Provider-based leadership is essential in early intervention (EI) and early childhood special education (ECSE), where providers play a pivotal role in supporting children with disabilities and their families through collaboration and evidence-based practices. This study explores the experiences and perceptions of 30 EI/ECSE providers, examining leadership characteristics; informal expressions of leadership through mentoring, coaching, and collaboration; and the systemic barriers and supports shaping leadership opportunities. Findings reveal the critical importance of interpersonal skills and content knowledge in fostering leadership and emphasize leadership’s organic, adaptive nature in this context. However, systemic challenges, such as time constraints and undervaluation of the profession, hinder leadership development. The study highlights disparities in leadership accessibility and the need for collaborative frameworks to address these barriers. These findings inform actionable strategies to strengthen leadership capacity, enhance systemic support, and advance equity in leadership opportunities within EI/ECSE.

Relatively little is known about the providers of early intervention (EI) special instruction in the United States EI system. To address this gap, this cross-sectional study used a national internet survey and public records search to gather information about the demographics of providers, the professional labels used by states to refer to special instruction, the titles assigned to its providers, and the educational and professional requirements for professionals in this role. Findings suggest that special instructors are primarily well-educated, White females working in local/regional EI agencies and other community agencies, often in blended roles. There are a variety of service labels and professional titles used across the country to refer to special instruction and its providers. Educational and professional requirements also vary across the field. Implications for this lack of consistency and recommendations for future research are discussed.

Naturalistic, Developmental, and Behavioral Interventions (NDBIs) are an empirically supported intervention approach for young autistic children and their families. Spanish-speaking (SS) Latinx families have been underrepresented in autism intervention research, limiting our understanding of whether NDBIs are aligned with Latinx family values and belief systems. This study piloted a parent-mediated NDBI, Project ImPACT, within outpatient services for SS Latinx families. We aimed to examine the preliminary impact of Project ImPACT on family and child outcomes while using the Ecological Validity Model to evaluate program adaptations made by bilingual clinicians. Results from 15 families indicated good treatment completion and high satisfaction, alongside significant increases in child social communication skills and parent self-efficacy in supporting their child’s development. Mixed-methods data examining program adaptations indicated the need to provide additional information related to autism, bilingual language development, and service navigation, as well as adaptations to language and metaphors used in the program.

Despite evidence for the usefulness of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) for young children with complex communication needs (CCN), several barriers prevent children from accessing AAC intervention. This qualitative study is focused on understanding the lived experiences of parents accessing and learning how to use speech-generating devices with their young children (3-6 years) with CCN. Findings generate insight into the similarities and differences across families’ experiences through several categories and themes: (a) foundational perspectives (determination and resilience; finding balance); (b) experiences getting access to an AAC device (initiating access; navigating barriers); (c) experiences using an AAC device (learning and navigating challenges; supporting their child’s communication at home and in the community; seeing progress); and (d) surrounding factors (family structure, informal supports, and demands; access to services and professional supports; the COVID-19 pandemic). Implications for practice and policy are discussed related to how to improve AAC access and intervention.

An early diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) can improve outcomes for children and assist families in accessing services. Part C providers are often tasked with screening for ASD. The purpose of this study was to survey Part C providers nationwide to understand their ASD screening practices and training needs and extend a survey conducted by Tomlin and colleagues. A total of 327 providers participated. Results indicated a majority of respondents (75.8%) screen for ASD using a variety of different measures, while only 26.9% are required by their program to conduct universal screenings. Most participants reported feeling confident in screening for ASD, discussing a child’s red flags with a family, referring a child for further evaluation, and discussing recent evidence surrounding ASD. An area where providers were less confident was working with interpreters to screen for ASD or discuss screening results and ASD with families with cultural or linguistic diversity. Despite high confidence levels in screening for ASD, a vast majority of participants reported they would be interested in attending a training on screening for ASD. Professional development surrounding screening for ASD and discussing ASD with families from diverse backgrounds may assist in improving Part C provider screening practices.

The Parents’ Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS), PEDS: Developmental Milestones (PEDS: DM) and PEDS tools (i.e., the PEDS and PEDS:DM combined for use) are parent-reported screening tools frequently used to identify young children requiring early intervention. An ideal screening tool for all contexts would be brief, inexpensive with appropriate test items and good psychometric properties. A scoping review was conducted to review studies that used the PEDS, PEDS:DM, and PEDS tools to screen for the need for further referrals and evaluation through parent report. Thirty articles, ranging from 2003 to 2020, conducted in high-income countries (HICs) and lower-middle income countries (LMICs), were included from the 1,468 records identified. Studies conducted in HICs ( n = 19) included screening of special population groups and comparing validated tools. LMIC studies ( n = 11) focused on translations, combination of the PEDS tools, validations of tools, and use of an app-based tool (mHealth). High referral rates were obtained with PEDS (23–41%) and PEDS:DM (12–54%) in LMICs where at-risk populations are more prevalent and cultural differences may affect tool validity. A global dearth of research on PEDS:DM and PEDS tools exist; the review highlights factors that influence the validity and impact widespread use of the screening measures, especially in diverse populations and LMICs.

The purpose of this study was to examine the comparability of counts of embedded instruction learning trials when different methods of viewing and recording direct behavioral observations were used. In 13 classrooms, while videotaping embedded instruction implementation for a larger randomized controlled efficacy trial was occurring, teachers’ implementation of trials was coded in situ using pencil-and-paper methods. Videos were later coded using computer-assisted methods. Dependent-samples t tests, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients, and additional score agreement calculations were conducted. Statistically significant differences were found in the estimates of trial frequency. Correlational analyses showed positive and strong relationships between the coding methods. Coding agreement was higher across the entire observation versus during 10-min continuous event blocks. In situ coding took significantly less time than video coding. Results provide empirical evidence for the advantages and disadvantages of common viewing and recording methods for quantifying behavior as part of systematic observation systems.

The purpose of this study was to explore whether a relationship exists between the rates of state-level developmental screening by a health care provider and state-level provision of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part C (IDEA Part C) early intervention services. This is an important first step in determining whether states have the capacity to deal with a potential influx of newly identified children. This analysis compared screening rates from the 2016 National Survey of Children’s Health with service rates from the Department of Education’s 2016 IDEA Part C data. There was no significant relationship between rates of screening by a health care provider and receipt of IDEA Part C services ( r = .13, p = .366). Those who identified as White were screened and provided with IDEA services at a higher percentage than non-White ( r = .80, p < .001). There was a significant relationship between region and receipt of IDEA Part C services, F(3) = 8.14, p < .001, with the Northeast region ( M = 4.95, SD = 1.85) having higher percent served via IDEA Part C services. Results indicate no relationship between state levels of screening by a health care provider and receipt of IDEA Part C services. Efforts to increase developmental screening may require strategies to ensure adequate service access.

This study compared preschool spoken language outcomes for children with hearing loss who met Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) guidelines to those who did not, as well as to compare outcomes for those who met current EHDI guidelines to those who met earlier benchmarks. Finally, the predictive role of meeting each component of the guidelines was evaluated relative to language outcomes. Children who met the EHDI guidelines had higher language scores than those who did not; however, there was no difference between children who met the current guidelines and those who met the earlier benchmarks. Entering early intervention by six months of age was the only unique predictor of spoken language outcomes. The findings suggest that EHDI programs should target increasing the number of children with hearing loss who meet the current 1-3-6 benchmarks with a particular focus on enrollment in early intervention by six months.

Modular treatment designs enable interventionists to adapt intervention content to individual clients, a process referred to as individualization. Little is known about individualization processes and its effects on outcomes in early childhood services. This exploratory study investigated individualization processes undertaken by Early Head Start home visitors as they provided Little Talks, a modularized book-sharing intervention for families. It also examined the effect of individualization on parent involvement in early learning activities. Two indicators of individualization were calculated in this study: (a) the proportion of change in the Little Talks’ lessons sequence and (b) the pace of delivery. Findings showed that most home visitors individualized Little Talks, with the most frequent change being the repetition of lessons. Exploratory regression analysis showed an inverse relationship between home visitors’ individualization behavior and parent involvement, highlighting the need to examine the quality of individualization. Implications for advancing the implementation and study of individualization processes in home visiting are discussed.