Validity of the school setting interview: An assessment of the student-environment fit

Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 171-178

  Hemmingsson, Helena ^a   Kottorp, Anders ^b   Bernspång, Birgitta ^b  

^a KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^b UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Disabilities; School Setting Interview; Student environment fit

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CULTURAL FACTOR; DATA ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENT; ETHNOLOGY; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEASUREMENT; PHYSICAL DISABILITY; SCHOOL; SCHOOL CHILD; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS; SWEDEN; THEORY; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 9744274549     PISSN: 11038128     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/11038120410020683     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Kalscheur JA. Benefits of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 for children and adolescents with disabilities. Am J Occup Ther 1992;46(5):419-26.
2. Regereingens proposition (Government Bill) 1999/2000:79. Från patient till medborgare-en nationell handlingsplan för handikappolitiken [From a patient to a citizen - a national action plan for disability politics].
3. Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1990 [available at: http://www.unicef.org/crc/crc.htm].
4. The Salamanca Statement. World conference on special needs education: access and quality, Salamanca, Spain, 1994.
5. Simeonsson RJ, Carlsson D, Huntington GS, McMillen JS, Brent JL. A national survey of participation. Disabil Rehabil 2001; 23: 49-63.
6. Case-Smith J. Variables related to successful school-based practice. Occup Ther J Res 1997; 17(2): 133-53.
7. Griswold LA. Ethnographic analysis: a study of classroom environments. Am J Occup Ther 1994; 48(5): 397-402.
8. Law M, Dunn W. Perspectives on understanding and changing the environments of children with disabilities. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr 1993; 13: 1-17.
9. Orr C, Schkade J. The impact of the classroom environment on defining function in school-based practice. Am J Occup Ther 1997; 51(1): 64-9.
10. Brollier C, Shepherd J, Markley KF. Transition from school to community living. Am J Occup Ther 1994; 48(4): 346-53.
11. Coster WJ, Deeney T, Haltiwanger J, Haley SM. The School Function Assessment: Standardized version. Boston: Boston University, 1998.
12. Fisher AG, Bryze K. School AMPS: School version of the assessment of motor and process skills. 2nd ed. Fort Collins, CO: Three Star Press, 1998.
13. Hemmingsson H. Bedömning av Anpassningar i Skolmiljön [The School Setting Interview]. Stockholm: Förbundet Sveriges arbetsterapeuters förlagsservice, 1998.
14. Hoffman OR, Hemmingsson H, Kielhofner G. The School Setting Interview: a users manual. Chicago: University of Illinois, Department of Occupational Therapy, 2000.
15. Kielhofner G. A model of human occupation: Theory and application. 3rd ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2002.
16. Law M, Baptiste S, Mills J. Client-centered practice: what does it mean and does it make a difference? Can J Occup Ther 1995; 62(5): 250-7.
17. Nelson DL. Therapeutic occupation: a definition. Am J Occup Ther 1996; 50(10): 775-82.
18. Mullersdorf M. Needs assessments in occupational therapy: Studies of persons with long-term/recurrent pain. Uppsala, Sweden: University of Uppsala, 2001.
19. Hemmingsson H, Borell L. The development of an assessment of adjustment needs in the school setting for use with physically disabled students. Scand J Occup Ther 1996; 3(4): 156-62.
20. Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch model: a fundamental measurement in the human sciences. London: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2001.
21. Fisher AG. The assessment of IADL motor skills: an application of many-faceted Rasch analysis. Am J Occup Ther 1993; 47(4): 319-29.
22. Velozo CA, Kielhofner G, Lai JS. The use of Rasch analysis to produce scale-free measurement of functional ability. Am J Occup Ther 1999; 53(1): 83-90.
23. McNamara TF. Measuring second language performance. New York: Longman, 1996.
24. Fisher AG. Development of a functional assessment that adjusts ability measures for task simplicity and rater leniency. In: Wilson M, ed. Objective measurement: theory into practice. Norwood: Ablex, 1994: 145-75.
25. Raczek AE, Ware JE, Bjorner JB, Gandek B, Haley SM, Aaronson NK, et al. Comparison of Rasch and summated rating scales constructed from SF-36 physical functioning items in seven countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51(11): 1203-14.
26. Wright B, Linacre J. Reasonable mean-square fit statistics. Rasch Measurement Transactions 1994; 8: 370.
27. Hemmingsson H. Student-environment fit for students with physical disabilities. Doctoral dissertation. Stockholm: Karolinska Institutet, 2002.
28. Canadian Association of Occupational therapists. Enabling occupation: an occupational therapy perspective. Ottawa: CAOT Publications, 1997.
29. Dunn W, Brown C, McGuigan A. The ecology of human performance: a framework for considering the effect of context. Am J Occup Ther 1994; 48(7): 595-607:
30. Whitehouse R, Shope JT, Sullivan DB, Kulik C-L. Children with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis at school. Clin Paediatr 1989; 28: 509-14.
31. Hall DMB, Hill PD. The child with a disability. 2nd ed. London: Blackwell Science, 1996.
32. Dudgeon BJ Massagli TL, Ross BW. Educational participation of children with spinal cord injury. Am J Occup Ther 1997; 51: 553-61.
33. Malmqvist J. Kunskapsutveckling hos elever med rörelsehinder, delstudie 2: Resultat på prov för elever med rörelsehinder vid arbete med anpassat provmaterial [Knowledge development among students with motor disabilities, part 2: Result on examinations using adapted material for students with motor impairments, Report No. 16]. Göteborg: University of Göteborg, Department of Education and Didactics, Sweden, 2000.
34. Korpela RA, Koivikko MJA. Regional survey of technical aids used by handicapped children in day care and at school. Disabil Rehabil 1992; 14: 16-22.
35. Prellwitz M, Tamm M. How children with restricted mobility perceive their school environment. Scand J Occup Ther 2000; 7(4): 165-73.
36. Linacre JM. Minifac version 3.4, free student/evaluation version of FACETS, 2002 [available at: http://mesa.spc.uchicago.edu/minfac.htm].
37. Goldman SL, Fisher A. Cross-cultural validation of the Assessment of Motor and Process skills. Br J Occup Ther 1997; 60: 77-85.
38. Paulsson K, Fasth Å Livsvillkorsprojektet: En studie av livsvillkoren för familjer med barn med rörelsehinder [The project of vital conditions: a study of the vital conditions for families with children with physical disabilities]. Stockholm: Riksförbundet för rörelsehindrade barn och ungdomar, 1999.
39. SFS (Swedish Statute Book) 1985:1100. Skollagen [The Swedish School Law]. Stockholm: Fritzes, 1985.
40. Heimdahl Mattson E. The school situation of students with motor disabilities: Interaction of individual prerequisites and environmental demands. Stockholm: Stockholm Institute of Education, 1998.
41. Lawton MP. Environment and aging. New York: Center for the Study of Aging, 1986.
42. Rogers JC. The spirit of independence: the evolution of a philosophy. Am J Occup Ther 1982; 36(11): 709-15.
43. Barnes C, Mercer G, Shakespeare T. Exploring disability: a sociological introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000.