Hillary Olivier and Beatty Kelly

1. Hillary Olivier and Beatty Kelly

2. Key Characteristics • Judgment based • Completed by teachers, school professionals in 3 parts (Participation, Task Supports, Activity Performance) • Measures a student’s performance in functional (non-academic) tasks • K-6th Grade: Ages 5-12 • Children with motor impairments, communication impairments, emotional or behavioral difficulties, cognitive limitations • Purpose: • Determine a student’s eligibility for special education services • Obtain information needed to develop an individualized education program (IEP) that addresses the student’s specific needs

3. Domains and Sub-Domains

4. Procedure Testing Procedures Administration Procedures Coordinator Method-one individual acts as coordinator and is responsible for others completing the form, oversees scoring and interpretation Collaborative Effort Method – SFA completed during a meeting Single Respondent Method-Used in situations where the area of concern regarding a student’s functioning is isolated to a specific context or a particular task • User’s Manual, Rating Scale Guide, Record Form • Use standardized methods • OT presents assessment to school professional(s) to complete appropriate section(s) • Domains/Sub-Domains can be administered in any order

5. Test Development and Standardization Students with Special Needs Students in Regular Education Classrooms N=315 47% boys and 53% girls Matched by grade level and school system to students with disabilities  often from the same class Established criterion cut off scores by grade levels for individual scales 95% or more attained at least the cut-off score or better • N=363 • 112 sites in 40 states in urban, suburban, and rural areas • 66% boys and 34% girls • Motor, communication, emotional, behavioral, or cognitive limitations

6. Part 1: Participation Rating Scale • 1: participation extremely limited • 2: participation in a few activities • 3: participation in all aspects with constant supervision • 4: participation in all aspects with occasional assistance • 5: modified full participation • 6: full participation • Circle appropriate rating for each setting in the record form • Sum the ratings in the 6 settings to obtain participation raw score

7. Part 2: Task Supports Assistance/Adaptation Ratings • 1: Extensive • 2: Moderate • 3: Minimal • 4: No • Circle appropriate rating • Sum the ratings to obtain task support raw score

8. Part 3: Activity Performance Physical Tasks Performance Ratings • 1: Does not perform • 2: Partial performance • 3: Inconsistent performance • 4: Consistent performance • Circle appropriate rating • Sum the ratings to obtain activity performance physical task raw score

9. Part 3: Activity Performance Cognitive/Behavioral Tasks Performance Ratings • 1: Does not perform • 2: Partial performance • 3: Inconsistent performance • 4: Consistent performance • Circle appropriate rating • Sum the ratings to obtain activity performance: cognitive/behavioral task raw score

10. Scoring Form

11. Scoring • Transfer raw score for each scale to column labeled “Total Raw Score” on the Summary Score Form • Convert each raw score total to a criterion score and standard error score using appropriate table in Appendix B • Record these score for each scale in the columns labeled “Criterion Score” and “Standard Error” on the Summary Score Form • There will be 2 criterion cut-off scores for grades K-3 and 4-6 • Plot the student’s criterion score for each scale on the profile graph and connect each point

12. SFA Interpretation • Summary form shows whether or not the student shows limitations in participation, an increased need for support (assistance and adaptations), performance of functional activities relative to his or her peers, or a combination. • Top-Down • Ratings from Part 1: Is participation limited? If so, in which school settings? • Ratings from Part 2 and 3: determine which factors appear to be limiting the student’s participation

13. Test Results • Results describe the functional performance of the child in an educational setting, specifically assistance levels, adaptation levels, and performance capacities • Results can identify one or more factors that appear to be limiting the student’s function as well as factors that support or enhance the student’s performance  strengths and weaknesses • Results may vary depending on which school professional is the respondent • Results not only help the OT for realistic intervention planning, but can provide the teacher with a better overall understanding of the child

14. Psychometric Properties

15. Multiple Assessment Approach • Top Down • Looks at overall function of the child, can get a broad view of what the child needs to work on • Bottom Up • Looks at specific components within a Sub-Domain • Clothing Management: Hats  Zippers  Buttons • Arena • Trans-disciplinary approach • Judgment Based • Questionnaire • Respondent's judgment

16. Other Information • Developmental Frame of Reference • Looks at multiple domains and the developmental progression of a child with disabilities compared to a typically developing child within the same age range (cut-off score) • Used in School System to Develop IEP • Test Length • 1.5-2 hours to complete • Cost: • Manual: $140.00 • Score Sheets: $94.50/25 sheets

17. Areas of Occupation Addressed • ADL’s • IADL’s • Education • Play • Social Participation

18. Measurement Concerns • Population of only 363 students with a wide range of disabilities • Studies of inter-respondent agreement was not conducted (Inter-Rater Reliability) • Functional behaviors might be observed differently between two professionals • Need for Criterion-related validity evidence • Studies that compare portions of the assessment to others that are comparable • Mathematical Error when establishing Raw Scores