School Function Assessment (SFA) Update and Article Review
Updates to the School Function Assessment
Price UPDATE: the price of this tool has gone up according to www.pearsonclinical.com
- Complete kit is 243.50
- SFA User’s Manual: 151.50
- SFA Record forms: 102.50
- SFA Rating scale guidelines: 25
Purpose: As stated in the previous blogs, this assessment tool evaluates Participation, Task Supports, and Activity Performance in school aged children to identify their strengths and needs. This is a collaborative plan that can be used to help students with disabilities (www.pearsonclinical.com).
Article Summary
Rabinovich RV, Patel NV, Gates PE, Otsuka NY. The Relationship between the School Function Assessment (SFA) and the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) in Ambulatory Patients with Cerebral Palsy. Bull Hosp Jt Dis (2013). 2015;73(3):204-9.
This article focused on the relationship between the School Function Assessment (SFA) and it’s correlation to the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) in order to determine if the SFA was an accurate representation of the GMFCS in patients with CP. One hundred and three subjects were included between 6 to 18 years of age with inclusion criteria of a clinical diagnosis of CP, motor pattern consistent with spastic diplegia, and IRB consent from children and parents. Medical doctors at each location of the study (Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Arkansas, California, and Mexico) performed the GMFCS and the SFA was completed by school personnel (therapists and teachers). Statistical analysis was then performed to determine if the SFA scores were consistent with the subjects’ GMFCS scores. The data suggests that the SFA does accurately correlate with the GMFCS of specific subjects, as well as the study as a whole. There was noted difference in some of the gross motor task assessment in the SFA when compared to the GMFCS (“using materials”, “eating and drinking”, “Hygiene,” “Written Work,” and “Computer and Equipment Use” for example) which could be attributed to the fact that the above mentioned skills have a strong fine motor component. Additionally, the SFA evaluates data on behavior, safety, and cognitive function that are not evaluated in the GMFCS. Therefore, the SFA could be used to approximate the GMFCS score yet the specifics may still be variable due to the different information gleaned from the different assessments. These tests should not be used interchangeably, rather this study suggests that the two measures be used as comparison tools to determine if there discrepancies in a child’s presentation that may warrant further intervention.
Major Strengths: large sample size over a multitude of areas and previously confirmed reliability and validity of the SFA.
Major Limitation: the tests were administered by a large number of professionals; therefore the delivery was not completely standardized because each child was not evaluated by the same person.
2 responses to “School Function Assessment (SFA) Update and Article Review”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I appreciated the clinical suggestion of comparing data from the two measures in order to investigate discrepancies and to achieve a greater assessment of the child’s capabilities and needs. I am curious whether cultural and/or environmental factors impacted SFA scores in the children in Mexico in comparison to the United States. Another limitation to consider may be the accessibility factor due to the price of the SFA. Many schools in the US are experiencing shrinking budgets, how many children can they assess with the SFA per kit?
This seems like a really strong study since they gathered participants from multiple states and various ages. Like Tess mentioned, I was also curious about the cost of this measure versus the GMFCS. I did a quick search and it looked like you could download a few versions of the GMFCS from CanChild. However, it seems like one benefit of the SFA is that therapists and teachers can conduct it, where MDs conducted the GMFCS in this article.