The construct validity of the occupational and/or physiotherapy service request form for use in Queensland state schools

Wright, Shelley, M.Phil. (2002). The construct validity of the occupational and/or physiotherapy service request form for use in Queensland state schools MPhil Thesis, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland.

       
Attached Files (Some files may be inaccessible until you login with your UQ eSpace credentials)
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads
THE17324.pdf Full text application/pdf 10.60MB 3
Author Wright, Shelley, M.Phil.
Thesis Title The construct validity of the occupational and/or physiotherapy service request form for use in Queensland state schools
School, Centre or Institute School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences
Institution The University of Queensland
Publication date 2002
Thesis type MPhil Thesis
Total pages 164
Language eng
Subjects 1117 Public Health and Health Services
Formatted abstract
The task of setting priorities when providing occupational therapy and physiotherapy services in educational settings is a complex one, with few objective tools available to assist the process (Farley, Sarracino & Howard, 1991). In 1997 concerns with the management of caseloads for occupational therapy and physiotherapy within Queensland state schools resulted in the establishment of a Prioritisation Project (Education Queensland, 1998d). The Prioritisation Project was set up to develop a consistent framework to help occupational therapists and physiotherapists make decisions about student need for therapy in collaboration with other school staff (Education Queensland, 2000b). The Occupational Therapy and/or Physiotlierapy Service Request Form {Service Request Form: Education Queensland, 2000b) was developed as part of this process and underwent a comprehensive content validation process.

The aim of the current study was to test the construct validity of the Service Request Form by determining which items on the form would best predict the outcome of student need for assessment. The first objective was to subject individual items on the form to principal components analysis (PCA) to ensure that the Service Request Form represented empirically sound constructs, and to enable item reduction. The second objective was to complete a discriminant analysis of the priority ratings of the two major raters to examine what factors were important in how the raters made decisions about level of priority for assessment. A preliminary objective involved determining the level of inter-rater agreement of six raters involved in the study (3 occupational therapists and 3 physiotherapists) in relation to level of priority assessed using the Service Request Form.

Service Request Forms were collected for 208 students attending a range of Education Queensland facilities, with a spread of ages, gender, and ascertainment categories and levels (i.e. type and severity of disability). Three occupational therapists and 3 physiotherapists rated Service Request Forms for 50 students in relation to priority for assessment. One occupational therapist and one physiotherapist then rated an additional 158 Serwce Request Forms (a total of 208 forms).

Adequate levels of agreement were achieved among the six raters. A combined ICC O.D of .70 was achieved for all six raters. The ICC 0,1) for the three occupational therapy and three physiotherapy raters were .64 and .75 respectively. Principal components extraction with varimax rotation was conducted on the 49 items of the Service Request Form using SPSS (Norusis, 1990). The final solution of five factors comprised 41 items and accounted for 47.51 % of the variance. The factors were Functional Impairment (Factor 1), Movement (Factor 2), Behaviour (Factor 3), Fine Motor (Factor 4), and Life Skills (Factor 5). The five factors were then used to examine how the raters made decisions about student priority for assessment.

The discriminant analysis showed that, for the occupational therapy rater, the factors important in making decisions about priority for assessment were: Functional Impairment {p<.00^), Movement {p<.00'\). Behaviour {p< .01), and Fine Motor, (p<.05). For the physiotherapy rater, the factors important in prioritising were: Functional Impairment {p< .001), Movement {p< .001), and Fine Motor {p< .01). The best predictors of level of priority for assessment for both raters were Functional Impairment and Movement. Life Skills was a poor predictor of priority for assessment for both raters, and Behaviour was also a poor predictor for the physiotherapy rater. Classification statistics revealed that a greater proportion of the cases were correctly classified according to the raters' classification procedures rather than by chance (i.e. 76.4% for the occupational therapy rater and 80.9% for the physiotherapy rater).

The extraction of five clear factors from the PCA indicates that the Service Request Form is of relatively sound structure. The definitive classification procedures found for both raters shows that their clinical reasoning skills were consistent and also raise interesting possibilities for future research. Results support the validity of the Service Request Form, provide a basis for possible amendments to the form, and demonstrate the value of the tool in guiding clinical decision-making within Education Queensland.
Keyword Physical therapy for children -- Queensland -- Evaluation -- Forms
Occupational therapy for children -- Queensland -- Evaluation -- Forms

Document type: Thesis
Collection: UQ Theses (RHD) - UQ staff and students only
 
Citation counts: Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Fri, 03 Jun 2011, 13:14:41 EST by Ning Jing on behalf of The University of Queensland Library