THE EVALUATION OF THE RELIABILITY OF THE ACTIVITY CARD SORT – UNITED KINGDOM VERSION (ACS-UK)

Background: The Activity Card Sort (Baum and Edwards, 2008) is a self-report outcome measure that provides insight into people’s occupational history and participation. This study aims to evaluate the reliability of the... [ view full abstract ]

Background:
The Activity Card Sort (Baum and Edwards, 2008) is a self-report outcome measure that provides insight into people’s occupational history and participation. This study aims to evaluate the reliability of the Activity Card Sort - United Kingdom (ACS-UK; Laver-Fawcett and Mallinson, 2013) community living version. The study has been undertaken by three groups of occupational therapy student (n=13) for a third year project.

Method:
A convenience sample of older people was recruited through local charity social groups. Participants completed the ACS-UK three times. To establish inter-rater reliability (IRR) ACS-UK was administered twice on the first day, with a break in between, by two different student researchers. To establish test-retest reliability (TRR), it was administered the third time, approximately two weeks later. Written consent was obtained prior to the initial data collection with verbal consent gained before each subsequent administration.

Results:
Reliability data was obtained for two samples, each comprising 17 people (N = 34). The intraclass correlation coefficients for the ACS-UK Global Retained Activity Scores (GRAS) for inter-rater reliability was 0.86 and for test-retest reliability was 0.83.


Conclusion:
The ACS-UK has good inter-rater and test-retest reliability.

Application to Practice:
ACS-UK enables occupational therapists to assess participation and plan interventions to support older people’s activity engagement.

References:
Baum, C.M., Edwards, D.F. (2008) Activity Card Sort (ACS): Test manual. 2nd ed. Bethesda: AOTA Press
Laver-Fawcett, A.J., Mallinson, S.H. (2013) ‘Development of the Activity Card Sort - United Kingdom version (ACS-UK).’ OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 33(3), pp. 134-145.