1. ENHANCE Update Research Underway on the Validity of the Child Outcomes Summary (COS) Process ECO Center Advisory Board Meeting March 8, 2012 Arlington, VA ENHANCE is funded by grant R324A090171 from the the U.S. Dept. of Education, Institute for Educational Sciences

2. Topics Project design - review Data collection progress What we are learning –Implementation –Child assessment study –State data study Next steps

3. Project Design

4. 1.Conduct a program of research to examine the validity of ratings generated by COS and identify conditions that lessen validity. 2.Revise the COS and supporting materials based on study findings. 3.Identify a series of validity analyses that can feasibly be conducted in states to allow each state to examine the validity of its own COS data on an ongoing basis. ENHANCE Project Objectives

5. Validity – What Are We Trying to Demonstrate? Validity is NOT a characteristic of an assessment or measurement device. Validity is a characteristic of the data produced by the tool and how these data are used. Are data valid for the purpose of….. Implications: –State A’s COS data could be valid; –State B’s COS data could not be. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing(1999) by American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education

6. Validation Process Validation process: –Develop propositions (validity argument) - If data were valid for this use, then we would see…. –Collect evidence to examine each of those propositions

7. Examples of propositions in the COS Validity Argument 3. Children differ from one another with regard to level of functioning in the 3 outcome areas as reflected in COS ratings. 7. Functioning (COS ratings) in an outcome area at time 1 is related to functioning in that area at a later point in time. 9. COS ratings will be related to the nature and severity of the child’s disability.

8. Design Not controlled Conditions

9. Design: 37 Project Data Collection Sites 19 Programs Part C Illinois Maine Minnesota New Mexico North Carolina Texas Virginia 18 Districts Part B Preschool Illinois Maine Minnesota New Mexico South Carolina Texas 9

10. Studies and Data Collection Progress

11. ENHANCE Studies Provider Survey Team Decision-Making Comparison with Child Assessments State Data Study

12. Provider Survey Goals Learn about COS implementation – processes in use Identify providers’ knowledge and training experiences Describe perceptions about if COS produces an accurate rating and influences on that Understand impact of COS on practice Process & Sample Online survey responses All providers in program who participate in COS Status Survey underway, continues through April

13. Team Decision-Making Study Goals Examine understanding and application of outcomes and rating criteria Describe team process Identify if ratings are consistent with evidence discussed Process & Sample Video teams discussing COS ratings 210 children’s teams Status Data collection underway Code videos this summer & fall

14. What Are We Learning?

15. Considerable variability across states and even across programs, within a state  Training  Ongoing staff support and quality assurance  Teaming (not just for COS)  Parent involvement  Timing and Process Implication: Results will tell us about COS validity under real-world conditions Implementation

16. Number of Providers in COS Ratings - Preliminary Percentage of COS forms Number of providers

17. Goals Compare entry and exit COS ratings to BDI-2 and Vineland-II scores Compare conclusions from COS and assessments Process & Sample Longitudinal, external assessor at program entry & program exit 216 children Study Status Local, trained assessors in place Recruiting families since Aug. 2010 Sample shows expected variability, including initial COS ratings, tool scores Comparison with Child Assessments Study

18. Comparison with Child Assessments Study – Preliminary…

19. 3. There is variability in children’s functioning in the three outcome areas and that variability is reflected in the COS ratings. Validity argument claims

20. Distributions of Preliminary COS Ratings (1-7) EI (n=71) ECSE (n=49) Ratings

21. 3. There is variability in children’s functioning in the three outcome areas and that variability is reflected in the COS ratings. 10. COS ratings in the corresponding outcome areas are moderately correlated with: o the social-emotional (Outcome 1), o cognitive (Outcome 2), o communication (Outcome 2), and o adaptive (Outcome 3) domain scores of assessment tools. Validity argument claims

22. Methods table Methods

23. Preliminary correlations between COS Ratings and assessment tools What expect to see? Methods.70.42.00 1.0

24. Preliminary Correlations: COS Ratings & Assessment Scores ECSE larger COS-Assessment Correlations than EI

25. Correlations: BDI-2 and Vineland-II Domains ECSE larger BDI-Vineland Correlations than EI

26. Methods COS Group 1 – Ratings of 1, 2, 3 COS Group 2 – Ratings of 4, 5 COS Group 3 – Ratings of 6, 7

27. Outcome 1: Positive Social Relationships EI (n=71) ECSE (n=49)

28. EI (n=71) ECSE (n=49) Outcome 2: Acquiring and Using Knowledge and Skills

29. EI (n=71) ECSE (n=49) Outcome 3: Taking Appropriate Action to Meet Needs

30. Summary of preliminary findings Patterns Means for groups generally follow expected directions on assessment tools Group comparisons showed expected differences Effect sizes were nearly all larger for ECSE than EI  For COS – assessment tool comparisons  For comparisons between assessment tools by the same external assessor More data are needed for final conclusions

31. State Data Study Goals Examine characteristics of COS data and relationships to other variables Look for consistency in patterns across states to test claims Sample All valid COS data within the state for a reporting year 15-18 states conducting all analyses Additional states sharing select analyses Status Piloted procedures with 3 Part C, 3 Part B Preschool states Now working with 4 Part C, 6 Part B Preschool states Recruiting more states, requesting data

32. 7. Functioning, as reflected in the COS rating, in an outcome area at time 1 is related to functioning in that area at a later point in time. Validity argument claims

33. Year Taking Appropriate Action to Meet Needs State A 08-090.47 State A 09-100.52 State A 10-110.50 State B 08-090.61 State B 09-100.61 State C 10-110.59 Correlations: Entry and Exit Ratings Part B 619 Preliminary state data

34. 3. There is variability in children’s functioning in the three outcome areas and that variability is reflected in the COS ratings. 14. COS rating distributions at entry will be related to the disability-related characteristics of the population served by states. Validity argument claims

35. Part C 08-09 entry ratings across states Taking appropriate action to meet needs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 COS Ratings

36. Next Steps and Reactions

37. Next steps Gather more state data Complete data collection involving local programs/districts Analyze provider survey results Code videos

38. Questions? Reactions? Implications for the national data? Implications for ECO? Questions? Reactions?

39. Find out more ENHANCE Website –http://ENHANCE.sri.com ECO Center Website –http://www.the-ECO-center.org Contact ENHANCE staff –E-mail: ENHANCE@sri.comENHANCE@sri.com