ArticleThe human occupation & wellbeing journal2026
Test-retest reliability and internal consistency of the Occupational Resilience Measure (ORM 1.0).
Article in The human occupation & wellbeing journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Occupational resilience: Scoping review of conceptualisations and applications in contexts of adversity.Australian occupational therapy journal · 2026Article
- Revisiting the conceptualisation of occupational resilience.Australian occupational therapy journal · 2026Article
- The effects of occupational disruption during COVID-19 lockdowns on health: a cross-sectional study.PeerJ · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The Occupational Resilience Measure (ORM 1.0) is a 20-item, multidimensional self-report tool for measuring occupational resilience, a construct defined as an individual's ability to persist in performing occupations despite barriers. Objective: This study evaluated test-retest reliability and internal consistency and explored the extent to which ORM 1.0 is a reliable measure across a diverse range of activity types. Methods: Ninety-four participants completed the test and retest measurements within a 2- to 3-week period. A total of 202 activities were included in the analysis, grouped into leisure (LE) [94], productivity (PD) [35], and self-care (SC) [73]. Findings: The estimates of test-retest reliability (95% confidence interval [CI]) for SC, LE, and PD were 0.863 (0.794,0.91), 0.860 (0.793,0.907), and 0.876 (0.771,0.935), respectively, indicating good reliability across the two time points for each of the three categories. The Cronbach's alphas at time point 1 for SC, LE, and PD were 0.744 (0.666, 0.808), 0.711 (0.63, 0.778), and 0.694 (0.517, 0.818), respectively, suggesting acceptable to good internal consistency. Similarly, the estimates of Cronbach's alpha at time point 2 for the three occupational categories were: 0.79 (0.725, 0.842), 0.766 (0.7, 0.82), and 0.775 (0.645, 0.866), respectively, indicating good internal consistency. Conclusion: The findings suggest that ORM 1.0 has test-retest reliability and internal consistency across leisure, productivity, and self-care occupations. The outcomes support the use of ORM 1.0 in clinical practice and research, although further research could strengthen its psychometric properties.
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.