Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

School Function Assessment

No description

Monica H

on 5 April 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of School Function Assessment

School Function Assessment Developmental
Functional Tests Developmental: Functional: -Peabody
-GMFM Common Examples: Today's Focus:
-SFA Qualify a student Compare with age-matched peers Monitor change over time Identify areas of limitation Starting point for writing functional goals Or use findings to write skill-based goals without regarding function Measures are already focused on function and participation A Closer Look at
the SFA For grades K-6 Part I: Overall Participation in
various settings of the school Part II: Task Supports
1 = Extensive
4 = None
Reliance on assistance and/or adaptations for a variety of tasks such as: Part III: Activity Performance Performance is evaluated for a variety of tasks divided into physical (gross/fine motor and self-help) and cognitive/ behavioral subcategories.
1 = No performance
4 = Consistent performance Validity &
Reliability Convergent validity (r = .56 - .72) - moderate correlation between Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales - Classroom edition and comparable scales on SFA Construct validity - Differences between SFA scores corresponded to different classifications of students
(physical vs. cognitive vs. social-emotional dx) *(Hwang et al, 2002; Davies et al, 2004) Interrater reliability Students receive ratings for their participation in each setting using a 6-point scale
1 = Extremely limited
6 = Full Internal consistency reliability (.92-.98) - confirmed the coherence of the items within each scale
- all scales were constructed to be hierarchical & unidimensional
- items covered the full range of difficulty seen in elementary students with disabilities
*(Coster et al, 1998) (.68 - .73) - moderate correlations between the ratings of OTs & classroom teachers
- no significant difference in the way OTs & teachers rated individual students despite different educational background & training
- area of greatest difference was in scoring Task Supports section (adaptations vs. accommodations) *(Davies et al, 2004) Strengths Challenges Strengths - satisfies the IDEA requirement that related services be tied to an educationally relevant outcome*
- utilizes transdisciplinary focus & language*
- documents progress & effects of intervention*
- assists in the development of functionally relevant goals & objectives for the IEP
- supports effective communication between team members
- facilitates collaborative program planning
(*SFA, Coster et al. 1998) Challenges
- decreased interrater reliability due to diverse training backgrounds
- lack of training leads to confusion, especially in Part II - Task Supports (assistance vs. accommodations)
- amount of time required to complete assessment
- coordination of time to meet and discuss between team members
- difficulty analyzing results for PT relevance
- results can be confusing for IEP team, including parents, when whole test is not reviewed (e.g. Low score on physical tasks does not always indicate need for PT.)
Full transcript