Submitted by Aelson Maciera (aelsoncm@terra.com.br) on 2017-08-16T18:00:15Z
No. of bitstreams: 1
TeseARLS.pdf: 1226089 bytes, checksum: f9b0f71fd6df402c4cbe47b4b483be8d (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Ronildo Prado (producaointelectual.bco@ufscar.br) on 2017-10-31T16:19:03Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1
TeseARLS.pdf: 1226089 bytes, checksum: f9b0f71fd6df402c4cbe47b4b483be8d (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Ronildo Prado (producaointelectual.bco@ufscar.br) on 2017-10-31T16:19:13Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1
TeseARLS.pdf: 1226089 bytes, checksum: f9b0f71fd6df402c4cbe47b4b483be8d (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-10-31T16:23:46Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
TeseARLS.pdf: 1226089 bytes, checksum: f9b0f71fd6df402c4cbe47b4b483be8d (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2017-03-29 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) / This research encompass two studies. The objectives of Study A composed by two steps: Stage 1-
In the period of 10 years (2005 – 2014), identify and analyze theses and dissertations produced in
Brazilian graduate program with objective of development proposal of Early Intervention
Programs for children's development were identified and analyzed to seek main variables studied;
and Stage 2: - The proposals of Early Intervention Programs developed that identified in previous
stage were characterized and assessed. The Study B described evaluations of Early Intervention
Programs after the event of researchers responsible for proposal and execution, as well as
continuity of work after conclusion of research. The Study A based on data from the Theses and
Dissertations Bank of Brazilian Digital Library (BDTD), whose search descriptors were: early
attention, early stimulation, essential stimulation, child stimulation, child development
stimulation, early intervention, development surveillance and screening of development.
According to two independent judges with pre-defined criteria of inclusion and exclusion, this
Study analyzed 25 cases integrally. In step 1, the protocol "Early Intervention Programs
Characterization" (PIP) used to systematize information about participants, methodological
considerations, intervention characteristics, studied variables, results, limitations and future
studies, whose results indicated a predominance of indirect PIPs (13/25) that worked with
training and formation of mediators. The presence of children in the PIP varied between forms of
individual participation and groups. The mediators of the mixed intervention studies, who
participated in PIP, along with children, were mainly parents / guardians. The categories of
limitations and / or risks for development: Prevention, Risk and Disability, with a higher
incidence of studies in category of Risks. Only one research used an equal control group design
and follow-up evaluation was presented in three studies. Ten programs concurred with traditional
paradigm and new paradigm, only one study presented characteristics of New Paradigm and the
Family-Centered Model. The contexts in which interventions carried out were residences,
kindergartens and university. Indirect interventions had a longer duration when compared to
direct interventions. The target behaviors / abilities of intervention related to child development
and parental and professional training. The results mostly evaluated as positive regardless of
intervention type performed. Only three studies indicated non-effective results. 14 studies
indicated limitations regarding both research design / procedure and intervention program.
Questions raised for future research on methodology, such as longitudinal studies, extension of
intervention, extension of sample searched and higher frequency of evaluations. Family demands
related to parental / caregiver adherence to intervention programs, parents / child bonding and
family / school relationship, and in professional context, knowledge about health surveillance and
development surveillance was highlighted. In step 2, the protocol "Evaluation of Early
Intervention Programs" (adapted from Mendes, 2010) used to analyze the programs within the
community, family, child and intervention program, whose results indicated that community
level, 14 studies did not indicate referral procedures, used voluntary or convenience samples. The
eligibility criteria for PIPs quite diverse; 18 studies did not mention screening procedures for
participation in program; information to families generally provided at beginning of program and
it is also possible to inform that IPPs more directed to interests of researchers than to real needs
of population. At the family level it can be verified that host interview and presentation the PIP
were more frequent than actions that involved planning of support to families. At children's level,
studies focused on social life and child autonomy. At PIP level, they showed more frequently
performance of a single professional, without specific training; with activity plans that presented
some information gaps such as: objectives, materials, teaching and registration procedures; few
revisions in intervention proposals observed, with main concern in effectiveness of programs,
whose evaluations based on non-standardized instruments. In the Step 1 results indicated that
there was indirect predominance of PIPs (13/25) that worked with training, mediator
development. The presence of children in PIP varied between individual forms participation and
groups. Mediators of mixed intervention Studies, who participated in PIP, along with the
children, were mainly the parents / guardians. Limitations and / or risks for development had
been categorized: Prevention, Risk and Disability, with a higher incidence of studies in the
category of Risks. Just one research used control group design and follow-up assessment
presented by three Studies. Ten programs concomitantly met traditional paradigm and new
paradigm, just one study presented characteristics of New Paradigm and the Family-Centered
Model. The interventions carried out in residences, kindergartens and university. Indirect
interventions had a longer duration when compared to direct interventions. The target behaviors /
skills of intervention related to child development and parental and professional development.
Independent of type of intervention performed, the results mostly evaluated as positive. Only
three research indicated non-effective results. 14 studies indicated relative limitations to research
design / procedure and intervention program. For future research, questions relating to
methodology was highlighted, such as longitudinal studies, extension of intervention, extension
of sample surveyed, higher frequency of evaluations. In family context, demands referred to
participation of parents / caregivers in intervention programs, parents / child bond and family /
school relationship, and in professional scope, knowledge about surveillance of development and
health / education integration highlighted. Step 2 results indicated that in 14 studies there were no
referral procedures in community analyzes level whose samples were voluntary or convenience;
diversified eligibility criteria for PIPs; 18 studies no mention screening procedures for
participation in the program; information had been provided in beginning of program for family;
it is possible inform that PIPs more directed to researchers interests than real needs of population.
In family level, it can verify that foster interview and PIP presentation were more frequent than
actions with planning of support to families. In children's level, the studies focused on social life
and children's autonomy. In PIP level emphasized more frequently performance of single
professional, without specific qualification; activity plans with some gaps information such as:
objectives, materials, teaching and registration procedures; few revisions in intervention
proposals were observed, with main concern in effectiveness of programs, whose evaluations
were based on non-standardized instruments. Study B analyzed posteriori assessment of
researchers responsible for proposing and executing the Early Intervention Programs, as well as
their continuity after their conclusion. Ten researchers answered a questionnaire with following
topics: validity period, institutional support, concomitance between closure of research and
program, and assessment of program regarding objectives / focus of intervention, screening
procedures and evaluation procedures, family participation, engaged professionals, child
development and results obtained vs expected. The results had been indicated that programs
lasted up to 12 months; six of them had financial support; closure of the programs occurred
concurrently in eight of them; it were positively evaluated by their proponents; it presented
questions to be improved regarding theoretical reference, organization and planning of actions to
be developed. It can indicate that research involving early intervention presented are important
initiatives to deal to early stimulation in children with different risk factors and / or disabilities
and producing knowledge in Brazilian context. / Esta pesquisa foi organizada em dois estudos. O Estudo A, composto por duas etapas, teve por
objetivos: Etapa 1 - identificar e analisar, no período de 10 anos (2005-2014), as teses e
dissertações produzidas em programas de pós-graduação brasileiros que tiveram o objetivo de
desenvolver propostas de Programas de Intervenção Precoce para o desenvolvimento infantil
buscando captar as principais variáveis estudadas e, Etapa 2 - caracterizar e avaliar as propostas
de Programas de Intervenção Precoce desenvolvidas nas pesquisas identificadas na etapa anterior.
O Estudo B objetivou descrever as avaliações dos Programas de Intervenção Precoce a posteriori
dos pesquisadores responsáveis pela proposição e execução, bem como a continuidade do
trabalho após a conclusão da pesquisa. O Estudo A teve como fonte de dados o Banco da
Biblioteca Brasileira Digital de Teses e Dissertações (BDTD), cujos descritores de busca foram:
atenção precoce, estimulação precoce, estimulação essencial, estimulação infantil, estimulação do
desenvolvimento infantil, intervenção precoce, vigilância do desenvolvimento e triagem do
desenvolvimento. A seleção dos estudos foi realizada por dois juízes independentes de acordo
com critérios de inclusão e exclusão pré-definidos, chegando a um total de 25 estudos analisados
na íntegra. Na Etapa 1 foi utilizado o protocolo “Caracterização dos Programas de Intervenção
Precoce” (PIP) com o objetivo de sistematizar informações referentes aos participantes,
considerações metodológicas, características da intervenção, variáveis estudadas, resultados,
limitações e futuros estudos, cujos resultados indicaram um predomínio de PIP indiretos (13/25)
que trabalharam com a capacitação e formação de mediadores. A presença das crianças nos PIP
variou entre as formas de participação individual e grupos. Os mediadores dos estudos com
intervenção mista que participaram dos PIP, juntamente com as crianças, foram principalmente
os pais/responsáveis. As limitações e/ou riscos para o desenvolvimento foram categorizadas em:
Prevenção, Risco e Deficiências, havendo uma maior incidência de estudos na categoria de
Riscos. Apenas uma pesquisa empregou delineamento com grupo controle equivalente e a
avaliação de follow-up foi apresentada em três estudos. Dez programas atendiam
concomitantemente ao paradigma tradicional e novo paradigma, apenas um estudo apresentou
características do Novo Paradigma e do Modelo centrado na família. Os contextos nos quais as
intervenções se realizaram foram residências, creches e universidade. As intervenções indiretas
apresentaram uma duração maior quando comparadas às diretas. As habilidades/comportamentos
alvo da intervenção estavam relacionadas ao desenvolvimento infantil e a capacitação parental e
profissional. Os resultados foram majoritariamente avaliados como positivo independentemente
do tipo de intervenção realizada. Apenas três estudos indicaram resultados não efetivos. 14
estudos indicaram limitações relativas tanto ao delineamento/procedimento da pesquisa quanto ao
programa de intervenção. Foram assinaladas questões para futuras pesquisas relativas à
metodologia, como, por exemplo, estudos longitudinais, extensão da intervenção, ampliação da
amostra pesquisada e maior frequência das avaliações. As demandas no âmbito familiar se
referiram a adesão de pais/cuidadores aos programas de intervenção, vínculo pais/criança e
relação família/escola e, no âmbito profissional, destacaram-se o conhecimento sobre vigilância
do desenvolvimento e integração saúde/educação. Na Etapa 2 foi empregado o protocolo
“Avaliação dos Programas de Intervenção Precoce” para análise dos programas no âmbito da
comunidade, família, criança e programa de intervenção, cujos resultados indicaram que, no nível
da comunidade, 14 estudos não indicaram procedimentos de encaminhamentos, utilizaram
amostras voluntárias ou de conveniência. Os critérios de elegibilidade para os PIP foram bastante
diversificados; 18 estudos não fizeram menção aos procedimentos de triagem para a participação
no programa; as informações às famílias eram fornecidas em geral no início do programa e, é
possível, também, informar que os PIP foram mais voltados aos interesses dos pesquisadores do
que às reais necessidades da população. No nível da família pode-se verificar que a entrevista de
acolhimento e apresentação do PIP foram mais frequentes do que ações que envolviam
planejamento de apoio às famílias. No nível das crianças, os estudos focaram a vida social e
autonomia infantil. No nível dos PIP evidenciaram mais frequentemente a atuação de um único
profissional, sem formação específica; com planos de atividades que apresentavam algumas
lacunas de informações como: objetivos, materiais, procedimentos de ensino e de registro; foram
observadas poucas revisões nas propostas de intervenção, com principal preocupação na eficácia
dos programas, cujas avaliações foram baseadas em instrumentos não padronizados. Do Estudo B
participaram 10 pesquisadores que responderam a um questionário que continha os seguintes
tópicos: período de vigência, apoio institucional, concomitância entre o encerramento da pesquisa
e do programa, e avaliação do programa quanto a objetivos/foco da intervenção, procedimentos
de triagem e de avaliação, participação da família, profissionais envolvidos, desenvolvimento da
criança e resultados obtidos x esperados. Os resultados indicaram que: os programas duraram até
12 meses; seis deles tiveram apoio financeiro; o encerramento dos programas aconteceu de forma
concomitante em oito deles; foram avaliados positivamente por seus proponentes; apresentaram
questões a serem aprimoradas quanto ao referencial teórico, a organização e planejamento das
ações a serem desenvolvidas. Pode-se indicar que as pesquisas envolvendo intervenção precoce
apresentadas aqui são iniciativas importantes em lidar com a estimulação precoce em crianças
com diferentes fatores de risco e/ou deficiências e produzir conhecimentos no contexto brasileiro. / CAPES: 23211504
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:IBICT/oai:repositorio.ufscar.br:ufscar/9178 |
| Date | 29 March 2017 |
| Creators | Candido, Ana Regina Lucato Sigolo |
| Contributors | Aiello, Ana Lúcia Rossito |
| Publisher | Universidade Federal de São Carlos, Câmpus São Carlos, Programa de Pós-graduação em Educação Especial, UFSCar |
| Source Sets | IBICT Brazilian ETDs |
| Language | Portuguese |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion, info:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesis |
| Source | reponame:Repositório Institucional da UFSCAR, instname:Universidade Federal de São Carlos, instacron:UFSCAR |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0032 seconds