Assessment of Interprofessional Competence of Leadership Education in Neurodevelopmental and Related Disabilities Trainees through a Virtual Standardized Patient Encounter.

INTRODUCTION: Leadership Education in Neurodevelopmental and Related Disabilities (LEND) programs have an emphasis on developing skills in providing family-centered and interdisciplinary care. Due to Coronavirus pandemic-related restrictions, opportunities for interdisciplinary education were limited for the 2020-2021 LEND Trainee cohort at The Ohio State University Nisonger Center. Standardized Patient (SP) encounters can be a mechanism for instruction and assessment of interprofessional competence. METHODS: An SP encounter was developed for the The Ohio State University 2020-2021 LEND Cohort. Prior to the activity, participants (N = 11) were given clinic notes to review from their respective disciplines. During the activity, participants met virtually to develop collaborative recommendations which were then delivered to the SP who portrayed the mother of a young child receiving a new diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. Following the encounter, 4 LEND faculty observers completed the Modified McMaster-Ottawa Team Rating Scale and participants completed the Interprofessional Collaboration Competency Attainment Scale-Revised (ICCAS-R). RESULTS: Eleven LEND trainees completed the ICCAS-R with an overall increase in the mean score from 3.86 to 4.12. Four LEND faculty members completed the Modified McMaster-Ottawa Team Rating Scale, with the Communication domain demonstrating the highest level of competence. DISCUSSION: This activity was well-received by both faculty and LEND trainees. Although delivered in virtual format, it could easily be transitioned to an in-person encounter for future LEND trainees. The success of this activity further supports that standardized patient encounters can be a feasible mechanism for instruction and assessment of interprofessional competencies and serve as a training mechanism for LEND programs.

Measuring LEND Core Competencies Using Trainee Follow-Up Surveys.

OBJECTIVES: Measuring the value-added impact of Leadership Education in Neurodevelopmental Disabilities and Related Disorders (LEND) training on trainees' leadership and career trajectories is necessary to understand program efficacy. In the current study, we leveraged an existing ex post facto design to develop and test a new measure of LEND competencies and compare outcomes of LEND trainees and comparison peers. METHODS: We developed the LEND Outcomes Follow-Up Survey using a multi-step, mixed methods process. A series of focus groups and consultations with key stakeholders identified eight important LEND leadership outcomes: (1) interdisciplinary work; (2) advocacy; (3) intersectional approach; (4) systems perspective; (5) life course perspective; (6) leadership; (7) engagement with maternal and child health populations; and (8) research experience. We developed and piloted this novel survey to measure these LEND leadership outcomes. We used data collected from this novel measure and an existing survey that is used nationally by LEND, to compare the outcomes of 43 LEND trainees and 30 comparison peers at two years post completion of LEND training. RESULTS: We found that, compared to comparison peers, LEND trainees: (1) worked with a greater number of disciplines; (2) were more likely to be engaged in advocacy; (3) were more likely to utilize a systems perspective in their work; (4) were more likely to work with maternal and child health populations; and (5) were more likely to have experience conducting research. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggested that LEND training improves LEND leadership outcomes at two years post-completion of LEND training.

A Quality Improvement Network for Interdisciplinary Training in Developmental Disabilities.

Children with developmental disabilities (DD), such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD), have complex health and developmental needs that require multiple service systems and interactions with various professionals across disciplines. The growing number of children and youth identified with ASD or DD, including anxiety and depression, has increased demand for services and need for highly qualified pediatric providers. Federally funded Leadership Education in Neurodevelopmental and related Disabilities (LEND) programs across the United States address today's health care shortages by providing comprehensive, interdisciplinary training to providers from multiple pediatric disciplines who screen, diagnose, and treat those with ASD and DD. Each LEND program develops training methods independently, including quality improvement efforts. In 2014, LEND programs began designing and validating common measures to evaluate LEND training. The LEND Program Quality Improvement (LPQI) Network was established in 2016. Participating LEND programs in the LPQI Network administer validated trainee self-report and faculty-observation measures that address skills in key competency domains of Interdisciplinary or Interprofessional Team Building, Family-Professional Partnerships, and Policy. This study reports data from faculty and trainees from 22 LEND programs that participated in the LPQI Network across the 5-year data collection period. The main outcome of this study was the change in trainee knowledge, skills, and attitudes scores in key competency domains across programs. Overall, trainees made significant knowledge, skills, and attitude gains based on both self-report and faculty observation scores for all 3 competency domains. Data demonstrate the value of LEND programs and feasibility of a national quality improvement approach to evaluate interdisciplinary training and systems-level improvement.

A model to evaluate interprofessional training effectiveness: feasibility and five-year outcomes of a multi-site prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Assessing the impact of interdisciplinary training programs is highly desirable and needed. However, there are currently no established methods to prospectively assess long-term outcomes of trainees compared to individuals who did not receive training. Our objective was to test the feasibility of a longitudinal, prospective cohort design to evaluate training outcomes, and to use this method to evaluate Leadership Education in Neurodevelopmental Disabilities and Related Disorders (LEND) training outcomes. METHODS: LEND trainees were matched to comparison peers and followed annually for up to five years using a pre-existing outcomes survey. We assessed study feasibility using recruitment and retention data over five years. We then looked at preliminary efficacy of LEND training in LEND trainees compared to comparison peers using the pre-existing outcomes survey. RESULTS: Overall, 68.3% of eligible trainees participated in the Outcomes Study across five years, and 66.0% were matched to comparison peers. On average, 84.4% of LEND trainees and 79.9% of comparison peers completed the outcomes survey annually. Attrition was low at 0.9% for LEND trainees and 2.6% for comparison peers over five years. LEND training demonstrated preliminary efficacy in promoting leadership development: LEND trainees began their careers engaged in more leadership activities than comparison peers, and the rate of growth in their participation in leadership activities was greater. CONCLUSIONS: The design used to assess outcomes is a feasible approach that can be widely used to assess training program outcomes. Analyses suggest that LEND training is efficacious in increasing involvement in leadership activities over time after graduation.

Straight from the horse's mouth: Increasing self-report in mental health assessment in individuals with intellectual disability.

BACKGROUND: Mental health conditions are common among individuals with intellectual disability. Under recognition of mental health disorders leading to unmet treatment needs is common in this population. This article addresses one major contributing factor, the lack of cognitively accessible self-report measures for individuals with intellectual disability. METHOD: In this literature-informed overview of the state of the field, we discuss the need for, and complexities of, including individuals with intellectual disability in mental health assessments. RESULTS: With appropriate supports, many individuals with intellectual disability can respond to mental health questions. We discuss evidence-based strategies to make mental health assessments more accessible. CONCLUSION: We highlight the need to engage individuals with intellectual disability to provide first-hand information about their health and well-being. New instruments and research procedures should be developed in partnership with individuals with intellectual disability. Self-report may be essential to advancing the science of mental health research.

Invisible populations: Who is missing from research in intellectual disability?

It is estimated that approximately 41% of adults with intellectual and developmental disability (IDD) are served through the developmental disabilities (DD) system in the US. The remaining 59% include individuals who meet diagnostic criteria but are not actively receiving paid services or may not be known to the DD system. Scholars have referred to this group as the "hidden majority." Very little is known about the health and well-being of these adults. It remains to be seen if the hidden majority is comparably susceptible to mental health difficulties, given how little is known about this population by DD systems. The purpose of this manuscript is to highlight where one may identify individuals belonging to this hidden population and how researchers might effectively recruit from this group so as to ensure more representative samples of all people with IDD.

Pragmatic language assessment in Williams syndrome: a comparison of the Test of Pragmatic Language-2 and the Children's Communication Checklist-2.

PURPOSE: Individuals with Williams syndrome (WS) are recognized as having a strong desire for social relationships, yet many of them have difficulty forming and maintaining peer relationships. One cause may be impairments in pragmatic language. The current study compared the assessment of pragmatic language skills in individuals with WS using the Test of Pragmatic Language-Second Edition (TOPL-2; Phelps-Terasaki & Phelps-Gunn, 2007) and the Children's Communication Checklist-Second Edition (CCC-2; Bishop, 2003). METHOD: Twenty children and adolescents diagnosed with WS were given the TOPL-2, and their parents completed the CCC-2. RESULTS: The TOPL-2 identified 8 of the 14 older children (ages 8-16 years) as having pragmatic language impairment and all of the 6 younger children (ages 6-7 years) as having such. In comparison, the CCC-2 identified 6 of the 14 older children and 2 of the 6 younger children as having pragmatic language impairment. The older group also had a higher composite score than the younger group on the CCC-2. CONCLUSION: The TOPL-2 identified significantly more participants as having pragmatic language impairment than did the CCC-2. The TOPL-2 may be more useful in assessing pragmatic language in older children than younger children. The results offer important preliminary clinical implications of language measures that may be beneficial in the assessment of individuals with WS.