Quality Indicators Study

Including Students with Deafblindness in Large Scale Assessment Systems

Quality Indicators Study Research Findings

There was little difference in the number of IEP objectives between the accountability and nonaccountability groups, although the latter group had a greater number of objectives.
The greatest percentage of IEP objectives for the accountability group were in communication and motor tasks.
The greatest percentage of IEP objectives for the nonaccountability group were in communication, motor, vocational, and pre-academic areas.
Lack of documentation regarding the use of multiple settings and natural environments for instructional purposes was common across students.

Results of IEP Best Practice Indicators Across Curriculum Areas

With the exception of the pre-academic, vocational, and community areas of the IEP, the accountability group had higher percentages of IEP best practice indicators.

There was a wide variance in the amount of training attended and portfolios developed.
Teacher’s technical assistance needs varied greatly by content area.
The teacher of the student with the highest AP score had attended the most training opportunities and was most eager for technical assistance.

Program indicators is an index composed of (1) general programming issues, (2) supports, (3) safety issues, and (4) communication and relationships.

60% of parents recalled having the portfolio process explained to them (no differences between groups).
Overall, parents were not knowledgeable of the portfolio process.
No parent expressed a concern over the portfolio process.
Parents expressed a willingness to assist in the development of portfolios.

Based on this small sample (n=5), there is little relationship between the number of IEP objectives and alternate portfolio scores.
There is a negative correlation between best practice indicators of IEP development and alternate portfolio scores.
The community and relations variable had the strongest correlation with AP scores, although not statistically significant (.801). The relationship, though, between the community and relations variable and the context component of the AP score was significant (.928).
The relationship between the number of portfolios developed and the program indicators variable was significant (.882).
There was a moderate relationship between teacher training and AP scores (.471), yet a negative correlation between the number of portfolios developed and AP score (-.196).

Summary of Assessment Findings

Little relationship between IEP best practice measures and alternate portfolio scores
The communications and relationships measure (while the actual measure was very low) correlated strongly with the total AP score (.801) and significantly with the context subscore (.928).
The total number of portfolios developed by a particular teacher was correlated w/ the program indicator index (.882) and more specifically the general programming issues component (.966).
There was a strong relationship (.876) between the supports component of the program indicator index and the number of IEP Objectives.

Concentration on mechanics: documentation, settings, supports, and samples
Teachers varied greatly in the particular component of the alternate portfolios they considered easiest/hardest to develop.
Difficulty documenting student performance on targeted skills
Difficulty assisting the student with self-monitoring skills
Difficulty assisting the student with self-evaluation skills
Social relationships were most difficult for teachers to demonstrate.
Consistency between
Low incidence of IEP objectives written for the social curriculum area
Low average percentage of communication and relationship issues in daily programming
Teacher concern that social relationships are the most difficult area to demonstrate
Positive relationship between the high incidence of documentation of adaptations on the IEP and occurrence of individualized strategies and adaptations during daily programming

Instructional Discrepancies

Inconsistency between the high incidence of IEP communication objectives written and the low average percentage for communication and relationship issues in daily programming
Discrepancy between daily use/misuse of calendar system during daily programming and inclusion in IEP document
Inconsistency between poorly written IEP objectives with use of devices, switches, etc. and evidence of use of equipment during daily programming

Additional Instructional Issues

No evidence of systematic instruction in daily programming, though three IEP documents named specific strategies
Most students had an identifiable calendar system, i.e., object or written
Most students required assistance with mobility
Most students relied on prompts: touch cues, verbal prompts, gestural prompts, and/or manual signing
Lack of instruction across multiple settings and materials
Lack of instruction in natural environments
Lack of embedded skill instruction