MALAYSIAN PARENTS’ FEEDBACK ON THREE PROXY-RATED ASSESSMENTS USED IN PEDIATRIC REHABILITATION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37268/mjphm/vol.18/no.1/art.316Keywords:
Parent-rated assessments, Malaysian children, Face validity, Cross-cultural relevancyAbstract
Assessing a child’s functional abilities and limitations can provide useful information for occupational therapists to develop individualised intervention plans. Usually paediatric assessments require parents to rate their child on different domains of health and functional performance. To do so, parents need to be able to understand the assessment content and instructions to rate their child accurately. The primary purpose of this study was to examine if parents in Malaysia understood the content and instructions of three assessments: the Sensory Profile Caregiver Questionnaire (SP), the Sensory Processing Measure Home Form (SPM) and the Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function Parent Form (BRIEF). The secondary purpose was to examine perceptions about the clarity and relevancy of each of the items in each assessment. Thirty parents, recruited using convenience sampling, completed a survey about the assessments. In general, the parents indicated no problems or only minor problems in understanding the content and instructions of all three assessments. The parents also provided comments to improve the clarity of the assessment items. Comments were primarily related to the terms or jargon language used. Elaborations of the terms or jargon were later provided based on the parents’ comments. All three assessments were identified as relevant to be used in the Malaysian population. The results suggest that all three assessments can be used by parents and are suitable to be implemented by occupational therapists working with children in Malaysia.
References
2. Case-Smith J, O'Brien JC. Occupational therapy for children. 6th ed. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby 2010.
3. Case-Smith J, O'Brien JC. Occupational therapy for children and adolescents. 7th ed. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby 2015.
4. Dunn W. The Sensory pro?le: User’s manual. San Antonio TX: Psychological Corporation 1999.
5. Parham LD, Ecker MA. Sensory processing measures: Home form. United States of America: Western Psychological Services 2007.
6. Gioia GA, Isquith PK, Guy SC, et al. Behavior rating inventory of executive function. Florida: Psychological Assessment Resource, Inc 1996.
7. Eiser C, Morse R. Can parents rate their child's health-related quality of life? Results of a systematic review. Qual Life Res 2001;10(4):347-57.
8. Hanna K, Rodger S. Towards family-centered practice in paediatric occupational therapy: A review of the literature on parent-therapist collaboration. Aust Occup Ther J 2002;49(1):14-24.
9. Wallen M, Doyle S. Performance indicators in paediatrics: The role of standardised assessments and goal setting. Aust Occup Ther J 1996;43(3-4):172-7.
10. Lai PSM. Validating instruments of measure : Is it really necessary? Malays Fam Physician 2013;8(1):2-4.
11. Yahya AS. Perkembangan pendidikan di Malaysia (Development of education in Malaysia). Pahang: PTS Publication Sdn. Bhd 2003.
12. Brainerd CJ. The stage question in cognitive-developmental theory. TheBehav Brain Sci 1978;1(2):173-213.
13. Caron KG, Schaaf RC, Benevides TW, et al. Cross-cultural comparison of sensory behaviors in children with autism.Am J Occup Ther 2012;66(5):77-88.
14. Liu KPY, Lee T, Yan A, et al. Use of interact short form as a tool to evaluate emotion of people with profound intellectual disabilities. J Intellect Disabil Res 2007;51(Pt 11):884-91.
15. Mackenzie L. Evaluation of the clinical utility of the Home Falls and Accidents Screening Tool (HOME FAST). Disabil Rehabil 2017; 39(15):1489-1501. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2016.1204015
16. Kayihan H, Akel BS, Salar S, et al. Development of a Turkish version of the sensory profile: Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation. Percept Mot Skills 2015;120(3):971-86.
17. Benjamin TA, Crasta JE, Suresh APC, et al. Sensory profile caregiver questionnaire: A Measure for sensory impairment among children with developmental disabilities in India. Indian J Pediatr 2014;81(2):183-6.
18. Huizinga M, Smidts DP. Age-related changes in executive function: A normative study with the Dutch version of the behavior rating inventory of executive function (BRIEF). Child Neuropsychol 2010;17(1):51-66.
19. Egeland J, Fallmyr O. Confirmatory factor analysis of the behavior rating inventory of executive function (BRIEF): Support for a distinction between emotional and behavioral regulation. Child Neuropsychol 2010;16(4):326-37.
20. Santos A, Ribeiro I, Miranda-Correia L. Assessing executive functions of Portuguese school-age students using the BRIEF. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2010;9:1251–5.
21. Roy A, Fournet N, Roulin J-L, et al. BRIEF: Inventaire d’évaluation comportementale des fonctions executives. Paris: Editions Hogrefe France 2012.
22. Roth RM, Erdodi LA, McCulloch LJ, et al. Much ado about norming: The behavior rating inventory of executive function.Child Neuropsychol 2015;22(2):225-33.
23. Hanapiah MF. English language and the language of development: A Malaysian perspective. Jurnal Kemanusiaan 2004;3:106-20.
24. Romli MH, Mackenzie L, Lovarini M, et al. Pilot study to investigate the feasibility of the home falls and accidents screening tool (HOME FAST) to identify older Malaysian people at risk of falls. BMJ Open 2016;6(8):e012048.
