MOHO Case Study

The MOHO identifies the individual as a dynamic agent, capable of manipulating and controlling their environment (Wong and Fisher 2015). It highlights one’s potential for intrinsic adaptation which occurs as a direct result of occupational participation. The arrows in the model represent the process of adaptation and agency occurring as a result of occupational participation. The MOHO identifies volition, habituation, personal capacity, skills as well as occupational performance and participation as key components that contribute to this occupational adaptation in the context of one’s specific environment (Wong and Fisher 2015).
In comparison, the PEOP depicts five dimensions of an individuals which include; neurological, psychological, spiritual,
The MOHO complies with this belief, however, the PEOP focus on the individual and their specific skills and abilities. Overall, I feel the MOHO emphasis a more holistic view of the person, it “construes the self as being not only focally situated in the centre of all concerns, but also understood to be rationally separate and superior in power and status to the environment and nature” (Iwama et al. 2009). The PEOP lacks this holistic view of the individual, and aims to target personal factors and components in order to improve their ‘fit’ for occupational performance. In further contrast to the PEOP, the MOHO focuses on careful consideration of the unique individual, in order to understand their unique volition and occupational identity. The therapist can thereby develop the individual’s volition in order to facilitate the learning/development of skills. In an ideal situation, this will lead to improved performance and ultimately occupational adaptation will
The MOHO recognises the environment’s inescapable influence in the process of change (Wong and Fisher 2015). The MOHO highlights the potential barriers associated with the environment, for example societal expectation can often conflict with one’s personal goals or desires for change. If the environment doesn’t support adaptation on the part of the individual, change can prove difficult to achieve. However, the MOHO also encourages that the environment can serve as a source of alteration that have the ability to facilitate change. The therapist can alter the environment to facilitate movement of the individual through the stages of change. (Kielhofner, 2008)
On the other hand, the PEOP solely considers whether or not the environment enables or provides a barrier to occupational performance. The model is concerned with the ‘fit’ between the individual and their environment. The PEOP appears to provide equal importance to both environmental and personal factors throughout assessment and intervention (Christiansen, Baum and Bass-Haugen, 2005). The person and environmental factors are depicted as opposing sides with the overlap representing occupational participation and performance. The aim is to tighten this ‘fit’ in order to improve one’s occupational