Butts Denea S, Nelson David L
College of Health Science and Human Service, The University of Toledo Health Science Campus, OH, USA.
Am J Occup Ther. 2007 Sep-Oct;61(5):512-8. doi: 10.5014/ajot.61.5.512.
The American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA) developed the Occupational Therapy Practice Framework: Domain and Process (the Framework) to categorize and organize concepts in the field of occupational therapy in a manner that would be understandable to practitioners within the field as well as to external readers. The current study investigates the degree to which occupational therapists' classification of terminology agrees with the Framework's classification of terminology. Through mail survey format, 200 randomly selected AOTA occupational therapist members were asked to classify 30 randomly selected terms from the Framework into the 6 domain categories of the Framework. Based on the responses of 94 completed surveys, low levels of agreement were found between therapists' and the Framework's categorizations. Overall, practicing therapists did not categorize terms in a manner consistent with the categorization of the Framework. We recommend that AOTA refrain from developing systems of categorization, at least until a consensus develops in the field concerning terminology.
美国职业治疗协会(AOTA)制定了《职业治疗实践框架:领域与过程》(以下简称《框架》),以便按照该领域从业者以及外部读者都能理解的方式,对职业治疗领域的概念进行分类和组织。本研究调查了职业治疗师对术语的分类与《框架》中术语分类的一致程度。通过邮件调查的形式,随机挑选了200名AOTA职业治疗师成员,要求他们将从《框架》中随机选取的30个术语归类到《框架》的6个领域类别中。基于94份完整调查问卷的回复,发现治疗师的分类与《框架》的分类之间一致性较低。总体而言,执业治疗师对术语的分类方式与《框架》的分类不一致。我们建议AOTA避免开发分类系统,至少在该领域就术语达成共识之前应如此。