/
Hillary Olivier and Beatty Kelly Hillary Olivier and Beatty Kelly

Hillary Olivier and Beatty Kelly - PowerPoint Presentation

phoebe-click
phoebe-click . @phoebe-click
Follow
387 views
Uploaded On 2017-08-27

Hillary Olivier and Beatty Kelly - PPT Presentation

Key Characteristics Judgment based Completed by teachers school professionals in 3 parts Participation Task Supports Activity Performance Measures a students performance in functional nonacademic tasks ID: 582639

score performance ratings participation performance score participation ratings raw student

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Hillary Olivier and Beatty Kelly" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Hillary Olivier and Beatty KellySlide2

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-6

th

Grade: Ages 5-12

Children with motor impairments, communication impairments, emotional or behavioral difficulties, cognitive limitations

Purpose:

D

etermine

a student’s eligibility for special education services

O

btain

information needed to develop an individualized education

program (IEP)

that addresses the student’s specific

needsSlide3

Domains and Sub-DomainsSlide4

Procedure

Testing Procedures

User’s

Manual, Rating

Scale Guide, Record FormUse standardized methodsOT presents assessment to school professional(s) to complete appropriate section(s)Domains/Sub-Domains can be administered in any order

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 taskSlide5

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% girlsMotor, communication, emotional, behavioral, or cognitive limitationsStudents 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 betterSlide6

Part 1: Participation

Rating Scale

1: participation extremely limited

2: participation in a few activities

3: participation in all aspects with constant supervision4: 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 Slide7

Part 2: Task Supports

Assistance/Adaptation Ratings

1: Extensive

2: Moderate

3: Minimal4: No

Circle appropriate rating

S

um

the ratings

to

obtain

task support raw

score Slide8

Part 3: Activity Performance Physical Tasks

Performance Ratings

1: Does not perform

2: Partial performance

3: Inconsistent performance4: Consistent performance

Circle appropriate rating

S

um

the ratings

to obtain activity performance physical task raw scoreSlide9

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

S

um

the ratings

to obtain activity performance: cognitive/behavioral task raw scoreSlide10

Scoring FormSlide11

Scoring

Transfer raw score for each scale to column labeled “Total Raw Score” on the Summary

S

core

FormConvert each raw score total to a criterion score and standard error score using appropriate table in Appendix BRecord 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 Slide12

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 participationSlide13

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 weaknessesResults may vary depending on which school professional is the respondentResults not only help the OT for realistic intervention planning, but can provide the teacher with a better overall understanding of the childSlide14

Psychometric Properties

Internal Consistency

Reliability (

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 studiesSlide15

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-DomainClothing Management: Hats  Zippers  ButtonsArena Trans-disciplinary approachJudgment BasedQuestionnaire

Respondent's judgmentSlide16

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 IEPTest Length1.5-2 hours to completeCost:Manual: $140.00Score Sheets: $94.50/25 sheetsSlide17

Areas of Occupation Addressed

ADL’s

IADL’s

EducationPlaySocial ParticipationSlide18

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 evidenceStudies that compare portions of the assessment to others that are comparableMathematical Error when establishing Raw Scores