JCPSLP Vol 20 No 3 November 2018

Table 2. Practice Demographics

Table 3. Factor analysis for components of ICF scale

N Sample %

Factor

General Framework Coding

Area of Practice a

44 31 25

33 23 19

Paediatric focus Adult focus Both

.941 .737 .655 .424

Terminology of ICF Model and framework Definition of ICF Classification system a Core sets for SLP Coding for SLP purposes Checklists a

Service Delivery Setting b Various child settings Mixed settings Community centre and outpatient Acute and rehabilitation Private, university practice or other Multidisciplinary team member c Yes No

.410 .872 .801 .373

30 15 16 22 17

24 12 13 18 14

a Despite low correlation, values were compiled in Coding factor due to theoretical reasoning. Note: Factor loadings <0.35 were suppressed.

65 16

80 20

Table 4. Factor analysis for adoption of ICF scale

Duration of ICF use d ≤ 2 years 3 - 5 years

Factor

29 14 14 26 18

23 11 11 21 14

Clinical Focus

Service/ Management Focus

6 – 10 years 11-20 years ≥ 21 years

Describe activities and participation Describe function Identify and describe environmental factors Identify and describe personal factors Assist with goal-setting Assist with evaluation of therapy outcomes a Assist planning at systems level Assess service quality

1.017 .944 .907

Academic Qualification Undergraduate Masters Doctorate

63 28 10

50 22 8

.897 .672 .418

Role focus e

67 5 1 8 3 3 14

52 4 1 6 2 2 11

Client contact Education Consultation Admin or management Research Other Distributed

.942

.823 .706 .689 .613 .546 .523 .436

Measure attitude and changes Support service management Structure documentation

Facilitate cooperation b Help raise awareness b Guide selection of assessment tools a

.364 .428 .422

Components Used Respondents were asked to what extent they used various components of the ICF in their practice: definition, terminology, model and framework, classification system, coding, core sets and checklists. The two factors obtained for ICF components used were General Framework and Coding (Table 3). Almost two-thirds (N = 71; 64.8%) of respondents reported using the General Framework with clients (definition, terminology, and the framework itself); a fifth (N=24; 22%) reported using the coding, core sets or checklist aspects of the ICF ( Coding factor). Adoption Respondents rated their use of the ICF for 23 specific tasks across a Likert scale. The mode for each stated purpose was “never used”, however the positive responses to this item that were received described use of the ICF in the context of clinical tasks, such as describing activities and a There was substantial overlap between the 6 areas of practice (SPA, 2011); categories were collapsed; n = 75. b Groups were created based on patterns in the data. Private, university practice, or other (mainly mental health and disability) was not theoretically ideal; however, separating settings would have produced very small counts, limiting inferential analysis (n = 81). c n = 81. d n = 80; e These groups were collapsed further into client contact , other , and distributed focus for the purpose of analysis; n = 78.

a Despite low correlation, value was compiled in Clinical Focus factor due to theoretical reasoning. b No clear correlation to either factor; analysed separately. Note: Factor loadings <0.35 were suppressed.

participation (N = 87; 80%) or goal-setting (N = 83; 76%), rather than for management tasks such as service evaluation (N = 35; 33%) or policy-making (N = 21; 19%). This pattern is consistent with the two derived factors of Clinical Focus and Service/Management Focus (Table 4). The questions related to further adoption of the ICF loaded onto a single factor, Education, Appraisal and Support (Table 5). Perceived utility Respondents indicated their regard for the ICF across a range of tasks. Analysis supported two underlying factors: Decision-making and Service Quality (Table 6). The ICF was deemed to promote decision-making (fosters clinical reasoning and decision-making [N = 66; 78% agreement and strong agreement]; and holistic thinking [N = 73; 86%]). However, respondents generally had little opinion (neither agree nor disagree) regarding many of the variables associated with the Service Quality factor, namely whether the ICF clarifies roles (N = 35; 41%), fosters teamwork (N = 31; 37%), brings structure to documentation (N =32; 38%) or enhances ethical service provision (N = 35; 42%).

113

JCPSLP Volume 20, Number 3 2018

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au