As school-based occupational OT practitioners, we rely on a variety of tools to assess our students’ needs and guide our interventions. Among these, standardized assessment tools hold a special place, offering a consistent way to gather data, develop IEP goals, and track progress. Tools like the Sensory Processing Measure (SPM) and the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOT) are well-known options that many practitioners turn to for a structured approach to student evaluation.
But just like any tool, these assessments aren’t set in stone. The recent release of the SPM-2 in 2021 and the current (summer 2024) launch of the BOT-3 remind us that updates are part of keeping our practices aligned with the latest research and student needs. And while I know some of you are eager to get your hands on the newest tools, others may have different feelings.
In this article, we’ll explore:
Why standardized tools are periodically updated
Why some may not be
Whether or not you need to update to the newest tools
How to thoughtfully transition when an update occurs.
And the possible ramifications to using an older assessment
Whether you’re an advocate of standardized assessments or prefer to rely on your keen observations and less structured tools, understanding the “how” and “why” of these updates ensures you can make informed choices about the tools you use in your practice.
Why Are OT Assessment Tools Updated?
Standardized assessment tools are periodically updated to reflect advancements in research and technology, better serve the populations we assess, and enhance their practical use.
The Sensory Processing Measure (SPM), originally released in 2007 and updated in 2021 as the SPM-2, is a prime example of how assessments evolve to align with current research and practices in sensory processing.
Similarly, the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOT), which is currently releasing its third edition here in the summer of 2024, introduces several important updates to improve its utility.
The update for the BOT-3 was designed to optimize test administration and improve scoring. New items were added to address floor and ceiling effects, the quality of test equipment was improved, and the coverage of both fine and gross motor items was expanded. The BOT-3 also includes new supplemental scores, updated normative data, and an extension of test norms to age 25, making it a more comprehensive and versatile tool for practitioners working with young adults.
Updates like these ensure that the assessments we often rely on are as accurate, valid, and relevant as possible. They allow us to account for changes in population demographics, address gaps in the original test design, and incorporate advancements in both research and technology.
Why Some Tools Are Not Updated
While assessments like the SPM and BOT receive regular updates, others, such as the School Function Assessment (SFA) and the Sensory Integration and Praxis Tests (SIPT), have remained unchanged for years. 🙄
This can happen for various reasons. Often, the resources required to update an assessment are considerable, and if the tool serves a smaller or more specialized role, updates may not be prioritized.
Additionally, newer tools may emerge that fulfill similar purposes, gradually shifting practitioners away from older assessments. We are seeing this happen right now as the Evaluation in Ayres Sensory Integration (EASI) and the Structured Observations of Sensory Integration – Motor (SOSI-M) replace the SIPT
Even without updates, some of these older tools can still hold value for specific cases, especially when practitioners have experience with them and find them effective within their practice.
Enhance writing skills and progress monitoring for all students!
In this course, Bridgette Nicholson shares how you can quickly and easily assess the written expreseeion of any student with the Online Assessment of Writing Methods.
Access this course and more when you join the OT Schoolhouse Collaborative today!
Why or Why Not Update to the New Assessment
When a new version of an assessment tool is released, school-based OT practitioners are often faced with a critical decision: should I update to the latest version? While there are many advantages to transitioning to the most recent edition, it’s not always a requirement, and the choice depends on a variety of factors.
First, consider whether your school or district mandates the use of the latest version. Unless you ask, you may never know if this is the case in your district.
Some districts might require updates to ensure assessments align with current best practices, while others might allow for more flexibility. In some cases, there may not be a strict timeline for switching over, so you may have to advocate for why you think your department needs the updated assessment.
Another important factor is the nature of the updates themselves. If the new version addresses significant gaps in the previous edition—such as improved scoring, expanded range of items, or better representation of the population you serve—then updating may offer more accurate data and better support your decision-making.
For example, the BOT-3 now includes expanded fine and gross motor items and extends test norms to age 25, making it more versatile than the BOT-2 for a wider range of students. So, if you have been trying to find a tool to use with your young adults, then it may be worth upgrading sooner than later.
However, if the updates are minimal or if you feel confident that the older version still meets the needs of your students, you might opt to continue using the older edition, particularly if you have a well-established process in place. Just be mindful of any differences in norms or scoring that could impact the validity of the results over time.
Ultimately, updating to the latest assessment tool is a decision that depends on the needs of your practice, the requirements of your district, and the advantages offered by the new version. While staying up to date ensures you’re aligned with the latest research, there may be cases where sticking with the older version is still a valid choice.
How to Transition to a Newer Version
Transitioning to a new version of an assessment tool can be done smoothly with the right plan in place. Below are some practical steps to help guide you through the process:
Familiarize Yourself with the Updates and Necessary Training
Start by learning about the key differences between the old and new versions of the tool. This could include changes in content, scoring systems (going digital is in right now with new tools), and how data is interpreted. It’s also important to find out if there’s a recommended date by which you should be using the updated tool—or if it’s entirely up to you. Most publishers offer comparison guides, training workshops, or webinars that will help you get up to speed on the new version.
Pearson has both free and paid training opportunities related to the BOT-3. Click here for the free BOT-3 training.
Create a Transition Plan with Stakeholders
It’s essential to have a plan in place before switching to the new tool. Decide on a timeline for the transition. You may opt to transition at a natural school break, or perhaps you just wait until you run out of the older protocols. Either way, make sure you order the new tools ahead of time and schedule any necessary training for yourself or your team well before the transition date. Collaborating with your team and administrators ensures everyone is on board with the plan.
Decide If Older Tools Can Still Be Used in Some Capacity
Some older tools, especially those with physical components like the BOT-2, may still be useful in certain situations. However, it’s crucial that these materials don’t interfere with the standardization of the new tool. For instance, the BOT -2 pennies, mat, and red basket can still be used for other therapy activities, but maybe you don't use them in the same way that you would while giving the BOT.
By following these steps, you can ensure a smooth transition to the updated assessment tool, making sure you have the proper knowledge and resources in place for a seamless switch.
Potential Ramifications of Not Using an Updated Assessment
Failing to upgrade to the latest version of an assessment tool can have consequences. Outdated tools may not reflect current research or population norms, which can lead to less reliable or valid data when assessing students. This could affect the quality of intervention plans and the appropriateness of IEP goals, potentially causing interventions to be less effective.
Additionally, parents and student advocates may question the validity of results from an outdated assessment. Using an older version might give the impression that the assessment is not aligned with current best practices, which could raise concerns about the fairness and accuracy of the evaluation. These challenges may lead to disputes or delays in getting students the support they need.
Finally, using older assessments could result in non-compliance with district or state policies, especially if your school or district has adopted newer tools. This could impact your credibility as a practitioner and may complicate your ability to advocate for resources or support for your students.
The Wrapup
Whether you’re someone who frequently relies on standardized assessments or prefers a more flexible approach, staying informed about updates to key tools is an essential part of maintaining best practices in school-based occupational therapy.
Transitioning to new versions of these assessments might take some planning and adjustment, but it ultimately ensures that you’re providing students with the most accurate and up-to-date evaluations possible.
If you know that your state, district, or school has policies, or even just expectations for using the most up-to-date tools, then you can refer to those policies when requesting that your district purchase the updated tool.
As new tools and updates continue to emerge, be sure to take the time to review the changes, plan your transitions, and engage in any necessary training. It’s all part of evolving alongside the needs of our students and the advancements in our field.
.