Occupational Therapy Assessments: How Client-Centred Can They be?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Client-centred practiceClient-centred practice requires the involvement of the client throughout the assessment and therapeutic process; its background is outlined briefly.In order to consider how client-centred occupational therapy assessment can be, some of the complexities of implementing client-centred principles in assessment are presented in a fictitious case study. Development of a client-centred approachSince the 1950s, occupational therapy has progressively adopted client-centred views based on humanistic theories, such as those of Rogers.Law et al (1995) suggested that the Rogerian influence within the profession was manifested through: ■ The acceptance of the dynamic nature of the therapistclient interaction ■ The need for the client to have an active role in problem resolution ■ The need for honesty and openness in the therapeutic relationship ■ The recognition of the importance of cultural values determined by the client.A further consequence of this growing regard for humanistic principles within occupational therapy has been the development of models of practice that emphasise the importance of client-centredness.Baum (1998) identified seven such occupational therapy models, including the Model of Human Occupation (Kielhofner 1995), the Person-Environment-Occupational Performance Model (Christiansen and Baum 1991) and the Canadian Model of Occupational Performance (Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists 1997).These models can be used in a client-centred approach if the occupational therapist places the focus on the client' s goals and occupational needs. The assessment processThe initial step in client-centred assessment is for the occupational therapist to listen to the client' s concerns.The therapist and the client subsequently establish a partnership to enable the achievement of the client' s goals.For some clients, this will be an easy task; for others, the identification or resolution of occupational problems may be more difficult to achieve.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".