Dynamic Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment

Last Updated

April 15, 2017

Purpose

The assessment has two main purposes. First, it provides a baseline measure for intervention of children referred for OT treatment due to cognitive and learning difficulties. Second, it identifies potential areas of cognitive strength where children may benefit from mediated learning. Its dynamic testing properties can also be used to identify areas of cognitive strength (Katz et al., 2007).

Link to Instrument

Instrument Details

Acronym DOTCA-Ch

Area of Assessment

Processing Speed
Developmental
Reasoning/Problem Solving
Apraxia
Attention & Working Memory
Cognition
Executive Functioning

Assessment Type

Performance Measure

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Not Free

Actual Cost

$765.00

Diagnosis/Conditions

Brain Injury Recovery
Pediatric + Adolescent Rehabilitation

Non-Specific Patient Population

Pediatric Disorders

For minimum and maximum scores, see the administration manual; all subtests are scored differently:
1) Orientation score range 1-16
2) Spatial Perception score range 1-12
3) Praxis score range 1-44
4) Visuomotor Construction (VC) score range 7-35
5) VC Memory (immediate) score range 5-25
6) VS Memory (delayed) score range 5-25
7) VC Time (in seconds sum over 7 subtests)
8) Thinking Operations (TO) score range 7-35
9) TO Time (in seconds sum over 7 subtests)
Each initial incorrect response is scored using a systematic dynamic approach to modify the task through prompting and other forms of mediation; see manual for administration instructions (Katz, Parush, & Traub Bar-Ilan, 2005).

Number of Items

Table and 2 chairs (appropriately sized to ensure child's comfort)
Adequate lighting and ventilation
Stopwatch
Wristwatch
Sharpened pencil with eraser
Several photocopies of pages 11, 13, and 14 of Test Booklet
DOTCA-Ch Test Kit
Examiner's manual
Photo book
Test book
Response/scoring sheets
Envelope
Marble box
Present box
Finger bead toy
3-D wooden maze with marble
5 geometric form cards
4 plastic geometric form pieces
Extra set of 4 plastic geometric forms
100-holed plastic pegboard and 15 pegs
Extra set of peg board and pegs
Simplified pegboard and 9 pegs
10 colored 1-inch cubes
Extra set of colored cubes
Simplified card
9 plan (uncolored) 1-inch cubes
Extra set of plain cubes
9-piece butterfly puzzle
Simplified 9-piece butterfly puzzle
Clock parts
14 categorization cards
5 sequencing picture cards
6 sequencing picture cards
3 geometric forms: circle, square, triangle
9 wooden sticks
18 plastic color an shape pieces

90 minutes

Required Training

Reading an Article/Manual

Child

6 - 12

years

Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed by University of Illinois at Chicago Master of Science in Occupational Therapy students Jacob Abell, Emilie Berman, and Melissa Umansky.

ICF Domain

Body Function

Measurement Domain

Cognition

Professional Association Recommendation

The DOTCA-Ch was designed to be administered by occupational therapists (Katz, Parush, & Traub Bar-Ilan, 2005).

Considerations

Test data comes from an Israeli sample with research to determine standardization data for American children in progress at time of publication.
Inferences regarding child’s intellectual status resulting from poor scores cannot be made; formal diagnosis of cognitive status requires additional in-depth testing in other disciplines.
Utilize caution to avoid misinterpretation when using the DOTCA-Ch on populations not included in the psychometric samples (Katz, Parush, & Traub Bar-Ilan, 2005).

Test/Retest Reliability

Children with Intellectual Impairments and Learning Disabilities: (Suchitporn et al., 2014; n = 38)

Excellent test-retest reliability of Orientation Subtest (ICC = 0.84)
Excellent test-retest reliability Spatial Perception Subtest (ICC = 0.86)
Excellent test-retest reliability Thinking Operations Subtest (ICC = 0.85)

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Children with Intellectual Impairments and Learning Disabilities: (Suchitporn et al., 2014)

Excellent interrater reliability Orientation Subtest (ICC = 0.83)
Excellent interrater reliability Spatial Perception Subtest (ICC = 0.84)
Adequate interrater reliability Thinking Operation Subtest (ICC = 0.74)

Internal Consistency

Children with Intellectual Impairments and Learning Disabilities: (Suchitporn et al., 2014)

Excellent internal consistency Orientation Subtest (Cronbach's α = 0.83)
Excellent internal consistency Spatial Perception Subtest (Cronbach's α = 0.82)
Excellent internal consistency Thinking operations subtest (Cronbach's α = 0.82)

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Concurrent Validity:

Children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: (Coster, Deeney, Haltiwanger & Haley, 1998; Katz, Parush, & Traub Bar-Ilan, 2005)

No ICC reported, per author report there are significant correlations (DOTCA-Ch: Orientation, Visuomotor Construction, Thinking Operations and School Function Assessment (SFA): Cognitive/Behavioral functional tasks)
No ICC reported, per author report there are significant correlations (DOTCA-Ch: Spatial Perception, Praxis and SFA physical functional tasks)

Construct Validity

Discriminant Validity:

Children with Learning Disabilities, Traumatic Brain Injuries, and Typically Developing Children: (Katz, Parush, & Traub Bar-Ilan, 2005)

Significant differentiation between each group of children with learning disabillites and children with traumatic brain injuries compared with typically developing children (p < [.001, 0001]). No ICC reported.

Children with Learning Disabilities, Traumatic Brain Injuries, and Typically Developing Children: (Katz et al., 2007)

Children with traumatic brain injuries were matched by age and gender to typically developing children.

2nd and 3rd graders with learning disabilities were age-matched to typically developing 2nd and 3rd graders.

Cut-Off Scores

Typically developing children: (Katz, Bar-Ilan, & Parush, 2007; n = 381)

Scoring in the bottom 10% (or less) signifies deficient cognitive abilities
Scoring in the bottom 25% (or less) signifies a risk for cognitive dysfunction
Cut-off scores are different for each age group; see manual for details

Normative Data

Typically developing children: (Katz et al., 2007)

Results of One-way ANOVA for Total Cognitive Domain Scores of the DOTCA-Ch Between Four Age Groups

	A (6-6.11 Years)	B (7-8.11 Years)	C (9-10.11 Years)	D (11-12.0 Years)
DOTCA-Ch Domains	*M (SD)*	*M (SD)*	*M (SD)*	*M (SD)*
Orientation	12.61 (1.59)	13.97 (1.51)	15.28 (0.97)	15.22 (0.77)
Spatial Perception	8.63 (2.19)	10.50 (1.76)	10.99 (1.58)	11.42 (1.15)
Praxis	19.55 (4.27)	25.29 (6.7)	29.54 (5.66)	33.05 (4.38)
Visuomotor Construction	20.79 (4.22)	25.83 (3.84)	27.74 (3.59)	28.47 (3.19)
Immediate Memory	13.59 (4.07)	17.93 (4.20)	18.02 (4.06)	19.60 (4.16)
Delayed Memory	20.18 (3.26)	21.35 (3.02)	23.03 (1.82)	23.38 (1.07)
Thinking Operations	20.96 (3.88)	22.87 (4.59)	23.60 (4.02)	24.60 (2.15)

Test/Retest Reliability

Typically Developing Children: (Ziviani et al., 2004)

Item	Kappa	% Agreement
Orientation
1a	-0.4	43
1b	1	100
1c	0.588	86
1d	1	100
2a	0.364	71
2b	0.588	86
2c	1	100
2d	1	100
Spatial Perception
3a	1	100
3b	1	100
3c	1	100
3d	1	100
4a	1	100
4b	*	86
4c	0.3	71
4d	0.3	71
5a	*	86
5b	0.417	71
5c	1	100
5d	1	100
Praxis
6a	0.462	71
6b	*	43
6c	*	43
6d	*	29
6e	0.696	86
6f	*	71
6g	0.3	71
6h	0.484	86
6i	*	86
6j	1	100
6k	-0.621	71
6l	*	57
7a	1	100
7b	*	71
7c	*	71
7d	0.364	71
7e	*	14
7f	0.417	71
8a	0.696	86
8b	0.462	71
8c	1	100
8d	*	57
8e	*	57
Visuomotor
9 (bef)	0.548	71
9 (mem)	0.176	43
9 (del)	*	43
10 (bef)	*	57
10 (mem)	*	57
10 (del)	*	14
11 (bef)	*	86
11 (mem)	*	57
11 (del)	-0.286	43
12 (bef)	*	71
12 (mem)	*	71
12 (del)	*	57
13 (bef)	*	71
13 (mem)	*	71
13 (del)	*	57
14	0.125	43
15	*	82
Thinking Operations
16	*	43
17	*	14
18	*	71
19	*	71
20	*	71
21	0.571	71

Notes: * = unable to calculate Kappa due to asymmetrical cross-tabulation tables; bef = before mediation; mem = from memory; del = delayed.

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Undefined Population of Children: (Katz, Parush, & Traub Bar-Ilan, 2005)

Excellent interrater reliability in Orientation Subtest (ICC = 0.93)
Excellent interrater reliability in Spatial Perception Subtest (ICC = 0.95)
Excellent interrater reliability in Praxis Subtest (ICC = 0.91)
Excellent interrater reliability in Visuomotor Construction Subtest (ICC = 0.99)
Excellent interrater reliability in Memory Subtest (ICC = 0.99)
Excellent interrater reliability in Thinking Operations Subtest (ICC = 0.87)

Typically Developing Children: (Ziviani et al., 2004)

Item	Kappa	% Agreement
Orientation
1a	1	100
1b	0.744	91
1c	0.621	91
1d	1	100
2a	1	100
2b	1	100
2c	1	100
2d	1	100
Spatial Perception
3a	1	100
3b	1	100
3c	1	100
3d	1	100
4a	1	100
4b	1	100
4c	0.542	82
4d	0.542	82
5a	1	100
5b	0.82	91
5c	1	100
5d	1	100
Praxis
6a	*	45
6b	0.043	46
6c	0.283	46
6d	1	100
6e	-0.158	64
6f	*	82
6g	0.312	55
6h	0.577	82
6i	*	91
6j	1	100
6k	0.621	91
6l	0.676	82
7a	1	100
7b	0.744	91
7c	*	82
7d	0.25	46
7e	1	100
7f	1	100
8a	*	73
8b	*	46
8c	*	73
8d	0.113	55
8e	*	55
Visuomotor
9 (bef)	*	73
9 (mem)	0.283	46
9 (del)	0.359	50
10 (bef)	0.81	91
10 (mem)	0.577	82
10 (del)	*	90
11 (bef)	*	73
11 (mem)	*	64
11 (del)	*	78
12 (bef)	0.529	73
12 (mem)	0.833	91
12 (del)	*	78
13 (bef)	*	64
13 (mem)	*	82
13 (del)	*	88
14	*	46
15	*	82
Thinking Operations
16	*	46
17	0.703	82
18	*	55
19	1	100
20	*	91
21	*	90

Notes: * = unable to calculate Kappa due to asymmetrical cross-tabulation tables; bef = before mediation; mem = from memory; del = delayed.

Typically Developing Children: (Katz et al., 2007)

Excellent interrater reliability in Orientation Subtest (ICC = 0.93)
Excellent interrater reliability Spatial Perception Subtest (ICC = 0.95)
Excellent interrater reliability Praxis Subtest (ICC = 0.91)
Excellent interrater reliability Visuomotor Construction Subtest (ICC = 0.99)
Excellent interrater reliability Immediate Memory Subtest (ICC = 0.99)
Excellent interrater reliability Thinking Operations Subtest (ICC = 0.87)

Internal Consistency

Typically Developing Children: (Katz et al., 2007)

Poor internal consistency in Orientation Subtest (Cronbach's α = 0.61)
Adequate internal consistency reliability in Spatial Perception Subtest (Cronbach's α = 0.74)
Adequate internal consistency reliability in Praxis Subtest (Cronbach's α = 0.70)
Poor internal consistency reliability in Visuomotor Construction Subtest (Cronbach's α = 0.61)
Poor internal consistency reliability in Immediate Memory Subtest (Cronbach's α = 0.64)
Adequate internal consistency reliability in Thinking Operations Subtest (Cronbach's α = 0.77)

Undefined Sample of Children: (Katz, Parush, & Traub Bar-Ilan, 2005)

Poor internal consistency reliability in Orientation Subtest (Cronbach's α = 0.61)
Adequate internal consistency reliability in Spatial Perception Subtest (Cronbach's α = 0.74)
Adequate internal consistency reliability in Praxis Subtest (Cronbach's α = 0.70)
Poor internal consistency reliability in Visuomotor Construction Subtest (Cronbach's α = 0.61)
Poor internal consistency reliability in Memory Subtest (Cronbach's α = 0.64)
Adequate internal consistency reliability in Thinking Operations Subtest (Cronbach's α = 0.77)

Construct Validity

Discriminant Validity:

Children with Learning Disabilities, Traumatic Brain Injuries, and Typically Developing Children (Katz, Parush, & Traub Bar-Ilan, 2005)

Significant differentiation between each group of Children with LD and TBI to typical children p < [.001, 0001]. No ICC reported.

Children with Learning Disabilities, Traumatic Brain Injuries, and Typically Developing Children (Katz et al., 2007)

Children with TBI were matched by age and gender to typically developing children.

2nd and 3rd graders with LDs were age-matched to typically developing 2nd and 3rd graders.

Multivariate Analyses of Variance Comparing DOTCA-Ch Domain Scores Among Children with Learning Disabilities, Children with Traumatic Brain Injuries, and Typically Developing Children

	Children with TBI (n = 44) vs. TD Children (n = 43)				*Children with LD 2^nd Grade (n = 30), 3^rd grade (n = 32) vs. TD Children 2^nd Grade (n = 30), 3^rd grade (n = 30)
	Pretest		Posttest		Pretest				Posttest
DOTCA-CH Domains	F	p	F	p	F	p	F	p	F	p	F	p
					(2^nd Grade)		(3^rd Grade)		(2^nd Grade)		(3^rd Grade)
Orientation	33.16	0.000	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Spatial Perception	19.22	0.000	0.004	0.949	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Praxis	1.04	0.311*	3.49	0.065	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Visuomotor Construction	14.62	0.000	10.03	0.002	48.99	0.01	16.15	0.01	27.84	0.01	5.80	0.05
Immediate Memory	-	-	-	-	13.28	0.01	12.30	0.01	-	-	-	-
Thinking Operation	12.88	0.000	19.81	0.000	35.21	0.01	12.64	0.01	31.95	0.01	17.07	0.01

Notes: DOTCA-Ch = Dynamic Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment for Children; TBI = Traumatic Brain Injury; TD = Typically Developing; LD = Learning Disabilities; - = Not Administered; * = only 2 domains were tested; the original brief version of the Praxis Subtest was used in this study.

Bibliography

Coster, W., Deeney, T., Haltiwanger, J., & Haley, S. (1998). School Function Assessment: User’s Manual. San Antonio, TX: Therapy Skill Builders.

DOTCA-Ch Battery. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.maddak.com/dotcach-battery-p-27813.html

Katz, N., Golstand, S., Bar-Ilan, R.T., & Parush, S. (2007). The Dynamic Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment for Children (DOTCA–Ch): A new instrument for assessing learning potential. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(1), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.61.1.41

Katz, N., Parush, S., & Traub Bar-Ilan, R. (2005). Dynamic Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment for Children (DOTCA–Ch) manual. Pequannock, NJ: Maddak.

Lersilp, S., Rangson, T., Chinchai, S., & Sriphetcharawut, S. (2014). Reliability of the Dynamic Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment for Children (DOTCA-Ch): Thai version of orientation, spatial perception, and thinking operations subtests. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, 2(1), 69-75.

Rodger, S., Daley, E., Hughes, K., & Ziviani, J. (2005). Dynamic Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment for Children: Perceived utility in Australian occupational therapy practice. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 52(4), 337-349. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1630.2005.00516.x

Ziviani, J., Rodger, S., Pacheco, P., Rootsey, L., Smith, A., & Katz, N. (2004). The Dynamic Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment for Children (DOTCA-Ch): Pilot study of inter-rater and test-retest reliability. New Zealand Journal Of Occupational Therapy, 51(2), 17-24.

Last Updated

Purpose

Link to Instrument

Area of Assessment

Assessment Type

Administration Mode

Cost

Actual Cost

Diagnosis/Conditions

Number of Items

Required Training

Instrument Reviewers

ICF Domain

Measurement Domain

Professional Association Recommendation

Considerations

Test/Retest Reliability

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Internal Consistency

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Construct Validity

Cut-Off Scores

Normative Data

Test/Retest Reliability

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Internal Consistency

Construct Validity

Bibliography

Leicester Cough Questionna...

Buss-Durkee Hostility Inve...

Structured Clinical Interv...