Agreement between occupational therapy practice framework classifications and occupational therapists' classifications

American Journal of Occupational Therapy

Volumn 61, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 512-518

  Butts, Denea S ^a   Nelson, David L ^b  

^a Harborside Healthcare   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO   (United States)

Author keywords

Agreement; Classification; Occupational therapy; Occupational therapy practice framework; Terminology

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; CONSENSUS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; NOMENCLATURE; OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; QUESTIONNAIRE; STANDARD; TASK PERFORMANCE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CONSENSUS; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HUMANS; OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY; OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; QUESTIONNAIRES; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC; UNITED STATES;

EID: 38449114487     PISSN: 02729490     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5014/ajot.61.5.512     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. American Occupational Therapy Association. (1979). Occupational therapy product output reporting system and uniform terminology system for reporting occupational therapy services. Rockville, MD: Author.
2. American Occupational Therapy Association. (1989). Uniform terminology for occupational therapy-Second edition. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 43, 808-815.
3. American Occupational Therapy Association. (1994). Uniform terminology for occupational therapy-Third edition. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 48, 1047-1054.
4. American Occupational Therapy Association. (2002). Occupational therapy practice framework: Domain and process. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56, 609-639.
5. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
6. Borst, M. J., & Nelson, D. L. (1993). Use of uniform terminology by occupational therapists. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47, 611-618.
7. Christiansen, C. (1994). Classification and study in occupation: A review and discussion of taxonomies. Journal of Occupational Science, 1, 3-21.
8. Dillman, D. A. (1999). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
9. Fowler, F. J. (2001). Survey research methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
10. Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
11. Kielhofner, G. (2004). Conceptual foundations of occupational therapy (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.
12. Landis, J. R, & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.
13. Mosey, A. C. (1981). Occupational therapy: Configuration of a profession. New York: Raven.
14. Mosey, A. C. (1985). The 1985 Eleanor Clarke Slagle Lecture-A monistic or a pluralistic approach to professional identity? American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 39, 504-509.
15. Moyers, P A. (1999). The guide to occupational therapy practice. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 53, 247-322.
16. Nelson, D. L. (1997). The 1996 Eleanor Clarke Slagle Lecture-Why the profession of occupational therapy will continue to flourish in the 21st century. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 51, 11-24.
17. Nelson, D. L. (2006). Critiquing the logic of the Domain section of the Occupational Therapy Practice Framework: Domain and Process. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 60, 511-523.
18. Reynolds, P. D. (1971). A primer in theory construction. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
19. Youngstrom, M. J. (2002). From the Guest Editor-The Occupational Therapy Practice Framework: The evolution of our professional language. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56, 607-608.