Evaluating the Use of Bright Futures Educational Materials with Parents of Young Children with Special Needs Janel D. Lauer, OTR/L Health Services MPH.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Research Findings and Issues for Implementation, Policy and Scaling Up: Training & Supporting Personnel and Program Wide Implementation
Advertisements

C ontent of the IFSP Produced by NICHCY, In this module, you’ll learn:  Why the IFSP is so important in early intervention  The 8 types of information.
Caseload Study: Preliminary Results Ann M. Sebald, Ed.D. Bob Pearson, Doctoral Candidate National Center on Low-Incidence Disabilities.
NECTAC Webinar Series on Early Identification and Part C Eligibility Session 2: A Rigorous Definition of Developmental Delay March 10, 2010 Steven Rosenberg,
Rhianna R. Andrews, MSW, Whitney L. Benakis MSW, Anissa T. Cox, MED Association University Center of Disabilities, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.
Summary of Results from Spring 2014 Presented: 11/5/14.
Quality Improvement/ Quality Assurance Amelia Broussard, PhD, RN, MPH Christopher Gibbs, JD, MPH.
Early Childhood Transition Forums Sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care, Department of Elementary and Secondary Education,
Written Care Plans for Children with Chronic Conditions: What Do Families Think? Linda Barnhart Shervin Churchill Jean Popalisky Nanci Villareale June.
There is no reason to pay close attention to this unless you are going to conduct a proposal for a needs assessment.
Sit for Autism Developed by The Center of Excellence on Autism Spectrum Disorders Southern Connecticut State University Ruth Eren, Ed.D. Director.
Early Intervention: An Outcomes Based Evaluation of Disparity in Access Taletha M. Derrington, M.A. and Beppie J. Shapiro, Ph.D. Center on Disability Studies,
Teen Clinic Program Jessica Knaster Maternal and Child Health MPH Program An Evaluation of the.
Dentist Serving Native Communities: Joseph P. Kelly, DDS MCH Research Festival June 7, 2006 Sources of Satisfaction.
A Study of Teacher Competencies and Involvement in Transition Services for Middle and High School Students with Disabilities Conducted by: John Mattos.
Parent Perspectives on Their Young Child’s Television Viewing Becca Calhoun.
The Association Between Psychosocial and Demographic Characteristics of the Mother, Child, and Mother-Child Dyad and Unintentional Injury in Young, Low-
Understanding your child’s IEP.  The Individualized Education Plan (IEP) is intended to help students with disabilities interact with the same content.
1 The Maryland Early Childhood Accountability System Program Effectiveness Based on Results for Children Maryland State Department of Education Division.
Early Childhood Information Sharing Toolkit for Community Providers.
Early Childhood Information Sharing Toolkit for Community Providers June 2009.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services Improving the Commonwealth’s Services for Children and Families A Framework.
Quality Management Update March 18, New Performance Improvement Project (1) Title: Controlled Substance Prescription Monitoring Program Database.
School Uniforms: An Investigation Status Report Harford County Public Schools December 17, 2007.
Integrating Service Needs for Homeless Children in a Medical Home Christine Achre, MA, LCPC.
Diane Schilder, EdD and Jessica Young, PhD Education Development Center, Inc. Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) Provisional Standards Study.
Assessment of Mental Retardation & Giftedness: Two End of the Normal Curve Lecture 12/1/04.
Tool for Assessing Statistical Capacity (TASC) The development of TASC was sponsored by United States Agency for International Development.
WALKING THROUGH CHILD STUDY. What is the Child Study Committee? A committee that enables school personnel, and non school personnel, as appropriate, to.
Help Me Grow ( formerly IEIC) What’s available in the world of early intervention?
Copyright © 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning, a division of Thomson Learning Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Partners in Play: Assessing Infants and Toddlers in.
Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene WB&A Market Research Executive Summary THE 2003 MARYLAND MEDICAID MANAGED CARE CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY.
A NEW SYSTEM OF SUPPORT FOR INFANTS AND TODDLERS WITH DISABILITIES Recent Changes in the Provision of Early Intervention for Infants and Toddlers with.
The Impact of Services on Family Outcomes Ann Turnbull Denise Poston Beach Center on Disability University of Kansas
Welcome to the “Special Education Tour”.  Specifically designed instruction  At no cost to parents  To meet the unique needs of a child with disabilities.
Legal Aspects of Special Education Eligibility and Placement IEP and 504.
Assessing Children For Cochlear Implants Assessing Children For Cochlear Implants James H. Johnson, Ph.D. Department of Clinical and Health Psychology.
Outcome Measures of Triple Board Graduates: Marla J. Warren, MD,MPH; David W. Dunn, MD; Jerry L. Rushton, MD,MPH. Section of Child Psychiatry.
Evaluating Complex Systems of Care A Logic Model Approach to EHDI Program Evaluation Sherry Spence, MA Oregon Department of Human Services Health Services,
The Center for IDEA Early Childhood Data Systems Sharing is Good for Kids Kathy Hebbeler NERCC Part C Coordinators Meeting April 24, 2013.
Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application, 9 th edition. Gay, Mills, & Airasian © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Legal Basis for Assessment Procedures. Public Law Education for all handicapped children act Mandated provision of services for all school.
Preparing an Abstract Vanderbilt University Department of Biostatistics Mario Davidson, PhD.
SPED 537 ECSE Methods: Multiple Disabilities Chapter 3 Deborah Chen, Ph.D. California State University, Northridge February 13-14, 2006.
Copyright © 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning, a division of Thomson Learning Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Chapters 4 and 5 Helpful Administration and Interpretation.
PROFESSOR KERI MCCORVEY M. CCC-SLP PROFESSOR KERI MCCORVEY M. CCC-SLP Seminar Unit 3 Identification and Early Intervention.
Abstract Research with youth faces particular challenges, including potential confusion about researchers’ intentions and vulnerabilities related to power.
Research Methods Technical Writing Thesis Conference/Journal Papers
Identifying and Promoting Family Outcomes at the Local Level Illinois Part C.
Pamela High MD 1 Pei Chi Wu MD 1 Stacey Aguiar MPH 2 Blythe Berger PhD 2 Autism CARES Meeting Bethesda, MD July 16, 2015.
SPCAA Head Start & Early Head Start Mental Health and Disability.
Background Objectives Methods Study Design A program evaluation of WIHD AfterCare families utilizing data collected from self-report measures and demographic.
And Referral for Special Education Evaluations By Special Ed Speech Therapy Staff.
Children’s Policy Conference Austin, TX February 24, ECI as best practice model for children 0-3 years with developmental delays / chronic identified.
ASQ-3 HMG Home Visiting July Discussion points What is developmental screening What are the basic features of the ASQ-3 When should you adjust for.
To examine breastfeeding supports for mothers: A National Study Dr. Patricia Leahy-Warren Ms. Helen Mulcahy Ms. Agnes Phelan.
One Piece of the Puzzle “Helping you, help your child complete their puzzle of life.”
The PDA Center is funded by the US Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Stories from the Field and from our Consumers Building.
Comparing Year 9 and Year 10 May, Background Assessment and Action Record Interviews (AAR’s) are completed annually with all children and youth.
Psychometric Evaluation of an Instrument for Assessing Policy Outcomes for Families with Children Who Have Severe Developmental Disabilities: The Beach.
Do Decision Aids Promote Shared Decision-Making for Prostate Cancer Screening? Alex Krist MD Steven Woolf MD MPH Robert Johnson PhD Department of Family.
Child and Family Services Reviews Onsite Review Instrument.
Self-Care Behaviors in Children and Youth with Autism Spectrum Disorders in Alabama Beverly A. Mulvihill, PhD 1, Brian F. Geiger, EdD 2, Marcia O’Neal,
Health Data in National Center for Education Statistics Data Collections Chris Chapman Presentation at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) and.
Perkins School for the Blind
Study Limitations and Future Directions See Handout for References
Linking Standards, IFSPs and Service Delivery
Early Childhood Special Education
Presentation transcript:

Evaluating the Use of Bright Futures Educational Materials with Parents of Young Children with Special Needs Janel D. Lauer, OTR/L Health Services MPH Candidate University of Washington

Bright Futures  Initiated by MCHB in 1990  Currently sponsored by a variety of national agencies  Includes parent education component Family Tip Sheets Information on specific areas of child development  Designed to meet the needs of all families Unknown use with parents who have children with special needs

Early Intervention  Services for children ages 0-3 with identified disabilities or delays  Includes supporting families and enhancing the developmental potential of children  Intervention is individualized, and often focused on child’s specific needs

Disability-Related Literature  Shifting focus away from medical model  Concept of “redefinition” Allowing parents to provide typical, rather than specialized, parenting practices  Acknowledging the similarities rather than differences between children with special needs and their “typical” peers

Current Study Context  Boyer Children’s Clinic EI Program  Packet of Bright Futures handouts Infancy Family Tip Sheet Communicating with Children Self-Esteem Stimulating Environments Special Time  Overall goal to improve parenting skills in order to enhance child development

Study Objective  Conduct a process evaluation of the use of Bright Futures materials at Boyer Children’s Clinic  Examine underlying assumptions  Focus on five domains General Use Content Opinions Relevance for Parents of Children with Special Needs Barriers to Use Recommendations

Study Design and Methods  Cross-sectional, mixed-methods study  30-item Questionnaire Likert scale Multiple choice Open-ended  Mailed to families who received packet Initial mailing (105) Reminder postcard Follow-up mailing (77)

Preliminary Results  To date, 43% response rate (n=43)  Demographics of respondents Over 90% mothers Average age 35 About 80% with at least a Bachelor’s degree Average age of child 24 months Special needs of children  Developmental Delay (72%)  Speech-Language Delay (58%)  Physical Disability (26%)  Visual Impairment (19%)  Hearing Impairment (5%)

General Use  75% of respondents read at least one handout  Tended to either read all or none of the handouts  Who read handouts? 73% indicated Mother 21% indicated Father 9% indicated Grandparent 2% indicated Foster Parent

Content Opinions  Overall positive ratings of individual handouts Highest ratings of “Special Time” and “Communicating with Children” Lowest rating of “Family Tip Sheet”  Overall positive opinions about content Generally agreed that handouts were interesting, gave ideas about ways to interact, and had important information about safety, health, and development  Did not feel that information was new

Relevance  Over 80% indicated that the activities mentioned were appropriate for their child  Open-ended responses revealed concerns about relevance “I’m a little annoyed to be reminded about when typical kids start to.....” “Does a family with an older child with delays need to be reminded that typically developing children are ahead?”

Barriers  Common reasons for not reading handouts Not having time Already having enough developmental information Misplacing packet  Other barriers noted in answers to open-ended questions WA State DOH mailings Not age-appropriate for children over 1 year Sense that this was for parents of “typical” children

Recommendations  Majority of parents would recommend (64%)  Even parents who personally did not like or did not read the handouts felt that they would recommend for others  Open-ended answers described feeling that the use of handouts should depend on the individual child and family

Limitations  Small sample size Low statistical power  Homogenous, selective sample Limited generalizability  Possibility for measurement error Non-validated survey

Conclusions  Handouts with information that is less specific to developmental stages may be more appropriate Focus on handouts that pertain to all children  Special Time  Communication Information on specific developmental skills more appropriately addressed individually  Selective use of handouts versus universal

Implications  Further research on use of Bright Futures materials with parents of children with special needs  Determination of whether written handouts are an effective way to promote redefinition, or if other methods may be more appropriate

Acknowledgements  Thesis Committee Members Marcia Williams, PhD, MPH, PT (Chair) David Grembowski, PhD  This work was funded in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration’s Maternal and Child Health Bureau (Title V, Social Security Act), grant #T76MC

Special Thanks  Jean Myers, MPH, PT Bright Futures, University of Washington CHDD  Cheryl Buettemeier, MS, CCC-SLP Program Director, Boyer Children’s Clinic  Staff and Families at Boyer Children’s Clinic  MCH ’06 Cohort  Family and Friends

Questions?