SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

vol.42 issue1Fieldwork education: Putting supervisors' interpersonal communication to the testUndergraduate occupational therapy students' engagement in qualitative research: Identifying research problems and questions through reflection while in a community fieldwork setting author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand



Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • On index processSimilars in Google


South African Journal of Occupational Therapy

On-line version ISSN 2310-3833
Print version ISSN 0038-2337

S. Afr. j. occup. ther. vol.42 n.1 Pretoria  2012




Domains for occupational therapy outcomes in mental health practices



Daleen CasteleijnI; Margot GrahamII

IBArb (Pret), BOccTher (Hons)(Medunsa), Postgraduate Diploma in Vocational Rehabilitation (Pret), Diploma in Higher Education and Training (Pret), MOccTher (Pret), PhD candidate (Pret). Senior Lecturer, Occupational Therapy Department, School of Therapeutic Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand
IINatDiplOT (Pret), BOccTher(Hons)(Pret), MOccTher (Pret), PhD(Pret). Associate Professor, Occupational Therapy Department, School of Health Care Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria





Occupational therapists in mental health care settings find it difficult to produce convincing evidence of their unique contribution to health care. This article reports on the initial phase of a larger study where the purpose was to determine domains for an outcome measure for occupational therapists in mental health care settings. A mixed methods exploratory design: Instrument Development Model was used to determine suitable domains. Occupational therapy clinicians participated in focus group discussions, workshops and the nominal group technique to discuss the status quo of outcome measurement and eventually selected domains for the ideal outcome measure for their contexts of practice.
Five themes emerged from the thematic content analysis of the focus groups: Understanding the concept of outcomes, Giving examples of outcomes, Factors influencing the measurement of outcomes, Benefits from using an outcomes measure and Characteristics of an outcomes measure. The nominal group technique was employed during workshops on current trends in outcome measurement in occupational therapy.
Eight domains emerged which represented the service delivery of the participating clinicians. The domains were Process skills, Motivation, Communication and interaction skills, Self-esteem, Balanced lifestyle, Affect, Life skills and Role performance.

Key words: Outcome measurement, Occupational Therapy outcomes, Mental health, Outcome domains, Instrument development model



“Full text available only in PDF format”




1. Mattingly C, Fleming M. Clinical Reasoning: Forms of inquiry in a therapeutic practice. Philadelphia: FA Davis, 1994.         [ Links ]

2. Baum CM, Christiansen CH. Outcomes: The result of interventions in occupational therapy practice. In: Christiansen CH, Baum CM, Bass-Haugen J, editors. Occupational Therapy: Performance, Participation, and Well-being. Thorofare: Slack Incorporated, 2005:522 - 540.         [ Links ]

3. De Clive-Lowe S. Outcome measurement, cost-effectiveness and clinical audit: the importance of standardised assessment to occupational therapists in meeting these new demands. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 1996; 59 (8): 357-362.         [ Links ]

4. Laver Fawcett A. Principles of assessment and outcome measurement for occupational therapists and physiotherapists: theory, skills and application. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2007.         [ Links ]

5. Ellenberg DB. Outcomes research: the history, debate and implications for the field of occupational therapy. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 1996; 50 (6): 435-441.         [ Links ]

6. Hargreaves WA, Shumway M, Hu T, Cuffel B. Measuring mental health outcomes, Cost-outcome Methods for Mental Health. London: Academic Press, 1998.         [ Links ]

7. Jette AM. Outcomes research: Shifting the dominant research paradigm in physical therapy. Physical Therapy, 1995; 75 (11): 965-970.         [ Links ]

8. Pirkis J, Burgess P, Coombs T, Clarke A, Jones-Ellis D, Dickson R. Routine measurement of outcomes in Australia's public sector mental health services. Australia and New Zealand Health Policy, 2005; 2 (8):         [ Links ]

9. Hodges K, Wotring J. The Role of Monitoring Outcomes in Initiating Implementation of Evidence-Based Treatments at the State Level. Psychiatric Services, 2004; 55:396-400.         [ Links ]

10. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM. The need for evidence-based medicine. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 1995; 88 (11): 620-624.         [ Links ]

11. Joubert R. Evidence based practice: a critique based on occupational therapy within the South African context. South African Journal of Occupational Therapy, 2005; 35(2): 8 - 12.         [ Links ]

12. Watson R, Buchanan H. Making our practice evidence-based. South African Journal of Occupational Therapy, 2005; 35 (3): 6-10.         [ Links ]

13. Foote H, Lamont S, Burger E, Leishman A. The introduction of a quality assurance programme in Gauteng Health Hospital occupational therapy services. South African Journal of Occupational Therapy, 2006; 36 (1): 6-10.         [ Links ]

14. Donabedian A, Bashbur R. An introduction to quality assurance in health care. USA: Oxford University Press, 2003.         [ Links ]

15. Law M, Baptiste S, Carswell A, McColl MA, Polatajko H, Pollock, N. Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, 3rd edn, CAOT Publications Ace., Canada, 1998.         [ Links ]

16. McColl MA, Law M, Baptise S, Pollock N, Carswell A, Polatajko H. Targeted applications of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 2005; 72 (5): 298 - 300.         [ Links ]

17. Colquhoun H, Letts L, Law M, MacDermid J, Edwards M. Feasibility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure for routine use. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 2010; 73 (2): 48 - 54.         [ Links ]

18. Chard G. An investigation into the use of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) in clinical practice. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 2000; 63 (10): 481 - 488.         [ Links ]

19. Hitch D. A critique of the assessment of motor and process skills (AMPS) in mental health practice. Mental Health Occupational Therapy, 2007; 12 (1): 4 - 13.         [ Links ]

20. Perry A, Morris M, Unsworth C, Duckett S, Skeat J, Dodd K, Taylor N, Reilly K. Therapy outcome measures for allied health practitioners in Australia: the AusTOMs. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 2004;16 (4): 285-291.         [ Links ]

21. Odes H, Noter E, Nir M, Marcus D, Shamir Y Nir N. Validity and reliability of the MEDYN questionnaire for evaluation of functioning in mental health clients receiving occupational therapy. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 2006; 53: 117-126.         [ Links ]

22. Kramer J, Kielhofner G, Lee S, Ashpole E, Castle L. Utility of the Model of Human Occupation Screening Tool for Detecting Client Change. Occupational Therapy in Mental Health, 2009; 25: 181-191.         [ Links ]

23. South African Government. Mental Health Care Act No 17 of 2002.         [ Links ]

24. Du Toit V Patient volition and action in occupational therapy. 3rd edn, Pretoria: Vona & Marie du Toit Foundation, 2004.         [ Links ]

25. Creswell JW, Plano-Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 2007.         [ Links ]

26. De Vos AS, Strydom H, Fouche CB, Delport CSL. Research at grass roots: for the social sciences and human service professions. 3rd edn, Pretoria: Van Schaik, 2005.         [ Links ]

27. Wilcox J, Zuber-Skerritt O. Using Zing team learning system (TLS) as an electronic method for the nominal group technique (NGT). Journal of Action Learning Action Research, 2003; 8(1): 59-73.         [ Links ]

28. Lloyd-Jones G, Fowell S, Bligh FG. The use of the nominal group technique as an evaluative tool in medical undergraduate education. Medical Education, 1999; 33(1): 8-13.         [ Links ]

29. Green J, Thorogood N. Qualitative methods for health research. London: Sage, 2004        [ Links ]

30. Krefting L. Rigor in qualitative research: the assessment of trust-worthiness. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 1991; 45 (3): 214-222.         [ Links ]

31. Casteleijn JMF Development of an outcome measure for occupational therapists in mental health care practice. University of Pretoria, South Africa. Unpublished doctoral thesis, 2010.         [ Links ]

32. Bowman J, Llewellyn G. Clinical outcomes research from the occupational therapist's perspective. Occupational Therapy International, 2002; 9 (2): 145-166.         [ Links ]

33. American Occupational Therapy Association. Occupational therapy practice framework: Domain and process, 2nd ed. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 2008; 62: 625 - 683.         [ Links ]

34. Clark LA, Watson D. Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 1995; 7 (3): 309-319.         [ Links ]



Daleen Casteleijn

Creative Commons License All the contents of this journal, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License