the individual family service plan: unresolved problems

140 Clarizio

MCKINNEY, J. (1988). Research on conceptually and empirically derived sub-types of specific learning disabilities. In M. Wang, M. Reynolds, T. A. Walberg (Eds.), The handbook of special education: Research and practice (pp. 253-28 1). Oxford: Pergamon.

NEEL, R., MEADOWS, N., LMNE, P., a EDOAR, E. (1988). What happens after special education: A statewide follow-up study of secondary students who have behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 13,209-216.

QUAY, H. (1987). Patterns of delinquent behavior. In H. Quay (Ed.), Handbook of juvenile delinquency (pp. 118-138). New York: Wiley.

RApopORT, J., a ISMOND, D. (1990). DSM-Ill-R training guide for diagnosis of childhood disorders. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

ROURKE, B. (1988). Socioemotional disturbances of learning disabled children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 801 -810.

SIMCHA-FAGAN. O., LANGNER, T., GERSTEN, J., a EISENBERG, J. (1975). Violent and antisocial behavior: A longitudinal study of urban youth. (OCB-CB-480). Unpublished manuscript, Office of Child Development.

SINGER, J., PALFREY, J., BUTLER, J., a WALKER, D. (1989). Variation in special education classification across school districts: How does where you live affect what you are labeled? American Educational Research Journal, 26, 26 1-281.

SLENKOVICH, J . (1983). PL 94-142 as applied to DSM-Ill diagnoses: An analyses of DSM-Ill diagnoses vis- b-vis special education law. Cupertino, CA: Kinghorn Press.

U S . DEPARTMENT OP EDUCATION. (1989). Eleventh annual report to Congress on the implementation of the handicapped act. Washington, DC: Author.

WAGNER, M . (1989, March), The transition of youth with dkabilities: A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study. Paper presented at the meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children, San Fran- cisco, CA.

WALKER, H., a RANKIN, R. (1983). Assessing the behavioral expectations and demands of less restrictive settings. School Psychology Review, 12, 214-284.

Psychology in Ihe Schools Volume 29, April 1992

THE INDIVIDUAL FAMILY SERVICE PLAN: UNRESOLVED PROBLEMS JOAN F. GOODMAN AND SARAH A. HOVER

University of Pennsylvania

The federal requirement to develop an Individual Family Service Plan (IFSP) for all infants and toddlers with special needs has a major conceptual difficulty that has, to date, been inadequately addressed in the literature. That problem stems from the linkage of family service to family assessment. Many authorities, attracted to parental “empowerment” theory, advocate that parents should be the authors rather than (or as well as) the objects of assessment, and that professionals and parents should be partners in assessing needs and planning services. When there is disagreement, professionals should defer to parents, who are in the best position to assess their own needs. We question the wisdom of conducting assessments with, or on, families of targeted children. But, if there are to be assessments, we argue that families are better served, and mutual respect better preserved, by a traditional complementary relationship: The professional controls the evaluation process, determines the problems (with the input of the family), and makes recommendations, which parents are then free to reject.

Congress, in passing Public Law 99-457 (Education of the Handicapped Act Amend- ments of 1986, Title I, Part H), authorized service not only to infants and toddlers with

Requests for reprints should be sent to Joan F. Goodman, Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6216.

IFSP Critique 141

special needs but, through the mechanism of an Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP), to their families as well. Whereas the Individual Education Plan (IEP) focuses on the child, the IFSP focuses on the family unit-its strengths and needs. Specifically, an IFSP must include, among other components, (a) the child’s developmental levels; (b) the family’s strengths and needs as relevant to the child’s development; (c) major goals for the child and family, including criteria, procedures, and timelines used to determine progress and modification of goals and services; and (d) a statement of services necessary to meet the needs of the child and the family, including frequency, in- tensity, and methods.

By opening up service eligibility to families, Congress acknowledged the validity of two shifts in modern psychological theory: the family system rather than the individual as the target of treatment (Minuchin, 1974), and the formulation of development in an ecological rather than individual context (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). Professionals have reacted favorably to incorporating the entire family into a service plan, calling for a “family systems” approach to early intervention (e.g., Dunst & Trivette, 1988; Foster, Berger, & McLean, 1981; Trout & Foley, 1989). As observed by the authors of the Guidelines and Recommended Practices for the Individualized Family Service Plan (Johnson, McGonigel, & Kaufmann, 1989), “The IFSP is a promise to children and families-a promise that their strengths will be recognized and built on, that their needs will be met in a way that is respectful of their beliefs and values, and that their hopes and aspirations will be encouraged and enabled” (p. 1). Without in any way denying the obvious centrality of parents in their children’s development, and the respect due them by professionals, we believe that a major conceptual difficulty has been overlooked in the general glad tidings that have greeted the IFSP.

The difficulty stems from the fact that under the terms of the IFSP, unlike the IEP, both the child’s and family’s “strengths and needs” are addressed in the assessment process even though, presumably, only the child has a disability. The dilemma this creates is that in the family systems perspective there is a strong deemphasis on an “identified patient .” The child cannot be understood independently of a family; all family members influence and are influenced by the social structure they have created (Minuchin, 1974). Because the system is revealed through its actions and members are not necessarily aware of the role they play, it is most advantageously observed from the outside by an objective and expert professional, rather than by family members themselves. Yet why should nondisabled family members, just because they are a part of a family system, be sub- ject to the observations and judgments of professionals? Why should they be the object of study rather than the authority on themselves?

To get around the difficulty of assessing well-functioning individuals, writers on the IFSP have tended to consider parents (the term is intended to cover also nonparents serving as caretakers) as the authors rather than the objects of assessment. Parents are viewed as co-professionals, partners, and collaborators, able to specify their own strengths and needs and to shed light on those of their child. Leading writers on the IFSP clearly reject the parents-as-object-of-assessment alternative. The authors of the Guidelines (Johnson et al., 1989) attach great importance to the supremacy of family wishes. According to them, it is the family that determines what conditions control “its ability to enhance the development of its child. This provision [IFSP] of Public Law 99-457 was intended to allow early intervention programs to serve children within the context of their families. It was not intended to give professionals permission to intrude

142 Goodman and Hover

uninvited into family life” (p. 18). If parents accede to an assessment, they have authority over the instruments to be used on themselves and on their child. And no assessment will occur without their voluntary consent. The law “absolutely does not require a ‘family assessment’ or ‘assessment of the family.’ . . . It is not for professionals to decide those areas of family life in which family strengths and needs should be identified. Only families can determine for themselves which aspects of family life are relevant to their ability to help their children develop” (p. 32).

The literature emphasizes a new model for the professional as a “collaborator,” “partner,” “consultant” who supports “family strengths,” as opposed to the traditional “clinical model” in which the professional diganoses pathology, usurps parental authority, exposes client weaknesses, and paternalistically attempts to fix the flaws (Dunst, 1985; Dunst, Trivette, & Deal, 1988; Stoneman, 1985; Tingey, Boyd, & Casto, 1987; Weiss- bourd, 1987; Zigler & Berman, 1983). In the new model, a psychologist is discouraged from inquiring about marital relationships, family dynamics, family stress, or dysfunc- tional patterns (Dunst, 1988). The family is perceived as knowledgeable about its own working, able to set its own agenda and tap its own natural resources. It may need buttressing but not reshaping.

There are several difficulties with this “family driven” model that we believe need discussion: First, a reading of the law and regulations suggest that a family assessment may be required, not voluntary; second, it is not entirely clear that parents want to be either the author or object of assessment; third, the model of parent/professional partnership and collaboration may not yield more mutual respect between parties than the harshly denounced traditional client/professional relationship; fourth, if there is to be a family assessment, having it directed by parents restricts professional inquiry in ways that may not serve the family well.

Is the IFSP a Voluntary Document? As recognized in the Guidelines, voluntarism is critical to a collaborative partner-

ship role between professional and client. It is not clear, however, from the language of the statute and federal regulations whether a child can receive services if parents refuse to participate in a family service plan. Both the statute and regulations state that services are conditional upon a written IFSP. According to the statute, “Each handicapped infant or toddler and the infant or toddler’s family shall receive . . . a written individualized family service plan developed by a multidisciplinary team, including the parent or guardian” (Public Law 99-457, Sec. 677, p. 3459). The IFSP is to be based on “a timely, comprehensive multidisciplinary evaluation of the functioning of each handicapped infant and toddler in the State and the needs of the families to appropriately assist in the development of the handicapped infant or toddler” (Public Law 99-457, Sec. 676, p. 3458). This language implies that the needs of the family must be assessed in order for there to be an IFSP, and an IFSP is required for service to the child. Who is to determine family needs is left unresolved.

A reading of the Federal Regulations leaves one more confused over whether family assessment is voluntary or necessary. As with the statute, the Regulations require a written IFSP for the provision of early intervention services. The plan is to “be based on the multidisciplinary evaluation and assessment of the child and the assessment of the child‘s family (Code of Federal Regulations, 1989, 303.340, p. 128, italics added). Two pages earlier the Regulations state that there must be a “comprehensive, multidisciplinary evaluation of each child, birth through age two, referred for evaluation, including assess-

IFSP Critique 143

ment activities related to the child and the child‘s family.”(303.322, p. 126, italics added). Under the Regulations, “evaluation” means determination of eligibility, whereas “assessment” refers to an ongoing process of identifying “(i) [tlhe child’s unique needs; (ii) [tJhe family’s strengths and needs related to development of the child” (303.322, p. 126). From this one would infer that “evaluation” is required for the child and “assessment” is required for the child and family. Yet the Regulations also state that the requirement for evaluation and assessment applies only to the child; in the case of the family, “any assessment that is conducted must be voluntary” (303.340, p. 127, italics added), and again, “with the concurrence of the family, the IFSP must include a statement of the family’s strengths and needs related to enhancing the development of the child.” (303.344, p. 129, italics added). The Regulations thus appear to make evaluation and assessment of the family, as part of the IFSP, both necessary and voluntary.

The Guidelines reject assessment of families, opting instead for identification by the family of its priorities: “It is important to note that this component [determining strengths and needs] is not an assessment of the family. Rather, it is an ident@cation of family strengths, resources, needs, and concerns that an individual family decides is relevant.” (Johnson et al., 1989, p. 18). Assuming the issue of voluntarism is resolved favorably- that is, parents can refuse to assess themselves or be assessed by others and still receive services for their child -are we certain that parents want greater involvement than they have under the IEP regulations?

Do Parents Want to Be Partners? Obviously the concept of partnership requires agreement that the enterprise is worth-

while. Two major unresolved questions are whether parents wunr greater participation in the assessment and planning for their child and whether increased involvement will be beneficial to their child. As yet we do not have any answers to these questions, but studies of parental involvement in the IEP leave in doubt the nature of parental wishes.

The provisions of the IEP for parent participation were in themselves a radical depar- ture from traditional modes of education. Prior to 1975, the needs of handicapped children were determined exclusively by professionals who had no accountability to parents. Dunst and Trivette (1988) have described this approach as “child-focused, deficit- oriented, atheoretical, paternalistic, and usurping” (p. 131). In an attempt to connect parents to their child’s education, the IEP stipulated that parents must be included in evaluation, placement, and educational goal planning. They had the right to bring grievances to impartial hearings and, eventually, to federal court. Parents and professionals were to be equal partners (Morgan, 1982; Wolf, 1982). As it turned out, however, the role of parents in the IEP process has been a secondary one.

Studies suggest that parents, on the whole, have not been vigorous participants in developing IEPs (Abramson, Willson, Yoshida, & Hagerty, 1983; Goldstein, Strickland, Turnbull, & Curry, 1980; Lusthaus, Lusthaus, & Gibbs, 1981; Lynch & Stein, 1982; Scanlon, Arick, & Phelps, 1981; Yoshida, Fenton, Kaufman, & Maxwell, 1978). It is not altogether clear that parents want a more extended involvement (Leyser & Cole, 1984; Lusthaus et al., 1981; Vaughn, Bos, Harrell, & Lasky, 1988; Winton & Turnbull, 198 1). Some studies indicate that professionals consider a relatively passive role appropriate for parents (Gerber, Banbury, Miller, & Griffin, 1986; Yoshida et al., 1978). Undoubtedly there are parents glad to let professionals take over educational matters while they concentrate on other child-rearing issues, and professionals happy to do so.


However, even when a school staff regards parental input as important, parents make fewer contributions than do staff (Gilliam, 1979; Gilliam & Coleman, 1981; Knoff, 1983).

Parents may be deterred by tensions that are endemic to the parent and professional roles, tensions that transform what should be a cordial relationship between two groups sharing a common concern into a problematic one. Discrepancies between the permanent caretaker and the temporary interventionist in what to do and how to do it arise quite naturally from frequent variations between them in cultural values and priorities, perspectives on a child’s needs, and coping methods (Darling, 1983; Margolis, Shapiro, & Brown, 1987; Winton, 1988). As a result of these differences, parents often see professionals as cold, inattentive, and critical, and professionals view parents as inappropriate or even adversarial (Bailey, 1987; Darling, 1983; Mitchell, 1976; Seligman & Darling, 1989; Sonnenschein, 1981; Tingey et al., 1987; Winton, 1988).

Poor participation in IEP development and inharmonious relationships aside, it is open to question whether parental involvement, of the type mandated in the IEP, is an important ingredient to children’s educational development. Some of the meta- analyses aggregating available research studies on early intervention - disadvantaged along with handicapped children - conclude that programs with parental involvement produce no better results than do programs without (Casto & Lewis, 1984; White, 1985; White & Casto, 1985). Disaggregating the two types of treatment and focusing solely on early intervention with handicapped children, Casto and Mastropieri (1986) came to the same conclusion.

Other meta-analyses, however, are more supportive of the beneficial effects resulting from parental involvement (summarized by Dunst, Snyder, & Mankinen, 1989). Parents also appear to be more satisfied with programs that include them in IEP preparation (Polifka, 1981), and such programs seem to be more cost-effective, accountable, and supportive of strong parent-child interactions (Wiegerink & Comfort, 1987). Given the variety of activities bracketed under the term “parent involvement,” and the diversity of children and families receiving such services, it will take very sophisticated investiga- tions with large data bases before we know specifically what sort of parent involvement under what context makes an educational difference.

Despite uncertainty as to just what good parents accomplish by participating in their children’s educational programs, there are good theoretical reasons for believing that a child, particularly a very young child, will benefit from the participation of her family. If the individual child, normal or otherwise, is viewed as an inextricable part of a family that, in turn, is nested in a larger social complex (Johnson et al., 1989; Weiss- bourd, 1987), it follows that addressing the needs of the entire family, rather than the individual child, will produce better long-term outcomes (Dunst, 1985; Stoneman, 1985; Zigler & Berman, 1983). The critical question is not ifbut how parents and professionals should join together; whether the proposed collaborative/partnership model of involvement is better than a traditional professional/client model?

Professional- Parent Relationships Writers on the IFSP suggest that if parents and professionals are to be partners,

professionals must give up the role of expert (Johnson et al., 1989; McGonigel & Garland, 1988; Winton & Bailey, 1990). They must “do with” rather than “do to” (Weiss, 1987). It has even been suggested that parents should reciprocate help (Dunst & Trivette, 1988; Dunst et al., 1988). Some writers, going beyond the partnership model, maintain that professionals should be deferent to the family and that parents should reciprocate help (Dunst & trivette, 1988; Dunst et al., 1988). Included among the 12 principles of Dunst

IFSP Critique 145

and Trivette (1988) for developing IFSP are: respond to client-identified needs, allow decision making to rest with the help-seeker, and offer aid that is congruent with the client’s appraisal of the problem. The editors of the Guidelines urge professionals to withhold judgments and limit their “identification of family strengths and needs to those areas a family decides are relevant” (Johnson et al., 1989, p. 38).

The notion of parity needs to be separated from the notion of complementarity. We believe that the widely used term “partnership”- implying sameness of roles, as with business partners - is inappropriate. Two people may have equal power in an exchange (as we believe they do when a professional offers advice and a parent accepts or rejects it) without considering themselves partners. Parents and professionals are not equal i.e., the same) in their personal needs or knowledge, and they do not have an equivalent investment in the child. It is the parent who experiences the pain of raising a handicapped child day-by-day, the professional who can only sympathize; it is the parent who bears the financial and emotional burden, the professional who is paid while attempt- ing to alleviate family stress; it is the parent who knows the particulars about the child, the professional who knows about the disability. A mother and father may be partners in raising their children, two therapists may form a partnership, but a mother and therapist have a reciprocal rather than egalitarian relationship.

We question whether the legitimate objective of mutual respect is not met in the traditional professionaVclient model. Most professional relationships (e.g., those in- volving accountants, lawyers, doctors, psychologists, counselors) are normally struc- tured as follows: (1) An individual (client) initiates contact with a professional for assistance. (2) The professional assesses the situation, seeking client input as appropriate. (3) The professional makes a recommendation. (4) The client pays for the expert opinion, which ( 5 ) she accepts or rejects. (6) In some instances (e.g., medical imperatives), if the professional believes the client is critically damaged by rejecting the advice, she can appeal to judicial authority for an order to comply.

Under the IFSP collaborative/partnership model each condition is reversed. (1) The initiative for the plan comes from the professional (for no services can be given without the IFSP). (2) ‘Parents assess their own needs and strengths, receiving professional consultation as they (the parents) deem useful. (3) The family requests services, which (4) are paid for by a public system ( 5 ) if the professional approves. (6) The parents can appeal, if their requests are denied, to a quasi-judicial body (hearing officer).

What are the effects of this reversal? Under both scenarios the relationships are complementary - balanced, but not equivalent. Both sides have substantial power. If the IFSP followed a more traditional client-professional pattern, the parents’ power would consist of initiating a request for evaluation and services (with family assessment elec- tive and services not conditional upon it), supplying relevant information to the professional, making their own decision after recommendations were given, and seeking other expertise if they were dissatisfied. The professional’s power would reside in her expertise, her control over the evaluation and recommendation process. Under the new nontraditional model, the apparent total power of the parents is something of a fiction. Because of resource limitations, professionals will still have to approve or deny parental recommendations, and when professionals perceive a parental request as incompati- ble with a child’s welfare, they may find it hard to acquiesce.

A more important effect of the nontraditional IFSP arrangement is that it substan- tially undermines professional expertise. Imagine a parent with a phobic child requesting a letter from a psychologist that would excuse her child from attending school. No


psychologist would comply without assessing the client’s problem (with the family’s input) in the context of a developmental history. Of course the family is free not to seek help in the first instance, to reject the advice, or to get another opinion. Each option gives them power and autonomy without compromising the psychologist’s expertise or independent role in the assessment and recommendation process. If the professional does not bring expertise to the relationship, why is he or she needed?

If equality and reciprocity are sought, then parents of children with disabilities should be working collaboratively on IFSPs with each other, rather than with professional educators, psychologists, and therapists. Volunteer parents could be true partners with minimal role distinctions; a professional is paid for specialized knowledge and skills. Professionals must be allowed the freedom to use their expertise as they see fit, and the family to reject it.

The traditional role is criticized as paternalistic (Dunst, 1985) and authoritarian (Johnson et al., 1989). We find these attacks unwarranted. Warmth, sympathy, good listening, and respect for the client’s values and objectives are part of traditional professional practice, but they are insufficient. Assuming parents have difficulties in coping with their handicapped child, and assuming professionals have expertise, it is disrespectful of both when the professional is willing to sacrifice expert judgment in favor of preserv- ing a harmonious relationship, although the parent must always feel free to reject that judgment. If we are to have family assessments, then it is irresponsible not to have those assessments directed by a professional who determines the nature and extent of information needed to make adequate recommendations. But why should the family be assessed? Why shouldn’t the family simply list their service requests- with or without the input of a professional?

Family as Author and Object If we think of the IFSP as merely an extension and enlargement of the IEP, then

the child, who has to meet eligibility criteria, requires an evaluation, but the family does not. The privacy of the family, and the social, cultural, and moral differences among families, are maximally respected when there is no assessment of them. The professional can be available to help the family review its functioning and resources and consider its service needs, if the family so desires, but he or she is not there to scrutinize; and the family can make service requests without professional consultation. Under these conditions the IFSP remains “family driven” and “parent empowered.”

However, a “family systems approach” means more than simply extending services to the family. It means that in order to understand the child, the entire system must be examined. From a Minuchin perspective, one cannot responsibly evaluate only the child; evaluating the parents is equally important. Their behavior, their well-being, affects the child just as the child’s difficulties affect them. But this approach-parent as object rather than author-conflicts with the values of the family as voluntary clients, the right of parents to privacy, and the need to empower parents. Minuchin may be free to treat clients as he sees fit because they have elected his services and his approach. Indeed they pay for it. The family with a handicapped child, however, has not necessarily either sought help for themselves or accepted the family-system perspective. Parents perceive their child, not themselves, as having a disability, and it is only the child’s disorder that makes them eligible for services in the first place. In early intervention there is a clearly identified client, and it is not the family. Furthermore, there is an obvious sense in which many children with handicaps (e.g., Down syndrome) have problems independent of

IFSP Critique 147

the family. True, their development is contingent, to some extent, on family coping, but much of the variance between them and nonhandicapped children has nothing to do with family factors.

Writers on the IFSP recognize that it is inappropriate to invade parents’ privacy and evaluate them unless they expressly wish it. And even if they wish it, professionals are cautioned not to make judgments but to “support family strengths,” “be positive,” “act on what parents see as important,” “let the parents, not professionals, select goals,” and so on (Dunst, 1988; Dunst & Trivette, 1988; Dunst et al., 1988). Turnbull (1988) suggested using the IFSP as a “support” not a “service” plan. These writers want to treat families as authors and have them assess themselves. Thus, use of the term “family systems approach” is extremely misleading because parents are only brought into the picture in an effort to tailor the treatment to their preferences. The proposed model is not truly a “systems” approach as long as parents are treated differentially, seen as authors of their child’s treatment plan.

Giving the authority to families, following their lead, is fine in the case of a well- functioning home. Most families undoubtedly do cope successfully with the enormous disappointment of having a child with handicaps. They may appreciate “support,” or they may prefer to be left alone. In any case, they do not need ongoing assessment of their strengths and needs, and planning can be kept “family driven.”

There are other families that normally function well, but not in a time of severe crisis - and surely there is no greater family crisis than having a handicapped infant. It is natural, under such circumstances, to invoke a host of defenses: deny the problem, repress it, project anger onto others, feel attacked. In such a state, family-as-author is less viable. Parents may seek inappropriate goals or services, and the professional may believe it is a breach of her integrity to go along with parent recommendations. In the above example, the psychologist may think it unethical to accede to the parents’ wish for a school excuse. In early intervention, parents commonly request treatments (e.g., language training) for which their child is not yet developmentally ready. Again, professionals may believe that it is unprincipled to defer to parent requests, although they would uphold the right of parents not to accept professional advice, and to seek second opinions. Generally, we see no more reason for professionals to defer to parents than for parents to defer to professionals.

An even more serious threat to the role of professional-as-partner is the family that behaves against the child’s interests (although not at the level of abuse-in which case everyone would agree that parents forfeit claims on IFSP decision making). In such instances, failure to evaluate the system or insistence upon following the family’s self- perceived needs may be damaging. For example, a child is hypotonic and the family seems to be infantilizing him. Mother requests help in securing release from work so that she can spend more time holding and caring for her child. Or a child is self- stimulating, autistic-like, and the family appears to be isolating him because they perceive he is happier alone. They want to secure an extra bedroom so he does not have to share one with his brother. In these instances the child’s difficulties are probably exacerbated by the family; the family, then, is an inadvertent part of the problem. A Minuchin-type approach is needed - family-as-object - but will be hard to accomplish because of the imperative to honor family agendas- to accept the family as authoritative. Of course, as recognized in the Guidelines, the professional can explore other options, try to per- suade the family that further assessment is in order, and express disagreement with the family recommendations. But taking such a lead runs against family empowerment and family authority, particularly if, when persuasion fails, the professional refuses to defer.


The IFSP is an attempted compromise between two values-recognition of the child as nested in a family, and recognition of the need for family privacy and self-determination. Under the compromise, a child can be studied in context providing the family is willing to accept such scrutiny; otherwise the child must be studied in isolation, and the family assesses itself. The flaw in this compromise is that a document must be produced stating the family’s “strengths and needs.” In writing the statement, either the professional goes along with the family perceptions, and thereby may sign recommendations that he or she sees as injurious to the child, or the professional may reject the family viewpoint, and thereby disempower the parents. As presently construed, the IFSP will work well - the family system assessed, parents empowered, professionals supportive - only with competent families who need assessment and services the least, perhaps not at all.

Recasting the IFSP We question the notion that the family is the relevant unit for assessment and ser-

vice. It is, after all, the child who must meet eligibility requirements and therefore must be evaluated. The parents, on the other hand, have the same rights to privacy and authority over their lifestyle as parents of children without disabilities and so should not be assessed unless they truly invite it. On this matter we agree with the Guidelines and would like to see the Regulations clarified. Service should not be contingent upon assessment. In the many instances where the handicap lodges almost entirely in the child and not in the family, there is no need for family assessment (although it may be just these families who are most willing to be assessed). For these families, the IEP model should be extended by asking parents to state goals and objectives for the family, as well as for the child, without any assessment requirement.

The problem of how to handle “family strengths and needs,” now mandated by law, for a family that does not want an assessment, remains unresolved. We see this as an unfortunate legal requirement for child services, but until it is removed the most minimal statement, prepared by the family under approved state guidelines, should be acceptable.

In those instances where parents are having a difficult response to their child’s problem, or indeed are exacerbating the problem, it is not possible for them to be both the object of professional assessment and authoritative regarding their own needs. An assessment requested by a family should be predicated on a traditional parent-professional relationship in which the professional determines the assessment process, parents give their input and informed consent, professionals make recommendations, and the family either accepts or rejects them. Parents of handicapped children, like parents of nonhandicapped children, should not have to be assessed even if a professional sees them as implicated in the child’s problems. Once they sign on for an assessment, however, they should take on the typical client role.

The shift to a traditional professional-client relationship has several advantages: Professionals are not prevented from doing an appropriate evaluation (as they see it) and can explore issues not necessarily part of the parents’ agenda. With professionals taking the lead, there is more likely to be a fit between recommendations and available resources than if parents initiated recommendations. The parents remain free to protest when a system does not provide what they believe to be a necessary service.

Regardless of whether parents opt for an assessment, we do not agree that professionals should be partners with, or deferential to, parents. A collegial relationship denies the fundamental inequality in their positions: Parents are coping with a profound loss

IFSP Critique 149

and professionals have (or should have) the means of evaluating and reducing their stress. It is more condescending for the professional to assume a parallelism of interest, where it does not exist, than to maintain an objective, concerned, but somewhat formal relationship; a position that allows for sound judgments and recommendations.

In its castigation of the traditional professional-client relationship, the “empowerment” movement has set up a straw man. Concepts such as “partnership,” “family systems approach,” and “parents-as-expert’’ are misleading and not required. Under conditions of good traditional professional practice, parents participate by giving input into the evaluation and recommendation process; there is mutual respect, discussion, and often negotiation, but in the last analysis the professional does not relinquish her opinions by deferring to parental wishes, and, as we have said, the parent exercises ultimate power by rejecting or accepting professional advice.

If the objective is to deprofessionalize services, this is easily accomplished without the pretense of equality and partnership between professional and parent. Volunteer parents could be substituted for professionals in a give-and-take discussion of family and child needs. Then a referral for professional assistance could be made if the family sought further advice. Under such a scheme, parents receive both friendship and professional services without commingling the two. As pointed out by Shonkoff and Meisels (1990), “an endorsement of the ultimate value of parental autonomy must not be tanta- mount to a dismissal of the value of professional expertise . . . [tlhe process in which parental competence is affirmed cannot succeed if it depends upon a devaluation of professional expertise” (p. 26)

REFERENCES

ABRAMSON, M., WILLSON, V., YOSHIDA, R., & HAGERTY, G. (1983). Parents’ perceptions of their learning disabled child’s educational performance. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6(2), 184-194.

BAILEY, D. (1987). Collaborative goal-setting with families: Resolving differences in values and priorities for services. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 7(2), 59-7 1.

BRONFENBRENNER, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psy- chologist, 32, 513-531.

CASTO, G., & LEWIS, A. (1984). Parent involvement in infant and preschool programs. Journal of the Divi- sion of Early Childhood, 9, 49-56.

CASTO, G., MASTROPIERI, M. A. (1986). The efficacy of early intervention programs for handicapped children: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 52(5), 417-424.

CODE OF FEDERAL REOULATIONS. (1989). Title 34, Chapter III, Ofice of Special Education and Rehabilita- tion Services (Parts 303.322 and 303.340).

DARLING, R. (1983). Parent-professional interaction: The roots of misunderstanding. In M. Seligman (Ed.), The family with a handicapped child: Understanding and treatment (pp. 95-121). New York: Grune and Stratton.

DUNST, C. (1985). Rethinking early intervention. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities,

DUNST, C. (1988). Assessing handicapped infants and toddlers and their families. Newsletter of the Society of Pediatric Psychology, 12(3), 7-9.

DUNST, C., SNYDER, S . , & MANKINEN, M. (1989). Efficacy of early intervention. In M. C. Wang, M. C. Reynolds, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of special education, research, andpractice, vol. 3., (pp. 257-293). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.

TRIVETTE, C. (1988). A family systems model of early intervention with handicapped and developmentally at risk children. In D. Powell (Ed.), Parent education as early childhood intervention (pp. 131-179). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

DUNST, C., TFUVETTE, C., & DEAL, A. (1988). Enablingandempowering families. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

5 , 165-201.

DUNST, C.,


FOSTER, M., BERGER, M., & MCLEAN, M. (1981). Rethinking a good idea: A reassessment of parent in-

GERBER, P., BANBURY, M., MILLER, J., & GRIFFIN, H. (1986). Special educators’ perceptions of parental

GILLIAM, J. (1979). Contributions and status rankings of educational planning committee participants. Ex-

GILLIAM, J., COLEMAN, M. (1981). Who influences IEP committee decisions? Exceptional Children, 47,

GOLDSTEIN, S., STRICKLAND, B., TURNBULL, A., & CURRY, L. (1980). An observational analysis of the IEP conference. Exceptional Children, 46, 278-286.

JOHNSON, B., MCGONIGEL, M., & KAUFMANN, R. (EDs.). (1989). Guidelines and recommendedpractices for the Individualized Family Service Plan. Chapel Hill, NC: National Early Childhood Technical Assistance System and Washington, DC: Association for the Care of Children’s Health.

KNOFF, M. (1983). Investigating disproportionate influence and status in multidisciplinary child study teams. Exceptional Children, 49, 367-370.

LEYSER, Y., COLE, K. (1984). Perceptions of parents of handicapped children about school and parent- teacher partnership. Exceptional Child, 31(3), 193-201.

LUSTHAUS, C., LUSTHAUS, E., & Gmrs, H. (1981). Parents’ role in the decision process. Exceptional Children,

LYNCH, E., & STEIN, R. (1982). Perspectives on parent participation in special education: Establishing a new partnership. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 3(2), 56-63.

MARGOLIS, H., SHAPIRO, A., BROWN, G. (1987). Resolving conflicts with parents of handicapped children. Urban Review, 19(4), 209-221.

MCGONIGEL, M., & GARLAND, C. (1988). The Individualized Family Service Plan and the early intervention team: Team and family issues and recommended practices. Infants and Young Children, 1(1), 10-21.

MINUCHIN, S. (1974) Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. MITCHELL, S. (1976). Parental perceptions of their experiences with due process in special education: A

preliminary report. San Francisco: American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 130 482)

MORGAN, D. (1982). Parent participation in the IEP process: Does it enhance appropriate education? Ex- ceptional Education Quarterly, 3(2), 33-40.

POL^, J. (1981). Compliance with P. L. 94-142 and consumer satisfaction. Exceptional Children, 48,250-253. PUBLIC LAW 99-457. Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986, Title I, Part H, 100 Stat. 1145. SCANLON, C., ARICK, J., & PHELPS, N. (1981). Participation in the development of the IEP: Parents’perspec-

tive. Exceptional Children, 47, 373-374. SELIGMAN, M., & DARLING, R. (1989). Professional-family interaction: Working toward partnership. In M.

Seligman (Ed.), Ordinary families, special children (pp. 214-244). New York: Grune and Stratton. SHONKOFF, J., & MEISELS, S. (1990). Early childhood intervention: The evolution of a concept. In S. Meisels

& J. Shonkoff (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood intervention (pp. 303-325). New York: Cambridge University Press.

SONNENSCHEIN, P. (1981). Parents and professionals: An uneasy relationship. Teaching Exceptional Children,

STONEMAN, Z. (1985). Family involvement in early childhood special education programs. In N. Fallen & W. Umansky (Eds.), Young children with specialneeds (2nd ed.) (pp. 442-469). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

TINGEY, C., BOYD, R., & CASTO, G. (1987). Parental involvement in early intervention: Becoming a parent plus. Early Child Development and Care, 28, 91-105.

TROUT, M, & FOLEY, G. (1989). Working with families of handicapped infants and toddlers. Topics in Language Disorders, 10(1), 57-67.

TURNBULL, A. (1988). The challenge of providing comprehensive support to families. Education and Train- ing in Mental Retardation, 23(4), 261-272.

VAUGHN, S., Bos, C., HARRELL, J., & LASKY, B. (1988). Parent participation in the initial placementAEP conference ten years after mandated involvement. Journal of Learning Disab

WEISS, H. (1987). Family support and education in early childhood programs. In L. Kagan, D. Powell, B. Weissbourd, & E. Zigler (Eds.), America’s family supportprograms: Perspectives andprospects (pp. 133-160). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

WEISSBOURD, B. (1987). A brief history of family support programs. In L. Kagan, D. Powell, B. Weissbourd, & E. Zigler (Eds.), America’s family support programs: Perspectives and prospects (pp. 38-56). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

volvement. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 1(3), 55-65.

participation in the Individual Education Plan process. Psychology in the Schools, 23(2), 158-163.

ceptional Children, 45, 466-468.

642-644.

48, 256-257.

14, 62-65.

IFSP Critique 151

WHITE, K. (1985). Efficacy of early intervention. Journal of Special Education, 19, 401-416. W m , K., & CASTO, G. (1985). An integrative review of early intervention efficacy studies with at-risk children:

Implications for the handicapped. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 5 , 177-201. WIEGERINK, R., COMFORT, M. (1987). Parent involvement: Support for families of children with special

needs. In L. Kagen, D. Powell, B. Weissbourd, & E. Zigler (Eds.), America’s family supporr programs: Perspectives and prospects (pp. 182-206). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

WINTON, P. (1988). Effective communication between parents and professionals. In D. Bailey & R. Simeonsson (Eds.), Family assessment in early intervention (pp. 207-228). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

WINTON, P., dt BAILEY, D. (1990). Early intervention training related to family interviewing. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 10(1), 50-62.

WINTON, P., TURNBULL, A. (1981). Parent involvement as viewed by parents of preschool handicapped children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, I , 11-19.

WOLF, J. (1982). Parents as partners in exceptional education. Theory into Practice, 21(2), 77-81. YOSHIDA, R., FENTON, K., KAUFMAN, J., &MAXWELL, J. (1978). Parental involvement in the special educa-

ZIGLER, E., & BERMAN, W. (1983). Discerning the future of early childhood intervention. American tion pupil planning process: The school’s perspective. Exceptional Children, 44, 531-534.

PSyChOlOgiSt, 38, 894-906.

Psychology in the Schools Volume 29, January 1992

THE MAGNITUDE AND PREVALANCE OF SIGNIFICANT REGRESSED DISCREPANCIES AT COMMON TEST VALUES

LARRY D. EVANS

University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

An initial criterion to determine severe discrepancies and relative strengths and weaknesses is a significant difference between regressed standard scores. Tables are presented as a convenient method to determine the magnitude of a discrepancy required for significance at common reliability and intercorrelation values. Prevalences of significant discrepancies are also shown, indicating that significant discrepancies are not uncommon in a normal population.

The increased statistical accuracy of regression over other models to determine severe discrepancy has resulted in adoption of regression models by approximately one-fourth of states (Frankenberger & Fronzaglio, 1991; Mercer, King-Sears, & Mercer, 1990). An initial component of regression models is the determination of significant difference between standard scores for expected (i .e., predicted) and obtained achievement (Evans, 1990; Reynolds et al., 1983). This step, however, is sometimes omitted in regression equations or regression-based discrepancy tables used by states. Consequently, some regression models may indicate a severe discrepancy when chance (i.e., nonsignificant) differences exist between scores (Evans, in press). This problem is likely to occur for states using a small cut-off value for severe discrepancy, because small discrepancies that are deemed severe may not be large enough to be significant.

The equation for determining such statistical significance has been given by Thorn- dike (1963, p. 8). Based upon the equation, Tables 1 and 2 present significance values for common levels of reliability and intercorrelation, as well as the prevalence of the discrepancy at the magnitude required for significance.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Larry D. Evans, Department of Pediatrics, University of Arkan- sas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR 72202-3591.

the individual family service plan: unresolved problems

Documents