web viewpdms-2 scores also had moderate to strong correlations with scores from the gross and fine...

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, and2. 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 tasksInterpretations 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.

Client-centered?

Occupation-based in that it involves examining skills in the occupation area of education

Occupation-based?

OTPF Domain Performance skill, activities associated with school-related occupations; considered context

PSYCHOMETRICS

Standardization sample

Adequate; N=343; criterion-referenced rather than norm-referenced; included students with a variety of disabilities

Validity Content validity was reviewed by experts in education and clinical services and it was perceived to be both comprehensive and relevant for the population of students with disabilities in elementary schools, and the constructs represented in the various scales were shown to behave in ways expected based on theory. Construct validity supported by studies that have correlated scores from the SFA with similar measures (Vineland, r=.56-72_and significant differences in SFA scores were found among diagnostic groups (general education, learning disabilities, cerebral palsy, autim and TBI).

Reliability Internal consistency reliability coefficients, .92-.98Test-retest reliability (Standardization version) .80-.99

Critique-

strengths/weaknesses

Uses ICF language, comprehensive, easy to learn and administer; occupation-based; useful for intervention planning IEP devel; can be time intensive, based on subjective reporting

Utility

Criteria Information

Ease of Learning, Training

Suggested that those completing the assessment have professional level education, knowledge and experience with the disability affecting the student, an understanding of principles and methods of standardized testing, and an understanding of the unique features of the SFA summary scores.

Ease of Administration prep, time, set- up

Easy to administer; complete forms based knowledge of the student; may need to conduct multiple observations to obtain an understanding of student performance across school settings.

Familiarity of tools/tasks

Based on knowledge of student in school contexts; should be very familiar

Layout of protocol

Reasonable; a little lengthy and takes some time to understand protocol sheets

Scoring time, ease

Can take time if all scales are completed 30-60 minutes

Cost 222.50 manual; 93.00 for more forms; 22.50 for rating scale cards

Critique of Utility

Easy to do; lengthy, fairly inexpensive

Assessment Tool Summary and Critique FORM Child Occupational Self Assessment (COSA)

BASIC OVERVIEW

Title Child Occupational Self Assessment (COSA)

Authors Jessica Keller, Anna Kafkes, Semonti Basu, Jeanne Federico, and Gary Kielhofner http://www.cade.uic.edu/moho/product


2005

Ages 8-13 years


All disability groups; could also be used with typically developing children; Need to have cognitive ability to understand items and make responses

Purpose Client directed assessment tool and an outcome measure designed to capture children’s perceptions regarding their own sense of occupational competence and importance of everyday activities. Children are asked to identify and address their participation in important and meaningful occupations, pertaining to everyday tasks related to school, home, and in the community.


Its self-rating design allows the child to rate on a scale of 1-4 how well they do the task (competence) and how important the task is to them. Familiar visual symbols and simple language is used, and there are two versions of the COSA: one is a card sort task; and the other is a checklist; Adminisrator can chose to use either form.


Helps to understand what perceived level of competence, and level of importance in daily activities, tasks.

Client-centered?

Occupation-based, and client centered, as it involves examining child perceived competence, and gathering information about what they value.

http://www.cade.uic.edu/moho/product

Occupation-based?

OTPF Domain Primarily Occupation: ADL, Play/leisure, social and community participation; also some performance skills addressed

OTHER info

PSYCHOMETRICS


None reported; criterion-referenced rather than norm-referenced;

Validity Little validity evidence

Reliability No reliability evidence in manual

Critique-


Psychometrics are weak; tool is poorly researched; need to be cautious as children are completing

Utility



Easy to learn and score; No formal training needed


Easy to administer; Pictures helpful for children with receptive language problems


Booklet, card sort photos; very familiar activities included

Layout of protocol

Reasonable; easy to follow

Scoring time, ease 20-30 min; Easy

Cost $74.

Critique of Utility Very easy to do, practical; allows child to be involved in the eval process;

client centered; good way to get to know the child

Assessment Tool Summary and Critique FORM CAPE PAC

BASIC OVERVIEW

Title Child Assessment of Participation and Enjoyment- Preference for Activities of Children

Authors King, King, Rosenbaum, Law, Hurley, Hanna, & Young


2004

Ages 6-21 years


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.


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


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

Client-centered?

Occupation-based?

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


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, intensity, and enjoyment ranged from .64-.86 indicating fair, but

sufficient test-retest reliability.

Critique-


Validity evidence is weak; need to be cautious when children are completing

Utility



Easy to learn and score; No formal training needed


Easy to administer; Pictures helpful for children with receptive language challneges


Booklet, photos; very familiar activities included

Layout of protocol


Scoring time, ease

30-40 min for CAPE; 15-20 for PAC; Easy

Cost Manual-$ 67.; forms $45. (Packet of 25); score sheets $33, activity card $70.

Critique of Utility

Very easy to do, practical;

Assessment tool Summary and Critique: Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-2

Title Peabody Development Motor Scales-2 (PDMS-2)

Authors Folio. R., & Fewell, R.


2000; Pro-Ed, publisher Folio.

Ages Birth to 6 years


All disability groups; can be used with typically developing children

Purpose Both a norm-referenced and a criteria-referenced, performance-based standardized assessment tool; consists of six subtests that measure fine and gross motor performance in including reflexes (for ages 0-12 months), stationary gross motor skills, locomotion, object manipulation, grasping, and visual-motor integration.


Performance -based; Child is asked to perform an number of tasks/skills (test items) and they are rated on their abilities on a 3-pt scale The test kit includes most of the necessary test equipment and supplies, scoring sheets, an examiner’s manual, an item administration manual, a motor development chart, and a programming manual and activity cards. Scoring instructions/guides provided for each item.

Interpretation Focus Examines a child’s fine and gross motor skills; Subtest standard scores and composite standard scores for fine motor, gross motor, and total motor skill are available, as are age-equivalent scores; compares child’s abilities with age matched peers; gives delay in performance; not necessarily diagnostic; can be used to identify children who would benefit from or be eligible for services to help improve motor skills, the severity of motor skill deficits, and what type of motor skill problems are evident

Client-centered? Performance-skill based; not occupation-based nor client centered

Occupation-based?

OTPF Domain Performance skill-based in that it involves examining gross motor, visual motor and fine motor skills; also examine some motor body functions (reflexes, balance, coordination); used in eval and re-eval phases of OT Process (based on OTPF)

OTHER info

PSYCHOMETRICS


Normative data from 2,003 U.S. children were collected in 1997–1998. Four major U.S. geographic regions were identified as norming sites, and children from 46 states and one Canadian province were included. The normative data were compared with 1997 U.S. Census data and found to be representative of demographic characteristics to describe children younger than 5 years, including geographic area, gender, race, type of residence (rural versus urban), ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Overall, the normative data are very impressive, including recent data and a large representative sample of typical children. Normative data for children with specific disabilities are not included.

Validity Rationale for the development of test items is described in detail in the manual, with strong theoretical support, and has also been addressed and well researched with the earlier version of the test. Various item analysis techniques were used, including the application of Item Response Theory and logistic regression to analyze differential item functioning, which supported the PDMS-2 content. Age-related trends were established, as the mean PDMS-2 scores increased with age, as would be expected. Confirmatory factor analysis was also used and supported the inclusion of the various subtests within each of the fine and gross motor composites. Concurrent validity was established by correlating PDMS-2 scores of children from the normative sample with their scores on the earlier version of the PDMS-2. Resultant correlations for the fine motor and gross motor composites were strong, 0.84, and 0.91, respectively. PDMS-2 scores also had moderate to strong correlations with scores from the gross and fine motor scales of the Mullen Scales of Early Learning: AGS Edition. PDMS-2 scores could also discriminate children with physical and mental disabilities from those without disabilities.

Reliability Internal consistency measures using Cronbach’s coefficient alphas ranged from 0.84 to 0.98, indicating that test items measuring the same construct (fine and gross motor skills) were strongly associated with one another. Standard errors of measurement for each of the subtests and composite scores by age group are acceptable. Test-retest reliability was evaluated with two groups of children aged 2 through 11 months (n = 20) and 12 to 17 months (n = 30) with acceptable results, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.73 to 0.96. Inter-rater reliability for scoring completed protocols has been evaluated, with strong coefficients ranging from 0.96 to 0.98. However, it is believed that discrepancies related to examiner error would more likely occur in the rating of the child’s performance on test items rather than during scoring procedures, which has yet to be tested.

Critique-


Overall strong normative data, reliability and validity; plenty of evidence in the test manual

Utility



The PDMS-2 is easy to learn, although time and practice are required to become familiar with the administration of the test items.


It takes about 60 minutes to administer the entire battery, although the administration process may be broken up if necessary. Space for running, ball throwing, and kicking is necessary. Some set up and prep time (10 min). Would need to move through items quickly to keep child engaged.


Based on knowledge of child motor skills development; items would be very familiar to most people knowledgeable about child development and typical child activities

Layout of protocol

Reasonable; a little lengthy and takes some time to understand baseline/start items, and when to discontinue (establish ceiling)

Scoring time, ease

Once completed would take about 10-15 min to score; easy to learn

Cost It is relatively expensive, with the test kit costing approximately $540.00, available from www.pearsonassessments.com.

Critique of Utility

Lengthy, but fairly easy to learn; most items enjoyable for child/playful

Assessment Tool Summary and Critique FORM M-FUN

BASIC OVERVIEW

Title Miller Function and Participation Scales

Authors L. Miller


2006; Published by Harcourt, Psych Corp

Ages Ages 2-6- to 7-11


Students receiving special education; all disability groups; caters to those with suspected visual motor fine motor and gross skill deficits

Purpose Norm-referenced tool for evaluating child fine motor visual motor and gross motor skills in the context of typical child activities done in play or at school. Also includes a neurological Foundations profile that assists in determining what might be contributing to a child’ challenges. Also includes a classroom form for teacher to complete regarding classroom functional skills, and a Home Form to be completed by the parent regarding functional skills.


Performance-based; Child completes a number of fine and gross motor games/activities/test items; Optional-parent to complete Home Form on functional skills, it is a checklist ; Teacher to complete Classroom form checklist on school-related activities


Examine level of functioning in gross motor, visual motor and fine motor skills. Child’s performance is compared to age matched peers; also complete a neurological profile that helps to determine underlying neurological foundations that might be contributing to difficulties;

Client-centered?

Occupation-based?

Performance Skill; checklists are occ. Based.

OTPF Domain Performance skill, activities associated with school-related occupation, play; checklist more occ, based eg. Self care, school related skills

PSYCHOMETRICS


Adequate; more than 400; based on 2002 US census data; for race, ethnicity, geographic location; about 40-60 children in the sample for

each age group (6- month increments) and parent education level

Validity Content validity: content was reviewed by experts. strong evidence in the manual related to construct, and criterion-related validity.

Reliability Internal consistency reliability coefficients, .85-.92Test-retest reliability adequate .77-.82 ; strong inter-rater data; SEM provided

Critique-


Strong

Utility



Cumbersome to learn; are advanced training courses for interpretation


Cumbersome to administer but fun activities; long 40-60 min. Many items to prepare


Based on knowledge of child motor development; should be very familiar with tasks

Layout of protocol

Reasonable; lengthy and takes some time to understand protocol sheets

Scoring time, ease

15-20 min.

Cost 400.00 approx

Critique of Utility

Easy to do; lengthy, fairly inexpensive

Assessment tool Summary and Critique: Pediatric evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI)

Title Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory

Authors PEDI Research Group: Haley S, Coster W, Ludlow L, Haltiwanger J, Andrellos P


(Copyright 1992: New England Medical Center Hospital Inc., and PEDI

Research Group, Boston, MA.)

Ages 6 months to 7.5 years; older children can be tested if their functional abilities fall below the abilities typical of children 7.5 years of age.


All disability groups; used most in pediatric rehabilitation

Purpose Both a criterion-referenced and a norm-referenced standardized assessment tool, measuring child performance in three main domains: self-care, mobility, and social function; useful for identifying the extent and nature of delays or functional deficits of children with significant motor impairments or a combination of motor and cognitive disabilities. It is less useful for young infants and for children with very mild conditions or for children whose primary disability is psychosocial or behavioral. It is an excellent functional outcome measure for pediatric rehabilitation or other intervention programs.


Data may be gathered using a variety of methods, including structured interviews with parents or caregivers and observations of the child by caregivers, therapists, or parents. This test is unique in that there is a scale that measures level of caregiver assistance and a modifications scale to examine the impact of environmental or activity modifications used by the child to complete functional tasks. As a structured parent interview, administration time is approximately 45–60 minutes.

Interpretation Focus Examines a child’s mobility, self care and social skills; Standard scores compare child’s abilities with age matched peers; also can use criterion scores to determine how well they perform in each of the three areas. Also looks at amount and type of assistance required to perform tasks.

Client-centered?

Occupation-based?

Occupation-based but limited to self care, functional mobility and social skills/participation; also addresses some performance skills

OTPF Domain Occupation-based and performance skill-based; also considers environmetnal

supports

OTHER info NEW VERSION See PEDI-CAT, 2010.

PSYCHOMETRICS


Normative data for the PEDI were gathered from 412 children and families from three New England states. The sample was conveniently selected, and attempts were made to have the sample as representative as possible of the Northeast region of the United States based on estimations derived from 1980 U.S. census data. The following priorities were considered in the selection process: equal age distribution across the age span of 6 months through 7.5 years; equal representation of males and females; race approximating the U.S. population and the region; proportional representation of parent educational levels; and community size (rural versus urban). Overall, the normative data are strong, although the sample is relatively small. Where discrepancies between the sample and the population were identified (e.g., overrepresentation of working mothers), their effects on childrens’ functional performance were analyzed, and the demographic variables studied were not found to significantly affect overall PEDI scores. Samples of children from three clinical populations are also included in the manual including children admitted to a trauma unit (n = 46), 32 children with severe disabilities, and a mixed group of children with various diagnoses.

Validity Construct, content concurrent, and discriminate validity studies are reported in the test manual. The construct of pediatric function for the PEDI was developed from accepted definitions from the World Health Organization. More information on the conceptual model defining pediatric function is provided in the test manual and is available from Coster and Haley (1992). Age-related trends were established, as the mean PEDI scores increased with age, as would be expected. Content validity was addressed extensively throughout the development of the PEDI, and a full chapter in the test manual is devoted to this topic. Review by a panel of experts, evaluation of preliminary research editions, and a combination of statistical techniques, including Rasch scaling and analysis, were conducted to establish the content of the PEDI (see Haley et al., 1991). Concurrent validity was established by correlating scores of children from the normative sample and from clinical samples on the PEDI with scores from the Battelle Developmental Inventory Screening

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-


Overall strong normative data, reliability and validity; plenty of evidence in the test manual

Utility



The PEDI is easy to learn.


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.


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


Cost It is relatively inexpensive, costing approximately $90.00, and $125.00 for the optional scoring computer software.

Critique of Utility

The PEDI is a well-researched tool and an effective measure of rehabilitation outcomes, particularly for children with cerebral palsy and other neuromotor impairments. It is one of the few standardized measures of occupational performance. Easy to administer

Assessment tool Summary and Critique: Evaluation Tool of Children’s Handwriting (ETCH)

Title Evaluation Tool of Children’s Handwriting (ETCH)

Authors Susan Amundson


2004; Publisher- OT Kids, Po Box 118, Homer Alaska

Ages Grades 1- 6 ; 6-12.5 years of age


Children with suspected handwriting problems; manuscript tasks for children in grades 1-3; used cursive with students who have received at leat 10 weeks of training with cursive

Purpose Measures handwriting skills using 7 tasks; writing the alphabet from memory; writing numerals from memory; near-point copying; far-point copying; manuscript to cursive transition; Dictation, and sentence composition.


Performance -based; criterion-referenced test; Child completes a number of handwriting tasks, and is scored relative to speed, and legibility indicators.

Interpretation Focus The test yields scores related to % work and letter/number legibility, and time for each task, and an overall total legibility score

Client-centered?

Occupation-based?

Occupation-based, handwriting

OTPF Domain Occupation based- handwriting; also looks a performance, fine skills related to handwriting

OTHER info

PSYCHOMETRICS


Not norm-referenced; a number (over 12) of occupational therapy practitioners were involved to determine scoring criteria

Validity Rationale for the development of test items is described in detail in the manual; little validity evidence

Reliability Inter-rater values ranged from .42-.97; much better with cursive than manuscript; overall fair

Critique-


Overall weak reliability and validity data;

Utility



The test takes time but is easy to learn, and administer; intended for use by health or educational professionals, and those with knowledge on test psychometrics; learning the criteria for scoring somewhat tedious and detailed


It takes about 15-30 minutes to administer the test.; very little set up required.


Based on knowledge of handwriting skill development;

Layout of protocol


Scoring time, ease


Cost It is relatively expensive; 200.00

Critique of Utility

Easy to do; efficient

web viewpdms-2 scores also had moderate to strong correlations with scores from the gross and fine...

Documents