WHY PSYCOMETRICS

Psychometric tests are considered to be an objective method to measure how one fits a job’s requirements. As a Board Certifying Agency a Professional Training Needs Analysis was conducted prior to establishing our training and development of our programs. This analysis is not done by training organization but is done each year by reputable certifying organizations so to keep their participants current within their profession. NSEAI is the only organization in the field of Education Advocacy to do these required analyses. This type of analysis allows us to assess and address any potential gaps that may impact effectiveness and performance within the education advocacy field. These gaps are related to differences between current work performance and the desired professional level of work performance. By assessing these differences, as a training organization we develop training and developmental programs that support participants in achieving their desired level of professional work performance.

By analysis of this information at different levels, we identify which areas require further training or development as well as ascertain the specific skills, knowledge, abilities and other qualities that should be addressed through training and development. This allows us to implement tailored programs as we continue to assess third party training providers within this unique profession.

In order for our training to be so highly effective, our Professional Training Needs Analysis includes individuals adequately trained as professional education advocates, to do a holistic assessment of our organisation's mission and strategic objectives each year. This enables effective planning for instruction of the required skills and competencies and the assessment of discrepancies between strategic core competencies and current performance deficits.

Most adult learners are motivated, self-directed, goal oriented, and want to be actively involved in their learning process. They assume responsibility for their choices, make their own decisions, and contribute to their learning process while leveraging their existing knowledge and opinions with their life experiences. Our training highlights practicality with pragmatic application of techniques vs. just learning theoretical concepts. We offer more than just technical training. NSEAI offers:

• Technical Training – Overview and review of the technical aspects of the job
• Quality Training –Detecting, preventing, and eliminating errors in the process with use of quality standards
• Skill Training – Proficiencies needed to perform the job of assessing and meeting customer needs and offer clients training and information
• Continuing Education Training – Required CE to keep current within the profession
• Soft Skill Training – Interpersonal, social, listening and communication skill training
• Professional Level Training – Requirements for the field of practice and professional certification
• Team Building Training – Development of cohesiveness so to improve collaborative decision making, problem solving, and achieving FAPE and educational outcomes. This includes: motivation, being the same page, goal setting, self-regulation strategies
• Managerial Training –Documentation, feedback, appropriate referrals, and research. Assisting clients and team members in using their strengths and supporting their weaknesses
• Procedural Safeguard Training – Protecting the rights of a client

PSYCHOMETRIC EXAM ANALYSIS

Psychometric analysis is done yearly to determine appropriateness of material and presentation effectiveness.  Often data analysis is counter intuitive to expected hypotheses. That is why the  curriculum committee makes recommendations to the faculty for modifications to improve educational advocacy fund of knowledge levels.  The NSEAI program provides an integrated multi-profession cross training with a competency based - functional IEP outcome focus.

(The due process system has limited ability to improved IDEA compliance.   Many IEPs are legally sufficient but do not have the functional outcomes of which students are capable.  Parent access to  due process is often limited by associated costs.  Only 3% of school districts have disputes that result in litigation, 51% have not been involved in SE litigation or due process in the past 5 years and 94% of school districts nationally have had no due processes. Thus, the education advocates' focus needs to be on the IEP process and the student’s competency based functional outcomes and geting  FAPE for a child.) 

NEED FOR BOARD CERTIFICATION ANALYSIS

In the first class, we compared 473 pretests to post tests focusing on  the practicing professional education advocates.

Only 35% of professional special education advocates with formal advocacy training of greater than 60 hours passed the pre-tests. (this group included litigating and non litigating special education school and parent lawyers, special education professors, teachers, school principals, school psychologists, and professional advocates having taken advocacy programs focused on the legal aspects of advocacy)
Individuals new to the education advocacy field (lawyers, clinicians, educators and parents) and not practicing as education advocates were analyzed separately due to much lower scores.

TESTING AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
Pre- and post-tests were used to document the quality of our program, measuring outcomes, and to demonstrate success. These exams gave us useful professional impact data for progress reports and acted as an accurate measure, providing real-time feedback related to program quality.  This information helped our curriculum committee decide whether or not to make changes in the implementation of activities within the program. 

Professional Advocate participants taking the NSEAI program ranged from those: 

Self taught                       

• (little formal training - local and state wide trainings < 30 hours),

Moderate formal training  

• (local and state wide trainings, 31-59 hours),

Formally trained              

• (state, local or national legal and non legal trainings of 60 -100 hours or greater).

The results from practicing advocates were significant.

Out of 473 pre-examinations (grouped by experience) only:

• 20% of the 100 with little training, with formal advocacy training of < 30 hours, passed the pre-test.
• 20% of the 290 with moderate training, with formal advocacy training of > 30 hours, passed the pre-test.
• 35% of the 83 with formal advocacy training, by legal and non legal based training, of >60 to 100 hours, passed the pre-test.

In post testing 90% of all groups passed their post examinations.

This was evidence of a significant overall improvement of knowledge and expertise in the advocacy population.

• Average grades went from 63/100 (below passing) to 85/100, a 26% improvement in knowledge base.
• Even the highly educated advocates improved their grades from an average of 68/100 - (below passing) to an average of 87/100, showing a 22% knowledge base improvement. It should be noted that this improvement occurred in a population of very active professional advocates who believed that they were already highly educated.

The tests were only one part of an assessment plan of knowledge associated with this discipline specific curriculum.  These tests focus on the missions, goals, and objectives of professional advocates and allowed for useful projections of participant behavior and learning within this field of study.  These tests assess the ability to analyze and solve problems, understand relationships, and interpret material.  The results enabled us to monitor participant progression and learning throughout prescribed periods of time and helped us determine where significant skills and knowledge deficiencies existed.  Participant surveys and exit interviews were another important tool used, as well as alumni surveys.

As an inclusive Professional Association for Education Advocates, this demonstrated the extreme need to develop minimum educational standards, within the profession of Educational Advocacy and the need for minimum education consistency to protect the public and the children we serve.  This also demonstrated that training by mixed professional groups did not lead to acceptable minimum professional advocacy standards.

Pre and post-tests document and measure the quality of programing, outcomes, and demonstrate success.  These exams gave us useful professional impact data for progress reports and acted as an accurate measure, providing real time feedback related to program quality.  This information helped our curriculum committee decide whether or not to make changes in the implementation of activities within the program. Participants taking the NSEAI program ranged from those self taught (little formal training), those having attended local and state wide advocacy training (moderate formal training courses), to those who attended formal national training of greater than 60 hours.

The pre and post-tests are only one part of an assessment plan of knowledge association with this discipline and specific curriculum. These tests focus on the missions, goals and objectives of NSEAI and allowed the useful projections of participant behvaviors and learning within this major field of study.  These tests assess the ability to analyze and problem solve, understand relationships, and interpret material. The results have enabled us to monitor participant progression and learning throughout the prescribed periods of time and helped us determine where skills and knowledge deficiencies existed. Participant surveys and exit interviews were another important tool used as well as alumni surveys.  All exams are monitored and evaluated for appropriateness of materials, teaching methodology and any exam question with less than a 80% participant correct rating is psychometrically evaluated by the curriculum committee.

PREVIOUS TRAINING AND EXAM PERFORMANCE             

AVG. PRE-TEST SCORE   % PASSED  -   AVG. POST TEST SCORE   % PASSED  

EXTENSIVE TRAINING  (83)                

68.00                                 35% Passed                     86.00                     90% Passed

High scores in legal area - Poor scores in IEP development area.

This is highly reflective of the type of training attended and their focus.

MODERATE TRAINING  (290)               

59.00                                   20% Passed                   89.00                      90% Passed

Average scores in legal area - High scores in IEP development area.

This is highly reflective of the type of training attended and their focus.

LITTLE TRAINING (100)                        

58.00                                   20% Passed                  75.00                        90% Passed

TOTAL  (473)                                          

63.00                                   23% Passed                   85.00                       90% Passed

Only 23% of the initial 473 participants passed the pretests.   (70.00% ACCURACY IS PASSING) Scores of the professional advocates (in the moderate and extensively trained category) increased from pre to post test score by a statistically significant 26%.