Construct validity of a revised version of the occupational balance questionnaire

Carita Håkansson, Petra Wagman, Peter Hagell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

55 Citations (Scopus)
48 Downloads (Pure)


Background: Occupational balance is fundamental to occupational therapy and occupational science. Therefore, the Occupational Balance Questionnaire (OBQ) was developed and has previously been found psychometrically valid according to classical test theory. Aim: To investigate the internal construct validity of the OBQ using Rasch measurement theory. Material and methods: Data from two general population samples were used to investigate the psychometric properties of the OBQ according to Rasch measurement theory. Results: The analyses identified problems with the current response scale and multidimensionality of two items. As a result, a revised version, the OBQ11, was suggested and exhibited response categories that worked properly, good reliability (0.92), model fit and measurement invariance across age and gender groups. The hierarchical item ordering was in agreement with previous research. Conclusion: The new OBQ11 satisfies the measurement criteria defined by the Rasch model. However, further studies of additional samples are needed to validate its generic properties. Significance: The purpose of the OBQ11 is to measure occupational balance of individuals or groups, and to identify aspects of occupational balance in need of improvement. Our observations suggest that the OBQ11 is a valid and promising complement to other instruments.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)441-449
Number of pages8
JournalScandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy
Issue number6
Publication statusPublished - 2020

Swedish Standard Keywords

  • Other Health Sciences (30399)


  • Measurement
  • occupational science
  • occupational therapy
  • psychometrics


Dive into the research topics of 'Construct validity of a revised version of the occupational balance questionnaire'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this