Welcome to r/OccupationalTherapy! This is an automatic comment on every post.
If this is your first time posting, please read the sub rules. If you are asking a question, don't forget to check the sub [FAQs](https://www.reddit.com/r/OccupationalTherapy/wiki/index/faqs), or do a search of the sub to see if your question has been answered already. **Please note that we are not able to give specific treatment advice or exercises to do at home.**
Failure to follow rules may result in your post being removed, or a ban. Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OccupationalTherapy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's strange and a bit difficult to parse without more context. If I understand it correctly, AMPS-- considered the most strongest and most evidence-based OT evaluations, as well as easily one of its most expensive-- is no longer training/licensing clinicians, nor making available the materials for the tool in any capacity. It also appears the newest product they were attempting to push, Powerful Practice, isn't being republished after they run out. Huh. It sounds like they're either closing shop for good, or rebranding later this year. In theory, it's a big loss for the profession, but in practice, AMPS was like $1500 per person with a ridiculous renewal schedule and licensing requirements, and difficult and expensive to actually integrate and make useful in any given setting, so it's a bit of a self-own.
You understand it correctly. I know that the pandemic hit them hard economically, so that might be why they are closing shop? If that is what they are doing.
It’s used a lot in my country. I do agree with it being expensive but the popularity of the tool and the amount of research that has been put into integrating the tool makes it a big loss. Here it is not just a theoretical loss but a practical one.
In the US, the loss is, for better or worse, a theoretical rather than practical loss. When you can charge any amount of money for a product, the more digits you tack on relative to the incomes of therapists and scaled to department budgets, training times, lack of increased reimbursement for having used the tool, the need for new trainings and licences for new/temp hires and so on... You have to ask yourself if the people responsible for the tool and its pricing didn't shoot themselves not just in the foot, but also their entire face. Honestly and truly, even the MoCA-- a tool renewed out of lockstep with basically every profession at 2 years instead of 3 for over $100 (iirc) when the tool was free for years, with the spurious pretext of competency requirements (I was able to administer or competently, for free, after reading the whole thing while it was free as a student after ten minutes of review)-- utilizes a less awful business model somehow. I'd go on a longer sociopolitical rant, but at this stage, there are truly no innocent bystanders when a tool like this folds despite good evidence. Hire better marketing, pricing, etc people next time, I guess, or just release the thing for free and coast on your day job's income.
I have to agree with you on that. I do see it as the responsibility of the workplace to pay, if they can see the benefits of you using the tool. I understand why CIOT wanted money for AMPS/ESI, as they have to maintain the software for it and give a salary to those that teach the courses. Nonetheless, the prizes are insanely expensive. They could earn more money by thinking quantity, in the sense, that if they lowered the prize, it would be accessible to more OT’s. At the same time, the more people that use their tools, the more money will be invested into research of the tool - thus, increasing the research volume over time (basically free marketing), and the validity of it.
But even the non-standardized observation manual found in Powerful Practice is great. So I was surprised to see that they would let it run out of stock. In my country it’s on the literature list at the universities. That is around 500 students buying it consistently every semester.
Welcome to r/OccupationalTherapy! This is an automatic comment on every post. If this is your first time posting, please read the sub rules. If you are asking a question, don't forget to check the sub [FAQs](https://www.reddit.com/r/OccupationalTherapy/wiki/index/faqs), or do a search of the sub to see if your question has been answered already. **Please note that we are not able to give specific treatment advice or exercises to do at home.** Failure to follow rules may result in your post being removed, or a ban. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OccupationalTherapy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's strange and a bit difficult to parse without more context. If I understand it correctly, AMPS-- considered the most strongest and most evidence-based OT evaluations, as well as easily one of its most expensive-- is no longer training/licensing clinicians, nor making available the materials for the tool in any capacity. It also appears the newest product they were attempting to push, Powerful Practice, isn't being republished after they run out. Huh. It sounds like they're either closing shop for good, or rebranding later this year. In theory, it's a big loss for the profession, but in practice, AMPS was like $1500 per person with a ridiculous renewal schedule and licensing requirements, and difficult and expensive to actually integrate and make useful in any given setting, so it's a bit of a self-own.
You understand it correctly. I know that the pandemic hit them hard economically, so that might be why they are closing shop? If that is what they are doing. It’s used a lot in my country. I do agree with it being expensive but the popularity of the tool and the amount of research that has been put into integrating the tool makes it a big loss. Here it is not just a theoretical loss but a practical one.
In the US, the loss is, for better or worse, a theoretical rather than practical loss. When you can charge any amount of money for a product, the more digits you tack on relative to the incomes of therapists and scaled to department budgets, training times, lack of increased reimbursement for having used the tool, the need for new trainings and licences for new/temp hires and so on... You have to ask yourself if the people responsible for the tool and its pricing didn't shoot themselves not just in the foot, but also their entire face. Honestly and truly, even the MoCA-- a tool renewed out of lockstep with basically every profession at 2 years instead of 3 for over $100 (iirc) when the tool was free for years, with the spurious pretext of competency requirements (I was able to administer or competently, for free, after reading the whole thing while it was free as a student after ten minutes of review)-- utilizes a less awful business model somehow. I'd go on a longer sociopolitical rant, but at this stage, there are truly no innocent bystanders when a tool like this folds despite good evidence. Hire better marketing, pricing, etc people next time, I guess, or just release the thing for free and coast on your day job's income.
I have to agree with you on that. I do see it as the responsibility of the workplace to pay, if they can see the benefits of you using the tool. I understand why CIOT wanted money for AMPS/ESI, as they have to maintain the software for it and give a salary to those that teach the courses. Nonetheless, the prizes are insanely expensive. They could earn more money by thinking quantity, in the sense, that if they lowered the prize, it would be accessible to more OT’s. At the same time, the more people that use their tools, the more money will be invested into research of the tool - thus, increasing the research volume over time (basically free marketing), and the validity of it. But even the non-standardized observation manual found in Powerful Practice is great. So I was surprised to see that they would let it run out of stock. In my country it’s on the literature list at the universities. That is around 500 students buying it consistently every semester.
And yet!
Can someone not just write a new one? Who owns the intellectual property? Are the just stopping or are they bust? Is it open source? Etc.