The Fun Stuff: Using the Data

1 / 84

# The Fun Stuff: Using the Data - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The Fun Stuff: Using the Data. Using data for program improvement = EIA. E vidence I nference A ction. Evidence. Evidence refers to the numbers, such as “45% of children in category b” The numbers are not debatable. Inference. How do you interpret the #s?

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

## The Fun Stuff: Using the Data

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
1. The Fun Stuff: Using the Data Early Childhood Outcomes Center

2. Using data for program improvement = EIA Evidence Inference Action Early Childhood Outcomes Center

3. Evidence • Evidence refers to the numbers, such as “45% of children in category b” • The numbers are not debatable Early Childhood Outcomes Center

4. Inference • 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) Early Childhood Outcomes Center

5. Inference • Inference is debatable -- even reasonable people can reach different conclusions from the same set of numbers • Stakeholder involvement can be helpful in making sense of the evidence Early Childhood Outcomes Center

6. 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 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

7. What can we infer? • Poll results A: • Candidate I.M. Good 51%, Candidate R.U. Kidding 49% (+ or – 3%) • Poll results B: • Candidate I.M. Good 56%, Candidate R.U. Kidding 44% (+ or – 3%) Early Childhood Outcomes Center

8. Program improvement: Where and how • At the state level – TA, policy • At the regional or local level – supervision, guidance • Classroom level -- spend more time on certain aspects of the curriculum • Child level -- modify intervention Early Childhood Outcomes Center

9. Key points • Evidence refers to the numbers and the numbers by themselves are meaningless • Inference is attached by those who read (interpret) the numbers • You have the opportunity and obligation to attach meaning Early Childhood Outcomes Center

10. E – I – A Jeopardy \$100 \$100 \$100 \$200 \$200 \$200 \$300 \$300 \$300 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

11. Use of Data Activity Evidence-Inference-Action Early Childhood Outcomes Center

12. Continuous Program Improvement Reflect Are we where we want to be? Check (Collect and analyze data) Plan (vision) Program characteristics Child and family outcomes Implement Early Childhood Outcomes Center

13. Tweaking the System Is there a problem? Reflect Are we where we want to be? Why is it happening? Is it working? What should be done? Check (Collect and analyze data) Plan (vision) Program characteristics Child and family outcomes Implement Is it being done? Early Childhood Outcomes Center

14. Continuous means… ….the cycle never ends. Early Childhood Outcomes Center

15. Outcome questions for program improvement, e.g. Who has good outcomes = • Do outcomes vary by • Region of the state? • Level of functioning at entry? • Services received? • Age at entry to service? • Type of services received? • Family outcomes? • Education level of parent? Early Childhood Outcomes Center

16. Examples of process questions • Are ALL services high quality? • Are ALL children and families receiving ALL the services they should in a timely manner? • Are ALL families being supported in being involved in their child’s program? • What are the barriers to high quality services? Early Childhood Outcomes Center

17. Working Assumptions • There are some high quality services and programs being provided across the state. • There are some children who are not getting the highest quality services. • If we can find ways to improve those services/programs, these children will experience better outcomes. Early Childhood Outcomes Center

18. Numbers as a tool Heard on the street • “Why are we reducing children to a number?” • So why do we need numbers? Early Childhood Outcomes Center

19. Early Childhood Outcomes Center

20. Early Childhood Outcomes Center

21. Early Childhood Outcomes Center

22. +35,000 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

23. +700,000 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

24. Examining COSF data at one time point • One group - Frequency Distribution • Tables • Graphs • Comparing Groups • Graphs • Averages Early Childhood Outcomes Center

25. Distribution of COSF Ratings in Fall We are using fake data for illustration Early Childhood Outcomes Center

26. Frequency on Outcome 1 - Fall Early Childhood Outcomes Center

27. Frequency on Outcome 1 - Fall Early Childhood Outcomes Center

28. Comparison of two classes - Fall Early Childhood Outcomes Center

29. Frequency on Outcome 1 - Fall Early Childhood Outcomes Center

30. Frequency on Outcome 1 – Class 1 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

31. Average Scores on Outcomes by Class – Fall, 2008 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

32. Average Scores on Outcomes by Class – Fall, 2008 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

33. Average Scores on Outcomes by Class – Fall, 2008 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

34. Looking at change over time • Extent of change on rating scale • The OSEP categories • Developmental trajectories • Maintaining • Changing Early Childhood Outcomes Center

35. Extent of change on rating scale: Time 1 to Time 2 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

36. Functioning 13 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

37. Entry 14 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

38. Entry Exit 15 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

39. Entry Exit 16 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

40. Key Point • The OSEP categories describe types of progress children can make between entry and exit • Two COSF ratings (entry and exit) are needed to calculate what OSEP category describes a child progress Early Childhood Outcomes Center

41. e. % of children who maintain functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers Rated 6 or 7 at entry; AND Rated 6 or 7 at exit How changes in ratings on the COSF correspond to reporting categories a - e Early Childhood Outcomes Center

42. Entry Exit Early Childhood Outcomes Center

43. Entry Exit Early Childhood Outcomes Center

44. Entry Exit Early Childhood Outcomes Center

45. d. % of children who improve functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers Rated 5 or lower at entry; AND Rated 6 or 7 at exit How changes in ratings on the COSF correspond to reporting categories a - e Early Childhood Outcomes Center

46. Entry Exit Early Childhood Outcomes Center

47. c. % of children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same aged peers, but did not reach it Rated higher at exit than entry; AND Rated 5 or below at exit How changes in ratings on the COSF correspond to reporting categories a - e Early Childhood Outcomes Center

48. Entry Exit Early Childhood Outcomes Center

49. Entry Exit Early Childhood Outcomes Center

50. b. % of children who improved functioning, but not sufficient to move nearer to same aged peers Rated 5 or lower at entry; AND Rated the same or lower at exit; AND “Yes” on the progress question (b) How changes in ratings on the COSF correspond to reporting categories a - e Early Childhood Outcomes Center