The School Function Assessment (SFA) in School OT: Parts, Scoring, Research, and Reporting Tips

Motor tests describe skills, but IEP teams usually want to know whether a child can get through the school day: the bus, the classroom, lunch, written work, and routines, and how much help that takes. The School Function Assessment (SFA) was built for exactly that question.

Why school therapists use the SFA

The SFA measures a student's performance of functional, nonacademic tasks that support participation in the academic and social parts of an elementary program (Pearson, n.d.-a). It is designed for collaborative program planning for students with a wide range of disabling conditions, and its items are written in measurable, behavioral terms that can be carried directly into IEP goals (Pearson, n.d.-b). Therapists use it to document participation across settings, identify the supports a student relies on, inform eligibility with grade based cutoff scores, write functional goals, and track change over a school year.

What the SFA is

The SFA was developed by Wendy Coster, Theresa Deeney, Jane Haltiwanger, and Stephen Haley and published in 1998 by The Psychological Corporation; it is now sold by Pearson (Coster et al., 1998; Pearson, n.d.-a). The 1998 edition is still the current one, and Pearson continues to list the print complete kit (User's Manual, 25 Record Forms, and 3 Rating Scale Guides) along with separate manuals, record forms, and rating scale guides.

• Grades: Kindergarten through grade 6 (Pearson, n.d.-a)
• Format: A judgment-based questionnaire completed by one or more school professionals who know the student well and have observed typical performance (Pearson, n.d.-a). In practice this often means input from the teacher, aides, and related service providers (Pearson, n.d.-b).
• Qualification level: Pearson lists the SFA at Level A in the US store (Pearson, n.d.-a).
• Time: Individual scales can take as little as 5 to 10 minutes; completing the whole instrument has been estimated at 90 to 120 minutes (Pearson, n.d.-a; Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, 2017).
• Norms: None. The SFA is criterion referenced (Pearson, n.d.-a).

There is no direct testing session, and you can complete the full instrument or only the scales relevant to the referral question (Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, 2017).

What it measures: the three parts

Part I: Participation

Part I rates the student's level of participation in six school settings: the regular or special education classroom, playground or recess, transportation to and from school, bathroom and toileting, transitions to and from class, and mealtime or snack time (Pearson, n.d.-b). Ratings run on a 6 point scale from extremely limited participation to full participation (Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, 2017; Texas Statewide Leadership for Autism Training, n.d.).

Part II: Task Supports

Part II rates the supports a student currently receives, scored separately for assistance (adult help) and adaptations (changes to the environment or program, such as specialized equipment or adapted materials) (Pearson, n.d.-b). Each is rated for physical tasks and for cognitive/behavioral tasks, producing four task support scales (Texas Statewide Leadership for Autism Training, n.d.). Ratings use a 4 point scale running from extensive support to no support (Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, 2017; Texas Statewide Leadership for Autism Training, n.d.).

Part III: Activity Performance

Part III is the largest section: 21 Activity Performance scales, each focused on one functional area (Klug et al., 2020). The scales examine performance in each of the task areas rated in Part II, physical and cognitive/behavioral (Pearson, n.d.-c). Examples include Travel, Maintaining and Changing Positions, Eating and Drinking, Written Work, Functional Communication, Behavior Regulation, and Safety (Effgen et al., 2016; Texas Statewide Leadership for Autism Training, n.d.). Items are rated on a 4 point scale from "does not perform" to "consistent performance" (Texas Statewide Leadership for Autism Training, n.d.). The full instrument has 316 items (Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, 2017), so most teams select scales.

Note that ratings describe degrees of limitation, not differences within the typical range (Pearson, n.d.-b).

How the SFA is scored

Item ratings are summed to a raw score for each setting or scale. The Rating Scale Guide converts each raw score to a criterion score with an associated standard error, and that criterion score is compared with a grade-based cutoff printed on the Record Form (Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, 2017). Cutoffs are provided for two grade bands, kindergarten to grade 3 and grades 4 to 6 (Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, 2017). Criterion scores are generally described as falling on a 0 to 100 continuum, but confirm the metric and the specific cutoff values in your manual and Record Form, since the publisher does not post them.

The SFA does not produce standard scores, percentile ranks, or age equivalents.

A realistic school example

Maya (fictional) is a second grader with spastic diplegic cerebral palsy who uses a posterior walker. For her annual IEP, the OT completes Participation and the physical scales with input from the PT, and the teacher rates Written Work and Behavior Regulation. Her scores are compared with the kindergarten to grade 3 cutoffs.

Sample score summary (FICTIONAL)

Invented numbers, assuming the 0 to 100 criterion metric; actual cutoffs come from your Record Form.

• Part I, Participation: criterion score 52, below the grade cutoff
• Part II, Physical Tasks Assistance: criterion score 48, below the grade cutoff
• Part II, Physical Tasks Adaptations: criterion score 45, below the grade cutoff
• Part III, Travel: criterion score 55, below the grade cutoff
• Part III, Maintaining and Changing Positions: criterion score 57, below the grade cutoff
• Part III, Eating and Drinking: criterion score 86, at or above the grade cutoff
• Part III, Written Work: criterion score 64, below the grade cutoff
• Part III, Behavior Regulation: criterion score 91, at or above the grade cutoff

How to write it up

Name the raters, lead with function, and avoid percentile or "average range" language.

The School Function Assessment (SFA), a criterion referenced rating of school function, was completed by the OT with input from the PT and classroom teacher. Maya's Participation score fell below the criterion cutoff for her grade band, with the greatest limitations on the playground, during transitions, and in the bathroom. Physical task supports scores indicate she currently relies on adult help and adaptations (walker, adapted seating) for most physical tasks. On the Activity Performance scales, Travel, Maintaining and Changing Positions, and Written Work fell below the grade cutoff, while Eating and Drinking and Behavior Regulation met grade expectations. Goals will target classroom transitions, playground mobility, and written output.

What the research says

The SFA has a relatively strong research base for a school function measure, though most studies are modest in size.

• Reliability: The manual reports internal consistency of .92 to .98 and test retest ICCs of .82 to .98 in special education students (Coster et al., 1998, as summarized by Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, 2017). Chinese versions also showed high internal consistency (Hwang, 2005; Li et al., 2015), though test retest ICCs ranged from .49 to .97 in 93 students with cerebral palsy (Li et al., 2015).
• Rater agreement: Teacher and OT ratings showed only moderate agreement in 16 students (Davies et al., 2004).
• Validity: In 64 children, SFA scores correlated with comparable Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (classroom edition) scales, differed across general education, learning disability, and cerebral palsy groups, and classified most students into the correct group (Hwang et al., 2002). It separated students with autism and learning disabilities well but not students with traumatic brain injury (Davies et al., 2004).
• Rasch analysis: Hwang and Davies (2009) applied Rasch analysis to the Activity Performance scales in 64 elementary students (35 with and 29 without disabilities). Most items fit the model, 15 of the 18 scales analyzed were unidimensional, and item difficulty followed a hierarchy similar to the existing scale layout.
• Responsiveness: In 296 students receiving school based PT, SFA scores showed positive change over about six months, with the largest gains in Participation and Maintaining/Changing Positions, but the measure was less sensitive for older students and those with lower gross motor function (Effgen et al., 2016). Among 70 pupils with acquired brain injury, 54 showed progress between admission and discharge (West et al., 2014). A systematic review of participation measures for children with cerebral palsy still judged responsiveness data for the SFA limited (Sakzewski et al., 2007).

Practical cautions

• It is a rating, not a test. Document who rated and which settings they observe, and use the same raters at baseline and follow up.
• Subtle difficulties may not show. It is not built to distinguish levels within the typical range.
• Change may be slow for older students and those with more severe motor limitations (Effgen et al., 2016).
• Age and range. The SFA dates from 1998 and covers kindergarten through grade 6 only.

How it compares with related tools

• School Outcomes Measure (SOM): Another therapist completed measure of school function. In 42 students in kindergarten through grade 6, SOM scores correlated significantly with SFA Activity Performance scores, and the SOM separated GMFCS levels for physical tasks more consistently than the SFA did (Klug et al., 2020).
• School AMPS: A naturalistic assessment of functional performance on schoolwork tasks in school settings (Fisher et al., 2000). It complements the SFA with direct observation.
• Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales: A norm referenced adaptive behavior measure. It correlated with comparable SFA scales (Hwang et al., 2002) but yields standard scores rather than school setting criterion scores.

Bottom line

The SFA remains a well structured way to describe how a K to 6 student functions across school settings, what supports they need, and where they fall against grade expectations. Its evidence for reliability, known groups validity, and internal structure is solid. Use consistent raters, pick the scales that answer your question, report criterion scores and cutoff status, and confirm scoring details in your manual.

References

Coster, W., Deeney, T., Haltiwanger, J., & Haley, S. (1998). School Function Assessment: User's manual. The Psychological Corporation.

Davies, P. L., Soon, P. L., Young, M., & Clausen-Yamaki, A. (2004). Validity and reliability of the School Function Assessment in elementary school students with disabilities. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 24(3), 23-43. https://doi.org/10.1300/J006v24n03_03

Effgen, S. K., Westcott McCoy, S., Chiarello, L. A., Jeffries, L. M., Starnes, C., & Bush, H. M. (2016). Outcomes for students receiving school-based physical therapy as measured by the School Function Assessment. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 28(4), 371-378. https://doi.org/10.1097/PEP.0000000000000279

Fisher, A. G., Bryze, K., & Atchison, B. T. (2000). Naturalistic assessment of functional performance in school settings: Reliability and validity of the School AMPS scales. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 4(1), 491-512. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11272598/

Hwang, J.-L. (2005). The reliability and validity of the School Function Assessment: Chinese version. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 25(2), 44-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/153944920502500202

Hwang, J.-L., & Davies, P. L. (2009). Rasch analysis of the School Function Assessment provides additional evidence for the internal validity of the activity performance scales. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63(3), 369-373. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.63.3.369

Hwang, J.-L., Davies, P. L., Taylor, M. P., & Gavin, W. J. (2002). Validation of School Function Assessment with elementary school children. OTJR: Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 22(2), 48-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/153944920202200202

Klug, K. B., Kolobe, T. H. A., James, S. A., & Arnold, S. H. (2020). Concurrent validity of the School Outcomes Measure and the School Function Assessment in elementary students. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 32(3), 180-188. https://doi.org/10.1097/PEP.0000000000000710

Li, X.-L., Dong, V. A.-Q., & Fong, K. N. K. (2015). Reliability and validity of School Function Assessment for children with cerebral palsy in Guangzhou, China. Hong Kong Journal of Occupational Therapy, 26(1), 43-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hkjot.2015.12.001

Pearson. (n.d.-a). School Function Assessment (SFA). Retrieved October 26, 2026, from https://www.pearsonassessments.com/en-us/Store/Professional-Assessments/Behavior/School-Function-Assessment/p/100000547

Pearson. (n.d.-b). School Function Assessment overview [PDF]. Retrieved October 26, 2026, from https://www.pearsonclinical.asia/content/dam/school/global/clinical/us/assets/sfa/sfa-overview.pdf

Pearson. (n.d.-c). School Function Assessment (SFA) [Australian product page]. Retrieved October 26, 2026, from https://www.pearsonclinical.com.au/store/en/p/P100010069

Sakzewski, L., Boyd, R., & Ziviani, J. (2007). Clinimetric properties of participation measures for 5- to 13-year-old children with cerebral palsy: A systematic review. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 49(3), 232-240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2007.00232.x

Shirley Ryan AbilityLab. (2017). School Function Assessment. Rehabilitation Measures Database. https://www.sralab.org/rehabilitation-measures/school-function-assessment

Texas Statewide Leadership for Autism Training. (n.d.). School Function Assessment. Retrieved October 26, 2026, from https://www.txautism.net/evaluations/school-function-assessment

West, S., Dunford, C., Mayston, M. J., & Forsyth, R. (2014). The School Function Assessment: Identifying levels of participation and demonstrating progress for pupils with acquired brain injuries in a residential rehabilitation setting. Child: Care, Health and Development, 40(5), 689-697. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12089

‍

Speed up your evaluation report writing

You can use the scoring chart for this assessment and many others on Double Time Docs, our software that helps you write your evals significantly faster. Check it out!