Gutierrez,

Julius Daniel M.
BSOT3
OT178 M4 Lab Worksheet

Name of the assessment tool School Function Assessment
Author/s Wendy Coster
Theresa Deeney
Jane Haltwanger
Stephen Haley
Year of publication 1998
Target population Students K-6th grade (ages 5-12)
Type of assessment tool Standardized: Criterion and norm-referenced assessment
Psychometric properties Internal consistency = 0.92-0.98
Reliability coefficients = 0.82-0.98
• Test-retest reliability = 0.82-0.98
• Inter-rater reliability = 0.68 – 0.73
Certification or training No training necessary
required
Access or availability Paid
Number of items SFA consists ot 316 items in total that are divided into 3 parts:

Part I: Participation
• Consists of 6 major school activity settings wherein
the student’s level of participation will be assessed.
Part II: Task supports
• Consists of 2 types that are examined separately.
Part III: Activity performance
• Consists of specific school-related activities which are
used to examine in detail one of the tasks addressed
globally in Part II
Adaptations Checklist
• This last component consists of 9 sections which
record the adaptations that the student routinely uses
to perform school activities. Additional adaptations
are added as needed.
Materials needed 1. School Function Assessment Record Form
2. School Function Assessment Rating Scale Guide
3. School Function Assessment User’s Manual
4. Pencil
Administration The person to administer should:
- Be a physical therapist, occupational therapist, speech
pathologist, psychologist, or teacher
- Have a professional level education
- Have basic understanding of the SFA
- Know the student well to complete the assessment

 It may take more than 1 session to administer the SFA (can be
spread out in 2-3 weeks).

Administration per session takes a minimum of 1.5 hours to 2
hours.

Individual parts may take five to ten minutes to complete.

There are three methods of gathering data:
• Coordinator method wherein one individual acts as
the coordinator.
• Collaborative effort method wherein the student’s
collaborative team comprised of regulat and special
education teachers completes the SFA.
• Single respondent method which is used when the
area of concern is isolated to a specific context ot
particular activity.

For the methodology, the following forms need to be
accomplished:
• Rating scale guide – this will provide rating examples
and descriptions which will be used in rating the items
from Part I to Part III.
• Scoring Function Assessment Form – this will rate
participation in Part I (settings), Part II (physical tasks
and cognitive/behavioral tasks), and Part III
(functional performance).
Scoring and interpretation The SFA rating scale guide will provide the rating criteria
throughout the assessment.

The record form is where the scores will be recorded.

The scoring tables is a form to be referenced when
transforming the scores from raw data to criterion scores in
standard error.

This will then be followed by plotting the transformed scores
on the summary score form which will then show the areas
that need to be addressed in the future.








Name of the assessment tool Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory
Author/s Stephen Haley
Wendy Coster
Larry Ludlow
Jane Haltiwanger
Peter Andrellos
Year of publication 1992
Target population Age range: 6 months – 7.5 years old
Type of assessment tool Makes use of structured interview, observation, or
professional judgment
Psychometric properties Interrater/intrarater reliability
Internal consistency
Criterion validity
Content validity
Construct validity
Certification or training The person to administer should have read the
required article/manual.
Access or availability Paid
Number of items The tool assesses functional status in the domains of self-care,
mobility, and social functioning across 3 measurement scales:
• Part I: Functional skills – consists of 197 items which
are rated from 0 (not capable) to 1 (capable).
• Part II: Caregiver assistance – 20 items which are
rated from 0 to 5.
• Part III: Modification – consists of 20 items of complex
functional activities which are rated n (no
modifications), c (child modification), r (rehab
equipment), and e (extensive modifications).
Materials needed 1. PEDI manual
2. Scoring sheets
3. Pencil
Administration Administered via parent or caregiver by a therapist or teacher
which can be completed in 20 – 30 minutes.

The person to administer can accomplish the form given that
they have sufficiently observed the child.

The parent interview takes 45 – 60 minutes to administer.
Scoring and interpretation Scores are distributed from 0 to 100 with higher scores
representing greater functionality.

The sum of the scores per domain will be written on the score
summary section. The same procedures will be applied for the
caregiver assistance. These will show the raw scores.

 In order to get the normative standard score, the manual will
be referred to (Appendix IV, p. 273) while considering the age
range to avoid getting skewed data.

To get the scaled score, the manual will be referred to
(Appendix VI, p. 291) while considering the age range to avoid
getting skewed data.

For the modification frequencies, the boxes at the
modification section will be referred to.

The composite scores will then be presented in a graph using
the score profile.



































Name of the assessment tool Canadian Occupational Performance Measure
Author/s Mary Law
Sue Baptiste
Anne Carswell
Mary Ann McColl
Helene Polatajko
Nancy Pollock
Year of publication 1991
Target population Children (6-12 years old), adolescents (13-17 years old), adults
(18-64 years old), and elderly adults (65+ years old)
Type of assessment tool Semi-structured interview; direct observations and
assessment of patient’s environment are done for
supplementary information
Psychometric properties Test-retest reliability
Interrater/intrarater reliability
Construct reliability
Content reliability
Certification or training Reading the article/manual
required
Access or availability Paid
Number of items 9 (3 subgroups with three items in each)
Materials needed 1. COPM Manual
2. COPM form
3. Pencil
Administration It takes 10-45 minutes to administer and is typically
conducted by an occupational therapist.

The methodology of COMP is as follows:
• Problem definition – with a semi-structured interview,
the client identifies occupations that they want to do,
need to do, and are expected to do.
• Rating importance – the client is asked to rate the
importance of each occupations identified using a 10-
point rating scale.
• Selecting problems for scoring – the client chooses up
to 5 of the most significant problems which were
derived from step 2. The therapist writes the
problems and their importance ratings in the scoring
session.
• Scoring performance and satisfaction – the client uses
a 10-point rating scale to rate their own level of
performance and satisfaction. The therapist then
calculates an average COPM performance score and
satisfaction score.
• Client reassessment – the therapists asks the client
again for a self-rated performance and satisfacfion for
the problems that were addressed.
 Scoring and interpretation As mentioned in step 4, the client makes use of a 10 point
scale to assess their own level of performance and satisfaction
for each of the problems that were identified. The therapist
then calculates an average COPM performance score and
average satisfacfion score. These may range from 1-10, 1
indicating poor performance and low satisfaction, and 10
indicating very good performance and high satisfaction.









































Name of the assessment tool Early Childhood Care and Development Checklist
Author/s ECCD Council
Year of publication 2001
Target population Children (Early Childhood/0-6 years old)
Type of assessment tool Observation, direct elicitation of the behavior, and parent
report
Psychometric properties Not indicated
Certification or training Requires a brief training period
required
Access or availability Free
Number of items The checklist consists of 7 domains:
• Gross motor
• Fine motor
• Self-help
• Receptive language
• Expressive language
• Cognitive
• Social-emotional

Child Record 1 consists of 115 items and Child Record 2
consists of 125 items.
Materials needed Child’s Record 1
• 2 clean small toys
• Any dangling object or small pull toy
• Mirror
• Any large object to push
• Food such as bread
• Container with screw on top
• Unlined or bond paper
• Thick crayon
• Thick pencil
• Drinking cup and water
• Rattle
• 2 picture books with 2 pictures per page
• Cloth
• 2 balls
• 2 spoons
• 2 blocks
• Doll
• Toy car
• Carrying case

Child’s Record 2
• 2 clean small toys
• 2 balls
• Food such as bread
 • Unlined or bond paper
• 6 thick crayons
• 2 picture books with 2 pictures per page
• 2 blocks
• 2 spoons
• Cloth
• Doll
• Toy car
• Shoe with laces
• Small shirt with buttons
• 3 pairs of picture cards for matching
• 4 pairs of different shapes that are of the same size
and color
• 4 pairs of the aame shale but of different size and
color
• 6 pieces of colored paper
• 4 pieces graduated sized circles and squares
• 4-6 piece puzzle
• 2 picture cards depicting 2 incongruous activities
• 4 pairs of cards with upper case letters
• 4 pairs of cards with lower case letters
• Carrying case
Administration This checklist is designed for caregivers, day care workers,
barangay health care workers, and all volunteers who provide
services for children.

Assessment is done one-on-one and should not take more
than 45 minutes.

The checklist has three major components:
1. Pre-assessment section wherein the instructions and
an introduction is given about the checklist to the
parent or caregiver.
2. Assessment section wherein assessment items under
each developmental domains will be answered.
3. Post-assessment section wherein the scoring and
interpretation will be done.
Scoring and interpretation There are several steps in scoring the child’s responses:
1. Tallying the total score by adding the number of
checks in each domain.
2. Converting the raw scores into scaled scores by
referring to the Table of Scaled Scores and Standard
Scores.
3. Deriving the Standard Score or Developmental Index
by looking for the Standard Score Equivalent of Sums
lf Scaled Scores Table.


4. Interpreting the score by looking at the Interpretation
Table.

Scaled scores range from 1 to 19 and are interpreted as
follows:

• 1-3 - development in the domain must be monitored

after 3 months
• 4-6 – development in the domain must be monitored
after 6 months
• 7-13 – average overall development in the domain
• 14-16 suggests slightly advanced development in that
domain
• 17-19 – suggests highly advanced development in the
domain

Standard scores are interpreted as follows:

• 69 and below – overall development must be

monitored after 3 months
• 70-79 – overall development must be monitored after
6 months
• 80-119 – average overall development
• 120-129 – slightly advanced overall development
• 130 and above – highly advanced overall
development

 Name of the assessment tool Inventory of Reading Occupations – Pediatric Version
Author/s Lenin Grajo
Catherine Candler
Patricia Bowyer
Sally Schultz
Jenny Thomson
Year of publication 2019
Target population Child/students from Kindergarten to Grade 3
Type of assessment tool Self-report and interview
Psychometric properties Content validity
Construct validity
Clinical utility
Certification or training None
required
Access or availability Free
Number of items 30 items divided in 17 reading categories
Materials needed 1. Inventory of Reading Occupations Manual
2. Pencil
Administration This can be administered by occupational therapists, speech
language pathologists, teachers, and parents.

The tool consists of a two-part screening that will assist the
child’s engagement in different types of reading materials
and reading categories. For each reading category, the
following wil be asked:
• Preference
• Mastery
• Frequency
• Physical context
• Social contexts
• Resources

The second part of the tool will ask the child to set reading
goals based on the first part of the tool.
Scoring and interpretation The total scores from the first part and goals from the
second part will be written on the Reading Participation
Profile page where the averages will be computed. These
will be logged in on the last page of the score form. The log
will then be used to track the progress of the client.








Guided Case Analysis

In terms of physical layout, the Mindanao children are taking their daily classes in a small 1-story
building that has enough space to fit all of them. The building contains only 1 room and it is well-lit due
to the presence of numerous windows on its walls. The students are only sitting at the floor which seems
to be lined with linoleum. With this, they usually lie on the floor to write on their learning materials or
would slouch because they would have to place their notebooks on the floor. As for the tools and materials
that they are using, several learning objects were showed such as writing materials (pencil, notebooks,
chalkboards), toys (abacus, puzzles), arts and crafts tools (scissors, crayons), and visual-learning materials
(books, posters, pictures). The students interacted with each other and with the learning facilitator by
actively participating in the class activities which included recitations, group works, and play activities.

As for the roles portrayed by the children, the role of a student is evident on their daily
attendance, class participation, and willingness to learn. Some tasks they are doing under this role include
studying and reciting. Another role is being a student in the early childhood stage. With this, they are
expected to participate more in play activities and to start interacting with their peers. They also portrayed
the role of being a citizen of ARMM (Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao). This can be seen on how
the learning facilitators taught the children their mother tongue and how these children are required to
learn this language from preschool until 3rd grade.

If a child with a physical or psychosocial disability were to learn in this type of setting, some
difficulties may arise, and accommodations may need to be made. This includes the placement of tables
and chairs as a child with a physical condition may have a hard time studying on the floor. The child might
also not be able to participate in play activities that require exertion, and this may be accommodated by
allowing the student to participate more on seated activities such as arts and crafts. The child might also
have problems in socializing with his/her peers due to the stigma of disabilities which can be
accommodated by teaching the students about these conditions so that they can become more open and
accepting about it.
If a child with a disability will be included in the class, an assessment tool that can be used by the
community to evaluate his/her status is the Early Childhood Care and Development Checklist as this would
assess the child’s different health domains which include gross motor, fine motor, self-help, receptive
language, expressive language, cognitive, and socioemotional (ECCD Council, n.d.). This will help the child
get the help and assistance that he/she needs as soon as possible. In addition, it was mentioned in the
video that poverty is prevalent in the communities of the ARMM. By using this free-access assessment
tool, the community would not need to purchase ones that are paid online.












References:

Columbia University Irving Medical Center (n.d.). OT for Literacy. Retrieved September 29, 2021 from
https://www.vagelos.columbia.edu/education/academic-programs/programs-occupational-
therapy/faculty-innovations/ot-literacy

COPM (n.d.). The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Retrieved September 28, 2021 from
https://www.thecopm.ca

ECCD Council (n.d.). How to Use the Early Childhood Care and Development Checklist. Retrieved
September 28, 2021 from
https://eccdcouncil.gov.ph/downloadables/How%20to%20Use%20the%20ECCD%20Checklist.pdf

ECCD Council (2020, February 07). How to use the ECCD Checklist [Youtube]. Retrieved from
https://youtu.be/vm4x3NNrvLo

Grajo, L., Candler, C., Bowyer, P., Schultz, S., & Thomson, J. (2018). The Clinical and Classroom Utility of
the Inventory of Reading Occupations: An Assessment Tool of Children’s Reading Participation. The Open
Journal of Occupational Therapy, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.15453/2168-6408.1440

Jessica Townsend (2019, September 20). PEDI assessment/scoring [Youtube]. Retrieved from
https://youtu.be/907ulLzcalM

NSU MOT2018 (2018, March 20). School Function Assessment [Youtube]. Retrieved from
https://youtu.be/jllfBLvVqjM

Shirley Ryan Abilitylab (2017, March 22). Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory. Retrieved September
28, 2021 from https://www.sralab.org/rehabilitation-measures/pediatric-evaluation-disability-
inventory#contact-us

Shirley Ryan Abilitylab (2019, June 01). Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Retrieved
September 28, 2021 from https://www.sralab.org/rehabilitation-measures/canadian-occupational-
performance-measure