Development of a Community Mobility Skills Course for People Who Use Mobility Devices Kimberly A. Walker, Kerri A. Morgan, Carrie L. Morris, Keri K. DeGroot, Holly H. Hollingsworth, David B. Gray KEY WORDS  environment  mobility limitation  orthopedic equipment  task performance and analysis  wheelchairs Kimberly A. Walker, OTD OTR/L, is Occupational Therapist, 1225 West Apple Street, Freeburg, IL 62243; squeaky@charter.net Kerri A. Morgan, MSOT, OTR/L, is Instructor, Washington University School of Medicine, Program in Occupational Therapy, St. Louis, MO. Carrie L. Morris, is Research Assistant, Washington University School of Medicine, Program in Occupational Therapy, St. Louis, MO. Keri K. DeGroot, OTD, OTR/L, is Occupational Therapist, Inpatient Neurology, Rehabilitation Institute of St. Louis, St. Louis, MO. Holly H. Hollingsworth, PhD, is Research Associate Professor, Washington University School of Medicine, Program in Occupational Therapy, St. Louis, MO. David B. Gray, PhD, is Professor of Occupational Therapy and Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, Program in Occupational Therapy, St. Louis, MO. OBJECTIVE. We assessed mobility device skills in a lived-in environment on a community mobility skills course (CMSC) and related those skills to previously demonstrated skills in a controlled environment on an inside mobility skills course (IMSC). METHOD. Six mobility device users were selected from 91 adults who had previously completed the IMSC. Each of the following device groups was represented: power wheelchair, manual wheelchair, scooter, cane, crutch, and walker. CMSC tasks were modified from IMSC tasks and designed using materials in the com- munity. RESULTS. All participants completed at least half of the CMSC tasks faster than they completed the cor- responding IMSC tasks. The number of tasks on which participants improved and the amount of improvement varied by difficulty of task and mobility device used. CONCLUSION. Some mobility device skills used in controlled environments appear to transfer to com- munity settings; others do not. Skills required for community participation may partially depend on mobility device used. Walker, K. A., Morgan, K. A., Morris, C. L., DeGroot, K. K., Hollingsworth, H. H., & Gray, D. B. (2010). Development of a community mobility skills course for people who use mobility devices. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64, 547–554. doi: 10.5014/ajot.2010.08117 T he Occupational Therapy Practice Framework: Domain and Process, 2nd Edition (Framework; AOTA, 2008) states that occupational therapists should support people’s participation in context. Effective assessment and training of mobility device skills is a vital component of increasing participation in people with mobility limitations. In accordance with Framework guidelines, researchers have argued that the most effective environment for training and assessment of mobility device skills needed for participation in the community is in a per- son’s natural environment (DeJong, 1979; Glass, 1998; Routhier, Vincent, Desrosiers, & Nadeau, 2003; Wade, 2003). Although training in a controlled clinical environment has not been proven to translate to a community context, current training and evaluation are being conducted almost exclusively in clinical settings (Wade, 2003). Little is known about the development, training, and evaluation of mobility skills in more natural settings, making it difficult for occupational therapists to discern whether mobility skills commonly assessed in clinical environments are adequate for people’s participation in community contexts. The purpose of this pilot study was to develop and test a community mobility skills course (CMSC) to assess and relate people’s mobility device skills in the natural environment to their skills in a controlled clinical environment as measured by an inside mobility skills course (IMSC). This assessment was used to provide insight on mobility device skills needed in community settings that may be useful to occupational therapists when facilitating contextual partici- pation for their clients. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy 547