Updates:

Costs

  1. SFA complete kit $243.50
  2. SFA user manual $151.50
  3. SFA record forms $102.50
  4. SFA rating scale guides $25.00

Purpose

  1. The SFA helps students in elementary schools succeed by identifying their strengths and needs in important nonacademic functional tasks.
  2. It can also be used to develop an IEP, facilitating collaborative planning, documenting progress and effects of intervention, collecting administrative data to meet federal and state regulations

MCID: not established

References:

http://www.pearsonclinical.com http://images.pearsonassessments.com/images/tmrs/tmrs_rg/SFA_TR_Web.pdf?WT.mc_id=TMRS_School_Function_Assessment

Article Summary:

Outcomes for Students Receiving School-Based Physical Therapy as Measured by the School Function Assessment [Internet]. PubMed Journals. Available from: https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/articles/27661224/

https://www.uky.edu/chs/sites/chs.uky.edu/files/Docs/WCPT%202015%20PT%20COUNTS%20Effgen%20poster.pdf

The purpose of this article was to describe School Function Assessment (SFA) outcomes in students, after receiving 6 months of school based physical therapy, and the effects of age and gross motor function on outcomes. It took place in 28 states, and was conducted by 109 physical therapists on 296 students with disabilities, aged 5-12. The most common diagnoses for the students were cerebral palsy and Down Syndrome. PT’s administered the SFA to students at the beginning of the school year, and at the end of 6 months. In conclusion, most students made positive gains within the scales of the SFA across 6 months of receiving school based PT. Those who showed signs of regression were due to an onset of new medical problems. Overall, students made the most gains in the scales of participation, maintaining and changing position, task supports: adaptations, and manipulation with movement. These scales were followed by travel and recreational movement. The students showed less improvement on the ADL scale, an area most likely not addressed by the PT’s. Those students who were older and had lower scores on the GMFCS demonstrated fewer improvements on the SFA.

Major strengths of this study include a large sample size (n), and high internal consistency of the SFA. Limitations of this study include the use of the GMFCS for students with other diagnoses besides cerebral palsy, no control of intervening factors such as amount/frequency/duration of services, and the large amount of PT’s who completed the SFA assessments.