs;the

ratingscales

functionedas

intended.

•>90%

ofparticipantswerevalidly

measured.

•Dem

onstratedadequatesensi-

tivity

andstability(test–retest

reliability)

over

time.

•OSAmeasureofcompetencewas

moderatelyassociated

with

in-

fectious

symptom

s,fatigue

se-

verity,h

ealth

status,and

stress,

andthemeasure

ofvalues

was

not.

•Adolescentswho

hadnotre-

coveredfrom

mononucleosis

after12

moreported

lower

competencescores

yetattached

thesamevalueor

importance

tooccupationalparticipationas

adolescentswho

hadrecovered.

Toglia&Berg(201

3)To

compare

abilitiesandstrategy

useofagrou

pofat-riskyouth,ages

16–2

1yr,w

ithacommun

itysampleof

high

scho

olstudents

usingtheWCPAandto

investigate

thediscrim

inativevalidity

ofthe

WCPA

Design

Quasi-experimental2-group

comparison,cross-sectional

research

Participants

113at-riskyouthfrom

analter-

nativehigh

scho

oland49

youth

from

commun

ityhigh

schoolsfrom

amidwestern

U.S.city

WCPA,aperformance

measure

ofeveryday

executivefunction

•Discriminativevalidity:2

partici-

pant

grou

pswith

know

ndiffer-

encescomparedon

their

performance

ontheWCPA

•t-testcomparisonbetweenthe2

grou

ps,w

ithBon

ferron

icor-

rectionof

p5

.004

(.05

/12)

toavoidaType

Ierror;W

CPAscores

revealed

significant

differences

betweenthe2participantgrou

pswith

theexceptionof

totaltime

(p5

.91),plann

ingtim

e(p

5.97),and

rulesfollowed

(p5

.03).

(Con

tinued)



Table1.

Sum

maryof


men

tand

Testingof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

th,P

ublished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary20

09–S

eptembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Author/Year

Study

Objectives


ent


Instrument/To

olBeing

Investigated

Measurement


Results

Recruitm

ent

Arepresentativesampleof

gender,

race,age,and

educationalback-

grou

ndsweresoug

htusingcon-

venience

samplingandstratified

samplingmetho

ds.

Statistics

Descriptivestatistics,Pearson

x2

with

Fisher’sexacttestsignificance

andt-testcomparisons

•Th

eWCPAwas

ableto

differ-

entiatebetween2groups

ofparticipantswith

know

ndiffer-

ences;thecommun

itygrou

pwas

morelikelyto

followrules,enter

appointm

entsaccurately,self-

repo

rterrors,and

useagreater

numberof

strategies

than

theat-

risk

youthgrou

p.•Com

parisonof

theat-riskand

community

youthparticipant

grou

psprovides

supp

ortforthe

WCPA’sdiscriminativevalidity.

Tsai,L

in,Liao,

&Hsieh

(2009)

Toexam

inethereliabilityofMotor-

Free

VisualPerceptionTest–R

evised

(MVPT–R)andTestofVisual–

PerceptualSkills–R

evised

(TVPS–R

)

Design

Prospectivereliabilitystud

y

Participants

52children(31bo

ys,21girls;age

range5

5yr

5mo–

8yr

9mo)

Recruitm

ent

Convenience

samplingwas

used

forchildreninregularkind

ergarten

andspecialeducationclassrooms

inTaipei,T

aiwan.

Inclusioncriteria:Diagnosisof

cerebralpalsy,ages

5–8,abilityto

followgeneraloralinstructions

Exclusioncriteria:Childcouldno

tfollowtheinstructions

ofthe

MVPT–

RandTV

PS–R

,poo

rvisual

acuityas

indicatedby

TellerAcuity

Cards

Statistics


smallestrealdifferences,

Cronbach’sa,standarderrorof

measurement

MVPT–

R,TVPS–R

•Test–restreliability

•Interrater

reliability


•Test-retestreliability:MVPT–

Rtotalscore

was

excellent

(ICC5

.96);TVPS–R

totalscorewas

also

excellent

(ICC5

.97);TVPS–R

subscalescores

werehigh

(ICCs5

.76–.92).

•Interrater

reliability:MVPT–

Rinterrater

agreem

entwas

excel-

lent

(ICC5

.92);T

VPS–R

inter-

rateragreem

entwas

excellent

(ICC5

.93);TVPS–R

subscale

scorewas

high

(ICCs5

.74–.89)

except

forthevisualsequ

ential

mem

orysubscale(ICC5

.63).

•Internalconsistency:MVPT–

R,

Cronb

ach’sa5

.87;TV

PS–R

,Cronb

ach’sa5

.98;TV

PS–R

subscaleCronbach’saswere

high

(.87

–.94

).

Vanvuchelen,R

oeyers,&

DeWeerdt(201

1)To

exam

inetheinterrater

andtest–

retestreliabilityof

thePrescho

olIm

itationandPraxisScale(PIPS)

Design

Prospective,instrumentreliability

study

PIPS

•Intrarater

reliability

•Interrater

reliability

•Test–restreliability

•Th

eintrarater

reliabilityof

the

PIPStotalscorewas

high

(ICC5

.996

).

(Con

tinued)



Table1.

Sum

maryof


men

tand

Testingof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

th,P

ublished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary20

09–S

eptembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Author/Year

Study

Objectives


ent


Instrument/To

olBeing

Investigated

Measurement


Results

Participants

119typically

developing

preschool

children(69girls,50

boys)be-

tweenages

1.5and4.9yr

were

sampled

from

daycarecentersand

regularpreschoo

lsinFlanders,

Belgium

.

Recruitm

ent

Stratified

rand

omsamplingwas

used.

Inclusioncriteria:Childrenno

tborn

pretermandhadno

know

nphysical

ormentalhandicap

Statistics

Descriptivestatistics,Cohen’s

weightedks,ICCs,sm

allestdetect-

abledifference,P

earson

product–

mom

entcorrelationcoefficient

•The

interraterreliabilityofthePIPS

totalscorewas

high

(ICC5

.995).

•Test–retestreliabilitywas

high

(r5

.93)

fortheassociation

scores

between56

children

assessed

with

atim

eintervalof

1wk.

Weiner,Toglia,&

Berg(2012)

Toevaluate

initialpsychometric

prop

ertiesof

theWCPA,to

de-

scribe

thebaselineexecutivefunc-

tioning

profi

leof

at-riskyouth,and

toinvestigaterelationshipbetween

accuracy,tim

e,strategy

use,error

patterns,andself-evaluationof

performance

Participants

113at-riskyouth(53girls,60

boys)betweenages

16and21

yrfrom

analternativehigh

school.

9didno

tparticipate;ho

wever,d

e-tails

areno

tprovided

abou

tthe

remaining

104.

Recruitm

ent

Participantswereenrolledata

schoolforhigh

-riskyouthinthe

midwestern

UnitedStates.

Statistics

Descriptivestatistics,Pearson

correlationcoefficient

WCPA,aperformance

measure

ofeveryday

executivefunction

•Interrater

reliability

•Interitem

correlations

•Clinicallyusefultoolformea-

suring

executivefunctioning

amon

gyouth.

•Interrater

reliabilityfor2trained

scorerswas

high

(ICC5

.99)

for

totalaccuracyscores.

•Onaverage,participantsspent

15.9minon

theWCPA,m

ade7.9

errors,and

followed

4.0of5po

s-siblerules.Noceiling

effectwas

observed

inoverallaccuracy.

Participantsused

ameanof

3.1

strategies

(standarddeviation5

1.9)

whilecompletingtheWCPA.

•Participantswho

used

more

strategies

spentmoretim

eplan-

ning

andcompletingthetask

and

weremoreaccurate.

•Th

eassessmentallowsevalua-

tionofcomplex

task

performance,

strategy

use,self-evaluationof

performance,and

errorpatterns,

which

guideinterventions.

(Con

tinued)



Table1.

Sum

maryof


men

tand

Testingof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

th,P

ublished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary20

09–S

eptembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Author/Year

Study

Objectives


ent


Instrument/To

olBeing

Investigated

Measurement


Results

Weintraub

&Bar-HaimErez

(2009)

Todescribe

thedevelopm

entand

initialevaluationof

theconstruct

validity

oftheQualityof

Life

inSchoo

l(QoL

S)qu

estionn

aire

Design



study

Participants

353elem

entary

schoolstud

ents

(180

boys,1

73girls)

in3rd–

6th

gradefrom

8generaleducation

schoolsinIsrael

Recruitm

ent

Purposive

samplinginidentified

schoolsandparentsapproached

forperm

ission

toincludetheir

typically

developing

child

Inclusioncriteria:In

Grades3–

6,no

neurologicalsymptom

s,no

phy-

sicaldisability,notreceivingspecial

educationservices

Statistics

Cronbach’sa,P

earson

correla-

tioncoefficients,2-way

ANOVA,

MANOVA(betweengend

erand

age),A

NOVA,factoranalysis

QoL

S–V

ersion

2•Com

prehensive

descriptionof

developm

entandinitialevalua-

tionof

QoL

S–V

ersion

2•Constructvalidity


•Factor

structure


•Factor

analysisidentified

4cat-

egorieswithinqu

estionn

aire:(1)

teacher–studentrelationshipand

schoolactivity

(Cronbach’sa5

.91),(2)

physicalenvironm

ent

(Cronbach’sa5

.82),(3)

nega-

tivefeelings

(Cronb

ach’sa5

.90),and

(4)po

sitivefeelings

(Cronbach’sa5

.68).

•Internalconsistency:To

tal

questionnaireCronbach’sa5.88.

•To

talQ

oLSscorehadsignificant

medium

tohigh

correlationwith

each

category

(.51

<r<.69).


inprocessto

evaluateuseof

thistoolwith

stud

entswith

disabilitieswas

not

repo

rted

inthisarticle.

•QoL

Smay

assistclinicians

and

educatorsinevaluatingstudents’

scho

olqu

ality

oflifefrom

amultidimensionalperspective,

pendingapplicationto

students

with

disabilities.

Note.ADLs

5activities

ofdaily

living;

AMPS5

Assessm

entof

Motor

andProcess

Skills;ANOVA5

analysisof

variance;ASD5

autism

spectrum

disorder;CI5

confidenceinterval;COP5

Com

prehensive

Observations

ofProprioception;DCD5developm

entalcoo

rdinationdisorder;D

IF5differentialitemfunctioning

;ETC

H5EvaluationTo

olofChildren’sHandw

riting;HPAS5Health

PromotingActivities

Scale;ICC5intraclass

correlationcoefficient;

LPP5LifeParticipationforP

arents;M

ANOVA5multivariateanalysisofvariance;O

T5occupationaltherapist;PED

I5PediatricEvaluationofDisabilityInventory;ROC5receiveroperatingcharacteristic;SVMPT5Slosson

Visual–

Motor

Perform

ance

Test–R

evised;TVMI5

Testof

Visual–Motor

Integration;VMI5

DevelopmentalTestof

Visual–Motor

Integration;WCPA5

WeeklyCalendarPlanningActivity.

Sug

gested

citation:Brown,T.,&

Bourke-Taylor,H

.(2014

).Centenn

ialVision—

Childrenandyouthinstrumentd

evelopmentand

testingarticlespublishedintheAmerican

JournalofO

ccup

ationalTherapy,200

9–20

13:A

content,

metho

dology,and

instrumentdesign

review

(Table1).A

merican

JournalofOccupationalTherapy,6

8,e154

–e21

6.http://dx.do

i.org/10.50

14/ajot.20

14.01223

7



Table2.Sum

maryof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

thDescribed

inArticlesPub

lished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary

2009

–Sep

tembe

r20

13

Instrument(Article)

Fram

eof

Reference/

TheoreticalorPracticeModel

Pop

ulation/Group;

Perspective;Purpose,U

se,

orIntent

ofInstrument

Descriptionof

Instrument

Adm

inistrationand

Scoring

TimeRequired

Sub

scales

orItem

Categories

Resou

rces

and

Equipm

entRequired

Scoresand

Results

Obtained

AdolescentsandAdults

Coo

rdinationQuestion-

naire(AAC–Q

;Saban,

Ornoy,G

rotto,&Parush,

2012

)

MotorControlandICF,Body

Functions

andStructures

Population:Ado

lescents

andyoun

gadultsbetween

ages

16and35

.

Perspective:Self-repo

rt.

Purpose:T

oidentifyand

investigateDCDinadoles-

centsandadultsage£3

5yr;the

AAC–Q

canenable

agreaterun

derstand

ingof

howDCDinflu

encespar-

ticipationandfunctionin

daily

lifeactivities,infor-

mationthatmay

guidethe

developm

entof

moreef-

fectiveinterventionpro-

gram

sforthisgrou

p.

Consistsof12

items,which

includ

ebasicandinstru-

mentalactivities

ofdaily

living,organizationalskills,

spatialand

temporalorien-

tation,activities

requiring

finemotor

function,

activities

requiringgross

motor

function,and

writing.

•Respo

ndentsareasked

torespondusinga5-point

Likertfrequencyscale.

•Takes<1

0minto

complete.

•Finalscore

ranges

from

12to60,w

ithlowerscores

indicatingbetterm

otorco-

ordinationfunction.

•Singlecompo

sitescore

iscalculated.

•Questionn

aire

•Pen

orpencil

Totalscoreranges

from

12to

60.

Assessm

entof

Children’s

HandSkills

(ACHS;C

hien,

Brown&McD

onald,20

10)

Ecolog

icalandtop-do

wn

assessment

Population:Childrenages

2–12

yr.

Perspective:Observation

based;profession

alscores

performance

onthebasis

ofspecificcriteria.

Purpose:T

oevaluateho

weffectivelychildrenuse

theirhand

swhenengaged

inmeaning

fuloccup

ations

andto

analyzeandrate

children’sactualhand

skill

performance

intheirrele-

vant

environm

ents.

Assesseschildren’shand

useinnaturalistic

settings

viaob

servationalrating

scale.

•Th

eACHSresearch

ver-

sion

consistsof

20hand

skillitemsratedon

a6-po

intratingscale.

•Ascoreof

6indicates

very

effectivehand

skill

performance,w

hereas

ascoreof

1indicates

veryineffectivehand

skill

performance.

Children’shand

skillsare

dividedinto

6distinctcat-

egories:manualgesture,

body-contacthand

skills,

adaptiveskilled

hand

use,

arm–handuse,bimanual

use,andgeneralactivities.

•Assessm

entbo

oklet

•Naturalistic

environm

ent

•Pencil

Composite

scoresan

dsu

bscalescoresforthe6

han

dskill

categories

are

generated.

Assessm

entof

Motor

and

Process

Skills

(AMPS;

Gantschnig,Page,Nilsson,

&Fisher,2013)

Mod

elof

Hum

anOccup

a-tionandoccupational

performance

Population:Childrenwith

typicaldevelopmentorm

ilddisabilitiesages

4–15

yr.

Perspective:Th

erapistor

clinicianadministeredand

scored.

Purpose:T

odifferentiate

andmeasure

themotor

Internationally

standardized

observationalassessment

ofactivities

ofdaily

livingin

which

thechild

isratedon

16motor

and20

process-

ingADLitems.

Takesapproximately1hr

toadminister.

Com

puter-generatedresults

•Testmanual

•Scoring

sheets

Scoresformotor

andpro-

cessingskills

(Con

tinued)



Table2.

Sum

maryof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

thDescribed

inArticlesPub

lished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary

2009

–Sep

tembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Instrument(Article)

Fram

eof

Reference/


Pop

ulation/Group;


se,

orIntent

ofInstrument

Descriptionof

Instrument

Adm

inistrationand

Scoring

TimeRequired

Sub

scales

orItem

Categories

Resou

rces

and

Equipm

entRequired

Scoresand

Results

Obtained

andprocessing

skillsof

childrenwith

andwithou

tdisabilitiesduring

ADL

tasks.

Ayres

Sensory

Integration

(ASI)FidelityMeasure

(Parham

etal.,20

11)

Sensory

integrationtheory

Population:Notapplicable.

Perspective:Th

ird-party

raters,w

hocompleteFi-

delityMeasure

toinvesti-

gatewhether

servicepro-

videdon

thebasisofsensory

integrationprinciples

aligns

with

theoreticalprinciples.

Purpose:T

odo

cument

whether

interventions

car-

ried

outareinaccordance

withtheessentialpro-

ceduralasp

ects

ofASI

intervention,to

monitor

replicableASIintervention

deliveryinresearch

such

asrand

omized

clinical

trials,and

todifferentiate

betweenASIandother

typesof

intervention.

•Addresses

thekeystruc-

turaland

processele-

mentsofASIintervention.

•Parts1–4measure

the

structuralelem

ents.

•Part5measuresthera-

pistadherenceto10

pro-

cesselem

ents(e.g.,tailors

activity

topresentjust-

rightchallenge).

•Scoring

involves

subjectivity.

•Scoredon

a4-pointLikert

scale.

•AtotalFidelity

scoreof

100equalsaperfectm

atch

toASIinterven

tion

strategies.

•TotalFidelity

scoreof

80was

designated

asthe

tentativecutpoint

forde-

term

iningwhether

anobserved

intervention

sessionadhered

toASI

therapeuticprinciples.

Totalsummed

rawscore

•Training

•Pen

TotalFidelityscore

Box

andBlock

Test

(Jon

gbloed-Pereboo

m,

Nijhuis-vanderSanden,

&Steenbergen,201

3)

Biomedical

fram

ework;

ICF:Bod

yStructure

and

FunctionandActivity


3–10

yrwith

differencesin

hand

function.

Perspective:Childcompletes

timed

test;therapist-or

clinician-administeredand

scored

onthebasisof

specificcriteria.

Purpose:T

oprovideper-

form

ance

scoreon

norm

edstandardized

testof

gross

manualdexterity.

Stand

ardizedandspecifi-

cally

measuredsetofboxes

that

fitinside

each

other.

Timetoadministervaries—

longerforyou

ngerchildren

(£30

min)

Raw

scores

convertedto

standard

scores.Each

ishand

scored

separately.

•Box

with

partition

•Blocks

•Timer

•Scoring

form

s

Stand

ardscores

ChildOccupationalS

elf

Assessm

ent(COSA;

Mod

elof

Hum

anOccupation


disabilitiesages

6–17

yr.

Consistsof

aseries

of25

itemsthat

representa

rangeof

everyday

activi-

•Can

beadministeredin1

of3ways:(1)standard

paper-and-pencilform

at

COSAratingscalecon-

verted

to1–

4fordataentry

anddelivered

todatabase

•Assessm

ent

•Manual

•Training

inadministration

List

ofactivities

that

the

child

feelsless

competent

doingbu

tforwhich

heor

(Con

tinued)



Table2.

Sum

maryof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

thDescribed

inArticlesPub

lished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary

2009

–Sep

tembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Instrument(Article)

Fram

eof

Reference/


Pop

ulation/Group;


se,

orIntent

ofInstrument

Descriptionof

Instrument

Adm

inistrationand

Scoring

TimeRequired

Sub

scales

orItem

Categories

Resou

rces

and

Equipm

entRequired

Scoresand

Results

Obtained

Kramer,Kielhofner,&Smith,

2010)


rt(child-friendlyratingscale).

Purpose:S

elf-repo

rtofoc-

cupationalcom

petence

andvalueforeveryday

ac-

tivities

design

edto

involve

childreninidentifying

goals

andassessingoutcom

es;

measurestheextent

towhich

childrenfeelthey

competentlymeetexpec-

tations

andrespon

sibilities

associated

with

activities

andtherelativevalueof

thoseactivities.

tiesthatmostchildrenen-

counterathome,atschool,

andin

theircommunities.

thatprovides

differentvi-

sualcues

foreach

rating

category

description,(2)

card-sortversionthat

placeseach

item

on

aseparatecard

andeach

ratingcategory(and

visual

cue)on

alargerrating

card,and

(3)summary

form

thatpresentsall

itemsandratingcategories

inamatrix

form

atwithout

visualcues.

•Takesapproximately30

minto

complete.

•Each

item

isratedusing

two4-pointratingscales:

OccupationalCom

petence

scaleandValuesscale.

foranalysis(inthestudy

described).Use

byclini-

cians,includ

ingscoring,

notdescribed.

sheindicateshigh

impor-

tance;

theseactivities

can

beaddressedin

therapy.

Children’sAssessm

entof

ParticipationandEnjoy-

ment/Preferences

forAc-

tivities

ofChildren(CAPE/

PAC;P

otvin,Snider,

Prelock,K

ehayia,&

Woo

d-Dauphinee,2

013)

PEO

model

andICF


andwithoutdisabilityages

6–18

yr.


rtof

child’sperception;canin-

cludethird-partyparent

assistance.

Purpose:S

elf-ratedmea-

surethatestim

ates

achild’s

participationou

tsideof

school;childrencomplete

theassessmentindepen-

dentlyor

supp

ortedby

anadultthroughadaptations.

Bookletandscoresheet

form

atforself-selectionof

respon

sethatmost

representschild’s

perspective

•30

–60minto

administer

andscore

•Con

sistsof

55itemsre-

latedto

participation(46

ofthesearerecreational)

•Provides

inform

ation

about5dimensions

of

participation:intensity,

socialaspect,location,

child

’sdegreeof

enjoy-

mentintheactivity,and

preference

•Pen

•Assessm

ent

•Manual

Raw

scores

within

dimensions

Children’sLeisure

Assessm

entScale

(CLA

SS;R

osenblum

,Sachs,&

Schreuer,2010)

OccupationalTherapy

Prac-

ticeFram

ework(2nd

ed.;

AOTA

,200

8),occup

ational

performance

Population:Childrenand

adolescents.


rt.

Purpose:Tomeasuremul-

tidimensionalparticipation

inchildren’sandadoles-

cents’leisureactivities;

Consistsof30

itemsun

der

4factors:(1)instrumental

indoor

activities,(2)out-

door

activities,(3)self-

enriched

activities,and

(4)games

andsports

ac-

tivities,which

relate

to6

dimensionsof

leisurepar-

Thedimensionsof

par-

ticipationarescored:

•Variety:sum

scoreof

participationinactivities

(05

notdoing

theactivity

atall,15

doingthe

activity)

•Con

sistsof

30itemsun

-der4factors:(1)instru-

mentalindooractivities,

(2)o

utdo

oractivities,(3)

self-enriched

activities,

and(4)gam

esandsports

activities.

•Manual

•Assessm

ent

•Scoring

sheet

•Pen

Allowsevaluationof

lei-

sure

activities

amongtyp-

icallydeveloping

children

andadolescents. (Con

tinued)



Table2.

Sum

maryof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

thDescribed

inArticlesPub

lished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary

2009

–Sep

tembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Instrument(Article)

Fram

eof

Reference/


Pop

ulation/Group;


se,

orIntent

ofInstrument

Descriptionof

Instrument

Adm

inistrationand

Scoring

TimeRequired

Sub

scales

orItem

Categories

Resou

rces

and

Equipm

entRequired

Scoresand

Results

Obtained

design

edto

document

children’sperceptions

abouttheirtim

einvestment

inleisureactivities

andtheir

ambitions

regardingcertain

activities

thatthey

would

liketo

undertakebuthave

notfor

avarietyofreasons.

ticipation:variety,frequency,

sociability,preference,tim

econsum

ption,

anddesired

activities.

•Frequency:measured

ona4-pointLikert-type

scale(1

5on

ceinafew

mon

ths,25

once

amon

th,3

5twiceaweek,

and45

everyday)

•Sociability:defin

edby

who

performed

theac-

tivity

with

thechild,rated

ona4-pointLikert-type

scale(1

5alone,25

with

arelative,35

with

onefriend

,and

45

with

friend

s)•Preference:ratedon

a10

-point

scalerang

ing

from

1(dono

tlikeatall)

to10

(likevery

much)

Com

prehensive

Observa-

tions

ofProprioception

(COP;B

lanche,B

odison,

Chang

,&Reino

so,201

2;Blanche,R

einoso,C

hang,

&Bodison,2012)

Proprioceptionandsensory

integrationtheory,motor

control,ICF

Population:Childrenage

³2yr

with

suspected

proprioceptiveprocessing

difficulties.

Perspective:Observational

assessment;theCOP

guides

clinicalob

serva-

tions

andhelpstheclini-

cian

identifyadequate

performance

anddeviation

from

typicalparam

eters

usingdefin

edcriteria;pro-

fessionalscoresperfor-

mance

onthebasisof

specificcriteria.

Purpose:T

omeasure

pro-

prioceptiveprocessing

inchildren.

•Con

tains18

itemsfocus-

ingon

motor

andbehav-

iorregulationaspectsof

prop

rioceptivepro-

cessinginchildren.

•Measures4factors:(1)

tone

andjointalignm

ent,

(2)behavior

manifesta-

tions,(3)po

sturalmotor,

and(4)motor

planning

.•Can

beused

inavariety

ofcontexts,suchas

the

home,clinic,and

school.

Takes15

mintoadminister;

therapistobserves

child

andratestheCOPitems.

Measures4factors:

(1)

tone

andjointalignm

ent,

(2)behavior

manifesta-

tions,(3)po

sturalmotor,

and(4)motor

planning

.

Copyof

scaleandplaceto

observechild

TotalCOPscoreplus

4factor

scores

Develop

mentalTestof

Visual–Motor

Integration

(VMI;Brown,Unsworth,&

Lyon

s,20

09)

Perceptual–motor

theory


2–17

yr.

Perspective:Perform

ance

based;profession

alscores

Consistsof

27geom

etric

form

sto

becopied

and

organizedin

developm

en-

talsequence.

•Adm

inistrationtakesap-

proximately15

min,and

scoringtim

eisapproxi-

mately10

min.

Totalscore

•Pencil

•Testbo

oklet

•Manual

•Raw

score

•Stand

ardscore

•Percentile

•Stanine

•Age

equivalent (Con

tinued)



Table2.

Sum

maryof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

thDescribed

inArticlesPub

lished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary

2009

–Sep

tembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Instrument(Article)

Fram

eof

Reference/


Pop

ulation/Group;


se,

orIntent

ofInstrument

Descriptionof

Instrument

Adm

inistrationand

Scoring

TimeRequired

Sub

scales

orItem

Categories

Resou

rces

and

Equipm

entRequired

Scoresand

Results

Obtained

performance

onthebasis

ofspecificcriteria.

Purpose:V

isual–motor

screeningtoolto

identify

childrenwho

areexperi-

encing

difficulty

coordina-

tingvisualperceptionand

motor

movem

ents;has

2supp

lementstandardized

tests:VMIVisualPerception

andVMIMotor

Coo

rdina-

tion.Can

beadministered

individu

allyor

inagrou

p.

Do-Eat(Josm

an,G

offer,&

Rosenblum

,201

0)Ecolog

icalpracticemodel,

PEO

model,Occup

ational

TherapyPracticeFram

e-work(2nd

ed.)


DCD.

Perspective:Th

erapistob

-servationandparent

orthird-partyqu

estionn

aire.

Purpose:T

oevaluatedaily

task

performance

abilities

amongchildrenwith

DCD;

assistswith

establishing

custom

ized

goalsandob

-jectives

forintervention.

Ecologicallyvalid

assess-

ment;focuseson

food

pre-

paration,draw

ing,writing,

andcutting.

•Childisaskedtoperform

3tasks:(1)Makeasand-

wich,(2)preparechoco-

latemilk,and

(3)fillout

acertificateof

outstand-

ingperformance

forh

im-

orherself.

•See

Appendix1of

article

forassessment.

•Accom

panyingparental

questionn

aire

consists

of12

positivestatem

ents.

Assessm

entisadminis-

teredinnaturalsurroun

d-ings

(e.g.,kind

ergarten,

family

kitchen).

•Scoring

issum

totaled.

•Throughoutperform

ance,

child

receives

scorefor

performingthetask,anal-

ysisscoreforsensory–

motor

skills,andanalysis

scoreforexecutivefunc-

tioning.

•Testscores

rangefrom

1(unsatisfactoryperfor-

mance)to

5(verygo

odperformance).

•Accom

panyingparental

questionnaire

scored

onscalerang

ingfrom

1(never)to

5(always).

•Overalltask

performance

scoreiscalculated.

•Overallscoreanalyzing

sensory–motor

skillsand

executivefunctioning.

•Testinclud

essummary

scoresheetsincluding

scores

discussedinpre-

ceding

bulletsandparen-

talquestionnaire

score.

•Score

forperformingthe

task

•Analysisscorefor

sensory–motor

skills

•Analysisscoreforexecu-

tivefunctioning

•Parentalquestionn

aire

score

•Assessm

ent

•Manual

•Ingredientsfortasks

•Certificatethatchild

fills

out

•Score

card

•Overalltask

performance

score

•Overallscoreanalyzing

sensory–motor

skillsand

overallscore

analyzing

executivefunctioning

•Sum

marytestscore

sheetsincludingscores

inprevious

bulletand

parentalquestionnaire

score

(Con

tinued)



Table2.

Sum

maryof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

thDescribed

inArticlesPub

lished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary

2009

–Sep

tembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Instrument(Article)

Fram

eof

Reference/


Pop

ulation/Group;


se,

orIntent

ofInstrument

Descriptionof

Instrument

Adm

inistrationand

Scoring

TimeRequired

Sub

scales

orItem

Categories

Resou

rces

and

Equipm

entRequired

Scoresand

Results

Obtained

Evaluationof

SocialInter-

action(ESI;Grisw

old&

Townsend,20

12)

Mod

elof

Hum

anOccupation


2–12

yrwith

andwithou

tadisability.

Perspective:Perform

ance-

basedassessmentgained

throughobservation(verbal

andnonverbalbehaviors);

professionalscores

perfor-

mance

onthebasisofspe-

cific

criteria.

Purpose:T

oassess

the

quality

ofsocialinteraction

inchildrenas

abaselineto

measure

change

insocial

interactionperformance;

enablesoccupationalther-

apistto

plan

interventions

toaddressspecificsocial

interactionskilldeficits

for

childrendu

ring

activities

innaturalcon

texts.

Socialinteractionperfor-

mance

isscored

on27

skillsthatrelateto

initia-

tingandending

asocial

interaction,producingthe

interaction,physically

supportingtheinteraction,

shapingthecontentand

maintaining

theflo

wof

the

interaction,verballysup-

portingtheinteraction,and

adaptingto

prob

lemsthat

might

arisedu

ring

the

interaction.

•27

skillsarescored

on4-

pointcriterion-referenced

ratingscale.

•Scoresareplaced

inES

Isoftware,which

generates

ameasureofthequality

ofsocialinteraction.

•Socialinteractions

are

categorizedby

theirin-

tended

purpose.

•Categories:gatheringin-

form

ation,sharinginfor-

mation,problem

solving

ordecision

making,

col-

labo

ratingor

prod

ucing,

acquiringgoodsand

services,conversingsoci-

allyor

makingsm

alltalk

Naturalenvironm

entto

ob-

servechild

(school,home,

kindergarten,park,etc.)

•Measure

ofthequality

ofsocialinteraction(objec-

tivemeasure):baseline

tomeasure

change

insocialinteraction

performance

•Raw

scores

convertedto

logits

EvaluationTo

olof

Child-

ren’sHandw

riting(ETC

H;

Brossard-Racine,Mazer,

Julien,&Majnemer,2012;

Duff&Goyen,201

0)

PEO

model,occupational

performance,andOccu-

pationalTherapy

Practice

Fram

ework(2nd

ed.)

Population:School-age

children.

Perspective:Professional

scores

performance

onthe

basisof

specificcriteria.

Purpose:Standardizedmea-

surethatassesses

arange

ofhandwritingtaskssimilar

tothoseexperienced

inthe

classroomsetting;designed

toidentifyandcharacterize

handwritingdifficulties

inyoungschool-age

children.

•Th

eET

CHisavailablein

bothmanuscriptand

cur-

sive

versions.

•Th

eManuscriptversion

oftheET

CH(ETC

H–M

)targetschildreninGrades

1–3andexam

ines

legibilitythrough7differ-

enttasks:alphabet,

writingfrom

mem

ory

(upper-andlowercase),

numeralwritingfrom

mem

ory,near-point

copying,far-pointcopying,

dictationofnon-words

and

numbers,and

compo-

sitionofashortsentence.

•Takesapproximately30

minto

administer.

•Letters,nu

merals,and

words

arejudg

edfor

legibilityusingalistof

specificcriteriasuch

asom

ission,closing,m

is-

placing,reversion,and

poor

erasure.

•Thepercentage

oflegi-

bilityisdeterm

ined

for

each

task

bycoun

tingthe

legibleletters,nu

merals,

orwords

anddividing

bythetotalnum

berof

let-

ters,num

erals,or

words

requ

ired.

•Thepercentagesfrom

each

taskarethen

averaged

toprovideatotallegibility

Sum

total

•Assessm

ent

•Manual

•Pen

orpencil

•To

tallegibilityscore(for

wordandletter)

•Perform

ance

timeand

writingspeedscore

(Con

tinued)



Table2.

Sum

maryof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

thDescribed

inArticlesPub

lished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary

2009

–Sep

tembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Instrument(Article)

Fram

eof

Reference/


Pop

ulation/Group;


se,

orIntent

ofInstrument

Descriptionof

Instrument

Adm

inistrationand

Scoring

TimeRequired

Sub

scales

orItem

Categories

Resou

rces

and

Equipm

entRequired

Scoresand

Results

Obtained

scoreforletters,num

erals,

andwords.

•Perform

ance

timeor

writingspeedismeasured

insecond

sforthealph

a-betandnu

meralwriting

tasksandinlettersper

minuteforthecopying

andcompo

sitiontasks.

Family

L.I.F.E.(Loo

king

Into

Family

Experiences;

Honaker,Rosello,&

Candler,

2012)

Occupationaladaptation

practicemodelandOccu-

pationalTherapy

Practice

Fram

ework(2nd

ed.)

Population:Families

with

achild

with

autism

spectrum

disorder.


rtby

family.

Purpose:Occupation-based

assessmentthatengages

families

andtherapistsin

acollaborativepartnership

toidentifyunique

andre-

levantfamily

occupations,

evaluatetheseoccupations,

andmeasureperceivedsuc-

cess

intheseoccupations.

•Assessm

entincludesde-

mographicsectionand

atim

ediaryof

atypical

weekday

andatypical

weekend

day(helps

toidentifyroutines

and

rituals).

•8interviewqu

estions

fo-

cuson

family

together-

ness,childrearing,and

impacton

family

occupations.

•Likertscaleisused

torateeach

occupationon

perceivedeffectiveness,

efficiency,andsatisfaction.

•Th

esum

ofthescores

istallied

foreachfactorand

dividedby

thenu

mberof

occupations

toachieve

aseparateoverallscore.

Sum

totalto

give

overall

score

•Assessm

ent

•Manual

Overallscore

Health

PromotingActivi-

tiesScale(HPAS;B

ourke-

Taylor,Law

,Howie,&

Pallant,2012)

PEO

model,ecological

practicemod

elPopulation:Initiallydevel-

oped

formothers

ofchild-

renwith

adisability.


rtinstrument.

Purpose:T

omeasure

the

frequencyof

participation

inhealthyoccupations

that

areassociated

with

mental

health

andwell-being.

•8itemswith

activity

key

forparticipantsto

consi-

der

theirself-selected

occup

ations

•Respo

nseitemsarerated

ona7-pointscaleranging

from

daily

tonever.

Sum

total

Singlecomposite

score

Freelyavailablebriefscale

Totalscore

LifeParticipationforParents

(Fingerhut,2013)

Occupationaladaptation

practicemod

el,family-

centered

practice

Population:Parents

of

childrenwith

adisability.


rtof

parent.

Contains22

questions

ask-

ingparentsabou

ttheir

ability

toparticipate.

•Th

equ

estions

areans-

wered

ona5-po

intLikert

scalerangingfrom

strongly

agreetostronglydisagree,

with

alowerscoreindi-

catingless

satisfaction

TotalS

tressscoreandsub-

scalescores:Satisfaction

With

EfficiencyandSatis-

factionWith

Effectiveness

•Assessm

ent

•Pen

Scoressum

totaled:

over-

alland2subscales

(Con

tinued)



Table2.

Sum

maryof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

thDescribed

inArticlesPub

lished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary

2009

–Sep

tembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Instrument(Article)

Fram

eof

Reference/


Pop

ulation/Group;


se,

orIntent

ofInstrument

Descriptionof

Instrument

Adm

inistrationand

Scoring

TimeRequired

Sub

scales

orItem

Categories

Resou

rces

and

Equipm

entRequired

Scoresand

Results

Obtained

Purpose:Tofacilitate

family-centeredpediatric

practiceby

measuring

the

abilityof

parentsto

partic-

ipateinlifeoccupations

whileraisingachild

with

specialneeds.

withoccupational

participation.

•Reverse

scoringof

posi-

tivelywordedqu

estions

ManualA

bilityClassifica-

tionSystem

(Kuijper,van

derWilden,K

etelaar,&

Gorter,20

10)

ICF:Bod

yStructuresand

Functions

andActivity

Population:Child

ren

ages

5–14yr

with

cerebralp

alsy

(CP).

Perspective:Th

irdparty—

either

parent

orprofes-

sionalwho

know

sthechild’s

performance.

Purpose:C

lassification

system

with

5levelsper-

tainingto

defin

eduseof

thehand

sby

childrenwith

CP.

Theclassificationsystem

hasadecision

tree

toguide

thescorer

(occup

ational

therapistorp

hysician).Fo-

cuseson

theway

children

with

CPusebo

thof

their

hand

swhenhand

lingob

-jectsindailyage-appropriate

activities.

•Has

5classificationsys-

tem

levels:(1)

Handles

objectseasilyandsuc-

cessfully;(2)handlesmost

objectswith

somew

hat

reducedquality

andspeed

ofachievem

ent;(3)hand-

lesobjectswith

difficulty,

needshelptoprepareor

modifyactivities;(4)

hand

lesalim

itedselec-

tionof

easilymanaged

objectsinadaptedsitua-

tions;and

(5)do

esno

thand

leob

jectsandhas

severelylim

itedabilityto

perform

even

simple

actions.

•Th

escaleisordinal,and

thedistancesbetween

levelsareno

tcon

sidered

equal.

Handuseisclassifiedat

1of

the5levelsby

skilled

observer.

Obtainclassificationscore

for1of

5levels.

•Manualand

scoresheets

canbe

downloadedfrom

http://www.m

acs.nu

/•Availableinmultiple

lang

uages.

•The

assessmentrequires

nospecialtrainingfor

occupationaltherapists

andph

ysicians.

Obtainclassificationscore

for1of

5levelsregarding

hand

functionforchildren

with

CP

McD

onaldPlayInventory

(MPI):M

cDon

aldPlayAc-

tivity

Inventory(M

PAI)and

PEO

andOccupationalPer-

form

ance

models


7–11

yr.

•Madeup

of2parts:(1)

theMPAI,which

measures

thechild’sperceivedfre-

•MPAI:Ratethefrequency

ofparticipationinactivity

on5-pointLikert-scale

MPIiscompo

sedof

two

parts:

MPAIandMPSI.

•Assessm

ent

•Manual

•Pen

•To

talscore

•Sub

scalescores

(Con

tinued)



Table2.

Sum

maryof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

thDescribed

inArticlesPub

lished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary

2009

–Sep

tembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Instrument(Article)

Fram

eof

Reference/


Pop

ulation/Group;


se,

orIntent

ofInstrument

Descriptionof

Instrument

Adm

inistrationand

Scoring

TimeRequired

Sub

scales

orItem

Categories

Resou

rces

and

Equipm

entRequired

Scoresand

Results

Obtained

McD

onaldPlayStyleIn-

ventory(M

PSI;McD

onald

&Vigen,201

2)


rt(child)or

thirdparty,and

includ

ingparentalrepo

rt.

Purpose:T

wo-partchild

self-ratedscaleof

play.

quency

ofengagementin

4categories

thatform

4subscales(FineMotor,

Gross

Motor,S

ocial

Group,S

olitary),and(2)

theMPSI,which

mea-

suresthetypesandfre-

quency

ofplay

behaviors

(affectivecompo

nent)in

4domains:physicalco-

ordination,coop

eration,

peer

acceptance,and

socialparticipation.

•MPSIcon

sistsof24

play

behavior

items(6

items

ineach

category),12

neu-

tralplay

activity

items,and

4“lie”orsocialdesirability

items.

(never,aboutonce

ortwice

ayear,aboutonce

ortwice

amonth,about

once

ortwiceaweek,or

almost

everyday).

•MPSI:Raterespon

seson

5-pointLikertscale(never,

hardlyever,som

etimes,

alot,andalways)

•Adm

inistrationtim

e:15

minwithoutassistance,

20–30minwith

assistance

Melbourne

Assessm

ent

ofUnilateralU

pper

Limb

Function(M

AUULF;Spirtos,

O’Mahony,&Malone,

2011)

ICF:Bod

yStructuresand

Functions

andActivity


neurolog

icalimpairments

ages

5–15

yr.

Perspective:Perform

ance

basedor

thirdparty.

Purpose:C

riterion

-referenced

assessmentto

measure

quality

ofup

per-

limbmovem

entinchildren

with

aneurological

impairment;measures1

hand

atatim

e.Widely

used

toexam

inetheef-

fectivenessof

specific

interventions.

•Con

tains16

itemsthat

exam

inethechild’sper-

form

ance

ontasks.

•Individualitemsarescored

under4categories:(1)

rang

eof

movem

ent,(2)

targetaccuracy,(3)

flu-

ency,and

(4)qu

ality

ofmovem

ent.

•Individualitemsarescored

under4categories.

•Each

item

isscored

ona

scaleofeither0–

3or0–

4(the

manualprovides

adetaileddescriptionof

whatisrequired

foreach

score).

Totalrawscores

arecon-

verted

topercentages.

•Trainingsessionfor

scoring,althoughskill

leveloftrainerisunknow

n•Manual

•Totalpercentagescore

•Designedto

evaluate

change

over

time

Motor-FreeVisualP

ercep-

tionTest–R

evised

(MVP

T–R;

Tsai,Lin,Liao,&Hsieh

,2009)

Perceptual–motor

theory


4–12

yr.

Perspective:Perform

ance-

basedassessment;profes-

sionalscores

performance

Consistsof

40itemsdi-

videdinto

spatialrelation-

ships,visualmem

ory,

visualdiscrim

ination,

figure

ground,and

visual

closure.

•To

talscore

ranges

from

0to

40po

ints.

•Item

sareeither

righ

tor

wrong.

•Th

ewho

lescaleisad-

ministeredto

candidate.

One

totalsum

med

scoreis

calculated.

•Answer

sheet

•Testmanual

•Boo

kof

item

plates

•To

talraw

scalescore

•Stand

ardscore

•Percentile

•Stanine

•Age

equivalent (Con

tinued)



Table2.

Sum

maryof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

thDescribed

inArticlesPub

lished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary

2009

–Sep

tembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Instrument(Article)

Fram

eof

Reference/


Pop

ulation/Group;


se,

orIntent

ofInstrument

Descriptionof

Instrument

Adm

inistrationand

Scoring

TimeRequired

Sub

scales

orItem

Categories

Resou

rces

and

Equipm

entRequired

Scoresand

Results

Obtained

onthebasisof

specific

criteria.

Purpose:T

oassess

child-

ren’svisual–p

erceptual

strengthsandweaknesses.

OccupationalS

elfAs-

sessment(OSA;Taylor,

Lee,Kramer,S

hirashi,&

Kielhofner,20

11)

Mod

elof

Hum

anOccupation

Population:Can

beused

with

adolescentsandadults.


rt.

Purpose:C

lient-centered

evaluationtoolthatmea-

suresclients’perceptions

oftheirow

ncompetence

andthevaluethey

assign

tooccupations.

Clientsrate

theircompe-

tenceinandimportance

ofeveryday

activities

for21

items;theclientchoo

ses4

itemsthathe

orshewould

liketo

change.

Takesapproximately30

min

tocompleteand15

minto

score.

Scoresarecalculated

for

21qu

estions

and2sub-

scales,Com

petenceand

Values.

•Scoring

sheets

•Pencil

•Sum

maryscoresforitems;

also

provides

scores

for2

subscales,Com

petence

andValues

PediatricEvaluationof

DisabilityInventory–

Com

puterAdaptiveTest

(PED

I–CAT;Kao,K

ramer,

Liljenquist,Tian,&Coster,

2012)

ICF


youn

gpeop

lewith

adis-

abilitythroughage21

yr.

Perspective:Judg

ment-

based,standardized

instru-

mentusing

parentalreports

orstructured

interviewwith

professionalwho

know

sthe

child.

Purpose:T

oevaluatethe

child’scapabilityinthe

social–cognitive,daily

activities,m

obility,and

responsibilitydomains.

•Consistsof

thefollowing

domains:dailyactivi-

ties

(68item

s),social-

cogn

itive(60item

s),

andresponsibility(51

items).

•Alsomeasuresenviron-

mentalsupportsand

modificationsthat

the

child

needsto

complete

activities.

Sum

total;rawscores

are

transformed

into

scaled

scores

foreach

domain.

Raw

scores

thataretrans-

form

edinto

scaled

scores

Com

puterdatabase

Scaledscores

providean

indicationof

achild’s

performance

onrelatively

easy

torelativelydifficult

itemsinaparticulardomain.

PediatricOutcomes

Data

CollectionInstrumen

t(PODCI;Mulcaheyetal.,

2013

)

Functionaloutcomemea-

surement;ICF:BodyStruc-

turesandFunctions

and

Activity


adolescentsages

4–21

yr.

Perspective:Th

erapistor

clinicianadministeredand

scored;professionalscores

performance

onthebasis

ofspecificcriteria.

Purpose:Toprovidean

out-

comemeasureforthe

upper-

extrem

ityandactivity

items

ThePODCIconsists

of52

finalUpperExtrem

ityitems

and34

Activity

items.

Takesapproximately1hr

toadminister.

Scalesincludeup

per

extrem

ityandph

ysical

function,

transfer

and

basicmob

ility,spo

rts/

physicalfunction,pain/

comfort,treatment

expectations,happiness,

satisfactionwith

symptom

s,andglob

alfunctioning.

•Com

puter

•Com

puteradaptivetest

prog

ram

•ScaleitemsthattheCAT

runs

throughwith

respon

dent

ScoresfortheUpp

erEx-

trem

ityandActivity

subscales

(Con

tinued)



Table2.

Sum

maryof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

thDescribed

inArticlesPub

lished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary

2009

–Sep

tembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Instrument(Article)

Fram

eof

Reference/


Pop

ulation/Group;


se,

orIntent

ofInstrument

Descriptionof

Instrument

Adm

inistrationand

Scoring

TimeRequired

Sub

scales

orItem

Categories

Resou

rces

and

Equipm

entRequired

Scoresand

Results

Obtained

ofthePODCIwhenappliedto

brachialplexus

injury.

Prescho

olIm

itationand

PraxisScale(PIPS;

Vanvuchelen,R

oeyers,&

DeWeerdt,20

11)

Playtheory,O

ccup

ational

Perform

ance

ofChildren

mod

el,and

PEO

practice

mod

els

Population:Preschoolchild-

renages

1–5yr.

Perspective:Perform

ance-


sionalscores

performance

onthebasisof

specific

criteria.

Purpose:T

oassess

the

accuracy

ofbo

dily

proceduralimitation

performance

inyoun

gchildren

•Con

sistsof

10task

cat-

egories(6

gestural,3

procedural,and

1facial)

and30

PIPStasks.

•Perform

ance

isscored

ona3-

or5-po

intscale.

•Sum

total

•FinalP

IPSscoreisaref-

lectionoftheaccuracy

ofthechild’simitationper-

form

ance.

•Adm

inistrationtakes

10–20min.

The30

tasksaredivided

into

10task

categories.

•PIPSmanual

•PIPSassessment

•Pen

toscore

•Item

sinassessment:toy

bear,w

oodenblock,toy

animalwith

lampinit,

box,cup,

doll,toycar,

bed,

blanket

Totalscore

Qualityof

LifeinSchool

Version

2(QoL

S;

Weintraub

&Bar-Haim

Erez,200

9)

Biopsychosocialmodel

andPEO

model


children.


rt.

Purpose:S

elf-ratedmea-

sure

evaluatingstud

ent’s

schoolqu

ality

oflifefrom

amultidimensional

perspective.

Con

sistsof36item

sdi-

vided

into

4categories:

(1)teacher–student

re-

lation

ship

andschool

ac-

tivities

(12item

s),(2)

physicalenvironmentof

schoolandclassroo

m(11

item

s),(3)negativefeel-

ings

towardschool

(8item

s),and(4)po

sitive

feelingstowardschool

(5item

s).

Gainscoreforeach

cate-

gory

andtotalscho

ol36

itemsdividedinto

4catego

ries

•Training

inassessment

administration

•Assessm

ent

•Manual

•Pen

Raw

scoreforeach

cate-

gory

andtotalscore

Schoo

lFun

ctionAssess-

ment(SFA;Hwang&Davies,

2009)

Ecolog

ical

assessment,

functional

assessment,

applicationof

Rasch

measurementmodel


children.

Perspective:Th

irdparty;

teacherob

serves

the

studentandprovides

ratings

onthebasisof

observation.

Purpose:C

riterion

-referenced

assessment

thatmeasuresawidespec-

trum

ofschool-related

functionaltasks

associated

with

theroleof

elem

en-

tary

schoolchild;guides

program

planning

forstu-

dentswith

specialneeds.

Consistsof

18scales

madeup

of26

6items.

Scoredon

a4-po

intrating

scale(1

5do

esno

tper-

form

,45

consistent

per-

form

ance)

Activity

Perform

ance

scale

consistsof18

scales

made

upof

266items

•Manual

•Assessm

ent

•Pen

Totalscore

(Con

tinued)



Table2.

Sum

maryof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

thDescribed

inArticlesPub

lished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary

2009

–Sep

tembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Instrument(Article)

Fram

eof

Reference/


Pop

ulation/Group;


se,

orIntent

ofInstrument

Descriptionof

Instrument

Adm

inistrationand

Scoring

TimeRequired

Sub

scales

orItem

Categories

Resou

rces

and

Equipm

entRequired

Scoresand

Results

Obtained

Schoo

lVersion

oftheAs-

sessmentof

Motor

and

Process

Skills

(School

AMPS;M

unkholm,B

erg,

Lofgren,&Fisher,2

010)

Mod

elof

Hum

anOccupation


3–13

yrattend

ingan

edu-

cationalprogram

orschool.

Perspective:Th

irdparty;

discussion

with

teacher

andperformance-based

observationof

child

com-

pleting2tasksinan

edu-

cationorclassroomcontext;

professionalscores

per-

form

ance

onthebasisof

specificcriteria.

Purpose:Fun

ctionalas-

sessmentformeasuring

thequ

ality

ofscho

olwork

task

performance

asitis

observed

inthenatural

classroom

setting.

Consistsof26

schoolwork

tasksplus

16scho

olmo-

torand20

scho

olprocess

skillitems.

Tasksrang

efrom

simpleto

complex:

pen-writingtasks,

pencil-

writingtasks,

draw

ing,

coloring

tasks,cuttingand

pastingtasks,

compu

ter

writingtasks,

math,

and

manipulativetasks.

•Th

erapistun

obtrusively

observes

studentsintheir

naturalclassroom

envi-

ronm

ent.

•Therapistscoresthequal-

ityofobserved

perfor-

mance

usingthescoring

criteriaforthe16

school

motorand20

schoolpro-

cess

skillitemson

a4-po

intratingscale.

•2lineargraphs

represent

thequ

ality

ofschoolwork

performance

measures:

(1)scho

olmotor

quality

ofperformance

and(2)

scho

olprocessqu

ality

ofperformance.

•Form

altraining

inadministration

•Paper,pen

•Com

puterandprog

ram

•Manual

Twoscho

olworkperfor-

mance

measures:

(1)

school

motor

quality

ofperformance

and(2)

school

processqu

ality

ofperformance

Sense

andSelf-Regulation

Checklist(SSRC;S

ilva&

Schalock,20

12)

Behavioralself-regulation

andsensoryprocessing

paradigm

Population:Childrenage

<6yr

with

developm

ental

delay.

Perspective:Th

irdparty—

parent

orcaregiver.

Purpose:T

oidentifyareas

ofsensoryandself-

regulationdifficulty

toas-

sess

thechild’srespon

seto

treatm

ent.

•Measures2domains:

sensorydifficulties

and

self-regulation.

•Sensory

difficulties

do-

mainhas6subd

omains:

touch–pain,auditory,vi-

sual,taste–smell,hyper-

reactiveto

noninjurious

stimuli,andhypo

reactive

tono

ninjurious

stimuli

(additionalcategory

created:abnorm

altouch–pain).

•Self-regu

lationdo

main

has6categories:sleep,

appetite–digestion,self-

soothing

,orientation–

attention,aggressive

behavior,and

self-

injuriou

sbehavior.

•Scoredon

a4-pointrating

scale:0(never),1(rarely),

2(som

etimes),and3

(often)

Sum

total

Caregiversmust

haveel-

emen

tary

school

educa-

tionandread

English,

Spanish,

orChinese.

Twodo

mainscores

(1for

sensoryand1forself-

regulation)

SensoryExperiencesQues-

tionnaire

(SEQ

;Littleetal.,

2011)

Sensoryprocessing

model


7–72

mowith

suspected

•Brief(10–

15min)care-

giverrepo

rt•Takes10

–15minto

complete.

Totalscoreand4subscale

scores

(hyperrespon

si-

•Assessm

entform

•Pen

Raw

totalscoreand4

subscalescores (Con

tinued)



Table2.

Sum

maryof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

thDescribed

inArticlesPub

lished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary

2009

–Sep

tembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Instrument(Article)

Fram

eof

Reference/


Pop

ulation/Group;


se,

orIntent

ofInstrument

Descriptionof

Instrument

Adm

inistrationand

Scoring

TimeRequired

Sub

scales

orItem

Categories

Resou

rces

and

Equipm

entRequired

Scoresand

Results

Obtained

autism

andrelated

developm

entaldisorders.

Perspective:Parentor

caregiverreport.

Purpose:B

riefcaregiver

questionn

aire

foryoun

gchildrenwith

suspected

autism

anddevelopm

ental

delays;u

sedto

identify

sensoryprocessing

patterns

(hypo-

and

hyperresponsiveness)

inthecontextof

daily

ac-

tivities.Itisdesign

edtobe

used

asasupp

lementto

diagnosticanddevelopm

ental

assessments.

•Yields4dimensional

subscalescores

aswell

asatotalscore.

•Item

sreflect5sensory

domains:tactile,audi-

tory,visual,vestibular–

prop

rioceptive,and

gustatory–olfactory.

•Containsqualitativeques-

tions

regardingparent

compensatorystrategies

used

inresponse

tothe

sensoryprocessing

problemsexperiencedby

thechild.

•Caregiver

respon

sesare

basedon

a5-po

intLikert

scalerang

ingfrom

1(almostnever)to

5(almostalways).

•Higherscores

indicate

moresensoryprocessing

problems.

veness,hypo

responsive-

ness,social,andnonsocial)

Sensory

ProfileCaregiver

Questionn

aire

(SPCQ;O

hletal.,20

12)

Dunn’sModelof

Sensory

Processing


3–12

yr.

Perspective:Th

irdparty:

parent

reportor

caregiver

questionn

aire.

Purpose:T

oprovideinfor-

mationabou

tchildren’s

tendencies

torespon

dto

stimuliand

which

sensory

system

sarelikelycontri-

butingor

creatingbarriers

tofunctionalperform

ance.

Sensory

Profilecontains

>125

itemsorganizedin-

to3sections:(1)

sensory

processing,w

hich

contains

6item

categories

thatmeasure

children’s

respon

sesto

inform

ation

takeninthroug

hthe

sensorysystem

s;(2)

modulation,which

contains

5item

categories

that

measure

children’sability

tomonitorandregulate

inform

ationto

generatean

appropriateresponse

tothesituation;and(3)

behavioralandem

otional

responses,which

contains

3itemcategoriesthatmea-

surechildren’sem

otional

andbehavioralresponsesto

sensoryexperiences.

•Needmanualfor

scoring

guidelines.

•Caregiversrecord

thefre-

quency

with

which

their

child

displays

each

item

behavior

ona5-point

Likertscale(1

5always,

25

frequently,3

5occa-

sionally,4

5seldom

,55

never).

•Respo

nses

aretotaledon

aSum

maryScore

Sheet

thatyields

2scores:sec-

tionscoreandfactor

score.

•Sectionscore,which

pro-

videsavisualsummaryof

children’ssensoryproces-

sing,m

odulation,and

behavioralandem

otional

response

abilities

•Factor

score,which

cap-

tureschildren’sresponses

tosensoryexperiences

onthebasisofnotsolelytheir

sensorysystem

sbutalso

otheraspectsofsensory

processing

•Quadrantscore,which

measuresthedegree

towhich

childrenmiss,ob

-tain,detect,or

arebo

th-

ered

bysensoryinpu

t

•Manual

•Assessm

entsheets

•Sum

maryscore

•Sheet

•Pen

Section,

factor,andquad-

rant

scores

(Con

tinued)



Table2.

Sum

maryof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

thDescribed

inArticlesPub

lished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary

2009

–Sep

tembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Instrument(Article)

Fram

eof

Reference/


Pop

ulation/Group;


se,

orIntent

ofInstrument

Descriptionof

Instrument

Adm

inistrationand

Scoring

TimeRequired

Sub

scales

orItem

Categories

Resou

rces

and

Equipm

entRequired

Scoresand

Results

Obtained

Slosson

VisualM

otor

Per-

form

ance

Test(SVMPT;

Brown,Unsworth,&

Lyons,

2009)

Perceptual–motor

theory


4–18

yr.

Perspective:Perform

ance

based;profession

alscores

performance

onthebasis

ofspecificcriteria.

Purpose:S

creening

toolto

identifypeop

lewith

visual–m

otor

perceptual

prob

lemsinwhich

hand

–eyecoordinationis

involved;m

easures

aperson

’sabilityto

interpretandtranslate

visuallyperceived

geom

etricpatterns.

Consistsof

14geom

etric

figures;each

iscopied

3tim

es.

Adm

inistrationtakesap-

proximately20

min,and

scoringtim

eisapproxi-

mately10

min.

One

totalscore

•Pencil

•Testbo

oklet

•Manual

•Raw

score

•Stand

ardscore

•Percentile

•Stanine

•Age

equivalent

Testof

Visual–Motor

In-

tegration(TVMI;Brown,

Unsworth,&

Lyon

s,20

09)

Perceptual–motor

theory


4–17

yr.

Perspective:Perform

ance

based;profession

alscores

performance

onthebasis

ofspecificcriteria.

Purpose:S

tand

ardized

norm

-referencedtestof

visual–m

otor

integration;

used

todo

cument

presence

anddegree

ofvisual–m

otor

difficulties

inchildren.

•Con

sistsof30

geom

etric

figures.

•Usesacopyingform

atwherebychild

rencopy

figu

reinto

designated

space.

Adm

inistrationtakesap-

proximately20

min,and

scoringtim

eisapproxi-

mately10

min.

One

totalscore

•Pencil

•Testbo

oklet

•Manual

•Raw

score

•Stand

ardscore

•Percentile

•Stanine

•Age

equivalent

TestofVisual-MotorSkills–

Revised

(TVMS–R

;Brown,

Unsworth,&

Lyons,2009)

Perceptual–motor

theory


3–13

yr.

Perspective:Perform

ance

based;profession

alscores

performance

onthebasis

ofspecificcriteria.

•Con

sistsof23

geom

etric

figures.

•Usesacopyingform

atwhereby

childrencopy

figureinto

designated

space.

•Adm

inistrationtakesap-

proximately20

min,and

scoringtim

eisapproxi-

mately10

min.

•Whenscoring,itallows

therapistto

catego

rize

achild’svisual–m

otor

errors

andaccuracies.

One

totalscore

•Pencil

•Testbo

oklet

•Manual

•Raw

score

•Stand

ardscore

•Percentile

•Stanine

•Age

equivalent (Con

tinued)



Table2.

Sum

maryof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

thDescribed

inArticlesPub

lished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary

2009

–Sep

tembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Instrument(Article)

Fram

eof

Reference/


Pop

ulation/Group;


se,

orIntent

ofInstrument

Descriptionof

Instrument

Adm

inistrationand

Scoring

TimeRequired

Sub

scales

orItem

Categories

Resou

rces

and

Equipm

entRequired

Scoresand

Results

Obtained

Purpose:A

ssesseschild-

ren’sabilityto

translate,

with

theirhand

s,whatthey

visuallyperceive

togainan

understandingofthechild-

ren’sstreng

thsandweak-

nesses

invisual–m

otor

integrationabilities.

Testof

Visual–Perceptual

Skills–R

evised

(TVPS–R

;Tsai,L

in,Liao,

&Hsieh,

2009

)

Perceptual–motor

theory


4–12

yr.

Perspective:Perform

ance-


sionalscores

performance

onthebasisof

specific

criteria.

Purpose:T

oassess

child-

ren’svisual–p

erceptual

strengthsandweaknesses.

•Con

sistsof

112items

grou

pedinto

7subscales.

•To

talscore

rang

esfrom

0to11

2po

ints,and

sub-

scalescores

rang

efrom

0to

16po

ints.

Sum

total

7subscalescores

arecal-

culated:

visualdiscrimina-

tion,visualmem

ory,visual–

spatialrelationships,visual

form

constancy,visual

sequentialm

emory,visual

figure–grou

nd,and

visual

closure.

•Answer

sheet

•Testmanual

•Boo

kof

item

plates

•To

talraw

scoreandsub-

scalescores

•Stand

ardscore

•Percentile

•Stanine

•Age

equivalent

WeeklyCalendarPlann

ing

Activity

(WCPA;Tog

lia&

Berg,2013;W

einer,Toglia,

&Berg,2012)

Cog

nitive–behavioraland

ecolog

icalpracticemod

els

Population:Ado

lescents

andadultsage16

and

older.

Perspective:Perform

ance-


sionalscores

performance

onthebasisofspecific

criteria.

Purpose:Tomeasu

reeveryday

executivefunction

skillsofadolescentsand

adults.

•18appo

intm

entsarepre-

sented

inarand

omly

orderedlist.

•The

participantisrequired

toentertheappointm

ents

into

a1-wkschedule

whilerecogn

izingand

managingconfl

ictsand

adhering

to5written

rules.

•Th

erulesinclud

e(1)

leaveWednesday

free,

(2)do

notcrossou

tappo

intm

entson

cethey

areentered,(3)inform

theexam

iner

whenitis

aspecified

time,(4)do

notrespon

dto

dis-

tractingqu

estions

from

theexam

iner,and

(5)in-

form

theexam

iner

when

finished.

•Strategiesused

during

thetask

arerecorded

onalistof

16preidentified

strategies.

•Scorescalculated

in-

cludetotalaccuracyof

appointm

entplacem

ent

onthecalendar,errors

madeinappo

intm

ent

placem

ent,planning

time

andtotaltasktim

e,num-

berofrulesfollowed,and

type

ofstrategies

used.

•Totalaccuracyof

ap-

pointm

entplacem

enton

thecalendar

•To

talerrorsmadeinap-

pointm

entplacem

ent

•Self-reporterrors

•Inaccuracy

errors

•Repetition

errors

•Plann

ingtim

e•To

taltasktim

e•N

umbero

frules

followed

•Num

berof

strategies

used

•Type

ofstrategies

used

•Paper

•Pencil

•WCPAproform

a•WCPAtestmanual

•WCPAtestbo

oklet

•Table,chair,andqu

iet

room

fortesttaker

•Totalaccuracyof

ap-

pointm

entplacem

enton

thecalendar

•To

talerrorsmadein

appointm

entplacem

ent

•Self-reporterrors

•Inaccuracy

errors

•Repetition

errors

•Plann

ingtim

e•To

taltasktim

e•N

umbero

frules

followed

•Num

berof

strategies

used

•Type

ofstrategies

used

(Con

tinued)



Table2.

Sum

maryof

Instrumen

tsforChildrenan

dYou

thDescribed

inArticlesPub

lished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary

2009

–Sep

tembe

r20

13(con

t.)

Instrument(Article)

Fram

eof

Reference/


Pop

ulation/Group;


se,

orIntent

ofInstrument

Descriptionof

Instrument

Adm

inistrationand

Scoring

TimeRequired

Sub

scales

orItem

Categories

Resou

rces

and

Equipm

entRequired

Scoresand

Results

Obtained

•Strategiesused

during

thetask

arerecorded

onalistof

16preidentified

strategies.

Note.DCD5

developm

entalcoordinationdisorder;ICF5

InternationalC

lassificationof

Functioning,D

isabilityandHealth

(WorldHealth

Organization,2007);PEO

5Person–Environm

ent–Occupationmodel.

Sug

gested

citation:Brown,T.,&

Bourke-Taylor,H

.(2014

).Centenn

ialVision—


evelopmentand


JournalofO

ccup

ationalTherapy,200

9–20

13:A

content,

metho

dology,and

instrumentdesign

review

(Table2).A

merican


8,e154

–e21

6.http://dx.do

i.org/10.50

14/ajot.20

14.01223

7



Table3.Critiqu

eof

Childrenan

dYou

thInstrumen

tDevelop

men

tan

dTe

stingArticlesPub

lished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lTh

erap

y,Janu

ary20

09–S

eptembe

r20

13

InstrumentandAuthor

Purpose

ofInstrumentand

Practicality

Levelof

Evidence

and

Stage

ofInstrument

Develop

ment

Relevance

toOccupational

TherapyPractice

Relevance

toOccupational

TherapyTheory

Relevance

toOccupational

TherapyResearch

Limitations

ofStudy

Strengths

ofStudy

AdolescentsandAdults

Co-

ordinationQuestionnaire

(AAC–Q

;Saban,O

rnoy,

Grotto,&Parush,2012)

Purpose:D

escriptiveand

discriminative

Practicality:S

elf-report

12-item

scale;very

easy

toadministerandscore

LevelIII

Stage

7:reliability

assessment

Can

assist

asan

initial

screeningtoolforado-

lescents

andadults

sus-

pected

ofhavingDCD.

Scalecanbe

used

toas-

sess

theoretical

assump-

tions

ofmotor

control

theory

andotherrelated

constructs.

•Can

beused

toinvesti-

gatetheprevalence

ofDCDintheadult

popu

lation.

•Can

beused

toevaluate

theeffectivenessof

in-

terventions

targeted

atadultswith

DCD.

•Study

completed

in1

geog

raphicarea

sotheremay

bebias

inthe

results.

•Authors

didno

tinclud

ecopy

ofthescaleinthe

publishedarticle.

•Noconstructvalidity

re-

gardingwhether

scale

itemsload

onasingle

DCDfactorwas

reported.

•Prelim

inarypsycho

met-

ricprop

ertiesof

scale

look

prom

ising.

•Provision

ofcutoffscores

ishelpfulfor

clinical

applications.

•Isbrief,user

friend

ly,

andecolog

icallyvalid.

Assessm

entof

Children’s

HandSkills

(ACHS;C

hien,

Brown,&McD

onald,

2010)

Purpose:D

escriptive,dis-

criminative,predictive,

andpotentialforevaluative

Practicality:H

aveto

pur-

chasetestbo

okletsand

manual;have

toreceive

specialisttraining

toad-

ministerandscoreinstru-

ment;need

well-ho

ned

observationskillsto

beableto

scoreinstrument

LevelIII

Stage

7:reliability

assessment

•Can

beused

toassess

acomprehensive

rang

eof

hand

skillsforuse

with

differentpo

pu-

lations

ofchildren.

•Cou

ldbe

used

asan

outcom

emeasure

after

aroun

dof

intervention

hasbeen

provided.

•Usesnaturalistic

obser-

vationan

dfitswithan

occupation-cen

tered

assessmen

tap

proach

toprovideoccupational

therapistswith

inform

a-tionabou

tchildren’s

hand

skillperformance

inmeaning

fuloccup

a-tions

thatarecompleted

indaily

contexts.

•Isatop-do

wn

assessmenttoolthat

provides

inform

ation

abou

tchildren’sactivity

performance.

Couldbe

used

toevaluate

theeffectivenessof

oc-

cupationaltherapyin-

terventionprog

rams.

•Requires

specialized

trainingto

administer

andscore.

•Not

commerciallyavail-

able;h

aveto

contact

author

directly.

•Onlypreliminarypsycho-

metricdatahave

been

reported

byits

author;no

externalresearchershave

evaluatedtheinstrument.

•Usesnaturalistic

obser-

vationandfitswith

anoccupation-centered

assessmentapproach

togenerateinform

ation

abou

tchildren’shand

skillassessmentp

erfor-

mance

inmeaningful

occupations

thatarecom-

pleted

indaily

contexts.

•Strongpreliminarypsy-

chom

etricevidence

aboutconstructvalidity

ofinstrumentusing

Rasch

analysisapproach

Assessm

entof

Motor

and

Process

Skills

(AMPS;

Gantschnig,Page,Nilsson,

&Fisher,2013)

Purpose:D

escriptive,dis-


andevaluative

Practicality:S

pecific

quali-

ficationrequired

toad-

ministertheAMPSwith

childrenforclinicalor

research

purposes

LevelIII

Stages8and10

:reliability

andvalidity

study

Stand

ardizedassessment

ofmotor

andprocessing

skillsdu

ring

functional

tasks;

provides

clinical

inform

ationaboutareas

forgo

alsandservice

direction.

Goo

dtool

toinvestigate

underpinning

sof

MOHO

andforoccupationalper-

form

ance

whenachild

hasmotor

orprocessing

differences.

May

bevery

useful

inre-

search,particularly

ret-

rospectivedata

analysis

that

investigates

relation-

shipsbetweenun

derlying

skillsandperformance.

Continuedpsycho

metric

evaluationneeded

tode-

term

inesensitivity

tochange

over

time.

Largecentrally

held

AMPSdatabase

offers

the

possibility

ofnu

merou

sknow

ledg

etranslation

research

oppo

rtun

ities.

Ayres

SensoryIntegration

(ASI)FidelityMeasure

(Parham

etal.,20

11)

Purpo

se:D

iscriminative

andpredictive

Practicality:R

equiresex-

periencedandexpertin-

dividualtoratefeatures

of

LevelIV

Stage

3:contentvalidity

evaluation

Adherence

totheASIFi-

delityMeasure’sstructural

andprocesselem

entswill

increase

thelikelihoodthat

interventions

labeledASI

TheFidelityMeasure

pro-

videsan

internationalstan-

dardby

which

todeterm

ine

whether

anintervention

representsASI,which

TheFidelityMeasure

pro-

videsan

internationalstan-

dardby

which

todeterm

ine

whether

anintervention

representsASI.

•Didno

tfieldtesttheASI

FidelityMeasure

with

novice

clinicians.

•Veryexperiencedexpert

panelw

asengagedto

establishthecontent

validity

oftheASIFidel-

ityMeasure. (Con

tinued)



Table3.

Critiqu

eof

Childrenan

dYou

thInstrumen

tDevelop

men

tan

dTe

stingArticlesPub

lished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary

2009

–Sep

tembe

r20

13(con

t.)

InstrumentandAuthor

Purpose

ofInstrumentand

Practicality

Levelof

Evidence

and

Stage

ofInstrument

Develop

ment

Relevance

toOccupational

TherapyPractice

Relevance

toOccupational

TherapyTheory

Relevance

toOccupational

TherapyResearch

Limitations

ofStudy

Strengths

ofStudy

therapysessionto

getac-

curatemeasuresof

fidel-

ityto

ASIprinciples

covered

andprovided

byqualified

therapistsarefaithfulto

ASIprinciples

notonlyin

research

butalso

inedu-

cationandpractice.

ensuresthattheASI

modelisappliedcorrectly.

•Didnotinvestigatethe

constructvalidity

ofthe

ASIFidelityMeasure.

•Expertpanelhad

inter-

nationalrepresentation,

which

decreasesrisk

ofgeog

raphicbias.

Box

andBlock

Test

(Jon

gbloed-Pereboo

m,

Nijhuis-vanderSanden,&

Steenbergen,2

013)

Purpo

se:D

iscriminative

Practicality:R

equiresman-

ualand

specificboxes,

blocks,and

scoringsheet;

little

training

necessary

LevelIII

Stages7and8:

reliability

andvalidity

study

Stand

ardizedassessment

ofgrossdo

minantand

nondom

inanthand

func-

tionthat

may

easilybe

used

forpretest–posttest.

May

beuseful

toinvesti-

gate

underpinning

sof

biom

echanicalmod

el.

May

beused

toinvestiga-

teefficacyof

biom

edical

oroccupationaltherapy

interventions

andmea-

sure

outcom

eson

1or

both

upperextrem

ities.

Continuedpsycho

metric

evaluationneeded

tode-

term

inesensitivity

tochange

over

time.

Norm-referenced,

easily

administeredhand

func-

tiontool

that

does

relate

toreal-life

functionalhand

use.

ChildOccupationalSelfAs-

sessment(COSA;K

ramer,

Kielhofner,&Smith,2010)

Purpose:D

escriptiveand

evaluative

Practicality:Can

beadmin-

isteredin1of3ways:stan-

dardpencilandpaper,card

sort,and

matrixform

at

LevelIII

Stages7and8:

reliability

andvalidity

study

•Child-centeredand

child-reportedtoolthat

measuresextent

towhich

child

ismeeting

expectations

and

responsibilitiesindaily

activities

andthe

importance

ofthose

activities.

•Directsclinical

interventionby

identifying

important

activities

thatmight

beprioritized

intherapy.

Sound

tool

that

may

beused

inresearch

that

in-

vestigates

underpinning

sof

MOHOor

anyPEO

model.

May

beused

toinvestiga-

teefficacyofoccupational

therapyinterventions

from

clients’perspectives.

•Extend

validity

andrelia-

bilitystud

iesto

includ

erandom

ized

sampling

andstandardized

admin-

istrationof

themeasure

whendataarecollected

from

across

culturesand

worldregions.Further

validity

studiesmight

includeandanalyzedata

from

theperspectiveof

otherchild

andenviron-

mentalvariables.

•Alsorequ

ires

evaluation

ofrespon

siveness

tochange.

MOHO-based

assessment

tool

that

measureschild’s

subjectiveexperience

ofoccupationinapsycho-

metrically

soundway

for

clinicalor

research

purposes.

Children’sAssessm

entof

ParticipationandEnjoy-

ment/Preferences

for

Activities

ofChildren

(CAPE/PAC;P

otvin,

Snider,Prelock,K

ehayia,

&Woo

d-Dauphinee,

2013

)

Purpose:D

escriptive,

discriminative,and

evaluative

Practicality:C

hildrates

theintensity

(frequ

ency),

socialaspect,location,

enjoym

ent,andpreference

forleisureandrecreational

pursuits.Easyto

admin-

isterandscore.

LevelIII

Stages8and10

:evalua-

tionofthescale’smea-

surementproperties

byother

than

thescale’s

authors

Veryrelevant

topractice;

provides

child’sperspec-

tiveaboutparticipationin

homeandcommunity

contexts.

Usefulin

studiesinvesti-

gatingtheoretical

under-

pinn

ings

ofoccupational

therapytheory

(e.g.,Ca-

nadian

Modelof

Occupa-

tionalPerform

ance

and

Engagement,ICF).

May

beusedas

client-

centeredoutcome

measu

re.

Continuedpsycho

metric

evaluationneeded

tode-

term

inesensitivity

tochange

over

time.

Goodreliabilityand

validity

evidence

reported.

(Con

tinued)



Table3.

Critiqu

eof

Childrenan

dYou

thInstrumen

tDevelop

men

tan

dTe

stingArticlesPub

lished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary

2009

–Sep

tembe

r20

13(con

t.)

InstrumentandAuthor

Purpose

ofInstrumentand

Practicality

Levelof

Evidence

and

Stage

ofInstrument

Develop

ment

Relevance

toOccupational

TherapyPractice

Relevance

toOccupational

TherapyTheory

Relevance

toOccupational

TherapyResearch

Limitations

ofStudy

Strengths

ofStudy

Children’sLeisureAssess-

mentS

cale(CLA

SS;

Rosenblum

,Sachs,&

Schreuer,2010)

Purpose:D

escriptive,dis-

criminative,predictive,and

evaluative

Practicality:Easily

admin-

isteredtoolto

measure

participationinleisure

activities

amongchildren

ages

10–18yr.

LevelIII

Stages7and8:

reliability

andvalidity

study

May

beused

clinicallyto

determ

inealeisureactiv-

itypreference

foryoun

gchildrenwithoutdisability.

May

beuseful

toinvesti-

gate

relationshipbetween

childho

odoccupations

andanyPEO

mod

el.

May

beusefulinresearch

abou

tchildho

odoccupa-

tions,participation,

and

otherchild-related

factors.

Requiresfurtherevalua-

tionto

determ

inedis-

criminantvalidity

for

childrenwith

andwithou

tdisability,

aswellas

sen-

sitivity

tochange

over

time.

Offersvery

descriptive

preference

andparticipa-

tionprofi

leof

children’s

leisurepreferences.

Com

prehensive

Observa-

tions

ofProprioception

(COP;B

lanche,B

odison,

Chang

,&Reino

so,201

2)

Purpose:D

escriptive,dis-

criminative,andevaluative

Practicality:R

elatively

easy

toob

tainand

administer;takes15

min

ofob

servingchild

inanaturalistic

environm

ent

LevelIII

Stage

8:validity

anddi-

mensionality

assessment

Can

beused

toassess

children’sprop

rioceptive

processing

skills.

Derived

from

literature

basedon

sensory

integration.

Couldbe

used

toevaluate

theeffectivenessof

occu-

pationaltherapy

interven-

tionprog

ramsor

couldbe

used

todescribe

clinical

features

ofchildrenwith

suspecteddevelopm

en-

taldelayor

motor

skill

prob

lems.

•Stillinearlystages

ofpsycho

metricdevelop-

mentandvalidation.

•Nono

rmativescores

are

available.

•Has

notbeen

evaluated

orappliedinstudiesby

others

than

Blanche,

Bod

ison,etal.(2012

).

•Blanche,B

odison,etal.

have

documentedthe

phases

andcomponents

ofthedevelopm

entofthe

COP.

•Prelim

inaryevidence

ofCOP’sinterrater

reliabi-

lity,face

validity,content

validity,constructvalid-

ity,criterion

validity,and

factorstructurehasbeen

reported.

Develop

mentalTestof

Visual–Motor

Integration

(VMI;Brown,

Unsworth,

&Lyon

s,20

09)

Purpo

se:D

iscriminative,

predictive,andevaluative

Practicality:H

aveto

pur-

chasetestbo

okletsand

manual;relativelyeasy


LevelIII

Stages8and10

:validity

anddimensionality

assessment

Can

beusedto

assess

child

ren’svisual–motor

integrationskills.

Isabo

ttom

-upassess-

menttool

that

pro-

videsinform

ationabou

tchildren’sbo

dyfunctions

andstructures.

Couldbe

used

toevaluate

theeffectivenessof

occu-

pationaltherapy

interven-

tionprog

ramsor

toestablishthevisual–m

otor

baselineskillsof

certain

diagnosticgroups

ofclients.

•Doesno

tprovideinfor-

mationabou

tchildren’s

occupationalperfor-

mance.

•Testbo

okletsandman-

ualhavetobe

purchased,

creatingcostissue.

•Wellestablished,

with

strong

psycho

metric

characteristics

•Testhasbeen

widely

used.

•Largestandardization

grou

pon

which

norm

a-tivescores

arebased

Do-Eat(Josman,G

offer,

&Rosenblum

,201

0)Purpose:D

escriptive,dis-

criminative,andpredictive

Practicality:C

hildisre-

quired

toparticipatein3

tasks,with

appropriate

equipm

entandenviron-

mentneeded:m

aking

sandwich,making

chocolatemilk,and

hand

writing.

LevelIII

Stages7and8:

reliability

andvalidity

study

Offerscapabilityto

mea-

sure

thefunctionalabili-

tiesof

childrenwith

DCD;

also

assistsin

goal

developm

ent.

Goo

dtool

toinvestigate

underpinningsoffunctional

skillsandperformance.

Goo

dapplicationforre-

search

purposes

Continuedpsycho

metric

evaluationneeded

tode-

term

inesensitivity

tochange

over

time.

Psychom

etrically

and

theoreticallysoun

dtool

specificto

childrenwith

DCD

(Con

tinued)



Table3.

Critiqu

eof

Childrenan

dYou

thInstrumen

tDevelop

men

tan

dTe

stingArticlesPub

lished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary

2009

–Sep

tembe

r20

13(con

t.)

InstrumentandAuthor

Purpose

ofInstrumentand

Practicality

Levelof

Evidence

and

Stage

ofInstrument

Develop

ment

Relevance

toOccupational

TherapyPractice

Relevance

toOccupational

TherapyTheory

Relevance

toOccupational

TherapyResearch

Limitations

ofStudy

Strengths

ofStudy

Evaluationof

SocialInter-

action(ESI;Grisw

old&

Townsend,20

12)

Purpose:D

escriptive,dis-


evaluative

Practicality:The

evaluator

(occup

ationaltherapist)

observes

thechild

ashe

orsheengagesindesired

relevant

activities

innat-

uralcontextwith

usual

socialpartners.

LevelIII

Stage8:validity

assessment

•Clinicallyusefulway

tomeasure

children’sso-

cialinteractions

innat-

uralsettings.

•Providesstandardized

way

tomeasure

differ-

encesinsocialinterac-

tionandmeasurechange

over

time.

Can

beused

toevalu-

ateun

derpinning

sof

socialinteractions

and

participation.

Usefulforoccupational

therapyresearch

toeval-

uate

underpinning

sof

socialinteractions

and

participationandforeffi-

cacy

studiesevaluating

occupationaltherapy

interventions.

Test–retestandinterrater

reliabilitystudiesneeded

forpediatricpo

pulation;

sensitivityto

change

over

timeneedsevaluationbe-

forevalidationas

outcom

emeasure.

Goodreliabilityandvalidity

forpediatric

population.

EvaluationTo

olof

Child-

ren’sHandw

riting(ETC

H;

Brossard-Racine,Mazer,

Julien,&Majnemer,2012;

Duff&Goyen,2010)

Purpose:D

escriptive,dis-


evaluative

Practicality:The

evaluator

observes

andthen

rates

achild’shand

writing

using1of

2handwriting

versions:m

anuscriptand

cursive.Provides

standardized

before-and-

aftermeasure

ofhand

writingcompetency.

LevelIII

Stages8and10

:validity

assessment

Highlyuseful

inpediatric

occupationaltherapy

prac-

ticein

school

andclinic

settings.

Specific

hand

writinglegi-

bilityandfunctionalityfor

childrenin

elem

entary

school.

Can

beused

toevaluate

theeffectivenessof

ahand

writingintervention

prog

ram

orto

differenti-

atebetweentypicaland

atypical

hand

writing—

determ

ineneed

andeligi-

bilityforservices.

•Requires

sensitivity

tochan

geovertimeand

rando

mized

sampling.

•Mightbe

used

inefficacy

studiestoinvestigateef-

ficacyandefficiencyof

occupationaltherapy

in-

terventions

thataim

toimprovehandwriting.

Goodreliabilityandval-

idity

evidence

reported.

Family

L.I.F.E.(Loo

king

Into

Family

Experiences;

Honaker,Rosello,&

Candler,

2012)

Purpose:D

escriptiveand

discriminative

Practicality:R

equiresman-

ualand

therapist–family

collaborationto

identify5

keyfamily

occupations

and

limiting

factors

LevelIII

Stage

7:reliability

assessment

Engagesfamilies

andther-

apists

inacollaborative

partnershipandprom

otes

family-centeredpractice.

Tool

may

beusefulto

evaluatethetenets

of

occupational

adaptation

orfamily-centeredprac-

tice

models.

Usefulresearch

tool

toidentifysubjectivefamily

issues

pre-

and

postintervention.

Furtherpsycho

metric

evaluationrequired

for

validationandreliability.

Emph

asizes

clinicaland

research

considerationof

avery

impo

rtantfactor

inthesupp

ortsystem

availableto

achild

with

adisability:

thefamily.

Health

PromotingActivi-

tiesScale(HPAS;B

ourke-

Taylor,Law

,How

ie,&

Pallant,201

2)

Purpose:D

escriptiveand

evaluative

Practicality:E

asy,brief,

lowparticipantbu

rden,

completed

byparticipant,

freelyavailablethrough

McM

asterwebsite

(http://www.canchild.ca/

en/m

easu

res/health_

promoting_activities_

scale.asp)

LevelIII

Stage

8:validity

anddi-

mensionality

assessment

May

beused

inclinical

practicein

numerous

contexts

working

with

caregivers.

Providesevidence

abou

ttheassociations

amon

gparticipationin

meaning-

fulself-selectedleisure

pursuits,

mentalhealth,

andwell-being.

•Psychom

etrically

soun

dscalewith

lowrespon

seburden

thatmeasures

theperson’sperspective.

•May

beused

asan

out-

comemeasure

because

scoringrelatestothefre-

quency

ofparticipation.

Initialstudydidnotinclude

secondaryvalidationof

diagnosisof

mentalhealth

condition;didnotinclude

test–retest

reliability

or

testsofsensitivity

toch

angeovertime.

Psychom

etrically

soun

dat

initial

stages

ofdevel-

opment;novelmeasure-

mentofcomplexand

meaningfulhuman

occupation.

(Con

tinued)



Table3.

Critiqu

eof

Childrenan

dYou

thInstrumen

tDevelop

men

tan

dTe

stingArticlesPub

lished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary

2009

–Sep

tembe

r20

13(con

t.)

InstrumentandAuthor

Purpose

ofInstrumentand

Practicality

Levelof

Evidence

and

Stage

ofInstrument

Develop

ment

Relevance

toOccupational

TherapyPractice

Relevance

toOccupational

TherapyTheory

Relevance

toOccupational

TherapyResearch

Limitations

ofStudy

Strengths

ofStudy

LifeParticipationforPar-

ents(Fingerhut,201

3)Purpose:D

escriptiveand

evaluative

Practicality:Fam

ilies

with

achild

with

adisability

completepaperqu

estion-

naireabou

tfamily

occu-

pations.

LevelIII

Stages7and8:

reliability

andvalidity

study

Clinically

useful

tofacili-

tate

family-centeredser-

vice

delivery;allowsfocus

onstrategies

toimprove

satisfactionwith

occupa-

tionalparticipation

Goo

dtool

toinvestigate

andevaluate

family-

centered

practice,

other

theoretical

fram

eworks

(ICF,PEO

,ecological

approach)

Usefultool

forsubjective

family

status

whenthere

isachild

with

adisability

inthefamily.

Continuedpsycho

metric

evaluationneeded

tode-

term

inesensitivity

tochange

over

time.

Psychom

etrically

soun

dfamily-centeredtool

that

couldbe

used

easilyin

both

clinicalpracticeand

theory.

Loew

ensteinOccup

a-tionalTherapy

Cognitive

Assessm

ent(LOTC

A;

Josm

an,A

bdallah,&

Engel-Yeger,2011)

Purpose:D

escriptive,dis-


evaluative

Practicality:R

equiresstan-

dardized

kitandscore

sheets

LevelIII

Stages8and10

:evalua-

tionof

scale’smeasure-

mentprop

ertiesby

those

otherthan

authors

Clinicalapplicationforoc-

cupationaltherapistsmay

includ

eschool

readiness

oruseinothersettings

todeterm

ineeligibility

or

areasforinterventions.

May

havefeasibility

asscreeningtoolforschool

entry.

May

beuseful

toinvesti-

gaterelationships

between

cognition

andoccupa-

tionalperform

ance

indaily

occupations;supp

orts

numeroustheoretical

concepts

inoccupational

therapy.

May

beused

toinvestigate

efficacyof

occupational

therapyinterventions,

although

sensitivity

tochange

hasnotbeen

es-

tablishedam

ongchildren.

Furtherresearch

isneeded

toestablishvalidity

inre-

lationto

cross-cultural

studies,

otherchild

and

sociodem

ographicfac-

tors,andactualfunctional

performance

inchildhood

occupation.

Requireslon-

gitudinalpredictivestud-

ies.

Also,

sensitivity

tochange

across

timere-

quires

investigationifto

beused

asan

outcom

emeasure.

Stand

ardizedassessment

ofcogn

ition

foryoun

gchildrenwith

capacity

todifferentiate

amongchil-

dren

with

andwithou

treadinessto

enterscho

olandearlyscho

olperfor-

mance

andotherissues.

ManualAbilityClassifica-

tionSystem

(MACS;

Kuijper,van

derWilden,

Ketelaar,&Gorter,20

10)

Purpose:D

escriptive,dis-


Practicality:Involvesther-

apists

observinghan

dskillsuse

andusing

decision-m

akingtree

toclassifyhand

function.The

manualisfreelyavailable.

LevelIII

Stages8and10

:validity

study

Excellent

clinicalapplica-

tionto

prom

otecommu-

nicationam

ongchildren,

families,andprofession-

alsandprovides

obser-

vationalmeasure

ofhand

functionthatmay

resultin

functionalgoalsetting.

May

beused

toinvesti-

gate

theoretical

under-

pinn

ings

ofoccupational

therapytheory

that

uses

aPEO

approach.

Applicationto

research

isgo

od.Providesresearch-

erswith

easily

rated

manualclassification

system

alongsidethe

widelyused

Gross

Motor

FunctionClassification

System

andmorerecent

Com

mun

icationFunction

ClassificationSystem.

•Th

isparticular

study

used

correlationalanal-

ysisforan

ordinalclas-

sificationscaleandthe

PED

Icaregiverscales

(Part2)

rather

than

the

PED

Ifunctionalskills

scale(Part1).

•Th

econclusion

thatthe

MACSisrelatedto

the

performance

ofdaily

self-care

skillsisinap-

prop

riatelydraw

nbe-

causePED

IPart1was

notused

inthestud

y.Th

erefore,fin

dings

mustbeinterpretedwith

caution.

TheMACShasgo

odre-

liabilityandvalidity

and

provides

afunctional

classificationto

facilitate

commun

icationam

ong

peoplewith

cerebralpalsy,

families,and

professionals.

(Con

tinued)



Table3.

Critiqu

eof

Childrenan

dYou

thInstrumen

tDevelop

men

tan

dTe

stingArticlesPub

lished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary

2009

–Sep

tembe

r20

13(con

t.)

InstrumentandAuthor

Purpose

ofInstrumentand

Practicality

Levelof

Evidence

and

Stage

ofInstrument

Develop

ment

Relevance

toOccupational

TherapyPractice

Relevance

toOccupational

TherapyTheory

Relevance

toOccupational

TherapyResearch

Limitations

ofStudy

Strengths

ofStudy

McD

onaldPlayInventory

(McD

onald&Vigen,2012)

Descriptive,discrim

inative,

andevaluative

Practicality:C

hildself-

repo

rtscalethatrequires

minimalresources

LevelIII

Stages7and8:

reliability

andvalidity

assessment

Can

beused

toassess

childrenpresentingwith

play-related

problems.

Providesevidence

abou

tchildren’sself-reported

perception

sabout

their

play

andplay

style.

Couldbe

used

toevaluate

theeffectivenessof

occu-

pationaltherapy

interven-

tionprog

rams.

•Con

venience

sample

•Limitedpsycho

metric

datahave

been

published

aboutthe

scale.

•Assessesan

important

area

ofchildren’soccu-

pationalperform

ance.

•Accesseschildren’sper-

spectives

abou

ttheir

play.

•Promisingpsychomet-

ricdataabou

tthescale

have

been

reported.

Melbourne

Assessm

ent

ofUnilateralU

pper

Limb

Function(M

AUULF;Spirtos,

O’M

ahony,

&Malone,

2011)

Purpose:D

escriptive,dis-


andevaluative

Practicality:S

tandardized

kitrequired,aswellas

someinform

altraining

andpreparationforadm

in-

istrationandscoring.

LevelIII

Stages7and10

:evalua-

tionof

scale’smeasure-

mentprop

ertiesby

those

otherthan

authors

Stand

ardizedassessment

ofqualityoffunctional

movem

entfor1upp

erextrem

ity.

Goodtoolforrigorous

evaluationofqualityof

upper-lim

bmovem

entfor

biom

edical

interventions

aswellas

occupational

therapyinterventions.

Usefulforpre–

and

post–upper-extremity

evaluationforvariou

sin-

terventions

forchildren

with

hemiplegia.

Detailedtraining

andin-

structions

needed

for

clinicians

tolearnhow

reliablyadministeran

dscore

theMAUULF.

Psychom

etrically

soun

dupper-extrem

itytest

that

preciselymeasuresfunc-

tionalarm

andhand

movem

ent.

Motor-FreeVisualPercep-

tionTest–R

evised

(MVPT–

R;Tsai,Lin,Liao,&

Hsieh,

2009)

Purpose:D

escriptive,dis-


andevaluative

Practicality:Fairlystraight-

forwardto

administerand

score

LevelIII

Stages7and10

:reliability

assessment

Can

beused

toestablish

thebaselineof

achild’s

visual–perceptualskills.

Can

beused

toinvestigate

theun

derpinning

sof

perceptual–m

otor

theory.

Can

beused

toestablish

theeffectivenessof

aninterventionprog

ram

orexplorethelinks

between

visual–perceptualskills

andchildren’soccupa-

tionalperform

ance.

•Smallsam

plesize.

•Datagathered

in1geo-

graphiclocation.

•Nolinkto

occupational

performance

ofchildren

made.

•Answersheets,testplate

book,and

testmanual

have

tobe

purchased,

creatingcostissue.

•Providesevidence

ofthe

reliabilityprop

ertiesof

theMVPT–

R.

•Isevidence

ofuseof

scaleinacross-cultural

context.

OccupationalSelfA

ssess-

ment(OSA;Taylor,Lee,

Kramer,S

hirashi,&

Kielhofner,20

11)

Purpose:D

escriptiveand

discriminative

Practicality:S

elf-report

scaleon

which

partici-

pantsareaskedtoansw

eror

rate21

statem

ents;

relativelyeasy

toadmin-

isterandscore

LevelIII

Stages8and10

:validity

assessment

Can

beused

with

avariety

ofclientgrou

ps,including

thosewith

mentalhealth

issues

orphysical

dis-

abilities

orolderadults.

Derived

from

constructs

relatedto

theMOHO.

Can

beused

toevaluate

theinterventionprograms;

canbe

used

tooperation-

alizeconstructs

from

the

MOHOandcanprovide

empiricalevidence

about

theMOHO.

•Dataweregathered

from

1geog

raphicalarea.

•Con

venience

sampling

was

used.

•Goodsamplesizetomin-

imizechance

ofType

Ierror.

•Use

ofItem

Respo

nse

Theory

provides

further

evidence

ofthescale’s

constructvalidity.

(Con

tinued)



Table3.

Critiqu

eof

Childrenan

dYou

thInstrumen

tDevelop

men

tan

dTe

stingArticlesPub

lished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary

2009

–Sep

tembe

r20

13(con

t.)

InstrumentandAuthor

Purpose

ofInstrumentand

Practicality

Levelof

Evidence

and

Stage

ofInstrument

Develop

ment

Relevance

toOccupational

TherapyPractice

Relevance

toOccupational

TherapyTheory

Relevance

toOccupational

TherapyResearch

Limitations

ofStudy

Strengths

ofStudy

PediatricOutcomes

Data

CollectionInstrument

(Mulcaheyetal.,20

13)

Purpose:D

escriptive,dis-


Practicality:Outcomemea-

sure

designed

forchildren

with

brachialplexus

injury

thatisadministeredvia

computeradaptivetest

LevelIII

Stages7and8:

reliability

andvalidity

assessment

Can

beused

toassess

the

upper-extrem

ityfunction

ofchildrenpresentingwith

brachialplexus

injuries.

Providesevidence

abou

ttheupper-extrem

ityfunc-

tionof

childrenpresenting

with

brachial

plexus

injuries.

Couldbe

used

toevaluate

theeffectivenessof

oc-


terventionprog

ramsor

asan

outcom

emeasure.

Limitedpsycho

metric

data

reported.

Thisstud

yprovides

pre-

liminarypsycho

metric

results

ofapplicationto

childrenwith

brachial

plexus

injuries.

PED

I–Com

puterAdap-

tiveTest(Kao,K

ramer,

Liljenquist,Tian,&Coster,

2012

)

Purpose:D

escriptive,dis-


andevaluative

Practicality:M

easurescare-

giver’s

orparent’sesti-

mationofthefunctional

abilitiesofchild

with

disabilities

LevelII

Stage

7and8:reliability

andvalidity

study

Offerscapabilityto

mea-

sure

thefunctionalabili-

tiesof

childrenwith

dis-

abilitiesviacomputerized

data

collection.

Clinical

applicationandavailability

arenotdescribed

inthe

articles.

Excellent

tool

toinvesti-

gate

participationin

daily

occupations

ofchildren

with

disabilitiesin

4main

areas:

daily

activities,

social-cognitive,

mobility,

andrespon

sibility.

Goo

dapplicationforre-

search

becausedata

col-

lectioniscompu

terized

andconvenient

forpar-

ticipantswho

areparents.

Applicationto

clinical

practiceandscoring

in-

terpretationunknown—

not

described

inarticle.

Psychom

etrically

and

theoreticallysoun

dcom-

puterizedinstrument.

Prescho

olIm

itationand

PraxisScale(PIPS;

Vanvuchelen,R

oeyers,&

DeWeerdt,20

11)

Purpose:D

escriptive,dis-


Practicality:H

aveto

ob-

servechild

completingmo-

torskillactivities

andrate

hisor

herperformance

LevelIII

Stage

7:reliability

assessment

May

assist

clinicians

inevaluatingandreevaluat-

ingpreschoolers’imita-

tionability.

Can

beused

toinvestigate

theun

derpinning

sof

mo-

tordevelopm

entor

sen-

sory

processing

.

Can

beused

toevaluate

theeffectivenessof

aninterventionprog

ram

orcouldbe

used

toinvesti-

gate

whether

certaindi-

agno

sticgrou

pspresent

with

distinct

motor

skill

difficulties.

•Novalidity

evidence

repo

rted.

•Doesno

tprovidemuch

inform

ationon

theoc-

cupationalperform

ance

ofchildren.

Promisingpreliminary

reliabilityevidence

isrepo

rted.

Qualityof

LifeinSchool

(QoL

S)Version

2(W

eintraub

&Bar-Haim

Erez,200

9)

Purpose:D

escriptive

Practicality:C

hildrates

howtrue

statem

entsare

abou

thisor

herscho

ol-

relatedQoL

;easyto

administerandscore

LevelIII

Stage

8:very

earlyvalida-

tionstudy

Providesatooltoevaluate

typically

developing

stu-

dents’perceptions

ofschool-relatedQoL.

May

have

immediate

appli-

cationto

studentswith

psycho

socialchalleng

es.

May

beused

toinvestiga-

tetheoretical

underpin-

ningsof

therelationship

betweenoccupationand

QoL

.

May

beused

inresearch

toexploreaspectsof

schoolperformance,sub-

jectivestudentscho

ol-

relatedQoL,andother

culturalor

environm

ental

factors.

•Requiresfurtherrelia-

bilityandvalidity

studies

toensure

thatthetool

discriminates

between

childrenwho

doanddo

notenjoy,participate

well,or

academ

ically

achieveinscho

ol.

•Needs

tobe

validated

for

childrenwith

disability.

Thetool

hasawell-

documentedexplanation

ofits

psychometricdevel-

opmentthatcontributes

totheuser’sconfidenceand

actualrigor

ofthetool.

Schoo

lFun

ctionAssess-

ment(Hwang&Davies,

2009

)

Purpo

se:D

iscriminative,


Practicality:R

equiresspe-

cialized

skillsto

admin-

ister,score,andinterpret;

basedon

interviewwith

person

who

know

sho

w

LevelIII

Stages8and10

:validity

anddimensionality

assessment

Can

beused

toassess

children’sactivity

perfor-

mance

inaschool

environm

ent.

Isatop-do

wnas-

sessmenttool

that

pro-

videsinform

ationabou

tchildren’sactivity

participation.

•Cou

ldbe

used

toevalu-

atetheeffectivenessof

occupationaltherapy

interventionprog

rams.

•Cou

ldprovideabase-

lineforchildren’sschool-

relatedoccupations.

•Requires

specialized

trainingto

administer

andscore.

•Isqu

itetim

econsum

ing

toadministerandscore.

•Wellestablishedwith

strong

psycho

metric

characteristics.

•Testhasbeen

widely

used.

•Verycompatiblewith

anoccupation-focused

(Con

tinued)



Table3.

Critiqu

eof

Childrenan

dYou

thInstrumen

tDevelop

men

tan

dTe

stingArticlesPub

lished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary

2009

–Sep

tembe

r20

13(con

t.)

InstrumentandAuthor

Purpose

ofInstrumentand

Practicality

Levelof

Evidence

and

Stage

ofInstrument

Develop

ment

Relevance

toOccupational

TherapyPractice

Relevance

toOccupational

TherapyTheory

Relevance

toOccupational

TherapyResearch

Limitations

ofStudy

Strengths

ofStudy

child

functions

inscho

olenvironm

ent

•Scalebo

okletandman-

ualhavetobe

purchased,

creatingcostissue.

perspectiveon

service

provision.

Schoo

lVersion

ofthe

Assessm

entof

Motor

andProcess

Skills

(Mun

kholm,B

erg,

Lofgren,&Fisher,2

010)

Purpose:D

escriptive,dis-


evaluative

Practicality:V

alidand

clinicallyusefultoolfor

measuring

thequality

ofscho

olworktask

perfor-

mance

asitisob

served

inthenaturalclassroom

setting

LevelIII

Stages8and10

:validity

assessment

Can

beused

toassess

children’smotor

andpro-

cess

skillsinaclassroom

environm

ent.

•IsaMOHO-based

tool.

•Buildsabo

dyof

know

l-edge

abou

tmotor

and

processskills.

Couldbe

used

toevaluate

theeffectivenessof

occu-

pationaltherapy

interven-

tionprog

ramsor

asan

outcom

emeasure.

Requirescompletionof

a5-daycourse

inwhich

raters

aretrainedand

calibrated;somepo

tential

usersmay

notbe

ableto

afford

thecourse

tuition

fees.

•Well-validated

and

standardized

scale

•Strongevidence

ofdimension

ality

•Assesseschildren’s

motor

andprocess

skillsinanaturalistic

environm

ent.

•Testusershave

tocom-

pleteextensivetraining

course

andbecome

calibratedbefore

using

instrumentindependently.

Sense

andSelf-Regulation

Checklist(Silva&Schalock,

2012)

Purpose:D

escriptive,dis-


Practicality:E

asily

administeredandscored

parent–caregiver

measure

LevelIII

Stages7and8:

reliability

andvalidity

study

May

have

someapplica-

tionto

clinicaloccupa-

tionaltherapypractice

basedon

abiop

sychoso-

cialor

biom

edicalfram

e-work;

limitedapplication

toothertypesof

clinical

occupationaltherapy

practice.

May

beused

inresearch

tofurtherinvestigatethe

relationships

withinabio-

medicalfram

ework.

May

beused

inresearch

tofurtherinvestigatethe

relationshipam

ongsen-

sory

processing

,behav-

ior,andself-regulation

amongchildrenwith

au-

tism

spectrum

disorder.

Furthervalidationresearch

required

todemonstrate

applicationto

clinicaloc-

cupationaltherapyuse.

Promisinginitial

psycho

-metricprop

erties,

al-

thou

ghfurthervalidity

studiesmight

includ

eand

analyzedata

from

the

perspectiveof

otherchild

andenvironm

ental

variables.

SensoryExperiences

Ques-

tionnaire(SEQ

;Littleetal.,

2011)

Purpose:D

escriptive,

discriminative,and

evaluative

Practicality:S

ensory

processing

LevelIII

Stage

7:reliability

assessment

Can

beused

toassess

childrenpresentingwith

sensoryprocessing

issues.

Providesevidence

abou

tsensoryprocessing

issues;couldprovide

supp

ortforDun

n’sSen-

sory

ProcessingModel.

Couldbe

used

toevaluate

theeffectivenessof

occu-

pationaltherapy

interven-

tionprog

rams.

•Limitedpsycho

metric

datahave

been

published

ontheSEQ

.•Participantsforreliability

studywererecruited

from

1geo

graphic

region.

Brief

parent-reportscale,

minimum

respon

dent

burden

Sensory

ProfileCaregiver

Questionn

aire

(Ohletal.,

2012

)

Purpose:D

escriptive,dis-


andevaluative

Practicality:P

arent-report

scale;tim

econsum

ingto

scoreandinterpret

LevelIII

Stages8and10

:validity

assessment

Can

beusedto

assess

children’ssensory

pro-

cessingskills.

Providesevidence

abou

tchildren’ssensoryproces-

sing

andpotentialcontri-

butions

andhowthiscould

affecttheiroccupational

performance

indaily

contexts.

Couldbe

used

toevaluate

theeffectivenessof

occu-

pationaltherapy

interven-

tionprog

ramsor

asan

outcom

emeasure.

•Manyitemsto

answ

er.

•Limitedvalidity

data

available.

•Scalebo

okletandman-

ualhavetobe

purchased,

creatingcostissue.

•Com

prehensive

coverage

ofsensoryprocessing

issues

inaclassroom

context.

•Asksforparent

and

teacherfeedback.

•Based

onpracticemodel.

(Con

tinued)



Table3.

Critiqu

eof

Childrenan

dYou

thInstrumen

tDevelop

men

tan

dTe

stingArticlesPub

lished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary

2009

–Sep

tembe

r20

13(con

t.)

InstrumentandAuthor

Purpose

ofInstrumentand

Practicality

Levelof

Evidence

and

Stage

ofInstrument

Develop

ment

Relevance

toOccupational

TherapyPractice

Relevance

toOccupational

TherapyTheory

Relevance

toOccupational

TherapyResearch

Limitations

ofStudy

Strengths

ofStudy

Slosson

Visual–Motor

Perform

ance

Test

(Brown,Unsworth,&

Lyons,2009)

Purpo

se:D

iscriminative,


Practicality:H

aveto

pur-

chasetestbo

okletsand



LevelIII

Stages8and10

:validity

anddimensionality

assessment

Can

beusedto

assess

child

ren’svisu

al–motor

integrationskills.

Isabo

ttom

-upassess-

menttool

that

pro-

videsinform

ationabou

tchildren’sbo

dyfunctions

andstructures.

Couldbe

used

toevaluate

theeffectivenessof

occu-

pationaltherapy

interven-

tionprog

rams.

•Doesno

tprovideinfor-

mationabou

tchildren’s

occupationalperfor-

man

ce.

•Notwidelyused

byther-

apists.

•Limitedpsycho

metric

datapu

blishedabou

ttestby

externalauthors.

•Scalebo

okletandman-

ualhavetobe

purchased,

creatingcostissue.

Prelim

inaryevidence

ofreliabilityandvalidity

repo

rted

bytest

authors

intestmanualisprom

ising.

Testof

Visual–Motor

In-

tegration(TVMI;Brown,

Unsworth,&

Lyons,2009)

Purpo

se:D

iscriminative,


Practicality:R

equires

purchase

oftestbo

oklets

andmanual;relatively

easy

toadministerand

score

LevelIII

Stages8and10

:validity

anddimensionality

assessment

Can

beusedto

assess

child

ren’svisu

al–motor

integrationskills.

Isabo

ttom

-upas-

sessmenttool

that

pro-

videsinform

ationabou

tchildren’sbo

dyfunctions

andstructures.

Couldbe

used

toevaluate

theeffectivenessof

oc-


terventionprog

ramsor

toestablishthevisual–

motor

baselineskillsof

certaindiagno

sticgrou

psof

clients.

•Doesno

tprovideinfor-

mationabou

tchildren’s

occupationalperfor-

man

ce.

•Notwidelyused

byther-

apists.

•Limitedpsycho

metric

datapu

blishedabou

ttestby

externalauthors.

Prelim

inaryevidence


repo

rted

bytest

authors

intest

manualis

prom

ising.

TestofVisual–Motor

Skills–R

evised

(TVMS–R

;Brown,Unsworth,&

Lyons,

2009)

Purpo

se:D

iscriminative,


Practicality:R

equirespur-

chaseoftestbo

okletsand



LevelIII

Stages8and10

:validity

anddimensionality

assessment

Can

beusedto

assess

child

ren’svisu

al–motor

integrationskills.

Isabo

ttom

-upas-

sessmenttool

that

pro-

videsinform

ationabou

tchildren’sbo

dyfunctions

andstructures.

Couldbe

used

toevaluate

theeffectivenessof

occu-

pationaltherapy

interven-

tionprog

ramsor

toes-

tablishthevisual–m

otor

baselineskillsofcertain

diagnosticgroups

ofclients.

•Doesno

tprovideinfor-

mationabou

tchildren’s

occupationalperfor-

man

ce.

•Limitedpsycho

metric

datapu

blishedabou

ttestby

externalauthors.

•Scalebo

okletandman-

ualhavetobe

purchased,

creatingcostissue.

Prelim

inaryevidence


repo

rted

bytest

authors

intest

manualis

prom

ising.

Testof

Visual–Perceptual

Skills–R

evised

(TVPS–R

;Tsai,L

in,Liao,

&Hsieh,

2009

)

Purpose:D

escriptive,dis-


andevaluative

Practicality:Fairlystraight-

forwardto

administerand

score

LevelIII

Stages7and10

:reliability

assessment

Can

beused

toestablish

thebaselineof

achild’s

visual–perceptualskills.

Can

beused

toinvestigate

theun

derpinning

sof

per-

ceptualmotor

theory.

Can

beused

toestablish

theeffectivenessof

aninterventionprog

ram

orexplorethelinks

between

visual–perceptualskills

andchildren’soccupational

performance.

•Smallsam

plesize

•Datagathered

in1geo-

graphiclocation.

•Nolinkto

occupational

performance

ofchildren

made.

•Answersheets,testplate

book,and

testmanual

have

tobe

purchased,

creatingcostissue.

•Providesevidence

ofthe

reliabilityprop

ertiesof

theTV

PS–R

.•Providesevidence

for

useof

scaleinacross-

culturalcon

text.

(Con

tinued)



Table3.

Critiqu

eof

Childrenan

dYou

thInstrumen

tDevelop

men

tan

dTe

stingArticlesPub

lished

intheAmerican

Journa

lofO

ccup

ationa

lThe

rapy,Jan

uary

2009

–Sep

tembe

r20

13(con

t.)

InstrumentandAuthor

Purpose

ofInstrumentand

Practicality

Levelof

Evidence

and

Stage

ofInstrument

Develop

ment

Relevance

toOccupational

TherapyPractice

Relevance

toOccupational

TherapyTheory

Relevance

toOccupational

TherapyResearch

Limitations

ofStudy

Strengths

ofStudy

WeeklyCalendarPlann

ing

Activity

(WCPA;Tog

lia&

Berg,2013;W

einer,Toglia,

&Berg,2012)

Purpose:D

escriptiveand

discriminative

Practicality:R

elatively

easy

toob

tainand

administer;relatively

inexpensiveto

use

LevelIII

Stage

8:validity

anddi-

mensionality

assessment

•Can

beused

toassess

clients’executivefunc-

tioning.

•Cou

ldbe

used

toevalu-

atetheeffectivenessof

aninterventionprogram

forresearch

purposes.

Could

beused

tocon-

tributeto

theories

ofcogn

itive

functioning

orexecutivefunctioning

re-

mediationpracticemodels.

Couldbe

used

toevaluate

theeffectivenessof

in-

terventionprog

ramsthat

target

clients’executive

functionskills.

Convenience

sampling;

recruitm

entof

partic-

ipants

from

1geog

raphic

location,

which

limits

the

generalizability

ofthe

findings;

largesample

size

difference

between

the2participantgrou

ps.

Strengthof

theWCPAis

that

itis

anecolog

ical

assessmentthat

involves

thecompletionof

anev-

eryday

task

(i.e.,entering

appo

intm

ents

into

aweeklyschedu

le).

Note.LevelI5system

aticreview

s,meta-analyses,and

random

ized

controlledtrials;LevelII5two-grou

pno

nrando

mized

pretest–po

sttestdesigns(e.g.,coho

rtdesign

s,case

controlstudies);LevelIII5on

e-groupno

nrando

mized,

noncon

trolledtrials;LevelIV

5single-subjectdesigns,descriptivestudies,andcase

series;LevelV5

expertop

inion,case

study,no

tbased

onsystem

aticresearch

metho

ds.D

CD5

developm

entalcoo

rdinationdisorder;ICF5

InternationalC

lassificationof

Function,

DisabilityandHealth;M

OHO5

Modelof

Hum

anOccup

ation;

PED

I5

PediatricEvaluationof

DisabilityInventory;PEO

5Person–Environm

ent–Occupationmodel;Q

oL5

quality

oflife.

Sug

gested

citation:Brown,T.,&

Bourke-Taylor,H

.(2014

).Centenn

ialVision—


evelopmentand


JournalofO

ccup

ationalTherapy,200

9–20

13:A

content,

metho

dology,and

instrumentdesign

review

(Table3).A

merican


8,e154

–e21

6.http://dx.do

i.org/10.50

14/ajot.20

14.01223

7



Table 4. Classification of Instruments in the Children and Youth Instrument Development and Testing Articles Published in the AmericanJournal of Occupational Therapy, January 2009–September 2013, by Practice Model

PEO ICF

Instrument Person Environment OccupationBody Functionsand Structures

PersonalFactors

EnvironmentalFactors Activity Participation

Adolescents and Adults Coordination Questionnaire O O

Assessment of Children’s Hand Skills O O O O O O

Assessment of Motor and Process Skills O O O O O O O O

Ayres Sensory Integration Fidelity Measure O O

Box and Block Test O O

Child Occupational Self Assessment O O O O O O O

Children’s Assessment of Participation andEnjoyment/Preferences for Activities of Children

O O O O O O

Children’s Leisure Assessment Scale O O O O O O

Comprehensive Observations of Proprioception O O

Developmental Test of Visual–Motor Integration O O

Do–Eat O O O O

Evaluation of Social Interaction O O O O O O

Evaluation Tool of Children’s Handwriting O O O O

Family L.I.F.E. (Looking Into Family Experiences) O O O O O O

Health Promoting Activities Scale O O O O

Life Participation for Parents O O O O O

Manual Ability Classification System O O

McDonald Play Inventory O O O O

Melbourne Assessment of Unilateral UpperLimb Function

O O

Motor-Free Visual Perception Test–Revised O O

Occupational Self Assessment O O O O O O

Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory–ComputerAdaptive Test

O O O O O O

Pediatric Outcomes Data Collection Instrument O O O

Preschool Imitation and Praxis Scale O O

Quality of Life in School Version 2 O O O O O O O

School Function Assessment O O O O O O O

School Version of the Assessment of Motor andProcess Skills

O O O O O O O

Sense and Self-Regulation Checklist O O

Sensory Experiences Questionnaire O O O O

Sensory Profile Caregiver Questionnaire O O O

Slosson Visual–Motor Performance Test O O

Test of Visual–Motor Integration O O

Test of Visual–Motor Skills–Revised O O

Test of Visual–Perceptual Skills–Revised O O

Weekly Calendar Planning Activity O O O

Note. ICF5 International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (World Health Organization, 2001, 2007); PEO5 Person–Environment–Occupationmodel(Law et al., 1996).

Suggested citation: Brown, T., & Bourke-Taylor, H. (2014). Centennial Vision—Children and youth instrument development and testing articles published in theAmerican Journal of Occupational Therapy, 2009–2013: A content, methodology, and instrument design review (Table 4). American Journal of Occupational Therapy,68, e154–e216. http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2014.012237



centennial vision children and youth instrument ... · ward aota’s centennial vision goals. they...

Documents