enhancing recognition of high quality, functional ifsp...

A training activityfor Infant and Toddler

service providers

Enhancing Recognitionof High Quality, Functional

IFSP OutcomesA training activity

for Infant and Toddlerservice providers

Enhancing Recognitionof High Quality, Functional

IFSP Outcomes

Anne LucasKathi Gillaspy

Mary Louise PetersJoicey Hurth

with support from Dathan Rush, M’Lisa Shelden,

Debbie Cate and Megan Vinh

Anne LucasKathi Gillaspy

Mary Louise PetersJoicey Hurth

with support from Dathan Rush, M’Lisa Shelden,

Debbie Cate and Megan Vinh

Enhancing Recognition of High Quality, Functional IFSP Outcomes 2

The Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center

is a program of the

FPG Child Development Institute, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

June 2014 Enhancing Recognition of High Quality, Functional IFSP Outcomes

A training activity for Infant and Toddler service providers This resource is produced and distributed by the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center, funded through cooperative agreement number H326P120002 from the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent the Department of Education's position or policy. The ECTA Center is committed to making the information it disseminates fully accessible to all individuals. If you require any of this information in an alternate format, please contact us at the address below. Additional copies of this document are available at cost from the ECTA Center. A complete list of ECTA Center resources is available at our website or upon request. Please cite as:

Lucas, A., Gillaspy, K., Peters, M. L., & Hurth, J. (2014). Enhancing recognition of high quality, functional IFSP outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.ectacenter.org/~pdfs/pubs/rating-ifsp.pdf

Cover photo: Alex Lazara For more information about the ECTA Center, please contact us at: Campus Box 8040, UNC-CH Chapel Hill, NC 27599-8040 919-962-2001 • phone 919-966-7463 • fax ectacenter @unc.edu • email www.ectacenter.org • web Project Directors: Lynne Kahn & Christina Kasprzak Project Officer at OSEP: Julia Martin Eile


Enhancing Recognition of High Quality, Functional IFSP Outcomes

A training activity for Infant and Toddler service providers

Anne Lucas, Kathi Gillaspy, Mary Louise Peters and Joicey Hurth with support from Dathan Rush, M’Lisa Shelden, Debbie Cate and Megan Vinh

~ Table of Contents ~ Instructions

Background ........................................................................................................................... 3 Criteria Defining High Quality, Participation-Based IFSP Outcomes .................................... 4 IFSP Outcomes Rating Activity ............................................................................................. 6 Using the Rating Activity ....................................................................................................... 7 Alternate Activity ................................................................................................................... 8

Appendices

Appendix A: Criteria Defining High Quality, Participation-Based IFSP Outcomes ............... 9 Appendix B: IFSP Outcome Cards ..................................................................................... 11 Appendix C: IFSP Outcomes Placemat .............................................................................. 23 Appendix D: Answer Key to Rating IFSP Outcomes .......................................................... 25 Appendix E: Worksheet for Rating IFSP Outcomes ........................................................... 28 Appendix F: References ..................................................................................................... 31


Enhancing Recognition of High Quality, Functional IFSP Outcomes

A training activity for Infant and Toddler service providers

Anne Lucas, Kathi Gillaspy, Mary Louise Peters and Joicey Hurth with support from Dathan Rush, M’Lisa Shelden, Debbie Cate and Megan Vinh

Background

This training activity was created to support participants’ understanding of the criteria needed to develop and write high quality, participation-based Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) outcomes. The term “functional” is often used to describe what outcomes ought to be, yet many providers struggle to define what makes an outcome “functional.” Still others struggle with making outcomes meet the criteria set forth in regulations, as well as have meaning for families. Reviews of existing resources developed by national experts provided a framework for considering IFSP outcomes to determine if the outcomes are high quality and support the child’s participation in everyday routines and activities.

The key to supporting the development of high quality, participation-based outcomes is creating a clear and deliberate link between every step of the IFSP process, beginning with interactions with the family during initial contacts and referral through the development of the IFSP, and beyond. Critical to this process is the fundamental belief that children learn best through their participation in everyday activities and routines with familiar people. Also critical to this process are three important skills for providers:

• The ability to understand how to gather information from families throughout the process,

• The ability to conduct a functional assessment that gives a clear picture of the child’s abilities and needs in the child’s natural, everyday settings, activities and routines, and;

• The ability to use the information to develop outcomes.

Throughout the process of gathering information from families, special attention should be paid to the information the family shares about what’s working well for them, as well as what is challenging. When paired with the provider’s knowledge of early development and functional assessment occurring in multiple situations and settings, and over time, information from families provides all that is needed to develop high quality, participation-based outcomes.

An IEP Goal-oriented version of this activity is available at the following URL:

• http://www.ectacenter.org/~pdfs/pubs/rating-iep.pdf


Criteria Defining High Quality, Participation-Based IFSP Outcomes

The Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center reviewed expert-generated resources and identified six key criteria that define IFSP Outcomes as high quality and participation-based. They are:

• The outcome is necessary and functional for the child’s and family’s life. This means that the outcome focuses on ways to support the child and family’s participation in community life and family activities that are important to them. For the outcome to be necessary and functional, it should benefit the child by focusing on social relationships, acquiring and using knowledge and skills, and/or using appropriate actions to meet needs. It should also help the child and/or family improve participation in chosen activities and/or help them begin new activities that are important to them. The determination of what is necessary and functional is not based upon what the practitioner thinks is meaningful and functional for the family.

• The outcome reflects real-life contextualized settings. This means that outcome statements reflect the everyday activity settings and routines for the child and family. This includes mealtime, bathing and riding in the car, as well as routines and activities that are specific to the individual family. Specific isolated skills (e.g., test items that were missed during evaluation) are not considered real-life or contextualized.

• The outcome integrates developmental domains and is discipline-free. This means that the outcome is written to describe the child’s participation in routines and everyday activity settings, promoting skill development across multiple domains, which can be addressed by any member of a child’s IFSP team. It also means that the outcome should be written so that the child and/or family are the “actors” or persons doing something rather than the occupational therapist or early interventionist. For example, an outcome might state, “Annabelle will help her dad with the laundry by pulling up and standing at the dryer on her own and putting clothes into the laundry basket with her dad close by”, as opposed to “Annabelle will pull to a standing position at the couch and maintain her balance.”

• The outcome is jargon-free, clear and simple. This means that the outcome is written so that is understandable by the family and the general public, and does not include professional jargon or practitioner “speak.” For example, the outcome should describe how the child will move, such as reaching up or down for toys, instead of using phrases like “range of motion.” Another example would be wording an outcome so that it describes a child’s ability to speak words clearly to make herself understood, rather than using the term “articulation”.


• The outcome emphasizes the positive, not the negative. This means that the focus of the whole outcome statement is positive. It also means that the outcome states what the child and/or family will do, rather than what they will not do or stop doing. If there are any negative words within the statement, it is not a positively worded outcome. For example, the outcome should state “Johnny will chew and swallow food when eating with his family” rather than “Johnny will not spit out food when eating with his family.”

• The outcome uses active words rather than passive words. This means using words that encourage a child and/or family’s active participation or engagement. Active words include eat, play, talk, walk, etc. and indicate what the child or family will do. Passive words reflect a state of being (e.g., tolerate and receive), or a change or lack of change in performance (e.g., increase, decrease, improve, and maintain).

When the child’s contextual information is available (e.g., assessment information, the child’s IFSP), the following IFSP outcome criteria should also be evaluated:

• The outcome is based on the family’s priorities and concerns, and • The outcome describes both the child’s strengths and needs based on the

information from the initial evaluation and ongoing assessment. IFSP Outcomes Rating Activity

A. Materials Preparation 1. Print the Criteria Defining High Quality, Participation-Based IFSP Outcomes

(Appendix A on page 9) and the Answer Key to Rating High Quality, Participation-Based IFSP Outcomes (Appendix E on page 25) for each participant.

2. The IFSP Outcome Cards (Appendix B on page 11) contain 22 IFSP outcome statements (two per page). Print the outcomes statements on card stock and cut on lines indicated for a 4 x 6” card, or print on plain paper and glue to 4 x 6” index card.

3. Print the IFSP Outcomes Placemat (Appendix C on page 23) on a sheet of 8½ x 11” paper and laminate.

NOTE: The placemat included in this publication is 8½ x 11” in size so that they may be printed on any standard printer. A larger placemat measuring 11 x 17” in size is available for download from the following URL:

• http://www.ectacenter.org/~pdfs/pubs/rating-ifsp-placemat-11x17.pdf

In instances where this activity will be used with IEP-oriented groups as well, the IFSP placemat may be printed on the same paper (front and back) and/or laminated for durability.

4. One set of outcome statements will make 22 cards. One set of 22 cards goes with each placemat. Make as many sets as needed for the groups completing the activity.


B. Activity Instructions

The rating activity is designed to be used in multiple ways with different kinds of groups. Groups that are either familiar with the IFSP or in groups where participants are mixed in their experience may use it. In those situations, it is suggested that less familiar participants sit at tables with others who are familiar with the IFSP, so that they can work through the criteria together. The recommended group size is 3-6 people. 1. Provide a copy of the Criteria Defining High Quality, Participation-Based IFSP

Outcomes to each participant. 2. Give one placemat and one set of 22 IFSP Outcome Cards to each group. Be sure to

shuffle the cards so that outcome statements are not in the order they are on the answer key.

3. Have each group put a card in the center of the placemat so that the printed grid on the card matches up with the placemat (shown below):

4. Within each small group, have the participants discuss and rate the outcome statement

by writing “yes” or “no” in each quadrant, based on whether the statement meets each of corresponding criteria. Encourage participants to refer to the Criteria Defining High Quality, Participation-Based IFSP Outcomes while completing the ratings for each statement.

Criteria DefiningHigh Quality, Participation-Based

IFSP Outcomes

When the child’s contextual informationis available, the following IFSPoutcome criteria can also be evaluated: • The outcome is based on the family’s priorities and concerns.• The outcome describes both the child’s strengths and needs based on information from the initial evaluation and ongoing assessment.

The outcomecrossesdevelopmentaldomains and isdiscipline-free.

The outcomereflects real-lifecontextualizedsettings.

The outcomeemphasizesthe positive,

not thenegative.

The outcome uses active

words rather than passive ones.

The outcome is jargon-free,

clear and simple.

The outcome isnecessary andfunctional for thechild’s andfamily’s life.

Place Card Here

ectacenter.org/~pdfs/pubs/rating-ifsp.pdf

Lily will go fishing with

her family and hold her

own fishing pole.

IFSP Outcome Card 1 YesYes

YesYes

YesYes


5. Repeat for each card. 6. Have the participants separate the cards into “high quality” statements and

“substandard” statements. Statements that fail to meet all criteria (all those with a “no” in any quadrant) go into the “substandard” pile.

7. Distribute the Answer Key to Rating IFSP Outcomes (Appendix D on page 25). Ask your participants to compare their answers with the answer key.

8. Debrief with the group, asking questions such as:

• Where did you get stuck with an outcome statement? (Listen for varying interpretations of the criteria.)

• How might this activity help you in your work and within your team? • What additional supports do you need to help you successfully identify whether or

not an IFSP Outcome is of high quality and is participation-based?

Those using the activity to fit the context of the participants and their learning needs may add other questions to the debriefing.

NOTE: The criteria described in the bottom center box of the placemat should not be rated during the training activity. Be sure to tell participants that they are criteria to be considered when the child’s IFSP and assessment information is available, but for the purposes of the activity, they are reference information only.

Alternate Activity

A blank Worksheet for Rating IFSP Outcomes (Appendix E on page 28) of the activity has also been provided for the IFSP Outcome Cards. Provide copies of the worksheets to participants or groups with or without using the placemats or cards. Encourage participants to refer to the Criteria Defining High Quality, Participation-Based IFSP Outcomes (Appendix A on page 9) while completing the ratings for each statement.

In this version of the rating activity, participants write “yes” or “no” in each box under the criteria to rate outcomes. Participants can then compare their answers with the Answer Key to Rating IFSP Outcomes (Appendix D on page 25).

Tell us what you think.

If you used this training activity, consider evaluating it!

http://ectacenter.org/eval Your feedback is important to us.

Thank you for your time and attention!


Appendix A:

Criteria Defining High Quality, Participation-Based

IFSP Outcomes

Crit

eria

Def

inin

g H

igh

Qua

lity,

Par

ticip

atio

n-B

ased

IFSP

Out

com

es

ec

tace

nter

.org

/~pd

fs/p

ubs/

ratin

g-ifs

p.pd

f •

• Th

e ou

tcom

e is

nec

essa

ry a

nd fu

nctio

nal f

or th

e ch

ild’s

and

fa

mily

’s li

fe. T

his

mea

ns th

at th

e ou

tcom

e fo

cuse

s on

way

s to

su

ppor

t the

chi

ld a

nd fa

mily

’s p

artic

ipat

ion

in c

omm

unity

life

and

fa

mily

act

iviti

es th

at a

re im

porta

nt to

them

. For

the

outc

ome

to b

e ne

cess

ary

and

func

tiona

l, it

shou

ld b

enef

it th

e ch

ild b

y fo

cusi

ng o

n so

cial

rela

tions

hips

, acq

uirin

g an

d us

ing

know

ledg

e an

d sk

ills,

an

d/or

usi

ng a

ppro

pria

te a

ctio

ns to

mee

t nee

ds. I

t sho

uld

also

hel

p th

e ch

ild a

nd/o

r fam

ily im

prov

e pa

rtici

patio

n in

cho

sen

activ

ities

an

d/or

hel

p th

em b

egin

new

act

iviti

es th

at a

re im

porta

nt to

them

. Th

e de

term

inat

ion

of w

hat i

s ne

cess

ary

and

func

tiona

l is

not b

ased

up

on w

hat t

he p

ract

ition

er th

inks

is m

eani

ngfu

l and

func

tiona

l for

th

e fa

mily

.

• Th

e ou

tcom

e re

flect

s re

al-li

fe c

onte

xtua

lized

set

tings

. Thi

s m

eans

th

at o

utco

me

stat

emen

ts re

flect

the

ever

yday

act

ivity

set

tings

and

ro

utin

es fo

r the

chi

ld a

nd fa

mily

. Thi

s in

clud

es m

ealti

me,

bat

hing

an

d rid

ing

in th

e ca

r, as

wel

l as

rout

ines

and

act

iviti

es th

at a

re

spec

ific

to th

e in

divi

dual

fam

ily. S

peci

fic is

olat

ed s

kills

(e.g

., te

st

item

s th

at w

ere

mis

sed

durin

g ev

alua

tion)

are

not

con

side

red

real

-lif

e or

con

text

ualiz

ed.

• Th

e ou

tcom

e in

tegr

ates

dev

elop

men

tal d

omai

ns a

nd is

dis

cipl

ine-

free

. Thi

s m

eans

that

the

outc

ome

is w

ritte

n to

des

crib

e th

e ch

ild’s

pa

rtici

patio

n in

rout

ines

and

eve

ryda

y ac

tivity

set

tings

, pro

mot

ing

skill

dev

elop

men

t acr

oss

mul

tiple

dom

ains

, whi

ch c

an b

e ad

dres

sed

by a

ny m

embe

r of a

chi

ld’s

IFS

P te

am. I

t als

o m

eans

that

the

outc

ome

shou

ld b

e w

ritte

n so

that

the

child

and

/or f

amily

are

the

“act

ors”

or p

erso

ns d

oing

som

ethi

ng ra

ther

than

the

occu

patio

nal

ther

apis

t or e

arly

inte

rven

tioni

st. F

or e

xam

ple,

an

outc

ome

mig

ht

stat

e, “A

nnab

elle

will

hel

p he

r dad

with

the

laun

dry

by p

ullin

g up

an

d st

andi

ng a

t the

dry

er o

n he

r ow

n an

d pu

tting

clo

thes

into

the

laun

dry

bask

et w

ith h

er d

ad c

lose

by”

as

oppo

sed

to, “

Ann

abel

le

will

pul

l to

a st

andi

ng p

ositi

on a

t the

cou

ch a

nd m

aint

ain

her

bala

nce.

”

• Th

e ou

tcom

e is

jarg

on-fr

ee, c

lear

and

sim

ple.

Thi

s m

eans

that

the

outc

ome

is w

ritte

n so

that

is u

nder

stan

dabl

e by

the

fam

ily a

nd th

e ge

nera

l pub

lic, a

nd d

oes

not i

nclu

de p

rofe

ssio

nal j

argo

n or

pr

actit

ione

r “sp

eak.

” For

exa

mpl

e, th

e ou

tcom

e sh

ould

des

crib

e ho

w th

e ch

ild w

ill m

ove,

suc

h as

reac

hing

up

or d

own

for t

oys,

in

stea

d of

usi

ng p

hras

es li

ke “r

ange

of m

otio

n.” A

noth

er e

xam

ple

wou

ld b

e w

ordi

ng a

n ou

tcom

e so

that

it d

escr

ibes

a c

hild

’s a

bilit

y to

sp

eak

wor

ds c

lear

ly to

mak

e he

rsel

f und

erst

ood,

rath

er th

an u

sing

th

e te

rm “a

rticu

latio

n”.

• Th

e ou

tcom

e em

phas

izes

the

posi

tive,

not

the

nega

tive.

Thi

s m

eans

that

the

focu

s of

the

who

le o

utco

me

stat

emen

t is

posi

tive.

It

also

mea

ns th

at th

e ou

tcom

e st

ates

wha

t the

chi

ld a

nd/o

r fam

ily w

ill

do, r

athe

r tha

n w

hat t

hey

will

not

do

or s

top

doin

g. If

ther

e ar

e an

y ne

gativ

e w

ords

with

in th

e st

atem

ent,

it is

not

a p

ositi

vely

wor

ded

outc

ome.

For

exa

mpl

e, th

e ou

tcom

e sh

ould

sta

te “J

ohnn

y w

ill c

hew

an

d sw

allo

w fo

od w

hen

eatin

g w

ith h

is fa

mily

” rat

her t

han

“Joh

nny

will

not

spi

t out

food

whe

n ea

ting

with

his

fam

ily.”

• Th

e ou

tcom

e us

es a

ctiv

e w

ords

rath

er th

an p

assi

ve w

ords

. Thi

s m

eans

usi

ng w

ords

that

enc

oura

ge a

chi

ld a

nd/o

r fam

ily’s

act

ive

parti

cipa

tion

or e

ngag

emen

t. A

ctiv

e w

ords

incl

ude

eat,

play

, tal

k,

wal

k, e

tc. a

nd in

dica

te w

hat t

he c

hild

or f

amily

will

do.

Pas

sive

w

ords

refle

ct a

sta

te o

f bei

ng (e

.g.,

tole

rate

and

rece

ive)

, or a

ch

ange

or l

ack

of c

hang

e in

per

form

ance

(e.g

., in

crea

se, d

ecre

ase,

im

prov

e, a

nd m

aint

ain)

.


Appendix B:

IFSP Outcome Cards


IFSP Outcome Card 1

Carefully cut and detach these two cards to include them in the activity. The gridded lines on these cards match up with the IFSP Placemat in Appendix B and are used to write in a “yes” or “no” answer.

Lily will go fishing with her family and hold her own fishing pole.

IFSP Outcome Card 2

" Cut here Each card is numbered to make it easy to review and match up with the worksheet in Appendix D and Answer Key in Appendix C.

Romeo will go visit grandma and ride in his car seat all the way to her house.


IFSP Outcome Card 3


Kimmie will play with her toys so Grandma can cook breakfast and get the older kids off to school.

IFSP Outcome Card 4


Leroy will play together with his brother while his mom is making meals and express himself using gestures and words.


IFSP Outcome Card 5


Kamika will sleep through the night.

IFSP Outcome Card 6


Marcus will play in the backyard getting around on his own using his walker.


IFSP Outcome Card 7


Walker will greet friends at story time at the library.

IFSP Outcome Card 8


Phu will eat enough food so he can gain weight and not have to have surgery.


IFSP Outcome Card 9


Miles will be happy and relaxed when his mom leaves him at child care.

IFSP Outcome Card 10


Ahmet will get to eat what he wants during mealtimes by pointing or looking at the choices his parents provide.




Dahlia will join the family on short hikes at Upper Creek Falls while riding comfortably in her infant carrier.



Davis will talk more and pronounce words better.




Bonnie will use a pincer grasp to flip a switch.



Marta will participate in range of motion and strengthening exercises.




Robin will stop having tantrums at separation from primary caregiver when going to day care.



Miguel will improve his sleeping patterns 4 out of 5 times.




Angel will participate in reciprocal turn taking during one-to-one facilitation.



The occupational therapist will assist Jana in grasping objects.




Marcus will stack 4 blocks.



Lanesha will gradually stop eating baby food and eat more solid foods.




Thomas will put up with lying on his stomach for 10 minutes without crying.



I want my child to walk.


Appendix C:

IFSP Outcomes Placemat

Crit

eria

Def

inin

gH

igh

Qua

lity,

Par

ticip

atio

n-B

ased

IFSP

Out

com

es

Whe

n th

e ch

ild’s

con

text

ual i

nfor

mat

ion

is a

vaila

ble,

the

follo

win

g IF

SP

outc

ome

crite

ria c

an a

lso

be e

valu

ated

: •

The

out

com

e is

bas

ed o

n th

e fa

mily

’s

prio

ritie

s an

d co

ncer

ns.

• Th

e ou

tcom

e de

scrib

es b

oth

the

child

’s

stre

ngth

s an

d ne

eds

base

d on

info

rmat

ion

from

the

initi

al e

valu

atio

n

and

ong

oing

ass

essm

ent.

The

outc

ome

cros

ses

deve

lopm

enta

l do

mai

ns a

nd is

di

scip

line-

free.

The

outc

ome

refle

cts

real

-life

co

ntex

tual

ized

se

tting

s.

The

out

com

eem

phas

izes

the

posi

tive,

not t

hene

gativ

e.

The

outc

ome

use

s ac

tive

wor

ds ra

ther

than

pas

sive

one

s.

The

outc

ome

is ja

rgon

-free

, c

lear

and

sim

ple.

The

outc

ome

is

nece

ssar

y an

d fu

nctio

nal f

or th

e ch

ild’s

and

fa

mily

’s li

fe.

Plac

e C

ard

Her

e

ecta

cent

er.o

rg/~

pdfs

/pub

s/ra

ting-

ifsp.

pdf


Appendix D:

Answer Key to Rating IFSP Outcomes

Ans

wer

Key

to R

atin

g IF

SP O

utco

mes

ec

tace

nter

.org

/~pd

fs/p

ubs/

ratin

g-ifs

p.pd

f

Ans

wer

Key

to R

atin

g IF

SP O

utco

mes

P

artic

ipat

ion-

base

d, H

igh

Qua

lity

vs. S

kills

-bas

ed, S

ubst

anda

rd

Rat

ing

Crit

eria

:1 •

The

outc

ome

is n

eces

sary

and

func

tiona

l for

the

child

’s a

nd fa

mily

’s li

fe.

• Th

e ou

tcom

e re

flect

s re

al-li

fe c

onte

xtua

lized

set

tings

. •

The

outc

ome

inte

grat

es d

evel

opm

enta

l dom

ains

and

is d

isci

plin

e-fre

e.

• Th

e ou

tcom

e is

jarg

on-fr

ee, c

lear

and

sim

ple.

•

The

outc

ome

emph

asiz

es th

e po

sitiv

e, n

ot th

e ne

gativ

e.

• Th

e ou

tcom

e us

es a

ctiv

e w

ords

rath

er th

an p

assi

ve o

nes.

The

follo

win

g ta

ble

uses

the

wor

d “Y

es” t

o m

ean

that

the

outc

ome

mee

ts th

e cr

iteria

list

ed, a

nd “N

o” to

mea

n th

at th

e ou

tcom

e do

es n

ot

mee

t the

crit

eria

list

ed.

A p

artic

ipat

ion-

base

d, h

igh

qual

ity o

utco

me

is o

ne th

at m

eets

all

of th

e cr

iteria

. S

ampl

e IF

SP O

utco

mes

2

Mee

ts C

riter

ia?

— Yes

or No

Nec

essa

ry/

Func

tiona

l

Rea

l-life

C

onte

xtua

l Se

ttings

Cro

sses

D

omai

ns/

Disc

iplin

e-Fr

ee

Jarg

on-

Free

Posit

ive,

Not

N

egat

ive

Activ

e,

Not

Pa

ssive

1.

Lily

will

go

fishi

ng w

ith h

er fa

mily

and

hol

d he

r ow

n fis

hing

pol

e.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

2.

Rom

eo w

ill g

o vi

sit g

rand

ma

and

ride

in h

is c

ar s

eat a

ll th

e w

ay to

he

r hou

se.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

3.

Kim

mie

will

pla

y w

ith h

er to

ys s

o G

rand

ma

can

cook

bre

akfa

st

and

get t

he o

lder

kid

s of

f to

scho

ol.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

4.

Lero

y w

ill p

lay

toge

ther

with

his

bro

ther

whi

le h

is m

om is

mak

ing

mea

ls a

nd e

xpre

ss h

imse

lf us

ing

gest

ures

and

wor

ds.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

5.

Kam

ika

will

sle

ep th

roug

h th

e ni

ght.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

6.

Mar

cus

will

pla

y in

the

back

yard

get

ting

arou

nd o

n hi

s ow

n us

ing

his

wal

ker.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

1 Whe

n th

e ch

ild’s

con

text

ual i

nfor

mat

ion

(med

ical

or d

evel

opm

enta

l inf

orm

atio

n, e

valu

atio

n an

d as

sess

men

t res

ults

, fam

ily in

terv

iew

, etc

.) is

ava

ilabl

e, th

e fo

llow

ing

IFS

P o

utco

me

crite

ria c

an a

lso

be e

valu

ated

:

• Th

e O

UTC

OM

E is

bas

ed o

n th

e fa

mily

’s p

riorit

ies

and

conc

erns

. •

The

OU

TCO

ME

des

crib

es b

oth

the

child

’s s

treng

ths

and

need

s ba

sed

on in

form

atio

n fro

m th

e in

itial

eva

luat

ion

or o

ngoi

ng a

sses

smen

t. 2 S

ampl

e ou

tcom

e st

atem

ents

pro

vide

d by

Dat

han

Rus

h an

d M

’Lis

a S

held

en o

f the

Fam

ily, I

nfan

t and

Pre

scho

ol P

rogr

am, M

orga

nton

, NC

Ans

wer

Key

to R

atin

g IF

SP O

utco

mes

ec

tace

nter

.org

/~pd

fs/p

ubs/

ratin

g-ifs

p.pd

f

Sam

ple

IFSP

Out

com

es2

Mee

ts C

riter

ia?

— Yes

or No

Nec

essa

ry/

Func

tiona

l

Rea

l-life

C

onte

xtua

l Se

ttings

Cro

sses

D

omai

ns/

Disc

iplin

e-Fr

ee

Jarg

on-

Free

Posit

ive,

Not

N

egat

ive

Activ

e,

Not

Pa

ssive

7.

Wal

ker w

ill g

reet

frie

nds

at s

tory

tim

e at

the

libra

ry.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

8.

Phu

will

eat

eno

ugh

food

so

he c

an g

ain

wei

ght a

nd n

ot h

ave

to

have

sur

gery

. Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

9.

Mile

s w

ill b

e ha

ppy

and

rela

xed

whe

n hi

s m

om le

aves

him

at

child

car

e.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

10. A

hmet

will

get

to e

at w

hat h

e w

ants

dur

ing

mea

ltim

es b

y po

intin

g or

look

ing

at th

e ch

oice

s hi

s pa

rent

s pr

ovid

e.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

11. D

ahlia

will

go

with

the

fam

ily o

n sh

ort h

ikes

at U

pper

Cre

ek F

alls

w

hile

ridi

ng c

omfo

rtabl

y in

her

infa

nt c

arrie

r. Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

12. D

avis

will

talk

mor

e an

d pr

onou

nce

wor

ds b

ette

r. Y

es

No

No

Yes

Y

es

Yes

13. B

onni

e w

ill u

se a

pin

cer g

rasp

to fl

ip a

sw

itch.

N

o N

o N

o N

o Y

es

Yes

14. M

arta

will

par

ticip

ate

in ra

nge

of m

otio

n an

d st

reng

then

ing

exer

cise

s.

No

No

No

No

Yes

N

o

15. R

obin

will

sto

p ha

ving

tant

rum

s at

sep

arat

ion

from

prim

ary

care

give

r whe

n go

ing

to d

ay c

are.

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

No

No

Yes

16. M

igue

l will

impr

ove

his

slee

ping

pat

tern

s 4

out o

f 5 ti

mes

. Y

es

No

Yes

N

o Y

es

No

17. A

ngel

will

par

ticip

ate

in re

cipr

ocal

turn

taki

ng d

urin

g on

e-to

-one

fa

cilit

atio

n.

No

No

Yes

N

o Y

es

No

18. T

he o

ccup

atio

nal t

hera

pist

will

ass

ist J

ana

in g

rasp

ing

obje

cts.

N

o N

o N

o N

o Y

es

No

19. M

arcu

s w

ill s

tack

4 b

lock

s.

No

No

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

20. L

anes

ha w

ill g

radu

ally

sto

p ea

ting

baby

food

and

eat

mor

e so

lid

food

s.

Yes

N

o Y

es

Yes

N

o Y

es

21. T

hom

as w

ill p

ut u

p w

ith ly

ing

on h

is s

tom

ach

for 1

0 m

inut

es

with

out c

ryin

g.

No

No

Yes

Y

es

No

No

22. I

wan

t my

child

to w

alk.

Y

es

No

No

Yes

Y

es

No


Appendix E:

Worksheet for Rating IFSP Outcomes

Wor

kshe

et fo

r Rat

ing

IFSP

Out

com

es

ecta

cent

er.o

rg/~

pdfs

/pub

s/ra

ting-

ifsp.

pdf

Wor

kshe

et fo

r Rat

ing

IFSP

Out

com

es

Par

ticip

atio

n-ba

sed,

Hig

h Q

ualit

y vs

. Ski

lls-b

ased

, Sub

stan

dard

Rat

ing

Crit

eria

:1 •

The

outc

ome

is n

eces

sary

and

func

tiona

l for

the

child

’s a

nd fa

mily

’s li

fe.

• Th

e ou

tcom

e re

flect

s re

al-li

fe c

onte

xtua

lized

set

tings

. •

The

outc

ome

inte

grat

es d

evel

opm

enta

l dom

ains

and

is d

isci

plin

e-fre

e.

• Th

e ou

tcom

e is

jarg

on-fr

ee, c

lear

and

sim

ple.

•

The

outc

ome

emph

asiz

es th

e po

sitiv

e, n

ot th

e ne

gativ

e.

• Th

e ou

tcom

e us

es a

ctiv

e w

ords

rath

er th

an p

assi

ve o

nes.

The

follo

win

g ta

ble

uses

the

wor

d “Y

es” t

o m

ean

that

the

outc

ome

mee

ts th

e cr

iteria

list

ed, a

nd “N

o” to

mea

n th

at th

e ou

tcom

e do

es n

ot

mee

t the

crit

eria

list

ed.

A p

artic

ipat

ion-

base

d, h

igh

qual

ity o

utco

me

is o

ne th

at m

eets

all

of th

e cr

iteria

. S

ampl

e IF

SP O

utco

mes

2

Mee

ts C

riter

ia?

— Yes

or No

Nec

essa

ry/

Func

tiona

l

Rea

l-life

C

onte

xtua

l Se

ttings

Cro

sses

D

omai

ns/

Disc

iplin

e-Fr

ee

Jarg

on-

Free

Posit

ive,

Not

N

egat

ive

Activ

e,

Not

Pa

ssive

1.

Lily

will

go

fishi

ng w

ith h

er fa

mily

and

hol

d he

r ow

n fis

hing

pol

e.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

2.

Rom

eo w

ill g

o vi

sit g

rand

ma

and

ride

in h

is c

ar s

eat a

ll th

e w

ay to

he

r hou

se.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

3.

Kim

mie

will

pla

y w

ith h

er to

ys s

o G

rand

ma

can

cook

bre

akfa

st

and

get t

he o

lder

kid

s of

f to

scho

ol.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

4.

Lero

y w

ill p

lay

toge

ther

with

his

bro

ther

whi

le h

is m

om is

mak

ing

mea

ls a

nd e

xpre

ss h

imse

lf us

ing

gest

ures

and

wor

ds.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

5.

Kam

ika

will

sle

ep th

roug

h th

e ni

ght.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

6.

Mar

cus

will

pla

y in

the

back

yard

get

ting

arou

nd o

n hi

s ow

n us

ing

his

wal

ker.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

1 Whe

n th

e ch

ild’s

con

text

ual i

nfor

mat

ion

(med

ical

or d

evel

opm

enta

l inf

orm

atio

n, e

valu

atio

n an

d as

sess

men

t res

ults

, fam

ily in

terv

iew

, etc

.) is

ava

ilabl

e, th

e fo

llow

ing

IFS

P o

utco

me

crite

ria c

an a

lso

be e

valu

ated

:

• Th

e O

UTC

OM

E is

bas

ed o

n th

e fa

mily

’s p

riorit

ies

and

conc

erns

. •

The

OU

TCO

ME

des

crib

es b

oth

the

child

’s s

treng

ths

and

need

s ba

sed

on in

form

atio

n fro

m th

e in

itial

eva

luat

ion

or o

ngoi

ng a

sses

smen

t. 2 S

ampl

e ou

tcom

e st

atem

ents

pro

vide

d by

Dat

han

Rus

h an

d M

’Lis

a S

held

en o

f the

Fam

ily, I

nfan

t and

Pre

scho

ol P

rogr

am, M

orga

nton

, NC

Wor

kshe

et fo

r Rat

ing

IFSP

Out

com

es

ecta

cent

er.o

rg/~

pdfs

/pub

s/ra

ting-

ifsp.

pdf

Sam

ple

IFSP

Out

com

es2

Mee

ts C

riter

ia?

— Yes

or No

Nec

essa

ry/

Func

tiona

l

Rea

l-life

C

onte

xtua

l Se

ttings

Cro

sses

D

omai

ns/

Disc

iplin

e-Fr

ee

Jarg

on-

Free

Posit

ive,

Not

N

egat

ive

Activ

e,

Not

Pa

ssive

7.

Wal

ker w

ill g

reet

frie

nds

at s

tory

tim

e at

the

libra

ry.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

8.

Phu

will

eat

eno

ugh

food

so

he c

an g

ain

wei

ght a

nd n

ot h

ave

to

have

sur

gery

. Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

9.

Mile

s w

ill b

e ha

ppy

and

rela

xed

whe

n hi

s m

om le

aves

him

at

child

car

e.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

10. A

hmet

will

get

to e

at w

hat h

e w

ants

dur

ing

mea

ltim

es b

y po

intin

g or

look

ing

at th

e ch

oice

s hi

s pa

rent

s pr

ovid

e.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

11. D

ahlia

will

go

with

the

fam

ily o

n sh

ort h

ikes

at U

pper

Cre

ek F

alls

w

hile

ridi

ng c

omfo

rtabl

y in

her

infa

nt c

arrie

r. Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

12. D

avis

will

talk

mor

e an

d pr

onou

nce

wor

ds b

ette

r. Y

es

No

No

Yes

Y

es

Yes

13. B

onni

e w

ill u

se a

pin

cer g

rasp

to fl

ip a

sw

itch.

N

o N

o N

o N

o Y

es

Yes

14. M

arta

will

par

ticip

ate

in ra

nge

of m

otio

n an

d st

reng

then

ing

exer

cise

s.

No

No

No

No

Yes

N

o

15. R

obin

will

sto

p ha

ving

tant

rum

s at

sep

arat

ion

from

prim

ary

care

give

r whe

n go

ing

to d

ay c

are.

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

No

No

Yes

16. M

igue

l will

impr

ove

his

slee

ping

pat

tern

s 4

out o

f 5 ti

mes

. Y

es

No

Yes

N

o Y

es

No

17. A

ngel

will

par

ticip

ate

in re

cipr

ocal

turn

taki

ng d

urin

g on

e-to

-one

fa

cilit

atio

n.

No

No

Yes

N

o Y

es

No

18. T

he o

ccup

atio

nal t

hera

pist

will

ass

ist J

ana

in g

rasp

ing

obje

cts.

N

o N

o N

o N

o Y

es

No

19. M

arcu

s w

ill s

tack

4 b

lock

s.

No

No

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

20. L

anes

ha w

ill g

radu

ally

sto

p ea

ting

baby

food

and

eat

mor

e so

lid

food

s.

Yes

N

o Y

es

Yes

N

o Y

es

21. T

hom

as w

ill p

ut u

p w

ith ly

ing

on h

is s

tom

ach

for 1

0 m

inut

es

with

out c

ryin

g.

No

No

Yes

Y

es

No

No

22. I

wan

t my

child

to w

alk.

Y

es

No

No

Yes

Y

es

No


Appendix F:

References

1. McWilliam, R. A. (2006). Steps to build a functional outcome. Siskin Children’s Institute. Retrieved from http://www.siskin.org/downloads/ Steps_to_Build_a_Functional_Child_Outcome.pdf

2. McWilliam, R. A. (2009). Goal Functionality Scale III. Retrieved from http://www.nectac.org/~pdfs/topics/families/GoalFunctionalityScaleIII_2_.pdf

3. Rush, M. L., & Shelden, D. D. (2009). Tips and techniques for developing participation-based IFSP outcomes statements, BriefCASE, 2(1). Retrieved from http://www.fippcase.org/briefcase/briefcase_vol2_no1.pdf

4. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2000). A guide to the Individualized Education Program. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/parents/needs/speced/iepguide/iepguide.pdf

5. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (n.d.). Model form: Individualized Education Plan. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/modelform-iep.pdf

6. Bar-Lev, N., Van Haren, B., Laffin, K., Wright, A., Derginer, M., Graves, T., Kubinski, E., & Bernt,. S. (2009). A guide to connecting academic standards and IEPs (draft). Retrieved from http://dpi.state.wi.us/sped/pdf/iepstandardsguide.pdf

7. OSEP TA Community of Practice, Workgroup on Principles and Practices in Natural Environments. (2008). Mission and key principles of early intervention services. Retrieved from http://www.nectac.org/~pdfs/topics/families/Finalmissionandprinciples3_11_08.pdf

8. OSEP TA Community of Practice, Workgroup on Principles and Practices in Natural Environments. (2008). Seven key principles: Looks like/doesn't look like. Retrieved from http://www.nectac.org/~pdfs/topics/families/ Principles_LooksLike_DoesntLookLike3_11_08.pdf

9. OSEP TA Community of Practice, Workgroup on Principles and Practices in Natural Environments. (2008). Agreed upon practices for providing early intervention services in natural environments. Retrieved from http://www.nectac.org/~pdfs/topics/families/ AgreedUponPractices_FinalDraft2_01_08.pdf

10. Early Childhood Outcomes Center. (2011). ECO resources: IFSP/IEP-outcomes integration. Retrieved from http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~eco/pages/integration.cfm

11. Early Childhood Outcomes Center, IFSP/IEP-Outcomes Integration Think Tank. (2010). Integrating child outcome measurement with the Individualized Education Program (IEP) process: Implementation Rating Scale. Retrieved from http://leadershipmega-conf-reg.tadnet.org/uploads/ file_assets/attachments/281/ original_Integrating_outcomes_IEP_rating.pdf?1280240466

enhancing recognition of high quality, functional ifsp...

Documents