Page 15 - TEST_MONOGRAPH 2018_+cover_Float

Chapters 4 through 7 include the results from the field tices (“Exchanging information between sending and
tests. receiving programs”; “Using a variety of [unspecified]
planned and timely strategies”) where we know from
4. Problems and Concerns with the research syntheses that transitions include many other
2014 DEC Recommended Practices methods, strategies, and practices necessary for ensuring
transitions are smooth and effective (see Appendix A-7).
hree sets of concerns, problems, and challenges sur- The lack of comprehensiveness for the two transitions
Tfaced as part of using the 2014 DEC recommended practices made it almost impossible to use the practices
practices for developing early childhood intervention to develop checklist indicators. The same was the case
performance checklists. The first included a number of for certain assessment and environment practices where
problems in terms of the lack of specificity in the content practices are stated in such a global way that the intent or
of the practices. For example, the topic area practices purpose of the practices is not explicitly clear.
differ considerably in their specificity and comprehen- Second, the recommended practices differ consid-
siveness, which proved problematic in terms of using the erably in their specificity. For example, both the interac-
practices for identifying or developing checklist indica- tion and instruction practices are indicator rich, whereas
tors for particular types of early childhood intervention the environment practices include basically a list of dif-
practices. The second was the lack of research evidence ferent types of practices. For example, the environment
for the recommended practices. Most of the literature practice “Practitioners consider Universal Design for
cited as research evidence for the recommended prac- Learning principles to create accessible environments”
tices did not include evidence at all or was not the best is not a practice per se since universal design includes a
available evidence. The third was the fact that the recom- broad range of different kinds of practices (e.g., Ham-
mended practices fail to adhere to generally accepted de- raie, 2017; Sanford, 2012). In the absence of specificity,
sign features. In many respects, the failure constitutes a the practices do not easily inform the identification or
step backwards compared to the previous version of the development of checklist practice indicators.
recommended practices (Sandall et al., 2000). Each of Third, in many instances, the intent of a practice was
these concerns, problems, and challenges are described left open to various interpretations. This was especially
in this section of the chapter. the case in terms of which practices were expected to
have which outcomes. For example, although the pre-
4.1. Lack of Specificity of the Recommended amble to the assessment practices includes five purposes
Practices for assessment, more than half of the assessment prac-
tices are stated in ways where the purpose is not at all
The original intent for using the 2014 DEC recom- clear (e.g., “Practitioners work as a team with the fam-
mended practices to develop performance checklists was ily and other professionals to gather assessment infor-
to unpack the practices to identify internally consistent mation” for what purpose?). The same was the case for
sets of practice indicators that, on the one hand, opera- other practices as well. For example, the family practice
tionally defined particular kinds of early childhood inter- “Practitioners inform families about leadership and ad-
vention practices, and, on the other hand, could be used vocacy skill-building opportunities and encourage those
to inform the selection or development of checklist prac- who are interested to participate” is nonoperational and
tice indicators. The process proved workable for some open to all kinds of (mis)interpretations.
topic areas but especially difficult for other topic areas. Fourth, a number of practice areas, and particularly
Whereas some topic areas included a number of behavior the interaction topic area, are so “packed full” of behav-
indicators for developing performance checklists, other ior indicators that, as written, would make the practices
topic areas included only a few practices or only nonspe- likely unusable to novice or beginner practitioners. Con-
cific practices. The primary problem that surfaced for us- sider, for example, the practice “Practitioners promote
ing the 2014 DEC recommended practices for identify- the child’s communication development by observing,
ing performance checklist indicators was the fact that the interpreting, responding contingently, and providing
different sets of recommended practices are so uneven in natural consequences for the child’s verbal and non-
their specificity and comprehensiveness. This was found verbal communication and by using language to label
for quite a few of the recommended practices. and expand on the child’s requests, needs, preferences,
First, the different topic areas differ considerably in or interests.” The antecedents, practice indicators, me-
terms of the number of practices (see Figure 1). As noted diators, and practice outcomes are so intertwined that it
earlier, transitions include only two practices, whereas would seem almost impossible for a practitioner to use
instruction includes 13 practices. The two transition this practice as part of everyday intervention.
practices, for example, include only broadly stated prac- Fifth, in a number of instances, certain practices

7