ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF A COMMUNITY - BASED EARLY INTERVENTION
PROGRAM FOR CHILDREN
WITH DISABILITIES IN HUE CITY
Nguyen Viet Nhan; Ute Schwabe; Hoang Thi Dieu Hong; Tran Thi Phuong Anh; Huynh Thi Cam Tu
THE UNIVERSITY OF
SYDNEY
WORLD REPORT ON DISABILITY SYMPOSIUM 5-6 DECEMBER 2011
Hue College of Medicine and Pharmacy
Hue city
VIETNAM
Office of Genetic Counseling and Disabled Children (OGCDC)
Introducing the community- based Early Intervention
program of OGCDC
Support children with disabilities under 6 years of age
Assess the effectiveness of early
intervention in the community for
children with disabilities using the
PORTAGE ASSESSMENT and
INTERVENTION TOOL
Method
Children
Intake / Developmental
Screening
Eligible for services (33)
NOT eligible for services
Medical
Examination
Portage
assessment
Individualized service plan
INTERVENTION
Evaluation
Teachers
Parents
Supervisors
Document
Portage: Parent’s guide & Checklist
Vietnamized Vineland and Portage Checklist
Portage: Vietnammized tool kit
A set of documet
Training for home visitors and parents
The interdisciplinary meeting
Training for parents
Training for home visitors
Evaluation the result of EI
Subject
Kinds of disabilities
Mute and
deaf (1)
3%
Age:






1 y/o (2) 6.1%
2 y/o (7) 21.2%
3 y/o (14) 42.4%
4 y/o (5) 15.2%
5 y/o (4) 12.1%
6 y/o (1) 3.1%
Intellectual
disabilities
(11) 34%
Learning
dificulties
(2) 6%
 Male (20) 60.6%
Down
syndrome
(7)
21%
Autism
(10)
30%
 Female (13) 39.4%
Cerebral
palsy (2)
6%
Assessment and home visit
Medical examination of child
Assess childs abilities in 5 sessions
Home-visits by a teachers
Playgroup activities
Creating opportunities for parents to share together
Results
Education of children pre- and post-participation the program
Before intervention
After intervention
(January/2010)
(December/2010)
Valid
Frequency
(n=33)
Percent
Frequency
(n=33)
Percent
No school
25
75.8
8
27.3
Kindergarten
8
24.2
13
36.4
Special school
0
0.00
5
15.2
Normal primary school
0
0.00
1
3.0
Early intervention class
0
0.00
6
18.2
Comparison of the developmental level of children’s skills
after one year of intervention by Portage assessment checklist
second assessment (Dec 2010)
first assessment (Jan 2010)
Skills
20.15
Language
12.97
36.12
Motor
24.61
27.91
Cognitive
16.45
33.18
Self help
22.58
31.39
Socialization
20.91
0
5
10
15
20
25
Mean age in months
30
35
40
Comparison of the developmental level of childrens’ skills
between groups after one year intervention
First assessment
Mean age in months
Skills
No
in first assessment
Down
Cerebral
Autism
palsy
9.33
Learning
difficulties
Intellectual
disabilities
Mute
and deaf
Sig.
1
Socialization
25.86
11.43
30.60
20.89
30.00
p < 0,05
2
Self help
24.00 20.33 18.29
29.40
20.56
28.00
p > 0,05
3
Cognitive
17.71 14.00 10.71
27.80
14.56
16.00
p < 0,05
4
Motor
23.43 16.67 23.71
32.00
24.11
27.50
p>0,05
5
Language
15.29 15.00
19.80
11.33
13.00
p < 0,05
7.00
Comparison of the developmental level of childrens’ skills
between groups after one year intervention
Second assessment
Mean age in months
Skill
No
in second assessment
Down
Cerebral
palsy
Autism
Learning
Intellectual
Mute and
difficulties
disabilities
deaf
Sig.
1
Socialization
41.14
13.67
25.43
44.60
26.00
36.00
p<0.05
2
Self help
38.71
27.33
34.43
39.80
25.22
37.50
p > 0,05
p1 = 0.012
3
Cognitive
32.86
16.67
28.14
44.40
18.44
28.00
p2 = 0.06
p3 = 0.003
4
Motor
40.43
19.33
38.29
50.20
27.89
40.50
p<0.05
5
Language
24.86
18.00
14.29
33.40
15.67
14.50
p<0.05
Conclusion
Achievements

Raising awareness and skills of families.

Group activities for parents sharing their emotions and
experiences in caring for their disabled children

Providing knowledge and enhancing skills for the teachers in
supporting children with disabilities.

Beginning interdisciplinary cooperation: geneticist,
paediatricians, psychiatrists, speech therapists, physical
therapists, etc...

Children with disabilities have more opportunities to participate
in social activities with their families and other children.
Difficulties

Limited of staff and supervisor in number and skill comparing
to the current needs.

There is not really good cooperation yet among the
interdisciplinary team in the program

Difficulties in diagnosis and assessment of skills of children
with autism.

Experiencing limitations in intervention strategies for children
with autism.

There are still a lack of schools / centers for children with
autism to be integrated.
Hue , my city
Thank you for your attention!