Low-incidence Disabilities Research Articles

Recommended practices for teaching assistive technology use to infants and young children with low incidence disabilities seem to have little empirical support but methodological concerns limit the validity of this review1

Recommended practices for teaching assistive technology use to infants and young children with low incidence disabilities seem to have little empirical support but methodological concerns limit the validity of this review1

Current Status of Evidence-Based Practices for Low-Incidence Disabilities

Educators and specialists are required to teach children using “scientifically based research” (§ 1208(6)(37), No Child Left Behind Act of 2001) or “to the extent practicable, special education and related services will be based on peer-reviewed research” (§ 614 (d)(10)(A)(i)9IV) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004). This has caused many educators to ponder the methods used to select and provide interventions for students. Choosing the “best practice” for teaching has always been difficult. It is intensified for students who have been identified as having special needs. How can we be sure that what we offer students is based on peer-reviewed research or appropriate evidence?

The Importance of Effect Sizes in the Interpretation of Research

The Importance of Effect Sizes in the Interpretation of Research

Nurturing moments of transformation in teachers – comparative perspectives on the challenges of professional development

This article discusses teachers' views of their own learning. Two groups of teachers attending graduate programmes in Seattle, Washington in the United States of America (USA) and Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom (UK), participated in a project that encouraged them to discuss examples of effective professional development. The teachers from the UK were enrolled on a Masters degree course for staff working with pupils with autism. The teachers from the USA were enrolled on a Masters degree course specifically focused upon working with children who have moderate to severe difficulties. Both groups of teachers were working, at least for a portion of their timetables, with pupils who had low incidence disabilities. Phyllis Jones, of the University of South Florida, Elizabeth West, from the Department of Special Education at Boise State University, and Dana Stevens, who is working on her PhD in special education at the University of Washington, analysed the critical moments of professional development identified by the teachers in both contexts. Four themes emerged: seeing the relationship between theory and practice, the role of the professor or lecturer in mediating learning, learning from others and reflecting in action. In this article, the authors analyse the themes in relation to the subtle differences that occurred within, and across, the two contexts. This analysis will assist in the design of quality professional development opportunities that reflect teachers' voices. Teachers make meaning of their learning in highly personal ways and, although it is possible to nurture formalised learning opportunities, teacher educators need to be constantly aware of the contextual and personal meaning making that is at play.

Teachers of Students with Low Incidence Disabilities Talk about Their Own Learning: An International Insight

This article discusses an international research project that explores teachers' views of a recent learning experience they perceive to have been effective for them. Fourteen teachers attending graduate courses at the University of Washington, USA (six teachers), and the University of Northumbria, UK (eight teachers), form the sample for this research. Individual structured interviews generated data that allow an insight into the personal meaning making made by the teachers about their own learning experiences, and their thoughts on continued professional development, for them and their colleagues in schools and across their districts. Through a process of collaborative analysis themes of relating theory to practice, mediated teacher learning, learning from others, and reflection in action emerged as potentially important elements to the teachers for their own learning. These themes are presented as a frequency distribution and examples of raw data are provided. Themes are discussed in relation to implications for professional development experiences and potential innovative processes of learning.

Perceived Needs of Students with Low-Incidence Disabilities in Rural Areas

We examined the current perspectives of service providers, administrators, and parents who are linked to the provision of special education and related services to learners with low-incidence disabilities in the United States. The purposes of the investigation were to gain information from the various respondents concerning the adequacy and availability of appropriate educational services for students with low-incidence disabilities and provide information regarding the need for additional services and supports. A detailed survey instrument that included a variety of open-ended response items was developed and mailed to the membership of two professional organizations with strong connections to rural special education. Responses indicated that the biggest areas of need were for highly qualified personnel with the necessary skills and knowledge to meet the needs of learners with low-incidence disabilities and for timely information that would support the education of these learners. Implications for how these concerns can be addressed are provided within the framework of four major functions including: information provision, teacher preparation, local school support, and research.

Low Incidence Disabilities and Personnel Preparation for Rural Areas: Current Status and Future Trends

The shortages of special education personnel are nowhere more severe than in low incidence disabilities in rural schools. This article presents the results of a national study that identified shortage estimates, state certification patterns, personnel preparation programs, and distance delivery mechanisms and examined relationships among these data to assess the state of shortages of special educators in the areas of vision impairments, hearing impairments, severe disabilities, and early intervention. The authors outline current issues and future trends in preparing personnel in low incidence disabilities for rural areas.

An Examination of the Research and Training Needs in the Field of Deaf Education

THE NATIONAL CENTER on Low-Incidence Disabilities conducted a needs assessment of the research and training needs in the field of deaf education. A total of 331 professionals, parents, administrators, and university faculty responded to the survey. Overall, respondents indicated that the number-one priority was to educate administrators about services that are appropriate for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. The second most important concern was how to work within the education system to change it. The third priority was teaching reading strategies. Additional priorities are reported for all respondents, as well as comparisons among the different respondent groups. Implications of the results are presented.

Special educators in inclusive education programmes: reframing their work as teacher leadership

Special education teachers are finding themselves in increasingly complex and demanding contexts of practice. Many are considering leaving the field or have already done so. These conditions suggest a decline in the appeal of professional practice as a special education teacher, with potentially deleterious short‐ and long‐term effects on the lives of students with disabilities. Special education teachers identified as highly effective in serving students with low incidence disabilities in inclusive education settings were convened to understand better their realities of practice in inclusive education settings and to identify supports for such practice. Findings support and expand those presented in Bright Futures for Exceptional Learners (2001) a report published by the US Council for Exceptional Children. In addition to corroborating the complexity of practice, the special educators articulated a sophisticated understanding of how their schools and districts function organizationally and politically. This understanding resulted in access to and utilization of a wide array of resources for students. It is posited that the work of special educators in inclusive education settings is appropriately viewed as teacher leadership. Recommendations are offered for engaging local conversations that result in support for special educators in their central role as leaders of inclusive education.

The Effect of No Child Left behind on Rural Students with Low Incidence Disabilities

As part of a doctoral level seminar, students read recent articles on the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation, summarized and developed a list of probable issues that face students with low incidence disabilities in rural areas, and then interviewed directors of special education. The five doctoral students contacted 14 directors of special education in rural districts and discussed the issues that they had identified. The results of these discussions are reported and involve various themes (e.g., school choice, transition, alternate assessment, etc.). In addition, a discussion section includes recommendations for service planning for students with low incidence disabilities in rural areas.

Perceptions of trainers and practitioners regarding assessment and intervention for students with low incidence disabilities

Two national surveys of the perceptions of trainers and practitioners regarding assessment and intervention for students with low incidence disabilities (LID) were conducted. The first survey, sent to the directors of 250 school psychology training programs, was designed to determine the extent and type of training in assessment and intervention for students with LID offered in school psychology training programs. The second survey, mailed to 500 randomly selected National Association of School Psychologists' (NASP) members, was developed to assess the extent and type of assessment and intervention for students with LID provided by school practitioners. Responses were received from 121 trainers (50.8% response rate) and 361 practitioners (72.2% response rate). Results indicated, while assessment and intervention for LID remains a small part of the school psychology caseload, school psychologists are using many of the best practice methods. However, recommendations are provided for increased awareness of additional methods, for seeking closer collaboration with special education professionals who specialize in working with this student population, and for more possibilities of subspecialization for future psychologists who will possess expertise in conducting assessment and intervention for LID. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Psychol Schs 42: 677–689, 2005.

Levels of evidence: universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) and early hearing detection and intervention systems (EHDI)

Levels of evidence differ according to the audience addressed. Implementation of universal newborn hearing screening requires responses to a complex myriad of diverse groups: the general public, families with children who are deaf or hard of hearing, the deaf and hard of hearing communities, hospital administrators, physicians (pediatricians, general practitioners, ear nose and throat physicians, geneticists), managed care, Medicaid, insurance agencies, and politicians. The level of evidence required by medical/health agencies and task forces may differ from the levels of evidence available in education and intervention. Issues related to the low incidence of the disability, the lack of a normal distribution within the disability study, the obstacles to random assignment to treatment, and designs that include a control group with “no treatment” have implications legally and ethically for the professional providing services to families and children who are deaf or hard of hearing. This session will discuss issues related to “convenience samples,” number of subjects included in research studies, and the population required to obtain a large enough sample of children with low-incidence disabilities. The level of evidence required to demonstrate sensitive periods of development, which are a critical element for justification of implementing a universal newborn hearing screening includes both behavioral and neurological information. Sensitive periods may have different duration for different aspects of development, such as social-emotional development, auditory and speech development, or language development. Further complicating the question of sensitive periods of development are the distinct possibility that different sensitive periods exist for development of age-level vocabulary, for establishing English phonology, or for mastering English syntax. Research outcomes provide evidence that age of identification of hearing loss is reduced, that age of intervention initiation is lowered, and that the outcomes of intervention are better because of the establishment of a screening program. Most professionals in communication disorders believe that screening is not the actual cause of better developmental outcomes but that the age when children begin to have access to language and communication and the characteristics of the intervention are the primary cause of better outcomes. Screening is the avenue through which access to quality intervention is made available. The research still remains at an infant level of development such that there is very little evidence for the efficacy of specific characteristics of the intervention provided. Learning outcomes (1) The learner will be able to identify the obstacles in conducting research on the effectiveness of intervention of children identified through universal newborn hearing screening programs. (2) The learner will be able to identify the type of research on developmental outcomes of children with early-identified hearing loss.

Levels of evidence: universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) and early hearing detection and intervention systems (EHDI)

Levels of evidence differ according to the audience addressed. Implementation of universal newborn hearing screening requires responses to a complex myriad of diverse groups: the general public, families with children who are deaf or hard of hearing, the deaf and hard of hearing communities, hospital administrators, physicians (pediatricians, general practitioners, ear nose and throat physicians, geneticists), managed care, Medicaid, insurance agencies, and politicians. The level of evidence required by medical/health agencies and task forces may differ from the levels of evidence available in education and intervention. Issues related to the low incidence of the disability, the lack of a normal distribution within the disability study, the obstacles to random assignment to treatment, and designs that include a control group with “no treatment” have implications legally and ethically for the professional providing services to families and children who are deaf or hard of hearing. This session will discuss issues related to “convenience samples,” number of subjects included in research studies, and the population required to obtain a large enough sample of children with low-incidence disabilities. The level of evidence required to demonstrate sensitive periods of development, which are a critical element for justification of implementing a universal newborn hearing screening includes both behavioral and neurological information. Sensitive periods may have different duration for different aspects of development, such as social-emotional development, auditory and speech development, or language development. Further complicating the question of sensitive periods of development are the distinct possibility that different sensitive periods exist for development of age-level vocabulary, for establishing English phonology, or for mastering English syntax. Research outcomes provide evidence that age of identification of hearing loss is reduced, that age of intervention initiation is lowered, and that the outcomes of intervention are better because of the establishment of a screening program. Most professionals in communication disorders believe that screening is not the actual cause of better developmental outcomes but that the age when children begin to have access to language and communication and the characteristics of the intervention are the primary cause of better outcomes. Screening is the avenue through which access to quality intervention is made available. The research still remains at an infant level of development such that there is very little evidence for the efficacy of specific characteristics of the intervention provided. (1) The learner will be able to identify the obstacles in conducting research on the effectiveness of intervention of children identified through universal newborn hearing screening programs. (2) The learner will be able to identify the type of research on developmental outcomes of children with early-identified hearing loss.

Parents' In-School Values and Post-School Expectations for Transition-Aged Youth with Disabilities

A survey was conducted with 234 parents of secondary-level students with high- and low-incidence disabilities in two urban school systems about the importance of secondary instructional domains and transition planning and their post-school expectations for their son or daughter. Significant differences were found between parents of students with high- and low-incidence disabilities in the values they placed on instructional domains and transition planning areas, their desired independent living situations, and their post-school expectations for education and employment for their son or daughter. Implications for practice and research are discussed.

Early intervention for children who are deafblind

Deafblindness (multi-sensory impairment) is a very rare disability causing extreme developmental disadvantage. All areas of development are affected from birth, jeopardising children’s personal development and their early family relationships. Professionals with expert knowledge of deafblindness are scarce because of its low incidence. Other complex, low-incidence disabilities share the problems of global developmental impact and limited community knowledge of conditions.Limited research has been undertaken regarding the benefits of early intervention for children with deafblindness. Effective early intervention is needed for this group, especially as the national introduction of newborn hearing screening will lower the average age of diagnosis. The complexity of the disability means that many professionals are usually involved in delivering intervention, necessitating effective multidisciplinary coordination.In this paper, the effects of deafblindness on development are summarised and the literature on early intervention for children with deafblindness is reviewed, together with an overview of findings from work with children with single sensory impairments and anecdotal evidence from programmes in other countries with well-developed services for children with deafblindness. The review indicates that the provision of early intervention for children with deafblindness should be specialist, coordinated and family-focused. The requirements for children with other complex low-incidence disabilities are likely to be similar.

Assessment in Low-Incidence Disabilities: The Day-to-Day Realities

This article addresses issues in assessment of students who are deaf, hard of hearing, blind, and visually impaired in rural school districts, where specially trained personnel may be in short supply. Accommodations and modifications for formal and informal assessment are suggested, changes in service delivery models are recommended, and additional resources are provided.

Self-Determination for Students with Disabilities: Views of Parents and Teachers

Parents and general and special education teachers of high school students with high-and low-incidence disabilities were surveyed about their views on self-determination. Factor analyses of parent data yielded three factors: student participation in individualized education program (IEP) meetings, teaching self-determination, and students' opportunity to make choices and express interests. Analysis of teacher data yielded two factors: familiarity with self-determination and students' opportunity to learn and practice self-determination. Parents strongly supported participation in IEP meetings and the teaching of self-determination. Teachers slightly agreed that they were familiar with self-determination and that students had the opportunity to learn and apply these skills. Students' instructional program mediated parents' beliefs. Interactions between teacher type, incidence of disability, instructional program, and teaching experience mediated teacher beliefs.

Scientifically Based Research in Education and Students with Low Incidence Disabilities

Scientifically Based Research in Education and Students with Low Incidence Disabilities

Preparation of Early Intervention Practitioners for Working with Young Children with Low Incidence Disabilities

Preparation of Early Intervention Practitioners for Working with Young Children with Low Incidence Disabilities

Instruction of students with moderate and severe disabilities in elementary classrooms

Twelve students with low-incidence disabilities were observed in their kindergarten through third grade, general education classrooms. Frequency data were collected on the number of teaching opportunities delivered on the learning objectives reflected in the students’ Individual Education Programs, the individual who delivered the teaching opportunity, and the instructional context that was occurring at the time the teaching opportunity occurred. Results indicated that teaching opportunities on the learning objectives occurred at an overall rate per minute of 0.224 and 4 students received no teaching opportunities. The general education teacher and special education assistant delivered the most instruction in 1:1 instructional contexts. Results are discussed in relation to improving the quality of instruction when students with disabilities are included in general education classrooms.