Download the Journal (PDF) - Division on Autism and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ate retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 24, 363–370. Miracle, S. A., Collins, B. C., Schuster, J. W., & Grisham-Brown, J. (2001). Peer- versus teacherdelivered instruction: Effects on acquisition and maintenance. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36, 373– 385. Romer, L. T., Busse, D. G., Fewell, R. R., & Vadasy, P. F. (1985). The relative effectiveness of special education teachers and peer tutors. Education of <strong>the</strong> Visually Handicapped, 17, 99–115. Schuster, J. W., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., & Guiltinan, S. (1988). The effectiveness of a constant time delay procedure to teach chained responses to adolescents with mental retardation. <strong>Journal</strong> of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 169–178. Schuster, J. W., Morse, T. E., Ault, M. J., Doyle, P. M., Wolery, M., & Crawford, M. (1998). Constant time delay with chained tasks: A review of <strong>the</strong> literature. Education and Treatment of Children, 21, 74–106. Tekin-Iftar, E. (2003). Effectiveness of peer delivered simultaneous prompting on teaching community signs to students with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 77–94. Tekin, E., & Kircaali-Iftar, G. (2002). Comparison of <strong>the</strong> effectiveness and efficiency of two response prompting procedures delivered by sibling tutors. 122 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-March 2008 Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 283–299. Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler intelligence scale for children – third edition. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler adult intelligence scale – third edition. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Werts, M. G., Caldwell, N. K., & Wolery, M. (1996). Peer modeling of response chains: Observational learning by students with disabilities. <strong>Journal</strong> of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 53–66. Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., Doyle, P. M. (1992). Teaching students with moderate and severe disabilities: Use of response prompting strategies. White Plains, NY: Longman. Wolery, M., Bailey, D. B., & Sugai, G. M. (1988). Effective teaching: Principles and procedures of applied behavior analysis with exceptional children. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Wolery, M., Werts, M. G., Snyder, E. D., & Caldwell, N. K. (1994). Efficacy of constant time delay implemented by peer tutors in general education classrooms. <strong>Journal</strong> of Behavioral Education, 4, 415– 436. Received: 28 July 2006 Initial Acceptance: 27 September 2006 Final Acceptance: 7 January 2007
States’ Eligibility Guidelines for Mental Retardation: An Update and Consideration of Part Scores and Unreliability of IQs Renee Bergeron, Randy G. Floyd, and Elizabeth I. Shands The University of Memphis Abstract: Mental retardation (MR) has traditionally been defined as a disorder in intellectual and adaptive functioning beginning in <strong>the</strong> developmental period. Guided by a federal definition of MR described in <strong>the</strong> Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, it is <strong>the</strong> responsibility of each of <strong>the</strong> United States to describe eligibility guidelines for special education services. The purpose of this study was to examine eligibility guidelines for MR for <strong>the</strong> 50 states and <strong>the</strong> District of Columbia. This study examined <strong>the</strong> terms used to describe MR, <strong>the</strong> use of classification levels, <strong>the</strong> cutoff scores, and <strong>the</strong> adaptive behavior considerations for each state. In addition, this study examined guidelines for consideration of intelligence test part scores and consideration of <strong>the</strong> unreliability of IQs through consideration of <strong>the</strong> standard error of measurement (SE M) or an IQ range. As found in previous studies, results revealed great variation in <strong>the</strong> specific eligibility guidelines for MR from state to state. The greatest variation appeared to be across <strong>the</strong> adaptive behavior considerations. Approximately 20% of states (10) recommend consideration of intelligence test part scores, and approximately 39% of states (20) recommend attention to unreliability of IQs through consideration of <strong>the</strong> SE M or an IQ range. Individuals with mental retardation (MR) have been described in literature and historical documents for many centuries. Since around 1900, definitions of MR in <strong>the</strong> United States have included three general aspects: deficits in intellectual functioning, impaired functioning in <strong>the</strong> daily environment, and onset during <strong>the</strong> developmental period (Sheerenberger, 1983). Although <strong>the</strong>se three criteria have been included in nearly all recent definitions of MR proposed by professional organizations (e.g., American Association on Mental Retardation [AAMR], 2002; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2000), <strong>the</strong> specific criteria within each domain have been more variable across organizations and over time. Deficits in intellectual functioning are usually defined by poor performance on normreferenced intelligence tests via IQs. IQs are Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Randy G. Floyd, The University of Memphis, Department of Psychology, Memphis, TN 38152. Email: rgfloyd@memphis.edu Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 2008, 43(1), 123–131 © <strong>Division</strong> on Developmental Disabilities often considered reflections of general intelligence, which represents intelligence as a single, global factor (Jensen, 1998). Research has established <strong>the</strong> predictive validity of IQs on various outcomes, such as academic achievement and adaptation to environmental demands (Brody, 1997; Neisser et al., 1996). The use of IQs to determine deficient intellectual functioning has been included in most definitions of MR across professional groups since <strong>the</strong> American Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR) first specified <strong>the</strong> use of intelligence tests in its 1959 definition of MR. Most current definitions adopted by professional organizations set <strong>the</strong> upper IQ cutoff for MR at two or more standard deviations below <strong>the</strong> population mean (i.e., IQs of 70 or below; AAMR, 2002; APA, 2000). Moreover, because some degree of measurement error is inherent in obtained IQs, many professional organizations now include an IQ range (e.g., IQs below 70 to 75) or specify that <strong>the</strong> standard error of measurement (SE M) be considered ra<strong>the</strong>r than a strict IQ cutoff criterion. Whereas IQs have long been used to satisfy <strong>the</strong> intellectual deficit criterion for MR, <strong>the</strong>re Eligibility Guidelines / 123
Page 1 and 2:
Education and Training in Developme
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Guardianship: Its Role in t
Page 9 and 10:
guardians who are knowledgeable abo
Page 11 and 12:
in budgeting and spending; (b) a sp
Page 13 and 14:
and effective are essential to self
Page 15 and 16:
involved in the gu
Page 17 and 18:
sonal rights removed through guardi
Page 19 and 20:
who are not trustworthy, and when o
Page 21 and 22:
Discussion and Recommendations Lake
Page 23 and 24:
DC: OSERS. (ERIC Document Reproduct
Page 25 and 26:
people who do not have disabilities
Page 27 and 28:
TABLE 1 School Demographics Demogra
Page 29 and 30:
TABLE 2 Methods for Including Stude
Page 31 and 32:
participate in service learning pro
Page 33 and 34:
who are “more experienced” in s
Page 35 and 36:
cern that they wer
Page 37 and 38:
service learning activity for stude
Page 39 and 40:
supports school personnel need to h
Page 41 and 42:
Using Pivotal Response Training wit
Page 43 and 44:
the trained peers
Page 45 and 46:
Group B between one and two times p
Page 47 and 48:
ing play sessions with Group B, Col
Page 49 and 50:
learned to interact with ot
Page 51 and 52:
Affirmative sentences emphasize a v
Page 53 and 54:
identifying several important behav
Page 55 and 56:
Kenji. For Kenji, all observation s
Page 57 and 58:
Figure 2. Percentage of 10-s interv
Page 59 and 60:
gaging in complicated verbal commun
Page 61 and 62:
Results The results of the<
Page 63 and 64:
when the person wa
Page 65 and 66:
Effectiveness of the</stron
Page 67 and 68:
is still encountering only one symb
Page 69 and 70:
TABLE 1 Characteristic of Participa
Page 71 and 72:
TABLE 2 Characteristics of
Page 73 and 74:
TABLE 3 Major Findings Study Commun
Page 75 and 76: TABLE 3—(Continued) Study Communi
Page 77 and 78: TABLE 3—(Continued) Study Communi
Page 79 and 80: nosed as having ASD. Therefore, PEC
Page 81 and 82: Preschool Teacher Perceptions of As
Page 83 and 84: TABLE 1 Teacher Demographics 1 Teac
Page 85 and 86: TABLE 3 Assistive Technology Self-A
Page 87 and 88: Integration or supplemental perspec
Page 89 and 90: I don’t know if the</stro
Page 91 and 92: sessions, and the
Page 93 and 94: that would be difficult to develop
Page 95 and 96: Riemer-Reiss, M. L., & Wacker, R. R
Page 97 and 98: TABLE 1 Characteristics of Campers
Page 99 and 100: appropriate answers were provided.
Page 101 and 102: Figure 2. Effects of STAR intervent
Page 103 and 104: garding how to effectively interact
Page 105 and 106: Shafer K. (1992). Peer-mediating in
Page 107 and 108: proach, features are built into <st
Page 109 and 110: independent transitions were totale
Page 111 and 112: Figure 1. Number of independent tas
Page 113 and 114: type of skills (e.g., domestic, lei
Page 115 and 116: Peer-Implemented Time Delay Procedu
Page 117 and 118: show that peer tutors can reliably
Page 119 and 120: General Procedures The dependent va
Page 121 and 122: Skill training. The teacher and one
Page 123 and 124: Figure 2. Percent of correct respon
Page 125: heterogeneous group of students is
Page 129 and 130: Method Procedure The first author d
Page 131 and 132: TABLE 1—(Continued) IQ part score
Page 133 and 134: eligibility to exhibit an IQ two or
Page 135: ility guidelines for MR from state
show all

Download the Journal (PDF) - Division on Autism and ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?