논문 상세보기
pp.1-21
The purposes of this study were to research the current state of evaluation of children with delayed development and cerebral palsy and determine pediatric physical therapists' knowledge of assessment tools and their use. The subjects were 130 pediatric physical therapists (general hospitals, university-related hospitals, rehabilitation centers, etc.). Data was obtained from August 24, 1999 to October 18, 1999 by means of a survey questionnaire. The results were as follows: 1. The current state of pediatric physical therapist evaluation of children with delayed development and cerebral palsy. 1) Tools used to assess functional areas of children with cerebral palsy were: subjective description format-128 (47.1%); the GMFM-58 (21.3%); facility-generated tool-51 (18.8%); and DDST-15 (5.5%). 2) Tools used to assess developmentally delayed children were: subjective description format-121 (50.6%); the GMFM-43 (18.0%); facility-generated tool-41 (17.2%); and DDS T-14 (5.9%). 3) After their college or university study, therapists who had attended lectures on evaluation were 113 (86.9%); 13 (10.0%) therapists had not attended any lectures on evaluation 2. Test scores of physical therapists' professional knowledge of evaluation procedures: high (more than 36 points)-74 (56.9%); moderate (18~35 points)-39 (30.0%); and low (below 17 points)-none. 1) For therapists treating cerebral palsied children, 73 (65.2%) were in the high range, 39 (34.8%) were in the moderate range and none were in the low range. 2) For therapists treating children with delayed development, 71 (65.7%) were in the high range, 37 (34.3%) were in the moderate range and none were in the low range. Although the general degree of professional knowledge of evaluation was quite high, there was a lack of variety in the assessment tools used With a large number of therapists depending on subjective description. Possible reasons for the low rate of objective asses sment tool use: 1) Poor clinical environment: too many clients and lirnited treatment time. 2) Lack of any medical insurance fee category for specific assessment tools. 3) Lack of continuing education opportunities in pediatric evaluation skills during or after either college-based (3 year) or university-based (4 year) education programs. Based on the study results, provision of more extended educational opportunities would promote the use of a greater variety of objective assessment tools by pediatric physical therapists.
