The on-road driving test is considered a ‘gold standard’ evaluation; however, its validity and reliability have not been sufficiently reviewed. This systematic review aimed to map out and synthesize literature regarding on-road driving tests using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments checklist. Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases were searched from initiation through February 2018. All articles addressing reliability or validity of on-road driving tests involving adult rehabilitation patients were included. The search output identified 513 studies and 36 articles, which were included in the review. The Washington University Road Test/Rhode Island Road Test, performance analysis of driving ability, test ride for investigating practical fitness-to-drive, and K-score demonstrated high reliability and validity in regard to the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments checklist. The Washington University Road Test/Rhode Island Road Test and test ride for investigating practical fitness-to-drive were analyzed based on Classical Test Theory techniques, and performance analysis of driving ability and K-score were analyzed based on Item Response Theory techniques. The frequency of studies were Washington University Road Test/Rhode Island Road Test (n=9), Test Ride for Investigating Practical fitness-to-drive (n=8), performance analysis of driving ability (n=4), and K-score (n=1). From the viewpoint of accuracy and generalization, the Washington University Road Test/Rhode Island Road Test, test ride for investigating practical fitness-to-drive, and performance analysis of driving ability were identified as highly qualified concerning on-road driving tests. However, the ability to assess real-world driving depends on various environmental conditions.

Background: Although various technologies are used to evaluate driving skill, there are some limitations such as the limited range of the monitor and the possible risk of causing cybersickness. The purpose of this study is to investigate differences in the hazard perception and cybersickness experienced between novice and experienced drivers measured in a VR hazard perception test with a head-mounted display (HMD). Methods: The novice (n = 32) and the experienced drivers (n = 36) participated in the hazard perception test through the VR of an HMD. Results: The total number of identified hazards was 1071 in the novice drivers and 1376 in the experienced drivers. Two of the hazards appeared to be only identifiable through the HMD. A chi-square test revealed that experienced drivers were more likely to identify the hazards than the novice drivers (p < 0.05). The novice drivers appeared to identify “hazard prediction of the current behavior of other road users” more than other hazard types, unlike the experienced group. The Simulator Sickness Questionnaire scores indicated no significant difference in the different age or gender groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Our results suggest that the VR hazard perception test may be useful for evaluating patients’ driving skills.

Background: Collaboration is an important concept in goal-setting in occupational therapy. However, this concept is not stable due to various definitions. The purpose of this study was to clarify the concept of collaboration in occupational therapy. Method: A scoping review was used to search for all articles related to occupational therapy and collaboration. PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, and OT Seeker searches were conducted using predetermined keywords. Three examiners independently reviewed and assessed the quality of each study using Walker and Avant’s concept analysis method. Results: Results of the database searches yielded 1873 studies, 585 of which were deemed eligible to include in this review. Results showed five attributes (“active participation for the common objective”, “existence of something to share”, “matured communication and interaction”, “relationship founded on the respect and trust” and “complementing each other”) and two antecedents and several consequences. Conclusions: Our findings may contribute to collaborative goal-setting and occupational therapy.

Purpose: The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) is designed to measure outcomes from client-centred occupational therapy. We explored clients’ views and experiences of participating in an initial COPM assessment in order to examine the potential information bias which may influence COPM scores. Material and methods: We used qualitative methods to analyse semi-structured interviews (qualitative thematic analysis) on clients at a typical Japanese rehabilitation hospital, to examine the potential information bias affecting their scores in their initial COPM assessment. Results: 19 of 20 clients (13 men; 7 women, aged 19–84 years) demonstrated potential sources of information bias in their COPM scores. We identified 15 sources of information bias, grouped into three domains: (1) bias during the selection of occupational areas (Misunderstanding client-centeredness, Misunderstanding meaningfulness, Misunderstanding occupation, and Composite occupations), (2) bias during the scoring of performance and satisfaction (Imaginary scores, Confusing scores of performance or satisfaction with importance, Ambiguous scores, Hopeful scores, Target scores, Emotional scores, Considerate scores and Humbleness scores) and (3) bias interfering future scoring (Changes in selected occupation, Forgotten scores, Ceiling effects). Conclusion: This study identifies potential sources of bias affecting COPM scores, and taking account of this result would facilitate better collaboration with clients through COPM.

This study aimed to clarify the longitudinal goal negotiation and collaboration process of achieving activity- and participation-level goals. We conducted a qualitative study using the trajectory equifinality model. Nine occupational therapists with experience in setting and achieving activity- and participation-level goals were recruited and interviewed about their clients. We identified two phases and four pathways in the setting and attainment process for activity- and participation-level goals. Throughout the longitudinal goal-setting process, when the occupational therapist and client had difficulty discussing activity- and participation-level goals, the therapist respected the client’s expectations, explained the purpose of occupational therapy in detail, and conducted individual face-to-face interviews. When it was difficult to provide work-based interventions, the occupational therapist made flexible use of functional training, elemental movement training, occupation-based practice, and environmental modifications. The results of this study may assist in supporting clients to improve their activity and participation in home rehabilitation.

The aim of this retrospective cross-sectional study is to examine the routine use proportion and factors determining the use of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in the real-world subacute rehabilitation setting. This study retrospectively collected data from all inpatients and occupational therapists at a single Japanese subacute rehabilitation ward during 2017, including Functional Independence Measure motor/cognitive scores, years of experience, and rate of Canadian Occupational Performance Measure administration (that is, Canadian Occupational Performance Measure proportion). Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to identify the determining factors of daily routine Canadian Occupational Performance Measure use/non-use, after which cut-off values were calculated. Of the 619 included clients, the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure was applied in 232 cases (37%). A multiple logistic regression analysis revealed two significant determining factors of its use: Canadian Occupational Performance Measure proportion (odds ratio, 1.06) and Functional Independence Measure cognitive item (odds ratio, 1.22). The cut-off value, sensitivity, and specificity, respectively, were 35.4%, 0.73, and 0.36 (p < 0.0001) for the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure proportion and 25.5, 0.84, and 0.45 (p < 0.0001) for the Functional Independence Measure cognitive score. The client’s high-level cognitive skill and occupational therapist’s attitude may determine the use of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure.