Critical Review Form – Quantitative Studies #_1 Sample

  • Adapted Word Version Used with Permission –

Instructions: Use tab or arrow keys to move between fields, mouse or spacebar to check/uncheck boxes.
 

CITATION Provide the full citation for this article in APA format:
 
Slade, N., Eisenhower, A., Carter., & Blacher, J.
(2018). Satisfaction with individualized education
programs among parents of young children with
ASD. Exceptional Children. 84(3), 242-260.
 
 
STUDY PURPOSE
 
Was the purpose
stated clearly?
 
X Yes
No
 
Outline the purpose of the study. How does the study apply to your research question?
 
This annotated article corresponds to my Annotated Bibliography Topic of “Roles of Special Education Administrators and Parents in the Individual Education Programs”.   This journal article addresses the parents’ satisfaction with of the IEP with their young children with ASD.
LITERATURE
 
Was relevant background literature reviewed?
X Yes
No
 
Describe the justification of the need for this study:
 
With the large of number of students who currently receive special education services and the prediction of these numbers growing in the future, it is important to develop effective IEP’s.   This in turn will correspond to parents satisfaction and ability to willingly want to productively participate in the IEP.
 
DESIGN
 
Randomized (RCT)
X cohort
single case design
X before and after
case-control
cross-sectional
case study
 
Describe the study design. Was the design appropriate for the study question? (e.g., for knowledge level about this issue, outcomes, ethical issues, etc.):
 
With the major research question designed to address: “How satisfied are parents with children who are diagnosed as ASD with the IEP process for their child.”
 
The following instruments were used in the study to assess this question:
·       IEP satisfaction survey.
·       School perceptions interview.
·       Language ability.
·       Parents completed the Children’s Communication Checklist (CCC-2)
·       Assessed autism severity via the ADOS
·       Child behavioral and emotional functioning was assessed by the Teacher Report Form (TRF)
·       Parent-school connectedness~ using the Parent and Teacher Involvement Scale, parent version (PTIS-P) and teacher version (PTIS-T)
 
 
Specify any biases that may have been operating and the direction of their influence on the results:
 
Bias was reduced as a result of the number of assessments provided.
 
SAMPLE
 
N = Participants were 142 parents raising children with ASD in the Boston, Massachusetts, area (n = 46) and in inland Southern California (n = 96)
 
Was the sample described in detail?
X Yes
No
 
Was sample size
justified?
X Yes
No
N/A
 
Sampling (who; characteristics; how many; how was sampling done?) If more than one group, was there similarity between the groups?:
 
One parent from each family (91% female) completed all surveys and parent interviews, most parents were married (83%) or cohabiting (8%), and 67% had at least a 4-year college degree. We assessed race with an open-ended parent-report item later aggregated into categories: Children were 4% Asian, 17% bi- or multiracial, 4% Black, 11% Latino/a, 50% White, and 4% other; 12% did not provide race. Forty-nine percent of families had an annual income above $80,000. Specifically, 12% earned ≤$25,000, 16% earned $25,001 to $50,000, 23% earned $50,001 to $80,000, 23% earned $80,001 to $110,000, 16% earned $110,001 to $155,000, and 10% earned >$155,000. Children (85% male) were ages 4 to 7 years (mean = 5 years, 7 months) at enrollment and ages 4 to 8 years (mean = 6 years, 1 month) at the Time 2 assessment of IEP satisfaction. At Time 2, children were in preschool (31%), kindergarten (32%), first grade (30%), and second grade (7%). About half (49%) of children spent at least 50% of their day in general education classrooms, and 94% attended public schools (vs. private or parochial). Of the teachers (n = 121), 88% were female, 69% had a master’s degree, and 48% were teaching in a general education classroom.
 
 
Describe ethics procedures. Was informed consent obtained?:
 
The parents volunteered to participate and completed a training session and provided signed consent for their participation and their child with ASD participation.
 

 
 

OUTCOMES
 
Were the outcome
measures reliable?
X Yes
No
Not addressed
 
Were the outcome
measures valid?
X Yes
No
Not addressed
 
Specify the frequency of outcome measurement (i.e., pre, post, follow-up):
 
Follow up procedure was used as the outcome measure.
 
Outcome areas:
 
Parent satisfaction with their child’s IEP outcome
 
List measures used.:
 
See above list of assessment measures
 
INTERVENTION
 
Intervention was described in detail?
X Yes
No
Not addressed
 
Contamination was avoided?
X Yes
No
Not addressed
N/A
 
Cointervention was avoided?
X Yes
No
Not addressed
N/A
 
Provide a short description of the intervention (focus, who delivered it, how often, setting). Could the intervention be replicated in practice?
 
Parents were provided information about effective IEP’s before the study.  After the intervention (IEP process) parents were asked about their satisfaction with their child’s IEP outcome.
 
RESULTS
 
Results were reported in terms of statistical significance?
Yes
No
N/A
Not addressed
 
Were the analysis method(s) appropriate?
Yes
No
Not addressed
 
What were the results? Were they statistically significant (i.e., p < 0.05)? If not statistically significant, was study big enough to show an important difference if it should occur? If there were multiple outcomes, was that taken into account for the statistical analysis?
 
Means and correlations for IEP satisfaction variables are in Table 1. Correlations between three of the four variables (satisfaction with services outlined in the IEP, satisfaction with actual services provided, and agreement between IEP and actual services) exceeded r = .8. The fourth item, which reflected parents’ perceptions of the IEP team effectiveness, was correlated with the other three at rs of .55 to .60, ps < .001. Given these high correlations, the four variables were aggregated into a combined IEP satisfaction variable, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .91.
As presented in Table 1, 54% of parents felt satisfied or very satisfied with the services currently outlined in their children’s IEPs, and 61% felt there was good or very good agreement between the content of their children’s IEP and services actually being provided. Fifty-three percent of parents were satisfied or very satisfied with the services actually being provided to their child, and 60% felt their children’s IEP teams were mostly effective or effective. Examined another way, 14% and 19% of parents were not satisfied with the content of children’s IEPs or the actual services provided, respectively. Thirty-nine percent of parents reported only some, little, or no agreement between the IEP document and the actual services provided, and 40% of parents felt their IEP teams were at least somewhat ineffective.
Given that we examined four aspects of the IEP process (satisfaction with the IEP document, the services provided, the agreement between the document and actual services provided, and the effectiveness of the educational team), we also considered the total number of aspects with which parents were satisfied. As shown in Table 1, 62% of parents were at least somewhat dissatisfied with at least one aspect of the IEP process, whereas 38% of parents were satisfied with all four aspects of the IEP process examined. Examined more closely, 19% of parents were at least somewhat dissatisfied with one or two aspects of the IEP process, whereas 42% of parents were at least somewhat dissatisfied with three or four aspects of the IEP process.
The four IEP satisfaction variables were not related to any of demographic factors examined: child sex, age in months, race, or grade in school; parent gender, education, or race; the number of special education services received; or study site (California vs. Massachusetts). Table 2 gives descriptive statistics for the five domains examined: child developmental functioning, child emotional and behavioral functioning, parent-school connectedness, family financial factors, and teacher variables.
 
 
Clinical importance was reported?
Yes
X No
Not addressed
 
What was the clinical importance of the results? Were differences between groups clinically meaningful? (if applicable)
 
The results were related to parents as a whole satisfaction with the IEP process with their child with ASD and the teacher.
 
Drop-outs were reported?
Yes
No
 
Did any participants drop out from the study? Why? (Were reasons given and were drop-outs handled appropriately?)
 
None reported
 
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
 
Conclusions were appropriate given study methods and results
Yes
No
 
What did the study conclude? What are the implications of these results for practice? What were the main limitations or biases in the study?
 
·       With scarcely over half of parents expressing satisfaction with each aspect of the IEP process, these findings suggest a need for better support and training for teachers and staff involved in the IEP process.
·       Such supports might involve improved training in skills for communicating with families, including around problem solving and shared goal setting, as well as competencies in communicating across cultural differences and in legal IEP standards and practices.
·       Such training ought to be offered not only to classroom teachers and specialists but also to school psychologists and others who often coordinating the IEP process.
·       To the extent that such training happens within schools or districts, school psychologists–assuming they have access to sufficient training in these arenas themselves–may be well positioned to train, support, and coach the teachers in their schools and districts as they navigate these interactions with parents.
·       Parents may also benefit from access to training that equips them with knowledge of special education laws and IEP requirements as well as support that empowers them to advocate effectively for their children.
·       With scarcely over half of parents expressing satisfaction with each aspect of the IEP process, these findings suggest a need for better support and training for teachers and staff involved in the IEP process.
·       These findings also suggest that a systematic revision of the overall IEP process may be warranted to ensure that all stages of the IEP process–not only the meeting itself but also the ways in which IEP-documented services are provided, evaluated, and communicated about with parents–are effective and inclusive of parents.
·       Such a systematic revision needs to ensure that all stages of the IEP process support parents in sharing their opinions and support school personnel in communicating and responding to parents in a culturally responsive manner.