Category Archives: Assessments

Explore therapeutic and educational assessments designed to evaluate a wide range of skills, including motor, cognitive, sensory, social-emotional, and developmental functioning. These tools help professionals tailor treatment plans for individuals of all ages and abilities.

Transition Planning Inventory-3 Overview & Review

Assessments, Life Skills and Transition Planning, ,
The Transition Planning Inventory - Third Edition

The Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) of 1990 instituted a transition mandate for students receiving special education services.  IDEA 2004 expanded on this to include planning across all areas including community participation, independent living, and continuing education. The Transition Planning Inventory, now in its 3rd edition, was designed to address these mandates. As described in the TPI-3 Administration and Resource Guide, the primary purpose of the TPI-3 is “to assess the transition needs, strengths, preferences, and interest of students at the secondary level” (Patton & Clark, 2021, 14*)   The domains covered within the TPI-3 are working, learning, & living. 

Information is gathered from:

Core Rating Forms 

  • Three forms (Student, Home, and School) Each form contains 57 statements related to transition planning.
  • Each form is organized according to 11 planning areas; Career Choice & Planning, Employment Knowledge & Skills, Post Secondary Training/ Education, Functional Communication, Self Determination, Independent Living, Personal Money Management, Community Involvement & Usage, Leisure and Recreation, Health, & Social/Interpersonal Relationships.

Preference &  Interest Forms

  • Intended to gather information about a students preference and interest
  • Two versions available; basic (intended to be used early in the transition process) and advanced (intendended to be administered when a student is close to leaving school).
  • An optional Home Preference and Interest Form is also available.

Information is compiled through:

Profile & Further Assessment Recommendation Form

  • All information is summarized on this form consisting of 6 sections; 1.) general information, 2.) likely setting for postsecondary outcomes, 3.) student’s preference, interests, and strengths, 4.) results of other assessments, 5.) student profile, 6.) further assessment and information.

Summary of Performance Data

  • The purpose of this form is to give users a quick and easy way to compile the information required by IDEA into a Summary of Performance (SOP) document.  

Overall, the TPI-3 provides a comprehensive means to gather key information from all major players in order to create and implement a meaningful transition plan.

Quick Facts

Age Range: 14-21

Administration Time:
Student Rating Form:

  • 15-20 minutes to complete independently
  • 25-30 minutes if administered orally and/or with support.

The Home Core Rating:

  • 15-20 minutes to complete independently
  • 25-30 minutes if administered orally and/or with support.
  • The School Rating Form 10-12 minutes

Student Performance & Interest Form:

  • 10 to 15 minutes to complete independently
  • 20-25 minutes if administered orally and/or with guidance.

Profile & Further Assessment Recommendation Form

  • 10-15 minutes

Publication Year: 2021

Authors:
James R. Patton
Gary M. Clark

Administration Type: Individual

Scoring: Inventory rated on a scale from 0 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)

*Patton, J. R., & Clark, G. M. (2021). Transition Planning Inventory Administration and Resource Guide (3rd ed.). Pro-Ed.

ASH vs ASPS: Comparing Sensory Assessment Tools

Assessments, Events & Conferences, Sensory, Therapist Resources,
Teresa A. May-Benson, ScD, OTR/L, FAOTA,

Teresa A. May-Benson, ScD, OTR/L, FAOTA, is a pillar in the field of sensory processing disorder (SPD). She is the Executive Director of the Spiral Foundation (Sensory Processing Institute for Research and Learning), whose stated mission is “To
Increase Understanding and Acceptance of Sensory Integration and Sensory Processing Dysfunction through Education and Research.” Dr. May-Benson is an esteemed educator and researcher as well as a clinician at OTA The Koomar Center in Massachusetts. At today’s Saturday seminar entitled: ASHs to A/ASPs: Comparison of Assessment Tools for Adolescents and Adults with Sensory Processing Disorder, she provided a comprehensive review of available assessments for the adolescent and adult populations with accompanying research, as well as a detailed overview of her tool, Adult/Adolescent Sensory History (ASH), published in 2015.

Dr. May-Benson reviewed research studies conducted on adults with SPD and concluded that there is a paucity of research and more is needed. She outlined what we currently know about SPD in adults, including how it impacts all aspects a person’s life. A poignant example she described was a mother who is sensory defensive who had difficulty maintaining a family relationship with her child who is a sensory seeker. The challenge for therapists during the process of assessment is to explore what things are affecting the person’s ability to engage in life activities. Dr. May-Benson also cited the problem of an apartment dweller who is auditory defensive and lives in an apartment in between two apartments. Moving to an apartment end unit that has extra insulation from noise may be a good solution to explore with this client. These examples demonstrate the value of an interview as part of the assessment process because it helps the therapist gather information about the individual’s daily life experience, along with formal screening and direct assessment.

There are a number of tools available to assess SPD that Dr. May-Benson reviewed, discussing their positive aspects and their limitations. She cautioned that screening tools should be used only to determine whether a sensory-based problem is present that warrants further testing.

According to the Spiral Foundation, “The Adult/Adolescent Sensory History is designed as a self-report assessment of sensory and motor behaviors commonly observed in individuals with difficulties processing and integrating sensory information. The purpose of this assessment is to help identify adults and adolescents ages 13 to 95 who experience problems in sensory processing and integration as well as assist therapists in clinical reasoning when creating interventions for these individuals. Based on the conceptual model of sensory processing and sensory integration proposed by A. Jean Ayres, this measure is designed to identify difficulties in five key areas of functioning: Sensory Discrimination, Sensory Modulation, Postural-Ocular Skills, Praxis, and Social-Emotional Functioning.” The ASH has performed strongly on tests of reliability and validity. It is available at the Spiral Foundation www.thespiralfoundation.org This website offers many resources including webinars, courses, and free SPD education toolkits.

In her presentation, Dr. May-Benson provided the following implications for practice:

  • Assessment of adults with SPD is complex and should be comprehensive.
  • To determine sensory integration difficulties, assessment must include more than questionnaires.
  • Be aware that different measures emphasize different aspects of sensory
    integration; be aware that we may miss vital information if we use one
    measure over another.
  • Select measures with the particular client’s needs.
  • Recognize that all measures are not created equal: some measures can provide
    better functional performance information than others and others may
    provide better psychometrics than others.

We were honored to present Teresa May-Benson’s seminar to spotlight her diligent work over the past 15 years to develop the ASH, which is a comprehensive, valid, and reliable adolescent/adult assessment of SPD. Her research has illuminated the issues that clients with SPD as well as their families and practitioners, face. Her research is ongoing and crucial.

Here is a sample of positive reviews about Teresa’s seminar:

“Excellent overview of Sensory Assessment tools.” – Teri B., Occupational Therapist

“I would recommend this seminar to a colleague if they work with an
adolescent or adult population. The ASH appears to be a useful tool.” – Anonymous, Occupational Therapist

“Thank you for a well-organized and comprehensive seminar about the tools
available for adolescent and adults with SPD. Teresa’s new assessment
tool has great potential!” – Maria K., Occupational Therapist

Thank you, Teresa!

Filomena Connor, MS, OTR/L
December 15, 2018

Pediatric Occupation-Based Assessment: Enhancing Functional Evaluation

Assessments, Events & Conferences,
Margaret (Peggy) Morris, OTD, OTR/L, BCP, who presented her seminar, Pediatric Occupation-Based Assessment.

Therapro’s October 13th Saturday Seminar featured Margaret (Peggy) Morris, OTD, OTR/L, BCP, who presented her seminar, Pediatric Occupation-Based Assessment. Her review of a variety of pediatric assessment tools was comprehensive and enlightening.

Peggy has had a distinguished career as a pediatric occupational therapist, practicing in schools and private practice. Currently she is a faculty member in Tufts University’s Graduate Occupational Therapy Department. In addition, she is has presented workshops nationally and has been a Certified National Presenter for Handwriting without Tears.

Peggy contends that “occupational therapists have, at the heart and soul of their being, a focus on participation in meaningful occupations.” She distinguished between two assessment frameworks that current assessments occupy: the International Classification of Function (ICF) and OT Practice Framework, 3rd ed. (OTPF3). Interestingly, assessments that are in the ICF category may not be occupational therapist-designed, and focus on the assessment of body function and structures that may limit function. The assessments in the OTPF3 category are occupation-based tools that assess function in “wanted and needed” occupations, and are being developed or have been developed by occupational therapists. The occupation-based tools have the added advantage that they can be used to determine progress versus only improved scores. Peggy noted that the very first occupation-based tool that requires clinical reasoning was the School Function Assessment. It appears that the OTPF3 group includes the important feature of attaining the student’s view of what he/she would like to focus on, i.e. student’s goal. Peggy pointed out commonalities between the two assessment categories to be considered when selecting an assessment tool. She mentioned the GOAL, Goal Oriented Assessment of Life Skills and Miller Function and Participation Scales (M-FUN) as hybrid tools.

A number of assessment tools were discussed that have empirical data associated with them. An interesting study highlighted the tools that therapists choose. The Beery VMI and the BOT-2 were at the top of the list. The Beery is a “bottom up” assessment that looks at student factors like body structures and function. On the other hand, a “top down” assessment tool offers an occupation-based way to provide services. A highly recommended tool was the COPM, Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, which was designed as an outcome tool.

Peggy discussed making an important distinction between “clinical reasoning” and “contextual or environmental observation” when evaluating a student. Clinical reasoning tells what you observe, i.e. convergence of the eyes, whereas contextual/environmental observation refers to observation of function in the classroom. She suggested that in the therapist’s assessment report that contextual/environmental observations be listed and discussed as the first tool used in the assessment to highlight its importance.

To gradually shift our focus to occupation-based and participation-based measures for assessments, versus only performance-based measures, Peggy suggested we review assessment results with parents and teachers by discussing qualitative results first, and then the scores the child received. With more occupation-based tools emerging, we can provide more meaningful evaluation of a student’s school function, and plan therapy that is also meaningful to the student!

Take a look at some of the extremely positive comments from attendees:

“This presentation reminds me of why I became an OT! This brings back the
importance of connection & what is truly meaningful. Thank you.” – Tara G., Occupational Therapist

“It helped me to think more broadly about how to assess the students I work
with. It also helped to think about keeping the student’s desires in
perspective and a priority.” – Cindy M., COTA

“Fascinating to hear about new resources, (new/old?) ways to approach how we think and can change our practice! Thanks so much!” – Beth B., Occupational Therapist

“Well presented. Made me think about questions that I didn’t know I had.” – Trisha L., Occupational Therapist

“It brings our practice forward into a more function-based orientation by challenging old mindsets.” – Marion S., Occupational Therapist

Thank you, Peg!

Filomena Connor, MS, OTR/L
October 13, 2018