Assessment Tool Summary and Critique FORM BASIC OVERVIEW Title School Function Assessment Authors Coster, W., Deeney, T., Haltiwanger, J., & Haley, S. Year of Latest edition 1998; Published by Harcourt Assessment Inc., P.O. Box 599700, San Antonia, TX 78259 Ages Kindergarten – 6th grade Intended pop/diagnostic groups Students receiving special education; all disability groups; caters to those with more severe, and multiple disabilities Purpose Criterion-referenced tool for evaluating child performance, level of participation, and need for assistance in school activities. The student’s level of participation in six major school activity settings: regular or special education classroom, playground or recess, transportation to and from school, bathroom and toileting activities, transitions to and from class, and mealtime or snack time is addressed. Primary Administration Procedure Questionnaire; completed by persons familiar the child’s performance such as regular or special education teachers, related service providers, speech and language pathologists, or classroom aides; who are familiar with the student’s typical performance and meet the following criteria: 1. They must have observed the student on multiple occasions in the school contexts that are relevant to the sections of the SFA for which they are providing information, and 2. They must have a working knowledge of the type and level of supports typically provided to the student’s same age/grade peers and the typical range of performance among peers in the functional areas being assessed. Individuals, who coordinate the SFA and interpret the results need: Interpretation Focus Examines level of functioning and participation is school settings; examines need and type of assistance required in school-related tasks Interpretations on a basic level focus on whether the student’s functioning in a particular area is outside the range typically seen among his or her same grade regular education peers. This is accomplished by using the criterion cut-off scores. If students have a criterion score which is less than the criterion cut-off score, then the students’ performance is below that expected for their grade, which assists in establishing the need for services. At a more advanced level the results of the SFA ratings of individual items and the criterion scores are examined to identify and interpret patterns of functional performance, and to develop a functional profile, from which goals and objectives can be derived for IEP development. Occupation-based in that it involves examining skills in the occupation area of education
OTPF Domain Primarily Occupation: ADL, Play/leisure, social and community participation; also some performance skills addressed OTHER info PSYCHOMETRICS Standardization sample None reported; criterion-referenced rather than norm-referenced; Validity Little validity evidence Reliability No reliability evidence in manual Critique- strengths/weaknesses Psychometrics are weak; tool is poorly researched; need to be cautious as children are completing Utility Criteria Information Ease of Learning, Training Easy to learn and score; No formal training needed Ease of Administration prep, time, set- up Easy to administer; Pictures helpful for children with receptive language problems Familiarity of tools/tasks Booklet, card sort photos; very familiar activities included Layout of protocol Reasonable; easy to follow Scoring time, ease 20-30 min; Easy Cost $74.
Ages 6-21 years Intended pop/diagnostic groups All disability groups; could also be used with typically developing children Purpose Criterion-referenced tool, self-report questionnaires for evaluating child level of participation in daily activities outside of school, and their preferences for those activities, and how they perceive them to be; Multiple dimensions of participation, are examined including participation diversity (types of activities they do), intensity (how often), with whom and where participation occurs, and enjoyment. The PAC measures activity preference, or the activities the child is most interested in. Both measures include 55 informal and formal activities that can be organized into five activity types: recreational, active-physical, social, skill-based, and self-improvement. Primary Administration Procedure Self-report Questionnaires; CAPE asks children to rate multiple dimensions of participation, including whether they do certain activities, how often, with whom and where participation occurs, and to rate their level of enjoyment. Pictures of the activities are included; PAC- Children are asked to rate an number of activities on how much they like them or would like to do them; pictures are included; responses are recorded in an assessment booklet Interpretation Focus CAPE- Helps to understand what activities the child values, and their level of participation in those activities; PAC- identifies the child’s interests, especially leisure interests Occupation-based in that it involves examining participation and interest in the occupation areas of leisure, and community and social participation OTPF Domain Occupation: Play, leisure, social and community participation OTHER info PSYCHOMETRICS Standardization sample Adequate; N=427; criterion-referenced rather than norm-referenced; Validity Factor analysis was conducted to classify/categorize the activities, providing some evidence of construct validity; Correlations among activity types are however low, ranging from .22 to .44, decreasing overall support for the construct of participation. Overall, validity evidence is weak. Reliability Internal consistency was calculated using a Cronbach’s Alpha which compares each item to the overall score and the other individual items, and was adequate with the PAC (.76 -.84), and results were low to fair with overall CAPE scores (.42-.76)). The test-retest scores for diversity,
Test and from the Functional Independence Measure for Children , with resultant moderate to high correlations ranging from 0.70 to 0.97. PEDI scores could also discriminate children with known disabilities from those without disabilities. Reliability Reliability studies measuring internal consistency, inter-interviewer or interrater reliability, and agreement between responses of parents and rehabilitation team members were included in the test manual. Internal consistency measures within the six scales were acceptable, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from 0.95 to 0.99. Interrater reliability for the Caregiver Assistance and Modifications Scales were good, with values ranging from 0.79 to 1.00. Agreement between parents and professionals was adequate, with the exception of scores from the Social Function Scales. Critique- strengths/weaknesses Overall strong normative data, reliability and validity; plenty of evidence in the test manual Utility Criteria Information Ease of Learning, Training The PEDI is easy to learn. Ease of Administration prep, time, set- up The PEDI is quick (about 30–45minutes) and easy to administer and score, and because it relies on interview techniques, no specialized equipment is necessary. Familiarity of tools/tasks Based on knowledge of child functional skills development; items would be very familiar to most people knowledgeable about child development and typical child activities Layout of protocol Reasonable; Scoring time, ease Once completed would take about 10-15 min to score; easy to learn