1. The National Status of Early Intervention/Early Childhood Special Education Training/TA Systems and Provider Perspectives Mary Beth Bruder, Ph.D. University of Connecticut Vicki Stayton, Ph.D. Western Kentucky University Cristina Mogro-Wilson, Ph.D. University of Connecticut Paula J. Burdette, Ph.D. Project Forum, NASDSE

2. Information gathered will be utilized to identify critical gaps in current knowledge and design and conduct a program of research at the national, state, institutional and direct provider level to address these gaps. This program of research and policy formulation will yield information vital to developing policies and practices at all levels of government, including institutions of higher education. The Center to Inform Personnel Preparation and Practice in Early Intervention and Preschool Education A five-year project established in January, 2003 and funded by the Office of Special Education Programs. PI: Mary Beth Bruder, Ph.D. Co-PI: Vicki Stayton, Ph.D. Project Coordinator: Cristina Mogro-Wilson, Ph.D. Research Scientist: Sylvia Dietrich, Ph.D. Research Scientist: Barbara J. Smith, Ph.D. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

3. The Center’s Purpose The purpose of this Center is to collect, synthesize and analyze information related to: (a) certification and licensure requirements for personnel working with infants, toddlers, and preschoolers who have special needs and their families, (b) the quality of training programs that prepare these professionals, and (c) the supply and demand of professionals representing all disciplines who provide both ECSE and EI services. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

4. The Center’s Goals  To compile a comprehensive database of current licensure and certification standards for all EI/ECSE personnel.  To develop a comprehensive profile of current training programs for all types of personnel at the institutional, state, and national levels.  To describe the current and projected supply and demand for personnel.  To design and conduct a program of research to identify critical gaps in current knowledge regarding personnel preparation.  To develop and disseminate recommendations regarding personnel preparation policy and practice based on research findings. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

5. The Center’s Projects Study I: The National Landscape of Early Intervention and Early Childhood Special Education Study II: The Higher Education Survey for Early Intervention and Early Childhood Special Education Personnel Preparation Study III: The Analysis of Federally Funded Doctoral Programs in Early Childhood Special Education Study IV: The Impact of Credentials on Early Intervention Personnel Preparation (Credentialing Part C) Study V: Analysis of State Licensure/Certification Requirements for Early Childhood Special Educators (Credentialing 619) Study VI: Training and Technical Assistance Survey of Part C & 619 Coordinators Study VII: Confidence and Competence of 619/Part C Service Providers Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

6. Background Background: Study V I Training and Technical Assistance Survey of Part C & 619 Coordinators The status of state-level training and technical assistance (TA) systems for early intervention providers has not been systematically collected or organized. The purpose of this study was to identify and evaluate the current personnel preparation systems for EI/ECSE professionals in each state. Systems that provide and maintain effective and comprehensive personnel preparation and development will serve as models for national standards. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

7. Methodology Part C and 619 coordinators were contacted to complete the survey via phone with trained interviewers. Survey consists of 31 discrete and open-ended questions about funding, delivery methods, content, needs assessment, quality assurance, and other areas pertaining to training and TA. Methods Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

8. Definition of a Training System A systematic, sustainable approach to professional development that has: a) dedicated resources such as an agency budget line-item; b) staffing; c) a dedicated agency that is responsible for the provision of the training; d) policies or procedures for determining professional development expectations; e) has training content; f) quality assurance; g) identifies and measures outcomes; h) provides on-going, needs based professional development that is provided over-time; i) a structure for the delivery of content (training modules, etc.), and j) has work-place applicability. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

9. Definition of Technical Assistance A system of technical assistance include all components of a training system in addition to: a) individualized professional development; b) problem-solving services to assist individuals, programs, and agencies in improving their services, management, policies, and/or outcomes. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

10. Survey Participant Characteristics: Part C Data Job Titles of Participants Who Completed Part C Survey (n=51) a Other staff included training directors, professional development directors, and staff from contracted training agencies who worked directly with the Part C or CSPD coordinators. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

11. Training and Technical Assistance by State: Part C Based on this definition of training, 20 states (39%) had a training system where all of these components were met. Based on this definition of technical assistance, 12 states (23%) had a technical assistance system where all of the components were met. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

12. Part C: Funding for Training Sources of funding for 18 of the 20 state training systems are primarily provided by federal funds, with 8 states receiving state funds, 3 receiving Medicaid funds, and family fees Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

13. Part C: Participation in Training Early intervention providers participated in all of the states training and twelve of the 20 had other early childhood or school age personnel participating in the training. A few states (6) had service coordinators and families (8 states) participating and only 2 states had university faculty participate in the training Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

14. Part C: Delivery Methods for Training Nineteen of the states used workshops (classroom, lecture, or small group format) to deliver training. Sixteen of the states used distance learning or online training opportunities. Eight states used annual meetings or symposiums and conferences to deliver training. Only three states used applied learning techniques, such as hands-on vignettes, case studies, or mentorship and shadowing, to train professionals. The delivery of training was split between more active and passive forms of training. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

15. Part C: Training Requirement Fifteen of the twenty states indicated that they had training specific to Part C that is required of the personnel. Five of the states indicated that training was not required. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

16. Part C: Link to Certification Only two of the twenty states with a training system, Colorado and Michigan, indicated that training was not linked to a certification, credential or continuing education credit. Kansas and North Carolina linked training to a certification, while five states linked it to a credential and five indicated another method such as enrollment in billing system. Fifteen of the states responded training was linked to Continuing Education Units (CEUs), Continuing Education Credits (CECs), or early intervention points or units Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

17. Part C: Training Content Many different areas of training content were cited, with the most common being training content on service delivery, policies and procedures, working with families, and disability information. In addition, some states had training content related to child development, data management and data outcomes, and early childhood risk factors. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

18. Part C: Evaluation of Training Of the twenty states that had a training system all had a method to evaluate the training opportunities that took place. The majority of states used trainee evaluation or survey forms. A few states indicated using compliance or monitoring outcome data while a few indicated using verbal feedback or trainee exams as a way to evaluate the training that was provided Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

19. Part C: Networking for Training All states relied on some degree of networking with other state professional organization and other agencies to provide training. Most networked with other state agencies such as interagency coordinating councils, state T/TA committees, and so on. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

20. Part C: States with No Training System Those states (n=31) that did not have a training system based on our definition. 23 states did not meet the requirement of having quality assurance measures in place. 21 states that did not identify and measure outcomes of the training they provided 8 did not have policies to identify professional development needs. Information from states that did not have the other qualifications necessary to meet the definition of a training system Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

21. Part C: Technical Assistance (TA) System There were 12 states that met the definition of having a technical assistance system. The following series of graphs and tables summarizes the information gathered about their technical assistance systems. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

22. Part C: Funding for TA Funding for the training systems are primarily provided by federal and state funds. Eight states responded that federal funding funds their TA and 8 responded that the state funds the TA. One state, Ohio, mentioned that Medicaid funds some of their TA Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

23. Part C: Participants in TA All twelve of the states with a TA system reported that early intervention providers participate in the TA. A few states (4) mentioned other early childhood or school age personnel, while two said families participate and one state mentioned service coordinators as participants in TA. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

24. Part C: Delivery of TA All twelve states delivered TA by workshops or classroom/lecture setting and eight also said phone calls or emails were provided based on individual requests. Three states also cited distance learning and one state (NE) talked about offering TA in conferences. Ten states indicated that TA is required of personnel, while Texas indicated that it was not required and one state did not answer the question. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

25. Part C: Identification of TA Needs Ten states mentioned that compliance or monitoring was used to identify the TA needs. Nine states mentioned that provider or TA consultants input, via survey, a TA needs interviews, or self assessment, were used to identify TA needs. Five states used federal and/or state initiatives and three had a personnel preparation TA committee that may include stakeholders such as supervisors, parents or providers. One state mentioned that the state credential and competences that determined the TA needs and one state, Wisconsin, mentioned using evidence based research for identifying TA needs. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

26. Part C: TA Content Current TA content focused mostly on service delivery (10 states), while six mentioned TA was provided related the data management system or outcome data, and five states mentioned disability specific information was provided through TA. Four states discussed early intervention policies and procedures in the content of TA in the past year. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

27. Part C: Evaluation of TA All of the states with a TA system had a way to evaluate the quality of TA. Five used verbal feedback, and five states mentioned compliance monitoring and outcome data used. Four states said they used trainee evaluation and survey forms to evaluate the outcomes of TA. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

28. Part C: Differences in TA Across Disciplines Eight of the twelve states with a TA system had discipline specific TA. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

29. Part C: Networking for TA All states relied on some degree of networking with other state professional organization and other agencies to provide technical assistance. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

30. Part C: States with No TA System Thirty of the states did not meet the qualifications of a system because they lacked procedures for identifying and measuring technical assistance outcomes. Twenty three of the states did not have quality assurance measures in place to monitor their technical assistance systems, and thus did not qualify as a TA system based on our definition. The remaining states did not meet other components of the definition. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

31. Part C TA: Collaboration with Project Forum Paula J. Burdette, Ph.D. Project Forum, NASDSE Brief Policy Analysis Part C Technical Assistance: State Approaches Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

32. Part C: CSPD All states were asked if they had a Comprehensive System for Personnel Development (CSPD) or training plan for Part C. Forty-two did not have a CSPD. Seven states indicated that they had a broad based professional development system for all of early childhood, and one included paraprofessionals in their plan. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

33. Survey Participation Characteristics: Section 619 Job Titles of Participants Who Completed Part C Survey (n=51) a Other staff included other state department 619 staff members and staff from contracted training agencies who worked directly with the 619 or CSPD coordinators. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

34. Training and Technical Assistance by State: Section 619 Based on the definition, 23 states (58%) had a training system where all of the components mentioned above were met. Based on this definition, 20 states (42%) had a technical assistance system where all of these above mentioned components were met. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

35. Section 619: Funding for Training Fifteen of the twenty-three states indicated that they utilized state funds for 619 training and fourteen received federal funds that supported the training. Grants partially fund the training in seven states and one state mentioned Medicaid as a training funding source. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

36. Section 619: Participation in Training All 23 state representatives indicated that early childhood special education teachers attended trainings. Related service providers (e.g., occupational therapist, speech and language pathologists, etc), participated in trainings in 17 states. Regular education preschool teachers were noted by 13 states as being training participants. District administrators were mentioned by 13 of the states as being training participants. Nine of the states indicated that families participated in trainings. Eight states indicated that paraprofessionals participated. Six states included staff from other agencies (e.g., Head Start, child care, etc.) in trainings. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

37. Section 619: Delivery Methods for Training Training was provided through workshops in 21 states. Annual meetings, symposiums or conferences were used to deliver the training in 18 states. Thirteen states used distance learning techniques, and four states mentioned applied learning such as hands on case studies or mentorship activities to provide training. Three states delivered trainings through regular staff meetings. One state mentioned using written materials to deliver training. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

38. Section 619: Training Requirement Eleven of the states indicated that they did not have trainings specific to 619 that were required of personnel. Ten of the states indicated that they did have trainings that were required of personnel. Two states did not respond to the question. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

39. Section 619: Support or Incentives for Training State coordinators for 619 services were asked if there were supports or incentives provided to personnel to encourage their participation in professional development. One state said that there were no incentives provided. The other 22 states indicated that there were supports provided to trainees in a variety of different ways. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

40. Section 619: Identification of Training Needs All 23 of the states identified as having a training system had a way to identify their training needs. Fourteen states mentioned that they used provider, administrator or consultant input through surveys or interviews. Thirteen states mentioned using compliance monitoring or performance monitoring, eight states said that they had a personnel preparation training committee that may include supervisors, parents, providers and stakeholders. Nine states used federal and/or state initiatives in identifying training needs. Three states mentioned using evidence based research to identify training needs in their state. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

41. Section 619: Training Content Many different areas of training content were cited, with the most common being training content on service delivery, policies and procedures, working with families, and child development. In addition, some states had training content related to early childhood risk factors. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

42. Section 619: Evaluation of Training All 23 states identified as having a training system had a procedure in place to evaluate their training opportunities. Eighteen states used trainee evaluation or survey forms, seven used compliance outcome data, and three used verbal feedback. Two states (CO, IA) mentioned that they conducted classroom observations to monitor their training outcomes. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

43. Section 619: Procedures for Training Providers Of the 23 states that were identified as having a training system, 18 states had procedures for addressing the re-tooling of those who provide the training. Twelve states had trainers attend conferences, seven states used informational meetings such as regional meetings or monthly meetings of trainers, and six states used a train the trainer model. Five states used national organizations web casts or resource centers and four used written materials such as journals, or listservs. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

44. Section 619: Differences in Training Across Discipline Thirteen states had some discipline specific trainings at least some of the time. Ten states did not have different training for different disciplines. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

45. Section 619: Networking for Training The majority of states are collaborating with other state and professional organizations to provide and access training opportunities Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

46. Section 619: States with No Training System Thirteen of the states did not meet the qualifications of a system because they did not have methods of identifying and measuring outcomes. Eleven of the states did not have quality assurance measures in place to monitor their training systems, and thus did not qualify for a training system based on our definition. Seven states did not provide trainings overtime; while six states did not have dedicated staffing for their training system The remaining states did not meet one or more of the other components of our definition. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

47. Section 619: Technical Assistance (TA) Systems There were 20 states that met the definition of having a technical assistance system. The following series of graphs and tables summarizes the information gathered about their technical assistance systems. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

48. Section 619: Funding for TA Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

49. Section 619: Participation of TA The majority of states reported that ECSE teachers were the most frequent participants of technical assistance. District administrators and coordinators, as well as preschool teachers and other related service providers, utilized TA services as well. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

50. Section 619: Delivery Methods for TA Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

51. Section 619: TA Link to Certification Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

52. Section 619: Identification of TA Needs Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

53. Section 619: TA Content Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

54. Section 619: Identification of TA Needs Current TA content focused mostly on service delivery (17 states), while eleven states mentioned TA was provided relevant to early intervention policies and procedures. Eight states indicated that they provided TA relevant to outcome data or the data management system. Five states mentioned TA regarding disability specific information and three states reported providing or accessing professional development as a content area for TA. Five states mentioned working with families as TA topics. Eleven states have TA related specifically to early language and literacy, seven do not, and two states did not respond to the question. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

55. Section 619: Evaluation of TA Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

56. Section 619: Procedures for Training Providers Seventeen of the states had ways to address the re-tooling or on-going professional development of those who provide the TA. Twelve of the states used conferences to keep TA providers updated. Informal meetings, such as regional meetings or monthly meetings, were indicated by four of the states. Five states also mentioned they used training support, such as, a train the trainer model. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

57. Section 619: Networking for TA Thirteen of the states mentioned that they networked with state agencies specific to TA. Five networked with OSEP, the Department of Education, and other federal agencies. Five states indicated networking with disability specific organizations. Five states indicated networks with institutions of higher education. Four states indicated that they networked with contracted TA agencies and provider agencies on TA needs. Four states mentioned professional organizations and parent groups. Three states mentioned networks with childcare resource and referral agencies, such as the Special Education Resource Center (SERC). Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

58. Section 619: States with No TA System Seventeen of the states did not meet the qualifications of a system because they lacked procedures for identifying and measuring technical assistance outcomes. An additional seventeen states did not have quality assurance measures in place to monitor their technical assistance system, and thus did not qualify as a TA system based on our definition. Twelve states lacked policies to identify technical assistance needs within their technical assistance system. The remaining states did not meet other components of the definition. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

59. Section 619: CSPD Most states (30) did not have a combined Comprehensive System for Personnel Development (CSPD) or training plan for Part C and 619. Thirteen states indicated that they did have a combined CSPD. One respondent was unsure. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

60. Background: Study VII: Competence and Confidence of Part C & 619 Service Providers The lack of public policy regarding nationwide certification or standards has lead to varied training and qualifications, influencing the level of competence and confidence of personnel providing services to families and children birth to 5. The purpose of this study was to conduct research on the level of confidence and competence of personnel working with infants and toddlers with special needs and their families. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

61. Methodology Part C and 619 coordinators were contacted and asked to forward the link to the online survey to Part C and 619 service providers. The survey consists of 47 questions to assess the competence and confidence of Part C and 619 service providers in the following areas: Family-Centered Practice, Assessment and Evaluation, IFSP Indicators, Instructional Practice, Natural Learning Environmental, Collaboration and Teaming, and Early Literacy Learning. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

62. Survey Participant Characteristics Part C Sample Size: Part C: n = 1,462 Demographics:  female (97%)  white (92%)  Age: 16% > 30 yrs. 27% 31 ≤ 40 yrs. 29% 41 ≤ 50 yrs. 29% < 51 yrs Educational Attainment:  BA 38%  High School or AA 3%  MA 56%  PhD 3%. Part B/619 Sample Size: 619: n = 1,086 Demographics:  female (97%)  white (94%)  Age: 13% > 30 yrs. 26% 31 ≤ 40 yrs. 28% 41 ≤ 50 yrs. 33% < 51 yrs Educational Attainment:  High School or AA 2%  BA 27%  MA 67%  PhD 3%. Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

63. Part C Survey Participant Characteristics Part C: 58% have some type of licensure or certification (education 53%, therapy 41%, and other 22%) Part B/619: 67% have some type of licensure or certification (education 84%, therapy 22%, and other 8%) Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

64. Overview: Part C & Part B/619 Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

65. Family-Centered Practice QuestionCB I am able to get the families I work with to obtain supports and resources on their own 99 Families recognize and use their strengths to improve child outcomes because of how I work with them 2443 Getting families to talk to me about what is important for them to accomplish comes easy to me 5456 I am pretty sure that the families I work with will become more empowered because of my work with them 5337 % Reporting Almost always & All of the time First 2 items represent competence, last 2 items confidence Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

66. Assessment & Evaluation QuestionCB I am able to “hit the mark” every time in terms of identifying children’s strengths and needs 3842 I am especially proficient at helping parents identify their children’s and families’ needs and concerns 4146 I am almost always certain that I will be able to identify and use children’s personal interests to improve child learning 6159 I feel sure that my assessments of children’s capabilities are accurate 3659 % Reporting Almost always & All of the time First 2 items represent competence, last 2 items confidence Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

67. IFSP/IEP QuestionCB The children with whom I work achieve the majority of their IFSP outcomes in six months or less 1230 I am able to get the families I work with to be key players in identifying IFSP outcomes for their children and themselves 3316 Writing IFSP outcomes that are functional and meaningful child behavior is a breeze 2526 It is easy for me to know which child and parent IFSP outcomes are most important to the families I work with 4943 % Reporting Almost always & All of the time First 2 items represent competence, last 2 items confidence Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

68. Instructional Practices QuestionCB Because of my efforts, parents and other caregivers are better able to use responsive instructional practices with their children 2520 My efforts getting parents and other caregivers to promote child engagement with people and objects are very successful 2544 It is easy for me to get parents and other caregivers to use prompting and prompt fading procedures with their children 1456 It makes me feel good when I see parents using child- initiated and child-directed learning activities 8876 % Reporting Almost always & All of the time First 2 items represent competence, last 2 items confidence Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

69. Natural Learning Environments QuestionCB I am able to get parents I work with to use everyday family and community activities as sources of child learning opportunities 2435 I am almost always certain that I will be able to identify and use children’s personal interests to improve child learning 3024 I find parents’ use of natural child learning opportunities that we identified together professionally rewarding 6555 I feel that the children I work with benefit a great deal from everyday informal learning opportunities 7274 % Reporting Almost always & All of the time First 2 items represent competence, last 2 items confidence Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

70. Collaboration & Teaming QuestionCB I am able to successfully implement interdisciplinary interventions taught to me by professionals from other disciplines 4150 Jointly planning and implementing interventions with other professionals insures that the children I work with get the right kind of practices 67 Helping other team members do what I do best (role release) makes me feel good about the interventions children and families receive 3260 I am able to get the families I work with to be key players in identifying IFSP outcomes for their children and themselves 3032 % Reporting Almost always & All of the time First 2 items represent competence, last 2 items confidence Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

71. Early Literacy Learning QuestionCB I make sure I help parents and other caregivers understand and use emergent literacy learning activities with their children 39 I am able to get parents to understand why parent/child sound and word games are important for children’s early literacy learning 2422 I am pretty good at helping parents provide their children early literacy learning experiences 47 Including pre-reading and pre-writing outcomes on children’s IFSP/IEPs comes natural to me 2437 % Reporting Almost always & All of the time First 2 items represent competence, last 2 items confidence Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results

72. Competence Areas by Profession Percent of Practitioners Reporting they are Competent in Using Different Kinds of Selected Practices Part C & PartB/619 SE/Early Childhood SLPOTPT Type of PracticeECSE sample size998579403155117 Family-Centered Practices 561543 Assessment Practices29282724 Achieving IFSP/IEP Outcomes 896819 Instructional Practices1416 717 Natural Environments/LRE 212521 29 Collaboration/Teaming4442342036 Early Literacy18 20612 Results Part C Methods BackgroundThe Center Results Section 619 Study VII Study VII Results