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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TABLE 1 Eligibility Guidelines for Mental Retardation across States IQ part scores AB Score AB criterion Multiple AB settings Score range State Year Term Levels IQ 2 SD Measured in 2 distinct settings (criterion met in 1) Alabama 2005 Mental Retardation N 2 SD N N Ei<strong>the</strong>r composite or 2 domains/skill areas Alaska 2005 Mental Retardation N 2 SD N N NS NS NS Arizona 2003 Mental Retardation Y 2 SD N N NS 2 SD NS Arkansas 2004 Mental Retardation N 70–75 Y N Domains/skill area (2) NS Measured in 1 setting; optionally measured in multiple settings California 2005 Mental Retardation N FED N N NS NS NS Colorado 2005 Significant Limited N 2 SD N N NS NS NS Intellectual Capacity Connecticut 2000 Intellectual Disability N 2 SD Y Y Domains/skill area 1.5 SD Measured in 2 distinct (majority) settings Delaware 2004 Mental Disability Y 70 Y N Domains/skill area (2) NS NS District of Columbia 1997 Mental Retardation Y FED N N NS NS NS Florida 2005 Mentally Handicapped Y 2 SD Y Y NS NS NS Georgia 2002 Intellectual Disability Y 70 1 Y N NS NS Measured in 2 distinct settings Hawaii 2000 Mental Retardation N 2 SD N N Domains/skill area (2) NS NS Idaho 2005 Cognitive Impairment N 70 Y N Domains/skill area (2) NS NS Illinois 2003 Mental Retardation N FED N N NS NS NS Indiana 2002 Mental Disability Y 2 SD N N NS NS NS Iowa 2005 N/A - - - - NA NA NA Kansas 2001 Mental Retardation N 2 SD N N Domains/skill area (2) NS NS Kentucky 2000 Mental Disability Y 2 SD N N NS 2 SD NS Louisiana 2004 Mental Disability Y 2 SD N N Both composite and NS NS domains/skill area (2) Maine 2003 Mental Retardation N FED N N NS NS NS Maryland 2005 Mental Retardation N FED N N NS NS NS 126 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-March 2008
TABLE 1—(Continued) IQ part scores AB Score AB criterion Multiple AB settings Score range State Year Term Levels IQ Massachusetts Intellectual N NS N N NS NS Considered in multiple Impairment settings Michigan 2002 Cognitive Impairment Y 2 SD N 2 N NS NS NS Minnesota 2005 Developmental Y 2 SD Y Y Both composite and Composite 15 Cognitive Disability domains/skill areas (4) th %tile; Measured in 2 distinct documentation of settings needs in 4 of 7 domains Mississippi 2003 Mental Retardation Y 2 SD Y Y Both composite and Vineland: Composite Considered in multiple domains/skill areas 2 SD, all domains settings 85; ABS-School:2: Part One Factor Scores 2 SD: must justify scores above this Missouri 2005 Mental Retardation N 2 SD N N NS NS NS Montana 2004 Cognitive Delay N 2 SD Y N NS NS NS Nebraska 2004 Mental Handicap Y 2 SD N Y Domains/skill area (1) 2 SD (if using IQ Optionally measured in or 80 criterion) at least 2 distinct 80 settings Nevada 2000 Mental Retardation Y 2 SD N Y Domains/skill area (2) NS NS New Hampshire 2002 Mental Retardation N FED N N NS NS NS New Jersey 2003 Cognitively Impaired Y 2 SD N N NS NS Considered in multiple settings New Mexico 2005 Mental Retardation N 70 Y N Ei<strong>the</strong>r composite or 2 SD NS domains/skill area (1) New York 2004 Mental Retardation N FED N N NS NS NS North Carolina 2004 Mentally Disabled Y 70 Y N NS NS NS North Dakota 1999 Mental Retardation Y 70 Y N NS NS NS Ohio 2002 Cognitive Disability N 70 Y N Domains/skill area (2) NS NS Eligibility Guidelines / 127
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 and 126: heterogeneous group of students is
Page 127 and 128: States’ Eligibility Guidelines fo
Page 129: Method Procedure The first author d
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?