Validation of the Safe at Home Screening with Adults Who Have Acquired Brain Injury

Abstract

The Safe at Home Screening (SAH) is an occupational therapy assessment tool designed to quickly assess home safety awareness and skills through the use of mock hazardous situations in a kitchen setting. The SAH has been standardized on community-dwelling adults. This research project involves psychometric analyses using the SAH on a sample of adults with acquired brain injuries (ABI; N = 31), and compares their SAH outcome scores with those of the Kohlman Evaluation of Living Skills (KELS). The scores on the two tests were found to be moderately correlated. An aspect of content validity was explored by asking the clients' occupational therapists to make predictions about their clients' functioning in the realm of home safety. Correlations between the expert opinions of potential client scores and actual SAH test scores were moderate.

Kitchen-related tasks used in occupational therapy during rehabilitation of adults with acquired brain injury: A systematic review

“…Two studies aimed to provide detailed descriptions of KRT treatments without investigation of the outcome (Foxhall and Gurr, 2014; Patterson et al., 2017). In contrast to these 15 studies, the studies by Robnett et al. (2016) and Tanguay et al.…”

“…The included studies were heterogeneous with respect to PICOS criteria, sample size, and follow-up period. Eleven studies were conducted in inpatient settings (Cerasa et al, 2019;Eakman and Nelson, 2001;Edmans et al, 2009;Foxhall and Gurr, 2014;Liu et al, 2004;Logan et al, 2003;Patterson et al, 2017;Paul 1997;Schmidt et al, 2013;Tanguay et al, 2014;Trevena-Peters et al, 2018) and six in community settings (Gasser-Wieland and Rice, 2002;McGraw-Hunter et al, 2006;Neistadt, 1992a;Ownsworth et al, 2017;Poncet et al, 2018;Robnett et al, 2016). Participant characteristics included individuals with TBI in five studies (McGraw-Hunter et al, 2006;Ownsworth et al, 2017;Patterson et al, 2017;Schmidt et al, 2013;Trevena-Peters et al, 2018), CVA in six studies (Cerasa et al, 2019;Edmans et al, 2009;Gasser-Wieland and Rice, 2002;Liu et al, 2004;Logan et al, 2003;Paul 1997), and ABI from various causes in the remaining six studies.…”

“…Six studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (Eakman and Nelson, 2001;Liu et al, 2004;Neistadt, 1992a;Ownsworth et al, 2017;Schmidt et al, 2013;Trevena-Peters et al, 2018). Other study designs included a retrospective analysis of trial data (Logan et al, 2003), cross-sectional observational studies (Patterson et al, 2017;Robnett et al, 2016;Tanguay et al, 2014), and single case reports or case series with a repeated measures design (Cerasa et al, 2019;Edmans et al, 2009;Gasser-Wieland and Rice, 2002;McGraw-Hunter et al, 2006;Patterson et al, 2017;Paul 1997;Poncet et al, 2018). In one study (Foxhall and Gurr, 2014), therapeutic meal preparation group sessions were observed to describe and assess the content of sessions.…”

“…Two studies aimed to provide detailed descriptions of KRT treatments without investigation of the outcome (Foxhall and Gurr, 2014;Patterson et al, 2017). In contrast to these 15 studies, the studies by Robnett et al (2016) and Tanguay et al (2014) examined the use of KRTs for the purpose of assessing safety and/or capability of task performance. In addition, several of the included studies addressed two distinct points of interest: firstly, the comparison of KRTs as occupationally embedded and meaningful activities as opposed to abstract or isolated tasks and activities (Eakman and Nelson, 2001;Gasser-Wieland and Rice, 2002;Neistadt, 1992a); and secondly, the use of virtual KRTs to substitute actual kitchen environments (Edmans et al, 2009;Tanguay et al, 2014) (Table 2).…”

“…A variety of cognitive deficits resulting from ABI can directly affect safety for living in the community and occupational performance in a variety of tasks (Eriksson et al., 2006). Therefore, it is common practice in occupational therapy to assess for potential safety issues in function through both informal and formal assessments (Robnett et al., 2016). Only two studies were identified where KRTs were used for this purpose in individuals with ABI.…”