From Early

Intervention to
Early Childhood
Programs:
Timeline for Early Successful
Transitions (TEST)

J O Y C E A. B R A N D E S ,
C H R I S T I N E K. O R M S B E E ,
AND K AT H RY N A. H A R I N G

More than one million transitions between early
intervention services and early childhood programs
are facilitated annually for youngsters with special
needs. To be successful, these transitions require
planning and ongoing communication between all
parties. This article substantiates the need for a
timeline/checklist and provides a model of sequen-
tial steps from onset to completion of the transition
process. The Timeline for Early Successful Transi-
tion (TEST) facilitates an effective and well-planned
transition that supports the child, family, and ser-
vice personnel.
verybody goes through transitional events in
By the time a child identified with a developmental
delay reaches age 6, he or she most likely will have expe-
rienced at least two transitions relevant to education.
These may include entering and exiting an early interven-
tion (EI) program, early childhood (EC) program, and, in
many states, an elementary program. These moves trans-
late into at least 1.5 million early childhood school-
related transitions each year in the United States (Coun-
cil for Exceptional Children, 2001). For these transitions
to be effective and go relatively smoothly, appropriate
planning and communication is necessary (Shonkoff &
Phillips, 2000; Yeboah, 2002).
The movement from infant/toddler (ages 0–2) to
preschool (ages 3–5) services requires a change in where

E life. Milestones, such as your first steps, your

first words, birthdays, and anniversaries, mark
this process from infancy into adulthood. Re-
lated to education, transitional events such as
grade levels achieved, diplomas earned, and employment
attained serve as markers and are assumed to be natural
transitions in that they are predictable.
services take place, how families are involved, and the ed-
ucational and supportive expectations of service providers
(Fox, Dunlap, & Cushing, 2002). A timeline delineating
who will be involved and when helps ensure a seamless
transition between meaningful educational opportunities
and services for a child with special needs. This article
will describe the instrument, Timeline for Early Successful

204 I NTERVENTION IN S CHOOL AND C LINIC VOL . 42, N O. 4, M ARCH 2007 ( PP. 204–211)
Transition (TEST), which is built around the two major
components of smooth and successful transitions: plan-
ning and communication.
Planning
Program continuity through developmentally appropri-
ate curricula can only be accomplished through adequate
planning (Rosenkoetter, Hains, & Fowler, 1994). The In-
dividuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of
1997 (IDEA ’97), and Title 34, Parts 300 and 303 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) mandate that the In-
dividualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) include steps
that facilitate transition of a young child with disabilities
to appropriate EC programs and services. IDEA ’97 fur-
ther directs the EI agency to notify the local education
agency at least 90 days prior to the child’s third birthday
to schedule a conference that brings together representa-
tives of the sending and receiving agencies with the child’s
family members to plan a meaningful transition with
minimal disruption to the family. Keeping families in-
volved in their children’s education is of primary impor-
tance (Lucyshyn, Dunlap, & Albin, 2002; Shonkoff &
Phillips, 2000; Webster-Stratton, 1998) and must be ac-
commodated. To ensure continuity of appropriate sup-
port and services, a minimum of 6 to 12 months is
suggested for planning for and placement of a child in his
or her new environment.
Preparation of Child
The change in location of services, service providers, and
programs is disruptive and a source of increased stress for
both the young child and the family (Rosenkoetter et al.,
1994; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). This strain can be more
pronounced when the child, the sending agency, and the
child’s family are not adequately prepared for those
changes (Bruder & Chandler, 1996). An important part of
preparing the child is the development and generaliza-
tion of transition skills and behaviors that link the sending
program to the receiving program. These may include
(a) social behavior and self-care skills, (b) motivation and
problem-solving skills, (c) pre-academic or academic sup-
port skills and task-related behavior, and (d) communica-
tion skills.
Systematic Approach
Additional preparation for the change in personnel and
location of services should follow a sequential transition
that involves the following:
1. A representative of the sending agency arranges a
visit and accompanies the parents or guardians in
observing potential programs.
2. Parents or guardians and their child visit potential
program sites when these are not in session.
3. Parents or guardians and their child visit potential
programs seen as viable placement options for a
short time while classes are in session.
This systematic approach allows the parents or
guardians and their child to observe and consider pro-
gram options, interact with prospective service providers,
and become familiar with the new environment gradu-
ally. It also provides information parents and guardians
can use to help their child acquire the prerequisite skills
previously mentioned. Representatives of the sending and
possible receiving agencies are actively involved at this
stage, assuring families and the child of a more produc-
tive experience (Fox et al., 2002).
Rapport
Through this process, educators in the prospective agen-
cies have opportunities to establish rapport with the par-
ents or guardians in informal environments while sharing
the expectations of the placements and programs. Aside
from directly stating these standards at the time of the
visit, the teachers can also provide the parents or guardians
with (a) class and school newsletters, (b) their names and
those of other professionals with whom the child may be
working, and (c) school telephone numbers (Fox et al.,
2002). Establishing positive communication with the par-
ents and guardians helps ease the potential awkwardness
of formal assessment, placement meetings, and working
with so many strangers. Careful consideration and a gen-
erous amount of time, attention, and support have been
shown to be effective in supporting parents and guardians
so that their child’s needs can be met (Harrower, Fox, Dun-
lap, & Kincaid, 2000; Timm, 1993).
Communication
When children transition from an EI program with
IFSPs to EC programs with Individualized Education
Plans (IEP), families are concerned about understanding
what will happen with the children (Rosenkoetter et al.,
1994). IFSPs address both children and their families as
priorities for early intervention services. In many states
this includes a home-based early intervention model.
The objective is not only to work with the children but
also to offer support and education to the parents and
guardians during the home visits (IDEA, 1997). Regular
home-based contact and consultation with a trained pro-
fessional supports family members and provides regular
opportunities for communication about the needs, con-
cerns, and desires of the families for their children (Bailey
et al., 1998). Families fear losing this important compo-
nent when their children transition from an EI program
VOL . 42, N O. 4, M ARCH 2007 205

to an EC program. In particular, they fear that decisions
regarding placement, programs, and curriculum will be
made without their input or agreement (Bailey et al.,
1998; Harrower et al., 2000). This concern is fed because
the focus of IEPs is that the child’s program is provided
by EC personnel away from the family environment, as
opposed to the EI program where the child’s needs are
addressed through the strengths and needs of the family.
Support
In the transition to preschool, most families are learning
new vocabulary and procedures relevant to their child’s
situation. In this process, it is important to be sensitive to
parents’ need for information that is fully and clearly pre-
sented (Fox et al., 2002; Lovett & Haring, 2002). Profes-
sionals must field parents’ or guardians’ questions and
check frequently for accurate understanding. They must
also plan for follow-up visits, phone calls, notes, and ac-
companying parents and guardians to meetings. Strong
support must come from both sending and receiving
agencies as they work collaboratively to ensure continu-
ity of services and support to both the family and the child
(Harrower et al., 2000). Finally, parents and guardians
must be regarded as equal partners on the decision-mak-
ing team (Bruder & Chandler, 1996).
Family Involvement
According to Harrower et al. (2000), families should par-
ticipate in developing a clear plan to facilitate their child’s
transition from early intervention to preschool services.
Such a plan needs to systematically
• incorporate ways to orient the child and family to the
receiving site,
• outline methods for supporting the child and family
in building competence and confidence (Harrower
et al., 2000; Rosenkoetter et al., 1994), and
206 I NTERVENTION IN S CHOOL AND C LINIC
• provide practical recommendations on how to sup-
port the child’s special needs (Lovett & Haring,
2002).
In addition to the communication and support facil-
itated through a clearly written transition plan, the roles
and responsibilities of all participants (i.e., sending and
receiving agencies, family members, and community agen-
cies) must be defined and understood by all parties in-
volved in the process. These basic guidelines ensure the
transition is relatively seamless and that the child and fam-
ily members experience a supportive and positive change
in service delivery.
TEST Instrument
When parents and guardians were interviewed regarding
their satisfaction with their child’s transition, a large ma-
jority stated that they prefer a checklist to help with the
transition process and to guide visits to the receiving en-
vironments (Chandler, 2001). When checklists/timelines
are followed, all parties are systematically informed, in-
volved, and prepared for events such as school district
assessments, IEP meetings, and the transportation sched-
ule (Hanline & Knowlton, 1988). A plan that outlines a
timeline with expectations helps guarantee cooperation,
communication, and continuity in a child’s program (Fox
et al., 2002). The TEST systematically supports moni-
toring and completion of assessments, meetings, planning,
and scheduling of transportation and other related ser-
vices by prescribing a timely and sequential approach for
a child, his family, and members of the team. Each mem-
ber on the transition team maintains a copy of the TEST
to facilitate communication among the team members.
TEST Contact Information
In the following section we look at the major compo-
nents of TEST and explain their purposes and use.
First Through Third Sections. The first element of the
TEST is the child’s name and the date of his or her 3rd
birthday featured prominently at the top of each page of
the Contact Information and Sequence form (see Figure
1 and Figure 2). This component serves as a prompt that
the transition from EI services to EC services must be
completed by the child’s third birthday. The second sec-
tion on the TEST Contact Information form is used to
identify contact information regarding the child’s parents
or guardians. The third section serves as a brief meeting
log that notes the date when the transition process was
initiated, the date when the process was completed, and
all meetings held between those two dates. These dates
could easily represent a span of 12 months.
 Timeline for Early Successful Transition for John Smith 3rd Birthday November 18, 2006
Family Information
Joe & Ann Smith 1234 Anywhere Street jas@tech.edu 321-7887 322-0399
Anywhere, US 74123

Parents/Guardians Street and/or P.O. Box E-mail Primary Phone Number Other Phone Number
Town, State & Zip Code

Meetings
November 27, 2005 _______________
Date of Initiation of Transition Process Date of Completion of Transition Process
11-27-05 (3:30 p.m.) 2-4-06 (7:30 a.m.) ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________
1st Meeting 2nd Meeting 3rd Meeting 4th Meeting 5th Meeting 6th Meeting
Date/Time Date/Time Date/Time Date/Time Date/Time Date/Time

Agencies
Sooner Start 3840 Sooner Start Street sstart@sss.com 895-5015 895-3558
Norman, OK 77073
Early Intervention Street and/or P.O. Box E-mail Primary Phone Other Phone
(EI) Agency Town, State & Zip Code

Kendall Preschool 1426 Norman Avenue kps@nps.edu 916-3244 916-0468

Norman, OK 77073
Early Childhood (EC) Street and/or P.O. Box E-mail Primary Phone Other Phone
Agency/Preschool Town, State & Zip Code

Oklahoma County 1409 Health Avenue ochd@hdp.org 979-3614 979-4669

Health Department Norman, OK 77074
Community Agency (CA) Street and/or P.O. Box E-mail Primary Phone Other Phone
Town, State & Zip Code

Dr. Rand 7204 Jones Boulevard jsr@ca.com 950-0830 972-1118

Norman, OK 77070
Psychologist and/or Street and/or P.O. Box E-mail Primary Phone Other Phone
Psychometrist Town, State & Zip Code

Agency Personnel
Ms. Gorman Speech Pathologist rgg@sc.edu 895-0411 191-8904
Early Intervention (EI) Position E-mail Primary Phone Other Phone
Resource Person
Mr. Kay OT lvk@nps.edu 892-1022 892-1023
EI Related Service Position E-mail Primary Phone Other Phone
Resource Person
Mrs. Brink PT dab@nps.edu 922-0331 947-1018
EI Related Service Position E-mail Primary Phone Other Phone
Resource Person
Mrs. Curran Teacher gcc@nps.edu 916-0730 916-1018
Early Childhood (EC) Position E-mail Primary Phone Other Phone
Resource Person
Mrs. Guney Speech Pathologist jbg@nps.edu 976-0515 976-9119
EC Related Service Position E-mail Primary Phone Other Phone
Resource Person
Ms. Engel OT jse@nps.edu 908-0630 947-0206
EC Related Service Position E-mail Primary Phone Other Phone
Resource Person
Ms. Brennan PT amb@nps.edu 912-0401 944-1219
EC Related Service Position E-mail Primary Phone Other Phone
Resource Person
Mr. Wall Counselor jbw@rwb.org 979-0510 204-0714

Figure 1. TEST contact information.

 Timeline for Early Successful Transition for John Smith 3rd Birthday November 18, 2006
Activities
Child’s age Activity Participant Note accomplished
24–30 IFSP Initial Transition Planning Meeting Sending agencya _____________
months 䊐 IFSP reviewed and updated including Family Date
transition plan
䊐 General timeline and transition plan
developed
䊐 Possible outcomes of transition ______________
discussed Initials of person
䊐 Community resources discussed/ determining this has
explored been accomplished
䊐 Assessments scheduled (if needed)

24–33 Visits Sending agencya _____________

months 䊐 LEA preschools Family Date
䊐 Community programs Receiving agency

Community agencies

______________
Activities Initials of person
䊐 EI assessment administered determining this has
䊐 Assessment report generated been accomplished
䊐 Information gathered from family
䊐 Transition plan re-evaluation
䊐 Eligibility/transition meeting scheduled

30–33 Eligibility/transition meeting Sending agencya _____________

months 䊐 IFSP reviewed Family Date
䊐 Assessment results analyzed Receiving agency
䊐 Eligibility determined Community agencies ______________
䊐 Possible placement options discussed Initials of person
䊐 Transition plan and timeline finalized determining this has
䊐 IEP meeting scheduled been accomplished
Visit to potential programs

33–36 Placement/IEP meeting Receiving agency a _____________

months 䊐 Identification of program(s) or Family Date
combination of programs Sending agency
䊐 IEP completed Community agencies ______________
Initials of person
determining this has
been accomplished

By 3rd IEP in effect Receiving agency a _____________

birthday Enrollment in LEA—possible documents Family Date
䊐 Birth certificate Community agencies
䊐 Social Security card ______________
䊐 Immunization and health records Initials of person
䊐 Records from former programs determining this has
䊐 Medicaid number and card copy been accomplished
䊐 Proof of residence

Figure 2. TEST sequence. Note. Participant = the minimum number of people/agency representatives included (additional indi-
viduals may be invited per the request/approval of the family); IFSP = Individualized Family Support Plan; Sending agency = early
intervention (EI) agency; LEA = local education agency; Receiving agency = early childhood program, such as LEA preschool pro-
gram; IEP = Individualized Education Program.
aPrimary party responsible for coordination and facilitation.

208 I NTERVENTION IN S CHOOL AND C LINIC

Fourth Through Fifth Sections. The fourth section is com-
prised of contact information of agencies involved with
the child’s transition: (a) EI agency (i.e., Sooner Start);
(b) EC agency/preschool (i.e., Kendall Preschool); (c) com-
munity agency (CA; i.e., Oklahoma County Health De-
partment); and (d) a psychologist and/or psychometrist.
The fifth section serves to identify team members
by their names. The first part is intended for members
from the EI agency, and the second part is for members
of the EC team—resource person and related services
personnel. The third part is intended for the name of the
appropriate CA resource person. A psychologist may be
listed in any of the sections depending on the role of that
person in the transition process and beyond. Because the
team members listed are usually part of the process from
inception to completion, it is expected that the names will
remain relatively constant. Identification of team members
and their contact information is an important first step in
establishing and facilitating communication while gener-
ating and implementing an effective transition plan.
TEST Sequence
The scaffolding represented in this timeline is a proposed
sequence of events designed to ensure a seamless tran-
sition for the child and his or her family. Though par-
titioned in the TEST instrument, there is an expected
degree of overlap in the child’s age at the time of service.
It is important to maintain a degree of flexibility in activ-
ity planning to benefit from optimum times for each fam-
ily and their child. That is, there may be a situation
occurring in a family, such as a medical crisis, that im-
pacts the family emotionally and physically, thus hinder-
ing their availability.
The Activity column lists the actions required dur-
ing a given time, such as 24 to 30 months. The third col-
umn, Participants, recognizes the minimum number of
individuals from the potential groups involved at a given
stage, with the leader being identified by an asterisk. Ad-
ditional personnel may be added at the discretion of the
team at any stage of the process. Specific identification of
the lead participant facilitates clear communication by
identifying who is responsible for planning, coordinat-
ing, or facilitating a sequence of activities at any stage in
the process. Possible leaders include the Sending Agency,
which refers to the representative of the EI agency; Fam-
ily, which includes anyone in the child’s family or anyone
who has demonstrated a vested interest in the well-being
of the child and been invited by the family to be part of the
team (e.g., friend or family advocate); Receiving Agency,
which is identified as the representative of the EC pro-
gram in a local education agency; and Community Agen-
cies, which may include a representative of the Health
Department, court advocate, and so forth. Though facil-
itators in the transition process often are responsible for
setting meetings and have been identified as sending and
receiving agencies, it must be noted that any member of
the team can request a meeting.
A space for notes is provided in the next column to
ensure that decisions and topics that need to be revisited
are included on the planning instrument itself. This also
helps reduce the possibility of issues being overlooked or
forgotten.
The final column provides a place for each person to
mark the form when tasks and activities have been ac-
complished. This helps keep track of the sequence of
activities addressed and the need to continue with the
process in a sequential and timely manner. Finally, it
helps all members of the transition team monitor where
they have been, where they are going, and when the tran-
sition is targeted for completion. This is important in
terms of staying focused and experiencing a sense of ac-
complishment as each milestone is met (Moxley, 1998).
Twenty-Four to Thirty Months. Between the child’s 24th
and 30th months, the EI agency arranges a meeting for
all members of the child’s team—members of the child’s
family and any other person identified as needing to be
included in this stage of the process. As illustrated in
Figure 2, the purpose of the meeting is to review and up-
date the IFSP and to develop a component that addresses
the child’s transition from his or her current EI program
to an EC program. The transition timeline is revisited
frequently throughout the process to assure its appropri-
ateness. Additional topics to be addressed include deter-
mination of a general timeline and possible outcomes of
the transition, exploration of community resources, and
scheduling of evaluations and assessments. At the first
meeting, the TEST instrument is distributed to all mem-
bers of the team and serves as a guide for monitoring
communication and implementation of an effective tran-
sition plan. As additional members join the team, the
TEST instrument is provided, along with pertinent in-
formation gathered up to that point.
Twenty-Four to Thirty-Three Months. Activities that take
place between the child’s 24th and 33rd months involve
visits by family members and appropriate team members
to potential EC programs of the local education agency.
These visits are coordinated and facilitated through the
EI provider. If appropriate, the EI provider also arranges
for and assists the family in exploring other potential pro-
grams and placement options that may play a role in the
child’s education and transition plan. These may include
programs such as Head Start and community agencies.
In addition to visits and observations, necessary eval-
uations and assessments are conducted. The EI provider
ensures that the family receives accurate information re-
garding the purpose of the evaluation and its role in the
transition process. Assessment of a young child can be
time consuming and difficult to conduct, so it is suggested
that assessments be started relatively early. By allowing
VOL . 42, N O. 4, M ARCH 2007 209
ample time for conducting the evaluation of the child,
the stress experienced by the child and his or her family,
as well as the sending and receiving agencies, is reduced.
An early start also allows for an unhurried analysis of the
results. Consequently, each team member has an oppor-
tunity to make recommendations based on results that
were acquired in an appropriate, unhurried, and timely
manner. Following the completion of the assessments
and evaluations, an eligibility/transition meeting is sched-
uled to occur between the child’s 30th and 33rd month.
Thirty to Thirty-Three Months. With the EI agency still
serving as lead coordinator, members of the family, local
education agency, and identified community agencies
hold an eligibility/transition meeting. The purpose of
this meeting is to (a) review the current IFSP, (b) review
the results of the evaluations, and (c) determine eligibil-
ity. If the child does not qualify for special education, the
case is closed and the team is disbanded.
If the child qualifies for special services, placement
options that ensure maintenance of acquired skills and
the introduction of new skills are considered. The EC
representative facilitates additional visits to potential pro-
grams for the families, if warranted. In addition, the EC
representative schedules an IEP/placement meeting, in
which all members of the team participate, to occur be-
fore the child’s 3rd birthday. It is important to note that
though some teams develop the IEP at the eligibility
meeting, this practice is not recommended. For many
families, the impact of their child qualifying for special
education services is daunting. They may be more effec-
tive team members and advocates for their child if they
are given time to assimilate the information presented
and decisions rendered. A few weeks can be helpful to
allow family members time to determine priorities they
want considered by the team when the IEP is developed.
Thirty-Three to Thirty-Six Months. Although federal law
mandates that the IEP is due by the child’s 3rd birthday,
it is best practice to complete this step a few weeks ahead
of time. This advance preparation allows for addressing
any unforeseen obstacles and for ensuring that every-
thing is in place by the time the child starts his or her new
placement.
At the placement/IEP meeting, the EC programs
determined to be most appropriate are identified and an
IEP is generated that addresses goals and short-term ob-
jectives for the child’s educational program and related
services. At this meeting, families are often encouraged
to enroll their child. Documentation that may need to be
provided at enrollment can include the child’s birth cer-
tificate, social security card, immunization and health
records, records from former/current programs, Medic-
aid number and card copy (if applicable), and proof of
residence.
210 I NTERVENTION IN S CHOOL AND C LINIC
Conclusion
Moving between settings, people, and situations happens
to all of us on a regular basis. For individuals with dis-
abilities, development of effective skills for these transi-
tions is of critical importance. To experience successful
transitions early, these individuals and their families must
receive guidance and support from qualified, knowledge-
able individuals using effective communication and
timely planning. This responsibility can be overwhelm-
ing to even the most experienced educator.
An instrument such as the Timeline for Early Success-
ful Transition addresses the tasks of coordination, com-
munication, and planning and makes the process easier
and more positive and successful. TEST provides guide-
lines for early identification and systematic involvement
of all parties needed in the planning and implementation
of a successful transition. This approach ensures a seam-
less process and that the best interest of the child and
family have been served and incorporated into an effec-
tive transition plan.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Joyce A. Brandes, PhD, is an assistant professor of special ed-
ucation at the University of Oklahoma. Her current research
interests include early childhood, autism, preparation of preser-
vice special educators, and literacy. Christine K. Ormsbee, PhD,
is a professor of special education at Oklahoma State Univer-
sity. Her current research interests include preassessment, au-
tism, and effective instruction for children with exceptionalities.
Kathryn A. Haring, PhD, is a professor of special education at
the University of Oklahoma. Her current research interests in-
clude early childhood special education, family systems theory,
and literacy. Address: Joyce A. Brandes, University of Oklahoma,
Educational Psychology, 820 Van Vleet Oval, # 302, Norman,
OK 73019-2041; e-mail: jbrandes@ou.edu
REFERENCES
Bailey, D. B., McWilliam, R. A., Darkes, L. A., Hebbler, K., Sim-
eonsson, R. J., Spiker, D., et al. (1998). Family outcomes in early in-
tervention: A framework for program evaluation and efficacy
research. Exceptional Children, 64, 313–328.
Bruder, M. B., & Chandler, L. K. (1996). Transition. In S. L. Odom &
M. E. McLean (Eds.), Early intervention/early childhood special educa-
tion: Recommended practices (pp. 287–307). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Chandler, R. (2001). Early childhood transition. Unpublished manuscript.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2001). Today, 8, 3.
Fox, L., Dunlap, G., & Cushing, L. (2002). Early intervention, positive
behavior support, and transition to school. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders, 10(3), 149–158.
Hanline, M. F., & Knowlton, A. (1988). A collaborative model for pro-
viding support to parents during their child’s transition from infant
intervention to preschool special education public school programs.
Journal of the Division for Early Childhood, 12(2), 116–125.
Harrower, J. K., Fox, L., Dunlap, G., & Kincaid, D. (2000). Functional
 assessment and comprehensive early intervention. Exceptionality, 8,
189–204.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1990, 20
U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1990) (amended 1997).
Lovett, D. L., & Haring, K. A. (2003). Family perceptions of transitions
in early intervention. Education and Training in Developmental Disa-
bilities, 38(4), 370–377.
Lucyshyn, J., Dunlap, G., & Albin, R. W. (Eds.). (2002). Families, fam-
ily life, and positive behavior support: Addressing the challenge of problem
behaviors in family contexts. Baltimore: Brookes.
Moxley, R. A. (1998). Treatment-only designs and student self-record-
ing as strategies for public school teachers. Education & Treatment of
Children, 21, 37–61.
Rosenkoetter, S. E., Hains, A. H., & Fowler, S. A. (1994). Bridging early
Call for Manuscripts
Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education
TECSE publishes 5 types of manuscripts:
• reports of original research
• literature reviews
• conceptual statements
• position papers
• program descriptions
The journal is published quarterly: three topi-
cal issues and one nontopical issue. Topical is-
Complete author guidelines may be obtained from the online submission site:
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/proed/tecse
Go to the gray Resources box and select the Instructions & Forms link.
services for children with special needs and their families: A practical guide
for transition planning. Baltimore: Brookes.
Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to neigh-
borhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Timm, M. A. (1993). The Regional Intervention Program: Family
treatment by family members. Behavioral Disorders, 19, 34–43.
Webster-Stratton, C. (1998). Preventing conduct problems in Head
Start children: Strengthening parenting competencies. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 715–730.
Yeboah, D. A. (2002). Enhancing transition from early childhood phase
to primary education: Evidence for the research literature. Journal
of International Research & Development, 22(1), 51–69.
sues address an identified problem, trend, or sub-
ject of concern and importance to early inter-
vention. TECSE accepts articles for review on a
continual basis through its online submission
site; therefore, authors do not have to make or
submit multiple copies.
VOL . 42, N O. 4, M ARCH 2007 211