The inter-rater agreement of the prioritized problems is good enough for client-centred occupational therapy. The reproducibility of the performance and satisfaction scores is moderate. The results support the construct and criterion validity. The COPM identifies many child-unique problems that are not assessed with existing standardized measurement instruments or with a simple open-ended question.

Clinically relevant improvement in individual rehabilitation goals at ability level, achieved with the treatment of BTX-A in children with cerebral palsy, were demonstrated using the goal attainment scaling method.

The available literature indicates that children and adolescents with ABI are at risk for participation restrictions. Research on recovery trajectories in participation after ABI in children is lacking. Longitudinal studies using explicit participation measures and higher quality research methodologies (quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods) are recommended.

The aim of this study was to determine the interrater reliability and stability over time of the Capacity Profile (CAP). The CAP is a standardized method for classifying additional care needs indicated by current impairments in five domains of body functions: physical health, neuromusculoskeletal and movement-related, sensory, mental, and voice and speech, in children from 3 to 18 years of age. The intensity of care in each domain is defined from 0 (no need for additional care) to 5 (needs help with every activity). The intensity of additional care in each of the five separate domains indicates the CAP for the individual child. We developed the CAP to inform the parents and other caregivers of children with non-progressive, permanent neurodevelopmental disabilities, such as cerebral palsy and myelomeningocele, about the consequences of these conditions. To determine interrater agreement and stability over time, the CAPs of 67 children (39 males, 28 females) with a neurodevelopmental disability (mean age 18y [SD 1.2y]; range 14-22y) were assessed based on a semi-structured interview. In addition, the CAPs of the same individuals at the age of 3 years were determined based on a chart review. Interrater agreement of the CAP at the age of 3 was good to very good (weighted kappa 0.64-0.92). Agreement between the CAP at the age of 18 and the CAP at the age of 3 (providing evidence for stability over time) was also good (weighted kappa 0.68-0.77), except for the domain 'physical health functions', about which agreement was relatively poor (0.47). We conclude that the CAP is a reliable instrument for classifying the additional needs of a child with a non-progressive, permanent neurodevelopmental disability. The preliminary evidence for the stability over time of such needs according to the CAP should be validated in a prospective study.