1 / 55

The Family Outcomes Survey: Revisions, Data, Uses

The Family Outcomes Survey: Revisions, Data, Uses. Measuring Child and Family Outcomes National TA Meeting Baltimore, MD August 26, 2007. Don Bailey, RTI International Robin Nelson, Texas Part C Program Nyle Robinson, Illinois Part C Program Chelsea Guillen, Illinois Part C Program

kendis
Télécharger la présentation

The Family Outcomes Survey: Revisions, Data, Uses

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Family Outcomes Survey:Revisions, Data, Uses Measuring Child and Family Outcomes National TA Meeting Baltimore, MD August 26, 2007 Don Bailey, RTI International Robin Nelson, Texas Part C Program Nyle Robinson, Illinois Part C Program Chelsea Guillen, Illinois Part C Program Melissa Raspa, RTI International

  2. Remind everyone of the goals and format of the Family Outcomes Survey Describe the revisions made to the survey this year and the rationale Summarize selected data from an initial pilot study using the scale in Illinois and Texas Describe plans to validate the scale Discuss ways the scale could be used to help states answer questions of interest Goals for today

  3. Understand their child’s strengths, abilities, and special needs Know their rights and advocate effectively for their children Help their children develop and learn Have support systems Access desired services, programs, activities in their community ECO Family Outcomes

  4. ECO Scale:Family Outcomes Survey • Three items for each of the five proposed family outcomes • Each item rated on a scale from 1-7 • Descriptive statements for ratings of 1, 3, 5, 7 • Blanks left for “in between” ratings of 2, 4, 6 • Three additional items for states to use in responding to APR requirements (two versions, one for Part C, one for Part B)

  5. UNDERSTANDING YOUR CHILD'S STRENGTHS, ABILITIES, AND SPECIAL NEEDS • Your child is growing and learning. How much does your family understand about your child’s development? 2. Some children have special health needs, a disability, or are delayed in their development. These are often referred to as “special needs.” How familiar is your family with your child's special needs? 3. Professionals who work with you and your child want to know if the things they do are working. How often is your family able to tell if your child is making progress?

  6. THE HELPFULNESS OF EARLY INTERVENTION The next questions ask how well early intervention has helped your family. When answering, think about the early intervention services you have received. 16. To what extent has early intervention helped your family know and understand your rights? 17. To what extent has early intervention helped your family effectively communicate your child’s needs? 18. To what extent has early intervention helped your family be able to help your child develop and learn?

  7. What have we done in the past year? • States have begun to use the instrument • Conducted a pilot study in Illinois and Texas (summer, 2006) • Reviewed and revised the scale (fall, 2006) • Submitted application to IES to validate the scale (summer, 2007) • Completed cognitive testing of scale with Spanish speaking families (summer, 2007) • Currently conducting a second, larger pilot study in Illinois and Texas (summer, 2007)

  8. Questions Addressed in Pilot Study • How should the survey be distributed and what response rates might be expected? • What distribution of responses is seen for each item? • Are respondents more likely to pick the odd numbered items? • How did responses on the APR items compare with the outcome items? • Did patterns of responses differ across the states? • Did ratings of outcomes vary as a function of language of the survey (English vs. Spanish?) • What is the internal reliability of the instrument?

  9. Methodological Similarities • Identical survey • Similar accompanying materials • Distribution method almost identical • Identical return mail methods • Timeframe was almost the same

  10. Differences in Approach • Texas used sampling • Illinois surveyed all programs statewide • Illinois found that IFSPs near 3 were often extended, new meetings not held • So, Illinois did not distribute surveys within 3 months of age 3 during the pilot • Texas did more follow-up, utilized replacement, Illinois depended on volume

  11. Sampling, Distribution, Return Rates • Illinois • Did not sample • Distributed 1,976 surveys at 6-month and/or annual reviews • Texas • Stratified programs by region and size • Randomly selected 3 programs from 7 regions • Randomly selected 1262 families • Return rates • Texas – 44%, representative • Illinois – 29%, not as representative • Data presented today represent 890 surveys (~100 Spanish)

  12. Additional Construct: Looking Towards the Future • Both states added three additional items to the survey to assess: • Current life situation • Transition preparation • Future life situation

  13. Understanding Your Child’s Strengths, Abilities & Special Needs

  14. Understanding Your Child’s Strengths, Abilities & Special Needs

  15. Understanding Your Child’s Strengths, Abilities & Special Needs

  16. Knowing Your Rights & AdvocatingFor Your Child

  17. Knowing Your Rights & AdvocatingFor Your Child

  18. Knowing Your Rights & AdvocatingFor Your Child

  19. Helping Your Child Develop & Learn

  20. Helping Your Child Develop & Learn

  21. Helping Your Child Develop & Learn

  22. Having Support Systems

  23. Having Support Systems

  24. Having Support Systems

  25. Accessing Your Community

  26. Accessing Your Community

  27. Accessing Your Community

  28. Findings on Range of Responses • The items generated a range of responses • We are not getting a normal distribution at the item level, but what kind of distribution would you expect? • Ratings vary across items, suggesting that parents respond differentially and specifically to each item • 77% of responses used the odd-numbered ratings (the ones with descriptors)

  29. Knowing and Understanding Rights

  30. Knowing and Understanding Rights

  31. Helping your Child Develop and Learn

  32. Helping your Child Develop and Learn

  33. Summary Comments and Analyses of APR and Outcome Items • The two sets of items do not generate equivalent response patterns • APR items more likely to have ratings of 6 and 7 • Correlations are moderate • .58 knowing rights • .44 helping child develop and learn • .26 communicate needs

  34. Other Findings • IL & TX had almost identical mean scores across items, although patterns across some items differed • Same highest (EI help child dev & learn) and lowest (participation in activities) rated items • High internal consistency for total scale and OSEP items (Cronbach’s alpha > .90) • Factor analysis yields 1-2 factors • Means for Spanish-speakers considerably lower than English-speakers on most items

  35. Specific Question Comparisons • IL slightly higher on “access to medical care” • Better, more inclusive Medicaid system • TX slightly higher on “knowledge of rights” • Both states have strong emphasis; does service model make a difference? • IL lower on “transition preparation” • Already aware of the problem, IL has put considerable emphasis on improving transition

  36. Example: Effects of Primary Language (English vs. Spanish)

  37. Example: Effects of Primary Language (English vs. Spanish)

  38. Value of Comparisons • Does service model make a difference? • Texas SC has more contact with family • Did Illinois exclusion of kids nearest exit have an impact? • Families were receiving services longer • Effect of demographics? • Culture, acculturation

  39. Illinois 55% White 24% Hispanic 17% Black 3% Asian 13% primary language Spanish 60% Medicaid Texas 38% White 47% Hispanic 12% Black 2% Asian 19% primary language Spanish 61% Medicaid Demographic Comparisons

  40. Scale Revision • Systematic review by survey methodologists • Cognitive testing with 12 parents

  41. Results from Scale Analysis • Problems identified with unclear meanings and inconsistencies across items • MUCH back and forth between methodologists and IL/TX folks about specific wording, resulting in significant revision (rewording only, same format and # items • Revised instrument now available on ECO web site

  42. Consistent Set of Descriptors Used at Each Level • 7 Great deal, almost always, very, almost all, excellent • 5 Usually, good amount, generally, many, good • 3 Some, sometimes, somewhat, fair • 1 Just beginning, seldom, few, poor

  43. Old Version 1 - EI has not helped… 3 - EI has done a few things… 5 - EI has provided good help… 7 – EI has provided excellent help… Current Version 1 – EI has done a poor job… 3 – EI has done a fair job 5 – EI has done a good job 7 - EI has done an excellent job Changes in APR Item Modifiers

  44. IES Application: Validating the Family Outcomes Survey • Specific Aim 1: Determine the test-retest reliability of the FOS by examining stability of scores over a short (two-week) period of time. • Specific Aim 2: Establish the criterion validity of scores on the FOS by examining its relationship with six well-established criterion measures of family well being, addressing family empowerment, social support, parenting self-efficacy, quality of life, hope, and parenting stress. • Specific Aim 3: Determine sensitivity to change in scores on the FOS by comparing changes in family outcomes over 18-months to changes in scores on the six criterion measures. • Specific Aim 4: Document the convergent validity of scores on the FOS by examining the relationship between changes in family outcomes over 18 months and the extent to which early intervention programs used recommended practices in providing services to families.

  45. Using the Family Outcomes Survey:What are the possibilities? • Using the scale to describe and classify outcomes attained by families • Using the scale to identify child, family, or program variables associated with outcome attainment • Using the scale to improve programs at the state or local level • Using the scale to work with individual families

  46. Data Uses • How can states use the data from the Family Outcomes Survey to help identify both the “success stories” of early intervention and the families who may need more immediate help? • How do states track the progress of families in early intervention? • How can states examine the relationship between the quality and delivery of services and family outcomes? • Are family outcomes related to child outcomes?

  47. Data Uses • Three areas of analysis • Measurement-related analyses • Internal consistency • Factor structure • Descriptive analyses • Basic descriptive statistics • Grouping families • Predictive analyses • Describing variation between families • Predicting variation between families

  48. Measurement-Related Analyses • Internal consistency • Total scale • Five subscales • Factor Structure • One factor • Multiple factors

  49. Descriptive Analyses • Basic descriptive statistics • Mean, min, max, standard deviation • Threshold scores • 5 or higher = outcome attained • 3 or lower = “score of concern” • Score variation • Most variable respondent • Least variable respondent

  50. Descriptive Analyses • Grouping families with similar response patterns • Empirically derived • Success stories (scores of 5 or higher) • Borderline (scores consistently 3 to 5) • Immediate concern (scores 3 or below) • Statistically derived • Clusters of families with similar response patterns

More Related