•  
  •  
 

Perspectives on Early Childhood Psychology and Education

Submission Type

Article

Abstract

The LINK Virtual Forum on Authentic Assessment for Early Childhood Intervention: Interdisciplinary & International Consensus was orchestrated through a series of virtual focus-groups during the pandemic in 2021-2022. This new strategy for conducting a more robust national/international consumer social validity study gathered practice-based evidence from the field using national and international expert panel focus groups and an expert panel forum to survey Authentic Assessment experts and users. Uniquely, these deliberations relied upon the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) among participants to reach consensus decisions and Qualtrics survey results. The decision-making process addressed types of assessment measures that address early childhood intervention purposes best, but also, what specific processes and procedures best engage parents, professionals, and young children in a developmentally-appropriate and ecological assessment using best practice competencies and standards in the field to fulfill diverse ECI purposes. The central organizing feature of the Focus Groups and the Forum was the use of seven disciplinary focus groups (n=56) with membership selected by a disciplinary chairperson and the authors consisting of the following interdisciplinary professional groups: Early Childhood Educators/Early Intervention/Early Childhood Special Educators; Speech/Language Specialists; Physical Therapists, Occupational Therapists; Psychologists; University Faculty Representatives, and International Experts. We recruited a national and international representative sample of interdisciplinary participants (n=56) from the US, Canada, Australia, Turkey, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Holland, China, Colombia, Korea, Taiwan, Uzbekistan, for two major LINK activities: (1) LINK Expert Panel Focus Groups (n=7); and (2) a cross-disciplinary LINK Expert Panel Forum. The process and outcome data on best practices in AA for ECI from the LINK Forum were based on the consensus of interdisciplinary and international experts in the ECI field.

Keywords: authentic assessment; early childhood intervention; recommended practices; best practices; international; interdisciplinary

Impact Statement

Impact Statement

Implications for Best Practices in AA for ECI

Reflections.

The LINK Forum was a remarkable series of events with 56 interdisciplinary and international professionals engaging actively in the survey and enthusiastically in the focus group discussions, debates, and consensus decision-making on “best practices” in authentic assessment for early childhood intervention. We regard the LINK Forum and social validity process as an exceptional opportunity to gather “real-world” data on those specific processes, practices, and methods for which active interdisciplinary professionals regard as most notable and crucial for their work in supporting families and young children with delays/disabilities as well as the professionals who help them to cope and thrive.

Uniquely, these deliberations focused, not only, on what types of assessment measures address early childhood intervention purposes best, but also, what specific processes and procedures best engage parents, professionals, and young children in a developmentally-appropriate assessment. These results will validate the recommended practice statements of ECI professional organizations and some interdisciplinary organizations as a guide for current and future professionals in our field about authentic assessment as ‘best practice”.

Overarching Points.

Three overarching points are noteworthy about the values, beliefs, and practices of these professionals. First, we were impressed by the strongly-held and fundamental perspectives of participants despite differences in countries and disciplines. All embrace the NAEYC and DEC recommended practices as their essential guides in working with young children and families; they find alignments with their professional organizations’ “guild” standards also.

Next, processes and methods which emphasize family priorities, collaboration, individualization, flexibility, accommodations, and natural routines are most valued; processes which are standardized, contrived, and group-oriented are rejected as misaligned with the early childhood intervention field.

Finally, the majority of interdisciplinary and international professionals in our sample held strong views about the institutional barriers faced by families and their children to gain needed services; moreover, they are concerned about the lack of respect given to their own professional judgments and informed opinions as allied health professionals to reach consensus with parents on the need and content of early childhood intervention services from the regulatory systems in both the US and diverse countries.

Download

Share

COinS