TY - JOUR
T1 - Assessment of motor and process skills in Danish occupational therapy practice
AU - Vinge, Annette Forsberg Jørgensen
AU - Mondrup, Mette Egelund
AU - Nielsen, Kristina Tomra
AU - Wæhrens, Eva Ejlersen
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy Foundation.
PY - 2023
Y1 - 2023
N2 - Background: The demand for employment of standardized evaluations is increasing. In Denmark, approximately 25% of all occupational therapists (OTs) are trained to use the standardized occupational therapy instrument Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS). Aims: To investigate the use of AMPS within Danish occupational therapy practice and determine factors supporting or hindering the use. Material and methods: An online cross-sectional survey was conducted among OTs from various settings. Results: Overall, 844 calibrated OTs participated in the survey. Of these, 540 (64%) met the inclusion criteria and 486 (90%) completed the questionnaire. Forty percent of the participants used the AMPS in a standardized way during a one-month period and 56% reported being dissatisfied with the low number of AMPS evaluations completed. Five supporting and nine hindering factors were found to significantly influence the use of standardized AMPS evaluations. Conclusions/Significance: Despite demands for standardized evaluations, the AMPS is not regularly used in a standardized way within Danish occupational therapy practice. Use of AMPS in clinical practice seems to be facilitated by an acknowledgement from the management and the OT’s ability to develop habits and routines. Time restraints were reported, however, time to conduct evaluations was not a statistically significant influencing factor.
AB - Background: The demand for employment of standardized evaluations is increasing. In Denmark, approximately 25% of all occupational therapists (OTs) are trained to use the standardized occupational therapy instrument Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS). Aims: To investigate the use of AMPS within Danish occupational therapy practice and determine factors supporting or hindering the use. Material and methods: An online cross-sectional survey was conducted among OTs from various settings. Results: Overall, 844 calibrated OTs participated in the survey. Of these, 540 (64%) met the inclusion criteria and 486 (90%) completed the questionnaire. Forty percent of the participants used the AMPS in a standardized way during a one-month period and 56% reported being dissatisfied with the low number of AMPS evaluations completed. Five supporting and nine hindering factors were found to significantly influence the use of standardized AMPS evaluations. Conclusions/Significance: Despite demands for standardized evaluations, the AMPS is not regularly used in a standardized way within Danish occupational therapy practice. Use of AMPS in clinical practice seems to be facilitated by an acknowledgement from the management and the OT’s ability to develop habits and routines. Time restraints were reported, however, time to conduct evaluations was not a statistically significant influencing factor.
KW - AMPS
KW - Evidence-based practice
KW - occupational therapy evaluation
KW - standardized assessment
KW - Occupational Therapy
KW - Occupational Therapists
KW - Cross-Sectional Studies
KW - Humans
KW - Denmark
KW - Surveys and Questionnaires
KW - Motor Skills
U2 - 10.1080/11038128.2023.2220910
DO - 10.1080/11038128.2023.2220910
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 37300535
AN - SCOPUS:85163071210
SN - 1103-8128
VL - 30
SP - 1311
EP - 1329
JO - Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy
JF - Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy
IS - 8
ER -