請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/40166
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 潘璦琬(Ay-Woan Pan) | |
dc.contributor.author | Chia-Wei Fan | en |
dc.contributor.author | 范珈維 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-14T16:42:04Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2008-09-11 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2008-09-11 | |
dc.date.issued | 2008 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2008-08-01 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Alexis, D. H., & Anna, M. L. (2004). Facilitators and barriers to employment: the perspectives of people with psychiatric disabilities and employment service providers. Work, 22(3), 169-182.
Americans with Disabilities Act. Retrieved 03/09, 2008, from http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/ Anthony, W. A. (1996). Integrating psychiatric rehabilitation into managed care. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 20(2), 39-44. AOTA. (1994). Uniform terminology for occupational therapy—Third edition. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 48, 1047-1054. AOTA. (2002). Occupational therapy practice framework: Domain and process. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56, 609-639. Bahia, K., Paulin, M., & Perrien, J. (2000). Reconciliating literature about client satisfaction and perceived service quality. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 21(2), 27-41. Barrett, S. (2001). The impact of training on rater variability. International Education Journal, 2, 49-58. Bond, G. R., & McDonel, E. C. (1991). Vocational rehabilitation outcomes for persons with psychiatric disabilities: An update. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 1, 9-20. Bryson, G., & Bell, M. D. (1997). The Work Behavior Inventory: A scale for the assessment of work behavior for people with severe mental illness. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 20(4), 47-55. Capella, M. E., & Turner, R. C. (2004). Development of an instrument to measure consumer satisfaction in vocational rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 47(2), 76-85, 123-127. Chan, C., & Lee, R. (2005). Factors affecting vocational outcomes of people with chronic illness participating in a supported competitive open employment program in Hong Kong. Work, 25, 359-368. Chan, F., McMahon, B. T., Shaw, L. R., & Lee, G. (2004). Psychometric validation of the Expectations about Rehabilitation Counseling Scale: a preliminary study. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 20(2), 127-133. Chen, F., Shaw, L., McMahon, B. T., Koch, L., & Strauser, D. (1997). A model for enhancing consumer-counselor working relationships in rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 41, 122-137. Cook, J. A., Bond, G., Hoffschmidt, S., Jonas, E., Razzano, L. A., & Weakland, R. (1994). Situational assessment. In: Assessing vocational performance among persons with severe mental illness (pp. 7-16). Chicago: Thresholds National Research and Training Centre on Rehabilitation and Mental Illness. Cook, J. A., Leff, H. S., & Blyler, C. R. (2005). Supported employment interventions are effective for people with severe mental illness. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 62, 505-512. Cook, J. A., Leff, H. S., Blyler, C. R., et al. (2005). Results of a multisite randomized trial of supported employment interventions for individuals with severe mental illness. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 62, 505-512. Cook, J. A., Lehman, A. F., Drake, R., et al. (2005). Integration of psychiatric and vocational services: a multisite randomized, controlled trial of supported employment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(10), 1948-1956. Crepeau, E. B., Cohn, E. S., & Boyt Schell, B. A. (2003). Willard and Spackman's Occupational Therapy (Tenth ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Derogatis, L., Rickels, K., & Rock, A. F. (1976). The SCL-90 and MMPI: a step in the validation for a new report scale. British Journal of Psychiatry, 128, 280-289. Donnell, C. M., Lustig, D. C., & Strauser, D. R. (2004). The working alliance: rehabilitation outcomes for persons with severe mental illness. Journal of Rehabilitation, 70(2), 12-18. Duncan, P. W., Bode, R. K., Lai, S. M., & Perera, S. (2003). Rasch analysis of a new stroke-specific outcome scale: the Stroke Impact Scale Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84, 950-963. Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1994). Are people prejudiced against women? Some answers from research on attitudes, gender stereotypes, and judgments of competence. European Review of Social Psychology, 5(1-35). Eckes, T. (2005). Examining rater effects in TestDaF writing and speaking performance assessments: A many-facet Rasch analysis. Language Assessment Quarterly, 2(3), 197-221. Elizabeth Cauffman, & Maclntosh, R. (2006). A Rasch Differential Item Functioning Analysis of the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-Identifying Race and Gender Differential Item Functioning Among Juvenile Offenders. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 502-521. Engelhard, G. J. (1994). Examining rater errors in the assessment of written composition with a many-faceted Rasch model. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31(2), 93-112. Engelhard, G. J. (2002). Monitoring raters in performance assessments. In G. Tindal & H. T.M. (Eds.), Large-scale assessment programs for all students: Validity, technical adequacy, and implementation (pp. 261-287). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Fabian, E. (1992). Longitudinal outcomes in supported employment: a survival analysis. Rehabilitation Psychology, 37, 23-35. Fabian, E. S. (2000). Social cognitive theory of careers and individuals with serious mental health disorders: Implications for psychiatric rehabilitation programs. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 23(3), 262-269. Fisher, A. (1994). Functional assessment an occupation: Critical issues for occupational therapy. New Zealand Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(2), 13-18. Fisk, J. D., & Doble, S. E. (2002). Construction and validation of a fatigue impact scale for daily administration (D-FIS). Quality of Life Research, 11, 263-272. Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). Mini Mental State: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189-198. Foreman, M. D., Fletcher, K., Mion, L. C., & Simon, L. (1996). Assessing cognitive function. Geriatric Nursing, 17, 228-233. Forsyth, K., Braveman, B., Kielhofner, G., et al. (2006). Psychometric properties of the Work Role Interview. Work, 27, 313-318. Forsyth, K., Parkinson, S., Kielhofner, G., Kramer, J., & Summerfield Mann, L. (2006). The measure properties of the MOHOST. Unpublished manuscript. Gary Kielhofner, Jin Dhei Lai, Linda Olson, Lena Haglund, Elin Ekbadh, & Hedlund, M. (1998). Psychometric properties of the Work Environment Impact Scale: A cross-cultural study. Work, 12, 71-77. Gold, J. M., Goldberg, R. W., McNary, S. W., Dixon, L. B., & Lehman, A. F. (2002). Cognitive correlates of job tenure among patients with severe mental illness. American Journal of Psychiatry, 159(8), 1395-1402. Goldberg, R. W., Rollins, A. L., & McNary, S. W. (2004). The Working Alliance Inventory: modification and use with people with serious mental illnesses in a vocational rehabilitation program. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 27(3), 267-270. Goldstrom, I., & Manderschied, R. (1992). The chronically mentally ill: A descriptive analysis from the uniform client data instrument. Community Support Services Journal, 2, 4-9 Greig, T. C., Nicholls, S. S., Bryson, G. J., & Bell, M. D. (2004). The Vocational Cognitive Rating Scale: a scale for the assessment of cognitive functioning at work for clients with severe mental illness. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 21(2), 71-81. Haglund, L., Karlsson, G., Kielhofner, G., & Lai, J. S. (1997). Validity of the Swedish version of the Work Role Interview. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 4, 23-29. Honey, A. (2003). The impact of mental illness on employment: Consumers' perspectives. Work, 20, 267-276. Horvath, A. O., & Greenberg, L. S. (1989). Development and validation of the Working Alliance Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36(2), 223-233. Howell, D. C. (2006). Statistical Methods for Psychology (sixth ed.). California: Thomson Wadsworth. Hsu, W. L., Pan, A.W., & Chen, T.J. (2008). Validity study of the Assessment of Communication and Interaction Skills---Chinese version (ACIS-C) using Rasch measurement model. Occupational Therapy in Health Care. Innes, E., & Straker, L. (1999). Reliability of work-related assessment. Work, 13, 107-124. Kara, M., van der Bijl JJ., Shortridge-Baggett, L., Asti, T., & Erguney, S. (2006). Cross-culture adaptation of the Diabetes Management Self-efficacy Scale for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: Scale-develop. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 43(5), 611-621. Karidi, M. V., Papakonstantinou, K., Stefanis, N., et al. (2005). Occupational Abilities and Performance Scale: Reliability-validity assessment factor analysis. Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology, 40(5), 417-424. Kielhofner, G. (1993). Functional assessment: toward a dialectical view of person environment relations. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47, 248-251. Kielhofner, G. (2002). A Model of Human Occupation, Theory and Application (Third Edition): Lippincott Wiliams and Wilkins. Lechner, D., Roth, D., & Straaton, K. (1991). Functional capacity evaluation in work disability. Work, 1, 37-47. Lee, M., Lee, Y., Yen, L., & Lin, M. (1990). Reliability and validity of using a brief psychiatric symptom rating scale in clinical practice. Journal of the Formosan Medicine Association, 89, 1081-1087. Lehman, A. F., Goldberg, R. W., Dixon, L. B., et al. (2002). Improving employment outcomes for persons with severe mental illnesses. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 59, 165-172. Linacre, J. M. (1989). Many-facet Rasch measurement. Chicago: MESA Press. Linacre, J. M. (1998). Detecting multidimensionality: Which residual data-type works best? Journal of Outcome Measurement, 2, 266-283. Linacre, J. M. (2002). What do infit and outfit, mean-square and standardized mean? Rasch Measurement Transactions, 16(2), 878. Linacre, J. M. (2007a). Facets Rasch measure computer program. Chicago: Winsteps.com. Linacre, J. M. (2007b). A user's guide to FACETS. Chicago. Linddahl, I., Norrby, E., & Bellner, A. L. (2003). Construct validity of the instrument DOA: a dialogue about ability related to work. Work, 20(3), 215-224. Lori, D. L. (2005). Perceived barriers to career development in the context of Social Cognitive Career Theory Journal of Career Assessment, 13(3), 271-287. Lysaker, P., Bell, M., Milstein, R., Bryson, G., Shestopel, A., & Foulet, J. B. (1993). Work capacity in schizophrenia. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 44(3), 278-279. MacDonald-Wilson, K., Rogers, E. S., & Anthony, W. A. (2001). Unique issues in assessing work function among individuals with psychiatric disabilities. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 11(3), 217-232. Manderscheid, R. W., & Sonnerschein, M. A. (1992). Mental health in the United States (MD: U.S. department of health and human services ed.). MD: Rockville. McManus, I. C., Thompson, M., & Mollon, J. (2006). Assessment of examiner leniency and stringency ('hawk-dove effect') in the MRCP(UK) clinical examination (PACES) using multi-facet Rasch modeling. BMC Medical Education, 6(42). Michon H.W., Kroon H., van Weeghel J., & A.H., S. (2004). The Generic Work Behavior Questionnaire (GWBQ): Assessment of core dimensions of generic work behavior of people with severe mental illnesses in vocational rehabilitation. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 28(1), 40-47. Michon H.W., van Weeghel J., Kroon H., & A.H., S. (2005). Person-related predictors of employment outcomes after participation in psychiatric vocational rehabilitation programmes-A systematic review. Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology, 40, 408-416. Myford, C. M., & Wolfe, E. W. (2003). Detecting and measuring rater effects using many-facet Rasch measurement: Part I. Journal of Applied Measurement, 4, 386-422. Mueser, K. T., Aalto, S., Becker, D. R., et al. (2005). The Effectiveness of skills training for improving outcomes in supported employment. Psychiatric Services, 56(10), 1254-1260. Parkinson S., Forsyth, K., & Kielhofner, G. (2004). A User's Manual for the Model of Human Occupation Screening Tool (MOHOST) (1.1 ed.): University of Illinois at Chicago. Paul Crits-christoph, & Gibbons, M. B. C. (2003). Research developments on the therapeutic alliance in psychodynamic psychotherapy. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 23, 332-349. Polak, P., & Warner, R. (1996). The economic life of seriously mentally ill people in the community. Psychiatric Services, 47, 270-274. Razzano, L. A., Cook, J. A., Burke-Miller, J. K., et al. (2005). Clinical factors associated with employment among people with severe mental illness: findings from the Employment Intervention Demonstration program. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 193(11), 705-713. Reynaldo, J., & Santos, A. (1999). Cronbach's alpha: A tool for assessing the reliability of scales. Journal of Extension, 37(2), 1-4. Rosen, G. A. (1978). The problem and utility of work sample reliability data. Vocational Evaluation & Work Adjustment Bulletin, 11(3), 45-50. Sandqvist, J. L., & Henriksson, C. M. (2004). Work functioning: A conceptual framework. Work, 23, 147-157. Solomon, P., Draine. J., & Delaney, M. A. (1995). The working alliance and consumer case management. Journal of Mental Health Administration, 22(2), 126-134. Sudweeks, R. R., Rbbve, S., & Bradshaw, W. S. (2005). A comparison of generalizability theory and many-facet Rasch measurement in an analysis of college sophomore writing. Assessing Writing, 9(239-261). Thorndike. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 25-29. Tracey, T. J., & Kokotovic, A. M. (1989). Factor structure of the Working Alliance Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 1(3), 207-210. Tsang, H., Lam, P., Ng, B., & Leung, O. (2000). Predictors of employment outcome for people with psychiatric disabilities: A review of the literatures since the Mid '80s. Journal of Rehabilitation, 66(2), 19-31. Velozo, C., Kielhofner, G., Gern, A., et al. (1999). Validation of a psychosocial work-related measure. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 9, 153-168. Waghorn, G., Chant, D., & King, R. (2005a). Work-related self-efficacy among community residents with psychiatric disability. Psychiatry Rehabilitation Journal, 29(2), 105-113. Waghorn, G., Chant, D., & King, R. (2005b). Work-related subjective experiences among community residents with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 39(4), 288-299. Wright, B., & Linacre, M. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions 8(3), 370. Wright, B. (1996). Comparing Rasch measurement and factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 3, 3-24. Yankowitz, R., & Musante, S. (1994). The use of Cognitive Functional Assessment in a psychiatric vocational program. American Rehabilitation, 20, 32-37. 王文中, & 陳雪珠. (1999). 教學觀點量表之發展與試題反應分析. 應用心理研究, 2, 181-207. 王淑敏. (2004). 中文版「職能自我評估」之心理計量品質研究 --以台灣精神分裂症個案為例 台灣大學, 台北. 范珈維, 張彧, & 潘璦琬. (2007). 精神障礙者重返工作之因素探討:文獻回顧 臺灣職能治療研究與實務雜誌, 3(2), 61-71. 徐享良. (1998). 殘障者職業評量工具之應用. In 身心障礙者職業訓練與就業輔導之理論與實務. 台北市: 職訓局. 張英鵬. (1993). 動力取向觀應用在殘障者職業評量上之探討. 特殊教育季刊, 46, 26-28. 許瑋玲. (2007). 溝通與互動技巧評估工具---中文版信效度探討 台灣大學, 台北. 郭乃文, 劉秀枝, 王佩芳, et al. (1985). 「簡短式智能評估」之中文施測與常模建立. 復健醫學雜誌, 16, 52-59. 陳靜江. (2004). 南區身心障礙勞工職業輔導評量服務之經驗分享. Paper presented at the 職業輔導評量專題研討暨業務成果發表會. 曾建銘. (2004). Differential Item Functioning on Basic Mathematics Achievement Test for Middle School in Taiwan. 中華教育學報, 11, 331-354. 盧雪梅. (2007). 國民中學學生基本學力測驗國文科和英語科成就性別差異和性別差別試題功能(DIF)分析. 教育研究與發展期刊, 3(4), 79-112. 謝美惠. (2007). 慢性精神病患者工作行為量表(WBI)中文化之信效度研究 高雄師範大學, 高雄. 楊明山. (2007). 中文版意志量表之信度與效度研究 台灣大學, 台北. 楊明山, 曾美智, 李明濱, 鍾麗英, & 潘璦琬. (2007). 中文版意志量表之發展與再測信度之研究. 臺灣職能治療研究與實務雜誌, 3(1), 11-18. 劉麗婷. (2003). 中文版兒童意志量表信效度的探討 台灣大學, 台北. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/40166 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 研究背景
根據各項統計顯示,罹患精神疾患之人數逐年上升;在此族群當中,超過一半的個案為適齡工作者。精神障礙者復健的最終目標之一是重回職場並適應社會生活。然而,由於疾病的限制以及機能退化,許多精神障礙者之職業功能受限;因此,面臨長期失業或無法維持工作的局面。 多面向的評估工具可較完整地評量精神障礙者之工作潛能與工作限制。本研究翻譯以人類職能模式(the Model of Human Occupation)為基礎之多面向評估工具─人類職能模式篩選量表(the Model of Human Occupation Screening Tool, MOHOST),並探討其應用於適齡工作精神障礙者之適用性及心理計量特性。 研究目的 翻譯人類職能模式篩選量表,驗證中文版人類職能模式篩選量表(MOHOST-C)應用於參與不同工作型態之精神障礙者之心理計量特性,包括:內在一致性、施測者間信度、建構效度及同時效度;並檢驗此量表對於性別的試題功能差異,以及不同工作型態個案之職能參與程度。 方法 本研究經歷兩次反翻譯產生中文版人類職能模式篩選量表。由101位介於18-65歲之精神障礙者參與研究。個案之工作類型分別為:臨床職能治療團體28位、職業訓練41位、庇護性就業20位及支持性就業12位。研究者使用簡短式智能評估(MMSE)進行篩選,當個案分數大於24分時,納入收案。共有4位職能治療師參與此研究,40位個案由兩位以上評分者同時進行觀察,並獨立進行人類職能模式篩選量表之評分。 研究者於自然情境中,觀察個案參與工作或職能治療活動之表現20-30分鐘。待工作結束後,與個案進行訪談,訪談內容為個案對於參與工作或活動之觀點,以及其對於工作或活動環境之看法。訪談結束後請個案填寫相關問卷。包含:中文版職能自我評估(OSA-C)、台大症狀量表(NTUHSC)。另外,研究者則根據觀察個案在工作或活動中的表現與訪談結果,進行中文版人類職能模式篩選量表(MOHOST-C)、中文版意志量表(VQ-C)及中文版溝通與互動技巧測驗(ACIS-C)之評分。 資料分析 本研究使用SPSS (11.5版本)與Facets (3.62.0版本)進行信效度驗證分析。 中文版人類職能模式篩選量表之分數經羅序模式(Rasch model)轉換為等距分數,再進行統計分析。以項目分離信度(Item separation reliability)檢驗內在一致性;以羅序分析檢驗施測者間信度及建構效度;並探討中文版人類職能模式篩選量表對於不同性別個案之結果差異。另外,本研究使用羅序模式轉換中文版人類職能模式篩選量表(MOHOST-C)、中文版意志量表(VQ-C)、中文版溝通與互動技巧量表(ACIS-C)及中文版職能自我評估(OSA-C)之分數,以皮爾森相關係數(Pearson’s correlation coefficient)分析其同時效度。以斯皮爾曼相關係數(Spearman’s correlation coefficient)分析中文版人類職能模式篩選量表與台大症狀量表(NTUHSC)原始總分之同時效度。另使用變異數分析(one-way ANOVA),檢驗不同工作型態之個案於中文版人類職能模式篩選量表之得分差異。 結果 本研究結果顯示,人類職能模式篩選量表具有良好之內在一致性。建構效度方面,本量表可將職能參與區分為綜合自我能力與環境支持度兩種建構。同時效度方面,受試者在「職能動機」、「溝通與互動技巧」次量表之羅序分數與「中文版意志量表」、「中文版溝通與互動技巧量表」之羅序分數均達顯著相關。但中文版人類職能模式篩選量表與「中文版職能自我評估」之羅序分數雖呈現正相關,卻未達顯著;另與「台大症狀量表」之分數亦無顯著相關。施測者間信度方面,施測者符合羅序測量模式之建構,證實職能治療師可藉由閱讀「中文版人類職能模式篩選量表」手冊後,有效且正確地評分。本研究亦發現「姿勢與移動性」及「力量與費力度」兩題項對於男女受測者有不同之反應。另外,接受不同層級工作相關訓練之精障者,在中文版人類職能模式篩選量表之表現有顯著差異:接受職能治療團體之個案,其職能參與程度較接受庇護性就業及支持性就業之個案低;接受職業訓練之個案,其職能參與程度較接受支持性就業之個案低。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Background
Increasing numbers of people around the world are developing mental illness. Of the people comprising this large group, approximately half are adults, who should be producers or workers in their current life stages. A major consequence of psychiatric symptoms and functional degeneration in clients with psychiatric disorders is unemployment. A multidimensional assessment could be used to evaluate the holistic work participation of clients with psychiatric disorders and then to help determine their work potential and limitations. In this study, we chose the MOHOST as the assessment tool. We translated it into Chinese and then examined if the MOHOST-Chinese version (MOHOST-C) was an appropriate tool for evaluating the work participation of clients with psychiatric disorders in work or task-oriented situations. In addition, we examined the psychometric properties of the MOHOST-C. Methods The MOHOST-C was developed through translation of the MOHOST. It was back-translated twice and checked by a committee of experts to ensure that the meaning of the original was maintained. The translated version was applied to 101 clients with psychiatric disorders aged between 18 to 65 years old. Clients were from 4 different groups: 28 from task-oriented occupational therapy groups, 41 from vocational training programs, 20 from sheltered employment, and 12 from supported employment. Researcher used the MMSE to screen the primary cognitive abilities of clients, and those with MMSE scores above 24 were included. Four occupational therapists were involved in this study. The forty clients included were rated by at least two raters simultaneously. Clients were observed for 20-30 minutes when participating in work or a task-oriented group and interviewed according to the MOHOST-C interview guidelines. In addition to the interview, the clients were administered related questionnaires, including the National Taiwan University Hospital Symptom Checklist (NTUHSC) and the Chinese version of the Occupational Self Assessment (OSA-C). The researcher combined the results of observations and filled out the MOHOST-C, the Chinese version of the Volitional Questionnaire (VQ-C), and the Chinese version of the Assessment of Communication and Interaction (ACIS-C). Data analysis We used the SPSS (version 11.5) and Facets (version 3.62.0) to do data analysis. Scores on the MOHOST-C were transformed to interval data by Rasch measurement model. Item separation reliability was used to examine internal consistency; Rasch analysis was used to examine inter-rater reliability, construct validity and differential item function (DIF) on gender. Additionally, Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to examine the concurrent validity between the VQ-C, ACIS-C, OSA-C, and the MOHOST-C. Spearman’s correlation coefficient was used to examine the concurrent validity between the NTUHSC and the MOHOST-C. In addition, one-way ANOVA was used to examine the score differences for the four work types. Results The MOHOST-C was found to have excellent internal consistency. The items on the MOHOST-C could be separated into the Self aspect and the Environment aspect, and both aspects represented unidimensionality. The MOHOST-C and the VQ-C showed positive correlation (r=0.568, p<0.000), as well as the ACIS-C (r=0.767, p<0.000). However, the correlations of the MOHOST-C with the OSA-C (r=0.169, p=0.091 in self aspect; r=0.116, p=0.249 in environment aspect) and the NTUHSC (r=0.010, p=0.922) were not significant. Most raters fit the Rasch measurement model, and the results indicated that raters could learn the MOHOST-C by simply reading the manual. Two items (posture & mobility; strength & effort) belonging to the motor skills aspect in the MOHOST-C were detected with DIF in the Rasch measurement model. These items were easier for the males than for females. Furthermore, there were significant differences of the MOHOST-C scores between different types of work. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-14T16:42:04Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-97-R95429005-1.pdf: 6740257 bytes, checksum: f1a5ec5cf2bbab846b7ce9f0387b5453 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | LIST OF TABLES ------------------------------------------------------------------------11
LIST OF FIGURES ----------------------------------------------------------------------13 LIST OF APPENDICES---------------------------------------------------------------14 INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------15 RESEARCH QUESTIONS -----------------------------------------------------------17 LITERATURE REVIEW 1. Occupational Therapy and Work ----------------------------------------------------------17 2. Work for Clients Patients with Psychiatric Disorders and Factors Associated with Return to Work-----------------------------------------------------------------------------20 3. Vocational Assessments --------------------------------------------------------------------23 3.1 Single Component Assessment -----------------------------------------------------24 3.2 Multiple Components Assessment --------------------------------------------------29 3.3 Summary of Vocational Assessments ----------------------------------------------30 3.4 The Model of Human Occupation and the Model of Human Occupation Screening Tool (MOHOST) ---------------------------------------------------------31 4. The Advantage of Using the Rasch Analysis --------------------------------------------33 METHODS 1. Research Procedures ------------------------------------------------------------------------36 1.1 Translation of Model of Human Occupation Screening Tool (MOHOST) -----36 1.2 Pilot Study -------------------------------------------------------------------------------37 1.3 Psychometric Properties of MOHOST-Chinese version (MOHOST-C) --------38 2. Participants and Institutions ---------------------------------------------------------------39 3. Instruments ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------40 3.1 The Model of Human Occupation Screening Tool (MOHOST) -----------------40 3.2 The Volitional Questionnaire (VQ) --------------------------------------------------41 3.3 The Assessment of Communication and Interaction Skills (ACIS) -------------42 3.4 The Occupational Self Assessment (OSA) ------------------------------------------43 3.5 The Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) -------------------------------------43 3.6 The National Taiwan University Hospital Symptom Checklist (NTUHSC) ---44 4. Data Analyses -------------------------------------------------------------------------------45 RESULTS 1. Demographic Characteristics ------------------------------------------------------------48 2. Reliability ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------49 2.1 Internal Consistency ------------------------------------------------------------------49 2.2 Inter-rater Reliability -----------------------------------------------------------------49 3. Validity --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------50 3.1 Construct Validity ---------------------------------------------------------------------50 3.1.1 MOHOST-C Total Items ------------------------------------------------------50 3.1.2 MOHOST-C Self Items -------------------------------------------------------51 3.1.3 MOHOST-C Environment Items ---------------------------------------------51 3.2 Concurrent validity -------------------------------------------------------------------52 3.2.1 MOHOST-C with VQ-C ------------------------------------------------------52 3.2.2 MOHOST-C with ACIS-C ----------------------------------------------------52 3.2.3 MOHOST-C with OSA-C -----------------------------------------------------53 3.2.4 MOHOST-C with NTUHSC --------------------------------------------------53 4. Bias Analysis-Differential Item Function (DIF) of MOHOST-C -------------------53 5. Comparison of Different Work Types --------------------------------------------------54 DISCUSSION 1. Translation of the MOHOST ------------------------------------------------------------55 2. Reliability ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------56 2.1 Internal Consistency ------------------------------------------------------------------56 2.2 Inter-rater Reliability -----------------------------------------------------------------56 3. Validity --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------57 3.1 Construct Validity ---------------------------------------------------------------------57 3.2 Concurrent Validity -------------------------------------------------------------------59 4. Bias Analysis-Differential Item Function (DIF) of the MOHOST-C --------------60 5. Comparison of Different Work Types --------------------------------------------------61 6. Clinical Applications ----------------------------------------------------------------------62 7. Limitations ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------63 8. Suggestions for Future Studies ----------------------------------------------------------64 CONCLUSIONS --------------------------------------------------------------------------67 REFERENCES ----------------------------------------------------------------------------69 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 人類職能模式篩選量表之信效度探討 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The Study of Psychometric Properties of the Model of
Human Occupation Screening Tool (MOHOST) | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 96-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 鍾麗英(Ly-Inn Chung),吳明宜(Ming-Yi Wu) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 羅序模式,人類職能模式,測驗發展,心理計量,信度,效度, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Rasch model,Model of Human Occupation,Scale development,Psychometric,Reliability,Validity, | en |
dc.relation.page | 135 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2008-08-01 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 醫學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 職能治療研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 職能治療學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-97-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 6.58 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。