Hillary Olivier and Beatty Kelly

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:1. Determine a student’s eligibility for special education services2. Obtain information needed to develop an individualized education

program (IEP) that addresses the student’s specific needs

Domains and Sub-Domains

ProcedureTesting Procedures

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

Administration Procedures

1. Coordinator Method-one individual acts as coordinator and is responsible for others completing the form, oversees scoring and interpretation

2. Collaborative Effort Method – SFA completed during a meeting

3. 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

Test Development and Standardization

Students with Special Needs

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

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

Part 1: ParticipationRating 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

Part 2: Task SupportsAssistance/Adaptation

Ratings 1: Extensive 2: Moderate 3: Minimal 4: No

• Circle appropriate rating

• Sum the ratings to obtain task support raw score

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

Part 3: Activity Performance

Cognitive/Behavioral TasksPerformance 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

Scoring Form

Scoring1. Transfer raw score for each scale to column labeled “Total

Raw Score” on the Summary Score Form2. Convert each raw score total to a criterion score and

standard error score using appropriate table in Appendix B3. Record these score for each scale in the columns labeled

“Criterion Score” and “Standard Error” on the Summary Score Form

4. There will be 2 criterion cut-off scores for grades K-3 and 4-6

5. Plot the student’s criterion score for each scale on the profile graph and connect each point

SFA InterpretationSummary 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-DownRatings 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

Test ResultsResults 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

Psychometric PropertiesInternal ConsistencyReliability (Cronbach’s Alpha)

Test-Retest Reliability(Pearson r)

Test-Retest Reliability(Intraclass correlation)

Validity

Participation .92-.93 .95 .95 Excellent CONTENT VALIDITY throughout all domains

Task Supports

.94-.96 .95-.99 .96-.99 2 studies demonstrating CONSTRUCT VALIDITY

Activity Performance

.93-.98 .90-.99 .90-.99 No CRITERION VALIDITY studies

Multiple Assessment Approach

Top Down Looks at overall function of the child, can get a broad view of

what the child needs to work onBottom Up

Looks at specific components within a Sub-Domain Clothing Management: Hats Zippers Buttons

Arena Trans-disciplinary approach

Judgment Based Questionnaire Respondent's judgment

Other InformationDevelopmental 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 IEPTest Length

1.5-2 hours to completeCost:

Manual: $140.00 Score Sheets: $94.50/25 sheets

Areas of Occupation Addressed

ADL’sIADL’sEducationPlaySocial Participation

Measurement ConcernsPopulation of only 363 students with a wide range

of disabilitiesStudies of inter-respondent agreement was not

conducted (Inter-Rater Reliability)Functional behaviors might be observed differently

between two professionalsNeed for Criterion-related validity evidence

Studies that compare portions of the assessment to others that are comparable

Mathematical Error when establishing Raw Scores