See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232092838

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

environment fit

Article  in  Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy · July 2009

DOI: 10.1080/11038120410020683

CITATIONS READS

18 1,086

3 authors:

Helena Hemmingsson Anders Kottorp

Stockholm University Malmö University
85 PUBLICATIONS   1,420 CITATIONS    170 PUBLICATIONS   2,805 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Birgitta Bernspång
Umeå University
58 PUBLICATIONS   1,491 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Young and digital View project

Navigating trough technological landscapes: Views of people with dementia or MCI and their significant others View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Helena Hemmingsson on 26 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY 2004;11:171
/178

Validity of the School Setting Interview: An Assessment of the

Student Environment Fit
/

HELENA HEMMINGSSON1, ANDERS KOTTORP2 and BIRGITTA BERNSPÅNG2

From the 1Karolinska Institutet, Neurotec Institution, Department of Occupational Therapy, Stockholm, Sweden and 2Umeå University, Umeå,
Sweden

Hemmingsson H, Kottorp A, Bernspång B. Validity of the school setting interview: an assessment of the student
/
environment fit . Scand J Occup Ther 2004; 11: 171
/178.
The School Setting Interview (SSI) is an internationally used client-centred interview assessment that
specifically investigates the student
/environment fit for students with physical disabilities. In this study the
Rasch measurement model was used to examine validity of the SSI; specifically, whether or not the SSI
measures a unidimensional construct. Data for analysis included SSI assessments of 87 Swedish students with
physical disabilities aged between 8 and 19 years of age. The results of the Rasch analysis revealed that all items
had acceptable infit MnSq and z values supporting evidence of construct validity of the SSI. The established
order of the difficulty of the items was also shown to be in acceptable congruence with the theoretical basis for
item development. In addition, the analysis revealed aspects of the SSI that need improvements, such as the
need for more challenging items and refinements of the manual. Further investigations of validity in different
cultural contexts are recommended. Key words: disabilities, School Setting Interview, student
/environment fit.

Occupational therapists have an important role in
schools with regard to students with disabilities. Laws
and international agreements in Sweden as well as in
many other Western societies require that children
with disabilities should have access to normal educa-
tional experiences in regular schools [1
/5]. In spite of
this, schools are generally planned and organized for
children without disabilities, who for example can
walk independently, and have intact vision and age-
appropriate writing skills As a result, the student
/
environment fit, meaning the match between charac-
teristics of the student and characteristics of the
school environment, for students with disabilities
may not be considered a good fit when compared
with students without disabilities.
Occupational therapists are well suited to enforce
the inclusion of students with disabilities in regular
school environments by providing professional gui-
dance and support with such things as environmental
adjustments, technical aids, and information and
education to other team members [6
/9]. In order to
provide effective support in schools, occupational
therapist need assessments to investigate the
student
/environment fit, and thereby identify the
need for occupational therapy interventions in school
[7, 9, 10]. Available occupational therapy assessments
for children with disabilities in pre-school or elemen-
tary school are the School Function Assessment (SFA)
[11] and the School AMPS [12]. An occupational
therapy assessment that specifically examines the level
of student
/environment fit of students with disabil-
ities from about 10 years of age and older is the School
Setting Interview (SSI) [13, 14]. The SSI is a client-
centred interview assessment specifically developed for
students with physical disabilities who have some type
of motor dysfunction as a result of, for example,
cerebral palsy, spina bifida, muscle diseases, and
rheumatoid arthritis. The theoretical foundations
used for the SSI are the Model of Human Occupation
(MoHO) [15], and client-centred practice [16]. For the
purposes of the SSI, the student
/environment fit is
operationalized as the level of the student’s needs for
adjustment in school. In the SSI adjustments are
defined as changes in the environment and/or in the
student’s interaction with the environment in order to
increase the fit. In accordance with occupational
therapy literature [17] the term adjustment as it is
used here refers to how aspects of the external
environment influence the student’s functioning and
participation, and does not primarily address the
person’s internal adaptation process to the environ-
ment. A high level of student
/environment fit is
achieved when there is a match between the character-
istics of the student and the characteristics of the
environment, and consequently no adjustments are
needed. A low level of student
/environment fit is
characterized by the student reporting unmet needs
for adjustment in several different school activities as a
result of a low match between the characteristics of the
student and the characteristics of the environment.
The term need is used in the sense of functional needs,
i.e. what is needed to do a particular job [18]. In the
SSI, needs refers to the student’s experience of what
adjustments he or she thinks are needed to accomplish
the demands of the school.

# 2004 Taylor & Francis. ISSN 1103-8128 DOI: 10.1080/11038120410020683

172 H. Hemmingsson et al.
The SSI has been developed from a first version, SSI
1.0, that encompassed 11 items (i.e. questions) with a
three-step rating scale, to SSI 1.1 that included 14
items (see Table I) [13, 14] concerning school activities
where students with physical disabilities typically
experience needs for adjustments. In the most recent
version, the SSI 2.0, the rating scale has been further
developed and currently includes a four-step rating
scale. In this study, however, only data from the SSI
1.0 and the SSI 1.1 are included. For clarification, the
items (i.e. the questions concerning school activities)
in the SSI address the activities needed to complete a
task in school. For example, the item ‘‘reading’’
includes such things as reading various types of texts,
turning pages, putting away and taking out materials,
and does not specifically address the student’s reading
capacity. Likewise, the item ‘‘taking breaks’’ includes
both social interaction activities and activities of daily
life that typically occur during breaks, such as eating
and toileting.
An evaluation of reliability and validity of the SSI
1.0 has been reported by Hemmingsson & Borell [19].
Regarding interrater reliability, a kappa between 0.76
and 1.0 was found, indicating good agreement be-
tween pairs of raters. Two expert panels investigated
Table I. Items included in the School Setting Interview
Activity items
1. Writing: taking notes, writing reports, using computers?
2. Reading: small letters, maps, diagrams, turning pages,
putting away and taking out materials?
3. Speaking: answering questions, raising hand to answer
questions, participate in group work?
4. Remembering things: daily schedule, location of
classrooms, information for exams and homework, use
of homework notepad?
5. Doing mathematics: writing numbers, drawing curves,
use of special equipment?
6. Doing homework: need for assistance, from whom,
personal, technical equipment?
7. Taking examinations: oral, written or using a computer,
more time, quiet room, assistance?
8. Going to art, gym and/or music: getting in and out of gym
clothing, participating in outdoor days, using art supplies?
9. Getting around the classrooms: accessibility of desks in
classroom, work area, transferring in classroom?
10. Taking breaks:a recess, interacting with friends, lunch,
bathroom breaks, do you have enough time?a
11. Going on fieldtrips: accessible transportation, wheelchair
accessible facility, need for special wheelchair?
12. Getting assistance: from whom do you get assistance,
availability and timing of assistance, comfort in asking for
assistance?
13. Accessing the school:a transferring between classrooms,
library, cafeteria, playgrounds, evacuation during
emergencies?
14. Interacting with staff:a teachers, assistants, therapists?
a
Not included in SSI version 1.
content validity and they judged the items to be
adequate for the assessment’s intended purpose. How-
ever, both panels suggested some additional items
concerning physical accessibility and social interac-
tion, which have been incorporated in SSI 1.1 (see
Table I). Further development and improvement of
the psychometric properties of the SSI is needed if it is
to remain a useful and effective assessment. A very
urgent question, with reference to psychometric prop-
erties, is the construct validity, i.e. whether the SSI
measures the concept of student
/environment fit as it
is supposed to do. An important step in such an
evaluation is to investigate whether or not the items
included in the SSI form a unidimensional construct.
Modern test theory (e.g. Rasch measurement mod-
els) are used to test psychometric properties of existing
tests, as well as for developing tests [20
/22]. The
Rasch measurement model specifically addresses con-
struct validity by providing indicators of how well
each item fits an underlying unidimensional construct
[20, 23], for example the level of student
/environment
fit. The analysis is based on the following expecta-
tions: (a) the more able a person, the better his/her
chances for success with any item; (b) the easier the
item, the more likely any person is to accomplish it
[21, 23]. In the Rasch measurement model, all items
and persons are placed on a one-dimensional con-
tinuum, representing samples of the characteristics
being measured but at different points on the con-
tinuum, meaning that some items are easier for most
persons and some are harder [20, 21, 24, 25]. The
Rasch measurement model also evaluates person
response validity based on whether or not the
responses derived from persons on the items corre-
spond to the assertions made. Further examination of
evidence of construct validity is supported by match-
ing the empirical hierarchical ordering of items with
the theoretical basis for item development [20].
An advantage of the Rasch measurement model is
that it is quite robust in the face of missing data. That
is, the model does not require a perfectly complete
matrix of numerical values as the starting point of
calculation [20, 26]. With regard to the SSI, it means
that data from both the SSI 1.0 and the SSI 1.1 could
be included in the same analysis although comprising
different numbers of items. For these reasons, the
Rasch measurement was determined to be an appro-
priate method for further investigation of the validity
of the SSI.
The overall aim of the study was to investigate
evidence concerning the validity of the School Setting
Interview. Specifically, (1) whether or not the SSI
measured a unidimensional construct, (2) whether or
not the students’ response patterns were consistent
with the Rasch measurement model, and (3) whether
 Validity of the school setting interview 173

or not the hierarchy of items agreed with the theore- dance with the manual, a cooperatively discussion
tical basis for item development. between the student and the therapist was held
subsequent to the scoring of each item [13]. As
mentioned earlier, the student took the final decision
METHODS as to whether he or she needed any new adjustments in
Participants school.
Data collected in a database from three different
studies of student
/environment fit in schools for
students with physical disabilities using the SSI 1.0 Instrumentation
and the SSI 1.1 were used [27]. A detailed description The development of the assessment is described in
of the sampling procedure is presented elsewhere [27]. more detail elsewhere [19, 27]. For the present study,
In total, the present study included 87 students with however, some clarifications concerning the theoretical
physical disabilities aged between 8 and 19 years of basis for the item analysis are required. As mentioned,
age. A majority of the students used wheelchairs for the concept of student
/environment fit encompasses
mobility. About 40% attended a special educational both characteristics of the student and characteristics
class that comprised students with motor disabilities. of the environment. When developing the SSI it was
None of the students was characterized as having hypothesized that by focusing the questions on the
mental retardation (for student characteristics, see student’s actual doing (i.e. the activities needed to
Table II). Nearly all students were recruited by complete a task in school), both the influences of the
occupational therapists (n /30) from across Sweden, actual school environment and the student’s abilities
and all students were clients of the occupational for the task would be captured. In accordance with
therapists. occupational therapy theory [15, 28, 29] the character-
istics of the student, as well as the task and the
environment in which the task was carried out, would
Procedure influence successful participation in school. The
Forty-eight students attending specially adapted upper literature review and qualitative interviews with stu-
secondary schools were assessed by the SSI 1.0, and 39 dents [19] made it clear that tasks that were recurrent,
students attending regular schools at all different complex, and required both gross and fine motor
levels were assessed by the SSI 1.1. The SSI interview abilities should be the most challenging for students
was carried out at each student’s school. In accor- with physical disabilities [30
/32]. If these tasks were
combined with environmental demands such as time
Table II. Characteristics of the students requirements [33], and/or demanding transfer between
different localities, the challenge for students with
Total
physical disabilities would increase [32, 34, 35]. There-
Gender: n% fore, taking breaks, accessing the localities, going to
Boys 49 (56) art, gym and/or music, and getting around the class-
Girls 38 (44)
room were hypothesized to be challenging items for
Compulsory basic school: most students with physical disabilities. The items of
Junior level 2 (3)
speaking and interacting with staff, conversely, were
Intermediate level 18 (20)
Senior level 17 (20) hypothesized to be the least challenging. First, de-
Upper secondary school 50 (57) creased ability to speak and/or interact with staff are
Educational setting: not typical problems for most students with physical
Regular classroom 54 (62) disabilities [31]. Second, these items (activities) are not
Special educational classroom 33 (38)
heavily dependent on the environmental demands
Diagnosis: mentioned above. Each item is scored using a rating
Cerebral palsy 36 ( 42)
scale. After a discussion with the therapist, the student
Spina bifida 15 (17)
Muscle diseases 9 (10) (who knows his/her own characteristics and has
Arthritis 6 (7) experience of the school environment) rates how she/
Other diseases 21 (24) he perceives that the school environment fits her/his
Transport: characteristics. The three-step rating scale is as fol-
Walkinga 38 (44) lows: a score of 3 when the student perceives a perfect
Using a manual wheelchair 28 (32) fit and no adjustments are needed, a score of 2 when
Using a powered wheel chair 21 (24)
the student perceives a good fit because needed
a
Some of these students used a rollator and some occasion- adjustments are satisfactorily met, and a score of 1
ally used a manual wheelchair. when the student perceives no fit because needed
174 H. Hemmingsson et al.
adjustments are not met. In addition, a written
explanation of any environmental adjustment is pro-
vided on the form. Being a client-centred assessment,
it is the student who makes the final decision about
whether any new adjustments in school are needed and
thus whether any occupational therapy intervention is
indicated or not.
The overall frequency distribution of the ratings
scores were as follows: the rating score 3 (no adjust-
ments needed) was used in 45% of the individual
responses, rating score 2 (need for adjustments met) in
36% and the rating score 1 (need for environmental
adjustments not met) in 19% of the individual
responses.
Rasch measurement analysis
In order to conduct the analysis, the SSI’s ordinal data
from the 87 participants were entered into the Rasch
measurement model computer software program
Minifac version 3.4 [36]. The computer program
generates item difficulty calibrations and person
ability measures and generates goodness-of -fit statis-
tics used to estimate whether the items and persons
included in the SSI fit the assertions of the model [20,
21, 23]. The assertions specifically made for SSI before
testing the assessment’s psychometric properties with
Rasch measurement analyses were as follows: (a) the
higher the level of student
/environment fit, the more
likely the student will have higher scores for all items;
(b) easy items are more likely to be easy for all
students with physical disabilities than are more
challenging items.
The item difficulty calibrations, expressed in logits
(log-odds probability units), indicate the difficulty of
the items. An item with a higher calibration value is
considered to be harder for all students compared with
any item with a lower calibration value. The person
ability measure, also expressed in logits, is the
estimated location of that person on the same line
that has been defined by the item difficulty calibra-
tions.
The computer program usually reports two types of
fit statistics: infit and outfit MnSq and z statistics. The
mean square (MnSq) and z statistics are goodness-of-
fit statistics (indicating the relation between the
expected and observed responses) that enable evalua-
tion of the extent to which the data fit the assertions of
the Rasch measurement model. When item fit statistics
are acceptable it indicates that the scale can be judged
to be unidimensional. When person-fit statistics are
acceptable, they provide evidence of valid measures of
persons [20, 24].
The criteria for acceptable goodness-of-fit to the
two-facet Rasch measurement model for this study
were set at infit MnSq value 5/1.4 with an associated
z value 5/2 [26, 37]. It is generally expected that 5% of
the items and persons will fail to meet this criteria by
chance at z 5/2. A test is therefore usually considered
unidimensional when 95% of the items fit the Rasch
measurement model [20, 25]. Since the SSI has only 14
items the goodness-of-fit criterion for the SSI items
was set as no more than one misfitting item. In a
corresponding way person response validity is sup-
ported if 95% of the students demonstrated expected
response patterns, i.e. according to characteristics of
the student and the environment, passing easy items
and failing challenging items.
Low infit values, in this study MnSq values that are
5/0.5 and z value 5/ /2, were also of some interest in
this analysis as these values indicate less variability in
the data than the Rasch model predicts, i.e. items do
not differ between people, or that the people being
measured are too much alike in respect of the variable
of interest [20].
RESULTS
Overall, the results provided evidence of validity of the
SSI when used to evaluate a heterogeneous group of
students with physical disabilities. The analysis re-
vealed that all items had acceptable infit MnSq and z
values. While all items demonstrated acceptable good-
ness-of-fit to the Rasch measurements model, the
results suggested preliminary overall scale validity of
the SSI supporting construct validity of the SSI. The
item separation was 2.33, meaning that the SSI
separated the items into three different difficulty
strata. Table III shows item hierarchy, SE, and infit
and outfit MnSq and z values.
It was also concluded that one of the items,
‘‘Getting assistance’’, had an infit MnSq and z below
the recommended values, indicating less variance that
was expressed as similar scores across most persons.
Further analysis revealed that within this specific item
the rating score 2 (needs for adjustments met) was
used by most students indicating that the schools had
provided the students with appropriate assistance.
Concerning the item hierarchy in the SSI, as
hypothesized the analysis demonstrated that ‘‘Taking
breaks’’ and ‘‘Assessing the localities’’ were the most
challenging items for students with physical disabil-
ities. Likewise, ‘‘Speaking’’ and ‘‘Interacting with
staff’’ were the least challenging activity items (see
Table IIII). Sports activities, however, which were
hypothesized to be one of the most challenging items,
were found to be an averagely challenging item.
Figure 1 shows the distribution of the items and the
students. The range of the student
/environment fit
measures is not fully covered by the range of the item
 Validity of the school setting interview 175

Table III. Item Measurement Report

Real measure SE Infit Outfit

Items MnSq z Std MnSq z Std

Taking breaks 0.68 0.26 1.1 0 1.1 0
Accessing the school 0.62 0.28 1.4 1 1.4 1
The classrooma 0.58 0.18 1.2 1 1.2 1
Writing 0.53 0.18 0.9 /1 1.0 0
Examinationsa 0.40 0.17 1.1 0 1.1 0
Getting assistance 0.19 0.24 0.5 /4 0.5 /4
Fieldtripsa 0.10 0.19 0.8 /1 0.9 /1
Gym and/or musicsa 0.08 0.18 0.9 0 1.1 0
Mathematicsa /0.09 0.19 1.1 0 1.1 0
Homeworka /0.09 0.18 0.9 0 1.0 0
Reading /0.12 0.20 0.7 /2 0.7 /2
Rememberinga /0.71 0.22 1.3 1 1.5 2
Interacting with staff /0.81 0.38 1.4 1 1.5 1
Speaking /1.35 0.25 1.3 1 1.1 0
a
Note. For full name of the items see Table I.
Separation 2.33. Mean SE 0.22.

difficulty calibrations. Specifically, items to differenti-
ate between the most able students (the students at the
top of the line) are lacking, indicating that the items
were relatively easy for the students included in the
study.
Furthermore, the results suggest that when the SSI
was used to evaluate students with physical disabilities
of varying ages who are attending different school
environments (i.e. special versus regular classes),
students’ need for adjustments are consistent with
the Rasch measurement model. The analysis revealed
that 5 of the 87 students demonstrated unacceptably
high infit MnSq and z values in respect of the Rasch
measurement model. Since 94% of the students’
response patterns demonstrated acceptable goodness-
of-fit to the Rasch measurements model, the results
indicated acceptable overall person response validity.
DISCUSSION
The results support evidence of construct validity of
the SSI in terms of scale validity. According to the infit
statistics the items included in the SSI formed a
unidimensional construct. Furthermore, the estab-
lished order of the difficulty of the items was shown
to be in acceptable congruence with the theoretical
basis for item development.
A very satisfactory result, in respect of psychometric
properties, was that even though the students included
were a heterogeneous group of students with regard to
diagnosis, age, and type of educational participation
most students’ response patterns were consistent with
the assertions used in the Rasch measurement model.
Nevertheless, the item-student map (Fig. 1) demon-
strated that most items were relatively easy for the
students evaluated in the study. Currently, the SSI
encompasses only 14 items, which may be too few to
accurately separate students into varying levels of
student
/environment fit. Hence, adding more items
that are also more challenging would probably in-
crease the separation and make the measurement of
students more precise and thereby strengthen the
psychometric properties of the assessment [20]. The
design of new harder items needs careful consideration
and is one of the challenges in further development
and improvement of the SSI.
With regard to the development of the SSI the
present study answers the question as to whether or
not the items included in the SSI form a unidimen-
sional construct. A question that remains to investi-
gate is whether or not the four-step rating scale in the
current SSI 2.0 has any advantages compared with the
three-step rating scale in SSI versions 1.0 and 1.1. For
example, it is possible that the four-step rating scale
increases the separation of students. Further validity
studies are needed to gain insight into this issue.
It was noted that the item ‘‘Getting assistance’’
demonstrated infit MnSq and z values below the
recommended value (see Table III), indicating too
little variability in the sample on the specific item [20].
Very interestingly, however, further analysis revealed
that the lack of variation in the scoring was a result of
environmental circumstances. In fact, the schools had
most often met the students’ need for assistance. This
finding is supported by Paulsson & Fasth [38], who
found that two-thirds of the students with disabilities
have access to an assistant in Swedish schools. Thus, in
the SSI, a low mean square might be an indicator of
good student
/environment fit if the lack of variability
across scores is a result of schools most often having
176 H. Hemmingsson et al.
Fig. 1. Student-item map showing the range of the student
/
environment fit measures and the range of the item difficulty
measures.
met the student’s needs for adjustment within this
specific item. Bond & Fox [20] suggest excluding items
with low goodness-of-fit, as they do not differentiate
between people. Since the SSI is internationally used
[15, 27] and not all countries have laws that easily give
students with disabilities access to a personal assistant
in school, the low infit value for the item ‘‘Getting
assistance’’ might be adjusted when the analysis
includes data from different countries. For that reason,
decisions regarding excluding the item ‘‘Getting assis-
tance’’ have to be based on a larger international
sample.
A limitation with the study is that data have been
collected in a specific cultural context (Sweden), which
in turn may have influenced the distribution of the
scoring. The relatively low proportion of unmet needs
(19%) found in this sample may partly be because all
students were currently clients of occupational thera-
pists. The relatively high proportion of met needs
(36%) furthermore indicates that school had success-
fully included students with disabilities according to
the laws and regulations [4, 39]. Therefore, evaluating
the SSI in another cultural context where schools do
not actively strive to include students with disabilities
and where students do not have access to school-based
occupational therapy services may result in a quite
different distribution of the rating scores. Further
validity studies of the SSI across different cultural
contexts are necessary to obtain insight into these
issues.
The item hierarchy revealed by the Rasch measure-
ment analysis showed that the item ‘‘Going to gym art
and/or music’’, which was hypothesized to be one of
the most challenging items, was an averagely challen-
ging item. One explanation may be the client-centred
scoring procedure in the SSI that results in an item
hierarchy based on the student’s priorities concerning
the areas where he/she finds adjustments most urgent
and not only where most problems are apparent. In
this study it was revealed that although a lot of
students identified problems in participating in sport,
several did not want any adjustments. From the
student’s perspective, a preferable solution sometimes
might be to be excluded from sports lessons [40]. The
item hierarchy of the SSI has clinical relevance since it
may guide occupational therapists’ priorities concern-
ing interventions in school for students with physical
disabilities. Based on the results in the present study,
occupational therapy interventions that increase par-
ticipation during break activities, accessing localities,
getting around the classroom, and writing should be
prioritized in order to support inclusion of students
with physical disabilities in regular schools.
Finally, some results that have implications for
client-centred assessments will be discussed. The
frequency of ‘‘no need for adjustments’’ (45%) in
relation to ‘‘needs for adjustment met’’ seems suspi-
ciously high when considering distribution of students’
diagnoses, the high attendance in special educational
classrooms, and that more than 50% of the students
used a wheelchair for transport. Closer analyses of
students’ response patterns suggest that the high
proportion of the rating score 3 (no needs for

adjustment) may be a result of the occupational
therapists’ ambiguity toward the client-centred ap-
proach utilized in the SSI. For example, some thera-
pists understood the client-centred approach as being
that the student herself or himself should estimate
whether needs for adjustment were already being met
(rating score 2). In fact, this estimation will be made
after discussion with the therapist. The estimate of
whether an adjustment had already been made has to
be considered in light of one’s inability to objectively
analyse environments that one is already a part of [41].
Lawton [41] and Rogers [42] among others stress that,
generally, people go about their everyday activities
with minimal awareness of their environments. As
long as a person’s capacity and the environmental
demands are balanced (as they may be if the environ-
ment is already adjusted) people do not scrutinize
their environment but rather experience the features
and the structures as natural and ‘‘normal’’ [41
/43].
In this light, some of the adjustments available in
school may be invisible to the students with disabilities
and consequently the students would then report that
they did not have any needs for adjustments [27]. In
reality, schools may already have successfully met
needs for the adjustments. This finding highlights the
need for a manual that gives more detailed informa-
tion of the rating procedure, how to differentiate
between the rating scores of each item, and how to
use the client-centred approach in the rating process.
In conclusion, this study supported evidence of
construct validity of the SSI. The analysis was also
helpful in revealing aspects of the SSI that needed
improvement. A few considerations for further devel-
opment of the SSI are warranted. First, the SSI needs
new items that also are more challenging to become a
more precise measurement of the level of student
/
environment fit. Second, the existing manual needs
to be further refined to make the scoring procedure
more precise. Third, further evidence of validity
should be evaluated in larger samples from different
cultural contexts. In addition, the results from this
study have implications for client-centred assessments
in general as well as occupational therapist priorities
concerning interventions in the school setting.
REFERENCES
1. Kalscheur JA. Benefits of the Americans With Disabil-
ities 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].
Validity of the school setting interview 177
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 class-
room 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 prac-
tice. 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 Skol-
miljön [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. Lon-
don: 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 perfor-
mance. 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.
178 H. Hemmingsson et al.
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 Assess-
ment. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51(11): 1203
/14.
26. Wright B, Linacre J. Reasonable mean-square fit statis-
tics. Rasch Measurement Transactions 1994; 8: 370.
27. Hemmingsson H. Student
/environment fit for students
with physical disabilities. Doctoral dissertation. Stock-
holm: Karolinska Institutet, 2002.
28. Canadian Association of Occupational therapists. En-
abling 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 rör-
elsehinder, 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.sp-
c.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 rörelsehin-
drade 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 pre-
requisites 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 disabil-
ity: a sociological introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press,
2000.
Address for correspondence :
Helena Hemmingsson
Karolinska Institutet
Neurotec Institution
Department of Occupational Therapy
Fack 232 00
SE-141 83 Huddinge, Sweden
Tel: /46 8 52483754
Fax: /46 8 345014
E-mail: Helena.Hemmingsson@neurotec.ki.se
View publication stats