Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS)

Full Name of Assessment:		Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS)
Author, Publisher, Date:		Frank Gresham, Stephen Elliot., Pearson, 2008
Source:		Pearson	Pricing: $261
Brief description (purpose, domains, subscales, time to administer, space/equipment needs): The Social Skills Improvement System addresses the need for an evidence-based, multi-tiered assessment and intervention system to help you help students develop, improve, and maintain important social skills. Designed by experienced scientist-practitioners Stephen Elliott, PhD, and Frank Gresham, PhD, this family of tools can be used early in the school year to facilitate the universal screening of students at risk for academic or social behaviour difficulties, help plan interventions for improving these behaviours, and evaluate progress on targeted skills after intervention. The SSIS focuses on key skills that enable the academic success of students 3–19 years of age. Teacher, parent, and student forms help provide a comprehensive picture across school, home, and community settings. Domains are social skills, problem behaviors, and academic performance. 10-25 minutes to administer, only the forms are needed to complete the assessment.
Scoring: Social skills and problem behaviors are scored by how often the student shows the behaviors and how important (from 0-3 in each category). Academic performance is scored by how well the student does compared to other students in the classroom. Scores are then translated to a raw score, and a percentile ranking is then computed.
Psychometric properties (describe briefly; e.g. reliability, validity, sensitivity, specificity, etc): Reliability= mid to upper .9, alpha= .9, good test-retest reliability, Validity= moderate to high. Coefficient alpha= .8
Citations/References (source at least 2 articles that use the tool or reports on psychometrics): Greshma, F.M., Elliott, S.N. Vance, M.J., & Cook, C.R. (2011).  Comparability of the Social Skills Rating System to the Social Skills Improvement System: Content and psychometric comparisons across elementary and secondary age levels.  School Psychology Quarterly, 26(1), 27-44. Gresham, F. M., Elliott, S. N., & Kettler, R. J. (2010). Base rates of social skills acquisition/performance deficits, strengths, and problem behaviors: An analysis of the Social Skills Improvement System—Rating Scales. Psychological Assessment, 22(4), 809-815. doi:10.1037/a0020255
Comments/critique (include application to practice – settings, needs, populations): Short administration time Client-centered – child can identify goals Can be administered in group or individual setting Can be used to track progress
Training or certification requirements:	N/A

School Function Assessment (SFA)

Full Name of Assessment:		School Function Assessment (SFA)
Author, Publisher, Date:		Wendy C., Theresa D., Jane H., Stephen H. , Publisher: Psychological Corporation, Date: 1998
Source: Pearson – via www.peasronassessments.com			Pricing: $222.50
Brief description (purpose, domains, subscales, time to administer, space/equipment needs): Purpose: Used for elementary students (K-6). The SFA evaluates an elementary school students participation in various school-related activities settings, his or her support needs, and his or her performance of specific school-related functional activities. The SFA is divided into three parts. Time:  Minimum of 1 ½ - 2 hours to complete totally. Once familiar with the assessment, the practitioner can complete individual subscales in as little as 5-10 minutes. This is not typically completed in a single day.  This is can be completed in a 2-3 week range if the student is showing signs of significant functional changes during this time. Subscales: Participation = 1 scale; Task supports =4 scales; Activity Performance = 21 scales Domains: Participation, Task supports, and Activity Performance Space/Equipment needs: User manual, rating scale guide, record form, and a pen or pencil.
Scoring: The assessment uses a likert scale. Participation:  1= participation is extremely limited, 2= participation in few activities, 3= participation in all aspects with consent supervision, 4= participation in all aspects with occasional assistance, 5= modified full participation, 6= full participation. Task Supports: 2 subscales: ASSISTANCE and ADAPTATIONS Assistance subscale: 1= extensive assist., 2= mod. Assist., 3= min. assist., 4= no assistance Adaptation subscale: 1= extensive adaptations, 2= moderate adaptations, 3= minimal adaptations, 4= no adaptations. Activity Performance: 1= does not perform, 2= partial performance, 3= inconsistent performance, 4= consistent performance. Part I Participation: The raw score for this scale should be based on the student’s participation for SIX settings including regular classroom or special education classroom, playground, transportation, bathroom, transitions, and mealtime. They would be assessed on a scale of 1-6 for each setting. The raw score is the summed total of the 6 ratings (1 rating per setting). Part II Task Supports: The raw scores are typically calculated for each of the four Task Support scales including: physical tasks- assistance, physical tasks –adaptations, cognitive/behavioral tasks – assistance, and cognitive/behavioral tasks – adaptations. There are six other task support items that can be rated if they are applicable to the student’s school. These things include up/down stairs – assistance, up/down stairs – adaptations, written work – assistance, written work –adaptations, computer and equipment use – assistance, and computer and equipment use –adaptations.  Therefore, each category is scored from 1-4 and totaled for each category to provide the rater with a raw score for each category. Part III Activity Performance: There are 21 separate scales that may be rated. There are twelve scales grouped under physical activity performance and nine under cognitive/behavioral performance. Each of the 21 scales are scored from 1-4 and a raw score is calculated by summing the scores of each item for all 21 scales.
Psychometric properties (describe briefly; e.g. reliability, validity, sensitivity, specificity, etc): Reliability Internal consistency reliability coefficient .92-.98 Test-retest reliability (Tryout Edition) .82-.98 Test-retest reliability (Standardization version) .80-.99 Validity Content validity was reviewed by recognized experts in education and clinical services during the Pilot Study phase and by related service professionals in the Tryout Edition. The results indicated that the instrument was perceived to be both comprehensive and relevant for the population of students with disabilities in elementary schools. Construct validity: The following constructs, on which the SFA scales were based, were shown to behave as expected from theory: Functional performance is context-dependent.   Environmental supports make a unique contribution to task performance. Participation in each setting is a function of performing setting- relevant tasks. Functional tasks can be meaningfully grouped according to whether their major demands are physical or cognitive/behavioral in nature.
Citations/References (source at least 2 articles that use the tool or reports on psychometrics): Coster, W., Deeney, T., Haltiwanger, J., & Haley, S. (1998). School function assessment (SFA). San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation. Davies, P. L., Soon, P. L., Young, M., & Clausen-Yamaki, A. (2004). Validity and reliability of the school function assessment in elementary school students with disabilities. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 24(3), 23-43. Hwang, J. L., Davies, P. L., Taylor, M. P., & Gavin, W. J. (2002). Validation of School Function Assessment with Elementary School Children. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 22(2), 48-58.
Comments/critique (include application to practice – settings, needs, populations): This assessment helps the practitioner set-up school based goals for the child. This assessment uses a collaborative effort to help your team to establish interventions for the child. This assessment could possibly be used during a quarterly evaluation to see the child is really progressing to meet his IEP goals. The SFA was designed to assist in the initial assessment of student needs and to evaluate the outcomes of services provided. This assessment is primarily used in schools to help children develop different aspects of school-related functions. The assessment is used on children in grades K-6.
Training or certification requirements:	No additional training is required to administer this assessment. The administer should have a professional level education, degree in education, PT, OT, speech, or psychology. The user should have basic understanding of standardized testing and an understanding of the unique features of the SFA including scoring and interpretation of the results.

Sensory Profile

Full Name of Assessment:		Sensory Profile
Author, Publisher, Date:		Winnie Dunn, Aspen Publishers/ Pearson Publishing, 1999
Source: Pearson via www.pearsonassessments.com			Pricing: $192.00
Brief description (purpose, domains, subscales, time to administer, space/equipment needs):   Caregivers complete the 125-question profile, reporting the frequency with which their child responds to various sensory experiences. Once the questionnaire is completed, use the Summary Score Sheet to obtain a profile of the child's sensory responses. The Summary Score Sheet contains an area to record the child's demographic information, a Factor Grid to help summarize the child's scores into the nine factor groupings (i.e., Factor Summary), and a Section Summary to plot section raw score totals. The Short Sensory Profile is a 38-item caregiver questionnaire and score sheet designed for use in screening and research protocols. The items on the Sensory Profile are grouped into three major sections: sensory processing, modulation, and behavioral and emotional responses. The age range varies anywhere from 3-10 or 5-10 years old. Purpose: The profile contributes to a comprehensive picture of a child's performance. Combine it with other evaluation data to create a complete picture of the child's status for diagnostic and intervention planning. This is a tool to connect performance strengths and barriers with the child’s sensory processing patterns. It also evaluates the possible contributions of sensory processing to the child’s daily performance patterns. Time:  30 minutes for the long caregiver form/questionnaire, 10 minutes for the short sensory profile and 20-30 minutes to complete the sensory score sheet. Subscales: Under sensory processing domain: auditory processing, visual processing, vestibular processing, touch processing, and multi-sensory processing, oral processing. Modulation domain: sensory processing related to endurance and tone, modulation related to body position and movement, modulation of movement affecting activity level, modulation of sensory input affecting emotional responses, modulation of visual input affecting emotional responses and activity level. Behavior and emotional responses: emotional/social responses, behavioral outcomes of sensory processing, items indicating threshold for response. Domains: Sensory processing, modulation, behavioral and emotional responses Space/Equipment needs: The sensory profile manual, scoring forms, summary score sheet, caregiver questionnaire, short sensory profile, and pencil.
Scoring: The scoring system is a likert scale: always = 1 point, frequently = 2 points, occasionally = 3 points, seldom = 4 points, and never = 5 points. The caregiver can place a mark between two categories, record the more frequent score. For example, if you score between never and seldom, record seldom ( 4 points). In these cases, always score for the lower score. The scores are added up per subscale. This determines a raw score for each subscale. The raw score are then normalized by being converted to a scale that compares the child to the typical age range for that scale. The administer of the child’s score for the cluster and factors to the Raw score total column. Then plot these totals by marking X in the appropriate classficiation column. These raw scores place the child into categories for each sensory item: typical performance, probable difference, and definite difference. Factor grid: Factor 1 = sensory seeking, factor 2= emotionally reactive, factor 3= low endurance/tone, factor 4 = oral sensory sensitivity, factor 5 = inattention/distractibility, factor 6 = poor registration, factor 7 = sensory sensitivity, factor 8 = sedentary and factor 9= fine motor/perception
Psychometric properties (describe briefly; e.g. reliability, validity, sensitivity, specificity, etc): Test reliability is an indication of the degree to which a test provides a precise and stable score. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was calculated to examine the internal consistency for each section of the Sensory Profile. Internal consistency indicates the extent to which the items in each section measure a single construct. The values of alpha for the various sections ranged from .47 to .91. Content validity was established during development of the Sensory Profile by determining that the test sampled the full range of children’s sensory processing behaviors and that the items were placed appropriately within sections. Methods used included a literature review, expert review by eight therapists experienced in applying sensory integration theory to practice, and category analysis based on a national study. The study included 155 occupational therapists who categorized the items in the Sensory Profile without cues about where the items would be placed. Results indicated that 80% of the therapists agreed on the category placement on 63% of the items. For the remaining items, new categories were developed. To examine the convergent and discriminant validity of the Sensory Profile, various scores obtained on the Sensory Profile were compared with different functional tasks as measured by the School Function Assessment. Researchers hypothesized that some school functions would be related to aspects of sensory processing while others would be independent of sensory processing. The School Function Assessment was selected because professionals and caregivers are interested in children’s performance at school. Researchers expected to see the following relationships, which would establish convergent validity: • High correlations between the School Function Assessment performance items and the items in Factor 9 (Fine Motor/Perceptual) on the Sensory Profile because both measures evaluate product behaviors such as hand use. • High correlations between the School Function Assessment socialization and behavior interaction sections and the modulation sections and factors on the Sensory Profile because children who have difficulty regulating sensory input have difficulty constructing appropriate responses. Researchers expected to see the following relationships to establish discriminant validity: • Low correlations between the School Function Assessment sections that capture daily routines and the sensory sections of the Sensory Profile because children can learn these routines as patterns of performance that do not require planning each time. As expected, there were large and meaningful correlations between the Sensory Profile’s Factor 9 (Fine Motor/Perceptual) and the performance items of the School Function Assessment. The moderate correlations between the Behavioral Regulation and Positive Interaction sections of the School Function Assessment and the modulation sections from the Sensory Profile also suggest convergent validity. The study findings also provide evidence of discriminant validity. Researchers found low correlations between the more detailed performance items on the School Function Assessment and the items on the Sensory Profile.
Citations/References (source at least 2 articles that use the tool or reports on psychometrics): Ermer, J., & Dunn, W. (1998). The sensory profile: A discriminant analysis of children with and without disabilities. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52(4), 283-290. Kientz, M. A., & Dunn, W. (1997). A comparison of the performance of children with and without autism on the Sensory Profile. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 51(7), 530-537. Watling, R. L., Deitz, J., & White, O. (2001). Comparison of sensory profile scores of young children with and without autism spectrum disorders. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55(4), 416-423.
Comments/critique (include application to practice – settings, needs, populations): The most difficult part will be having to explain most of these items to the parents. We must explain the scoring system and have a way to remember the percentages of the scoring scale is and accurate reporting from the parents could be issues. Could split up smell and taste, they are together on this assessment and they are completely different in nature, even if they are related. The typical age range suggests the setting is for toddlers to young school aged children. This assessment will be used in pre-schools and elementary schools. The assessment is used for children that have sensory deficits.
Training or certification requirements:	No additional training is required to administer this assessment. Examiners with backgrounds in OT, PT, and developmental adaptive education or related fields who have completed testing and measurement training may administer, score, and interpret the sensory profile in a more effective nature.