Susan Langendonk
Susan Bradley
Dawn Anderson
Robert Wall Emerson
2
Michigan Severity Rating Scales
History and Development
• Adapted from the Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania model beginning in 1995
• Published and disseminated by the
Michigan Department of Education –
Special Education Services
3
• Orientation and Mobility Severity Rating
Scale (OMSRS)
• Orientation and Mobility Severity Rating
Scale for students with Additional Needs
(OMSRS+)
4
• MDE-LIO Orientation and Mobility Task
Force formed in November 2007
• Revising Michigan Orientation and Mobility
Severity Rating Scale-Task Force’s first
project
5
• Web search indicated OMSRS was being
used and referenced in documents in
several other states
• Referred to in O&M university preparation
programs
• MDE-LIO Task Force did an on-line survey
in March 2008
6
• Field Tested in Michigan
• Article in AER Journal Research and
Practice in Visual Impairment and
Blindness Winter 2009
• Updated OMSRS and added OMSRS+ to
MDE-LIO and TSBVI websites November
2008
7
Internationally recognized
• Texas School for the Blind and Visually
Impaired (TSBVI)
• Colorado Department of Education
Guidelines for Caseload Formula
• Massachusetts Assoc. of Educators of VI
Students
• Calgary, Alberta, Canada
• Scholarly references
8
What they are:
• A data collection tool
• A guide based on best practices
• Guideline for IEP team service discussion
9
What they are not:
• Not an assessment
• Not a severity of disability but a severity
of student’s need for services
• Not a pre-determiner of service
• Not the only data source
10
11
7%
39%
TCVI
O&M
Dual
54%
12
18%
33%
23%
26%
O&MSRS
O&MSRS+
VSSRS
VSSRS+
13
When Do They Complete a Scale?
Prior to IEP
8%
17%
25%
Re-eval
Change in vision
21%
29%
Change in
program
Other
14
Factors Considered When Updating
(n=53):
Change in vision/motor skill
25
To verify service time
18
Change in program/staff/campus
14
Annual caseload analysis, IEP
14
Tri-annual assessment
6
Assess current level, initial assessment
5
When asked for
5
Student needs
4
Establish eligibility
4
Student not progressing
2
Depends on situation
15
With Whom They Complete the Scale
6%
18%
Alone
With Parents
With Team
76%
16
Do External Factors Make a Difference?
47%
53%
Yes
No
17
What Are Those Factors (n=35)?
Academic level, age
18
Parental involvement
12
Paraprofessional, classroom support
6
Medical fragility, additional disabilities
6
Goals & objectives, expectations
6
Appropriate travel skills, independent
5
Classroom placement, accommodations
4
Involvement of other therapists
3
New environments
2
Service delivery model
18
Is It Used for Caseload Analysis?
29%
34%
Yes
No
Sometimes
37%
19
How Important is it in Caseload
Analysis?
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Sole factor Several equal
factors
Most
important
factor
Not important
20
Scenarios
Several students were described for both
the O&MSRS and the O&MSRS+.
Visual status, academic setting and other
characteristics that are crucial to
determining the severity of need for
services were outlined.
Respondents were asked to fill out the
Scales, then answer questions.
21
O&MSRS: How Well Are Areas Of
Concern Covered?
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
75
17
8
Very well
Somewhat
Neutral
0
0
Not very
well
Not at all
22
O&MSRS: How Well do Contributing
Factors Address +/- of Service?
70
65
60
50
40
30
25
20
10
6
4
Neutral
Not very
well
0
Very well
Somewhat
0
Not at all
23
O&MSRS: Comparison of Frequency of
Service Time on Survey to Own
Caseload
70
60
61
50
40
29
30
20
10
6
4
Neutral
Not very
close
0
Very close
Somewhat
close
0
Not close at
all
24
O&MSRS: How Well do Service Times
Match Instructional Needs?
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
67
17
Very well
Somewhat
10
Neutral
6
Not very
well
0
Not at all
25
O&MSRS: If Service Can't Happen
Too many students
34%
38%
Mandated service time
Unexpected variables
Don't agree with results
9%
17%
2%
Other
26
O&MSRS: Overall Usefulness & Validity
2%
0% 2% 0%
Very useful
6%
Somewhat useful
16%
Neutral
Not very useful
74%
Not useful at all
Useful only
Scenario 1
27
OMSRS Suggestions for Change:
Severity of Need Profile
No changes; get more people to use it
9
Reword portions; correct spacing
2
Confusion on how to score Profound in level of vision
2
Split OMSRS to OM SRS
1
Specific number for each category
1
Distinguish between direct and indirect time
1
Service times vary by need
1
28
OMSRS Suggestions for Change:
Contributing Factors
No changes
9
Student opportunities & experiences
3
Time traveled to teach isn’t adequately accounted for
2
Split OMSRS to OM SRS
1
Specific number for each category
1
Distinguish between direct and indirect time
1
Service times vary by need
1
Consider only adding to score
1
29
OMSRS Suggestions for Change:
Recommendations for Services
Develop reasonable caseload size
2
Add section where discrepancy between SRS rec.&
actual rec. can be explained
2
Frequency & time recs. should use same units
1
Link lesson length to lesson content area
1
Add option for 2-4 times / month
1
Make language more approachable
1
30
OMSRS Suggestions for Change:
Positive Impacts on Services
Showed the IEP team the rationale for services
12
Justified a new hire / prevented layoff
8
Explained job to supervisor
Helps with consistency
4
Gives parents timeline reference
1
Actually validated a decrease in staff need
1
Gives parents a means of “proving” need for O&M
services
1
Caused dissention among professionals, parents &
administrators
1
4
31
O&MSRS+: How Well Are Areas Of
Concern Covered?
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
70
22.5
Very well Somewhat
5
2.5
0
Neutral
Not very
well
Not at all
32
O&MSRS+: How Well do Contributing
Factors Address +/- of Service?
70
60
59
50
40
30
26
20
10
10
5
0
Very well Somewhat
Neutral
Not very
well
0
Not at all
33
O&MSRS+: Comparison of Frequency
of Service on Survey to Own Caseload
60
50
40
49
36
30
20
13
10
2
0
Not very
close
Not close
at all
0
Very close Somewhat
close
Neutral
34
Scenarios: Usefulness of O&MSRS+ for
service time
0% 3%
0%
0%
Very useful
5%
Somewhat useful
Neutral
33%
Not very useful
59%
Not useful at all
Useful only
Scenario 1
O&MSRS+: If Service Can't Happen
Too many students
28%
44%
8%
15%
Mandated service
time
Unexpected
variables
Don't agree with
results
Other
5%
35
36
O&MSRS+: Overall Usefulness &
Validity
0% 2%
0% 0%
3%
Very useful
5%
Somewhat useful
Neutral
32%
Not very useful
58%
Not useful at all
Useful only
Scenario 1
37
OMSRS+ Suggestions for Change:
Severity of Need Profile
None
Wording can be misleading
Add section for recommendations other than from the
SRS
Add a CVI component
Disagree about level of supervision for safe travel –
discriminates against severe disabilities
6
38
OMSRS+ Suggestions for Change:
Contributing Factors
None
Teamwork in deciding times in all areas
Student experiences and opportunities
Add option to list medications that might impact
instruction
5
39
OMSRS+ Suggestions for Change:
Recommendations for Services
None
Compliance with instruction seems to inflate service
time
6
40
OMSRS+: Positive Impact on Services
Showed IEP team rationale for service
6
Helps with consistency
2
Justify new hire, prevent layoffs
2
Showed need for services for multi handicapped child
 Reliability
(precision)
• Respondents overwhelmingly identified the
scales as measuring the significant factors to be
considered in O&M
 Validity
• O&M SRS above 90% accuracy
• O&M SRS+ showed 84% accuracy
41
42
• Service information from the Michigan
Severity Rating Scales
• Additional hours per week needed for
support
• Hours per week for travel
43
• bradleys1@michigan.gov
• langendonks@michigan.gov
• dawn.l.anderson@wmich.edu
• Rob.wall@wmich.edu
44
• MDE-LIO – Michigan Severity Rating
Scales:
• http://tinyurl.com/44yq947
• Caseload Analysis Resources:
• http://tinyurl.com/453fy8j
• http://tinyurl.com/43ebsrx
45
John C. Austin
President
Casandra E. Ulbrich
Vice President
Nancy Danhof
Secretary
Marianne Yared McGuire
Treasurer
Richard Zeile
NASBE Delegate
Kathleen N. Straus
Daniel Varner
Eileen Lappin Weiser
Rick Snyder, Governor
Michael P. Flanagan
Superintendent of Public Instruction