Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.18064/JKASI.2019.17.2.041

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

Park, Min-kyoung (Dept, of Occupational Therapy, Graduate School Konyang University)
Kim, Hee (Dept. of Occupational Therapy, Konyang University)
Publication Information
The Journal of Korean Academy of Sensory Integration / v.17, no.2, 2019 , pp. 41-55 More about this Journal
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.
Keywords
content-validity; participation; school based occupational therapy; School Setting Interview (SSI);
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
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.   DOI
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   DOI
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.   DOI
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   DOI
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)   DOI
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   DOI
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   DOI
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.   DOI
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   DOI
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   DOI
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   DOI
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   DOI
17 Ellonen, N., & Poso, T. (2011). Children's experiences of completing a computer-based violence survey: Ethical implications. Children & Society, 25(6), 470-481.   DOI
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   DOI
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.   DOI
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   DOI
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   DOI
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.   DOI
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   DOI
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.   DOI
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   DOI
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   DOI
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   DOI
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   DOI
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   DOI
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   DOI
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   DOI