Hillary Olivier and Beatty Kelly

Key Characteristics
Judgment based
Completed by teachers, school professionals in 3 parts
(Participation, Task Supports, Activity Performance)

Measures a students 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. Determine a students eligibility for special education services
2. Obtain information needed to develop an individualized education
program (IEP) that addresses the students specific needs

Domains and Sub-Domains

Procedure
Testing Procedures
Users Manual, Rating
Scale 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

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 MethodUsed in situations where the area

of concern regarding a students
functioning is isolated to a specific
context or a particular task

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% girls

Motor, communication,
emotional, behavioral, or
cognitive limitations

Students 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 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

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

4-6

5. Plot the students 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 students 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 students function as well as factors that
support or enhance the students 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
Consistenc
y
Reliability
(Cronbach
s Alpha)

Test-Retest
Reliability
(Pearson r)

Test-Retest Validity
Reliability
(Intraclass
correlation
)

Participation .92-.93

.95

.95

Excellent
CONTENT
VALIDITY
throughout all
domains

Task
Supports

.94-.96

.95-.99

.96-.99

2 studies
demonstratin
g CONSTRUCT
VALIDITY

Activity
.93-.98
Performance

.90-.99

.90-.99

No CRITERION
VALIDITY
studies

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 (cutoff 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
ADLs
IADLs
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