School Function Assessment (SFA)

Report
 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.
2.
Determine a student’s eligibility for special education services
Obtain information needed to develop an individualized education
program (IEP) that addresses the student’s specific needs
Domains and Sub-Domains
Procedure
Testing Procedures
 User’s Manual, Rating Scale
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
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
Test Development and
Standardization
Students with Special
Needs
Students in Regular
Education Classrooms
 N=363
 N=315
 112 sites in 40 states in
 47% boys and 53% girls
urban, suburban, and rural
areas
 66% boys and 34% girls
 Motor, communication,
emotional, behavioral, or
cognitive limitations
 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: Participation
Rating 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 Supports
Assistance/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 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: cognitive/behavioral task
raw score
Scoring Form
Scoring
1. Transfer raw score for each scale to column labeled “Total
Raw Score” on the Summary Score Form
2. Convert each raw score total to a criterion score and
standard error score using appropriate table in Appendix B
3. 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 46
5. Plot the student’s criterion score for each scale on the
profile graph and connect each point
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 participation
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
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 Properties
Internal
Consistency
Reliability
(Cronbach’s
Alpha)
Test-Retest
Reliability
(Pearson r)
Test-Retest
Reliability
(Intraclass
correlation)
Validity
.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
.90-.99
.90-.99
No CRITERION
VALIDITY
studies
Participation
.93-.98
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-Domain
 Clothing Management: Hats  Zippers  Buttons
 Arena
 Trans-disciplinary approach
 Judgment Based
 Questionnaire
 Respondent's judgment
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 IEP
 Test Length
 1.5-2 hours to complete
 Cost:
 Manual: $140.00
 Score Sheets: $94.50/25 sheets
Areas of Occupation
Addressed
 ADL’s
 IADL’s
 Education
 Play
 Social Participation
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 evidence
 Studies that compare portions of the assessment to
others that are comparable
 Mathematical Error when establishing Raw Scores

similar documents