Abstract
The number and variety of early intervention models and programmes for at-risk and handicapped infants and their families has increased dramatically in the last two decades. This increase can undoubtedly be attributed to the intrinsic appeal of early intervention which draws on concepts of stimulation and prevention from developmental psychology and medicine. The intrinsic nature of this appeal is grounded in the belief that early development is more plastic than later development and that intervention in this sensitive period is thus likely to have greater preventive or ameliorative effects than in other periods. This belief underlies most early intervention programmes and currently finds its expression in an array of programmes for handicapped and at-risk infants in hospitals, homes and child care facilities.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bailey, D.B. and Simeonsson, R.J. (1986) ‘Design issues in family impact evaluation,’ in L. Bickman and D.L. Weatherford (eds), Evaluating Early Intervention Programmes for Severely Handicapped Children and Their Families, Pro-Ed, Austin, TX.
Casto, G. and Mastropieri, M.A. (1986) ‘The efficacy of early intervention programs: A meto-analysis,’ Exceptional Children, 52, 417–424.
Dobson, D. and Cook, T.J. (1980) ‘Avoiding type III error in program evaluation,’ Evaluation and Program Planning, 3, 269–276.
Doherty, W.T. and Baird, M.A. (1987) Family Centered Medical Care: A Clinical Casebook, Guilford Press, New York.
Dunst, C. (1985) ‘Editors introduction’, Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 5, 1–5.
Dunst, C. and Snyder, S. (1987) ‘A critique of the Utah State University early intervention meta-analysis research,’ Exceptional Children, 53 (3), 260–265.
Hanson, M.J. (1985) ‘An analysis of the effects of early intervention services for infants and toddlers with moderate and severe handicaps,’ Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 5, 36–51.
Meisels, S.J. (1985) ‘The efficacy of early intervention: Why are we still asking this question?’ Topics in Early Childhood Education, 5 (2), 1–11.
Offord, G.R. (1982) ‘Primary prevention: Aspects of program design and evaluation,’ Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 21 (1), 225–230.
Ottenbacher, K.J. (1989) ‘Statistical conclusion validity of early intervention research with handicapped children,’ Exceptional Children, 55 (6), 534–540.
Shonkoff, J.P. and Hauser-Cram, P. (1987) ‘Early intervention for disabled infants and their families: A quantitative analysis,’ Pediatrics, 80 (5), 650–658.
Simeonsson, R.J. and Bailey, D.B. (1989), ‘Family dimensions in early intervention,’ in S.J. Meisels and J.P. Shonkoff (eds), Handbook of Early Childhood Intervention, Cambridge University Press, Boston.
Smith, N.L. (1981) ‘The certainty of judgments in health evaluations,’ Evaluation and Program Planning, 4, 273–278.
Strain, P. and Smith, B.J. (1987) A counter-interpretation of early intervention effects a response to Casto and Mastropieri,’ Exceptional Children, 53 (3), 260–265.
Vadasy, P.F., Fewell, R.R., Greenberg, M.T., Dermond, N.L., and Meyer, D.J. (1986) ‘Follow-up evaluation of the effect of involvement in the father’s program,’ Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 6, 16–31.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1991 David Mitchell and Roy I. Brown
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Simeonsson, R.J., Bailey, D.B. (1991). Evaluating Programme Impact: Levels of Certainty. In: Mitchell, D.M., Brown, R.I. (eds) Early Intervention Studies for Young Children with Special Needs. Rehabilitation Education. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-3292-1_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-3292-1_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-412-31530-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-3292-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive