The Journal of Korean Academy of Sensory Integration (대한감각통합치료학회지)

Korean Academy of Sensory Integration (대한감각통합치료학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Translation and Content: Validity Verification Study of the Korean Version of the School Setting Interview (K-SSI)

School Setting Interview(SSI)의 번안 및 내용타당도 검증

  • Park, Min-kyoung (Dept, of Occupational Therapy, Graduate School Konyang University) ;
  • Kim, Hee (Dept. of Occupational Therapy, Konyang University)
  • 박민경 (건양대학교 의과학대학 작업치료학과) ;
  • 김희 (건양대학교 작업치료학과)
  • Received : 2019.07.08
  • Accepted : 2019.09.20
  • Published : 2019.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective : This study was conducted to validate the content validity of the Korean version of the school setting interview (SSI) that assesses the adequacy of school environments for students aged 9-19. Methods : The Korean version of the SSI, which was completed via a translation-reverse translation process, was verified by conducting a questionnaire on category suitability two times with 35 experts. Results : The content validity index (CVI) for the entire K-SSI tool was .90 in the first test. The "Maps and diagrams" measurement in reading items and the "Taking a shower" measurement in sports activities were both below .75. A second round of verification was conducted after the CVI was modified. As a result, the secondary verification CVI results were further raised to .93. Conclusion : This study confirmed that the K-SSI contains items that are appropriate to Korean culture; it has been proven to have high content validity. Future continuous research and clinical use are required to study the validity and reliability of the K-SSI. Further, this tool should also be applied to students with diverse disabilities who face difficulties in school settings.

목적 : 본 연구는 9-19세의 학생과 학교 환경과의 적합성을 평가하는 학교 환경 인터뷰(School Setting Interview; SSI)를 한국어로 번안하고 내용타당도를 검증하기 위해 실시하였다. 연구방법 : 번역-역번역의 과정을 거쳐 완성된 한국판 SSI를 전문가 집단 35명에게 항목 적합성에 대한 설문을 총 2회 실시하여 내용타당도를 검증하였다. 연구결과 : K-SSI(Korean-School Setting Interview) 도구 전체의 내용타당도 지수(Content Validity Index; CVI)는 1차 검증에서 .90으로 나타났고, 1차 검증에서 .75 이하로 나온 항목들인 읽기 항목의 '지도와 도표', 스포츠 활동하기 항목의 '샤워하기'에 대해서 수정을 거쳐 2차 검증을 하였다. 그 결과 2차 검증은 .93로 더 상승된 결과를 보였다. 결론 : K-SSI는 국내문화에 부적합한 항목이 없음을 확인하였으며 높은 내용타당도를 가진 평가도구임이 증명되었다. 앞으로의 연구에서는 타당도와 신뢰도 연구가 진행되어야 하며, 실질적으로 학교 환경에서 어려움을 겪는 학생들에게 적용하는 연구와 같이 임상에서의 지속적인 활용이 이루어져야한다.

Keywords

References

  1. National Institute of Special Education. (2009). The screening.diagnosis test guideline of children with special education. Seoul, Korea: National Institute of Special Education.
  2. American Occupational Therapy Association. (1999). Occupational therapy service for children and youth under the individuals with disabilities education act (2nd ed.). Bethesda, MD: Author.
  3. American Occupational Therapy Association. (2002). Occupational therapy practice framework: Domain and process. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56(6), 609-639. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.56.6.609
  4. American Occupational Therapy Association. (2008). Occupational therapy practice framework: Domain and process (2nd ed.). American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62(6), 625-683. http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.62.6.625
  5. Barnes, K. J., Beck, A. J., Vogel, K. A., Grice, K. O., & Murphy, D. (2003). Perceptions regarding school-based occupational therapy for children with emotional disturbances. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57(3), 337-341. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.57.3.337
  6. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self- report measures. Spine, 25, 3186-3191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
  7. Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists. (2002). Enabling occupation: An occupational therapy perspective. Ottawa, ON: CAOT Publications.
  8. Case-Smith, J., & Holland, T. (2009). Making decisions about service delivery in early childhood programs. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40(4), 416-423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2009/08-0023)
  9. Chung, V., Wong, E., & Griffiths, S. (2007). Content validity of the integrative medicine attitude questionnaire: Perspectives of a Hong Kong Chinese expert panel. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 13(5), 563-570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/acm.2007.6222
  10. Chien, C. W., Rodger, S., Copley, J., & Skorka, K. (2014). Comparative content review of children's participation measures using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health-Children and Youth. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 95(1), 141-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2013.06.027
  11. Choi, Y. J., & Jung, M. Ye. (2015). Systematic review on the assessment tool of school participation with elementary school children. Journal of Special Education & Rehabilitation Science, 54(3), 311-325. https://doi.org/10.15870/jsers.2015.09.54.3.311
  12. Clark, G. F., Polichino, J., & Jackson, L. (2004). Occupational therapy services in early intervention and school-based programs. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 58(6), 681-685. http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.58.6.681
  13. Coster, W. (1998). Occupational-centered assessment of children. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52(5), 337-344. http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.52.5.337
  14. Dunn, W. (1998). Person-centered and contextually relevant evaluation. In J. Hinojosa & P. Kramer (Eds.), Evaluation: Obtaining and interpreting data. Bethesda, MD: AOTA Press
  15. Doubt, L., & McColl, M. A. (2003). A secondary guy: Physically disabled teenagers in secondary schools. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 70(3), 139-151. http://dx. doi.org/10.1177/000841740307000303
  16. Egilson, S. T., & Traustadottir, R. (2009). Participation of students with physical disabilities in the school environment. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63 (3), 264-272. http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.63.3.264
  17. Ellonen, N., & Poso, T. (2011). Children's experiences of completing a computer-based violence survey: Ethical implications. Children & Society, 25(6), 470-481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-0860.2010.00292.x
  18. Griswold, L. A. (1994). Ethnographic analysis: A study of classroom environments. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 48(5), 397-402. http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.48.5.397
  19. Haley, A. M., Ludlow, L. H., Coster, W. J., & Langmuir, L. (2002). Self-reporting of capable versus typical functional activity performance in community-dwelling older adults: Is there a difference?. Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy, 25(1), 3-10. https://doi.org/10.1519/00139143-200225010-00002
  20. Hauksdóttir, D., & Júlíusdóttir, F. (2007). Students with psychosocial problems and the school environment. Bachelor's thesis, University of Akureyri, Akureyri.
  21. Hemmingsson, H. (1998). The school setting interview. Stockholm: Forbundet Sveriges arbetsterapeuters forlagsservice.
  22. Hemmingsson, H., Kottorp, A., & Bernspang, B. (2004). Validity of the school setting interview: An assessment of the student/ environment fit. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 11, 171-178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/11038120410020683
  23. Hemmingsson, H., Egilson, S. T., Hoffman. O., & Kielhofner, G. (2005). The school setting interview (SSI) (3.0 ed.). Nacka: Swedish Association of Occupational Therapists.
  24. Hemmingsson, H., & Penman, M. (2010). Making children's voices visible. Kairaranga, 11(1), 45-49.
  25. Hemmingsson, H., Egilson, S., Lidstrom, H., & Kielhofner, G. (2014). The school setting interview (SSI), version 3.1. Swedish Association of Occupational Therapists: Nacka.
  26. Hong, S. Y., Chang, M. Y., & Kim, K. M. (2013). Analysis of participation of students with intellectual disabilities in a school environment using the PEO Model. Journal of Korean Society of Occupational Therapy, 21(1), 95-105.
  27. Hoffman, O. R., Hemmingsson, H., & Kielhofner, G. (2000). The School Setting Interview: A users manual. Chicago: University of Illinois, Department of Occupational Therapy.
  28. Kellegrew, D. H., & Allen, D. (1996). Occupational therapy in full-inclusion classrooms: A case study from the Moorpark Model. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 50(9), 718-724. http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.50.9.718
  29. Kielhofner, G. (2002). A model of human occupation: Theory and application (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
  30. Kristjansson, E. A., Desrochers, A., & Zumbo, B. (2003). Translating and adapting measurement instruments for cross-linguistic and crosscultural research: A guide for practitioners. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 35(2), 127-142.
  31. Kreider, C. M., Bendixen, R. M., Huang, Y. Y., & Lim, Y. (2014). Review of occupational therapy intervention research in the practice area of children and youth 2009-2013. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68(2), 61-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2014.011114.
  32. Law, M., & Dunn, W. (1993). Perspectives on understanding and changing the environments of children with disabilities. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 13, 1-17.
  33. Law, M., & Baptiste, J. S., & Mills, J. (1995). Clientcentred practice: What does it mean and does it make a difference? Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62(5), 250-257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000841749506200504
  34. Lee, S. J., Kim, H. J., & Kam, K. Y. (2019). Trends in the use of occupational therapy evaluation tools for special education students in school environment. Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 23(1), 75-89. https://doi.org/10.34262/kadd.2019.23.1.75
  35. Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382-385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017
  36. Muhlenhaupt, M. (2003). Evidence-based practice in the schools: How can we begin?. Israel Journal of Occupational Therapy, 12, 19-35.
  37. Mu, K., & Royeen, C. (2004). Facilitating participation of students with severe disabilities: Aligning school-based occupational therapy practice with best practices in severe disabilities. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 24(3), 5-21. http://dx.doi. org/10.1300/J006v24n03_02
  38. Orr, C., & Schkade, J. (1997). The impact of the classroom environment on defining function in school-based practice. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 51(1), 64-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.51.1.64
  39. Rens, L., & Joosten, A. (2014). Investigating the experiences in a school-based occupational therapy program to inform community-based paediatric occupational therapy practice. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 61 (3), 148-158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1440-1630.12093
  40. Richardson, P. K. (2002). The school as social context: Social interaction patterns of children with physical disabilities. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56(3), 296-304. http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.56.3.296
  41. Schwartz, A., Finkelstein, J., & Orentlicher, M. L. (2003). School-based occupational therapy: The U.S. perspective. Israel Journal of Occupational Therapy, 12(1), 3-17.
  42. Shin, H. G.(2013). Development of a measurement for quality of life of higher grade primary school children. Doctoral dissertation, Yonsei University, Seoul.
  43. Sturgess, J., Rodger, S., & Ozanne, A. (2002). A review of the use of self-report assessment with young children. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 65, 8-16.
  44. Tam, C., Teachman, G., & Wright, V. (2008). Pediatric application of individualised client- centred outcome measures: A literature review. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 71, 286-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 030802260807100706
  45. Thoresen, P. B. (2014). The effects of interviewing on the comfort levels of children with varying levels of sensitivity to questions that touch on their felt security and perceptions of being in kinship care: A Pilot Study. Doctoral dissertation, University of Canterbury, Christchurch.
  46. Volk, G. (1998). Occupational therapy assessment of the school environment. A survey regarding the applicability of the School Setting Interview for students with neuropsychiatric syndromes. Bachelor's thesis, Stockholm University, Stockholm.
  47. Wehmeyer, M. L., & Schalock, R. L. (2001). Selfdetermination and quality of life: Implications for special education services and supports. Focus on Exceptional Children, 33, 1-16.
  48. Yngve, M., Munkholm, M., Lidstrom, H., Hemmingsson, H., & Ekbladh, E. (2018). Validity of the school setting interview for students with special educational needs in regular high school - a Rasch analysis. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 16(12), 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0830-6