The purpose of this study was to examine whether students with mild disabilities differed from typically developing students in their ability to perform schoolwork tasks. The participants, selected from the School Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (School AMPS) database, comprised 175 students in each group. Their data were subjected to many-faceted Rasch analyses and then analyzed for statistically significant differences in mean school motor and school process abilities between groups. The relative and actual item difficulty calibration values were then compared to identify meaningful differences between groups. The results revealed a statistically significant mean difference in school motor and school process ability between groups (large effect sizes), essentially stable relative skill item hierarchies between groups, and actual hierarchies that differed such that some school motor and almost all school process skill items (occupational performance skills) were more difficult to perform for the mild disabilities group. The results of this study also provided evidence of validity for the use of the School AMPS measures to assist in identifying lower than expected schoolwork performance of students with mild disabilities.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). The standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
2.
AMPS Project International. (2005). School AMPS computer-scoring software (Version 2005). Fort Collins, CO: Three Star Press.
3.
BernspångB.FisherA. G. (1995). Differences between persons with right or left cerebral vascular accident on the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 76, 1144–1151.
4.
BondT. G.FoxC. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
BundyA. C.LaneS. J.MurrayE. A. (Eds.). (2002). Sensory integration: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.
7.
CamilliG.ShepardL. A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items (Vol. 4). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
8.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analyses for the behavioral science (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9.
CookB. G. (2001). A comparison of teachers' attitudes toward their included students with mild and severe disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 34, 203–213.
10.
CosterW. (1998). Occupation-centered assessment of children. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52, 337–344.
11.
CunninghamC. E.BoyleM. H. (2002). Preschoolers at risk for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and oppositional defiant disorder: Family, parenting, and behavioral correlates. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 555–569.
12.
DeweyD.KaplanB. J.CrawfordS. G.WilsonB. N. (2002). Developmental coordination disorder: Associated problems in attention, learning, and psychosocial adjustment. Human Movement Science, 21, 905–918.
13.
DoyleS.WallenM.WhitmontS. (1995). Motor skills in Australian children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Occupational Therapy International, 2, 229–240.
14.
DuranJ. L.FisherA. G. (1996). Male and female performance on the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 77, 1019–1024.
15.
FisherA. G. (2003). Assessment of Motor and Process Skills. Vol. 1: Development, standardization and administration manual (5th ed.). Fort Collins, CO: Three Star Press.
16.
FisherA. G. (2006). Performance skills: Definitions and evaluation in the context of the Occupational Therapy Practice Framework. In PendletonH.Schultz-KrohnW. (Eds.), Pedretti's occupational therapy: Practice skills for physical dysfunction (6th ed., pp. 372–402). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
17.
FisherA. G.BryzeK.HumeV.GriswoldL. A. (2005). School AMPS: School version of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills. Fort Collins, CO: Three Star Press.
18.
FisherA. G.DuranG. A. (2004). Schoolwork task performance of students at risk of delays. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 11, 191–198.
19.
FoxA. M.LentB. (1996). Clumsy children: Primer on developmental coordination disorder. Canadian Family Physician, 42, 1065–1971.
20.
GillbergC. (2003). Deficits in attention, motor control, and perception: A brief review [Electronic Version]. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 88, 904–910. Retrieved November 3, 2006, from http://abc.bmjjournals.com.
21.
GreshamF. M.MacMillianD. L. (1997). Social competence and affective characteristics of students with mild disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 67, 377–415.
22.
HellgrenL.GillbergC.BågenholmA.GillbergC. (1994). Children with deficits in attention, motor control and perception (DAMP) almost grown up: Psychiatric and personality disorders at age 16 years. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 1255–1271.
23.
HewardW. L. (2000). Exceptional children: An introduction to special education (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
24.
HillE. L. (2001). Non-specific nature of specific language impairment: A review of the literature with regard to concomitant motor impairments. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 36, 149–171.
25.
JohnsonG. M. (1998). Students at risk: Toward a new paradigm of mild educational disabilities. School Psychology International, 19, 221–237.
26.
KadesjöB.GillbergC. (1998). Attention deficits and clumsiness in Swedish 7-year-old children. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 40, 796–804.
27.
KaplanB. J.WilsonB. N.DeweyD.CrawfordS. G. (1998). DCD may not be a discrete disorder. Human Movement Science, 17, 471–490.
28.
KottorpA.BernspångB.FisherA. G. (2003). Activities of daily living in persons with intellectual disability: Strengths and limitations in specific motor and process skills. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 50, 195–204.
29.
LandgrenM.KjellmanB.GillbergC. (2003). A school for all kinds of minds: The impact of neuropsychiatric disorders, gender and ethnicity on school-related tasks administered to 9- and 10-year-old children. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 12, 162–171.
LosseA.HendersonS. E.EllimanD.HallD.KnightE.JongmansM. (1991). Clumsiness in children: Do they grow out of it? A 10-year follow-up study. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 33, 55–68.
33.
ManciniM. C.CosterW. J. (2004). Functional predictors of school participation by children with disabilities. Occupational Therapy International, 11, 12–25.
34.
MillerL. T.MissiunaC.MacNabJ. J.Malloy-MillerT.PolatajkoH. J. (2001). Clinical description of children with developmental coordination disorder. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68, 5–15.
35.
RasmussenP.GillbergC. (2000). Natural outcome of ADHD with developmental coordination disorder at age 22 years: A controlled longitudinal, community-based study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 1424–1431.
36.
RexrothP.FisherA. G.MerrittB. K.GlinerJ. (2005). ADL differences in individuals with unilateral hemispheric stroke. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72, 212–221.
37.
SangsterC.BeningerC.PolatajkoH. J.MandichA. (2005). Cognitive strategy generation in children with developmental coordination disorder. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72, 67–77.
38.
SchoemakerM. M.KalverboerA. F. (1994). Social and affective problems of children who are clumsy: How early do they begin?Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 11, 130–140.
39.
SilversteinB.FisherW. P.KilgoreK. M.HarleyP. F. (1992). Applying psychometric criteria to functional assessment in medical rehabilitation: II. Defining interval measures. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 73, 507–518.
40.
SkinnerR. A.PiekJ. P. (2001). Psychosocial implications of poor motor coordination in children and adolescents. Human Movement Science, 20, 73–94.
41.
VisserJ. (2003). Developmental coordination disorder: A review of research on subtypes and comorbidities. Human Movement Science, 22, 479–493.
42.
WeintraubN.KovoshiM. (2004). Changing practice patterns of school-based occupational therapists in Israel. Occupational Therapy International, 11, 40–51.
43.
World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
44.
WrightB.MastersG. N. (1982). Rating scale analyses. Chicago: MESA Press.
