SLPSurveyNeuroRehabilitation2023

Using guided credible history interviews to establish special education eligibility for students with traumatic brain injury.

Melissa McCart, Deanne Unruh, Doug Gomez and 8 others

PMID 37125572

WHAT IT FOUND

Oregon educators reported that requiring medical documentation blocks special education eligibility for students with traumatic brain injury.

Most supported a guided interview with parents as an alternative, which later increased identified students by 20 percent.

Key findings

0185% of respondents reported that obtaining a medical statement about a student's TBI was difficult.

0287% of respondents favored the use of a guided credible history interview over other methods for establishing special education eligibility.

03One year after implementation of the guided credible history interview, TBI eligibilities increased to 314, a 20% increase.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The survey items did not meet rigorous psychometric standards, lacking evidence of construct validity. No response rate could be calculated, and the sample was restricted to Oregon, limiting generalizability. Participants were a convenience sample, meaning those interested in traumatic brain injury may have been more motivated to respond. Preferences for professional development were collected before the global pandemic, so training modality preferences may have shifted.

Declared interests

Two authors are co-directors of the Center on Brain Injury Research and Training and receive funding from federal agencies and state contracts. One author is an employee of the Oregon Department of Education.

The easy way to misread this

Do not interpret the 20% increase in eligibility as proof that the interview method causes better student outcomes. The study only reports that more students were identified, not that the identification was accurate or that the services provided were effective.

Read it on PubMed →