Early Interventionist Self-Efficacy Survey for pre- and post-training evaluation

Item	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neither Agree or Disagree	Agree	Strongly Agree
1. If a family had difficulty implementing plans we have developed, I would be able to accurately assess whether the plans required modification.	1	2	3	4	5
2. When a child shows improvement, it is because I have been effective in facilitating the family’s ability to support their child’s development.	1	2	3	4	5
3. When it comes right down to it, early intervention personnel really can’t do much because most of a child’s performance depends on the home environment. a	5	4	3	2	1
4. If my supervisor suggests that I change some of my strategies for working with families, I would feel confident that I have the necessary skills to implement the change.	1	2	3	4	5
5. Even an early interventionist with good skills may not reach many families. a	5	4	3	2	1
6. I can collaborate well with team members from other disciplines.	1	2	3	4	5
7. If a family masters a strategy quickly, it would probably be because I knew the necessary steps to facilitate their acquisition of skills.	1	2	3	4	5
8. If a family member did not remember information we had covered in a previous visit, I would know how to increase their interest and retention for the next visit.	1	2	3	4	5
9. The amount that a child will learn is primarily related to family background. a	5	4	3	2	1
10. I have enough training to deal with most problems encountered in providing early intervention services to families and their children.	1	2	3	4	5
11. Much of the time my efforts are not effective due to a child’s background and the lack of community resources. a	5	4	3	2	1
12. When a child is having difficulty with a task, I am usually able to provide the family with suggestions.	1	2	3	4	5
13. Through my experiences in the field, I have developed the skills that are necessary to serve families well.	1	2	3	4	5
14. If I really try, I can get through to even the most challenging families.	1	2	3	4	5
15. A child’s genetic predisposition for growth and development can negate the best efforts of even a well-prepared early interventionist. a	5	4	3	2	1

Note: Adapted from Lamorey & Wilcox (2005). Early intervention practitioners’ self-efficacy: a measure and its applications. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20(2005), 69-84.

^a Item score is reversed to show increased self-efficacy with an increased score.

Seven Steps of Implementation of HBEIP

Stage three: Implementation. The decision of adopting these three research-based practices led to the next stage, implementation, or “installing” the selected practices in the teacher training program as a supervised practicum. This implementation stage played a critical role.

Given the language differences between the local community and the context in which the practices were developed, an additional step was added, language translation and content adaptation, as shown in Figure 2 (Fixsen et al., 2005).

Figure 2. Seven steps for implementing the HBEIP. Adapted from “Core Implementation Components,” by Fixsen et al., 2005, Implementation Research: a Synthesis of the Literature, p. 29. National Implementation Research Network, University of South Florida.

Step 1: Translation of materials. The lead researcher and two international researchers developed training materials for the practicum students at SCNU, including readings, class lectures and case studies. The original and translated materials were examined by the two local researchers to identify essential adaptations and to ensure translation equivalence. Adjustments (e.g., additional reading materials on theoretical frameworks, lectures on child development) were also made to the current teacher education program at SCNU to prepare student teachers for the practicum.

Step 2: Recruitment of HEBIP trainees. A brief interview was conducted with each HEBIP applicant by the local researchers. Before the interviews, a brief presentation was provided to familiarize the applicants with the mission, vision, goals, activities, and responsibilities after being enrolled in the HBEIP. Selection was made based on the following inclusion criteria: (1) preference would be given to SCNU students, (2) have at least one year of training in special education, (3) currently work with or plan to work with young children with disabilities and their families, and (4) are committed to participate in practicum.

Step 3: Preservice training. The lead researcher provided an intensive three-week training to participants, focused on the theoretical foundations and core components of the three selected practices (i.e. ABI, RBI and CBA), with considerations of participants’ baseline level of abilities (see Table 3). The training format was a combination of in-class lecture, discussion, role play activities, and field practice. The training topics and trainers in this intensive training are listed as below.

Table 3

Training Topics of HBEIP

Delivered by local researchers	Delivered by the lead researcher
1. Values & beliefs about disabilities	1. Screening and monitoring child development
2. Basic behavioral management strategies	2. Assessing daily routines and supportive resources in the family
3. Individualized education plan	3. Assessing children in natural environments
4. Child development and milestones	4. Interpreting reporting results from assessments
5. High prevalence disabilities in early childhood	5. Linking assessment and goals
6. Family systems theory: characteristics, structure, function, and life cycle	6. Establishing partnerships with families: In-take screening & first visit
7. Ecological system theory of child development	7. Parent consultation and coaching strategies
8. Meeting family’s needs	8. Naturalistic strategies to support child development: ABI & RBI
	9. Transdisciplinary teaming
	10. Roles of home visitors
	11. Referral and exiting services in the community
	12. Professional development and future career

           

Step 4: Consultation and coaching. After the training, trainees who indicated interests in practicum (N = 40) were divided into groups of five and started to deliver home-based intervention for eight local families. During practicum, follow-up consultation and coaching were provided in two formats: on-site seminars online meetings. Each of the practicum group and one faculty member at SCNU visited the focus family weekly. The HEBIP trainees were coached to reflect on their experience and home visiting practices after each home visit. In addition, the two local researchers provided feedback on their practices and answered questions on a weekly basis. During the practicum phase, four monthly online meeting sessions were held by the lead researcher to address common challenges across all practicum students, focusing on: (1) reviewing their individualized child-focused goals, family goals, collaboratively developed parent-child activity plans, and family feedback; and (2) providing additional in-service training on specific topics such as facilitating child communication at home, and communicating assessment results with parents. Need-based online consultations were also provided by the lead researcher to individuals or a group so that questions and needs could be timely addressed.

            Steps 5 and 6: Staff and program evaluation. To evaluate the effectiveness of HBEIP, a self-rated efficacy survey was completed by all participants pre- and post-training to examine: (1) whether the program improves their competence in delivering family-centered practices and, (2) potential cultural mismatch of the practices. Additionally, eight months after completing HBEIP and starting independent work with young children with disabilities and their families, a needs assessment was distributed via e-mail to the trainees to collect information on: (1) improvements that can be made with HBEIP, (2) training quality (e.g., trainer qualification and preparation) and format preference of content delivery, (3) their needs for support, and (4) barriers to implementation and challenges encountered.

            Steps 7: Facilitative and administrative support. The research team had bi-weekly on-line meetings throughout the implementation of the HBEIP to make decisions on facilitative and administrative support. The lead researcher served as a consultant to help the local researchers integrated the participation of HBEIP into other activities in their undergraduate and graduate programs at SCNU, as well as took care of the logistics during home visits and facilitating group meetings and training. International researchers and the lead researcher provided most of the professional trainings and supervision via web-based technologies to promote synchronous (e.g., videoconferencing, instant messages and chat room discussions) and asynchronous interactions (e.g., lecture videos, emails, on-line library resources) with participants. In addition, three SCNU master students in HBEIP volunteered to serve as coordinators to help maintain routine communication between the participants and the research team. They also provided daily administrative support for practicum.