EARLY CHILDHOOD OUTCOMES DIRECT SERVICE PROVIDER QUALITY RATING CHECKLIST

SURVEILLANCE AND EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS OF INFECTIOUS DISEASE IN
032021%20CENORED_14052021Supply%20and%20Delivery%20of%20Transformers,%20Miniature%20Substations,%20RMUs,%20Reclosers%20and%20Metering%20Units%20(Two%20Yearly%20Contract)
14 EFFECT OF EARLY NUTRITION ON CARCASS AND

14501750 EARLY MODERN PERIOD BRYANT MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS I QUESTIONS
16 AN OVERVIEW OF EARLY ARMENIAN MONASTICISM ABRAHAM TERIAN
19 EARLY MEDIEVAL INDIA MANY HISTORIANS INDIAN AND BRITISH

Child Outcome Summary Form Process (COSF)

Early Childhood Outcomes

Direct Service Provider Quality Rating Checklist


This form was developed for use by networks and districts to ensure that the direct service provider is completing the COSF rating according to established State guidelines. This form can be used for monitoring individual child COSF ratings or for training new direct service staff. Instructions for completing the COSF are located at http://www.kskits.org


Direct Service Provider Criteria for

Child Outcomes Summary Process


Meets Criteria

Y/N

Revisions Needed/Reviewer Comments

Date Completed

  1. First date of service, district/network number, KIDS ID number, and child’s legal name are included on the COSF.




  1. Ratings are completed within 30 calendar days of the first and last date of service.




  1. Teams of more than one professional work together to complete the process of determining ratings for the COSF.




  1. Roles of persons involved in summary ratings are documented on the COSF exactly as they appear in Table 2 of the Outcomes Web System Users Guide.




  1. Parents are part of the assessment process and contribute information through interviews, assessments, or other methods.




  1. Assessment information used to make COSF ratings for each outcome must include information from one of the approved curriculum-based assessments listed in Table 4 of the Outcome Web System Users Guide*, as well as parent input as described in #5 and #10, but may also include additional information from the following sources:

  • observation

  • screening

  • interview

  • other tests

  • record review

*For children with only one area of concern (i.e. children receiving only Speech, OT or PT services), who can be accurately rated a 6 or a 7 in all three outcomes on the basis of record review, interview, observation, tests, and screening information, the curriculum based assessment requirement is waived.





  1. Documenting the Basis for the Rating is used to organize the data to answer the Decision Tree questions.






  1. The Decision Tree process is supported by data to determine ratings for each outcome. There is a logical correlation between the summary of relevant results and the COSF rating.




  1. Supporting evidence includes the sources of information, dates, and summaries of relevant results for each source. The type of evidence used is documented in the supporting evidence section exactly as it appears in Table 3 of the Outcomes Web System Users Guide.




  1. Family input is included in the supporting evidence section of the COSF (i.e., interview, observation) and information from family members is included in the summary of relevant results section for each outcome.




  1. Summary of relevant results describes what the child is able to do and addresses the child’s functional use of skills across settings and situations.




  1. Only one date is entered for each supporting evidence entry. That is the last date data was collected for that supporting evidence.




  1. At permanent exit, steps 1-12 above are completed again and, the progress question is addressed for each outcome.




  1. Direct service providers follow procedures developed by the LEA or I/T Network for entering data into the Outcomes Web System or sending it to the person responsible for data entry.








2


Adapted from: Hornback, M. (2010, April), Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF) Direct Service Provider Process Quality Rating Form. Parsons, KS: Kansas Inservice Training System, University of Kansas. Revised 8-26-11.


2012 WINTEREARLY SPRING THURSDAY NIGHT TRACK RACING SERIES FEBRUARY
20122013 PEIMS DATA STANDARDS APPENDIX H EARLY NOTICE OF
2015 – YEAR IV MENTOR APPLICATION PRINT CLEARLY IN


Tags: checklist this, childhood, quality, early, rating, checklist, outcomes, service, provider, direct