The Autism Society Event and Education Recordings Archive

Research indicates that early intervention gives children the best possible outcomes (Zero to Three).  Because the brain is rapidly developing early in life, especially during the first year of life, the body is very susceptible to intervention (Zero to Three).  The environment plays a huge role in how the young child develops.  Enriching experiences lead to positive effects on development while high stress environments can hinder development (DeBellis, 2005; Barlow,Thomson, Johnson, & Minns, 2005; Webb, Monk, & Nelson, 2001).  Researchers know when intervention takes place in the crucial years of development long lasting benefits occur, and the earlier intervention is received; the more sustainable the results appear to be (Gwyne et al, 2009).  Early intervention impacts developmental domains including: cognitive, communication, adaptive, psychosocial, physical, and self-help (Talay-Ongan, 2001).  It influences the quality of life by preventing other problems from occurring and improving current delays (Talay-Ongan, 2001).  Intervention early in life provides support for the family and is intended to create more effective interactions among family members (Dunst, 2000).  Society is effected by early intervention as it decreases the number of children in need of special education by the time they are school age, which in turn reduces spending, and promotes an atmosphere of support for children with disabilities (O’Neil, 2009).

 Not only do researchers know the vital necessity of early intervention, but are also aware that families should be the core of intervention.  “Early intervention revolves around the family opposed to the child or service provider" (Talay-Ongan, 2001). According to Dunst (1988), early intervention should include two key pieces.  The first is enabling families and the second is empowering families.  Enabling families consists of determining family’s strengths and assisting the family in developing new strategies that enhance their child’s abilities.  Empowering families has to do with the way interventionists interact with families by allowing families to have control over their lives, and giving them credit for positive outcomes.

Families should be a key component of the early intervention evaluation process (Bailey, 1988).  Researchers have investigated early intervention experiences of different families. Overall, families also are generally happy with services.  Research regarding family experiences and outcomes is somewhat limited.  Family experiences and their satisfaction with those experiences, however, are considered a key component of evaluation (Bailey, 1998). 

Recommended Practices

Dr. Wetherby and Woods (2003) explored key factors when delivering services to young children.  The research questions were drawn that dealt directly with the service recommendations from Dr. Whetherby and Woods.  These three categories include: natural environments, support and involving the family, and daily routines, all of which are essential components to delivering high quality early intervention. 

Wetherby and Woods describe how natural environments is now a requirement of service delivery per the amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.  Natural environments consist of the home as well as other community locations where the family is involved.  Woods and Wetherby explain the importance of looking beyond the typical 1-2 hours or services young children receive and workiing with all caregivers and environments where the family participates to enhance intervention. 

Supporting and involving families is another component Dr. Wetherby and Woods suggest.  They explain the importance of looking beyond the child and to the family system.  The authors go on to explain that many families of children with ASD are in need of support whether it is to assist them in their level of confidence  and competence and/or locating resources.  Unfortunately, the family can often be left out of the intervention process.

Finally, Wetherby and Woods discuss how embedding intervention into daily routines allows for an increase of intervention. The authors describe how daily routines are meaningful contexts, and are occurrences that often result in reinforcement.  Daily routines allow the child to become familiar with the intervention, aware of a sequence, and comfortable, which allows more opportunities for the child to provide an appropriate response. They also incorporate materials that are familiar to the child which leads to generalization.  Daily routines are settings where the family attends. Incorporating intervention into daily routines allows the adult and the child to develop roles and responsibilities.  

Practices taking place

Because researchers and practitioners are aware of recommended practices when delivering early intervention, it is important to determine what is taking place during intervention from the parent’s perspective.  The researcher used a survey design study to determine what types of practices are taking place during intervention according to the parents of young children on the spectrum of autism. 

Methods:

Research Questions:

The research questions include:

Question 1: From the parent’s perspective, does the family feel supported and/or involved?

Question 2: From the parent’s perspective, is intervention occurring in a natural environment?

Question 3: From the parent’s perspective, is intervention a part of daily routines?

Question 4:  What do parents like about services?

Question 5:  What would parents like to change about services?

Question 6:  Are there differences among groups related to the service provider who delivers EI services?

Design:

 The researchers used mixed methods to analyze participant responses.  The quantitative section focused on family support, daily routines, and natural environments.  Parents responded to closed ended questions.  The qualitative section focused on family involvement, what the family likes about services, and what families would like to change about services.  Parents responded to open ended question regarding what they liked and disliked about services along with what role they and interventionist takes during early intervention meetings. 

Procedures:

The researcher worked with Florida CARD Centers who agree to participate.  The web address was sent in an e-newsletter as well as an invitation to participate via mail.  The mail out letter was provided by the researcher to CARD Center clients in the state of Florida who have children between the ages of 0 and 3 who have either been identified as having an autism spectrum disorder or who have clear red flags of autism.  The researcher provided the funding for the postage, but FSU CARD Center was responsible for mailing the letters to their clients in order to maintain confidentiality.  The mail out included a letter to the parents from CARD Center Directors, explaining confidentiality of client information, a letter from the researcher regarding the purpose of the survey, and the web address to participate in the online survey.  Parents who volunteered to complete the survey went to the survey link, and anonymously responded to the survey questions.  The information was exported into SPSS for data management and analysis.   

Survey Instrument

The survey was adapted from a previous study conducted by Dr. Melody Harrison, Dr. Margaret Dannhardt, and Dr. Jackson Roush titled Families Perceptions of Early Intervention Services for Children with Hearing Loss (Harrison, Dannhardt, Roush, 1996).  The survey included questions regarding parent support, where intervention occurs, and whether it is a part of the daily routine.  The survey was completed online using the College of Education software at Florida State University for online surveys.  The software allowed participants to complete the survey by using a web address, following the directions, and responding the questions.

Data analysis

Data was analyzed and managed using SPSS software.  Descriptive statistics as well as anova analysis was conducted.

Results:

Preliminary results suggest that families have varying perceptions of the services they are receiving.  These results should be examined more carefully as families' perceptions could guide researchers, intervention providers, and families. The survey results suggest that families are receiving varying quality of services families are receiving, and thus provide more information for what is needed in regard to personnel preparation, family needs, and future research.