ÄÛBÑо¿Ôº

Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed by Kayla Smith, BA, Daiva Ragas, BA, Adam Kaltenhauser, BA, Occupational Therapy students at the University of Illinois at Chicago in April 2015.

Considerations

The following factors should be considered:

• Age
• Appropriateness of item context
• Appropriateness of rating scale structure given youth¡¯s abilities
• Youth¡¯s capacity to identify interest and reflect on performance.
• Youth must be able to identify interests and reflect on performance; consider acuity level
• Therapist should consider if content of items is appropriate for therapy context (e.g. most items cover everyday activities of a school-aged youth). Items may not facilitate addressing specific fine motor or vocational skills (Kramer et al., 2014); consider level of care and setting
• Some translation inaccuracies were identified in the Dutch version of the COSA

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!

Bibliography

Kramer, J. M., Kielhofner, G., & Smith, E. V. (2010). Validity evidence for the Child Occupational Self Assessment. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64(4), 621-632. 

Kramer, J., Ten Velden, M., Kafkes, A., Basu S., Federico J., and Kielhorner G. (2014). Child Occupational Self-Assessment (COSA) Version 2.2. Chicago, IL: The Model of Human Occupation Clearinghouse. 

Keller, J., & Kielhofner, G. (2005). Psychometric characteristics of the Child Occupational Self-Assessment (COSA), part two: Refining the psychometric properties. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 12(4), 147-158. 

Ten Velden, M., Couldrick, L., Kin¨¦banian, A., & Sadlo, G. (2012). Dutch children¡¯s perspectives on the constructs of the Child Occupational Self-Assessment (COSA). OTJR: Occupation, Participation, and Health, 33 (1), 50-58.