If under the umbrella of traditional biological models, disability was understood as an intrinsic characteristic of the person (not dependent of external factors), the biopsychosocial and person-fit models moved the paradigm for the perspective that values the reciprocity of interactions between the person and the environment where she has to function (Florian et al., 2006; Wedell, 2008). Such changes are reflected in the manner by which the assessment and intervention processes have been conducted, as well, as in how eligibility for special education services has been determined (Simeonsson, Simeonsson, & Hollenweger 2008). This conceptual evolvement in the approach of disability processes - highlighting the critical role of the environment in child functioning -, demanded that assessment processes become focused on capturing the dynamic interactions between environmental factors (its’ facilitators and barriers) and child’s participation (Simeonsson et al., 2003). The portrait of these dynamics – identifying the gaps between child’s needs and provided supports – has been recognized as the central basis for the planning of intervention responses.

The impact of these conceptual changes has been translated in several manners: for example, the American Association on Mental Retardation changed its name in 2007 to American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD), reflecting the changes in thinking about the condition known today as intellectual disability; the World Health Organization (WHO, 2007) has developed a multidimensional classification system in order to approach human functioning aligned with the biopsychosocial perspective  – the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (version for children and youth), ICF-CY. At national level, several countries have been developing efforts to put into practice the set of conceptual changes, specifically in educational systems (Van Swet, Wichers-Bots, & Brown 2011). Within this context, several countries are implementing the ICF-CY as a support framework for the assessment and eligibility processes of children for special education services. The ICF-CY provides a taxonomy for describing the functioning profile of children and youth in terms of the nature and severity of impairments on Body Functions, limitations/restrictions on Activities and Participation and the impact of Environmental Factors.

One of the challenges associated to the ICF-CY use is the need of assessment tools mapped to the ICF-CY terminology, congruent with its theoretical foundation that can provide evidence for classification. The Supports Intensity Scale version for Children (SIS-C) developed by the AAIDD (Thompson et al., 2014), is consistent with the criteria that implies the recognition of the reciprocal relation person/environment and evaluates the type, frequency and duration of additional supports needed by children with developmental disabilities in order to be successful involved in daily activities. By providing a profile of support needs, the SIS-C has been pointed as a promising tool to enhance the congruence between assessment and intervention processes – providing valuable information for the determination of individual plans.  

This study aims to identify the ICF-CY categories of functionality that might be assessed by SIS-C by linking this instrument items to the ICF-CY classification system. Further, it’s our intention through mapping the SIS-C to the ICF-CY to reflect about the theoretical match between the perspectives indorsed by two important organizations such as the WHO and the AAIDD.

Cieza, A., Geyh, S., Chatterji, S., Kostanjsek, N., Üstün, B., & Stucki, G. (2005). ICF Linking Rules: An Update Based on Lessons Learned. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 37(2), 212–218. Florian, L., Hollenweger, J., Simeonsson, R. J., Wedell, K., Riddell, S., Terzi, L., & Holland, A. (2006). Cross-Cultural Perspectives on the Classification of Children with Disabilities: Part I. Issues in the Classification of Children with Disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 40(1), 36–45. doi:10.1177/00224669060400010401 Graneheim, U. & Lundman, B. 2004. Qualitative Content Analysis in Nursing Research: Concepts, Procedures and Measures to Achieve Trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24(2), 105–112. Simeonsson, R. J., Leonardi, M., Lollar, D., Bjorck-Akesson, E., Hollenweger, J., & Martinuzzi, A. (2003). Applying the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) to Measure Childhood Disability. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25(11–12), 602–610. Simeonsson, R. J., Simeonsson, N. E., & Hollenweger, J. (2008). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: A Common Language for Special Education. In L. Florian & M. Mclaughlin (Eds.), Disability Classification in Education: Issues and Perspectives (pp.207–226). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Thompson, J. R., Wehmeyer, M. L., Hughes, C., Shogren, K. A., Palmer, S. B., & Seo, H. (2014). The Supports Intensity Scale–Children's Version: Preliminary Reliability and Validity. Inclusion, 2(2), 140-149. doi: 10.1352/2326-6988-2.2.140 Van Swet, J., Wichers-Bots, J., & Brown, K. (2011). Solution-Focused Assessment: Rethinking Labels to Support Inclusive Education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(9), 909–923. Wedell, K. (2008). Evolving Dilemmas about Categorization. In L. Florian & M. Mclaughlin (Eds.), Disability Classification in Education: Issues and Perspectives (pp.47–67). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. WHO. (2007). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health – Version for Children and Youth (ICF-CY). Geneva: WHO.