infants & young children vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 62–82 c 2012...

LWW/IYC IYC200088 November 26, 2011 2:27

Infants & Young ChildrenVol. 25, No. 1, pp. 62–82Copyright C© 2012 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Caregiver Coaching Strategiesfor Early Intervention ProvidersMoving Toward OperationalDefinitions

Mollie Friedman, MS, CCC-SLP;Juliann Woods, PhD, CCC-SLP; Christine Salisbury, PhD

Early intervention (EI) providers increasingly coach and collaborate with caregivers to strengthenand support caregiver–child interactions. The EI providers learning to coach other adults benefitfrom knowing what, exactly, they should do to support caregivers. This article serves two purposes.First, it proposes an operationally defined, theoretically based, and reliably used set of definitions(behaviors) that describe coaching strategies that providers can use to support caregiver learning.Second, it suggests possible applications of these definitions for EI providers, administrators,and researchers. We discuss underlying theories of adult learning and the process by whichthe definitions were developed. Preliminary evidence regarding the utility of these definitionsis presented by using videotape data of provider coaching practices in home visits from threedifferent studies. Descriptive data from these programs and home visits illustrate how the coachingdefinitions can be used to distinguish implementation differences and how they could be usedto support professional development efforts for EI coaching and consultation. Key words: adultlearning, coaching strategies, collaborative consultation, family-centered services

Author Affiliations: Florida State University,Tallahassee (Drs. Friedman and Woods); andUniversity of Illinois, Chicago (Dr. Salisbury).

This article was supported, in part, by grants fromthe U.S. Department of Education, Office of Spe-cial Education Programs—Project LIFE: Leadership inFamily-Centered Early Intervention Personnel Prepara-tion grant (H325D070023) and Kidtalk-Tactics ModelDemonstration Center on Early Childhood LanguageIntervention (H326M070004)—to FSU, Juliann Woods,coprincipal investigator, and by a demonstrationproject from the U.S. Department of Education, Officeof Special Education Programs (H324M030128-05) tothe University of Illinois-Chicago, Christine Salisbury,principal investigator.

The opinions expressed are not those of the U.S. De-partment of Education, and no official endorsementshould be inferred. Gratitude is expressed to the staffand families at FSU Communication and Early Child-hood Research and Practice Center and the UIC Child &Family Development Center for their cooperation andsupport of the authors’ efforts in this project.

The authors have disclosed that they have no signif-icant relationships with, or financial interest in, anycommercial companies pertaining to this article.

S IGNIFICANT CHANGES have occurred inrecent years in how the role of the early

intervention (EI) provider is conceptualizedand enacted. Historically, the field of EI hasadvocated the use of family-centered prac-tices to promote the active participation ofcaregivers in prioritizing goals and in deci-sion making related to their child’s servicesand supports. However, in recent years, thefield has witnessed a growing emphasis oncaregiver-implemented intervention that ex-tends the scope of family engagement and,in turn, broadens our conceptions of family-centered practice. The implication of thisshift is that EI providers must now focuson what they need to do to strengthen the

Correspondence: Mollie Friedman, MS, CCC-SLP,Florida State University, 127 Honors Way, Tallahassee,FL 32306 ([email protected]).

DOI: 10.1097/IYC.0b013e31823d8f12

Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

62


Caregiver Coaching Strategies for Early Intervention Providers 63

caregiver–child relationship so that caregiver-implemented intervention produces positiveoutcomes for both the caregiver and the child.Greater attention is now placed on buildingthe caregivers’ capacity to promote their chil-dren’s development within the context oftheir typical routines and activities (Camp-bell & Sawyer, 2007; Dunst, Hamby, Trivette,Raab, & Bruder, 2000; Woods, 2005). Re-searchers have asserted that capacity buildingoccurs when the EI providers offer support tostrengthen the caregiver–child relationship,build the caregiver’s confidence and compe-tence to enhance their child’s learning, and ac-complish family-identified outcomes (Hughes& Peterson, 2008; McCollum & Yates, 1994;National Early Childhood Technical Assis-tance Center, 2008; Sandall, Hemmeter,Smith, & McLean, 2005). To be effective, EIproviders need to strengthen and broadentheir specific knowledge and skills abouthow to collaborate with and coach caregiversduring intervention sessions to build care-giver capacity. Unfortunately, research indi-cates that adoption and use of coaching inEI have thus far been limited and challengingfor EI providers (Campbell & Sawyer, 2007;Fleming, Sawyer, & Campbell, 2011; Peterson,Luze, Eshbaugh, Jeon, & Kantz, 2007; Salis-bury, Woods, & Copeland, 2010). Implemen-tation science would suggest that this is due,in part, to the fact that providers often do notfully understand what behaviors constitutecollaboration and coaching and, therefore,what is expected of them in practice (Fixsen,Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005).

Survey and observational research indicatesthat EI providers struggle to work with care-givers and children as a triad (Campbell,Sawyer, & Muhlenhaupt, 2009; Center to In-form Personnel Policy and Practice in EarlyIntervention and Preschool Education, 2009;Fleming et al., 2011; Peterson et al., 2007;Salisbury et al., 2010). These investigations re-veal that providers across several disciplinescontinue to rely primarily on direct interven-tions with children, rather than triadic inter-ventions with the child and caregiver, and thatthey spend little time in coaching and support-ing caregivers’ interactions with their child.

In these studies, time with caregivers was pri-marily spent engaged in conversation and tri-adic interventions relied on modeling for thecaregiver, rather than specific coaching andfeedback (Campbell et al., 2009; Center to In-form Personnel Policy and Practice in EarlyIntervention and Preschool Education, 2007;Fleming et al., 2011, Peterson et al., 2007;Salisbury et al., 2010). Other research indi-cates that providers report a preference forchild-focused intervention and that they hadlimited training in “how to” coach caregivers(Colyvas, Sawyer, & Campbell, 2010; Flem-ing et al., 2011). Studies also suggest thateven with direct instruction during profes-sional development activities, learning to im-plement strategies that entail feedback to oth-ers can be challenging for many professionals(Hemmeter, Snyder, Kinder, & Artman, 2011;Salisbury et al., 2010). However, emerging re-search indicates that providers can use a rangeof coaching strategies, vary their strategieswithin routines and across home visits, andadjust their strategy selection on the basis ofcaregiver responses when professional devel-opment and ongoing supports for using col-laboration and coaching practices have beenestablished (Basu, Salisbury, & Thorkildsen,2010; Marturana & Woods, 2010; Salisbury,Cambray-Engstrom, & Woods, 2011).

When EI providers are uncertain aboutwhat constitutes coaching and what it lookslike as a collaborative practice, it becomesconsiderably more difficult for them to un-derstand what about their practice needs tochange to effectively coach caregivers. Evi-dence suggests that, even with the best ofintentions, discrepancies exist between whatproviders think they are doing and what theyare in fact doing during home visits (Brorson,2005; Salisbury et al., 2011). This disjuncturepresents challenges for administrators, thoseinvolved in professional development, andpractitioners themselves. Without consensusand clarity regarding the behaviors that com-prise coaching, providers and those who sup-port their professional development must relyon general guidance rather than specific infor-mation about what providers should be doingto promote caregiver learning. There is a need



64 INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN/JANUARY–MARCH 2012

to develop a well-defined and measurable setof coaching behaviors that can be used toevaluate performance with adult learners inboth intervention and professional develop-ment contexts (Sheridan, Edwards, Marvin, &Knoche, 2009).

This article has a two-fold aim. First, wewill propose definitions of a set of interre-lated but differentiated coaching strategiesrelevant to service providers in EI. Second,we will illustrate the utility of these defini-tions by showing how they can characterizewhat happens during intervention sessionsamong providers who received professionaldevelopment in family-centered interventionand coaching practices. The descriptive datain this study are not intended to evaluatethe effectiveness of the professional develop-ment received by the providers. Rather, theyare intended to provide illustrative evidencethat these definitions are useful descriptorsof what providers do to coach caregivers andhow these coaching definitions might supportprofessional development efforts.

CURRENT TOOLS TO ASSESSCOLLABORATIVE PRACTICES

Creating a common lexicon that describesspecific coaching behaviors is a necessarystep toward strengthening providers’ abilitiesto develop their own professional practiceand build capacity among the families theyserve. While several researched and validatedtools describe the nature and quality of coach-ing practices in EI, few document the specificcoaching strategies employed by the providerduring intervention sessions. The Home Vis-iting Observation Form, for instance, offersdetails about the content addressed in in-tervention, interactions among participants,what role the provider played in the ses-sion, and what role the caregiver played dur-ing the session (McBride & Peterson, 1997).The Natural Environments Rating Scale de-termines whether intervention sessions aretraditional or participation based, dependingon whether the provider interacts with the

caregiver as a triad, uses the family’s dailyroutines and activities as contexts for inter-vention, and whether intervention promotesthe child’s participation in those daily activ-ities (Campbell & Sawyer, 2007). The Tri-adic Intervention and Evaluation Rating Scale(Basu et al., 2010) assesses the patterns ofparent, provider, and child interactions dur-ing routines within EI sessions. Preliminarydata suggest that the Triadic Intervention andEvaluation Rating Scale can reliably measuredifferences in providers’ use of coachingstrategies and caregivers’ level of participa-tion during EI sessions. These measures offervaluable descriptive indicators about the na-ture of intervention sessions, interactions be-tween provider and caregiver, and the extentto which providers adhere to family-centeredpractices. However, none of these measuresspecifically define coaching strategies or be-haviors within a collaborative interaction.

FINDINGS RELATED TO ADULTLEARNING, COLLABORATION, ANDCOACHING

Recent meta-analytic work has given newinsight into the mechanisms that precipi-tate adult knowledge and skill acquisition.Findings from a large-scale meta-analysisstudy by Dunst and Trivette (2009) indicatedthat adult-learning approaches that includeactive-learner participation produced largereffect sizes than those that did not, substan-tiating the theoretical underpinnings of adultlearning asserted by Knowles and Lindeman(Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 2005). Adultslearn best when they are actively engagedwith the material and when their learninghas an immediate context in which thecontent can be applied. In this meta-analysis,significant effect sizes were associated withelements of practice or the application ofnew knowledge and skills. Adults also needopportunities to try new skills to master theiruse. While having opportunities to practiceare critical to an adult’s acquisition of anew skill, engaging with the material at a




meta-cognitive level is an indispensable stagein the adult learner’s development. Amongthe studies examined, the largest effectsizes were related to the use of evaluationstrategies, such as encouraging the adultsto think about the impact of their newknowledge, and reflection, in which thelearners engage in self-assessment about theapplication of their knowledge and practice.These results also indicate that including mul-tiple adult-learning strategies lead to greatereffect sizes than including fewer strategies.Adults benefit from receiving informationand practicing skills in multiple ways, and themore ways in which information is presented,the more likely it is that the adult will masterthe content (Dunst & Trivette, 2009). Thesedata are consistent with the tenets of adult-learning theory and suggest that caregiversshould be offered information, opportunitiesto practice, and, importantly, occasions toevaluate and reflect on their strategy use.

Coaching and collaborative consultationframeworks that facilitate the use of adult-learning theory are increasingly incorporatedin EI practice (Buysse & Wesley, 2005; Hanft,Rush, & Shelden, 2004). These frameworksguide the process of coaching and collabora-tion and promote a plan of interaction andfeedback between the coach or consultantand the recipient of the coaching or consulta-tion. By establishing a common vocabulary ofcoaching strategies aligning with the compo-nents of adult learning that promote capacitybuilding, the field will be better able to eval-uate whether providers are actively coachingcaregivers to embed intervention in everydayroutines and activities, build caregiver’s ca-pacity to support their child’s development,and determine whether professional devel-opment efforts are successful in improvingproviders’ abilities to coach families. Clearlydefined coaching strategies that include bothrelationship and help-giving practices, alignedwith evidence about adult learning, will fos-ter conversation among providers, supervi-sors, and researchers invested in supportingcaregivers’ attainment of child and family out-comes in the EI process.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ANDDEVELOPMENT OF THE COACHINGDEFINITIONS

Conceptual framework

The coaching strategies proposed in thisarticle can be conceptualized within a frame-work that reflects both principles of adultlearning and family-centered practice. To suc-cessfully coach caregivers and build their ca-pacity to support their child, EI providersmust know how to teach and collaborate withother adults. Coaching within the context ofthe family’s typical routines and activities isconsistent with adult-learning theory that sug-gests that adults prefer to engage with mate-rial that is relevant to their lives and learnbest when learning is organized in real-lifecontexts (Bransford, Donovan, & Pellegrino,1999; Knowles et al., 2005; Lave & Wenger,1991). If adults learn best when the contentaddresses their specific needs, EI providerswho collaborate with caregivers will needto consider how to gather information aboutwhat the caregiver wants and needs to learnand how he or she can situate that learningin real-world contexts and typical routinesin ways that support caregiver learning andthe child’s growth and development. Becauseadult-learning theories hold that adults tendto be self-directed and are capable of reflec-tion and problem-solving, those capabilitiesshould be reinforced when the EI providerwork with caregivers (Knowles et al., 2005).

A major goal of EI is to strengthen thefamily’s capacity to support their child’s de-velopment. There appears to be general con-sensus that the provider’s role is to shareinformation and resources, suggest anddemonstrate intervention strategies with thecaregiver, support the caregiver’s learning bygradually stepping back to let him or herpractice and take the lead, and engage thecaregiver in problem solving and reflection toincrease the caregiver’s deeper understand-ing of why, as well as what and how todo (National Early Childhood Technical As-sistance Center, 2008; Sandall et al., 2005;Woods, Wilcox, Friedman, & Murch, 2011).




While general consensus exists regardingthese roles, specific actions need to be iden-tified to make clear what providers should doto coach and collaborate with caregivers. Inmost sessions, a predictable sequence of in-teraction would include (1) setting the stage(the caregiver and provider develop and/ornurture their relationship, provide updates re-lated to the child and family, share informa-tion, and review the plan for the session), (2)application opportunities and feedback (care-giver practices in context with support fromprovider and repetition and discussion pro-mote a deeper understanding and fluency ofknowledge and skill), and (3) mastery (care-giver generalizes and problem solves the useof strategies that promote child learning anddevelopment across authentic settings and sit-uations).

In this framework, we view the coachingprocess as developmental and dynamic in na-ture. The coaching definitions proposed hereare not intended to be a script or a formula butrather a set of flexible strategies that providethe provider and caregiver with opportuni-ties to share information, learn and practicestrategies, and solve problems in a mannerguided by caregiver-identified priorities. Theprocess is informed by the priorities of thecaregiver and the purposes of the interaction.For example, a caregiver new to EI may iden-tify her needs for information about her child,resources to share with her parents, and sug-gestions for getting her son to sleep as pri-orities for a home visit. Coaching strategiesused by the provider would match the care-giver’s interests and emphasize conversationand information sharing. Coaching a parentof a child with significant challenging behav-iors who wants the focus to be on interven-tion strategies to increase communication andemotional regulation skills during bath time,meals, and putting toys away—all times whenmeltdowns are likely to occur—would likelyinclude emphasizing time on demonstration,joint interaction, guided practice with feed-back, and problem solving and reflection. Al-ternatively, the provider may have a plan de-veloped jointly by the caregiver and EI at the

previous session in mind when the caregivermeets her at the door with other urgent needs,necessitating a change in the plan and somequick problem solving and reflection.

This flexible framework provides a foun-dation for our discussion of coaching strate-gies and their definitions and helps us situatethe actions of providers within the contextof their interactions with caregivers and chil-dren during home visiting. Table 1 depicts theelements of the framework and the relation-ship of the coaching strategies and definitionsto each phase of learning.

Development of definitions

Initial development and refinement of thedefinitions and their associated coding pro-tocol took place in two iterations between2005 and 2007. First, using the original defini-tions proposed by Woods (2005), videotapesof home visits by speech language patholo-gists (SLPs) involved in research on family-guided routine-based intervention (FGRBI)over 12 months were rated by using a pro-tocol containing 16 possible coaching behav-iors. Results of those observation were usedto refine the coaching categories. The videosrevealed that providers conversed with care-givers about the information that was applica-ble to both child and family outcomes. Thismade the distinction between informationsharing for child outcomes and informationsharing to support adult outcomes indistin-guishable. Providers also talked with care-givers in ways that appeared to promoterelationship building and specific interven-tion ideas, making it difficult to discriminatethe intent of the comments and limiting in-terrater reliability. Therefore, three more nar-rowly defined categories were collapsed intoan inclusive category termed “Conversationand Information Sharing.” Categories that de-scribed interfering situations such as pets get-ting loose, repairmen arriving unexpectedly,or video camera malfunctions were collapsedinto a single category termed “Other.” Theserevisions resulted in 12 operationally definedcoaching behaviors.




Table 1. Caregiver Coaching Definitions

Stages ofCaregiverand CoachInteraction

CoachingStrategy Definitions and Examples

Setting thestage

CIS CIS is a multipurpose, bidirectional conversational strategy usedthroughout the session, with a primary focus on establishingand maintaining the relationship between caregiver and EIprovider. The caregiver and provider share information, makecomments, ask and respond to questions about the earlyintervention program in general, and question or commentrelevant to the child’s and family’s outcomes. CIS helps theprovider learn about family goals, updates since the last visit,and new priorities while also responding to family requestsfrom previous sessions. Caregivers use CIS to share ideas orfamily information, report progress, ask questions or makerequests for resources or supports. CIS is frequently thestarting and ending point for other specific coaching strategiesand is also used within specific coaching and JI. CIS is notcoded when the conversation shifts from the child and family’sIFSP or the EI program into other conversations not directlyrelated to the early intervention program.• The provider asks how the family’s morning routine has

been going and following up on last week’s conversationabout how to support the child as she gets dressed to go toher child care setting. The caregiver reports that the visualsupports they made have been helpful and that her daughtereven helped to choose a shirt this morning. Mom thenproposes expanding the visuals to support getting in and outof the car seat as a new priority.

• A mom tells the EI that she and her son went to a newplaygroup at their church. The provider shares enthusiasm,asks how it went, and celebrates with mom when sheresponds that he greeted the other toddlers with a wave.Mom shares she also arranged pillows to help him sit withsupport alongside the other children during circle and thenasks about how toddlers typically attend during circle time.

• Carron’s parents finish reading a story with her and initiate adiscussion about using sign language after she transitionsinto a classroom setting.

• Jose just finished helping his mom with sorting and stackingtwo big baskets of laundry. While putting the laundry awayin the kids’ room, the EI provider asks mom what choresJose helps her with besides folding clothes.

(continues)




Table 1. Caregiver Coaching Definitions (Continued)



Setting thestage

OB OB occurs throughout the visit and is integral to thedecision-making process for the EI and the caregiver.Generally, the caregiver interacts with the child, while the EIobserves without offering any feedback or suggestions. OBgives the provider an opportunity to watch what typicallyhappens during a routine, noting the supports the caregiveruses, the child’s participation, and how the caregiver and childcurrently interact with one another. OB may last for a fewseconds or for a few minutes depending on the situation. Datacan be collected by the EI during OB. OB is likely to occurmultiple times per session, is more frequently incidental thanplanned, and is most useful for building capacity if PS/R andfeedback occur after. However, OB may be arrangedspecifically to precede PS/R as a collaborative strategy to gaininformation for development or revision of intervention withina routine or activity.• The provider observes a mom and her son as they sort and

fold clothes in a laundry basket. She watches to see whatsteps happen in the routine, and she generates ideas onwhich IFSP goals may be embedded into the sequence todiscuss with the mom.

• The provider watches as a toddler pulls to stand by holdingon to the arm of the living room recliner when mom isgetting him a cup of juice from the kitchen. She watches tosee whether he will continue to hold on with both hands orwhether he will reach toward the book sitting on the chair.She is also waiting to see how he responds when momcomes back with the cup of juice.

• Aaron’s mom and EI observe him in the sand box to generateideas of what could be done to improve his mobility so hecan interact more with the other children.

DT The provider is intentionally scaffolding the caregiver knowledgeor capacity for skill mastery by providing print, verbal, visual,and video information matched to their learning preferenceson “how to” and “why” content about specific strategies, aboutchild development, and about how to embed intervention intoroutines. Learning why a strategy helps to support the childmay help the caregiver use the strategy more consistently. DTmay be a brief verbal explanation followed by a demonstration.Handouts and video may also be used.• The provider explains how applying support on the bottom

of the child’s feet while she is on her hands and knees givesher a foundation to push off as a way to help her begin tocrawl.

(continues)







• The provider tells a grandmother that holding a large object,like a ball or teddy bear, gives her granddaughter anopportunity to reach with both arms together. Using smallobjects, she explains, might encourage her to reach with 1arm at a time.

• The caregiver and provider watch a brief video of a parentand child using a picture choice board to request a drink ofjuice.

Setting thestage

DEM The provider narrates her actions while simultaneously modelingthe strategy with the child and describes what she is doingwhile the caregiver observes. DEM offers caregivers anopportunity to watch the use of a strategy and an opportunityto notice how the child responds. Repetition or adaptations areoften included to support learning. Often, GPF follows DEM asthe EI passes the opportunity to the caregiver.• While shaking mom’s car keys, the provider explains that

when she moves them 45◦ off to the side, he must turn histrunk to reach out for the keys.

• The provider shows dad how to use hand over handassistance to help his son release a toy he grasped duringbath time.

• While rolling cars into the garage, the EI demonstrates howto follow the child’s lead to support his continued interest.

Applicationopportunitiesand feedback

GPF GPF and CPF align closely with situated learning theories andinclude opportunities for the caregiver to try out a strategy in areal-world context with differentiated support from theprovider (Lave & Wenger, 1991). In GPF, the provider guides acaregiver as they work with the child, practicing strategies,using or adapting materials, or increasing opportunities. Theprovider offers specific recommendations or suggestions in thecontext of the routine to help the caregiver implement thestrategy or maintain the child’s engagement and participation.During GPF, the provider is positioned in a way that enablesher to join in and offer hands on support to the caregiver orchild as needed. The caregiver and EI may be jointly supportingthe child or taking turns. CIS, DEM, or PS/R may occurbetween examples of GPF as the provider and caregiver worktogether with the child. GPF is most frequently used when thecaregiver or child is acquiring a new skill or goal.

(continues)







• The provider suggests that offering the child a choicebetween juice or milk gives him a specific language modeland also a little bit of control in the interaction.

• The provider hands mom a cup and suggests that if momholds it out in front of the child for a moment, Anna wouldhave an opportunity to reach for it.

• While playing ring around the roses, EI suggests to mom tonot fall down until Mia “tells” them to . . . via either gesturesor words.

Applicationopportunitiesand feedback

CPF CPF reduces the hands on role of the provider and emphasizesthe independence of the caregiver. During CPF, the caregiver isthe primary partner with the child, and the provider offersencouragement and feedback to the dyad. Feedback may bespecific to the child’s or caregiver’s participation, theirperformance, what went well, how the child responded or mayoffer a verbal suggestion on what could be done differently or adifferent material to use to keep the child’s interest during theactivity. Feedback can reinforce the specific actions of thecaregiver, relate to the caregiver’s ease of use of the strategy, orhow the child responded. CPF is designed to increase thecaregiver’s competence and confidence by providingopportunities to practice with support matched toperformance. CPF often morphs into PS and planning as thecaregiver reflects on the interaction. It can also transition to CISwhere identification of a new goal or strategy starts a new cycleof DT/GPF and JI in a different activity.• The caregiver offers his son a choice between two books

and then waits for his son to respond. The provider simplynods to the caregiver until after the child has completed hischoice and is looking at the book. Then the EI comments todad that his pause gave the child enough time to look at thetwo books and then to reach for the one he wanted.

• While the child drinks his juice, the provider shares with thecaregiver that pausing for a moment before giving her thejuice gave her enough time to reach for it. The provider alsocomments that mom’s position was perfect, close enoughfor her daughter to reach and to share a giggle.

JI The provider and caregiver work as partners with the child. Theymay take turns interacting with the child or each otherdepending on the routine. Performance feedback is notprovided. Joint interaction offers opportunities to practicewithin the routine, to ensure sufficiency of opportunities forskill acquisition, to gather performance data, and to evaluatethe child’s and caregiver’s status to determine when to

(continues)







“pull back” to increase the caregiver’s leadership role or thechild’s independence or skill level. In JI, the EI’s role is tosupport the interaction between the parent to accomplish theoutcome or routine and to have fun.• A provider and caregiver take turns, pushing a child on a

swing while responding as the child squeals. The providerdoes not offer specific suggestions to the caregiver but mayoccasionally offer an encourager.

• Both mom and the provider help the child put on her shoeswhile preparing to go outside.

• Mom introduces a favorite song and all join in. The childchooses the next song and everyone keeps on singing.

Mastery PS/R PS/R align with the adult learner’s need to put the practice intohis own language and everyday experiences that can be usedfunctionally at a later time. In PS/R, the provider and caregiverjointly describe the child or routine status from theirperspectives, seeking a variety of ideas and input from familymembers. Each idea is valued and contributes to the discussion.The caregiver with supports from the provider evaluatesalternatives specific to the concern or planning purpose. PS/Rencourages the caregiver to generate ideas for how to enhancestrategy use and how to generalize strategies to new routines,and it helps the caregiver put words around the interaction andthe context in a variety of formats. PS may also be an exchangethat supports the caregiver’s capacity to reflect on theinteraction, answering questions such as “what do you thinkworked well,” “how did this exchange feel,” or “what wasdifferent?” The caregiver must take at least two turns in the PSexchange in order for the segment to be considered PS/Rrather than CIS.• Dad has just finished reading the book that his son chose

to everyone’s applause. When asked how he thought it wentby the EI, he responded that giving choices seemed to haveincreased his interest and decreased the battle over whowas in charge. The caregiver and provider talk about waysto build in more choices into their routines and activitiesas a way to increase the child’s choice making and his rateof communication. Dad says that his son has opportunitiesduring playtime to choose which toys to use. They agree thatwould be great because there are several preferred toys hecan pick from and dad usually has time before bath for play.The provider asks whether there are other types of routineslike chores or caregiving where he can embed choicesto offer more opportunities before they make the planfor next week. Dad responds that he will play and read thisweek and spend time thinking about what else he could try.

(continues)







• Mom tells the provider that she has a difficult time gettingher son dressed each day. It was easier when he was a baby,but now that he is bigger, it is hard to help him to lay still or,if standing, to bend his knees enough to put on his pants,socks, and shoes. Since mom is due to deliver another babyin a few months, she is searching for some options. Theprovider asks how she positions him currently and momresponds. After listening to mom, the EI asks her what shethinks is working and mom responds that she does not knowfor sure. They proceed to try it together before starting a listof options and move to his bedroom for a diaper change.

No coaching CF The provider works directly with the child. The caregiver may ormay not be present or engaged, and the provider’s attention isdirected to the child. No effort is made by the provider tocoach or consult with the caregiver, if present.• The provider plays with the child by using a variety of toys

to elicit multiple IFSP outcomes, while the dad watchesacross the room. The provider talks to the child.

• The provider feeds the child by using a special protocol.

Other The provider and caregiver talk about topics unrelated to thechild or family outcomes or early intervention program. Theymay also attend to a sibling and interact with other familymembers or visitors. The caregiver may be out of the room.Other is also coded when the video is not able to be codedbecause of poor audio or video.• Mom and provider talk about the recent bad weather hitting

the area.• Mom talks to an older sibling, while the provider waits for

her attention.

Note: CF = child focused; CIS = conversation and information sharing; CPF = caregiver practice with feedback; DEM =demonstrating; DT = direct teaching; EI = early intervention; GPF = guided practice with feedback; IFSP = individual-ized family support plan; JI = joint interaction; OB = observation; PS/R = problem solving/reflection.

In the second iteration, the 12 coaching be-haviors were introduced to providers in anurban EI program in the Midwest. Examplesof each coaching behavior were broadenedto be relevant for multiple disciplines. Af-ter initial training on FGRBI, family-centeredpractices, and adult-learning strategies, ob-servation of home visits were conducted

by using the coaching behavior definitionsand protocol for videotaping. Videotapingwas used to evaluate the extent to whichproviders were engaging in coaching prac-tices and as a means of self-study to help theseproviders implement caregiver-implementedintervention practices. Analyses undertakenat this stage revealed that two strategies




(competitive interaction and video review/reflection) were rarely used by providers. In-sofar as these strategies were originally in-cluded for research purposes, we made thedecision to delete them from the list ofcoaching strategies being emphasized withproviders. Thus, 10 strategies were includedin evaluation studies in which we found thatthe definitions and video coding protocolwere generally effective in distinguishing thefrequency and the nature of coaching and col-laboration that occurred during home visits(Basu et al., 2010; Cambray-Engstrom & Salis-bury, 2010; Salisbury et al., 2010, 2011).

Our current set of coaching strategies andtheir associated definitions reflects a recog-nition that adult knowledge is socially con-structed and scaffolded through interactionswith others (Rogoff, 1990), is contextuallygrounded (Bernheimer & Weisner, 2007; Lave& Wenger, 1991), and is experience based(Knowles et al., 2005; Kuhn, 1970). Theset of coaching strategies includes the fol-lowing: conversation and information sharing(CIS); observation; demonstrating (DEM); di-rect teaching (DT); caregiver practice withfeedback (CPF); joint interaction (JI); guidedpractice with feedback (GPF); problem solv-ing (PS); child focused (CF); and not coaching(NC). Their definitions and examples specificto EI are presented in Table 1. Later, we de-scribe our current effort to further refine andevaluate the application of these coaching def-initions in authentic EI settings.

METHODS

Design

A multisite, small-sample descriptive designwas used to examine the utility of the coach-ing definitions in home visiting contexts. Aconvenience sampling strategy was used togather data about the coaching behaviors offour providers in three EI programs locatedin different states. Each program expectedproviders to use the family’s identified every-day activities and routines as intervention con-texts and coaching practices as key mecha-

nisms for promoting caregiver-implementedintervention. Providers from each programwere included if they participated in a grouptraining that addressed content on caregivercoaching, and if they provided three video-tapes of home-based EI sessions with one fam-ily for analysis.

Participants

Program 1 included four providers (threeearly childhood special education [ECSE] andone social worker) with 5–20 years experi-ence in EI from a Midwestern state. Theseparticipants were randomly selected from awider pool of 25 providers who received ini-tial and ongoing training in FGRBI (Woods,2005). Providers in program 1 received twodays of basic knowledge–level instruction inan interactive team training workshop. Thetraining included content on family-centeredpractices, collaborating with families, usingcoaching strategies to help caregivers learnnew ways to support the child’s develop-ment, and using family routines as contextsfor intervention. After the initial training,the providers received monthly coaching andfeedback from the trainers on their implemen-tation of FGRBI during videoconference calls.

Participants from program 2 included fourEI providers representing speech languagepathology (SLP), occupational therapy (OT),and physical therapy (PT) and early childhoodspecial education (ECSE) disciplines. Theseproviders had 3–13 years experience in EI andserved children/families who were ethnically,culturally/linguistically, and economically di-verse in a large urban city in the Midwest.Like providers in program 1, these providersreceived professional development on FGRBIwithin a group training and participated inreflective supervision via weekly team meet-ings to discuss their implementation of theapproach with their families.

Providers from program 3 included fourSLPs with 1–7 years experience who were af-filiated with a model demonstration projecton family-centered communication interven-tion in a southern suburban location. Theseproviders received workshop-based training




Table 2. Provider and Program Demographics

Training on FGRBI Provider Education Level Discipline

Program 1 Initial two-day workshop and monthlyfeedback on coaching strategiesduring video conference calls

1 Master’s ECSE2 Bachelor’s ECSE3 Master’s ECSE4 Master’s MSW

Program 2 Initial 11-day training and weekly teamreflection and feedback on coachingstrategies

1 Master’s SLP2 Master’s OT3 Doctorate PT4 Master’s ECSE

Program 3 Initial training on communicationintervention and monthly feedbackon coaching strategies

1 Master’s SLP2 Master’s SLP3 Master’s SLP4 Doctorate SLP

Note: ECSE = early childhood special education; FGRBI = family-guided routines based intervention; MSW = master ofsocial work; OT = occupational therapy; PT = physical therapy; SLP = speech language pathology.

on the content of the communication inter-vention model and monthly feedback on theways in which they coached caregivers indaily routines and activities.

Procedure

Four providers from three EI programs con-tributed video data of home-based EI ses-sions for this investigation. These individualsrepresented different disciplinary back-grounds and varying levels of experiencein EI and with family-centered interventionpractices. These characteristics were con-sidered important for establishing whetherthe proposed coaching definitions could beused by a range of EI professionals andwere nuanced enough to detect differencesbetween providers and programs. Table 2provides an overview of the participants’ de-mographic characteristics. Providers from allthe three programs obtained informed con-sent from one caregiver/child with whomthey worked to collect videotapes of homevisit sessions.

Three videotapes, representing regularlyscheduled home visit sessions in their en-tirety (generally 45–60 min in length), werecollected once every 4–6 weeks on one fam-ily for the four providers from each of the

three programs (n = 36 home visit ses-sions). These videotapes were coded in 30-sintervals to describe which of the 10 care-giver coaching strategies were observed dur-ing the EI session by using the taxonomyof definitions and strategies that emergedfrom our earlier development work. Dur-ing each interval, undergraduate student ob-servers coded which coaching strategy wasused, and if more than one strategy tookplace in the interval, the coder selectedthe one that lasted at least 15 s (i.e., onlyone strategy coded per interval). These ob-servers/coders were trained on the coach-ing protocol during five training sessions.During the first session, the coders and thefirst author discussed each caregiver coach-ing definition and watched sample video clipsside by side to identify examples of eachcoaching strategy. Between training sessions,the coders practiced by watching several10-min segments to establish reliability withthe first author at subsequent training ses-sions. Between training sessions, coders prac-ticed segments until they obtained five seg-ments in which they reached at least 80%agreement with the first author. Reliabilitychecks on each of the coding elements wereconducted on 30% of the video data. One




videotape was randomly selected from thethree videotapes for each provider–caregiverdyad to assess interrater reliability (calcu-lated as number of agreements divided byagreements plus disagreements). Coders at-tained an average percentage agreement of88% (range, 72%–96%). If coders did not ob-tain at least 75% agreement, each coder re-coded the session and reliability was calcu-lated again.

DATA REDUCTION AND ANALYSIS

Data reduction and analysis proceeded se-quentially. Findings are based on the analysisof videotapes and are reflected as the percent-age of intervals in which specific coachingstrategies occurred during home visits. First,we analyzed the frequency with which the 10coaching strategies were used by providersin one program to illustrate the variable na-ture of coaching strategy use across home visitsessions (Figure 1). Second, program-levelcomparisons were made by aggregating homevisit data within programs and comparing thefrequency of observed coaching strategy useacross programs (Figure 2). In this analysis,descriptive data indicated that DT, DEM, CPF,

GPF, and problem solving/reflection wereused infrequently as overall percentage of in-tervals during EI sessions. Therefore, thesecategories were collapsed and labeled “spe-cific coaching strategies” (Figure 2). Whilethese strategies were combined to make thegraphs easier to read, each strategy was con-ceptually distinct and served different pur-poses for adult learners. The CIS, JI, ob-servation, and CF accounted for sizeablepercentages of intervention session inter-vals and were not aggregated. Finally, weexamined one provider–family dyad beforeand after professional development to illus-trate how the coaching definitions may beused to evaluate the effectiveness of trainingon coaching strategy use or as a means to offera single provider feedback on her collabora-tion with families (Figure 3).

RESULTS

Disaggregated data

Disaggregated data offer one means of un-derstanding how providers within a programdistribute their efforts during home visits.To illustrate the variable nature of coachingbehaviors, we selected one of our program

Figure 1. Specific coaching strategy use among providers in program 2. Disaggregated data from 4providers were combined to determine the overall percentage of intervals spent using each coachingstrategy.




Figure 2. Aggregated coaching strategy use by program. Video data from four providers in each programwere combined to determine the overall percentage of intervals spent using each coaching strategy. Thesecharts also represent the total percentage of intervals spent in coaching versus no coaching across homevisit sessions for each program.




Figure 3. Individual provider’s use of coaching strategies before and after training. These data showone provider’s use of coaching strategies as a percentage of session intervals before and after training inprogram 1. The total percentage of session time spent in coaching versus no coaching is also representedpre- and posttraining.

sites and analyzed disaggregated data on thecoaching strategies used by the providersin that program. These providers used JIduring 34.0% of session intervals, CF during17.2% of intervals, and CIS during 12.6%of intervals. In addition, these providersused specific coaching strategies regularly,but they accounted for a relatively smallpercentage of session intervals. We alsonoted that these providers used GPF during13.8% of intervals and DT during 2.8% of allintervals. The problem solving/reflection wasused during 0.6% of all intervals.

Coaching strategies by program

Program-level comparisons were made byaggregating data across home visits withinprograms and plotting the frequency of theiroccurrence as percentage of interval data. Vi-sual inspection of the program-level graphsand an examination of the descriptive data re-

veal differences in aggregated coaching strat-egy use across programs. By combining CFand “no coaching” intervals to calculate thepercentage of session time in which no care-giver coaching was occurring, it was possibleto generate a reasonable estimate of overallcoaching use during EI sessions. In doing so,we found that providers in our sample en-gaged in coaching practices for a majority oftime during home visits (program 1 = 67%;program 2 = 76%; and program 3 = 83%).These implementation levels were compara-tively greater than the one that had been re-ported previously (i.e., Peterson et al., 2007).

While our small sample size precludedstatistical comparisons, descriptive data il-lustrated trends in strategy use across pro-grams (Figure 2). Providers in program 1predominantly relied on the strategies CIS(23%), observation (21%), CF (23%), andJI (21%) during their intervention session




intervals. That is, providers in this pro-gram spent most of the time either talk-ing with the caregiver (CIS), watchingthe caregiver and child interact (observa-tion), or interacting with the child them-selves (CF). These providers rarely usedspecific coaching strategies that were de-signed to enhance a caregiver’s ability to learnnew strategies and embed them into their ev-eryday routines (2% of intervals).

Providers in program 2 spent most of theirEI sessions engaged in JI (34% of intervals)and used a greater range of coaching strate-gies more often than did providers in program1. Specifically, program 2 providers spent18% of session intervals using specific coach-ing strategies such as DT, DEM, CPF, andGPF, which are designed to enhance care-giver learning. The CIS (13%) and observation(10%) were also employed frequently. The CFinteractions accounted for 17% of all inter-vals. Like providers in program 2, the program3 providers used specific coaching strategiesregularly in 14% of all intervals. They spentconsiderable time in conversation (22%) andin observing the caregiver interact with theirchild (22%). These providers used JI in 25%of session intervals and CF for 9% of sessionintervals.

Individual session data before and afterprofessional development

Two sessions of one provider’s home visitswith one family in program 1 were chosen asan example of how the definitions might beused to evaluate changes in provider behaviorafter professional development (Figure 3). Be-fore professional development on FGRBI, thisprovider used CIS (34%), observation (18%),JI (26%), and CF (23%) during a home visitsession. After professional development, thepercentage of intervals for CIS (37%) and ob-servation (28%) increased while JI (17%) andCF (3%) decreased. After training, she usedspecific coaching strategies during 15% of thesession intervals compared with no use beforeprofessional development.

DISCUSSION

The coaching definitions proposed in thisarticle are intended to capture the range ofteaching and support strategies that providersuse when interacting with caregivers duringfamily-centered EI sessions. These strategiesreflect specific provider behaviors that werecoded reliably to examine caregiver–providerinteractions during home visits. The sampleincluded providers from varying disciplines,children with a range of developmental levelsand needs, and caregivers with diverse charac-teristics. The definitions were sufficiently dis-tinct that coders used them reliably to identifyoccurrences throughout the home visit in a va-riety of different routines and activities. Thespecificity of these definitions allowed us toexamine provider behaviors across programsand provides. The definitions were also effec-tive in distinguishing the range of coachingpractices used by individual providers beforeand after training within a specific program.

It is important to note the relationshipbetween the coaching definitions and thevideotape-coding protocol and our efforts tocharacterize both the levels and variability ofstrategy use within and across programs. It ispossible to characterize sessions in terms ofcoaching versus noncoaching time by usingthe definitions and coding protocol describedin this report. That is, providers in theseprograms employed coaching practices for amajority of session time. The descriptive dataon coaching practices were not gathered toevaluate the professional development re-ceived by these providers. However, it seemsreasonable to infer that implementation, asdescribed by using our coaching definitions,was, in some measure, impacted by the tar-geted professional development and ongoingreflection and support received by theseproviders. In addition, within and acrossprograms, variability may be attributable todifferences in the length of time for whichproviders had been exposed to coachingpractices or the complexities of the childrenor families with whom they were working.Although all of these providers received




initial training on FGRBI and adult learningstrategies, the intensity of individual supportand follow-up varied program to program andmight account for differences in frequencieswith which they used coaching strategies. Asothers have noted, learning how to scaffoldanother adult’s learning in situ is challengingand the development of fluid use of con-sultative practices requires ongoing supportto providers and considerable practice ontheir part. We believe that it is unrealistic toexpect providers to enact coaching practiceswithout training, support from peers andsupervisors, opportunities for reflection andproblem solving, and time for practice.

While the results noted earlier indicate thatproviders in programs 2 and 3 used specificcoaching strategies more often and CF strate-gies less often compared with providers inprogram 1, the results are not intended to beevaluative. Though we cannot point to spe-cific program or individual factors to explainwhy the differences occurred, it is possiblethat years of experience, disciplinary back-ground, or type and duration of professionaldevelopment experiences contributed to per-formance variations. Variability may also berelated to features of the child or family cir-cumstances or to the intervention approachascribed to by the program. Providers fromprograms 2 and 3, for instance, may have hadmore practice with and exposure to caregiver-implemented intervention than providers inprogram 1. A provider’s use of coaching strate-gies could also be influenced by the nature oftheir relationship with the caregiver, the care-giver’s own learning style and culture, as wellas the length of time for which the caregiverwas involved in the EI program. The influenceof such factors on the use of coaching strate-gies was not examined here but could be thesubject of future research.

Implications for practice

The coaching definitions presented in thiswork can be used to support EI providersand may enhance services to families in sev-eral ways. The definitions can be used inprofessional development contexts to help

providers learn the “how to” of coachingadult caregivers. These distinct definitions canhelp providers gain an initial understandingof strategies that they might use to share in-formation and build capacity to embed in-tervention with their families. Using a com-mon terminology for coaching behaviors willhelp professional development efforts to con-sistently support providers as they learn tocoach.

The coaching definitions may also be usedin professional development activities at theskill level. Administrators, coaches, or peermentors can use the definitions to identifywhich strategies with what frequency wereused in a particular activity and across the ses-sion. This concrete information offers an ad-ditional dimension regarding how a providercoaches a particular family (Marturana &Woods, 2010). Graphs of individual sessiondata might support providers as they seek todiversify the ways in which they coach care-givers. Some providers might see that theyexcel at interacting jointly with the caregiverand child but that they offer few demonstra-tions or little practice with feedback to guidethe caregiver’s participation. Others may findthat they provide frequent opportunities forCIS but that they spend little time observingto see what the family does naturally or engag-ing with them as they participate in routinesand activities. Offering graphed feedback toproviders is an evidence-based way to sup-port the adult as they learn new skills (Barton& Wolery, 2007; Casey & McWilliam, 2008;Marturana & Woods, 2010), and these defi-nitions could offer providers feedback aboutwhat strategies they used while coaching. Us-ing the definitions for provider feedback mayalso set the stage for providers to reflect onwhat they are already doing and how theymight broaden their use of coaching strate-gies to support caregivers.

These definitions also have utility at the pro-gram level. Part C program administrators mayuse the definitions to evaluate what strate-gies their providers use currently and whetherthere has been any change over time as aresult of professional development activities.




The field is currently challenged by a lack ofmeasures to evaluate the effectiveness of pro-fessional development efforts (Sheridan et al.,2009), and it is possible that these coachingdefinitions could be used as an outcome mea-sure to assess whether or not providers makechanges in their practice subsequent to pro-fessional development experiences. Withoutcommon metrics that specify what coachingis and how one might measure it, it is im-possible to know whether providers in thefield are acting in a way that will help familieslearn new ways to support their child’s devel-opment.

Limitations

While these definitions mark a necessarystep toward clarifying and measuring whatcoaching is in EI contexts, there are also limi-tations that must be recognized in this work.First, the data presented were not intendedto reflect a specific study but rather illustra-tions from larger data sets to support the useof the definitions. The limited evidence pre-sented here prevents statistical comparisonsand any ability to make broader statementsabout the larger community of EI providers.Second, the data in this study were part of aconvenience sample of participants who hadreceived similar, though not identical, profes-sional development on principles of family-centered services and FGRBI. A more randompool of participants would enable researchersto answer questions about current coachingpractices in EI and would allow for furthervalidation of the definitions.

Because the purpose of devising codes toanalyze videotaped home visits was to de-velop unique behaviors, the definitions them-selves are a limitation. They likely maskedsome of the relationships between behaviorswhile missing others. It was noted that mostexamples of DT took less than the 15 s neededto receive an independent code. It is likelythat DT examples are included in CIS or JI.Frequency tallies have since been added tothe coding protocol to identify each exampleof DT and also what coaching behaviors oc-cur before and after to gain a more thorough

description of how and when DT is used. Thedefinition of problem solving/reflection wasdeveloped to require a minimum of 2 turnsby the caregiver to distinguish it from CIS.After watching hundreds of hours of video,it was clear that EI providers offered manysuggestions and recommendations to care-givers but were much less likely to ask care-givers what they thought would work or toget the caregiver’s evaluation of the sugges-tion. Most responses to caregiver questionsor comments ended with the EI provider. Us-ing the data on adult learning that emphasizesthe importance of the caregivers reflectingon the information and applying it to them-selves, we felt that minimum two turns wereneeded by the caregiver for metacognitive useto occur. A sequential content analysis wouldoffer additional insights about the interde-pendencies among coaching strategies andcaregiver responses. Guided and caregiverpractices with feedback were defined individ-ually to promote scaffolding for the caregiver.However, the key components of these defi-nitions are the practice and feedback, and dif-ferentiation between the two definitions maynot be warranted.

Directions for research

The definitions proposed in this report areintended to be a useful next step in help-ing those engaged in professional develop-ment, as well as in EI service delivery, under-stand the various “how to” strategies that maybe used to coach caregivers. The terms pre-sented here are not exhaustive and are likelyto be further refined as more research is con-ducted with a larger sample of more diverseproviders and families. These definitions mayalso be further delineated and may be mergedwith other coaching frameworks as they de-velop. Nonetheless, they offer a starting placefor providers who are learning to coach andcollaborate with families and for researchersseeking to compare and contrast otherframeworks.

The data in this study were coded at 30-sintervals. Some of the strategies, though, did




not always last for the minimum period oftime necessary and were “lost” when graph-ing the data. For instance, some episodes ofGPF were just a few seconds in duration. If aninterval contained a brief GPF preceded or fol-lowed by JI, it would be coded as JI. Changesto the way the definitions are measured maybe necessary to fully capture each instance ofintentional coaching.

While the coaching definitions describe be-haviors that providers can use to coach care-givers, we know very little about the nec-essary dosage of each strategy required tofacilitate adult learning. Is it possible thatsome caregivers can learn to use an inter-vention strategy by watching the providerdemonstrate, or is guided practice an essentialcomponent for most caregivers? Are child-focused intervention strategies learned bestthrough specific coaching strategies such asdemonstration and CPF, while family out-

comes necessitate the use of conversationand problem solving? Or does problem solv-ing increases generalization of interventionstrategies to other settings or other child out-comes? How do the cultural characteristics ofthe caregiver impact the selection and use ofcoaching practices? Which provider and fam-ily variables moderate the use of coaching be-haviors in EI? Do caregivers whose childrenhave certain characteristics prefer or adoptcertain coaching behaviors over others? Whileadult learning theories and meta-analytic workseem to indicate that using a range of strate-gies appears to enhance adult learning, it isstill unclear how much or when active coach-ing is necessary to enhance a caregiver’s ca-pacity to take the lead confidently. Furtherresearch will be needed to examine whichstrategies, and in which combinations, havethe greatest impact on caregiver learning andbehavior.

REFERENCES

Barton, E., & Wolery, M. (2007). Evaluation of emailfeedback on the verbal behavior of pre- ser-vice teachers. Journal of Early Intervention, 30,55–72.

Basu, S., Salisbury, C. L., & Thorkildsen, T. (2010). Mea-suring collaborative consultation practices in naturalenvironments. Journal of Early Intervention, 32,127–150.

Bernheimer, L. P., & Weisner, T. S. (2007). Let me just tellyou what I do all day: The family story at the centerof early intervention research and practice. Infantsand Young Children, 20, 192–201.

Bransford, J. D., Donovan, S. M, & Pellegrino, J. W. (1999).How people learn: Bridging research and practice.Retrieved June 26, 2011, from http://csaweb111v.csa.com/ids70/view_record.php?id

Brorson, K. (2005). The culture of a home visit in earlyintervention. Journal of Early Childhood Research,3, 51–76.

Buysse, V., & Wesley, P. W. (2005). Consultation in earlychildhood settings. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. BrookesPublishing Co.

Cambray-Engstrom, E., & Salisbury, C. (2010). An ex-ploratory case study of providers collaborativeconsultation practices with Latina mothers dur-ing home-visits. Infants and Young Children, 23,262–274.

Campbell, P. H., & Sawyer, L. B. (2007). Supportinglearning opportunities in natural settings through

participation-based services. Journal of Early Inter-vention, 29(4), 287–305.

Campbell, P., Sawyer, B., & Muhlenhaupt, M. (2009).The meaning of natural environments for parentsand professionals. Infants and Young Children, 22,264–278.

Casey, A., & McWilliam, R. (2008). Graphical feedback toincrease teacher use of incidental teaching. Journalof Early Intervention, 30, 251–268.

Center to Inform Personnel Policy and Practice inEarly Intervention and Preschool Education.(2009). Part C confidence and competenceof practitioners working with children withdisabilities. Retrieved June 26, 2011, fromhttp://www.uconnucedd.org/projects/per_prep/per_prep_resources.html

Colyvas, J., Sawyer, B. L., & Campbell, P. H. (2010). Iden-tifying strategies early interventionist occupationaltherapists use to teach caregivers. American Jour-nal of Occupational Therapy, 64, 776–785.

Dunst, C. J., Hamby, D., Trivette, C. M., Raab, M., &Bruder, M. B. (2000). Everyday family and commu-nity life and childre’s naturally occurring learningopportunities. Journal of Early Intervention, 23,151–164.

Dunst, C. J., & Trivette, C. M. (2009). Let’s bePALS: An evidence-based approach to professionaldevelopment. Infants and Young Children, 22,164–176.




Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M.,& Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: Asynthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: Florida MentalHealth Institute, University of South Florida.

Fleming, J. A., Sawyer, L. B., & Campbell, P. H. (2011).Early intervention providers’ perspectives about im-plementing participation-based practices. Topics inEarly Childhood Special Education, 30, 233–244.

Hanft, B. E., Rush, D. D., & Shelden, M. L. (2004). Coach-ing families and colleagues in early childhood. Bal-timore, MD: Brookes.

Hemmeter, M. L., Snyder, P., Kinder, K., & Artman, K.(2011). Impact of performance feedback deliveredvia electronic mail on preschool teachers’ use ofdescriptive behavior. Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly, 26, 96–109.

Hughes, H., & Peterson, C. A. (2008). Conducting homevisits with an explicit theory of change. YoungExceptional Children Monograph Series, 10(10),47–59.

Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2005).The adult learner: the definitive classic in adulteducation and human resource development (6thed.). London, England: Elsevier.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolution(2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legiti-mate peripheral participation. New York, NY : Cam-bridge University Press.

Marturana, E., & Woods, J. (2010, October). Usingperformance-based video feedback in professionaldevelopment: Applications to rural areas. Pre-sented at the Division for Early Childhood (DEC) An-nual Conference, Kansas City, MO.

McBride, S. L., & Peterson, C. L. (1997). Home-based in-terventions with families of children with disabilities.Who is Doing what? Infants and Young Children,6, 54–63.

McCollum, J. A., & Yates, T. J. (1994). Dyad as focus,triad as means: A family-centered approach to sup-porting parent-child interaction. Infants and YoungChildren, 6, 54–63.

National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center.(2008). Workgroup on Principles and Practices inNatural Environments (2008, February). Agreedupon practices for providing early intervention ser-vices in natural environments. OSEP TA Commu-nity of Practice-Part C Settings. Retrieved August 5,2009, from http://www.nectac.org.

Peterson, C. A., Luze, G. J., Eshbaugh, E. M., Jeon, H., &Kantz, K. R. (2007). Enhancing parent- child inter-action through home visiting: Promising practice orunfulfilled promise? Journal of Early Intervention,29(2), 119–140.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitivedevelopment in social context. New York, NY: Ox-ford University Press.

Salisbury, C., Cambray-Engstrom, E., & Woods, J. (2011).Providers’ reported and actual use of coaching strate-gies in natural environments. Topics in Early Child-hood Special Education.

Salisbury, C., Woods, J., & Copeland, C. (2010).Provider perspectives on adopting and using collab-orative consultation in natural environments. Top-ics in Early Childhood Special Education, 30,132–147.

Sandall, S., Hemmeter, M. L., Smith, B., & McLean, M.(2005). DEC recommended practices: A comprehen-sive guide for practical application in early inter-vention/early childhood special education. Long-mont, CO: Sopris West.

Sheridan, S. M., Edwards, C. P., Marvin, C. A., & Knoche,L. L. (2009). Professional development in earlychildhood programs: Process issues and researchneeds. Early Education and Development, 20,377–401.

Woods, J. (2005). Family-guided, routines-based inter-vention project. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State Uni-versity, Department of Communication Disorders.

Woods, J. J., Wilcox, J. M., Friedman, M., & Murch, T.(2011). Collaborative consultation in natural envi-ronments: Strategies to enhance family-centered sup-ports and services. Language, Speech, and HearingServices Schools, 42, 1–14.


infants & young children vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 62–82 c 2012...

Documents