Shop By:

The Early Intervention Teaming Handbook

The Early Intervention Teaming Handbook

The Primary Service Provider Approach
Authors: M'Lisa L. Shelden PT, Ph.D., Dathan D. Rush Ed.D., CCC-SLP   Foreword Author: R. A. McWilliam Ph.D.

ISBN: 978-1-59857-085-4
Pages: 264
Copyright: 2013
Available Stock
Request Print Exam Copy
Paperback $38.95 Qty:

Size:  8.5 x 11.0
Stock Number:  70854
Format:  Paperback
Promotion Code: 

Early childhood professionals: looking for an effective way to ensure coordinated, family-centered services for young children and families? Discover the why and how of the primary service provider (PSP) approach to teaming, the widely used, evidence-based model that more and more states are adopting to strengthen care and services and improve family outcomes.

Developed by the early childhood experts who pioneered the PSP approach to teaming, this is the first how-to guide that clearly lays out the logistics and benefits of making one team member the consistent point of contact with a family.

You'll get concrete, practical guidance on how to

  • ensure buy-in and support from program leaders and team members
  • establish a cohesive team that collaborates effectively
  • fully introduce families to the procedures and practices of the PSP approach
  • develop family-focused and child-focused IFSP outcome statements
  • select the most appropriate primary service provider for each family
  • master the three essential components of a successful home visit
  • adopt a flexible, activity-based approach to scheduling that promotes child learning and development
  • coordinate joint visits with other service providers
  • conduct successful, efficient team meetings to share expertise and resources

Realistic case studies and transcripts from team meetings give you vivid demonstrations of best practices. And the photocopiable forms, tools, and checklists—such as Role Expectation Checklist; Sample Early Intervention Program Brochure; Sample IFSP; and Joint Visit Planning Tool—guide your team every step of the way as you implement the PSP approach.

The perfect complement to the authors' bestselling Early Childhood Coaching Handbook, this practical, reader-friendly guide is your blueprint for better, more responsive care and services—and better outcomes for young children and families.

A featured book in our Effective Early Intervention Kit!

Review and Rate this Item
Be the first to submit a customer review on this product!
Review and Rate this Item


Review by: Ann Turnbull, University of Kansas
“Best available research. Authentic examples. Practical tools. M'Lisa and Dathan provide another game-changing guide for evidence-based early intervention. Indulge!”
Review by: Katrina Bush, Early Childhood Specialist, Columbus, Ohio
“Here we find the 'why' and the 'way' for not only how services are delivered, but how we evaluate our fidelity to practice . . . Using the materials in this handbook, early intervention teams are empowered to go far together, creating a whole much greater than its parts.”
Review by: Kim Hauck, Director, Program Services, Hamilton County Developmental Disabilities Services, Cincinnati, Ohio
“Demonstrate[s] ways to welcome and respect family participation, build a positive relationship with team members, and incorporate the child and family's daily routine into service delivery. Changes we have made through the implementation of the primary service provider approach have resulted in positive outcomes for families.”
Review by: Kimberly Travers, Parent
“I challenge those who want to enhance family and provider active participation in teaming to learn about these practices. As a parent, I can see what a difference this would have made in our journey of raising young children with special needs.”
Review by: Naomi Younggren, EI Training Coordinator/Consultant
“The wisdom of a primary service provider approach to teaming is truly captured in this book. The authors clearly present the breadth, depth, and functional application of the primary service provider approach.”
Review by: Lynda Pletcher, Technical Assistance Specialist, National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center, FPG-Child Development Institute At UNC
“This excellent book will be a welcome addition for state, regional and local administrators and providers who are engaged in implementation of the primary service provider approach in early intervention programs.”

About the Authors
Foreword R.A. McWilliam

  1. Introduction to a Primary Service Provider Approach to Teaming
    Appendix 1A: Role Expectation Checklists
    Appendix 1B: Role Expectation Checklists—Administrator's Guide

  2. Research Foundations of a Primary Service Provider Approach to Teaming
    Appendix 2A: A Pilot Study of the Use of Geographically Based Early Intervention Teams Using a Primary Service Provider Approach to Teaming
    Appendix 2B: A Pilot Study of the Characteristics of Effective Team Meetings When Using a Primary Service Provider Approach to Teaming
    Appendix 2C: Checklists for Implementing a Primary Service Provider Approach to Teaming

  3. Preparing for a Team-Based Approach

  4. Writing Functional, Participation-Based Individualized Family Service Plan Outcome Statements
    Appendix 4A: Checklists for Developing Participation-Based Individualized Family Service Plan IFSP) Outcome Statements

  5. Using a Primary Service Provider: Putting the Approach into Action
    Appendix 5A.1: Primary Service Provider Approach to Teaming Fact Sheet
    Appendix 5A.2: Sample Early Intervention Program Brochure
    Appendix 5B.1: Early Childhood Intervention Physician's Progress Report
    Appendix 5B.2: Completed Early Childhood Intervention Physician's Progress Report
    Appendix 5C: Primary Service Provider Approach to Teaming Worksheet for Selecting the Most Likely Primary Service Provider
    Appendix 5D: Mitchell Family Case Study
    Appendix 5E.1: Sample Caseload Activity List for Tina, an Occupational Therapist
    Appendix 5E.2: Tina's Schedule for the Current Month

  6. Coordinating Joint Visits
    Appendix 6A: Joint Visit Planning Tool

  7. Conducting Team Meetings
    Appendix 7A: Guidelines for the Role of the Facilitator in the Team Meeting
    Appendix 7B: Guidelines for Presenting Information in the Team Meeting
    Appendix 7C: Guidelines for How to Provide Coaching in the Team Meeting
    Appendix 7D: Guidelines for Agenda-Building for the Team Meeting
    Appendix 7E: Team Meeting Agenda
    Appendix 7F: Team Meeting Minutes
    Appendix 7G: Individual Family Staffing Report

  8. The Future of the Primary Service Provider Approach to Teaming in Early Childhood Intervention


Excerpted from Chapter 2 of The Early Intervention Teaming Handbook, by M'Lisa L. Shelden, PT, Ph.D., & Dathan D. Rush, Ed.D., CCC-SLP. Copyright© 2013 by Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.

Research Foundations of a Primary Service Provider Approach to Teaming

The information in Chapter 1 describes the requirement of teams under Part C early intervention. The chapter also acknowledges the use of a PSP as an accepted teaming approach by the professional associations representing the disciplines most closely aligned with early intervention (ECSE, occupational therapy, physical therapy, and speech-language pathology). Furthermore, the guidance documents provided by NECTAC stipulate the use of a PSP approach to teaming as one of the seven key principles for implementing early intervention in natural environments. To further support and substantiate using a PSP as specified in the key principles, we have identified three fundamental areas of research that define the characteristics and implementation conditions of PSP teaming practices: 1) a defined team, 2) a PSP as the team liaison to the family, and 3) team support for the PSP. The purpose of this chapter is to describe the research, define the characteristics, and identify the implementation conditions required for effective use of this teaming approach.

A Defined Team

Using teams to accomplish objectives that could not be accomplished otherwise is prevalent (West, Brodbeck, & Richter, 2004) in business and industry (Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001), education (Flowers et al., 1999), early childhood (Briggs, 1997; Woodruff & McGonigel, 1988), and health care contexts (Borrill et al., 2001; West et al., 2002). Research indicates that teamwork in health care has also been reported to benefit both the health care workers (e.g., lower stress, higher retention rates, increased innovation by team members, increased job satisfaction) and recipients of services (e.g., lower mortality rates in hospitals, higher quality of care, improved cost-effectiveness) (Borrill et al., 2001; West et al., 2002).

Characteristics of Effective Teams

The literature on effective teams contains many studies that describe positive outcomes for teams that use the following task and structure factors. Consider how these task and structure factors apply to early childhood intervention teaming contexts. Team task(s) should allow members to use a variety of skills, result in meaningful work, and have significant consequences for other people (Bell, 2004; Borrill et al., 2001; Hackman, 1987). Effective early intervention teams allow their members to use disciplinary expertise as well as other specialized knowledge and skills based on experience and other individual characteristics. As an example, a team member may be identified as needed to support a child and family member because she has specialized knowledge about a diagnosis or condition. In addition to this specialized knowledge, the practitioner also happens to have personal experience of using public transportation. The family needing support also lives in the city and needs to gain access to public transportation to run errands. In this situation, the team member is allowed and encouraged to support the family using all that she knows, not only her discipline-specific expertise. Team members' ability to successfully support a broader range of families and family circumstances is enhanced when they use the professional and personal knowledge and experience of individual team members.
         The importance of a team's task is a critical component regarding inherent motivation of the team, the commitment the team members have to accomplishing the task, and the development of a collective team identity in terms of completion of a job well done. Motivation, commitment, satisfaction, and sense of responsibility are inherent to the task given to teams in the fields of health and education. For example early intervention teams are charged with and fully responsible for assisting family members and care providers in developing the confidence and competence individually needed (despite any and all challenges) to support the growth and development of the children in their care (IDEA 1997).
         The number of team members should be appropriate for the task (Bell, 2004; Larsson, 2000). The team should include enough members with the necessary specialized expertise to accomplish the assigned tasks (Bell, 2004). Although the meta-analysis of the teaming literature identifies no optimal number of team members (Bell, 2004), evidence is consistent with Hackman's (1987) early suggestions that teams with unnecessary members are not as productive as teams with the membership limited to those required to perform the task. Early intervention programs are required by federal law to have a multidisciplinary team of practitioners available to families of children with disabilities (IDEA 1997). The team must have sufficient team members with necessary knowledge and skills to meet the needs of eligible children and their families for a designated catchment area.
         Teams should have some degree of self-managing abilities because team self-management is related to enhanced team performance (Bell, 2004; Borrill et al., 2001; De Drue & West, 2001; Erez, LePine, & Elms, 2002). Assigning a team leader (or facilitator) is essential in early intervention programs. Using a team decision-making process whenever possible, however, is a critical factor in team innovation (i.e., pursuit, assimilation, and implementation of new ideas). A team leader who has skills in group facilitation will most likely result in a self-managing team having short decision times, self-implemented accountability strategies, and enhanced flexibility and efficiency. Teams with much self-management also result in less need for a multitude of supervisory or middle-management positions. For example, an early intervention team that self-manages decisions related to the date, time, and length of team meetings will, in most cases, have enhanced participation and efficiency.

Characteristics of Effective Team Members

Effective teams consist of individuals who are agreeable, are conscientious, have high general mental ability, are competent in their area of expertise, are high in openness to experience and mental stability, like teamwork, and have been with the organization long enough to be socialized or acculturated to the written and unwritten rules or norms (Bell, 2004). Being an agreeable team member is identified as an important characteristic of practitioners working together in early childhood. The term agreeable when used to describe effective team members is synonymous with being flexible, courteous, trusting, and respectful. The term respectful or the phrase "demonstrating mutual respect" is pervasive across many studies (Bell, 2004; DeGangi, Wietlisbach, Poisson, Stein, & Royeen, 1994; Dinnebeil, Hale, & Rule, 1996, 1999; Dunst & Trivette, 2009; Dunst, Trivette, & Johanson, 1994; Harrison, Lynch, Rosander, & Borton, 1990; Lowenthal, 1992; O'Connor, 1995; Park & Turnbull, 2003; Soodak & Erwin, 2000). Agreeableness should not be confused with serving as a "rubber stamp" for other team members' ideas and recommendations. Team members will disagree; however, effective teams are able to reach consensus and move forward in supporting the team's decision.
         Conscientious team members are described as reliable, responsible, punctual, and organized. Studies in early childhood intervention repeatedly recognize this characteristic as a critical trait for practitioners (Bell, 2004; DeGangi et al., 1994; Dinnebeil et al., 1999; Dunst et al., 1994; Lowenthal, 1992; O'Connor, 1995; Park & Turnbull, 2003; Soodak & Erwin, 2000). For example, being prepared, organized, and mindful of the topics to be discussed at a home visit or team meeting is a clear way of demonstrating conscientious behavior so that scheduled conversations and visits do not exceed the planned time and do not negatively affect the timeliness of subsequent visits or meetings.
         Teams are more effective when the individual members have high general mental ability; in other words, the team is comprised of smart people (Bell, 2004). The team as a whole is only as strong as the weakest team member. Team members must be able to think on their feet, make quick and effective decisions, and possess knowledge and skills beyond the content expected of a particular discipline. For example, an SLP working in early intervention is expected to contribute knowledge and expertise related to communication development. The SLP must also understand global child development from many perspectives when working on a team in early intervention in order to learn from and support other team members and caregivers. Team members who are viewed as not having the knowledge or skills needed to complement the collective knowledge of the team can become marginalized and not sought out as a resource by other team members, potentially limiting the effectiveness of the team.
         The characteristic of team member competence in his or her area of expertise is referenced across a number of studies (Bell, 2004; DeGangi et al., 1994; Dinnebeil et al., 1996, 1999; Dunst & Trivette, 2009; Dunst et al., 1994; Harrison et al., 1990; Lowenthal, 1992; O'Connor, 1995; Park & Turnbull, 2003; Soodak & Erwin, 2000). Early intervention teams using a PSP approach must consist of members representing a variety of disciplines because they have specialized training and often licensing or credentialing in a particular area of expertise or knowledge. Using practitioners who have recently graduated from preservice training programs is consistent with this characteristic. New graduates may lack experience, but bring a fresh perspective, new energy, and the most up-to-date practices based on current research. In recent years, an increased accountability for practitioner competence related to evidence-based practice has been emphasized not only to ensure the highest probability of achievement of desired outcomes, but also as a consumer protection factor. Families enroll in early childhood programs and partner with practitioners because they trust and presume that needed or desired experiences and knowledge are available. They believe that the team members have expertise, knowledge, experience, and or skills that will benefit them in ways that enhance their success in supporting the young children in their care. Competence and knowledge of early childhood development, family support, and adult learning are critical components for practitioners from every discipline associated with the field. Monitoring of required competencies is necessary at every level by individual practitioners, programs, agencies, and oversight systems to ensure that parents have not misplaced their trust or made false presumptions about the type and quality of support that is available.
         The characteristics of openness to experience and mental stability of each team member are critical when supporting families and other team members in early intervention. A team member who is open to experience might be described as imaginative, objective, adaptable, innovative, and open minded. Openness to viewing new experiences as learning opportunities is specifically identified as an effective characteristic of team members. In studies conducted in early childhood intervention, factors related to openness and mental or emotional stability were reported across a number of studies examining effective practitioner–parent interactions (DeGangi et al., 1994; Dinnebeil et al., 1996; Dunst & Trivette, 2009; Dunst et al., 1994; Lowenthal, 1992; O'Connor, 1995; Park & Turnbull, 2003; Soodak & Erwin, 2000).
         Although the characteristic of "likes teamwork" may seem like an obvious statement, not every practitioner does. Working in isolation is often perceived to be faster, less stressful, and easier to some practitioners. Teamwork requires considering the perspectives of other team members, acknowledging different learning styles, building and maintaining relationships, and recognizing that an independent practitioner does not have all of the knowledge and skills necessary to appropriately support any child and family. Liking and respecting teamwork means that the individual practitioner believes the team's knowledge is always better than any one team member working alone.
         Effective team members are socialized to the organization's culture. Every team has its own way of being and doing. The amount of time a team member spends in a particular environment or setting determines how he or she practices. For example, if a practitioner spends most of his or her time in a hospital setting and contracts a few hours each week with an early intervention program, then his or her dominant culture will most likely be that of the hospital. The early intervention team will need to make time to assist this individual in becoming acculturated and socialized to early intervention practices and team functioning. This culture may be disrupted whenever a member joins or leaves the team. The remaining members must ensure that the team is not swayed to the incoming member's culture or allow the team's culture to disintegrate or depart with the exiting team member.
         The amount of time committed to the team and the longevity of team membership are particularly important when considering using consistent teams for children and their families in early intervention. This is especially true for those states using broker-type systems and vendors from a multitude of agencies in which providers contract for an hour here or there in addition to their "real job" (Dunst & Bruder, 2006; Sloper, 2004; Sloper, Mukherjee, Beresford, Lightfoot, & Norris, 1999; Sloper & Turner, 1992). Team members should be assigned to a consistent team so they can identify readily who is on their team. The system must be able to support these teams to minimize turnover, maximize involvement time, and promote long-term membership. Socialization and acculturation to the team and the use of research- based practices is more likely when team members do not rotate or change frequently. This socialization-acculturation effect (Bell, 2004; Borrill et al., 2001; West et al., 2002) is one of the most positive benefits of implementing a PSP approach to teaming. The approach adds an inherent check and balance among team members, a heightened sense of responsibility, and programmatic accountability regarding the overall quality of supports and services for all families enrolled in the program.

Primary Service Provider as Team Liaison to Family

Selecting one team member to serve as the liaison to the family and child is the second area of research that defines the characteristics and implementation conditions of PSP teaming practices. The need for a teaming approach using a PSP is based on the fact that focusing on services and multiple disciplines implementing decontextualized, child-focused, and deficit-based interventions has not proven effective (Campbell & Halbert, 2002; Dunst, Bruder, et al., 2001; Dunst, Trivette, et al., 2001; McWilliam, 2000; Shonkoff, Hauser-Cram, Krauss, & Upshur, 1992). Rotating multiple practitioners in and out of a family's life on a regular basis has been found to negatively affect family functioning (Dunst et al., 1998; Greco & Sloper, 2004; Law et al., 1998; Shonkoff et al., 1992; Sloper, 2004).
         The results of a longitudinal investigation of 190 infants and their families after receiving 1 year of early intervention services indicate that those families receiving their services from a single provider as compared with families receiving services from multiple providers reported less parenting stress (Shonkoff et al., 1992). In addition, the developmental outcomes for the infants of the families receiving services from a single provider were better than the infants who were receiving multidisciplinary services. These results persisted when the study controlled for the severity of disability of the child, the age of the child, and when both factors were controlled simultaneously. The only benefit actualized for the families of the children receiving services from multiple providers was an increase in the size of the mother's social support network. No differences were noted, however, in the mothers' reports of the helpfulness of their social support networks.
         In a study of a statewide early intervention program in the northeastern United States, 250 parents completed surveys and follow-up parent and family outcome measures (Dunst et al., 1998). This study examined the level of family-centered practices the family received and resulting benefits for the children and families. Results indicated that the more services that a family received, the less satisfied they were with early intervention, the less family centered the respondents rated the program, and the more negative the effects on personal and family well-being. The families reporting receipt of services that were not family centered also reported less child progress. Dunst et al. summarized that this study provides evidence that how early intervention is provided matters a great deal and that more service is not better in terms of outcomes for children and families.
         In a review of the literature, Sloper and Turner (1992) summarized that those families with multiple providers experienced increased parental stress, unmet needs, and confusion. More specifically, without a single provider, parents reported a general lack of coordination of services resulting in increased stress related to parenting a child with disabilities. What might come as a surprise to many practitioners is the finding that having multiple providers resulted in unmet needs for a significant number of families and most of the families were of children with severe disabilities. This seems contrary to the commonly held belief that the needs of a child with severe disabilities cannot possibly be met by a PSP. In several studies reviewed, parents of children with disabilities reported confusion when multiple providers were involved on a regular basis. This confusion resulted from conflicting information and recommendations regarding intervention and resources. Parents were also confused about which practitioner to contact regarding specific questions or supports needed. For example, it might be clear with the professionals working with the family who addresses what issues, but parents reported ongoing struggles with role definitions when multiple providers were involved.
         Bruder and Dunst (2004) reported findings from the Research and Training Center on Service Coordination in Early Intervention. The study involved 80 parents from 4 states and controlled for family ethnicity, socioeconomic status, child's severity of disability, and location (i.e., rural, urban, suburban). Parents were interviewed about many aspects of their early intervention services and experience. Upon review of the survey data report of the helpfulness of early intervention providers, 96% of the parents having one provider rated him or her as helpful, 77% of the parents having two providers rated them as helpful, and 69% of parents having three or more providers rated them as helpful (p < .001).
         In the absence of a comparative study of teaming approaches in early intervention, we conducted a pilot study to compare the rate of achievement of IFSP outcomes, child outcomes, and service costs for children served by two geographically based early intervention teams using a PSP approach to those services provided to a matched cohort of children by multiple independent practitioners in the same catchment area. In this study, a geographically based team is defined as a group of practitioners consisting of an early childhood special educator, OT, PT, SLP, and service coordinator(s) responsible for all referrals within a predetermined area. The intervention 1) focused on promoting parent-mediated child learning in everyday activities (Dunst, Bruder, Trivette, & Hamby, 2006), 2) used coaching as the interaction style with parents (Rush & Shelden, 2011), and 3) used a PSP approach to teaming (Shelden & Rush, 2010).
         The results from the study indicated that the children in the experimental group received fewer service hours, including team meeting time, than the control group that had no team meeting time; however, IFSP outcomes were met more often by children in the experimental group. No differences were noted between the groups for child developmental outcome data. Early intervention services and supports provided by the program using the PSP approach were less expensive than those services provided outside of this model. Practitioners in the experimental group not only met all federal requirements for Part C, but also exceeded time frames for reviewing IFSP documents. Finally, fewer practitioners were involved in the lives of families, resulting in less disruption to family life. This pilot study of the use of geographically based early intervention teams using a PSP demonstrates promising data regarding efficient use of resources for early intervention programs. See Appendix 2A for the complete study.

Team Support for the Primary Service Provider

The support given by other team members to the PSP is the third area of research that defines the characteristics and implementation conditions of PSP teaming practices. This section describes the formal mechanism for team planning and sharing of information as well as how to efficiently structure the team meeting based on available research and a case study of one early intervention team.
         Studies indicated that teams should have a common planning time (Borrill et al., 2001; Flowers et al., 1999; West et al., 2002). Common planning or meeting time for team members is critical to effective team functioning. This regularly scheduled shared meeting time provides team members with a predictable time for discussion, idea generation, questioning, and analytical thinking; contributes to the acculturation and socialization of the team identity; and serves as the venue for the development of a heightened sense of accountability and commitment for completion of the task before the team.
         In order to determine how to most effectively and efficiently conduct team meetings when using a PSP approach to teaming, we conducted a study to identify the characteristics of meetings to address three basic research questions:

  1. Is the current team meeting structure providing the supports needed by team members?
  2. What are the characteristics of an effective team meeting when using a PSP approach to teaming?
  3. Would specific guidelines for presenting information and providing coaching in the team meeting be seen as useful to meeting participants?
The results of the study indicated that using a meeting facilitator, clearly defining roles of the facilitator and other meeting participants, and adopting a prepublished agenda led to meeting participants reporting that the team meeting better met their needs and accomplished the meeting purpose to provide and receive support related to working with families and gaining access to needed resources to ensure families are receiving comprehensive care. The team participating in this study met weekly and adhered to the characteristics of the PSP approach to teaming, including using an identified team of individuals from multiple disciplines with one team member serving as PSP to the care provider(s) and the PSP receiving coaching from other team members through ongoing planned and spontaneous interactions. The complete study is located in Appendix 2B.

Characteristics of a Primary Service Provider Approach to Teaming

In light of the literature previously discussed and adhering to the evidence-based approach for documenting characteristics of specific practices described by Dunst, Trivette, and Cutspec (2002), the following list depicts the characteristics of a PSP approach to teaming. All of the characteristics must be adhered to by all team members in order to identify the practices as a PSP approach to teaming and to ensure achievement of optimal benefits for young children and their families.

  • A geographically based team of individuals from multiple disciplines having expertise in child development, family support, and coaching is assigned to each family in a program.
  • One team member serves as PSP to the child and care provider(s).
  • The PSP receives coaching from other team members through ongoing planned and spontaneous interactions.

Implementation Conditions

In addition to the three characteristics of a PSP approach to teaming, five implementation conditions are critical to effectively put the approach into practice. The first condition is that all therapists and educators on the team must be available to serve as a PSP. The flexibility of the entire team is compromised when only selected members or disciplines from the team serve in the role of PSP. Due to the nature of teamwork and the mandates of Part C (e.g., time lines, steps in the process), all team members must share the responsibility of serving as a PSP to equalize duties and maximize the quality of supports to children and families enrolled in the program. In addition, ensuring that all members' roles and responsibilities are equal alleviates the tendency for hierarchical relationships to develop among team members.
         Attendance by all team members at regularly scheduled team meetings for the purpose of colleague-to-colleague coaching is another critical implementation condition of a PSP approach to teaming. Coaching topics at team meetings are varied and include specific information for supporting team members in their role as a PSP to the families in the program. The process that a team uses to select a PSP is the third implementation condition. The PSP is selected according to four factors: 1) parent/family, 2) child, 3) environmental, and 4) practitioner. See Chapter 5 for more information for selecting the most likely PSP.
         Joint visits are an essential condition of the PSP approach to teaming and give team members the opportunity to support one another and the child's care providers in a timely and effective manner. Joint visits by other team members must occur with the PSP, at the same place and time whenever possible, to support the PSP. When a joint visit occurs and the other team member is supporting the PSP, the relationship between the PSP and family is not disrupted or negatively affected. In addition, the opportunity for sharing information between the PSP and the other team member provides learning opportunities for the PSP, builds trust and respect between team members, and affords the caregivers prioritized and focused opportunities to interact with other team members. The PSP can assist the family in applying the information in an ongoing and contextualized manner with the support of the accompanying team member.
         The last implementation condition is that the PSP for a family should change as infrequently as possible. One of the purposes in having a PSP is for the family to establish and maintain an ongoing working relationship with a single team member to minimize any negative consequences of having multiple and or changing practitioners. As a result, the PSP rarely changes. The PSP does not change when IFSP outcomes change, when primary learners change, or when the PSP may need specific supports from other team members. The PSP should change if the family does not like the manner or style of the PSP, the family specifically requests a change, or the PSP continually needs another team member on joint visits because of his or her lack of knowledge and skill.

Early Childhood Special Education: Curriculum Practices     Graduate     (EDSP593)

Family-Guided EI/ECSE     Graduate     (SPED681)

Partnerships with Families of Infants and Toddlers     Undergraduate     (CFS440)

Intervention with Infants and Toddlers with Atypical Development     Undergraduate/Graduate     (SPED426)

Your Cart

(0 product)