确定有延误和残疾的幼儿的初步评估做法。

Rachel Stein, Elizabeth Steed
{"title":"确定有延误和残疾的幼儿的初步评估做法。","authors":"Rachel Stein,&nbsp;Elizabeth Steed","doi":"10.1007/s40688-023-00467-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The value of early intervention is well demonstrated; however, less is known about the processes that initial evaluation teams use to evaluate and determine young children's eligibility for early intervention (EI) and preschool special education. The present study surveyed multidisciplinary early childhood providers (<i>N</i> = 1445) who conduct initial evaluations for young children. Quantitative survey data were analyzed using descriptive analyses to describe the location of initial evaluations, tools used, team membership, and approaches to eligibility determination for children with possible delays and disabilities. Evaluation practices varied greatly, but evaluation teams most often included early childhood special educators and speech and language pathologists, school psychologists or other specialists were less frequently involved. Eligibility approaches were also wide-ranging with percentage delay and standard deviation below the mean most often used; several challenges when determining eligibility were also described. Evaluations for EI and preschool special education were compared to look at variations. Statistically significant differences were found when comparing evaluations focused on eligibility for EI or preschool special education. Implications and future directions are explored.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40688-023-00467-3.</p>","PeriodicalId":72700,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary school psychology","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10072816/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Initial Evaluation Practices to Identify Young Children with Delays and Disabilities.\",\"authors\":\"Rachel Stein,&nbsp;Elizabeth Steed\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40688-023-00467-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The value of early intervention is well demonstrated; however, less is known about the processes that initial evaluation teams use to evaluate and determine young children's eligibility for early intervention (EI) and preschool special education. The present study surveyed multidisciplinary early childhood providers (<i>N</i> = 1445) who conduct initial evaluations for young children. Quantitative survey data were analyzed using descriptive analyses to describe the location of initial evaluations, tools used, team membership, and approaches to eligibility determination for children with possible delays and disabilities. Evaluation practices varied greatly, but evaluation teams most often included early childhood special educators and speech and language pathologists, school psychologists or other specialists were less frequently involved. Eligibility approaches were also wide-ranging with percentage delay and standard deviation below the mean most often used; several challenges when determining eligibility were also described. Evaluations for EI and preschool special education were compared to look at variations. Statistically significant differences were found when comparing evaluations focused on eligibility for EI or preschool special education. Implications and future directions are explored.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40688-023-00467-3.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72700,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contemporary school psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-12\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10072816/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contemporary school psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-023-00467-3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary school psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-023-00467-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

早期干预的价值已得到充分证明;然而,人们对初始评估团队用于评估和确定幼儿是否有资格接受早期干预(EI)和学前特殊教育的过程知之甚少。本研究调查了多学科幼儿服务提供者(N = 1445)对幼儿进行初步评估。使用描述性分析对定量调查数据进行分析,以描述初步评估的位置、使用的工具、团队成员以及确定可能有延误和残疾儿童资格的方法。评估实践差异很大,但评估团队通常包括幼儿特殊教育工作者、言语和语言病理学家、学校心理学家或其他专家,参与的频率较低。资格审查方法也很广泛,延迟百分比和标准差低于最常用的平均值;还介绍了确定资格时的几个挑战。对EI和学前特殊教育的评估进行了比较,以观察差异。在比较侧重于EI或学前特殊教育资格的评估时,发现了统计学上的显著差异。探讨了影响和未来方向。补充信息:在线版本包含补充材料,可访问10.1007/s40688-023-00467-3。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Initial Evaluation Practices to Identify Young Children with Delays and Disabilities.

The value of early intervention is well demonstrated; however, less is known about the processes that initial evaluation teams use to evaluate and determine young children's eligibility for early intervention (EI) and preschool special education. The present study surveyed multidisciplinary early childhood providers (N = 1445) who conduct initial evaluations for young children. Quantitative survey data were analyzed using descriptive analyses to describe the location of initial evaluations, tools used, team membership, and approaches to eligibility determination for children with possible delays and disabilities. Evaluation practices varied greatly, but evaluation teams most often included early childhood special educators and speech and language pathologists, school psychologists or other specialists were less frequently involved. Eligibility approaches were also wide-ranging with percentage delay and standard deviation below the mean most often used; several challenges when determining eligibility were also described. Evaluations for EI and preschool special education were compared to look at variations. Statistically significant differences were found when comparing evaluations focused on eligibility for EI or preschool special education. Implications and future directions are explored.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40688-023-00467-3.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Concurrent Validity of the GORT-5 with the WJ-IV Mental Health Screening: Recommendations from an Integrated Literature Review Lessons Learned from LGBTQ + Youths’ Experience in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Phenomenological Investigation Spirituality and Social-Emotional Learning: A Qualitative Examination of Teachers’ Perspectives Measuring School Climate as a Component of School Capacity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1