Barriers to Evaluation for Early Intervention Services: Parent and Early Intervention Employee Perspectives
Abstract
Objective To explore barriers to early intervention (EI) evaluation among referred infants and toddlers.Methods We conducted semistructured interviews with parents of children referred for EI services and with EI staff. We purposively sampled families according to whether they received an EI evaluation. Families were recruited from a randomized controlled trial testing implementation of developmental screening. Parents filled out demographic surveys. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded. We identified themes within and across respondent groups using modified grounded theory.Results We reached thematic saturation after interviewing 22 parents whose child was evaluated by EI, 22 not evaluated, and 14 EI employees. Mean child age at first referral was 16.7 months, and 80% were referred as the result of language concerns. We identified 5 primary themes: (1) Parents reported communication problems with their pediatrician, including misinterpreting reassurance and not understanding the referral process; (2) Many parents saw themselves as experts on their child's development and felt they should decide whether their child pursues EI services; (3) Some families preferred to wait for the developmental concern to resolve or work with their child on their own prior to seeking EI services; (4) For ambivalent parents, practical obstacles especially limited completion of evaluation, but highly motivated parents overcame obstacles; and (5) EI employees perceived that families avoid evaluation because they mistake EI for child protective services.Conclusions Communication between pediatricians and families that addresses practical logistics, families' perceptions of their child's development and EI, and motivation to address developmental concerns may improve the completion of EI referrals.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 89
- Authors
- Jimenez, M. E., Barg, F. K., Guevara, J. P., Gerdes, M., & Fiks, A. G.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (US)
- Venue
- Academic Pediatrics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-11
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 551-557
- ISSN
- 1876-2859 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2029974553
- Cited by
- 89
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 4.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Academic Pediatrics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (R18DD000345)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Family and Disability Support Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Child and Adolescent Health
- Keywords
- early intervention, developmental evaluation, barriers to assessment, parental attitudes, developmental screening, parental motivation, infants and toddlers
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Developmental Disabilities, Child, Preschool, Communication, Female, Health Personnel, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Infant, Male, Middle Aged, Parents, Pediatrics, Professional-Family Relations, Referral and Consultation, Early Intervention, Educational, Qualitative Research, Young Adult, Delayed Diagnosis, Time-to-Treatment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review