Perceptions of Occupational Therapists regarding Service Delivery Models in School-Based Practice

Abstract

School-based occupational therapists provide direct services, with the child removed from the classroom and integrated, and consultative services within the classroom, involving the teacher and members of the teaching staff. The purpose of this study was to determine the percentage of time that school-based therapists spend using direct/pull-out and integrative/consultative models of service delivery, to explore the attitudes of occupational therapists toward direct/pull-out and integrative/consultative services, and to identify variables associated with attitudes toward each. Written forced choice surveys were mailed to 321 school-based occupational therapists, and data analysis included 216 (67% of the sample).

Therapists spent 47% of the time providing pull-out services and 53% of the time in the classroom and in consultation. Although the respondents indicated that they enjoyed one-on-one interaction with students, they disagreed that children with disabilities were best served when pulled out of the classroom. Attitudes toward consultation were positive; therapists enjoyed sharing their expertise and believed that therapy should be integrated throughout the school day. Time spent using pull-out services and consultation was highly related to attitude toward that service delivery model; therapists who provided primarily consultation were significantly lower in their ratings of the importance of direct, pull-out services. Therapists who were contracted by the school used pull-out services more than did those employed in the school (58% compared with 44%).

School-based therapists appear to use a variety of service delivery models and have blended direct services with integrative/consultative services. They identified advantages to the use of both models and seem to believe that children are best served when direct services are combined with those that integrate therapy into the classroom and involve consultation with teachers.

Keywords

Direct pull out services Integrated Services Consultation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Occupational Therapy Association. (1986). Guidelines for occupational therapy services in schools. Rockville, MD: Author.

American Occupational Therapy Association. (1990). Membership survey data report. Rockville, MD: Author.

American Physical Therapy Association. (1990). Physical therapy practice in educational environments. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Bundy

A. C.

(Ed.) (1991). A conceptual model of practice for school system therapists—Making a difference: Occupational therapists and physical therapists in public schools. Chicago: University of Illinois.

Campbell

P. H.

(1987). The integrated programming team: An approach for coordinating professionals of various disciplines in programs for students with severe and multiple handicaps. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12(2), 107–116.

Campbell

S. K.

(1989). Measurement in developmental therapy: Past, present, and future. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 9, 1–13.

Cole

K. N.

Harris

S. R.

Eland

S. F.

, & Mills

P. E.

(1989). Comparison of two service delivery models: In-class and out-of-class therapy approaches. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 1, 49–54.

Coutinho

M. J.

, & Hunter

D. L.

(1988). Special education and occupational therapy: Making the relationship work. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 42(11), 706–712.

Dillman

(1978). Mail and telephone surveys. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

10.

Dunn

(1988). Models of occupational therapy service provision in the school system. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 42(11), 718–723.

11.

Dunn

(1990). A comparison of service provision models in school-based occupational therapy services: A pilot study. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 10(5), 300–319.

12.

Dunn

(1991). Consultation as a process: How, when, and why? In Royeen

C. B.

(Ed.), AOTA self study series: School-based practice for related services (pp. 7–41). Rockville, MD: American Occupational Therapy Association, Inc.

13.

Dunn

, & Campbell

(1991). Designing pediatric service provision. In Dunn

(Ed.), Pediatric occupational therapy facilitating effective service provision. Thorofare, NJ: Slack Inc.

14.

Giangreco

M. F.

(1986). Effects of integrated therapy: A pilot study. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 11(3), 205–208.

15.

Giangreco

M. F.

(1990). Making related service decisions for students with severe disabilities: Roles, criteria, and authority. Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15(1), 22–31.

16.

Haley

Coster

, & Ludlow

L. H.

(1991). Pediatric functional outcome measure. In Jaffe

K. M.

(Ed)., Pediatric rehabilitation. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America, 2(4), 689–723.

17.

Harris

(1990). Efficacy of physical therapy in promoting family functioning and functional independence for children with cerebral palsy. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 160–164.

18.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Public Law 101–476), 20 U.S.C. Chapter 33.

19.

Niehus

A. N.

Bundy

A. C.

Mattingly

C. F.

, & Lawlor

M. C.

(1991). Making a difference: Occupational therapy in the public schools. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 11(A), 195–211.

20.

Nole

D. R.

(1982). Occupational and physical therapy as related services. Teaching Exceptional Children, 15(2), 105–107.

21.

Orelove

, & Sobsey

(1991). Educating children with multiple disabilities: A transdisciplinary approach. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co.

22.

Ottenbacher

(1982). Occupational therapy and special education: Some issues and concerns related to Public Law 94–142. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 36(2), 81–84.

23.

Rainforth

York

, & MacDonald

(1992). Collaborative teams for students with severe disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co.

24.

Royeen

C. B.

, & March

(1988). Promoting occupational therapy in the school. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 42(1), 713–717.

25.

Rule

Stowitschek

J. J.

Innocenti

Striefel

Killoran

, & Swezey

(1987). The social integration program: An analysis of the effects of mainstreaming handicapped children into day care centers. Education and Treatment of Children, 10(2), 175–192.

26.

Salisbury

C. L.

(1991). Mainstreaming during the early childhood years. Exceptional Children, 58(2), 146–155.

27.

Salisbury

C. L.

Palombaro

M. M.

, & Hollowood

T. M.

(1993). On the nature of an inclusive elementary school. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18(2), 75–84.

28.

Sears

C. J.

(1981). A transdisciplinary approach: A process for compliance with Public Law 94–142. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 6(1), 22–29.

29.

Whitworth

(1991). Children with disabilities in the regular classroom. Clearing House, 65, 11–113; 34 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 300–399. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

30.

Wills

, & Case-Smith (in press). An ethnographic study of the perceptions of school-based rural therapists. American Journal of Occupational Therapy.

31.

York

Giangreco

M. F.

Vandercook

, & MacDonald

(1992). Integrating support personnel in the inclusive classroom. In Stainback

& Stainback

(Eds.), Curriculum considerations in inclusive classrooms: Facilitating learning for all students (pp. 101–116). Baltimore: Brookes Publishing Co.