904

Education
012
TEC31410.1177/0271121411426904Dun

Topics in Early Childhood Special Education

Parapatric Speciation in the

31(4) 208­–215
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2012
Reprints and permission: http://www.

Evolution of Early Intervention sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0271121411426904
http://tec.sagepub.com
for Infants and Toddlers With
Disabilities and Their Families

Carl J. Dunst1

Abstract
The term parapatric speciation, borrowed from biogeography, is used as a metaphor for describing and illustrating a little
acknowledged change in the field of early intervention that occurred at the time of the passage of the Education of the
Handicapped Act Part H early intervention legislation. The term refers to the formation of a new species from a parent
population that lives adjacent to but does not interact with the parent population. Up until the passage of the Part H
legislation, early intervention was defined primarily in terms of the experiences, activities, and learning opportunities used
to influence infant and toddler behavior and development. Thereafter, early intervention was redefined in terms of the
professional services provided young children and their families. The paper includes a discussion of the consequences of
the parapatric speciation of early intervention and why the Part H/Part C is in dire need of revision and updating and what
those changes might look like.

Keywords
early intervention, infants and toddlers, developmental disabilities, early experiences, learning and development

Speciation refers to the formation of new and distinct spe-
cies in the course of evolution (Coyne & Orr, 2004). Both
fossil and genetic evidence show that during human evolu-
tion dating back 3 to 4 million years, there have been many
lineages in our ancestral history (Patterson, Richter, Gnerre,
Lander, & Reich, 2006). There are different explanations for
the formation of new species, one of which is parapatric spe-
ciation (Ridley, 2004). This occurs when a subsample of a
population enters a new niche or habitat within the range of
the parent species but then lives adjacent to the parent popu-
lation with little or no contact or interaction. According to
Ridley (2004), if the transition between the two niches or
habitats is sudden, a stepped dive and division occurs at the
point of change or evolution. The consequences of the
stepped dive are an interruption in the intermixing of the
two populations (Gavrilets, Li, & Vose, 2000).
Something akin to parapatric speciation occurred in 1986
with the passage of the Education of the Handicapped Act
Part H early intervention legislation. The result was a new
type of early intervention that now coexists with its parent
species but with little meaningful intermixing of the two
species. The parent species continues to evolve as a result of
advances in theory, research, and practice (e.g., Feldman,
2004; Guralnick, 2005; Odom & Wolery, 2003). In contrast,
the new species, Part H and now Part C early intervention,
has remained essentially the same with little or no discern-
able evolutionary changes in its 25-year history. The differ-
ences in these two types of early intervention are the focus
of this article with the aim of highlighting the ways in which
the approaches differ and why and how Part H/Part C early
intervention needs to be changed to be consistent with rec-
ommended and evidence-based practices.
The article includes a brief history of early intervention
to place its evolution in proper context. The definitions of
both types of early intervention are then used to illustrate
the differences in the two approaches. The consequences of
parapatric speciation as a result of the Part H legislation in
terms of early intervention practices are then described. The
article concludes with a description of how Part C early
intervention needs to change if it is to survive.
1
Orelena Hawks Puckett Institute, Asheville, NC, USA
Corresponding Author:
Carl J. Dunst, Orelena Hawks Puckett Institute, 8 Elk Mountain Rd.,
Asheville, NC 28804, USA
E-mail: cdunst@puckett.org
Dunst 209
A Brief History
of Early Intervention
The origins of early intervention date back to the late 1800s
(Dunst, 1996). The term early intervention, as now com-
monly used, has throughout its history been described as
infant stimulation (Bronfenbrenner, 1975), early stimula-
tion (Cunningham, 1979), infant intervention (Bromwich,
1976), and infant education (Painter, 1968). Early interven-
tion as described in this brief history encompasses these as
well as other terms (e.g., Gibson, 1984) for describing
practices for promoting the learning and development of
infants and toddlers with disabilities and young children at
risk for developmental delays.
Contemporary interest in the value and benefits of early
intervention can be traced to a number of influential events
during the 20th century. Theory and research were used to
build a case for the plasticity of infant and toddler learning
and development, and the kinds of experiences that can
affect or alter the behavior of very young children (e.g.,
Bronfenbrenner, 1975; Caldwell, 1970). In a series of stud-
ies conducted between 1938 and 1950, different kinds of
environmental interventions were found to be related to
both the immediate and long-term developmental outcomes
of young children with and without disabilities (e.g., Kirk,
1950; Skeels, Updegraff, Wellman, & Williams, 1938;
Spitz, 1945). These studies included comparisons where the
experiences provided to intervention group participants all
had discernable positive effects on the children compared
with the control or comparison group participants. These
studies, which are rarely cited today, proved an early tip-
ping point for building the case that early intervention could
have positive effects on young children’s learning and
development.
Theoretical formation by Hebb (1949), Hunt (1961), and
Bloom (1964) was instrumental in building the case that
experiences early in a child’s life could have either positive
or negative effects on learning and development. Both devel-
opmental (e.g., Piaget, 1952) and operant (Bijou & Baer,
1961) theories played central roles in the identification of the
particular kinds of experiences that influence infant and tod-
dler behavior. Hunt (1961), for example, built a convincing
case that planned and naturally occurring experiences matter
a great deal in affecting child learning and development. In a
series of subsequent studies, Hunt (1987) demonstrated that
the contrasting experiences and opportunities afforded to
infants and toddlers had differential consequences on the
children’s behavior and development.
Early intervention programs for young children with, or at
risk for, developmental delays or disabilities expanded rapidly
in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s (e.g., Bricker, 1982; Tjossem,
1976). These included both home-based and center-based
programs where the practices used by practitioners in those
programs were based on theory and research (see, for example,
Affleck, McGrade, McQueeney, & Allen, 1982; Weikart &
Lambie, 1970). Many of these programs, and especially
home-based programs, involved the children’s mothers as
the primary source of children’s learning experiences and
opportunities (Bricker & Casuso, 1979; Bromwich, 1976).
These home-based programs often used parent–infant inter-
action theory and research (Brody, 1956) for developing and
implementing procedures for promoting mothers’ adoption
and use of interactional behavior that supported and strength-
ened child learning and development.
Early intervention up until 1986 mirrored advances in
theory and research in early education, child development,
and parent education (e.g., Hunt, 1979; Lally & Honig,
1975). At the time a bill to amend the Education of the
Handicapped Act “to authorize an early intervention
program . . . for handicapped infants” (U.S. Congress House of
Representatives Committee on Education and Labor, 1986,
p. 1) was introduced, early intervention, as we then knew it,
was about to undergo sudden parapatric speciation, where
the division into two different types of early intervention
generally went unnoticed or at least unacknowledged.
Contrasting Definitions
of Early Intervention
The sudden change that occurred in the field of early inter-
vention at the time of the passage of the Part H legislation
produced an evolutionary split in how early intervention
was defined. This in turn has had major implications for
how early intervention was conceptualized and practiced.
Prior to the Part H legislation, a primary focus of early
intervention was the learning opportunities afforded to
infants and toddlers that used to influence changes in the
children’s behavior and development. In contrast, the defi-
nition in the 1986 Part H legislation, and subsequent reau-
thorizations of the Act, defined early intervention in terms
of the services provided by qualified professionals to
infants and toddlers and their families.
Pre Part H Definitions
Table 1 shows a chronology of definitions of early inter-
vention that appeared in the literature between 1967 and
1986. The definitions include a number of key terms that
reflect what were then considered important features of
early intervention. The terms experiences or activities
appear in most of the definitions and refer to the fact that
the learning opportunities afforded to infants and toddlers
were interventions. The terms facilitate, achieve, and reach
indicate that the learning opportunities were expected to
produce targeted behavior change. The terms intentionally
organized, carefully planned, and of a planned nature indi-
cate that the experiences used as early intervention were
carefully selected and implemented to influence changes in
210 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 31(4)

Table 1. A Chronology of Definitions of Early Intervention 1967–1986

Year Definition
1967 A planned sequence of events, activities and experiences occurring in a prescribed time period intentionally organized and
implemented to achieve a desired result. (Barsch, 1967, p. 546)
1975 Provide opportunities for the infant to actively engage his [or her] environment and by extending infant-initiated activities . . . .
to facilitate child development. (Lambie, Bond, & Weikart, 1975, p. 278)
1979 [Early intervention] is concerned with providing meaningful and appropriate educational experiences to preschool children
[by] structuring the learning environments of the children. (Garwood, 1979)
1981 Programs of enrichment designed to provide developmentally appropriate activities to babies and toddlers who have or who
are at-risk for a variety of conditions. (Denhoff, 1981, p. 32)
1981 Carefully planned and designed activities, events, and experiences organized and implemented to reach specified objectives and
goals. (Dunst, 1981, p. 9)
1984 Early intervention refers to therapeutic (excluding drug or surgical manipulation) or educational intervention . . . of a planned
nature aimed at eliminating a current or anticipated deficiency in a target population. (Bricker, Bailey, & Bruder, 1984, p. 374)

Table 2. Part H and Part C Definitions of Early Intervention

Year Definition
1986 Early intervention services mean developmental services [that] include family training, counseling, and home visits; special
instruction; speech pathology and audiology; occupational services; physical therapy; and [other professional services] (U.S.
Congress House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor, 1986)
1986 Family training and counseling; child special instruction and therapy; case management and other [professional] services to
meet a child’s developmental needs (Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99–457, 100 Stat.
1145, 1986)
1990 Educational and therapeutic services to the child, and counseling support and other services to parents, provided by regular
contact with professionals (Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101–476, 104 Stat. 1142, 1990)
1997 Child and family services to meet a child’s developmental needs provided in natural environments (Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act Amendments of 1997, Pub L. No. 105-17, 111 Stat. 37, 1997)
2004 Services that are designed to meet the developmental needs of infants and toddlers with a disability (Individuals With
Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108–446, 118 Stat. 2647, 2004)

child learning and development. The definitions, taken
together, emphasize the fact that early intervention was
about the kinds of activities that were intentionally used
with young children to produce desired outcomes and con-
sequences.
One of the consequences of the experience-based defini-
tions of early intervention was a flurry of activity designed
to identify the kinds of experiences that were most likely to
have development-enhancing characteristics and conse-
quences. These efforts were guided primarily by develop-
mental (Fowler, 1962) and operant learning (Horowitz,
1968) theories, knowledge of the social (parental) determi-
nants of infant and toddler development (Bromwich, 1981),
and the early tenets of ecological theories of child, parent,
and family development (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). The
results were the development of early intervention curricula
(e.g., Furuno et al., 1979), operant and response-contingent
learning interventions (e.g., Lancioni, 1980), parent train-
ing methods and procedures (e.g., Sandler, Coren, &
Thurman, 1983), parent–infant interaction practices (e.g.,
McCollum, 1984), and the use of different kinds
of instructional practices to influence infant and toddler
learning and development (e.g., Hart & Risley, 1978).
Notwithstanding the fact that some of those efforts proved
not to be optimally effective (e.g., Halpern, 1984), a com-
mon denominator was the search for the kind of experi-
ences that could be used as early intervention to affect
changes in child learning and development.
Part H/Part C Definitions
The passage of the Part H early intervention legislation
marked a dramatic shift in the history of early intervention
for young children with disabilities. The shift was espe-
cially pronounced in terms of the change in the definition
and descriptions of early intervention. Table 2 shows how
early intervention was/is defined in the Congressional
Report and the four pieces of legislation that include the
Part H and now the Part C Infants and Toddlers With
Disabilities program. The House Report and different
pieces of legislation all describe early intervention in terms
of professional services designed to meet the developmental
Dunst 211
needs of infants and toddlers where the services are pro-
vided by qualified personnel.
The consequence of a shift to a service-based definition
of early intervention was the kind of stepped division that is
characteristic of parapatric speciation. This is easily illus-
trated by a content analysis of the Part C Infants and
Toddlers With Disabilities sections of the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004). Electronic
searches for terms that were the key features of early inter-
vention prior to Part H (see Table 1) found that the word
learning appeared only once and as part of the requirements
for a public awareness program (Sec. 635(a)(6)). The terms
experience or opportunity appear 5 times, only 1 of which
refers to activities used to promote infant and toddler learn-
ing or development (Sec. 639(a)(4)). The terms facilitate or
enhance appear 7 times, only 2 of which refer to the processes
used to promote infant and toddler development (Sec.
631(a)(1), Sec. 631(a)(4)). The terms development or devel-
opmental appear 38 times, only 4 of which refer to the
enhancement of child development (Sec. 631(a)(1), Sec.
632 (c), Sec. 635(a)(3), Sec. 636(a)(2), Sec. 636(d)(3)).
(The terms are most often used to describe developmental
delay, different developmental domains, or personnel
development.) Now consider the terms service and services.
They appear 179 times in the Part C sections of the legisla-
tion. They most often describe discipline-specific services,
the individualized family service plan (IFSP), and service
coordination. Some simple calculations of the percentage of
times different terms are used in the Part C legislation show
that only 3% of the time the terms refer to experience-based
early intervention, whereas 91% of the time the terms refer
to service-based early intervention. Parenthetically, the
same analyses performed on the recently released Part C
Final Regulations (34 CFR Part 303) found that the term
service or services appear 2,412 times, whereas child learn-
ing (experience or opportunity) appears only 3 times!
The influence of a service-based definition of early inter-
vention was almost immediately felt in terms of State
implementation of the Part H legislation and the ways in
which states now define and describe early intervention. A
content analysis of the descriptions of early intervention on
each State and the District of Columbia websites finds that
most (N = 43) indicate that their mission or goal is to pro-
vide supports and services, systems of supports and ser-
vices, or statewide systems of supports and services
delivered by qualified professionals. Eight states describe
early intervention in terms of both services and some type
of experience-based early intervention (mostly child
involvement in daily routines and activities). Only one of
these states describes early intervention in terms of chil-
dren’s learning in the context of relationships with their
families and other caregivers in everyday routines, activi-
ties, and community settings in addition to service-based
practices. The overall pattern of results clearly shows that
the Part H/Part C Infants and Toddlers With Disabilities
legislation successfully populated state’s early intervention
practices with a service-based gene pool.
Consequences of Parapatric
Speciation
Close inspection of the different versions of the Part H/Part C
early intervention legislation, and states’ interpretation and
implementation of the requirements of the legislation,
shows very little substantive change in its 25-year history.
What changes have occurred have been mostly tweaking or
wordsmithing (e.g., changing the term case management to
service coordination). Placed in the context of the current
knowledge base, the Part C program has not kept pace with
advances in theory, research, and practice (e.g., Feldman,
2004; Guralnick, 2005; McWilliam, 2010; Odom &
Wolery, 2003; Shonkoff & Meisels, 2000). Evidence from
a number of sources indicate that how Part C early inter-
vention is generally practiced does not match what is con-
sidered either recommended or evidence-based early
intervention practices (McLean, Snyder, Smith, & Sandall,
2002; Odom, McLean, Johnson, & LaMontagne, 1995) and
that there is often a disconnect between what Part C practi-
tioners say or believe they do and what actually occurs in
the name of early intervention (McBride & Peterson, 1997;
Roggman, Boyce, Cook, & Jump, 2001). There are niches
and habitats scattered throughout the United States where
contemporary early intervention is practiced in Part C pro-
grams (see especially Guralnick, 2005), but there is very
little evidence that these practices have been taken to scale
in Part C programs, that these practices have been widely
adopted by Part C programs or practitioners, or that Part C
practices have been broadly influenced by contemporary
theory and research.
One reason for the failure of Part C to evolve has been the
fact that the definition of early intervention has remained
stagnant for 25 years where that definition is inconsistent
with contemporary evidence about the kinds of experiences
and opportunities, and conditions under which infant and tod-
dler learning and development are likely to be optimized
(Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). Moreover, the continued empha-
sis on professional services as the unit for defining early inter-
vention has taken, in the past and continues to take, Part C
intervention on an evolutionary path that ever widens the
divide between research evidence and Part C practices.
The consequences of the parapatric speciation of Part H/
Part C early intervention has been manifested in a number
of ways. First and foremost, there was a shift in emphasis
toward professional services together with a concomitant
decrease in attention to the key characteristics of child learn-
ing experiences and opportunities. This led to a lack of speci-
ficity in terms of exactly what it was that “made up” a service
and how it was expected to produce desired outcomes. A
212 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 31(4)
related consequence was professionals providing services
directly to children without meaningfully involving the
family in the interventions. Some simple calculations show
that twice-a-week hourly intervention or therapy, in the
absence of parent involvement, accounts for only about 2%
of the total waking hours of a 1-year-old child (Roffwarg,
Muzio, & Dement, 1966), hardly enough time for any kind
of intervention to make a meaningful difference in a child’s
life (see Mahoney & MacDonald, 2007; McWilliam, 2000).
A third consequence manifested itself in terms of how
IFSPs are written and implemented. For the most part, the
focus of IFSPs has been on child (and sometimes family)
outcomes and simply the listing of services, which suppos-
edly will result in those outcomes. A fourth consequence
was the decontextualization of early intervention where ser-
vices for the most part are not implemented in settings or
contexts necessary for functional skill acquisition. Advances
in early intervention theory and research prior to and at the
time of the Part H legislation made clear that the contexts of
early intervention were extremely important if optimal ben-
efits were to be realized (e.g., Ballard, 1986; Cohen, Hulls,
& Rhine, 1978). A fifth consequence was a lack of concern
for the particular instructional practices used to promote
infant and toddler learning or how family capacity to engage
in interactions to support child learning was promoted and
strengthened. As part of a study investigating the kinds
of instructional practices that Part C practitioners either
suggested or taught parents to use with their children, the
majority of parents indicated that they were told to simply
repeat the same activity over and over until their children
demonstrated the expected behavior, hardly an effective
instructional practice (Dunst, Bruder, Trivette, Raab, &
McLean, 1998).
Finally, a sixth consequence is the fact that Part C early
intervention has become a professionally driven enterprise,
especially in states with private provider models where
there is a vested financial interest in prescribing and provid-
ing professional services (see especially Hewlett & West,
1998). The latter is especially true in states that depend on
Medicaid funding to support the provision of professional
services particularly where those services are reimbursable
only if provided to infants and toddlers by Part C
practitioners. It was only a matter of time that Part C early
intervention has begun to be described as an early interven-
tion industry (e.g., http://antillia.us/whythisworkshop.php;
www.birth2five.org).
Conclusion
The shift from an experience-based to service-based
approach to early intervention that resulted from Part H
legislation was somewhat unintentional but certainly unfor-
tunate. (I say somewhat unintentional because just prior to
the passage of the Part H legislation, voices from different
professional organizations were very loud in terms of the
disciplines they wanted explicitly listed in the Act.) The
consequences to a large degree were the result of the way
in which early intervention was defined and how a service-
based approach has taken early intervention far afield from
what at the time and what we now know are important
features and characteristics of effective early intervention
practices. There is an urgent need for Part C to enter a new
niche and habitat that is more consistent with current the-
ory, research, knowledge, and practice (Dunst, 2007,
2011). Accordingly, the legislation and the rules governing
the Act need to be changed, starting with an updated defini-
tion of early intervention, and preferably an operational
definition that is based on contemporary theory, research,
knowledge, and practice.
An operational definition of early intervention would
include the essential characteristics of practices (experi-
ences, opportunities, activities, etc.) and how and why
they are expected to have specified outcomes based on
empirical evidence. The definition would also specify the
agents of the provision of those experiences and opportu-
nities. This would provide an opportunity to reemphasize
the fact that the original intent of Part H/Part C was to
build and strengthen family capacity to provide early
intervention to their children with support and guidance
from practitioners (Barber, Turnbull, Behr, & Kerns,
1988). The definition could go one step further by stating
the kinds of evidence-based instructional practices that a
family could use to promote child learning and develop-
ment as part of the learning opportunities afforded to a
child (Bailey & Wolery, 1992).
An operational definition of early intervention would
inform all the corollaries of the definition that are logical
extensions. An operational definition that includes the
essential elements and features described above would have
direct implications for how assessment practices, IFSPs,
natural environment, and other Part C early intervention
practices are defined, operationalized, and implemented.
For example, natural environment practices would be
described as those everyday activities and routines that pro-
vide infants and toddlers experiences and opportunities of
known qualities intended to increase child participation in
real-life learning to promote and enhance child develop-
ment where the family supports and encourages child par-
ticipation and competence in the activities (Kahn, Stemler,
& Berchin-Weiss, 2009; Vincent & McLean, 1996). Any
Part C practice could easily be couched in this kind of
description.
Any changes in the Part C definition of early interven-
tion, and subsequently all its corollaries, ought to be
informed by available research evidence. The call for adop-
tion of scientifically based practices appears 28 times in the
Dunst 213
P. L. 108–446 legislation (2004) but unfortunately only
once in the Part C sections of the Act (Sec. 635(a)(2)).
Nonetheless, the one statement pertaining to scientifically
based research could be paraphrased and stated as,
State policy that is in effect should ensure that early
intervention practices be based on scientifically-
based research to ensure that the best learning experi-
ences and opportunities possible are made available
and provided to infants and toddlers with disabilities
by their families.
In what I consider a seminal paper preventing parent
involvement in early childhood intervention for young
children with disabilities from evolving along a path
based on faulty logic, Foster, Berger, and McLean (1981)
stated that
Good ideas should be commended and if they work
they should be adopted. Even exceptional ideas, how-
ever, should be reviewed periodically to see whether
the premises under which they were adopted still
hold true and their influence is still positive. (p. 55,
italics added)
Part H was a good idea. However, the time to examine
and revise the Part C legislation in light of current theory,
knowledge, research, and practice is long past due. The
interested reader is referred to Dunst (2007, 2011) for criti-
cal examinations of Part C early intervention and what
evidence-based practices might look like as part of changes
in the Part C legislation.
I close with one last analogy between human evolution
and early intervention. Homo genus is the common ancestor
of both modern humans (Homo sapiens) and the
Neanderthals (Tattersall, 1999). The reason Homo sapiens
survived and the Neanderthals did not was the fact that
Homo sapiens showed more rapid evolution and adapta-
tions to the challenges and changes they faced, whereas the
Neanderthals showed arrested evolution and a failure to
adapt to the very same kind of challenges and changes
(Mellars, 1998). The continued failure of Part C to change
and adapt based on new knowledge and research evidence
might result in the same grisly fate that the Neanderthals
experienced (Tattersall, 1999).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/
or authorship of this article.
References
Affleck, G., McGrade, B. J., McQueeney, M., & Allen, D. (1982).
Promise of relationship-focused early intervention in develop-
mental disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 16, 413–430.
Bailey, D. B., Jr., & Wolery, M. (1992). Teaching infants and pre-
schoolers with disabilities (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Merrill.
Ballard, K. D. (1986). Child learning and development in context:
Strategies for analysing behavior-environment interactions
and a proposal for research into everyday experiences. Educa-
tional Psychology, 6, 123–137.
Barber, P. A., Turnbull, A. P., Behr, S. K., & Kerns, G. M. (1988).
A family systems perspective on early childhood special edu-
cation. In S. L. Odom & M. B. Karnes (Eds.), Early inter-
vention for infants and children with handicaps: An empirical
base (pp. 179–198). Baltimore, MD: Brooks.
Barsch, R. H. (1967). The infant curriculum: A concept for tomor-
row. In J. Hellmuth (Ed.), Exceptional infant: Volume 1. The
normal infant (pp. 543-568). New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.
Bijou, S. W., & Baer, D. M. (1961). Child development: Vol. 1. A
systematic and empirical theory. New York, NY: Appleton-
Century-Crofts.
Bloom, B. S. (1964). Stability and change in human characteris-
tics. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Bricker, D., Bailey, E., & Bruder, M. B. (1984). The efficacy
of early intervention and the handicapped infant: A wise
or wasted resource. In M. Wolraich & D. K. Routh (Eds.),
Advances in developmental and behavioral pediatrics (Vol. 5,
pp. 373–423). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Bricker, D., & Casuso, V. (1979). Family involvement: A critical
component of early intervention. Exceptional Children, 46,
108–116.
Bricker, D. D. (Ed.). (1982). Intervention with at-risk and handi-
capped infants: From research to application. Baltimore,
MD: University Park Press.
Brody, S. (1956). Patterns of mothering: Maternal influence dur-
ing infancy. New York, NY: International Universities Press.
Bromwich, R. M. (1976). Focus on maternal behavior in infant
intervention. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 46, 439–446.
Bromwich, R. M. (1981). Working with parents and infants: An
interactional approach. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1975). Is early intervention effective? In
B. Z. Friedlander, G. M. Sterritt, & G. E. Kirk (Eds.), Excep-
tional infant: Vol. 3. Assessment and intervention (pp. 449–475).
New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of
human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513–531.
Caldwell, B. M. (1970). The rationale for early intervention.
Exceptional Children, 36, 717–726.
Cohen, A. S., Hulls, J., & Rhine, P. (1978). The influence of con-
text on activity level of young children. Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 132, 165–175.
214 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 31(4)
Coyne, J. A., & Orr, H. A. (2004). Speciation. Sunderland, MA:
Sinauer Associates.
Cunningham, C. (1979). Early stimulation of the severely handi-
capped child. In A. F. Tredgold & M. Craft (Eds.), Tredgold’s
mental retardation (12th ed., pp. 183-198). London, England:
Baillière Tindall.
Denhoff, E. (1981). Current status of infant stimulation or enrich-
ment programs for children with developmental disabilities.
Pediatrics, 67, 32–37.
Dunst, C. J. (1981). Infant learning: A cognitive-linguistic inter-
vention strategy. Allen, TX: DLM.
Dunst, C. J. (1996). Early intervention in the USA: Programs, mod-
els, and practices. In M. Brambring, H. Rauh, & A. Beelmann
(Eds.), Early childhood intervention: Theory, evaluation, and
practice (pp. 11–52). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
Dunst, C. J. (2007). Early intervention with infants and toddlers
with developmental disabilities. In S. L. Odom, R. H. Horner,
M. Snell, & J. Blacher (Eds.), Handbook of developmental dis-
abilities (pp. 161–180). New York, NY: Guilford.
Dunst, C. J. (2011). Advances in theory, assessment, and inter-
vention with infants and toddlers with disabilities. In J. M.
Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Handbook of special edu-
cation (pp. 687–702). New York, NY: Routledge.
Dunst, C. J., Bruder, M. B., Trivette, C. M., Raab, M., & McLean, M.
(1998, May). Increasing children’s learning opportunities
through families and communities early childhood research
institute: Year 2 progress report. Asheville, NC: Orelena
Hawks Puckett Institute.
Feldman, M. A. (Ed.). (2004). Early intervention: The essential
readings. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Foster, M., Berger, M., & McLean, M. (1981). Rethinking a good
idea: A reassessment of parent involvement. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education, 1, 55–65.
Fowler, W. (1962). Cognitive learning in infancy and early child-
hood. Psychological Bulletin, 59, 116–152.
Furuno, S., O’Reilly, A., Hosaka, C. M., Inatsuda, T. T.,
Allman, T. L., & Zeisloft, B. (1979). Hawaii Early Learning
Profile (HELP). Palo Alto, CA: VORT.
Garwood, S. G. (1979). Special education and child development:
A new perspective. In S. G. Garwood, P. Alberto, R. F.
DuBose, B. A. Hare, J. M. Hare, J. Kauffman, . . . D. A. Page
(Eds.), Educating young handicapped children: A develop-
mental approach (pp. 3–37). Germantown, MD: Aspen Sys-
tems.
Gavrilets, S., Li, H., & Vose, M. D. (2000). Patterns of parapatric
speciation. Evolution, 54, 1126–1134.
Gibson, D. M. (1984). Early infant stimulation programs for
children with Down syndrome: A review of effectiveness. In
M. Wolraich & D. K. Routh (Eds.), Advances in developmen-
tal and behavioral pediatrics (Vol. 5, pp. 331–371). Greenwich,
CT: JAI.
Guralnick, M. J. (Ed.). (2005). The developmental systems
approach to early intervention. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Halpern, R. (1984). Lack of effects for home-based early interven-
tion? Some possible explanations. American Journal of Ortho-
psychiatry, 54, 33–42.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1978). Promoting productive language
through incidental teaching. Education and Urban Society, 10,
407–429.
Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior: A neuropsy-
chological theory. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Hewlett, S. A., & West, C. (1998). The war against parents: What
we can do for America’s beleaguered moms and dads. Boston,
MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Horowitz, F. D. (1968). Infant learning and development: Retro-
spect and prospect. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 14, 101–120.
Hunt, J. M. (1961). Intelligence and experience. New York, NY:
Ronald Press.
Hunt, J. M. (1979). Psychological development: Early experience.
Annual Review of Psychology, 30, 103–143.
Hunt, J. M. (1987). The effects of differing kinds of experiences
in early rearing conditions. In I. Uzgiris & J. M. Hunt (Eds.),
Infant performance and experience (pp. 39–97). Urbana: Uni-
versity of Illinois Press.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of
2004, Pub. L. No. 108–446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004).
Kahn, R., Stemler, S. E., & Berchin-Weiss, J. (2009). Enhancing
parent participation in early intervention through tools that
support mediated learning. Journal of Cognitive Education
and Psychology, 8, 269–287.
Kirk, S. (1950). A project for pre-school mentally handi-
capped children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency,
55, 305–310.
Lally, J. R., & Honig, A. S. (1975). Education of infants and tod-
dlers from low-income and low-education backgrounds: Sup-
port for the family’s role and identity. In B. Z. Friedlander, G.
M. Sterritt, & G. E. Kirk (Eds.), Exceptional Infant: Vol. 3.
Assessment and intervention (pp. 285–303). New York, NY:
Brunner/Mazel.
Lambie, D., Bond, J., & Weikart, D. (1975). Framework for infant
education. In B. Z. Friedlander, G. M. Sterritt, & K. Girvin
(Eds.), Exceptional Infant: Vol. 3. Assessment and interven-
tion (pp. 263–284). New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.
Lancioni, G. E. (1980). Infant operant conditioning and its impli-
cations for early intervention. Psychological Bulletin, 88,
516–534.
Mahoney, G., & MacDonald, J. (2007). Autism and developmental
delays in young children: The responsive teaching curriculum
for parents and professionals. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
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.
McCollum, J. A. (1984). Social interaction between parents and
babies: Validation of an intervention procedure. Child: Care,
Health and Development, 10, 301–315.
Dunst 215
McLean, M. E., Snyder, P., Smith, B. J., & Sandall, S. R. (2002).
The DEC recommended practices in early intervention/early
childhood special education: Social validation. Journal of
Early Intervention, 25, 120–128.
McWilliam, R. A. (2000). It’s only natural to have early interven-
tion in the environments where it’s needed. In S. Sandall &
M. Ostrosky (Eds.), Natural environments and inclusion
[Young Exceptional Children Monograph Series No. 2,
pp. 17–26]. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
McWilliam, R. A. (Ed.). (2010). Working with families of young
children with special needs (What works for special-needs
learners). New York, NY: Guilford.
Mellars, P. (1998). The fate of the Neanderthals. Nature, 395,
539–540.
Odom, S. L., McLean, M. E., Johnson, L. J., & LaMontagne, M. J.
(1995). Recommended practices in early childhood special
education: Validation and current use. Journal of Early Inter-
vention, 19, 1–17.
Odom, S. L., & Wolery, M. (2003). A unified theory of prac-
tice in early intervention/early childhood special education:
Evidence-based practices. Journal of Special Education, 37,
164–173.
Painter, G. (1968). Infant education. San Rafael, CA: Dimensions.
Patterson, N., Richter, D. J., Gnerre, S., Lander, E. S., & Reich, D.
(2006). Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans
and chimpanzees. Nature, 441, 1103–1108.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New
York, NY: Norton.
Ridley, M. (2004). Evolution (3rd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Roffwarg, H. P., Muzio, J. N., & Dement, W. C. (1966). Ontoge-
netic development of the human sleep-dream cycle. Science,
152, 604–618.
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.
Sandler, A., Coren, A., & Thurman, S. K. (1983). A training pro-
gram for parents of handicapped preschool children: Effects
upon mother, father, and child. Exceptional Children, 49,
355–358.
Shonkoff, J. P., & Meisels, S. J. (2000). Handbook of early child-
hood intervention (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to
neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Skeels, H., Updegraff, R., Wellman, B., & Williams, H. (1938). A
study of environmental stimulation: An orphanage preschool
project. Iowa City: University of Iowa Studies in Child
Welfare.
Spitz, R. (1945). Hospitalism: An inquiry into the genesis of psy-
chiatric conditions in early childhood: Part I. Psychoanalytic
Study of the Child, 1, 53–74.
Tattersall, I. (1999). The last Neanderthal: The rise, success, and
mysterious extinction of our closest human relatives (Rev. ed.).
Boulder, CO: Westview.
Tjossem, T. D. (Ed.). (1976). Intervention strategies for high risk
infants and young children. Baltimore, MD: University Park
Press.
U.S. Congress House of Representatives Committee on Educa-
tion and Labor. (1986, September). Education of the Handi-
capped Act Amendments of 1986 (99–860). Washington,
DC: Author.
Vincent, L. J., & McLean, M. E. (1996). Family participation.
In S. L. Odom & M. E. McLean (Eds.), Early intervention/
early childhood special education: Recommended practices
(pp. 59–76). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Weikart, D. P., & Lambie, D. Z. (1970). Early enrichment in
infants. In V. H. Denenberg (Ed.), Education of the infant
and young child (pp. 83–107). New York, NY: Academic
Press.
About the Author
Carl J. Dunst, PhD, is a research scientist in Orelena Hawks
Puckett Institute, Asheville, NC. His research interests include
the characteristics of capacity-building early childhood interven-
tion practices and the manner in which parent involvement in
early intervention positively influences parenting confidence and
competence.