Who Should do What to Whom? : Occupational Groups´Views on Special Needs

The overall aim of this thesis is to increase our knowledge of different occupational groups´ views on work with children in need of special support. This is explored in four separate studies. The first study investigates the views of occupational groups in preschools and schools in one municipality. A questionnaire was handed out to all personnel (N=1297) in the municipality in 2008 (72.5 % response rate). The second study explores the views of educational leaders (N=45) in the same municipality. Questionnaire # 2 was distributed in 2009. All the educational leaders responded to the questionnaire. The third study describes the views of different occupational groups concerning special educational needs coordinators´ (SENCOs) role and work. This was highlighted by comparing responses from questionnaire #1 and # 2. Responses concerning SENCOs´ work were also added using a third questionnaire. This questionnaire was handed out in 2006 to chief education officers (N=290) in all municipalities in Sweden. The response rate was 90.3%. Finally, the fourth study presents five head teachers´ descriptions of their work with special needs issues. Study four was a follow-up study of questionnaire # 2. These head teachers were selected because of their inclusive values and because they seemed to be effective according to certain criteria. They were interviewed in January 2012. The results reveal a number of interesting findings. For example, there are both similar and different views among the occupational groups concerning work with children in need of special support. A majority of the respondents in all groups state that children´s individual deficiencies is one common reason why children need special support in preschools/schools. Differences between the occupational groups become especially visible regarding their views of SENCOs‟ work. Critical pragmatism (Cherryholmes, 1988) is applied as a theoretical point of departure. Skrtic´s (1991) critical reading and analysis of special education relative to general education is specifically used to interpret and discuss the outcome of the studies. Additionally, Abbott´s (1988) reasoning concerning the “division of expert labor” is used to discuss the occupational groups´ replies concerning “who should do what to whom”. The findings in the studies are contextualized and theoretically interpreted in the separate articles. However in the first part of this thesis (in Swedish: Kappa), the theoretical interpretations of the empirical outcome are discussed in more detail and the results are further contextualized and synthesised. Inclusion and premises for inclusive education are also discussed in more depth in the first part of the present thesis.

A web-based system for visualizing upper limb motor performance of Parkinson’s disease patients

Objective To design, develop and set up a web-based system for enabling graphical visualization of upper limb motor performance (ULMP) of Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients to clinicians. Background Sixty-five patients diagnosed with advanced PD have used a test battery, implemented in a touch-screen handheld computer, in their home environment settings over the course of a 3-year clinical study. The test items consisted of objective measures of ULMP through a set of upper limb motor tests (finger to tapping and spiral drawings). For the tapping tests, patients were asked to perform alternate tapping of two buttons as fast and accurate as possible, first using the right hand and then the left hand. The test duration was 20 seconds. For the spiral drawing test, patients traced a pre-drawn Archimedes spiral using the dominant hand, and the test was repeated 3 times per test occasion. In total, the study database consisted of symptom assessments during 10079 test occasions. Methods Visualization of ULMP The web-based system is used by two neurologists for assessing the performance of PD patients during motor tests collected over the course of the said study. The system employs animations, scatter plots and time series graphs to visualize the ULMP of patients to the neurologists. The performance during spiral tests is depicted by animating the three spiral drawings, allowing the neurologists to observe real-time accelerations or hesitations and sharp changes during the actual drawing process. The tapping performance is visualized by displaying different types of graphs. Information presented included distribution of taps over the two buttons, horizontal tap distance vs. time, vertical tap distance vs. time, and tapping reaction time over the test length. Assessments Different scales are utilized by the neurologists to assess the observed impairments. For the spiral drawing performance, the neurologists rated firstly the ‘impairment’ using a 0 (no impairment) – 10 (extremely severe) scale, secondly three kinematic properties: ‘drawing speed’, ‘irregularity’ and ‘hesitation’ using a 0 (normal) – 4 (extremely severe) scale, and thirdly the probable ‘cause’ for the said impairment using 3 choices including Tremor, Bradykinesia/Rigidity and Dyskinesia. For the tapping performance, a 0 (normal) – 4 (extremely severe) scale is used for first rating four tapping properties: ‘tapping speed’, ‘accuracy’, ‘fatigue’, ‘arrhythmia’, and then the ‘global tapping severity’ (GTS). To achieve a common basis for assessment, initially one neurologist (DN) performed preliminary ratings by browsing through the database to collect and rate at least 20 samples of each GTS level and at least 33 samples of each ‘cause’ category. These preliminary ratings were then observed by the two neurologists (DN and PG) to be used as templates for rating of tests afterwards. In another track, the system randomly selected one test occasion per patient and visualized its items, that is tapping and spiral drawings, to the two neurologists. Statistical methods Inter-rater agreements were assessed using weighted Kappa coefficient. The internal consistency of properties of tapping and spiral drawing tests were assessed using Cronbach’s α test. One-way ANOVA test followed by Tukey multiple comparisons test was used to test if mean scores of properties of tapping and spiral drawing tests were different among GTS and ‘cause’ categories, respectively. Results When rating tapping graphs, inter-rater agreements (Kappa) were as follows: GTS (0.61), ‘tapping speed’ (0.89), ‘accuracy’ (0.66), ‘fatigue’ (0.57) and ‘arrhythmia’ (0.33). The poor inter-rater agreement when assessing “arrhythmia” may be as a result of observation of different things in the graphs, among the two raters. When rating animated spirals, both raters had very good agreement when assessing severity of spiral drawings, that is, ‘impairment’ (0.85) and irregularity (0.72). However, there were poor agreements between the two raters when assessing ‘cause’ (0.38) and time-information properties like ‘drawing speed’ (0.25) and ‘hesitation’ (0.21). Tapping properties, that is ‘tapping speed’, ‘accuracy’, ‘fatigue’ and ‘arrhythmia’ had satisfactory internal consistency with a Cronbach’s α coefficient of 0.77. In general, the trends of mean scores of tapping properties worsened with increasing levels of GTS. The mean scores of the four properties were significantly different to each other, only at different levels. In contrast from tapping properties, kinematic properties of spirals, that is ‘drawing speed’, ‘irregularity’ and ‘hesitation’ had a questionable consistency among them with a coefficient of 0.66. Bradykinetic spirals were associated with more impaired speed (mean = 83.7 % worse, P < 0.001) and hesitation (mean = 77.8% worse, P < 0.001), compared to dyskinetic spirals. Both these ‘cause’ categories had similar mean scores of ‘impairment’ and ‘irregularity’. Conclusions In contrast from current approaches used in clinical setting for the assessment of PD symptoms, this system enables clinicians to animate easily and realistically the ULMP of patients who at the same time are at their homes. Dynamic access of visualized motor tests may also be useful when observing and evaluating therapy-related complications such as under- and over-medications. In future, we foresee to utilize these manual ratings for developing and validating computer methods for automating the process of assessing ULMP of PD patients.

Assessing the physical environment of older people’s residential care facilities: development of the Swedish version of the Sheffield Care Environment Assessment Matrix (S-SCEAM)

Background There is emerging evidence that the physical environment is important for health, quality of life and care, but there is a lack of valid instruments to assess health care environments. The Sheffield Care Environment Assessment Matrix (SCEAM), developed in the United Kingdom, provides a comprehensive assessment of the physical environment of residential care facilities for older people. This paper reports on the translation and adaptation of SCEAM for use in Swedish residential care facilities for older people, including information on its validity and reliability. Methods SCEAM was translated into Swedish and back-translated into English, and assessed for its relevance by experts using content validity index (CVI) together with qualitative data. After modification, the validity assessments were repeated and followed by test-retest and inter-rater reliability tests in six units within a Swedish residential care facility that varied in terms of their environmental characteristics. Results Translation and back translation identified linguistic and semantic related issues. The results of the first content validity analysis showed that more than one third of the items had item-CVI (I-CVI) values less than the critical value of 0.78.  After modifying the instrument, the second content validation analysis resulted in I-CVI scores above 0.78, the suggested criteria for excellent content validity. Test-retest reliability showed high stability (96% and 95% for two independent raters respectively), and inter-rater reliability demonstrated high levels of agreement (95% and 94% on two separate rating occasions). Kappa values were very good for test-retest (κ= 0.903 and 0.869) and inter-rater reliability (κ= 0.851 and 0.832). Conclusions Adapting an instrument to a domestic context is a complex and time-consuming process, requiring an understanding of the culture where the instrument was developed and where it is to be used. A team, including the instrument’s developers, translators, and researchers is necessary to ensure a valid translation and adaption. This study showed preliminary validity and reliability evidence for the Swedish version (S-SCEAM) when used in a Swedish context. Further, we believe that the S-SCEAM has improved compared to the original instrument and suggest that it can be used as a foundation for future developments of the SCEAM model.