Determining Type and Amount of Service Delivery Time by Teachers of Students with Visual Impairments: Results of a National Validation Study of the VISSIT

Abstract

Introduction:

This research followed the lead of an initial validation study and responded to the call from the state education agency–endorsed Service Intensity Subcommittee of the Texas Action Committee for the Education of Students with Visual Impairments to conduct a larger scale validation study on the Visual Impairment Scale of Service Intensity of Texas (VISSIT).

Methods:

The authors collected survey data from 77 respondents using a mixed-methods survey research design. These data were used to determine the VISSIT’s validity and reliability. Participants represented urban, suburban, and rural geographic regions across 20 U.S. states.

Results:

The results of the national study showed that the VISSIT has social validity, which was supported by both ease of use and acceptability of the tool. The VISSIT’s consequential and content validity were also supported by the data collected. The internal consistency reliability showed reliability for the VISSIT with a Cronbach’s alpha calculated as being .935. Based on the results presented here, in which the social, consequential, and content validity of the VISSIT have been confirmed, it can also be confidently asserted that the VISSIT is construct valid.

Discussion:

The findings of this national study indicate an overall positive response to the usability and understandability of the VISSIT. Participants used the tool to provide quantifiable documentation to identify accurate student need for service across all expanded core curriculum areas as well as to provide administrators and families with research-based data to justify service type and time.

Implications for practitioners:

Respondents in the national study saw the VISSIT as an effective way to take student evaluation data and convert those results into a measurable recommendation for service type and intensity. The VISSIT helps a teacher of students with visual impairments to document how much time is needed for both direct and collaborative consultation services, as appropriate for each individual student.

Keywords

Visual impairment service intensity expanded core curriculum

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andrew

D. P. S.

Pederson

P. M.

McEvoy

C. D.

(2011). Research methods and design in sport management. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Hatlen

(1996). The core curriculum for blind and visually impaired students, including those with additional. RE: view, 28, 25–32.

Hinkin

T. R.

Tracey

J. B.

Enz

C. A.

(1997). Scale construction: Developing reliable and valid measurement instruments. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 21, 100–120.

Huebner

M. K.

Merk-Adam

Stryker

Wolffe

(2004). The national agenda for the education of children and youths with visual impairments, including those with multiple disabilities. New York, NY: AFB Press.

IBM Corp. (2015). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23.0. Armonk. New York, NY: IBM Corp.

IDEA. (2004). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 34 CFR § 300.304(c). Retrieved from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/d/300.304/c

Lawshe

C. H.

(1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28, 563–575. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x

Luiselli

J. K.

Reed

D. D.

(2011). Behavior sport psychology: Evidence-based approaches to performance enhancement. New York, NY: Springer.

Messick

(1989). Validity. In Linn

R. L.

(Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York, NY: Macmillan.

10.

Michigan Department of Education. (2013). Michigan Vision Severity Rating Scale. In Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired Home (Resources). Retrieved from http://mde-lio.cenmi.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket_VdBAWUzte8Y%3d&tabid_1901

11.

Pogrund

Darst

Munro

(2015). Initial validation study for a scale used to determine service intensity for itinerant teachers of students with visual impairments [Special issue on Critical Issues in Blindness and Visual Impairment]. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 109, 433–444.

12.

Polit

D. F.

Beck

C. T.

(2004). Nursing research: Principles and methods (7th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins.

13.

Polit

D. F.

Beck

C. T.

(2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 29, 489–497.

14.

Sapp

Hatlen

(2010). The expanded core curriculum: Where we have been, where we are going, and how we can get there. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 104, 338–348.

15.

Shuttleworth

(2009). Construct validity. Retrieved from https://explorable.com/construct-validity

16.

Visual Impairment Scale of Service Intensity of Texas. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.tsbvi.edu/vissit