Michigan Orientation & Mobility Severity Rating Scales:
Tools Supported by Data
Susan Langendonk
Susan Bradley
Dawn Anderson
2
Michigan Severity Rating ScalesHistory and Development
• Adapted from the Montgomery County, Pennsylvania model beginning in 1995
• Published and disseminated by the Michigan Department of Education – Special Education Services
Michigan Severity Rating ScalesHistory and Development
3
• Orientation and Mobility Severity Rating Scale (OMSRS)
• Orientation and Mobility Severity Rating Scale for students with Additional Needs (OMSRS+)
History and Development Orientation & Mobility Scales
Revised 2008
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
History and Development Orientation & Mobility Scales
Revised 2008
• 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
History and Development Orientation & Mobility Scales
Revised 2008
• Presented in working sessions at MAER Conference, Livonia, MI, April 2007 and 2008
• Presented in a working session at AER International Conference in Chicago, July 2008
7
History and Development Orientation & Mobility Scales
Revised 2008
• 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
8
Michigan Severity Rating ScalesHistory and Development
Internationally recognized
• Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired (TSBVI)
• Colorado Department of Education Guidelines for Caseload Formula
9
Michigan Severity Rating ScalesHistory and Development
Internationally recognized
• Massachusetts Assoc. of Educators of VI Students
• Calgary, Alberta, Canada
• Scholarly references
Michigan Severity Rating Scales
What they are:
10
• A data collection tool
• A guide based on best practices
• Guideline for IEP team service discussion
What they are not:
11
Michigan Severity Rating Scales
• 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
Orientation & Mobility Severity Rating Scales:
The survey
12
13
OMSRS Survey
7%
54%
39% TCVIO&MDual
14
What Do They Teach?
94%
6%
Teach Just O&MTeach TCVI & O&M
15
Previous Experience with the Scales
O&MSRS O&MSRS+ VSSRS VSSRS+0
102030405060708090
78
63.456.1
43.9
16
When Do They Complete a Scale?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
57.5
67.5
50
40
17.5
17
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
18
With Whom They Complete the Scale
76%
18%
6%
AloneWith ParentsWith Team
19
Do external factors make a difference?
54%47% Yes
No
20
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 1
21
Is It Used for Caseload Analysis?
38%
49%
Some-times10%
YesNoSometimes
22
How Important is it in Caseload Analysis?
Sole
fact
or
Seve
ral e
qual
fact
ors
Mos
t im
porta
nt fa
ctor
Not im
porta
nt0
20
40
60
23
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.
24
O&MSRS: How Well Are Areas Of Concern Covered?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80 75
178
0 0
25
O&MSRS: How Well do Contributing Factors Address +/- of Service?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 65
25
6 40
26
O&MSRS: Comparison of frequency of service time on survey to own caseload
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
7061
29
6 40
27
O&MSRS: How well do service times match instructional needs?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
8067
1710
60
28
O&MSRS: If Service Can't Happen
Too m
any s
tudents
Mandate
d s
erv
ice
tim
e
Unexpect
ed
vari
able
s
Don't
agre
e w
ith
resu
lts O
ther0
10203040
29
O&MSRS: Overall Usefulness & Validity
Very
use
ful
Som
ew
hat
use
ful
Neutr
al
Not
very
use
ful
Not
use
ful at
all
Use
ful only
Sce
nari
o 1
Use
ful only
Sce
nari
o 2
0
20
40
60
80 75
166
0 2 2 0
30
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
31
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
OMSRS Suggestions for Change:Contributing Factors
32
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
Link lesson length to lesson content area
Add option for 2-4 times / month
Make language more approachable
33
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 4
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
34
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
8070
22.5
5 2.5 0
O&MSRS+: How Well Are Areas Of Concern Covered?
35
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
7059
26
105
0
O&MSRS+: How Well do Contributing Factors Address +/- of Service?
36
O&MSRS+: Comparison of frequency of service on survey to own caseload
0
10
20
30
40
50
6049
36
13
2 0
37
Scenarios: Usefulness of O&MSRS+for service time
Very
use
ful
Som
ew
hat u
sefu
l
Neutra
l
Not v
ery
use
ful
Not u
sefu
l at a
ll
Use
ful o
nly
Sce
nario
1
Use
ful o
nly
Sce
nario
2
0
20
40
6059
33
50 0 0 2.6
38
O&MSRS+: If Service Can't Happen
Too m
any s
tudents
Mandate
d s
erv
ice
tim
e
Unexpect
ed
vari
able
s
Don't
agre
e w
ith
resu
lts O
ther0
20
40
60
39
O&MSRS+: Overall Usefulness & Validity
Very
use
ful
Som
ew
hat
use
ful
Neutr
al
Not
very
use
ful
Not
use
ful at
all
Use
ful only
Sce
nari
o 1
Use
ful only
Sce
nari
o 2
Use
ful only
for
Sce
nari
o 3
0
20
40
6059
33
50 2 0 0 3
40
OMSRS+ Suggestions for Change:Severity of Need Profile
None 6
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
41
OMSRS+ Suggestions for Change:Contributing Factors
None 5
Teamwork in deciding times in all areas
Student experiences and opportunities
Add option to list medications that might impact instruction
42
OMSRS+ Suggestions for Change:Recommendations for Services
None 6
Compliance with instruction seems to inflate service time
Section for recommendations other than those indicated by the SRS would be helpful
Leave the last box blank on compliance & communication so the highest score could only be a 6
43
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 childHelps in forecasting need for personnel to meet student demand
Components of Caseload Analysis
44
• Service information from the Michigan Severity Rating Scales
• Additional hours per week needed for support
• Hours per week for travel
Resources
46
• MDE-LIO – Michigan Severity RatingScales:
• http://tinyurl.com/44yq947
• Caseload Analysis Resources:
• http://tinyurl.com/453fy8j
• http://tinyurl.com/43ebsrx
Michigan State Board of Education
John C. AustinPresident
Casandra E. Ulbrich Vice PresidentNancy Danhof
SecretaryMarianne Yared
McGuireTreasurer
Rick Snyder, Governor
Michael P. FlanaganSuperintendent of Public Instruction
Richard ZeileNASBE Delegate
Kathleen N. Straus
Daniel Varner
Eileen Lappin Weiser
47
Top Related