Latin American Mothers’ First-Hand Accounts of a Statewide Early Intervention Model: A Funds of Knowledge Approach

Abstract

Latin American families’ history and life experiences impact the priorities and values the families have for their children with disabilities. It may be beneficial for early intervention (EI) providers to explore and integrate Latin American families’ backgrounds to improve EI services. We completed a qualitative interview study using a collective case study analysis to (a) learn about Latin American families’ parenting values and (b) explore families’ experiences with a statewide early intervention model. Three mothers with young children who had received EI services completed two interviews. We found that each family had unique histories, compositions, support networks, and priorities that impacted their experiences with a statewide coaching model. Families revealed how their funds of knowledge were, at times, integrated into the EI they received. Our study describes a valuable method of learning about Latin American families’ cultural backgrounds so that EI providers may sustain families’ cultures within the services they provide.

Keywords

program evaluation cultural diversity families partnerships with professionals parents family-centered intervention strategies qualitative investigations research methodologies

Early intervention (EI) services provide identification and intervention for children from birth to three diagnosed with or at an elevated likelihood for disabilities or developmental delays (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act [IDEA], 2004). EI services intend to enhance the confidence and capacity of families to meet the needs of their children with disabilities (IDEA, 2004). The Division of Early Childhood (DEC) recommends that EI services be family-centered; that practices be individualized and responsive to each family’s needs; and that EI providers partner with families to develop and achieve shared goals (DEC Recommended Practices Commission, 2014). Additionally, DEC recently published standards for EI and early childhood special education personnel that mandate the use of family-centered and capacity-building practices to develop reciprocal partnerships with families (DEC, 2020).

Caregivers’ knowledge, goals, and values are influenced by their cultural and linguistic background (Cycyk & Hammer, 2020) and must be integrated into their EI services (DEC Recommended Practices Commission, 2014; Puig, 2012). Yet, EI providers struggle to synthesize empirical information, their professional knowledge, and their cultural awareness when providing services (Vigil & Hwa-Froelich, 2004). As most EI professional training is based on North American child development, providers may not know how to learn about or integrate a family’s cultural identities into services (Vigil & Hwa-Froelich, 2004). In the current study, we used a funds of knowledge approach to learn about Latin American (LA) families who were receiving EI services. We specifically examined their experiences with Family Guided Routines Based Intervention (FGRBI; Woods et al., 2004), an approach to EI service delivery that focuses on family priorities while coaching caregivers to embed intervention into their everyday routines.

Defining Culture and Language and Their Influence on Development and Learning

We start with the notion of culture as it includes how language, beliefs, practices, and race materialize in an individual’s identity, values, and behaviors (Hanson & Lynch, 2010). Culture and language are intrinsically bound together as language not only provides access to culture but also embodies culture (Puig, 2012). Culture is a dynamic and ongoing process informed by communities’ use of resources and background experiences (Puig, 2012). The funds of knowledge framework proposes that an individual’s set of knowledge is shaped by their social, historical, and cultural interactions with their environment (González & Moll, 2002). The way culture influences a family’s practices and perspectives is foundational for a child’s learning (Cycyk & Hammer, 2020). A family’s cultural values can influence caregiver interaction styles (Guiberson & Ferris, 2019), views of typical development and disability (Pérez, 2000), long-term goals and priorities, and the roles of adults in children’s development (Rodriguez & Olswang, 2003). During caregiver-child interactions, caregivers use language to enculturate and socialize the child with the characteristics of their culture (Bryzzheva, 2002). The specific cultural values and interaction styles of a family directly relate to their goals for their children’s development and the natural environments and routines in which those goals are fostered (Guiberson & Ferris, 2019; Rodriguez & Olswang, 2003).

Cultural Values and Beliefs Associated With Latin American Families

Two cultural values that have been commonly associated with LA cultures are familismo and educación (Calzada et al., 2013; Puig, 2012; Rodriguez & Olswang, 2003). Familismo is a cultural construct that emphasizes that the family unit should be prioritized and honored; that all family members should contribute to the well-being of the family; and that harmonious social relationships should be formed (Calzada et al., 2013). Relatedly, the development of social skills in children is often a priority (Cycyk & Hammer, 2020) and LA caregivers often emphasize forming relationships within their family and beyond and belonging to a group (Guiberson & Ferris, 2019). LA family structures cross generational boundaries, often including grandparents, cousins, and good friends (Puig, 2012), with these family members included in the caring for and support of children’s development (Calzada et al., 2013). In fact, older siblings are the main individuals who play with younger children, support their communication development, and expose them to English (Cycyk & Hammer, 2020).

Educación is the cultural construct that describes children as good, moral people who contribute to the family (Valdés, 1996). Mexican mothers have been reported to believe that children should be taught right from wrong, to be obedient to elders, and to be responsible and respectful (Rodriguez & Olswang, 2003). While educación and education are two separate constructs, parents do believe that both the home and school are charged with instilling the values of respect, discipline, and obedience (Puig, 2012). LA caregivers have reported teaching young children colors, letters, and numbers as a preferred activity during child-caregiver interactions, with pretend play as less of a priority than pre-academic skills (Guiberson & Ferris, 2019). However, common Western developmental goals, such as sleeping alone and toilet training, are often not as prioritized in LA families (Hanson & Lynch, 2010), with more attention placed on teaching manners and appropriate behaviors (Valdés, 1996). While these are common values held by LA families according to existing evidence (e.g., Cycyk & Hammer, 2020; Guiberson & Ferris, 2019), it must be noted that the values of each family can differ from the characteristics described above as they assimilate to the majority culture (Reese & Gallimore, 2000). Therefore, EI providers must determine which aspects of culture are valued by each family and how these are expressed within the family’s functioning (Hanson & Lynch, 2010).

Statewide Early Intervention Service Delivery

FGRBI is an approach to EI service delivery that is based on four key characteristics (Woods, 2021; Woods et al., 2004): (1) the principle of family guidedness is promoted, in which each family is a valued partner whose inherent knowledge, expertise, and culture is honored and caregivers are engaged as decision-makers and leaders in their child’s intervention; (2) intervention is routines-based and centered within the unique everyday routines and activities of each family; (3) functional outcomes are the aim of intervention so that the child can participate more fully in their family’s daily routines; and (4) evidence-based intervention strategies are collaboratively identified with families used by caregivers within family routines to support the child across domains of early learning. Four categories of caregiver coaching practices are used within FGRBI to advance the four key characteristics; they are represented by the acronym SS-OO-PP-RR: Setting the Stage, Observation and Opportunities to Embed, Problem Solving and Planning, and Reflection and Review (Woods, 2021). In Setting the Stage, the provider gathers family updates and facilitates caregiver reflection on family and child-specific targets, which strategies and routines are working or are difficult, and collaborates to develop a plan for the session with the family. In Observation and Opportunities to Embed, the provider observes caregiver-child interactions within routines and guides a caregiver to embed strategies by using various coaching strategies (see Friedman et al., 2012 for definitions and examples). Problem Solving and Planning is an exchange between a provider and caregiver to brainstorm, make adaptations to intervention, and discuss ways to embed interventions into different family routines and contexts. During Reflection and Review, providers facilitate caregiver’s discussion on their strategy use and impact on their child and their experiences, discussions, and plans that occurred during the EI session, ending the session with a plan for between visits.

FGRBI has been used in multiple state Part C programs and has an established evidence base for increasing child outcomes in their natural environments (Brown & Woods, 2015; Friedman & Woods, 2015; Romano & Woods, 2018; Woods et al., 2004). While prior studies have included families from marginalized cultural backgrounds, there have not been any investigations that focus specifically on the experiences of families from marginalized backgrounds with their community-based providers who use FGRBI. Ideally, practitioners who implement FGRBI, through its tenant of family-guidedness, would reflect and illustrate aspects of a family’s cultural and linguistic identity within services. However, the extent to which FGRBI promotes families’ backgrounds is unknown and no investigations have examined LA families’ experiences with FGRBI. A funds of knowledge approach could be used to learn about and integrate unique family characteristics and goals that are influenced by their culture into FGRBI implementation. This study is a first step in understanding how these two approaches could be used in tandem to learn about LA families’ funds of knowledge and their experiences with FGRBI.

Study Purpose

When working with LA families, EI practitioners must work to integrate their identities that have been developed through the experiences they have had with their community. However, little is known about the funds of knowledge that LA families with young children with disabilities develop, or how caregivers from LA communities experience EI services. Therefore, we (a) described LA families’ funds of knowledge by learning about their family histories and parenting values and (b) explored families’ experiences with FGRBI and their state Part C EI program so to determine the alignment between families’ funds of knowledge and their experiences in EI. We addressed this purpose through the following questions:

RQ1. How do LA families describe their funds of knowledge?

RQ2. What were LA families’ experiences with FGRBI and their EI program?

Method

Study Design

This study was approved by the university Internal Review Board on September 15, 2020 (STUDY # 00001648). A collective case approach was used to inform this study, in which a few case studies that represent the variety of experiences on a certain topic are analyzed (Creswell & Poth, 2018, p. 99). Individual interviews were conducted with LA mothers of children receiving EI services to collect information on their funds of knowledge and to explore their experiences of the caregiver coaching model used by the EI program.

Researcher Positionality

We recognize that our experiences and professional roles subject us to biases throughout the completion of this project. We are all researchers with professional interests in supporting the sustainment of cultures of minoritized communities. The first and second authors are speech-language pathologists and researchers, and the third author works as research personnel for various grants and is a second language educator who teaches English and Spanish. The first and third authors are LA and bilingual in English and Spanish, and the second author is a White, English-speaking monolingual. We recognize that our identities as researchers are imbued with power relative to the families we interview and that our positionality inevitably impacts how we interpret our participants’ stories. We strive to maintain the integrity of each family’s stories and let their voices remain central to this study by stressing to families we were interested in hearing their own stories. Throughout the interviews, we provided many opportunities for families not to speak of only the successes they experienced, but of any difficulties, and explained they were welcome to contact us with any additional information they wanted to share.

Recruitment

Participants were recruited from a Midwestern U.S. state and were required to: (1) identify as a Spanish speaker, (2) have received EI services when their child was ages 3 years or younger, and (3) have received services through the FGBRI model from their EI provider. Recruitment criteria required that participants speak Spanish to reach families who were both culturally and linguistically marginalized as they potentially had the most restricted access to responsive services due to the focus on White, English-speaking families within the nation’s social services. Because the second author leads a professional development project in the study setting related to the use of FGRBI, she has partnerships with many of the providers in the area. She shared study information through email with those providers, then providers identified families who might meet the recruitment criteria and shared a study flyer (which was available in Spanish and English) with them. Families were offered a $30 gift card as compensation for their time in the study. If families were interested in participating and they consented to their contact information being shared, their provider gave us their contact information and we contacted them to answer questions and explain the study process. Participants then completed a Qualtrics demographic questionnaire about their family’s sociodemographic information.

Participant Descriptions

Four LA mothers of young children with disabilities consented to participate in the study and completed the initial interview, but only three completed the second interview. Participants included: (1) Azucena, a 26-year-old mother of three children; (2) Gloria, a 23-year-old mother of two daughters; and (3) Ana, a 39-year-old mother of three children. In the results section, we describe the participants in more detail. All names are pseudonyms.

Interview Protocols

Initially, we developed an interview protocol to focus on caregivers’ experiences with their EI program and the specific components of FGRBI. We asked families to describe the early intervention services they received, their primary concerns and priorities for their children, and the roles they had in therapy sessions. We piloted the protocol with a White English-speaking mother to test logistics in terms of clarity, coherence, and duration of the interview protocol.

After beginning the analysis of the first initial interviews, we found that the interviews were lacking information about the families’ backgrounds and culture to be able to contextualize their experiences in EI. However, families’ funds of knowledge, including skills, abilities, ideas, and practices, are essential to a family’s functioning and well-being (Vélez-Ibáñez & Greenberg, 1992). We thought it essential to learn more about families’ histories and experiences to explore how a LA family’s beliefs, practices, and goals for their young children, and ultimately their experiences in EI, are influenced by their funds of knowledge. As such, we created a second interview protocol based on the interview protocol described in González and Moll (2002). We asked families about their family history, educational/career experiences, daily routines and who is involved, parenting philosophies and how other caregivers participate, and language use in their home. See Supplemental Material for both the initial and second interview protocols.

Then, the first author translated the protocols to Spanish and a native Spanish-speaking undergraduate research assistant back-translated the Spanish protocol into English to determine if there were inconsistencies in the translation. Inconsistencies were resolved by the first author based on the wording that would be most understood by the majority of Spanish speakers from varying dialects. The third author was consulted during the process as needed.

Procedures

Initial interviews were scheduled with each participant based on their availability to be completed via phone or a videoconference, per participants’ preference. Interviews were not scheduled in a certain order across participants. Interviews were audio- or video-recorded. Participants indicated in which language they would prefer to complete the interview on the sociodemographic questionnaire; two interviews were completed in Spanish and one was completed in English. Initial interviews ranged from 30 to 40 min. After interviews were completed, they were then transcribed through a paid transcription service in Spanish or English. The first and third authors each translated the Spanish interviews into English, using the Interpretive Model of Translation to grasp the original sense intended in the source language (Lederer, 2010). Then, the first author compared both sets of translations to resolve any discrepancies in the meaning of the portrayed message.

About 6 months after participants completed the initial interviews, we contacted them via email to invite them to participate in second interviews. We explained that we noted we were missing key background information about their families and that we would like to schedule second interviews to learn about their family characteristics. We offered them another gift card of $30 to compensate them for their time. Three participants agreed to participate. Interview procedures were identical to procedures used for the initial interviews. Similarly, two interviews were completed in Spanish and one in English based on participants’ preferences. Second interviews ranged from 22 to 35 min. Transcription and translations were completed by the first author and native Spanish-speaking undergraduate research assistants. We did not notice any indicators that the participants knew each other during our interviews with them.

Data Analysis

Collective within-case and across-case approaches were used to analyze the interview transcripts (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Yin, 2014). First, the first and second authors read through the transcriptions several times to familiarize themselves with what each participant discussed during their interviews. After reviewing the transcriptions, the authors then discussed commonalities across the interviews that we noticed based on sources for funds of knowledge (such as family origins, work experience, family support, and parenting values) and coaching strategies reflective of the SS-OO-PP-RR indicators. Using NVivo 12 (QSR International Pty Ltd, 2020), the first author used a deductive coding process by using the observed commonalities to create a pre-set of codes across interviews. The second author then determined if she agreed with the codes that the first author created, and both authors engaged in consensus coding and subsequently modified the codebook to reflect consensus. The authors extended the codebook to include key components of FGRBI (e.g., individualized services, integration of routines , descriptions of child and family progress, recommendations for change, and positive comments about participants’ experiences) . Codes were also minimized for sources of funds of knowledge to include only educational and work experience, present family network, language use, family origins, childrearing values, and family routines. Then, the first author re-coded all interviews with the modified codebook, the second author reviewed codes and suggested changes, changes were resolved through consensus, and the codebook was revised once more. This revision included the deletion of some codes that seemed to be redundant or the reorganization of subcodes to fall under different parent codes. At this point, the first author read through the coded interviews and searched for disconfirming evidence, especially in regards to the code on participants’ positive experiences with EI, as another method of checking for the trustworthiness of the data (Creswell & Miller, 2000). Finally, both authors reviewed the coded interviews separately and no changes were made. See Supplemental Material for the finalized codebook.

Next, the first author drafted within-case summaries of each participant based on their interviews to describe their funds of knowledge, experiences with EI and FGRBI, and positive feedback that they provided. The second author reviewed these within-case summaries and cross-checked them across the coded interviews to ensure that all information was accounted for. The within-case analyses presented in this paper are shortened versions of the extensive within-case summaries. Full within-case summaries are available upon request. Next, the first and second authors inductively developed common themes that came across all three participants based on the within-case summaries through collaboration. Based on the three themes that were recognized, the first author drafted summaries across the cases and included commonalties across participants’ funds of knowledge, experiences in EI and FGRBI, and positive comments about EI services (i.e., cross-case summaries; Creswell & Poth, 2018, p. 100; Yin, 2014). Then, the second author reviewed these cross-case summaries to ensure all commonalities were reflected and that there was no disconfirming evidence (Creswell & Miller, 2000). No major changes were made after this review process.

Results

Within-Case Analysis Results

Azucena

Funds of Knowledge

The interviews with Azucena were completed in English per her request. Azucena’s family emigrated from Mexico to the Midwest when she was a young child, with hopes for a better future for their family. Azucena grew up in the same small town in which she currently resides with her husband, who emigrated from Mexico as a teenager. Around the time Azucena graduated from high school, her mother was diagnosed with a long-term illness, so she was unable to attend college. Azucena worked in a school and gained experience working with children with disabilities, which now connects to the parenting skills that she has had to hone with her son, José. She spoke about her work experiences across different positions in production plants and in a bank. She shifted from jobs to be able to care for her children as her family grew. She spoke about technical skills, like learning how to change diapers, and soft skills, like time management, practicing patience, and managing a group of people that she acquired over time. Because Azucena’s husband’s parents would travel back and forth between their home country and the U.S., he did not graduate high school. Instead, he began working in construction as soon as he became the legal age to work. He recently switched to a job on a farm so he could come home earlier to be involved in the caretaking of their children, since José has recently been diagnosed with autism.

Azucena described that she spends the majority of her days taking care of her family and running their household. She mentioned that she and her husband “feel that it’s more comfortable to just have [their] little circle around [them],” so they will typically work together to feed their kids, take them to the park, and complete their bedtime routine in the evenings. Azucena described the support she observes between her kids: both her daughters will model using signs for their brother who is learning to use sign language. Azucena explained that her extended family is close by and often provides extra support when needed like when she has to run errands. Azucena mentioned that her younger siblings “are all involved” but does not provide much detail. Because her husband’s siblings live far away, they are not very involved.

Azucena reported that her family primarily communicates in Spanish. Her parents speak only Spanish and her siblings communicate in English between themselves and with the kids. The family will sometimes speak English to support the oldest daughter’s acquisition of English, as it is important for Azucena that her daughter understands both languages. She also reflected that it is important for her kids to interact with other children and learn basic manners. She described nurturing these skills by building in time for her children to play with other children and expecting them to clean up their toys every night. When asked what her dreams were for her children, Azucena said she hopes they will all go to college. However, Azucena mentioned that “sometimes life does not happen like we want to,” which may be connected to her experiences in not meeting her parents’ expectations for her to “do something more out of [her life]” since she was unable to go to college. When asked about her parenting principles, Azucena responded that she places her kids before herself to make sure they have what they need, as evidenced by her resignation from her job to be a stay-at-home mother. She described that she prioritizes communicating with her children so that her daughters understand that she and her husband may need to give more attention to their son with a disability so that they do not feel left out.

Experiences in EI and FGRBI

Azucena’s son, José began receiving physical therapy through EI when he was 8 months and speech and language therapy at 20 months. Azucena explained that she “knew something was not right [because she] noticed he was not up to the same age that normal kids would be up to,” with specific concerns about his ability to sit up and walk on his own. While Azucena was the primary caregiver involved in EI sessions, she explained that her mother participated and received coaching. A Spanish translator attended therapy sessions during these occasions to facilitate communication with her mother. To address Jose’s unique characteristics, such as getting frustrated during therapy sessions, Azucena explained that the EI provider would give him breaks or a reward and support her to figure out “ways to help . . . relax him.” The provider also situated coaching within activities that José enjoyed, such as rocking on a chair. Azucena described that the provider coached her on signing “more” during mealtimes to facilitate his requests for more food. When asked directly about other routines that were integrated into therapy, Azucena did not have a clear response, explaining “[she] was already ready when they would come in.”

When asked to explain what therapy sessions looked like, Azucena described several techniques the provider used that aligned with the SS-OO-PP-RR practices. She explained that “[the provider] always ask[ed her] how everything was going with [José]” and how the strategies they discussed in previous sessions were helping (Setting the Stage). She also spoke about how the provider observed José’s behaviors, but Azucena did not describe ways the provider observed interactions between her and José. She described ways the provider “[gave them] help on some ideas that would help [José] out and help [them] out with him” (Opportunities to Embed) through several coaching strategies such as caregiver practice and direct teaching. She described that the provider problem solved to find strategies that worked best for their family:

[The provider] would ask me, “Did this help at all?”. . . And if it did, it was great because then we would move on to the next thing. But otherwise, if it wasn’t working, she would find another way to help me out in a different way.

Feedback on EI and FGRBI

Azucena had positive things to say when asked about her EI experiences. She said, “[The [providers] made us feel really good about how we are getting things through with Jose.” When prompted to describe ways the providers could have improved their services, Azucena did not have a response, simply stating, “Everything was good with them.” Azucena described that the speech and physical therapists worked well together and that the speech therapist was quick to answer her questions. She made one recommendation for change: for more resources and paperwork to be made available in Spanish. She explained,

That would help other people understand more about what [the Part C program] is all about. And it would help more to see exactly what we are going through with the kids. . . There’s things that I really wish I would understand more. Sometimes, there’s things that in English that are different in Spanish.

Azucena also described various ways in which she noticed progress as a result of EI, both for her son and her family. She explained that José had learned how to walk, become “less stressed,” and that he “wants to express himself towards [her] or others around him.” Her biggest concern now was his communication skills. Azucena also stated that she learned various strategies to support Jose’s development and that their family can understand him a bit better, without having to “guess on what he needs or wants.”

Gloria

Funds of Knowledge

Gloria’s interviews were completed in Spanish. Gloria emigrated from Mexico with her parents and met her current husband several years later, who had been living in the U.S. already. Gloria did not have any previous work experience as she became pregnant with her firstborn when she was in high school and had her second daughter (i.e., Tamara, who receives EI services) soon after. She explained that she values spending all her time focused on their care and plans to work once her daughters are older and more independent, so she can “aportar también algo aquí en la casa” (“also contribute something to our household”).

Gloria described that she shares caretaking of their children with her husband. Gloria also explained that her older daughter helps with caring for Tamara, such as by helping Tamara to choose between two toys (a strategy shared by their EI provider). Gloria’s parents and her sister-in-law are involved in caretaking, as they will watch her daughters when she runs errands. Gloria’s husband’s siblings live further away, so they are not as involved in their family’s everyday life, but they will visit them on weekends. These family members also provide a place to stay when Gloria travels to a distant pediatric hospital with Tamara so to break up her commute. Additionally, Gloria has forged a close friendship with another mother of a child with a disability, with whom she can connect on a deeper level due to their shared experiences.

Gloria described that she primarily speaks Spanish in the home. However, she explained that she assists her oldest daughter with learning English to which she is being exposed in school, even though Gloria’s skills are limited. She learned English when she moved to the Midwest and feels more comfortable understanding English than speaking it. Gloria explained she will read the books her daughter brings home in English and translate them into Spanish to help her daughter continue to learn both languages.

When asked about her role as a mother, Gloria stated that her daughters’ “educación” is her primary responsibility. While she is not sure her daughters understand everything she tells them, she explained that she tries to tell them to be respectful and to be nice to other children. Gloria seemed to take pride in her daughters and values their happiness as a primary indicator of how successful she is in raising them. She also described that she completes educational activities with her daughters and spends time with her extended family. She explained that she tries to help them with what she can and that she believes she is doing a good job, as evidenced by her daughters’ happiness that she can observe. Gloria stated that it is important that her older daughter not feel neglected when a lot of her attention is focused on Tamara, and for this reason, involves her in EI sessions. Quality time with family is also important to Gloria, as evidenced when she explained that she plans for her whole family to have dinner together, even though Tamara cannot eat by mouth. She also described that when she finishes her daily chores, she makes sure to spend quality time with her daughters, and visit with her parents.

Experiences in EI and FGRBI

Tamara began receiving EI services when she was in the hospital due to meningitis and subsequent complications at 8 months. Services shifted to in-home early intervention and focused on her motor and communication development. Gloria described that Tamara could not roll, hold her head up, or sit up. She reported major improvements in Tamara’s physical development, but “Me preocupa el habla . . . si ella va a poder caminar o no, a valerse por sí misma” (“[I am] worried about her speech and . . . about whether she will be able to walk or not, about her autonomy.”)

To address Gloria’s value on spending time with both of her daughters, her oldest daughter has been an active participant in therapy sessions. Gloria explained that this is helpful “porque también a veces la otra niña requiere atención y se siente de que no le pongo atención a ella, entonces también la incluyen para que no se sienta que no le estamos poniendo atención” (“because [her] older daughter also needs [her] care, and if she feels [she is] not giving her enough time, well then she is made an important participant in the therapy sessions so that she does not feel she is being neglected”). Gloria also described the providers she works with recommend various strategies she can implement in daily routines with her daughter, like giving her a bath and diapering, so to make those routines more purposeful. Gloria described various strategies to support Tamara’s language and motor development that the providers coached her on using strategies reflective of the SS-OO-PP-RR practices. Gloria described that she explains what she feels Tamara needs most help with and that the providers will give her ideas on how to work with her at the start of sessions. To facilitate this dialog, the providers explain to Gloria what her role is for the day, ask her about what Tamara can and cannot do at the time, ask open-ended questions and provide options of strategies and targets to allow her to decide (Setting the Stage). Gloria appreciated the chance to practice and receive coaching on using intervention strategies with her daughter, noting it was quite different from the care she received when her daughter was receiving services in a hospital. She explained, “[Las proveedoras] me explicaban a mí que era lo que yo podía hacer y me ponían en práctica para ver si había entendido cómo hacerlo” (“[The providers] explained to me what I could do and they would have me practice to see if I had understood how to do it”). Specifically, Gloria explained that the providers demonstrated and explained how to complete an exercise using a medicine ball (demonstration with narration), explained why it was important for Tamara to make choices (direct teaching), and guided her in stimulating Tamara’s vocalizations through physical touch (guided practice).

Feedback on EI and FGRBI

Overall, Gloria had positive comments about her family’s EI services and the providers she worked with. She commented,

Hasta ahorita el trabajo que han hecho ellas con mi hija, para mí ha sido un excelente trabajo. . . Para mí seguir haciendo su trabajo como lo han hecho hasta ahora, sería lo mejor porque tanto me han ayudado en ella como me han ayudado también a conseguir formas de cómo ella poder moverse en un futuro. (Up to now the work they have done with my daughter has simply been excellent. . . The way I see it, they should continue their work just like that. It would be ideal because they have managed to help me in many ways to help her in turn to improve her future physical movement.)

Specifically, she described how helpful it is that the providers have been able to connect her with external resources, such as an interpreter to assist with communication during therapy sessions and assistance in securing Tamara a wheelchair. She also explained that she appreciated that the providers gave her options of strategies to try with Tamara. For example, she described that she was scared her daughter would fall with the physical therapy exercise on a medicine ball. After watching the provider demonstrate the exercise first and getting guidance from the provider, “perdi[ó] el miedo, ahora eso es lo que práctic[a] con ella, y ya no [tiene] ese miedo que tenía al principio cuando [empezó],” (“[she] lost [her] fear. [She] put it into practice with her often, and [she is] more confident than [she] was before, when it all started.”) Gloria also described how she was able to communicate about being worried about putting Tamara on her belly for physical therapy exercises because she had a feeding tube and did not want to hurt her. She explained that the provider respected her concerns and led them through problem-solving by suggesting different exercises that targeted the same goal and encouraged Gloria to decide on a strategy.

Gloria reflected on the progress she noticed in Tamara, stating “he visto mucha mejoría en ella.” (“I have seen much improvement in her.”) She explained that Tamara is now able to roll, hold her head up and move it from side to side to track objects, and stand with support. Gloria also described that she feels more confident in using different strategies with Tamara.

Ana

Funds of Knowledge

Ana’s interviews were completed in Spanish. Ana emigrated from Ecuador several years ago after getting married to her husband, who has been living in the U.S. for a long period of time. Ana earned a college degree and worked in a telecommunication company until her move to the U.S. She encountered many barriers to establishing a similar career upon her move, as her knowledge of English was limited and her degree did not translate to an equivalent degree in the U.S. To combat these barriers, she took English classes and validated her high school degree by taking the necessary standardized exam. Ana worked in various service positions in different settings, where only English was spoken. When Ana had her now-6-year-old daughter who is diagnosed with Down syndrome, she stopped working for a year, so she could focus her attention on caring for her daughter. She is currently not working and is primarily focused on her family. Ana’s husband is not working as he recently had surgery. Ana explained she has plans to begin working at a local store once her husband has recovered.

Ana’s day-to-day consists of caring for her three children, husband, and nephew, as well as running the household. When asked how her husband was involved in the home routine before his injury, Ana described that rather, she supported him by going to work with him at times to help him. Ana’s eldest son helps to care for the young kids and complete household chores. Ana reported that her family is very close-knit, with limited support and interactions from extended family members, mostly limited to reunions on the weekends and holidays. Ana’s mom was involved in caring for the kids but due to the Coronavirus, her mother is a health risk and can no longer be around the kids. However, Ana described how her mother was vital in caring for her eldest son as a single mother and that she was able to graduate due to her mother’s help.

Ana explained that her family primarily speaks Spanish in their home and will speak English in instances when her stepchildren are visiting and do not understand something in Spanish. They will also speak English for Ana’s daughter, who is being exposed to English at her school. Ana reported she will say things in both Spanish and English to support her daughter’s bilingualism so that her daughter “no pierda el linaje de lo que es el español, del Hispanidad de nosotros y que se asimile las palabras en inglés mismos para no confundirla tampoco,” (“doesn’t lose her Spanish lineage, our Hispanic culture, and so that she. . . doesn’t get confused either.”)

Ana described that it is important for her children to learn to discern between right and wrong, put effort into what they want, and maintain a strong sense of family. Ana reflected on the differences between LA and Anglo-American cultures and explained how she tries to remediate the discrepancies in lessons their children might pick up. She said,

Aquí́ la familia al estilo Americano son como un poco más fríos. O sea y ya tienes dieciocho años y ya buscas tu independencia y te alejas de tus papas. . . Y nuestra cultura hispana es, somos nosotros en cambio más apegados. (Here (in the U.S.) the American family tends to be a bit more cold. So it’s like, you turn 18 and you go looking for your independence and you try to get space from your parents. And our Hispanic culture is– we’re a bit more close family-wise.)

It is also important for Ana that her children have pride in their heritage and encourages this by promoting bilingualism in her children. When asked what her role in raising her children was, Ana replied that she believes her role is fundamental in raising her children to be good, successful people that can give back to society in the future. She reflected on her son’s success as a current college student who received a scholarship, pays his bills, and keeps his involvement with his family strong, and described it felt like a reward for her as his mother.

Experiences in EI & FGRBI

Ana’s experience with EI that she described in the interviews was her second time working with EI services, as her daughter also received services as a young child. Ana explained that she became concerned because her son’s “motor skills were not progressing” and that the pediatrician recommended that she contact EI. Ana described that Enrique had difficulty crawling, standing, and feeding himself. One of her biggest goals “es que el bebé se defienda solo” (“is for her baby to become self-sufficient.”)

Ana explained how she was coached on various intervention strategies during telehealth EI visits due to the pandemic, and how services were individualized to her family’s needs. Specifically, Ana described how helpful it was that the provider would not pressure her to put an intervention strategy into place at the moment if Enrique was not ready. Instead, Ana described that the provider was very flexible and asked them to practice it between sessions and provide updates about the strategy in subsequent sessions. When asked how services supported the integration of routines, Ana described very broadly that the provider made “recomendaciones sencillas, prácticas, que uno lo puede hacer en casa,” (“simple, basic recommendations of what [they] can do at home”). Even when probed, Ana only described how intervention took place mostly during playtime with toys. However, she seems to have appreciated this recommendation as revealed that Enrique began playing with his sister thereby playing and learning together.

Ana describes some intervention strategies that the provider coached her on to support Enrique’s motor development, such as placing furniture close together to allow Enrique to hold on to the items as he walked, and explained why they were important to his development (direct teaching). She also described that “[la proveedora] me dice la recomendación y me está preguntando si yo puedo hacerla en este momento para ella ver cómo reacciona el bebé,” (“[the provider] would make a recommendation and ask [her] to demonstrate right after to see the baby’s reaction”; guided practice). In regards to the SS-OO-PP-RR practices, Ana said, “[la proveedora] es más observadora. Por ejemplo, le pongo el teléfono enfrente del bebé como para que ella vea qué hace, o si ella me dio alguna recomendación. . . entonces ella está observando.” (“[the provider] took on the role of observer. I would place the phone in front of the baby so that she can see what the baby is doing or she would observe when I follow up on her previous recommendations”; Observation and Opportunities to Embed). Ana did not describe instances of coaching indicative of other FGRBI practices.

Feedback on EI and FGRBI

Ana spoke positively of her experiences in EI and the intervention strategies that the provider recommended. She appreciated that the services were relevant to her entire family unit, as evidenced by the following statement:

Me gusta, porque no solamente se enfocan en lo que supuestamente van a ayudar, por ejemplo en mi caso, con el bebé, sino también andan preguntando o dando recomendaciones; o si ellos saben de algo que nos puedan ayudar, están ahí comunicando a uno. (I like the work they do, because they are not only offering help towards the baby’s development, but also they inquire about our well-being and are always ready to communicate and to offer help.)

She also spoke positively of the provider and described her as experienced and patient. She explained that “[la proveedora] se esmera porque uno entienda lo que ella está tratando de decir, y el concepto de en qué va a ayudar eso que me recomendó en el niño.” (“[the provider] tries her best for [one] to understand what she is trying to convey, and the fact that the recommendation will help the child develop.”) Ana also explained that the provider helped answer her questions, even when they fell under a different discipline, and offered to connect them with resources, such as food services if needed. While communication with her provider was successful for the most part, Ana explained that when some difficulties in understanding each other did come up due to language differences, the provider did her best to communicate with her.

Ana stated that “cada vez he notado avances en el bebé,” (“[she has] witnessed a lot of progress in the baby,”) and that he is now able to crawl and run. She also described that, on a family level, they have become a more closely knit family due to the provider’s recommendation to eat as a family, as they now purposefully have dinner together. Ana explains that this “fomenta la unión familiar y se pueden hablar de muchas cosas. Me pareció bueno eso, de que fomenten la unión familiar.” (“contributes to family unity and [they] can talk about different things. I thought that was very positive, the fact that they promote family unity.”)

Cross-Case Thematic Analysis

Theme 1: Background Experiences Connected to Values and Receipt of EI Services

The three mothers had varying degrees of educational and career experiences- and yet, all three mothers valued education and establishing a career, which may be connected to their hopes for their children to attend higher education and establish a career to be “successful” (Azucena). These experiences may have also impacted the value each mother placed on functional bilingualism in their children, which led them to foster both Spanish and English acquisition from an early age. The mothers’ limitations with speaking English may have informed their decision to support their children’s acquisition within the home, while also supporting Spanish. Additionally, it became evident that families valued the continued use of their home language, which may be connected to their linguistic and heritage pride, which Gloria spoke about.

All mothers had parented children before their child received EI services, potentially helping them notice delays in their child’s development and seek services. Azucena noticed that her son was not developing similarly to other children- knowledge that she may have collected when raising her older child. This allowed families to receive EI services early on in their child’s life and to voice their concerns to service providers. Participants spoke about their goals for their young children to become autonomous and gain the skills they needed to be independent, which connects to mothers’ hopes for their children to “become someone in life” (Azucena).

Familial support and childrearing values, including familismo and educación, also had a connection to the families’ experiences in EI. All mothers reported that, while they may rely on support from extended family members on occasion, they preferred to focus on their nuclear family. Both parents shared caregiving responsibilities and older children often helped to support the development of their sibling with a disability. Mothers also described how they felt their role was “fundamental” (Ana) to their children’s development, and therefore dedicated their time to caretaking. This directly transferred to who was involved in EI services, with the mothers being the main participants, and a grandmother and sibling participating when the mothers needed.

Theme 2: Mothers Described Variable Implementation of FGRBI

Across the three participants, varying components of FGRBI were reported. The component of family-guidedness was manifested through the participation of various family members. Azucena’s mother would participate when Azucena had to work, and Ana involved her older daughter by having her model different intervention strategies or engage in play with her younger daughter. Although only Gloria was present during home visits, she would demonstrate strategies to her husband so he could support their daughter with her motor development. Further, Azucena and Ana recognized that the services were flexible and specific to their families’ needs. When asked how services were integrated into their families’ routines (routines-based), responses were mixed. Mothers occasionally reported instances in which their providers recommended and practiced strategies within their daily routines. While sessions for the families sometimes occurred during mealtime and playtime, it was unclear whether the providers and families intentionally planned for these routines.

In regards to the SS-OO-PP-RR practices, responses were mixed, with some mothers describing coaching practices reflective of Setting the Stage, Observation and Opportunities to Embed, and Problem Solving. None of the participants described any coaching strategies that were reflective of the practices of Planning or Reflection and Review. Additionally, mothers reported that providers used several coaching strategies within FGRBI to support caregivers’ use of intervention strategies, including guided practice, direct teaching, and demonstration.

Theme 3: General Positive Experiences in EI With the Provider Partnership, Intervention Strategies, and Outcomes Experienced

All mothers also had positive feedback about the services they received and their EI providers. They described their EI providers as “experienced and patient” (Ana), communicative, and collaborative. They valued that their providers connected them with external resources, were available to communicate frequently to answer questions, and collaborated with other disciplines to address all their concerns. Despite being asked various times about challenges that they experienced with early intervention services they received, participants did not describe any difficulties. Instead, participants responded with only positive remarks about the providers they worked with and the services they received. Azucena was the only participant who provided a recommendation for additional resources to be made available in Spanish.

Additionally, all mothers reported child-level and family-level outcomes in response to their receipt of EI services. Ana and Gloria discussed the great gains their children made in their motor skills, and Azucena reported progress in her son’s motor skills, self-regulation, and communication. The mothers described family-level outcomes, such as how receiving coaching was successful in helping them learn how to use various strategies to facilitate their children’s learning and that they feel more confident in supporting their children’s development.

Discussion

We aimed to share the voices of three LA mothers whose families were receiving EI services to describe their funds of knowledge and experiences with the statewide coaching model (i.e., FGRBI). This study is a first step in determining how EI providers can learn about the funds of knowledge of the families with which they work to further enhance their intervention practices to build upon families’ existing knowledge, skills, beliefs, and experiences and to understand families’ experiences with a statewide approach to service delivery in EI (i.e., FGRBI).

Funds of Knowledge Interviews

Through the funds of knowledge interviews, we were able to dive deeply into each mother’s life history and perspectives on parenting. As the mothers revealed their knowledge and life experiences, and how these experiences have impacted their parenting values and practices, we learned how different each family was. This is consistent with definitions of culture as a heterogeneous and dynamic system (Puig, 2012). Much of the information gleaned from the interviews aligned with previous reports of cultural values common to LA families, including familismo and educación (Calzada et al., 2013). All mothers agreed that instilling a sense of family unity was important and reflected that the EI services they received seemed to uphold this value. However, characteristics not typically representative of collectivistic cultures, such as LA cultures (Hanson & Lynch, 2010), were also reported to be valued by the participants. Mothers described that their goals for their children with disabilities were for them to become self-sufficient, autonomous individuals, whereas a collectivistic culture often promotes interdependence and group success (Puig, 2012). Of course, it is well understood that cultures will adopt elements along the continuum of collectivism and individualism (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2008). We report these nuances in the culture of our participants to support the idea of culture as dynamic and influenced by many factors, including level of assimilation into the majority culture and the intersection with views of disability (Reese & Gallimore, 2000). Therefore, it is necessary that providers working with families of marginalized cultures prioritize learning about families instead of relying on sweeping, general descriptions of cultural groups.

One prevailing finding was that mothers valued functional bilingualism in their children, fostering both Spanish and English acquisition from an early age, and supported their children’s academic learning. The capabilities the mothers reported directly contrast the long-standing view that families of color are uninvolved in children’s development and education (Herman & Reinke, 2017; McDermott & Rothenburg, 2000; Tomczuk et al., 2022). Reportedly, families of “disadvantaged backgrounds” (Herman & Reinke, 2017, p. 90) have the lowest rates of family involvement in education (Herman & Reinke, 2017), which may be influenced by teachers’ perceptions of family involvement and caregivers’ perceptions of school environments as being racist (McDermott & Rothenburg, 2000). Similarly, EI providers may be less likely to coach families they deem not to be “good fits,” with families of marginalized racial and linguistic backgrounds often being neglected (Tomczuk et al., 2022). Our findings serve as a counternarrative to the deficit perceptions that educators may hold, instead celebrating LA families’ vast experiences and strengths, including their desire to be involved in their children’s development.

Several studies within the education field have been completed to examine the use of a funds of knowledge approach to learn more about students’ home backgrounds (e.g., Hedges et al., 2011; Reyes et al., 2016). Researchers have observed and interviewed families to analyze how children’s rich familial and community interactions were integrated into their classroom instruction (e.g., Hedges et al., 2011), while others trained prekindergarten teachers to learn about families’ funds of knowledge through ethnographic interviews (e.g., Reyes et al., 2016). However, there are no known reports of this approach being used by EI providers. Because EI providers are already trained to work closely with families through a family-guided approach and provide services in natural environments, including family homes, we could hypothesize that adopting a funds of knowledge approach might be a feasible and logical addition to the EI field. Further, we are unaware of any studies that have investigated the funds of knowledge of families with disabilities. The intersectionality of ethnicity and ability status adds a unique nuance to the experiences of the families in our study (Souto-Manning & Rabadi-Raol, 2018). Our study indicates the utility of using a funds of knowledge interview with LA families of children with disabilities, exemplified by Ana’s statement at the end of her interview:

Mi felicitaciones porque cuando primero se preocuparon por los servicios de Enrique, como estaba y en qué maneras estaban ayudando los papas, de verdad como para ver el propósito no?. . . Y en la segunda parte no solo se enfocan en los ciertos servicios, si no también se enfocan en la familia, no, y eso es lo bonito y que sigan así. (My compliments because at first, you worried about Enrique’s services, how he was, and in what way they were helping us parents—that really was the purpose, right?. . . And during this second [interview], you didn’t only focus on the services, but instead, you also focused on the family and that is wonderful. Please continue doing so.)

Family Guided Routines Based Intervention Interviews

The results from the interview specific to EI services indicate that study participants endorsed the approach used by their services providers, providing initial evidence for the social validity of FGRBI with LA mothers. However, further work is needed to investigate other elements of the social validity of FGRBI more holistically (Snodgrass et al., 2022). Participating mothers described specific components of FGRBI’s coaching approach, but provided limited examples of Problem Solving, and no descriptions Planning or Reflection and Review. This omission does not mean that their providers did not use the strategies, but that they were not as salient a feature of service delivery from the mothers’ vantage point. Further, it may have been the case that mothers did not report on these practices because we did not specifically inquire about them. Instead, we based follow-up questions during the interviews on the content the mothers mentioned without calling attention to practices they did not describe to avoid leading participants to specific responses. Research highlights the importance of reflection and problem solving as strategies for adult caregivers (Lorio et al., 2021). Yet, there is little information about how families from LA backgrounds experience reflection as a strategy. Metacognitive strategies like reflection may be more challenging when EI providers are working through an interpreter, because families might not feel comfortable expressing their thoughts. This could be an area in which EI providers may be more specific about the role of routines in their partnership with families (Romano et al., 2022), and learn more about the family’s everyday life and activities.

Limitations

Some factors of the current study may have limited the validity of our findings. First, we had a very small group of LA mothers who participated in this study. Though our recruitment efforts were persistent, we struggled to recruit additional participants, perhaps due to the demographics of the Midwestern U.S. state from which we were recruiting and the COVID-19 pandemic. A second limitation was that we did not have any information about the level of implementation of EI providers other than the knowledge that they had completed professional development training on implementing FGRBI. Therefore, we are unable to make conclusions about the relationship between LA families’ perceptions and their providers’ implementation levels of FGRBI. Another limitation was that the interview protocol on FGRBI experiences was piloted with a caretaker who did not ethnically match the families who participated in the study. Upon initial conceptualization of this study, the purpose was to learn more about the EI experiences of LA families and we did not consider the differences in experiences between the pilot participant and our target study sample. After the initial interviews, we wanted to learn more about the impact of families’ ethnicity on their lived experiences. Finally, we did not gain much insight into families’ challenges with FGRBI, perhaps due to their limited experiences with other EI models or feelings of alienation between researchers and mothers. We plan to refine the interview protocols used in this study for future extensions of this work.

Research Implications

Our study serves as the first step in understanding how a funds of knowledge approach can be integrated within FGRBI to better learn about and service LA families. First, this line of research should be continued to investigate the feasibility of practicing EI providers using a funds of knowledge interview within their services, as the researchers who conducted the interviews in this study did. Further information is also needed to learn about LA families’ opinions of the specific components of FGRBI, especially the practices of Planning and Reflection and Review, and the component of integrating interventions into routines, to expand the social validity of the program. To fully understand how families’ funds of knowledge impact their experiences within EI, interviews can be refined to inquire about this specifically.

Additionally, a paradigm shift from deficit-based to strengths-based perceptions of LA families can be supported by integrating a funds of knowledge framework within early childhood research. Despite the emphasis on strengths-based and family-centered approaches within practice (DEC Recommended Practices Commission, 2014), many early childhood researchers subscribe to deficit-based and English-centric views of research participants from marginalized backgrounds (Soto-Boykin et al., 2021). Instead, researchers should use methodologies and reporting standards that are guided by understanding and disseminating the strengths that families have via a funds of knowledge lens.

Clinical Implications

One major clinical implication for EI providers and programs from the findings of this study is that EI providers should learn about families from the very outset of services instead of slowly learning about a family’s cultural values and priorities. There are many tools that EI providers can use to get to know families, such as eco-maps (McCormick et al., 2008), interviews, a funds of knowledge interview (see handout accessible at: https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/migrantbilingual/pubdocs/Funds_of_Knowledge_Toolkit.pdf), the Routines Based Interview (McWilliam, 2009), and informal conversations. We especially recommend that EI providers use the funds of knowledge interview approach to learn about families’ cultural identities through their family histories and characteristics and the impact on their parenting philosophies and goals. However, to have trusting and safe conversations with families, providers must work to dismantle any implicit bias they have against families from marginalized communities. This would require reform at the systems level to require preservice and professional development for implementing culturally sustaining practices in EI services. EI providers must acquire skills such as cultural reflexivity to be able to reflect on their own experiences, beliefs, and values and recognize how they might interfere with that of the families whom they serve.

Conclusion

Importantly, we found that each family had unique histories, compositions, support networks, and values that impacted their perceptions and acceptance of the FGBRI coaching model. Families indirectly revealed how their funds of knowledge were, at times, integrated into the intervention services they received. Overall, each mother revealed an abundance of wisdom and ideas about their parenting practices. Therefore, EI providers should spend the time at the forefront of services to get to know families and how their family story impacts their caregiving practices, integrating this knowledge into interactions with the families they serve.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-tec-10.1177_02711214231158337 – Supplemental material for Latin American Mothers’ First-Hand Accounts of American Statewide Early Intervention Model: A Funds of Knowledge Approach

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-tec-10.1177_02711214231158337 for Latin American Mothers’ First-Hand Accounts of American Statewide Early Intervention Model: A Funds of Knowledge Approach by Diana L. Abarca, Mollie Romano and Estrella Rodriguez in Topics in Early Childhood Special Education

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-tec-10.1177_02711214231158337 – Supplemental material for Latin American Mothers’ First-Hand Accounts of American Statewide Early Intervention Model: A Funds of Knowledge Approach

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-tec-10.1177_02711214231158337 for Latin American Mothers’ First-Hand Accounts of American Statewide Early Intervention Model: A Funds of Knowledge Approach by Diana L. Abarca, Mollie Romano and Estrella Rodriguez in Topics in Early Childhood Special Education

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-3-tec-10.1177_02711214231158337 – Supplemental material for Latin American Mothers’ First-Hand Accounts of American Statewide Early Intervention Model: A Funds of Knowledge Approach

Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-tec-10.1177_02711214231158337 for Latin American Mothers’ First-Hand Accounts of American Statewide Early Intervention Model: A Funds of Knowledge Approach by Diana L. Abarca, Mollie Romano and Estrella Rodriguez in Topics in Early Childhood Special Education

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Note

We extend our gratitude to the families who so generously shared their time and experiences with us.

ORCID iDs

Diana L. Abarca

Mollie Romano

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available on the Topics in Early Childhood Special Education website with the online version of this article.

References

Brown

J. A.

Woods

J. J.

(2015). Effects of a triadic parent-implemented home-based communication intervention for toddlers. Journal of Early Intervention, 37(1), 44–68.

Bryzzheva

(2002). From Vygotsky to Bakhtin: Grand theories and teaching practices. In Soto

L. D.

(Ed.), Making a difference in the lives of bilingual/bicultural children (pp. 25–30). Peter Lang

Calzada

E. J.

Tamis-LeMonda

C. S.

Yoshikawa

(2013). Familismo in Mexican and Dominican families from Low-Income,Urban communities. Journal of Family Issues, 34(12), 1696–1724.

Creswell

J. W.

Miller

D. L.

(2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124–130.

Creswell

J. W.

Poth

C. N.

(2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. SAGE Publications.

Cycyk

L. M.

Hammer

C. S.

(2020). Beliefs, values, and practices of Mexican immigrant families towards language and learning in toddlerhood: Setting the foundation for early childhood education. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 52(A), 25–37.

DEC Recommended Practices Commission. (2014). DEC recommended practices.

Division of Early Childhood (DEC). (2020) Initial Practice-Based Professional Preparation Standards for Early Interventionists/Early Childhood Special Educators (EI/ECSE) (Initial birth through age 8). https://www.dec-sped.org/ei-ecse-standards

Friedman

Woods

(2015). Coaching teachers to support child communication across daily routines in Early Head Start classrooms. Infants and Young Children, 28(4), 308–322.

10.

Friedman

Woods

Salisbury

(2012). Caregiver coaching strategies for early intervention providers: Moving toward operational definitions. Infants and Young Children, 25(1), 62–82.

11.

González

Moll

L. C.

(2002). Cruzando el puente: Building bridges to funds of knowledge. Educational Policy, 16(4), 623–641.

12.

Guiberson

M. M.

Ferris

K. P.

(2019). Identifying culturally consistent early interventions for Latino caregivers. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 40(4), 239–249.

13.

Hanson

M. J.

Lynch

E. W.

(2010). Working with families from diverse backgrounds. In McWilliam

R. A.

(Ed.), Working with families of young children with special needs (pp. 147–174). The Guilford Press.

14.

Hedges

Cullen

Jordan

(2011). Early years curriculum: Funds of knowledge as a conceptual framework for children’s interests. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(2), 185–205.

15.

Herman

K. C.

Reinke

W. M.

(2017). Improving teacher perceptions of parent involvement patterns: Findings from a group randomized trial. School Psychology Quarterly, 32(1), 89–104.

16.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. (2004). P.L. 108- 446, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.

17.

Lederer

(2010). Interpretive approach. In Gambier

Tesseur

(Eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies (Vol. 1, pp. 173–179). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

18.

Lorio

C. M.

Woods

J. J.

Snyder

(2021). An exploration of reflective conversations in early intervention caregiver coaching sessions. Journal of Early Intervention, 43, 314–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815121992132

19.

McCormick

K. M.

Stricklin

Nowak

T. M.

Rous

(2008). Using eco-mapping to understand family strengths and resources. Young Exceptional Children, 11(2), 17–28.

20.

McDermott

Rothenburg

(2000). Why urban parents resist involvement in their children’s elementary education. The Qualitative Report, 5(3), 1–16.

21.

McWilliam

R. A.

(2009). Protocol for the routines-based interview. Siskin Children’s Institute.

22.

Pérez

A. M.

(2000). Mexican American mothers’ perceptions and beliefs about language acquisition in infants and toddlers with disabilities. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(3), 277–294.

23.

Puig

V. I.

(2012). Cultural and linguistic alchemy: Mining the resources of Spanish-speaking children and families receiving early intervention services. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 26(3), 325–345.

24.

QSR International Pty Ltd. (2020). NVivo (released in March 202). https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home

25.

Reese

Gallimore

(2000). Immigrant Latino’s cultural model of literacy development: An evolving perspective on home-school discontinuities. American Journal of Education, 108(2), 103–134.

26.

Reyes

Da Silva Iddings

A. C.

Feller

(2016). Building relationships with diverse students and families: A funds of knowledge perspective. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 16(1), 8–33.

27.

Rodriguez

B. L.

Olswang

L. B.

(2003). Mexican-American and Anglo-American mothers’ beliefs and values about child rearing, education, and language impairment. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12(4), 452–462.

28.

Romano

Lorio

Delehanty

Eugenio

Abarca

Trivedi

Brown

J. A.

(2022). Family routines within caregiver-implemented early interventions: A scoping review. Journal of Early Intervention, 44, 371–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/10538151211062206

29.

Romano

Woods

(2018). Collaborative coaching with Early Head Start teachers using responsive communication strategies. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 38(1), 30–41.

30.

Snodgrass

M. R.

Chung

M. Y.

Kretzer

J. M.

Biggs

E. E.

(2022). Rigorous assessment of social validity: A scoping review of a 40-year conversation. Remedial and Special Education, 43, 114–130.

31.

Soto-Boykin

X. T.

Larson

A. L.

Olszewski

Velury

Feldberg

(2021). Who is centered? A systematic review of early childhood researchers’ descriptions of children and caregivers from linguistically minoritized communities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 41(1), 18–30.

32.

Souto-Manning

Rabadi-Raol

(2018). (Re)Centering quality in early childhood education: Toward intersectional justice for minoritized children. Review of Research in Education, 42(1), 203–225.

33.

Tamis-LeMonda

C. S.

Way

Hughes

Yoshikawa

Kalman

R. K.

Niwa

E.Y.

(2008). Parents’ goals for children: The dynamic coexistence of individualism and collectivism in cultures and individuals. Social Development, 17(1), 183–209.

34.

Tomczuk

Stewart

R. E.

Beidas

R.S.

Mandell

D.S.

Pellecchia

. (2022). Who gets coached? A qualitative inquiry into community clinicians’ decisions to use caregiver coaching. Autism, 26(3), 575–585.

35.

Valdés

(1996). Con respeto: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse families and schools: An ethnographic portrait. Teachers College Press.

36.

Vélez-Ibáñez Greenberg

. (1992). Formation and transformation of funds of knowledge among U.S.-Mexican households. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 23(4), 313–335.

37.

Vigil

D. C.

Hwa-Froelich

D. A.

(2004). Interaction styles in minority caregivers: Implications for intervention. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 25(3), 119–126.

38.

Woods

(2021). FGRBI Key Indicators Manual (6th ed.). FGRBI Partners.

39.

Woods

Kashinath

Goldstein

(2004). Effects of embedding caregiver-implemented teaching strategies in daily routines on children's communication outcomes. Journal of Early Intervention, 26(3), 175–193.

40.

Yin

R. K.

(2014). Case study research: Design and method (5th ed.). SAGE.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB

0.03 MB

0.02 MB