Test Construction of the Occupational Repertoire Development Measure–Parent (ORDM–P)

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the face validity and utility of the Occupational Repertoire Development Measure–Parent (ORDM–P) from the perspective of occupational therapists (OTs). Occupational repertoire is defined as the set of occupations an individual has at a specific point in life (Davis & Polatajko, 2010).

RATIONALE: Understanding the development of a child’s occupational repertoire is crucial for pediatric OTs in order to be occupation focused when assessing the child. Current measures focus on components of development such as cognitive, physical, and social; address only participation; or focus on activity patterns that are usually age tagged (Case-Smith, 2010). Although these measures have been adopted by OTs and used in practice, no pediatric occupational measures have been created to specifically address occupational repertoire development. The ORDM–P is a new tool being designed for OTs that uses parent report to identify the occupations children can and do perform and their opportunities for doing so.

DESIGN: Using a descriptive study design, the face validity and utility of the ORDM–P measure were examined to ensure that it captures the breadth of occupations for children ages 2–12 yr. Convenience sampling was used to invite 53 expert pediatric OTs (>6 yr of experience) to participate in the survey. Participants were sampled from Brazil, Canada, Colombia, the Netherlands, Taiwan, and the United States.

METHOD: Electronic surveys (one in English and one in Portuguese) were used to gather expert opinion on the ORDM–P draft. The survey was designed to collect information on the respondents’ perceived ability to use the ORDM–P, as well as their opinion on the clarity and coherence of the measure. Descriptive statistics, content analysis, and the content validity index (CVI) were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS: A 60% response rate was obtained (N = 32). The majority (97%) of respondents believed the ORDM–P would be important for pediatric OTs to use in their practice. Comments stated that the current draft appears to be practical, simple, and easy to use. The respondents believed that the ORDM–P provides fairly equal weight to different occupational categories and will encourage OTs to be occupation focused. In regard to further development, respondents suggested that the ORDM–P use a Likert scale for partial abilities, as can do and can’t do are binary responses associated with a positive and a negative. The item-level content validity index (I–CVI) scores revealed that occupation-level items differ when comparing occupational categories. When interpreting the findings from the self-care category, 100% of respondents rated the self-care occupations as either quite or highly relevant. Items that received a nonsignificant I–CVI score and were rated as somewhat relevant fell under the categories of productivity (e.g., doing laundry) and leisure (e.g., riding a cycle). It appears that the items that received low I–CVI scores consist of occupations that may be perceived to be performed by the older children in the age range of this measure or else seen as nonessential for children with disabilities to perform.

DISCUSSION: Occupation is at the core of occupational therapy; thus, to enable children’s occupations, a measure that specifically addresses occupational repertoire development was developed. This study identified the face validity and utility of the ORDM–P. Overall, results indicate value in further ORDM–P development and validate that the correct questions are being asked relating to a child’s ability, performance, and opportunity for specific occupations. Results will be used to further refine the ORDM–P to increase the measure’s overall validity.

IMPACT STATEMENT: The ORDM–P will enable pediatric OTs to identify potential occupational development issues, thus allowing therapists to work with parents and children to individually cater interventions to meet the child’s occupational needs.

References

Case-Smith, J. (2010). Development of childhood occupations. In J. Case-Smith & J. O’ Brien (Eds.), Occupational therapy for children (pp. 56–83). Maryland Heights, MO: Mosby Elsevier.

Davis, J., & Polatajko, H. (2010). Occupational development. In E. A. Townsend & C. H. Christiansen (Eds.), Introduction to occupation: The art and science of living (2nd ed., pp. 135–174). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.