IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socpsy/v62y2016i7p616-626.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development and validation of the Vellore Occupational Therapy Evaluation Scale to assess functioning in people with mental illness

Author

Listed:
  • Reema Samuel
  • Paul SS Russell
  • Tapan Kumar Paraseth
  • Sharmila Ernest
  • KS Jacob

Abstract

Background: Available occupational therapy assessment scales focus on specific areas of functioning. There is a need for comprehensive evaluation of diverse aspects of functioning in people with mental illness. Aim: To develop a comprehensive assessment scale to evaluate diverse aspects of functioning among people with mental illness and to assess its validity and reliability. Methods: Available instruments, which evaluate diverse aspects of functioning in people with mental illness, were retrieved. Relevant items, which evaluate specific functions, were selected by a committee of mental health experts and combined to form a comprehensive instrument. Face and content validity and feasibility were assessed and the new instrument was piloted among 60 patients with mental illness. The final version of the instrument was employed in 151 consecutive clients, between 18 and 60 years of age, who were also assessed using Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), Occupational Therapy Task Observation Scale (OTTOS), Social Functioning Questionnaire (SFQ), Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale (RSES) and Pai and Kapur Family Burden Interview Schedule (FBIS) by two therapists. The inter-rater reliability and test–retest reliability of the new instrument (Vellore Occupational Therapy Evaluation Scale (VOTES)) were also evaluated. Results: The new scale had good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .817), inter-rater reliability .928 (.877–.958) and test–retest reliability .928 (.868–.961). The correlation between the general behaviour domain (Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient [PCC] = −.763, p  = .000), task behaviour (PCC = −.829, p  = .000), social skills (PCC = −.351, p  = .000), intrapersonal skills (PCC = −.208, p  = .010), instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) (PCC = −.329, p  = .038) and leisure activities (PCC = −.433, p  = .005) scores of VOTES with the corresponding domains in the scales used for comparison was statistically significant. The correlation between the total score of VOTES and the total scores of OTTOS, SFQ and RSES was also statistically significant suggesting convergent validity. The correlation between the total score of VOTES with the total score of FBI is not statistically significant, implying good divergent validity. Conclusion: VOTES seems to be a promising tool to assess overall functioning of people with mental illness.

Suggested Citation

  • Reema Samuel & Paul SS Russell & Tapan Kumar Paraseth & Sharmila Ernest & KS Jacob, 2016. "Development and validation of the Vellore Occupational Therapy Evaluation Scale to assess functioning in people with mental illness," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 62(7), pages 616-626, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:socpsy:v:62:y:2016:i:7:p:616-626
    DOI: 10.1177/0020764016664754
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0020764016664754
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0020764016664754?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Tyrer & Ula Nur & Mike Crawford & Saffron Karlsen & Claire MacLean & Bharti Rao & Tony Johnson, 2005. "The Social Functioning Questionnaire: A Rapid and Robust Measure of Perceived Functioning," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 51(3), pages 265-275, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrew Stickley & Ai Koyanagi, 2018. "Physical multimorbidity and loneliness: A population-based study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, January.
    2. Sarah Butter & Jamie Murphy & Mark Shevlin & James Houston, 2017. "Social isolation and psychosis-like experiences: a UK general population analysis," Psychosis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 291-300, October.
    3. Daniel Fu Keung Wong & Yves Cho Ho Cheung & Lindsay G Oades & Shengquan Sam Ye & Yat-nam Petrus Ng, 2024. "Strength-based cognitive-behavioural therapy and peer-to-peer support in the recovery process for people with schizophrenia: A randomised control trial," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 70(2), pages 364-377, March.
    4. Helen Tyrer & Leila Ali & Faye Cooper & Paula Seivewright & Paul Bassett & Peter Tyrer, 2013. "The Schedule for Evaluating Persistent Symptoms (SEPS): A new method of recording medically unexplained symptoms," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 59(3), pages 281-287, May.
    5. Helen Tyrer & Peter Tyrer & Barbara Barrett, 2013. "Influence of dependent personality status on the outcome and health service costs of health anxiety," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 59(3), pages 274-280, May.
    6. Field, Andy Peter Professor & Wilcox, Rand R., 2017. "Robust statistical methods: a primer for clinical psychology and experimental psychopathology researchers," OSF Preprints v3nz4, Center for Open Science.
    7. Giles Newton-Howes & Doug Banks, 2014. "The subjective experience of community treatment orders: Patients’ views and clinical correlations," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 60(5), pages 474-481, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:socpsy:v:62:y:2016:i:7:p:616-626. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.