ABSTRACT
Objective: Appropriate functional vision is vital for the development of visually impaired (VI) children. However, the literature currently lacks a performance-based tool for assessing functional vision, unlike the existing self-reported tools. The objective of this study is to develop and conduct a clinimetric study on a Performance-Based Functional Vision Tool (PB-FVT) specifically designed for VI children aged 3-7 and 7-10 years old. Methods: This methodological study was conducted to assess the clinimetric properties of the PB-FVT. The assessment included face validity (evaluated through cognitive interviews and an Impact Score >1.5), content validity (with criteria including content validity ratio >0.63, item content validity index >0.78, scale content validity index or average >0.8, and Kappa value >0.7), criterion validity (assessed through a concurrent test using visual acuity scores), construct validity (utilizing the known group method), relative reliability (measured by the intra-class correlation coefficient), absolute reliability (determined by the standard error of measurement and minimal detectable changes), interpretability, responsiveness, sensitivity, and specificity (analyzed via ROC curve analysis). Results: The PB-FVT was developed with 32 items, divided into five components: activities of daily living, instrumental activities of daily living, education, play, and social interaction. The results indicate that the scale demonstrates suitability in terms of validity, reliability, and other measurement characteristics. Conclusions: The valid and reliable PB-FVT may accurately assess the level of functional vision during early childhood, helping to prevent negative impacts on a child's overall development. By utilizing the PB-FVT, any functional vision impairments can be identified appropriately, enabling the planning and implementation of effective rehabilitation interventions.
ABSTRACT
There is mounting evidence that the vascular manifestations associated with COVID-19 are linked to ischemic strokes. The emergence of patients with both COVID-19 and cerebrovascular accidents (COV-CVA) has created a need to adjust occupational therapy service delivery for inpatients with this dual diagnosis. This clinical perspective paper conceptualizes COV-CVA as a health condition using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Framework (ICF). The Occupational Therapy Practice Framework-4 was used to guide clinical considerations and recommendations for the evaluation, intervention, and discharge planning of patients with COV-CVA.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Disabled Persons , Occupational Therapy , Stroke Rehabilitation , Stroke , Humans , Inpatients , Diagnosis, Dual (Psychiatry) , Stroke/therapy , Disabled Persons/rehabilitation , Disability Evaluation , COVID-19 TestingABSTRACT
El trabajo de compilación de un documento de este calibre no deja de ser un reto. Con este número especial intentamos contribuir al desarrollo de la disciplina y establecer una base teórica para beneficio de los y las profesionales e terapia ocupacional. (AU)
The work of compiling a document of this caliber is always a challenge. In this special issue we attempt to contribute to the development of the discipline and establish a theoretical basis for the benefit of occupational therapy professionals. (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Occupational Therapy , 36448 , PublicationsABSTRACT
En un momento en el que las profesiones sanitarias evolucionan prestando cada vez más importancia a la función y participación ocupacional, la AOTA ha publicado la última actualización de su Marco de Trabajo. El objetivo de este artículo es crear una discusión sobre cómo esta actualización se relaciona con otras teorías, marcos o modelos utilizados actualmente en terapia ocupacional. A pesar de las características únicas de cada teoría, el Marco de la AOTA continúa cercano a los modelos más tradicionales de la profesión en cuanto a valores, conceptos, evolución y enfoque. Sin embargo, se ha desarrollado menos que otrosmodelos actuales en cuanto aevidencia científica y el uso de varios enfoques o conocimiento externo a la profesión. (AU)
As health care professions move towards emphasizing function and occupational participation, AOTA has published the last version of its Occupational Therapy Framework. The aim of this article is to facilitate a discussion about how the framework relates toother actual theories, frameworks or models in occupational therapy. Despite the unique characteristics of each theory, the framework continues in line with the profession traditional models in relation to values, concepts, development and focus. However,the framework lacks evidence-based practice and the use of a variety of approaches or related knowledge to the profession than actual models. (AU)
Subject(s)
History, 20th Century , History, 21st Century , Occupational Therapy/history , Occupational Therapy/trends , Publications , Specialty BoardsABSTRACT
El marco de trabajo para la práctica de terapia ocupacional de la Asociación Americana de Terapia Ocupacional (AOTA) ha llegado a su cuarta revisión. Es un documento en constante evolución, que fue creado originariamente para describir la singular perspectiva y la contribución de terapia ocupacional en la promoción de la salud y el compromiso de las personas en la participación en ocupaciones. Pretende ser una herramienta para la comunicación con la población y otros profesionales, proporcionando un lenguaje que lo permita. El objetivo de éste artículo es reflexionar y analizar si el marco cumple el objetivo de proporcionar un lenguaje uniforme y conocer otras propuestas de lenguaje profesional. (AU)
The Occupational Therapy Framework of the AOTA reaches to its fourth edition. This is an ever-evolving document that was originally developed to describe occupational therapy ́s distinct perspective and contribution to promoting health and engagement of persons participating in occupations. It intends to be a tool for the communication with population and others professionals, providing a language to facilitate it. The aim of this article is to reflect and analyze whether the framework fulfills the objective of providing a uniform language and to learn about other professional languages proposals. (AU)
Subject(s)
History, 21st Century , Occupational Therapy/history , Occupational Therapy/trends , Specialty Boards , PublicationsABSTRACT
En 2020 la Asociación Americana de Terapia Ocupacional (AOTA) publicó la cuarta edición de su Marco de Trabajo para la Práctica de Terapia Ocupacional: Dominio y Proceso. Más de 40 años hace ya del lanzamiento de su predecesor, la Terminología Uniforme de Terapia Ocupacional, creado con una finalidad diferente a la actual. Desde entonces y hasta ahora, es evidente la evolución de este documento a lo largo de sus diferentes ediciones para tratar de adaptarse a los cambios y necesidades de la profesión y reflejar la evolución en la práctica, siendo objeto tanto de alabanzas como de críticas. El presente artículo pretende analizarlas diferentes críticas recogidas en la literatura de terapia ocupacional en relación a las diversas ediciones del Marco de Trabajo para la Práctica Profesional de la AOTA y sus documentos predecesores (Terminología Uniforme de Terapia Ocupacional I, II y III). Se recoge también una crítica somera de las autoras de este artículo y se invita a abrir un espacio para la reflexión y futuras investigaciones acerca del uso y validez de este documento para la globalidad de la comunidad de terapia ocupacional. (AU)
In 2020, American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA) published the fourth edition of its Occupational Therapy Practice Framework: Domain and Process. Its predecessor, The Uniform Occupational Therapy Terminology, was created and launched more than 40 years ago with a different purpose than the current one. Since then until now, the document development is clear through its different editions while trying to adapt to changes and needs of the profession and to reflect the evolution in practice, being the object of both praise and criticism. This article tries to analyze different criticisms gathered in occupational therapy literature regarding the different editions of AOTAs Occupational TherapyPractice Framework and its previous documents (Uniform Occupational Therapy Terminology I, II and III). It also includes a brief critique by the authors of this article and invites to an open space for reflection and future research on the use and validity of this document for the occupational therapy community as a whole. (AU)
Subject(s)
History, 20th Century , History, 21st Century , Occupational Therapy/history , Occupational Therapy/trends , Publications , Specialty BoardsABSTRACT
AIMS: We investigated how instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) are addressed and perceived, in comparison to activities of daily living (ADLs), across preschool (3-5 years), middle childhood (6-11 years), early adolescence (12-15 years), and older adolescence (16-21 years) age groups by pediatric occupational therapy (OT) practitioners. METHOD: 247 OT practitioners with at least 2 years of pediatric work experience in the U.S. completed an electronic survey assessing (a) type of IADLs most frequently addressed and (b) type of IADLs perceived as most important across the age groups. RESULTS: With increasing age of children and adolescents with disabilities, frequency and perceived importance of addressing IADLs increased in comparison to ADLs; there was a statistically significant relationship between the frequency and the perceived importance of addressing IADLs for all 12 activities across the age groups. CONCLUSION: The decision-making process in addressing IADLs in pediatric OT practice was significantly influenced by the practitioners' perceived importance of IADLs.
