Download the Journal (PDF) - Division on Autism and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TABLE 1—(Continued) IQ part scores AB Score AB criterion Multiple AB settings Score range State Year Term Levels IQ Oklahoma 2002 Mental Retardation Y 2 SD Y Y NS NS Considered in multiple settings Oregon 2004 Mental Retardation N 2 SD N N NS NS NS Pennsylvania 2001 Mental Retardation N FED N N NS NS Optionally considered in multiple settings Rhode Island 2000 Mental Retardation N FED N N NS NS NS South Carolina 2002 Mental Disability Y 2 SD Y Y Composite 2 SD Measured in 1 setting on both V/NV South Dakota 2004 Mental Retardation N 2 SD Y N NS NS NS Tennessee 2003 Mental Retardation N 2 SD Y N Composite 2 SD Measured in multiple settings Texas 2002 Mental Retardation N 2 SD N N NS NS NS Utah 2003 Intellectual Disability N 2 SD N 2 Y NS NS Measured in multiple settings Vermont 2003 Learning Impairment/ N 1.5 SD N N NS NS NS Delay in Learning Virginia 2002 Mental Retardation N FED N N NS NS NS Washington 2002 Mental Retardation N FED N N NS NS NS West Virginia 2005 Mentally Impaired N 70 Y N Domains/skill area (2) NS NS Wisconsin 2002 Cognitive Disability N 2 SD Y N Domains/skill area (2) 2 SD NS or 1 SD Wyoming 1999 Mental Disability N 2 SD Y Y NS NS NS 128 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-March 2008 Note: AB adaptive behavior, FED federal definition only, NS not specified. 1 Under Georgia guidelines, more than one formal measure of intelligence is required. 2 According to Michigan guidelines, IQs at or below approximately 2 SD satisfy <strong>the</strong> intellectual deficiency criterion. Similarly, Utah guidelines stated that IQs should “generally” be less than or equal to 2 SD below <strong>the</strong> mean. However, because <strong>the</strong> guidelines do not define “approximately” or “generally” <strong>the</strong> score ranges were coded as N.
eligibility to exhibit an IQ two or more SDs below <strong>the</strong> normative mean, but <strong>the</strong> guidelines allow continued eligibility for students who, upon reevaluation, exhibit IQs between one and two SDs below <strong>the</strong> normative mean if <strong>the</strong> student is expected to exhibit intellectual deficits indefinitely. Approximately 39% of state guidelines specify consideration of measurement error using ei<strong>the</strong>r an IQ range (e.g., 70 to 75) or <strong>the</strong> SE M (and associated ranges) surrounding IQs in determining <strong>the</strong> intellectual deficit criterion. Most states specify <strong>the</strong> use of a comprehensive intelligence test battery, which typically yield both an IQ and part scores, but approximately 20% of states (10 states) mention <strong>the</strong> use of part scores in <strong>the</strong> MR definition or require school-based multidisciplinary teams to consider part scores in eligibility determination. Most states with provisions for <strong>the</strong> use of part scores do not allow <strong>the</strong> use of a part score in isolation to satisfy <strong>the</strong> intellectual deficit criterion but require consideration of part scores in eligibility decisions. For example, some guidelines require that profiles of part scores be within <strong>the</strong> deficient range, some specify a cutoff criterion for part scores, and some require examination of part scores and fur<strong>the</strong>r investigation of a student’s abilities if <strong>the</strong>re are discrepancies between part scores. However, only one state (South Carolina) requires normative deficiencies to be evidenced in part scores ra<strong>the</strong>r than an IQ. Deficient Adaptive Functioning Criterion Procedures for determining adaptive behavior deficiencies vary greatly across states. The majority of states (63%) do not specify whe<strong>the</strong>r composite scores reflecting global adaptive functioning or scores reflecting adaptive behavior domains or skill areas be used to establish deficient functioning. Among states whose guidelines specify <strong>the</strong> necessary scores, two states specify <strong>the</strong> use of adaptive behavior composites reflecting overall adaptive functioning, 11 states specify <strong>the</strong> use of scores for adaptive behavior domains or skill areas, three states require that both composites and domains or skill areas be used, and two states allow for ei<strong>the</strong>r composite scores or domains or skill areas to be used. Most states (77%) do not include a specific score criterion for deficient functioning, 16% require scores of least 2 SDs below <strong>the</strong> normative mean, and 2% require scores of at least 1.5 SDs below <strong>the</strong> normative mean. In contrast, 2% of states require deficient adaptive functioning to be based on separate criteria for <strong>the</strong> adaptive behavior composite and <strong>the</strong> adaptive behavior domains or skill areas. Although <strong>the</strong> diagnostic criteria outlined by most professional groups specify that adaptive skill deficits be evidenced across settings, only six states (12%) require adaptive functioning to be measured in multiple settings, and only four additional states specify that adaptive functioning be considered in multiple settings. (We coded <strong>the</strong> following two instances as indicating that adaptive behaviors were considered in multiple settings: descriptions that indicated only considerations of or informal observations of behaviors in non-school settings and descriptions of ratings completed by a single rater to describe behaviors in school and o<strong>the</strong>r settings.) In contrast, two states (4%) specify procedures for measuring adaptive functioning in one setting, and 37 states (73%) do not address <strong>the</strong> settings in which adaptive functioning be measured. Discussion This study provided an updated summary of states’ guidelines and investigated two issues that have not received much attention in previous reviews of state guidelines. In a manner almost identical to Denning et al (2000), we found <strong>the</strong> term mental retardation is used by approximately half <strong>the</strong> states to describe <strong>the</strong> condition and that mental handicap is used by approximately 12% of states. In contrast, fewer states than reported in Denning et al. now require differentiating levels of MR according to degree of impairment or severity based on IQs. We found that only 18 states in our study require <strong>the</strong>se levels, whereas Denning et al. reported 27 states. Perhaps this decreased prevalence was influenced by criticisms, such as that by Wehmeyer (2003), noting that <strong>the</strong> focus on labels related to levels of impairment lowers expectations by encouraging educational placements and interventions based on perceived global impairment ra<strong>the</strong>r than on individual needs. States require consideration of IQs with an Eligibility Guidelines / 129
Page 1 and 2:
Education and Training in Developme
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Guardianship: Its Role in t
Page 9 and 10:
guardians who are knowledgeable abo
Page 11 and 12:
in budgeting and spending; (b) a sp
Page 13 and 14:
and effective are essential to self
Page 15 and 16:
involved in the gu
Page 17 and 18:
sonal rights removed through guardi
Page 19 and 20:
who are not trustworthy, and when o
Page 21 and 22:
Discussion and Recommendations Lake
Page 23 and 24:
DC: OSERS. (ERIC Document Reproduct
Page 25 and 26:
people who do not have disabilities
Page 27 and 28:
TABLE 1 School Demographics Demogra
Page 29 and 30:
TABLE 2 Methods for Including Stude
Page 31 and 32:
participate in service learning pro
Page 33 and 34:
who are “more experienced” in s
Page 35 and 36:
cern that they wer
Page 37 and 38:
service learning activity for stude
Page 39 and 40:
supports school personnel need to h
Page 41 and 42:
Using Pivotal Response Training wit
Page 43 and 44:
the trained peers
Page 45 and 46:
Group B between one and two times p
Page 47 and 48:
ing play sessions with Group B, Col
Page 49 and 50:
learned to interact with ot
Page 51 and 52:
Affirmative sentences emphasize a v
Page 53 and 54:
identifying several important behav
Page 55 and 56:
Kenji. For Kenji, all observation s
Page 57 and 58:
Figure 2. Percentage of 10-s interv
Page 59 and 60:
gaging in complicated verbal commun
Page 61 and 62:
Results The results of the<
Page 63 and 64:
when the person wa
Page 65 and 66:
Effectiveness of the</stron
Page 67 and 68:
is still encountering only one symb
Page 69 and 70:
TABLE 1 Characteristic of Participa
Page 71 and 72:
TABLE 2 Characteristics of
Page 73 and 74:
TABLE 3 Major Findings Study Commun
Page 75 and 76:
TABLE 3—(Continued) Study Communi
Page 77 and 78:
TABLE 3—(Continued) Study Communi
Page 79 and 80:
nosed as having ASD. Therefore, PEC
Page 81 and 82: Preschool Teacher Perceptions of As
Page 83 and 84: TABLE 1 Teacher Demographics 1 Teac
Page 85 and 86: TABLE 3 Assistive Technology Self-A
Page 87 and 88: Integration or supplemental perspec
Page 89 and 90: I don’t know if the</stro
Page 91 and 92: sessions, and the
Page 93 and 94: that would be difficult to develop
Page 95 and 96: Riemer-Reiss, M. L., & Wacker, R. R
Page 97 and 98: TABLE 1 Characteristics of Campers
Page 99 and 100: appropriate answers were provided.
Page 101 and 102: Figure 2. Effects of STAR intervent
Page 103 and 104: garding how to effectively interact
Page 105 and 106: Shafer K. (1992). Peer-mediating in
Page 107 and 108: proach, features are built into <st
Page 109 and 110: independent transitions were totale
Page 111 and 112: Figure 1. Number of independent tas
Page 113 and 114: type of skills (e.g., domestic, lei
Page 115 and 116: Peer-Implemented Time Delay Procedu
Page 117 and 118: show that peer tutors can reliably
Page 119 and 120: General Procedures The dependent va
Page 121 and 122: Skill training. The teacher and one
Page 123 and 124: Figure 2. Percent of correct respon
Page 125 and 126: heterogeneous group of students is
Page 127 and 128: States’ Eligibility Guidelines fo
Page 129 and 130: Method Procedure The first author d
Page 131: TABLE 1—(Continued) IQ part score
Page 135: ility guidelines for MR from state
show all

Download the Journal (PDF) - Division on Autism and ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?