Lessons from the National Outcomes Measurement System (NOMS)

ABSTRACT

Significant reforms in education are changing the way school-based speech-language pathologists document and provide treatment. Faced with resource constraints and new mandates for accountability, clinicians are being pressured to demonstrate the value and impact of their services. To assist clinicians with meeting these challenges, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association developed the National Outcomes Measurement System (NOMS) as a way to determine the effectiveness of school-based speech and language services. Data collected from NOMS are used to discuss: the effects of speech and language intervention on a student's ability to perform in the classroom, the key factors influencing progress for preschoolers with articulation disorders, and the impact of a clinician's caseload size on the outcomes students achieve.

Treatment outcomes - schools - caseload - speech-language pathology - articulation

REFERENCES

• 1 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 20 U.S.C § 6301 et seq; 2002 . 
• 2 Amiot A. Policy, politics, and the power of information: the critical need for outcomes and clinical trials data in policy-making in the schools.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch . 1988;  29 245
• 3 King R, Jones C, Lasky E. In retrospect: a fifteen-year follow-up report of speech-language disordered children.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch . 1982;  13 24-32
• 4 Lewis B, Freebairn L. Residual effects of preschool phonology disorders in grade school, adolescence, and adulthood.  J Speech Hear Res . 1992;  35 819-831
• 5 Logemann J, Baum H. Speech-language hearing intervention in the schools: a public health perspective on measuring their short-term and long-term impact.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch . 1998;  29 270-273
• 6 O'Brien M, Huffman N. Impact of managed care in the schools.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch . 1998;  29 263-269
• 7 Pietranton A, Baum H. Collecting outcomes data: existing tools, preliminary data, future directions.  ASHA . 1995;  37 36-38
• 8 O'Toole T, Logemann J, Baum H. Conducting clinical trials in the public schools.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch . 1998;  29 257-262
• 9 Boston B. Destiny is in the data: a wake-up call for outcome measures.  ASHA . 1994;  36 35-38
• 10 American Speech-Language Hearing Association. Pre-Kindergarten NOMS Training Manual. Rockville, MD: Author; 2003
• 11 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. K-12 Schools NOMS Training Manual. Rockville, MD: Author 2003
• 12 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 PubL. No. 105-17, 20 U.S.C., 1400 et seq . 
• 13 US Department of Education. Twenty-Third Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office 2002
• 14 Keith R. Conceptual basis of outcome measures.  Am J Phys Rehabil . 1995;  74 73-80
• 15 Keatley M, Miller T, Mann A. Fitting the pieces together.  ASHA . 1995;  37 49-52
• 16 Gallagher T, Swigert N, Baum H. Collecting outcomes data in schools: needs and challenges.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch . 1998;  29 250-256
• 17 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. 2002 Omnibus Survey Results. Rockville, MD: Author 2002
• 18 American Speech-Language Hearing Association. Preschoolers with Articulation Disorders. What Affects Progress?. Rockville, MD: Author 2002
• 19 Bain B, Dollaghan C. The notion of clinically significant change.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch . 1991;  22 264-270
• 20 Creaghead N. Evaluating language intervention approaches: contrasting perspectives.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch . 1999;  30 335-338
• 21 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. 2000 Schools Survey Results.  Rockville, MD: Author 2002
• 22 Frattali C. Outcomes measurement: definitions, dimensions, and perspectives. In: Frattali C, ed. Measuring Outcomes in Speech-Language Pathology New York: Thieme 1998: 1-48

[Appendix]