Leveraging Joint Planning in Early Intervention: Documenting with Intentionality and Specificity

A family-capacity building approach to coaching, where providers support caregivers to embed identified strategies into daily routines and activities, is commonly embraced in Part C Early Intervention (EI). EI providers use several coaching strategies within this approach, yet few studies have reported process features, and coaching strategies are not well defined in the literature. We partnered in this Participatory Action Research (PAR) with current EI providers engaged in a year-long self-study process to provide an empirical account of one coaching strategy, joint planning, and related documentation. Our results indicate both providers and caregivers view documentation of joint planning as beneficial, highlight supports and challenges, and suggest that joint planning documentation holds significant promise for improving practice, data-based decision making, and progress monitoring of child and family outcomes including changes in caregiver capacity.

Utilization of telemedicine to support caregivers of young children with ASD and their Part C service providers: a comparison of intervention outcomes across three models of service delivery

Background Families of young children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) frequently experience barriers to accessing evidence-based early intervention services. Telemedicine presents an opportunity to increase access to these services, particularly for families in rural and under-resourced areas. The present article describes a brief behavioral intervention and support model for families of young children with concerns for ASD. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, this service model shifted to telemedicine-only service delivery, resulting in an opportunity to analyze intervention outcomes from services delivered either via traditional in-person visits, telemedicine-only sessions, or a hybrid model including both in-person and telemedicine sessions. Methods Data are presented for 115 families with toddlers 16-33 months of age who participated in a six-session behavioral intervention and support service model either in-person, through telemedicine, or through a hybrid service model. This intervention was available for families referred for ASD evaluation through the state Part C early intervention program. Intervention feasibility, fidelity of implementation, child outcomes, and stakeholder satisfaction are compared across service delivery models. Results Caregivers, behavioral consultants, and Part C early intervention providers reported satisfaction with services, regardless of service delivery model. Caregivers and consultants also reported positive child outcomes. Statistically significant differences emerged for caregiver- and consultant-reported child outcomes in some domains, with stakeholders in the telemedicine-only group reporting slightly less improvement, compared to stakeholders in the in-person-only group. Caregivers and consultants in the telemedicine-only group also provided qualitative feedback on benefits and challenges related to telemedicine services. Conclusions Both caregivers and behavioral consultants reported positive outcomes following a brief behavioral intervention and support model targeted at families of young children with concern for ASD. Stakeholders reported improvement in child behavior and satisfaction with services across in-person, telemedicine-only, and hybrid models of service delivery. These results suggest that telemedicine presents a promising opportunity for increasing service access. Additional research is needed to continue optimizing the experience of telemedicine-based service delivery for both families and intervention providers.

Relationship Between State-Level Developmental Screening and IDEA Part C Early Intervention Rates

The purpose of this study was to explore whether a relationship exists between the rates of state-level developmental screening by a health care provider and state-level provision of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part C (IDEA Part C) early intervention services. This is an important first step in determining whether states have the capacity to deal with a potential influx of newly identified children. This analysis compared screening rates from the 2016 National Survey of Children’s Health with service rates from the Department of Education’s 2016 IDEA Part C data. There was no significant relationship between rates of screening by a health care provider and receipt of IDEA Part C services ( r = .13, p = .366). Those who identified as White were screened and provided with IDEA services at a higher percentage than non-White ( r = .80, p < .001). There was a significant relationship between region and receipt of IDEA Part C services, F(3) = 8.14, p < .001, with the Northeast region ( M = 4.95, SD = 1.85) having higher percent served via IDEA Part C services. Results indicate no relationship between state levels of screening by a health care provider and receipt of IDEA Part C services. Efforts to increase developmental screening may require strategies to ensure adequate service access.

Family and Practitioner Perspectives on Prenatal Early Intervention

Increasingly, families know prenatally of certain diagnoses with a high probability of developmental delays. These diagnoses could result in eligibility for Part C early intervention (EI) postnatally. Although prenatal developmental interventions (e.g., Early Head Start, Nurse Family Partnership) are common for families with environmental risks, no research has explored the potential of prenatal EI for those families with EI eligible diagnoses. This online survey research explored family and practitioner perspectives of potential prenatal EI and project-identified prenatal outcomes (i.e., health and well-being, parent-child interactions, parenting to family culture, and navigating systems and supports). Overall, both samples reported the prenatal outcomes were clear and important prenatally. Families preferred EI practitioners help with all outcomes. Practitioners preferred to take the lead on some outcomes (e.g., knowledge of and comfort with EI services, intention of EI), whereas the medical community took the lead on others. Findings support the need for further research on the potential of prenatal EI and resulted in implications for current postnatal EI.