1. National Early Childhood Transition Research and Training Center Beth Rous Katherine McCormick Caroline Gooden Megan Cox University of Kentucky

2. Purpose of N ational E arly C hildhood T ransition C enter (NECTC) To investigate and validate practices and strategies that enhance the early childhood transition process and support positive school outcomes for children with disabilities.

4. Investigators Data Coordination and Collection External Stakeholders

5. Stakeholder Groups Advisory Council – Input on data collection, analyses, and dissemination; – Parents, 619 & Part C Coordinators, teacher/provider representatives Expert Panel – Input on research methods, review research, policy, & practice documents – Representatives from research, T & TA, state and national policy makers Diversity Workgroup – Input on appropriateness of design, data interpretation, & development of materials for diverse populations – Representatives address significant disabilities & diverse cultures/languages External Evaluator – Ongoing evaluation of the project activities and processes.

6. Identify Current Research, Policy and Practice in Transition

7. The State of the Evidence Articles sent for review NMet Criteria* Child Focused Studies3327 Family Focused Studies1716 Policy Studies6 In process *Meet Criteria for Levels of Evidence Identified

8. Review Process and Products Detailed Research Review Protocol – Intervention Based Research Studies – Policy Based Research Studies Research Summary – Child and Family – Policy Searchable Database

9. Identify Child, Family and Program Factors that impact Transition

10. Sampling Plan Target States (KY, LA, MI, OR & WI) – Purposive sample for representation and diversity region, size, population density, minority membership – Part C lead agency and history of EI/ECSE service delivery Sample of Children within Target States – Met state criteria for Part C and at least 30 months old – Met state criteria for 619 and will transition to kindergarten

11. Sampling Plan cont. Proposed Sample 480 200680 Total Children Early Intervention Children Preschool Children Final Sample 225311536 Total Children Early Intervention Children Preschool Children

12. Cohort Groups Cohort 1 = 133 Cohort 3 = 83 DCP 1 Cohort 1 Cohort 3 Cohort 5 = 9 DCP 2 Cohort 1 Cohort 2 = 153 Cohort 4 = 128 DCP 3 Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Cohort 4 Cohort 5 = 30 DCP 4 Transition at age 3Transition at age 5 216 children9 new children281 new children30 new children 536 Total Children

13. Recruitment Preschool transition sample – Sampling pool based on providers willing to participate from sample of all Part C providers in state – Stratified random sample of children/families on provider caseloads using state IDEA child data at the state level (with oversampling) Kindergarten transition sample – a clustered recruitment frame – recruited from same communities as the Cohort 1 – followed Cohort 1 into settings

14. Study States 2002 HHS - CCSHCNEDED – EI & ECSE Health & Social Services ED – Sp. Ed & EI 2006 HFS - Adult & Child Health Health & HospitalsED – ECHealth – DDED – ECE & Family Birth Entitlement Education & Health & Human Services Lead Vendor and Agency Based

15. Transition Policy Characteristics of Study States Use of Section 619 funds to provide FAPE to children before their third birthday – One state has a policy that allows – One state has policy that does not allow The use of Part C funds to provide FAPE for children past their third birthday – No states had a policy that allows – Two states have policies that do not allow

16. Instrumentation Screened existing and published instruments for utility, psychometric properties, and feasibility Selected tools – Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Behavior Assessment Scales Children – Merrill Palmer, Revised – Pediatric Evaluation Diagnostic Inventory

17. Selection of Existing Instruments Theoretical and conceptual linkages to research questions and literature Usage across other large scale studies to allow for comparison Items selected from the following studies National Center for Early Development & Learning (NCEDL) Pre-Elementary Education Longitudinal Study (PEELS) National Early Intervention Longitudinal Study (NEILS) Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS) (Birth and Kindergarten)

18. Development of Instruments Based on theoretical and conceptual linkages to research questions Piloted for ease of use and family- friendly language Spanish versions developed

19. A Conceptual Framework for Thinking About Transition

20. Family Interview Service Coordinator Survey Provider Surveys Family Support Scale Community Survey Administrator Survey Provider Surveys LICC survey Family Interview Provider Surveys Family Interview Administrator Survey LICC survey TPP Family Interview Administrator Survey All Instruments Part C Survey 619 Survey SICC Survey Instrumentation

21. Teacher Survey Service Coordinator Survey Administrator Survey Provider Survey BASC Family Empowerment Scale Family Interview TPP Administrator Survey Provider Survey Service Coordinator Survey Family Interview

22. Instrumentation ELM PPVT IGDI DIBELS Early Math BASC Provider Surveys Service Coordinator Survey Family Interview PPVT BASC Provider Surveys Service Coordinator Survey Family Interview BASC Provider Surveys Service Coordinator Survey Family Interview

23. Study Personnel State Coordinators’ Roles (n = 4) – Administrative & training oversight – Recruit programs & providers – Train data collectors – Maintain all records – Follow-up with families & providers – Send to UK Data Collectors’ Roles (n = 28) – Making home visits to gather data (children, families, & providers) – Maintain reliability of data collection – Organize paperwork for all visits in – Preparation to send to UK (with Coordinator)

24. Inter-rater and Procedural Reliability and Fidelity All personnel trained on instrument administration Site coordinators trained by authors or certified trainers Site coordinators trained data collectors Initial reliability of 90% reached

25. Technical Support, Training & Fidelity Training Procedures – Trainings standardized and revisited periodically to ensure fidelity of the procedures Technical Support – Multiple formats (emails, listservs, printed resources, manuals, on-site visits by the Coordinator) – Ongoing communication between site coordinators, data collectors, and research team – Questions routed to full access shared server Fidelity – Ongoing reliability of 10% of each state sample for each data collector – Reliability established and maintained at 90%

26. Data Collection Timeline Child age pre-transition = 32 to 36 months old Child age post-transition = 39 and 42 months old Data collected at family home or other location familiar to child (i.e. day care, church)

27. Provider and Administrator Data Collection Family provided contact for provider who knows the child best Provider was mailed two surveys to complete – Beliefs/practices based on his/her own caseload – Child specific Administrators were asked to complete one survey on the general environment of the facility and inclusion practices

28. Sample Total sample for at-3 transition (n = 225) Child assessments completed – Pre-transition at age 3 (n = 196) – Post-transition at age 3 (n = 161) Factors affecting attrition – KATRINA – Locating families

29. Family Respondents Most frequent respondents were biological mothers The majority of children resided in two-parent households

30. Family Income and Work Status 46% of respondents did not work outside the home 35% of these respondents were in two parent households %

31. Family Income Level 50% of children received WIC benefits 22% of children received SSI benefits

32. Child Ethnicity English was primary language for the overwhelming majority (96.7%) of children Child Ethnicity

33. Children in the Study The majority of children were male The majority were born during summer months

34. Disability Categories IDEA CategoryN of Children IDEA CategoryN of Children Autism25Other Health Impaired32 Deafness4Serious Emotional Disturbance1 Deaf-Blind0Specific Learning Disability0 Hearing Impaired4Speech/Language Impaired109 Mental Retardation18Traumatic Brain Injury2 Multiple Disabilities0Visually Impaired/Blindness4 Orthopedic Impaired42Developmental Delay52 Non- Specified13 * Groups not mutually exclusive

35. What was your child’s age when you first started transition planning? Differences in transition by state Transition type does not impact age at transition %

36. How much effort did it take on your part to transition your child?

37. How helpful were transition planning services? No significant differences by state %

38. What Does Transition Look Like For Children in the sample? % No significant differences by state

39. Post Transition The majority of children transitioned to preschool special education services

40. Children Who Did Not Transition to Preschool Special Education

41. Activities to Support Transition Parent Survey Transition Perception of Parents (TPP – Adapted) Roberts, Innocenti, Judd, Taylor, & Morris, 1998 – Occurred or did not occur – If yes, level of satisfaction Organized by: – Before the placement decision (N=7 items) – After the placement decision (N=8 items) – Once services were initiated (N=5 items) 1 = Very Satisfied2 = Somewhat Satisfied 3 = Somewhat Dissatisfied 4 = Very Dissatisfied

42. Activities to Support Transition Before the placement decision (N=7 items) – Average use = 4.30 (SD 1.68) or 61% – Average Satisfaction = 16.16 (SD = 6.71), range 1-28 After the placement decision (N=8 items) – Average use = 3.83 (SD 1.72) or 48% – Average Satisfaction = 15.42 (SD = 6.06), range 1-32 Once services were initiated (N=5 items) – Average use = 3.64 (SD 1.43) or 73% – Average Satisfaction = 14.48 (SD = 5.04), range 4-20 Adapted TPP preliminary reliability =.64 to.96

43. Transition Activities Before Placement Decision Before Placement Decision % YesSatisfaction Easy access to my child’s records 88.33.78 EI provider helped prepare me ahead of time for transition 82.23.72 Received information needed to make decision about how services would change 81.23.61 I was major decision maker about where child would go for preschool 74.03.77 Had a choice between different options for preschool and/or other services57.53.58 Had opportunity to visit different preschools before final decision 41.13.64 Offered opportunity to talk with other parents about their experiences during transition from EI to preschool* 17.73.63 Overall use - Mean = 4.30 of 7;SD 1.68 (61%)

44. Transition Activities After Placement Decision After Placement Decision % YesSatisfaction Talked with preschool staff about special needs of my child and details (meals) 82.33.76 Received information about the new setting (skills child should have)82.13.71 Parent had the opportunity to visit the class child will attend76.43.78 EI and preschool staff communicated with each other about child’s transition76.03.76 EI continued services, if gap between the child’s 3 rd birth and school entry32.53.68 Parent introduced to other families in the child’s class*21.03.72 Preschool teacher visited the family in their home20.03.76 Parent given contact information of other families in child’s class*8.93.65 Overall use - Mean = 3.83 of 8;SD 1.72 (48%)

45. Transition Activities After Services are Initiated After Services Start % YesSatisfaction Child’s provider shared information about how child adjusting to new setting 86.83.78 All or most needed services on IEP were in place at time child started preschool 81.03.79 Child’s records promptly followed him/her to the preschool or new agency 74.63.85 New teacher asked how parent thought child was adjusting to new setting 70.73.78 Staff from EI and preschool worked with parent to solve any difficulties with encountered with the new setting 55.83.73 Overall use - Mean = 3.64 of 5; SD 1.43 (73%)

46. Relationships Number of practices used BEFORE placement decision Number of practices used AFTER placement decision TOTAL number of practices used Parents’ perception of how helpful transition planning services were to the family

47. Discussion Questions Comments

48. For More Information Caroline Gooden Interdisciplinary Human Development Institute University of Kentucky 126 Mineral Industries Building Lexington, KY 40506-0051 Phone: 859-257-2081 Toll Free: 866-742-4015 Fax: 859-257-2769 Email:Caroline.Gooden@uky.edu http://www.ihdi.uky.edu/nectc