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– Input on data collection, analyses, and dissemination; – Parents, 619 & Part C Coordinators, teacher/provider

representatives 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 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

Articles sent for review N Met Criteria*

Child Focused Studies 33 27

Family Focused Studies 17 16

Policy Studies 6 In process

*Meet Criteria for Levels of Evidence Identified

Review Process and Products

Detailed Research Review Protocol– Intervention Based Research Studies– Policy Based Research Studies

Research Summary– 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.

Early Intervention Children

Preschool Children

Early Intervention Children

Preschool Children

Cohort Groups

536 Total 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

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 family-friendly language

Spanish versions developed

A Conceptual Framework for Thinking About Transition

Family InterviewService Coordinator SurveyProvider SurveysFamily Support Scale

Community SurveyAdministrator SurveyProvider SurveysLICC surveyFamily Interview

Family InterviewProvider Surveys

Family InterviewAdministrator SurveyLICC surveyTPP

Family InterviewAdministrator Survey

All Instruments

Part C Survey619 SurveySICC Survey

Instrumentation

InstrumentationTeacher SurveyService Coordinator SurveyAdministrator SurveyProvider Survey

BASC Family Empowerment ScaleFamily Interview

TPPAdministrator SurveyProvider SurveyService Coordinator Survey

Service Coordinator SurveyFamily Interview

Instrumentation

ELMPPVTIGDIDIBELSEarly Math

BASCProvider SurveysService Coordinator SurveyFamily Interview

PPVTBASCProvider SurveysService Coordinator SurveyFamily Interview

BASCProvider SurveysService Coordinator SurveyFamily 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 – Trainings standardized and revisited periodically to ensure

fidelity of the procedures Technical Support

– 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 oldChild age post-transition = 39 and 42 months oldData 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

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

*Groups not mutually exclusive

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

Organized by:– Before the placement decision (N=7 items)– After the placement decision (N=8 items)– Once services were initiated (N=5 items)

1 = Very Satisfied 2 = Somewhat Satisfied

3 = Somewhat Dissatisfied

4 = Very Dissatisfied

Activities to Support Transition

Before the placement decision (N=7 items)– Average use = 4.30 (SD 1.68) or 61%– Average Satisfaction = 16.16 (SD = 6.71), range 1-28

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 = 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

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

Overall use - Mean = 4.30 of 7;SD 1.68 (61%)

Transition Activities After Placement Decision

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

Overall use - Mean = 3.83 of 8;SD 1.72 (48%)

Transition Activities After Services are Initiated

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

Overall use - Mean = 3.64 of 5; SD 1.43 (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 GoodenInterdisciplinary Human Development Institute

University of Kentucky126 Mineral Industries Building

Lexington, KY 40506-0051Phone: 859-257-2081

Toll Free: 866-742-4015Fax: 859-257-2769

Email:Caroline.Gooden@uky.eduhttp://www.ihdi.uky.edu/nectc