Transcript Slide 1

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
–
–

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 data collection, analyses, and dissemination;
Parents, 619 & Part C Coordinators, teacher/provider
representatives
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
N
Met Criteria*
Child Focused Studies
33
27
Family Focused Studies
17
16
Policy Studies
6
In process
Articles sent for review
*Meet Criteria for Levels of Evidence Identified
Review Process and Products

Detailed Research Review Protocol
–
–

Research Summary
–
–

Intervention Based Research Studies
Policy Based Research Studies
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.
Proposed Sample
Early Intervention Children
480
Preschool Children
200
680 Total Children
Final Sample
Early Intervention Children
225
Preschool Children
311
536 Total Children
Cohort Groups
Transition at age 3
DCP
1
Cohort 1
= 133
Cohort 3
= 83
DCP
2
Cohort 1
Transition at age 5
DCP
3
Cohort 1
DCP
4
Cohort 1
Cohort 3
Cohort 2
= 153
Cohort 2
Cohort 5
=9
Cohort 4
= 128
Cohort 4
Cohort 5
= 30
216 children
9 new children
281 new children
536 Total Children
30 new 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
2002
2006
HHS - CCSHCN
HFS - Adult & Child
Health
ED
Health & Hospitals
ED – EI & ECSE
ED – EC
Health & Social
Services
Health – DD
ED – Sp. Ed & EI
ED – ECE & Family
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 familyfriendly language
Spanish versions developed
A Conceptual Framework
for Thinking About
Transition
Instrumentation
Community Survey
Administrator Survey
Provider Surveys
LICC survey
Family Interview
Family Interview
Service Coordinator Survey
Provider Surveys
Family Support Scale
All Instruments
Family Interview
Provider Surveys
Family Interview
Administrator Survey
LICC survey
TPP
Family Interview
Administrator Survey
Part C Survey
619 Survey
SICC Survey
Instrumentation
Teacher Survey
Service Coordinator
Survey
Administrator Survey
Provider Survey
BASC
Family Empowerment
Scale
Family Interview
TPP
Administrator Survey
Provider Survey
Service Coordinator Survey
Service Coordinator Survey
Family Interview
Instrumentation
BASC
Provider Surveys
Service Coordinator
Survey
Family Interview
ELM
PPVT
IGDI
DIBELS
Early Math
PPVT
BASC
Provider Surveys
Service Coordinator
Survey
Family Interview
BASC
Provider Surveys
Service Coordinator
Survey
Family 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
–

Technical Support
–
–
–

Trainings standardized and revisited periodically to ensure
fidelity of the procedures
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 old
Child age post-transition = 39 and 42 months old
Data 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
*Groups not mutually exclusive
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
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
1 = Very Satisfied

2 = Somewhat
Satisfied
Organized by:
–
–
–
3 = Somewhat
Dissatisfied
4 = Very Dissatisfied
Before the placement decision (N=7 items)
After the placement decision (N=8 items)
Once services were initiated (N=5 items)
Activities to Support Transition

Before the placement decision (N=7 items)
–
–

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 = 4.30 (SD 1.68) or 61%
Average Satisfaction = 16.16 (SD = 6.71), range 1-28
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
Overall use - Mean = 4.30 of 7;SD 1.68 (61%)
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
Transition Activities After
Placement Decision
Overall use - Mean = 3.83 of 8;SD 1.72 (48%)
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
Transition Activities After Services
are Initiated
Overall use - Mean = 3.64 of 5; SD 1.43 (73%)
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
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 Gooden
Interdisciplinary Human Development Institute
University of Kentucky
126 Mineral Industries Building
Lexington, KY 40506-0051
Phone: 859-257-2081
Toll Free: 866-742-4015
Fax: 859-257-2769
Email:[email protected]
http://www.ihdi.uky.edu/nectc