522527

research-article2014
TECXXX10.1177/0271121414522527Topics in Early Childhood Special EducationBruder and Dunst

Article
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education

Parental Judgments of Early Childhood

2015, Vol. 34(4) 200­–210
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2014
Reprints and permissions:
Intervention Personnel Practices: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0271121414522527

Applying a Consumer Science tecse.sagepub.com

Perspective

Mary Beth Bruder, PhD1 and Carl J. Dunst, PhD2

Abstract
Parents of young children participating in either Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part C early intervention
or IDEA Part B-619 preschool special education programs were surveyed to obtain a consumer science perspective of
the practitioners who were the children’s primary service providers. Parents were asked to make judgments of the
confidence and competence of the practitioners in six practice areas (family-centered practices, teaming and collaboration,
child assessments and evaluations, instructional practices, Individualized Family Service Plans [IFSPs] or Individualized
Education Programs [IEPs], and natural environments and inclusion practices). Results indicated that the parents rated the
practitioners as more confident than competent when using practices, and that the degree of parent involvement in early
intervention or preschool special education was related to variations in parents’ perceived judgments. Implications for
evaluating early childhood intervention service quality from a consumer science perspective are described.

Keywords
consumer evaluations, service quality, early intervention, preschool special education

Measures of child and family progress are a required com-
ponent of early intervention and preschool special educa-
tion delivered under the Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA; Data Accountability Center, 2010).
Data for children in the Part C and the Part B-619 programs
are collected on three functional child developmental out-
comes (K. Hebbeler, Barton, & Mallik, 2008). Data are also
collected on family outcomes in both programs: Parents are
asked to assess the benefits they receive as a result of par-
ticipating in IDEA early childhood intervention programs
(Bailey et al., 2006; Bailey, Hebbeler, Olmstead, Raspa, &
Bruder, 2008). While these family outcomes have proven
an acceptable measure of parental perception of program
effectiveness (Bailey, Raspa, & Fox, 2012), the purpose of
this article is to describe a study that utilized an alternative
means to measure parental input about the services pro-
vided to their children who were in either Part C or Part
B-619 programs. In particular, we used a consumer science
framework (Seth, Deshmukh, & Vrat, 2005) to evaluate
parental perceptions about early childhood intervention
practices demonstrated by their service provider.
Consumer judgments of services and service providers
have long been recognized as important indicators of per-
ceived service quality (e.g., Johnston, 1995; Lee, Lee, &
Yoo, 2000; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985;
Zeithaml, 1981). Consumer science has routinely used con-
sumers’ perceptions of the quality of services procured or
received as a benchmark for making program improve-
ments (Calabrese & Scoglio, 2012; Dunst & Trivette, 2005;
Garcia, Salanova, Grau, & Cifre, 2013; Green, McAllister,
& Tarte, 2004). This perspective focuses on consumer judg-
ments of the technical quality of services, as well as more
subjective perceptions of experiences with those providing
the service (e.g., Gabbott & Hogg, 1994; Seth et al., 2005;
Zeithaml, 1988). These personal judgments involve com-
plex cognitive, attitudinal, and affective processes which
are used to assess the worth or quality of goods or services,
as well as the worth or quality of how the goods or services
are provided (e.g., Alford & Sherrell, 1996; Oliver, 1994;
Schwarz, 2004; Yeung & Wyer, 2004).
1
University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, USA
2
Orelena Hawks Puckett Institute, Asheville, NC, USA
Corresponding Author:
Mary Beth Bruder, A.J. Pappanikou Center for Excellence in
Developmental Disabilities, University of Connecticut Health Center,
263 Farmington Ave., MC 6222, Farmington, CT 06030, USA.
Email: Bruder@nsol.uchc.edu

Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON on January 6, 2015

Bruder and Dunst 201
Service quality has typically been assessed in terms of
consumer satisfaction and more recently consumer loyalty
(e.g., Duffy, 2005; Oh, 1999; Sierra & McQuitty, 2005;
Westbrook, 1998). However, as a number of consumer sci-
ence theorists have noted, satisfaction and loyalty are the
result or consequence of service quality, and therefore
quality should be measured in terms of the services pro-
cured or received and the perceived capabilities of service
providers (Haywood-Farmer, 1988; Oliver, 1993). For
example, consumers procure or receive services with some
idea of how they expect to be treated and how they expect
service providers to deliver services (e.g., Bebko, 2000;
Parasuraman, Berry, & Zeithaml, 1991), and repeated
interactions with service providers are often used by con-
sumers to evaluate their competence and confidence (e.g.,
Blattberg, Malthouse, & Neslin, 2009; Dagger, Danaher, &
Gibbs, 2009). That is, the more capable service providers
are perceived, and the more services are judged as “worth
the effort,” the more likely consumers will make positive
judgments of the service providers (Cronin, Brady, & Hult,
2000). This is true in for-profit service industries (Mackey,
2005) and in early childhood intervention (Khadye, Ziviani,
& Cuskelly, 2011; McNaughton, 1994; McWilliam et al.,
1995), as well as other related fields (Crane, 1991).
A consumer science perspective of quality in human
services (e.g., health, education, psychology, and related
services) is not new (e.g., Cronin et al., 2000; Gremler &
Brown, 1996; Johnson & Fawcett, 1994; Moore & Kelly,
1996; Selin, Howard, Udd, & Cable, 1988). Public access
websites containing peer, parental, and student ratings of
teachers, schools, physicians, and hospitals have recently
proliferated (e.g., ratemyschool.net, ratemyprofessors.
com, greatschools.org, topdocs.com), as has the value and
popularity of such ratings compiled by media outlets for
the general public (e.g., U.S. News and World Report col-
lege rankings, hospital rankings). A consumer science
framework, however, has yet to be used extensively to
evaluate early intervention or preschool special education
practices and those who provide services within these
programs.
The one early childhood intervention practice that has
been extensively examined from a consumer perspective
is family-centered help giving (e.g., Bruder, 2000, 2010).
Studies have typically involved parent-completed scales
of the extent to which an early childhood practitioner dem-
onstrates behavioral indicators of family-centered prac-
tices. Findings from research syntheses indicate that the
more family-centered a parent judges their practitioners’
practices, the better are child, parent, parent–child, and
family outcomes (Dunst, Trivette, & Hamby, 2007, 2008).
In one of the only such studies that has used a consumer
science framework to evaluate early childhood interven-
tion, Dunst and Trivette (2005) specifically tested a medi-
tational model (Pong & Yee, 2001) of the relationship
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON on January 6, 2015
between the quality of family-centered practices and both
parent satisfaction and program loyalty. Results suggested
that the quality of family-centered practices was indirectly
related to program loyalty mediated by perceived satisfac-
tion with services in a manner identical to that found in
other fields (e.g., Caruana, 2002; Mosahab, Mahamad, &
Ramayah, 2010; Ravichandran, Mani, Kumar, &
Praghakaran, 2010), including those in for-profit business
(e.g., Bei & Chiao, 2001).
To further illustrate the use of a consumer science
framework, this study obtained parents’ perceptions and
judgments of the competence and confidence of early
intervention and preschool special education practitioners’
use of six well-established practices: (a) family-centered
practices, (b) child assessments and evaluations, (c) team-
ing and collaboration, (d) IFSPs and IEPs, (e) instructional
practices, and (f) natural environment and inclusion prac-
tices. These particular practices were the focus of this
investigation because they are considered recommended
practices in early childhood intervention (Sandall,
Hemmeter, Smith, & McLean, 2005; Sandall, McLean, &
Smith, 2000), and to date, have not been the focus of evalu-
ation from a consumer science perspective of service
quality.
In addition, the six practices that parents were asked to
evaluate were the same as those rated by early childhood
intervention practitioners in a previous study (Bruder,
Dunst, & Mogro-Wilson, 2011). In this previous study,
competence was defined as practitioners’ perceived judg-
ment of their ability to effectively use their knowledge and
skills, and confidence was defined as practitioners’ per-
ceived judgments of the likelihood that they could perform
a task in a self-assured manner (Delfin & Roberts, 1980).
The results of that study suggested that practitioners rated
themselves as more confident than competent in five of the
six practices.
To examine the extent to which parents’ perceptions
differed in terms of practitioners’ confidence and compe-
tence when implementing the six practices, we asked par-
ents to judge their early childhood intervention practitioners
across both constructs. Competence was assessed by ask-
ing the parents to judge the abilities of their practitioners to
do specific intervention practices in each of the six areas,
while confidence-related behavior was assessed by asking
them to judge the ease with which their practitioners per-
formed specific intervention practices in the six areas. We
also wanted to examine whether parents’ involvement in
early intervention or preschool special education influ-
enced their judgments about the use of the practices. Our
hypothesis was that parents’ judgments would differ as a
function of both the type of practice and the degree of par-
ent involvement as previous studies have reported such
findings (e.g., Dunst, 2002; Dunst & Bruder, 2002;
Korfmacher et al., 2008).
202 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 34(4)

Method Table 1.  Selected Characteristics of the Study Participants.

Participants Part C Part B-619

programs programs
The participants were 124 parents of infants and toddlers in
Background characteristics n % n %
Part C early intervention programs and 144 parents of pre-
schoolers in Part B-619 preschool special education pro- Parent education
grams from 31 states and the District of Columbia.   High school 14 11 22 15
Chairpersons of the Part C and Part B-619 State Interagency   Some college 29 23 33 23
Coordinating Councils in all 50 states and the District of  Undergraduate 51 42 60 42
Columbia were contacted and asked to notify parents about   Graduate school 30 24 29 20
the study. The Directors of all U.S. Department of Parent marital status
  Married/living with a partner 115 93 130 90
Education, Office of Special Education Program regional,
 Single/separated/divorced 9 7 14 10
state, and community-based parent centers were also con-
Parent work status
tacted and asked to notify parents about the study. These
  Not employed 57 46 66 46
contacts were made by email, mail, or fax. An introductory   Employed part-time 30 24 30 21
letter and a flyer were included to describe the purpose of   Employed full-time 37 30 48 33
the study and the procedures for parents to follow to either Income (yearly)
complete a survey online using Survey Monkey or request a   Less than US$20,000 11 9 3 2
paper-and-pencil version of the survey.  US$20,000-US$39,999 17 14 27 18
Table 1 shows selected characteristics of the study par-  US$40,000-US$59,999 29 23 36 25
ticipants and their children receiving either early interven-  US$60,000-US$79,999 24 19 35 24
tion or preschool special education. There were no  US$80,000-US$99,999 21 17 20 14
statistically significant differences between the Part C early  US$100,000-US$119,999 6 5 13 9
intervention and Part B-619 preschool special education  US$120,000-US$139,999 5 4 3 2
program participants for parent education (χ2 = 1.28, df = 3,  US$140,000+ 11 9 7 5
p = .7342), marital status (χ2 = 0.46, df = 1, p = .4964), or Ethnicity
work status (χ2 = 0.48, df = 2, p = .7860). There were also  White 113 92 120 84
 Black 4 3 7 5
no significant differences between the Part C and Part
 Asian 2 1 5 3
B-619 program participants in terms of respondent (moth-
 Other 5 4 12 8
ers vs. others; χ2 = 1.79, df = 1.79, p = .1808), race or ethnic-
Child conditiona
ity (White vs. Other; χ2 = 3.16, df = 1, p = .0757), or family   Global developmental delay 96 77 122 85
income (χ2 = 4.72, df = 4, p = .3169).   Specific developmental delay 11 9 16 11
There was a statistically significant difference between   Identified disability 10 8 2 1
the condition given for child eligibility in early interven-   Medical condition 7 6 4 3
tion or preschool special education (χ2 = 9.73, df = 3, Service setting
p = .0210). A larger percent of preschool special educa-  Home 76 61 4 3
tion children were reported as eligible for services under  Home/center 35 28 20 14
the category of global developmental delays compared  Center 13 11 120 83
with the early intervention program participants, as Parent involvementb
reported by their parents. There were also statistically   None (0) 11 9 88 61
significant differences for service delivery setting (χ2 =   Passive (1-2) 51 41 43 30
150.74, df = 2, p = .0000), and degree of parent involve-   Active (3-4) 62 50 13 9
ment in the children’s early intervention or preschool spe- a
Reason for program eligibility. bFive-point rating scale.
cial education (χ2 = 91.60, df = 2, p = .0000). Neither was
unexpected given the structural differences between early
intervention (mostly home-based) and preschool special
education (mostly center-based). type of involvement in their children’s early intervention or
preschool special education, and 24 questions asking par-
ents to evaluate the early childhood practitioner who was
Survey their children’s primary interventionist, teacher, or thera-
An investigator-developed survey was used in this study. pist. This sample included 152 teachers, 46 speech and lan-
The survey included questions about the background char- guage pathologists, and 70 occupational and physical
acteristics of the participants and their children, parents’ therapists (too few occupational therapists were identified

Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON on January 6, 2015

Bruder and Dunst 203

Table 2.  Examples of the Survey Items Measuring Parents’ Perceived Judgments of the Practitioners’ Competence and Confidence.

Construct Abbreviated item examples

Competence The teacher or therapist is good at identifying my family’s concerns and priorities
The teacher or therapist has taught me how to provide my child everyday learning activities
The activities the teacher or therapist shows me have increased my child’s interactions with people and objects
Confidence Showing me how to teach my child comes easily for the teacher or therapist
The teacher or therapist takes pride in my child’s accomplishments
Writing IFSP outcomes (or IEP goals) comes naturally to the teacher or therapist

Note. IFSP = Individualized Family Service Plan; IEP = Individualized Education Program.

as the children’s primary service providers to consider them
a separate group). These particular practitioners were the
focus of investigation because they are the ones who most
often work directly with children receiving early interven-
tion and preschool special education (Data Accountability
Center, 2009; K. Hebbeler & Zercher, 2004).
An investigator-developed measure was used to deter-
mine how the parents were involved in their children’s early
intervention. The parents were asked to indicate which of
five responses “best describes how you are involved with
your child’s primary service provider” (interventionist,
teacher, or therapist). The five response categories were as
follows: (0) I am not present when my child receives ser-
vices, (1) I only observe the service provider working with
my child, (2) the service provider explains what he or she is
doing with my child, (3) the service provider shows me or
demonstrates how to do the interventions with my child,
and (4) the service provider involves me in a way where I
can continue to do the interventions without the provider’s
ongoing assistance.
The 24 competence and confidence items were worded
in a manner similar to those developed by Bruder et al.
(2011) for practitioners but in terms of the parents’ per-
ceived quality of the practices. Parents’ perceived judg-
ments of practitioners’ competence-related behavior were
assessed based on a practitioner’s ability to engage in spe-
cific types of practices. Parents’ judgment of practitioner’s
perceived confidence-related behavior was assessed in
relation to a practitioner’s ease at which they were able to
perform different tasks or activities. Table 2 includes exam-
ples of the survey items for representative practices. The
reader is referred to the Center to Inform Personnel
Preparation Policy and Practice (www.uconnucedd.org/
projects/per_prep/) Study IX Part C and Part B-619 data
reports for the complete list of items.
Each of the six practices had two competence and two
confidence items which described the practice. Each of the
items was rated on a 6-point scale ranging from the practi-
tioner never (0) to always (5) demonstrated the practice.
The dependent measures in the analyses reported in this
article were (1) the sum of the ratings for the two confi-
dence items under each type or practice and (2) the sum of
the ratings for the two competence items.
There were two versions of the survey: one for Part C
early intervention program participants and the other for
Part B-619 preschool special education program partici-
pants. The wording of the items on the two versions of the
survey differed to make the items either early intervention
or preschool special education specific. The early interven-
tion version used IFSPs and natural environments to
describe practitioner practices, whereas the preschool spe-
cial education version used IEPs and inclusion to describe
practitioner practices.
Method of Analysis
A 3 Between Discipline (Teacher vs. Speech and Language
Pathology vs. Occupational and Physical Therapy) × 2
Between Level of Parent Involvement (Low vs. High) × 6
Within Type of Early Childhood Practice (Family-Centered
vs. Evaluation vs. Teaming vs. IFSPs/IEPs vs. Instruction
vs. Natural Environments/Inclusion) × 2 Within Type of
Parent Judgment (Confidence vs. Competence) ANOVA
was used to analyze the data. Separate analyses were per-
formed for the Part C and Part B-619 program participants
as parents’ involvement in the two types of programs dif-
fered so much (see Table 1). A median split of the parent
involvement scores varying from 0 (not at all involved) to 4
(parent-mediated involvement) was used to constitute low
and high involvement.
A 2 Between Practitioner (Part C vs. Part B-619) × 6
Within Type of Early Childhood Practice (Family-
Centered vs. Evaluation vs. Teaming vs. IFSPs/IEPs vs.
Instruction vs. Natural Environments/Inclusion) × 2
Within Type of Parent Judgment (Confidence vs.
Competence) ANOVA was used to determine whether
parents’ judgments differed as a function of whether the
practitioners were early intervention or preschool special
education providers.
Cohen’s d effect sizes for between group and between
contrast differences were used for substantive interpreta-
tion of the results. Effect sizes rather than statistical signifi-
cance are now the recommended metric for evaluating the
influences of a research factor on outcome measure differ-
ences (Grissom & Kim, 2012). For substantive interpreta-
tion of the results, an effect size between .20 and .49 was

Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON on January 6, 2015

204 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 34(4)

12
11.5 Confidence Indicators Competence Indicators
11
d =.27 d =.05 d =.07 d =.24 d =.45 d =.24
10.5
10
MEAN PRACTICE SCORE

9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
Family Evaluaon Teaming IFSPs Instrucon Natural
Centered Environments

EARLY INTERVENTION PRACTICES

Figure 1.  Parents perceived judgments of the confidence and competence of Part C early intervention practitioners.
Note. IFSPs = Individualized Family Service Plans.

considered small, an effect size between .50 and .79 was
considered medium, and an effect size of .80 or higher was
considered large (Dunst & Hamby, 2012).
Results
Early Intervention Practitioners
The ANOVA for parents’ perceived judgments of the ser-
vice quality of the early intervention practitioners produced
main effects for parent involvement, F(1, 118) = 3.93, p =
.0499, d = .37, type of parent judgment, F(1, 118) = 57.17,
p = .0000, d = 1.39, and type of practice, F(5, 590) = 37.73,
p = .0000. Parents who reported more involvement in their
children’s early intervention perceived their practitioners as
more capable, confident, and competent, and their judg-
ment of the capabilities of their practitioner differed accord-
ing to the specific practice.
The main effects for the type of parent judgment and
type of practice were qualified by an interaction between
these two research factors, F(5,590) = 6.53, p = .0000. The
nature of the interaction is shown in Figure 1. Parents per-
ceived the practitioners as more confident than competent
in using family-centered practices, developing and imple-
menting IFSPs, using instructional practices, and imple-
menting interventions in natural environments as evidenced
by effect sizes ranging between d = .24 and d = .45 for four
of the six practices.
Preschool Special Education Practitioners
The ANOVA for the parents’ perceived judgments of the
preschool special education teachers and therapists pro-
duced main effects for the type of parent judgment, F(1,
138) = 30.71, p = .0000, d = .94, and type of practice, F(5,
690) = 7.25, p = .0000, both of which were qualified by the
type of judgment by the type of practice interaction, F(5,
690) = 7.21, p = .0000. Figure 2 shows the nature of the
interaction. The practitioners were judged as more confi-
dent than competent in using family-centered practices,
developing and implementing IEPs, using instructional
practices, and including children with and without disabili-
ties in the same activities as evidenced by effect sizes rang-
ing between d = .27 and d = .54 for four of the six
practices.
The ANOVA also produced a three-way interaction
between parent involvement, practitioner discipline, and
type of practice, F(10, 690) = 2.10, p = .0228. Further
analyses showed that parents who reported greater
involvement in their children’s preschool special educa-
tion perceived teachers and speech and language pathol-
ogists, but not occupational or physical therapists, as
more capable in using the practices constituting the focus
of analysis. Parents who more actively involved in their
children’s preschool special education judged the teach-
ers as more capable in using all six practices (average
d = .52, range = .41-.70). Parents who more actively

Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON on January 6, 2015

Bruder and Dunst 205

12
11.5 Confidence Indicators Competence Indicators
11
10.5
10

MEAN PRACTICE SCORE

9.5
9 d =.33
d =.35 d =.10 d =.11 d =.54 d =.27
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
Family Evaluation Teaming IEPS Instruction Inclusion
Centered
PRESCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION PRACTICES

Figure 2.  Parents perceived judgments of the confidence and competence of Part B-619 preschool special education practitioners.
Note. IEPs = Individualized Education Programs.

involved in their children’s preschool special education
perceived speech and language pathologists as more
capable in all the practices except for developing and
implementing IEPs (average d = .60, range = .33-.91). In
contrast, the differences in the parents’ judgments of the
occupational and physical therapists did not differ as a
function of parents’ involvement in their children’s ther-
apy (average d = .11, range = .05-.27).
Part C Versus Part B-619 Practitioners
Results from the ANOVA including the type of practitioner
as a research factor showed that the parents perceived the
Part C practitioners as more competent and confident than
the Part B-619 practitioners in all of the early childhood
intervention practices, F(1, 266) = 18.13, p = .0000, d = .62.
This can be clearly discerned by comparing the mean scores
for the practices shown in Figures 1 and 2. The very large
between type of program confidence and competence dif-
ferences are to a great degree the result of the fact that par-
ents reported so much more involvement in their children’s
early intervention compared with preschool special educa-
tion (see Table 1) where the degree of parent involvement
was a factor influencing parents’ perceived judgments of
the practitioners’ capabilities as evidenced from the results
from the other two ANOVAs.
The pattern of results, however, was nearly identical for
both groups of practitioners. This is shown in Figure 3 in
terms of the effect sizes for the differences in the mean con-
fidence and competence scores for the two groups of
practitioners. As can be seen, the effect sizes for the mean
differences for both groups of practitioners were largest for
instructional practices, followed by family-centered prac-
tices, developing and implementing IFSPs or IEPs, and
natural environments or inclusion, and smallest for teaming
and collaboration and child assessments and evaluations.
Discussion
This study used a consumer science framework for evaluat-
ing parents’ perceptions and judgments of six different
practices provided by early intervention and preschool spe-
cial education practitioners. A consumer science perspec-
tive focuses on the perceived quality of services provided
by service providers rather than satisfaction with services,
as the latter is now known to be the consequence of service
quality (e.g., Dunst & Trivette, 2005; Mosahab et al., 2010).
Although the study was exploratory in nature, the results
suggested that both early intervention and preschool special
education practices are amendable to evaluation of service
quality as the targets of consumer appraisals.
The findings add to the knowledge base in early child-
hood intervention by demonstrating that the perceived qual-
ity of six different kinds of early childhood practices can be
assessed by asking parents to make judgments of their chil-
dren’s early childhood providers. The results of the study
also indicated that the ways in which parents were involved
in their children’s early intervention or preschool special
education proved to be an important factor that influenced
their perceived judgments of the practitioners’ practices.

Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON on January 6, 2015

206 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 34(4)
0.6
0.55 Early Intervention
0.5
0.45
0.4
EFFECT SIZE
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Instruction Family
Centered
Figure 3.  Patterns of differences in parents perceived judgments of the competence and confidence of Part C early intervention and
Part B-619 preschool special education practitioners.
Note. IFSPs = Individualized Family Service Plans; IEPs = Individualized Education Programs.
That is, how parents were involved in their children’s early
childhood intervention contributed to their perceived judg-
ments about how intervention and preschool special educa-
tion practices were implemented by their early childhood
providers. We found that more active involvement in their
children’s early childhood intervention was positively
related to the parents’ perceived judgments of the quality of
the services they and their children received. One reason for
this finding could be that as parents actively participate in
early childhood intervention, they are able to learn and dis-
criminate those practices that promote both child and parent
capabilities. Further research, however, is needed to iden-
tify other intrapersonal and interpersonal factors influenc-
ing parent perceptions and judgments, as it could also be
construed that parents’ perceptions of early childhood inter-
vention services positively influenced their active involve-
ment in intervention.
We highlight the importance of type of parent involve-
ment as a determinant of service quality because research
has indicated that the longer a child is enrolled in early
intervention or preschool special education, the less posi-
tive parents judge practitioner practices (Dunst, 2002).
Research also suggests that even when parents are involved
in their child’s intervention, practitioners do not often use
parent capacity-building practices (e.g., Campbell &
Sawyer, 2009; K. M. Hebbeler & Gerlach-Downie, 2002;
McBride & Peterson, 1997; Roggman, Boyce, Cook, &
Jump, 2001). It would seem that teaching service providers
how to promote meaningful involvement of families in
early childhood intervention might result in more positive
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON on January 6, 2015
Preschool Special Education
IFSPs/IEPs Natural Teaming Evaluation
Environments/
Inclusion
TYPE OF PRACTICE
appraisals of intervention practices (see especially Campbell
& Sawyer, 2009).
One noteworthy finding from our study was the fact that
only 9% of parents whose children received preschool spe-
cial education reported active involvement in their chil-
dren’s preschool special education services, and only 50%
of the parents whose child received early intervention
reported being actively involved in their children’s early
intervention services (Dunst, Bruder, & Espe-Sherwindt, in
press). These figures are of concern because parents’
involvement is explicitly addressed in the preamble to the
Part C Infant and Toddler Program of the IDEA as one of
the purposes of the Part C program: The main purpose of
Part C program is to enhance the capacity of families to
meet the special needs of their infants and toddlers with dis-
abilities. Likewise, Part B-619 preschool special education
practitioners are strongly encouraged to involve parents of
preschoolers in their children’s education (Aron & Loprest,
2012; Crockett, Billingsley, & Boscardin, 2012; Turnbull et
al., 2007). The findings of our study suggest that we are not
involving parents in their child’s early intervention or pre-
school special education program to the extent recom-
mended to enhance children’s learning. This seems another
important area in which early childhood intervention practi-
tioners would benefit from additional training and practice.
Finally, we would like to draw attention to the fact that
the data collected in this study on parental perceptions and
judgments are similar to the findings collected from practi-
tioners who judged themselves as more confident than com-
petent in delivering early childhood intervention (Bruder et al.,
Bruder and Dunst 207
2011, 2013). Studies conducted by the Center to Inform
Personnel Preparation Policy and Practice in Early
Intervention and Preschool Special Education (http://www.
uconnucedd.org/projects/per_prep/index.html) reported on
a number of indicators that suggested early childhood inter-
ventionists are lacking competence in recommended prac-
tice areas. For example, only 31% of practitioners who were
surveyed on their ability to implement practices such as
those in this survey reported that their preservice education
program had prepared them to use such practices with
young children with disabilities (Bruder & Dunst, 2005).
This finding was also reflected in the data collected from all
state Part C and Part B-619 coordinators. Less than half
reported having a qualified workforce for early childhood
intervention, and most did not have a comprehensive pro-
fessional development training and technical assistance sys-
tem (Bruder, 2010; Bruder, Mogro-Wilson, Stayton, &
Dietrich, 2009). The results of this study on parents’ per-
ceptions of practitioner competence and confidence further
illuminate the critical training needs of those providing
early childhood intervention.
In closing, there are limitations within this study that
must be acknowledged. First, a self-select sample of parents
responded to the questionnaire. These parents were moti-
vated and able to read and respond to the questions, thus
affecting the generalizability of the findings. Second,
though the questionnaire was vetted by several parent
groups as part of the larger personnel institute, it could be
that the intent of some items was not worded clearly for
parents to understand the practice, and their subsequent
response to such an item affected the results for some prac-
tices. Finally, further research is needed to identify other
intrapersonal and interpersonal factors influencing parent
perceptions and judgments as described in this article. The
results we have presented could alternately be construed
that parents’ perceptions of early childhood intervention
services positively influenced their active involvement in
intervention, rather than the hypotheses we presented.
Conclusion
This study was aimed at examining parental perceptions of
early childhood intervention practices as delivered by their
current practitioner as an indicator of program quality
using a consumer science framework. Consumer science
has long recognized and used consumer ratings of services
and service providers as one measure of quality and effec-
tiveness. The consumer movement has presented us with a
scenario in which it is not out of the realm of possibilities
to predict a future website dedicated to the review of early
childhood intervention practitioners’ competence and con-
fidence in the use of child and family intervention practices
(e.g., www.ratemyeciprovider.com). Indeed, as early child-
hood intervention becomes more of a professionally driven
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON on January 6, 2015
service industry (see Dunst, 2012), it seems appropriate to
recommend the use of a consumer science framework to
evaluate and guide the continued evolution of quality
within the early childhood intervention field. If satisfaction
and loyalty are the result of service quality, quality should
therefore be measured in terms of the services received. In
early childhood intervention, services consist of interven-
tion practices, and as such, quality services would be
reflected in a consumer’s positive judgment of the per-
ceived competence and confidence with which a practitio-
ner implements intervention practices. The responsibility
for the delivery of effective early childhood intervention
services relies then not just on the practitioners’ ability to
implement recommended practices but also on those who
provide training and ongoing support to practitioners, so
that they may implement effective practices with fidelity to
the ultimate consumers: families of infants and young chil-
dren who are receiving early childhood intervention.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:
This study was supported, in part, by funding from U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs
(H324J020002). The opinions expressed, however, are those of
the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of
either the Department or Office.
References
Alford, B. L., & Sherrell, D. L. (1996). The role of affect in con-
sumer satisfaction judgments of credence-based services.
Journal of Business Research, 37, 71–84. doi:10.1016/0148-
2963(96)00030-6
Aron, L., & Loprest, P. (2012). Disability and the educa-
tion system. Future of Children, 22, 97–122. doi:10.1353/
foc.2012.0007
Bailey, D. B., Bruder, M. B., Hebbeler, K., Carta, J.,
DeFosset, M., Greenwood, C. R., . . .Barton, L. (2006).
Recommended outcomes for families of young children
with disabilities. Journal of Early Intervention, 28, 227–251.
doi:10.1177/105381510602800401
Bailey, D. B., Hebbeler, K., Olmstead, M. G., Raspa, M., & Bruder,
M. B. (2008). Measuring family outcomes: Considerations
for large-scale data collection in early intervention.
Infants & Young Children, 21, 194–206. doi:10.1097/01.
IYC.0000324549.31822.c3
Bailey, D. B., Raspa, M., & Fox, L. C. (2012). What is the
future of family outcomes and family-centered services?
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 31, 216–223.
doi:10.1177/0271121411427077
208 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 34(4)
Bebko, C. P. (2000). Service intangibility and its impact on con-
sumer expectations of service quality. Journal of Services
Marketing, 14, 9–26. doi:10.1108/08876040010309185
Bei, L., & Chiao, Y. (2006). The determinants of customer loyalty:
An analysis of intangible factors in three service industries.
International Journal of Commerce and Management, 16,
162–177.
Blattberg, R. C., Malthouse, E. C., & Neslin, S. A. (2009).
Customer lifetime value: Empirical generalizations and some
conceptual questions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23,
157–168. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2009.02.005
Bruder, M. B. (2000). Family centered early intervention:
Clarifying our values for the new millennium. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education, 20, 105–115.
Bruder, M. B. (2010). Early childhood intervention: A promise
to children and families. Exceptional Children, 76, 339–355.
Bruder, M. B., & Dunst, C. J. (2005). Personnel preparation in
recommended early intervention practices: Degree of empha-
sis across disciplines. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 25, 25–33.
Bruder, M. B., Dunst, C. J., & Mogro-Wilson, C. (2011). Confidence
and competence appraisals of early intervention and preschool
special education practitioners. International Journal of Early
Childhood Special Education, 3, 13–37. Retrieved from http://
www.int-jecse.net/files/SU78OHRLP5V6BSNN.pdf
Bruder, M. B., Dunst, C. J., & Mogro-Wilson, C. (2013). Predictors
of confidence and competence among early childhood inter-
ventionists. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education,
34, 249–267. doi:10.1080/10901027.2013.816806
Bruder, M. B., Mogro-Wilson, C. M., Stayton, V. D., & Dietrich, S.
L. (2009). The national status of in-service professional devel-
opment systems for early intervention and early childhood
special education practitioners. Infants & Young Children, 22,
13–20. doi:10.1097/01.IYC.0000343333.49775.f8
Calabrese, A., & Scoglio, F. (2012). Reframing the past: A
new approach in service quality assessment. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, 23, 1329–1343. doi:10.
1080/14783363.2012.733259
Campbell, P. H., & Sawyer, L. (2009). Changing early interven-
tion providers? Home visiting skills through participation in
professional development. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 28, 219–234. doi:10.1177/0271121408328481
Caruana, A. (2002). Service loyalty: The effects of service quality and
the mediating role of customer satisfaction. European Journal
of Marketing, 36, 811–828. doi:10.1108/03090560210430818
Crane, F. G. (1991). Consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction with
professional services. Journal of Professional Services
Marketing, 7, 19–25.
Crockett, J. B., Billingsley, B. S., & Boscardin, M. L. (2012).
Handbook of leadership and administration for special edu-
cation. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cronin, J. J., Jr., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing
the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on con-
sumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal
of Retailing, 76, 193–218.
Dagger, T. S., Danaher, P. J., & Gibbs, B. J. (2009). How often
versus how long: The interplay of contact frequency and
relationship duration in customer-reported service relation-
ship strength. Journal of Service Research, 11, 371–388.
doi:10.1177/1094670508331251
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON on January 6, 2015
Data Accountability Center. (2009). Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act Part B (619) personnel data tables. Available
from http://www.ideadata.org/
Data Accountability Center. (2010). Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act Part B (619) personnel data tables. Available
from http://www.ideadata.org/
Delfin, P. E., & Roberts, M. C. (1980). Self-perceived con-
fidence and competence as a function of training in
the beginning graduate student in clinical psychol-
ogy. Teaching of Psychology, 7, 168–171. doi:10.1207/
s15328023top0703_11
Duffy, D. L. (2005). The evolution of customer loyalty strategy.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22, 284–286.
Dunst, C. J. (2002). Family-centered practices: Birth through high
school. Journal of Special Education, 36, 139–147. doi:10.11
77/00224669020360030401
Dunst, C. J. (2012). Parapatric speciation in the evolution of early
intervention for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their
families. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 31,
208–215. doi:10.1177/0271121411426904
Dunst, C. J., & Bruder, M. B. (2002). Valued outcomes of service
coordination, early intervention, and natural environments.
Exceptional Children, 68, 361–375.
Dunst, C. J., Bruder, M. B., & Espe-Sherwindt, M. (in press).
Family capacity-building in early childhood intervention: Do
context and setting matter? School Community Journal.
Dunst, C. J., & Hamby, D. W. (2012). Guide for calculating and
interpreting effect sizes and confidence intervals in intellec-
tual and developmental disabilities research studies. Journal
of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 37, 89–99. doi:10
.3109/13668250.2012.673575
Dunst, C. J., & Trivette, C. M. (2005). Measuring and evaluat-
ing family support program quality (Winterberry Monograph
Series). Asheville, NC: Winterberry Press.
Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Hamby, D. W. (2007). Meta-
analysis of family-centered help giving practices research.
Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research
Reviews, 13, 370–378. doi:10.1002/mrdd.20176
Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Hamby, D. W. (2008). Research
synthesis and meta-analysis of studies of family-centered
practices (Winterberry Monograph Series). Asheville, NC:
Winterberry Press.
Gabbott, M., & Hogg, G. (1994). Consumer behaviour and ser-
vices: A review. Journal of Marketing Management, 10, 311–
324. doi:10.1080/0267257X.1994.9964277
Garcia, E., Salanova, M., Grau, R., & Cifre, E. (2013). How to
enhance service quality through organizational facilita-
tors, collective work engagement, and relational service
competence. European Journal of Work & Organizational
Psychology, 22, 42–55. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2011.628793
Green, B. L., McAllister, C. L., & Tarte, J. M. (2004). The
strengths-based practices inventory: A tool for measur-
ing strengths-based service delivery in early childhood and
family support programs. Families in Society, 85, 327–334.
doi:10.16061044-3894.1493
Gremler, D. D., & Brown, S. W. (1996). Service loyalty: Its
nature, importance, and implications. In S. W. Edvardsson,
R. Brown, R. Johnston, & E. E. Shueing (Eds.), Advancing
service quality: A global perspective (pp. 171–180). Jamaica,
NY: International Service Quality Association. Retrieved from
Bruder and Dunst 209
http://www.gremler.net/personal/research/1996_Service_
Loyalty_QUIS5.pdf
Grissom, R. J., & Kim, J. J. (2012). Effect sizes for research:
Univariate and multivariate applications (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Haywood-Farmer, J. (1988). A conceptual model of service
quality. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 8, 19–29. doi:10.1108/eb054839
Hebbeler, K., Barton, L. R., & Mallik, S. (2008). Assessment and
accountability for programs serving young children with disabili-
ties. Exceptionality, 16, 2–18. doi:10.1080/09362830701796792
Hebbeler, K., & Zercher, C. (2004, March). A national look at early
intervention service providers, the nature of their work, and
their professional preparation. PowerPoint presentation made
at the Office of Special Education Programs Joint Personnel
Preparation/State Improvement/Comprehensive System of
Personnel Development Conference, Washington, DC.
Hebbeler, K. M., & Gerlach-Downie, S. G. (2002). Inside the
black box of home visiting: A qualitative analysis of why
intended outcomes were not achieved. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 17, 28–51.
Johnson, M. D., & Fawcett, S. B. (1994). Courteous service: Its
assessment and modification in a human service organization.
Journal of Applied Behavior, 27, 145–152.
Johnston, R. (1995). The determinants of service quality: Satisfiers
and dissatisfiers. International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 6, 53–71. doi:10.1108/09564239510101536
Khadye, M., Ziviani, J., & Cuskelly, M. (2011). Measures of par-
ent satisfaction with early intervention services for children
with physical disabilities: A systematic review. Journal of
Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention, 4,
247–259. doi:10.1080/19411243.2011.632263
Korfmacher, J., Green, B., Staerkel, F., Peterson, C., Cook, G.,
Roggman, L., . . .Schiffman, R. (2008). Parent involvement
in early childhood home visiting. Child & Youth Care Forum,
37, 171–196. doi:10.1007/s10566-008-9057-3
Lee, H., Lee, Y., & Yoo, D. (2000). The determinants of per-
ceived service quality and its relationship with satis-
faction. Journal of Services Marketing, 14, 217–231.
doi:10.1108/08876040010327220
Mackey, J. (2005). Franchisors reap multiple benefits from increas-
ing customer loyalty. Franchising World, 37(5), 49–50.
McBride, S. L., & Peterson, C. (1997). Home-based early inter-
vention with families of children with disabilities: Who is
doing what? Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,
17, 209–233.
McNaughton, D. (1994). Measuring parent satisfaction with early
childhood intervention programs: Current practice, problems,
and future perspectives. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 14, 26–48.
McWilliam, R. A., Lang, L., Vandiviere, P., Angell, R., Collins,
L., & Underdown, G. (1995). Satisfaction and struggles:
Family perceptions of early intervention services. Journal of
Early Intervention, 19, 43–60.
Moore, S. T., & Kelly, M. J. (1996). Quality now: Moving human
services organizations toward a consumer orientation to ser-
vice quality. Social Work, 41, 33–40. doi:10.1093/sw/41.1.33
Mosahab, R., Mahamad, O., & Ramayah, T. (2010). Service qual-
ity, customer satisfaction and loyalty: A test of mediation.
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON on January 6, 2015
International Business Journal, 3, 72–80. Retrieved from
http://www.ccsenet.org/ibr
Oh, H. (1999). Service quality, customer satisfaction, and cus-
tomer value: A holistic perspective. Hospitality Management,
18, 67–82. doi:10.1016/S0278-4319(98)00047-4
Oliver, R. L. (1993). A conceptual model of service quality and
service satisfaction: Compatible goals, different concepts. In
T. A. Swartz, D. E. Bowen, & S. W. Brown (Eds.), Advances
in services marketing and management: Research and prac-
tice (Vol. 2, pp. 65–85). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Oliver, R. L. (1994). Conceptual issues in the structural analysis of
consumption emotion, satisfaction, and quality: Evidence in a
service setting. Advances in Consumer Research, 21, 16–22.
Retrieved from http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-con-
ference-proceedings.aspx?Id=7553
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1991).
Understanding customer expectations of services. Sloan
Management Review, 32, 39–48.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985).
A conceptual model of service quality and its implica-
tions for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41–50.
doi:10.2307/1251430
Pong, L. T., & Yee, T. P. (2001). An integrated model of ser-
vice loyalty. Brussels, Belgium: Academy of Business and
Administrative Services.
Ravichandran, K., Mani, B. T., Kumar, S. A., & Praghakaran,
S. (2010). Influence of service quality on customer satisfac-
tion application of Servqual model. International Journal
of Business and Management, 5, 117–124. Retrieved from
http://ccsenet.org/ijbm
Roggman, L. A., Boyce, L. K., Cook, G. A., & Jump, V. K.
(2001). Inside home visits: A collaborative look at process
and quality. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16, 53–71.
doi:10.1016/S0885-2006(01)00085-0
Sandall, S., Hemmeter, M. L., Smith, B. J., & McLean, M. E.
(2005). DEC recommended practices: A comprehensive guide
for practical application in early intervention/early childhood
special education. Longmont, CA: Sopris West.
Sandall, S., McLean, M. E., & Smith, B. J. (Eds.). (2000). DEC
recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood
special education. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Schwarz, N. (2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumer judg-
ment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
14, 332–348. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_2
Selin, S. W., Howard, D. R., Udd, E., & Cable, T. T. (1988). An
analysis of consumer loyalty to municipal recreation pro-
grams. Leisure Sciences, 10, 217–223.
Seth, N., Deshmukh, S. G., & Vrat, P. (2005). Service qual-
ity models: A review. International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management, 22, 913–949. doi:10.1108/
02656710510625211
Sierra, J. J., & McQuitty, S. (2005). Service providers and custom-
ers: Social exchange theory and service loyalty. Journal of
Services Marketing, 19, 392–400.
Turnbull, A. P., Summers, J. A., Turnbull, R., Brotherson, M.
J., Winton, P., Roberts, R., . . .Stroup-Rentier, V. (2007).
Family supports and services in early intervention: A
bold vision. Journal of Early Intervention, 29, 187–206.
doi:10.1177/105381510702900301
210 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 34(4)

Westbrook, R. A. (1998). Observations on applied consumer
satisfaction research. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction,
Dissatisfaction, & Complaining Behavior, 10, 1–8.
doi:10.1177/105381510702900301
Yeung, C. W. M., & Wyer, R. S., Jr. (2004). Affect, appraisal,
and consumer judgment. Journal of Consumer Research, 31,
412–424. doi:10.1086/422119
Zeithaml, V. A. (1981). How consumer evaluations processes dif-
fer between goods and services. In J. Donnelly & W. George
(Eds.), Marketing of services (pp. 186–190). Chicago, IL:
American Marketing Association.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality,
and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence.
Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22. doi:10.2307/1251446

Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON on January 6, 2015