Why we need them Learning Objectives There are three learning objectives for this continuing education Identify two occupationbased evaluations for use in pediatric practice Articulate the value of occupationbased evaluations in daily practice ID: 816056
Download The PPT/PDF document "Pediatric Occupation-Based/Focused Evalu..." 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.
Slide1
Pediatric Occupation-Based/Focused Evaluations
Why we need them?
Slide2Learning Objectives
There are three learning objectives for this continuing education.
Identify two occupation-based evaluations for use in pediatric practice
.
Articulate the value of occupation-based evaluations in daily practice.
Identify information derived from occupation-based evaluation relative to the development of a treatment plan.
Slide3Outline
The Evaluation Process: Where does occupation fit?
Occupation-Based Evaluations: Review of Select Occupation -Based Evaluations.
Integrating findings from Occupation-Based Evaluations.
Slide4The Evaluation Process
Slide5Occupational Therapists and Evaluations
Occupation is the cornerstone of intervention.
(Fisher, 2013)
Therapists evaluate impairments in the performance of occupations.
Therapists identify underlying client factors/performance skills contributing to these
impairments
AOTA (2014b)
Slide6The Framework III
Dynamic Interaction client factors, performance patterns, performance skills …
….Enables Occupation
… In the desired context
and environment
(AOTA,
2014a)
Slide7How Do Occupational Therapist Select Evaluations?
Practitioners begin the evaluation process with an agenda of things you want to know which includes:
Information about the child,
Information about the child’s environmental context.
(Kramer, Bowyer, O’Brien,
Kielhofner
, &
Maziero
-Barbosa, 2009)
Slide8What Practitioners Want to Know.
Demographic information
Client’s age and diagnosis
Medical history
History of intervention
Current
abilities
(Kramer et al., 2009)
Slide9What Practitioners Choose to Assess and How
“Fitting the child
”
“Balancing formal and informal information”
“Professional Context.”
Slide10Profile of Occupational Therapy Practice
Occupational therapists value the use of standardized
evaluations.
Occupational therapists in United States select standardized evaluations that focus on the body structure/function
level
(
Piernik
-Yoder & Beck, 2012)
Slide11Profile of Occupational Therapy Practice
Additional studies confirm therapists’ use of a bottom-up approach
.
Further implication include that therapists may
be challenged by the process of to
“
fitting
the child” with the assessment as described in Kramer et al., (2009).
(
Bagatell
, Hartmann, &
Meriano
, 2013)
Slide12Client And Caregiver Perceptions
Parents’ value accuracy in the evaluation.
Parents’ value the use of common understandable language in their child’s evaluations.
Parents’ value evaluations addressing the primary concern for referral to occupational therapy services.
(Makepeace, &
Zwicker
, 2014)
Slide13What do we do?
Slide14Integrating Occupation Based Evaluation
Integrating occupation based evaluation has been an objective within the profession since the early 1990s
Historic assumption correlating improvement in client factors with improvement in occupational therapy.
This assumed correlation may contribute to an assessment process without occupation-based evaluations.
(Hocking, 2001)
Slide15Applying Occupation
Occupation has been valued by therapists as a both an intervention and an outcome since the beginning of the profession.
We are an occupation centered profession.
(Fisher, 2013)
Therapist find occupation-centered intervention rewarding.
(Estes & Pierce, 2012)
Slide16Occupation-Based Evaluations
Slide17Outline
We will review occupation-based evaluations based on their area of focus.
Evaluations fall into one of 4 categories which include
Education,
ADL,
Play and,
Performance and Participation.
Slide18Overview
Evaluations will be examined for
General purpose;
General administration;
Psychometric Properties; and
Implication for Occupational therapy
Slide19Education
Slide20School Function Assessment (SFA
)
Measures the students performance of tasks associated with the occupation of education.
Utilizes proxy report based on the professional judgment of school professionals.
Developed for children in kindergarten through sixth grade.
(
Coster
,
Deeney
,
Haltiwanger
, & Haley, 1998)
Slide21School Function Assessment (SFA)
The SFA may take up to two hours to complete for new respondents.
Respondents should familiarize themselves with the purpose and content prior to completing the SFA.
Rating should be based on the student’s typical level of participation/ performance.
Respondents should make sure to complete the entire form.
(
Coster
et al., 1998)
Slide22School Function Assessment (SFA
)
The SFA consists of three parts:
Participation,
Task Support and,
Activity Performance.
(
Coster
et al., 1998)
Slide23School Function Assessment (SFA
)
Scores from the SFA can be used to identify areas of impairment in the student’s current participation, task support needs, or functional performance.
Scores can be interpreted at a basic level to identify areas of deficit.
Scores can be interpreted at an advanced level to determine progress.
(
Coster
et al., 1998)
Slide24School Function Assessment (SFA
)
The SFA was shown to have good test-retest reliability and good construct validity.
(
Coster
et al, 1998)
More recent studies have confirmed the validity of the SFA.
(Hwang & Davies, 2009)
Slide25School Function Assessment (SFA
)
Contributes to meeting occupational needs of the student.
Identifies student impairments using a top-down, occupation-centered approach.
Easily integrates into treatment planning process.
Easily incorporated alongside traditional pediatric evaluations.
Slide26Measures constructs that contribute to handwriting skills.
Provides standard scores and percentile ranks against a normative sample.
Measures specific handwriting skills for students age 6 years to 18 years.
Used to assess characteristics of letter formation.
(
Milone
, 2007)
Test of Handwriting Skills (THS-R)
Slide27The THS-R takes approximately 10 minutes to administer and 15 minutes to score.The THS-R is divided into ten subtests.
The examiner should ensure that the client has adequate environmental supports for handwriting tasks.
(
Milone
, 2007)
Test of Handwriting Skills (THS-R)
Slide28The THS-R scores each letter based on a Likert scale of 0-3. The THS-R can be utilized to identify areas of deficit in handwriting.
The THS-R can be used to monitor progress for intervention focused on the task of writing.
Test of Handwriting Skills
(
THS-R
)
Slide29THS-R has fair-good reliability Test-retest reliability was high (0.49-0.82)
Interrater reliability was high (0.75-0.90)
Construct validity was sufficient to support the validity of the THS-R to evaluate the child’s neurosensory integration for the related task of handwriting.
(
Milone
, 2007)
Test of Handwriting Skills
(
THS-R
)
Slide30Contributes to meeting occupational needs of the student.Identifies student impairments using a top-down, occupation-centered approach.
Easily integrates into treatment planning process.
Easily incorporated alongside commonly used pediatric evaluations.
Test of Handwriting Skills
(
THS-R
)
Slide31Case Study: James
Slide32What evaluation could be utilized to assess James? performance of occupations related to the education?
What information can be gained from this evaluation to contribute to your evaluation and treatment plan?
Why is this information important?
Case Study: James
Slide33Activities of Daily Living
Slide34The
WeeFIM
® uses therapist observations to assess children aged 6 months to 7 years in ADL, cognitive and mobility domains.
Supplementary proxy rated modules are available for children age 0-3.
(Uniform Data Systems, 2011a)
The
WeeFIM
® rates children on their level of independence in performance of various occupation based activities.
(Uniform Data Systems, 2003)
WeeFIM® instrument
Slide35Scoring is completed manually or using computerized software with a paid subscription to Uniform Data Systems.
Scoring involves rating observations on a seven-point ordinal scale which correlate to a level of assistance.
Items can be divided among rehab team members or completed by a single therapist.
(Uniform Data Systems, 2003)
WeeFIM
® instrument
Slide36Information from the WeeFIM® is valuable in identifying deficits in the performance of activities of daily living skills.
The
WeeFIM
® can be used to chart client progress between admission and re-evaluation.
(Uniform Data Systems, 2003)
WeeFIM
® instrument
Slide37The
WeeFIM
® demonstrates good psychometric properties.
Test-retest & Interrater (ICC-0.73-0.99).
Good Validity concurrent with PEDI and VABS.
(
Ottenbacher
,
Msall
, Lyon Duffy, Granger & Braun, 1999)
While information on the re-standardization of the
WeeFIM
® is limited, the
WeeFIM
® continues to be utilized as an outcome measure in current research.
(
Recla
et al., 2013; Kaya-Kara et al, 2015).
WeeFIM® instrument
Slide38Contributes to meeting the occupational needs of the client.Identifies client impairments using a top-down, occupation-centered approach.
Easily integrates into evaluation and treatment planning process.
Easily incorporated alongside commonly used pediatric evaluations.
WeeFIM
® instrument
Slide39The REAL
is designed for children ages 2 years, 0 months to 18 years 11 months.
The
REAL
measures client’s performance of ADL’s and instrumental activities of daily living skills (IADL’s) using parent of caregiver report.
Is not a comprehensive list of ADL’s/ IADL’s as defined by AOTA.
(Roll & Roll, 2013)
Roll Evaluation of Activities of Life (REAL)
Slide40Administration of the REAL takes 15-20 minutes to complete.
The
REAL
assesses 10 separate areas under the ADL section.
The
REAL
assesses 12 separate areas under the IADL section.
(Roll & Roll, 2013)
Roll Evaluation of Activities of Life (REAL)
Slide41Caregivers score the REAL by rating the child using a Likert scale to describe the child’s ability to complete the desired task.
Total scores from the ADL and IADL section can be converted to standard score and percentile rank.
(Roll & Roll, 2013)
Roll Evaluation of Activities of Life (REAL)
Slide42The REAL has good test-retest reliability (r= .977-.989)
The
REAL
has good Interrater reliability (.939-.965)
The
REAL
has evidence to support its construct validity to assess ADL and IADL skills.
(Roll & Roll, 2013)
Roll Evaluation of Activities of Life (REAL)
Slide43Contributes to meeting the occupational needs of the client.Identifies client impairments using a TOP-down approach.
Easily integrates into evaluation and treatment planning process.
Easily incorporated alongside commonly used pediatric evaluations.
Roll Evaluation of Activities of Life (REAL)
Slide44A standardized observation based assessment.Based on the observation of two ADL tasks selected by the client to perform.
Can be utilized for individuals with a developmental age greater than two years.
(Center for Innovative OT Solutions, 2016)
Assessment of Motor Processing Skills (AMPS)
Slide45The AMPS takes between 30 and 40 minutes to administer (Asher, 2014). Scoring is completed using software.
Results generate an ADL Motor Ability Measure and ADL Process Ability Measure.
(Center for Innovative OT Solutions, 2016)
Assessment of Motor Processing Skills (AMPS)
Slide46Fisher reported the initial test-retest reliability of the
AMPS
(r= .90).
(as cited in Asher, 2014)
Since then the
AMPS
continues to show good reliability and validity.
(Fisher & Merritt, 2010)
Studies support the validity of the
AMPS
for use with children and its use internationally.
(Fisher& Merritt, 2010;
Gantschnig
, Fisher, Page,
Meichtry
and Nilsson, 2015).
Assessment of Motor Processing Skills (AMPS)
Slide47Contributes to meeting the occupational needs of the client.Identifies client impairments using a top-down, occupation-centered approach.
Easily integrates into evaluation and treatment planning process.
Easily incorporated alongside commonly used pediatric evaluations.
Assessment of Motor Processing Skills (AMPS)
Slide48The PEDI-CAT
utilized parent or caregiver report to measure function in four domains.
The
PEDI-CAT
is intended for individuals from age one to twenty one years old.
The
PEDI-CAT
utilizes computer adaptive technology and is administered using either a tablet or computer.
(Haley,
Coster
, Dumas,
Fragala
-Pinkham &
Moed
, 2014)
Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory Computer Adaptive Test (PEDI-CAT)
Slide49The PEDI-CAT measures function in four domains:
Daily Activities
Mobility
Social/Cognitive
Responsibility
(Haley et al.,2014)
Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory Computer Adaptive Test (PEDI-CAT)
Slide50There are two versions of the PEDI-CAT available, the Speedy Cat and the Content-Balances-CAT.
The
PEDI-CAT
can be administered by proxy, interview, or observation.
Caregivers rate the child's ability using a nominal scale.
(Haley et al.,2014)
Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory Computer Adaptive Test (PEDI-CAT)
Slide51The PEDI-CAT
generates normative and scale scores for each of the four domains.
Additionally, fit scores are generated to identify any scores that are unexpected based on previous responses within the domains.
The
PEDI-CAT
can be administered at initial evaluation, re-evaluation or discharge.
(Haley et al.,2014)
Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory Computer Adaptive Test (PEDI-CAT)
Slide52The PEDI-CAT
demonstrated good discriminate validity.
The
PEDI-CAT
demonstrated good test-retest reliability using
intraclass
correlations yielding values between .958-.997.
Psychometric properties support the use of the
PEDI-CAT
for pediatric and adolescent clients.
(Haley et al.,2014; Dumas et al., 2012)
Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory Computer Adaptive Test (PEDI-CAT)
Slide53Contributes to meeting the occupational needs of the client.Identifies client impairments using a top-down, occupation-centered approach.
Easily integrates into evaluation and treatment planning process.
Easily incorporated alongside commonly used pediatric evaluations.
Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory Computer Adaptive Test (PEDI-CAT)
Slide54Case Study: Randy
Slide55What evaluation could be utilized to assess Randy’s performance of occupation-based activities such as ADLs?What information can be gained from this evaluation to contribute to your evaluation and treatment plan?
Why is this information important?
Case Study: Randy
Slide56Occupational Performance & Participation
Slide57The COSA
is a theory-driven evidence-based, self-assessment of occupational performance for children age 7-17 years old.
The
COSA
can provide therapists with an understanding of the client’s perceptions of his/her abilities and what activities are meaningful to the client.
Can contribute to a TOP-down approach to the evaluation process.
(Kramer,
Velden
,
Kafkes
,
Basu
, Federico, &
Kielhofner
, 2014)
Child Occupational Self Assessment (COSA)
General Description
Slide58Administration time varies by individual.Three versions available for clients of different abilities:
Youth rating form with symbols,
Youth rating form without symbols, and
Card sort version.
(Kramer et al., 2014)
Child Occupational Self Assessment (COSA)
Administration
Slide59Introduce the client to the COSA.Determine which form is appropriate.
Gather additional information.
Interpret results.
Child Occupational Self Assessment (COSA)
Slide60The COSA
shows good test retest reliability for total competency and value scores (ICC .72-.77)(
Ohl
, Crook,
MacSaveny
, & McLaughlin, 2015).
The
COSA
shows poor to good test-retest reliability for category scores (ICC .48-.78) (
Ohl
et al., 2015).
The
COSA
shows good content, structural and substantive validity using Mean fit Statistics (Kramer,
Kielhofner
, & Smith, 2010).
Child Occupational Self Assessment (COSA)
Psychometric properties
Slide61Contributes to meeting the occupational needs of the client.Identifies client impairments using a top-down, occupation-centered approach.
Easily integrates into evaluation and treatment planning process.
Easily incorporated alongside commonly used pediatric evaluations.
Child Occupational Self Assessment (COSA)
Implications for Occupational Therapy.
Slide62The CAPE /PAC
are evaluations for children ages 6-21 to assess clients’ participation in day to day activities and their preference for these activities.
The
CAPE
can be used as an outcome measure to assess the effectiveness of intervention designed to increase participation.
The
CAPE
/
PAC
can be administered as a child report assessment with no input from the practitioner or in an interview format.
(King, Law, King, Hurley, Rosenbaum, Hanna,
Kertoy
, & Young, 2004)
Child Assessment of Participation and Enjoyment (CAPE)/ Preference for Activities of Children (PAC)
Slide63The
CAPE
contains 55 items which are examined for:
Diversity of participation,
Intensity of participation,
With whom the activities are completed,
Where the activities are completed, and
The client’s enjoyment of these activities.
(King, et al., 2004)
Child Assessment of Participation and Enjoyment (CAPE)/ Preference for Activities of Children (PAC)
Slide64Determine which administration method is appropriate.Introduce material to client if using an interview format.
Verify completion of administration.
Score and interpret results.
(King, et al., 2004)
Child Assessment of Participation and Enjoyment (CAPE)/ Preference for Activities of Children (PAC)
Slide65The CAPE/PAC
have psychometric properties to support their use in the clinic.
Test –retest reliability was measured using
intraclass
correlation coefficients (ICC) which ranged between .82-.99 and .47-.78 (King, et al., 2004).
Additional studies have confirmed the construct validity of the CAPE as a direct measure of participation (King, Law, King, Hurley, Hanna,
Kertoy
, & Rosenbaum, 2006).
Child Assessment of Participation and Enjoyment (CAPE)/ Preference for Activities of Children (PAC)
Slide66Contribute to meeting the occupational needs of the client.Identify client impairments using an occupation-centered approach.
Easily integrates into evaluation and treatment planning process.
Easily incorporated alongside commonly used pediatric evaluations.
Child Assessment of Participation and Enjoyment (CAPE)/ Preference for Activities of Children (PAC)
Slide67Gives a broad view of the client’s occupational participation and is appropriate for clients birth to 21.Can be used to establish a occupational profile or assess child progress.
Does not assess child development.
(Bowyer, Kramer,
Ploszaj
, Ross, Schwartz,
Kielhofner
, &
Krammer
, 2008)
Short Child Occupational Profile (SCOPE)
Genera; Description
Slide68Administration time: 10-20 min based on experience with the SCOPE
.
Therapist rates twenty five items in six categories.
Ratings correlate to a numeric value which allows therapist to record a score for each subsection.
(Bowyer, et al.,2008)
Short Child Occupational Profile (SCOPE)
Administration
Slide69Psychometric properties of the SCOPE indicates:
Good construct validity
Fair to good interrater reliability
(Bowyer, Kramer,
Kielhofner
,
Maziero
-Barbosa &
Girolami
, 2007)
Short Child Occupational Profile (SCOPE)
Psychometric properties
Slide70Contributes to meeting the occupational needs of the client.Identifies client impairments using a top-down, occupation-centered approach.
Easily integrates into evaluation and treatment planning process.
Easily incorporated alongside commonly used pediatric evaluations.
Short Child Occupational Profile (SCOPE)
Implications for Occupation Therapy
Slide71Case Study: John
Slide72What evaluation could be utilized to assess John’s occupational performance / participation?What information can be gained from this evaluation to contribute to your evaluation and treatment plan?
Why is this evaluation important?
Case Study: John
Slide73Play
Slide74The TOP assesses the occupation of play.
The
TOP
is designed for children ages 6 months to 18 years.
The
TOP
is scored after observing the child’s free play, both indoor and outdoors preferably.
(Bundy &
Skard
, 2008)
Test of Playfulness (TOP)
Slide75Administration consists of unstructured observation of the client in free play for 15-20 minutes.
Careful attention should be taken by the administrator to structure the environment to be conducive to play activities.
The
TOP
consists of 21 items that are scored using a Likert scale on the domains of Extents, Intensity, and Skillfulness.
(Bundy &
Skard
, 2008)
Test of Playfulness (TOP)
Slide76Scores are plotted on the TOP
Keyform
where the examiner circles scores from the
TOP
protocol sheet.
A line is drawn through the point created by the protocol so half of the items are on top of the line and half are on the bottom.
The line that passes through the measure score which correlates to a scales scores can be used for further statistical analysis.
(
Bundy &
Skard
, 2008
)
Test of Playfulness (TOP)
Slide77Previous research has shown the TOP to have moderate test-retest coefficients (
Bundy &
Skard
, 2008
).
Current research confirms this reliability and supports moderate test-retest reliability with 15 minute observation periods (
Brentnall
, Bundy, & Kay, 2008).
Test of Playfulness (TOP)
Slide78The Revised Knox Preschool Play Scale
is an occupation-based assessment for children between the ages of birth to six years of age.
The
RKPPS’s
scores are based on observations of the child involved in free play in an outdoor setting and an indoor setting.
(Knox, 2008)
Revised Knox Preschool Play Scale (RKPPS)
Slide79The RKPPS
contains test items grouped into 4 dimensions including space management, material management, pretense symbolic, and participation.
Administration requires that the child be observed both indoors and outdoors for two 30-minute periods.
Careful attention should be paid to assure minimal adult interference in the child’s play.
(Knox, 2008)
Revised Knox Preschool Play Scale (RKPPS)
Slide80Items are scored based on the highest level observed under each factor. To score each dimension, take the mean of the factor score.
To derive an overall play score take the mean of the dimension scores.
(Knox, 2008)
Revised Knox Preschool Play Scale (RKPPS)
Slide81Interrater agreement was shown to be within 8 months on the overall play age approximately 90% of trials.
Interrater agreement was within 12 months on each dimension measured by the
RKPPS
for 91.7-100%.
Construct validity was supported as 92%-100% of play ages correlated to the child’s chronological age.
(Knox, 2008)
Revised Knox Preschool Play Scale (RKPPS)
Slide82Assessing play can give therapists important information regarding the child's participation in an important occupation.
The assessment uses observation to collect information on play.
Contributes to meeting the AOTA’s (2007)
Centennial Vision
.
Contributes to a top-down, occupation-centered approach for evaluation planning.
Implication for Assessment of Play
Slide83Case Study: Abby
Slide84What evaluation could be utilized to assess Abby’s Play skills?What information can be gained from this evaluation to contribute to your evaluation and treatment plan?
Why is this information important?
Case Study: Abby
Slide85There are a number of occupation-based evaluations.These evaluations cover a broad area of interest.
Many evaluations are quick to administer and easily integrated with current practice methods.
All of these evaluation have evidence of reliability and validity.
Summary
Slide86These evaluations are compatible with AOTA’s (2014a) Framework-III.
These evaluations contribute to meeting AOTA’s (2007
Centennial Vision.
These evaluations contribute to your progression as a practice scholar.
Summary
Slide87Integrating Occupation Based Evaluations
Slide88Integrating occupation based assessments has historically been a problems.
(Hocking, 2001).
We have identified it as a current problem within the profession.
(Kramer et al., 2009).
(
Piernik
-Yoder & Beck, 2012)
(
Bagatell
et al., 2013).
Integrating Occupation-Based Assessment
Slide89Therapists should relinquish the bottom-up approach.Therapists should select an occupation based model.
Therapists should select an occupation-based evaluation.
Integrating Occupation-Based Assessment
Slide90Transitioning into treatment planningAnalyze impairments in occupation
Collaborate with clients to establish goals
Assimilate information to establish occupation-centered intervention.
Integrating Occupation-Based Assessment
Slide91AOTA recommends an occupation-centered approach.Contribute to AOTA’s (2007)
Centennial Vision.
Contribute to Client-Centered Intervention (AOTA, 2014a).
Relinquish Bottom-Up Approach
Slide92Using an occupation based model reduces the possibility of:
Not knowing our client’s occupational needs.
Poor match between client and
outcome measure.
Using non-occupation based assessments.
Failure to document progress meaningful to the client.
(
Joosten
, 2015)
Occupation Based Model
Slide93Selecting an Occupation Based Assessment
Slide94Occupation-based evaluation methods contribute to determining occupational performance and participation.
Occupation-based evaluations provide the basis for activity analysis.
(Fisher, 2013)
Occupation as a Means and an End
Slide95Utilizing occupation-based methods, evaluation and intervention, sends a message that articulate the value of the profession.
The Power of Occupation
Slide96Will you be one of the voices?
Power of Occupation
Slide97Academic Therapy Publications. (2016). Test of handwriting skills -Revised. Retrieved from https://www.academictherapy.com/ths_sample.jpg.
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2007). AOTA’s
Centennial Vision
and executive summary.
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61
, 613–614.
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2009). Scholarship in occupational therapy.
American Journal of Occupational Therapy
,
63
(6), 790-796.
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2014a). Occupational therapy practice framework: Domain and process (3rd. ed.).
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68
(Suppl. 1), S1-S48.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2014.682006
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2014b). Scope of practice.
American Journal of Occupational Therapy
68
(3), p. S34-S40. doi:10.5014/ajot.2014.686S04.
References
Slide98American Occupational Therapy Association (2015). Academic programs annual date report: Academic year 2014-2015. Retrieved from
http://www.aota.org/-/media/corporate/files/educationcareers/educators/2014-2015-annual-data-report.pdf
Asher, I. (2014).
Asher’s occupational therapy assessment tools.
(4
th
Ed.). Bethesda, MD: American Occupational Therapy Association Inc.
Bagatell
, N., Hartmann, K., &
Meriano
, C. (2013). The Evaluation Process and Assessment Choice of Pediatric Practitioners in the Northeast United States.
Journal Of Occupational Therapy, Schools & Early Intervention
,
6
(2), 143-157. doi:10.1080/19411243.2012.750546
Bureau of Labor Statistic. (2015). Occupational therapists. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/occupational-therapists.htm
Bowyer, P. L., Kramer, J.,
Kielhofner
, G.,
Maziero
-Barbosa, V., &
Girolami
, G. (2007). Measurement properties of the Short Child Occupational Profile (SCOPE).
Physical & Occupational Therapy In Pediatrics
,
27
(4), 67-85.
References
Slide99Bowyer, P., Kramer, J.,
Ploszaj
, A., Ross, M., Schwartz, O.,
Kielhofner
, G., Kramer, K. (2005)
The user’s manual for the short child occupational profile (SCOPE).
Chicago, IL: Model of Human Occupation Clearinghouse University of Illinois of Chicago and UIC Board of Trustees.
Brown, T., & Bourke-Taylor, H. (2014). Children and Youth Instrument Development and Testing Articles Published in the American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 2009–2013: A Content, Methodology, and Instrument Design
Review.
American
Journal Of Occupational Therapy
,
68
(5), e154-216 1p. doi:10.5014/ajot.2014.012237
Brentnall
, J., Bundy, A., & Kay, F. (2008). The effect of the length of observation on test of playfulness scores.
OTJR: Occupation, Participation & Health
,
28
(3), 133-140.
Bundy, A.,
Skard
, G. (2008) The Test of Playfulness (TOP). In L.D. Parham & L.S. Fazio (Eds.),
Play in occupational therapy for children
(2
nd
ed., pp. 71-93). St. Louis: Mosby/ Elsevier.
Case-Smith, J. (2015). An overview of occupational therapy for children. In J. Case-Smith & J.C. O’Brien (7
th
Eds.),
Occupational therapy for children and adolescents
(pp. 1-26). St Louis, Missouri: ELSEVIER MOSBY.
Center for Innovative OT Solutions. (2016). Assessment of motor and process skills [Power Point]. Retrieved from http://www.innovativeotsolutions.com/content/amps/materials-and-resources/in-service/
Center for Innovative OT Solutions. (
n.d.
). Introduction to the assessment of motor and process skills [Video]. Retrieved from http://www.innovativeotsolutions.com/content/amps/materials-and-resources/in-service/
References
Slide100Coster
, W.,
Deeney
, T. A.,
Haltiwanger
, J. T., & -Haley, S. M. (1998).
School Function Assessment user's manual.
San Antonio, TX: Therapy Skill Builders.
Dumas, H. M.,
Fragala
-Pinkham, M. A., Haley, S. M., Ni, P.,
Coster
, W., Kramer, J. M., & ... Ludlow, L. H. (2012). Computer adaptive test performance in children with and without disabilities: Prospective field study of the PEDI-CAT.
Disability & Rehabilitation
,
34
(5), p. 393-401.
Fisher, A. G. (2013). Occupation-
centred
, occupation-based, occupation-focused: Same, same or different?.
Scandinavian Journal Of Occupational Therapy
,
20
(3), 162-173 12p. doi:10.3109/11038128.2012.754492
Fisher, A. G., Bray Jones, K. (2014). Assessment of Motor and Process Skills. Vol. 2: User manual (8th ed.) Fort Collins, CO: Three Star Press.
Fisher A. G., Merritt, (2010). Current Standardization Sample, Item, and Task Calibration Values and Validity and Reliability of the AMPS. In A.G. Fisher & K.B. Jones,
Assessment of motor and process skills Vol.1: Development, standardization, and administration manual
(7
th
ed., p.15.1- 15.82) Fort Collins, CO: Three Star Press.
Gantschnig
, B. E., Fisher, A. G., Page, J.,
Meichtry
, A., & Nilsson, I. (2015). Differences in activities of daily living (
adl
) abilities of children across world regions: A validity study of the assessment of motor and process skills.
Child: Care, Health And Development
,
41
(2), 230-238. doi:10.1111/cch.12170
Haley, S.,
Coster
, W., Dumas, H.,
Frgala
-Pinkham, M.,
Moed
, R. (2012). PEDI-CAT: Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory Computer Adaptive Test. Boston, MA: Boston University School of Public Health.
References
Slide101Haley, S.,
Coster
, W., Dumas, H.,
Frgala
-Pinkham, M.,
Moed
, R. (2014).
PEDI-CAT: Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory Computer Adaptive Test Administration Manual
. Boston, MA: Boston University School of Public Health.
Hocking, C. (2001). The issue is. Implementing occupation-based assessment.
American Journal Of Occupational Therapy
,
55
(4), 463-469 7p.
Hwang, J., & Davies, P. L. (2009).
Rasch
analysis of the School Function Assessment provides additional evidence for the internal validity of the activity performance scales.
American Journal Of Occupational Therapy
,
63
(3), p. 369-373.
Joosten
, A. V. (2015). Contemporary occupational therapy: Our occupational therapy models are essential to occupation centered practice.
Australian Occupational Therapy Journal
,
62
(3), 219-222 4p. doi:10.1111/1440-1630.12186
Kaya Kara, O.,
Atasavun
Uysal
, S.,
Turker
, D.,
Gunel
, M. K.,
Baltaci
, G., &
Karayazgan
, S. (2015). The effects of
Kinesio
Taping on body functions and activity in unilateral spastic cerebral palsy: a single-blind randomized controlled trial.
Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology
,
57
(1), 81. doi:10.1111/dmcn.12583
Kielhofner
, G. (2008).
Model of human occupation
(4
th
ed.)
.
Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott William & Wilkins.
References
Slide102King, G., Law, M., King, S., Hurley, P., Rosenbaum, P., Hanna, S.,
Kertoy
, M., Young, N. (2004).
Children’s Assessment of Participation and Enjoyment & Preferences for Activities for Children.
San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
King, G., Law, M., King, S., Hurley, P., Hanna, S.,
Kertoy
, M., & Rosenbaum, P. (2006). Measuring children's participation in recreation and leisure activities: construct validation of the CAPE and PAC.
Child: Care, Health & Development
,
33
(1), 28-39.
Knox, S. (2008). Development and Current Use of the Revised Know Preschool Play Scale. In L.D. Parham & L.S. Fazio (Eds.),
Play in occupational therapy for children
(2
nd
ed., pp. 55-70). St. Louis: Mosby/ Elsevier.
Kramer, J., Bowyer, P., O'Brien, J.,
Kielhofner
, G., &
Maziero
-Barbosa, V. (2009). How interdisciplinary pediatric practitioners choose assessments.
Canadian Journal Of Occupational Therapy
,
76
(1), 56-64 9p.
Kramer, J. M.,
Kielhofner
, G., & Smith Jr., E. V. (2010). Validity Evidence for the Child Occupational Self Assessment.
American Journal Of Occupational Therapy
,
64
(4), 621-632. doi:10.5014/ajot.2010.08142
Kramer,
Velden
,
Kafkes
,
Basu
, Federico,
Kielhofner
, G. (2014) Child occupational self-assessment: User manual. Chicago, IL: Model of Human Occupation Clearinghouse University of Illinois of Chicago and UIC Board of Trustees.
References
Slide103Kramer, J., Walker, R., Cohn, E. S.,
Mermelstein
, M., Olsen, S., O'Brien, J., & Bowyer, P. (2012). Striving for shared understandings: therapists' perspectives of the benefits and dilemmas of using a child self-assessment.
OTJR: Occupation, Participation And Health
,
32
(1), S48-S58. doi:10.3928/15394492-20110906-02
Law, M., Cooper, B., Strong, S., Stewart, D., Rigby, P., & Letts, L. (1996). The person- environment-occupation model: A
transactive
approach to occupational performance.
Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy 63
(9).
doi
: 10.1177/00084174960630010
Lee, J. (2010). Achieving best practice: a review of evidence linked to occupation-focused practice models.
Occupational Therapy In Health Care
,
24
(3), 206-222 17p. doi:10.3109/07380577.2010.483270
Lee, S., Taylor, R.,
Kielhofner
, G., Fisher, G. (2008). Theory use in practice: A national survey of therapists who use the model of human occupation.
American Journal of Occupational Therapy
; 62(1),106-117.
doi
: 10.5014/ajot.62.1.106.
Makepeace, E., &
Zwicker
, J. G. (2014). Parent perspectives on occupational therapy assessment reports.
British Journal Of Occupational Therapy
,
77
(11), 538-545. doi:10.4276/030802214X14151078348396
Milone
, M. (2007). Test of Handwriting Skills Revised. Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications.
Ohl
, A. M., Crook, E.,
MacSaveny
, D., & McLaughlin, A. (2015). Test–Retest Reliability of the Child Occupational Self-Assessment (COSA).
American Journal Of Occupational Therapy
,
69
(2), 1-4. doi:10.5014/ajot.2015.014290
References
Slide104Ottenbacher
, K.,
Msall
, M., Lyon, N., Duffy, L., Granger, C., & Braun, S. (1999). Measuring developmental and functional status in children with disabilities.
Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology
,
41
(3), 186-194.
Piernik
-Yoder, B., & Beck, A. (2012). The Use of Standardized Assessments in Occupational Therapy in the United States.
Occupational Therapy In Health Care
,
26
(2/3), 97-108. doi:10.3109/07380577.2012.695103
Recla
, M.,
Bardoni
, A.,
Galbiati
, S.,
Pastore
, V.,
Dominici
, C.,
Tavano
, A., & ...
Strazzer
, S. (2013). Cognitive and adaptive functioning after severe TBI in school-aged children.
Brain Injury
,
27
(7-8), 862-871. doi:10.3109/02699052.2013.775499
Roll, K., Roll, W. (2012).
The REAL the roll evaluation of activities of life
. Bloomington, MN:
PsychCorp
.
Uniform Data Systems for Medical Rehabilitation. (2003) Underlying principles for use of the
WeeFim
instrument. Amherst, NY: Uniform Data Systems.
Uniform Data Systems for Medical Rehabilitation. (2004) WEE-FIM II. Amherst, NY: Uniform Data Systems.
References
Slide105Uniform Data Systems for Medical Rehabilitation. (2011a) 0-3 module. Retrieved from
https://www.udsmr.org/Documents/WeeFIM/WeeFIM_0-3_Module.pdf
Uniform Data Systems for Medical Rehabilitation. (2011b) The
WeeFIM
II advantage. Retrieved from https://www.udsmr.org/Documents/WeeFIM/WeeFIM_II_System.pdf
References