OTJR Occupational Therapy Journal of Research· 2026Q2· Review
Instruments for Assessing Professional Reasoning in Occupational Therapy: A Systematic Review
- 0citations
- Q2SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
A systematic review of 13 occupational therapy instruments (~1,500 participants) found only the EIPT tool has high certainty of evidence, with most tools showing methodological weaknesses and lacking minimal important difference values.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- 13 instruments measuring professional reasoning in occupational therapy were reviewed (2016-2025).
- Only the Evidence-Based Professional Thinking Tool (EIPT) demonstrated a 'high' level of certainty of evidence.
- Most instruments (61.5%) were recommended (Category A), but none reported minimal important difference values.
- A significant geographical bias toward the Global North was identified.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Following PRISMA-COSMIN 2024 guidelines, this systematic review assessed the quality of evidence for quantitative instruments (OMIs) designed to measure professional reasoning in occupational therapy students and professionals between 2016 and 2025. Thirteen OMIs (~1,500 participants) were identified, revealing a substantial geographical bias toward the Global North. Although 61.5% ( n = 8) were classified as Category A (Recommended), only the Evidence-Based Professional Thinking Tool (EIPT) demonstrated a “high” level of certainty of evidence. Critical shortcomings persist: while only one instrument reported minimal important change values, none identified minimal important differences. Current assessment tools exhibit methodological weaknesses and limited parameters for interpreting scores. Given that the evidence base is largely in a pilot stage, future research should prioritize cross-cultural adaptation, establish interpretive thresholds, and include observable, performance-based measures to improve the quality of assessment and evidence-based practice in occupational therapy education and clinical settings. Trial registration: PROSPERO (CRD420251270730).
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. OTJR Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Occupational Therapy
Occupational TherapyHealth Professions