Cost, Quality, and Outcomes of Preschool Inclusion

1
Cost, Quality, and Outcomes of Preschool Inclusion

• Samuel L. Odom, Indiana University
• Virginia Buysse and Martie Skinner, University of
  North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• http//www.indiana.edu/edfolks/persons/slodom.htm
  l

2
Research Questions

• What are the program costs for children in
  inclusive settings?
• What is the quality of early childhood
  environments and inclusive experiences in
  inclusive preschool programs?
• What are developmental and social outcomes for
  children?
• How does quality and cost relate to outcomes for
  children?

3
Program Typology Study Organizational Context

• Community-based child care program
• Head Start programs
• Public School-based programs
• Blended Programs

4
Demographics of Children Participating
5
Types of Disabilities

• Developmental Delay 69
• Speech/Language Disorder 34
• Autism/PDD 21
• Physical Disability 4
• Mental Retardation 3
• Health Impairment 4
• Social Emotional/Behavior Disorder 3
• Visual Impairment 3
• Multiple Disabilities 1
• Hearing impairment 1

6
ABILITIES Index
7
Level of Severity

• Mild Level 70
• Moderate Level 39
• Severe Level 34

8
Cost Data Collected

• Original measures design by Center for Special
  Education Finance and used in ECRII research.
• Preschool Service Provider Questionnaire
• Program/Center Employee Benefits Survey
• Information about Special Education Student
  Questionnaire
• Each of these revised for cost analysis

9
Cost Data Across Programs
10
Mean Cost by Severity of Disability
11
Quality of Early Childhood Settings and Inclusion

• Early Childhood Environmental Rating
  Scale-Revised (ECERS-R)
• Quality of Inclusion Measure (Wolery, Pauca,
  Brashers, Grant, 1999)
• CASPER (Brown, Favazza, Odom, 1999)Percent of
  Time Engaged

12
ECERS-R

• Total Score for Overall Quality
• Space and Furnishings
• Personal Care Routines
• Language-Reasoning
• Activities
• Interaction
• Program Structure
• Parents and Staff

13
ECERS-R Total Score by Program Type
14
Quality of Inclusive Experiences Measure (QIEM)
(Wolery, Pauca, Brashers, Grant, 2000)

• Accessibility and Adequacy of Physical
  Environment (Observation and rating)
• Individualization (Document analysis, interview)
• Adult-Child Contacts and Relationships
  (Observation and rating)
• Child-Child Contacts and Interactions
  (Observation and rating)

15
QIEM Measure Subscales
16
CASPER

• Ecobehavioral Observational Assessment
• Momentary Time Sample
• Three 30 minute samples collected

17
CASPER Variables

• Ecological
• Activity Area
• Activity Initiator
• Behavioral
• Child Behavior (Mean Engagement Calculated)
• Child Social Behavior
• Adult Behavior

18
CASPER Engagement Percentage
19
Relationship Among Quality Measures
20
General Findings Across Programs

• Quality measures assessed unique features of
  inclusive settings
• Medium rating of general early childhood quality
• Engagement did not appear to vary across programs
• Only significant difference across program types
  on QIEM related to child-child interaction
• BL gt HS and PS
• CBgt HS and PS

21
Developmental and Social Outcomes

• Battelle Developmental Inventory
• Friendship Questionnaire
• Peer Rating Sociometric Measure

22
Battelle Developmental Inventory

• General Developmental Index
• Personal Social Domain
• Adaptive Domain
• Cognitive Domain
• Language Communication Domain
• Motor

23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
General Findings for Battelle Development
Inventory

• Children made program in all areas of development
• Modest changes in rates of development occurred
  for children
• No differences occurred for program type

26
Playmates and Friends Questionnaire
27
Friendship Survey
28
General Findings for Friendship Survey

• Children maintained their level of special
  friendships and total friendships across the year
• Program effects were found
• There tended to be a higher number of special
  friendships reported in the BL classroom than in
  the HS or PS

29
Peer Rating Sociometric Assessment (Asher et
al., 1979)

• Photographs taken of all children
• Children taught to rate
• Rate foods
• Rate toys
• Children shown pictures of all other children in
  class and sort into box
• 3 likes a lot 2 likes a little 1 does not
  like
• Average rating and ranking computed

30
Sociometric Ratings
31
General Findings for Peer Rating Data

• Mean peer rating tended to maintain across the
  year at around 2.0 (Like to play with a little)
• No program effects were detected

32
HLM Analysis of Quality Measures on the Change in
Growth

• Did not find program effects
• Did not find effect for BDI-General Index
• Did find significant effect on subscale scores
• Cognitive QIEM-Ind (p lt.01)
• Communication QIEM-Ind (plt.02)
• Personal Social No effect
• Adaptive No effect
• Motor QIEM-Ind (p lt .02)
• QIEM-Child Child (plt.007)

33
Conclusions

• Costs vary substantially across programs
• Quality of inclusive settings appears to be
  medium
• Children are engaged in activities
• As a group, children with disabilities do not
  appear to be socially rejected
• As a group, children with disabilities appear to
  have friends
• Children with disabilities appear to be making
  developmental progress
• Individualization for children with disabilities
  appears to have an effect on some areas of
  development