Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the ... - AER Online

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Assessing Young Children with Deaf-Blindness compared to that of typically developing children. The fact that mainly standardized instruments were referenced in the IEP/IFSP sample may reflect the need for standardized assessments to qualify children for services. But such instruments are rarely appropriate or useful for identifying the abilities or learning styles of young children with disabilities (Neisworth & Bagnato, 2004). In contrast, the instruments developed specifically for children who are deaf-blind were deemed useful in their own right according to survey results, even though none of them are standardized (an accomplishment rendered impossible by the heterogeneity of the population). The results of this study suggest that there may be a trade-off between obtaining standardized results and obtaining useful results for this population. The lack of familiarity or access to instruments appropriate for children who are deaf-blind that was revealed by Survey 1 may account, in part, for the strikingly limited use of assessments in preparing IEP/IFSP goals. It is also possible that the instruments themselves are not fully meeting the needs of practitioners. Scores and developmental levels mask the variability so typical of the skills and behaviors of children who are deaf-blind. Contextual and interpersonal factors, preferences, tolerance, arousal patterns, and health status all contribute to variability, yet rarely are accommodated on the assessment instruments that were reviewed for this study. Although most assessment instruments create a snapshot of skills and behaviors at a moment in time, the resulting profile may not yield information easily translated into goals and activities. For example, many communication items at early developmental levels describe reactions to stimuli (e.g., orientation, vocal/ motor expressions signaling pleasure or discomfort). Although these behaviors are indexes of developmental status and can serve as signals to which a partner may respond, they are not teachable skills and would be inappropriate as behavioral objectives. Instruments that directly connect such observations to effective interventions (e.g., helping educators and therapists interpret and respond to a child’s reaction as a communicative event) would be more useful. Assessment reports of young children with disabilities should be strength-based and should describe the breadth of skills that children demonstrate (Towle, Farrell, & Vitalone-Raccaro, 2008). The more widely available instruments on the short list (the Table 3. Mean Ratings of Instruments on Short Lista Instrument C-A Car. Matrix Dimen. HELP Infused H.Talk INSITE Oregon SIPSS Vineland 68 | AER Journal:Research and Practice in Visual Impairment and Blindness n 29 16 23 8 25 7 10 16 26 9 11 Useful to assess communication 4.0 4.2 4.8 4.1 3.2 5.0 4.2 4.4 3.6 NA 3.2 Useful to assess social interaction 4.0 3.9 4.4 4.0 3.4 4.8 4.1 4.4 3.7 NA 3.5 Useful to assess cognition/learning 3.9 4.3 NA NA 3.6 4.0 4.1 4.4 3.9 4.0 NA Mean appropriateness 4.0 3.1 4.4 3.8 2.7 4.9 4.3 4.2 3.4 3.8 2.8 Mean accuracy 3.4 2.9 3.9 3.6 3.2 4.6 4.4 4.1 3.7 3.8 2.9 Mean applicability 4.1 3.6 4.4 4.0 3.2 4.7 4.3 4.4 4.0 4.0 3.4 Mean usability 4.3 4.5 4.5 3.5 4.3 3.0 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.7 4.3 a C-A 5 Callier-Azusa; Car. 5 Carolina; Dimen. 5 Dimensions of Communication; HELP 5 Hawaii Early LearningProfile; H.Talk 5 Home Talk; Infused 5 Infused Skills Assessment; INSITE 5 INSITE Developmental Checklist; Matrix 5 Communication Matrix; NA 5 instrument does not address this domain; Oregon 5 Oregon Project; SIPSS 5 School Inventory of Problem SolvingSkills; Vineland 5 Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales.
Carolina, HELP, and Vineland) were rated below the others. The most highly rated instruments were those specifically designed for children who have sensory impairments and multiple disabilities. However, several of those tools generated few ratings from Survey 1, suggesting low visibility or restricted distribution. Ratings from the two surveys combined showed that each instrument had a unique array of strengths and weaknesses that might aid potential users in their selection. Each of these instruments is reviewed in relation to the target population in Rowland (2009). Perhaps the optimal approach is an ‘‘authentic’’ assessment process (Bagnato, 2007). In an authentic assessment, opportunities are created for children to exhibit their responses and skills in typical everyday experiences, as opposed to artificial and irrelevant tasks. This approach promotes direct links between assessment procedures, results, and intervention planning. An authentic assessment integrates information from multiple perspectives and incorporates significant interpersonal and contextual factors affecting performance in the natural environment. The result is a co-constructed image of the child’s skills, capturing the variability of day-today life. Authentic assessment emphasizes a collaborative process between family members and professionals. Three of the short listed instruments were explicitly designed to encourage parent participation in the assessment of their children who are deaf-blind. The Communication Matrix and the SIPSS each have alternate versions for parents. The first three of four sections in Home Talk are designed to be completed independently by parents, while the fourth section is designed to be completed collaboratively by parents and professionals. Conclusions Despite the problems inherent in using the most readily available tools to assess young children who are deaf-blind, assessment instruments have an important role in organizing observations, clarifying the meaning of observed behavior, and locating skills within a developmental hierarchy. The availability of a number of highly rated instruments designed specifically for children with sensory impairments and multiple disabilities is a real advantage, especially when assessments are so often the responsibility of professionals who have had limited experience with these children. Another bonus is the Assessing Young Children with Deaf-Blindness fact that a number of these instruments are designed to encourage the participation of family members in the assessment process. An authentic assessment process that is structured around instruments that reveal the strengths of the child will provide results with clear implications for the education of a child who is deaf-blind. 1 Acknowledgments This product was developed with the support of the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Award No. H324D030001. We would like to thank the many family members and professionals who participated in the project, as well as the National Family Association for Deaf-Blind, which helped to recruit participants. Disclaimer Opinions expressed herein are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Education. References Anderson, S., Boigon, S., David, K., & deWaard, C. (2007). Oregon project for preschool children who are blind or visually impaired. Medford: Southern Oregon Education Service District. Bagnato, S.J. (Ed.). (2007). Authentic assessment for early childhood intervention: Best practices.NewYork,NY:Guilford. Brigance, A.H. (2004). Brigance Diagnostic Inventory of Early Development II. North Billerica, MA: Curriculum Associates. Chen, D. (1999). Meeting the intervention needs of infants. In D. Chen (Ed.), Essential elements in early intervention: Visual impairment and multiple disabilities (pp. 55–104). New York, NY: AFB Press. Chen, D., Rowland, C., Stillman, R., & Mar, H. (2009). Authentic practices for assessing communication skills of young children with sensory impairments and multiple disabilities. Early Childhood Services, 3(4), 328–339. Division for Early Childhood. (2007). Promoting positive outcomes for children with disabilities: Recommendations for 1 Specific suggestions for implementing an authentic assessment approach with young children who are deaf-blind are provided in Rowland (2009), available without cost as a final product of the grant that funded this study. Volume 3, Number 3, Summer 2010 | 69
Page 1 and 2: Association for Education and Rehab
Page 3: AER Journal: Research and Practice
Page 7 and 8: Table of Contents Special Issue: Cu
Page 9 and 10: Special Issue: Current Practices wi
Page 11 and 12: Abstract Current Assessment Practic
Page 13 and 14: technical assistance projects, prov
Page 15: Table 2. Component Statements Avera
Page 19 and 20: Abstract Reliability and Fidelity o
Page 21 and 22: and Marleen Janssen, independently
Page 23 and 24: Table 1. Continued Interrater Relia
Page 25 and 26: Table 2. Continued Implementation A
Page 27 and 28: were from one geographic area, and
Page 29 and 30: Family Survey Results: Children wit
Page 31 and 32: Methods Participants The participan
Page 33 and 34: Table 1. Continued No/Strongly Disa
Page 35 and 36: or showing ‘‘overall behavior (
Page 37 and 38: Limitations Questionnaires are susc
Page 39 and 40: Understanding Teachers’ Self-Effi
Page 41 and 42: Methods Participants Purposeful, ty
Page 43 and 44: to teach children with deaf-blindne
Page 45 and 46: Ashton, P.T., & Webb, R.B. (1986).
Page 47 and 48: when Lejeune and colleagues discove
Page 49 and 50: toward vision and hearing impairmen
Page 51 and 52: assistive-technologies specialists,
Page 53 and 54: Pueschel, S.M., & Solga, P.M. (1992
Page 55 and 56: and Level 7: combinations of two to
Page 57 and 58: during a communication research stu
Page 59 and 60: Communication Profile Appendix. Tho
Page 61 and 62: Appendix. Continued. Communication
Page 63 and 64: Special Education, Related Services
Page 65 and 66: capacity to serve children who are
Page 67 and 68:
tional settings for infants and tod
Page 69 and 70:
among stakeholders regarding equity
show all

Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the ... - AER Online

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?