christina kasprzak austin, texas november 2010
DESCRIPTION
Analyzing and Interpreting Child Outcomes Data. Christina Kasprzak Austin, Texas November 2010. Objective for the day. To share with you ideas and resources for use in training and TA that will help districts to analyze and use COSF data. 2. Agenda. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Christina KasprzakAustin, Texas
November 2010
1
Analyzing and Interpreting
Child Outcomes Data
The National Early ChildhoodTechnical Assistance Center
Objective for the day
To share with you ideas and resources for use in training and TA that will help districts
to analyze and use COSF data
2
Agenda
• Looking at data—generally; national; state;
regional
• Follow up discussion about assessment
tools
• Communicating data results
• Public reporting requirements
• Framework for a quality outcomes system
3
Recap from March
4
• Assessment (more debrief on this after lunch)• no assessment created for this outcomes
process• best practices on assessment = multiple data
sources• types of assessment including pros and cons• benefits of limiting assessments for COSF• selecting tools for COSF process• activity – reviewing assessment tools and
identifying strengths, weaknesses, how it fits with COSF process
Recap from March
• Promoting Data Quality – ECO Training Materials and Activities• COSF refresher training• quality review of COSF team discussion• involving families in outcomes process• written child example• reviewing a COSF for quality
5
Why do a good job with COSF data?
It’s hard to change attitudes!
What motivates people?Altruistic?Fear?Logic?Money?
6
Why do a good job with COSF data?
Altruistic: Because you believe child and family outcomes are why you do your job!Fear: Because you can look bad! (to the state; to the public via public reporting)Logic: Because a program should be accountable for the results of their services!Money: Because OMB is using the data to make decisions– federal dollars are at stake!
7
Why do a good job with COSF data?
•Today’s focus on ‘looking at data’ will give you more tools and resources for changing
attitudes!
8
Looking at Data
9
Continuous Program Improvement
Plan (vision) Program characteristics
Child and family outcomes
Implement
Check(Collect and analyze data)
ReflectAre we where we
want to be?
10
Evidence
Inference
Action
Using data for program improvement = EIA
11
Evidence
• Evidence refers to the numbers, such as“45% of children in
category b”
• The numbers are not debatable
12
• How do you interpret the #s?• What can you conclude from the #s?• Does evidence mean good news?
Bad news? News we can’t interpret?• To reach an inference, sometimes we
analyze data in other ways (ask for more evidence)
Inference
13
• Inference is debatable -- even reasonable people can reach different conclusions
• Stakeholders can help with putting meaning on the numbers
• Early on, the inference may be more a question of the quality of the data
Inference
14
Action
• Given the inference from the numbers, what should be done?
• Recommendations or action steps• Action can be debatable – and often is• Another role for stakeholders• Again, early on the action might have to
do with improving the quality of the data
15
Promoting quality data Promoting quality data through data analysisthrough data analysis
16
• Examine the data for inconsistencies
• If/when you find something strange, look for other data that might help explain it.
• Is the variation caused by something other than bad data?
Promoting quality data through data analysis
17
The validity of your data is questionable if…
The overall pattern in the data looks “strange’:
– Compared to what you expect– Compared to other data– Compared to similar
states/regions/school districts
18
Let’s look at some data …
19
Remember: Part C &619 Child Outcomes (see cheat sheet)
1. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);
2. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication [and early literacy]); and
3. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs
20
21
• 7-Completely- Age appropriate functioning in all or almost all everyday situations; no concerns
• 6- Age appropriate functioning, some significant concerns• 5-Somewhat- Age appropriate functioning some of the time and/or in
some settings and situations• 4- Occasional age-appropriate functioning across settings and situations;
more functioning is not age-appropriate than age appropriate.• 3-Nearly- Not yet age appropriate functioning; immediate foundational
skills most or all of the time• 2- Occasional use of immediate foundational skills• 1-Not yet- Not yet age appropriate functioning or immediate
foundational skills
Remember: COSF 7-point scale
Rating Statewide # Statewide%
1 300 15%
2 421 21%
3 516 25%
4 604 29%
5 101 5%
6 109 5%
7 0 0%
COSF Ratings – Outcome 1 Entry data (fake data)
22
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Frequency on Outcome 1 – Statewide Entry Data
23
24
Rating Group 1 #
Group 2 #
Group 3 #
Group 4 #
1 30 11 10 12
2 40 10 42 42
3 50 20 23 23
4 64 31 32 34
5 10 40 45 44
6 10 52 50 40
7 0 4 2 2
COSF Ratings – Outcome 1 Entry data (fake data)
25
Rating Group 1% Group 2 %
Group 3 %
Group 4 %
1 15 7 5 6
2 20 6 21 21
3 25 12 11 12
4 31 18 16 17
5 5 24 22 22
6 5 31 25 20
7 0 2 1 1
COSF Ratings – Outcome 1 Entry data (fake data)
26
Comparison of two Groups
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
27
GroupSocial-
EmotionalKnowledgeand Skills
Action toMeet Needs
1 4.5 4.6 4.7
2 5.3 5.2 4.7
3 4.9 4.9 4.9
4 6.4 5.9 6.6
5 5.3 4.3 4.9
6 3.8 2.9 3.9
Total 5.03 4.63 4.95
Average Entry Scores on Outcomes
Entry
Exit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 total
1 1 4 2 7
2 1 1 5 6 9 3 1 26
3 2 15 14 27 19 6 83
4 4 4 21 39 28 12 108
5 1 12 14 71 86 48 232
6 1 3 21 48 63 136
7 2 18 23 56 99
Review Total 2 13 38 60 185 207 186 691
Outcome 3: Appropriate Action (fake data)
100
Remember: Reporting Categories
Percentage of children who:
a. Did not improve functioningb. Improved functioning, but not sufficient to move
nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers
c. Improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it
d. Improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers
e. Maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers
293 outcomes x 5 “measures” = 15 numbers
30
OSEP Categories Children
e. Maintained Age Appro Trajectory 23%
d. Changed Traj – Age Appro 15%
c. Changed Traj – Closer to Age Appropriate 32%
b. Same Trajectory -Progress 28%
a. Flat Trajectory – No Prog. 2%
Progress Data – Outcome 2: fake data
31
OSEP CategoriesGroup 1
(%)Group 2
(%)Group 3
(%)
e. Maintained Age Appro Trajectory 23 16 24
d. Changed Traj – Age Appro 15 23 13c. Changed Traj – Closer to
Age Appropriate 32 34 37
b. Same Trajectory -Progress 28 21 25
a. Flat Trajectory – No Prog. 2 6 1
Progress Data – Outcome 2: fake data
OSEP Progress Categories for Outcome 1
Program a b c d eRow total
Children’s Corner 1 1 3 1 8 14
Elite Care 1 6 2 2 6 17
Ms Mary’s 1 3 3 11 13 31New
Horizons 0 1 4 2 3 10
Oglethorpe 0 2 3 2 10 17Column
total 3 13 15 18 40 89
Progress Categories OSEP 1
Program a b c d e
Row percent totals
Children’s Corner 33% 8% 20% 6% 20% 16%
Elite Care 33% 46% 13% 11% 15% 19%
Ms Mary’s 33% 23% 20% 61% 33% 35%New
Horizons 0% 8% 27% 11% 8% 11%
Oglethorpe 0% 15% 20% 11% 25% 19%Column percent totals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Progress Categories OSEP 1
Program a b c d eRow
percent totals
Children’s Corner 7% 7% 21% 7% 57% 100%
Elite Care 6% 35% 12% 12% 35% 100%
Ms Mary’s 3% 10% 10% 35% 42% 100%New
Horizons 0% 10% 40% 20% 30% 100%
Oglethorpe 0% 12% 18% 12% 59% 100%Column percent totals 3% 15% 17% 20% 45% 100%
Final results
• Using the row percents we know that 35% of children in Ms Mary’s programs closed the gap in Outcome 1.
• As a reference, we can compare this to the 20% of children across all programs that closed the gap in Outcome 1.
• Why? Is this an important difference? – To answer that question we would conduct
additional analysis
36
• Do the data make sense?– Am I surprised? Do I believe the data?
Believe some of the data? All of the data?
• If the data are reasonable (or when they become reasonable), what might they tell us?
Questions to ask
37
• One group - Frequency Distribution– Tables– Graphs
• Comparing Groups– Graphs– Averages
Examining COSF data at one time point
38
Do outcomes vary by:
•Unit/District/Program?•Rating at Entry?•Amount of movement on the scale?•% in the various progress categories?
What we’ve looked at:
39
Do outcomes vary by child/family variables
or by service variables, e.g. :
•Services received?•Age at entry to service?•Type of services received?•Family outcomes?•Education level of parent?
What else might you want to look at?
40
Activity 1: Reviewing sample data
41
• Break into small groups of ~5• Walk through the state example
answering questions as you go• Whole group: share highlights of
your conversations
Small Groups
Application
42
How could you use this type of datadiscussion in your training and TA?
What experiences or resources do youhave with discussing outcomes data inyour training and TA?
43
Summary Statements
Origin of the Summary Statements
• States reported on the OSEP Progress Categories for a few years
• States knew they would be asked to set targets
• Using the progress categories would require setting 15 targets…
44
45
• ECO prepared papers with options• Convened stakeholders• Extensive discussion about pros and cons
of various summary statements• See Options and ECO
Recommendations for Summary Statements for Target Setting on the ECO web site:
http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~eco/assets/pdfs/summary_of_target_setting-2.pdf
Origin of the Summary Statements
46
1. Of those children who entered the program below age expectations in each Outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.
2. The percent of children who were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.
Summary Statements
47
1. Of those children who entered the program below age expectations in each Outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the program.
c + d___ a + b + c + d
Summary Statements
48
• How many children changed growth trajectories during their time in the program?
• Percent of the children who entered the program below age expectations made greater than expected gains, made substantial increases in their rates of growth, i.e. changed their growth trajectories
Other Ways to Think about Summary Statement 1
Summary Statements
2. The percent of children who were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they exited the program.
d + e__ a + b + c + d + e
49
50
Other Ways to Think about Summary Statement 2
•How many children were functioning like same aged peers when they left the program?
•Percent of the children who were functioning at age expectations in this outcome area when they exited the program, including those who:
• started out behind and caught up and• entered and exited at age level
51
COSF ratings
OSEP categories
Summary Statements
The connection:
52
National and
Texas Data
State Approaches to Measuring Child Outcomes
• Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF)– 36 (61%) 619
• Single assessment statewide– 9 (15%) 619
• Publishers’ online assessment systems– 6 (10%) 619
• Other approaches– 7 (12%) 619
*one state preschool program still unknown53
MH
HI
GU
PWFM
AS
MP
State Approaches to Child Outcomes Measurement – 619 Programs
Early Childhood Outcomes Center – August 2010
Legend: COSF Publishers’ on-line systems One tool statewide Other
National Progress Data Feb 2010
55
National Summary Statement Data
56
Texas 619 Progress Data Feb 2010
57
Texas 619 Summary Statement Data
58
59
Activity 2: Texas statewide and
regional data
60
1. Review Texas Statewide data2. Review regional data (comparing to one another
and to the state)3. Discuss:
– What surprises you about the data?– What questions do the data raise?– What additional data collection or analysis would you do to
dig deeper?
4. “Gallery Walk” - Record you small groups best ideas on sheet to be posted and shared with whole group
Small Group Instructions:
61
How could you use this type of activity in your training and TA?
What experiences or resources do youhave with discussing outcomes data
inyour training and TA?
Application
Assessment Tools and COSF
62
Recap from March - Assessment
• Assessment (more debrief on this after lunch)
• no assessment created for this outcomes process• best practices on assessment = multiple data sources• types of assessment including pros and cons• benefits of limiting assessments for COSF• selecting tools for COSF process• activity – reviewing assessment tools and identifying strengths, weaknesses, how it fits with COSF process
63
64
Assessment considerations in reporting child
outcomes dataa. No assessment developed for this purposeb. No ‘perfect’ assessmentc. Formal assessment is one piece of informationd. Formal assessment can provide consistency across
teachers/providers, programs, statee. Formal assessment can ground teachers/providers
in age expectations
Selecting and implementing good formal assessments as an essential component of good child outcomes
measurement
DEC recommended practices on early childhood
assessment
1. Professionals and families collaborate in planning and implementing assessment.
2. Assessment is individualized and appropriate for the child and family.
3. Assessment provides useful information for intervention.
4. Professionals share information in respectful and useful ways.
5. Professionals meet legal and procedural requirements and meet recommended practice guidelines.
65
66
Types of Assessment
• Norm-referenced instrument• Criterion-Referenced instrument• Curriculum-based instrument• Direct observation• Progress monitoring• Parent or professional report
(and any combination of above)
PROS and CONS of Norm referenced instruments
PROS• Provides information on
development in relation to others
• Already used for eligibility• Diagnosis of
developmental delay• Standardized procedures
CONS• Does not inform intervention • Information removed from
context of child’s routines• Usually not developed or
validated with children w/ disabilities
• Does not meet many recommended practice standards
• May be difficult to administer or require specialized training.
67
68
PROS and CONS of Criterion Referenced instruments
PROS• Measures child’s performance of
specific objectives• Direct link between assessment
and intervention• Provides information on child’s
strengths and emerging skills• Helps teams plan and meet
individual child’s needs• Meets recommended assessment
practice standards• Measures child progress• May be used to measure program
effectiveness
CONS• Requires agreement on criteria
and standards• Criteria must be clear and
appropriate• Usually does not show
performance compared to other children
• Does not have standard administration procedures
• May not move child toward important goals
• Scores may not reflect increasing proficiency toward outcomes
69
PROS and CONS of Curriculum-based instruments
PROS• Provides link between
assessment and curriculum• Expectations based upon the
curriculum and instruction• Can be used to plan intervention• Measures child’s current status or
curriculum• Evaluates program effects• Often team based• Meets DEC and NAEYC
recommended standards• Represents picture of the child’s
performance
CONS• May not have established
reliability and validity• May not have procedures for
comparing child to a normal distribution
• Generally linked to a specific curriculum
• Sometimes comprised of milestones that may not be in order of importance
70
Benefits of limiting assessment tools used for COSF
• Ensure use of quality assessments as foundation for COSF
• Increase the consistency across individuals and programs (ensure the quality of the data)
• Reduce Cost/Resources it takes to train and support many tools
• Other benefits?
71
What types of criteria to consider in the process of selecting tools for use
with COSF
• How well does it cover the 3 outcome areas?• How functional is the information collected about
the child?• Does the instrument allow a child to show their
skills and behaviors in natural settings and situations?
• Does the instrument incorporate observation, parent input, or other sources?
• Is the instrument limited to an ideal testing situation?
72
Successes?Challenges?Next steps?
How’s it going?
73
Activity 3: Reviewing data on
assessments used with COSFs
74
Small Group Instructions:
1. Review data on assessments used with COSFs
2. Discuss:– What do the data say? What stands out for you?– What might this data mean?– What questions does it raise?– What next steps might be taken?
3. Share back with whole group
75
Application
How could you use an activity like this in your training and TA?
What experiences or resources do you have about assessment that you
already use in your training and TA?
Communicating Effectively with the Media and Public
about Child Outcomes Data
76
Being prepared………..
• How will we talk about the child outcomes data with:– The media– State legislators– State agency heads– Families– Early intervention and 619 providers– State advisory councils– Other key stakeholders in your state
77
78
Being prepared means……….
• Thinking ahead about how to talk about the data.
• Writing out the specific messages you want to make (an internal ‘talking points’ memo).
• Developing a 1-2 page fact sheet that summarizes the findings and your messages.
• Using public dissemination opportunities to get out key messages that will educate the public about your programs, their benefits.
79
Being prepared means thinking about…
• What audiences? • What you want each audience
to know about your program including any recent changes in eligibility, system, etc.)?
• What you want each audience to know about the data?
Being prepared means……….
• Identifying key spokespersons.
• Being thoroughly familiar with your state’s data.
• Practicing your talking points with individuals who are not familiar with the program.
80
81
Crafting the messages:Set the context
• Provide the context (Federal reporting).• Use the ECO Center Q&A document** to
explain:– What are the child outcomes– Why we are measuring and reporting
outcomes– The ultimate goal is to enable young
children to be active and successful participants during the early childhood years and in the future in a variety of settings, in their homes with their families, in child care, preschool or school programs, and in the community.
82
Crafting the messages: Summary Statement #1
• Of those children who entered the program below age expectations in Outcome __, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 3/6 years of age or exited the program.
• Share the numbers; describe them in simple ways:– “Nearly two-thirds of the
children made greater than expected progress while in the program.”
83
Crafting the messages: Summary Statement #2
• The percent of children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome __ by the time they turned 3/6 years of age or exited the program.
• Share the numbers; describe them in simple ways:– “About half of the children
were functioning like same age peers when they left the program.”
84
Key issues in messaging the data….
• How do we look ahead and become thoroughly prepared to present and explain the child outcomes data?
85
Anticipate Questions
• What are 3 questions that different audiences may ask you about the child outcomes data? – Families– Legislators– Agency heads– State or local councils/boards– The media
86
Making the message understandable…..
How do you make the message easily understandable for the public?
Use “Plain Speak”Don’t be repetitiveExplain how your data relates to the
average person in your stateWhat are you saying about how the
children are doing?Discuss in terms of what is important
to all families
87
Describe the numbers in simple ways ….
– “Nearly half the children showed made greater than expected progress while they were in the program.”
– “About two-thirds of the children were performing like same age peers when they left the program.”You can talk about more than the two
Summary Statements.
88
Give YOUR interpretation about
the numbers…..
• “We see these data as good news….”• “We are pleased that the data shows
that children in these programs are making progress between the time they enter and leave these programs…”
• “Many children are catching up with peers in the same age group…”
89
Share other key messages to educate your
audiences….• “These programs serve
many different children….”• “Some children have mild
delays or problems in one area only. These are children who can ‘catch up’”.
• “Other children have more significant disabilities; some make substantial progress and others make less progress”.
90
Link messages to broader EC issues…
• Point out how the program is helping get children ready for school.
• Note that there is lots of policy attention and research about the cost effectiveness of early learning programs.
91
Think ahead about messages that might work or not
work….
• What are some messages that have worked for you in the past?
• What are some messages that didn’t work so well, or were misinterpreted by the media or public or other key audiences?
92
If the data show possible problems….
• Get out in front of the data, and note the problem areas:– “We see large differences in the data in
different regions………..”• Then, offer interpretations and note
that you are trying to understand such differences:– “We are trying to understand these
variations. They may have to do with differences in the children being served or in ways the data are being collected…..”
93
Preparing a response…..
• Find the main message you want to communicate
• Translate the main message into a simple statement about the data
• Use quotes to explain the meaning of the data; give an interpretation– Include quote by state official.– Include quote by program or provider.– Include quote(s) from parent(s).
94
End any messaging by returning to the big picture
message…..
“The goal of these programs is for children to be active and successful participants now and in the future”.
95
Activity 4: Prepare to answer
questions from different audiences
Small Group Instructions:
1. Identify 3 key questions that different audiences may ask about child outcomes data
2. Choose one key question to focus on for creating a response.
3. Discuss how you might use data to respond to the question. What are the messages you want to send?
4. Share back with whole group
96
97
Application
How could you use the messaging materials in your training and TA?
What similar experiences or resources do you have that you
already use in your training and TA?
Public Reporting
98
99
Public Reporting
• Requirements
• Timelines
• Expectations
Wrap Up Day 1
100
ECO Framework and Self Assessment
101
Purpose of the ECO Framework
• Designed to identify key components that
make up a quality outcomes measurement
system.
• Designed to be used by state agencies to
assess progress toward full implementation of
a child outcomes measurement system.
102
103
Components measured
• Purpose
• Data collection and transmission
• Analysis
• Reporting
• Using data
• Evaluation
• Cross-system coordination
104
Self Assessment Scale
1 = No or minimal
implementation
3 = Some implementation
5 = Substantial implementation
7 = Full implementation
(effective, efficient)
105
Activity 3: ECO Framework and Self
Assessment
106
Small Group Instructions:
1. Break into 6 groups – each assigned a focus:1. Data collection and transmission2. Analysis3. Reporting AND Using data
2. Discuss and complete the self assessment area assigned to your group.
3. Share back with whole group• How is Texas doing in this area?• How are regions/districts doing in this area?
107
Application
How could you use the framework and/or self assessment in your training and TA?
What similar experiences or resources do you have that you already use in your
training and TA?
Needs Assessment
108
109
High quality servicesfor children and
familiesthat will lead to good
outcomes.
Keeping our eye on the prize:
110
Find more resources at: http://www. the-eco-center-
org