Patterns in Child Outcomes Summary Data:

Patterns in Child Outcomes Summary

Data:

Cornelia Taylor, Lauren Barton, Donna Spiker

September 19-21, 2011 Measuring and Improving Child and Family Outcomes Conference

New Orleans, LA

Analytic Approaches and Early Findings from the ENHANCE Project

• 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

Today’s session

Origins of ENHANCE

Need for Outcomes

Data – Challenging to Collect

Origins of ENHANCE

Need for Outcomes

Data – Challenging to Collect

COS Process

Implemented > 40 States,

Little Systematic

Validation for Use in

Accountability

Origins of ENHANCE

Need for Outcomes

Data – Challenging to Collect

COS Process

Implemented > 40 States,

Little Systematic

Validation for Use in

Accountability

?Investigate… Learn

Early 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 children’s functioning so that they can plan and deliver appropriate services

• Early data from states: pilot sites, small n’s showing similarity in distributions, sensible patterns for subgroups

• Anecdotal data from trainers: participants reach decisions fairly easily and consistently

ENHANCE

• 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

Four ENHANCE Studies

1) Comparison with Child Assessments

2) Team Decision-Making3) Provider Survey4) State Data Study

Studies 1-3:34 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

9

Goals• Compare COS ratings to BDI-2, Vineland-II scores

Program Entry Program Exit

• Compare conclusions from COS and assessmentsSample• 108 children - birth to 3• 108 children - 3 – 5 yearsStudy Status• Recruiting families• About ½ of the sample enrolled• See expected variability in sample (ages, disability types)

and initial COS ratings/assessment scores

Comparison with Child Assessments Study

Team 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 meetingsStudy Status• Starting data collection now in about ½ the sites• 19 videos received• Expect to start coding videos Summer 2012

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 participateStudy Status• Developing survey content• Survey expected Spring 2012

Provider Survey

Goals• Analyze characteristics of COS data and relationships to

other variables• Look for consistency in patterns across statesExamples 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

State Data Study

• 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

State Data Study: Status

State Data Study:Preliminary Data from 5 States

3 Part C (Birth to 3) 3 Part B Preschool (3-5)

How 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

What 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

How 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

Who do I contact for more information?

Cornelia [email protected](650) 859-3092

Questions? Comments? Reactions?

Entry rating distributions

• 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)?

Entry Rating Expectations

Entry 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

Part C 08-09 entry ratings across states; Outcome A

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

State AState BState D

1 2 3 4 5

6 7

Part C 08-09 entry ratings across states; Outcome B

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

State AState BState D

1 2 3 4 5

6 7

Part C 08-09 entry ratings across states; Outcome C

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

State AState BState D

1 2 3 4 5

6 7

Outcome A – Average Entry Ratings

1 2 3 4 5 6 70.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Part C (n =3)Part B (n=2)

Outcome B – Average Entry Ratings

1 2 3 4 5 6 70.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Part C (n =3)Part B (n=2)

Outcome C – Average Entry Ratings

1 2 3 4 5 6 70.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Part C (n=3)Part B (n=2)

• The difference in distributions between Part C and Part B are largest for Outcome C Children in Part B enter with higher ratings

Things to notice

Part C 08-09 average ratings across outcomes

1 2 3 4 5 6 70.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

OC-AOC-BOC-C

• Variations in patterns across outcomes

Things to Notice

• 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.

Conclusions Across Part C and Part B

No Action Interpretation: You may be serving a population that is higher or lower functioning that other states.

Pattern Check: if the distribution of entry scores in your state seems to be heavily weighted towards one end or the other of the distribution.

Action Interpretation: Your providers may be systematically misunderstanding the definition of COS rating points.

• Correlations between entry ratings• Cross tabs of entry ratings by:

Program Primary disability Race/ethnicity

Additional Entry Analysis

Exit distributions

Part C 08-09 exit ratings across states; Outcome A

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

State AState DState E

1 2 3 4 5

6 7

Part C 08-09 exit ratings across states; Outcome B

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

State AState DState E

1 2 3 4 5

6 7

Part C 08-09 exit ratings across states; Outcome C

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

State AState DState E

1 2 3 4 5

6 7

Part B 08-09 exit ratings across states; Outcome A

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

State AState DState E

1 2 3 4 5

6 7

Part B 08-09 exit ratings across states; Outcome B

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

State AState DState E

1 2 3 4 5

6 7

Part B 08-09 exit ratings across states; Outcome C

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

State AState DState E

1 2 3 4 5

6 7

Outcome A – Average Exit Ratings

1 2 3 4 5 6 70.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Part C (n=3)Part B (n=3)

Outcome B – Average Exit Ratings

1 2 3 4 5 6 70.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Part C (n=3)Part B (n=3)

Outcome C – Average Exit Ratings

1 2 3 4 5 6 70.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

Part C (n=3)Part B (n=3)

Part C 08-09 average exit scores across outcomes (state n = 3)

1 2 3 4 5 6 70.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

OC-AOC-BOC-C

Part B 08-09 average exit scores across outcomes (state n=3)

1 2 3 4 5 60.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

OC-AOC-BOC-C

• 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

Things to Notice

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

Pattern Check: the distribution of exit scores in your state is not skewed towards the higher end of the rating scale.

Action Interpretation: The children in your programs may not be making expected gains.

• 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

Entry-Exit Paired Distribution

• How many points the child’s rating changed between entry and exit?

• What would you expect to see?

Exit rating minus Entry rating

Exit Rating Entry Rating Exit rating – Entry rating

7 3 4

4 4 0

5 2 3

3 4 -1

Part C exit score – entry score; 08-09

-4 -2 0 2 4

Part B exit score – entry score; 08-09

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

State BState CState D

-2 0 2 4

Things to Notice

• Most children’s 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

No Action Interpretation: Your programs are very effective and children make large gains (verify!).

Pattern Check: if a large percentage of children in your state make large increases in their ratings

Action Interpretation: Providers are not using the scale correctly and may be inflating exit ratings and/or deflating entry ratings.

Additional entry-exit analysis

• Correlations between entry and exit• Progress categories by other variables (e.g., disability

type, primary language)

• 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

Summary of pattern checks

Find out more

• ENHANCE Website– http://ENHANCE.sri.com

• ECO Center Website– http://www.the-ECO-center.org

• Contact ENHANCE staff– E-mail: [email protected]