1. Created in 1998
  2. By: Shayla Haynes & Eric Johnson
  3. Purpose:
    1. To measure students’ performance of functional tasks to help guide planning for academic and social participation for students attending elementary schools
      1. • Assists in the initial assessment of student needs • Identifies areas of limitation that affect effective participation • Identifies strengths which might help a student overcome these limitations • Supports effective communication between team members • Evaluates the outcomes of services provided • Facilitates collaborative program planning
  4. Tool Type:
    1. Criterion-referenced instrument, judgment-based questionnaire format
  5. 3 Test Components:
    1. PARTICIPATION
      1. 1. Examines student's level of participation in 6 major school activity settings:
        1. 1. Regular or special education classroom, 2. Playground or recess 3. Transportation to and from school, 4. Bathroom and toileting activities 5. Transitions to and from class 6. Mealtime or snack time
    2. TASK SUPPORT
      1. 2. Examines the support provided to the student when performing school-related functional tasks; 2 types of task supports are examined separately:
        1. 1. Assistance (adult help) 2. Adaptations (modifications to the environment or program, such as specialized equipment or adapted materials)
          1. 4 Task Support Scales:
          2. • Physical tasks—assistance, • Physical tasks—adaptations • Cognitive/behavioral tasks—assistance • Cognitive/behavioral tasks—adaptations
    3. ACTIVITY PERFORMANCE
      1. 3. Examines the student's performance of specific school-related functional activities, such as:
        1. 1. Moving around the classroom and the school 2. Using school materials 3. Interacting with others 4. Following school rules 5. Communicating needs
  6. Demographics:
    1. • Children in grades K-6 • All disability groups • All developmental levels
  7. Administration Requirements
    1. Evaluator:
      1. a. Regular/special ed teachers b. Speech/language pathologist c. Classroom aide
    2. Materials:
      1. a. Users manual b. Rating scale guide c. Record form
    3. Time:
      1. a. 10 min to 1 hour b. 1 day to 3 weeks
  8. Completion Time:
    1. 5 to 10 minutes for individual scales
  9. Scoring
    1. 1. Participation Scale
      1. • 6 point scale • 1= extremely limited • 6= full • Ratings are summed to obtain a total raw score
    2. 2. Task Support Scale
      1. • 4 point scale • 1= needing extensive assistance or adaptations • 4= needing no assistance or adaptations • Raw scores are calculated for each of the 4 task support scales.
    3. 3. Activity Performance Scale
      1. • Based on 21 separate scales • 12 scales= grouped under physical activity performance • 9 scales= grouped under cognitive/behavioral performance • Each functional activity in each scale is rated on a 4 point scale • 1 = no performance • 4= consistent performance • Ratings are summed for a total raw score.
    4. • Each raw score total can be converted to a criterion score. • For each criterion score there is a standard error value. • Two criterion cut-off scores, one for grades K-3 and one for grades 4-6, are provided for each scale
  10. Interpretations
    1. Basic Level
      1. a. Is student’s functioning in a particular area outside the range typically seen among his/her same grade regular education peers b. Done using the criterion cut-off scores
    2. Advanced Level
      1. a. Used to plan intervention b. Used to identify and interpret patterns of functional performance c. Standard error values, confidence intervals, and item maps used to develop functional profile from which goals are derived
  11. Psychometric Properties
    1. Reliability
      1. Internal Consistency Reliability Coefficient:
        1. .92-.98
      2. Test-Retest Reliability (Tryout Edition)
        1. .82-.98
      3. Test-Retest Reliability (Standardization Version)
        1. .80-.99
      4. Interrater Reliability:
        1. .68-.73
    2. Validity
      1. Content Validity
        1. found to be comprehensive & relevant for the population of students with disabilities in elementary schools
      2. Construct Validity
        1. The constructs behaved as expected from theory
          1. Constructs:
          2. Functional performance is context-dependent
          3. Environmental supports make a unique contribution to task performance
          4. Participation in each setting is a function of performing setting-relevant tasks
          5. Functional tasks can be meaningfully grouped according to whether their major demands are physical or cognitive/behavioral in nature
        2. showed significant differences in SFA scores among general education, learning disabilities & Cerebral Palsy
        3. Construct Validity w/differences in SFA scores among learning disabilities, autism, and TBI:
          1. X= 9.28 to 20.55, p <.01
      3. Convergent Validity between the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales-classroom edition (VABS-C)
        1. r= .56-.72
  12. Strengths & Weaknesses
    1. Strengths:
      1. a. Captures complex nature of life experiences b. Satisfies IDEA’s requirements to have educationally relevant outcomes for students c. Utilizes transdisciplinary focus and language d. Measures a student’s current level of performance related to OVERALL continuum of functional skills needed in a school setting e. No formal training required f. High correlation, internal consistency, and validity
    2. Weaknesses:
      1. a. More research needed using larger sample sizes. b. Interrater and intrarater reliability not presented clearly c. A ceiling effect exists on the SFA for students with learning disabilities, especially in participation, physical task and physical performance sections.
  13. Source:
    1. Coster, W., Deeney, T., Haltiwanger, J., & Haley, S. (1998). School function assessment (SFA). San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.