Cited by 43Occupational Therapy Practice and ResearchPsychometric Methodologies and TestingHealth Education and Validation

Content Validity, Clinical Utility, Sensitivity to Change and Discriminant Ability of the Swedish Satisfaction with Daily Occupations (SDO) Instrument: A Screening Tool for People with Mental Disorders

Eklund, Mona, Gunnarsson, A Birgitta·2008·British Journal of Occupational Therapy

Abstract

A screening tool for assessing satisfaction with daily occupations among people with mental illness has been devised — the Swedish version of the Satisfaction with Daily Occupations (SDO) instrument — comprising a satisfaction scale and an activity level scale. The aim was to investigate the SDO for content validity, clinical utility, sensitivity to change and discriminant ability. Nine occupational therapists evaluated the content validity of the SDO. Sensitivity to change was assessed on a sample of 36 clients in psychosocial occupational therapy. Discriminant ability was evaluated by comparing four samples: (1) 103 clients with a diagnosis of severe mental illness, (2) 55 clients attending an outpatient mental health clinic, (3) 36 women with a diagnosis of systemic sclerosis and (4) 40 healthy women. The SDO rendered positive ratings regarding content validity, but some rewording of items was indicated as well as clearer instructions. Both the satisfaction scale and the activity level scale were found to be responsive to change. Discriminant ability was shown in that, in particular, the activity level score distinguished the mentally ill participants from the other samples. The SDO was shown to reflect the targeted phenomenon satisfactorily and to be sensitive enough to detect change following an occupational therapy intervention. However, so far only the Swedish version of the SDO has been studied, but an English version is available whose cross-cultural validity should be examined.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/030802260807101106

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 24 · Cited by 43

Authors
Eklund, M., & Gunnarsson, A. B.
Affiliations
  • Malmö University (SE)
  • Lund University (SE)
Corresponding author
Eklund, Mona
Venue
British Journal of Occupational Therapy
Published
2008-11
Volume
71
Issue
11
Pages
487-495
ISSN
  • 0308-0226 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-6006
OpenAlex
W1872199444
Cited by
43
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
4.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
British Journal of Occupational Therapy (publishedVersion)
Funders
Vetenskapsrådet
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Therapy Practice and Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
job satisfaction, mental illness, screening tool, psychosocial occupational therapy, content validity, sensitivity to change, discriminant validity, activity level, severe mental illness, systemic sclerosis, Swedish adaptation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review