1 / 30

Vocational Assessments

Vocational Assessments. Diana Zitelli & Erin Richard. Outline. Introduction Analysis of 2 vocational assessments Enderle-Severson Transition Rating Scales (ESTR-J & ESTR-III) Vocational Adaptation Rating Scale (VARS) Comparison & conclusion . Overview.

liam
Download Presentation

Vocational Assessments

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation 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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Vocational Assessments Diana Zitelli & Erin Richard

  2. Outline • Introduction • Analysis of 2 vocational assessments • Enderle-Severson Transition Rating Scales (ESTR-J & ESTR-III) • Vocational Adaptation Rating Scale (VARS) • Comparison & conclusion

  3. Overview • Several assessment tools related to vocational curriculum, none specifically created for individuals with autism • “There are not, in my opinion, any good vocational assessments for the ASD population.” • Peter Gerhardt, Ed.D., President of the Organization for Autism Research

  4. ESTR: Authors • Jon Enderle - former teacher of secondary school students with disabilities and elementary inclusion teacher in Minnesota • Dr. Susan Severson - former teacher of students with severe disabilities, currently the coordinator of the moderate/severe mentally handicapped teacher training program at Minnesota State University Moorhead

  5. ESTR: A Brief History • ESTR – 1991, a transition rating scale designed for use with individuals with all disabilities • ESTR-R – revised in 1995 based on continuing research and feedback from users (revisions included more comprehensive subscales within several categories, and a more cohesive sequence of items in order of difficulty level)

  6. ESTR: Current Versions Available • ESTR-J – a revised version developed in 2003 intended for use with individuals with MILD disabilities (revisions include removal of items that do not pertain to this population as well as rewording of several items to better reflect skill level of population) • ESTR-III – the current version adapted from ESTR-R in 2003 intended for use with individuals with MODERATE to SEVERE disabilities

  7. ESTR: Goals of Assessment • The transition assessment process should provide the student, parent, and/or educator with answers to these four major questions: • “What are the student’s desired future outcomes/goals?” • “What skills does the student possess?” • “What skills must the student acquire to achieve their goals?” • “What planning issues need to be addressed to enhance the student’s opportunities to experience success in vocational, residential and community environments?”

  8. ESTR: Goals of Assessment (cont.) • After completing the ESTR, the student, parents, and educators should have a comprehensive anecdotal description of the students current strengths and possible areas of concern • Responses are divided into three categories indicating degree of participation; asks whether a student performs the described behaviors: “independently and consistently”, “with assistance”, or “does not participate at this time” • Raw “score” of assessment is not of major concern, rather the descriptive analysis generated is considered valuable to develop long term goals and should aid in developing IEPs

  9. ESTR: Assessment Categories • Employment • Recreation and Leisure • Home Living • Community Participation • Post Secondary Education

  10. ESTR: Research Supporting Use • No experimental research articles found • Dr. Severson’s dissertation: An investigation of the reliability and validity of the ‘Enderle-Severson Transition Rating Scale’ • “Google” search for Enderle-Severson generates about 250 hits, many of which recommend the ESTR as one of several useful transition assessments

  11. ESTR: Pros • Result are descriptive and narrative, and therefore can be directly translated into IEP goals • Assessment is comprehensive, addressing areas across all relevant skill domains as well as future goals • Publishers provide an online assessment generator for convenience

  12. ESTR: Cons • Many of the items include “skills” that we know cannot be observed or measured • E.g., developing an understanding of insurance, understanding concepts of sexual awareness, having confidence in oneself

  13. ESTR: Suggested Modifications • A behavior analyst might modify the ESTR by rewording certain items to address skills that are observable and measurable

  14. VARS: Introduction • Developed to quantify maladaptive behaviors that could jeopardize the individuals ability to gain and maintain employment • Looks at both behavioral excesses and deficits

  15. VARS: Purpose • Aide in curriculum development • Assist in making placement decisions • Give additional data for the evaluation of workers

  16. VARS: Items • 133 items organized into 6 categories • Verbal manners • Calls others derogatory names • Communication skills • Cannot carry on conversation • Attendance & punctuality • Makes unnecessary or questionable trips to the restroom

  17. VARS: Items • 133 items organized into 6 categories • Interpersonal behavior • Laughs inappropriately • Respect for property, rules, & regulations • Takes food from snack area • Grooming & personal hygiene • Has body odor

  18. VARS: The Learner • Standardized on 606 mentally retarded workers in New York • Majority were adolescents & young adults (13-30 years) • Mild to moderate mental retardation

  19. VARS: The Administrator • No special education required to administer • Teachers • Teachers’ aides • Parents • Vocational specialists • Rater rates behavior after having a minimum of 70 hours of contact with the learner

  20. VARS: Rating Procedure • Each item rated on a 4 point scale • 4-Never • 3-Sometimes • 2-Often • 1-Regularly

  21. VARS: Scoring • Frequency • Frequency of occurrence as rated by administrator • Severity • Reflects the probability that a given frequency of each problem behavior would cause termination of employment

  22. VARS: Tabulation of Ratings • Add totals within each category to obtain raw score for each scale • Raw scores converted to deciles using a table in the manual • Can be crudely graphed on chart

  23. VARS: The research • Malgady, Barcher, Davis, & Towner (1980). • Conducted at a 6 level sheltered workshop. • Scores on VARS domains predicted “workers’ placement in sheltered workshop significantly better than a regression model involving only IQ, age, and sex”

  24. VARS: Pros • Even if test is not fully administered or scored, items serve as a good checklist from which IEP goals may be developed • Authors suggest second person administers the test to gain IOA • Easy to administer

  25. VARS: Cons • Out of print • Scoring based on administers memory of events • Scoring is subjective • Items written in negative, which can be confusing • The results, while informative, do not help professionals choose a suitable placement

  26. VARS: Cons (cont.) • Some items are unlikely to be displayed by individuals with autism (although perhaps individuals with Asperger Syndrome) • “Heckles other workers” • Some items are not observable • “Fails to take pride in finished work”

  27. VARS: Suggested Modifications • Collect data over a specified period (e.g., 2 weeks) on specific items instead of relying on administrator’s memory • Define rating scale more precisely • Ignore items that aren’t observable (although scores could not be tabulated)

  28. Summary

  29. Conclusions • An autism specific vocational assessment is needed to target the unique challenges individuals with autism face in the workplace, including assessment of both skill level and behavior challenges

  30. References Malagady, R.G, Barcher, P.R., Davis, J., & Towner, G. (1980). Validy of the vocational adaptation rating scale: Prediction of mentally retarded workers’ placement in sheltered workshops. American Journal of Mental Deficiency6, 633-640. Towner, G., Malagady, R.G., Barcher, P.R. & Davis, J. (1980). Vocational Adaptation Rating Scale. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. ESTR Publications. http://www.estr.net

More Related