See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329125722

IEP RATING SCALES FOR IEP QUALITY ANALYSIS, EVALUATION AND

IMPROVEMENT © CIRP

Article · November 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 858

1 author:

Nathalie Myara
Université de Montréal
17 PUBLICATIONS   21 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

L’évaluation dynamique (ÉD) pour améliorer l’intervention éducative / Improving educational intervention through Dynamic Assessment (DA) View project

Quels sont les instruments d’évaluation utiles pour identifier les besoins des élèves HDAA et élaborer son PI? View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nathalie Myara on 22 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 IEP RATING SCALES

FOR IEP QUALITY ANALYSIS, EVALUATION AND

IMPROVEMENT

© CIRP By Nathalie Myara, Ph. D.

Information and resource centre for plans
1 Associate professor
Department of psycho pedagogy and andragogy
Faculty of Education
University of Montreal
All rights reserved. Reproduction, by
any means whatsoever, of the
translation or distribution of this
document, even partial, is
prohibited without the prior
authorization of CIRP. However, the
reproduction of this document or its
use for professional purposes,
scientific research, but not
commercial, is permitted provided
the source is mentioned.

It is recommended to quote the document this

way:

Myara (2018). IEP Rating Scales for IEP quality

analysis, evaluation and improvement. Center
for information and information on plans (CIRP).
www.planintervention.com
Or
Myara (2018). Analyser, évaluer et améliorer la
qualité des plans d’intervention (PI) ou de
transition (PT) en milieu scolaire. La revue des
francophone de la déficience intellectuelle, (28)
11-26. doi:10.7202/1051095ar

To contact author :
nathalie.myara@ummontreal.ca

To facilitate the reading of the document, only one

genre is used and refers to both the feminine and the
masculine.

2
Introduction
Several studies find that the contents of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs)
do not meet the required and expected level of quality or adequately address
needs and concerns laid out by the Special Education Policy. The main objective
of this summary is to propose rating scales to help researchers and practitioners
analyze, evaluate and improve the quality of IEPs.

That being said, it was crucial to go through the five steps before suggesting
three rating scales useful for the analysis, evaluation and improvement of IEP
quality. Firstly reviewing available research on the quality of IEPs revealed what
the research says about IEP quality. Second, the various methods that have been
proposed by researchers to analyze, evaluate and improve the quality of IEPs
were laid out. Third, various methods used thus far by researchers in assessment
and analysis of IEPs were detailed. Fourth, multiple proposed methods proposed
and methods used were compared. Fifth, the advantages and the limitations of
these methods were analyzed.

What the Research Says About IEP Quality

A handful of studies have been carried out to assess the quality of IEPs; they
highlight the merits and shortcomings of IEPs. Student needs tend to be
described more accurately and in more detail. Goals, means and resources tend
to be more numerous and more relevant. However, the difficulties, strengths,
capacities and expected results tend to rarely be reported or not well
documented. In sum, the majority of authors conclude that the contents of a
good proportion of IEPs are not of a calibre that addresses the needs and
concerns laid out by the Special Education Policy (Beaupré, Ouellet and Roy,
2002; Gaudreau and al., 2008; Giangreco, Dennis, Edelman and Loninger, 1994;
Goupil, Tassé, Horth; Hoehle, 1993; Hunt, Goetz and Anderson, 1986; Lynch
Lévesque and Maingu, 2000; Krishnakumar, 2006; Michnowicz and al.,1995;
Myara, 2012; Pretti-Frontczac and Bricker, 2000; Poirier and Goupil, 2011; Rakap,
2015; Ruble, McGrew, Dalrymple and Jung, 2010; Sanches-Ferreira and al., 2013;
Sigafoos et al., 1993;).
and Beare, 1990;

Tools and Instruments Proposed by Researchers to Analyze, Evaluate or

Improve the Quality of IEPs
In the 1980s, Maher and Barbarck (1980) produced a reference framework to
inform and support the various users of an IEP in the analysis, evaluation and

3
improvement of IEPs. According to these authors, IEP evaluation is a
multidimensional process, with information provided on various aspects of the
IEP. They define a four-part framework: 1) Evaluation of the plan (content
included in the IEP template); 2) Evaluation of the process (IEP implementation);
3) Evaluation of the outcome (student monitoring and progress); and 4) Customer
satisfaction (the perception and satisfaction of parents and pupils in relation to
the utility of the IEP).

Training, is another mean suggested by several researchers (McGlohon, 1983;

Boavida, Aguiar and McWilliam, 2013; Lowman, 2016;). Some authors offer
training with a guide, a program or a kit (Giangreco 1996; Ruble, McGrew and
Dalrymple, 2010;). Others suggest training that involves using a Goal
Functionality Scale (Pretti-Frontczac and Bricker, 2000).

Apart from training, several researchers recommended the use of one or more
measuring, grid, inventory, questionnaire instruments or tools (Myara, 2012;
Notari and Bricker, 1990; Rowland, Quinn and Steiner, 2015; Wright and Wright,
2006).

Means Used by Researchers to Analyze and Evaluate IEP Quality

Researchers analyze and assess the quality of IEPs in various ways: based on the
perceptions of users (parents, teachers and students), by comparison (using a
variety of comparators), or by content analysis (accompanied by a grid, inventory,
questionnaire or measuring instruments). However, perceptions, particularly the
perceptions of the consumers of an IEP (student and parent), inform designers
and users (service providers) about its quality. Comparison vary from researcher
to researcher. As for content analysis, it makes it possible to systematize the
approach of an IEP, the components of an IEP and the content recorded in an
IEP to make an adequate interpretation. It is known to stably extract the
information sought from the IEP. Several studies use measuring instruments or
grids which have been validated. Though, we do not know for all of these studies
whether the attributes, characteristics or criteria of the grids, measuring
instruments, inventories or lists used are sufficient, or whether all of the essential
properties of an IEP were identified. For several studies, the process followed to
identify essential properties of an IEP is not described. Moreover, the majority of
these grids or measuring instruments are limited to objectives. Whereas an IEP is
a process of elaboration, the result of this process (which is expressed in the form
of a IEP framework, where the student's portrait, needs, objectives, means, etc.),
implementation and revision of a plan.

4
Conclusion
In 1999, the Policy of Special Education confirmed that the IEP remains the
preferred tool to meet the needs of students with disabilities or those with
learning disabilities. In addition, the policy emphasizes the importance of
consultation, evaluation of the results of IEP interventions, and the effectiveness
and efficiency of services.

Research and approaches used by different researchers to analyze and evaluate

the quality of IEPs have made it clear that IEP quality must improve. Different
researchers propose the use of different means or instruments to analyze,
evaluate and improve the quality of IEPs. Some means or instruments are more
useful or effective than others. Several instruments address only the objectives of
IEPs. Some instruments or methods explore the contents of IEPs. But as Maher
and Barbarck (1980) have pointed out, evaluating an IEP is not limited to
objectives or goals, and different IEP users will have different concerns, interests
or preoccupations. Indeed, a principal might want to evaluate parent or student
involvement in the development of the IEP, or a resource teacher or IEP
coordinator at the secondary level may wish to evaluate the teacher's
involvement in class with the implementation of the IEP. In addition, none of
these studies address how IEP quality is defined within the study, apart from that
of Myara (2012). which defines the concept of efficiency and the notion of quality.
According to Myara (2012), quality is measured by the degree to which a process
or product fulfills its functions or roles in order to best satisfy the needs of its
different users.

In the end, as Maher and Barbarck (1980) state, there are two unavoidable
aspects to be evaluated in an IEP: the content recorded in the IEP framework and
the implementation of the IEP. The two other aspects suggested by these authors
(expected results and satisfaction of parents and students) do not retain our
attention despite their importance, since a quality process is a process that fulfills
its functions in order to satisfy the needs of its users, and there are other factors
involved in assessing these two aspects. However, based on Myara’s (2012) study,
we conclude by adding three fundamental aspects: the development of the IEP,
the revision of the IEP and the participation of the main actors of the IEP.

In conclusion, it is clear that full evaluation of an IEP involves:

• The process of drafting the IEP
• The IEP framework and content

5
• Implementation of the IEP
• Revision of the IEP
• Participation of key actors in the IEP

In light of the above, and drawing on the work we have identified, a priori that of
Myara (2012) and Maher and Barbarck (1980), we have developed three
measurement instruments for analysis, evaluation and improving the quality of
IEPs, which we validated with three experts in Canada and three experts in the
United States:

1. IEP Goal Rating Scale (IEP GRS)

2. IEP Document Rating Scale (IEP DRS)
3. IEP Implementing Rating Scale (IEP IRS)

The IEP Goal Rating Scale (IEP GRS), shown in Table 1 below, is used to analyze
and evaluate the quality of written IEP goals or objectives. It is based on four
main characteristics of a goal: that it is 1) relevant; 2) realistic; 3) observable; and
4) measurable. The indicators for each of the characteristics were generated from
the IEP Functional Specifications Matrix (Myara, 2012), principles of quality and
relevance of goals or objectives, and rules for formulating objectives (Myara,
2017). Each goal or objective is analyzed independently of the others by
determining the presence or absence of an indicator. A value of 1 is assigned
when the indicator is present; A value of 0 is assigned when the indicator is
absent.

The IEP Document Rating Scale (IEP DRS), shown in Table 2, was developed to
analyze and assess the quality of an IEP framework. It accompanies the IEP Goal
Rating Scale (IEP GRS). It is based on four essential components of the IEP: the
student's portrait, the student's needs, the means proposed to achieve the goals
or objectives, and the revision of the IEP. The indicators for each component were
generated from the Functional Specification Matrix (Myara, 2012). Each
statement is analyzed independently of the others by determining the presence
or absence of an indicator. A value of 1 point is assigned when the indicator is
present; A value of 0 points is assigned when the indicator is absent.

The IEP Implementing Rating Scale (IEP IRS), shown in Table 3, focuses on IEP
implementation, IEP revision, student participation, participation of the student's
parents or guardians, and participation of one or more stakeholders. Each

6
statement is analyzed according to the frequency or number of times the target
person exhibits the target behaviour.

7
Table 1 - IEP Goal rating scale (IEP GRS)
Indicator Point
Relevance
1. The skill satisfies the student's needs
2. The skill corresponds to the student's program or long-term
goals
3. The skill is essential for daily living
4. The skill facilitates social participation
5. The skill corresponds to the student's chronological age
6. The goal or objective can be addressed in a different context,
environment, milieu or by different people
7. There is a hierarchy among the goals or objectives
Realistic
1. The skill is achievable and within the proximal zone of the
student's development.
2. The skill is related to the student's present level of performance
(academic and functional)
Observable
1. The goal or objective can be seen or heard
Measurable
1. The goal or objective contains one or more of these criteria :
¨ Duration
¨ Intensity
¨ Quantity
¨ Time of latency
¨ Frequency
¨ Quality
¨ Rhythm
2. The goal or objective suggests a condition or a circumstance
Results Total
Relevance : /8 Realistic: /3
Observable: /1 Measurable: /2
______________________________________________________________
Comments / 14

8
Table 2 - IEP Document Rating Scale (IEP DRS)
Indicator Point
Learner / Student's portrait
1. The instruments used to collect data are listed
2. Present level of academical performance is present
If yes, in what sphere or domain_______________
3. Present level of functional performance is present
If yes, in what sphere or domain
4. If in a school, is the form of differentiation mentioned?
If yes, which one:
¨ Flexibility
¨ Accommodation
¨ Modification
¨ Partial modification
¨ Temporary modification
5. If the student cannot reach government standards, it is explained
as to why
6. In need, all accommodations are listed
7. In need, all modifications are described
Learner / Student's needs
1. One or more learning needs are specified
2. Identified needs correspond (explicitly) to the student's portrait
3. Identified needs are explicitly prioritized
Means to reach goals or objectives
1. Different means to reach goals or objectives are listed
If yes, which type of means:
¨ School or special services
¨ Complementary services (out of school services)
¨ Environmental conditions
¨ Temporal conditions
¨ Affective and motivational conditions
¨ Technical or technological resources
¨ Cognitive strategies
¨ Metacognitive strategies
¨ Intervention / mediation / teaching strategies
¨ Content
2. One or more means are assigned to the student
3. One or more means are assigned to the teacher (s)

9
4. One or more means are assigned to the parent (s) or guardian (s)
5. It is indicated if the student is in need of accommodations or
modifications
Review
1. IEP is reviewed. If yes, indicate…
¨ 1 / year
¨ 2 / year
¨ 3 / year
¨ Not at all
¨ IEP is not reviewed because it is too early in the school year (before
November 20)
¨ There is space to write comments
2. Meeting dates are specified
Agreements
3. The following signatures appear on the IEP
¨ Learner / Student
¨ Parent or tutor
¨ Teacher / Mediator / Specialist / Doctor
¨ School principal
¨ Other ______________________________
Results & Comments Total

10
 Table 3 - IEP Implementation Rating Scale (IEP IRS)
Learner / Students participation – IEP writing and meeting
1st IEP meeting Never Sometimes Always N/A

1. Learner / Student is present

2. Learner / Student answers questions
3. Learner / Student talks about his/her strengths,
challenges and needs
4. Learner / Student talks about him/herself and
provides samples of his/her work
5. Learner / Student talks about him/herself, prepares
samples of his/her work and presents them
6. Learner / Student asks questions related to his/her
IEP
7. Learner / Student enumerates and prioritize his/her
needs
8. Learner / Student suggests goals or objectives
9. Learner / Student suggests means that will help reach
his/her goals or objectives
Learner / Students participation – IEP Implementation
Never Sometimes Other N/A

1. Learner / Student puts into practice one or more

means stated in his/her IEP. If sometimes, indicate
the number of times.
¨ 1 mean / week
¨ 10 % of the means / week
¨ 25% of the means / week
¨ 50 % of the means / week
¨ Goals or objectives are addressed by other means
not listed in the IEP
2. Learner / Student reviews his/her IEP. If sometime,
indicate the number of times.
¨ 1 / year
¨ 2 / year
¨ 3 / year
Parent or guardian participation – IEP meeting
1st IEP meeting and implementation Never Sometimes Always N/A

1. Parent or guardian is present

11
2. Parent or guardian presents student's strengths and
challenges
3. Parent or guardian identifies student's needs and
prioritizes student's needs
4. Parent or guardian identifies one or more goals or
objectives
5. Parent or guardian identifies one or more means
Parent or guardian participation – IEP implementation
Never Sometimes
Other N/A
1. Parent or guardian suggests one or more means that
can help student reach his/her goals. If sometimes,
indicate the number of times.
¨ 1 mean / week
¨ 10 % of the means / week
¨ 25% mean / week
¨ 50 % of the means / week
¨ Goals or objectives are addressed by other means
not listed in the IEP
2. Parent or guardian addresses one or more goals at
home
3. Parent or guardian reviews IEP. If sometimes, indicate
the number of times.
¨ 1 / year
¨ 2 / year
¨ 3 / year
Teacher (s) participation – IEP meeting
Professional status :
1st IEP meeting Never Sometimes Always N/A

1. Teacher (s) is present

2. Teacher (s) presents student's strengths and
challenges
3. Teacher (s) identifies student's needs and prioritizes
student's needs
4. Teacher (s) identifies one or more goals or objectives
5. Teacher (s) identifies one or more means
Teacher (s) participation – IEP implementation
Never Sometimes Other N/A

12
1. Teacher (s) suggests one or more means that can
help student reach his/her goals. If sometimes,
indicate the number of times.
¨ 1 mean / week
¨ 10 % of the means / week
¨ 25% mean / week
¨ 50 % of the means / week
¨ Goals or objectives are addressed by other means
that are not listed in the IEP
2. Teacher (s) addresses one or more IEP goals or
objectives
3. Teacher (s) reviews IEP. If sometimes, indicate the
number of times.
¨ 1 / year
¨ 2 / year
¨ 3 / year
Results / Comments :

13
References

Beaupré, P., Ouellet, G., Roy, S. et Bédard, A. (2002). Recension des écrits sur le plan
d'intervention auprès des personnes handicapées ou en difficulté. Rapport de recherche sur
les plans d'intervention auprès des élèves handicapés ou en difficulté. Québec, QC :
Ministère de l'Éducation.

Boavida, T., Aguiar, C. et McWilliam, R. A. (2013, Juillet). Increasing the quality of

intervention goals and objectives: Outcomes of a training program. Communication
présentée à l’International Society on Early Intervention Regional Conference. St.
Petersburg, Russia.

Boavida, T., Aguiar, C., McWilliam, R. A. et Pimentel, J. S. (2010). Quality of individualized

education program goals of preschoolers with disabilities. Infants & Young Children, 23(3),
233-243.

Broughton, V. (1997). The individualized family service plan: Does the form make a difference
to the process? (Master thesis). University of Cincinnati, OH.

Hoehle, R. L. (1993). The development of an expert system to evaluate the IEP components
of student records (Doctoral thesis). Utah State University, Logan, UT.

Hunt, P., Goetz, L. et Anderson, J. (1986). The quality of IEP objectives associated with
placement on integrated versus segregated school sites. Journal of the Association for
Persons with Severe Handicaps, 11(2), 125-130.

Gaudreau, L., Legault, F., Brodeur, M., Hurteau, M., Dunberry, A., Séguin, S. P. et Legendre
R., (2008). Rapport d'évaluation de l'application de la. Politique de l'adaptation scolaire.
Montréal, QC: Université du Québec à Montréal.

Giangreco M. F., Cloninger C. J., Dennis, R. E. et Edelman S. W. (1993). National expert

validation of COACH: Congruence with exemplary practice and suggestions for
improvement. The Association for Persons with Sever Handicaps, 18(2), 109-120.

Giangreco, M. F., Dennis, R. E., Edelman, S. W. et Clon, C. J. (1994). Dressing your IEPs for
the general education climate. Analysis of IEP goals and objectives for students with multiple
Disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15(5), 288-296.

Goupil, G., Tassé, M. J., Doré, C., Horth, R., Lévesque, J. Y. et Mainguy, E. (2000). Analyse
descriptive des plans d’intervention personnalisés. Research report, University of Qubevec
in Montreal, QC.

Krishnakumar, P., Greeta, M. G. et Palat, R. (2006). Effectiveness of individualized education

program for slow learners. Indian Journal of Pediatrics, 73, 135-137.

14
Lowman, J. J. (2016). A comparison of three professional development mechanisms for
improving the quality of standards-based IEP objectives. Communication Disorder Quarterly,
37(4) 211-224

Maher, C. A. et Barbarck, C. R. (1980). A framework for comprehensive evaluation of the

individualized education program (IEP). Learning Disability Quarterly, 3(3), 49-55.

McGlohon, D. D. (1983). Development of training program to improve the quality of IEPs

(Docotoral thesis). Arizon University, Trempe, AZ.

Ministère de l’Éducation du Québec. (1999). Une école adaptée à tous ses élèves : Politique
de d’adaptation scolaire. Québec, QC: Gouvernement du Québec.

Myara, N. (2012). Cahier de charges fonctionnel pour la conception et l’évaluation des plans
d’intervention (Thèse de doctorat indédite). Université de Montréal, QC.

Myara, N. (2017). Le plan d’intervention : un processus et des ententes. Montréal, QC:

Éditions JFD.

Notari, A. R. et Bricker, D. D. (1990). The utility of a curriculum-based assessment instrument

in the development of individualized education plans for infants and young children. Journal
of Early Intervention, 14(2), 5-11.

Poirier, N. et Goupil, G. (2011). Étude descriptive sur les plans d'intervention pour des élèves
ayant un trouble envahissant du développement. McGill Journal of Education, 46(3), 459-
472.

Pretti-Frontczac, K. et Bricker, D. (2000). Enhancing the quality of individualized education

plan (IEP) goals and objectives. Journal of Early Intervention, 23(2), 92-105.

Rakap, S. (2015). Quality of individualised education programme goals and objectives for
preschool children with disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 30(2), 173-
186.

Rocque, S., Langevin, J. et Riopel, D. (1998). L'analyse de la valeur pédagogique au Canada,

méthodologie de développement de produits pédagogiques. La valeur des produits et
services, 76, 6-11.

Rowland, C. M., Quinn, E. D. et Steiner, S. A. M. (2015). Beyond legal: Crafting high-quality

IEPs for children with complex communication needs. Communication Disorders Quarterly,
37(1), 53-62.

15
Ruble, L., McGrew, A., Dalrymple, J., Lee, N. et Jung, A. (2010). Examining the quality of
IEPs for young children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40,
1459-1470.

Sanches-Ferreira, P. M., Lopes-dos-Santos, S. A., Santos, M. et Silveira-Maia, M. (2013). How

individualised are the individualised education programmes (IEPs): An analysis of the
contents and quality of the IEPs goals. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28,
507-520.

Shriner, J. G., Carty, S. J., Rose, C. A., Shogren, K. A., Kim, M. et Trach, J. S. (2012). Effects
of using a web-based individualized education program decision-making tutorial. The Journal
of Special Education, 47(3), 175-185.

Sigafoos, J., Elkins, J., Couzens, D., Gunn, S., Roberts, D. et Kerr, M. (1993). Analysis of IEP
goals and classroom activities for children with multiple disabilities. European Journal of
Special Needs Education, 8, 99-105

Sigafoos, J., Kigner, J., Holt, K., Doss, S. et Mustonen, T. (1991). Improving the quality of
written developmental policies for adults with intellectual disabilities. The British Journal of
Mental Subnormality, 37(72), 35-46

16
View publication stats