During a documentary research aimed at finding an operational definition of the concept of “frames of reference (FOR)” within occupational therapy (OT), the 2nd edition of the AOTA's book "Occupational Therapy Practice Framework: Domain and Process" provided no specific definition despite its stated goal of "presenting a summary of the interrelated concepts that define and guide occupational therapy practice" (AOTA, 2008) . Other readings of the older and current occupational therapy literature have offered conflicting views or definitions for FOR and it is often difficult to distinguish between the meanings of FOR and the models, found in a “semantic minefield” (Hagedorn, 1994): “In summary, model building is composed of five phases that form a sequence of nested systems…the frame of reference, assumptions and concepts are crucial to explore, organize and develop the model… [A frame of reference is] a mechanism that can be used to explain the relationship between theory and action… [it] is not the total model, but is part of the process of construction of the model” (Reed, 1984). In a conversation with one of the contributors to “Framework” (AOTA, 2008), one of the reasons why FOR may not have been defined in OT publication and practice. , could be due to inconclusive opinions within the profession on the definition of the term (Olson, 2010). Looking at OTD courses on Occupational Science in the United States (Mathena, 2010), the Human Occupations Model, developed by Gary Kielhofner in the 1980s, and probably one of the best examples of a model developed unique to the occupational therapy profession, is listed in the course notes as an example of a FOR. Likewise, sensory integration is often called a FOR, but at other times it is called a model or middle of paper......medicine (Dutton, 1984). According to Dutton, it is based on a continuum of “function-dysfunction” such as range of motion, strength, endurance and coordination, and the assessment of FOR is based on an individual assessment of the components mentioned. Used in its pure form, this FOR is reductionist or mechanistic from a philosophical perspective (Reed 1984). Psychodynamic FOR generates its theoretical basis from psychiatry, psychology and the work of Freud, Jung, Adler to name a few (Reed, 1984). ). Reed and Hagedorn also describe this FOR as reductionist, because “[the] person is not capable of making rational choices…. [but] behavior is determined by unconscious drives” (Bruce, 1987) as well as by feelings. The criterion for functional dysfunction is therefore based on the symptoms presented by the patient and the evaluation is done by observation and identification of symptoms...