ArticleThe British journal of occupational therapy2025
Validity and reliability of the Japanese version of the occupational balance questionnaire.
Article in The British journal of occupational therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Occupational balance, a foundational concept in occupational therapy and science, plays a critical role in enhancing health and well-being. Recent studies have revealed its association with epidemiological factors. This study evaluated the validity and reliability of the Japanese version of the Occupational Balance Questionnaire 11 (OBQ11-J). Methods: Adhering to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments and Rasch Reporting Guidelines for Rehabilitation Research, analyses were conducted on the OBQ11-J using a cohort of 462 generally healthy individuals. Results: The mean OBQ11-J score was 17.7 ± 5.1, ranging from 2 to 33. Two items (Items 1 and 9) exhibited ceiling effects. The 4-point rating scale was validated. Although two items (Items 1 and 10) did not strictly conform to the Rasch model, the overall one-dimensionality and single-factor structures were supported. This confirms the structural validity of the OBQ11-J with its 11 items and 4 rating stages. Reliability, assessed through internal consistency, person separation reliability and test-retest reliability, further affirmed the instrument's robustness. Conclusion: The OBQ11-J demonstrated validity and reliability in a sample of healthy Japanese individuals. Future investigations should establish normative values for the Japanese population and examine criterion-related validity, responsiveness and interpretability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.