1 We Changed the COSF The Flip The Skills The Decision-Tree Questions.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Early Childhood Outcomes… Who, What, Where and How
Advertisements

WEB IEP FOLLOW-UP ECO GATHERED FOR BIRTH TO 5 INCLUDING INFANT, TODDLER, PK 1.
Early Childhood Outcomes Center 1 Using the Child Outcomes Summary From Part II: What is the COSF Using the Child Outcomes Summary From Part II: What.
Module 1 Learning More about the Summary of Functional Performance Every day, we are honored to take action that inspires the world to discover, love and.
Module 2 Learning More about the Summary of Functional Performance Every day, we are honored to take action that inspires the world to discover, love and.
Early Childhood Outcomes Center1 Refresher: Child Outcome Summary Form Child Outcome Summary Form.
Indicator 7 Child Outcomes MAKING SENSE OF THE DATA June
Does anyone have concerns about the child’s functioning with regard to the outcome area? D OES THE CHILD EVER FUNCTION IN WAYS THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED.
Early On® Michigan Child Outcomes
Data Analysis for Assuring the Quality of your COSF Data 1.
July 2013 IFSP and Practice Manual Revisions April 29, 2013 May 3, 2013 Infant & Toddler Connection of Virginia Practice Manual Infant & Toddler Connection.
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.
Child and Family Outcomes Chapter 12: Child Outcomes Summary Form Exit Information.
N.C. Division of Public Health, Early Intervention Branch, January 2010 Introduction to the Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF) Professional Development.
1 Assuring the Quality of your COSF Data. 2 What factors work to improve the quality of your data? What factors work to lessen the quality of your data?
Nancy Skorheim ND Section 619 Coordinator
1 The Maryland Early Childhood Accountability System Program Effectiveness Based on Results for Children Maryland State Department of Education Division.
Early Childhood Outcomes Center 1 Christina Kasprzak Robin Rooney March 2008 The Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) Center National Early Childhood Technical.
But What Does It All Mean? Key Concepts for Getting the Most Out of Your Assessments Emily Moiduddin.
Google Training By: Amy Shannon and Dave Auwerda.
Target Setting For Indicator #7 Child Outcomes WDPI Stakeholder Group December 16, 2009 Ruth Chvojicek Statewide Child Outcomes Coordinator 1 OSEP Child.
September 18 th, p.m. Presenters: Cecelia Fisher-Dahms Peter Mangione Osnat Zur The Alignment of the California Preschool Learning Foundations.
Professional Development by Johns Hopkins School of Education, Center for Technology in Education Supporting Individual Children Administering the Kindergarten.
Quality Assurance: Looking for Quality Data 1 I know it is in here somewhere Presented by The Early Childhood Outcomes Center Revised January 2013.
1 Early Childhood and Accountability OSEP’s Project Director’s Meeting August 2006.
Noel Cole, Coordinator Michigan Department of Education, Office of Early Childhood Education and Family Services.
ND Early Childhood Outcomes Process Nancy Skorheim – ND Department of Public Instruction, Office of Special Education.
Preparing the Next Generation of Professionals to Use Child Outcomes Data to Improve Early Intervention and Preschool Special Education Lynne Kahn Kathy.
Approaches to Measuring Child Outcomes Kathy Hebbeler ECO at SRI International Prepared for the NECTAC National Meeting on Measuring Child and Family Outcomes,
Jasmine Carey CDE Psychometrician Interpreting Science and Social Studies Assessment Results September 2014.
Child Outcomes: Understanding the Requirements in order to Set Targets Presentation to the Virginia Interagency Coordination Council Infant &
Early Childhood Outcomes Center 1 The Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF)
Unified Case Management Treatment Plan Training June 2008.
Measuring Child Outcomes Christina Kasprzak Robin Rooney (ECO) Early Childhood Outcomes (NECTAC) National Early Childhood TA Center Delaware COSF Training,
Early Childhood Outcomes Indicator 7 Data Collection Application Review.
Understanding and Using Early Childhood Outcome (ECO) Data for Program Improvement Kansas Division for Early Childhood Annual Conference Feb. 23rd 2012.
Early Childhood Special Education Part B, Section 619 Measurement of Preschool Outcomes-SPP Indicator #7 Training Sessions-2010.
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.
AN OVERVIEW OF THE CHILD OUTCOMES SUMMARY RATING PROCESS 1 Maryland State Department of Education - Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services.
Early Childhood Outcomes Center Orientation for New Outcomes Conference Participants Kathy Hebbeler Lynne Kahn The Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) Center.
Indicator 7: Measuring Preschool Outcomes Entry Data Collection Using the COS Process Sarah Geldart – MA ESE
What Are the Characteristics of an Effective Portfolio? By Jay Barrett.
This was developed as part of the Scottish Government’s Better Community Engagement Programme.
What the data can tell us: Evidence, Inference, Action! 1 Early Childhood Outcomes Center.
1 Outcomes review and use of the 7-point scale. 2 Outcomes Jeopardy Jeopardy score sheet Jeopardy score sheet Pointing to the cabinet for cereal Reading.
Considerations Related to Setting Targets for Child Outcomes.
Session 5: More Information About Determining a Rating Child Outcomes Summary (COS) Process Module.
Early Childhood Outcomes Workgroup Christina Kasprzak and Lynne Kahn ECO and NECTAC July 2009.
How to Involve Families in the Child Outcome Summary (COS) Process Debi Donelan, MSSA Early Support for Infants and Toddlers Katrina Martin, Ph.D. SRI.
Schoolwide Systems Review: Module 3.0 Gather Cohort 7 Middle Schools.
Section 6 The Three Global Outcomes. Key Principles for Early Intervention Service Provision 1.Infants and toddlers learn best through every day experiences.
Monitor and Revise Teaching. ObjectivesObjectives Describe how to monitor teaching List ways to contribute to broader evaluations Explain how to review.
Purpose The purpose of Module 1 is to orient new staff to child outcomes measurement and the Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF).
Quality Assurance: Looking for Quality Data
Child Outcomes Summary Process April 26, 2017
Child Outcomes Summary (COS) Process Training Module
Integrating Outcomes Learning Community Call February 8, 2012
Assuring the Quality of your COSF Data
Christina Kasprzak, ECTA/ECO/DaSy September 16, 2013
Building Capacity to Use Child Outcomes Data to Improve Systems and Practices 2018 DEC Conference.
Child Outcome Summary Form
Implementing the Child Outcomes Summary Process: Challenges, strategies, and benefits July, 2011 Welcome to a presentation on implementation issues.
Child Outcomes Summary (COS) Process Training Module
Measuring Part C and Early Childhood Special Education Child Outcomes
Involving Families Early Childhood Outcomes Center.
Introduction to the Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF)
Implementing the Child Outcomes Summary Process: Challenges, strategies, and benefits July, 2011 Welcome to a presentation on implementation issues.
Assuring the Quality of your COSF Data
Presentation transcript:

1 We Changed the COSF The Flip The Skills The Decision-Tree Questions

2 The Flip We flipped source info and overall skill rating. I.e., the source info (assessment, parent, teacher observations, etc.) is at the top of the page; skill rating at the bottom.

3 Reason for The Flip We want to make sure that providers base their ratings on the data they’ve collected. We want providers to list their data, i.e., the relevant source information, and then arrive at a rating. We wanted to build the decision-making process that providers should follow onto the form itself.

4 The Skills We added a section that asks the provider to list the highest-level of Age-Appropriate (AA), Immediate Foundational (IF), or Foundational (F) skills the child demonstrates.

5 Reason for The Skills We want to make clear that the overall rating should relate to whether the child is demonstrating AA, IF, or F skills. The overall rating should not be solely tied (necessarily) to percentile scores and age-equivalent scores (for example) that might be listed under “Summary of Test Results.” Once again, we wanted to build the decision-making process that providers should follow onto the form itself.

6 The Decision-Tree Questions We added two questions that reflect the ECO Center Decision Tree to the COSF. 3. Think of the positive social-emotional age- appropriate skills the child demonstrated as indicated in the tables above. Did the child demonstrate these age-appropriate skills across all or almost all everyday situations (multiple settings)? (Circle one response) a Yes  7 or 6 b Somewhat  5c Rarely  4d Child demonstrated no age-appropriate skills (go to Q4)

7 The Decision-Tree Questions 4. Think of the positive social-emotional immediate foundational skills the child demonstrated as indicated in the tables above. Did the child demonstrate these immediate foundational skills across all or almost all everyday situations (multiple settings)? (Circle one response; If you answered a, b, or c for question 3, no need to answer) a Yes  3 b Somewhat  2 c No  1 d Child demonstrated no immediate foundational skills  1

8 Reason for the Decision-Tree Questions We want to make clear that the decision tree must be used to arrive at the rating, i.e., providers must consider the degree of AA, IF, F skills, and the extent to which they are demonstrating these skills across multiple settings. By building into the form, we’re not relying on providers to remember to use the decision tree or to locate a copy of the tree.

9 Additional reasons for COSF Changes We wanted to collect the skill info and the decision tree question info so that we could use this info to validate the ratings.

10 Additional Reasons continued... If a provider says (on the decision tree question) that a child is demonstrating age-appropriate skills some of the time, but gives the child a rating of “2” – then we know there’s a problem somewhere! If a provider says (on the decision tree question) that a child is demonstrating app-appropriate skills some of the time, and gives the child a rating of “5” (so far so good), BUT does not list any age-appropriate skills in the skills boxes – we know there’s a problem somewhere!

11 To Sum Up Re the Form Changes We wanted to incorporate the decision- making process into the form. We wanted to collect info on the form that would help us validate the ratings.

12 The COSF Data Submission Process Providers complete on paper and mail hard- copy to the DDD. September 2007: a Word document will be provided that will allow providers to type in information. Future: creating an online form as part of the DDD Early Childhood database system.

13 Are We Doing a Good Job? Are providers following the correct process in gathering data on child outcomes? Are providers correctly completing the COSF? Are providers making valid ratings?

14 Gathering Data - Are providers following the correct process in gathering data on child outcomes? Providers are encouraged to collect relevant data from parents. And they are. Providers are told to use one of several core assessments. And they are. Providers are told to use multiple sources of data. And they are.

15 Gathering Data Percent Collecting Relevant Info from Parents Part CPart B Positive Social-Emotional Skills89%90% Acquiring and Using Knowledge and Skills 77%80% Taking Appropriate Action to Meet Needs 83%85%

16 Gathering Data Percent Using a State-Approved Core Assessment Part CPart B Positive Social-Emotional Skills96%81% Acquiring and Using Knowledge and Skills 79% Taking Appropriate Action to Meet Needs 94%84%

17 Gathering Data Percent Using Multiple Sources of Information Part CPart B Positive Social-Emotional Skills96% Acquiring and Using Knowledge and Skills 89%90% Taking Appropriate Action to Meet Needs 94%91%

18 Completing the Form -- Are providers correctly completing the COSF? Providers are to give summary of actual test results. And they are. Providers are to list AA, IF, F skills. And they are. Providers are supposed to answer every question. And they are. For the most part! Most of the issues we have with incomplete forms is readily fixed by offering training on the COSF and by providing sample completed COSFs.

19 Percent who did not answer key questions: Decision tree questions: about 3.5% for each skill area for each of Part C and Part B Overall ratings: About 3% of Social Skills and Acquiring Knowledge and Skills; about 5.5% for Taking Appropriate Action Did child make progress questions (the question asked on exit form and used to determine improvement category) – about 40% blank for each skill area!

20 Tackling “Not Answering Questions” “Leaving questions blank” was addressed in training – Some providers thought the decision tree questions and improvement questions were optional. – Some providers thought that overall ratings were necessary for only the outcome area the in which the child had a problem.

21 Making Valid Ratings -- Are providers making valid ratings? The decision-tree questions are supposed to guide the decision-making process. The listed skills are supposed to guide the decision-making process. The summary of actual test scores is supposed to guide the decision-making process.

22 Making Valid Ratings The percent whose decision-tree questions matched the overall rating: about 67% on each skill area for each of Part B and Part C – More training is needed!

23 Making Valid Ratings Content Analysis: We have produced a document of the listed skills and their corresponding rating by age group so that a content analysis can be done to determine if providers are making an appropriate overall rating given the listed skills a child is demonstrating. We will also produce a document from this content analysis that will illustrate behaviors representative of different scale points at different age groups.

24 Making Valid Ratings Score Analysis: We will be correlating the actual test scores on the core assessments to the overall ratings to determine if this tells us anything valuable. Even though providers are supposed to use multiple sources of information and not rely solely on the test score, we would expect at least some relationship between test scores and overall ratings. We want to determine what the relationship is and if this has implications for technical assistance.

25 Bottom Line We want to make sure that providers are making valid ratings AND We want to make sure that the ratings are consistent across regions.