Family Benefits of Early Intervention: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Early Intervention (EI) is aimed at children with developmental delays through actions that include families and their context. The objective of this study was to conduct a scoping review based on The Protocols of the Joanna Briggs Institute and PRISMA-Scr, answering the question: How do families of children with special needs understand the benefits (support or assistance received) of Early Intervention Services? 54 articles were found and analyzed, and four different nuclei were organized: EI team, skills, and collaborative practices; Family empowerment and self-efficacy; Participation, personal needs, and Quality of Family Life; Access to information and services. We concluded that family benefits are indicators of the effectiveness of early intervention.
KEYWORDS:
early intervention; family; scoping review

Full text

1
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0102.3772e39303.en
Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa
2023, v.39, e39
* E-mail: biancadosreis@yahoo.com.br
Submetido: 30/04/2021; Aceito: 28/04/2022.
303
School and developmental pSychology
Family Benets of Early Intervention:
A Scoping Review
Bianca Beraldo dos Reis Valverde1,* , Andrea Perosa Saigh Jurdi1 ,
& Ana Paula da Silva Pereira2 
1Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
2Centro de Investigação em Estudos da Criança, Instituto de Educação da Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal
ABSTRACT – Early Intervention (EI) is aimed at children with developmental delays through actions that include families
and their context. The objective of this study was to conduct a scoping review based on The Protocols of the Joanna Briggs
Institute and PRISMA-Scr, answering the question: How do families of children with special needs understand the benefits
(support or assistance received) of Early Intervention Services? 54 articles were found and analyzed, and four different
nuclei were organized: EI team, skills, and collaborative practices; Family empowerment and self-efficacy; Participation,
personal needs, and Quality of Family Life; Access to information and services. We concluded that family benefits are
indicators of the effectiveness of early intervention.
KEYWORDS: early intervention, family, scoping review
Benefícios Familiares da Intervenção Precoce:
Uma Revisão de Escopo
RESUMO – A Intervenção Precoce (IP) é destinada à crianças com atrasos no desenvolvimento através de ações que
incluam as famílias e seu contexto. O objetivo desse estudo foi realizar uma revisão de escopo a partir dos protocolos do
Joannna Briggs Institute e PRISMA-Scr, respondendo à pergunta: Como os familiares de crianças com necessidades especiais
compreendem os benefícios (apoio ou assistência recebida) dos serviços de intervenção precoce? Foram encontrados e
analisados 54 artigos, sendo organizados quatro diferentes núcleos: Equipe de IP, competências e práticas colaborativas;
Empoderamento e autoeficácia familiar; Participação, necessidades pessoais e Qualidade de Vida Familiar; Acesso à
informação e aos serviços. Concluiu-se que os benefícios familiares são indicadores de eficácia da intervenção precoce.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE: intervenção precoce, família, revisão de escopo
Early Intervention (EI) is an important multi-professional
area aimed at the early years of children with special
educational needs (SEN), developmental delays, or at-
risk, and their families. Currently, with the advent of the
expanded and systemic look at human development, the
importance of children’s relations with the various factors
that surround them, such as their community, their family,
and the availability of resources is considered (Franco,
2015). In family-centered practices in EI, the family context
is seen as the main environment for their development,
and its approach consists in valuing their competences and
respecting their choices, to better fulll the needs of the
involved individuals, in creating opportunities to encourage
the development of children based on their families active
participation, providing the necessary support and resources
that they need to learn and to engage in that process (Dunst
et al., 2014; Dunst & Espe-Sherwindt, 2016; Machado et
al., 2017; Serrano & Pereira, 2010).
In recent years, family-centered practices have been
highlighted as the model predominantly recommended
by the literature and research to provide better results and
benets for supported families (Bruder, 2012; HughesScholes
& GavidiaPayne, 2019; Leite & Pereira, 2020). Recent
studies, in addition to highlighting the eectiveness of their

2Psic.: Teor. e Pesq., Brasília, 2023, v. 39, e39303
BBR Valverde, APS Jurdi, & APS Pereira
results in the development of children, have emphasized
the potential of family-centered practices for the care and
support of families, demonstrating their positive outcomes in
the interaction between children and their family members,
in the well-being and satisfaction of families, as well as in
co-responsibility among all those involved (Espe-Sherwindt
& Serrano, 2020; Serrano, 2007; Serrano & Pereira, 2010).
Among the benets for families that benet from EI support,
three areas are emphasized in the literature: knowledge
and information, skills development, and well-being and
quality of life (Bailey et al., 2004; Cossio et al., 2018; Dunst,
2015; Leite & Pereira, 2020; Mas et al., 2019; Pereira &
Serrano, 2014). Thus, the goal of this study is to review the
papers published in the scientic literature that portray the
knowledge of the benets, support, or care that benet the
families of children with SEN and at risk in EI services. In
this paper, the perspective of families on the benets of EI
was researched, contributing to an analysis of the possibilities
and singularities of the contexts in which these practices are
implemented, and seeking to point out paths of intervention
that focus on the family in this process, as well as suggesting
directions for future research.
METHOD
This study followed the scoping review protocol
systematically, according to the literature guidelines,
namely the guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute
(Peters et al., 2015). Thus, the following predened phases
were respected: (1) identifying the review questions, (2)
identifying the relevant studies, (3) selecting the studies,
(4) mapping the data, and (5) grouping, summarizing,
and reporting the results (Pham et al., 2014). Besides, the
PRISMA-ScR checklist of the Joanna Briggs Institute
(Tricco et al., 2018), along with the Enhancing the Quality
and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR), was
conducted. To identify the key topics of our research, we
used the population, concept, and context (PCC) strategy.
With this, the main question that this review was: How do
families of children with SEN or at risk understand the
benets (support or care) of EI Services?
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
We included the papers that targeted families of children
with SEN or at-risk aged between 0 and 6 years in Early
Intervention services. In addition, the selected papers
should address family-centered EI practices and portray
EI outcomes in the areas of knowledge and information,
skills development, well-being, and of quality of life. Other
concepts related to the purpose of this kind of intervention,
such as benets, support, or care provided by EI services,
were considered in searching for papers in our review.
We included studies conducted between 2007 and 2020,
considering the publications based on the theory that was
used by us as a reference for our research, the third generation
of EI services, including the family-centered paradigm by
Dunst (2000), and the publication of meta-analysis research
of the literature produced until the year 2007 by Dunst et
al. (2007). Furthermore, we included the quantitative and/
or qualitative research available. To preserve the reliability
of the mapped data, we included only peer-reviewed papers
published in scientic journals. In addition, for technical
reasons, we only included papers available in Portuguese,
English, or Spanish.
Search strategy
Search terms were the combined descriptors (“Family-
centered” OR “Family involvement” OR “Family needs”
OR “Family relationship” OR “family program”) AND
(“early intervention”) AND (“children”). We searched
multidisciplinary databases and literature of specic eld
databases (PubMed, Eric, Embase, PsycINFO, Lilacs, and
Cinhal). Finally, we searched for the bibliographic references
of the papers that were included in our review, to nd possible
studies that we do not nd through the search strategies. In
addition to these, we added other papers written by researchers
that were not identied using our searches, which satised
the inclusion criteria, as material for data collection. The
search process was conducted and cross-checked by two
reviewers independently.
Selection of Studies
The eligibility assessment was applied by screening the
titles and abstracts before checking the full text.
Data Collection
The information obtained in the papers to collect data
was as follows: author, year of publication, country of origin,
scientic journal, population and intervention, method
(research design, approach, and kind of instrument), main
results, and limitations. In addition, we conducted a thematic
analysis, which identied themes or repeated patterns of
meaning in the data to describe in detail a particular aspect
(Braun & Clarke, 2006).

3
Psic.: Teor. e Pesq., Brasília, 2023, v. 39, e39303
Family Benets of Early Intervention
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
We found 2647 papers through our search strategy. After
nishing the process of removing the duplicates, 2040 papers
remained. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria,
we ended up with 54 papers, which constituted the sample
that we used to synthesize content. A detailed description of
this process can be found in the PRISMA-ScR ow diagram
(Figure 1). The 54 papers included in our review are shown
in Table 1 and identied with asterisk *. It is possible to see
that there has been an increase in the production of papers
on the benets of EI according to the perspective of families
of children with special needs in the last few years, with 39
of the scientic papers in the area (72.2%) referring to the
period comprehended between 2011 and 2020. Most of the
published studies were conducted by researchers from the
United States, with 21 papers (38.8%), followed by Australia,
with 8 papers (14.8%), and Spain, with 5 papers (9.25). Among
the other countries where research in this area was conducted,
we veried that in Canada and Ireland 3, publications were
produced (5.6%); that in Portugal, Switzerland, China,
South Africa, and the United Kingdom 2 publications were
realized (3.7%); also, in New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, India,
and Malawi, we found 1 publication (1.9%).
The researchers resorted to the quantitative method in
34 studies (63%). In addition, they undertook correlational
analyses (55,7%) and exploratory research (31,4%).
Regarding the instruments, many researchers used more than
one method to analyze the benets of EI. The researchers
adopted especially questionnaires (55,7%), followed by
scales (40,7%). The most used instrument by the researchers
was the Measure of Processes of Care-56 (MPOC-56) (11
studies, 20.4%). This instrument was designed to evaluate
the perception of family members on the family-centered
practices they benet, considering the items: availability and
partnership of the team, access to general information and
specic information about the child, coordinated and integral
attention to the child and the family, as well as respectful
and supportive care (King et al., 1995). Furthermore, the
Family Outcomes Survey Revised (FOS-R), which evaluates
the main benets for the family and its perception of the
usefulness of the intervention (Bailey et al., 2011), was
present in 8 studies (14.8%), followed by the Family Quality
of Life Scale, which evaluates the quality of family life in
the domains of family interaction, relationships between
parents and children, emotional well-being, physical/material
well-being, and disability-related support (Homan et al.,
2006) was resorted to in 7 papers (13%). It is noteworthy
that, aside from other forms of data collection, interviews
were conducted in 16 papers (29.6%).
Figure 1. PRISMA-ScR Flow Diagram

4Psic.: Teor. e Pesq., Brasília, 2023, v. 39, e39303
BBR Valverde, APS Jurdi, & APS Pereira
Table 1
Articles Included in Qualitative Synthesis
Title Year of
publication
Sample Research design, approach, and kind of
instrument
Information and professional support: key factors
in the provision of family-centred early childhood
intervention services.
Authors: Fordham; Gibson; Bowes.
2011 130 families of children up
to 6 incomplete years.
Quantitative method - correlational design
Application of instruments: Measure of Process of
Care-56 (MPOC-56), the Family Empowerment
Scale, the Family Support Scale, and the
Parenting Daily Hassles Scale.
Impact of support and partnership on family
quality of life
Authors: Balcells-Balcells et al.
2019
202 families with children
from 0 to 6 years old with
intellectual disabilities and
delays.
Quantitative method - correlational design
Application of instruments: Service Inventory,
Beach Center on Family–Professional Partnership
Scale, Family Quality of Life Scale (FQOL
Scale).
The meaning of early intervention: A parent’s
experience and reection on interactions
with professionals using a phenomenological
ethnographic approach.
Author: Lee.
2015 1 family with a 4-month-
old child.
Qualitative method - case study design through
ethnographic research
Observation and active participation were used.
Inuences on parental evaluation of the content of
early intervention following early identication of
deafness: a study about parents’ preferences and
satisfaction.
Authors: Gascon-Ramos et al.
2010
82 families of children
identied by the Newborn
Hearing Screening
Programme.
Quantitative method - correlational and
longitudinal design
Application of instruments: My Views on Services
questionnaire, Trait Emotional Intelligence
Questionnaire (TEIQue), and a demographic
questionnaire.
Learning from parents’ stories about what works
in early intervention.
Authors: Pighini, et al.
2014 6 families of children from
0 to 3 years.
Qualitative method - ethnographic research design
Focus groups, interviews, and text reviews were
used.
Parental Perceptions of the Parent-Therapist
Relationship: Eects on Outcomes of Early
Intervention.
Authors: Broggi; Sabatelli.
2010
39 parents of children
from 9 months to 4 years
with motor delays.
Quantitative method - correlational design
Application of instruments: The Parenting Stress
Index (PSI), MPOC-56, Family Resources Scale
(FRS), demographic questionnaire, percentage
of goals achieved in the family therapeutic plan,
and satisfaction questionnaire with the service
elaborated by the researchers.
Family Outcomes for Families of 4–5-Year-Old
Children on the Autism Spectrum Who Have
Received Early Childhood
Intervention in Australia.
Authors: Adams et al.
2019
Mothers of 96 children
between 4 and 5 years
with ASD.
Quantitative method - correlational and
longitudinal design
Application of instruments: demographic
questionnaire and on EI elaborated by researchers;
Family outcomes measure (FOS-R).
Parents’ Perceptions of Early Interventions
and Related Services for Children with Autism
Spectrum Disorder in Saudi Arabia.
Authors: Alotaibi; Almalki.
2016
80 parents of children
with ASD between 2 and
6 years.
Quantitative method - correlational design
Application of instruments: The Parental
Perceptions Questionnaire (PPQ); Parental Needs
Questionnaire (PNQ).
A Multisite Study Evaluating the
Benets of Early Intervention
via Telepractice.
Authors: Behl et al.
2017
48 families of children
with AD between 19 and
20 months.
Quantitative method - correlational design with
two groups (face-to-face and teleservice).
Application of instruments: The Monthly Time
and Activity Form, FOS-R, The Home Visit
Rating Scales–Adapted and Extended.
Early Intervention Services: Eectively
Supporting Maori Children and their Families.
Authors: Berryman; Woller.
2011 23 families of children
were inserted in the EI.
Qualitative method - case study design
Focus groups and semi-structured interviews were
used.
Inuence of a Parent-Child Interaction Focused
Bookmaking Approach on Maternal Parenting
Self-Ecacy.
Authors: Boyce et al.
2017
89 mothers of children
between 18 and 30
months.
Qualitative and quantitative method - exploratory
and correlational research design
Interviews, video analysis (Parenting Interactions
with Children: Checklist of Observations Linked
to Outcomes), application of The Parenting Stress
Index, The Center for Epidemiological Studies—
Depression Scale, and The Early Intervention
Parenting Self Ecacy Scale.
Flexibility of Programme Delivery in Providing
Eective Family-Centred Intervention for Remote
Families.
Authors: Brown; Remine.
2008 24 families of an IE
service for the deaf.
Quantitative method - exploratory design
Application of instrument: questionnaire adapted
by the authors.

5
Psic.: Teor. e Pesq., Brasília, 2023, v. 39, e39303
Family Benets of Early Intervention
Title Year of
publication
Sample Research design, approach, and kind of
instrument
Understanding Participation of Preschool-Age
Children with Cerebral Palsy.
Authors: Chiarello et al.
2012 85 parents of children with
cerebral palsy.
Quantitative method - correlational design
Application of instruments: Assessment of
Preschool Children’s Participation; GMFCS;
Coping Inventory; Pediatric Outcomes Data
Collection Instrument; Family Environment Scale;
MPOC-56; Service Delivery Questionnaire.
Early intervention in Portugal: family support and
benets.
Authors: Leite; Pereira.
2013
126 families of children
with special needs
between 6 months and 6
years.
Quantitative method - correlational design
Application of instrument: Family Benets
Inventory.
The impact of child, family, and professional
support characteristics
on the quality of life in families of young children
with disabilities.
Authors: Davis; Gavidia-Payne.
2009
64 families of children
between 3 and 5 years old
with delay or disability
Quantitative method - correlational design
Application of instrument: FQOL Scale; MPOC-
56; questionnaire on demographic data and social
support elaborated by the researchers.
In Search of Culturally Appropriate Autism
Interventions: Perspectives of Latino Caregivers.
Authors: DuBay; Watson; Zhang.
2018
55 families of children
with ASD between 1 and
6 years.
Quantitative and qualitative method - correlational
design
Used focus group and the application of
instruments: Background Information
Questionnaire; FOS-R; MPOC-56.
Parent Educators in Early Intervention Insights
from Evaluations.
Authors: Edwards; Gallagher.
2014 107 parents of children
placed in EI.
Quantitative method - exploratory design
Application of instrument: a semi-open
questionnaire (Parent Survey) elaborated by the
researchers.
Family Outcomes
of Early Intervention:
Families’ Perceptions of Need, Services, and
Outcomes.
Authors: Epley; Summers; Turnbull.
2011
77 families of children
aged 0 to 3 years with
delay or disability.
Quantitative method - correlational design
Application of instrument: Early Childhood
Services Survey, FOS-R, FQOL Scale.
Parental Satisfaction with a Home-based
Intervention for
Developmentally Delayed Children in
Switzerland: A Survey over a 10-year Period.
Authors: Favez; Me´tral; Govaerts.
2008
65 families of children
between 0 and 6 years old
with delay or disability.
Quantitative method - correlational design
Application of instrument: questionnaire prepared
by the researchers and adapted The Parental
Satisfaction.
Child, Family, and Early Intervention
Characteristics
Related to Family Quality of Life in Spain.
Authors: García-Grau et al.
2018 250 families of children
between 0 and 6 years old.
Quantitative method - correlational design
Application of instrument: FQOL Scale and a
form prepared by the researchers.
Correlates of child and family outcomes in an
Australian community-based early childhood
intervention program.
Authors: Gavidia-Payne; Meddis; Mahar.
2015 29 families of children
with disabilities.
Quantitative method - correlational design
Application of instrument: demographic
questionnaire, an adaptation of Child Outcomes
Summary Form, FOS-R, The Accommodations
Questionnaire, and MPOC-56.
“The Constant by Our Side”—Mothers’
Experiences of Early Intervention Therapy
Services for Infants with Emerging Signs of
Complex Neurodevelopmental Diculties.
Authors: Gibbs; Harniess; Crossley.
2019 6 families of children with
delays.
Qualitative method - descriptive design
A semi-structured interview was used.
Early Intervention Experiences of Families of
Children with an Autism Spectrum Disorder: A
Qualitative Pilot Study.
Authors: Coogle; Guerette; Hanline.
2013
39 parents of children
between 0 and 3 years old
with ASD or at risk.
Quantitative method - exploratory design
Application of instrument: questionnaire adapted
by the researchers.
Early Childhood Intervention Program Quality:
Examining Family-Centered Practice, Parental
Self-Ecacy and Child and Family Outcomes.
Authors: Hughes-Scholes; Gavidia-Payne.
2019 92 families of children.
Quantitative method - correlational design
Application of instruments: demographic
questionnaire, Child Outcomes Summary Form,
Parental Self–Ecacy Scale, and MPOC-56.
Parents’ Experiences in Role Negotiation within
an Infant Services Program.
Authors: Hurtubise; Carpenter.
2011
11 parents of children
between 19 and 36
months.
Qualitative method - exploratory design
Semi-structured interviews were used.
Table 1
Cont.

6Psic.: Teor. e Pesq., Brasília, 2023, v. 39, e39303
BBR Valverde, APS Jurdi, & APS Pereira
Title Year of
publication
Sample Research design, approach, and kind of
instrument
A Qualitative Study of Parental Experiences
of Participation and Partnership in an Early
Intervention Service.
Authors: James; Chard.
2010 7 families of children with
physical disabilities.
Qualitative method - phenomenological design
Semi-structured interviews were used.
Including Parents in Evaluation of a Child
Development Program: Relevance of Parental
Involvement.
Authors: Jinnah; Walters.
2008 32 parents of children
between 1 and 6 years old.
Quantitative method - correlational design
Application of instruments: questionnaire
prepared by the authors, application of Parents’
Satisfaction with a Child Development Center,
and of Parental Involvement with a Child
Development Program.
A Pilot Study of Early Intervention for Families
with Children with or at Risk of an Intellectual
Disability in Northern Malawi.
Authors: Kelly; Ghalaieny; Devitt.
2012 10 parents of children
between 1 and 5 years.
Quantitative and qualitative method - exploratory
design
Semi-structured interviews and questionnaire
applications were used.
Parent Perspectives of Participation in Home and
Community Activities When Receiving Part C
Early Intervention Services.
Authors: Khetani et al.
2011
16 families of children
between 12 and 36
months.
Qualitative method - exploratory design
Semi-structured interviews were used.
Collaboration in Early
Childhood Intervention
Services in Gauteng
Caregiver Perspectives.
Authors: Kyarkanaye; Dada; Samuels.
2017 64 relatives of children
between 0 and 6 years old.
Quantitative method - correlational design
Application of instrument: adapted Collaboration
in Early Childhood Intervention Caregiver
Revised CECI- C(R).
Comparison of family and therapist perceptions
of physical and occupational therapy services
provided to young children with cerebral palsy.
Authors: Fiss; McCoy; Chiarello.
2012 46 parents of children with
cerebral palsy.
Quantitative method - correlational design
Application of instrument: The Services
Questionnaire.
Early Intervention Outcomes for Toddlers with
Autism Spectrum Disorder and Their Families.
Authors: Noyes-Grosser et al.
2018
139 parents of children
with ASD and 129 of other
disabilities.
Quantitative method - correlational design
Application of instruments: PDD Behavior
Inventory (PDDBI), Parent Report Form,
Parenting Stress Index Short Form, FOS-R, NY
Impact on Child Scale—Modied, New York
(NY) Family Survey, Overall progress rating,
NCSEAM Family-Centered Services Scale and
analysis of videos with completion of the child
outcomes summary (COS).
Family involvement in early intervention service
planning: Links to parental satisfaction and self-
ecacy.
Authors: Popp; You.
2014
2586 families of children
with
disability or delay.
Quantitative and qualitative method - descriptive
design
Semi-structured interviews and longitudinal
research data analysis were used.
Measuring Family Outcomes in Early
Intervention: Findings
From a Large-Scale Assessment.
Authors: Raspa et al.
2010 2849 families.
Quantitative method - correlational design
Application of instruments: Child and Family
Demographics, FOS-R, Family-Centered Services
part of the National Center for Special Education
Accountability Monitoring Part C Family Survey
(NCSEAM).
Mothers’ Satisfaction with a Home-Based Early
Intervention Programme for Children with ASD.
Authors: Rodger et al.
2008 2 mothers of children with
ASD.
Quantitative and qualitative method - exploratory
case study design
Application of instruments: Scales of
Independent Behaviour – Revised (SIB-R),
The Communication and Symbolic Behaviour
Scales Developmental Prole, The Canadian
Occupational Performance Measure, The Parent
Sense of Competence (PSOC), The Parenting
Stress Index (PSI), MPOC-56.
Resources and Services for Children with Autism
Spectrum Disorders and Their Families in China.
Authors: Zheng; Tierney; Brian.
2013 49 parents of children with
ASD.
Quantitative method - exploratory design
Application of instrument: questionnaire
elaborated by the researchers.
Table 1
Cont.

7
Psic.: Teor. e Pesq., Brasília, 2023, v. 39, e39303
Family Benets of Early Intervention
Title Year of
publication
Sample Research design, approach, and kind of
instrument
Perceptions of Early Intervention Services:
Adolescent and Adult Mothers in Two States.
Authors: Thompson; Bruns.
2013 28 mothers.
Quantitative and qualitative method - exploratory
design
Sociodemographic form and semi-structured
interviews were used.
Parenting, autism spectrum disorders and inner
journeys.
Authors: Twomey; Shevlin.
2016
Parents of 5 children
between 2 and a half years
and 6 years.
Qualitative method - longitudinal exploratory
design
Document analysis, observation, focus groups,
and interviews with parents, sta, and teachers
were used.
Early Childhood Intervention in China from the
Families’ Perspective.
Authors: Zheng et al.
2016
6 families of children
between 3 and 6 years old
with disabilities.
Qualitative method - exploratory design
Semi-structured interviews were used.
Parental Perceptions Inuencing the Utilization
of Early Intervention Services in Children with
Developmental Delay.
Authors: Chauhan et al.
2017 31 families of children up
to 6 years old with delay.
Quantitative and qualitative method - exploratory
design
Semi-structured interviews and a questionnaire
elaborated by the researchers were used.
Family Quality of Life for Families in Early
Intervention in Spain.
Authors: Mas et al.
2016 281 families of children up
to 6 years.
Quantitative method - correlational design
Application of instrument: FQOL Scale.
Child and Family-Centered Practices in Early
Childhood Education and Care Services: An
Empirical Study with Families and Practitioners
in Portugal.
Authors: Dias; Cadime.
2019 78 families of children
placed in IP.
Quantitative method - exploratory design
Application of instruments: socio-demographic
questionnaires and Family Focused Intervention
Scale - Portuguese adaptation.
Team-Based Approaches in Early Intervention
Services for Children with Disabilities: Irish
Parents’ Experiences.
Authors: Fitzgerald; Ryan; Fitzgerald.
2015 19 parents of children
between 0 and 6 years old.
Qualitative method - exploratory design
Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were
used.
Family-centred care in early intervention:
Examining caregiver
perceptions of family-centred care and early
intervention service use intensity.
Authors: McManus et al.
2020 35 parents. Quantitative method - correlational design
Application of instrument: MPOC-56.
Early intervention in South Africa: Moving
beyond hearing screening.
Authors: Störbeck; Pittman.
2008 32 families of children
with hearing loss.
Quantitative method - descriptive design
Document analysis and questionnaire prepared by
the researchers were used.
Families Living in Poverty: Perceptions of Family-
Centered Practices.
Authors: Swaord et al.
2015 17 families of children. Qualitative method - exploratory design
Semi-structured interviews were used.
The Implications of “Working Alliance” for the
Measurement
and Evaluation of
Family-centered Practice in Childhood Disability
Services.
Authors: Trute; Hiebert-Murphy.
2007 111 families.
Quantitative method - correlational design
Application of instrument: MPOC-20 and Family
Centered Behavior Scale.
Evaluation of the processes of family-centred care
for young children with intellectual disability in
Western Australia.
Authors: Wilkins et al.
2010
165 families of children
between 0 and 6 years
old with intellectual
disabilities.
Quantitative method - correlational design
Application of instrument: MPOC-56 and a form
prepared by the researchers.
Caregivers’ experiences with the new family‐
centred paediatric physiotherapy programme
COPCA: A qualitative study.
Authors: Ziegler; Mitteregger; Hadders-Algra.
2020
15 families of children
between 0 and 3 years old
with special needs.
Qualitative method - case study design
A questionnaire with open-ended questions was
used.
Parent Perspectives on Early Childhood
Assessment: A Focus Group Inquiry.
Authors: Farrell; O’Sullivan; Quinn.
2009 12 parents of children
between 3 and 39 months.
Qualitative method - exploratory design
Focus groups are used.
Table 1
Cont.

8Psic.: Teor. e Pesq., Brasília, 2023, v. 39, e39303
BBR Valverde, APS Jurdi, & APS Pereira
To observe how families of children with special needs
perceive the benets and support received by EI services and
their teams, four dierent nuclei of scientic production were
identied, namely: EI team, skills, and collaborative practices;
Family empowerment and self-efficacy; Participation,
personal needs and Quality of Family Life; Access to
information and services.
EI team, skills, and collaborative practices
Although some studies emphasize satisfaction with care
focused on child development (Alotaibi & Almalki, 2016;
Coogle et al., 2013; Kelly et al., 2012; Noyes-Grosser et
al., 2018; Summers et al., 2007), most of them highlight
as positive the relationship of partnership between the
professionals and the family, which is perceived as one
of their most benecial outcomes (Adams et al., 2019;
Balcells-Balcells et al., 2019; Brown & Remine, 2008;
Favez et al., 2008; Fordham et al., 2011; Gràcia et al.,
2019; HughesScholes & GavidiaPayne, 2019; Jinnah &
Walters, 2008; Leite & Pereira, 2013; McManus et al.,
2020; Pighini et al., 2014; Thompson & Bruns, 2013; Trute
& Hiebert-Murphy, 2007), through an active listening and
a close and collaborative behavior (Fitzgerald et al., 2015;
Gavidia-Payne et al., 2015; Gibbs et al., 2019; James &
Chard, 2010; Khetani et al., 2011; Pighini et al., 2014).
The focus on family priorities and their concerns were also
highlighted (Brown & Remine, 2008; Coogle et al., 2013;
Kyarkanaye et al., 2017), enabling families to participate
in the processes of decision-making in the EI interventions
(Fiss et al., 2012; Pighini et al., 2014; Popp & You, 2014;
Ziegler et al., 2020).
Professional competence was positively perceived
(Coogle et al., 2013; James & Chard, 2010), as well as
individualized intervention plans (Alotaibi & Almalki, 2016).
Families also mentioned the greater support received, the
exibility, and the communication conveyed when attended
by a single reference professional (Fitzgerald et al., 2015).
A few studies indicate that the perception of the support
received by families increased over time involvement in
EI (Gascon-Ramos et al., 2010; Leite & Pereira, 2013;
Raspa et al., 2010). In some studies, the kind of disability or
developmental delay does not interfere with the perception
of the benets of EI (Epley et al., 2011), while in others
the satisfaction is greater when children present motor and
sensory alterations than when they have communicative,
social and behavioral diculties (Favez et al., 2008). The
greater perception of the received support by families is
related to the lower education levels of family members
(Leite & Pereira, 2013).
If, on the one hand, collaborative practices appear to be
related to lower levels of stress and higher levels of parental
competence (Broggi & Sabatelli, 2010), on the other hand, it
is considered that not all families feel comfortable with the
responsibility of participating in the support intervention or
be at ease regarding control of decision-making processes
in EI (Broggi & Sabatelli, 2010; Hurtubise & Carpenter,
2011; Lee, 2015).
Family empowerment and self-efcacy
One benet of EI that appears recurrently in studies is
empowerment. Research generally denes it as families’
condence in their skills to face daily challenges and
Title Year of
publication
Sample Research design, approach, and kind of
instrument
The transition process from center-based
programmes to family-centered practices in Spain:
a multiple case study.
Authors: Gràcia et al.
2019
35 families of children
with intellectual
disabilities between 1 and
4 years.
Quantitative method - correlational design
Application of instrument: FQOL Scale and the
Family Needs Assessment.
Outcomes Reported by Spanish-Speaking
Families in Early Intervention.
Authors: Olmsted et al.
2010 3140 families of children.
Quantitative method - correlational design
Application of instruments: FOS-R and the
Family-Centered Services.
Atención temprana y prácticas centradas en la
familia: a propósito de un caso.
Authors: Pérez et al.
2016 1 family with a child of 5
years and 3 months.
Qualitative method - case study design
An eco-map, an interview based on routines, and
instruments to assess the child’s development
were used.
Relationship of perceived adequacy of services,
family-professional partnerships, and family
quality of life in early childhood service
programmes.
Authors: Summers et al.
2007 180 families of children
from 0 to 5 years.
Quantitative method - correlational design
Application of instruments: Services Inventory,
the Family–Professional Partnership Scale, and
the FQOL Scale.
Table 1
Cont.

9
Psic.: Teor. e Pesq., Brasília, 2023, v. 39, e39303
Family Benets of Early Intervention
situations, or as the control they have over their lives
and decisions (Leite & Pereira, 2013). Empowerment is
portrayed as an important benet provided by EI support
(Fordham et al., 2011; Gràcia et al., 2019; James & Chard,
2010; Leite & Pereira, 2013; Pérez et al., 2016; Trute &
Hiebert-Murphy, 2007). Among these actions, families
emphasize the support that allows them to understand
the individual characteristics, needs, and abilities of their
children (Adams et al., 2019; Epley et al., 2011; Gascon-
Ramos et al., 2010; Gavidia-Payne et al., 2015; Leite &
Pereira, 2013; Swaord et al., 2015; Zheng et al., 2016),
that gives them access to and sharing of information, as
well as the exchange of strategies to cope with stress
(Brown & Remine, 2008; Chiarello et al., 2012; Coogle et
al., 2013; Edwards & Gallagher, 2014; Kelly et al., 2012;
Pighini et al., 2014; Thompson & Bruns, 2013; Wilkins et
al, 2010; Ziegler et al., 2020) to support their development
(Behl et al., 2017; DuBay et al., 2018; HughesScholes &
GavidiaPayne, 2019; Noyes-Grosser et al., 2018; Störbeck
& Pittman, 2008). Some families also highlighted the
benet of discovering children’s potential, helping them to
envision more positive expectations regarding themselves
(Brown & Remine, 2008).
The term self-ecacy is also used to describe the benets
provided by EI support, dened as the families’ sense of
competence and condence in their abilities (Boyce et
al., 2017). The studies describe families’ perception of the
improvement of their ecacy, strengthening them, giving
them greater self-condence, and an increased appreciation
of their competencies (Boyce et al., 2017; HughesScholes
& GavidiaPayne, 2019; Raspa et al., 2010; Swaord et
al., 2015), relating it to the degree of involvement of their
members in EI actions (Popp & You, 2014).
Participation, personal needs, and Quality of
Family Life
Concerning the involvement of the lies in EI, most
studies emphasize the predominant participation of mothers
(Adams et al., 2019; Alotaibi & Almalki, 2016; Broggi &
Sabatelli, 2010; Balcells-Balcells et al., 2019; Chauhan et
al., 2017; Davis & Gavidia-Payne, 2009; Dias & Cadime,
2019; Epley et al., 2011; Fiss et al., 2012; Gavidia-Payne et
al., 2015; HughesScholes & GavidiaPayne, 2019; Hurtubise
& Carpenter, 2011; Jinnah & Walters, 2008; Kyarkanaye et
al., 2017; Lee, 2015; Leite & Pereira, 2013; McManus et al.,
2020; Mas et al., 2016; Popp & You, 2014; Summers et al.,
2007; Swaord et al., 2015; Trute & Hiebert-Murphy, 2007;
Wilkins et al., 2010; Zheng et al., 2016; Ziegler et al., 2020).
Besides personal needs, the quality of family life (QFL)
is indicated in the literature as one of the most important
outcomes of EI, being considered indicative of the quality
of the service provided (Balcells-Balcells et al., 2019).
QFL considers family relationships, physical or material
well-being, emotional well-being, and disability-related
support (Epley et al., 2011). Some families mention greater
satisfaction with QFL when supported by a case coordinator
professional (García-Grau et al., 2018). Families of younger
children (between 0 and 2 years old) and of children diagnosed
with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) describe a lower QFL
than the others, showing a relation between family perception
and the degree of functionality of the child (García-Grau
et al., 2018). Another aspect indicated in the research is
family income, with a signicant relation between higher
socio-economic levels and better perceptions of QFL (Davis
& Gavidia-Payne, 2009; Mas et al., 2016).
Access to information and services
Another relevant topic in the papers reviewed is related
to access to information on community services, rights, and
resources. This factor is an important benet provided by
EI since it is associated with the promotion of timely spaces
of family co-responsibility in this process. In the studies
found, the importance of this benet is clear, with access
to information being described as EI support that enables
an articulation between children’s and families’ needs with
the possibilities of services and support that aim at their
development (Pighini et al., 2014). Thus, some studies
indicate that families feel satisfaction with the access to
information and the understanding of their rights (Epley et
al., 2011; Behl et al., 2017), as well as with the access to
available services (HughesScholes & GavidiaPayne, 2019).
Also, some families perceive positively a connection with
other families in the community (Edwards & Gallagher,
2014), highlighting the importance of the support that allows
them to mobilize formal and informal social support (Trute
& Hiebert-Murphy, 2007).
While it is important to note the prominence of this
benet, the majority of the studies described low levels of
satisfaction of the families regarding the provision of services
and resources (Chauhan et al., 2017; Fordham et al., 2011;
James & Chard, 2010; McManus et al., 2020; Rodger et al.,
2008; Summers et al., 2007; Wilkins et al., 2010; Zheng et al.,
2016). As regards informal social support, studies show little
family satisfaction with access to this network, indicating the
need to encourage possibilities of contact with other families
and parent associations (Favez et al., 2008; Gavidia-Payne
et al., 2015; Noyes-Grosser et al., 2018; Raspa et al., 2010;
Zheng et al., 2016). Regarding a macrosystemic level for
the promotion of this access to information and services, it
is also possible to observe the need to encourage political
actions and government support (Fordham et al., 2011;
Alotaibi & Almalki, 2016).

10 Psic.: Teor. e Pesq., Brasília, 2023, v. 39, e39303
BBR Valverde, APS Jurdi, & APS Pereira
CONCLUSION
Our research allows us to understand that the evaluation
of the benets provided by support is a complex process but
simultaneously a fundamental indicator of the eectiveness
of support in EI. It also refers to the need for a continuous
reection on the quality of policies and practices implemented
in the support of families with children with special needs.
The present study´s ndings highlight the importance of
collaborative practices in the functioning of the EI support
team and the eective participation of the family as an
indicator of the eectiveness and quality of life. Studies
have described the comprehensive relationship with the
professionals as a great benet, pointing to family satisfaction
with the provided services and with the received support,
which enables their participation, active listening, and
appreciation, leading to a strengthening of the family network
and greater condence in the skills and competencies of the
members of the families.
Regarding practice, we recommend that professionals
should pay attention to the family’s perception of EI and
their needs, presented in this study, so they can serve as
a starting point for improving practices, namely a case
coordinator professional of the service and better access to
information and informal social support. We also highlight
the need to encourage political actions favoring this access to
information about services, rights, and resources, because of
the relation between this benet and the promotion of family
co-responsibility, which will enable the benets of EI to
extend beyond the period of intervention of the professionals.
On the other hand, we suggest a series of other studies
that involve overcoming some of the limitations of our
research, namely studies that focus mainly on the participation
of mothers in EI, which reect, almost exclusively, on the
perception of the benets according to this perspective. Also,
the socio-demographic characteristics of the population
under study are homogeneous in most articles, not being
representative of all realities. Furthermore, considering
that the predominance of quantitative research and the
use of instruments limits the scope of studies, it would be
interesting to include the synchronous use of qualitative
research strategies to assist in obtaining further information
and in exploring data analysis, contributing to a broader
understanding of the perspective of family members on the
benets of EI in dierent contexts and realities.
Acknowledgments
This work was nancially supported by Portuguese
national funds through the FCT (Foundation for Science
and Technology) within the framework of the CIEC
(Research Center for Child Studies of the University of
Minho) projects under the references UIDB/00317/2020
and UIDP/00317/2020.
REFERENCES
*Adams, D., Keen, D., Heussler, H. S., Wicks, R., & Roberts,
J. (2019). Family outcomes for families of 4–5-year-
old children on the autism spectrum who have received
early childhood intervention in Australia. Infants &
Young Children, 32(3), 186-200. https://doi.org/10.1097/
IYC.0000000000000143
Alotaibi, F., & Almalki, N. (2016). Parents’ perceptions of early
interventions and related services for children with autism
spectrum disorder in Saudi Arabia. International Education
Studies, 9(10), 128-140. https://doi:10.5539/ies.v9n10p128
Bailey, D. B., Hebbeler, K., Scarborough, A., Spiker, D., & Mallik,
S. (2004). First experiences with early intervention: A national
perspective. Pediatrics, 113 (4), 887-896.
Bailey, D. B., Raspa, M., Olmsted, M. G., Novak, S. P., Sam, A.
M., Humphreys, B. P., Nelson, R., Robinson, N., & Guillen, C.
(2011). Development and psychometric validation of the Family
Outcomes Survey-Revised. Journal of Early Intervention,
33(1), 6–23. https://doi:10.1177/1053815111399441
*Balcells-Balcells, A., Giné, C., Guàrdia-Olmos, J., Summers, J.
A., & Mas, J. M. (2019). Impact of supports and partnership on
family quality of life. Research in Developmental Disabilities,
85, 50-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.10.006
*Behl, D. D., Blaiser, K., Cook, G., Barrett, T., Callow-Heusser, C.,
Brooks, B. M., Dawson, P., Quigley, S., & White, K. R. (2017).
A multisite study evaluating the benets of early intervention
via telepractice. Infants & Young Children, 30(2), 147–161.
https://doi: 10.1097/IYC.0000000000000090
*Berryman, M., & Woller, P. (2011). Early intervention services:
Eectively supporting Maori children and their families.
Kairaranga Journal, 12(1), 3-9.
*Boyce, L. K., Seedall, R. B, Innocenti, M. S., Roggman, L. A. Cook,
G. A., Hangman, A. M., & Jump Norm, V. (2017). Inuence of
a parent–child interaction focused bookmaking approach on
maternal parenting self-ecacy. Infants & Young Children, 30,
76–93. https://doi: 10.1097/IYC.0000000000000085
Braun, V.; & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in
psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
*Broggi, M. B.; & Sabatelli, R. (2010). Parental perceptions of the
parent-therapist relationship: Eects on outcomes of early
intervention. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics,
30(3), 234-247.
*Brown, P. M.; & Remine, M. D. (2008) Flexibility of programme
delivery in providing eective family-centred intervention for
remote families. Deafness & Education International, 10(4),
213-225. https://doi: 10.1179/146431508790559742
Bruder, M. B. (2012). Coordenação de serviços de apoio às famílias.
In R. A. Mcwilliam (Ed.), Trabalhar com as famílias de crianças
com necessidades especiais (pp. 107-142). Porto Editora.
*Chauhan, S., Prasad, P. L., Rai, P. L., & Khurana, B. (2017).
Parental perceptions influencing the utilization of early
intervention services in children with developmental delay.
Journal Nepal Paediatr. Soc., 37, 51-58. https://doi: 10.3126/
jnps.v37i1.16988

11
Psic.: Teor. e Pesq., Brasília, 2023, v. 39, e39303
Family Benets of Early Intervention
*Chiarello, L. A., Palisano, R. J., Orlin, M. N., Chang, H., Begnoche,
D., & An, M. (2012). Understanding participation of preschool-
age children with cerebral palsy. Journal of Early Intervention,
34, 3-19. https://doi: 10.1177/1053815112443988
*Coogle, C. G., Guerette, A. M., & Hanline, M. F. (2013). Early
intervention experiences of families of children with an autism
spectrum disorder: A qualitative pilot study. Early Childhood
Research and Practice, 15(1).
Cossio, A. P., Pereira, A. P. S., & Rodriguez, R. C. C. (2018).
Benefícios da intervenção precoce para a família de crianças com
transtorno do espectro do autismo. Revista Educação Especial,
31(60), 9-20. https://doi.org/10.5902/1984686X28331
*Davis, K., & Gavidia-Payne, S. (2009). The impact of child,
family, and professional support characteristics on the quality
of life in families of young children with disabilities. Journal
of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 34(2), 153-162.
https://doi: 10.1080/13668250902874608
*Dias, P. C., & Cadime, I. (2019). Child and family-centered
practices in early childhood education and care services: An
empirical study with families and practitioners in Portugal.
Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. https://doi:
10.1007/s10560-019-00599-7
*Dubay, M., Watson, L. R., & Zhang, W. (2018). In search of
culturally appropriate autism interventions: Perspectives
of latino caregivers. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 48(5), 1623-1639. https://doi: 10.1007/s10803-
017-3394-8
Dunst, C. J. (2000). Apoiar e capacitar as famílias em intervenção
precoce: O que aprendemos? In L. M. Correia & A. M. Serrano
(Eds.), Envolvimento Parental em Intervenção Precoce: Das
Práticas Centradas na Criança às Práticas Centradas na
Família (pp. 77-92). Porto Editora.
Dunst, C. J. (2015). Professional-family help giving relationships
in family support programs. International Journal of Case
Studies, 4(9), 23-31.
Dunst, C. J., Bruder, M. B., & Espe-Sherwindt, M. (2014). Family
capacity-building in early childhood intervention: Do context
and setting matter? School Community Journal, 24(1), 37-48.
Dunst, C. J., & Espe-Sherwindt, M. (2016). Family-centered
practices in early childhood intervention. In B. Reichow,
B. Boyd, E. Barton, & S. Odom (Eds.), Handbook of Early
Childhood Special Education (pp. 37-55). Springer.
Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Hamby, D. W. (2007). Meta-analysis
of family-centered helpgiving practices research. Mental
Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews,
13, 370-378. https://doi: 10.1002/mrdd.20176
*Edwards, N. M., & Gallagher, P. A. (2014). Parent educators
in early intervention: Insights from evaluations. Infants
& Young Children, 27(3), 220–240. https://doi: 10.1097/
IYC.0000000000000011
*Epley, P. H., Summers, J. A., & Turnbull, A. P. (2011). Family
outcomes of early intervention: families’ perceptions of need,
services, and outcomes. Journal of Early Intervention, 33(3),
201-219. https://doi: 10.1177/1053815111425929
Espe-Sherwindt, M., & Serrano, A. M. (2020). “I felt alone”: The
importance of social support for early intervention. Educação,
43(1), 1–9. https://doi: 10.15448/1981-2582.2020.1.35476
*Farrell, A. F., O’Sullivan, C., & Quinn, L. (2009). Parent
perspectives on early childhood assessment: A focus group
inquiry. Early Childhood Services, 3, 61-76.
*Favez, N., Métral, E., & Govaerts, P. (2008). Parental satisfaction
with a home-based intervention for developmentally
delayed children in Switzerland: A survey over a 10-year
period. Child Care in Practice, 14(2), 147-163. https://doi:
10.1080/13575270701868751
*Fiss, A. C. L., Mccoy, S. W., & Chiarello, L. A. (2012). Comparison
of family and therapist perceptions of physical and occupational
therapy services provided to young children with cerebral palsy.
Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 32(2), 210-
226. https://doi: 10.3109/01942638.2011.619250
*Fitzgerald, N., Ryan, P., & Fitzgerald, A. (2015). Team-based
approaches in early intervention services for children with
disabilities: Irish parents’ experiences. Journal of Policy and
Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 12(3), 199-209. https://
doi: 10.1111/jppi.12126
*Fordham, L., Gibson, F., & Bowes, J. (2011). Information and
professional support: Key factors in the provision of family-
centred early childhood intervention services. Child: care,
health and development, 38(5), 647-653. https://doi:10.1111/
j.1365-2214.2011.01324.x
Franco, V. (2015). Introdução a intervenção precoce no
desenvolvimento da criança: Com a família, na comunidade,
em equipe. Aloendro.
*García-Grau, P., Mcwilliam, R. A., Martínez-Rico, G., &
Morales-Murillo, C. P. (2018). Child, family, and early
intervention characteristics related to family quality of life
in Spain. Journal of Early Intervention, 1-18. https://doi:
10.1177/1053815118803772
*Gascon-Ramos, M., Campbell, M., Bamford, J., & Young, A.
(2010). Inuences on parental evaluation of the content of early
intervention following early identication of deafness: A study
about parents’ preferences and satisfaction. Child: care, health
and development, 36(6), 868-877. https://doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
2214.2010.01092.x
*Gavidia-Payne, S., Meddis, K., & Mahar, N. (2015). Correlates
of child and family outcomes in an Australian community-
based early childhood intervention program. Journal of
Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 40, 57-67. https://
doi: 10.3109/13668250.2014.983056
*Gibbs, D., Harniess, P., & Crossley, S. L. (2019). “The constant
by our side”—mothers’ experiences of early intervention
therapy services for infants with emerging signs of complex
neurodevelopmental diculties. Infants & Young Children,
32(4), 255-269. https://doi: 10.1097/IYC.0000000000000149
*Gràcia, M., Simón, C., Salvador-Beltran, F. Alcocer, A. L. A., Mas.
J. M., Giné, C., & Dalmau, M. (2019). The transition process
from center-based programmes to family-centered practices
in Spain: A multiple case study. Early Child Development
and Care, 1-13. https://doi:10.1080/03004430.2018.1564916
Homan, L., Marquis, J., Poston, D., Summers, J. A., & Turnbull, A.
(2006). Assessing family outcomes: Psychometric evaluation
of the Beach Center Family Quality of Life Scale. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 68, 1069–1083. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1741-3737.2006.00314.x
*HughesScholes, C. H., & GavidiaPayne, S. (2019). Early childhood
intervention program quality: Examining familycentered
practice, parental selfecacy and child and family outcomes.
Early Childhood Education Journal, 47, 719–729. https://doi:
10.1007/s10643-019-00961-5
*Hurtubise, K., & Carpenter, C. (2011). Parents’ experiences in
role negotiation within an infant services program. Infants &
Young Children, 24, 75-86.
*James, C., & Chard, G. A. (2010). Qualitative study of parental
experiences of participation and partnership in an early
intervention service. Infants & Young Children, 23(4), 275-285.
*Jinnah, H. A., & Walters, L. H. (2008). Including parents in
evaluation of a child development program: Relevance of
parental involvement. Early Childhood Research & Practice,
10, 1-13.
*Kelly, A., Ghalaieny, T., & Devitt, C. A. (2012). Pilot study of
early intervention for families with children with or at risk of
an intellectual disability in Northern Malawi. Journal of Policy
and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9(3), 195-205. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-1130.2012.00354.x
*Khetani, A. M., Cohn, E. S., Orsmond, G. I., Law, M. C., & Coster,
W. J. (2011). Parent perspectives of participation in home and

12 Psic.: Teor. e Pesq., Brasília, 2023, v. 39, e39303
BBR Valverde, APS Jurdi, & APS Pereira
community activities when receiving part C early intervention
services. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 32(4),
234-245. https://doi: 10.1177/0271121411418004
King, S., Rosenbaum, P., & King, G. (1995). The measure of
processes of care: A means to assess family centered behaviors
of health care providers. Hamilton. In McMaster University,
Neurodevelopmental Clinical Research Unit, Chedoke-
McMaster Hospitals.
*Kyarkanaye, T., Dada, S., & Samuels, A. E. (2017). Collaboration
in early childhood intervention services in Gauteng: Caregiver
perspectives. Infants & Young Children, 30(3), 238-254, 2017.
https://doi: 10.1097/IYC.0000000000000095
*Lee, Y. H. (2015). The meaning of early intervention: A parent’s
experience and reection on interactions with professionals
using a phenomenological ethnographic approach, International
Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 10(1),
e25891. https://doi: 10.3402/qhw.v10.25891
*Leite, C. S. C., & Pereira, A. P. S. (2013). Early intervention
in Portugal: Family support and benets. British Journal of
Learning Support, 28(4), 146-153. https://doi: 10.1111/1467-
9604.12034
Leite, C. S. C., & Pereira, A. P. S. (2020). Family outcomes
in early intervention: Results from a nationwide study in
Portugal. Early Child Development and Care, 1-9. https://doi:
10.1080/03004430.2019.1585348
Machado, M. A. M., Santos, P. Â. C. H., & Espe-Sherwindt, M.
(2017). Envolvimento participativo de famílias no processo de
apoio em intervenção precoce na infância. Saber & Educar,
23, 122-137.
Mas, J. M., Dunst, C., Balcells-Balcells, A., Garcia-Ventura, S.,
Giné, C., & Cañadas, M. (2019). Family-centered practices and
the parental well-being of young children with disabilities and
developmental delay. Research in Developmental Disabilities,
94. https://doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2019.103495
*Mas, J. M., Baqués, N., Balcells-Balcells, A., Dalmau, M.,
Giné, C., Gràcia, M., & Vilaseca, R. (2016). Family
quality of life for families in early intervention in Spain.
Journal of Early Intervention, 38, 59-74. https://doi:
10.1177/1053815116636885
*Mcmanus, B. M., Murphy, N. J., Richardson, Z., Khetani, M.
A., Schenkman, M, & Morrato, E. H. (2020). Family-centred
care in early intervention: Examining caregiver perceptions of
family-centred care and early intervention service use intensity.
Child Care Health Dev, 46, 1-8. https://doi: 10.1111/cch.12724
*Noyes-Grosser, D. M, Elbaum, B., Wu, Y., Siegenthaler, K. M.,
Cavalari, R. S., Gillis, J. M., & Romanczyk, R. G. (2018).
Early intervention outcomes for toddlers with autism spectrum
disorder and their families. Infants & Young Children, 31(3),
177-199. https://doi: 10.1097/IYC.0000000000000121
*Olmsted, M. G., Bailey, D. B., Raspa, M., Nelson, R. E., Robinson,
N. D., Simpson, M. E., & Guillen, C. (2010). Outcomes
reported by spanish-speaking families in early intervention.
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 30, 46-55.
https://doi: 10.1177/0271121409360827
Pereira, A. P. S., & Serrano, A. M. S. P. H. (2014). Early intervention
in Portugal: Study of professionals’ perceptions. Journal of
Family Social Work, 17(3), 263-282. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10522158.2013.865426
*Pérez, M. C., Mora, C. T. E., Rico, G. M., Martín, M. A., Blázquez,
V. A., Varea, M. D., Castellano, I. F., Soler, E. M., Hurtuna, M.
R., García, A. S., & Martínez, C. S. (2016). Atención temprana
y prácticas centradas en la familia: A propósito de un caso.
Revista de Logopedia, Foniatría y Audiología, 1-10. https://
doi: 10.1016/j.rlfa.2016.07.004
Peters, M. D., Godfrey, C. M., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Parker,
D., & Soares, C. B. (2015). Guidance for conducting
systematic scoping reviews. International Journal of
Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13, 141-146. https://doi: 10.1097/
XEB.0000000000000050
Pham, H., Rajić, A., Greig, J. D., Sargeant, J. M., Papadopoulos, A.,
& McEwen, S. A. (2014). A scoping review of scoping reviews:
Advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency.
Research Synthesis Methods, 5, 371-385. https://doi: 10.1002/
jrsm.1123
*Pighini, M. J., Goelman, H., Buchanan, M., Schonert-Reichl, K.,
& Brynelsen, D. (2014). Learning from parents’ stories about
what works in early Intervention. International Journal of
Psychology, 49(4), 263–270. https://doi: 10.1002/ijop.12024
*Popp, T. K., & You, H. K. (2014). Family involvement in early
intervention service planning: Links to parental satisfaction
and self-ecacy. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 1-14,
https://doi: 10.1177/1476718X14552945
*Raspa, M., Bailey, D. B, Olmsted, M. G., Nelson, R., Robinson,
N., Simpson, M. E., Guillen, C., & Houts, R. (2010). Measuring
family outcomes in early intervention: Findings from a large-
scale assessment. Exceptional Children, 76(4), 496-510. https://
doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600407
*Rodger, S., Keen, D., Braithwaite, M., & Cook, S. (2008).
Mothers’ satisfaction with a home-based early intervention
programme for children with ASD. Journal of Applied
Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 21, 174–182. https://doi:
10.1111/j.1468-3148.2007.00393.x
Serrano, A. M. (2007). Redes Sociais de Apoio e sua relevância
para a intervenção precoce. Porto Editora.
Serrano, A. M. S. P. H., & Pereira, A. P. (2010). Intervenção
precoce em Portugal: Evidências e consequências. Inclusão,
10, 101-120.
*Störbeck, C., & Pittman, P. (2008). Early intervention in South
Africa: Moving beyond hearing screening. International
Journal of Audiology, 47(suppl. 1), 36-43. https://doi:
10.1080/14992020802294040
*Summers, J. A., Marquis, J., Mannan, H., Turnbull, A. P., Fleming,
K., Poston, D. J., Wang, M., & Kupzyk, K. (2007) Relationship
of perceived adequacy of services, family–professional
partnerships, and family quality of life in early childhood
service programmes, International Journal of Disability,
Development and Education, 54(3), 319-338. https://doi:
10.1080/10349120701488848
*Swaord, M. D., Wingate, K. O., Zagumny, L., & Richey, D.
(2015). Families living in poverty: Perceptions of family-
centered practices. Journal of Early Intervention, 37(2), 138-
154. https://doi: 10.1177/1053815115602880
*Thompson, S. D., & Bruns, D. A. (2013). Perceptions of early
intervention services: Adolescent and adult mothers in two
states. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 15(1).
Tricco, A., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H.,
Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks,
L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart,
L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., …
Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews
(PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal
Medicine, 169(7), 467-473. https://doi: 10.7326/M18-0850
*Trute, B., & Hiebert-Murphy, D. (2007). The implications of
“working alliance” for the measurement and evaluation of
family-centered practice in childhood disability services.
Infants & Young Children, 20(2), 109-119.
*Twomey, M., & Shevlin, M. (2016). Parenting, autism spectrum
disorders and inner journeys. Journal of Research in Special
Educational Needs, 1-11. https://doi: 10.1111/1471-3802.12373
*Wilkins, A., Leonard, H., Jacoby, P., MacKinnon, E., Clohessy,
P., Forouhgi, S., & Slack-Smith, L. (2010). Evaluation of
the processes of family-centred care for young children with
intellectual disability in western Australia. Child: care, health
and development, 36(5), 709-718. https://doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
2214.2010.01104.x

13
Psic.: Teor. e Pesq., Brasília, 2023, v. 39, e39303
Family Benets of Early Intervention
*Zheng, Y,, Maude, S. P., Brotherson, M. J., & Merritts,
A. (2016). Early childhood intervention in China from
the families’ perspective. International Journal of
Disability, Development and Education, 1-19. https://doi:
10.1080/1034912X.2015.1124988
*Zheng, Y,, Tierney, G., Brian, R. (2013). Resources and Services
for Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders and Their
Families in China. Infants & Young Children, 26(3), 204-212.
https://doi:10.1097/IYC.0b013e3182979228
*Ziegler, S. A., Mitteregger, E., & Hadders-Algra, M. (2020).
Caregivers’ experiences with the new family-centred paediatric
physiotherapy programme COPCA: A qualitative study. Child:
care, health and development, 26, 28-36. https://doi: 10.1111/
cch.12722