Abstract
Early identification and intervention for children with special needs is essential for the prevention of secondary consequences. Partnering for Change (P4C) is a service delivery model that facilitates developmental surveillance and screening, thus supporting identification of children who require rehabilitation services to participate at school. Using a tiered, needs-based approach based on response to intervention (RtI), P4C therapists provide services at differing levels of intensity—from those that are universal to those that are individualized. Universal services are delivered to whole classrooms and permit therapists to monitor children’s performance and developmental needs over time. Embedded within the RtI approach, P4C therapists use dynamic performance analysis (DPA) to iteratively assess, intervene, and monitor children’s response to services of varying intensity. Specifically, P4C therapists use their clinical knowledge and skills to develop hypotheses and generate specific strategies to support children’s participation within different school contexts. Responses to any strategies that have been implemented are monitored and adjustments made until successful participation is achieved. Collaboration with, and coaching of, educators and parents supports knowledge translation and ongoing strategy implementation. In this paper, we describe RtI and DPA in their traditional forms, provide comparisons with the P4C approach, and highlight this model’s unique blending of DPA and RtI.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
Missiuna C, Polatajko H, Pollock N. In: Cairney J, editor. Strategic management of children with developmental coordination disorder. Development coordination disorder and its consequences. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2015. p. 192–212.
Talmi A, Bunik M, Asherin R, Rannie M, Watlington T, Beaty B, et al. Improving developmental screening documentation and referral completion. Pediatrics. 2014;134(4):e1181–e8 .In contrast with the recommendations of Tonelli et al. (2016), the American Academy of Pediatrics suggests that routine developmental screening should be done by primary care providers using an empirically-validated tool such as the Ages and Stages Questionnaire. In this study, enhanced documentation of screening results, plus telephone follow-up after an abnormal screening result, considerably increased the referral of children with developmental delays to community resources and early intervention programs.
Tonelli M, Parkin P, Leduc D, Brauer P, Pottie K, Jarmillo Garcia A, et al. Recommendations for screening for developmental delay. CMAJ. 2016;188(3):207–11. doi:10.1503/cmaj.151437 .This article summarizes the lack of evidence for population-based screening of children by primary care providers, and instead, outlines guidelines for vigilant surveillance of all areas of a child’s development. Presented on behalf of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, the guidelines recommend that further evaluation should only occur when children are not meeting developmental milestones and/or when parents express concerns. These recommendations should significantly change the ways in which children are currently monitored by use of screening tools.
Missiuna CA, Pollock NA, Levac DE, Campbell WN, Sahagian Whalen SD, Bennet SM, et al. Partnering for change: an innovative school-based occupational therapy service delivery model for children with developmental coordination disorder. Can J Occup Ther. 2012;79(1):41–50 .This article gives a clear description of the principles and essential components of Partnering for Change, the tiered model that was used as an example in this paper. The theoretical and empirical basis of each component is provided in order to demonstrate that this service delivery model is evidence-based. This model was implemented and evaluated in a 2 year study in Ontario, Canada.(see www.partneringforchange.ca ).
Batsche G. Multi-tiered system of supports for inclusive schools. In: McLeskey J, Waldron NL, Spooner F, Algozzine B, editors. Handbook of effective inclusive schools: research and practice. New York: Routledge; 2014.
Grosche M, Volpe RJ. Response-to-intervention (RTI) as a model to facilitate inclusion for students with learning and behaviour problems. European Journal of Special Needs Education. 2013;28:254–69 .This article presents a comprehensive summary of the literature regarding RTI as one approach to prevention and early intervention with students who may have special needs. The authors provide an in-depth review of the type of interventions that could be used at each tier and differentiate between the standard-treatment vs. the problem-solving approaches to RTI. Finally, the strengths and limitations are reviewed of an RTI model that focuses on children “at risk” rather than children who have been formally identified.
McIntosh K, MacKay LD, Andreou T, Brown JA, Matthews S, Gletz C, et al. Response to intervention in Canada: definitions, the evidence base, and future directions. Can J Sch Psychol. 2011;26:18–43.
Fletcher JM, Vaughn S. Response to intervention: preventing and remediating academic difficulties. Child Dev Perspect. 2009;3:30–7.
Fuchs D, Fuchs LS. Introduction to response to intervention: what, why, and how is it valid? Read Res Q. 2006;41:93–9.
Fuchs LS, Fuchs DS. A model for implementing responsiveness to intervention. Council for Exceptional Children. 2007;39:14–20.
Castro-Villarreal F, Rodriguez BJ, Moore S. Teachers’ perceptions and attitudes about response to intervention (RTI) in their schools: a qualitative analysis. Teach Teach Educ. 2014;40:104–12.
Sanger D, Snow PC, Colburn C, Gergen M, Ruf M. Speech-language pathologists’ reactions to response to intervention: a qualitative study. Int J Speech-Lang Pathol. 2012;14:1–10.
Vygotsky LS. In: Cole M, John-Steiner V, Scribner S, Souberman E, editors. Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1978.
Feuerstein R, Miller R, Rand Y, Jensen MR. The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: the learning potential assessment device—theory, instruments and techniques. Baltimore: University Park Press; 1979.
Campione JC, Brown AL. Linking dynamic assessment with school achievement. In: Liz CS, editor. Dynamic assessment: an interactional approach to learning potential. New York: The Guildford Press; 1987.
Polatajko H, Mandich A, Martini R. Dynamic performance analysis: a framework for understanding occupational performance. Am J Occup Ther. 2000;54(1):65–72.
Polatajko H, Mandich A. Enabling occupation in children: the cognitive orientation to daily occupation performance (CO-OP) approach. Ottawa: CAOT Publications ACE; 2004.
Sternberg RJ. Raising the achievements of all students: teaching for successful intelligence. Educ Psychol Rev. 2002;14:383–93.
Sternberg RJ, Grigorenko EL. Difference scores in the identification of children with learning disabilities: it’s time to use a different method. J Sch Psychol. 2002;40:65–83.
Ysseldyke J. Assessment and decision-making for students with learning disabilities: what if this is as good as it gets? Learn Disabil Q. 2005;28:125–8.
Lidz CS, Peña ED. Response to intervention and dynamic assessment: do we just appear to be speaking the same language? Semin Speech Lang. 2009;30(2):121–33. doi:10.1055/s-0029-1215719.
Hargreaves A, Braun H. Leading for all: a research report of the development, design, implementation and impact of Ontario’s “Essential for Some, Good for All” initiative [document on the internet]. Council of Directors of Education; 2012. Available from: http://www.ontariodirectors.ca.
Missiuna C, Hecimovich C, Pollock N, Campbell W, Camden C, Bennett S, et al. Partnering for Change: implementation and evaluation final report, 2013–2015: final report for the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care and the Ontario Ministry of Education Hamilton, ON: CanChild; 2015. Available from: http://www.partneringforchange.ca/.
Acknowledgments
We would like to recognize all members of the Partnering for Change research team, past and present, on whose behalf we have prepared this article. The authors thank the Ontario Ministries of Health and Long-Term Care and Education for funding of the 2-year study, to the Central West and Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant Community Care Access Centers for funding of the occupational therapy services, and to the partners and stakeholders who provided leadership and contributed to the research activities. The authors are grateful to the health care decision-makers, educators and school communities, children and families, occupational therapists, and team members who contributed to this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Wenonah Campbell, Jennifer Kennedy, Nancy Pollock, and Cheryl Missiuna declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Screening
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Campbell, W., Kennedy, J., Pollock, N. et al. Screening Children through Response to Intervention and Dynamic Performance Analysis: The Example of Partnering for Change. Curr Dev Disord Rep 3, 200–205 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-016-0094-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-016-0094-6