A Comprehensive and Additive System for Child-Focused Assessment and Evaluation in EI/ECSE

One of the more serious problems facing the field of early intervention/early childhood special education is the disconnect between the community programs that offer screening, eligibility determination, curricular assessment (i.e., programmatic assessment), and progress monitoring services. First, we provide definitions of these service components to ensure clarity. Second, the substantial disconnect found between the screening, eligibility determination, curricular assessment, and progress monitoring components in most communities is discussed. Third, an alternative conceptual framework and its rationale are offered. This framework is designed to ensure that information collected is comprehensive, and that information/data gathered during each component serves as the platform for the next component. An example clarifies the application of the framework

Content Validity Analyses of Qualitative Feedback on the Revised Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System for Infants and Children (AEPS) Test

Early childhood assessment practices, procedures, and tools can lay the foundation for an effective intervention program. The purpose of this article is to report the results of a content validity study conducted on a revision of Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System for infants and children (AEPS®) Test, a widely used early childhood assessment/evaluation instrument. A panel of early childhood and early childhood special educator experts was assembled and asked to provide qualitative feedback on the content of the revised AEPS Test. Experts were asked to address five specific questions about item content, developmental sequences, and if assessment items represented quality teaching targets for young children. Qualitative results were used to modify items, developmental sequences, and area content

The Peculiar Collective Bargaining Status of Hospital Housestaff

Article discusses confusion as to whether state or federal labor relations boards may decide the collective bargaining rights of housestaff in non-profit hospitals. The National Labor Relations Board found that housestaff were primarily students rather than employees and consequently not a labor organization within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. However, since the position is contrary to that which many state courts and labor boards have adopted the article examines (1)if the NLRB preempted state control of labor relations of housestaff in non-profit hospitals and (2) if so, will the federal decision endure, despite the dissatisfaction of state courts and agencies

An Activity-Based Approach to Early Intervention

x, 242 p.; ill.; 23 cm