Gail S. Huntington

Students with disabilities: a national survey of participation in school activities

INTRODUCTION The policies of integration and full inclusion in school activities have been enacted to promote the independence and social participation of students with disabilities. This study examined the nature and extent of participation in schools by students with disabilities in the context of the physical, social and psychological features of the school environment. METHOD A national survey was completed by 1180 teachers of students with disabilities in the US describing student participation in school activities encompassing involvement in social activities, sports, academic and artistic/creative endeavours. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS Multivariate analysis revealed that school life in elementary, middle and high school could be defined by six distinct factors describing individual and group roles. Structural equation modelling yielded a second order latent variable that captured the complex and multi-dimensional aspect of participation, accounting for availability, eligibility, student characteristics/status, and student choice within a larger framework of participation.Introduction: The policies of integration and full inclusion in school activities have been enacted to promote the independence and social participation of students with disabilities. This study examined the nature and extent of participation in schools by students with disabilities in the context of the physical, social and psychological features of the school environment. Method: A national survey was completed by 1180 teachers of students with disabilities in the US describing student participation in school activities encompassing involvement in social activities, sports, academic and artistic/creative endeavours. Results/Conclusions: Multivariate analysis revealed that school life in elementary, middle and high school could be defined by six distinct factors describing individual and group roles. Structural equation modelling yielded a second order latent variable that captured the complex and multi-dimensional aspect of participation, accounting for availability, eligibility, student characteristics/status, and student choice within a larger framework of participation.

Preparing Professionals to Serve Infants and Toddlers with Handicaps and Their Families: An Integrative Analysis across Eight Disciplines

This article summarizes the status of, and recommendations for, preparation programs for early intervention personnel across eight disciplines. Surveys were conducted to determine the extent to which entry-level students in each discipline receive academic preparation and clinical experiences to provide services to infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. Although considerable variability was found across disciplines, the average student receives little specialized information—practical knowledge—relative either to the infancy period or to working with families. Alternative strategies for improving infant personnel preparation are discussed and policy implications of each are addressed.

The Carolina Record of Individual Behavior Characteristics of handicapped infants and children

William B. Ware, PhD Professor School of Education University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, North Carolina WHEN HANDICAPPED infants and young children lack communication skills, function at very basic levels, and are characterized by atypical and/or stereotyped behavior, valid assessment of developmental functioning is difficult, if not impossible. A not-infrequent conclusion is that such children are untestable (Alpern, 1967). A common approach to dealing with these problems has taken the form of extending, simplifying, or otherwise modifying existing normative scales of development. Such efforts have had limited success because of methodological problems of infant assessment in general (Lewis, 1975) and associated concerns of accountability with special populations (Simeonsson, 1982; Simeonsson & Wiegerink, 1975). In the search for improved assessment procedures, it may be productive to consider strategies and domains

Preservice Preparation of Special Educators to Serve Infants with Handicaps and Their Families: Current Status and Training Needs.

The rapid increase in services for infants with handicaps and their famiies has heightened the need for qualified special education professionals. This article reports the results of a telephone survey to a random sample of preservice training programs, a mail survey sent to programs with an infancy or early childhood focus, and a working conference with leaders in infant personnel preparation. The purpose of those activities was to determine the current status of preparing special educators to work with infants and toddlers with handicaps, as well as with their families, and to identify current needs for training materials and curricula associated with that effort. Results indicated that typical students receive very little content related to infants or families in either undergraduate or graduate special education. Substantially more coverage was found in programs specializing in infancy or early childhood; furthermore, programs with an infancy focus (0-3 years) had more infancy coverage than did programs with a broader early childhood focus (0-5 years). No differences between early childhood and infancy programs were found in family assessment and intervention. The small number of graduates found in specialized programs, however, is not likely to meet the need for qualified professionals. Implications of the findings for training and materials development are discussed.

Scaling and attainment of goals in family-focused early intervention

Evaluating the impact of early intervention as a means to prevent or ameliorate developmental disabilities has been a long standing problem and the issue of effectiveness continues to be debated. This study explored the utility of Goal Attainment Scaling as a planning and evaluation tool whereby intervention outcomes for infants and families could be documented. The 23 families in this study were participants in a larger research effort evaluating the implementation of community based, family-focused intervention. An average of 5.9 goals were written for each family, with approximately 60% of goals written for infants and 40% for families. Attainment of goals was evident in a mean T-score of 51.9 for post-test values and in documentation that approximately two-thirds of all goals were attained at least at the expected level. The practical features of Goal Attainment Scaling and the correspondence of goal attainment scores with other measures of change suggest that it may be a valuable approach to complement traditional evaluation strategies.

Temperament and adaptation in infants and young children with disabilities

The study of temperament in infants and young children has been facilitated by an increased availability of measures and a growth of interest in individual difference variables. As an index of behavioral style, temperament is well suited to examine individual differences in adaptation of infants and young children to requirements of the caregiving environment. Given the biobehavioral base attributed to temperament, it may have unique significance in understanding the complexities of adaptation of children whose disabilities are often associated with nervous system deficits. Research and clinical studies are reviewed to consider three questions: (1) to what extent do infants and young children with disabilities differ from their nondisabled peers in behavioral style, (2) in what ways may temperament mediate the adaptation of such infants to environmental demands, and (3) what are the implications for clinical practice, interpreted within a goodness-of-fit context.

Reply to Pfeiffer's critique of our article on participation of students with disabilities in school activities

In his review of our study on participation of students with disabilities in school activities (Disability and Rehabilitation, 2001, 23: 49 ± 63) Professor PfeiVer criticized both its method and content. In sum, Professor PfeiVer takes issue with the underlying design of the study in which teachers serve as key informants about students with disabilities, and their description of the school experiences of those students. He directs criticism towards our failure to consistently distinguish those descriptions as perceptions of the teachers in the narrative and in the title of the study. In our response to Professor PfeiVer’s critique, we state our commitment to the importance of obtaining self-reports from individuals with disabilities. However, we feel that the sweeping criticisms of the study and inferences about our intent and approach are not warranted. In the ®rst few sentences, Professor PfeiVer refers to the study as one that is interesting and `provides some important insight into the activities of students with disabilities’. In subsequent paragraphs, Professor Pfeiffer proceeds to elaborate on his criticism that the study is ̄awed by a major problem. He sees this problem as re ̄ected in the approach taken; the procedures followed; the intent of the authors; and the description of ®ndings. Among his conclusions he states `I would hope that none of these aggregate (or individual) evaluations would ever be published in the manner in which this study was published’. Taken together, the initial statement and these subsequent conclusions, seem paradoxical at best; if the study is as ̄awed as Professor PfeiVer asserts, it is not clear how it `could provide important insights’ and `important conclusions’. In our response, we restate our commitment to one of Professor PfeiVer’s points, namely the importance of including individuals with disabilities as participants in research. In other studies we have published, we have included and currently continue to include children with disabilities in the research programme. We also conduct studies in which key informants, such as parents and teachers, provide their perspective on the experiences of children with disabilities. The methodology of using key informants is frequently used with individuals who are young and/or whose disabilities may limit their self-report. In fact, it should be noted that within the last volume (23) of Disability and Rehabilitation there are other studies also using the methodology of key informants . One of these involves parents’ perspectives of the functional status of daughters with Rett Syndrome (pp. 107 ± 117): the second involves the report of relatives of long-term problems of individuals with traumatic brain injury. The use of teachers as key informants in this study of students’ experience in school is consistent with the premise of key informants. In this context we will address each of the main criticisms that Professor PfeiVer has directed at our study: