How to Explain the Numbers: Helping Staff, Parents, and Other Stakeholders Understand the Results of the NCSEAM Surveys for Part C and 619 Batya Elbaum,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Intro. Website Purposes  Provide templates and resources for developing early childhood interagency agreements and collaborative procedures among multiple.
Advertisements

HOW TO EXAMINE AND USE FAMILY SURVEY DATA TO PLAN FOR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT Levels of Representativeness: SIOBHAN COLGAN, ECO AT FPG BATYA ELBAUM, DAC -
Welcome! Review of the National Part C APR Indicator 4 Family Data FFY 2011 ( ) Siobhan Colgan, ECTA, DaSy Melissa Raspa, ECTA.
Quiz Do random errors accumulate? Name 2 ways to minimize the effect of random error in your data set.
Use of the NCSEAM Preschool and Part C Surveys to Address the SPP/APR Parent/Family Indicators Batya Elbaum, Ph.D. University of Miami National Center.
Linking Early Intervention Quality Practices With Child and Family Outcomes Technical Assistance for Local Early Intervention Systems Infant & Toddler.
Refresher: Background on Federal and State Requirements.
Early Childhood Outcomes Center Orientation for New Outcomes Conference Participants Lynne Kahn Christina Kasprzak Kathy Hebbeler The Early Childhood Outcomes.
Orientation for New Staff Lynne Kahn Kathy Hebbeler The Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) Center Early Childhood Outcomes Center September 2011.
Family Outcome Principles and Measurement Approaches Melissa Raspa Don Bailey ECO at RTI International International Society on Early Intervention (ISEI)
CHILD OUTCOMES BASELINE AND TARGETS FOR INDICATOR 7 ON THE STATE PERFORMANCE PLAN State Advisory Panel for Exceptional Children November 12, 2009 January.
Maureen Sullivan Vermont’s Family Infant and Toddler Program October 7, 2009 Understanding and Utilizing Family Survey Data.
GUIDE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES USING FAMILY SURVEY DATA Jim Henson 1.
Presented at Division for Early Childhood National Harbor, Maryland November, Child Outcomes: What We Are Learning from National, State, and Local.
Using Data for Program Improvement Christina Kasprzak May, 2011.
1 Trends in Child Outcomes (C-3 / B-7) and Family Outcomes (C-4) Analysis and Summary Report of All States’ Annual Performance Reports Christina.
Summary of Quantitative Analysis Neuman and Robson Ch. 11
The Current Status of States' Early Childhood Outcome Measurement Systems Kathy Hebbeler, SRI International Lynne Kahn, FPG Child Dev Inst October 17,
Partnering with Local Programs to Interpret and Use Outcomes Data Delaware’s Part B 619 Program September 20, 2011 Verna Thompson & Tony Ruggiero Delaware.
Are your C4 data reflective of the families you serve? Joy Markowitz, Director Jean Dauphinee, TA Specialist Measuring Child and Family Outcomes Conference,
2014 AmeriCorps External Reviewer Training
Introduction to Linear Regression and Correlation Analysis
Local Early Childhood Advisory Councils Orientation Meeting October 1, 2012 Local Early Childhood Advisory Councils Orientation: 5 Step Process Valerie.
Indicators of Family Engagement Melanie Lemoine and Monica Ballay Louisiana State Improvement Grant/SPDG.
Linking Early Intervention Quality Practices With Child and Family Outcomes Technical Assistance for a Local Early Intervention System Infant & Toddler.
Unit 2 – Visual and Performing Arts: Key Topic 4 1.
2014 ALACASE CONFERENCE Preschool Indicators 2014 EI Preschool Conference.
1 Early Childhood and Accountability OSEP’s Project Director’s Meeting August 2006.
SPP Indicators B-7 and B-8: Overview and Results to Date for the Florida Prekindergarten Program for Children with Disabilities PreK Coordinators Meeting.
1 What did Connecticut do?. 2 The Basics A group of people who hold stakes met to give the lead agency suggestions. We chose the NCSEAM survey and we.
Clay County IIIP Evaluation Project. Clay County 101 Clay County 101 Components of evaluation plan Components of evaluation plan Results of surveys Results.
A Report on the Texas Parent Survey for Students Receiving Special Education Services DataSource: Statewide Survey of Parents of Students Receiving Special.
Emory University Climate Survey Results Presented to HR Leadership Group April 21, 2005 Del King Senior Director, Human Resources.
Vera Lynne Stroup-Rentier & Sarah Walters. Both models are situated within existing EI programs. This study defined the models as follows: dedicated.
Guilford County Schools Parent and Community Surveys Presentation January 24, 2015 Prepared By Nancy Burnap, Ph.D Research Strategies, Inc. Presented By.
Issues in Selecting Assessments for Measuring Outcomes for Young Children Issues in Selecting Assessments for Measuring Outcomes for Young Children Dale.
Parent Involvement: Who’s Accountable? Who Benefits? Batya Elbaum, Ph.D. University of Miami Annual Meeting of The Family Cafe Orlando, FL June 3, 2006.
Family Outcomes Montana’s Method of Partnering with Families.
Understanding and Using the Results from the NCSEAM Family Survey Batya Elbaum, Ph.D. NCSEAM Measuring Child and Family Outcomes NECTAC National TA Meeting.
Using Family Survey Data for Program Improvement Pam Roush, Director WV Birth to Three October 7, 2009.
IDEA 2004 Part B Changes to the Indicator Measurement Table.
Early Childhood Outcomes Center Orientation to Measuring Child and Family Outcomes for New People Kathy Hebbeler, ECO at SRI Lynne Kahn, ECO at FPG/UNC.
Early Childhood Outcomes Center Orientation for New Outcomes Conference Participants Kathy Hebbeler Lynne Kahn The Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) Center.
Parent Satisfaction Surveys What is the Parent Satisfaction Survey?  Each year schools from our district are selected to participate in the.
Chapter 7 Measuring of data Reliability of measuring instruments The reliability* of instrument is the consistency with which it measures the target attribute.
Evaluation Requirements for MSP and Characteristics of Designs to Estimate Impacts with Confidence Ellen Bobronnikov February 16, 2011.
What the data can tell us: Evidence, Inference, Action! 1 Early Childhood Outcomes Center.
Documenting Family Outcomes: Decisions, Alternatives, Next Steps Don Bailey, Ph.D. Mary Beth Bruder, Ph.D. Contact information: Mary Beth Bruder, Ph.D.
Parent and National TA Perspectives on EC Outcomes Connie Hawkins, Region 2 PTAC Kathy Hebbeler, ECO at SRI Lynne Kahn ECO at FPG and NECTAC.
The Normal Distribution and Norm-Referenced Testing Norm-referenced tests compare students with their age or grade peers. Scores on these tests are compared.
Update on the Online Conversion Process for AEPSi: Implications for OSEP Reporting.
Report on the NCSEAM Part C Family Survey Batya Elbaum, Ph.D. National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring February 2005.
All Surveys Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree The relative sizes of the colored bars in the chart above (and on subsequent pages)
Improving Family Outcomes at the Local Level Measuring Child and Family Outcomes Conference Washington, DC 27 August 2008 Don Bailey, RTI International.
Connecticut Part C State Performance Plan Indicator 11 State Systemic Improvement Plan Phase II.
Connecticut Part C State Performance Plan Indicator 11 State Systemic Improvement Plan Phase II.
Measuring EC Outcomes DEC Conference Presentation 2010 Cornelia Taylor, ECO Christina Kasprzak, ECO/NECTAC Lisa Backer, MN DOE 1.
Using Family Survey Data for Program Improvement
Measuring Outcomes for Programs Serving Young Children with Disabilities Lynne Kahn and Christina Kasprzak ECO/NECTAC at FPG/UNC June 2,
Integrating Outcomes Learning Community Call February 8, 2012
Update on the Online Conversion Process for AEPSi:
Christina Kasprzak, ECTA/ECO/DaSy September 16, 2013
Using Family Survey Data for Program Improvement
Update on the Online Conversion Process for CC.net and GOLD:
Measuring Outcomes for Programs Serving Young Children with Disabilities Lynne Kahn and Christina Kasprzak ECO/NECTAC at FPG/UNC June 2,
Trends in Child Outcomes (C-3 / B-7) and Family Outcomes (C-4)
Using Family Survey Data for Program Improvement
Gathering Input for the Summary Statements
Refresher: Background on Federal and State Requirements
Measuring Child and Family Outcomes Conference August 2008
Presentation transcript:

How to Explain the Numbers: Helping Staff, Parents, and Other Stakeholders Understand the Results of the NCSEAM Surveys for Part C and 619 Batya Elbaum, NCSEAM Pam Roush, West Virginia Part C OSEP National Early Childhood Meeting Arlington, VA, December 2007

Purpose of the session To provide participants with strategies for explaining the measures and percentages that come from the NCSEAM rating scales addressing Indicators C4 and B8.

Part C Indicator #4 “Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family a) know their rights, b) effectively communicate their children’s needs, and c) help their children develop and learn.”

Part B Indicator #8 “Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities.”

WV Part C Indicator 4 4A – Know rights % % 4B – Communicate % % 4C – Help child % %

Change in mean measure by region

Percent on 4A by Region in 2006 and 2007

Why use a measurement analysis?

Use of a measurement framework ensures that measures will mean the same thing, regardless of how many items, or which specific items, are administered.

Why use a measurement analysis? We can’t assume that all survey items are equally agreeable. A measurement analysis gives us a measure of each item’s overall agreeability.

Order of Impact on Family items from least to most agreeable

Why use a measurement analysis? Use of a measurement framework allows us to test whether all the items are measuring the same thing.

Measuring the 3 subindicators NCSEAM’s measurement analysis of pilot data from thousands of families showed that items that are related to the three OSEP outcomes all fit into a single scale of family outcomes.

Measuring the 3 subindicators Families appear to achieve these outcomes in a very consistent order. Families who report that EI helped them know their rights also report that EI also helped them help their child develop and learn. Families who report that EI helped them effectively communicate their children’s needs also report that EI also helped them know their rights and help their child develop and learn.

Location of key items related to Indicator C4 Indicator 4c: Help their children develop and learn. IFS items: “Understand my child's special needs.” [516] “Do things with and for my child that are good for my child's development.” [498] Indicator 4b: Effectively communicate their children’s needs. IFS Item: “Communicate more effectively with the people who work with my child and family.” [556] Indicator 4a: Know their rights. IFS Item: “Know about my child's and family's rights concerning Early Intervention services.” [539]

Why use a measurement analysis? We can’t assume that the response choices (very strongly disagree, strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree, very strongly agree) indicated by equidistant circles or numbers on a page are really equidistant.

Spacing of response choices

The logic of distributions

Example: Distribution of height

Distribution of Measures of Reading Achievement - 1

Distribution of Measures of Reading Achievement - 2

West Virginia results 2006

West Virginia results 2007

WV without extreme cases 2006

WV without extreme cases 2007

Instrumentation and approach to data analysis make a difference

Choice of instruments: Part B NCSEAM K-12 and NCSEAM K-1221 Customized NCSEAM survey11 State-developed or adapted18 ECO Family Outcomes Survey 1

States’ reported baseline data on Indicator 8B

Choice of instruments: Part C NCSEAM Survey 25 ECO Family Outcomes Survey 18 State-developed or adapted10 Combination 1

Analysis of states’ baseline data: Indicator C4

APR Family Outcome Results – Part C States Using NCSEAM Survey and RASCH analysis APRs submitted February 2007

Reference to a standard

Percent of measures above the adopted standards standards

What is the relationship between % at or above the NCSEAM standard and % agreement on the “threshold item?”

Sample descriptive interpretation related to Indicator 4A Approximately 90-95% of families agreed, with approximately two-thirds of families expressing strong or very strong agreement, that early intervention helped them: Understand their child’s special needs. Do things with and for their child that are good for their child’s development. Feel that they can handle the challenges of parenting a child with special needs.

Part C Example: WV data

Q44 - know about my child's and family's rights

Q42 - communicate more effectively

Q46 - understand my child's special needs

Part B Example

The NCSEAM standard is a stringent standard Cut score for B at 600 Cut scores for C at 539, 516, 556 The standard is set so as to ensure that approximately 95% or more of the responses will be in one of the agree categories on the item designated as the “threshold item” Simple agreement with the “threshold item” is not enough

How precise are the percentages that states are reporting?

Error in estimation Whenever data are based on a sample (whether owing to sampling or to a less than 100% return rate), there is some amount of error in generalizing to the population. “Error,” or imprecision, can be represented by a confidence interval. As sample size decreases, error of estimate - and its representation as a confidence interval - increases. The decrease is not linear!