OTOtherOccupational therapy international2021

Rasch Analysis of the Norwegian Version of the Occupational Balance Questionnaire in a Sample of Occupational Therapy Students.

Tore Bonsaksen, Marte Ørud Lindstad, Carita Håkansson and 2 others

PMID 33976593

WHAT IT FOUND

The Norwegian Occupational Balance Questionnaire failed to work as intended in students.

It could not separate high from low performers, showed signs of two distinct factors rather than one, and had biased items. It is currently unsuitable for clinical practice or research.

Key findings

01The measure did not function adequately as a measure of occupational balance in this sample.

02Person reliability was marginal, indicating the measure has difficulty separating people into distinct occupational balance groups.

03Evidence suggests the emergence of a second dimension, meaning the scale may not measure a single unified construct.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The sample was very homogeneous, consisting only of young, relatively healthy occupational therapy students, which limits the generalizability of the findings to clinical populations or the general public. The study did not include patients with health conditions or functional limitations, who are the primary users of occupational therapy services. The specific context of student life (exams, stress) may have influenced how participants interpreted the items.

Declared interests

The study was approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data. No specific funding sources or conflicts of interest were declared in the provided text.

The easy way to misread this

Do not assume this failure applies to all versions of the Occupational Balance Questionnaire. The Swedish and Turkish versions have shown better psychometric properties. This study specifically highlights issues with the Norwegian translation and its use in a narrow student sample, not necessarily the underlying construct itself.

Read it on PubMed →