Occupational Resilience (Part 2): Toward a Cross-culturally Relevant Measure of a Novel Construct

  1. Bernard Austin Kigunda Muriithi
  2. Milan Bimali

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Occupational resilience (OR) refers to an individual’s ability to persist in performing an occupation, with the duration and intensity of engagement determining resilience for each occupation. It is a key determinant of both the manner and the extent to which occupations influence health; therefore, it is a promising construct with several potential applications. There are currently no validated OR measures; which problematizes its application. Three considerations were made in designing the Occupational Resilience Measure (ORM 1.0) and evaluating its potential as a cross-culturally relevant measure of OR: 1) the findings of a published study of lived experiences of refugees from non-Western cultures; 2) Western occupational therapy theories, and 3) evaluations of six American occupational therapy scholar-clinicians. The qualitative study identified five factors that produced sustained participation in one occupation [music]. Four of these factors were developed as subscales of ORM 1.0, namely, History, Experience, Benefits, and Adaptation. On evaluating links between these factors and Western theories, we found constructs that closely align with the four factors, which are measurable and/or modifiable variables associated with long-term occupational performance. Lastly, we considered the results of six American scholar-clinicians who evaluated ORM 1.0 via an anonymous survey and supported the tool as valid, clinically relevant, and unique. The high degree of correspondence between the four ORM 1.0 factors and Western constructs suggests strong cross-cultural relevance. We recommend further studies and cross-cultural application and testing of ORM 1.0 in clinical practice and research.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.18552/fv8ywe13
  2. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a Structured PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/17904849.

    Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint? Yes
    Are the methods well-suited for this research? Somewhat appropriate The study has strong theoretical grounding and connection to existing constructs but the sample size for validation is very small (n=6). They can add rationale or attempt wider validation.
    Are the conclusions supported by the data? Highly supported
    Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data? Highly appropriate and clear
    How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research? Somewhat clearly * They should expand comparison with existing tools * Also highlight what ORM measures that others don't. * Include roadmap for large-scale validation studies (test-retest reliability, construct validity etc0
    Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge? Highly likely It highlights and proffers high potential for occupational therapy and research
    Would it benefit from language editing? No It is clear and easy to understand, the instruments used are well explained
    Would you recommend this preprint to others? Yes, it's of high quality
    Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience? Yes, after minor changes The writers should consider shortening background and improving flow for reader engagement.

    Competing interests

    The author declares that they have no competing interests.

    Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

    The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.

  3. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a Structured PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/17137093.

    Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint? Yes The introduction effectively defined occupational Resilience (OR) and justified its relevance for health outcomes by highlighting the gaps and building a rationale for developing ORM 1.0. The objectives were stated clearly.
    Are the methods well-suited for this research? Somewhat appropriate The sample size (6 participants) is relatively small, which may limit the generalizability of the findings and reliance on descriptive statistics provided. Also, the tool was tested using students and expert clinicians, but it was not tested across the general population.
    Are the conclusions supported by the data? Highly supported The conclusions were within the scope of the study, and it is consistent with their survey responses.
    Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data? Highly appropriate and clear The Tables and Figures clearly convey the results.
    How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research? Very clearly The study was logically sectioned. The citations were appropriate, and the narration was detailed. The authors also acknowledged the limitations and the need for further psychometric testing.
    Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge? Highly likely It filled the gap that was identified, though the outcome was a basis for OR
    Would it benefit from language editing? Yes Some of the sentences were lengthy and could have been shortened. Reading it too well, one might notice that there were some repetitions across the sections
    Would you recommend this preprint to others? Yes, but it needs to be improved Based on the issues we have highlighted (non-generalisation), the manuscript needs to be improved
    Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience? Yes, after minor changes

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

  4. Version published to 10.20944/preprints202507.0018.v1