Back to CEU courses
Facilitator notes Participation guide

Presenter study handout

The VPA™: Assessment & Clinical Reasoning

4 contact hours · 0.4 AOTA CEUs · Module 7 · 16 slides

Presenter-side material. Each block shows the slide as the audience sees it, the talk track, and space for your own notes. Model answers appear here — do not hand this version to learners.

Module 7

7.1 — Clinical reasoning walkthroughs: three student profiles from referral to interpretation

Transition

Module 7

Clinical reasoning walkthroughs: three student profiles from referral to interpretation

3:10 – 3:40

The VPA™: Assessment & Clinical Reasoning
1 / 16
  • 3:10 – 3:40

Say this

Transition: "Clinical reasoning walkthroughs: three student profiles from referral to interpretation."

My notes

7.2 — Clinical Reasoning Walkthroughs

Title

Module 7

Clinical Reasoning Walkthroughs

Three student profiles from referral to disposition.

The VPA™: Assessment & Clinical Reasoning
2 / 16
  • Three student profiles from referral to disposition.

Say this

Open here. "Clinical Reasoning Walkthroughs." Three student profiles from referral to disposition.

Say why this section matters for their caseload, then advance.

My notes

7.3 — Reasoning confidence

Poll

Poll

Reasoning confidence

Where does your reasoning most often stall?

Select one.

The VPA™: Assessment & Clinical Reasoning
3 / 16
  • Where does your reasoning most often stall?
  • – Turning scores into a hypothesis
  • – Deciding what to treat first
  • – Deciding what to refer
  • – Explaining it to the team

Say this

Ask the poll: "Where does your reasoning most often stall?"

Options:

• Turning scores into a hypothesis

My notes

7.4 — Referral: "reverses letters and can’t copy from the board"

Case

Case A · Maya, grade 2, age 7

Referral: "reverses letters and can’t copy from the board"

Intake: passed a kindergarten vision screening, no eye examination since, no glasses, homework is "a battle." Band 5–7. Findings — L1: near acuity at criterion both eyes; intermediate acuity at 60 cm one line below criterion with a one-line difference between the eyes; Maya leans toward the card. L2: fixation and pursuits at criterion; NPC break 9 cm, recovery 13 cm, stable across three trials. L3: at criterion through Level 4. L4: form copying reaches Level 3, orientation errors on diagonal intersections. L5: reading at criterion for grade; writing sample shows b/d reversals and an inconsistent baseline.

  • Q1.The referral says "reversals." Does the data support a processing explanation?
    Guided answer: No. Discrimination and form constancy are at criterion through Level 4 — that is exactly the skill set that would be weak if the reversals were perceptual. At age 7 with intact discrimination, b/d reversals sit inside ordinary developmental variation.
  • Q2.Which single finding carries the most clinical weight?
    Guided answer: The intermediate acuity finding: one line below criterion at 60 cm, a one-line interocular difference, and a compensatory lean. That is Level 1, in a child who has never had a comprehensive eye examination — and 60 cm is exactly the distance the board-copying complaint lives at.
  • Q3.What is the disposition?
    Guided answer: Refer for a comprehensive eye examination. Change the environment now — seating, contrast, and copy-from-desk instead of copy-from-board. Re-assess Levels 3 through 5 after the ocular question is settled, because a Level 1 finding makes everything above it provisional.
VPA™ · Case profile
L1Acuity & sensory foundationincl. field & scanning
strong
L2Visual efficiency
strong
L3Visual processing
limiting
L4Visual-motor integration
emerging
L5Functional integration
breaking down
The same instrument on a different student. Efficiency is intact and processing is the notch — so the plan targets discrimination and figure-ground within real page layouts, not oculomotor drills.

The error to avoid: treating the loudest word in the referral as the finding.

The VPA™: Assessment & Clinical Reasoning
4 / 16
  • Intake: passed a kindergarten vision screening, no eye examination since, no glasses, homework is "a battle." Band 5–7. Findings — L1: near acuity at criterion both eyes; intermediate acuity at 60 cm one line below criterion with a one-line difference between the eyes; Maya leans toward the card. L2: fixation and pursuits at criterion; NPC break 9 cm, recovery 13 cm, stable across three trials. L3: at criterion through Level 4. L4: form copying reaches Level 3, orientation errors on diagonal intersections. L5: reading at criterion for grade; writing sample shows b/d reversals and an inconsistent baseline.
  • Q1. The referral says "reversals." Does the data support a processing explanation?
  • Q2. Which single finding carries the most clinical weight?
  • Q3. What is the disposition?
  • Answer 1: No. Discrimination and form constancy are at criterion through Level 4 — that is exactly the skill set that would be weak if the reversals were perceptual. At age 7 with intact discrimination, b/d reversals sit inside ordinary developmental variation.
  • Answer 2: The intermediate acuity finding: one line below criterion at 60 cm, a one-line interocular difference, and a compensatory lean. That is Level 1, in a child who has never had a comprehensive eye examination — and 60 cm is exactly the distance the board-copying complaint lives at.
  • Answer 3: Refer for a comprehensive eye examination. Change the environment now — seating, contrast, and copy-from-desk instead of copy-from-board. Re-assess Levels 3 through 5 after the ocular question is settled, because a Level 1 finding makes everything above it provisional.

Say this

Read the scenario aloud, slowly:

Intake: passed a kindergarten vision screening, no eye examination since, no glasses, homework is "a battle." Band 5–7. Findings — L1: near acuity at criterion both eyes; intermediate acuity at 60 cm one line below criterion with a one-line difference between the eyes; Maya leans toward the card. L2: fixation and pursuits at criterion; NPC break 9 cm, recovery 13 cm, stable across three trials. L3: at criterion through Level 4. L4: form copying reaches Level 3, orientation errors on diagonal intersections. L5: reading at criterion for grade; writing sample shows b/d reversals and an inconsistent baseline.

Then put these questions to the room:

My notes

7.5 — Referral: "starts strong and falls apart; teacher suspects ADHD"

Case

Case B · Devon, grade 5, age 11

Referral: "starts strong and falls apart; teacher suspects ADHD"

Intake: glasses worn consistently, eye examination 8 months ago, headaches during silent reading, avoids reading homework. Band 8–11. Findings — L1: at criterion both distances. L2: fixation at criterion; saccades reach Level 3, with head movement on every horizontal shift at Levels 4 and 5 and two refixations per line; NPC break recedes across trials from 8 cm to 14 cm. L3: at criterion through Level 5. L4: at criterion through Level 4. L5: reading rate at criterion for the first two minutes then decays; line loss begins around four minutes; writing volume falls off in the final third.

  • Q1.What in this profile separates an efficiency finding from a processing finding?
    Guided answer: The time course. Everything is fine at the start and degrades over minutes — that is fatigue-sensitive machinery. A processing deficit is impaired from the very first item, not the fourth minute. Levels 3 and 4 are at criterion, which rules processing out directly.
  • Q2.Which single observation is the strongest in the protocol?
    Guided answer: The receding NPC across three trials — 8 cm to 14 cm. It corroborates both the reading decay and the headaches, and no other finding accounts for all three as plausibly.
  • Q3.What is the disposition — and what does the teacher need to hear?
    Guided answer: Both paths at once. Refer for an eye examination specifically addressing near-point function — binocular diagnosis and any lens or optometric therapy decision is not ours — and start OT intervention on near-point endurance and saccadic accuracy inside real reading. Tell the teacher: "He can do it when he tries" is exactly what this finding looks like from the back of the room. The ability is real; the endurance is not.
VPA™ · Scored profile
L1Acuity & sensory foundationincl. field & scanning
strong
L2Visual efficiency
limiting
L3Visual processing
emerging
L4Visual-motor integration
limiting
L5Functional integration
breaking down
Profile shape: foundation intact / output limitedIntervention enters at Level 2 (efficiency), not at Level 4 handwriting drill.
Rows are the five framework levels in order (L1 → L5) — the L number is the level, never the score. Performance is the bar and the word beside it. Read the shape before any composite: a flat-but-low profile, a single notch, and a “foundation intact / output collapsed” staircase call for three different plans.

Efficiency findings are routinely read as attention problems. Describe the time course explicitly so the team can see why.

The VPA™: Assessment & Clinical Reasoning
5 / 16
  • Intake: glasses worn consistently, eye examination 8 months ago, headaches during silent reading, avoids reading homework. Band 8–11. Findings — L1: at criterion both distances. L2: fixation at criterion; saccades reach Level 3, with head movement on every horizontal shift at Levels 4 and 5 and two refixations per line; NPC break recedes across trials from 8 cm to 14 cm. L3: at criterion through Level 5. L4: at criterion through Level 4. L5: reading rate at criterion for the first two minutes then decays; line loss begins around four minutes; writing volume falls off in the final third.
  • Q1. What in this profile separates an efficiency finding from a processing finding?
  • Q2. Which single observation is the strongest in the protocol?
  • Q3. What is the disposition — and what does the teacher need to hear?
  • Answer 1: The time course. Everything is fine at the start and degrades over minutes — that is fatigue-sensitive machinery. A processing deficit is impaired from the very first item, not the fourth minute. Levels 3 and 4 are at criterion, which rules processing out directly.
  • Answer 2: The receding NPC across three trials — 8 cm to 14 cm. It corroborates both the reading decay and the headaches, and no other finding accounts for all three as plausibly.
  • Answer 3: Both paths at once. Refer for an eye examination specifically addressing near-point function — binocular diagnosis and any lens or optometric therapy decision is not ours — and start OT intervention on near-point endurance and saccadic accuracy inside real reading. Tell the teacher: "He can do it when he tries" is exactly what this finding looks like from the back of the room. The ability is real; the endurance is not.

Say this

Read the scenario aloud, slowly:

Intake: glasses worn consistently, eye examination 8 months ago, headaches during silent reading, avoids reading homework. Band 8–11. Findings — L1: at criterion both distances. L2: fixation at criterion; saccades reach Level 3, with head movement on every horizontal shift at Levels 4 and 5 and two refixations per line; NPC break recedes across trials from 8 cm to 14 cm. L3: at criterion through Level 5. L4: at criterion through Level 4. L5: reading rate at criterion for the first two minutes then decays; line loss begins around four minutes; writing volume falls off in the final third.

Then put these questions to the room:

My notes

7.6 — Referral: "illegible handwriting, refuses written work"

Case

Case C · Aiden, grade 9, age 15

Referral: "illegible handwriting, refuses written work"

Intake: glasses, current examination, no discomfort reported, strong verbal performance, OT in elementary school discharged in grade 4. Band 12–16. Findings — L1 and L2 at criterion throughout. L3 at criterion through Level 5. L4: grid-pattern reproduction reaches Level 2; proportion and spatial organization break down as grid complexity increases; he rechecks the model repeatedly. L5: reading at criterion; writing sample shows adequate content, poor organization on the line, slow effortful production, visible frustration.

  • Q1.Levels 1, 2, and 3 are clean. What does that rule out?
    Guided answer: Access, efficiency, and perceptual judgment. He sees it, holds it, and interprets it accurately — and still cannot produce a matching output. That isolates the limiter at Level 4.
  • Q2.What does the repeated model-rechecking tell you?
    Guided answer: It is the behavioral signature of intact perception paired with unreliable motor reproduction. He keeps going back to the model because his output does not match what he correctly perceives.
  • Q3.What does his age change about the plan?
    Guided answer: At 15, with a long-standing production problem and intact perception, remediation alone is not defensible. The plan needs an occupation-level compensation conversation — keyboarding, scribing, output-format accommodation — alongside any graded practice. And the refusal is not a separate behavior problem; it is a rational response to the finding, so it belongs in the occupational performance statement.
VPA™ · Case profile
L1Acuity & sensory foundationincl. field & scanning
strong
L2Visual efficiency
strong
L3Visual processing
limiting
L4Visual-motor integration
emerging
L5Functional integration
breaking down
The same instrument on a different student. Efficiency is intact and processing is the notch — so the plan targets discrimination and figure-ground within real page layouts, not oculomotor drills.

Across all three cases the referral word — "reversals," "attention," "handwriting" — was the least reliable information in the file.

The VPA™: Assessment & Clinical Reasoning
6 / 16
  • Intake: glasses, current examination, no discomfort reported, strong verbal performance, OT in elementary school discharged in grade 4. Band 12–16. Findings — L1 and L2 at criterion throughout. L3 at criterion through Level 5. L4: grid-pattern reproduction reaches Level 2; proportion and spatial organization break down as grid complexity increases; he rechecks the model repeatedly. L5: reading at criterion; writing sample shows adequate content, poor organization on the line, slow effortful production, visible frustration.
  • Q1. Levels 1, 2, and 3 are clean. What does that rule out?
  • Q2. What does the repeated model-rechecking tell you?
  • Q3. What does his age change about the plan?
  • Answer 1: Access, efficiency, and perceptual judgment. He sees it, holds it, and interprets it accurately — and still cannot produce a matching output. That isolates the limiter at Level 4.
  • Answer 2: It is the behavioral signature of intact perception paired with unreliable motor reproduction. He keeps going back to the model because his output does not match what he correctly perceives.
  • Answer 3: At 15, with a long-standing production problem and intact perception, remediation alone is not defensible. The plan needs an occupation-level compensation conversation — keyboarding, scribing, output-format accommodation — alongside any graded practice. And the refusal is not a separate behavior problem; it is a rational response to the finding, so it belongs in the occupational performance statement.

Say this

Read the scenario aloud, slowly:

Intake: glasses, current examination, no discomfort reported, strong verbal performance, OT in elementary school discharged in grade 4. Band 12–16. Findings — L1 and L2 at criterion throughout. L3 at criterion through Level 5. L4: grid-pattern reproduction reaches Level 2; proportion and spatial organization break down as grid complexity increases; he rechecks the model repeatedly. L5: reading at criterion; writing sample shows adequate content, poor organization on the line, slow effortful production, visible frustration.

Then put these questions to the room:

My notes

7.7 — Referral: "loses her place constantly and skips whole lines"

Case

Your turn · Sofia, grade 3, age 9

Referral: "loses her place constantly and skips whole lines"

Intake: no glasses, eye examination last year reported normal, no headaches, likes being read to and dislikes reading alone. Band 8–11. Findings — L1: at criterion both distances. L2: fixation at criterion; pursuits at criterion; saccades reach Level 4 with no head movement and no rate decay across the timed passage. L3: figure-ground reaches Level 2 — she cannot locate a target item on a dense page; discrimination and visual memory at criterion through Level 4. L4: at criterion through Level 4. L5: reading rate below criterion from the first minute and flat across eight minutes; she finds the line again quickly once she loses it.

  • Q1.Which level is the limiter, and what rules out the obvious answer?
  • Q2.Write the one-sentence occupational performance statement.
  • Q3.What would you change in the classroom on Monday?
VPA™ · Scored profile
L1Acuity & sensory foundationincl. field & scanning
strong
L2Visual efficiency
limiting
L3Visual processing
emerging
L4Visual-motor integration
limiting
L5Functional integration
breaking down
Profile shape: foundation intact / output limitedIntervention enters at Level 2 (efficiency), not at Level 4 handwriting drill.
Rows are the five framework levels in order (L1 → L5) — the L number is the level, never the score. Performance is the bar and the word beside it. Read the shape before any composite: a flat-but-low profile, a single notch, and a “foundation intact / output collapsed” staircase call for three different plans.

No guided answer on this one. Work it with your notes, then compare with a colleague.

The VPA™: Assessment & Clinical Reasoning
7 / 16
  • Intake: no glasses, eye examination last year reported normal, no headaches, likes being read to and dislikes reading alone. Band 8–11. Findings — L1: at criterion both distances. L2: fixation at criterion; pursuits at criterion; saccades reach Level 4 with no head movement and no rate decay across the timed passage. L3: figure-ground reaches Level 2 — she cannot locate a target item on a dense page; discrimination and visual memory at criterion through Level 4. L4: at criterion through Level 4. L5: reading rate below criterion from the first minute and flat across eight minutes; she finds the line again quickly once she loses it.
  • Q1. Which level is the limiter, and what rules out the obvious answer?
  • Q2. Write the one-sentence occupational performance statement.
  • Q3. What would you change in the classroom on Monday?

Say this

Read the scenario aloud, slowly:

Intake: no glasses, eye examination last year reported normal, no headaches, likes being read to and dislikes reading alone. Band 8–11. Findings — L1: at criterion both distances. L2: fixation at criterion; pursuits at criterion; saccades reach Level 4 with no head movement and no rate decay across the timed passage. L3: figure-ground reaches Level 2 — she cannot locate a target item on a dense page; discrimination and visual memory at criterion through Level 4. L4: at criterion through Level 4. L5: reading rate below criterion from the first minute and flat across eight minutes; she finds the line again quickly once she loses it.

Then put these questions to the room:

My notes

7.8 — The same four questions in every case

Teaching slide

Reasoning frame

The same four questions in every case

  • What is the occupation named in the referral?
  • Which level is the breakdown point, and what do the clean floors rule out?
  • What condition changed performance — distance, time, contrast, noise?
  • What is the disposition: treat, accommodate, refer, or monitor?

Occupation

During a 10-minute copying task from the board,

Observed performance

the student lost place 7 times and copied 12 of 30 words

Condition

at a 3 m board distance under overhead fluorescent lighting.

Level attribution

Findings are consistent with a Level 2 efficiency limiter.

Disposition

Referral to optometry for binocular vision evaluation is recommended.

Every clause earns its place: occupation, observed performance, condition, level attribution, disposition. No diagnostic language, no untested inference.
The VPA™: Assessment & Clinical Reasoning
8 / 16
  • What is the occupation named in the referral?
  • Which level is the breakdown point, and what do the clean floors rule out?
  • What condition changed performance — distance, time, contrast, noise?
  • What is the disposition: treat, accommodate, refer, or monitor?

Say this

Frame the slide: "The same four questions in every case."

Walk each point, one sentence each:

• What is the occupation named in the referral?

My notes

7.9 — OT-reportable vs. refer-out findings

Comparison

Sorting

OT-reportable vs. refer-out findings

OT reports

  • Rate decay across a timed passage
  • Place-loss counts and prompt counts
  • Copy accuracy under speed and volume
  • Condition-dependent change in performance

Route to eye care

  • Self-reported blur, doubling, or eye pain
  • Unexplained acuity loss at either distance
  • New head tilt or eye turn
  • Symptoms persisting despite clean OT-side data
Finding
Diagnosed & managed → OT addresses
New / undiagnosed / changing → refer
Reduced acuity
Magnify (optical, electronic, or digital), enlarge print, increase working-distance control, reduce visual clutter, seat for viewing angle.
No comprehensive eye exam on file, correction not worn or outgrown, or a new drop in near/distance performance.
Reduced contrast sensitivity
High-contrast materials, bold line paper, dark-on-light or reverse-polarity screens, glare and lighting control, edge marking on stairs and thresholds.
Contrast difficulty never evaluated, or a functional loss that is new, worsening, or does not match the documented diagnosis.
Field loss
Teach systematic scanning, anchoring, and line-tracking; position materials and seating into the intact field; organize the workspace; travel-safety routines with the O&M specialist.
Field loss suspected but never documented, or new field complaints, bumping, or missed content on one side.
Ocular alignment, oculomotor, accommodation
Grade the visual demand of the occupation, build near-point stamina, chunk and space text, schedule visual breaks.
New eye turn, new double vision, headaches or pain with near work, or no eye care follow-up in place.

OT addresses diagnosed, medically managed limitations. A new or undiagnosed finding is a referral — the diagnosis has to come first before we treat that finding as a known visual limitation.

The standing rule: OT addresses the functional limitation only when the ocular condition is already diagnosed and medically managed. If the finding is new, undiagnosed, unclear, or changing, the appropriate OT action is referral.
The VPA™: Assessment & Clinical Reasoning
9 / 16
  • OT reports: Rate decay across a timed passage · Place-loss counts and prompt counts · Copy accuracy under speed and volume · Condition-dependent change in performance
  • Route to eye care: Self-reported blur, doubling, or eye pain · Unexplained acuity loss at either distance · New head tilt or eye turn · Symptoms persisting despite clean OT-side data

Say this

Contrast the two columns: OT reports versus Route to eye care.

OT reports:

• Rate decay across a timed passage

My notes

7.10 — Module 7 video — clinical reasoning walkthroughs

Video

Lecture

Module 7 video — clinical reasoning walkthroughs

VIDEO SLOT

Narrated reasoning across the three student profiles.

Slides tab → set “url” to your YouTube/Vimeo/Loom embed link

The VPA™: Assessment & Clinical Reasoning
10 / 16
  • Narrated reasoning across the three student profiles.

Say this

Set up the clip in one sentence, play it, then debrief with "what did you notice?"

My notes

7.11 — Case artifact — student work sample

Visual

Import

Case artifact — student work sample

Line 1 → Line 5: letters grow, spacing widens, baseline drifts upward.
A rendered copy sample showing what performance breakdown looks like on the page: baseline drift, widening spacing, and letter size growth across five lines of sustained near work.
The VPA™: Assessment & Clinical Reasoning
11 / 16
  • De-identified writing or copy sample belonging to one of the cases.

Say this

Describe what belongs here: De-identified writing or copy sample belonging to one of the cases..

My notes

7.12 — Screenshot — case profile chart

Visual

Import

Screenshot — case profile chart

VPA™ · Case profile
L1Acuity & sensory foundationincl. field & scanning
strong
L2Visual efficiency
strong
L3Visual processing
limiting
L4Visual-motor integration
emerging
L5Functional integration
breaking down
The same instrument on a different student. Efficiency is intact and processing is the notch — so the plan targets discrimination and figure-ground within real page layouts, not oculomotor drills.
The VPA™: Assessment & Clinical Reasoning
12 / 16
  • Domain profile for the case you are walking through.

Say this

Describe what belongs here: Domain profile for the case you are walking through..

My notes

7.13 — So what? Reasoning is the deliverable, not the score sheet

So what?

So what?

So what? Reasoning is the deliverable, not the score sheet

What you are certified to do is connect a referral question to a scored profile to a defensible decision — that chain is what the team is buying.

A score with no reasoning trail cannot be defended, replicated, or built on by the next therapist.

What you do with it

  • Write the referral question at the top of your reasoning and answer it explicitly.
  • State the alternative explanations you ruled out and how.
  • End every walkthrough with a disposition: treat, refer, monitor, or reassess.

Watch for

A report that never returns to the original question — that is where teams stop reading.

The VPA™: Assessment & Clinical Reasoning
13 / 16
  • What you are certified to do is connect a referral question to a scored profile to a defensible decision — that chain is what the team is buying.
  • Because: A score with no reasoning trail cannot be defended, replicated, or built on by the next therapist.
  • Move: Write the referral question at the top of your reasoning and answer it explicitly.
  • Move: State the alternative explanations you ruled out and how.
  • Move: End every walkthrough with a disposition: treat, refer, monitor, or reassess.
  • Watch for: A report that never returns to the original question — that is where teams stop reading.

Say this

Land the "so what": What you are certified to do is connect a referral question to a scored profile to a defensible decision — that chain is what the team is buying.

Explain the mechanism plainly: A score with no reasoning trail cannot be defended, replicated, or built on by the next therapist.

Then give them the moves — say each one as something they can do Monday:

My notes

7.14 — Two-minute case: close the loop

Mini case

Two-minute case

Two-minute case: close the loop

The referral question was "why can this student not finish written work?" Your report describes the profile in detail and recommends OT twice monthly.

What is missing?

The VPA™: Assessment & Clinical Reasoning
14 / 16
  • The referral question was "why can this student not finish written work?" Your report describes the profile in detail and recommends OT twice monthly.
  • Question: What is missing?
  • Model answer: The direct answer. Add one sentence that answers the question posed: which domain and which condition account for the incomplete work, what was ruled out, and what changes for the student in the classroom starting now.
  • Teaching point: Answer the question you were asked, in the words it was asked in.

Say this

Two-minute case. Read it aloud:

The referral question was "why can this student not finish written work?" Your report describes the profile in detail and recommends OT twice monthly.

Put the question to them: "What is missing?" Give 60 seconds, no talking.

My notes

7.15 — Reflect and share

Reflection

Reflect and share

Reflect and share

For the walkthrough we just finished, write the disposition you would document and the one thing you would tell the teacher tomorrow.

THINKPROCESSSHARE
The VPA™: Assessment & Clinical Reasoning
15 / 16
  • For the walkthrough we just finished, write the disposition you would document and the one thing you would tell the teacher tomorrow.
  • Starter: Disposition:... One thing for the teacher:...

Say this

Reflection prompt: "For the walkthrough we just finished, write the disposition you would document and the one thing you would tell the teacher tomorrow."

Offer the sentence starter: "Disposition:... One thing for the teacher:..."

Think for one minute, write, then take two shares.

My notes

7.16 — Knowledge check — disposition

Self-check

Knowledge check

Knowledge check — disposition

Interpretation is complete. What determines the disposition?

Self-check only — it does not affect your post-course quiz score.

The VPA™: Assessment & Clinical Reasoning
16 / 16
  • Interpretation is complete. What determines the disposition?
  • – The lowest score on the profile
  • ✓ The level of breakdown, the validity of the data, and what the occupation requires
  • – The family preference
  • – Available service minutes
  • Rationale: Disposition is a reasoning product: what broke down, how much you trust the data, and what the occupation demands.

Say this

Knowledge check: "Interpretation is complete. What determines the disposition?"

Options:

• The lowest score on the profile

My notes