Child and Parental Factors Associated with Preschool Placement in an Urban Early Intervention Setting

Background:  Federal legislation requires that children with autism be placed in the least restrictive environment appropriate to their needs. Little research has been conducted on the predictors of where children with autism are placed in their early intervention placements. Child and family characteristics such as child age, social skills and Verbal IQ, as well as family income, have been found to predict educational placements in elementary schools; it is not clear if these same factors predict placements in preschools (Lauderdale-Littin, Howell & Blacher, 2013; Harris & Handleman, 2000). Initial findings from qualitative research indicate that inclusive vs. segregated placements is driven by parents’ advocacy skills; however no quantitative studies have examined this question (Lalvani, 2012). Understanding of these factors in relation to early intervention settings that vary in their restrictiveness is the critical first step to supporting family and provider partnerships for early intervention planning in the community.

Objectives:  To examine parent and child characteristics associated with placement in four early intervention settings (autism only, mixed disability, inclusion and home-based services).

Methods:  Parents and teachers of 77 preschool aged children with ASD receiving early intervention services in Philadelphia (3–5 years, 80% male, 56% African-American) completed questionnaires about children’s social skills and problem behaviors (Social Skills Improvement System Rating Scales), adaptive behaviors (Adaptive Behavior Assessment System 2^nd Edition), cognitive and language development (Mullen Scales of Early Learning; MSEL). Parents also answered questions from the Early Intervention Placement Preference Survey about their perceived advocacy skills and their opinions of the relative benefits of different early intervention placements.

Results:

Data collection and analyses are ongoing. Preliminary analyses show that children in autism-only classrooms had lower adaptive behaviors than those in inclusion or home-based settings (F (3,85)=4.99, p=.003). There were no significant differences in problem behaviors and social skills among children in different setting types. Children in inclusive settings had greater expressive language (F (3,99)=4.36, p=.006) and receptive language (F(3, 99)=3.62, p=.02) than those in mixed disability or autism only settings. Parents of children in inclusion settings were more likely than parents of children in other settings to report that they rely on experts for placement advice (X² (12, 77) =23.66, p<.05). This ‘expert reliance’ was also marginally correlated with whether the parent’s placement preference ever matched their actual placement setting (r(74)=.16, p=.09).

Conclusions:  Results suggest greater adaptive behaviors and language skills are associated with being placed in inclusion preschool settings, which indicates that these child factors may be considered by professionals when placement decisions are made. Results also suggest that parents of children in inclusive settings consult providers in placement decision making more than parents of children in other settings. Though directionality cannot be determined from the current research design, this provides a future research direction to explore. Further analyses will include an extended sample as well as regression analyses to examine specific predictors for placement.