national early childhood transition research and training center beth rous katherine mccormick...
TRANSCRIPT
National Early Childhood Transition
Research and Training Center
Beth Rous
Katherine McCormick
Caroline Gooden
Megan Cox
University of Kentucky
Purpose of National Early Childhood Transition Center (NECTC)
To investigate and validate practices and strategies that enhance the early childhood transition process and
support positive school outcomes for children with disabilities.
• Investigators
• Data Coordination and Collection
• External Stakeholders
Stakeholder Groups
Advisory Council– Input on data collection, analyses, and dissemination; – Parents, 619 & Part C Coordinators, teacher/provider
representatives Expert Panel
– Input on research methods, review research, policy, & practice documents
– Representatives from research, T & TA, state and national policy makers
Diversity Workgroup– Input on appropriateness of design, data interpretation, &
development of materials for diverse populations– Representatives address significant disabilities & diverse
cultures/languages External Evaluator
– Ongoing evaluation of the project activities and processes.
Identify Current Research, Policy and Practice in Transition
The State of the Evidence
Articles sent for review N Met Criteria*
Child Focused Studies 33 27
Family Focused Studies 17 16
Policy Studies 6 In process
*Meet Criteria for Levels of Evidence Identified
Review Process and Products
Detailed Research Review Protocol– Intervention Based Research Studies– Policy Based Research Studies
Research Summary– Child and Family– Policy
Searchable Database
Identify Child, Family and Program Factors that impact Transition
Sampling Plan
Target States (KY, LA, MI, OR & WI) – Purposive sample for representation and diversity
region, size, population density, minority membership
– Part C lead agency and history of EI/ECSE service delivery
Sample of Children within Target States– Met state criteria for Part C and at least 30 months old – Met state criteria for 619 and will transition to kindergarten
Sampling Plan cont.
Early Intervention Children
Preschool Children
Early Intervention Children
Preschool Children
Cohort Groups
536 Total Children
Recruitment
Preschool transition sample– Sampling pool based on providers willing to participate
from sample of all Part C providers in state– Stratified random sample of children/families on
provider caseloads using state IDEA child data at the state level (with oversampling)
Kindergarten transition sample – a clustered recruitment frame – recruited from same communities as the Cohort 1– followed Cohort 1 into settings
Study States
• Birth Entitlement• Education & Health & Human Services Lead• Vendor and Agency Based
Transition Policy Characteristics of Study States
Use of Section 619 funds to provide FAPE to children before their third birthday – One state has a policy that allows– One state has policy that does not allow
The use of Part C funds to provide FAPE for children past their third birthday – No states had a policy that allows– Two states have policies that do not allow
Instrumentation
Screened existing and published instruments for utility, psychometric properties, and feasibility
Selected tools– Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Behavior Assessment Scales Children– Merrill Palmer, Revised– Pediatric Evaluation Diagnostic Inventory
Selection of Existing Instruments
Theoretical and conceptual linkages to research questions and literature
Usage across other large scale studies to allow for comparison
Items selected from the following studies National Center for Early Development & Learning
(NCEDL) Pre-Elementary Education Longitudinal Study (PEELS) National Early Intervention Longitudinal Study (NEILS) Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS) (Birth and
Kindergarten)
Development of Instruments
Based on theoretical and conceptual linkages to research questions
Piloted for ease of use and family-friendly language
Spanish versions developed
A Conceptual Framework for Thinking About Transition
Family InterviewService Coordinator SurveyProvider SurveysFamily Support Scale
Community SurveyAdministrator SurveyProvider SurveysLICC surveyFamily Interview
Family InterviewProvider Surveys
Family InterviewAdministrator SurveyLICC surveyTPP
Family InterviewAdministrator Survey
All Instruments
Part C Survey619 SurveySICC Survey
Instrumentation
InstrumentationTeacher SurveyService Coordinator SurveyAdministrator SurveyProvider Survey
BASC Family Empowerment ScaleFamily Interview
TPPAdministrator SurveyProvider SurveyService Coordinator Survey
Service Coordinator SurveyFamily Interview
Instrumentation
ELMPPVTIGDIDIBELSEarly Math
BASCProvider SurveysService Coordinator SurveyFamily Interview
PPVTBASCProvider SurveysService Coordinator SurveyFamily Interview
BASCProvider SurveysService Coordinator SurveyFamily Interview
Study Personnel
State Coordinators’ Roles (n = 4)
– Administrative & training oversight
– Recruit programs & providers
– Train data collectors– Maintain all records– Follow-up with
families & providers – Send to UK
Data Collectors’ Roles (n = 28)
– Making home visits to gather data (children, families, & providers)
– Maintain reliability of data collection
– Organize paperwork for all visits in
– Preparation to send to UK (with Coordinator)
Inter-rater and Procedural Reliability and Fidelity
All personnel trained on instrument administration
Site coordinators trained by authors or certified trainers
Site coordinators trained data collectors
Initial reliability of 90% reached
Technical Support, Training & Fidelity
Training Procedures – Trainings standardized and revisited periodically to ensure
fidelity of the procedures Technical Support
– Multiple formats (emails, listservs, printed resources, manuals, on-site visits by the Coordinator)
– Ongoing communication between site coordinators, data collectors, and research team
– Questions routed to full access shared server Fidelity
– Ongoing reliability of 10% of each state sample for each data collector
– Reliability established and maintained at 90%
Data Collection Timeline
Child age pre-transition = 32 to 36 months oldChild age post-transition = 39 and 42 months oldData collected at family home or other location familiar to child (i.e. day care, church)
Provider and Administrator Data Collection
Family provided contact for provider who knows the child best
Provider was mailed two surveys to complete– Beliefs/practices based on his/her own caseload– Child specific
Administrators were asked to complete one survey on the general environment of the facility and inclusion practices
Sample
Total sample for at-3 transition (n = 225) Child assessments completed
– Pre-transition at age 3 (n = 196)– Post-transition at age 3 (n = 161)
Factors affecting attrition– KATRINA– Locating families
Family Respondents
Most frequent respondents were biological mothers
The majority of children resided in two-parent households
Family Income and Work Status
46% of respondents did not work outside the home 35% of these respondents were in two parent households
%
Family Income Level
50% of children received WIC benefits
22% of children received SSI benefits
Child Ethnicity
English was primary language for the overwhelming majority (96.7%) of children
Child Ethnicity
Children in the Study
The majority of children were male
The majority were born during summer months
Disability Categories
IDEA Category N of Children
IDEA Category N of Children
Autism 25 Other Health Impaired 32
Deafness 4 Serious Emotional Disturbance 1
Deaf-Blind 0 Specific Learning Disability 0
Hearing Impaired 4 Speech/Language Impaired 109
Mental Retardation 18 Traumatic Brain Injury 2
Multiple Disabilities 0 Visually Impaired/Blindness 4
Orthopedic Impaired 42 Developmental Delay 52
Non- Specified 13
*Groups not mutually exclusive
What was your child’s age when you first started transition planning?
Differences in transition by state
Transition type does not impact age at transition
%
How much effort did it take on your part to transition your child?
How helpful were transition planning services?
No significant differences by state
%
What Does Transition Look Like For Children in the sample?
%
•No significant differences by state
Post Transition
The majority of children transitioned to preschool special education services
Children Who Did Not Transition to Preschool Special Education
Activities to Support Transition
Parent Survey Transition Perception of Parents (TPP –
Adapted) Roberts, Innocenti, Judd, Taylor, & Morris, 1998 – Occurred or did not occur– If yes, level of satisfaction
Organized by:– Before the placement decision (N=7 items)– After the placement decision (N=8 items)– Once services were initiated (N=5 items)
1 = Very Satisfied 2 = Somewhat Satisfied
3 = Somewhat Dissatisfied
4 = Very Dissatisfied
Activities to Support Transition
Before the placement decision (N=7 items)– Average use = 4.30 (SD 1.68) or 61%– Average Satisfaction = 16.16 (SD = 6.71), range 1-28
After the placement decision (N=8 items)– Average use = 3.83 (SD 1.72) or 48%– Average Satisfaction = 15.42 (SD = 6.06), range 1-32
Once services were initiated (N=5 items)– Average use = 3.64 (SD 1.43) or 73%– Average Satisfaction = 14.48 (SD = 5.04), range 4-20
Adapted TPP preliminary reliability = .64 to .96
Transition Activities Before Placement Decision
Before Placement Decision % Yes Satisfaction
Easy access to my child’s records 88.3 3.78
EI provider helped prepare me ahead of time for transition 82.2 3.72
Received information needed to make decision about how services would change 81.2 3.61
I was major decision maker about where child would go for preschool 74.0 3.77
Had a choice between different options for preschool and/or other services 57.5 3.58
Had opportunity to visit different preschools before final decision 41.1 3.64
Offered opportunity to talk with other parents about their experiences during transition from EI to preschool* 17.7 3.63
Overall use - Mean = 4.30 of 7;SD 1.68 (61%)
Transition Activities After Placement Decision
After Placement Decision % Yes Satisfaction
Talked with preschool staff about special needs of my child and details (meals)
82.3 3.76
Received information about the new setting (skills child should have) 82.1 3.71
Parent had the opportunity to visit the class child will attend 76.4 3.78
EI and preschool staff communicated with each other about child’s transition 76.0 3.76
EI continued services, if gap between the child’s 3rd birth and school entry 32.5 3.68
Parent introduced to other families in the child’s class* 21.0 3.72
Preschool teacher visited the family in their home 20.0 3.76
Parent given contact information of other families in child’s class* 8.9 3.65
Overall use - Mean = 3.83 of 8;SD 1.72 (48%)
Transition Activities After Services are Initiated
After Services Start % Yes Satisfaction
Child’s provider shared information about how child adjusting to new setting
86.8 3.78
All or most needed services on IEP were in place at time child started preschool 81.0 3.79
Child’s records promptly followed him/her to the preschool or new agency
74.6 3.85
New teacher asked how parent thought child was adjusting to new setting
70.7 3.78
Staff from EI and preschool worked with parent to solve any difficulties with encountered with the new setting 55.8 3.73
Overall use - Mean = 3.64 of 5; SD 1.43 (73%)
Relationships
Number of practices used BEFORE placement decision
Number of practices used AFTER placement decision
TOTAL number of practices used
Parents’ perception of how helpful
transition planning services were to the
family
Discussion Questions Comments
For More Information
Caroline GoodenInterdisciplinary Human Development Institute
University of Kentucky126 Mineral Industries Building
Lexington, KY 40506-0051Phone: 859-257-2081
Toll Free: 866-742-4015Fax: 859-257-2769
Email:[email protected]://www.ihdi.uky.edu/nectc