I like it. It feels multidimensional as compared to UT. I especiallly like that client factors (what the client has) are teased out from performance skills (what the client does in the context of an occupation)...I think this will be key in helping students learn the essence of occupation and its ability to effect performance. I also like the expanded contexts in which we are asked to view occupational performance. I also love the table that explains the difference between occupation, purposeful activity and preparatory activity....
I do have to say however that I was totally overwhelmed when I first read it. Only after having to begin to explain the framework to students (intro'd it yesterday to OTA students and today to grad students) did I start to feel comfortable with the document. I still have a way to go in understanding it at the deepest levels. I think over time it will feel as comfortable as UT did. I do worry however that many practitioners will feel much like I did and ignore it out sheer exhaustion trying to underdstand it at first glance. I'd like to hear from clinical practitioners their reaction to the Framework. Terrianne *********��*********** Unsubscribe? Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message's *body*, put the following text: unsubscribe OTlist ** List messages are archived at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] *********��***********
