The Journal of Korean society of community based occupational therapy (대한지역사회작업치료학회지)

Korean Society of Community Based Occupational Therapy Association (대한지역사회작업치료학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Concurrent Validity of the Korean Occupational Balance Assessment(OBA) Tool

한국형 작업균형 평가(Occupational Balance Assessment)의 동시타당도 연구

  • Hong, So-Young (Dept. of Occupational therapy, Kosin university) ;
  • Hong, Deok-Gi (Dept. of Occupational therapy, Wonkwang university, Institution of Health Improvement)
  • 홍소영 (고신대학교 작업치료학과) ;
  • 홍덕기 (원광대학교 작업치료학과, 건강증진연구소)
  • Received : 2020.03.31
  • Accepted : 2020.05.07
  • Published : 2020.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective : The purpose of this study was to establish the concurrent validity of the Korean Occupational Balance Assessment(OBA) tool. Methods : This study was conducted on 1016 people from October 1 to October 25, 2019. Data collection was performed using OBA and Occupational Balance Questionnaire11(OBQ11). The data were analyzed by descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation. Results : There was a significant correlation between the scores of the three areas of OBA and the total score of OBQ11(p<.01). All three areas were analyzed with positive correlations. The time use area (r = .554) and occupation frequency area (r = .574) were found to be correlated. Most of the sub-factors in the occupation characteristics area (importance r = .582, goal achievement r = .633, enjoyment r = .649, health r = .650) were analyzed with high correlation. Conclusion : OBA has proven to be a valid and reliable assessment tool for measuring occupational balance. Further research needs to provide guideline on occupational balance for usefulness in clinical area.

목적 : 본 연구는 한국형 작업균형 평가(Occupational Balance Assessment: OBA)의 동시타당도를 검증하고자 실시하였다. 연구방법 : 본 연구는 2019년 10월 1일부터 10월 25일까지 1016명을 대상으로 실시하였다. 자료 수집은 OBA와 작업균형 설문지(Occupational Balance Questionnaire11: OBQ11)를 사용하였다. 자료 분석은 기술통계와 피어슨 상관관계 분석을 실시하였다. 결과 : OBA의 세 가지 영역별 점수와 OBQ11의 총점 간에 유의한 상관관계를 보였다(p<.01). 세 가지 영역 모두 양의 상관관계로 분석되었다. 시간사용 영역(r=.554)과 작업빈도 영역(r=.574)은 상관관계가 있는 것으로 나타났으며, 작업특성 영역의 하위요인(중요도 r=.582, 목표성취 r=.633, 즐거움 r=.649, 건강 r=.650)은 대부분 높은 상관관계로 분석되었다. 결론 : OBA는 작업균형을 평가하기 위해 타당한 평가도구임을 검증하였다. 향후에는 임상적 유용성을 위해 작업균형에 대한 가이드라인을 제시할 수 있는 연구가 필요할 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Backman, C. L. (2004). Occupational balance: Exploring the relationships among daily occupations and their influence on well-being. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 71(4), 202-209. https://doi.org/10.1177/000841740407100404
  2. Bejerholm, U. (2010). Occupational balance in people with schizophrenia. Occupational Therapy in Mental Health, 26(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/01642120802642197
  3. Christiansen, C. H. (1996). Three perspectives on balance in occupation. In R. Zemke & F. Clark (Eds.), Occupational science: The evolving discipline (pp. 431-451). Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.
  4. Dur, M., Steiner, G., Fialka-Moser, V., Kautzky-Willer, A., Dejaco, C., Prodinger, B., et al. (2014). Development of a new occupational balance-questionnaire: incorporating the perspectives of patients and healthy people in the design of a self-reported occupational balance outcome instrument. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-12-45
  5. Eakman, A. M. (2015). The meaningful activity wants and needs assessment: A perspective on life balance. Journal of Occupational Science, 22(2), 210-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/14427591.2013.769405
  6. Eklund, M., & Leufstadius, C. (2007). Relationships between occupational factors and health and well-being in individuals with persistent mental illness living in the community. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 74(4), 303-313. https://doi.org/10.1177/000841740707400403
  7. Eklund, M., Orban, K., Argentzell, E., Bejerholm, U., Tjornstrand, C., Erlandsson, L. K., et al. (2017). The linkage between patterns of daily occupations and occupational balance: Applications within occupational science and occupational therapy practice. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 24(1), 41-56. https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2016.1224271
  8. Gunal, A., Pekcetin, S., Demirturk, F., Senol, H., Hakansson, C., & Wagman, P. (2019). Validity and reliability of the Turkish Occupational Balance Questionnaire (OBQ11-T). Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 1-7.
  9. Hakansson, C., Wagman, P., & Hagell, P. (2019). Construct validity of a revised version of the occupational balance questionnaire. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 14, 1-9.
  10. Hickey, T. (1980). Health and aging. Thomson Brooks/Cole.
  11. Hong, S. Y., & Hong, D. G. (2019). Development of Korean occupational balance assessment(K-OBA) tool. The Journal of Korean Society of Community Based Occupational Therapy, 9(2), 43-58. https://doi.org/10.18598/kcbot.2019.9.2.05
  12. Khine, M. S. (2020). Objective Measurement in Psychometric Analysis. In Rasch Measurement (pp. 3-7). Springer, Singapore.
  13. Krupa, T., McLean, H., Eastabrook, S., Bonham, A., & Baksh, L. (2003). Daily time use as a measure of community adjustment for persons served by assertive community treatment teams. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57(5), 558-565. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.57.5.558
  14. Lariviere, N., & Levasseur, M. (2016). Translation and validation of the life balance inventory: An occupational therapy questionnaire. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 83(2), 103-114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008417416632260
  15. Matuska, K. (2012). Validity evidence of a model and measure of life balance. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 32(1), 229-237. https://doi.org/10.3928/15394492-20110610-02
  16. Matuska, K. M., & Christiansen, C. H. (2008). A proposed model of lifestyle balance. Journal of Occupational Science, 15(1), 9-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14427591.2008.9686602
  17. Park, S. M., & Park, J. H. (2019). A study on the validity and reliability of the Korean version of a life balance inventory(K-LBI). Korean Journal of Occupational Therapy, 27(1), 15-26. https://doi.org/10.14519/kjot.2019.27.1.02
  18. Portney, L. G. (2020). Foundations of clinical research: Applications to evidence-based practice. FA Davis.
  19. Seong, T. J. (2011). Fundamental statistics-understand and application (6 Ed.). Seoul: Hakjisa.
  20. Uhrmann, L., Hovengen, I., Wagman, P., Hakansson, C., & Bonsaksen, T. (2019). The Norwegian Occupational Balance Questionnaire (OBQ11-N)-Development and pilot study. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 26(7), 546-551. https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2018.1523458
  21. Wagman, P., & Hakansson, C. (2014). Exploring occupational balance in adults in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 21(6), 415-420. https://doi.org/10.3109/11038128.2014.934917
  22. Wagman, P., & Hakansson, C. (2014). Introducing the occupational balance questionnaire (OBQ). Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 21(3), 227-231. https://doi.org/10.3109/11038128.2014.900571
  23. Wagman, P., Hakansson, C., & Bjorklund, A. (2012). Occupational balance as used in occupational therapy: A concept analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 19(4), 322-327. https://doi.org/10.3109/11038128.2011.596219
  24. Wagman, P., Lindmark, U., Rolander, B., Wahlin, C., & Hakansson, C. (2017). Occupational balance in health professionals in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 24(1), 18-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2016.1203459
  25. Wilcock A. (2006). An occupational perspective of health (2nd ed.). Thorofare, NJ: Slack.
  26. World Health Organization. (2001). The international classification of functioning, disability, and health: ICF. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.