The Origins of University Centers on Developmental Disabilities: Early Expectations and Legislation

This article describes the evolution and early expectations of university-based programs to serve people with disabilities. I describe the how the committee that President John F. Kennedy created to make recommendations about how to better serve people with mental retardation suggested university-based programs that would improve the science and provide training to professionals who work with this community. I describe the early legislation and program decisions that were made by stakeholders that created the first generation of University Affiliated Facilities and Programs to serve people with disabilities

The Origins of University Centers on Developmental Disabilities: Second Generation Expectations and Growth

Part two of a two part publications tracing the evolution of University Centers on Disabilities. Originally University Affiliated Facilities evolved into University Affiliated Programs on disabilities. Early expectations outlined by President Kennedy\u27s Committee on Mental Retardation grew as funding for disability services and programs became available. Key legislation, program developments and organizational decisions are described for the time frame of 1970 through 2000

Evaluation of the Perceived Usefulness and Effectiveness of Psychoeducational Testing Reports at Intermountain Intertribal School

By law and according to conventional practice. individual psychoeducational testing is an essential part of the identification and placement process of handicapped students. However, evidence reported in the literature suggests that testing results, especially in the form of testing reports, are rarely fully utilized. This study was conducted at Intermountain Intertribal School at Brigham City, Utah and demonstrated a method of collecting objective data about the use of psychoeducational testing reports as well as the opinions and suggestions of staff members who used them. More specifically, this study documented: 1. Who the primary users of testing reports were and for what purposes the reports were used. 2. The clarity, accuracy, utility and adequacy of the reports as perceived by staff members. 3. The extent to which reports provided users with unique information about the student being evaluated. 4. The specificity, reality, applicability, and usefulness of the report recommendations as perceived by staff members. In spite of the fact that respondents generally found the reports to be free from jargon and judged the reports to be useful in preparing the student\u27s educational program, results indicate that the testing results were used almost exclusively in the placement of the student and preparation of the student\u27s individual education plan. Specific problems were noted in the writing and editing of the reports and recommendations for increasing the use and usefulness of testing reports are given