Post on 15-Dec-2015
transcript
Provide some background on use of Individual Growth and Development Indicators for Continuous Progress Monitoring
Show an example of one IGDI: Early Communication Indicator
Show how the data can be used for making intervention decisions
University of Kansas: Charles Greenwood, Dale Walker, Jay Buzhardt, Kathleen Baggett, Judith Carta—IGDIs for children birth to 3 years
University of Minnesota: Scott McConnell—IGDIs for 3-5 year olds
University of Oregon & Dynamic Measurement Group: Ruth Kaminski & Roland Good-DIBELS—Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills
The best investment we can make today educating our children is early intervention! E.g., Heckman, others Public and private preschool programs are scaling
up and becoming part of the USA’s K-12 system Federal and state policies are requiring that
programs and services produce child outcomes Early Head Start and Head Start Office of Special Education Programs
Programs are required to use evidence-based practice Practices for which research indicates that
children are more likely to benefit compared to other practices
Because PMM is an evidence-based practice
Use of PMM leads to Greater teacher understanding of what
each children can do and needs to learn Earlier identification of children not
making progress Increased teacher planning and changes
in children’s intervention/instruction designed to meet their needs
http://www.ncpm.org
•More Dynamic
•More Data-Driven
•More Responsive
In this approach, children receive services sooner and more frequently when needed
Increased expectations for accountability
Need to identify children who need early intervention
Programs and individual staff members need to know when they are making a difference in moving children toward outcomes
To check on individual children’s growth
To inform parents about child growthTo ramp up individual children’s
program if necessaryTo get a check on how well our
programs are doingTo focus our professional
development efforts in our programs
How can we learn more quickly that a child is falling behind in development?
How can we use that information to guide what we do in our programs?
How do we know if what we are doing is improving a child’s trajectory?
Conventional forms of early childhood assessment not linked to individual rates of growth toward outcomes
Child data not used in making ongoing program decisions Not repeatable enough Not accessible enough for program staff Not sensitive to intervention or program effects or
growth over time Difficult for parents and practitioners to understand
Measures that provide helpful information about children's growth toward socially valued outcomes and that guide intervention decision making
Measures that focus on key skills indicators rather than wide-band comprehensive skills
Quick measureGives instant informationTells a lot about an important
general outcome: healthCan repeat it frequently
Quick and easy to doRelatively inexpensive
RepeatableCan indicate potential problem and
effectiveness of an intervention
Reflect progress toward a socially valid general outcome
Strategic (a leading indicator) not comprehensive measurement
Chart an individual’s progress Brief and quick to administer Repeatable (rate of growth, slope) Trend line compares expected vs.
actual rates of learning
Child uses gestures, sounds, words, or sentences to express wants and needs.
Child engages in a range of basic self‑help skills, including but not limited to skills in dressing, eating, toileting/hygiene and safety/identification.
Child interacts with peers and adults, maintaining social interactions and participating socially in home, school, and community settings.
Child manipulates toys, materials, and objects in a fluent and coordinated manner to play and participate in home, school, and community settings.
Child meets behavioral expectations (such as following directions, rules, and routines) in home, school, and community settings.
-Priest et al, 2001
The General Outcome “The child uses gestures, sounds, words,
or sentences to convey wants and needs or to express meaning to others."
In a national survey of parents and practitioners, expressive communication was a highly rated outcome of early childhood▪ Priest et al., 2001
Key Skill Elements Gestures Vocalization Single Words/Signs Multiple Words/Signs
Combine to form Total Communication Indicator
Vocalizations Multi-Word Utterances
Single Words
Total Communication
Gestures
What does the IGDI Measure?
Administration Procedures Toy-play setting with familiar
adult as play partner 6-minute testing sessions Play partner’s role is to facilitate
play and follow child’s lead Set-up/clean-up/put away
Alternate Toy Forms Observational Recording
Procedures
Toy Form A: House
Toy Form B: Barn
NOS CODING SHEET
Gestures Vocalizations Single Word Utterances
Multi-Word Utterances
Total
5:00
G V W M
4:00
G V W M
3:00
G V W M
2:00
G V W M
1:00
G V W M
:00
G V W M
Child ID #:________________ Wave:___________________ Test Date:_________________ Assessor:_______________ Coder:____________________ Circle one: Barn / House Location:__________________ Reliability Y N Primary Coder Name: ________________
GOMs not only show that children are acquiring skills, but they capture information about the rate of growth
Rate of growth can be compared to normative rates as well as to child’s own rate before or during an intervention or different phases or variations of intervention
This makes GOMs a sensitive way of looking at effectiveness of interventions
Shows whether child’s current rate of growth is adequate for reaching the outcome.
Can easily communicate progress with family members, other professionals
Can indicate whether change in intervention is needed
Even when trajectory is far from typical, a positive trendline deflection in response to an intervention can convey when changes are “closing the gap”
For Infants and Toddlers (http://www.igdi.ku.edu) Early Communication (Language) Early Problem Solving (Cognition) Early Movement (Motor) Early Social (Social/Emotional)
For Preschoolers (Early Literacy) (http://ggg.umn.edu/) Picture naming (Spoken Vocabulary) Alliteration Rhyming
Individual Child Level Progress findings Intervention decision making
Individual Program Level Child Results Implementation Quality and Staff Management
Project Level (e.g., State-wide) Child Results Implementation Quality and Staff Management
Child’s Scores
Benchmark Trajectory
Slightly Below Benchmark
Below Benchmark
Child’s Trajectory
Intervention or condition
Line
Children performing below benchmark. (Only available to
program directors/coordinators.)
Children due for an assessment
Targeting Targeting IndividualsIndividuals
The psychometric standards (AERA, 1999): Reliability Validity (Criterion and predictive)
Progress monitoring standards (NCPM, 2007): Alternate forms Sensitivity to student improvement (slope) Annual yearly progress (AYP) benchmarks (level
at end point) Rates of improvement are specified (typical
growth rates) Improvement in teacher planning and/or
student learning
Literature Review and Synthesis Draft General Outcome Definition Identify Key Skills Identification, Selection, and Definitions
Methods National Survey
Socially Validate the General Outcome Definition Pilot Testing
Identify and Select Toy Forms Pilot Testing
Establish Administration Feasibility through User Testing Cross Sectional Design Phase 1 Validation Study
Establish Sensitivity to Differences in Age; Reliability) Longitudinal Design Phase 2 Validation Study
Demonstrate Sensitivity to Short-term Growth over Time; Reliability
Scale-up Application Website Tools and Resources
Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., Walker, D., Hughes, K., & Weathers, M. (2006). Preliminary investigations of the application of the Early Communication Indicator (ECI) for infants and toddlers. Journal of Early Intervention, 28(3), 178-196.0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39
Age at Test
Rat
e p
er M
inu
te
Gestures
Vocalizations
Single Words
Muliple Words
GOM approach does offer reliable and valid tools for progress monitoring in early childhood.
They can be used for many purposes in intervention decision-making.
Their ease of use and illustration of growth make them excellent tools for communication about children’s progress.
Their sensitivity to growth allow for more frequent refinements and more effective interventions for individual children.
Advantages Universal screening (all children) Focus on short-term growth and development Linked to response to intervention and prevention
strategies Supports staff planning and decisions regarding
changing intervention Designed for use by early interventionists and
parents Web-based support provides instant individual or
group reports Limitations
Requires a systematic effort to implement with fidelity
Requires administrative support to use at scale
For infants and toddlers Communication, Movement, Problem
Solving, Social, and Parent/Child Interaction http://www.igdi.ku.edu
For preschoolers Early Literacy: Vocabulary, Alliteration, and
Rhyming http://ggg.umn.edu
For kindergarten to grade 3 Early Literacy: Reading http://dibels.org
Public Pages: Information, access, training, and
materialsPrivate Pages (Requires UserID and
Password): Data services (collection, entry,
management, and reporting)▪ $1 per child or▪ Participation in research/demonstration
activities
New progress monitoring work in development at the Center for Response to Intervention in Early Childhood (CRTIEC) Oral Vocabulary Phonemic Awareness Book Knowledge Comprehension
Online at http://www.crtiec.org
Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., & Walker, D. (2005). Individual growth and development indicators (IGDIs): Tools for assessing intervention results for infants and toddlers. In B. Heward & et al. (Eds.), Focus on Behavior Analysis in Education: Achievements, Challenges, and Opportunities (Chapter 6) (pp. 103-124). Columbus, OH: Pearson/Prentice-Hall.
Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., Baggett, K., Buzhardt, J., Walker, D., & Terry, B. (2008). Best practices in integrating progress monitoring and response-to-intervention concepts into early childhood systems. In A. Thomas, J. Grimes & J. Gruba (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 535-548). Washington DC: National Association of School Psychology.
McConnell, S. R., McEvoy, M. A., & Priest, J. S. (2002). Growing measures for monitoring progress in early childhood education: A research and development process for Individual Growth and Development Indicators. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 27(4), 3-14.
Walker, D., Carta, J. J., Greenwood, C., & Buzhardt, J. (2008). The use of Individual Growth and Development Indicators for progress monitoring and intervention decision making in early education. Exceptionality, 16(1), 33-47.
Carta, J. J., Greenwood, C. R., Walker, D., Kaminski, R., Good, R., McConnell, S. R., & McEvoy, M. (2005). Individual growth and development indicators (IGDIs): Assessment that guides intervention for young children. Young Exceptional Children, 4, 15-27.
Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., & Walker, D. (2004). Individual growth and development indicators (IGDIs): Tools for assessing intervention results for infants and toddlers. In B. Heward et al., (Eds.), Focus on Behavior Analysis in Education: Achievements, Challenges, and Opportunities (Chapter 6, pp. 103-124). Pearson/Prentice-Hall: Columbus, OH.
Greenwood, C. R., Carta, Walker, D., Carta, J. J., & Hughes, K. (2006). Preliminary investigators of the application of the Early Communication Indicator (ECI) for infants and toddlers. Journal of Early Intervention, 28, 178-196.
Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., Baggett, K., Buzhardt, J., Walker, D., & Terry, B. (2008). Best practices integrating progress monitoring and response to intervention concepts into early childhood systems for infants and toddlers. In A. Thomas, J. Grimes & J. Gruba (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V. Washington DC: National Association of School Psychology, Washington, DC.