Page 20 - TEST_MONOGRAPH 2018_+cover_Float
P. 20

yet another recommended practice, the term activities is   through a more systematic approach to product develop-
               used to refer to a particular (unspecified) type of transi-  ment. This involved the process used to identify or devel-
               tion practice. This can only be confusing to early child-  op checklist indicators, the sources of research evidence
               hood intervention practitioners (Colquhoun et al., 2014;   that were the foundations for the checklist practices, and
               Michie, Fixsen, Grimshaw, & Eccles, 2009).       the ways in which the checklists were formatted and how
                   Consistency in how terms are used to convey simi-  the instructions and indicators were written.
               lar intent is necessary if practitioners are to be able to      First, the selection or development of checklist in-
               understand the key characteristics of intervention prac-  dicators was guided by a conceptualization-operational-
               tices  or the  behavior  indicators of practices  (Mitzkat,   ization-measurement framework (Babbie, 2009) where
               Berger,  Reeves,  &  Mahler,  2016; Temmerman,  2000).   each DEC recommended practice topic area was content
               There is considerable inconsistency, for example, in how   analyzed  (to the extent  possible) to identify  different
               different child characteristics function as person factors   sets of practices where the key characteristics embedded
               influencing learning and development (Bronfenbrenner,   within the topic areas were initially used to develop or
               1992, 1993) in the 2014 DEC recommended practices.   select checklist indicators. In those cases where the topic
               These person factors include, but are not limited to, those   area practices could not be used to identify or develop
               child  personal characteristics  that  interact  with person   checklist  indicators,  evidence-based  sources of infor-
               and environment setting factors that help explain varia-  mation were used to identify different types of practice
               tions in child outcomes. These types of factors (charac-  characteristics in each topic area. The process for doing
               teristics) are described in the recommended practices as   so is described in Dunst (2017a), Dunst et al. (2015), and
               child’s strengths and needs; child’s strengths, preferenc-  Chapter 3. This ensured that all performance checklists
               es, and interests; child’s requests, needs, preferences or   were prepared in similar formats where checklist indica-
               interests; and child’s strengths, needs, preferences, and   tors were the key characteristics of a particular type of
               interests. The reason why all applicable recommended   early childhood intervention practice.
               practices do not include the full range of development-     Second, the selection and development of the per-
               enhancing child characteristics  is not at all clear and,   formance  checklist  indicators  were  informed  by  find-
               more importantly, fails to communicate to practitioners   ings reported in research syntheses of practice-outcome
               which  characteristics  ought  to  be  taken  into  consider-  relationships and especially those reported in practice-
               ation as part of child-focused intervention practices.   based research syntheses (Dunst, 2016) where the active
                                                                ingredients, core components, and key characteristics
               4.4. Summary and Conclusion                      of an early childhood intervention practice were found
                                                                to be related to outcomes of interest. An explicit effort
                   This section of the chapter included descriptions of   was made to include only practice indicators where re-
               major problems and concerns with (1) the lack of speci-  search evidence was available to support the use of the
               ficity of the 2014 DEC recommended practices, (2) the   indicators to produce outcomes of interest. The evidence
               lack of research evidence for the recommended practices,   included findings from more than 200 research reviews
               and (3) the failure to adhere to basic product design con-  of practice-outcome relationships. The evidence is de-
               siderations. Converging sets of qualitative and quantita-  scribed in Dunst (2017b) and Chapter 3.
               tive evidence were used to highlight some, but certainly      Third, the formatting,  organization,  and terminol-
               not all of the problems and concerns with the 2014 DEC   ogy used in writing  the performance  checklists  (and
               recommended practices. This necessitated considerable   practice guides) were done in ways informed by gener-
               license in terms of how the recommended practices were   ally accepted guidelines and principles for ensuring the
               used to select or develop performance checklist indica-  products  facilitate  practitioner  learning,  understand-
               tors and why, in many instances, there was a need to look   ing,  memory,  and  performance  (e.g.,  Crowder,  2015;
               elsewhere for the sources of checklist indicators and the   Schwartz, 2014). This included, but was not limited to,
               research evidence for the indicators.
                                                                the evidence-informed  guidelines,  principles,  and rec-
                                                                ommendations described in Cabre (1999), Lemarie et al.
               5. Approach to Developing Evidence-              (2012), Lidwell et al. (2003), Lohr and Gall (2008), and
               Informed Performance Checklists and              Temmerman (2000). As a result, the performance check-
               Practice Guides                                  lists and practice guides were all written in parallel ways
                                                                so that practitioners do not need to reorient themselves
                  he problems, concerns, and challenges unearthed in the   as they move from one product to another (e.g., Kintsch,
               Tcourse of using the 2014 DEC recommended practices   1998). This ensured consistency within and between per-
               for identifying or developing evidence-informed perfor-  formance checklists and practice guides.
               mance checklist indicators were addressed and overcome      The approach to developing performance check-




                                                             12
   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25