Primary Image

RehabMeasures Instrument

Last Updated

Atomized Content

Purpose

The O-Log is a 10-item questionnaire designed to be a quick measure of orientation to time, place and situation in a rehabilitation environment and can be used for serial assessments over time.

Link to Instrument

Instrument Details

Acronym O-Log

Area of Assessment

Cognition

Assessment Type

Performance Measure

Cost

Free

CDE Status

Not a CDE--last searched 1/8/2025

Diagnosis/Conditions

  • Brain Injury Recovery
  • Cardiac Dysfunction

Populations

Key Descriptions

  • 10 questions; 0-30 points possible.
  • Each item is scored from 0 to 3:
    3) Spontaneous and correct response
    2) Spontaneous response is lacking, but correct response with a logical cue (e.g. to identify place, cue “This is a place where doctors and nurses work”)
    1) Spontaneous and cued responses are incorrect, but correct response when provided if given choices to recognize (e.g. to identify the month, provide three months from which to choose)
    0) Spontaneous, logical cue and recognition cue approaches don’t cause a correct response
  • Domain specific scores can be generated:
    1) Place (3 items)
    2) Time (5 items)
    3) Situation (2 items)
  • Scoresheet provides a graph to plot serial assessments over time.

Number of Items

10

Equipment Required

  • Scoresheet
  • Pen/pencil

Time to Administer

3-15 minutes

3 minutes if fully oriented
up to 15 minutes if patient requires multiple cues

Required Training

No Training

Age Ranges

Adolescent

16 - 17

years

Adult

18 - 64

years

Elderly Adult

65 +

years

Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed by Karen McCulloch, PT, PhD, NCS and the TBI Edge task force of the Neurology Section of the APTA in 6/2012

Updated by Colorado State University Occupational Therapy Doctorate (OTD) students Clare Espinoza, Erin Lay, Marley Mardock, Lindsey Shaub, and Sampras Wong in April, 2024.

ICF Domain

Body Function

Measurement Domain

Cognition

Professional Association Recommendation

Recommendations for use of the instrument from the Neurology Section of the American Physical Therapy Association’s Multiple Sclerosis Taskforce (MSEDGE), Parkinson’s Taskforce (PD EDGE), Spinal Cord Injury Taskforce (PD EDGE), Stroke Taskforce (StrokEDGE), Traumatic Brain Injury Taskforce (TBI EDGE), and Vestibular Taskforce (Vestibular EDGE) are listed below. These recommendations were developed by a panel of research and clinical experts using a modified Delphi process.

For detailed information about how recommendations were made, please visit:  http://www.neuropt.org/go/healthcare-professionals/neurology-section-outcome-measures-recommendations

 

Abbreviations:

 

HR

Highly Recommend

R

Recommend

LS / UR

Reasonable to use, but limited study in target group  / Unable to Recommend

NR

Not Recommended

 

Recommendations based on level of care in which the assessment is taken:

 

Acute Care

Inpatient Rehabilitation

Skilled Nursing Facility

Outpatient

Rehabilitation

Home Health

TBI EDGE

LS

R

NR

NR

NR

 

Recommendations for use based on ambulatory status after brain injury:

 

Completely Independent

Mildly dependant

Moderately Dependant

Severely Dependant

TBI EDGE

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

  

Recommendations for entry-level physical therapy education and use in research:

 

Students should learn to administer this tool? (Y/N)

Students should be exposed to tool? (Y/N)

Appropriate for use in intervention research studies? (Y/N)

Is additional research warranted for this tool (Y/N)

TBI EDGE

No

Yes

Yes

Not reported

Considerations

  • Designed for use in an inpatient rehabilitation environment to monitor orientation change; not specific to diagnosis. A more extensive cognitive assessment may be necessary in many situations. 
  • Developer selected items in common with the GOAT, but excluded items that refer specifically to the onset of injury which can be cumbersome to ask about repetitively. The removal of items inquiring about injury allow the O-log to be used with individuals who are disoriented for other reasons (degenerative disease, tumor, etc).
  • Per Kean et al (2011), the O-Log can be used to indicate presence or absence of PTA but not incremental progress during recovery. 

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

Brain Injury

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Acquired Brain Injury: (Jackson et al, 1998, n = 15 rehabilitation inpatients, 11 TBI, 3 stroke, 1 multi-trauma, mean age = 42.2(26.3), age range = 16-85; total of 75 O-Log scores)

  • SEM for individual items = 0.114 - 0.450
  • SEM for total score = 0.637

Cut-Off Scores

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Novack et al, 2000; n = 68 patients with moderate to severe TBI; mean age = 39.8 years; age range = 16-88 years; mean time since injury = 26 days (range = 4-94); 554 total O-Log observations)

  • A score of 25 or greater is associated with normal orientation, comparable to a score of 75 or greater on the Galveston Orientation and Amnesia Test (GOAT)

Normative Data

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Novack et al., 2000)

  • Mean score on O-Log = 25.8 (range = 2 to 30)

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Alderson et al, 2002; n = 389 individuals with primarily moderate to severe TBI, mean age 39.4 (17.9), age range = 10-93 years, male = 72.2%) 

  • Data below were collected prospectively on serial tests of a subgroup of 90 and applied to the larger sample to develop templates for orientation recovery. All ten administrations of the O-Log were made with no more than two days separating each administration.

 

Means and 95% confidence intervals for O-Log performance for two levels of injury severity (n = 90)

O-Log Assessment

Severe TBI

 

 

Mild to Moderate TBI

 

 

 

Lower

Mean

 Upper 

Lower

Mean

Upper

1

5

6

8

8

11

14

2

7

9

11

9

12

15

3

9

11

13

11

14

17

4

11

13

16

13

16

19

5

13

15

17

16

18

21

6

14

16

18

16

19

22

7

15

17

19

18

21

24

8

16

18

20

18

21

24

9

17

19

21

18

20

23

10

19

21

23

19

22

24

Severe TBI: Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) < 9 (n =62); Mild-to-moderate TBI: GCS > 8 (n = 28). Lower = lowest 2.5%; Mean = middle 95%, Upper = highest 2.5%.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Acquired Brain Injury: (Jackson et al, 1998) 

  • Excellent interrater reliability (ICC = 0.993 for total O-Log, ICC = 0.851 - 1.00 for individual items)

Internal Consistency

Acquired Brain Injury: (Jackson et al, 1998) 

  • Excellent internal consistency of place, time and situation domain scales (Cronbach's alpha's = 0.806, 0.865 and 0.834, respectively)
  • Excellent internal consistency of Total O-Log (Cronbach's alpha = 0.922)

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Kean et al., 2011; n = 90; mean age = 48.25 (18.87) years; age range = 17-93 years; mean interval from injury to admission = 23.79 (14.08, range = 2-59) days; 257 ratings total)

  • Adequate person separation value of 1.61, which corresponds to a reliability coefficient of 0.72.

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Concurrent validity: 

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Novack et al., 2000)

  • Excellent correlation between Galveston Orientation and Amnesia Test (GOAT) and O-Log scores (r = .901, p < 0.001) 
  • Excellent correlation between estimates of posttraumatic amnesia (PTA) duration (r = 0.99, p < 0.0001) using a cut-off score of at or above 76 for the GOAT and 25 or better for the O-Log
  • Excellent correlation between the minimum O-Log score and total Function Independence Measure (FIM) score on admission (r = 0.783, p =0.001)
  • Adequate correlation between scores on the O-Log and the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) (r = 0.434, p < 0.003)

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Israelian et al., 2000; n = 43; mean age = 45.79; age range = 16-93; male = 32; mean GCS (n = 26) = 7.88 (4.28, range = 3-15); mean time since injury when data collection began = 27.09 (16.51, range = 6-71) days; patients assigned to one of four groups based on O-Log score on admission: 0, 1-10, 11-20, and >20)

  • Adequate correlations between score on the GCS and the O-Log score at admission (r = 0.420, p < 0.04) and discharge (r = 0.422, p < 0.04)
  • Significant improvement in O-Log scores over the course of hospitalization from day of admission to day of discharge (F(1,39) = 76.21, p < 0.001)
    • Significant Group x Score interaction (F(3,39) = 3.31, p < 0.03), with patients in the two lowest score groups showing the greatest gains over time, followed by patients in the two higher scoring groups who showed more modest gains.
  • Significant main effect for day (F(8,272) = 25.34, p < 0.001) and tests of within-subject contrasts showed a significant linear trend (F(1,34) = 74.92, p < 0.001) that suggested orientation scores on the O-Log increased in a linear fashion over the course of testing for all patient groups.
    • Significant Group x Day interaction (F(24,272) = 1.64, p < 0.03), with patients in the four groups starting out at significantly different levels of orientation and by the end of testing the two higher scoring groups were equally oriented, while the two lower scoring groups remained different in their orientation level. This finding suggests that patients who score 11 or higher on the O-Log at admission have a better prognosis for recovery of orientation. 

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Kean et al., 2011) 

  • Excellent correlations between raw scores (r = 0.901, p < 0.001) and between estimates of duration of PTA (r = 0.99, p < 0.0001) for O-Log and GOAT

Predictive validity: 

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Novack et al., 2000)

  • Adequate predictive validity of minimum O-Log score with rehabilitation discharge total FIM score (r = 0.575, p < 0.001) 

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Alderson et al., 2002; n = 229 from pool of 389; mean age = 41.3 (18.6) years; male = 68.6%; primarily moderate (GCS 9-12, 17.7%) to severe (GCS < 9, 65.5%) TBI patients who were disoriented at inpatient rehabilitation admission) 

  • Initial O-log performance, time since injury and number of O-log assessments predicted resolution of disorientation for 76.4% of sample

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Dowler et al., 2000; n = 60 individuals with moderate to severe TBI; mean age 31.3 (13.6) years; mean time since injury = 6 months (SD=4 weeks)) 

  • Poor to adequate but significant correlation between minimum rehabilitation O-Log score and Community Integration Questionnaire score (r = 0.395) and Disability Rating Scale scores (r = -0.295) at 12 months post-injury. 
  • Poor to adequate but significant correlations between minimum O-Log scores in rehabilitation and neuropsychological tests (r = -0.295-0.395).

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Frey et al., 2007; n = 83 inpatients with TBI; mean age 47.4 (20.4) years) 

  • PTA determined by O-Log demonstrated better prediction of rehabilitation outcomes than GOAT 

 

O-LOG (r^2)

GOAT (r^2)

Total LOS

0.04

0.03

D/C total FIM

0.08

0.06

D/C motor FIM

0.04

0.03

D/C cognitive FIM

0.18

0.13

 

Construct Validity

Traumatic Brain Injury:

  • Excellent correlation of O-Log score to admission total FIM score (r = 0.783) and adequate correlation to GCS score (r = .434) (Novack et al, 2000)
  • O-log scores of 25 or greater were associated with significantly higher Disability Rating Scale (DRS) and FIM scores (Alderson et al, 2002)
  • Adequate correlation with O-Log and GOAT (r = 0.72). (Frey et al, 2007) 

 

Aquired Brain Injury: (Penna and Novack, 2007; n = 45; mean age = 39.7 (18.5) years; inpatients with acquired brain injury, including TBI, CVA, brain tumor)

  • Excellent correlation with MMSE (r = 0.65) and Cog-Log (r = 0.75)

Content Validity

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Kean et al, 2011) 

  • Rasch analysis of O-Log results were below criterion level of person separation (reliability coefficient of .72), only able to determine 1 or 2 strata of patients. Authors suggest that O-Log is insufficient to capture the complexity of cognitive issues in TBI recovery, suggest combining it with other instruments.

Bibliography

Alderson, A. L. and Novack, T. A. (2002). "Measuring recovery of orientation during acute rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury: value and expectations of recovery." J Head Trauma Rehabil 17(3): 210-219. Find it on PubMed

Dowler, R. N., Bush, B. A., et al. (2000). "Cognitive orientation in rehabilitation and neuropsychological outcome after traumatic brain injury." Brain Inj 14(2): 117-123. Find it on PubMed

Frey, K. L., Rojas, D. C., et al. (2007). "Comparison of the O-Log and GOAT as measures of posttraumatic amnesia." Brain Inj 21(5): 513-520. Find it on PubMed

Israelian, M. K., Novak, T. A., Glen, E. T., & Alderson, A. L. (2000). "Changes in orientation during acute rehabilitation after traumatic brain injury." Rehabilitation Psychology, 45(3): 284-291.  

Jackson, W. T., Novack, T. A., et al. (1998). "Effective serial measurement of cognitive orientation in rehabilitation: the Orientation Log." Arch Phys Med Rehabil 79(6): 718-720. Find it on PubMed

Kean, J., Abell, M., et al. (2011). "Rasch analysis of the orientation log and reconsideration of the latent construct during inpatient rehabilitation." J Head Trauma Rehabil 26(5): 364-374. Find it on PubMed

Novack, T. A., Dowler, R. N., et al. (2000). "Validity of the Orientation Log, relative to the Galveston Orientation and Amnesia Test." J Head Trauma Rehabil 15(3): 957-961. Find it on PubMed

Penna, S. and Novack, T. A. (2007). "Further validation of the Orientation and Cognitive Logs: their relationship to the Mini-Mental State Examination." Arch Phys Med Rehabil 88(10): 1360-1361. Find it on PubMed