Pdms Fine Motor Scale Essay
Purpose of the study in your own words. The purpose of the study is to determine if the PDMS fine motor scale is reliable in evaluating delays in fine motor abilities of children between the ages of 2 and 5 years old. The study specifically looks at the interrater reliability.
Take away message from the article (no more than 3 sentences) The PDMS was found to have excellent interrater reliability for its fine motor scale, thus it would be okay to have two different examiners administer this assessment for the initial assessments and re-evaluation. The study looked at therapists with a wide range of experience and found that a therapist’s number of years of experience had no affect on the reliability for the PDMS. Overall, the study shows that the …show more content…
PDMS is reliable in planning treatment for children with various disabilities.
List two questions you have after reading the article. 1. The study looks at ages 2-5, how does the reliability for this assessment change when used with older children and infants?
2. How would the reliability differ in children with neurological impairments?
Self-Directed Reading Assignment
Assessment: BOT
Purpose of the study in your own words. The purpose of the study was to look at the effectiveness of using the BOT to both assess changes, and/or improvements over time, or for the descriptive purpose of seeing what a client can and cannot do when receiving OT services.
Take away message from the article (no more than 3 sentences) Although the BOT is a commonly used OT assessment, it still has limitations that an occupational therapist needs to take into account prior to administration.
Interrater reliability for this assessment has yet to be established, thus it may be more reliable for the same examiner to conduct the assessment the first time, as well as for the re-evaluation of the child. It is recommended that for this assessment the standard scores be used for diagnosis, and raw scores for evaluative purposes to get your best results.
List two questions you have after reading the article. 1. How has the BOT become such a widely used assessment without having its reliability completely established? Even if it has been proven to work, this seems to be a huge weakness of the assessment, and makes me question if this would be greatly limiting to the examiner or not.
2. How can the assessment only be valid if re-administered within 3-4 weeks, when progress may only be seen if the rate of progress is quicker than normal maturation? If the progress isn’t quicker than 3-4 weeks, but the client is still progressing, then how would we be able to assess this progress in the time
allowed?
Take away message from the article (no more than 3 sentences) The PDMS was found to have excellent interrater reliability for its fine motor scale, thus it would be okay to have two different examiners administer this assessment for the initial assessments and re-evaluation. The study looked at therapists with a wide range of experience and found that a therapist’s number of years of experience had no affect on the reliability for the PDMS. Overall, the study shows that the …show more content…
PDMS is reliable in planning treatment for children with various disabilities.
List two questions you have after reading the article. 1. The study looks at ages 2-5, how does the reliability for this assessment change when used with older children and infants?
2. How would the reliability differ in children with neurological impairments?
Self-Directed Reading Assignment
Assessment: BOT
Purpose of the study in your own words. The purpose of the study was to look at the effectiveness of using the BOT to both assess changes, and/or improvements over time, or for the descriptive purpose of seeing what a client can and cannot do when receiving OT services.
Take away message from the article (no more than 3 sentences) Although the BOT is a commonly used OT assessment, it still has limitations that an occupational therapist needs to take into account prior to administration.
Interrater reliability for this assessment has yet to be established, thus it may be more reliable for the same examiner to conduct the assessment the first time, as well as for the re-evaluation of the child. It is recommended that for this assessment the standard scores be used for diagnosis, and raw scores for evaluative purposes to get your best results.
List two questions you have after reading the article. 1. How has the BOT become such a widely used assessment without having its reliability completely established? Even if it has been proven to work, this seems to be a huge weakness of the assessment, and makes me question if this would be greatly limiting to the examiner or not.
2. How can the assessment only be valid if re-administered within 3-4 weeks, when progress may only be seen if the rate of progress is quicker than normal maturation? If the progress isn’t quicker than 3-4 weeks, but the client is still progressing, then how would we be able to assess this progress in the time
allowed?