University students face occupational disruption during post-secondary transitions, yet existing campus screening tools leave occupational challenges largely unassessed. No comprehensive, occupation-focused screening instrument exists for this population. To describe the theoretical development and content validation of the Occupations in Higher Education Transitions Inventory ( OHETI ), a screening tool assessing university student adaptation across 10 domains of occupation grounded in the Theory of Occupational Adaptation (OA) a five-phase iterative development process was used: (a) initial item generation; (b) preliminary expert review for face validity ( N = 3 occupational therapists with expertise in OA theory); (c) tool reconceptualization based on expert feedback; (d) cognitive interviews with undergraduate students for face validity and comprehensibility ( N = 10); and (e) formal content validation using a Content Validity Index (CVI) rating procedure with ( N = 6) occupational therapy professionals with clinical and academic experience with emerging adult students. Initial item generation yielded 68 items across seven OA constructs. Expert feedback prompted a fundamental restructuring, producing 116 items across 10 occupations, covering aspects of relative mastery: satisfaction, effectiveness, and efficiency. Revision based on student cognitive interviews resulted in 122 items. Formal content validation produced I-CVI scores ranging from 0.667 to 1.0, with S-CVI scores of 0.9516 for clarity and 0.9435 for relevance. Two items were removed, resulting in a final tool of 120 scorable items across 10 occupations. The OHETI demonstrates strong content and face validity as a theoretically grounded, occupation-focused screening tool for university students. Online administration and individualized feedback distinguish it from existing instruments. Psychometric validation is needed before broad implementation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Keptner et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: