Development, Implementation, and Outcomes of The Mason LIFE Program

1. Development, Implementation, and Outcomes of The Mason LIFE Program Interview Procedure Manual in Post-Secondary Education for Individuals with IDD By Karen M. Ingram (kingram@masonlive.gmu.edu ) and Heidi J. Graff, Ph.D. (hgraff@gmu.edu) Data Analysis Data Analysis: Analysisexamined individual, class, and compiled program interview scores. Statistical information was gathered for each group and responses evaluated using the SPSS statistical analysis program. Individual response differences were noted. A range of scores and program total calculated. A standard deviation for a range of scores was determined for the total program calculation. Research Background Historic passage of the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA, 2008) offered legislation that set federal guidelines which defined the comprehensive transition and postsecondary programs for students with an intellectual disabilities (ID). With the establishment of many recognized postsecondary programs for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) both in the U. S. and abroad, it is essential that the admissions process address the necessary competencies that enable individuals to be successful. In a recent survey, most postsecondary programs for individuals with IDD required special entrance criteria (Grigal, Hart & Weir, 2012), although these appeared to vary greatly from program to program. Several common criteria were identified for admissions to post- secondary programs which include: student desire to be on campus, student domicile, completed years of high school, prerequisite skills, independent travel, and independently navigate campus (Papay & Bambara, 2011). It is important that postsecondary applicants have the potential to successfully achieve their goals within their chosen program (Carroll, Blumberg, & Petroff, 2008). • Study Questions • Does the current use of the interview in the MLP show a direct relationship on student outcomes? What range of scores can be determined from the implementation of the interview? • If students admitted to the program who were interviewed scored within a certain range and successfully completed and graduated for each year implemented, can the instrument be valued as a predictive measure for future success? • What adjustments to the interview procedure manual, if any, need to be considered in review of the results and implications? Method Sample: Students (entering 18-23 years of age) vary greatly in terms of abilities and disabilities within the non-categorical, IDD population. Instrument Development: Using the current interview template as a guide, an interview session was recorded, transcribed, and revised along with anecdotal records to construct a draft. Question selection was drawn from reviewing the compiled text and refining, constructing and sequencing items. Each applicant responded to questions evaluated on a 1-5 Likert scale (lowest to highest) with values assigned for each question scored. Sample Question: Examiner: (Displays school books curio box) “What is this?” Applicant: “School books.” Question 1: Scoring on the Likert scale: If the question is not asked, it is scored a 0. If an applicant has no answer, states “I don’t know”, or has an unrelated answer, it is scored a 1. If an applicant answers in the form of school related supplies (notebook, journal) it is scored a 3. If an applicant answers “books” or specifically “school books”, it is scored a 5. Instrument Purpose: Implementation of the interview procedure manual is to obtain a general overview of an applicant as a first level in determination of readiness for college as compared to a typical college student. Existing Data: The data set included applicants who had undergone the interview process and were accepted for the graduation years of 2015-2017. The total number of participants was 35 for years: 2015 (n=7); 2016 (n=15); and 2017 (n=13), respectively. Data Collection: Data was collected from each participant’s file to gain demographic information and for review of original interview forms. Scores were derived by assigning a sum for a singular question in each of the 8 areas and related sections on each form. A composite score was determined for each student. Results Response Analysis: Individual applicant responses to interview questions scored mostly between 2-5 on the Likert scale, indicating the ability of most applicants to communicate satisfactorily and attempt appropriate responses. Analysis identified response differences to several questions for which a “1” was scored and for one question with a no response for “5”. Range of Scores: Analysis identified a range of scores for each class included in the study. An aggregated range was also established for the program. The maximum score on the interview is 160. A 15 point standard deviation for this data set found with a scoring range of 85-145; with a predictive value of successful yearly academic progress and program completion at the 100-130 range. Implications for Practice Implementation: The MLP Interview Procedure Manual can be seen as a useful tool for predicting successful outcomes for program applicants as future students. It offers a foundation for scope and content as well as a research based focus for applicant selections. Conclusions: The results of the study provided empirical evidence that confirmed a direct relationship between the MLP Interview Procedure Manual score and the predictive yearly success and program completion of each student. • Study Focus and Goals • Focus: The study focused on the development of an interview procedure manual and was conducted within the Mason LIFE Program (MLP) of George Mason University. This program provides young adults with IDD an inclusive, academically supported, university experience. • Goals: The goal of developing the interview procedure manual was to formalize the current interview template for continued use within the program as part of the admissions process; review information from existing student interview data, analyze the descriptive statistics; evaluate the results for a demonstrated predictive value; and suggest possible implementation for other U.S. and internationally based post- secondary programs.