found. Documentation shows poor reliability and eliminates rationale of statistics due to methods of modification. Validity was also not mentioned in the test manual concluding that strength of this assessment is decreased. Normative data was only provided for the visual search subtests and not discussed with further subtests. The sample size of the data included 25 males and females ages 16-83 years old. We believe this sample size was relatively small and additional subtests should be included with data to support this assessment tool. The utilized population representing the data shows no correlation of visual diagnosis or how the participants were selected. Student Critique Strengths The biVABA demonstrates several strengths throughout utilization. The test manual provides adequate elements of how to administer and understand each subtest. Information of the neuroanatomical origins provides feedback for the test administer as to why each test is being directed. This may ease explanations to the client and family due to the extensive information provided to help better understand visual impairments. Occupational therapists will be granted opportunities to better understand what the client is experiencing based on this information. The biVABA is stored in an organized portable container that can be mobile in practice and easily stored. Several additional tools are found within the appendixes that are useful for practitioners when administering this test. Referral notes for physicians and intervention plans for therapy support occupational therapists to not feel overwhelmed by the components of this test. Limitations The biVABA shows limited sources to determine the type of assessment and the explanation of validity and reliability. One data table was found utilizing normative information to assist our explanation with the type of assessment that the biVABA represents. Without the
found. Documentation shows poor reliability and eliminates rationale of statistics due to methods of modification. Validity was also not mentioned in the test manual concluding that strength of this assessment is decreased. Normative data was only provided for the visual search subtests and not discussed with further subtests. The sample size of the data included 25 males and females ages 16-83 years old. We believe this sample size was relatively small and additional subtests should be included with data to support this assessment tool. The utilized population representing the data shows no correlation of visual diagnosis or how the participants were selected. Student Critique Strengths The biVABA demonstrates several strengths throughout utilization. The test manual provides adequate elements of how to administer and understand each subtest. Information of the neuroanatomical origins provides feedback for the test administer as to why each test is being directed. This may ease explanations to the client and family due to the extensive information provided to help better understand visual impairments. Occupational therapists will be granted opportunities to better understand what the client is experiencing based on this information. The biVABA is stored in an organized portable container that can be mobile in practice and easily stored. Several additional tools are found within the appendixes that are useful for practitioners when administering this test. Referral notes for physicians and intervention plans for therapy support occupational therapists to not feel overwhelmed by the components of this test. Limitations The biVABA shows limited sources to determine the type of assessment and the explanation of validity and reliability. One data table was found utilizing normative information to assist our explanation with the type of assessment that the biVABA represents. Without the
assessment_critique_final.docx