Editorial: Top-down or bottom-up occupational therapy assessment: Which way do we go?

British Journal of Occupational Therapy

Volumn 73, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 95-

  Brown, Ted ^a   Chien, Chi Wen ^a  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Assessment; Occupational performance; Top down and bottom up assessments

Indexed keywords

EID: 77950446267     PISSN: 03080226     EISSN: 14776006     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4276/030802210X12682330090334     Document Type: Editorial

References (7)

1. Chard G (2000) An investigation into the use of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) in clinical practice. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63(10), 481-488
2. Hocking C (2001) Implementing occupation-based assessment. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55(4), 463-469
3. Stewart S (1999) The use of standardised and non-standardised assessments in a social services setting: implications for practice. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62(9), 417-423
4. Tam C, Teachman G, Wright V (2008) Paediatric application of individualised client-centred outcome measures: a literature review. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 71(7), 286-296
5. Trombly C (1993) Anticipating the future: assessment of occupational function. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 470), 253-257
6. Weinstock-Zlotnick G, Hinojosa J (2004) Bottom-up or top-down evaluation: is one better than the other? American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 58(5), 594-599 (Pubitemid 39330146)
7. World Health Organisation (2001) International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva: WHO.