Generic Background Image
  1. Rehabilitation Measures Database
  2. Dynamic Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment

Dynamic Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment

Last Updated

Purpose

The assessment has two main purposes. First, it provides a baseline measure for intervention of children referred for OT treatment due to cognitive and learning difficulties. Second, it identifies potential areas of cognitive strength where children may benefit from mediated learning. Its dynamic testing properties can also be used to identify areas of cognitive strength (Katz et al., 2007).

Link to Instrument

Acronym DOTCA-Ch

Area of Assessment

Mental Functions
General Health & Development
Bodily Functions
Cognition
Executive Functioning

Assessment Type

Performance Measure

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Not Free

Actual Cost

$765.00

Diagnosis/Conditions

  • Brain Injury Recovery
  • Pediatric + Adolescent Rehabilitation

Populations

Mixed Conditions
Pediatric/Congenital Conditions

Key Descriptions

  • For minimum and maximum scores, see the administration manual; all subtests are scored differently:
    1) Orientation score range 1-16
    2) Spatial Perception score range 1-12
    3) Praxis score range 1-44
    4) Visuomotor Construction (VC) score range 7-35
    5) VC Memory (immediate) score range 5-25
    6) VS Memory (delayed) score range 5-25
    7) VC Time (in seconds sum over 7 subtests)
    8) Thinking Operations (TO) score range 7-35
    9) TO Time (in seconds sum over 7 subtests)
  • Each initial incorrect response is scored using a systematic dynamic approach to modify the task through prompting and other forms of mediation; see manual for administration instructions (Katz, Parush, & Traub Bar-Ilan, 2005).

Number of Items

54

Equipment Required

  • Table and 2 chairs (appropriately sized to ensure child's comfort)
  • Adequate lighting and ventilation
  • Stopwatch
  • Wristwatch
  • Sharpened pencil with eraser
  • Several photocopies of pages 11, 13, and 14 of Test Booklet
  • DOTCA-Ch Test Kit
  • Examiner's manual
  • Photo book
  • Test book
  • Response/scoring sheets
  • Envelope
  • Marble box
  • Present box
  • Finger bead toy
  • 3-D wooden maze with marble
  • 5 geometric form cards
  • 4 plastic geometric form pieces
  • Extra set of 4 plastic geometric forms
  • 100-holed plastic pegboard and 15 pegs
  • Extra set of peg board and pegs
  • Simplified pegboard and 9 pegs
  • 10 colored 1-inch cubes
  • Extra set of colored cubes
  • Simplified card
  • 9 plan (uncolored) 1-inch cubes
  • Extra set of plain cubes
  • 9-piece butterfly puzzle
  • Simplified 9-piece butterfly puzzle
  • Clock parts
  • 14 categorization cards
  • 5 sequencing picture cards
  • 6 sequencing picture cards
  • 3 geometric forms: circle, square, triangle
  • 9 wooden sticks
  • 18 plastic color an shape pieces

Time to Administer

90 minutes

Required Training

Reading an Article/Manual

Age Ranges

Child

6 - 12

years

Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed by University of Illinois at Chicago Master of Science in Occupational Therapy students Jacob Abell, Emilie Berman, and Melissa Umansky.

ICF Domain

Body Function

Measurement Domain

Cognition

Professional Association Recommendation

The DOTCA-Ch was designed to be administered by occupational therapists (Katz, Parush, & Traub Bar-Ilan, 2005).

Considerations

  • Test data comes from an Israeli sample with research to determine standardization data for American children in progress at time of publication.

  • Inferences regarding child’s intellectual status resulting from poor scores cannot be made; formal diagnosis of cognitive status requires additional in-depth testing in other disciplines.

  • Utilize caution to avoid misinterpretation when using the DOTCA-Ch on populations not included in the psychometric samples (Katz, Parush, & Traub Bar-Ilan, 2005).

Pediatric/Congenital Conditions

back to Populations

Test/Retest Reliability

Children with Intellectual Impairments and Learning Disabilities: (Suchitporn et al., 2014; n = 38)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability of Orientation Subtest (ICC = 0.84)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability Spatial Perception Subtest (ICC = 0.86)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability Thinking Operations Subtest (ICC = 0.85)

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Children with Intellectual Impairments and Learning Disabilities: (Suchitporn et al., 2014)

  • Excellent interrater reliability Orientation Subtest (ICC = 0.83)

  • Excellent interrater reliability Spatial Perception Subtest (ICC = 0.84)

  • Adequate interrater reliability Thinking Operation Subtest (ICC = 0.74)

Internal Consistency

Children with Intellectual Impairments and Learning Disabilities: (Suchitporn et al., 2014)

  • Excellent internal consistency Orientation Subtest (Cronbach's α = 0.83)

  • Excellent internal consistency Spatial Perception Subtest (Cronbach's α = 0.82)

  • Excellent internal consistency Thinking operations subtest (Cronbach's α = 0.82)

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Concurrent Validity:

Children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: (Coster, Deeney, Haltiwanger & Haley, 1998; Katz, Parush, & Traub Bar-Ilan, 2005)

  • No ICC reported, per author report there are significant correlations (DOTCA-Ch: Orientation, Visuomotor Construction, Thinking Operations and School Function Assessment (SFA): Cognitive/Behavioral functional tasks)

  • No ICC reported, per author report there are significant correlations (DOTCA-Ch: Spatial Perception, Praxis and SFA physical functional tasks)

Construct Validity

Discriminant Validity:

Children with Learning Disabilities, Traumatic Brain Injuries, and Typically Developing Children: (Katz, Parush, & Traub Bar-Ilan, 2005)

  • Significant differentiation between each group of children with learning disabillites and children with traumatic brain injuries compared with typically developing children (p < [.001, 0001]). No ICC reported.

Children with Learning Disabilities, Traumatic Brain Injuries, and Typically Developing Children: (Katz et al., 2007)

  • Children with traumatic brain injuries were matched by age and gender to typically developing children.

  • 2nd and 3rd graders with learning disabilities were age-matched to typically developing 2nd and 3rd graders.

Mixed Conditions

back to Populations

Cut-Off Scores

Typically developing children: (Katz, Bar-Ilan, & Parush, 2007; n = 381)

  • Scoring in the bottom 10% (or less) signifies deficient cognitive abilities

  • Scoring in the bottom 25% (or less) signifies a risk for cognitive dysfunction

  • Cut-off scores are different for each age group; see manual for details

Normative Data

Typically developing children: (Katz et al., 2007)

Results of One-way ANOVA for Total Cognitive Domain Scores of the DOTCA-Ch Between Four Age Groups

 

A (6-6.11 Years)

B (7-8.11 Years)

C (9-10.11 Years)

D (11-12.0 Years)

DOTCA-Ch Domains

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

Orientation

12.61 (1.59)

13.97 (1.51)

15.28 (0.97)

15.22 (0.77)

Spatial Perception

8.63 (2.19)

10.50 (1.76)

10.99 (1.58)

11.42 (1.15)

Praxis

19.55 (4.27)

25.29 (6.7)

29.54 (5.66)

33.05 (4.38)

Visuomotor Construction

20.79 (4.22)

25.83 (3.84)

27.74 (3.59)

28.47 (3.19)

Immediate Memory

13.59 (4.07)

17.93 (4.20)

18.02 (4.06)

19.60 (4.16)

Delayed Memory

20.18 (3.26)

21.35 (3.02)

23.03 (1.82)

23.38 (1.07)

Thinking Operations

20.96 (3.88)

22.87 (4.59)

23.60 (4.02)

24.60 (2.15)

Test/Retest Reliability

Typically Developing Children: (Ziviani et al., 2004)

Item

Kappa

% Agreement

Orientation

    

1a

-0.4

43

1b

1

100

1c

0.588

86

1d

1

100

2a

0.364

71

2b

0.588

86

2c

1

100

2d

1

100

Spatial Perception

    

3a

1

100

3b

1

100

3c

1

100

3d

1

100

4a

1

100

4b

*

86

4c

0.3

71

4d

0.3

71

5a

*

86

5b

0.417

71

5c

1

100

5d

1

100

Praxis

    

6a

0.462

71

6b

*

43

6c

*

43

6d

*

29

6e

0.696

86

6f

*

71

6g

0.3

71

6h

0.484

86

6i

*

86

6j

1

100

6k

-0.621

71

6l

*

57

7a

1

100

7b

*

71

7c

*

71

7d

0.364

71

7e

*

14

7f

0.417

71

8a

0.696

86

8b

0.462

71

8c

1

100

8d

*

57

8e

*

57

Visuomotor

    

9 (bef)

0.548

71

9 (mem)

0.176

43

9 (del)

*

43

10 (bef)

*

57

10 (mem)

*

57

10 (del)

*

14

11 (bef)

*

86

11 (mem)

*

57

11 (del)

-0.286

43

12 (bef)

*

71

12 (mem)

*

71

12 (del)

*

57

13 (bef)

*

71

13 (mem)

*

71

13 (del)

*

57

14

0.125

43

15

*

82

Thinking Operations

    

16

*

43

17

*

14

18

*

71

19

*

71

20

*

71

21

0.571

71

Notes: * = unable to calculate Kappa due to asymmetrical cross-tabulation tables; bef = before mediation; mem = from memory; del = delayed.

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Undefined Population of Children: (Katz, Parush, & Traub Bar-Ilan, 2005)

  • Excellent interrater reliability in Orientation Subtest (ICC = 0.93)

  • Excellent interrater reliability in Spatial Perception Subtest (ICC = 0.95)

  • Excellent interrater reliability in Praxis Subtest (ICC = 0.91)

  • Excellent interrater reliability in Visuomotor Construction Subtest (ICC = 0.99)

  • Excellent interrater reliability in Memory Subtest (ICC = 0.99)

  • Excellent interrater reliability in Thinking Operations Subtest (ICC = 0.87)

Typically Developing Children: (Ziviani et al., 2004)

Item

Kappa

% Agreement

Orientation

 

 

1a

1

100

1b

0.744

91

1c

0.621

91

1d

1

100

2a

1

100

2b

1

100

2c

1

100

2d

1

100

Spatial Perception

 

 

3a

1

100

3b

1

100

3c

1

100

3d

1

100

4a

1

100

4b

1

100

4c

0.542

82

4d

0.542

82

5a

1

100

5b

0.82

91

5c

1

100

5d

1

100

Praxis

 

 

6a

*

45

6b

0.043

46

6c

0.283

46

6d

1

100

6e

-0.158

64

6f

*

82

6g

0.312

55

6h

0.577

82

6i

*

91

6j

1

100

6k

0.621

91

6l

0.676

82

7a

1

100

7b

0.744

91

7c

*

82

7d

0.25

46

7e

1

100

7f

1

100

8a

*

73

8b

*

46

8c

*

73

8d

0.113

55

8e

*

55

Visuomotor

 

 

9 (bef)

*

73

9 (mem)

0.283

46

9 (del)

0.359

50

10 (bef)

0.81

91

10 (mem)

0.577

82

10 (del)

*

90

11 (bef)

*

73

11 (mem)

*

64

11 (del)

*

78

12 (bef)

0.529

73

12 (mem)

0.833

91

12 (del)

*

78

13 (bef)

*

64

13 (mem)

*

82

13 (del)

*

88

14

*

46

15

*

82

Thinking Operations

 

 

16

*

46

17

0.703

82

18

*

55

19

1

100

20

*

91

21

*

90

Notes: * = unable to calculate Kappa due to asymmetrical cross-tabulation tables; bef = before mediation; mem = from memory; del = delayed.

Typically Developing Children: (Katz et al., 2007)

  • Excellent interrater reliability in Orientation Subtest (ICC = 0.93)

  • Excellent interrater reliability Spatial Perception Subtest (ICC = 0.95)

  • Excellent interrater reliability Praxis Subtest (ICC = 0.91)

  • Excellent interrater reliability Visuomotor Construction Subtest (ICC = 0.99)

  • Excellent interrater reliability Immediate Memory Subtest (ICC = 0.99)

  • Excellent interrater reliability Thinking Operations Subtest (ICC = 0.87)

Internal Consistency

Typically Developing Children: (Katz et al., 2007)

  • Poor internal consistency in Orientation Subtest (Cronbach's α = 0.61)

  • Adequate internal consistency reliability in Spatial Perception Subtest (Cronbach's α = 0.74)

  • Adequate internal consistency reliability in Praxis Subtest (Cronbach's α = 0.70)

  • Poor internal consistency reliability in Visuomotor Construction Subtest (Cronbach's α = 0.61)

  • Poor internal consistency reliability in Immediate Memory Subtest (Cronbach's α = 0.64)

  • Adequate internal consistency reliability in Thinking Operations Subtest (Cronbach's α = 0.77)

Undefined Sample of Children: (Katz, Parush, & Traub Bar-Ilan, 2005)

  • Poor internal consistency reliability in Orientation Subtest (Cronbach's α = 0.61)

  • Adequate internal consistency reliability in Spatial Perception Subtest (Cronbach's α = 0.74)

  • Adequate internal consistency reliability in Praxis Subtest (Cronbach's α = 0.70)

  • Poor internal consistency reliability in Visuomotor Construction Subtest (Cronbach's α = 0.61)

  • Poor internal consistency reliability in Memory Subtest (Cronbach's α = 0.64)

  • Adequate internal consistency reliability in Thinking Operations Subtest (Cronbach's α = 0.77)

Construct Validity

Discriminant Validity:

Children with Learning Disabilities, Traumatic Brain Injuries, and Typically Developing Children (Katz, Parush, & Traub Bar-Ilan, 2005)

  • Significant differentiation between each group of Children with LD and TBI to typical children p < [.001, 0001]. No ICC reported.

Children with Learning Disabilities, Traumatic Brain Injuries, and Typically Developing Children (Katz et al., 2007)

  • Children with TBI were matched by age and gender to typically developing children.

  • 2nd and 3rd graders with LDs were age-matched to typically developing 2nd and 3rd graders.

Multivariate Analyses of Variance Comparing DOTCA-Ch Domain Scores Among Children with Learning Disabilities, Children with Traumatic Brain Injuries, and Typically Developing Children

 

Children with TBI (n = 44) vs. TD Children (n = 43)

 

 

 

*Children with LD 2nd Grade (n = 30), 3rd grade (n = 32) vs. TD Children 2nd Grade (n = 30), 3rd grade (n = 30)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pretest

 

Posttest

 

Pretest

 

 

 

Posttest

 

 

 

DOTCA-CH Domains

F

p

F

p

F

p

F

p

F

p

F

p

 

 

 

 

 

(2nd Grade)

 

(3rd Grade)

 

(2nd Grade)

 

(3rd Grade)

 

Orientation

33.16

0.000

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Spatial Perception

19.22

0.000

0.004

0.949

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Praxis

1.04

0.311*

3.49

0.065

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Visuomotor Construction

14.62

0.000

10.03

0.002

48.99

0.01

16.15

0.01

27.84

0.01

5.80

0.05

Immediate Memory

-

-

-

-

13.28

0.01

12.30

0.01

-

-

-

-

Thinking Operation

12.88

0.000

19.81

0.000

35.21

0.01

12.64

0.01

31.95

0.01

17.07

0.01

Notes: DOTCA-Ch = Dynamic Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment for Children; TBI = Traumatic Brain Injury; TD = Typically Developing; LD = Learning Disabilities; - = Not Administered; * = only 2 domains were tested; the original brief version of the Praxis Subtest was used in this study.

Bibliography

Coster, W., Deeney, T., Haltiwanger, J., & Haley, S. (1998). School Function Assessment: User’s Manual. San Antonio, TX: Therapy Skill Builders.

DOTCA-Ch Battery. (n.d.). Retrieved from

Katz, N., Golstand, S., Bar-Ilan, R.T., & Parush, S. (2007). The Dynamic Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment for Children (DOTCA–Ch): A new instrument for assessing learning potential. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(1), 41–52.

Katz, N., Parush, S., & Traub Bar-Ilan, R. (2005). Dynamic Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment for Children (DOTCA–Ch) manual. Pequannock, NJ: Maddak.

Lersilp, S., Rangson, T., Chinchai, S., & Sriphetcharawut, S. (2014). Reliability of the Dynamic Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment for Children (DOTCA-Ch): Thai version of orientation, spatial perception, and thinking operations subtests. International Journal of Cognitive 星空传媒视频 in Science, 2(1), 69-75.

Rodger, S., Daley, E., Hughes, K., & Ziviani, J. (2005). Dynamic Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment for Children: Perceived utility in Australian occupational therapy practice. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 52(4), 337-349.

Ziviani, J., Rodger, S., Pacheco, P., Rootsey, L., Smith, A., & Katz, N. (2004). The Dynamic Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment for Children (DOTCA-Ch): Pilot study of inter-rater and test-retest reliability. New Zealand Journal Of Occupational Therapy, 51(2), 17-24.

rehabilitation measures

More Instruments Like This

We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.

updated May 10, 2025

Physical Activity Enjoymen...

read more

updated Apr 24, 2025

Rapid Assessment of Physic...

read more

updated Feb 27, 2025

Psychosocial Impact of Ass...

read more