Michigan Severity Rating Scales: Usage and Validity

Abstract

For many years, increasing caseloads for vision professionals have caused concerns about the impact on educational services. Average caseload sizes in the literature have remained fairly consistent across decades, with 19.5 students per professional in the 1980s (Pelton, 1986), 18 students in the 1990s (Griffin-Shirley, McGregor, and Jacobson, 1999), and 22 students in the 2000s (Griffin-Shirley et al., 2004). In contrast, the optimal caseload for vision professionals has been approximated as eight students (Mason & Davidson, 2000). Discrepancy between ideal and actual caseload sizes may partly be due to how service levels are determined. Lack of consistency in determining the appropriate level of service for a given child can lead to inflated caseload sizes and ineffective services.Goal 4 of the National Agenda for the Education of Children and Youths with Visual Impairments, Including Those with Multiple Disabilities noted that caseloads are based on the assessed needs of students (American Foundation for the Blind, 2003). An example of such a rubric for determining service delivery levels was developed by the Atlantic Provinces Special Education Authority (see, for example, MacCuspie, 1998). In 1995, the Michigan Department of Education's Low Incidence Outreach office began adapting a model developed in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, that used student and environmental characteristics to determine service delivery levels. The task force that was created to adapt the model developed a set of "in house" severity rating scales to determine optimal vision service levels. The scales were revised in 2008 based on feedback from surveys of Michigan vision professionals and with input from professionals across the United States. The scales are now popular enough that national surveys of how the scales are being used seemed appropriate. Interest in the scales is shown by links to them on such vision-related websites as that of the Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired, Ͻwww.TSBVI.eduϾ; the Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired, Ͻwww. AERBVI.orgϾ; Maryland-based orientation and mobility (O&M) specialist Dona Sauerburger, Ͻwww.sauerburger.orgϾ; and Paths to Literacy for Students Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired, Ͻwww.pathstoliteracy. orgϾ. The scales are available online at the Low Incidence Outreach website: Ͻhttp:// mde-lio.cenmi.org/Services/StudentsWitha VisualImpairment/MichiganSeverityRating Scales.aspxϾ.The current study reports on the responses from a cross section of O&M instructors and teachers of children with visual impairments to demonstrate how the scales are perceived and being used by professionals. The study presented here also reflects an initial attempt at determining content validity of the scales. The four severity rating scales assessed were the Orientation and Mobility Severity Rating Scale (OMSRS); the Orientation and Mobility Severity Rating Scale Plus (OMSRSϩ), which is for use with children with multiple disabilities; the Vision Services ...

Orientation and mobility service decisions: What is guiding them if it is not assessment?

“…Of the 17 articles, 7 articles are research studies and 10 articles are practitioner studies. Included within the seven research studies were 279 children ages birth to graduation or 21 years old, 36 adults receiving services from the Veteran Administration (VA), and 253 O&M specialists (Geruschat & De l'Aune, 1989;Harley & Merbler, 1980;Hill, Dodson-Burk, & Talor, 1992;Lord, 1969;Munro et al, 2018;Wall Emerson & Anderson, 2014;Wall Emerson & Corn, 2006). The remaining 10 articles included: three geared toward O&M services and assessment for individuals with deafblindness (Bourquin, Mascia, Rusenski, 2002;Geruschat, 1980;Smith & Herlich, 2014), one geared toward O&M for adult (Hill & Hill, 1991), five geared toward O&M in the K-12 education system (Barrella et al, 2011;Bryan, 1989;Daugherty, 2014;Hill & Hill, 1990;O'Mea, 2013), and one was geared toward birth to three O&M (Dewald et al, 2015).…”

“…Within the K-12 system there are two available tools to guide this recommendation outlined above and in table 2 (Munro et al, 2018;Wall Emerson & Anderson 2014). Both tools outline services in terms of minute per week.…”

“…Decisions about educational and related services are meant to be made on the basis of student need as established by an assessment (Pierangelo & Guiliani, 2017). Yet Wall Emerson and Anderson (2014) felt that due to a shortage of available O&M instructors these decisions would be made using the assessment and extraneous factors such as a student's propensity for growth, the student with the greatest need, or a student's access to other programming. A pilot survey of O&M specialists in Illinois found that factors impacting service qualification and quantity of service included a lack of professional time, uncooperative team members or administration, and demands of academic students (Randles, 2018).…”

“…Nine articles examined models of delivery and the decision making process in relation to service delivery (Barrella et al, 2011;Bourquin et al, 2002;Bryan, 1989;Daugherty, 2014;Dewald et al, 2015;Geruschat, 1980;Harley & Merbler, 1980;Hill & Hill, 1990;Munro et al, 2018;Wall Emerson & Anderson, 2014). Of these articles, three incorporated original research (Harley & Merbler, 1980;Munro, et al, 2018;Wall Emerson & Corn, 2014 (Munro et al, 2018;Wall Emerson & Anderson, 2014). All three tools were designed to guide and justify the need and quantity of O&M services for a child served in the K-12 education system.…”

“…Service delivery decisions. In 10 of the 17 articles concerns were raised around the O&M specialist's inability to qualify or adequately service students based on caseload size, professional schedule, and geographic dispersion of students or clients (Barrella et al, 2011;Bourquin et al, 2002;Bryan, 1989;Daugherty, 2014;Dewald et al, 2015;Hill & Hill, 1990;Munro et al, 2018;Smith & Herlich, 2014;Wall Emerson & Anderson, 2014;Wall Emerson & Corn, 2006). An article written by Bryan (1989) challenges that an O&M specialist's availability or caseload should not dictate services, the IEP should outline the student's needs based on the assessment findings.…”