CHAPTER 7 174 Convergent validity Hypotheses 1 and 2: Rank-correlation between COPM and PRPP Stage 1 Overall, the mean COPM performance parent-rated was 7.1 (SD 2.3) and the mean PRPP-Assessment mastery score (clinician rated) was 60% (SD 25). For the 20 child-rated activities, the mean COPM performance child-rated was 8.1 (SD 2.1) with a mean COPM performance parent-rated of 7.9 (SD 2.3) and a mean PRPP- Assessment mastery score (clinician rated) of 67.0% (SD 21). Rank-correlation between COPM-performance score (parent rated) and PRPP stage 1 mastery score resulted in a Kappa of 0.062. The correlation between the COPM-performance score (child rated) and the PRPP resulted in a Kappa of -0.045. In result, both of the hypotheses were rejected. Hypothesis 3: Child-recognition by Parents in the PRPP-Assessment Report Eleven out of thirteen parents (85%) said they recognized their child in the PRPP- Assessment report. Therefore, the hypothesis was accepted. One parent stated partial recognition and one parent reported no recognition (did not agree with the information contained in the report). The parents who stated partial recognition didn’t elaborate on the statement. The parents who stated no recognition were surprised that no major problems were observed in the Quadrant Perceive while the child had a visual impairment. They felt that great clinician knowledge about the child and his/her disabilities would have made a difference to the outcome of the PRPP-report. Structural Validity Hypothesis 4: Item fit Statistics Before examining fit, the overall analysis is presented in the Wright map in figure 3. It shows that all children scored relatively high on the PRPP-Assessment, that items and tasks varied in difficulty, and all raters conducted the assessment within expectations. The PRPP items applied most effectively by the children were recall facts on objects, body parts and task environment (“recognizes”), and to recall procedures about objects (“uses objects”). PRPP items focusing on evaluating task performance, which require a higher order metacognitive function, were less efficient (“questions”, “analyses”, “ judges”). The least efficient were applied cognitive strategy behaviors for ongoing programming and controlling of motor responses during task performance (“coordinates”, “calibrates”, “flows”, “adjusts”).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw