View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A Pilot Evaluation of an Advocacy Programme on Knowledge, Empowerment, Family-School Partnership and Parent Well-Being

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Pilot Evaluation of an Advocacy Programme on Knowledge, Empowerment, Family-School Partnership and Parent Well-Being
Language: English
Authors: Burke, M. M. (ORCID 0000-0001-5287-2351), Lee, C. E., Rios, K.
Source: Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. Aug 2019 63(8):969-980.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 2019
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Advocacy, Volunteers, Comparative Analysis, Students with Disabilities, Mothers, Parent Attitudes, Barriers, Childrens Rights, Special Education, Family School Relationship, Well Being, Parent Child Relationship, Mother Attitudes, Organizations (Groups), Intervention, Program Descriptions, Mastery Learning, Program Effectiveness, Training
DOI: 10.1111/jir.12613
ISSN: 0964-2633
Abstract: Background: Internationally, it has been recognised that parents need to advocate for their children with disabilities to receive services. However, many parents find advocacy difficult because of systemic and logistical barriers. As such, parents of children with disabilities may seek a special education advocate to help them understand their child's rights and secure services. Yet little research has been conducted about programmes to develop special education advocates. Methods: In this study, we conducted a comparison study to determine the association of an advocacy programme (i.e. the Volunteer Advocacy Project) on a primary outcome (i.e. special education knowledge) and other outcomes (i.e. family-school partnership, empowerment and parent well-being). Specifically, in 2017, 34 participants, all mothers of children with disabilities, were recruited from disability organisations in the USA. Seventeen mothers participated in the intervention group (i.e. the advocacy training), while 17 mothers participated in the wait list control group. The Volunteer Advocacy Project is a 36 hr advocacy training for individuals to gain instrumental and affective knowledge to advocate for their own children with disabilities and for other families. All participants completed a pre-survey and post-survey; only intervention group participants completed a 6-month follow-up survey. Results: Compared with 17 wait list control group participants, the 17 intervention group participants demonstrated improvements in special education knowledge, P = 0.002, ?2 = 0.32, and self-mastery, P = 0.04, ?2 = 0.15, and decreases in the quality of family-school partnerships, P = 0.002, ?2 = 0.32. At the follow-up survey, intervention group participants demonstrated increases in empowerment, P = 0.04, ?2 = 0.29, and special education knowledge, P = 0.02, ?2 = 0.38. Conclusions: Implications for research including the need for a randomised controlled trial are discussed; also, practitioners need to evaluate advocacy training programmes regarding their effectiveness.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2019
Accession Number: EJ1222333
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwELwvUtNmte76Nzt923Sn0kAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDM7m3PDLqu3u15IisgIBEICBm7NzADbLZvC0_zh3ZIYQ8lXpdF-8vupKm0QHYKivc9DFoHFPYcpst6DE-BAIaaETZPvsIHfJ-BpaugywNVZwNLca-GUv0k3ZD4Ich09jks4laI3q9ccVnvWzjTaIgJTqTbhnQ0OBNaab5gb7JGoe6Zer0-Q8LIVRDuoxazErLSEfjw0RGeKEiJSP0x2ebn9Yzos2ZSsT9WROg1KY
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0137586049;eul01aug.19;2019Jul22.04:47;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0137586049-1">A pilot evaluation of an advocacy programme on knowledge, empowerment, family–school partnership and parent well‐being </title> <p>Background: Internationally, it has been recognised that parents need to advocate for their children with disabilities to receive services. However, many parents find advocacy difficult because of systemic and logistical barriers. As such, parents of children with disabilities may seek a special education advocate to help them understand their child's rights and secure services. Yet little research has been conducted about programmes to develop special education advocates. Methods: In this study, we conducted a comparison study to determine the association of an advocacy programme (i.e. the Volunteer Advocacy Project) on a primary outcome (i.e. special education knowledge) and other outcomes (i.e. family–school partnership, empowerment and parent well‐being). Specifically, in 2017, 34 participants, all mothers of children with disabilities, were recruited from disability organisations in the USA. Seventeen mothers participated in the intervention group (i.e. the advocacy training), while 17 mothers participated in the wait list control group. The Volunteer Advocacy Project is a 36 hr advocacy training for individuals to gain instrumental and affective knowledge to advocate for their own children with disabilities and for other families. All participants completed a pre‐survey and post‐survey; only intervention group participants completed a 6‐month follow‐up survey. Results: Compared with 17 wait list control group participants, the 17 intervention group participants demonstrated improvements in special education knowledge, P = 0.002, η2 = 0.32, and self‐mastery, P = 0.04, η2 = 0.15, and decreases in the quality of family–school partnerships, P = 0.002, η2 = 0.32. At the follow‐up survey, intervention group participants demonstrated increases in empowerment, P = 0.04, η2 = 0.29, and special education knowledge, P = 0.02, η2 = 0.38. Conclusions: Implications for research including the need for a randomised controlled trial are discussed; also, practitioners need to evaluate advocacy training programmes regarding their effectiveness.</p> <p>Keywords: empowerment; family; school; services</p> <hd id="AN0137586049-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Internationally, there is a need for parents to advocate for educational services for their offspring with intellectual or developmental disabilities (IDD) (Cohen [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref1">10</reflink>]). Advocacy refers to acting on behalf of an individuals to ensure their needs are met (Burke <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref2">8</reflink>]). Unfortunately, many parents struggle to advocate for their children because of systemic barriers. Such barriers include feelings of intimidation (Love <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref3">22</reflink>]) and inaccessible (due to the college reading level) procedural safeguards (Dinnesen & Kroeger [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref4">11</reflink>]). In response to the barriers to advocacy, special education advocacy trainings are becoming more common (Burke [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref5">3</reflink>]). Such trainings often have purpose to educate individuals to advocate for their own children with IDD and for other families of children with IDD. However, little data have been collected to determine the impact of advocacy trainings. Using a comparison study, the goal of this pilot study was to determine the effect of an advocacy training programme among parents of children with IDD. Specifically, we aimed to examine the association of an advocacy training programme with special education knowledge (primary outcome) and family–school partnerships, empowerment, self‐mastery, optimism and distress (other outcomes).</p> <p>Perhaps the foremost goal of advocacy trainings is to increase special education knowledge (i.e. information about services, Burke [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref6">3</reflink>]), empowerment (i.e. the capacity to act on one's behalf, Paczkowski & Baker [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref7">28</reflink>]) and self‐mastery (i.e. one's sense of efficacy in carrying out goals, Pearlin & Schooler [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref8">30</reflink>]). For example, the Volunteer Advocacy Project (VAP) is a 36 hr training programme for individuals to become special education advocates for families of children with IDD. In a single‐group, pre‐design/post‐design, VAP participants demonstrated significant increases in special education knowledge and advocacy (Burke 2013). In later iterations of the VAP using a wait list control group design among parents of children with IDD, participants demonstrated significant increases in special education knowledge and empowerment (Burke, Magaña <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref9">7</reflink>]; Taylor <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref10">36</reflink>]). These latter studies were iterations of the VAP focusing on Latino families of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and families of adults with ASD, respectively. Further, self‐mastery is also a goal of advocacy trainings. Typically viewed as a dispositional trait (Paczkowski & Baker [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref11">28</reflink>]), self‐mastery may enable advocates to disentangle the challenges a family faces with the school to identify the most important problems. Self‐mastery may enable a parent to feel responsible to advocate for other families. To date, no studies have examined the impact of advocacy training on self‐mastery.</p> <p>It also seems crucial to determine the impact of advocacy training on family–school partnerships. Often, participants in advocacy trainings are parents of children with IDD (Jamison <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref12">18</reflink>]). Given that the advocacy training programme may also impact the relationships of the parent participants with their schools (Burke & Goldman [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref13">9</reflink>]), the impact of training on family–school partnerships is important. In a cross‐sectional, descriptive study, there was a negative correlation between the parent advocacy and the quality of the family–school partnership among parents of children with IDD (Burke & Hodapp [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref14">6</reflink>]). Indeed, when families advocate for school services, their partnership with the school may weaken (Fish [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref15">13</reflink>]). Thus, although strong family–school partnerships lead to improved student outcomes (Newman [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref16">26</reflink>]), an advocacy training may weaken family–school partnerships.</p> <p>Finally, it seems crucial to determine the association of an advocacy training with parent well‐being. Parents of children with (versus without) IDD report significantly greater stress (Patton <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref17">29</reflink>]). Further, increased parent stress relates to increased child maladaptive behaviours (Neece <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref18">25</reflink>]) and worse physical health in parents (McEwen [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref19">24</reflink>]). Notably, parent–school relations may contribute to parent stress. In a national sample of parents of children with IDD, Burke & Hodapp ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref20">5</reflink>]) found a positive, non‐linear correlation between maternal stress and advocacy. Notably, other parent trainings (for a review, see Singer <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref21">33</reflink>]) have been found to decrease parent stress. However, it is unclear how parent advocacy trainings impact parent stress or other constructs of well‐being. Indeed, when parents have more knowledge about their child's disability, they are more likely to access services (Kyzar <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref22">21</reflink>]). However, despite this knowledge, parents continually report challenges in accessing services and, accordingly, great stress (Ryan & Quinlan [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref23">31</reflink>]). When parents feel more empowered, they respond to challenges (e.g. advocacy) with optimism leading to better child outcomes (Jones & Prinz [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref24">19</reflink>]). Given that greater parent optimism may lead to improvements in targeted behaviours (e.g. advocacy activities), it is important to determine whether advocacy training impacts optimism. Similar to self‐mastery, optimism is typically considered a disposition (e.g. Baker <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref25">2</reflink>]). However, in a single group, intervention study of parents of children with health impairments, Huffman <emph>et al</emph>. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref26">17</reflink>]) found that parent training can improve optimism leading to improved health behaviours.</p> <p>Despite the global need for parent advocacy (Cohen [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref27">10</reflink>]), little research has been conducted about advocacy trainings examining all the goals that self‐advocacy purports to benefit (e.g. well‐being and family–school partnerships). Further, most of such research has lacked a control group (e.g. Burke <emph>et al</emph>. 2013; Magaña <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref28">23</reflink>]) and lacked maintenance data to determine the ongoing effect of advocacy trainings. We conducted a comparison, pilot study to determine the association of the VAP on various outcomes with respect to a parent's ability to advocate for their own child. The objectives of this study were twofold: to determine the association of the advocacy programme on specific outcomes (i.e. family–school partnerships, special education knowledge, empowerment and parent well‐being) and to examine the maintenance of outcomes among the intervention group participants. Specifically, we had two research questions: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref29">1</reflink>) did the intervention (versus wait list control) group demonstrate change with respect to special education knowledge, family–school partnerships, self‐mastery, stress, optimism and empowerment? And (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref30">2</reflink>) within the intervention group, was there change over time with respect to special education knowledge, family–school partnerships, self‐mastery, stress, optimism and empowerment? We hypothesised that the intervention (versus wait list control) group would demonstrate (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref31">1</reflink>) increases in knowledge, self‐mastery, stress, optimism and empowerment; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref32">2</reflink>) decreases in family–school partnerships; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref33">3</reflink>) that such changes would persist over time.</p> <hd id="AN0137586049-3">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0137586049-4">Design and procedures</hd> <p>This pilot study was approved by the University Institutional Review Board. This study was conducted in the USA. As a comparison study, this study included an intervention group and a wait list control group. The objectives of this pilot study were twofold: to determine the association of the advocacy programme on specific outcomes and to examine the maintenance of outcomes among the intervention group participants. Specifically, participants who wanted to participate in the advocacy programme signed up to complete the training in either the fall or the spring. Participants who completed the programme in the fall and met the inclusionary criteria were the intervention group participants; participants who completed the training in the spring were the wait list control group participants. Only the intervention group participants were asked to complete a follow‐up survey 6 months after they completed the VAP. The pre‐survey, post‐survey and follow‐up surveys included the same measures with the identical language.</p> <hd id="AN0137586049-5">Participants</hd> <p>Overall, 111 individuals were recruited and interested in participating in the advocacy programme. For this study, the inclusionary criteria were to be (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref34">1</reflink>) the parent of a child with a disability between the ages of 3–22; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref35">2</reflink>) willing to complete a 36 hr advocacy programme; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref36">3</reflink>) willing to complete all research activities. Participants were excluded from the study if they were not the parent of a school‐aged child with a disability or if they were not willing to complete the VAP. Regarding the former, in the USA, school services are the same for children aged 3–22. As such, the VAP targets services for this entire age range. However, we controlled for age in all analyses. Of the 111 individuals, 71 were parents of individuals with IDD; the remaining participants were professionals (e.g. teachers) who were able to participate in the programme but were excluded from the study. Of the 71 parents, 18 were excluded as their children were not receiving school services. Of the 53 participants, 15 were excluded as they had scores of 10 or below on the defensive responding scale of the Parenting Stress Index. A score of 10 or less suggests that the participants were responding in a defensive manner (Abidin [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref37">1</reflink>]). Of the 38 participants, two participants from the wait list control group and two participants from the intervention group were lost to attrition (see Table ).</p> <p>Participant demographics</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th align="center">Intervention (<italic>n</italic> = 17)</th><th align="center">Control (<italic>n</italic> = 17)</th><th align="center"><italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>P</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Respondent gender: female</td><td>100% (17)</td><td>100% (17)</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td /><td /><td>2.52</td><td>0.47</td></tr><tr><td>High‐school degree</td><td>5.9% (1)</td><td>5.9% (1)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Some college</td><td>23.5% (4)</td><td>11.8% (2)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>4‐year degree</td><td>52.9% (9)</td><td>41.2% (7)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Graduate degree</td><td>17.6% (3)</td><td>41.2% (7)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Income</td><td /><td /><td>3.05</td><td>0.69</td></tr><tr><td>Less than $15 000</td><td>—</td><td>5.9% (1)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>$15 000–29 999</td><td>5.9% (1)</td><td>11.8% (2)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>$30 000–49 999</td><td>11.8% (2)</td><td>17.6% (3)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>$50 000–69 999</td><td>11.8% (2)</td><td>17.6% (3)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>$70 000–99 999</td><td>17.6% (3)</td><td>17.6% (3)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Over $100 000</td><td>52.9% (10)</td><td>29.4% (5)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Ethnicity</td><td /><td /><td>4.13</td><td>0.25</td></tr><tr><td>Caucasian</td><td>70.6% (12)</td><td>82.4% (14)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Hispanic</td><td>—</td><td>11.8% (2)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>African American</td><td>17.6% (3)</td><td>5.9% (1)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Asian</td><td>5.9% (1)</td><td>—</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Marital status</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Married</td><td>100% (17)</td><td>76.5% (13)</td><td>4.53</td><td>0.10</td></tr><tr><td>Never married</td><td>—</td><td>17.6% (3)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Divorced</td><td>—</td><td>5.9% (1)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Child gender: male</td><td>52.9% (9)</td><td>70.6% (12)</td><td>0.73</td><td>0.39</td></tr><tr><td>Child's type of disability<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Autism spectrum disorder</td><td>58.8% (10)</td><td>47.1% (8)</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.49</td></tr><tr><td>Intellectual disability</td><td>17.6% (3)</td><td>29.4% (5)</td><td>0.83</td><td>0.36</td></tr><tr><td>Down syndrome</td><td>11.8% (2)</td><td>23.5% (4)</td><td>0.81</td><td>0.37</td></tr><tr><td>Learning disability</td><td>23.5% (4)</td><td>23.5% (4)</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 † Numbers exceed 100% as participants could mark multiple types of disabilities.</p> <p>We had 17 participants in the intervention group and 17 participants in the wait list control group. All participants were mothers of children with IDD. Participants had a wide range of educational backgrounds and household incomes; however, most participants were highly educated with middle‐to‐high incomes. The majority of participants were Caucasian (specifically, 70.6% were Caucasian in the intervention group; 82.4% were Caucasian in the wait list control group). Most offspring were male. In both groups, the most frequent type of disability of the offspring was ASD. There were no parent or child demographic differences between the groups. For the intervention group, the attendance rate was 90.20% with no participant missing more than two sessions.</p> <p>Of the 17 participants in the intervention group, 11 participants completed the 6‐month follow‐up survey (response rate = 64.71%). We compared the demographic characteristics of the non‐responders and responders. There were no differences (Table ).</p> <p>Difference between responders and non‐responders at the follow‐up survey</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th align="center">Did not complete follow‐up (<italic>n</italic> = 6)</th><th align="center">Completed follow‐up (<italic>n</italic> = 11)</th><th align="center"><italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>P</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Respondent gender: female</td><td>100% (6)</td><td>100% (11)</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td /><td /><td>3.69</td><td>0.29</td></tr><tr><td>High‐school degree</td><td>16.7% (1)</td><td>—</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Some college</td><td>16.7% (1)</td><td>27.3% (3)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>4‐year degree</td><td>66.7% (4)</td><td>45.5% (5)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Graduate degree</td><td>—</td><td>27.3% (3)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Income</td><td /><td /><td>2.25</td><td>0.69</td></tr><tr><td>$15 000–29 999</td><td>—</td><td>9.0% (1)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>$30 000–49 999</td><td>16.7% (1)</td><td>9.0% (1)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>$50 000–69 999</td><td>16.7% (1)</td><td>18.2% (2)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>$70 000–99 999</td><td>—</td><td>18.2% (2)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Over $100 000</td><td>66.7% (4)</td><td>45.5% (5)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Ethnicity</td><td /><td /><td>0.71</td><td>0.70</td></tr><tr><td>Caucasian</td><td>83.3% (5)</td><td>72.7% (8)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>African American</td><td>16.7% (1)</td><td>18.2% (2)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Asian</td><td>—</td><td>9.0% (1)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Marital status: married</td><td>100% (6)</td><td>100% (11)</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Child gender: male</td><td>50% (3)</td><td>45.5% (5)</td><td>2.05</td><td>0.15</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0137586049-6">Recruitment</hd> <p>For 3 weeks, participants were recruited via recruitment emails and flyers listing the inclusionary criteria for the study. Specifically, flyers and emails were distributed to 300 local and statewide disability agencies, parent groups and Parent Training and Information Centres. Such agencies distributed the study information to their constituencies. Interested participants complete the application and pre‐survey online via SurveyMonkey. Participants could also complete a paper‐and‐pencil copy of the survey if requested.</p> <hd id="AN0137586049-7">Data collection</hd> <p>Both participant groups completed the pre‐survey in summer, 2016. Specifically, participants had 3 weeks to complete the pre‐survey (i.e. baseline) via an online survey platform. The intervention group completed the advocacy training in fall, 2016. Within 1 week of the intervention group completing the advocacy training, all participants then completed the post‐survey via hard copy or the online survey platform. In spring, 2017, the wait list control group completed the advocacy training. The intervention group participants completed the follow‐up survey 6 months after completing the advocacy training. Because of the comparison group completing the VAP in the spring of 2017, there was insufficient time for them to complete the follow‐up survey before beginning the VAP.</p> <hd id="AN0137586049-8">Advocacy training</hd> <p>The intervention was the VAP. The purpose of the VAP is to educate and empower individuals to become special education advocates for their own children with disabilities (if they have children with disabilities) and for other families. A 36 hr training, the VAP includes 12 weekly, 3 hr sessions. VAP content relates to special education policy and non‐adversarial advocacy including evaluations, extended school year services, discipline and behaviour, least restrictive environment, research‐based instruction, assistive technology, individualised education programmes, transition, advocacy skills, legislative advocacy and dispute resolution. For example, with respect to non‐adversarial advocacy, in the training, participants have specific sessions about advocating for other families; also, there are cross‐cutting exercises (e.g. exercises that reflect content and advocacy for other families) about how to support other families in each session. Each VAP session is delivered by a content expert, who was experienced in group facilitation. Such experts included parents of children with IDD and staff at agencies that support individuals with IDD. The VAP content includes didactic information, role plays and case study activities for the participants. At the conclusion of the VAP, participants are expected to advocate, <emph>pro bono</emph>, for four families of children with IDD. Notably, the VAP was offered in person and via videoconferencing; in this study, nine participants attended the in‐person site, while eight participants participated at a distance site via videoconferencing. Previous studies indicate that the VAP has been effective for in‐person and videoconferencing participants (Burke <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref38">8</reflink>]). For more information about the VAP, see Burke ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref39">3</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0137586049-9">Treatment fidelity</hd> <p>At each session, a research assistant completed a treatment fidelity checklist. The treatment fidelity checklist included 10 items per topic. For example, items included the presentation of key concepts, the completion of case study activities and the facilitation of dialogue with the participants. If an item was covered by the facilitator, the research assistant marked that there was treatment fidelity for that item. Another research assistant also conducted treatment fidelity for 66.68% (<emph>n</emph> = 8) of the sessions.</p> <hd id="AN0137586049-10">Outcomes</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0137586049-11">Special education knowledge scale</hd> <p>Composed of 10 multiple choice items about special education policy, this scale has strong reliability with parents of children with IDD (e.g. the Kuder–Richardson coefficient was 0.72, Burke, Magaña, <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref40">7</reflink>]). For example, participants were asked: 'What are the three reasons for a unilateral 45 day removal?' Participants had four response options, only one of which was correct. In this study, the Kuder–Richardson was 0.68 at the pre‐surveys and post‐surveys.</p> <hd id="AN0137586049-12">Family–Professional Partnership Scale</hd> <p>Composed of two sub‐scales with nine items apiece, the Family–Professional Partnership Scale (FPPS) has 18 items relating to a child‐focused relationship sub‐scale and a family‐focused relationship sub‐scale (Summers <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref41">35</reflink>]). For example, participants were asked 'To what extent does the school let you know about the good things your child does?' Previous studies indicate high reliability for both sub‐scales among parents of children with IDD (<emph>α</emph>s = 0.93 and 0.90, Summers <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref42">35</reflink>]). For the child‐focused relationship sub‐scale, the <emph>α</emph>s were high at pre‐survey and post‐survey (0.94 and 0.93, respectively). For the family‐focused relationship sub‐scale, the <emph>α</emph>s were also high (0.96 and 0.95 at pre‐survey and post‐survey, respectively).</p> <hd id="AN0137586049-13">Family Empowerment Scale</hd> <p>The Family Empowerment Scale (FES) includes 34 items relating to three sub‐scales: family, community and services (Koren <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref43">20</reflink>]). For this study, only the services sub‐scale was used; the services sub‐scale has 12 items. For example, participants were asked the extent they agreed with this statement: 'I know what services my child needs'. Previous studies have indicated high reliability of the FES with parents of children with IDD (<emph>α</emph>s ranged from 0.85 to 0.93, Singh <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref44">34</reflink>]). In this study, the <emph>α</emph> was 0.82 at the pre‐survey and 0.83 at the post‐survey.</p> <hd id="AN0137586049-14">The Life Orientation Test – Revised</hd> <p>The Life Orientation Test – Revised is a 10‐item scale that measures optimism (Scheier <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref45">32</reflink>]). For example, participants responded to 'I don't get upset too easily'. Previous studies have indicated high reliability of the Life Orientation Test – Revised with parents of children with IDD (e.g. <emph>α</emph> = 80, Scheier <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref46">32</reflink>]). In this study, <emph>α</emph> was 0.68 at the pre‐survey and 0.84 at the post‐survey.</p> <hd id="AN0137586049-15">Self‐mastery scale</hd> <p>With seven items about control over life events (Pearlin & Schooler [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref47">30</reflink>]), this scale has strong reliability among parents of children with IDD (<emph>α</emph> = 0.75, Paczkowski & Baker [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref48">28</reflink>]). A sample item is 'What happens to me in the future mostly depends on me'. In this study, at the pre‐survey, the <emph>α</emph> was 0.69; at the post‐survey, the <emph>α</emph> was 0.68.</p> <hd id="AN0137586049-16">Parenting stress</hd> <p>Parent stress was measured by the Parenting Stress Index – Short Form (PSI‐SF) (Abidin [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref49">1</reflink>]), a 36‐item instrument used to assess the effect that parenting has on stress. The PSI‐SF yields three sub‐scales: parental distress, parent–child dysfunctional interaction and difficult child. The responses are then totalled for each sub‐domain with larger scores indicating increased stress. The PSI‐SF also has high reliability (Abidin [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref50">1</reflink>]). In this study, only the parental distress sub‐scale was used as it measures parent stress independent of child behaviour. For example, a parental distress item was 'I often have the feeling that I cannot handle things very well'. For the parental distress sub‐scale, the <emph>α</emph> was 0.85 at pre‐survey and 0.87 at post‐survey.</p> <hd id="AN0137586049-17">Sample size justification</hd> <p>Prior to conducting this pilot study, we conducted a power analysis. Using traditional assumptions (power = 80%, <emph>P</emph> < 0.05, two tailed), we conducted a power analysis. We solved for the minimum detectable effect size for 80% power resulting in needing a 0.45 or larger effect size for the primary outcome (i.e. post‐survey special education knowledge). On the basis of previous studies about the VAP (Goldman <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref51">14</reflink>]), common practice and barring attrition, we expected this study to be adequately powered to detect differences between groups. Accordingly, it was determined that a sample size of 20 participants per group would be necessary. Thus, this pilot study was underpowered. After collecting data, we conducted preliminary analyses. We examined the distributions of the data and found them to be normally distributed. Also, with respect to the pre‐survey and post‐survey, we had no missing data. At the follow‐up survey, we had missing data (i.e. a 65% response rate). We compared responders with non‐responders for the follow‐up survey and found no differences; all non‐responders were excluded from the follow‐up analyses. We compared the intervention and control group participants with respect to demographic characteristics (Table ). We found no differences.</p> <hd id="AN0137586049-18">Analyses</hd> <p>For our primary analyses, we conducted paired <emph>t</emph>‐tests within groups and a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA). We conducted a MANCOVA controlling for the pre‐survey scores and examining differences between the groups with respect to all of the outcome variables (i.e. family‐focused relationship sub‐scale, the special education knowledge scale and the family empowerment sub‐scale, parental distress sub‐scale, optimism and self‐mastery) in a single analysis. We also controlled for child age, ASD and whether the participants completed the VAP in person or via videoconferencing. We controlled for age because family–school partnerships worsen and parent distress increases over time (Burke & Hodapp [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref52">5</reflink>]). We controlled for ASD as families of children with (versus without) ASD report greater stress (Hayes & Watson [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref53">16</reflink>]). We controlled for videoconferencing as participants who videoconferenced (versus attended in person) the VAP demonstrated greater advocacy (Burke <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref54">8</reflink>]). For the second research question, we conducted a repeated measures analysis of variance. For the effect size, we used <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> for the MANCOVA and Cohen's <emph>d</emph> for the paired <emph>t</emph>‐tests. For <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups>, the effect size are as follows: small = 0.01, medium = 0.06 and large = 0.14 (Table ).</p> <hd id="AN0137586049-19">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0137586049-20">Treatment fidelity</hd> <p>Fidelity to the curriculum was 98.31%. Inter‐rater agreement was 92.86%.</p> <hd id="AN0137586049-21">Within‐group pre‐changes to post‐changes</hd> <p>Within the wait list control group, there were no changes from the pre‐survey to the post‐survey. Within the intervention group, with a large effect size, there was an increase in special education knowledge (<emph>ES</emph> = 1.74). There was also an increase in parental distress with a large effect size (<emph>ES</emph> = 0.62) (Table ).</p> <p>Within‐group change</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th align="center">Pre‐change: <italic>X</italic> (SD)</th><th align="center">Post‐change: <italic>X</italic> (SD)</th><th align="center"><italic>t</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>ES</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Wait list control group</td></tr><tr><td>Self‐mastery</td><td>18.73 (2.99)</td><td>19.26 (2.13)</td><td>−0.68</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.20</td></tr><tr><td>Empowerment</td><td>53.00 (5.09)</td><td>52.63 (5.67)</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.64</td><td>0.11</td></tr><tr><td>Family‐focused sub‐scale</td><td>33.74 (9.01)</td><td>36.37 (8.39)</td><td>−1.92</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.44</td></tr><tr><td>Child‐focused sub‐scale</td><td>30.84 (8.52)</td><td>32.89 (8.35)</td><td>−1.49</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.34</td></tr><tr><td>Special education knowledge</td><td>5.57 (1.80)</td><td>5.89 (1.44)</td><td>−0.78</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.19</td></tr><tr><td>Optimism</td><td>17.36 (2.75)</td><td>17.21 (2.84)</td><td>0.31</td><td>0.76</td><td>0.07</td></tr><tr><td>Parent distress</td><td>26.44 (8.13)</td><td>26.06 (7.64)</td><td>0.27</td><td>0.79</td><td>0.06</td></tr><tr><td>Intervention group</td></tr><tr><td>Self‐mastery</td><td>19.78 (2.13)</td><td>19.06 (2.01)</td><td>1.66</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.39</td></tr><tr><td>Empowerment</td><td>53.61 (5.02)</td><td>54.00 (3.82)</td><td>−0.31</td><td>0.76</td><td>0.07</td></tr><tr><td>Family‐focused sub‐scale</td><td>36.00 (6.71)</td><td>34.00 (6.28)</td><td>1.37</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.32</td></tr><tr><td>Child‐focused sub‐scale</td><td>34.05 (6.28)</td><td>32.17 (5.40)</td><td>1.23</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.29</td></tr><tr><td>Special education knowledge</td><td>5.39 (1.29)</td><td>7.56 (1.76)</td><td>−4.96</td><td>0.01<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td>1.74</td></tr><tr><td>Optimism</td><td>18.22 (3.00)</td><td>17.39 (4.38)</td><td>0.87</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.21</td></tr><tr><td>Parental distress</td><td>23.78 (3.69)</td><td>26.39 (6.91)</td><td>−2.13</td><td>0.05<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td><td>0.62</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.05.</item> <item>3 ** <emph>p</emph> < 0.01.</item> <item>4 SD, standard deviation.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0137586049-22">Pre‐changes to post‐changes</hd> <p>We excluded the child‐focused relationship sub‐scale of the FPPS as it was highly correlated with the family‐focused relationship sub‐scale of the FPPS (<emph>r</emph> = 0.73). Compared with the control group, the intervention group demonstrated increases on the dependent variables after controlling for pre‐survey scores, <emph>F</emph> = 5.57, <emph>P</emph> = 0.002, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.63. Upon looking at the individual analyses, we saw increases with respect to special education knowledge and self‐mastery and a decrease with respect to the family‐focused sub‐scale of the family–professional partnership sub‐scale (Table ).</p> <p>Comparison of the intervention and wait list control groups</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th align="center"><italic>F</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>η</italic><sup>2</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Family‐focused sub‐scale</td><td>11.60</td><td>0.002<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td>0.32</td></tr><tr><td>Special education knowledge</td><td>12.37</td><td>0.002<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td>0.32</td></tr><tr><td>Self‐mastery</td><td>4.39</td><td>0.04<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td>0.15</td></tr><tr><td>Parent distress</td><td>2.91</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.10</td></tr><tr><td>Optimism</td><td>0.74</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.03</td></tr><tr><td>Empowerment</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.71</td><td>0.01</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>5 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.05.</item> <item>6 ** <emph>p</emph> < 0.01.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0137586049-23">Pre‐changes, post‐changes and follow‐up changes</hd> <p>A repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted only with the intervention group; it determined that there were overall differences from the pre‐tests to the post‐tests and follow‐up tests, <emph>F</emph> = 4.72, <emph>P</emph> < 0.001, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.70. <emph>Post hoc</emph> tests using Bonferroni correction revealed that there was an increase with a large effect size with respect to empowerment from the post‐survey to the follow‐up survey (<emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.29). Also, regarding special education knowledge, there was an increase from the pre‐survey to the follow‐up survey (<emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.38). Finally, there were increases from the pre‐survey and the post‐survey to the follow‐up survey with respect to optimism (<emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.69). Notably, there was a marginal (<emph>P</emph> = 0.07) increase in parental distress from the pre‐surveys to the latter surveys (Table ).</p> <p>Change over time within the intervention group (n = 11)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th align="center">Pre‐survey (T1)</th><th align="center">Post‐survey (T2)</th><th align="center">Follow‐up survey (T3)</th><th align="center"><italic>F</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>η</italic><sup>2</sup></th><th align="center">Follow‐up analyses</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Empowerment</td><td>53.0 (1.88)</td><td>51.55 (4.15)</td><td>56.18 (3.62)</td><td>4.13</td><td>0.04<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.29</td><td>T2 and T3</td></tr><tr><td>Family‐focused sub‐scale</td><td>32.55 (9.18)</td><td>31.09 (8.56)</td><td>32.55 (8.95)</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.05</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Special education knowledge</td><td>5.81 (1.47)</td><td>6.72 (1.85)</td><td>7.81 (.87)</td><td>6.13</td><td>0.02<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.38</td><td>T1 and T3</td></tr><tr><td>Self‐mastery</td><td>18.45 (2.50)</td><td>19.0 (2.61)</td><td>17.54 (2.42)</td><td>2.61</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.21</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Parent distress</td><td>25.18 (4.99)</td><td>28.00 (8.25)</td><td>29.27 (7.76)</td><td>3.10</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.24</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Optimism</td><td>19.09 (1.22)</td><td>17.09 (3.21)</td><td>23.91 (3.96)</td><td>22.07</td><td>0.01<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn8" /></td><td>0.69</td><td>T1 and T3</td></tr><tr><td>T2 and T3</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>7 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.05.</item> <item>8 ** <emph>p</emph> < 0.01.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0137586049-24">Discussion</hd> <p>To examine the association between the VAP and the outcomes, we used a comparison, pilot study to examine pre‐differences, post‐differences and follow‐up differences between the intervention and wait list control groups. We had three main findings.</p> <p>First, the advocacy training was associated with increased special education knowledge and self‐mastery; the increase in knowledge was maintained at the follow‐up survey. Also, at the follow‐up survey, there was an increase in empowerment from the post‐survey to the follow‐up survey. This finding confirms previous studies about advocacy trainings and their effect on special education knowledge (Burke, Goldman <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref55">4</reflink>]; Burke, Magaña <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref56">7</reflink>]; Taylor <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref57">36</reflink>]). Further, this study extends prior research documenting that the increase in special education knowledge may persist over time. Special education knowledge is key in accessing special education services (Wang <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref58">37</reflink>]). Indeed, when parents have special education knowledge, they report being better able to access services for their offspring (Taylor <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref59">36</reflink>]). Thus, this finding is especially poignant.</p> <p>Second, intervention (versus wait list control group) participants demonstrated worse family–school partnerships at the post‐survey. At the follow‐up survey, the family–school partnership resumed the same mean it had at the pre‐survey. As noted by previous research, there is a negative relation between advocacy and family–school partnerships (Burke & Hodapp [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref60">6</reflink>]). This finding, although expected, may be troublesome. On one hand, advocacy inevitably involves struggle (Wang <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref61">37</reflink>]); thus, there may be a negative impact on the family–school partnership. On the other hand, the quality of family–school partnerships is a key predictor of student outcomes (Newman [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref62">26</reflink>]). Future research is needed to determine whether this effect on the family–school partnership is temporary. Also, future research should examine the facets of the school, family and their partnership that may mediate this relation. At the most basic level, the dimensions of family–professional partnerships (i.e. respect, communication, commitment, trust, advocacy, equity and professional skills, Haines <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref63">15</reflink>]) should be carefully measured in future studies to determine whether certain dimensions are most effected by advocacy training programmes. In addition, research should measure the culture of the school and the advocacy practices of the family, which could mediate the effect on family–school partnerships (Love <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref64">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>Third, there seems to be an association between the advocacy training and the parent well‐being. In the within‐group analyses, participants demonstrated increases in parental distress. However, in the follow‐up survey, increases in parental discuss were only marginal, whereas optimism increased among participants. Previous research has documented a relation between parent well‐being and advocacy (Burke & Hodapp [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref65">5</reflink>]). Notably, some parent training interventions do not impact distress but rather impact other outcomes. For example, in a systemic review of parent‐mediated interventions for young children with ASD, Oono <emph>et al</emph>. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref66">27</reflink>]) found that none of the interventions impacted parent stress; however, the interventions did impact other, parent (e.g. synchrony), child (e.g. language and communication and adaptive behaviour) and parent–child outcomes (e.g. parent–child interactions). Notably, none of these parent, child or parent–child outcomes were similar to this pilot study. Future research should examine other measures of parent well‐being and their association with measures of satisfaction and perception of changes for the family.</p> <p>Notably, the finding regarding optimism is interesting; however, given the small sample and lack of a control group at the follow‐up survey, this finding should be interpreted with caution. Future research with a larger sample and a control group is needed to determine whether optimism increases after attending an advocacy training programme. If replicated, this finding may align with prior research (e.g. Huffman <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref67">17</reflink>]) that optimism is a malleable disposition that can be improved by an intervention. Further, if replicated, this finding should be further examined to see if optimism facilitates improved student outcomes (Jones & Prinz [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref68">19</reflink>]). Indeed, this finding has the potential to shed light on an effect (i.e. increased optimism) that may have benefits for both parents and their offspring with IDD.</p> <p>In this pilot study, we examined the goals of a parent advocacy training that had not been previously examined. Although an important first step in understanding the association of advocacy training programmes on parent outcomes, this study has a few limitations. First, the study had a small, convenience sample of primarily Caucasian mothers of children with IDD. Most offspring had ASD; future research should consider whether the type of disability influences the effect of an advocacy training. To address this limitation, we controlled for ASD in our analyses. Also, there were no pre‐differences/post‐differences in empowerment that could be due to a ceiling effect as both the intervention and wait list control group participants scored very high on the pre‐survey. Further, although no differences were detected between the groups, there could have been unaccounted for differences that impacted the results of this study. Notably, there were some observable (but not significant) demographic differences between the intervention and wait list control groups. Also, the design would have been stronger if there had been randomisation, a control group for the follow‐up survey, a larger sample to allow a powered study and data from the families who worked with advocates. Without randomisation and a control group for the follow‐up survey, our findings are associational; without other data sources, our findings are based on self‐report.</p> <hd id="AN0137586049-25">Directions for future research</hd> <p>First, research is needed to confirm the results of this study with a larger, more diverse sample with random assignment. Notably, culturally and linguistically diverse (versus Caucasian) families face greater barriers to advocacy (Magaña <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref69">23</reflink>]). Although a few other advocacy studies have focused on such families (e.g. Burke, Magaña <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref70">8</reflink>]; Jamison <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref71">18</reflink>]), the research remains scant regarding the effect of advocacy trainings on diverse populations. Notably, such diversity not only should be limited to race and ethnicity but also should include other underserved populations. For example, rural families of children with IDD may have less access to educational resources (Epley <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref72">12</reflink>]). Yet little research has been conducted in such communities. Further, advocacy programmes outside of the USA should also be tested especially given that advocacy can be a lever to improve equity for individuals with disabilities (Cohen [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref73">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>Second, research is needed about the post‐training activities of VAP graduates. On average, VAP graduates advocate for 5.5 families (Goldman <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref74">14</reflink>]). It is unclear whether <emph>pro bono</emph> advocacy impacts the maintenance of effects of the training. Research is needed to examine whether post‐training advocacy activities mediate the effectiveness of the training. Relatedly, a hierarchical research design is needed to determine whether VAP advocates are able to effectively advocate for other families. This study suggests that, at the initial level, advocacy training may work in educating advocates. However, it is important to determine if the advocates are able to effectively access services for other families. Relatedly, it is also important to determine whether advocates influence the well‐being of families.</p> <hd id="AN0137586049-26">Implications for policy and practice</hd> <p>Although advocacy trainings are becoming more common (Burke [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref75">3</reflink>]), there is little uniformity or accountability across advocacy trainings. Regarding the latter, it seems necessary for policy not only to consider regulating the field of advocacy but also to have accountability mechanisms ensuring that advocacy training programmes are effective. Without such, parents of children with IDD who are seeking special education advocates lack the needed information to determine whether the training of a given advocate has been effective. Put simply, it is important for practitioners to examine how parent advocacy training impacts parents of children with IDD.</p> <p>Relatedly, advocacy training programmes need to be evaluated. Across the USA, various agencies are creating advocacy training programmes. For example, the Protection and Advocacy (P&A) Agency in Georgia has an advocacy training (Burke [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref76">3</reflink>]). As a federally funded agency designed to provide legal assistance to individuals with disabilities and their families, a Protection and Advocacy Agency may be a natural setting for an advocacy training. Additionally, Parent Training and Information Centres are federally funded agencies designed to educate and empower parents of children with disabilities about their rights; Parent Training and Information Centres have also been conducting advocacy trainings (e.g. Burke, Magaña <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref77">8</reflink>]). The availability of different advocacy training programmes is admirable; however, with such diversity, it seems necessary for the agencies sponsoring such programmes to also evaluate their effectiveness. Given the newness of advocacy training programmes, evaluation data may be especially helpful not only in determining their effectiveness but also in identifying ways to improve such programmes.</p> <hd id="AN0137586049-27">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the College of Education.</p> <hd id="AN0137586049-28">Source of funding</hd> <p>Funding for this project was received from a Hardie grant at the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign.</p> <hd id="AN0137586049-29">Conflict of Interest</hd> <p>No conflicts of interest have been declared.</p> <ref id="AN0137586049-30"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref29" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abidin R. R. (1995) Parenting Stress Index Manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref25" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Baker B. L., Blacher J. & Olsson M. B. (2005) Preschool children with and without developmental delay: behaviour problems, parents' optimism and well‐being. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 49, 575 – 590.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref5" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Burke M. M. (2013) Improving parental involvement: training special education advocates. Journal of Disability Policy Studies 23, 225 – 234.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref55" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Burke M. M., Goldman S. E., Hart M. & Hodapp R. M. (2016a) Evaluating the efficacy of a special education advocacy training program. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities 13, 269 – 276.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref20" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Burke M. M. & Hodapp R. (2014) Relating stress of mothers of children with developmental disabilities to family–school partnerships. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 52, 13 – 23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref14" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Burke M. M. & Hodapp R. (2016) The nature, correlates, and conditions of advocacy in special education. Exceptionality 24, 137 – 150.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref9" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Burke M. M., Magaña S., Garcia M. & Mello M. P. (2016b) The feasibility and effectiveness of an advocacy program for Latino families of children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 46, 2532 – 2538.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref2" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Burke M. M., Goldman S. E., Hart M. & Hodapp R. M. (2016) Evaluating the efficacy of a special education advocacy training program. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities 13, 269 – 276.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref13" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Burke M. M. & Goldman S. E. (2018) Special education advocacy among culturally and linguistically diverse families. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 1, 3 – 14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen S. R. (2013) Advocacy for the "Abandonados": harnessing cultural beliefs for Latino families and their children with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities 10, 71 – 78.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dinnesen M. S. & Kroeger S. D. (2018) Toward active partnership: notice of procedural safeguards designed for parent use. Journal of Disability Policy Studies 29, 54 – 64.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Epley P., Summers J. A. & Turnbull A. (2010) Characteristics and trends in family‐centered conceptualizations. Journal of Family Social Work 13, 269 – 285.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fish W. W. (2008) Perceptions of parents of students with autism towards the IEP meeting: A case study of one family support group chapter. Education 127, 56 – 68.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldman S., Burke M., Mason C. & Hodapp R. (2017) Correlates of sustained volunteering for special education advocacy. Exceptionality 25, 40 – 53.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haines S. J., Francis G. L., Mueller T. G., Chiu C., Burke M. M., Kyzar K. et al. (2017) Reconceptualizing family‐professional partnership for inclusive schools: The sunshine model. Inclusion 5, 234 – 246.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hayes S. A. & Watson S. L. (2012) The impact of parenting stress: a meta‐analysis of studies comparing the experience of parenting stress in parents of children with and without autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 10, 803 – 812.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huffman J. C., DuBois C. M., Millstein R. A., Celano C. M. & Wexler D. (2015) Positive psychological interventions for patients with type 2 diabetes: rationale, theoretical model, and intervention development. Journal Diabetes Research, 1 – 18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jamison J. M., Fourie E., Siper P. M., Trelles M. P., George‐Jones J., Grice A. B. et al. (2017) Examining the efficacy of a family peer advocate model for Black and Hispanic caregivers of children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 47, 1314 – 1322.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones T. L. & Prinz R. J. (2005) Potential roles of parental selfefficacy in parent and child adjustment: A review. Clinical Psychology Review 25, 341 – 363.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koren P. E., DeChillo N. & Friesen B. J. (1992) Measuring empowerment in families whose children have emotional disabilities: a brief questionnaire. Rehabilitation Psychology 37, 305 – 321.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kyzar K. B., Brady S. E., Summers J. A., Haines S. J. & Turnbull A. P. (2016) Services and supports, partnership, and family quality of life: focus on deaf‐blindness. Exceptional Children 83, 77 – 91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Love H. R., Zagona A. L., Kurth J. A. & Miller A. L. (2017) Parents' experiences in educational decision making for children and youth with disabilities. Inc 5, 158 – 172.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Magaña S., Lopez K. & Machalicek W. (2015) Parents taking action: a psycho‐educational intervention for Latino parents of children with autism spectrum disorder. Family Process 56, 59 – 74.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McEwen B. S. (1998) Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators. New England Journal of Medicine 338, 171 – 179.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neece C. L., Green S. A. & Baker B. L. (2012) Parenting stress and child behavior problems: A transactional relationship across time. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 117, 48 – 66.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Newman L. (2005) Family Involvement in the Educational Development of Youth with Disabilities. SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oono I. P., Honey E. J. & McConachie H. (2013) Parent‐mediated early intervention for young children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Evidence‐based Child Health: A Cochrane Review Journal 8, 2380 – 2479.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paczkowski E. & Baker B. L. (2007) Parenting children with and without developmental delay: the role of self‐mastery. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 51, 435 – 446.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patton K. A., Ware R., McPherson L., Emerson E., & Lennox N. (2018) Parent‐related stress of male and female carers of adolescents with intellectual disabilities and carers of children within the general population: A cross‐sectional comparison. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 31, 51 – 61.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pearlin L. I. & Schooler C. (1978) The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 19, 2 – 21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan C. & Quinlan E. (2017) Whoever shouts the loudest: listening to parents of children with disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 31, 203 – 214.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scheier M. F., Carver C. S. & Bridges M. W. (1994) Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self‐mastery, and self‐esteem): a re‐evaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67, 1063 – 1078.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singer G. H. S. (2006) Meta‐analysis of comparative studies of depression in mothers of children with and without developmental disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation 111, 155 – 169.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singh N. N., Curtis W. J., Ellis C. R., Nicholson M. W., Villani M. & Wechsler H. A. (1995) Psychometric properties of the Family Empowerment Scale. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 3, 85 – 91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Summers J. A., Marquis J., Mannan H., Turnbull A. P., Fleming K., Poston D. J. et al. (2007) Relationship of perceived adequacy of services, family–professional partnerships, and family quality of life in early childhood service programmes. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 54, 319 – 338.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor J. L., Hodapp R. M., Burke M. M., Waitz‐Kudla S. N. & Rabideau C. (2017) Training parents of youth with autism spectrum disorder to advocate for adult disability services: results from a pilot randomized controlled trial. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 47, 846 – 857.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang M., Mannan H., Poston D., Turnbull A. P. & Summers J. A. (2004) Parents' perceptions of advocacy activities and their impact on family quality of life. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 29, 144 – 155.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By M. M. Burke; C. E. Lee and K. Rios</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref72"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1222333
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Pilot Evaluation of an Advocacy Programme on Knowledge, Empowerment, Family-School Partnership and Parent Well-Being
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burke%2C+M%2E+M%2E%22">Burke, M. M.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5287-2351">0000-0001-5287-2351</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lee%2C+C%2E+E%2E%22">Lee, C. E.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rios%2C+K%2E%22">Rios, K.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Intellectual+Disability+Research%22"><i>Journal of Intellectual Disability Research</i></searchLink>. Aug 2019 63(8):969-980.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Advocacy%22">Advocacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Volunteers%22">Volunteers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Analysis%22">Comparative Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Students+with+Disabilities%22">Students with Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mothers%22">Mothers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Attitudes%22">Parent Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Barriers%22">Barriers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Childrens+Rights%22">Childrens Rights</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Education%22">Special Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+School+Relationship%22">Family School Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Well+Being%22">Well Being</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Child+Relationship%22">Parent Child Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mother+Attitudes%22">Mother Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Organizations+%28Groups%29%22">Organizations (Groups)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Descriptions%22">Program Descriptions</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mastery+Learning%22">Mastery Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Training%22">Training</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/jir.12613
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0964-2633
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: Internationally, it has been recognised that parents need to advocate for their children with disabilities to receive services. However, many parents find advocacy difficult because of systemic and logistical barriers. As such, parents of children with disabilities may seek a special education advocate to help them understand their child's rights and secure services. Yet little research has been conducted about programmes to develop special education advocates. Methods: In this study, we conducted a comparison study to determine the association of an advocacy programme (i.e. the Volunteer Advocacy Project) on a primary outcome (i.e. special education knowledge) and other outcomes (i.e. family-school partnership, empowerment and parent well-being). Specifically, in 2017, 34 participants, all mothers of children with disabilities, were recruited from disability organisations in the USA. Seventeen mothers participated in the intervention group (i.e. the advocacy training), while 17 mothers participated in the wait list control group. The Volunteer Advocacy Project is a 36 hr advocacy training for individuals to gain instrumental and affective knowledge to advocate for their own children with disabilities and for other families. All participants completed a pre-survey and post-survey; only intervention group participants completed a 6-month follow-up survey. Results: Compared with 17 wait list control group participants, the 17 intervention group participants demonstrated improvements in special education knowledge, P = 0.002, ?2 = 0.32, and self-mastery, P = 0.04, ?2 = 0.15, and decreases in the quality of family-school partnerships, P = 0.002, ?2 = 0.32. At the follow-up survey, intervention group participants demonstrated increases in empowerment, P = 0.04, ?2 = 0.29, and special education knowledge, P = 0.02, ?2 = 0.38. Conclusions: Implications for research including the need for a randomised controlled trial are discussed; also, practitioners need to evaluate advocacy training programmes regarding their effectiveness.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1222333
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1222333
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/jir.12613
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 969
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Advocacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Volunteers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comparative Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Students with Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mothers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Barriers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Childrens Rights
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Special Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Family School Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Well Being
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Child Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mother Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Organizations (Groups)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Descriptions
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mastery Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Training
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Pilot Evaluation of an Advocacy Programme on Knowledge, Empowerment, Family-School Partnership and Parent Well-Being
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Burke, M. M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lee, C. E.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rios, K.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2019
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0964-2633
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 63
            – Type: issue
              Value: 8
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1