Assessment & Research

Determinants of school activity performance in children with cerebral palsy: a multidimensional approach using the ICF-CY as a framework.

Huang et al. (2013) · Research in developmental disabilities 2013
★ The Verdict

Motor severity, intellectual level, and classroom supports predict most of a student with CP's school success.

✓ Read this if BCBAs working with school-age students with cerebral palsy in public or private schools.
✗ Skip if Clinicians who only serve preschoolers or adults.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Huang et al. (2013) looked at what helps or hurts school success in kids with cerebral palsy. They used the ICF-CY model to test many child and school factors at once. The team ran two big regression models: one for physical school tasks like PE, one for thinking and behavior tasks like math and following rules.

02

What they found

The models explained 83% of physical-activity variance and 73% of cognitive/behavioral-activity variance. Motor severity, intellectual level, and classroom supports came out on top. These three things told us most about who would struggle and who would shine at school.

03

How this fits with other research

Tseng et al. (2011) asked the same question two years earlier but looked at daily life, not school. They also found motor severity and prosocial behavior matter most. The 2013 paper zooms in on the classroom and adds 'school supports' as a new key piece.

Leung et al. (2011) used the same stats approach on preschoolers with developmental delay. Motor and attention deficits again topped the list, showing the pattern starts early.

Razuk et al. (2018) moved the lens to home and community. Kids with CP still lag behind peers, but the gaps look smaller than at school. Together, the four studies draw one clear line: motor severity is the lead predictor across settings and ages.

04

Why it matters

If you assess a student with CP, check motor severity, IQ score, and what classroom supports are already in place. These three data points give you a fast picture of likely school trouble spots. Use them to write goals that boost supports, adapt tasks, or target motor skills first.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Add a quick line to your intake form that rates motor severity, intellectual status, and current classroom supports.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
other
Sample size
167
Population
other
Finding
not reported

03Original abstract

This study aimed to identify the determinants of activity performance in children with cerebral palsy (CP) in school by considering factors from the entire scope of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health for Child and Youth (ICF-CY). A sample of 167 school-aged children with CP and their caregivers were recruited in the study. Activity performance in school settings was assessed with part 3 of the School Functional Assessment - Chinese version, which divides activity performance into performance of physical activities and cognitive/behavioral activities. Possible determinants were collected according to all dimensions of the ICF-CY. Multiple regression analyses showed that the determinants of performance of physical activities were receiving speech therapy in school, diplegia, having a domestic helper, and severity of gross and fine motor impairments, explaining 83% of the total variance; the determinants of performance of cognitive/behavioral activities were intellectual impairment, prosocial behavior, having an assistant in school, educational placement, severity of fine motor impairment, accounting for 73% of the total variance. Results of the study provide clinicians a holistic understanding of factors influencing school activity performance, and enable clinicians to make appropriate evaluations and interventions targeted at the determinants to enhance children's activity performance in school.

Research in developmental disabilities, 2013 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.08.022