TBI TRANSITION, RESEARCH AND THE OREGON TBI TEAM
Bonnie Todis, PhDCenter on Brain Injury Research and Training
cbirt.org
Overview What we know about the transition
experiences of students with TBI. What we know about transition in
general. What do we do with this knowledge? What does this have to do with you? What do you think?
cbirt.org
Research on Outcomes after Childhood TBI Most of this research has been
conducted by doctors and neuropsychologists.
Why would they do this research?
cbirt.org
What these studies look like Participants recruited from medical files Usually one follow up data point in
adulthood Rarely look at school factors
cbirt.org
What these studies didn’t tell us What are the transition experiences of
young adults with TBI? How do employment, etc. fluctuate over
time? What factors lead to different outcomes?
Special ed? Family support? Community Supports Demographics (age, severity, sex)
cbirt.org
National Transition Longitudinal Study (NTLS) 10-year study of transition outcomes Funded by OSEP 11,000 students 12 disability categories NTLS1 did not include students with TBI NTLS2 included youth who were 13-19 in 2000 Data collected in 2003 on 28% out of school
cbirt.org
NTLS: Employment
Series10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70General Youth
Average across all disabili-ties
TBI Youth
PSO Youth
TBI Adult
%
cbirt.org
NTLS: Post-secondary Education
Series10
10
20
30
40
50
60
General YouthAverage across all disabilitiesTBI YouthPSO Youth
%
cbirt.org
NTLS: Living with Parents
Series10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
General YouthAverage across all disabilitiesTBI YouthPSO Youth
%
POST-SECONDARY OUTCOMES
PROJECT(PSO)
cbirt.org
Project PSO 8-year study of transition outcomes Funded by OSEP and NIDRR 90 students in Oregon and Washington Recruited at exit from high school Rolling recruitment over 2-3 years
School districts VR
cbirt.org
Employment Outcomes Ages 19-25
Age 19(n = 54)
20(n = 74)
21(n = 85)
22(n = 86)
23(n = 84)
24(n = 75)
25(n = 55)
Employment 20 (37) 36 (49) 44 (52) 42 (49) 37 (44) 35 (47) 33 (60)
Male 17 (46) 23 (49) 34 (60) 34 (59) 29 (52) 26 (54) 26 (74)
Female 3 (18) 13 (48) 10 (36) 8 (29) 8 (29) 9 (33) 7 (35)
<20 hrs/week 11 (55) 18 (53) 13 (32) 14 (35) 11 (31) 10 (30) 9 (29)
≥20 hrs/week 9 (45) 16 (47) 28 (68) 26 (65) 25 (69) 23 (70) 22 (71)
cbirt.org
Post-Secondary Employment Outcomes 19-25
Age in Years0
10203040506070
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Perc
ent E
mpl
oyed
cbirt.org
Closer Look:Employment at Age 25 60% employed
74% of males, 35% of females
Hours per week Mean 21-30 No one worked more than 30 hrs per week
cbirt.org
Employment Outcomes by Gender
19 20 21 22 23 24 250
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
MalesFemales
cbirt.org
Employment at Age 25 Wages
Mean $8.22 per hour No difference between males and females
Type of Job 81.3% in menial, unskilled, or semi-skilled
categories The rest in skilled (11.3%) clerical/sales (5%)
or technicians (2.5%) None in the top 3 categories
cbirt.org
Comparison with Typical PeersEMPLOYMENT
RATEWAGES
PER WEEKHOURS
PER WEEK
TYPE OF JOB
PSO Sample 60%
$161-232 (male)$124-418 (female)
25.5 hrs
57%menial/unskilled
0%management/pro
Typical Young Adults
68%$485 (male)$418 (female)
35.8 hrs
36%menial/unskilled19%management/pro
• Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor, January 19, 2007
cbirt.org
Factors Predicting Employment Hierarchical Linear Modeling Results
Family SES: Those with higher SES were less likely to be employed at the beginning of the study, more likely to be employed over time
For every unit change in SES there was a 3.3% increase in the odds of employment and a .7% increase in the rate of change in employment over time.
cbirt.org
Factors That Impact Employment
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Type
of w
ork
cate
gory
hig
h=pr
ofes
sion
al
Work category by time sex age at injury
0 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
TIME
SEX = 0,AGEINJ3 = -5.985SEX = 0,AGEINJ3 = 2.897SEX = 0,AGEINJ3 = 5.119SEX = 1,AGEINJ3 = -5.985SEX = 1,AGEINJ3 = 2.897SEX = 1,AGEINJ3 = 5.119
Later age)
Earlier age
Later age
Earlier age
Avg age
Avg age
Males
Females
Work Category by Sex and Age at Injury Over Time
Skilled manual labor
Clerical, sales
Semi-skilled
Unskilled work
Menial service
Job Category by Sex and Age at Injury
cbirt.org
5.94
7.20
8.46
9.72
10.98
Wag
es
Wages ov er time by age at injury and sev erity
1.00 3.50 6.00 8.50 11.00
Time
AGEINJ3 = -5.985,SEVERE = 0AGEINJ3 = -5.985,SEVERE = 1AGEINJ3 = 5.119,SEVERE = 0AGEINJ3 = 5.119,SEVERE = 1
Bonnie Todis, Ph.D.Center on Brain Injury Research and Training
Factors That Impact Employment
Early injury
Later injury
Wages Over Time by Age at Injury and Severity
Later injury
Severe
Mild/Moderate
Early injury
cbirt.org
0.00 1.001.72
2.32
2.91
3.50
4.09
SEVERE
Q2A
9A1
hours worked per week
SEX = 0,AGEINJ3 = -5.985SEX = 0,AGEINJ3 = 2.560SEX = 0,AGEINJ3 = 5.119SEX = 1,AGEINJ3 = -5.985SEX = 1,AGEINJ3 = 2.560SEX = 1,AGEINJ3 = 5.119
Factors That Impact Employment
Severity
Hours Worked per WeekIn
jured
ea
rlier
later
Severity: M/M work > # Hrs.
Gender: Males> #hrs.
For both genders: Earlier age at injury = work fewer hours/week
Females
Males
Females
Males
Injur
ed
earlie
rlat
er
SevereMild/Mod
21 – 30hr
11-15hr
Hou
rs P
er W
eek
16-20hr
cbirt.org
-8.00 -6.00 -4.00 -2.00 02.80
2.98
3.17
3.35
3.54
time
how
hap
py a
re y
ou
AGEINJ3 = -4.211,SEVERE = 0AGEINJ3 = -4.211,SEVERE = 1AGEINJ3 = 2.575,SEVERE = 0AGEINJ3 = 2.575,SEVERE = 1AGEINJ3 = 4.296,SEVERE = 0AGEINJ3 = 4.296,SEVERE = 1
Factors That Impact Employment
Later age
Later age
Early age
Avg age
Early age
Severe
Mild/Moderate
Job Happiness by Severity and Age at Injury
Avg age
Happy
Very Happy
Unhappy
POST SECONDARY EDUCATION
cbirt.org
Post-SecondaryEducation OutcomesAges 19-25 n(%)
Age 19(n = 54)
20(n = 74)
21(n = 85)
22(n = 86)
23(n = 84)
24(n = 75)
25(n = 55)
Education 15 (28) 26 (35) 34 (40) 22 (26) 26 (31) 18 (24) 14 (25)
Male 7 (19) 17 (36) 20 (35) 11 (19) 15 (27) 7 (15) 6 (17)
Female 8 (47) 9 (33) 14 (50) 11 (39) 11 (39) 11 (41) 8 (40)
cbirt.org
Post-Secondary Education Outcomes
Ages 19-25
NondisabledPSO Sample
0204060
Comparison with typical young adults ages 18-25 (Pew Research Center,
2007)
cbirt.org
Comparison with Peers Non disabled young adults 18-25 46%
enrollment (Pew 2007) 54% female (2005) NLTS2 45% reported continuing to
postsecondary ed within 4 years of leaving high school. 32% community colleges 23% vocational/tech 14% 4-year
cbirt.org
Factors That Affect Enrollment Higher family SES, shorter time to
enrollment Females more likely to enroll Those injured later were more likely to
enroll. For every year increase in age at injury there was a 12.3% increase in likelihood of enrollment.
cbirt.org
Independent Living Outcomes Ages 19-25 n(%)
Age 19(n = 54)
20(n = 74)
21(n = 85)
22(n = 86)
23(n = 84)
24(n = 75)
25(n = 55)
Independent Living
12 (23) 26 (36) 28 (35) 37 (44) 35 (41) 37 (49) 29 (53)
Male 7 (20) 13 (28) 18 (33) 22 (39) 22 (39) 24 (49) 20 (57)
Female 5 (29) 13 (48) 10 (37) 15 (54) 13 (45) 13 (48) 9 (45)
cbirt.org
Age in Years0
10
20
30
40
50
60
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Perc
ent E
nrol
led
Post-SecondaryIndependent Living OutcomesAges 19-25
cbirt.org
Comparison with Peers Non-disabled peers 18-25 40% live with
parents (Pew) NLTS2 ages 17-21 25% have lived
independently at some time since high school (65% of these lived in a college dorm or military housing).
cbirt.org
Factors That Affect Ind. Living Age at injury: Those injured earlier take
longer to achieve independent living status.
For each year older at injury, there is a 12.7% increase in odds of achieving independent living.
TRANSITION PRACTICES
cbirt.org
What We Know about Transition Practices Transition has been mandated since the
80s Lots of programs have been developed Some programs have been evaluated USDoE provided funding to identify and
disseminate research-based transition practices NSTTAC
cbirt.org
How E-B Practices Are Identified Establish criteria for evidence of
effectiveness Classify practices as Look at what you end up with
cbirt.org
Taxonomy of Evidence-Based Practices Student-focused planning
Involving student in IEP process Self-Advocacy Strategy Self-Directed IEP
Student development Life skills Self-advocacy Employment skills reading, math Self-determination
cbirt.org
Taxonomy of Evidence-Based Practices Family Involvement
Training for parents about transition Program structure
Community-based instruction Extending services beyond high school Check and Connect
Interagency collaboration
cbirt.org
Caution! Evidence is not strong Effectiveness have not been established
for students with TBI Not included in most of the studies that
were reviewed Why? (Top secret story that you can’t tell
anyone!)
cbirt.org
What does this mean? Knowing about transition outcomes for
students with TBI Knowing what transition practices are
most effective What is your next step as an educator?
cbirt.org
What does this all mean? We have a pretty good idea what kids
with disabilities need to prepare for transition
We’re pretty sure kids with TBI need these things, too
The things that work for other kids may need to be tweaked for kids with TBI
cbirt.org
Outcomes so far…. Transition toolkit Transition Web Project IES Proposal
cbirt.org
Transition Website Project History NIDRR Development Project 2011-2014 Three stages
Development Pilot testing Evaluation
cbirt.org
Transition Web Project
cbirt.org
What does this have to do with you? Participatory Action Research
Involve the people who are the stakeholder in the research in every phase of the research process
Stakeholders Students with TBI Educators Family members
cbirt.org
PAR Activities Predevelopment
Qualitative findings from PSOWhat were transition services like?What was difficult for educators? Parents?
Kids?What worked? Where were the gaps in knowledge?
Practice?
cbirt.org
PAR Activities Development
Focus groups Interviews Participant observations
cbirt.org
PAR Activities Pilot test phase
Usability tests Advisory board
cbirt.org
PAR Activities Evaluation
Field test intervention Complete pre-post measures Focus groups
Dissemination Presentations Help with articles Implementing evidence-based
practices*******
cbirt.org
PAR Activities for Team Memberson T-Web Predevelopment
Focus group Development
usability Evaluation
Treatment/Non-treatment
FOCUS-GROUP/DISCUSSION
cbirt.org
Speaking of Research Opportunities cbiRt
Current projects TATE STEP*** Family Web Transition Web *** MCH *** TEAM ***
cbirt.org
Data on Team Activities ODE reporting requirements
MCH reporting requirements
WOU reporting requirements
cbirt.org
cbirt.org
Other ways we use these data Dissemination – extending the team
model Presentations Articles
Grant proposals SOS Project Back to School/TOP STEP Transition Web - mentioned 5 times
cbirt.org
Transition Web and the Team 18 years of working with educators on
the TBI team provides knowledge about what p. 9 students and educators need and want.
Team members will participate in development and evaluation pp. 19, 25
Prior research and development on which the new project is based p. 20
Transition pilot project (toolkit) p. 20
cbirt.org
Data we currently collect Number of contact Demographics Concerns Actions Outcomes
cbirt.org
Data we would like to have More specific information about Action
Inservice training? Consultation? Information
Number of people “touched” Educators, students, family members
More specific information about Outcomes Did the training/information get used? How? What was the outcome for the educator? What was the outcome for the student? Parent?
cbirt.org
Why we need these data In order to be accountable to ODE In order to be accountable to WOU,
OSHE
cbirt.org
Why we would like these data We could establish an evidence base for
the team model Increased/stable funding for team activities
and other TBI services We could disseminate the model to
other states We could improve educational services
nationally
cbirt.org
What do you think? How can we help you send us more
data? On Activities On People Served On Outcomes
Action Plan