Critiquing the logic of the domain section of the Occupational Therapy Practice Framework: Domain and Process

American Journal of Occupational Therapy

Volumn 60, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 511-523

  Nelson, David L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33845270998     PISSN: 02729490     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5014/ajot.60.5.511     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. American Occupational Therapy Association. (1994). Uniform terminology for occupational therapy-Third edition. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 48, 1047-1054.
2. American Occupational Therapy Association. (2002). Occupational therapy practice framework: Domain and process. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56, 609-639.
3. American Occupational Therapy Association. (2004). Scope of practice. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 58, 673-677.
4. American Occupational Therapy Foundation & American Occupational Therapy Association. (2004, February 23). Research priorities and the parameters of practice for occupational therapy. OT Practice, 9, 20-21.
5. Bailey, K. D. (1994). Typologies and taxonomies: An introduction to classification techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6. Berger, S., & Cohn, E. (2003, March). Incorporating the Occupational Therapy Practice Framework into an entry-level curriculum. Education Special Interest Section Quarterly, 13(1), 1-3.
7. Bickenbach, J. E., Chatterji, S., Badley, E. M., & Ustun, T. B. (1999). Models of disablement, universalism and the international classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. Social Science and Medicine, 48, 1173-1187.
8. Borst, M. J., & Nelson, D. L. (1993). Usage of Uniform Terminology by occupational therapists. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47, 611-618.
9. Bruggeman, J., & Vermuelen, I. (2002). A logical toolkit for theory (re)construction. Sociological Methodology, 32, 183-217.
10. Christiansen, C. (1994). Classification and study in occupation: A review and discussion of taxonomies. Journal of Occupational Science, 1, 3-21.
11. Fisher, A. G. (1999). Assessment of motor and process skills (3rd ed.). Fort Collins, CO: Three Star Press.
12. Foucault, M. (1970). Les mots et les choses: Une archéologie des sciences humaines [The order of things: An archeology of the human sciences]. New York: Vintage Books.
13. Forsyth, K., & Kielhofner, G. (1999). Validity of the Assessment of Communication and Interaction Skills. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 69-74.
14. Glomstad, J. (2003, June 16). Crowd "storms the Hill" in DC: AOTA Conference. Advance for Occupational Therapy Practitioners, 19(12), 9-10.
15. Hunter, E. J. (2002). Classification made simple. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
16. Kemmerling, G. (2001). Definition and meaning. Retrieved February 17, 2005, from http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e05.htm
17. Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research (3rd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace College.
18. Lawton, M. P. (1999). Environmental taxonomy: Generalizations from research with older adults. In S. L. Friedman & T. D. Wachs (Eds.), Measuring environments across the life span: Emerging methods and concepts (pp. 91-124). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
19. Mosey, A. C. (1970). Three frames of reference for mental health. Thorofare, NJ: Slack.
20. Mosey, A. C. (1981). Occupational therapy: Configuration of a profession. New York: Raven.
21. Mosey, A. C. (1985). Eleanor Clarke Slagle lecture, 1985: A monistic or a pluristic approach to professional identify? American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 39, 504-509.
22. National Board of Certification in Occupational Therapy. (2003, fall). NBCOT certification examinations and the Occupational Therapy Practice Framework language. Report to the profession (p. 5). Gaithersburg, MD: Author.
23. Pierce, D. (2001). Untangling occupation and activity. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55, 138-146.
24. Ranganathan, S. R., & Gopinath, M. A. (1967). Prolegomena to library classification (3rd ed.). Bombay, India: Asia Pub. House.
25. Reed, K. L., White, M., & Wong, J. (2004, May 22). Comparison of terminology: OTPF vs. 25 current textbooks. Paper presented at the American Occupational Therapy Associations Annual Conference & Expo, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
26. Reynolds, P. D. (1971). A primer in theory construction. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
27. Rosenthal, M. S. (2004, August 9). Essay: From OT theory to practice: A bridge too far? OT Practice, 9, 14-19.
28. Schuster, C. S., & Ashburn, S. S. (1992). The process of human development: A holistic life-span approach (3rd. ed.). New York: Lippincott.
29. Taxonomic systems. (1984). In R. J. Corsini (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 3). New York: Wiley.
30. United States Department of Labor. (2005). America time-use survey summary. Retrieved March 25, 2005, from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus. t01.htm
31. Weinstock-Zlotnick, G., & Hinojosa, J. (2004). The issue is-Bottom-up or top-down evaluation: Is one better than the other? American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 58, 594-599.
32. World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability, and health. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
33. Whyte, J. (1998). Enabling America: A report from the Institute of Medicine on rehabilitation science and engineering. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 79, 1477-1480.