JCPSLP Vol 20 No 3 November 2018

Table 5. Factor analysis for further adoption scale

Table 6. Factor analysis for utility of the ICF scale

Factor

Factor

Education, Appraisal and Support

Service Quality Decision-making

.816 .814 .799 .764 .752 .752 .728 .680 .626

.963 .857 .766 .703

Organise results ICF training Mapping assessments Policy making Research data collection Peer counselling Census or survey data Global education Advocacy

Clarifies roles Fosters teamwork Enhances communication Aids interprofessional practice Brings structure to documentation Ethical service provision Helps classify

.686

.627 .494

Note: Factor loadings <0.35 were suppressed.

communication and swallowing issues a

Encourages holistic thinking Fosters clinical reasoning and decision-making b

.660

Patterns in ICF uptake Further analysis explored whether respondents with different professional circumstances varied in their knowledge or use of the ICF. In Table 7, inferential data pertaining to respondents’ location, whether they worked inter- professionally and their area of practice against variables of interest, including those derived from factor analysis, is presented. Neither respondents’ location nor extent of inter-professional practice affected ICF use. However, a significant difference for Clinical Focus was revealed between practitioners with a paediatric focus (mean rank = 30) compared with those working with an adult focus (mean rank = 47). The difference in level of knowledge of the ICF was also significant (paediatric focus [mean rank = 24]; adult focus [mean rank = 36]). Both effect sizes revealed a medium difference (r = –.378; r = .377). That is, practitioners working with children rated their knowledge level lower and reported lower adoption of the ICF for aspects of their practice such as assisting with goal-setting or outcome measurement than practitioners in the adult sector.

.491

.564

Further analyses revealed no significant differences between the five Service Delivery contexts for the items: Establish eligibility ( p = .697); Facilitate cooperation ( p = .078); ICF having great benefits ( p = .357); and Service Quality ( p = .098). Whereas, the following factors had significant difference between groups: Clinical Focus ( p = .024); Service Management Focus ( p = .031); Education, Appraisal and Support ( p = .044); Help Raise a Despite lower correlation the value was included in Service quality following theoretical reasoning. b Grouped with Decision-making factor due to higher correlation and theoretical reasoning. Note: Factor loadings <0.35 were suppressed. Question 10 (“The ICF has great benefits”) did not correlate with either factor and was analysed separately.

Table 7. Patterns in uptake: Location, multidisciplinary team and area of practice

Location

Multidisciplinary team Area of practice b

p -value

Effect size a

p -value

Effect size (r)

p -value

Clinical Focus

.165

–.156

.390

–.097

.012

Service Management Focus

.840

–.194

.710

–.041

.171

Education, Appraisal and Support

.240

–.133

.820

–.025

.110

Establish eligibility

.150

–.164

.070

–.202

.401

Facilitate cooperation

.240

–.133

.370

–.100

.910

Help raise awareness

.610

–.057

.420

–.089

.126

Knowledge

.710

–.042

.770

–.033

.013

Service Quality

.102

.400

.570

–.060

.675

Decision-making

.520

–.074

.910

–.013

.167

ICF has great benefits

.519

–.080

.459

–.090

.353

General Framework

.320

–.111

.470

–.085

.560

Coding

.160

–.156

.280

–.126

.379

a Effect sizes are the r coefficient, excepting Service Quality which is coefficient d . b Area of practice effect sizes were only calculated for post-hoc tests.

114

JCPSLP Volume 20, Number 3 2018

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology