The Reliability and Validity of the School Function Assessment

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of the School Function Assessment (SFA)-Chinese version. The data drawn from the standardization sample of the instrument (N = 320) were used in the analyses. Using internal consistency procedures, Cronbach's alpha for each scale ranged from .94 to .98. The test—retest study reported intraclass correlation coefficients from .87 to .98 among the scales. Content validity of the SFA—Chinese version was confirmed by the overall high content validity indices (85% to 100%) determined by educational experts. Construct-related validity based on an exploratory factor analysis revealed two correlated functional domains of the SFA—Chinese version, “cognitive/behavioral” and “physical,” which were consistent with the theoretical construct hypothesized in the instrument. The known groups method demonstrated different patterns of the SFA scores among three different diagnostic groups. Moreover, discriminant analysis of the scores showed a high percentage of children correctly classified into their diagnostic groups. The overall results supported the psychometric properties of the SFA—Chinese version.

Keywords

functional measurement factor analysis discriminant analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anastasi

Urbina

(1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bray

J. H.

Maxwell

S. E.

(1985). Multivariate analysis of variance. Series: Quantitative applications in the social sciences 54. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Coster

(1998). Occupation-centered assessment of children. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52, 337–344.

Coster

Deeney

T. A.

Haltiwanger

J. T.

Haley

S. M.

(1998). School Function Assessment: User's manual. San Antonio, TX: Therapy Skill Builders.

Coster

Mancini

M. C.

Ludlow

L. H.

(1999). Factor structure of the School Function Assessment. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 59, 665–677.

Cronbach

L. J.

(1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.

Dunn

W. W.

(1989). Validity. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 9, 149–168.

Fanchiang

S. C.

(1996). The other side of the coin: Growing up with a learning disability. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 50, 277–285.

Flaherty

J. A.

Gaviria

F. M.

Pathak

Mitchell

Wintrob

Richman

J. A.

. (1988). Developing instruments for cross-cultural psychiatric research. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 176, 257–263.

10.

Geisinger

K. F.

(1994). Cross-cultural normative assessment: Translation and adaptation issues influencing the normative interpretation of assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 6, 304–312.

11.

Hwang

J. L.

Davies

P. L.

Taylor

M. P.

Gavin

W. J.

(2002). Validation of School Function Assessment with elementary school children. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 22, 48–58.

12.

Hwang

J. L.

Nochajski

S. M.

Linn

R. T.

Y. W.

(2004). The development of the School Function Assessment—Chinese version for cross-cultural use in Taiwan. Occupational Therapy International, 11(1), 26–39.

13.

Klecka

W. R.

(1980). Discriminant analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

14.

Lachenbruch

P. A.

(1975). Discriminant analysis. New York: Hafner.

15.

Mancini

M. C.

Coster

W. J.

Trombly

C. A.

Heeren

T. C.

(2000). Predicting participation in elementary school of children with disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81, 339–347.

16.

Mancini

M. C.

Coster

W. J.

(2004). Functional predictors of school participation by children with disabilities. Occupational Therapy International, 11(1), 12–25.

17.

Mardia

K. V.

(1971). The effect of nonnormality on some multivariate tests and robustness to nonnormality in the linear model. Biometrika, 58, 105–121.

18.

Nunnally

J. C.

Bernstein

I. H.

(1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

19.

Olson

C. L.

(1976). On choosing a test statistic in multivariate analyses of variance. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 579–586.

20.

Portney

L. G.

Watkins

M. P.

(2000). Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice (2nd ed.). Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lange.

21.

Sparrow

S. S.

Balla

D. A.

Cicchetti

D. V.

(1985). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales: Classroom edition. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

22.

Sperber

A. D.

DeVellis

R. F.

Boehlecke

(1994). Cross-cultural translation: Methodology and validation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25, 501–524.

23.

SPSS, Inc. (2003). SPSS/PC+ version 11.5. Chicago: SPSS, Inc.

24.

Stevens

(2001). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

25.

Taylor

M. P.

Davies

P. L.

Gavin

W. J.

Hwang

J. L.

(2001, April). A validity study of an assessment measuring functional behavior in school-aged children with and without disabilities. Poster session presented at the Biennial Meeting of Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN.

26.

Waltz

C. F.

Strickland

O. L.

Lenz

E. R.

(1991). Measurement in nursing research (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.

27.

Wright

B. D.

Linacre

J. M.

(1989). Observations are always ordinal: Measurements, however, must be interval. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 70, 857–860.

28.

Wright

B. D.

Masters

G. N.

(1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago: MESA Press.

29.

Wright

B. D.

Stone

M. H.

(1979). Best test design. Chicago: MESA Press.

The Reliability and Validity of the School Function Assessment—Chinese Version

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References