Assessing the Home Environment to Promote Infant-Toddler Learning Within Everyday Family Routines

Abstract

“Child functioning does not occur in a vacuum, but is influenced by the social interactions, physical features, and timing of the family’s routines that make up the child’s learning environment.”

Talia is an early intervention (EI) practitioner who prides herself on using the most up-to-date recommended practices, such as coaching families within their everyday routines. To plan these interventions, Talia conducts authentic assessments by observing individual child functioning in everyday life, and discussing with the family their observations. Talia uses these assessment data to identify strategies with the family to meet the outcomes on their Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP). As Talia reflects on the past week, she thinks about how her assessments frequently resulted in the same strategies, applied in very similar ways, across families. Are the strategies truly individualized to the particular child and the particular family? Talia wonders, what is she missing?

EI practitioners like Talia are expected to coach families in embedding intervention strategies for their infant or toddler within their everyday routines. EI practitioners use authentic assessment approaches (i.e., observation and discussion) to gain a real-life picture of what the child is good at (i.e., strengths) and what can be difficult (i.e., needs) to identify individualized intervention strategies targeting the family’s IFSP outcomes (Bagnato, 2007). Authentic assessments “rely on naturally occurring materials and activities of the home or classroom in evaluating what the children are learning, how they are developing, and what their skills and learning needs are” (Meisels, Wen, & Beachy-Quick, 2010, p. 56). The resulting intervention strategies are expected to “fit” or be tailored to the family’s routines, rather than generic strategies that can result when assessing children outside those everyday routines.

As Talia begins to suspect however, understanding a child’s strengths and needs is only half the picture. Child functioning does not occur in a vacuum, but is influenced by the social interactions, physical features, and timing of the family’s routines that make up the child’s learning environment (Thurman, 1997). What the environment “looks like” is why a child may function differently in their own home, community, and child care classrooms from settings other than these natural environments. It is also why a child might demonstrate different strengths and needs across different routines. To conduct a comprehensive assessment, EI practitioners analyze both the child and the environment. Assessing how the environment impacts a child’s participation in routines and learning of IFSP outcomes results in potential strategies for adapting that environment. The purpose of this article is to share the importance of social, physical, and temporal environments to child learning in home routines and ways to assess environmental strengths and needs respectful of individual family strengths, priorities, and culture.

“As EI practitioners are expected to work within the family’s already existing routines, they may assume assessing and adapting the environment is not necessary or may even prohibited.”

Environmental Features Within Family Routines

Talia brings her question to her next reflective supervision session. Talia and her mentor look at the Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children (DEC, 2014) Recommended Practices (RPs) for guidance. They review the environment RP E3: “Practitioners work with the family and other adults to adapt the physical, social, and temporal environments to promote each child’s access to and participation in learning experiences” (p. 7) and wonder if that is the missing piece. Talia realizes she is focusing her assessments on the child in the environment rather than the child and the environment. With this new perspective, she and the family could identify adaptations to foster child learning within routines. She also realizes she does this when coaching in child care centers, but not in homes. Talia and her mentor discuss how all DEC RPs are expected for both homes and classrooms, and brainstorm why this practice is important during home visits.

Meeting DEC’s RP of adapting the environment can feel more comfortable in classrooms than in homes. As EI practitioners are expected to work within the family’s already existing routines, they may assume assessing and adapting the environment is not necessary or may even be prohibited. However, research has demonstrated the importance of assessment and intervention that focuses on the social, physical, and temporal environments of everyday family routines.

The social environment is the interactions occurring between child and others, comprised of sensitivity, consistent responsiveness, contingent responsiveness (i.e., following and building on child’s lead), and engagement in everyday routines. Quality parent–child interaction positively impacts child development (e.g., Innocenti, Roggman, & Cook, 2013). For families in EI, quality interactions can be harder to attain as their children’s interaction cues may be subtler than or different from what the family expected (Innocenti et al., 2013). For example, when playing peek-a-boo, a child who overwhelms easily may turn away from their parent, communicating “I need a break.” The parent may interpret this as disinterest in face-to-face games. Research found quality interactions impact how much EI actually influences child outcomes (Innocenti et al., 2013; Mahoney, Boyce, Fewell, Spiker, & Wheeden, 1998; Raikes et al., 2014). Therefore, EI practitioners focus on quality interactions as a critical component of any intervention.

The physical environment consists of the inanimate features of a particular routine, including the environmental layout, objects and materials, and level of environmental stimulation. A child’s sense of competence and growing self-determination can be promoted when the physical environment of everyday routines is designed for active child engagement (Albrecht & Khetani, 2016; Erwin et al., 2016; Palisano et al., 2012). For all young children to participate in routines, environmental considerations include a variety of easy-to-reach, child-sized materials and environmental layouts that are safe with room to explore. For infants and toddlers in EI to participate and learn, the physical environment may require more individualized, low- (e.g., a string tied to a toy and high chair to easily access) or high- (an augmentative communication device) tech adaptations.

“The purpose of environmental assessments is to examine “how well” the environment fits a particular child’s developmental characteristics in particular routines to meet particular IFSP outcomes.”

The temporal environment focuses on time—when routines and transitions occur (schedule), how long routines and transitions occur (duration), and how slow or quick the routines and transitions progress (pacing; De Arment, Xu, & Coleman, 2016; Jeffries & LaForme Fiss, 2016). For all young children, temporal considerations include mixing active and quiet times (i.e., scheduling), providing sufficient time but not too long to engage in routines, and attending to the individual child’s temperament characteristics, such as pacing transitions based on the child’s response to change. These temporal characteristics are further individualized according to the unique developmental characteristics of the particular child in EI to promote participation and learning. For example, a parent might spread out grocery shopping across the week so (a) each trip to the store is shorter in duration than one trip that is too long for the child to handle and (b) going to the store after child care pick up is the same each day so the child gets used to the routine.

Assessment of Participation in Learning Experiences

Talia and her mentor decide Talia will assess the social, physical, and temporal environments in upcoming home visits. They note the assessment purpose is to inform the planning of adaptations (i.e., DEC RP E3). That is, assessing the environment is expected to uncover aspects of the environment where individualized adaptations could increase the child’s participation and learning in everyday routines. They plan out specifically what and how to assess the environmental goodness of fit to the individual child’s learning characteristics.

As noted, there are general environmental features important for all young children. Although these features are also important in EI, the purpose of environmental assessments is to examine “how well” the environment fits a particular child’s developmental characteristics in particular routines to meet particular IFSP outcomes (Jeffries & LaForme Fiss, 2016; Palisano et al., 2012; Thurman, 1997). Environmental aspects that could be a better fit lead to potential adaptations. That way, the learning opportunities available in everyday family routines are maximized as learning experiences.

“EI practitioners assess the environmental features by answering the question, how well does the environment facilitate the individual child’s learning experiences?“

Characteristics for Learning Experiences

Learning experiences occur when the environment is set up for active participation, with moderate challenges to achieve and multiple opportunities to practice and generalize (Bronfenbrenner, 1993; Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; Vygotsky, 1978). Active participation occurs when the child is interested, attentive, and engaged in the routine’s “goings-on” and interacting with the people and materials that are a part of the routines. Moderate challenges occur when the child is working toward meeting targeted skills that are not too hard nor too easy for the child to achieve. Multiple opportunities to practice and generalize occur when the child repeatedly uses, or tries to use, the learning goals within one routine as well as during different routines throughout the day. Note these learning characteristics are described as what the child does. EI practitioners assess the environmental features by answering the question, how well does the environment facilitate the individual child’s learning experiences?

Assessing the Social, Physical, and Temporal Environmental Features

Most environmental assessments for all young children focus on classrooms (Table 1). One frequently used home environmental assessment is the Home Observation Measurement of the Environment (HOME; Caldwell & Bradley, 1984), which includes items for the social (e.g., affection) and physical (e.g., types of toys) environment overall (National Research Council, 2008). However, EI practitioners need resources to guide their analysis of the environmental goodness of fit to the individual child. Two resources, the Parenting Interactions With Children Checklist of Observations Linked to Outcomes (PICCOLO; Roggman et al., 2013) for the social environment and CARA’s Kit for Toddlers: Creating Adaptations for Routines and Activities (Campbell, Kennedy, & Milbourne, 2012) for the physical and temporal environments, are designed to identify individual environmental strengths and potential adaptations.

“What’s working are current environmental strengths. What could be working better are environmental needs that can lead to potential adaptations.”

Table 1

Social and Physical Environmental Assessments for Classroom and Other Group Settings

Assessment family	Infant-toddler specific versions
Environmental Rating Scales https://ers.fpg.unc.edu/ https://www.tcpress.com/ERS	Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale (ITERS-3; Harms, Cryer, Clifford, & Yazejian, 2017) Family Child Care Environment Rating Scale-3 (FCCERS-3; Harms, Cryer, Clifford, & Yazejian, 2019)
Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) https://store.teachstone.com/class-manual/	CLASS Infant (Hamre, LaParo, Pianta, & LoCasale-Crouch, 2014) CLASS Toddler (LaParo, Hamre, & Pianta, 2012)
Pyramid Model for Promoting Social Emotional Competence in Infants and Young Children https://products.brookespublishing.com/Teaching-Pyramid-InfantToddler-Observation-Scale-TPITOS-for-InfantToddler-Classrooms-Research-Edition-P1117.aspx	Teaching Pyramid Infant–Toddler Observation Scale for Infant–Toddler Classrooms (TPITOS; Bigelow, Carta, Irvin, & Hemmeter, 2019)

Social environment

The PICCOLO (Roggman et al., 2013) assesses quality parent interactions in four domains: affection, responsiveness, encouragement, and teaching. Affection reflects the family’s warmth or sensitivity. Responsiveness examines the family’s understanding and response to the child’s interests, communications, and behaviors. Encouragement supports the child’s exploration, attempts, and overall participation. Teaching scaffolds new learning. Each domain includes evidence-based interactive behaviors. These behaviors can be expressed differently in different families. For example, one family might “show enthusiasm for what child is doing” (Engagement item) by clapping and shouting, whereas another family might quietly nod and smile. These differences might reflect the family’s individual style and/or the child’s developmental and learning characteristics.

Physical and temporal environment

CARA’s Kit for Toddlers (Campbell et al., 2012) presents a hierarchy of adaptation types to assess how the physical and temporal environment fits a particular child. The adaptation types are (a) environment such as room arrangement and equipment, (b) schedule of when routines occur, (c) how routines are designed, (d) materials such as toys and objects, and (e) requirements of a routine such as the number of steps involved and the expectations of the routine (Milbourne, 2012). EI practitioners observe routines to determine “what’s working” and “what could be working better” to promote child participation and learning. What’s working are current environmental strengths. What could be working better are environmental needs that can lead to potential adaptations. The adaptation types are ordered by level of intrusiveness. Part of the assessment could determine if there might be less intrusive adaptations to replace more intrusive ones. For example, if a child keeps putting their leg on the highchair tray, the family’s requirement of putting their leg back down can be replaced by an environment adaptation to the highchair for better positioning that decreases the ease of the child getting their leg onto the tray in the first place. CARA’s Kit for Toddlers provides sample adaptations that can then be individualized for the particular family during intervention planning.

Talia and her mentor recognize Talia needs to look at (i.e., assess) the social, physical, and temporal characteristics with a particular eye to child opportunities to participate in routines, and practice, generalize, and engage in moderate challenges toward meeting the IFSP outcomes. They define each item in the PICCOLO and adaptation type in CARA’s Kit, and brainstorm examples of how they might look different for different children. Talia and her mentor craft specific questions to observe how the environmental characteristics in these guides transact with expected learning experience characteristics. They turn these questions into an open-ended guide to organize Talia’s analysis (Figure 1). Finally, they plan out how to complete this assessment. Talia will (a) Use the week to familiarize herself with these guides prior to her first observation, (b) take a running record of her observations based on the guides, and (c) transfer her observations and analyses to the guides immediately after the observation.

“She assures the family she is not judging what they are doing, but focusing on Julio’s learning characteristics.”

Figure 1

Questions to assess environmental features as learning experiences

Talia calls the Bautista-Cooper family to plan a time to visit. She shares that, by looking at what is going on around Julio, they can see what is helping Julio learn and identify ways he could learn even more during their day. She assures the family she is not judging what they are doing, but focusing on Julio’s learning characteristics. Clara, Julio’s mother, confirms it makes sense and they welcome any new ideas just like the ideas Talia has already shared. Talia and the family decide the visit should occur during three routines—eating, playing, and dressing. The family chooses these particular times as when they would like to focus on their IFSP outcomes. The IFSP outcomes address Julio interacting with others, requesting, and making choices.

At the visit, Talia asks the family to go about the three routines as they usually do. She clarifies whoever usually interacts with Julio during the routines should interact in whatever ways they do, with whatever objects they use. Daniel, Julio’s father, explains that his parents usually come over for dinner. Talia affirms that, not only is their presence welcomed, but preferred so she could get as real a picture as possible. That way, any ideas would make sense in the way their family works. As she takes running notes, Talia focuses on promoting Julio’s active participation in the routines, and attends to the level of challenge for and opportunities to practice the IFSP outcomes (i.e., interacting with others, requesting, and making choices). She notes environmental features and Julio’s abilities and responses.

Tables 2 and 3 provide a sampling of Talia’s notes on PICCOLO and CARA’s Kit for Toddlers items, respectively, during eating. Talia intentionally identifies environmental strengths and potential environmental needs. Table 4 illustrates specific examples of social, physical, and temporal features for each learning experience characteristic across the three routines. With these notes, Talia analyzes whether the feature was an environmental strength or potential area for adaptation. For example, Talia considers

Table 2

Talia’s Assessment Notes (Sampling) From the PICCOLO

PICCOLO domains	Sample assessment notes
Affection	Family interacts with Julio in a warm tone, frequently smiling at him When Julio shares his food with different family members, they say “thank you”
Responsiveness	Clara balances watching Julio—ready to respond—and eating/talking with others When Julio scoops potatoes with a spoon and brings it to his mouth, family cheers and says, “good job” When Julio shares his food, family pretends to take a bite
Encouragement	Clara asks Julio if he wants his bib (increase challenge—choice of 2 bibs?) Clara signs and says more; accepts Julio lifting of arms as sign approximation (wait slightly longer?)
Teaching	When putting leg off tray, Clara explains why Julio’s leg needs to stay off the tray Family consistently imitates Julio’s sounds (increase challenge—expand new sounds?)

Note. Potential environmental needs/adaptations are described in parentheses. PICCOLO = Parenting Interactions With Children Checklist of Observations Linked to Outcomes.

Table 3

Talia’s Assessment Notes (Sampling) of the Physical and Temporal Environment Using CARA’s Kit Adaptation Types

CARA’s Kit adaptation types	Sample assessment notes
Environment	Julio is positioned to see all family members, facilitating interactions Ample room on each side of Julio in highchair (less space create more stability?)
Schedule	Julio was on the floor moving and playing before dinner—alternating active and quiet routines Dinner time occurred when Julio was a little hungry so motivated to eat
Routines	Julio gets his food first, limiting wait-time When Julio is done eating, he is given toys to play with on his highchair
Materials	Julio uses a Cup with handle and child utensils that allow easy grip to use on his own Julio has 3 bowls of food on his highchair tray within his reach (potentially overwhelming)
Requirements	Simplifies by stabbing food with fork then Julio brings fork to mouth; scoops with spoon on his own When Julio puts his leg on his highchair tray, Clara puts it back down (less intrusive options?)

Note. Potential environmental needs/adaptations are described in parentheses.

Table 4

Examples of Learning Characteristics by Environmental Features

Learning characteristic	Social environment	Physical environment	Temporal environment
Active participation	Family responds to Julio “sharing” his food by pretending to take a bite (Responsiveness) and saying “thank you” (Affection)	Clara puts a bowl of vegetables, another bowl of mashed potatoes, and a third bowl with cut up chicken on Julio’s highchair tray within his reach. (Materials)	Family has dinner at a time when Julio is a little hungry and is motivated to eat. (Schedule)
Moderate challenge	Every time Julio opens a door, Daniel claps and says “Pop”! (Encouragement)	Daniel keeps open one door (too difficult) on a pop-up toy as Julio focuses on opening all the doors while playing. (Requirements)	Once Julio successfully opens one door, Daniel waits for Julio to show he is ready to tackle the next door, then slowly taps on the lever, drawing his attention. (Pacing)
Multiple opportunities to practice and generalize	For each article of clothing, Clara says and shows the respective body part (“here is your sock. It goes on your foot” and points to Julio’s foot). (Teaching)	Clara sits Julio in front of a mirror whenever getting dressed (e.g., putting on/taking off pajamas; dressing to go outside). (Environment)	Family plans plenty of time for dressing so they can discuss and put on each article of clothing. (Duration)

Are the three bowls of food on Julio’s highchair tray an opportunity to make independent choices (IFSP outcome) or do three bowls overwhelm Julio, reducing the opportunity to participate and learn? Talia thinks Julio looks overwhelmed by the choices and only eats out of one bowl. Talia identifies this might be a place for an adaptation, such as giving Julio one bowl at a time to promote self-regulation.

Does positioning Julio in front of a mirror, supported by Clara behind him, help him participate and learn? While Talia initially thinks Julio might keep turning around to look at Clara, the current positioning seems to work as Clara provides Julio with the support to sit up so he could participate and still interact with Clara (IFSP outcome) through the mirror.

While playing with a pop-up toy, does the slow pace give him needed “breaks” or does he lose interest? As Julio continues to try, it seems these breaks are working.

“Adaptations can be designed to fit the family’s priorities and culture as much as they fit the child’s developmental characteristics.”

Once Talia collects these data, she knows her assessment is not complete. She discusses her observations with Clara and Daniel to understand how the environmental features work within the family’s routines, priorities, and culture.

Gathering and Applying Family Insights on Routines, Priorities, and Culture

Just like any assessment, the family is an active team member in gathering and interpreting assessment data on the environmental goodness of fit. This includes the family describing the following: (a) environmental features of routines the EI practitioner did not observe, (b) how closely the routines observed happened the way they usually happen, (c) how child responses differ across routines and the particular environmental features (e.g., people interacting, materials, pacing) of those routines, and (d) their interpretations of what these features mean for promoting their child’s learning. How routines occur in an individual family is a reflection of that family’s priorities and culture. By uncovering those aspects during assessment, adaptations can be designed to fit the family’s priorities and culture as much as they fit the child’s developmental characteristics. EI practitioners do this by affirming environmental strengths, understanding environmental needs within family context, and respecting family culture.

“As the family created the way routines occur, environmental strengths are a reflection of family strengths.”

Affirming Environmental Strengths

Strengths-based interventions (SBIs) acknowledge what is working well as the first step in coaching families (Rush & Shelden, 2011). As the family created the way routines occur, environmental strengths are a reflection of family strengths. EI practitioners can start the assessment conversation with the family by affirming how those strengths help the child learn. This provides an opportunity for families to share their thinking and how those features reflect the family’s culture and priorities.

Talia discusses with Clara and Daniel the following environmental strengths at dinner:

Pretending to take a bite when Julio “shares” his food,

Saying “thank you” after pretending to take a bite, and

Scheduling dinner when Julio is motivated to eat but not too late that he is too hungry to focus and needs to be fed.

Clara and Daniel share how they did not realize their interactions are helping Julio learn. Daniel explains that it is important Julio use please and thank you. Talia confirms with the family that teaching these social conventions is an important family priority. She adds that, at the same time, this is an opportunity to work on the IFSP outcome of interacting with others. Clara identifies that, while she is glad scheduling dinner works well for Julio, the schedule has more to do with when the entire family, including her in-laws, could come. Talia notes if, in the future Julio’s needs change around timing when to eat, it is important that dinner stay at its current time.

“we’re learning!” by Johnathan D. Anderson is licensed under CC BY-ND 2.0

Understanding Environmental Needs Within Family Context

EI practitioners use this assessment conversation to understand how particular environmental features might reflect the family’s culture and priorities. This is particularly true when there is a potential environmental need. That way, any adaptations to address those needs fit the family’s culture and priorities.

When Talia sees Julio appears overwhelmed with three bowls on his highchair tray, her initial thought is to give him only one bowl at a time. This adaptation would also give him more opportunities to practice requesting (IFSP outcome) another type of food. In her discussion with the family, as part of the assessment, Talia asks, “I noticed you put three bowls on Julio’s tray. Can you tell me more about your decision to do that?” Daniel states they want Julio to participate in the meal like the rest of the family. Each family member chooses what they want when they want it. Talia realizes her initial idea does not fit this particular family priority and any adaptation would need to make sure Julio could easily access different food choices.

“Environmental assessments focus on those features that influence child participation and learning. Any other environmental features are respected as how the family chooses to go about their routines.”

Talia describes to the family her observation regarding Julio’s regulation (i.e., developmental characteristic) and affirms the importance of him easily accessing food choices (i.e., family priority). She wonders aloud if Julio might use one bowl with three sections (material adaptation) rather than three bowls. That might be less overwhelming, but still give him food choices. Clara identifies they already have such a bowl and shows it to Talia. Talia thinks the bowl could work great as each section was a different color. That could make it easier for Julio to distinguish each section (moderate challenge). And with less food in the bowl, Julio would have more opportunities to practice the IFSP outcome of requesting. Talia also notes the new environmental strength (i.e., material) discovered—a bowl the family already had.

Identifying potential adaptations is part of assessment as the data gathered are interpreted and recommendations created. EI practitioners partner with the family in conducting these assessment steps so adaptation recommendations fit both the child and family.

“Recognition” by DianeNeile is licensed under CC BY-ND 2.0

Respecting Family Culture

Environmental assessments focus on those features that influence child participation and learning. Any other environmental features are respected as how the family chooses to go about their routines. These features may be discussed to avoid making assumptions about family priorities and culture when planning interventions (Dunst, Hamby, Raab, & Bruder, 2017).

During the observation, Talia notices Clara is the one taking the lead in helping Julio eat and get dressed. Talia wonders if, in this family, Clara is always responsible for caregiving routines, perhaps reflective of their individual family culture. Talia asks about this, not to change how this family functions, but to avoid making assumptions. If Daniel takes the lead other times, she would want to assess during those times too as Daniel’s interactions (i.e., social environment) could look different from Clara’s. Talia explains this rationale to the family prior so the family is assured their cultural choices are respected.

Conclusion

Adapting the social, physical, and temporal environmental features in homes is a DEC recommended practice. To plan such interventions, EI practitioners assess the environmental strengths and needs of family routines. This assessment focuses on the environmental goodness of fit to the child’s individual developmental characteristics, attuned particularly to the IFSP outcomes. The assessment also includes understanding how those environmental characteristics reflect family priorities and culture. That way, EI practitioners can partner with each family to create adaptations that uniquely fit their child and their family.

As Talia reflects on her most recent week, she thinks families really appreciate learning how they already help their child learn, their environmental strengths. Instead of generic intervention strategies, Talia thinks she and each family created adaptations uniquely tailored for that family and their child. Talia identifies this only can occur by truly understanding the family’s environment, priorities, and culture.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

You may reach Bonnie Keilty by e-mail at bkeilty@hunter.cuny.edu.

References

Albrecht

E. C.

Khetani

M. A.

(2016). Environmental impact on young children’s participation in home-based activities. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 59, 388-394.

Bagnato

(2007). Authentic assessment for early childhood intervention: Best practices. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Bigelow

K. M.

Carta

J. J.

Irvin

D. W.

Hemmeter

M. L.

(2019). Teaching Pyramid Infant-Toddler Observation Scale (TPITOSTM) for Infant-Toddler Classrooms, Research Edition. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co.

Bronfenbrenner

(1993). The ecology of cognitive development: Research models and fugitive findings. In Wozniak

R. H.

Fischer

K. W.

(Eds.), Development in context: Acting and thinking in specific environments (pp. 3-44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Caldwell

B. M.

Bradley

R. H.

(1984). Home observation for measurement of the environment. Little Rock: University of Arkansas.

Campbell

P. H.

Kennedy

A. A.

Milbourne

S. A.

(2012). CARA’s kit for toddlers: Creating adaptations for routines and activities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Copple

Bredekamp

(Eds.). (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

De Arment

Coleman

. (2016). Optimizing accessibility through universal design for learning. In Catalino

Meyer

L. E.

(Eds.), Recommended Practices Monograph Series No. 2: Environment: Promoting meaningful access, participation, and inclusion (pp. 33-50). Washington, DC: Division for Early Childhood.

Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children. (2014). DEC recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood special education. Retrieved from http://www.dec-sped.org/recommendedpractices

10.

Dunst

C. J.

Hamby

D. W.

Raab

Bruder

M. B.

(2017). Family socioeconomic status and ethnicity, acculturation, and enculturation, parent beliefs about child behavior, learning methods, and parenting roles. Journal of Education and Culture Studies, 1, 99-122.

11.

Erwin

E. J.

Maude

S. P.

Palmer

S. B.

Summers

J. A.

Brotherson

M. J.

Haines

S. J.

. . . Peck

N. F.

(2016). Fostering the foundations of self-determination in early childhood: A process for enhancing child outcomes across home and school. Early Childhood Education Journal, 44, 325-333.

12.

Hamre

B. K.

LaParo

K. M.

Pianta

R. C.

LoCasale-Crouch

(2014). Classroom assessment scoring system manual: Infant. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co.

13.

Harms

Cryer

Clifford

R. M.

Yzejian

(2017). Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale, Third Edition (ITERS-3). New York: Teachers College Press.

14.

Harms

Cryer

Clifford

R. M.

Yzejian

(2019). Family Child Care Environment Rating Scale, Third Edition (FCCERS-3). New York: Teachers College Press.

15.

Innocenti

Roggman

Cook

(2013). Using the PICCOLO with parents of children with a disability. Infant Mental Health, 34, 307-318.

16.

Jeffries

LaForme Fiss

(2016). The International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF): Focusing on the environment. In Catalino

Meyer

L. E.

(Eds.), Recommended Practices Monograph Series No. 2: Environment: Promoting meaningful access, participation, and inclusion (pp. 19-31). Washington, DC: Division for Early Childhood.

17.

LaParo

K. M.

Hamre

B. K.

Pianta

R. C.

(2012). Classroom Assessment Scoring System manual: Toddler. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co.

18.

Mahoney

Boyce

Fewell

Spiker

Wheeden

(1998). The relationship of parent-child interaction to the effectiveness of early intervention services for at-risk children and children with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 18, 5-17.

19.

Meisels

Wen

Beachy-Quick

(2010). Authentic assessment for infants and toddlers: Exploring the reliability and validity of the Ounce Scale. Applied Developmental Science, 14(2), 55-71.

20.

Milbourne

S. A.

(2012). The new CARA’s Kit for Toddlers: A user friendly and practical tool to promote toddler participation and learning [PowerPoint slides and Handout]. Retrieved from https://inclusioninstitute.fpg.unc.edu/sessions/new-cara’s-kit-toddlers-user-friendly-and-practical-tool-promote-toddler-participation-and

21.

National Research Council. (2008). Early childhood assessment: Why, what, and how. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

22.

Palisano

Chiarello

King

Novak

Stoner

LaForme Fiss

(2012). Participation-based therapy for children with physical disabilities. Disability & Rehabilitation, 34, 1041-1052.

23.

Raikes

Roggman

Peterson

Brooks-Gunn

Chazan-Cohen

Zhang

Schiffman

(2014). Theories of change and outcomes in home-based early head start programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29, 574-585. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.05.003

24.

Roggman

Cook

Innocenti

Jump Norman

Anderson

Christiansen

(2013). Parenting interactions with children checklist of observations linked to outcomes: User’s guide. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

25.

Rush

D. D.

Shelden

M. L.

(2011). The early childhood coaching handbook. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

26.

Thurman

S. K.

(1997). Systems, ecologies, and the context of early intervention. In Thurman

S. K.

Cornwell

Gottwald

(Eds.), Contexts of early intervention: Systems and settings (pp. 3-19). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

27.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.