TRIAGE, or Technique for Research of Information by Animation of a Group of Experts, is an inductive and structured method for collecting information that aims to obtain a group consensus. The goal of this technique is to provide quality informative material quickly and efficiently to enable decision-making or to develop more sophisticated survey tools. TRIAGE both distinguishes itself from, and complements, the main group techniques used in evaluation up until now. These are the Delphi technique, the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) and the focus group (Delbecq, Van de Ven & Gustafson, 1975). The definition, the context for use as well as the different parts of the usual process of TRIAGE technique (recruiting of participants, individual production phase, collective production phase with visual support, validation of results) will firstly be presented then compared to these advocated in the Delphi, NGT and focus group techniques. Also, examples of TRIAGE being applied in different evaluation contexts, such as the development of measurement instruments and the evaluation of health programs, will be presented. These examples will illustrate the richness, the flexibility and the potential of this technique as an assessment tool. Finally, the strengths and shortcomings of TRIAGE will be discussed.

The realization of significant occupations is one of the key elements of this process, sometimes associated to an important interior transformation from the point of view of personal standards and values.

Resiliency factors constitute a target for research and intervention for this population.

Study Design: Cross-sectional study by mail survey of participation in productive activities of individuals who sustained a spinal cord injury (SCI) in Quebec from 1970 to 1993. Objectives: To determine the level of productivity outcomes of a representative sample and to determine the relationship between the productivity outcomes and some personal and environmental variables. Settings: Quebec, Canada. Methods: Four hundred and eighteen subjects (mean of age=42.1+11.8) were included in this study. Overall productivity was assessed by the participation into ®ve categories of activities (gainful employment, studies, homemaking and family activities, community organizations and leisure activities). Results: Depending on the severity of injury, 30% to 51% of the variance in productivity outcomes can be explained by a set of ten variables: education, ability to drive a car vehicle, other transportation indices, age related variables and type of locomotion. A discriminant analysis was undertaken to classify the subjects into three levels of productivity (low, moderate and high). The percentage of subjects correctly classi®ed was moderate (54% to 71%) to high (72% to 81%) depending on the productivity levels. Conclusion:The results con®rm the signi®cant contribution of education and transportation to explain the productivity outcomes. Sponsorship: This project was funded by the`Socie te d'Assurance Automobile du Que bec', the`Commission de la Sante et de la Se curite du Travail' and the`Fondation Andre Sene cal'.