Model of Human Occupation Screening Tool

Last Updated

March 06, 2015

Purpose

An assessment that addresses the majority of MOHO concepts:
volition (motivation for occupation), habituation (pattern of occupation), communication and interaction skills, motor skills, process skills, environment in order to gain an overview of occupational functioning.

Link to Instrument

Instrument Details

Acronym MOHOST

Area of Assessment

Communication
Life Participation
Motivation
Reasoning/Problem Solving
Social Relationships

Assessment Type

Observer

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Not Free

Actual Cost

$40.00

Diagnosis/Conditions

Arthritis + Joint Conditions
Brain Injury Recovery
Cardiac Dysfunction
Cerebral Palsy
Multiple Sclerosis
Pain Management
Parkinson's Disease & Movement Disorders
Pulmonary Disorders
Spinal Cord Injury
Stroke Recovery
Vestibular Disorders

Non-Specific Patient Population

24 items (4 items per section)
Minimum score 24, Maximum score 96
Each item is scored on an ordinal rating scale:
F= facilitates occupation participation;
A= allows occupation participation;
I= inhibits occupation participation;
R= restricts occupation participation;
Can be translated into a 4-point interval rating scale where F=4, A=3, I=2, and R=1.
The MOHOST manual provides descriptions of criteria for each item.

Number of Items

Pen/Pencil or Computer
MOHOST Observation Forms (4 Options)
Equipment required for observed activity

40 minutes

Total administration time is from 10 to 40 minutes.

Required Training

Reading an Article/Manual

Adult

18 - 64

years

Elderly Adult

65 +

years

Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed by Karen Lukaszewski, Ryan Thomure, and Jessica Weiler

ICF Domain

Participation

Measurement Domain

Activities of Daily Living
Cognition
Emotion
General Health
Motor
Sensory

Considerations

The MOHOST is available in many different languages.

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Mental Health:

See: (Forsynth et al, 2011, n = 163; mean age = 40.10 years; 83.4% male, 16.56% female; 48% from UK, 52% from USA; Mental Health)

Internal Consistency

Mental Health:

(Kramer et al, 2009, n = 54; mean age = 58.13; 20 male, 34 female from inpatient rehabilitation unit; spent between 2 and 39 days on the unit M = 11.54, SD = 7.518; Mental Health)

Mixed Disabilities
See: (Kielhofner, 2009, n = 166; mean age = 40.1 years; 83.7% male and 16.3% female; 51.8% from the UK, 48.2% from the USA; Mixed Disabilities)

Construct Validity

Convergent Validity

MOHOST-C Volitional Scale & Volitional Questionnaire: Adequate r= 0.583
MOHOST-C Communication Scale & ACIS-C: Excellent r= 0.815
MOHOST-C Process Scale & MMSE: Adequate r= 0.334

Divergent Validity

Mental Health
(Pan et al, 2011, n = 101; mean age = 40.5 (9.6) years; n = 74 patients with schizophrenia, Mental Health)

Poor reliability between volition subscale of MOHOST and Volitional Questionnaire (r = -.048)
Poor reliability between habituation subscale of MOHOST and Volitional Questionnaire (r= .046)
Poor reliability between communication subscale of MOHOST and Volitional Questionnaire (r= .104)
Poor reliability between process subscale of MOHOST and Volitional Questionnaire (r = .005)
Poor reliability between motor subscale of MOHOST and Volitional Questionnaire (r = .042)
Poor reliability between environment subscale of MOHOST and Volitional Questionnaire (r = -.013)

Content Validity

Mental Health
(Pan et al, 2011, Mental Health)

Excellent correlation between volition subscale of MOHOST and Volitional Questionnaire ( r = .583)
Excellent correlation between communication and interaction subscale of MOHOST and the ACIS ( r =.815)
Adequate correlation between process subscale of MOHOST and MMSE (r = .334)

Mental Health:
(Kielhofner, 2010; n= 1039; mean age= 61.83 (22.28) years, Mental Health)

All six subscales of the MOHOST were able to discriminate subjects into at least three statistically distinct levels. The reliability with which subjects were discriminated into levels ranged from .81 to .89
Poor correlation with MOHOST subscale volition with HoNOS-PbR item Problems with ADLs (r= .23)
Poor correlation with MOHOST subscale Habituation with HoNOS-PbR item Problems with ADLs (r= .29)
Poor correlation with MOHOST subscale Communication/ interaction skills with HoNOS-PbR item Problems with relationships (r= .20)
Adequate correlation with MOHOST subscale process skills with HoNOS-PbR item cognitive problems (r= .45)
Adequate correlation with MOHOST subscale Motor Skills with HoNOS-PbR item Physical illness or disability problems (r= .43)
Poor correlation with MOHOST subscale Environment with HoNOS-PbR item Problems with living conditions(r= .24)

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Mental Health
(Forsynth et al, 2011, Mental health)

No ceiling or floor effects

Bibliography

Duncan, E. & Moody, K. (2003). Integrated care pathways in mentalhealth settings: An occupational therapy perspective. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 66(10), 473-478.

Forsyth, K., Parkinson, S., Kielhofner, G., Kramer, J., Mann, L., S., & Duncan, E. (2011). The measurement properties of the model of human occupation screening tool and implications for practice. New Zealand Journal of Occupational Therapy, 58(2), 5-13. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.cc.uic.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rzh&AN=2011289160&site=ehost-live

Hawes, D. & Houlder, D. (2010). Reflections on using the Model of Human Occupation Screening Tool in a joint learning disability team. British Journal of Occupational Therpy, 73(11), 564-567.

Kielhofner, G., Fan, W., Morley, M., Garnham, M., Heasman, D., Forsyth, K., Lee, S., & Taylor, R. (2010). Psychometric study of the Model of Human Occupation Screening Tool (MOHOST). Hong Kong Journal of Occupational Therapy, 20(2), 63-70.

Kielhofner, G., Fogg, L., Braveman, B., Forsyth, K., Kramer, J., & Duncan, E. (2009). A factor analytic study of the Model of Human Occupation Screening Tool of hypothesized variables. Occupational Therapy in Mental Health, 25(2), 127-137.

Kramer, J., Kielhofner, G., Lee, S. W., Ashpole, E., & Castle, L. (2009). Utility of the Model of Human Occupation Screening Tool for detecting client change. Occupational Therapy in Mental Health, 25(2), 181-191.

Mitchell, R. & Neish, J. (2007). The use of a ward-based art group to assess the occupational participation of adult acute mental health clients. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 70(5), 215-217.

Notoh, H., Yamada, T., Kobayashi, N., Ishii, Y., & Forsyth, K. (2013). Examining the psychometric properties of the model of human occupation screening tool--japanese version. Hong Kong Journal of Occupational Therapy, 23(1), 26-31. doi:10.1016/j.hkjot.2013.03.001

Notoh, H., Yamada, T., Kobayashi, N., Ishii, Y., & Forsyth, K. (2014). Examine the structural aspect of the construct validity of the Japanese version of the Model of Human Occupation Screening Tool. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 77(10), 516-525.

Lee, S. & Harris, M. (2010). The development of an effective occupational therapy assessment and treatment pathway for women with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder in an inpatient setting: implementing the Model of Human Occupation. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 73(11), 559-563.

Pan, A., Fan, C., Chung, L., Chen, T., Kielhofner, G., Wu, M., & Chen, Y. (2011). Examining the validity of the Model of Human Occupation Screening Tool: Using classical test theory and item response theory. The British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 74(1), 34-40.

Parkinson, S., Chester, A., Cratchley, S., & Rowbottom, J. (2008). Application of the Model of Human Occupation Screening Tool (MOHOST Assessment) in an acute psychiatric setting. Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 22(2–3), 63-75.