References to “most promising practices” in educational programs for students with severe disabilities reflect a mix of social values as well as empirically validated instructional strategies. A literature search and polling of nationally recognized experts in severe disabilities was conducted to generate a listing of 123 items representing Program Quality Indicators. This initial listing was then rated by six groups (a total N = 254) representing various interests and constituencies: (a) behavior therapy experts, (b) experts in severe disabilities, (c) experts in deaf-blind, (d) mental retardation researchers, (e) state directors of special education, and (f) parents involved in advocacy efforts. Mean ratings for each item support the relative values of each of the indicators, and the results of factor analysis of the item ratings revealed five dimensions, which were valued differentially by the six respondent groups. Results are discussed in terms of future efforts to translate most promising practices into typical practices for students with severe disabilities in public school settings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaerD. M. (1986). Exemplary service to what outcome? [Review of Education of learners with severe handicaps: Exemplary service strategies]. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 11, 145–147.
2.
BrownL.NietupskiJ.Hamre-NietupskiS. (1976). The criterion of ultimate functioning and public school services for severely handicapped students. In ThomasM. A. (Ed.), Hey, don't forget about me: Education's investment in the severely, profoundly, and multiply handicapped (pp. 2–15) Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
3.
DonnellanA. M. (1984). The criterion of the least dangerous assumption. Behavioral Disorders9, 141–150.
4.
DonnellanA. M.NeelR. S. (1986). New directions in educating students with autism. In HornerR. H.MeyerL. H.FredericksH. D. B. (Eds.), Education of learners with severe handicaps: Exemplary service strategies (pp. 99–126) Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
5.
FordA.CorreaV. (1985). A module on the design of community-referenced programs for deaf-blind individuals.Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Division of Special Education and Rehabilitation.
6.
FoxW.ThousandJ.WilliamsW.FoxT.TowneP.ReidR.Conn-PowersC.CalcagniL. (1986). Best educational practices 1986: Educating learners with severe handicaps, 6(1).
7.
GoetzL.GuessD.Stremel-CampbellK. (Eds.). (1987). Innovative program design for individuals with dual sensory impairments.Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
8.
Hamre-NietupskiS.SwattaP.VeerhusenK.OlsenM. (1986). Teacher training modules related to teaching severely handicapped students with sensory impairments.Cedar Falls: University of Northern Iowa.
9.
HandlemanJ. S. (1986). [Review of Community-based curriculum: Instructional strategies for students with severe handicaps]. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 8(3), 52–54.
10.
HornerR. H.MeyerL. H.FredericksH. D. (Eds.). (1986). Education of learners with severe handicaps: Exemplary service strategies.Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
11.
McGregorG.JanssenC. M.LarsenL. A.TilleryW. L. (1986). Philadelphia's Urban Model Project: A system-wide effort to integrate students with severe handicaps. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps11, 61–67.
12.
MeyerL. H. (1985). Program Quality Indicators: A checklist of most promising practices in educational programs for students with severe disabilities.Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Division of Special Education and Rehabilitation.
13.
MeyerL. H. (1987). Program Quality Indicators: A checklist of most promising practices in educational programs for students with severe disabilities (rev. ed.) Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Division of Special Education and Rehabilitation.
14.
MeyerL. H.EichingerJ. (1987). Program evaluation in support of program development: Needs, strategies, and future directions. In GoetzL.GuessD.Stremel-CampbellK. (Eds.), Innovative program design for individuals with dual sensory impairments (pp. 313–353) Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
15.
MeyerL. H.PutnamJ. (in press). Social integration. In Van HasseltV. B.StrainP. S.HersenM. (Eds.), Handbook of developmental and physical disabilities.New York: Pergamon.
16.
Meyer VoeltzL. H. (Ed.). (1983). A series of professional training modules on the education of severely handicapped learners: An update on educational best practices.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Upper Midwest Regional Resource Center.
17.
National Regional Resource Panel. (1986). Effectiveness indicators for special education: A resource tool.Hampton, NH: Center for Resource Management, Inc. (Available from the National Clearinghouse of Rehabilitation Training Materials, Oklahoma State University, Old USDA Building, Room 115, Stillwater, OK 74078–0433).
18.
Park-LeeS.MeyerL. H. (in preparation). A teacher self-assessment of difficulties in implementing recommended practices in public school settings.
19.
PeckC. A.SemmelM. I. (1982). Identifying the least restrictive environment (LRE) for children with handicaps: Toward an empirical analysis. Journal of The Association for the Severely Handicapped7(1), 56–63.
20.
PutnamJ.BruininksR. H. (1986). Future directions in deinstitutionalization and education: A Delphi investigation. Exceptional Children53(1), 55–62.
21.
RomanczykR. (1986). Some thoughts on future trends in the education of individuals with autism. The Behavior Therapist9, 162–164.
22.
SAS User's Guide: Statistics, Version 5 Edition. (1985). Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
23.
WolfM. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement, or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis11, 203–214.
