HDCD 5330: Intervention Paradigms

Course Syllabus
Spring 2010, Tuesdays & Thursdays 2:30-3:45, Green Hall GR4.204
Instructor Contact Information
Jan.11- April 1 April 6 – May 3

Professors: ELIZABETH FRANCIS, M.S. Dr. Margaret Tresch Owen

Office Hours: by appointment Thurs. 9:30 – 10:30 or by appointment
Office: 214-923-4761 GR 4.826, 972-883-6876
Email: liz1189@tx.rr.com mowen@utdallas.edu

Course Pre-requisites, Co-requisites, and/or Other Restrictions

There are no formal prerequisites for this class, although it is helpful if students have taken the following courses as an
undergraduate: Child or Lifespan Development, Research Strategies or Design.

Course Description
Intervention Paradigms is a core course in the Master’s Program in Human Development and Early Childhood
Disorders that covers the historical, theoretical, research, and political underpinnings of early intervention for infants
and young children with special needs and their families. The approaches to early intervention are introduced and
discussed in relation to the three cultures of science, policy, and practice. A primary goal of this course is an
understanding of major philosophical shifts in attitudes regarding early intervention; this includes the concepts of
“primary prevention,” “inclusion,” “family-centered early intervention”, and “natural environments.” We examine
prevalent notions about critical and sensitive periods of development and their application to early intervention. The
course also covers methodological issues in evaluations of the effectiveness of early intervention, “evidence-based
practice,” and reviews both classic and current evaluation research findings addressing early intervention programs
and practices.

Student Learning Objectives/Outcomes

After completing the course students should be able to
1. Identify and describe key milestones in public policies governing early intervention; in particular, the evolution of
Part C of Public Law 99-457 and Early Head Start.
2. Define major theoretical viewpoints and their application to practices in early intervention.
3. Critique the research methods used in the field of early intervention evaluation studies.
4. Critically evaluate conclusions derived from research on early intervention.
5. Synthesize and evaluate research findings on early intervention.

Early Intervention Specialist Competencies

EV/ASST 1 – The EIS understands the purposes and importance of early identification and referral.
PROF 8 – The EIS explains the importance of early intervention.
PROF 12 – The EIS understands how adult expectations influence children’s development.

Required Textbooks and Materials

Required Text:
Shonkoff, J. & Meisels, S.J. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of early childhood intervention. New York: Cambridge University
Press. (HECI)

Berlin, L. J., Ziv, Y., Amaya-Jackson, L., & Greenberg, M.T. (Eds.). (2005). Enhancing early attachments: Theory,
research, intervention, and policy. New York: Guilford.

Additional required readings. Assigned readings that are not in the texts can be obtained through electronic
databases accessed through the UTD library or, if not available online, will be posted on the course’s WebCT
eLearning site.

Instructions for finding assigned journal articles using the UTD library website

1
 1. Go to the UTD library website: www.utdallas.edu/library
2. Click “Locate Articles (Databases)” at top of left hand column. (To connect from an off-campus computer, you’ll
need your Comet card number.)
3. Click “Behavioral and Brain Sciences” under Databases by Subject.
4. Click Behavioral and Brain Sciences POWERSEARCH.
5. The article is easily found by searching by author’s name and year published. Most will have a pdf file that can
be accessed. Some articles may require a link to the journal’s website where you will need to locate the article
by volume and issue.

Assignments

Course Website: Course announcements, any revisions to assignments or the syllabus, and reading assignments
will be posted on elearning. You are responsible for checking this site frequently to remain aware of course
announcements, schedules for presentations, etc, and obtaining readings that aren’t in assigned texts or available
through the UTD library. Email to students enrolled in this class will only be sent to your UTD email address. If
corresponding with the instructor, please use your UTD email.

Reading & Class participation: Your class attendance and participation in class discussions are critical for mastery
of the material and successful performance in this course. The assigned readings should be completed before each
class. The class sessions will be about 75% lecture and 25% discussion. Please read and study the assigned readings
before class and bring your questions and ideas to class. Lecture notes will not be posted prior to class, but some of
them may be included after class on eLearning.

Exams: There will be three in-class exams. Their format will be discussed in class. Review questions will be posted
on eLearning prior to the exams. Studying for the exams is a big part of the learning process in this class. The exams
are designed to help you synthesize and apply the course content.

Written synthesis of empirical studies of early intervention and oral presentation: You will locate 3 journal
articles describing empirical studies of early intervention. These articles should pertain to a similar topic, such as (1)
evaluations of programs targeting children with specific disability (e.g., drug-exposed infants, Down Syndrome,
autism), (2) a feature of early intervention (e.g. intensity of treatment, class-based services, in-home services, etc.), (3)
continued follow-up evaluations of the effectiveness of a particular early intervention program (e.g., Avance, HIPPY,
the Infant Mental Health and Development Program, IHDP, Abecedarian). The written integrative summary will be
limited to 750 words. References for the articles you will summarize are due early in the semester. You will share the
results of one of the studies with the class in a 10-minute presentation that will occur in the final section of the class.

Grading Policy: Course grades will be determined from (1) three in-class exams (25% each); (2) a 10-minute
presentation of results from an empirical study of early intervention (10%); a written synthesis of three empirical
studies of early intervention services and/or practices (10%); (4) class participation (5%).

Exam Policy: Alternative exam dates cannot be arranged, except in cases of serious illness or family emergencies
(e.g. death in the family). No make-up tests will be given.
Late Assignment Policy: The written synthesis of early intervention studies is due on the designated date and will not
be accepted late unless prior approval is given.
No extra credit work will be available.

Class Attendance is expected. Attendance and class participation will contribute to your course grade.

2
Schedule of Topics, Assignments, and Academic Calendar

Jan. 12 Introduction, course overview and organization

Jan. 14,19 History of early childhood intervention in the U.S. and Texas

Meisels, S.F. & Shonkoff, J.P. (2000) Early childhood intervention: A continuing evolution.
Handbook of early childhood intervention. (HECI,) (pp. 3-31).

Kamerman, S.B. Early childhood intervention policies: An international perspective. (HECI, pp. 613-
629).

Jan. 21 The critical period controversy

Bruer, J.T. (2001). A critical and sensitive period primer. In Bailey, D. B. et al. Critical thinking about
critical periods (pp. 3-26). Baltimore: Brookes.

Bailey, D. (2002). Are critical periods critical for early childhood education? The role of timing in
early childhood pedagogy. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 281-294.

Jan. 26, 28 Developmental bases of vulnerability and resilience

Garbarino, J. & Ganzel, B. The human ecology of early risk. HECI, 76-93.

Werner, E.E. Protective factors and individual resilience. HECI, 115-132.

Feb. 2, 4 Theoretical bases of early childhood intervention

Sameroff, A.J., & Fiese, B.H. Transactional regulation: The developmental ecology of early
intervention. HECI, 135-159.

Spiker, D., Boyce, G.C., & Boyce, L.K. (2002). Parent-child interactions when young children have
disabilities. International review of research in mental retardation, 25, 35-70.

Osofsky, J.D. & Thompson, M.D. Adaptive and maladaptive parenting. HECI, 54-75.

Feb. 9 Submit journal article references for written summary assignment and designate which study you will
present in class.

Feb. 9, 11 Social-emotional development, attachment, and infant mental health in the family context

Cassidy, J. (1999). The nature of the child’s ties. In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of
attachment theory and research. (pp. 3-20). New York: Guilford.

Ainsworth, M.D.S., & Marvin, R. (1985). Interview of Mary Ainsworth. [WebCT posted]

Cassidy, J., Woodhouse, S.S., Cooper, G., Hoffman, K., Powell, B., & Rodenberg, M. (2005).
Examination of the precursors of infant attachment security: Implications for early intervention and
intervention research. In L.J. Berlin, Y. Ziv, L. Amaya-Jackson, & M.T. Greenberg (Eds.), Enhancing
early attachments: Theory, research intervention, and policy (pp. 34-60). New York: Guilford.

Feb. 16, 18 Enhancing early attachments

3
 Berlin, L. J. (2005). Interventions to enhance early attachments. In Enhancing early attachments. (pp.
3-33).

Ziv, Y. Attachment-based intervention programs: Implications for attachment theory and research. In
Enhancing early attachments. (pp. 61-78).

Cooper, G., Hoffman, K., Powell, B., Marvin, R. (2005). The Circle of Security intervention:
Differential diagnosis and differential treatment. Enhancing early attachments. (pp. 127-151).

Van IJzendoorn, M.H., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., & Juffer, F. (2005). Why less is more: From the
Dodo Bird Verdict to evidence-based interventions on sensitivity and early attachments. In Enhancing
early attachments. (pp. 297-312).

Feb. 23 Review for Exam #1

Feb. 25 Exam # 1

Mar. 2 Eligibility for early intervention

Benn, R. (1994). Conceptualizing eligibility for early intervention services. In D.M. Bryant, & M.A.
Graham, (Eds), Implementing early intervention (pp. 18-45). New York: Guilford.

La Paro, K.M., Olsen, K., & Pianta, R.C. (2002). Special education eligibility: Developmental
precursors over the first three years of life. Exceptional Children, 69, 55-66.

Mar. 4 Sociocultural context

Garcia Coll, C.T., & Magnuson, K. Cultural differences as sources of developmental vulnerabilities
and resources. HECI, 94-114.

Lieberman, A. (1990). Culturally Sensitive Intervention with Children and Families. Child and
Adolescent Social Work, Vol. 7, Number 2,101-120.

Mar. 9 Cultural sensitivity in family-centered intervention

Videotape and discussion: Espinoza Family

Zuniga, M.E. (1992). Families with Latino roots. In E.W. Lynch, & M.J. Hanson (Eds.), Developing
cross-cultural competence. (pp. 151-179). Baltimore: Brookes.

Mar.11 Inclusion

Bricker, D. (1995). The challenge of inclusion. Journal of Early Intervention, 19, 179-194. SKIM

Bailey, D., McWilliam, R.A., Buysse, V., & Wesley, P.W. (1998). Inclusion in the context of
competing values in early childhood education. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 27-47.

Bruder, M.B., & Staff. I. (1998). A comparison of the effects of type of classroom and service
characteristics on toddlers with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 18, 26-37.

SPRING BREAK MARCH 15-20

4
Mar. 23 Child care as a setting for early intervention: meeting individual and special needs

Kagan, S.L. & Neuman, M.J. Early care and education. HECI, 339-360.

Macy, M.G., & Bricker, D.D. (2007) Embedding individualized social goals into routine activities in
inclusive early childhood classroom. Early Child Development and Care, 177, 107-120.

O’Brien, M. (1997) Child Care as a Setting for Early Intervention. In Inclusive Child Care for Infants
and Toddlers. (pp.25-42). Baltimore: Brookes

Mar. 25 Service delivery models and systems

Harbin, G.L., McWilliam, R.A., & Gallagher, J.J. Services for young children with disabilities and
their families. HECI, 387-415.

Mar. 30 Review for Exam #2

Apr. 1 Exam #2

Apr. 6 Evidence-based practice

National Forum on Early Childhood Program Evaluation. (2007). Early childhood program
evaluations: A decision-maker’s guide. Cambridge, MA: Center on the Developing Child, Harvard
University.

Odom, S.L., & Strain, P.S. (2003). Evidence-based practice in early intervention/early childhood
special education: Single-subject design research. Journal of Early Intervention, 25, 151-160.

Greenberg, M.T. (2005). Enhancing early attachments: Synthesis and recommendations for research,
practice, and policy. In L.J. Berlin, Y. Ziv, L. Amaya-Jackson, & M.T. Greenberg (Eds.), Enhancing
early attachments: theory, research intervention, and policy, (pp. 327-344).

Apr. 8 Evaluation of early intervention: quasi-experimentation and issues of research validity

Hauser-Cram, P., Warfield, M., Upshur, C., & Weisner, T. An expanded view of program evaluation
in early childhood intervention. HECI (pp. 487-509).

Owen, M.T., & Mulvihill, B. (1994). Benefits of a parent education and support program in the first
three years. Family Relations, 43, 206-212.

Apr.13 Evaluation of early intervention: What do we know now?

Presentations – group 1

Gomby, D.S. (1999) Understanding evaluations of home visitation programs. The Future of Children,
Vol. 9, No.1. [www.futureofchildren.org]

Farran, D.C. Another decade of intervention for children who are low income or disabled: What do
we know now? HECI (pp. 510-548).

Apr.15 Cost/benefit analyses of early intervention

Presentations – group 2

5
 Barnatt, W.S. Economics of early childhood intervention. HECI (pp. 589-611).

Apr.20 Second generation research findings on early intervention

Presentations – group 3

Blair, C. & Ramey, C.T. (1997). Early intervention for low-birth-weight infants and the path to
second-generation research. In M.T. Guralnick (Ed.), The effectiveness of early intervention, (pp. 77-
98). Baltimore: Brookes.

Wagner, M.M., & Clayton, S.L. (1999). The Parents as Teachers Program: Results from two
demonstrations. The Future of Children, 9, 91-105. [www.futureofchildren.org ]
See other reports from this Volume of The Future of Children

Apr.22 Evaluations of Early Head Start

Presentations – group 4

http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/earlycare/ehstoc.asp This website provides Executive

Summary, methodology, and summaries of 21 studies from the national evaluation of Early Head
Start. We’ll talk about how best to digest the information contained here.

Spieker, S., Nelson, D., DeKlyen, M., & Staerkel, R. (2005). Enhancing early attachments in the
context of Early Head Start. In Enhancing early attachments. (pp. 250-275).

Apr.27 The evolving role of evaluation in policy and program development

Ramey, C.T., & Ramey, S.L. (1998). Early intervention and early experience. American Psychologist,
53, 109-120.

McCartney, K., & Weiss, H. (2007). Data for a democracy: The evolving role of evaluation in policy
and program development. In J.L. Aber, S.J. Bishop-Josef, S.M. Jones, K.T., McLearn, & D.A.
Phillips (Eds), Child development and social policy (pp. 59-76).

Apr. 29 Review for Exam #3

May 3 Exam #3

Student Conduct & Discipline

The University of Texas System and The University of Texas at
Dallas have rules and regulations for the orderly and efficient
conduct of their business. It is the responsibility of each student
and each student organization to be knowledgeable about the rules
and regulations which govern student conduct and activities.
General information on student conduct and discipline is contained
in the UTD publication, A to Z Guide, which is provided to all
registered students each academic year.
The University of Texas at Dallas administers student discipline
within the procedures of recognized and established due process.
Procedures are defined and described in the Rules and
Regulations, Board of Regents, The University of Texas System,
Part 1, Chapter VI, Section 3, and in Title V, Rules on Student
Services and Activities of the university’s Handbook of Operating
Procedures. Copies of these rules and regulations are available to
students in the Office of the Dean of Students, where staff
members are available to assist students in interpreting the rules
and regulations (SU 1.602, 972/883-6391).
6
A student at the university neither loses the rights nor escapes the
responsibilities of citizenship. He or she is expected to obey
federal, state, and local laws as well as the Regents’ Rules,
university regulations, and administrative rules. Students are
subject to discipline for violating the standards of conduct whether
such conduct takes place on or off campus, or whether civil or
criminal penalties are also imposed for such conduct.
Academic Integrity
The faculty expects from its students a high level of responsibility
and academic honesty. Because the value of an academic degree
depends upon the absolute integrity of the work done by the
student for that degree, it is imperative that a student demonstrate
a high standard of individual honor in his or her scholastic work.
Scholastic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to, statements,
acts or omissions related to applications for enrollment or the
award of a degree, and/or the submission as one’s own work or
material that is not one’s own. As a general rule, scholastic
dishonesty involves one of the following acts: cheating, plagiarism,
collusion and/or falsifying academic records. Students suspected
of academic dishonesty are subject to disciplinary proceedings.
Plagiarism, especially from the web, from portions of papers for
other classes, and from any other source is unacceptable and will
be dealt with under the university’s policy on plagiarism (see
general catalog for details). This course will use the resources of
turnitin.com, which searches the web for possible plagiarism and is
over 90% effective.
Email Use
The University of Texas at Dallas recognizes the value and
efficiency of communication between faculty/staff and students
through electronic mail. At the same time, email raises some issues
concerning security and the identity of each individual in an email
exchange. The university encourages all official student email
correspondence be sent only to a student’s U.T. Dallas email
address and that faculty and staff consider email from students
official only if it originates from a UTD student account. This allows
the university to maintain a high degree of confidence in the
identity of all individual corresponding and the security of the
transmitted information. UTD furnishes each student with a free
email account that is to be used in all communication with
university personnel. The Department of Information Resources at
U.T. Dallas provides a method for students to have their U.T.
Dallas mail forwarded to other accounts.
Withdrawal from Class
The administration of this institution has set deadlines for
withdrawal of any college-level courses. These dates and times are
published in that semester's course catalog. Administration
procedures must be followed. It is the student's responsibility to
handle withdrawal requirements from any class. In other words, I
cannot drop or withdraw any student. You must do the proper
paperwork to ensure that you will not receive a final grade of "F" in
a course if you choose not to attend the class once you are
enrolled.
Student Grievance Procedures
Procedures for student grievances are found in Title V, Rules on
Student Services and Activities, of the university’s Handbook of
Operating Procedures.
In attempting to resolve any student grievance regarding grades,
evaluations, or other fulfillments of academic responsibility, it is the
obligation of the student first to make a serious effort to resolve the
matter with the instructor, supervisor, administrator, or committee
with whom the grievance originates (hereafter called “the
respondent”). Individual faculty members retain primary
responsibility for assigning grades and evaluations. If the matter
cannot be resolved at that level, the grievance must be submitted
in writing to the respondent with a copy of the respondent’s School
Dean. If the matter is not resolved by the written response
provided by the respondent, the student may submit a written
appeal to the School Dean. If the grievance is not resolved by the
School Dean’s decision, the student may make a written appeal to
the Dean of Graduate or Undergraduate Education, and the deal
will appoint and convene an Academic Appeals Panel. The
decision of the Academic Appeals Panel is final. The results of the
academic appeals process will be distributed to all involved parties.
Copies of these rules and regulations are available to students in
the Office of the Dean of Students, where staff members are
available to assist students in interpreting the rules and regulations.
Incomplete Grade Policy
As per university policy, incomplete grades will be granted only for
work unavoidably missed at the semester’s end and only if 70% of
the course work has been completed. An incomplete grade must
be resolved within eight (8) weeks from the first day of the
subsequent long semester. If the required work to complete the
course and to remove the incomplete grade is not submitted by the
specified deadline, the incomplete grade is changed automatically
to a grade of F.
Disability Services
The goal of Disability Services is to provide students with
disabilities educational opportunities equal to those of their non-
disabled peers. Disability Services is located in room 1.610 in the
Student Union. Office hours are Monday and Thursday, 8:30 a.m.
to 6:30 p.m.; Tuesday and Wednesday, 8:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.; and
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
The contact information for the Office of Disability Services is:
The University of Texas at Dallas, SU 22
PO Box 830688
Richardson, Texas 75083-0688
(972) 883-2098 (voice or TTY)
Essentially, the law requires that colleges and universities make
those reasonable adjustments necessary to eliminate
discrimination on the basis of disability. For example, it may be
necessary to remove classroom prohibitions against tape recorders
or animals (in the case of dog guides) for students who are blind.
Occasionally an assignment requirement may be substituted (for
example, a research paper versus an oral presentation for a
student who is hearing impaired). Classes enrolled students with
mobility impairments may have to be rescheduled in accessible
facilities. The college or university may need to provide special
services such as registration, note-taking, or mobility assistance.
It is the student’s responsibility to notify his or her professors of the
need for such an accommodation. Disability Services provides
students with letters to present to faculty members to verify that the
student has a disability and needs accommodations. Individuals
requiring special accommodation should contact the professor after
class or during office hours.
Religious Holy Days
The University of Texas at Dallas will excuse a student from class
or other required activities for the travel to and observance of a
religious holy day for a religion whose places of worship are
exempt from property tax under Section 11.20, Tax Code, Texas
Code Annotated.
The student is encouraged to notify the instructor or activity
sponsor as soon as possible regarding the absence, preferably in
advance of the assignment. The student, so excused, will be
allowed to take the exam or complete the assignment within a
reasonable time after the absence: a period equal to the length of
the absence, up to a maximum of one week. A student who notifies
the instructor and completes any missed exam or assignment may
not be penalized for the absence. A student who fails to complete
the exam or assignment within the prescribed period may receive a
failing grade for that exam or assignment.
If a student or an instructor disagrees about the nature of the
absence [i.e., for the purpose of observing a religious holy day] or if
there is similar disagreement about whether the student has been
given a reasonable time to complete any missed assignments or
examinations, either the student or the instructor may request a
ruling from the chief executive officer of the institution, or his or her
designee. The chief executive officer or designee must take into
account the legislative intent of TEC 51.911(b), and the student
and instructor will abide by the decision of the chief executive
officer or designee.
These descriptions and timelines are subject to change at the
discretion of the Professor.