This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Truscott, S. D. Articles by Frank, A. J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Current State(s) of Prereferral Intervention Teams

A Report From Two National Surveys

Graduate School of Education, University at Buffalo, NY, sdt55@ buffalo.edu

Celina E. Cohen

Autism Program at the Strong Center for Developmental Disabilities, University of Rochester

Deanna P. Sams

Department of Psychiatry at the University of Rochester Medical Center

Kathryn J. Sanborn

Counseling/School Psychology Program at the University at Buffalo, NY

Alicia J. Frank

Northwestern Counseling and Support Services in St. Albans, VT

Current prereferral intervention team (PIT) regulations, prevalence, membership, goals, and intervention information from two national telephone surveys are reported. Survey 1 obtained information about state PIT regulations and recommendations from employees of the 51 state education departments (50 states and Washington, DC). Survey 2 obtained information about elementary schools' PIT prevalence, membership, goals, and common intervention recommendations from employees of 200 elementary schools (4 per state). Survey 1 results indicated that although 69% of states mandate prereferral intervention and 86% require or recommend PITs, states provided little direction about how to implement such services (e.g., only 14% specified or recommended team composition). Survey 2 results indicated that 85% of schools had PITs, which were composed predominantly of multidisciplinary specialists (e.g., administrators and school psychologists). Remedial teachers and parents were sometimes PIT members, but community representatives were seldom on the PIT. There was no clear school-based consensus on PIT goals. PITs most commonly recommended additional services, testing, or easy classroom interventions and seldom recommended substantive instructional modifications. Existing PITs seldom approached problems or interventions from an ecological perspective. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Remedial and Special Education, Vol. 26, No. 3, 130-140 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/07419325050260030101


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. W. Bahr and J. F. Kovalesk The Need for Problem-Solving Teams: Introduction to the Special Issue Remedial and Special Education, February 1, 2006; 27(1): 2 - 5. [PDF]

				A. A. Ortiz, C. Y. Wilkinson, P. Robertson-Courtney, and M. I. Kushner Considerations in Implementing Intervention Assistance Teams to Support English Language Learners Remedial and Special Education, February 1, 2006; 27(1): 53 - 63. [Abstract] [PDF]