- Also known as:
- functional assessment
There are generally three types of methods for obtaining functional measures: (1) self-report methods, (2) structured performance rating methods, and (3) behavioral observations and situational assessment methods. Each method has its own unique use and characteristics.
Self-report methods
Self-report methods include checklists, rating scales, and inventories obtained directly from the individual (or from their medical proxy if needed). The individuals are often considered to be the best source for information about their ability to function. Thus, self-reports are an efficient and direct way of obtaining reliable information. In addition, they can cover a wide range of topics and content. However, they are also subject to problems of validity, since they are easily influenced by the desires of those who wish to appear disabled. For those reasons, self-reports form only a small part of eligibility decisions associated with legal disability determination.
Self-report methods are used mainly in health care settings and in national surveys. In the health care setting, self-reports are often supplemented with clinical evaluations and judgments, and their potential invalidity—due to “wishful” reporting—is thus less of an issue. Self-reporting is also used in national surveys, since it is the most-efficient and cost-effective way of finding out about an individual’s situation.
In some cases, another person, called a proxy, completes the self-report because the targeted individual may not be capable of reporting his own behaviour. Proxy reports are most useful when the questions do not address personal feelings, opinions, or hypothetical situations, because such questions lead to results that differ from the target individual’s.
Structured performance ratings
Structured performance ratings also include checklists, rating scales, and inventories but are completed by a trained evaluator to provide objective evidence of performance. Typically, such persons include a physician, therapist, nurse, vocational assessor, or other service provider. The sources of information about the target individual might include observations, interviews, case histories, and tests. However, that implies that structured performance ratings are retrospective rating scales that provide judgments about performance observed in the past. Although still subjective, structured performance ratings offer a more-objective method for assessing target individual performance, since the trained evaluator would have less incentive to skew the ratings.
The major limitation of structured performance ratings is the common context for making ratings. Evaluators may have insufficient information to arrive at a valid rating. That result could be due to ambiguous questions or bias. One way developers of such instruments confront that problem is to accept input only from evaluators who meet specified criteria—such as having known the targeted individual for a certain period of time or having observed the targeted individual in specific settings.
Behavioral observations and situational assessments
Behavioural observations and situational assessments include observations of target individuals performing in natural or artificial environments. Behavioral observations typically focus on performance in natural settings, such as the individual’s home, community, or workplace. Situational assessments are observations of performance in artificially constructed environments. Both methods provide a rich source of information but are also time-consuming and costly. Their major limitation is the breadth with which one can generalize performance to a broader range of environments in which the target individuals may find themselves. Another issue is that the episodic nature of some impairments does not lend well to these types of methods unless repeated trials can cover the length of time or period needed to obtain a complete picture of performance.
William D. Frey