19

Parents’ Evaluation of the Usability of a Web Site on Recommended Practices

article describes parents’ evaluation of This tical information about recommended

a

Web site intended

practices such

Robert S. Cook Sarah Rule and Heather Mariger Utah State University

as

to

provide prac-

activity-based

or em-

bedded instruction to families whose young children have disabilities or are at developmental risk. Twenty-one parents from 10 states conducted an online evaluation of the site, SPIES for Parents, judging its content and ease of use. The data were analyzed using quantitative and qualitative methods. Results indicated that the Internet can be an effective medium for disseminating information about recommended practices to families. The parent group found the Web site to be helpful, useful, and responsive to their needs and time constraints. Although they said that textual information was easy to access, some parents did note that they experienced technological problems in downloading video.

Within a few short years, the Internet’s pervasive influence has affected communication in ways that can hardly be underestimated. It has changed the way we present, format, and share information. Evidence of the perceived utility of the Internet as an information source on special education issues is apparent in the number of projects funded by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) that specifically identify the Internet as a means of dissemination or instruction. The percentage of project abstracts that indicated this increased from 15% in 1997

(Orkwis, DeCarme, & Glover, 1998) to 30% in 2001 (Orkwis, DeCarme, & Glover, 2001). It seems realistic to expect this growth in usage to continue, given the Inter-

Information

be provided on the Internet in varBillboards, the most common sites (Luck & Hunter, 1997; Smith & Ross, 1999), typically direct individuals who seek assistance to a physical site rather than providing immediate help via the Internet. Declarative Web sites-those information-rich sites such as online encyclopedias, dictionaries, and fact sheets-may serve families by making available copious amounts of information about a subject in question. They are not likely to provide specific or detailed guidance about supports (e.g., offering help to one’s child), however. Some Web sites do offer this type of information, which may be tailored to address specific child and family issues. In disseminating procedural information, these sites can capitalize on advantages such as freedom from the constraints of provider schedules and availability. Families may need procedural information for a variety of reasons. One reason is to better understand practices used in intervention programs and to relate them to what occurs in the home and community. Family members of young children with disabilities can identify the activity settings in which they engage with their children (Dunst, Hamby, Trivette, Raab, & Bruder, 2000; Tisot & can

ious forms.

advantages over other forms of communication. For example, the Internet is simultaneously accessible to an essentially unlimited number of persons, whereas printed materials can be used by one person at a time. Internet information can also be changed rapidly to incorporate advances in knowledge, whereas revising print materials is time-consuming and often costly. For professionals engaged in early intervention, the Internet offers a channel to conveniently share information with families, one that permits them to self-select what they access according to individual needs and con-

Thurman, 2002),

The Internet also makes informal educational and informational supports available to a broadly defined community of family members.

Although family members can learn specific intervention techniques through in-home intervention with profession-

net’s

cerns.

but they may or may not interpret enin these &dquo;natural&dquo; settings as an intervention. gagement

Address: Sarah Rule, Center for Persons with Disabilities, 6800 Old Main Hill, Utah State University, e-mail: [email protected]

Logan,

UT 84322-6800;

20

als

(Mobayed, Collins, Strangis, Schuster, & Hemmeter, 2000), they may also benefit from basic, if more general, information about such strategies. A site that depicts the application of strategies, therefore, might help parents to better relate an intervention to their daily routines.

ulum would

of value to parents seeking effective their children with disabilities. Based on help this need for an accessible, practical, and parent-friendly curriculum on the Internet, we designed the Strategies for Preschool Intervention in Everyday Settings (SPIES) for Parents Web site. seem

means to

CASE EXAMPLE DESIGN ISSUES This story illustrates the need for Web sites that go beyond billboards in supporting parents’ understanding of interventions. A mother sits at home with her 3-year-old son on a Friday evening. She has recently participated in the development of an Individual Family Service Plan (IFSP) because her son has a visual impairment. Although at the time of the IFSP meeting, she agreed with the goals and objectives, tonight she feels lost and unsure about how what happens at home relates to those goals and objectives. Because it is Friday evening, none of the professionals who attended the meeting are available to offer guidance regarding how to support her son in working toward these goals. She logs on to the Internet, hoping to find some guidance, but she searches in vain. Information about her son’s specific impairment is available, as is information about IFSPs. Web sites that advertise service programs are more than plentiful. But she is already well read on her child’s disability, she feels reasonably confident in her ability to participate in an IFSP meeting, and a geographically distant service program (open only during regular business hours) serves little purpose for her. She has located sites that offer ample information. What they have not offered is specific guidance on what to do or on how to assess the effectiveness of what she does. After several hours, she gives up. What she wants, but cannot find, is information about how to support her son in achieving his goals. What she needs is a self-paced tutorial curriculum-one that is available at any time, provides instruction, and is grounded in quality, evidence-based practices.

PU RPOSE logical that parents such as the mother just demight benefit from access to a Web site built from a synthesis of research-based results that offered a practical set of guidelines on how to interact with children in everyday activities. Such a Web site might provide textual information about embedded intervention practices designed to help children achieve specific objectives and might show live-action video examples of these activities. It

seems

Usability create a stand-alone Web site that parents could access their convenience, we followed the precepts of usercentered design in order to make the site easy to use and navigate. Krug (2000) proposed that the first law of usability is &dquo;don’t make me think!&dquo; This means that Web site users should be able to devote their attention to the content rather than to figuring out how to navigate the site or find things on it. Insofar as possible, the site should be intuitive, and the features should be &dquo;transparent.&dquo; Other principles of user-friendly design address format. Because it is more difficult to read online than in print, pages should be kept brief and should not require a lot of scrolling (Goldsborough, 2001). In addition, because people tend to skim material looking for what is useful to them, Web sites should maintain a consistent look and utilize clear and easy to understand headlines that allow users to quickly find what they seek. Other features that contribute to making sites as intuitive and easy to understand as possible include using visual hierarchies and cues to show the relative importance of different parts of a page, making buttons obvious and clear, and using the accepted conventions of Web design such as logo placement and site map provisions (Krug, 2000). Another major issue for Web site designers is the wide range of equipment that users employ to access Internet sites. Computer configurations, Web browser preferences, and connection speeds (not to mention the technological capabilities of the users themselves) can radically affect a person’s Internet experience. Hager, Kibler, and Zack (1999) thus recommended that sites be designed &dquo;for the least common denominator&dquo; and that they be tested on a number of different machines to ensure that the pages look the same in a variety of situations.

To at

scribed

This information would be available whenever parents needed it. A Web site that presents a self-paced, continually accessible, recommended, and practice-based curric-

Design for Adult Learners to design that incorporates basic usability conDriscoll (1998) recommended a variety of tools and cepts, that can enhance adult learning. These include techniques (a) structured, discrete units of instruction, (b) guided instruction, (c) appropriate use of hypermedia, (d) encouragement of reflection, (e) provision of resources, and (f) communication with instructors and peers.

In addition

21

RESEARCH

AND

DEVELOPMENT QUESTIONS

To determine whether the Web site we designed was an effective tool for disseminating information about recommended practice to families, we needed to learn whether parents would access it and find it helpful. Our research and development questions followed from the goal of designing a usable Web site: 1. Could SPIES for Parents be

developed for with such of children disabilities parents that it was accessible (convenient, usable, attractive in look and feel, and free of technological barriers)? practical (included

2. Would parents find it

clear and understandable content considered to be useful to parents in helping their children and viewed as useful to their care

providers)?

3. Would parents find it to be appropriate its intended audience of caregivers?

to

METHOD Overview on the Web site was based upon in Everyday Settings (The CenIntervention Strategies for ter for Persons with Disabilities, 1998), a curriculum de-

The

content

presented

to teach adults to use well-researched strategies for interacting with young children who have disabilities or who may be at risk of developing disabilities. The SPIES content is consistent with recommended practices (Sandall, McLean, & Smith, 2000) for fostering the growth and development of children that are supported by research and shared beliefs. SPIES addresses adult-child interactions that may be described as naturalistic, activitybased, or embedded interventions (Brown, Odom, & Con-

veloped

childhood programs

to teach preservice and service professionals, paraprofessionals, and parents about intervention strategies. A condensed CD-ROM version has been

disseminated to users who wish to learn the content rather than to help others learn it. Further information is available at the SPIES Web site (http:llwww.cpd.usu.edulspiesl). SPIES has been validated in a series of evaluations (Rowland, 1996; Rule, 1999). For example, its effectiveness in increasing knowledge of strategies such as giving help, providing incidental teaching, and creating teaching opportunities with communication strategies (e.g., expansion, self-talk, and choices) was addressed in a field evaluation conducted in five states by eight instructors not associated with the project who taught 96 participants. These participants were diverse in terms of age, education, experience, ethnicity, and agency affiliation. Most were employed in early intervention and preschool programs, childcare centers, and Head Start programs, and some were preservice students. Participants’ self-ratings indicated that participant knowledge increased as a result of SPIES training; across content units, a mean of 83 % rated their knowledge as improved. These ratings were corroborated by pretests and posttests of content administered in several field evaluations. Participants also rated their intent to use the strategies, and across units, a mean of 92% said they intended to use them. Participants’ comments

in response

open-ended questions were typically

positive (Rule, 1999). riculum

A favorable review of the

cur-

the

by Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services, Early Childhood Research Institute (n.d.) is available on their Web site (http:llclas. uiuc.edu).

Adaptation for Families and Internet Delivery There

were

seminating

three primary challenges in adapting and disthe SPIES curriculum for families:

2001; Hepting & Goldstein, 1996; Horn, Lieber, Li, Sandall, & Schwartz, 2000), and it is based upon the ob-

1. SPIES

servation that any time children and adults are together, there are opportunities for learning. It focuses on using a child’s interest as the entry point for interactions that promote growth and development. Thus, when children and adults are together, children will display interests that can lead to learning that may facilitate the achievement of IFSP goals and objectives-if the adults are responsive to the children. SPIES uses text and video examples to illustrate interactions between children and adults in a variety of settings. Using these media, SPIES describes and offers models for creating teaching opportunities, identifying appropriate help techniques, and combining them into incidental teaching. This textual and videotape curriculum has been adopted nationally by more than 30 early

its

roy,

to

was

written for

professionals,

and preprofessionals; had not been evaluated with

paraprofessionals, content

lay parents. 2. SPIES was designed for education in guided by a facilitator rather than self-instructional curriculum. 3. SPIES was a print- and video-based curriculum. groups as a

Successful development of a Web site had to address each of these issues. Our goal thus was to redesign the SPIES curriculum to be widely and continuously accessible through the Internet, parent-friendly in its language, and usable without support of a facilitator. We sought to develop the SPIES

22

for Parents Web site as a stand-alone, self-help resource for parents and other adults interested in learning about intervention techniques that could be used during the activities of daily living. Because of the recognized importance of modeling (Bandura & Kupers, 1964), we also wanted to retain video examples to demonstrate effective practices such as incidental and milieu teaching (Hart and

Risley, 1975; Kaiser, Hancock,

&

Nietfeld, 2000).

Families as Participants in Web Development. Including end users in Web site development is essential to the creation of sites that effectively fulfill their purpose (Barnum, 2002; Coe, 1996). Because parents were the intended audience, we wanted to ensure their involvement at every step in the development process. We therefore built the Web site in phases, seeking feedback from families about the site layout, technical problems with its use, content and language, and overall usefulness after each phase. We then made revisions based upon this feedback. Initially, eight local family members of children with disabilities used the CD-ROM version to assess SPIES content and participated in focus groups to convey their opinions about the usefulness of content and feasibility of Internet delivery. We took these opinions into account in building the preliminary site (as described below) and then asked the eight adults to use it. Based on their opinions about the site’s appeal, its usefulness, and how well it might meet parents’ needs, we substantially revised it.

Design. Based on the feedback from families, we designed the site for adult learners, incorporating the guidelines already mentioned (Driscoll, 1998). The reSite

design of SPIES into an Internet format involved conversion of text, layout, and video. Using the layout of the original SPIES curriculum, we posted the lessons in chapter form to provide discrete content units. Users might visit chapters of specific interest, but links at the bottom of each page also guided them through the material in a logical order, much like a book. We revised the SPIES Participant’s Manual to replace jargon with lay terms and to realign examples with the videos. Layout conversion involved development of a stylistically consistent theme for the Web site and then modification of the curriculum to conform to that theme. To provide video examples of strategies, state-of-the art video compression techniques were used to make downloading as easy and fast as possible. We included hypermedia links to give users definitions and access to important concepts. At critical points in the material, &dquo;Stop and Think Exercises&dquo; were provided to help the user reflect on the material and to make connections to his or her own situation. As necessary, we modified these exercises from the original curriculum to assist parents in processing information without a facilitator’s assistance. We also included a variety of references

and links

guide the user to additional information. offered Web site chat-room facilities and a Finally, threaded discussion group to encourage discussion among the site users. Finally, we initiated a formal evaluation. to

we

PROCEDURE

Participant Recruitment evaluation focused upon a Web site, we sought parents who already used the Internet, recruiting them via e-mail solicitation. We conducted several rounds of recruitment with the intent of identifying a nationally stratified and diverse group of parents, each of whom had a child with a disability. E-mail solicitations described SPIES for Parents, explained the duties requested of Web site evaluators-to use the site and complete on-line evaluations that asked for ratings and suggestions for ways to revise the site-and offered an honorarium for completion of the evaluation. We sent solicitations to SPIES Outreach Coordinators (professionals who have used and evaluated the videotape-based curriculum), asking them to forward the solicitations to parents. Finally, we sent solicitations to other professionals familiar with SPIES, including staff of the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance System. They posted the solicitation directly to parents of children with disabilities on their national parent-based listserv. Of the more than 50 parents who expressed interest in becoming evaluators, 33 returned informed consent forms and evaluation contracts. Initially, interested parents were accepted on a first-come, first-accepted basis. As the numbers increased, we restricted acceptance based upon state of residence, gender, and membership in diverse cultural and linguistic groups in order to obtain a sample of parents who were as nationally representative as possible. Twenty-one accessed the site and evaluated at least one content &dquo;chapter&dquo;; 18 completed all the evaluation components-each chapter and the overall site. Fourteen of these 18 also responded to the follow-up evaluation. Table 1 provides demographic information for the Because

our

participants.

Evaluation Protocol Parent evaluators Parents Web site

requested to access the SPIES for if they had found it in an Internet search for information about how to help their child. They were asked to review the site in any manner that worked for them and to complete an evaluation for each content chapter and for the overall site. Upon receipt of the final evaluation, they received an honorarium for their time and effort. Approximately 6 weeks after completion of the evaluation, they received an e-mail request to complete a follow-up survey via the Internet. The follow-up were

as

23

TABLE 1. Demographic Information for Parents Who Evaluated One or More Chapters

of the site (see Note). Responses to closed-end were summarized using descriptive statistics.

questions

Content Analysis a content analysis of responses to openended questions to identify emergent themes in parents’ comments about their experiences in using the site. Using a procedure similar to that described by Johnson and LaMontagne (1993), we compiled all open-ended responses and then segmented them such that each separate idea or experience was considered one response. For example, the comment, &dquo;Clear, concise. Often did not even need to scroll. Examples were very practical and everyday events,&dquo; was divided into two responses: &dquo;Clear, concise. Often did not even need to scroll,&dquo; and &dquo;Examples were very practical and everyday events.&dquo; In contrast, the following comment was considered one thematic response : &dquo;In addition to seeing the possible teaching opportunities and being asked to come up with examples, I would have liked to see some examples after doing the exercise. This would have helped me to know I was on the right track. I realize you can ask for feedback, but it would be easier if there were also some examples.&dquo; After the comments were analyzed in this manner, two researchers independently reviewed the separate responses. They sorted similar ideas into categories to identify emergent themes and met to review the separately identified themes. Through this discussion and review, they reached consensus about a set of themes. They then repeated the independent sorting process according to the final identified themes, met and reviewed their sorting, and reached consensus as to the final categorization.

We conducted

aage range for children survey asked if

with disabilities

=

1 yr.

to

continued to use information from SPIES for Parents, (b) found the information helpful, and (c) had recommended the Web site to other parents or

RESULTS

17 yrs.

they (a)

professionals.

AND

DISCUSSION

The parents’ comfort with computer technology was high. I need help with everything, On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 10 I built it mysel~, the average self-rating was 6.9. Most used relatively new computers running the Microsoft@ Windows 95 or higher operating environment and connecting through dial-up modems (see Table 2). 1 =

=

Measures collect information from participants and to categorize that information instantaneously by importing responses to the evaluation directly into a Microsoft@ AccessTM database. Our evaluation instrument included an electronic demographic survey and six questionnaires-one for each of the four chapters of SPIES for Parents, one for the overall site, and a followup survey. Each questionnaire included both closed-end and open-ended questions intended to obtain specific information about the utility, practicality, and accessibility

We used the Internet

to

Question 1. Was the Web Site Accessible? Most parents

(73.7%) spent 1 hour to 2 hours per visit to

frequent modes of evaluating each chapter were in one (66.7%) or two (22.2%) sittings. They evaluated accessibility in terms of convenience, usability, and the absence of technological barriers. In general, they found the Web site to be accessible in terms of their ability to enter the site and gain worthwhile information without difficulty. They rated ease of use on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 I had trouble with everything, 10 the Web site. The most

1=

=

24

rather than

being forced by the site design to navigate in They wanted the text to be clear, concise, and not cluttered by jargon. They were unwilling to tolerate technological difficulties and frequently stated this to be a reason not to return to a site; their persistence

TABLE 2. Computer, Operating System, and Browser Characteristics for Parent Participants

a

specific

manner.

this Web site may have been related to their commitevaluators. Finally, they appreciated that the site was accessible 24 hours. They commented that the site’s useful features included its availability on the basis of their schedules and its availability to others, such as spouses or baby-sitters, who cared for their children. Most evaluators found the site layout and design to be appropriate. Some offered specific suggestions about how to improve it and make it more practical. All study participants, however, found the basic medium of delivery via the Internet acceptable, and they found the curriculum itself acceptable. on

ment as

Question 2. Was the Web Site Practical?

It

was

very

with 10

easy).

being

the

Most most

ratings

between 7 and 10, selected rating (7

were

frequently

=

10.5%, 8 26.3%, 9 15.8%, 10 36.8%). No rating of difficulty of use fell below 5. Most parents (57.9%) moved in a linear fashion through the site, although a significant minority (31.6%) sometimes moved in a linear fashion and at other times skipped around. Seventeen liked the look of the site, with only 1 person expressing dislike. The biggest impediment to accessibility was rated =

=

=

be difficulties with technology (47.4%), specifically, accessing the videos. Further analysis of comments indicated that these difficulties included problems downloading the appropriate software to view the videos, making the software work on their computers, and waiting for the videos to download. Parents reported that the issue of time spent on the Internet was of such concern that even though 92% reported that downloads of videos took 5 minutes or less, many also reported that this detracted from the ability of the Web site to meet their needs. Parents’ comments corroborated their ratings. These also clarified issues such as the nature of difficulties with technology and expressed the benefit of clear, concisely written text. The parents wanted a Web site through which they could navigate according to their preferences to

Practicality was assessed in terms of whether parents perceived the information on the site as useful in assisting them or other caregivers in helping their children. Most evaluators found the videos helpful (67.9%) and believed that they learned from the techniques presented in the videos (61.7%). Most (88.9%) also found the text to be helpful. They endorsed the belief that the text and videos worked together to assist them in learning how to help their child (71.6%). Their ratings of the exercises intended to help them apply naturalistic intervention strategies were more variable; 54% completed the exercises, and 46.9% reported them to be helpful. Generally, the parent evaluators reported that the site worked well on its own (47.4%) or would have benefited &dquo;a little&dquo; from the direct assistance of a professional (47.4%). None of the parents reported that &dquo;a lot&dquo; of assistance would be needed for the site to be helpful. Seventy-four percent reported that they used information from the site to try and help their child, and 79% reported that what they attempted was actually helpful. To further assess the Web site’s practicality, we inquired on the follow-up survey whether the evaluators had returned to the site; half had done so. In the overall site evaluation, we asked whether the parents had recommended SPIES for Parents to other parents, care providers, or professionals; 11 of the 12 who answered this question had, and 7 had recommended it to another parent. Most of the individuals who recommended the site to others did so more than once. The qualitative analysis of parents’ comments indicated that the practicality of SPIES for Parents went beyond the utility of the content. Practicality was addressed by three of the four major identified themes: 1. process, learning, and 2. content criticism; and

growth;

25

3.

suggestions for improvements and additions.

ways that the site facilitated the parents’ learnand offered support were addressed by several idening subthemes: tified

Specific

1. increased their

awareness

of when and

how 2.

to help their child, improved their comfort with regard to service providers by improving their interactions with professionals and supporting their sense of control, helped to address IEP/IFSP issues, and

3. 4. affirmed their abilities

interact in ways that promote their children’s development. to

Several comments indicated that the glossary of terms was valuable in helping parents understand the acronyms and jargon frequently used in the IEP and IFSP processes. Some parents commented that they learned specific techniques from the site. Other parents were reminded of techniques they had learned elsewhere, perhaps from intervention providers. One parent reported, &dquo;I am more aware of the wait time for responses. I was doing well at that for a while and then let it go, so I started up again and I see a change in behavior and frustration.&dquo; Other evaluators found the site helpful in a more general way-in affirming their abilities. For example, one parent said, &dquo;I learned that I am already helping my child, even though I feel pretty helpless.&dquo; Another parent noted, &dquo;Noticed how I do many of these things and now it was nice to label them in parent and teacher terms.&dquo; Parents’ suggestions for further improving the utility and quality of the site included (a) specific suggestions about the curriculum, (b) more general recommendations about the Web site, and (c) suggestions about sites to which our Web site could be linked. They expressed a desire for information that could be tailored to their particular child. For example, two parents suggested that the site include a &dquo;library&dquo; of examples showing how techniques could be applied to develop a range of skills; another parent suggested that it provide more specific guidance on where a child’s skills might fall in a hierarchy. Some parents proffered the idea that links to other sites might give families disability-specific information and that a link to a site that offered IEP/IFSP objectives would be helpful. As might be expected of adult learners, parents wanted the site to be navigationally flexible in order to meet their styles of learning. Their comments indicated that the text was clear and well organized. The balance of text and video to communicate information was obviously important and, as would be expected of adult learners, their opinions varied. One parent said, &dquo;The videos provide a visual for me to follow. If I wasn’t sure exactly

what the written description was trying to teach, I could look at the visual example.&dquo; Conversely, another parent commented, &dquo;The information was self-explanatory; I feel like the videos were not needed for this chapter.&dquo; Other responses illustrated the different ways that adults access information: One parent found the text to be &dquo;the core of the lesson,&dquo; whereas another person thought it included too many examples.

Question 3. Was the Web Site

Appropriate? perceived the site and its confor the intended audience, we asked appropriate the parents about how well the site met its stated purpose. Of the 18 parents who completed this part of the evaluation, 17 rated it as appropriate, while 1 parent answered &dquo;don’t know.&dquo; In the follow-up survey, all respondents endorsed the belief that SPIES for Parents was appropriate for parents. An analysis of the parents’ comments corroborated the numerical ratings of appropriateness. The parent evaluators viewed the site as a meaningful and valid means of assisting parents in learning new ways to help their children. Comments included the following: To learn whether parents tent as

~

~

~

tent

&dquo;It

was

appropriate

for families of all types

of children.&dquo; &dquo;Confirms the importance of everyday parenting, supports parents in that there are many more opportunities for the child to learn with the parents than in the few hours with the professional.&dquo; &dquo;For parents who are just beginning their journey in the field of special needs, it is a good starting point for general info on implementing strategies for learning.&dquo;

Finally, a fourth theme that emerged from the conanalysis, &dquo;other appropriate audiences,&dquo; affirmed the

pertinent comment was, &dquo;All of the teaching methods could be used in everyday living, even with children who don’t have a disability.&dquo; site’s usefulness. A

Implications The evaluation illustrated that parents found an Internetbased curriculum to be practical, accessible, and appropriate. This small but geographically diverse group of parents who had no prior relationship with the Web site developers reported that on the Web site they found different and successful solutions for helping their children. Their comments indicated that SPIES for Parents validated their current parenting practices. Only one major issue was noted: Approximately half of the evaluators

26

found it difficult to download and access the videos. This suggests that even though delivery of video-based content has improved in ease and simplicity, it remains a difficult and complicated process for many individuals. The measures we had taken to assist parents in viewing the videos were not sufficient to help all of them. At the point on the site where videos were linked, we provided detailed instructions regarding accessing them. We also provided technical assistance via e-mail and, upon request, contacted them by phone. Because not all the evaluators had the necessary software to download video, we provided a link to enable them to download Apple’s QuickTimeO free of charge. Given the results of this evaluation, we subsequently designed a technical assistance page that included a link for parents to test the ease of downloading before they reached a video example. They thus could determine whether to try and download or to skip the video and rely on textual information. We can conclude that to the extent a procedurally based Web site is simple, concise, and fast, it will be accessed and used by its intended audience. This highlights an important difference between how information is accessed via the Internet versus other, more traditional means. In classrooms or seminars, individuals seem willing to devote extended amounts of time and energy to obtaining information. When using the Internet, however, they expect to receive information quickly. For individuals and organizations who rely on the Internet to advertise or enhance interventions, this factor raises a concern. Initial visits (hit rates) alone may not accurately indicate whether a site is successful. More accurate indicators may include repeat hit rates, length of time users stay on a site, and contacts made with an information provider after an initial visit.

information-from a simple glossary of terms to video examples of adult-child interactions that showed how specific practices could be used across children, settings, and skill areas. Finally, their comments suggested that the information on the site took some of the mystery out of best practices as something that professionals do. As one parent commented about the curriculum, It

relative

life

experiences, and

it did child into a clinic require bring my I where would feel I was setting raising an even &dquo;more disabled&dquo; child. I could do all of this in my own home and share these simple activities with my husband. was

not

From this

site

to

me to

evaluation,

we

learned that

an

Internet

could

comdesigned provide procedural guidance the of direct intervention services. plement provision early We learned that it must be designed for use in different ways by different learners, with content presented in multiple modes. Finally, we learned that parents of young children with disabilities found procedural guidance to

be

a

to

useful support. + AUTHORS’ NOTES

1. This work was supported by Grant No. H324R990009 from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, and by Utah State University. No official en-

dorsement of the Department or Office should be inferred. site, as revised based upon this evaluation, can be accessed

2. The Web at

www.spiesforparents.cpd.usu.edu// NOTE

See

www.spiesforparents.cpd.usu.edu/Evaluation/Evalpage.htm. REFERENCES

Study

Limitations

This

study had several limitations. The sample of parents

was

small, and although it was geographically diverse, only

racially or ethnically diverse. The results thus are most generalizable to White, non-Hispanic parents of children with disabilities. Second, the results apply only 20%

was

Internet-literate adults. Despite these limitations, several findings can be useful to practitioners who want to use the Web to support intervention practice. The first is the process itself: Involvement of family members in every phase of curriculum adaptation and site building no doubt contributed to the site’s relevance and usefulness. Second, and serendipitous for purposes of this evaluation, the comments of the participants underscored an issue of importance to early intervention personnel: The participants expressed appreciation that this information about early intervention practices affirmed their role in the intervention process. They also affirmed the usefulness of a range of to

Bandura, A.,

& Kupers, C. J. (1964). Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69 (1), 1-9. . New York: LongBarnum, C. M. (2002). Usability testing and research man.

H., Odom, S. L., & Conroy, M. A. (2001). An intervention for promoting young children’s peer interactions in natural environments. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,

Brown,

W.

hierarchy

21, 162-175. The Center for Persons with Disabilities. (1998). Strategies for preschool intervention in everyday settings: A video-assisted program for educators and families-Facilitator manual. Logan: Utah State University, Author. Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services, Early Childhood Research Institute. (n.d.). Strategies for preschool intervention in everyday settings: A video-assisted program for educators and families [videos and facilitator manual]. Available at http://

ericps.crc.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/clasSearch/viewitem.cgi?id=2524 M. (1996). Human factors for technical communicators. New York: Wiley Computer Publishing. Driscoll, M. (1998) Web-based training: Using technology to design adult learning experiences. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Dunst, C. J., Hamby, D., Trivette, C. M., Raab, M., & Bruder, M. B. (2000). Everyday family and community life and children’s natuCoe,

27

rally occurring learning opportunities. Journal of Early

Interven-

tion, 23, 151-164. R. (2001). Mastering computers: Weaving usable webDirections, 60 (7), 12. Hager, D., Kibler, C., & Zack, L. (1999). The basics of user friendly web design. Journal for Quality and Participation, 22 (3), 58-62. Hart, B. M., & Risley, T. R. (1975). Incidental teaching of language in the preschool. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 411-420. Hepting, N. H., & Goldstein, H. (1996). What’s natural about naturalistic language intervention? Journal of Early Intervention, 20,

Goldsborough, sites. Tech

249-265.

Schwartz, I. S. (2000). Supporting young children’s IEP goals in inclusive settings through embedded learning opportunities. Topics in Early Childhood Spe-

Horn, E., Lieber, J., Li, S., Sandall, S., &

cial Education, 20, 208-223. L. J., & LaMontagne, M. J. (1993). Using content analysis to examine the verbal or written communication of stakeholders within early intervention. Journal of Early Intervention, 17, 73-79. Kaiser, A. P., Hancock, T. B., & Nietfeld, J. P. (2000). The effects of parent-implemented enhanced milieu teaching on the social communication of children who have autism. Early Education and De-

Johnson,

velopment, 11,

423-446. Don’t make me think: A common sense guide to web usability. Indianapolis: New Riders Publishing. Luck, D. D., & Hunter, J. M. (1997). Visual design principles applied to World Wide Web construction. In VisionQuest: Journeys toward

Krug,

S.

(2000).

visual literacy. Selected readings from the Annual Conference of the International Visual Literacy Association (np). (ERIC Document

Reproduction

Service No. ED 408

985)

Mobayed,

K.

L., Collins, B. C., Strangis, D. E., Schuster, J. W., &

Hemmeter, M. L. (2000). Teaching parents to employ mand-model procedures to teach their children requesting. Journal of Early Intervention, 23, 165-179. Orkwis, R., DeCarme, J., & Glover, J. (1998). Research, innovation, and evaluation: Discretionary project supported by the Office of Special Education Programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Fiscal Year 1997. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children. Orkwis, R., DeCarme, J., & Glover, J. (2001). Research, innovation, and evaluation: Discretionary project supported by the Office of Special Education Programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Arlington, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children. Rowland, C. J. (1996). Formative evaluation of the videodisc-based curriculum: Naturalistic Instruction for Young Children with Disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Utah State University,

Logan. Rule, S. (1999). Development and evaluation of a program to teach naturalistic early intervention strategies in inclusive environments (Final Report, Project No. H029K50148). Submitted to U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Washington, DC. Sandall, S., McLean, M. E., & Smith, B. (2000). DEC recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood special education. Longmont, CO: Sopris West. , 161-168. Smith, V. H., & Ross, D. (1999). Got Web? PC World, 17 Tisot, C. M., & Thurman, S. K. (2002). Using behavior setting theory to define natural settings: A family-centered approach. Infants and (3), 65-71. Young Children, 14