We utilized a mixed methods design to analyze responses to a U.S.-distributed survey regarding early childhood professionals’ (N = 1,047) use of culturally and linguistically responsive practices during the initial evaluation for early intervention or early childhood special education. Findings from the fully mixed concurrent equal status mixed methods design showed that personnel used some culturally and linguistically responsive evaluation practices, such as using interpreters and asking families about language use and routines at home. Other culturally and linguistically responsive evaluation practices were used by fewer than half of survey respondents. Participants noted a lack of bicultural and bilingual staff, training, materials, and other supports for implementing culturally and linguistically responsive evaluations. We discuss the need for ongoing efforts to ensure equitable access to early intervention and special education services for racially and linguistically marginalized young children.
AcarS.BlascoP. M. (2018). Guidelines for collaborating with interpreters in early intervention/early childhood special education. Young Exceptional Children, 21(3), 170–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096250616674516
2.
BanerjeeR.GuibersonM. (2012). Evaluating young children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds for special education services. Young Exceptional Children, 15(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096250611435368
3.
BanerjeeR.LucknerJ. (2014). Training needs of early childhood professionals who work with children and families who are culturally and linguistically diverse. Infants and Young Children, 27(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1097/iyc.0000000000000000
4.
BarruecoS.LopezM.OngC.LozanoP. (2012). Assessing Spanish-English bilingual preschoolers: A guide to best approaches and measures. Paul H Brookes Publishing.
CheathamG. A. (2011). Language interpretation, parent participation, and young children with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 31(2), 78–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121410377120
9.
CorbinJ. M.StraussA. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.
10.
CreswellJ. W.CreswellJ. (2003). Research design. SAGE.
11.
DempseyA. G.GoodeR. H.ColonM. T.HolubeckP.NsierH.ZopattiK.NeedelmanH. (2020). Variations in criteria for eligibility determination for early intervention services with a focus on eligibility for children with neonatal complications. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 41(8), 646–655. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0000000000000852
12.
DenscombeM. (2008). The length of responses to open-ended questions: A comparison of online and paper questionnaires in terms of a mode effect. Social Science Computer Review, 26, 359–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439307309671
13.
de Sam LazaroS. L. (2017). The importance of authentic assessments in eligibility determination for infants and toddlers. Journal of Early Intervention, 39(2), 88–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815116689061
EspinosaL. M.GarcíaE. (2012). Developmental assessment of young dual language learners with a focus on kindergarten entry assessments: Implications for state policies. Center for Early Care and Education Research–Dual Language Learners (CECER- DLL). The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute.
16.
FreemanM. R.SchroederS. R. (2022). Assessing language skills in bilingual children: Current trends in research and practice. Journal of Child Science, 12, e33–e46. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1743575
17.
GillbornD. (2019). Hiding in plain sight: Understanding and addressing whiteness and color-blind ideology in education. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 55(3), 112–117.
18.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).
19.
LeechN. L.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2007). An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A call for data analysis triangulation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(4), 557–584. https://doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.22.4.557
LekoM. M.HitchcockJ. H.LoveH. R.HouchinsD. E.ConroyM. A. (2022). Quality indicators for mixed-methods research in special education. Exceptional Children. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029221141031
22.
Linan-ThompsonS.Lara-MartinezJ. A.CavazosL. O. (2018). Exploring the intersection of evidence-based practices and culturally and linguistically responsive practices. Intervention in School and Clinic, 54(1), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451218762574
23.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Establishing trustworthiness. Naturalistic Inquiry, 289(331), 289–327.
24.
McLeanM. (2001). Conducting culturally sensitive child assessments. In Serving the underserved: A review of the research and practice in Child Find, assessment, and the FSP/IEP process for culturally and linguistically diverse young children. ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education, Council for Exceptional Children. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED454640.pdf
25.
MoranK. K.SheppardM. E. (2022). Finding the on ramp: Accessing early intervention and early childhood special education in an urban setting. Journal of Early Intervention. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10538151221137801
26.
NagleR.Glover GagnonS.Kidder-AshleyP. (2020). Issues in preschool assessment. In AlfonsoV. C.BrackenB. A.NagleR. J. (Eds.), Psychoeducational assessment of Preschool Children (5th ed., pp. 3–31). Taylor & Francis.
27.
NeisworthJ. T.BagnatoS. J. (2004). The mismeasure of young children: The authentic assessment alternative. Infants and Young Children, 17(3), 198–212.
28.
NeitzelJ. (2018). Research to practice: Understanding the role of implicit bias in early childhood disciplinary practices. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 39(3), 232–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2018.1463322
29.
OrtizS. O.WongJ. Y. T. (2020). Psychological assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse preschool children. In AlfonsoV. C.BrackenB. A.NagleR. J. (Eds.), Psychoeducational assessment of preschool children (5th ed., pp. 346–374). Taylor & Francis.
30.
O’ConnorC.JoffeH. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220
31.
PeñaE. D. (2007). Lost in translation: Methodological considerations in cross-cultural research. Child Development, 78, 1255–1264.
32.
PeñaE. D.HalleT. G. (2011). Assessing preschool dual language learners: Traveling a multiforked road. Child Development Perspectives, 5(1), 28–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2010.00143.x
33.
QueblesI.PerrigoJ. L.BravoR.Patel GeraM.PoulsenM. K.WheelerB. Y.WilliamsM. E. (2022). Latinx mothers’ experiences with linkage to early intervention. Infants and Young Children, 35(3), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1097/iyc.0000000000000220
34.
Savin-BadenM.Howell-MajorC. (2013). Qualitative research: The essential guide to theory and practice. Routledge.
35.
SteedE. A.SteinR. (2021). Initial evaluation practices and processes: A survey of early childhood personnel. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/02711214211005856
36.
SullivanA. L. (2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and placement of English language learners. Exceptional Children, 77(3), 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291107700304
37.
ThordardottirE. (2015). Proposed diagnostic procedures for use in bilingual and cross-linguistic context. In Armon-LotemS.de JongJ.MeirN. (Eds.), Assessing multilingual children. Disentangling bilingualism from language impairment (pp. 331–358). Multilingual Matters.
ZhouR.WangX.ZhangL.GuoH. (2017). Who tends to answer open-ended questions in an e-service survey? The contribution of closed-ended answers. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(12), 1274–1284. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929x.2017.1381165
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.
