Good Decisions IFSP Intervention Strategies

1. Like any thing else, the information gathering process of evaluation and assessment can be done well and result in good decisions about IFSPs and beneficial intervention strategies OR the process can be flawed and result in poor decisions about IFSPs and intervention strategies. In this section of the module, we will review some of the factors that are crucial to conducting high quality evaluations and assessments in early intervention. Good Decisions IFSP Intervention Strategies Bad Decisions IFSP Intervention Strategies

2. What are key factors in high quality evaluation and assessment practices? Is the information gathering process AUTHENTIC? Do assessment and evaluation results provide true or authentic information about young children’s function? Authentic assessment is a relatively recent term that is closely associated with ecological assessment. Ecological assessment refers to gathering meaningful Information about how children function in their world. Authentic assessment provides true information about children and families that is useful for intervention planning.

3. Dr. Patricia Snyder has noted 7 characteristics of authentic or ecological assessment – the “7 M’s”. Multi-dimensional – Information from different developmental domains Multi-source – Information from multiple sources (child, family, etc.) Multi-contextual – Information from different settings Multi-method – Information gathered from different strategies Multi-occasional – Information collected at more than 1 time Multi-cultural – Data considers child’s cultural group Multi-disciplinary – Assessment team includes professionals from more than 1 discipline

4. Is the information or data VALID? Do assessment and evaluation results or test scores provide useful or VALID information about the areas of child function that are supposed to be measured by the test? Valid test results allow meaningful inferences to be made in IFSP planning. While validity of test scores should be discussed in terms of valid scores for a specific group or purpose, validity of scores depends, to some degree, on test characteristics such as well constructed test items, adequate numbers of test items at each age level tested, and adequate numbers of children represented in each age level of a normative sample.

5. Test descriptions or manuals provide information on several types of validity…. FACE - Test items reflect content being measured Example: Fine motor test items include tasks involve handling toys in a meaningful manner. CONTENT – Test items are representative of the “universe or potential content” of attributes in the area being measured . Example: Fine motor items include tasks in which a small object is manipulated with fingers, tasks in which a child must use both hands together in a coordinated fashion, tasks in which a child holds and draws with a crayon.

6. CONCURRENT - Test results agree with those of another, well constructed test given at the same point in time. Example: AEPS test results are consistent with BDI-2 developmental scores. PREDICTIVE – Test results indicate how a child will perform at a later point in time. Example: ASQ failing scores accurately predict a child’s below-age-level performance in some developmental domains on BDI-2. In early intervention settings, it is sometimes necessary to use multiple measures to collect valid information across all developmental domains. Evaluators supplement the BDI-2 and the AEPS with feeding and motor checklists when more information about these areas is needed or when the formal measures do not have enough items in these areas to yield valid information about the child..

7. Is the information or data RELIABLE? Do assessment and evaluation results or test scores provide consistent or RELIABLE information about child function across time? Reliable tests have good test-retest consistency so that a child’s performance on items one day will be basically the same on the next day. There are many factors that interact in test reliability, including well constructed test items that typically engage young children, clear test administration guidelines, and properly trained evaluators who are familiar with administration and scoring protocols. Test-retest reliability is particularly important when a test, such as the BDI-2, is given repeatedly over a period of time in order to record progress in developmental function.

8. Is the information gathered FAIR and NON-DISCRIMINATORY? As mentioned previously, if children’s scores are going to be compared to those of other children for purposes of eligibility for services, then the comparison must be non-discriminatory. It is up to the early intervention system to use tests with normative samples that are representative of the child being evaluated. Factors to be considered include adequate numbers of children of same age, adequate numbers of children from all socioeconomic and racial strata, representation of children with disabilities, and representative sampling of different types of disabling conditions. If these conditions cannot be met, then a norm-referenced test is not an appropriate tool for eligibility for individual children. Eligibility under the informed clinical opinion criteria would be an option.

9. In summary, authentic assessments that yield useful and meaningful information about young children that can be used in early intervention require thoughtful planning, attention, and collaboration from each member of the assessment team. Ask yourself – does your team provide authentic assessment according to recommended practices in the early intervention field? Is your assessment information useful? Is your assessment information acceptable? Is your assessment information authentic? Is your assessment information collaborative? Is your assessment information convergent? Is your assessment information equitable? Is your assessment information sensitive? Is your assessment information congruent? Source: Neisworth, J. & Bagnato, S. (2000). Recommended practices in assessment. In Sandalll, McLean, & Smith. DEC Recommended Practices in Early Intervention/Early Childhood Special Education, pp. 17-27. Longmont, CA: Sopris West.