My agency's model for service delivery is, at the current time, very far from transdisciplinary. We are probably a mix of interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary. In terms of ongoing assessment and writing IFSP goals, we are interdisciplinary; each discipline assesses its own area and writes a goal. Within the group setting, we work more as multidisciplinary team, with some role-blending. The Early Intervention Specialist in particular works on all IFPS goals and uses techniques learned from specific disciplines. Our model presents many differences from the transdisciplinary approach, and in my opinion those differences are often cumbersome for parents, time consuming for practitioners, and overall less effective. Below are some aspects of intervention that I feel are negatively affected by our processes.
More severe students- Each discipline writing separate goals leads to a very overwhelming IFSP for many parents; there is often a redundancy in goals between providers, such as “improve imitation skills”, which may be listed under the OT, EIS (cognitive) and SLP. As the article states, “Instruction is sometimes ineffective for students with severe impairments because too many needs are addressed”. Role release- Non existent. Intervention specialists have the attitude that, “I can't do that, I'm not a PT”, and some providers echo that sentiment, saying that their licensing board does not allow role-release.
Team assessments- As noted earlier, each team member assesses functioning in his or her area of expertise. Even our evaluation team that determines eligibility is comprised of the same 2 people for each evaluation, not necessarily including someone who specializes in the area of the child's greatest need. The goals developed do not tend to reflect family priorities and daily-life struggles.
Routines and natural contexts- Our intervention program is already lacking in this area, as we provide services in a group which is comprised of only children...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document