Title: Patterns in Child Outcomes Summary Data:
1Patterns in Child Outcomes Summary Data
Analytic Approaches and Early Findings from the
ENHANCE Project
Cornelia Taylor, Lauren Barton, Donna
Spiker September 19-21, 2011
Measuring and Improving Child and Family Outcomes
Conference New Orleans, LA
2Todays session
- Provide a brief update about ENHANCE
- Identify the purpose and approach of the state
data study - Describe some preliminary findings from initial
states involved in the state data study - Explain how other states could examine their own
data in the same way as that presented - Discuss any emerging implications for validity of
the COS and for interpreting individual state
data
3Origins of ENHANCE
Need for Outcomes Data Challenging to Collect
4Origins of ENHANCE
COS Process
Implemented gt 40 States, Little Systematic
Validation for Use in Accountability
Need for Outcomes Data Challenging to Collect
5Origins of ENHANCE
COS Process
?
Implemented gt 40 States, Little Systematic
Validation for Use in Accountability
Investigate Learn
Need for Outcomes Data Challenging to Collect
6Early Evidence
- Belief in potential for COS process to be valid
based on - Existing literature team-based decision-making
can be reliable and valid - Existing literature teams are effective in
identifying individual childrens functioning so
that they can plan and deliver appropriate
services - Early data from states pilot sites, small ns
showing similarity in distributions, sensible
patterns for subgroups - Anecdotal data from trainers participants reach
decisions fairly easily and consistently
7ENHANCE
- Project launched by the Early Childhood Outcomes
Center (ECO) and SRI International - Funded by the U.S. Dept. of Education, Institute
for Educational Sciences July 1, 2009 - Series of studies designed to find out
- the conditions under which the Child Outcomes
Summary (COS) Process produces meaningful and
useful data for accountability and program
improvement - the positive and/or negative impact of the COS
process on programs and staff - what revisions to the form and/or the
process are needed
8Four ENHANCE Studies
- Comparison with Child Assessments
- Team Decision-Making
- Provider Survey
- State Data Study
9Studies 1-334 Project Data Collection Sites
- 17 Part C (Birth to 3)
- Illinois
- Maine
- Minnesota
- New Mexico
- Texas
- North Carolina
- 17 Part B Preschool (3-5)
- Illinois
- Maine
- Minnesota
- New Mexico
- Texas
- South Carolina
10Comparison with Child Assessments Study
- Goals
- Compare COS ratings to BDI-2, Vineland-II scores
- Program Entry
- Program Exit
- Compare conclusions from COS and assessments
- Sample
- 108 children - birth to 3
- 108 children - 3 5 years
- Study Status
- Recruiting families
- About ½ of the sample enrolled
- See expected variability in sample (ages,
disability types) and initial COS
ratings/assessment scores
11Team Decision-Making Study
- Goals
- Learn more about the implementation of the COS
process, including how the team reaches a
decision about a rating and what is discussed. - Do COS ratings assigned match the developmental
level of the behaviors presented in the meeting? - What is team understanding of outcomes and rating
criteria? - Sample
- 180 children each from Part C Part B 619
½ entry ½
exit meetings - Study Status
- Starting data collection now in about ½ the sites
- 19 videos received
- Expect to start coding videos Summer 2012
12Provider Survey
- Goals
- What processes are being used to determine COS
ratings? - What is the impact of the COS process on
practice? - What have providers learned about the COS?
- What else would be helpful?
- Sample
- All providers in the program who
- participate in the COS process
- are invited to participate
- Study Status
- Developing survey content
- Survey expected Spring 2012
13State Data Study
- Goals
- Analyze characteristics of COS data and
relationships to other variables - Look for consistency in patterns across states
- Examples of Questions
- Are patterns in COS data across states consistent
with those predicted for high quality data? - How are COS ratings related to hypothesized
variables (e.g., disability type) and not to
other variables (e.g., gender)? - How are team variables related to COS ratings?
- Sample
- All valid COS data within the state for a
reporting year - 15-18 states conducting all analyses
- Additional states sharing select analyses
14State Data Study Status
- Refined procedures for gathering data tables by
gathering data from a preliminary group of 6
states - Mostly states used procedures and generated data
tables - A few provided formatted data files for SRI to
analyze - Beginning to analyze data from that preliminary
group -
- Soon will request data from other states in state
data study and permission to use relevant data
additional states have already analyzed and shared
15State Data StudyPreliminary Data from 5 States
16How would these data analyses be conducted?
- States would send data to SRI annually
- de-identified data files OR
- aggregate output or reports from a set of
requested analyses - Examples of analyses include
- the distributions of entry and exit COSF scores
- relationships between outcomes
- relationships between outcomes across time
- relationships of outcome scores to other factors
such as disability and gender
17What data would I need to submit?
- Data collected at entry and exit from Part C and
Part B 619 programs - COSF ratings
- Additional child descriptors (e.g. race, gender,
primary disability) - Variables that describe the setting or
composition of the services
18How will I submit data?
- De-identified data files
- Templates developed in MS Excel
- Submitted through a secure server
- Analyzed data
- Table shells developed in MS Word and MS Excel
- Submitted through secure server or emailed
19Who do I contact for more information?
- Cornelia Taylor
- cornelia.taylor_at_sri.com
- (650) 859-3092
20Questions? Comments? Reactions?
21Entry rating distributions
22Entry Rating Expectations
- What should entry ratings look like?
- Should they differ across outcomes?
- Where do most of the ratings fall?
- How much should the extremes of the scale be used
( 1 or 7)?
23Entry Data Analysis
- The following data are from 3 Part C programs and
2 Part B programs - All data are from 08 09
- The data are entry cohorts
- i.e. all children who entered during the FFY
24Part C 08-09 entry ratings across states Outcome
A
1 2 3
4 5 6
7
25Part C 08-09 entry ratings across states Outcome
B
1 2 3
4 5 6
7
26Part C 08-09 entry ratings across states Outcome
C
1 2 3
4 5 6
7
27Outcome A Average Entry Ratings
28Outcome B Average Entry Ratings
29Outcome C Average Entry Ratings
30Things to notice
- The difference in distributions between Part C
and Part B are largest for Outcome C - Children in Part B enter with higher ratings
31Part C 08-09 average ratings across outcomes
32Things to Notice
- Variations in patterns across outcomes
33Conclusions Across Part C and Part B
- More that ½ of all children enter with a COS
rating of - 3,4 or 5 across outcomes.
- An average of 12 of children enter at with the
very lowest (1) or the very highest (7) across
outcomes. - The typical entry distribution has most children
towards the middle of the distribution.
34Pattern Check if the distribution of entry
scores in your state seems to be heavily weighted
towards one end or the other of the distribution.
No Action Interpretation You may be serving a
population that is higher or lower functioning
that other states.
Action Interpretation Your providers may be
systematically misunderstanding the definition
of COS rating points.
35Additional Entry Analysis
- Correlations between entry ratings
- Cross tabs of entry ratings by
- Program
- Primary disability
- Race/ethnicity
36Exit distributions
37Part C 08-09 exit ratings across states Outcome A
1 2 3
4 5 6
7
38Part C 08-09 exit ratings across states Outcome B
1 2 3
4 5 6
7
39Part C 08-09 exit ratings across states Outcome C
1 2 3
4 5 6
7
40Part B 08-09 exit ratings across states Outcome A
1 2 3
4 5 6
7
41Part B 08-09 exit ratings across states Outcome B
1 2 3
4 5 6
7
42Part B 08-09 exit ratings across states Outcome C
1 2 3
4 5 6
7
43Outcome A Average Exit Ratings
44Outcome B Average Exit Ratings
45Outcome C Average Exit Ratings
46Part C 08-09 average exit scores across outcomes
(state n 3)
47Part B 08-09 average exit scores across outcomes
(state n3)
48Things to Notice
- Variation in ratings across outcomes
- The exit distribution is shifted toward a higher
rating than is the entry distribution - For Part B, the average percent of children with
a rating of 7 is much higher for Outcome C than
for the other two outcomes
49Pattern Check the distribution of exit scores in
your state is not skewed towards the higher end
of the rating scale.
- No Action Interpretation You may be serving a
lower functioning group than other states - If this interpretation is true, it should also be
apparent in your entry distribution
Action Interpretation The children in your
programs may not be making expected gains.
50Entry-Exit Paired Distribution
- Choosing a metric for looking at paired
distributions - Progress categories
- Side-by-side entry exit comparisons
- Both of the above can be completed using the COS
calculator 2.0
51Exit rating minus Entry rating
- How many points the childs rating changed
between entry and exit? - What would you expect to see?
Exit Rating Entry Rating Exit rating Entry rating
7 3 4
4 4 0
5 2 3
3 4 -1
52Part C exit score entry score 08-09
-4 -2 0
2 4
53Part B exit score entry score 08-09
54Things to Notice
- Most childrens ratings increase 1, 2, or 3
points, or they stay the same - Very few children have ratings that decrease
- However, more children have ratings that decrease
in Part C than in Part B
55Pattern Check if a large percentage of children
in your state make large increases in their
ratings
No Action Interpretation Your programs are very
effective and children make large gains (verify!).
Action Interpretation Providers are not using
the scale correctly and may be inflating exit
ratings and/or deflating entry ratings.
56Additional entry-exit analysis
- Correlations between entry and exit
- Progress categories by other variables (e.g.,
disability type, primary language)
57Summary of pattern checks
- The distribution of entry scores in your state
seems to be heavily weighted towards one end or
the other of the distribution - The distribution of exit scores in your state is
not skewed towards the higher end of the rating
scale. - A large percentage of children in your state make
large increases in their ratings
58Find out more
- ENHANCE Website
- http//ENHANCE.sri.com
- ECO Center Website
- http//www.the-ECO-center.org
- Contact ENHANCE staff
- E-mail ENHANCE_at_sri.com