Update on the Online Conversion Process for AEPSi: Implications for OSEP Reporting.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Update on the Online Conversion Process for CC.net and GOLD: Implications for OSEP Reporting.
Advertisements

Target Setting for Child Outcomes Conference Call October 30,
Promoting Quality Child Outcomes Data Donna Spiker, Lauren Barton, Cornelia Taylor, & Kathleen Hebbeler ECO Center at SRI International Presented at: International.
Welcome! Review of the National Part C APR Indicator 4 Family Data FFY 2011 ( ) Siobhan Colgan, ECTA, DaSy Melissa Raspa, ECTA.
Building a national system to measure child and family outcomes from early intervention Early Childhood Outcomes Center International Society on Early.
Indicator 7 Child Outcomes MAKING SENSE OF THE DATA June
Refresher: Background on Federal and State Requirements.
State Directors Conference Boise, ID, March 4, 2013 Cesar D’Agord Regional Resource Center Program WRRC – Western Region.
Update on Child Outcomes for Early Childhood Special Education Lynne Kahn ECO at UNC The Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) Center The National Association.
2011 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0 The Results are In: Using Early Childhood Outcome Data.
Early Childhood Outcomes ECO Institute Kathy Hebbeler, ECO at SRI Robin Rooney ECO at FPG Prepared for the Office of Early Learning and School Readiness.
1 Measuring Child Outcomes: State of the Nation. 2 Learning objective: To gain new information about the national picture regarding measuring child outcomes.
Highs and Lows on the Road to High Quality Data American Evaluation Association Anaheim, CA November, 2011 Kathy Hebbeler and Lynne Kahn ECO at SRI International.
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.
The Results are In! Child Outcomes for OSEP EI and ECSE Programs Donna Spiker Early Childhood Outcomes Center at SRI International October 13, 2011 (CCSSO-SCASS.
Update on Part C Child Outcomes Lynne Kahn ECO at UNC The Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) Center June 2011 Kathy Hebbeler ECO at SRI International.
The Results are In: Using Early Childhood Outcome Data Kathy Hebbeler Early Childhood Outcomes Center at SRI International August, 2011.
Presented at Division for Early Childhood National Harbor, Maryland November, Child Outcomes: What We Are Learning from National, State, and Local.
Updates on APR Reporting for Early Childhood Outcomes (Indicators C-3 and B-7) Western Regional Resource Center APR Clinic 2010 November 1-3, 2010 San.
Child Outcomes Data July 1, 2008 – June 30, 2009.
Considerations for Establishing Baseline and Setting Targets for Indicators C3 and B7 Kathy Hebbeler, Lynne Kahn, Christina Kasprzak ECO/NECTAC June 16,
Early Childhood Outcomes Center Using the Child Outcomes Summary Form February 2007.
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.
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.
ENHANCE Update Research Underway on the Validity of the Child Outcomes Summary (COS) Process ECO Center Advisory Board Meeting March 8, 2012 Arlington,
Target Setting For Indicator #7 Child Outcomes WDPI Stakeholder Group December 16, 2009 Ruth Chvojicek Statewide Child Outcomes Coordinator 1 OSEP Child.
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.
Child Outcomes: Understanding the Requirements in order to Set Targets Presentation to the Virginia Interagency Coordination Council Infant &
Module 5 Understanding the Age-Expected Child Development, Developmental Trajectories and Progress Every day, we are honored to take action that inspires.
1 Quality Assurance: The COS Ratings and the OSEP Reporting Categories Presented by The Early Childhood Outcomes Center Revised January 2013.
Overview to Measuring Early Childhood Outcomes Ruth Littlefield, NH Department of Education Lynne Kahn, FPG Child Dev Inst November 16,
1 Measuring Child Outcomes: State of the Nation. 2 Learning objective: To gain new information about the national picture regarding measuring child outcomes.
IDEA 2004 Part B Changes to the Indicator Measurement Table.
Understanding and Using Early Childhood Outcome (ECO) Data for Program Improvement Kansas Division for Early Childhood Annual Conference Feb. 23rd 2012.
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.
Presented at ECEA-SCASS Meeting Savannah, Georgia October, 2010 OSEP Initiatives on Early Childhood Outcomes Kathy Hebbeler Early Childhood Outcomes Center.
Embedding Child and Family Outcomes into Practice – Part 2 Kathy Hebbeler ECO at SRI International Early Childhood Outcomes Center Webinar for the Massachusetts.
Critical Markers of High Quality Child Outcomes Data ECO Advisory Board March, 2012.
Summary Statements. The problem... Progress data included –5 progress categories –For each of 3 outcomes –Total of 15 numbers reported each year Too many.
Why Collect Outcome Data? Early Childhood Outcomes Center.
What the data can tell us: Evidence, Inference, Action! 1 Early Childhood Outcomes Center.
QRIS Validation Study Massachusetts Quality Rating and Improvement System Presentation to EEC Board March 11, 2014.
Considerations Related to Setting Targets for Child Outcomes.
1 Resources for Increasing Child Development Knowledge Virginia August 27, 2008 Infant & Toddler Connection of Virginia.
Strategies for Maintaining Data Quality Using Commercial Assessment Systems Nick Ortiz Colorado Department of Education Barb Jackson University of Nebraska.
Measuring EC Outcomes DEC Conference Presentation 2010 Cornelia Taylor, ECO Christina Kasprzak, ECO/NECTAC Lisa Backer, MN DOE 1.
Approaches for Converting Assessment Data to the OSEP Outcome Categories Approaches for Converting Assessment Data to the OSEP Outcome Categories NECTAC.
Kathy Hebbeler, ECO at SRI Lynne Kahn, NECTAC and ECO at FPG
OSEP Project Directors Meeting
Kathy Hebbeler, ECO at SRI International AUCD Meeting Washington, DC
Integrating Outcomes Learning Community Call February 8, 2012
OSEP Initiatives on Early Childhood Outcomes
Update on the Online Conversion Process for AEPSi:
Update on the Online Conversion Process for CC.net and GOLD:
Webinar for the Massachusetts ICC Retreat October 3, 2012
Why Collect Outcome Data?
The Basics of Quality Data and Target Setting
Early Childhood and Family Outcomes
Trends in Child Outcomes (C-3 / B-7) and Family Outcomes (C-4)
Gathering Input for the Summary Statements
Target Setting for Child Outcomes
Kathy Hebbeler, Lynne Kahn, Christina Kasprzak ECO/NECTAC
Measuring Part C and Early Childhood Special Education Child Outcomes
Refresher: Background on Federal and State Requirements
Child Outcomes Data July 1, 2008 – June 30, 2009
Measuring Child and Family Outcomes Conference August 2008
Presentation transcript:

Update on the Online Conversion Process for AEPSi: Implications for OSEP Reporting

Rationale States using 7-point online conversions noted a larger than expected proportion of typically developing children. Expert practitioners (Nebraska) chart review demonstrated that some of the children who were rated a 6 or 7 were performing below what would be considers typical development for their age. Discussions with Brookes to review the analyses for the cut-scores for the 7 point scale.

Conversion Process: Partnership with Brookes and ECO Reviewed the original conversion process Developed a set of methods to revise and validate a new process

Details of the Analysis Process Assessment data from children with and without disabilities were used in the sample (from original research) Age expected performance was used to benchmark the 7 points along a range of typical development for each age band

Analysis Process: Continued A sample of children with disabilities performance was compared to the benchmarks Validation of the new cut scores were based on previous research and federally reported state data

Running OSEP Reports Current online reports do not yet reflect these revised cut scores but will soon. Brookes has programming into the online system underway. Reports based on the revised cut scores may be requested from Brookes and are quickly available 6 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

What changed? Children need to have higher scores to be rated as performing similar to same age peers

How to explain the changes in APR and to Stakeholders Stress the importance of having numbers that are a more accurate representation of the status of the children Changes in the summary statements may not reflect a change in performance but a change in the measurement This could be a rationale for modifying your state’s targets for

How does this impact the OSEP Child Outcomes Reports OSEP reports will have smaller proportions of children in the D and E categories Size of the effect will depend on the: – % of children that being assessed with AEPSi in your state –Ability level of the children in your population