Independence: An Analysis of a Complex and Core Construct in Occupational Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Independence is a core concept in occupational therapy, but there is little consensus within the profession upon a universal definition. The present study employed a critical interpretive synthesis to examine two fundamental research questions: ‘How is independence conceptualised in quantitative and qualitative research within occupational therapy?’ and ‘How does the term “independence”, in its present use, critically impact occupational therapy policy and practice?’ Method: Articles pertaining to occupational therapy and contributing to the definition of independence within the profession were examined. Three successive levels of coding — open, axial and selective — were used to analyse 19 final articles. Findings: From the literature, nine definition themes emerged: function, autonomy and competence, control, context, culture, environment, personal attributes and safety. These themes were then organised into three categories: personal factors, environmental factors and continuum, which were synthesised together to create a model that addresses all factors critical to the composition of independence. In addition, four clinical themes developed: goal of occupational therapy, client-therapist relationship, variable definitions in occupational therapy practice and limitations of present practice. Conclusion: Through the formalisation of the integral components of independence, this study enables a standardised foundation for the examination of this core concept across the profession.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".