Search results

Introduction: This study examined the interstate variability in eligibility criteria for the disability category of deafblindness. Methods: We systematically reviewed and coded information related to the location of state data, the use of federal language in state definitions, additional eligibility criteria (i.e., disability eligibility requirements, evaluative components), and required eligibility team members (i.e., specific school staff mentioned by profession to be present for eligibility determinations) for every U.S. state and territory, including Washington, DC. Results: We located deafblind eligibility data for 54 of 56 states. Thirty-one states provided an operationalized definition of deafblindness that included additional eligibility criteria. Seventeen states required students to first be found eligible as having visual and hearing impairments before they could be considered deafblind. Very few states required any eligibility team members with knowledge of sensory impairments or communication disorders to determine deafblind eligibility. Discussion: The findings of this work suggest there is large interstate variability in eligibility criteria for deafblindness. A universal operational definition of deafblindness with defined eligibility criteria may be necessary to ensure consistency in identification and access to appropriate personnel and services across states. Implications for Practitioners: Understanding the eligibility requirements in each state is critical to helping appropriately identify qualifying students with deafblindness. Practitioners should advocate for the identification of deafblind students by keeping any sensory-related information at the forefront of all eligibility discussions.

Introduction: Special education eligibility criteria vary across U.S. states; this study reports a systematic analysis of interstate eligibility criteria in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) category of visual impairments including blindness. Method: Eligibility criteria for all 56 U.S. states, territories, and Washington, DC, were collected and coded on 20 different variables. Variables included use of federal language, qualifying conditions, assessment components, and eligibility team member requirements. Results: Fourteen of 56 states use similar or identical eligibility criteria written in IDEA. Forty-one states (73%) included language that specified criteria or operationally defined what it meant to be a student with a visual impairment in their state. Although about half of the states included an eye report as part of the eligibility process, few specifically mentioned functional vision, learning media, and orientation and mobility assessments in their criteria. Discussion: Significant interstate variations in the interpretation of who qualifies as a student with a visual impairment exist in the United States. Some eligibility criteria were written in an unclear language, making the criteria hard to interpret. Given that identification and prevalence rates of students with disabilities, including students with visual impairments, correlate to components of eligibility criteria, future work should seek to develop an operationalized universal definition of who qualifies as a student with visual impairment in schools. Implications for Practitioners: Since significant interstate variations exist, students, families, and educators must have easy access to all states' criteria so that families may understand how a student's eligibility for services may change if they move between states.

Introduction: This study examined the naturally occurring social interactions of adolescents with visual impairments during lunch. Methods: We observed nine middle and high school students with visual impairments during multiple lunch periods (i.e., 44 total observations). We used interval recording (15 s observe, 15 s record) to collect data on our three primary variables: social interactions, social engagement, and proximity to others. We also took notes on quality of interaction (i.e., degree of reciprocity, appropriateness of content, affect of students and their peers, response relevance). Results: Students sat in close proximity to peers without disabilities for more than half of the observed lunch periods. However, students interacted with another person during only one-third of lunch periods. Interactions were more common with peers than with adults. Moreover, students without an additional cognitive impairment had higher quality and more frequent interactions with peers than adults; the opposite was true for students who had cognitive impairments in addition to visual impairments. Discussion: The findings of this study demonstrate that some students with visual impairments are very socially engaged during lunch, while others, namely those with additional cognitive impairments, have infrequent or low-quality interactions with peers during lunch. Implications for Practitioners: This study should prompt educators to consider the cafeteria as a context for supporting peer interaction and social skill development.

Peer-mediated interventions (PMIs) are evidence-based practices that improve outcomes for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). Determining whether peers also benefit substantively from their involvement in these widely used practices is key to establishing the reciprocity of PMIs. This study examined the breadth and depth of ways that peers perceive they are impacted by their experiences in PMIs and the factors that shape this impact. More than 250 secondary and postsecondary peers completed the Peer-Mediated Impact Survey for Peers ( PMIS:P). Peers reported being impacted in multiple positive ways clustered within seven thematic areas: rewarding impact, advocacy impact, changes in views, future impact, social impact, skill and intrapersonal development, and self-worth impact. Several factors were associated with variations in peer impact, including having supported at least one student with autism, supported at least one student who was nonverbal, prior familiarity with a student, received ongoing support from an educator or other school staff, and more time spent together. We provide recommendations for research and practice aimed at addressing the myriad benefits of involving peers in PMIs.

AbstractBackgroundUnderstanding the positive qualities of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities can provide a much‐needed counterpoint to deficit‐based depictions of disability.MethodThis study examined how 163 young adults (ages 18–30) viewed the strengths of their brothers and sisters with intellectual disability or autism using the Assessment Scale for Positive Character Traits‐Developmental Disabilities (Woodard, 2009). In addition, the authors examined factors that may shape their perspectives.ResultsOverall, siblings' ratings of strengths were moderate to high, indicating an overall portrait of strengths. The majority of brothers and sisters with disabilities was described as having multiple strengths and their profiles on this measure were highly individualized. Lower overall ratings were associated with several variables, including not using speech as a primary mode of communication, exhibiting challenging behaviours, having autism and not currently living together.ConclusionsThe authors offer recommendations for future research and practice related to supporting siblings with and without disabilities.