Evaluating the Efficacy of a Special Education Advocacy Training Program

Abstract

Increasingly, parents are relying on advocates to ensure that children with disabilities receive appropriate educational services. As agencies begin to train advocates to work with families, it is necessary to evaluate the efficacy of such advocacy training programs. This study evaluated the efficacy of the Volunteer Advocacy Project (VAP), a 40-h training workshop that has been delivered since 2008 to six cohorts live and via webcasts. The aim of the study was to determine whether the VAP increased the knowledge and advocacy skills of its trainees and how trainee and training characteristics related to the effectiveness of the training. This study examined changes from pretest to posttest knowledge and advocacy skills of 90 trainees of the VAP. We also examined interactions between pre/post change and trainee and training characteristics. Participants demonstrated significant gains from pre- to posttests in their knowledge of special education and in their advocacy skills. Those participants who partook of the training in latter cohorts and at distance sites showed more progress in special education knowledge. Increases in advocacy skills differed by type of participant: compared to parent participants, professionals demonstrated significantly greater pre/post test increases in advocacy skills. This study has important implications for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers.

Full text

Evaluating the Efficacy of a Special Education
Advocacy Training Program
Meghan M. Burke*, Samantha E. Goldman
†
, Melanie S. Hart
†
, and Robert M. Hodapp
†
*University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, United States; and
†
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee,
United States
Abstract
Increasingly, parents are relying on advocates to ensure that children with disabilities receive appropriate educational services. As
agencies begin to train advocates to work with families, it is necessary to evaluate the efficacy of such advocacy training programs.
This study evaluated the efficacy of the Volunteer Advocacy Project (VAP), a 40-h training workshop that has been delivered since
2008 to six cohorts live and via webcasts. The aim of the study was to determine whether the VAP increased the knowledge and advo-
cacy skills of its trainees and how trainee and training characteristics related to the effectiveness of the training. This study examined
changes from pretest to posttest knowledge and advocacy skills of 90 trainees of the VAP. We also examined interactions between
pre/post change and trainee and training characteristics. Participants demonstrated significant gains from pre- to posttests in their
knowledge of special education and in their advocacy skills. Those participants who partook of the training in latter cohorts and at
distance sites showed more progress in special education knowledge. Increases in advocacy skills differed by type of participant: com-
pared to parent participants, professionals demonstrated significantly greater pre/post test increases in advocacy skills. This study has
important implications for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers.
Keywords: advocacy, intellectual disability, parent, training
Introduction
In the United States and abroad, parents of individuals with
disabilities have consistently participated in the human rights
and advocacy discourse for individuals with disabilities. For
example, in the United States, parent advocacy groups spear-
headed the passage of the special education law, the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (Turnbull, Shogren, &
Turnbull, 2011). Abroad, parents of individuals with disabilities
are also tremendous advocates for the human rights of individu-
als with disabilities (Chang, 2014; Poon-McBrayer & McBrayer,
2014).
Although parents of students with disabilities are generally
recognized as their child’s best advocates, these parents often
struggle to collaborate with schools. In qualitative studies about
parent advocacy, for example, parents report having difficulty
understanding their rights or the jargon used at special education
meetings (Lytle & Bordin, 2001; Stoner et al., 2005). Additionally,
parents may struggle to discern which services and placement are
appropriate for their child. Little extant literature exists about the
efficacy of special education; most studies which examine special
education services lack methodological rigor (Zigmond, 2003).
Lacking clear direction about effective services and feeling inade-
quate in special education meetings, some parents find it difficult
to advocate. Wang, Mannan, Poston, Turnbull, and Summers
(2004) conducted focus groups and interviews with parents of
children with disabilities about the relation between parent advo-
cacy and family quality of life. Although advocacy was viewed as
a means to retain appropriate services, advocacy also related to
increased parental stress. By having an advocate, parents may feel
less stress, as they are no longer alone in negotiating with the
school system.
But to help parents, successful advocates must possess special
education knowledge and nonadversarial advocacy skills. In the
United States, required special education knowledge includes
detailed information about Individualized Education Plans
(IEPs); evaluations; related services and accommodations; and
placement. More broadly, advocates must know IDEA, the feder-
al law (i.e., a law that applies to each person in the United States)
which delineates the rights of students with disabilities as well as
the responsibilities of schools to provide special education (Frie-
sen & Huff, 1990). In addition to understanding these intricacies,
advocates must also possess the ability to synthesize the large
amounts of written and verbal information received by parents.
Beyond special education knowledge, successful advocates must
also possess advocacy skills to collaborate with the school in an
assertive but nonadversarial manner. Such skills include making
phone calls, writing letters, contacting someone in authority, and
educating professionals about the child’s specific strengths and
Received March 7, 2013; accepted July 26, 2015
Correspondence: Meghan Burke, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, Special Education, Champaign, Illinois, United States.
E-mail: meghanbm@illinois.edu
V
C2016 International Association for the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities doi: 10.1111/jppi.12183
Volume 00 Number 00 pp 00–00 Month 2016
bs_bs_banner

needs (Wang et al., 2004). More informally, advocates must feel
confident about appropriately challenging professional judgment,
asking questions, and requesting services (Soodak & Erwin,
2010).
To teach potential advocates special education knowledge and
advocacy skills, several advocacy training programs have arisen
across the United States and Europe. However, little research has
examined the efficacy of advocacy trainings. Blietz (1988) con-
ducted a study with 45 parents to determine the impact of a one
hour parent training program on parent participation in IEP
meetings. Blietz found no significant differences in parent partici-
pation between parents who did and did not participate in the
parent training. However, this study only examined a relatively
brief (i.e., one hour) parent training. Additionally, the training
provided a broad overview of the special education process; it did
not discuss parent advocacy strategies. In another study compar-
ing training programs, Burke (2013) found that advocacy training
programs differ in duration, training emphases, and activities.
Thus, it remains unclear what kind of training significantly
improves knowledge and advocacy skills. At an even more basic
level, little information exists as to whether advocacy training is
effective, as measured by whether participants at such trainings
increase in their special education knowledge or advocacy skills.
It may also be the case that advocacy training affects individ-
ual trainees differently. For example, although advocacy is diffi-
cult for all parents, advocacy may be particularly difficult for
individuals with less education (Harry, 2002). Similarly, training
effectiveness might relate to the role played by the trainee. In a
review of parent training programs for parents of young children
with autism, Steiner, Koegel, Koegel, & Ence (2012) examined
parent education approaches, individualized education programs,
and group training programs. Several parent characteristics (e.g.,
time, stressors, well-being) were described as influencing training
effectiveness. Among other characteristics, professional back-
ground and training can mediate the effectiveness of an educa-
tional program. Whether effectiveness differs based on the
attendee’s role (i.e., parent or professional) has not yet been
examined for advocacy training.
Other issues concern the training program itself. It is unclear,
for instance, how the effectiveness of advocacy training might be
influenced by its mode of delivery. To reach a broader audience,
courses and trainings are increasingly being offered via distance
technology. Indeed, in the past three decades, distance technology
has advanced rapidly (Anderson & Dron, 2011, 2012). Yet many
professionals continue to question whether distance training
reduces students’ gains and controversy surrounds distance train-
ing with respect to costs (Van Dusen, 2014), types, (Moore,
Dickson-Deane, & Galyen, 2011), and efficacy (Bernard et al.,
2004). To understand the efficacy of distance education, Shachar
and Neumann (2010) conducted a meta-analysis of studies com-
pleted between 1990 and 2009 comparing the academic perfor-
mance of students in distance education (vs. traditional) courses.
In 70% of the 125 studies included in the meta-analysis, students
taking courses by distance education (vs. by live instruction)
made greater educational gains. Although Shachar and Neumann
(2010) only examined distance technology with respect to stu-
dent performance, distance technology has also been used in spe-
cial education specifically in courses that target teacher
professional development (Erickson, Noonan, & McCall, 2012)
and behavior analysis (Hudson, Knight, & Collins, 2012). It may
be that distance education (vs. traditional) courses appeal to a
greater number of learning style preferences (i.e., visual, auditory,
and kinesthetic) thereby making distance education more likely
to improve learning retention (Bull & Kay, 2010; Rogers, 2000).
In both contexts, higher degrees of positive outcomes seem to
occur for learners at satellite sites.
A training program’s effectiveness may also relate to the pro-
gram’s stage of development. In most programs, the initial roll
out of a training program is generally thought to be less effective:
such initial renditions may contain weaknesses that can then be
rectified in subsequent training. In a program evaluation of a fac-
ulty mentoring project, for example, Hixon, Barczyk, Bucken-
meyer, and Feldman (2011) conducted a 4-year study to evaluate
the effectiveness of faculty mentoring. Compared to the three
prior cohorts, the final cohort enjoyed significantly more benefits
from the project. It remains unclear whether later (vs. initial)
cohorts might forge greater gains from advocacy trainings.
To provide a preliminary examination of the efficacy of
one training program, we examined the pre/post changes of
the Volunteer Advocacy Project (VAP). The VAP is a 40-hour
training program designed to educate trainees about special
education policy and to equip them with advocacy skills.
Begun in 2008 in Nashville, Tennessee, the VAP has had six
cohorts. To evaluate its efficacy, we developed a pre/post test
for participants. Measuring participant responses before and
after the training, we focused on three research questions. First,
compared to their pretraining levels, by the end of the training
did participants improve in their special education knowledge
and advocacy skills? Second, did the mode or cohort of the
training impact its efficacy? Finally, were changes in special
education knowledge or advocacy skills related to trainee
characteristics?
Method
Participants
Since its inception in 2008, the VAP has graduated 165 partic-
ipants. From 2008’s initial 11 participants, the sixth cohort grew
to 42 participants. Cohorts have also grown in their numbers of
distance-learning sites. The first cohort was comprised complete-
ly of participants from the Nashville area, whereas the sixth
cohort included participants at six different sites located from
Tennessee’s West region (Memphis) to the eastern-most edge of
East Tennessee (Mountain City, Johnson City), a distance of over
450 miles. Overall, the 165 participants have hailed from 33 of
Tennessee’s 95 counties.
Of the 165 VAP participants, 90 (54.5%) participated in the
pre/post tests for this study. No significant differences emerged
between study participants (n590) and nonparticipants
(n575) with respect to race, gender, site they attended the train-
ing, or educational level. Of the 90 study participants, 58.9%
(n553) were parents of individuals with disabilities and 41.1%
(n537) were professionals. Of the parent participants, most
(79.2%, n542) had children with low-incidence disabilities
including Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, autism, intellectual
Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities Volume 00 Number 00 Month 2016
M. Burke et al. • Evaluating the Efficacy of Advocacy Training
2

disabilities, and DiGeorge syndrome. The remaining 20.8%
(n511) had children with attention deficit (hyperactivity) disor-
der, learning disabilities, or health conditions. On average, the
children were 11.47 years old (SD 56.52), ranging from 2 to 33
years, at the time of the training. See Table 1.
Regarding professionals, 97.3% (n536) worked in the dis-
ability field. Of these disability professionals, 86.1% (n531)
worked with children, 13.9% (n55) with adults (ages 18 and
older). Most professionals were teachers, either preservice
(54.1%, n532) or current (16.2%, n56); the remainder worked
in nonprofit organizations (13.5%, n55), state agencies (5.4%,
n52); universities (5.4%, n52); or business or law (for each,
2.7%, n51).
Participants were recruited for the VAP in a variety of
ways. E-mails were sent to state and local agencies throughout
Tennessee including the Parent Training and Information
(PTI) Centers, the Community Parent and Resource Center
(CPRC), the Tennessee Council on Developmental Disabilities,
and both of the state’s University Centers for Excellence in
Developmental Disabilities (UCEDDs). Participants were also
recruited via e-mail announcements to support groups and
disability agencies, including chapters of The Arc, the Down
Syndrome Association, and the Autism Society. Newspapers
were additional outlets for recruitment, including those with
statewide (The Tennesssean) and local (The Sentinel of Knox-
ville, TN) circulations.
To participate in the VAP, individuals completed a six-page
application. Questions on the application included: “What is
your personal connection to the disability field?,” “Have you had
any experience advocating for families of children with dis-
abilities?,” and “What do you think are the necessary attributes
to be a successful advocate?” In the application, participants
committed to attending all class sessions, being on time to the
sessions, completing the homework and assigned readings prior
to the sessions, participating on the project website, voluntarily
advocating (up on completing the VAP program) for four fami-
lies of individuals with disabilities, and attending one PTI work-
shop annually about special education. All individuals who
applied for the VAP were accepted.
Description of the VAP
The first VAP training started in the fall of 2008. Consist-
ing of 40 hours of instruction about special education law
and advocacy skills, various speakers presented to each
cohort’s trainees. In addition to the project director (who
attended all sessions and presented at several), speakers
included attorneys, advocates, parents of students with dis-
abilities, self-advocates, professors, and board certified
behavior analysts (BCBAs). Each session featured a lecture-
style format, with supplementary large- and small-group
discussions, case studies, and role-play activities. Because this
study occurred in the United States, we relied heavily on the
regulations prescribed by IDEA, the federal special education
law. The training covered such topics as: evaluations and eli-
gibility, disabilities covered under IDEA, transition, assistive
technology, legislative change, least restrictive environment,
disciplinary provisions, behavior plans, nonadversarial advo-
cacy, research-based interventions, response to intervention
(RTI), extended school year services, No Child Left Behind,
Section504oftheAmericanRehabilitationAct,andproce-
dural safeguards.
For each class session, participants had required readings.
The readings included federal and state regulations related to spe-
cial education as well as articles about advocacy. All readings
were posted on the VAP’s Wiki, a password-protected website
available only to present and past VAP trainees. Each week, par-
ticipants posted their answers onto the Wiki. To stay up-to-date
about legislative changes in special education, the participants
also joined the Disability Coalition on Education (DCE) list-serv.
The educational advocate at The Arc of Davidson County spon-
sored the DCE list-serv, which included individuals across the
state. Through the list-serv, participants received several weekly
e-mails about special education law and advocacy.
In the spring of 2009, the VAP expanded to other sites across
the state of Tennessee. Using video-conferencing technology, the
VAP included Memphis, Jackson, and Martin in West Tennessee;
Clarksville and Cookeville in Middle Tennessee; and Knoxville,
Chattanooga, Johnson City, and Mountain City in East Tennessee
(individual distance sites participated in different cohorts). With
the video-conferencing technology, participants at satellite sites
could watch the presenter in Nashville, as well as the Power Point
slides. Participants could also ask questions throughout the pre-
sentation. Similar to the Nashville participants, the satellite site
TAB LE 1
Participant demographic information
Demographic variable
Parents
%(n)
Professionals
%(n)
Gender
Male 7.5% (4) 8.1% (3)
Female 92.5% (49) 91.9% (34)
Site
Nashville 62.3% (33) 48.6% (18)
Not Nashville 37.7% (20) 51.4% (19)
Cohort
Fall 2008 13.2% (7) 8.1% (3)
Spring 2009 9.4% (5) 8.1% (3)
Fall 2009 20.8% (11) 16.2% (6)
Spring 2010 18.9% (10) 18.9% (7)
Fall 2010 11.3% (6) 24.3% (9)
Spring 2011 26.4% (14) 24.3% (9)
Education
High school graduate 34.0% (18) 2.7% (1)
Some college 24.5% (13) 32.4% (12)
College graduate 24.5% (13) 43.2% (16)
Graduate school 17.0% (9) 21.6% (8)
Ethnic background
White 84.9% (45) 89.2% (33)
African American 15.1% (8) 8.1% (3)
Hispanic — —
Asian American — 2.7% (1)
Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities Volume 00 Number 00 Month 2016
M. Burke et al. • Evaluating the Efficacy of Advocacy Training
3

attendees participated on the Wiki and the list-serv and received
all reading materials.
Procedures
We first received Institutional Review Board approval to
begin this study. Participants were e-mailed the pretest 2 weeks
before the training began. They were told that the test was volun-
tary and confidential. Participants had the option of e-mailing
their completed pretests to the project director or printing out
the pretest and hand delivering it to the site coordinator on the
first day of the training.
Participants completed the posttest on the last day of the
training sessions. The site coordinator observed each participant
complete the posttest. Participants were not allowed to use any
external resources (e.g., notes, textbooks) while completing the
posttest. Participants returned their completed posttests to the
project director.
Measures
In addition to participants’ demographic information, which
was derived from VAP application forms, this study’s main mea-
sure examined special education knowledge and advocacy skills.
Knowledge measure. The knowledge measure included 30
multiple-choice questions about special education knowledge
related to all topics covered in the training. Adapted from oth-
er assessments of special education knowledge (e.g., Lo, 2005;
Plunge & Kratochwill, 1995), the project director generated
the proposed questions. These questions were then shared
with local special education attorneys, advocates, professors,
parents of individuals with disabilities, and PTI staff. After
receiving their feedback, the measure was again revised and
another round of feedback gathered. We then piloted the mea-
sure with parents of individuals with disabilities. Each ques-
tion was followed by four choices, one of which was correct
(see questions in Table 2).
Advocacy measure. The advocacy skills portion included 10
questions, with answers including 1 (not at all), 2 (below average),
3(average), 4 (good), and 5 (excellent). Again derived from other
advocacy measures (e.g., Nachshen, Anderson, & Jamieson,
2001), the project director generated the 10 questions (see Table
3). Similar to the knowledge measure, the advocacy measure was
critiqued twice by local disability professionals, after which it was
also piloted with parents of individuals with disabilities. The 10
questions included, for example, “How knowledgeable do you
think you are about your special education rights?,” “How well
are you able to communicate effectively with the school?,” and
“How prepared do you feel to collaborate with the school at IEP
meetings?” For the pretest and posttest advocacy skills questions,
Cronbach’s alphas equaled 0.87.
Results
Comparison of Pretest vs. Posttest Knowledge and
Advocacy Skills
We compared participants’ own pretest scores to their
posttest scores. Overall, the participants significantly improved
their special education knowledge and advocacy skills. Regarding
special education knowledge, participants improved their special
education knowledge from X514.90 (SD 53.59) to X523.32
(SD 53.58), t(90) 5216.90, p<.001. This significant difference
corresponds to an effect size of 1.70. Examining individual items,
the percentage of improvement in correct responses ranged from
3.4% to 53.3%. The two items showing the greatest pre/post
improvements related to the four themes of No Child Left
Behind (53.3% increase) and parental rights at due process
(47.8%). The item with the least amount of change related to
which piece of legislation allowed individuals to request public
information; this item had a 3.4% increase from pre- to posttest
in the number of respondents who correctly responded. See Table
2 for the individual items.
In addition to special education knowledge, participants also
significantly improved their special education advocacy skills,
increasing from an average score of 32.82 (SD 56.91) at the
pretest to 40.97 (SD 55.42) at the posttest, t(90) 529.74,
p<.001, ES 51.03. We then used binomial distributions to
examine the percentage of individuals who increased (vs.
decreased) in their ratings on each advocacy skills question. For
each item, significantly more individuals increased their scores
on the posttests, p’s <.001. The item on which the most partici-
pants (n560) demonstrated increases was the first advocacy
skills question, “How knowledgeable are you about your special
education rights?”; the item with the least number of “gainers”
(n541) was: “What is your self-confidence like in terms of
working with the school?” See Table 3 for pre- and posttest mean
scores for each individual item.
Changes Related to Training Characteristics
We then examined whether the mode of the training (live vs.
video-conferenced) affected training effectiveness. Compared to
participants attending live in Nashville, those at the distance sites
demonstrated a significantly larger pretest to posttest increase in
special education knowledge, F(1, 88) 55.68, p5.019. On the
30-item knowledge test, participants (n551) who received live
training (i.e., in Nashville) averaged 15.25 (SD 53.29) on their
pretests and improved to 22.65 (SD 53.33) at their posttests. In
contrast, participants (n539) at the video-conferenced sites
began with lower pretest means (14.44; SD 53.95) before show-
ing higher scores at posttest (24.15; SD 53.76). There was no
interaction between mode of training and pre/post change for
advocacy skills.
In addition to type of training, we also examined whether
there was a cohort effect with respect to the training’s effective-
ness. The cohort by pre/post interaction was significant for spe-
cial education knowledge, F(5, 84) 54.03, p<.003. Although
each cohort showed significant increases in special education
knowledge, the first cohort (Fall, 2008) began with higher pretest
Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities Volume 00 Number 00 Month 2016
M. Burke et al. • Evaluating the Efficacy of Advocacy Training
4

scores (X517.9; SD 53.84) and, with one exception (Spring
2009 cohort, ended with a lower posttest average, X521.40;
SD 54.40). There was no significant interaction between
cohort and pre/post change for advocacy skills, F(5, 84) 5.996,
p5.425.
Changes Related to Respondent Characteristics
We next examined the interaction between the type of partic-
ipant (parent vs. professional) and special education knowledge
and advocacy scores. We found no significant interaction
between the type of participant and pre/post change in special
education knowledge, F(1, 88) 5.337, p5.563. However, there
was a significant interaction effect for advocacy skills, F(1,
88) 55.63, p5.020. Specifically, whereas parents averaged 34.38
(SD 55.18) on pretests and improved to 40.91 (SD 54.92) on
posttests, professionals scored lower on their pretests (30.59;
SD 58.40) but increased to slightly higher mean scores on their
posttests (41.05; SD 56.14). No interactions occurred between
pre/post change and the participant’s educational background,
for either special education knowledge or advocacy skills.
Discussion
Although advocates are increasingly being used to help
parents with the IEP process, little information exists as to
whether special education advocacy trainings can improve indi-
viduals’ knowledge and skills. This study provides a preliminary
examination of this issue, as well as whether program and/or par-
ticipant characteristics might relate to the effectiveness of this
type of training. This study has three main findings.
First, participants overall made significant improvements in
special education knowledge and advocacy skills. In terms of
knowledge, participants increased in their numbers of correct
TABLE 2
Changes in percentages of participants correctly answering each knowledge item
Pretest
(% correct)
Posttest
(% correct)
pvalue for
Mcnemar’s
test
1. Which law preceded No Child Left Behind? 36.7 84.4 .001
2. What year was the Education for All Handicapped Children Act passed in? 53.3 83.3 .001
3. Which of the following cases defined the term “appropriate” under IDEA? 42.2 75.6 .001
4. What are the four themes of the No Child Left Behind Act? 26.7 80.0 .001
5. What is the age range protected by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act? 45.6 77.8 .001
6. In Tennessee, how many disability categories are there under IDEA? 28.9 74.4 .001
7. What does the school do with evaluations at private expense? 86.7 95.6 .057
8. Is parental consent required for an evaluation? 86.7 97.8 .013
9. Which of the following is not a required part of the IEP? 73.3 78.9 .383
10. As stated in the law, what should the goals be linked with? 44.4 68.9 .001
11. What case legislated that a student could not be expelled based on disability? 28.9 67.8 .001
12. What are the three reasons for a unilateral 45-day removal? 75.6 88.9 .004
13. How long can students be removed from the school without receiving services? 62.2 93.3 .001
14. What kind of assessment precedes a behavioral intervention plan? 81.1 94.4 .012
15. At what age does a transition plan need to be in place? 38.9 76.7 .001
16. Under which piece of legislation is a “reasonable accommodation” defined? 25.6 63.3 .001
17. Which act allows you to access public information? 72.2 75.6 .736
18. Which of the following terms are not in the law? 24.4 45.6 .002
19. What does the Least Restrictive Environment mean? 55.6 83.3 .001
20. Can assistive technology be brought home? 86.7 93.3 .109
21. Can parents and the student be trained in using the assistive technology? 93.3 100.0 .013
22. Can parents amend or expunge something from their child’s school records? 60.0 88.9 .001
23. How many days does the school have to show the parent the records? 38.9 82.2 .001
24. Which of the following is an example of an early intervening service? 14.4 64.4 .001
25. Transportation is an example of what kind of service? 42.2 67.8 .001
26. Which option does not allow a school attorney unless there is a parent attorney? 26.7 51.1 .001
27. Which option has to happen five days prior to a due process hearing? 44.4 62.2 .014
28. Which of the following lists the parent’s rights at due process? 30.0 77.8 .001
29. Which of the following lists parents’ options for representation at due process? 34.4 81.1 .001
30. How often is IDEA supposed to be reauthorized? 31.1 55.6 .002
Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities Volume 00 Number 00 Month 2016
M. Burke et al. • Evaluating the Efficacy of Advocacy Training
5

responses from pre- to posttests. Considering individual items as
well, greater numbers of respondents provided correct answers
on the posttest compared to the pretest for each of the 30
questions. Participants also demonstrated significant pre/post
improvements for each of the 10 advocacy skills questions. Based
on these data, the VAP training was effective in teaching knowl-
edge and advocacy skills to these program participants.
Second, certain training characteristics related to changes in
special education knowledge. Thus, while each cohort displayed
significant progress in special education knowledge from before
to after the VAP training, the first cohort had much more special
education knowledge at the start of the training but improved
less over the training period. This finding could be explained by
the roll-out effect, which has been exhibited in other studies
(e.g., Hixon et al., 2011). Alternatively, it may have been that the
first cohort was over-represented with the most savvy partici-
pants, who then did not learn as much through the training.
The training format—whether participants took the training
in-person or via video-conferencing technology—also influenced
the program’s effectiveness. Specifically, those participants from
the six distance sites (vs. those attending live in Nashville)
showed greater pre- to posttest improvements in knowledge
(although not in advocacy skills). Although reasons for such for-
mat differences remain unclear, distance participants may have
been more motivated to learn about special education laws and
procedures, especially as many distance-site participants had few-
er special education resources available locally. Whatever the rea-
son, the tremendous progress of individuals at distance sites
seems consistent with the literature about distance learning (Sha-
char & Neumann, 2010).
Third, certain trainee characteristics related to participant
progress in the area of advocacy skills. Compared to parents, par-
ticipants who were professionals progressed in their advocacy
skills from initially lower pretest scores to higher posttest scores.
Such exaggerated change may relate to differences in the two
roles. While parents may consider it natural to advocate for their
child (Public Agenda, 2002), professionals may be less familiar or
comfortable with advocating for individuals with disabilities.
When provided with adequate training, however, professionals
greatly increased their advocacy skills.
This study has important implications for future researchers,
practitioners, and policymakers. In terms of future research, for
example, we do not know how advocacy training influences the
long-range plans and actions of advocates. How many families do
graduated advocates work with? Is this number related to advo-
cates’ change on pre/post special education and advocacy mea-
sures? In this way, we could detect how the changes in knowledge
andadvocacyaffectworkingwithfamilies.Additionally,itmaybe
that the number of families an advocate works with and the dura-
tion of time spent with a given family impacts the maintenance of
the knowledge and skills of an advocate. Future research should
examine whether the advocacy experiences of the trainees impacts
their levels of knowledge and comfort with advocacy. Future
research might also address whether posttraining advocates secure
employment in the disability field or pursue additional special
education training. Similarly, we need to measure the impact of
advocates, especially how (and to what degree) effective advocacy
influences family-school partnerships, the nature or amount of
special education services that the child receives, and student
achievement. Such research should also include multiple perspec-
tives, from parents, to advocates, to school personnel.
We also need to know more about the consequences of differ-
ent dosages of advocacy training. At present, such trainings vary
widely in duration. In the United States, Georgia’s Parent Leader-
ship Support Project (PLSP) (Georgia Advocacy Office, 2012),
for example, trains individuals to become advocates through a
40-hour training, whereas a prominent advocacy training pro-
gram in Oklahoma requires 130 hours of coursework over
8 months (Oklahoma Law Center, 2006). Still more, in England,
Action for Advocacy trains advocates by requiring 32 credits of
coursework (2013). As has become apparent in such fields as
clinical trials (in medicine; Piantadosi, 1997) and language inter-
vention (Warren, Fey, & Yoder, 2007), differences in the amounts
and durations of interventions may influence outcomes.
TABLE 3
Results of advocacy analyses
Pretest Posttest t
How knowledgeable do you think you are about your special education rights? 2.56 (1.20) 3.52 (1.29) 28.37**
How able are you to apply your knowledge of the law in special education
meetings?
2.86 (.92) 3.87 (.77) 28.44**
How able are you to advocate for a child’s educational needs at
special education meetings?
3.03 (.97) 3.99 (.73) 27.81**
How able are you to assert yourself at special education meetings? 3.43 (.91) 4.18 (.73) 27.81**
How well are you able to communicate effectively with the school? 3.50 (.94) 4.27 (.68) 26.90**
How well do you think you stay calm and nonadversarial at school meetings? 3.66 (.84) 4.19 (.75) 27.31**
What is your self-confidence like in terms of working with the school? 3.63 (.94) 4.14 (.66) 25.14**
What is your working relationship like with the school? 3.39 (1.7) 4.14 (.80) 24.39**
How able are you to effectively participate at IEP meetings? 3.47 (1.05) 4.21 (.73) 25.69**
How prepared do you feel to collaborate with the school at IEP meetings? 3.30 (1.09) 4.56 (.69) 28.87**
**Indicates p<.001.
Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities Volume 00 Number 00 Month 2016
M. Burke et al. • Evaluating the Efficacy of Advocacy Training
6

This study also has implications for practitioners. Based on
these findings, agencies should consider using live and web-based
versions of their advocacy trainings. In 2013, for example, the
Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA; 2013)
began video-conferencing its Special Education Advocacy Train-
ing (SEAT) throughout the United States. From this study,
COPAA and other agencies can feel confident in using distance
sites for advocacy training, thereby training greater numbers of
advocates over a wider geographic area.
Additionally, there may be implications regarding the advoca-
cy model itself. The VAP utilizes a “pay it forward” model where-
in the graduate advocate works, pro bono, for four families of
children with disabilities. Other models (e.g., the SEAT) may
result in graduated advocates receiving payment for their advoca-
cy services. Future research and, subsequently, practitioners
should consider the impact of paid versus unpaid advocacy on
the knowledge and skill level of advocates posttraining.
Finally, this study has important implications for policy-
makers. Given the difficulties that parents experience in working
with the school system (Lytle & Bordin, 2001; Stoner et al.,
2005), parents may increasingly want to consider using an advo-
cate. In the same vein, various national, state, and local disability
agencies and groups may want to consider implementing advoca-
cy training programs. Using the VAP as a model, policymakers
may encourage such groups to provide both parent training as
well as special education advocacy training.
While offering important contributions, this study also had
several limitations. First, without a control group, we could not
control for such threats to internal validity as history and matu-
ration (Campbell & Stanley, 1966). Although it seems unlikely
that participants would have made similar gains in special educa-
tion knowledge and advocacy skills without attending the train-
ings, we nonetheless appreciate the limitations of this design. An
additional limitation relates to the sample. As findings arose
from a sample that was predominantly female, Euro-American,
and well educated, these results may not generalize to the larger
population. Finally, as we had only a self-report measure of advo-
cacy skills, we do not know whether advocates actually applied
their learned knowledge or communicated effectively with the
schools. The participants also completed the postsurvey at the
end of their last session, leaving little time for reflection which
could have affected their survey responses.
Still, this study constitutes an important first step in docu-
menting the effectiveness of special education advocacy trainings.
As among the first studies to evaluate an advocacy training, this
study shows that such programs can relate to improvements in
both knowledge and advocacy skills. Ultimately, if we are going to
recommend that advocates help parents to interact effectively with
their local school systems, then we need to determine if such train-
ing programs work and how we can make them most effective.
References
Action for Advocacy. (2013). Independent advocacy qualification.
Retrieved from www.actionforadvocacy.org.uk
Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education
pedagogy. International Review of Research in Distance and Open
Learning,12,80–97.
Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2012). Learning technology through three
generations of technology enhanced distance education pedagogy.
European Journal of Open, Distance, and E-Learning,15,2–14.
Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?
accno5EJ992485
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, E., Borokhovski, A., Wade, L.,
Wozney, P. A., ... Huang, K. (2004). How does distance education
compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the
empirical literature. Review of Educational Research,74,379–439.
Blietz, J. L. (1988). The effect of parent training on increasing parent
understanding of, participation in, and satisfaction with the
Individualized Education Program (IEP) conference (Doctoral
dissertation). University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Bull, S., & Kay, J. (2010). Open learner models. Studies in Computational
Intelligence,308, 301–332.
Burke, M. M. (2013). Improving parental involvement: Training special
education advocates. Journal of Disability Policy Studies,23,225–234.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-
experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Chang, H. (2014). Social change and the disability rights movement in
Taiwan 1981-2002. The Review of Disability Studies: An International
Journal,3,1–12.
Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates. (2013). Special education
advocate training project. Retrieved from www.copaa.org
Erickson, A. S., Noonan, P. M., & McCall, Z. (2012). Effectiveness of
online professional development for rural special educators. Rural
Special Education Quarterly,31,22–32.
Friesen, B. J., & Huff, B. (1990). Parents and professionals as advocacy
partners. Preventing School Failure,34,31–39.
Georgia Advocacy Office. (2012). Parent leadership support program.
Retrieved from http://thegao.org/parent-leadership-support-program/
Harry, B. (2002). Trends and issues in serving culturally diverse families of
children with disabilities. Journal of Special Education,36,131–138.
Hixon, E., Barczyk, C., Buckenmeyer, J., & Feldman, L. (2011).
Mentoring university faculty to become high quality online
educators: A program evaluation. Online Journal of Distance
Learning Administration,14,1–11.
Hudson, T. M., Knight, V., & Collins, B. C. (2012). Perceived
effectiveness of web conferencing software in the digital environment
to deliver a graduate course in applied behavior analysis. Rural
Special Education Quarterly,31,27–39.
Lo, L. (2005). Barriers to successful partnerships with Chinese-speaking
parents of children with disabilities in urban schools. Multiple Voices,
8,84–95.
Lytle, K., & Bordin, J. (2001). Enhancing the IEP team. Teaching
Exceptional Children,33,1–5.
Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011). E-learning, online
learning, and distance learning environments: Are they the same?
The Internet and Higher Education,14, 129–135.
Nachshen, J., Anderson, J., & Jamieson, J. (2001). The parent advocacy
scale: Measuring advocacy in parents of children with special needs.
Journal on Developmental Disabilities,81,93–105.
Oklahoma Disability Law Center. (2006). Partners in education advocacy.
Retrieved from http://www.peapods.us/
Piantadosi, S. (1997). Clinical trials: A methodologic perspective.New
York , N Y: Wi l ey.
Plunge, M. M., & Kratochwill, T. R. (1995). Parental knowledge,
involvement, and satisfaction with their child’s special education
services. Special Services in the Schools,10,113–138.
Poon-McBrayer, K. F., & McBrayer, P. A. (2014). Plotting Confucian and
disability rights paradigms on the advocacy-activism continuum:
Experiences of Chinese parents of children with dyslexia in Hong
Kong. Cambridge Journal of Education,44,93–111.
Public Agenda. (2002). When it’s your own child: A report on special
education from the families who use it. New York, NY: Author.
Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities Volume 00 Number 00 Month 2016
M. Burke et al. • Evaluating the Efficacy of Advocacy Training
7

Rogers, D. L. (2000). A paradigm shift: Technology integration for higher
education in the new millennium. AACE Journal,1,19–33.
Shachar, M., & Neumann, Y. (2010). Twenty years of research on the
academic performance differences between traditional and distance
learning: Summative meta-analysis and trend examination. Journal
of Online Learning and Teaching,6,318–334.
Soodak, L. C., & Erwin, E. J. (2010). Parents, professionals, and inclusive
education: A call for collaboration. Journal of Educational and
Psychological Consultation,6,257–276.
Steiner, A. M., Koegel, L. K., Koegel, R. L., & Ence, W. A. (2012). Issues
and theoretical constructs regarding parent education for autism
spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
42, 1218–1227.
Stoner, J. B., Bock, S. J., Thompson, J. R., Angell, M. E., Heyl, B. S., &
Crowley, E. P. (2005). Welcome to our world: Parent perceptions of
interactions between parents of young children with ASD and
education professionals. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental
Disorders,20,39–51.
Turnbull, H. R., Shogren, K. A., & Turnbull, A. P. (2011). Evolution of
the parent movement: Past, present, and future. In J.M. Kauffman &
D.P. Hallahan (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 639–653).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Van Dusen, G. C. (2014). Digital dilemma: Issues of access, cost, and
quality in media-enhanced and distance Education. ASHE-ERIC
Higher Education Report,27,3–153.
Wang, M., Mannan, H., Poston, D., Turnbull, A. P., & Summers, J. A.
(2004). Parents’ perceptions of advocacy activities and their impact
on family quality of life. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities,29,144–155.
Warren, S. F., Fey, M. E., & Yoder, P. J. (2007). Differential treatment
intensity research: A missing link to creating optimally effective
communication interventions. Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities Research Review,13,70–77.
Zigmond, N. (2003). Where should students with disabilities
receive special education services? Journal of Special Education,37,
193–199.
Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities Volume 00 Number 00 Month 2016
M. Burke et al. • Evaluating the Efficacy of Advocacy Training
8