The eye of the beholder: Models in occupational therapy

Abstract

Over the past decade there has been an increasing focus in occupational therapy literature on theory and theoretical frameworks. This paper explores the confusion that surrounds some of the terminology used in this literature. The disparity between different theorists' use of terms such as model, paradigm, frame of reference and approach is highlighted. An analysis of major occupational therapy texts and articles on theoretical frameworks from 1962 to 1992 revealed four types of occupational therapy models. The author suggests that attempts by theorists to define terms have been as much an attempt to describe these models as to clarify terminology. A hierarchy of these models is proposed and the individual's role in interpreting and filtering models is also considered.K E Y W 0 R D S frames of reference, models, paradigms, theory.

Using all the available evidence: perceptions of paediatric occupational therapists about how to increase evidence-based practice

“…A number of participants referred to the clinical value of a well‐documented case study, even though case studies were not traditionally considered as a high level of evidence (Cara). In addition, participants identified with Kortman's 15 hierarchical diagram of occupational therapy models. They stated that, using this diagram, the evidence could be organised according to more general models that guide practice (e.g.…”

“…During Focus Groups 2 and 2A the participants explored strategies and resources to increase the use of research‐generated evidence in practice, whereas during Focus Groups 3 and 3A participants focused on practical strategies to systematically generate and use practice‐based evidence. After Focus Group 1, participants were provided with an adaptation of Kortman's 15 hierarchical diagram of models in occupational therapy and draft definitions of the sources of evidence that had emerged from their interaction. These handouts were provided to facilitate a common understanding of terms during their discussions.…”