This study examined the empirical validity of the model of human occupation in psychosocial occupational therapy. A battery of instruments corresponding to the components of the model was administered to young adult patients with chronic conditions, patients with eating disorders, adolescents hospitalized for psychiatric disorders, and normal adults and adolescents. The only variables on which the groups did not differ significantly were the Fatalism subscale of the Internal—External Scale and the Future Meaning dimension of the Life Attitude Profile. A series of comparison regressions using ratings on each of four roles from the Role Performance Scale as criterion variables generally was more useful in explaining the performance of the group with eating disorders and less useful with the young adult group with chronic conditions. The regressions were also more useful in explaining social and productive role performance than in explaining leisure or self management role performance. In the most successful model, life purpose, self-control, existential vacuum, and family environment explained 46% of the variance in social role performance by the group with eating disorders. For young adult patients with chronic conditions, the best model—consisting of existential vacuum, past roles, self-control, family environment, and life purpose—accounted for 32% of the variance in performance of the productive (work or education) role. For the adolescents hospitalized with psychiatric disorders, skills, family environment, life purpose, and past roles accounted for 35% of the variance in social role performance.

The SAOF has the potential to be a reliable and valid clinical assessment; however, additional research is needed.

No abstract