Michigan Orientation & Mobility Severity Rating Scales:

Tools Supported by Data

Susan Langendonk

Susan Bradley

Dawn Anderson

2

Michigan Severity Rating ScalesHistory and Development

• Adapted from the Montgomery County, Pennsylvania model beginning in 1995

• Published and disseminated by the Michigan Department of Education – Special Education Services

Michigan Severity Rating ScalesHistory and Development

3

• Orientation and Mobility Severity Rating Scale (OMSRS)

• Orientation and Mobility Severity Rating Scale for students with Additional Needs (OMSRS+)

History and Development Orientation & Mobility Scales

Revised 2008

4

• MDE-LIO Orientation and Mobility Task Force formed in November 2007

• Revising Michigan Orientation and Mobility Severity Rating Scale-Task Force’s first project

5

History and Development Orientation & Mobility Scales

Revised 2008

• Web search indicated OMSRS was being used and referenced in documents in several other states

• Referred to in O&M university preparation programs

• MDE-LIO Task Force did an on-line survey in March 2008

6

History and Development Orientation & Mobility Scales

Revised 2008

• Presented in working sessions at MAER Conference, Livonia, MI, April 2007 and 2008

• Presented in a working session at AER International Conference in Chicago, July 2008

7

History and Development Orientation & Mobility Scales

Revised 2008

• Field Tested in Michigan

• Article in AER Journal Research and Practice in Visual Impairment and Blindness Winter 2009

• Updated OMSRS and added OMSRS+ to MDE-LIO and TSBVI websites November 2008

8

Michigan Severity Rating ScalesHistory and Development

Internationally recognized

• Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired (TSBVI)

• Colorado Department of Education Guidelines for Caseload Formula

9

Michigan Severity Rating ScalesHistory and Development

Internationally recognized

• Massachusetts Assoc. of Educators of VI Students

• Calgary, Alberta, Canada

• Scholarly references

Michigan Severity Rating Scales

What they are:

10

• A data collection tool

• A guide based on best practices

• Guideline for IEP team service discussion

What they are not:

11

Michigan Severity Rating Scales

• Not an assessment

• Not a severity of disability but a severity of student’s need for services

• Not a pre-determiner of service

• Not the only data source

Orientation & Mobility Severity Rating Scales:

The survey

12

13

OMSRS Survey

7%

54%

39% TCVIO&MDual

14

What Do They Teach?

94%

6%

Teach Just O&MTeach TCVI & O&M

15

Previous Experience with the Scales

O&MSRS O&MSRS+ VSSRS VSSRS+0

102030405060708090

78

63.456.1

43.9

16

When Do They Complete a Scale?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

57.5

67.5

50

40

17.5

17

Factors considered when updating (n=53):

Change in vision/motor skill 25

To verify service time 18

Change in program/staff/campus 14

Annual caseload analysis, IEP 14

Tri-annual assessment 6

Assess current level, initial assessment 5

When asked for 5

Student needs 4

Establish eligibility 4

Student not progressing 2

Depends on situation

18

With Whom They Complete the Scale

76%

18%

6%

AloneWith ParentsWith Team

19

Do external factors make a difference?

54%47% Yes

No

20

What are those factors (n=35)?

Academic level, age 18

Parental involvement 12

Paraprofessional, classroom support 6

Medical fragility, additional disabilities 6

Goals & objectives, expectations 6

Appropriate travel skills, independent 5

Classroom placement, accommodations 4

Involvement of other therapists 3

New environments 2

Service delivery model 1

21

Is It Used for Caseload Analysis?

38%

49%

Some-times10%

YesNoSometimes

22

How Important is it in Caseload Analysis?

Sole

fact

or

Seve

ral e

qual

fact

ors

Mos

t im

porta

nt fa

ctor

Not im

porta

nt0

20

40

60

23

Scenarios

Several students were described for both the O&MSRS and the O&MSRS+.

Visual status, academic setting and other characteristics that are crucial to determining the severity of need for services were outlined.

Respondents were asked to fill out the Scales, then answer questions.

24

O&MSRS: How Well Are Areas Of Concern Covered?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 75

178

0 0

25

O&MSRS: How Well do Contributing Factors Address +/- of Service?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 65

25

6 40

26

O&MSRS: Comparison of frequency of service time on survey to own caseload

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

7061

29

6 40

27

O&MSRS: How well do service times match instructional needs?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

8067

1710

60

28

O&MSRS: If Service Can't Happen

Too m

any s

tudents

Mandate

d s

erv

ice

tim

e

Unexpect

ed

vari

able

s

Don't

agre

e w

ith

resu

lts O

ther0

10203040

29

O&MSRS: Overall Usefulness & Validity

Very

use

ful

Som

ew

hat

use

ful

Neutr

al

Not

very

use

ful

Not

use

ful at

all

Use

ful only

Sce

nari

o 1

Use

ful only

Sce

nari

o 2

0

20

40

60

80 75

166

0 2 2 0

30

OMSRS Suggestions for Change:Severity of Need Profile

No changes; get more people to use it 9

Reword portions; correct spacing 2

Confusion on how to score Profound in level of vision 2

Split OMSRS to OM SRS 1

Specific number for each category 1

Distinguish between direct and indirect time 1

Service times vary by need 1

31

No changes 9

Student opportunities & experiences 3

Time traveled to teach isn’t adequately accounted for

2

Split OMSRS to OM SRS 1

Specific number for each category 1

Distinguish between direct and indirect time 1

Service times vary by need 1

Consider only adding to score

OMSRS Suggestions for Change:Contributing Factors

32

OMSRS Suggestions for Change:Recommendations for Services

Develop reasonable caseload size 2

Add section where discrepancy between SRS rec.& actual rec. can be explained

2

Frequency & time recs. should use same units

Link lesson length to lesson content area

Add option for 2-4 times / month

Make language more approachable

33

OMSRS Suggestions for Change:Positive Impacts on Services

Showed the IEP team the rationale for services

12

Justified a new hire / prevented layoff 8

Explained job to supervisor 4

Helps with consistency 4

Gives parents timeline reference 1

Actually validated a decrease in staff need 1

Gives parents a means of “proving” need for O&M services 1

Caused dissention among professionals, parents & administrators 1

34

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

8070

22.5

5 2.5 0

O&MSRS+: How Well Are Areas Of Concern Covered?

35

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

7059

26

105

0

O&MSRS+: How Well do Contributing Factors Address +/- of Service?

36

O&MSRS+: Comparison of frequency of service on survey to own caseload

0

10

20

30

40

50

6049

36

13

2 0

37

Scenarios: Usefulness of O&MSRS+for service time

Very

use

ful

Som

ew

hat u

sefu

l

Neutra

l

Not v

ery

use

ful

Not u

sefu

l at a

ll

Use

ful o

nly

Sce

nario

1

Use

ful o

nly

Sce

nario

2

0

20

40

6059

33

50 0 0 2.6

38

O&MSRS+: If Service Can't Happen

Too m

any s

tudents

Mandate

d s

erv

ice

tim

e

Unexpect

ed

vari

able

s

Don't

agre

e w

ith

resu

lts O

ther0

20

40

60

39

O&MSRS+: Overall Usefulness & Validity

Very

use

ful

Som

ew

hat

use

ful

Neutr

al

Not

very

use

ful

Not

use

ful at

all

Use

ful only

Sce

nari

o 1

Use

ful only

Sce

nari

o 2

Use

ful only

for

Sce

nari

o 3

0

20

40

6059

33

50 2 0 0 3

40

OMSRS+ Suggestions for Change:Severity of Need Profile

None 6

Wording can be misleading

Add section for recommendations other than from the SRS

Add a CVI component

Disagree about level of supervision for safe travel – discriminates against severe disabilities

41

OMSRS+ Suggestions for Change:Contributing Factors

None 5

Teamwork in deciding times in all areas

Student experiences and opportunities

Add option to list medications that might impact instruction

42

OMSRS+ Suggestions for Change:Recommendations for Services

None 6

Compliance with instruction seems to inflate service time

Section for recommendations other than those indicated by the SRS would be helpful

Leave the last box blank on compliance & communication so the highest score could only be a 6

43

OMSRS+: Positive Impact on Services

Showed IEP team rationale for service 6

Helps with consistency 2

Justify new hire, prevent layoffs 2

Showed need for services for multi handicapped childHelps in forecasting need for personnel to meet student demand

Components of Caseload Analysis

44

• Service information from the Michigan Severity Rating Scales

• Additional hours per week needed for support

• Hours per week for travel

Contact Information

45

• bradleys1@michigan.gov

• langendonks@michigan.gov

• dawn.l.anderson@wmich.edu

Resources

46

• MDE-LIO – Michigan Severity RatingScales:

• http://tinyurl.com/44yq947

• Caseload Analysis Resources:

• http://tinyurl.com/453fy8j

• http://tinyurl.com/43ebsrx

Michigan State Board of Education

John C. AustinPresident

Casandra E. Ulbrich Vice PresidentNancy Danhof

SecretaryMarianne Yared

McGuireTreasurer

Rick Snyder, Governor

Michael P. FlanaganSuperintendent of Public Instruction

Richard ZeileNASBE Delegate

Kathleen N. Straus

Daniel Varner

Eileen Lappin Weiser

47