Exploring Partnerships Between Parent Training and Information Centers

Exploring Partnerships Between Parent Training and Information Centers | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Exploring Partnerships Between Parent Training and Information Centers Saury Ramos-Torres, Meghan Burke, Zack Rossetti This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7285736/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Research-practice partnerships (RPPs) reflect mutual relationships and collaborative approaches to address problems of practice. RPPs can help ensure that interventions are sustained in the real world. Yet, little research has explored how to partner with educational agencies, including Parent Training and Information Centers (PTIs; federally-funded agencies to educate and empower families of children with disabilities about their special education rights). By understanding RPPs among researchers and PTIs, interventions may be more responsive to families of children disabilities and likely to be sustained in the community. In this study, we partnered with six PTIs to conduct a civic engagement program (CEP). The partnership included preparatory meetings and two six-hr CEPs for families of children with disabilities with each PTI. Data included meeting transcripts and a social validity interview with multiple staff members from each PTI. To facilitate a strong partnership with the PTI, the researchers acknowledged and leveraged the expertise and experience of the PTIs. Barriers to the partnerships included challenges with aspects of the research process. When considering partnering with PTIs, researchers may consider ways to ensure the research is family-friendly. Implications for research and practice are discussed. Introduction Since the passage in 1975 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Congress has legislated the development and maintenance of Parent Training and Information Centers (PTIs). Required to educate and empower families of children with disabilities aged 0–26, there is at least one PTI in every state in the United States. PTIs are often staffed by families of children with disabilities, with a focus on supporting marginalized families (e.g., families of color). Annually, PTIs serve millions of families of children with disabilities in over 42 languages beyond English and Spanish (Center for Parent Information & Resources, 2023). Specifically, PTIs often provide information and referral assistance, special education trainings, and individualized assistance. While there has been some research with PTIs, they are often not considered as partners in educational research (Burke, 2016 ). Research-practice partnerships (RPPs): (1) are long-term; (2) focus on problems of the practice; (3) are committed to mutualism; (4) use intentional strategies to foster partnership; and (5) produce original analyses (Coburn et al., 2013 ). The limited studies about RPPs is problematic because when researchers and practitioners partner together, student achievement improves (Booth et al., 2015 ), interventions may be sustained and generalized (Wentworth & Nagaoka, 2020 ), and equity may increase as marginalized individuals may be more likely to participate in the project (Ishimaru & Bang, 2016 ). In education research, researchers may partner with schools and/or educational organizations. Established in the 1970s, PTIs have decades of experience in supporting families of children with disabilities. A RPP with PTIs may improve the quality and relevance of research as well as, if the intervention is effective, enable the intervention to be scaled up across the country via the PTI network. The purpose of this study was to explore a RPP with six PTIs in the United States. It is important to understand how researchers can partner with PTIs. Although not specific to PTIs, there are models of RPPs that may help to characterize such partnerships. Farrell and colleagues ( 2022 ) developed a framework for understanding RPPs. The first step is to identify the knowledge, leadership, and resources of the practice organization. The second step is to develop a boundary infrastructure wherein the researcher and practice organization identify boundary spanners (i.e., researchers who interact with the practice organization), boundary practices (i.e., activities that bring together researchers and practitioners with different roles), and boundary objects (i.e., tools to support joint activity between the researchers and practitioners). Then, there are intermediary outcomes which may include organizational learning as a result of the project. Finally, there are long-term outcomes which refers to the improvement of the participants and the knowledge produced from the research project. It would be helpful to discern whether this framework can be applied to RPPs with PTIs as, if applicable, it can provide guidelines for researchers to partner with PTIs. It is also important to identify barriers to RPPs. When researchers and practitioners partner, they may struggle to communicate with one another (Farrell et al., 2019 ). Further, there may be issues related to the infrastructure and operations of the research and practitioner teams. Such issues may include turnover, different paces of work, and unique structures to make decisions (Cohen-Vogel et al., 2018 ). For example, researchers may turn to their lead researcher to make final decisions whereas PTIs may require their PTI Director to make decisions or, given their reliance on federal funding, request approval from the Office of Special Education Programs. Further, there may be barriers specific to researchers or PTIs. Regarding the former, researchers are bound to their University Institutional Review Boards which often requires jargon in consent forms (Larson et al., 2015 ) which may impact participation in the study. With respect to the latter, PTIs often have limited staff, resources, and time to conduct additional activities (Rossetti & Burke, 2019 ). By identifying the barriers to RPPs with PTIs, the barriers can be targeted and, hopefully, overcome. For scalability of interventions, it is important to identify ways for researchers to partner with PTIs. Evidence alone of an intervention’s effectiveness does not produce scalable change (Coburn & Turner, 2011 ; Fishman et al., 2013 ). In addition to being effective, an intervention needs to be feasible and socially valid for it to be scaled up across a population. Indeed, it is necessary to combine effectiveness data with the interest and commitment of practicing organizations to scale-up an intervention (e.g., Cobb & Smith, 2008 ). Scalability is critical in education research wherein researchers may have clear settings (i.e., schools and districts) to replicate their intervention. PTIs offer a platform for scalability given that there is at least one PTI in every state. By understanding ways for researchers and PTIs to partner, there is potential for researchers to develop and test interventions that, if effective, feasible, and socially valid, can be replicated across the United States. Increasingly, RPPs have received tremendous attention due to persistent systemic barriers and problems of practice in schools and the need to ensure effective educational interventions can be replicated outside of randomized controlled trials. Agencies such as the Institute for Education Sciences, the Spencer Foundation, and the W.T. Grant foundation all encourage and fund RPPs. In the context of special education, RPPs may be especially helpful to improve family involvement. Decades of research have shown that when families participate in educational decision-making, their children with disabilities demonstrate greater academic achievement (Duchnowski et al., 2013 ) and are more likely to participate in general education (Banerjee et al., 2017 ). Family engagement also improves family quality of life (Eskow et al., 2018 ; Kyzar et al., 2016 ) and satisfaction with services (Kyzar et al., 2016 ; Rossetti et al., 2021 ). PTIs offer a wealth of expertise and experience to help researchers conduct meaningful research with families of children with disabilities. Yet, PTIs are often overlooked as partners in research (e.g., Barton, 1999 ). To this end, this study had three research questions: (1) How do researchers partner with PTIs?; (2) What are the barriers in RPPs among researchers and PTIs?; and, (3) What should researchers know when working with PTIs? Methods Positionality As a research team, it was important to consider our positionality as we embarked on partnerships with PTIs. When introducing ourselves to the PTIs, we (our research team) identified as professors of special education and family members of individuals with disabilities. Specifically, all authors of this study identify as family members of individuals with disabilities. One of the team members previously worked at a PTI. Each of the PTI staff also identified as family members of individuals with disabilities and/or individuals with disabilities themselves. Our shared connections to the disability community could have helped build rapport and trust with one another. In addition, as family members of individuals with disabilities, we believed in the purpose of the PTIs to educate and empower families so they could participate in their children’s education. Participants For this study, participants included staff members at six PTIs. To be included in the study, the PTI needed to have agreed to partner in a grant-funded project to develop and test a Civic Engagement Program (CEP) for transition-aged youth with disabilities and their families (see Author, in press). The PTIs were purposefully chosen to reflect different geographic areas of the United States. In return for participating in the project, each PTI received $ 2,000 in Year 1, $ 3,000 in Year 2, $ 3,000 in Year 3 and $ 1,000 in Year 4. See Table 1 . Table 1 Description of each PTI PTI name Staff person involvement Families served per year Time as a PTI Southwestern PTI Director, Self-advocacy Coordinator, Parent Trainer 4,000 34 years Southeastern PTI Director, Self-advocacy Coordinator, Parent Trainer 2,000 32 years Midwestern PTI Director, two Parent Trainers 5,241 21 years New England PTI Executive Director, Parent Trainer, Parent Trainer/Youth Coordinator 2,000 39 years Northeastern PTI Executive Director, Director of Programs and Outreach 1,675 28 years South Atlantic PTI Executive Director, Director of Community Health and Policy, Director of Education 3,300 33 years Procedures First, we received Institutional Review Board approval for this study. Before receiving a grant for this study, we recruited the PTIs to be involved in the study. The overarching project was to test a CEP with parents of children with disabilities and to develop and test a CEP among transition-aged youth with disabilities (for more information, see Author, in press). To that end, each PTI facilitated the CEP twice with parents and once with youth. For parents, the goal was to recruit 30 participants at each PTI; the researchers randomly assigned the parent participants to a fall (intervention) or spring (waitlist-control) training session. For youth, the goal was to recruit 15 participants to attend a training; there was no randomization for the youth. For parents and youth, the CEP was six hours long; it was facilitated by the PTI staff. With respect to research, three types of data were collected from the families and the youth: (1) pre, post, and follow-up surveys; (2) focus groups; and (3) advocacy or self-advocacy testimonials. Data Collection with PTIs Meetings For five of the PTIs, there were monthly meetings with the research team for the first six months of the project. Specifically, at the first meeting, the two lead investigators met with each PTI. Then, each lead investigator continually met with the same three PTIs, respectively, for the remainder of the meetings. For one PTI (the Southeastern PTI), there were only two meetings as the original PTI who agreed to participate in the study could no longer participate due to unforeseen health issues. Given the limited time, only two meetings were conducted with the Southeastern PTI. All meetings were conducted over Zoom and recorded and transcribed verbatim. Each meeting had an agenda set by the research team. Fidelity to the agenda was 93%. On average, the meetings lasted 33 minutes ( SD = 18.17). Altogether, there were 1,216 minutes of recorded meetings. Summative Interview At the conclusion of the project, the lead investigators conducted a semi-structured social validity interview with each of the three other PTIs than the ones they met regularly with. All interviews were conducted over Zoom at the date and time preferred by the PTI. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The interview protocol was developed based on extant research about RPPs (e.g., Coburn et al., 2013 ) and PTIs (e.g., Barton, 1999 ). On average, the interview lasted 37 minutes ( SD = 9.83). See Appendix A for the interview protocol. Data Analysis We analyzed the qualitative data (i.e., interviews, transcriptions of the meetings) inductively and systematically. First, we familiarized ourselves with the data by reading the raw data (Tesch, 1990 ). Then, we used Saldaña’s ( 2016 ) two-stage coding procedures to analyze the data. The first-cycle coding consisted of initial coding with structural, in vivo, and process codes. We discussed the coding. We agreed upon the codes and developed a codebook. We used the codebook to re-code all of the data. The second-cycle coding consisted of pattern coding (Saldaña, 2016 ). We reviewed the codes, grouped the codes into categories, and organized the categories into themes grounded in the data. We examined the data to identify patterns. For example, regarding PTI perspectives about their involvement with the CEP and collaborating with researchers, we first developed a list of codes. Altogether, there were 32 codes. Codes included: training materials, training mode, conversations about the curriculum, marketing, monthly meetings, and instructional strategies. After verifying the codes, categories and themes were developed based on similar codes (Braun & Clarke, 2006 ). For instance, we created the following categories: survey length, geographic location, recruitment, compensation and gift cards, online vs in-person, feelings about research, and materials. We reviewed the categories to group them into themes: challenges in participant recruitment, preference for online versus in-person training, geographic location of the training, the survey was too long, feelings of discomfort with research, importance of giving gift cards to families and PTIs, and co-creating family friendly recruitment materials. Trustworthiness Regarding quality indicators of interview studies (Brantlinger et al., 2005 ), we selected appropriate participants based on specific criteria, developed reasonable interview questions based on the literature, recorded and transcribed meetings and interviews verbatim, and maintained confidentiality. We also utilized multiple measures to establish credibility of data analysis: data triangulation, investigator triangulation, peer debriefing, and thick, detailed description (Brantlinger et al., 2005 ). To promote trustworthiness, we triangulated the data across the meetings and interviews. Because multiple members of the research team collaborated throughout the study, we conducted peer debriefing throughout the data analysis. The findings include sufficient quotes and examples to support our analysis. Findings Structure of the RPP: Ways for Researchers to Partner with PTIs Per the RPP framework (Farrell et al., 2022 ), the researchers recognized the knowledge, leadership, and resources of each PTI. For example, each PTI was chosen because of their long-standing experience as a PTI supporting families. In the individual interview with the Northwestern PTI, a PTI staff person reported that she felt the research team respected her expertise: “I think, particularly this [research] team, I think, did a really good job of understanding that we [PTI staff] are experts in what we're experts in… we have legitimate expertise. And I appreciated that because sometimes that's not the case. And that [the researchers recognizing our expertise] was really powerful”. To capitalize on the expertise of each PTI, the research team encouraged each PTI to identify the resources needed for the project. To this end, the PTIs chose which staff members helped with the project. For example, when available, each PTI offered a self-advocacy specialist to support the CEP for transition-aged youth with disabilities. In further alignment with the RPP framework, the research team and PTIs established a boundary infrastructure wherein the researcher and PTI identify boundary spanners (i.e., researchers or activities who interact with the practice organization), boundary practices (i.e., activities that bring together researchers and practitioners with different roles), and boundary objects (i.e., tools to support joint activity between the researchers and practitioners). For example, at the initial meeting, the research team and PTI staff discussed the boundaries of the project. Regarding boundary spanners, the research team designated one researcher to work with each PTI; the PTI designated a lead person to be in communication with the research team. The lead person was often a parent trainer. The research team and PTI also discussed boundaries that were non-negotiable for the research team. For example, parent participants were randomly assigned to an intervention or waitlist-control group. The researchers established the randomization as a boundary in this project as the randomized controlled trial was written in the grant. However, two PTIs reported struggling with the randomization. The Southwestern PTI staff person reported, “I get because of the nature of the study it had to be randomized…if we wouldn’t have had to have them [families] sign up so early and try to do that I think there would have been a different dynamic”. Thus, the boundary created some tension with the business-as-usual practice at the PTI wherein families just signed up for the trainings they were interested in. They also discussed boundaries that were at the discretion of the PTI (e.g., the mode of the CEP, the date/time of the program, recruitment). For example, we established monthly meetings with each PTI. However, the date/time of the monthly meetings was solely at the discretion of the PTI. Some PTIs chose consistent monthly meetings whereas other PTIs decided on a new date for the meeting every month. At the Midwestern PTI, the researcher and PTI staff person discussed the monthly meeting schedule: “Researcher: What would be easier for you: to set up every meeting, to set up the next month’s meeting or do you want regular monthly meetings on a certain date and time? PTI: We could just set up a regular meeting schedule, that would be easier.” The monthly meetings served as “boundary practices” wherein the researcher and PTI could discuss the project and provide feedback. Specifically, the meetings offered the PTI an opportunity to co-design the CEP; the research team then made the suggested changes from the PTI. Such changes often included whether state-specific regulations should be mentioned during the training and whether the CEP should reflect current issues in special education (e.g., disproportionality in discipline procedures). Recognizing the importance of the monthly meeting, the New England PTI staff person reflected on the monthly meetings, “It [monthly meetings] was really great to kind of get all back on the same page…it was nice to just kind of see the whole project coming together.” The boundary objects were the curricula that were developed for the project. Specifically, objects included curricula for the CEP for the families and a CEP for the transition-aged youth with disabilities. The objects were shared freely with the PTIs. The New England PTI reflected that the research team shared the objects ahead of each monthly meeting providing the opportunity for the PTI to give feedback. Commenting on the ability to provide feedback about the curricula at monthly meetings, the PTI director stated, “I felt like it [monthly meetings] was a strong system of technical assistance.” In the individual interviews, PTIs positively characterized the objects. Another staff member of the New England PTI spoke about using the testimonial worksheet from the CEP. She stated: “It's [the testimonial worksheet] basically how to take your story and turn it into legislative advocacy or stakeholder group participation. And so that's the information that we're going to use and provide advocacy training for parents”. There were intermediary outcomes which included organizational learning as a result of the project. The South Atlantic PTI reported learning that personal invitations for family and youth participants were more effective than sharing flyers to invite participants to be involved in the research project. The PTI staff person reported: “I think some of that was just that, personal outreach from our staff to the families to say, ‘Hey, this is coming up. I think you will really like it, or really, you know, be interested in it.’” The Southwestern PTI had a similar experience with participant recruitment sharing that they learned the importance of personal invitations to attend the CEP: “We even did a separate email run of that [recruitment], and I even had like some selected families…So we did a little bit of some personal invitations to families…like, ‘Let's invite them [a specific family]’”. Finally, there were long-term outcomes (i.e., the knowledge generated from the research project). The Southeastern PTI reported that they plan to continue to elicit testimonials from families in preparation for the IDEA reauthorization. The PTI staff plan to use the testimonial worksheet in that effort: “[We would] implement some of those pieces of it especially the testimony pieces…We will still use some of this stuff [curricula].” While a South Atlantic PTI staff person shared: “I would personally run it [the CEP] again.” Similar to the South Atlantic PTI, the Southwestern PTI reported that they plan to offer the CEP again but they would focus the CEP on state regulations: “I think, add a little bit more details that pertain to our actual state.” Barriers to The RPP Five PTIs reported that it was challenging to recruit families and transition-aged youth with disabilities to attend the CEP. PTI staff reported three potential reasons to explain the challenges in recruitment: (1) lack of interest among families to attend in-person programs, (2) concern about the timing and duration of the CEP, and (3) the pre-survey that participants complete before the CEP was too long. Only the South Atlantic PTI and the Southwestern PTI were successful with recruiting the needed sample size ( N = 30 parents) for the study. The South Atlantic PTI reported: “We had interns… that personally called everyone to encourage them to come and invite them to come and make sure they were coming.” Similarly, a Southwestern PTI staff person stated, “I think the only way people we could have gotten people probable it's starting to make phone calls to people and begging them.” Notably, the Southwestern PTI also conducted personalized invitations to the CEP. While they had the needed sample size register for the training, only five parents actually showed up to attend the CEP in-person. Three PTIs reported that the modality of the CEP may have occluded participant recruitment. Specifically, the three PTIs reported that if the CEP has been conducted via Zoom (versus in-person), participant recruitment may have been more successful. Summarized by a New England PTI staff person, “It's post-pandemic, nobody wants to be in-person.” A South Atlantic PTI staff person reported: “I think people have just become so accustomed to doing things virtually.” Several participants explained that the preference for Zoom over in-person may have resulted from personal calculations about what to attend in-person amidst a busy and unpredictable schedule as the parent of a child with a disability. A staff person from the New England PTI explained: And it's not necessarily any more about being scared of getting sick. It's the time and effort it takes to come in person. Like it's one thing to sit in your home, log out to Zoom for a two hour meeting that, you know, will be over in two hours. But if you have to travel an hour to get there, travel an hour to get home. Now you're talking about four hours, right? Other times, the personal calculations related to perceptions of the impact of the program. A staff person from the Northeastern PTI explained: It's like, I'm trying to deal with ‘Can my child get an IEP? Can they implement my IEP?’ Do you want me to come to a meeting to talk about advocacy at the federal level? Okay, where's the direct connection and impact for me and my family versus what I'm dealing with today? Similarly, a staff person from the Midwestern PTI suggested that the focus on civic engagement may not have been perceived as directly impactful by some families, explaining: “I think a lot of families that we work with are kind of in survival mode, trying to get services at school things like that.” Four PTIs reported that the day of the CEP and/or its length may have prevented participant recruitment. Notably, at the outset of the study, the PTIs had full discretion about when and how to present the CEP. Specifically, PTIs had full decision-making authority to decide when to offer the CEP and whether to offer it in two, three-hr sessions or one, six-hr session. Most PTIs offered the CEP on a weekend and as a single, six-hr session. For example, the Midwestern PTI offered the CEP for six hours on a Saturday; a staff person stated “Maybe we could suggest that as something that we could do over multiple presentations instead of doing an all day event”. Put simply by a Southeastern PTI staff person, “Nobody likes all day anything anymore, all day on Saturday”. Half of the PTIs reported the pre-survey was too long for parents of children with disabilities and transition-aged youth with disabilities. The Midwestern PTI staff person reported, “The survey was kind of lengthy. I think that took a lot of time.” The New England PTI shared that the survey should be more family friendly. When the PTI staff person made this comment, they reported that the survey length may have been intimidating and challenging for youth. The pre-survey took 30 min to complete. If a family struggled with the survey (because of length and/or jargon), the research team would have been able to see that the survey was started and not completed. Yet, this was often not the case. Suggestions for Researcher-PTI Partnerships Compensate Families and PTIs for their Participation. All PTIs agreed that providing gift cards for family and youth participants was important. PTIs reported that compensation for families and youth was necessary to acknowledge the time invested in participating in the CEP. Indeed, each family and youth participant was compensated for their participation in this study. Specifically, each participant received a $ 25 gift card for completing the post-survey. Yet, the question remained about how much to compensate families for the time that they invested in the training. A Southeastern PTI staff person reported: “Unfortunately, a couple of $ 25 gift card and lunch isn't probably going to be enough for them [families and youth] to get them to come participate.” PTIs also commented that it is important for researchers to appropriately compensate PTIs as partners in their projects. While PTIs were compensated in this project, they reported that the amount of compensation was not commensurate with the time and effort spent in the project. For example, two PTIs reported that the time they spent in actually getting paid from the University was exorbitant in comparison to their amount of compensation. A Southeastern PTI staff person reported: “I'll be honest with you. There was that piece of it [getting paid through the University] was probably the most difficult for me because of the fact that I wasn't clear of when to bill, how to bill. I think there's still a bill floating around out there.” Further, the Southeastern PTI staff person reported: “It was very minimal money for the amount of work [in the project].” The staff person from the Northeastern PTI also articulated that the amount of compensation was disproportionate to the time they spent in the CEP. She stated, “If we were basing those [compensation] on the hourly rates, as if we were doing this for fee for service, it would have been more than what we received.” When probed, the staff person declined to state an appropriate amount that should have been paid to accurately reflect the work of the PTI in the CEP. Similarly, a Southeastern PTI staff person reported: “It was probably a little bit more work than I anticipated, and they probably needed a little bit more time and more hours which would have you know, you had to have a funding stream for that. So definitely be something I would look at in the future, for us is ‘What the workload would look like?’” Co-creating family friendly research materials. PTIs suggested that researchers should solicit their feedback for research materials. For example, with respect to recruitment materials (e.g., flyers), some PTIs suggested that researchers should ask PTIs for their feedback. A staff person at the South Atlantic PTI reported: “We had created a different flyer [than the researcher-created flyer] and I think that I mean, we got a lot of response from that.” Specifically, the South Atlantic PTI used the researcher-created flyer initially to recruit families. However, after failing to recruit many families, they adapted the flyer. Changes to the flyer included: providing information about the partnership with the university and their PTI and adding their PTI logo. The South Atlantic PTI reported that, after using the revised flyer, they were able to recruit sufficient families for the CEP. In addition to the recruitment materials, PTIs suggested that researchers should involve them in creating data collection instruments (namely, surveys). Feeling that the survey was a deterrent to family participation, a New England PTI staff person reported: “Engaging the parent centers prior to this survey, probably would have been helpful for you [the researcher]. And we would have told you, this [the survey] is way too long. Let's get the data points you need. But how can we pare this down and use family-friendly language?” In response to this suggestion, the interviewer asked whether the research team should have involved the PTI while writing the grant for the project. At the grant writing stage, the research team drafted the survey with several measures making it a longer survey. In response, the staff person stated they didn’t have time to review research materials at the grant writing stage. Other PTIs also commented on their ability to provide feedback about the accessibility of research measures. A Southeastern PTI staff person stated, “We talk a lot about fifth grade reading levels. We need to put this [the survey] in language that people really understand, and there's not going to be confusion to them…make sure the most important questions are the ones upfront in advance that a mandatory that you need, and if something really is, you know, optional, then put it towards, you know the last one.” Discussion In the field of education, RPPs are gaining attention. Yet, little research has examined such partnerships especially in the context of PTIs who, collectively, serve more than 3 million children annually (National Parent Technical Assistance Center, 2013 ). In this study, we explored the partnerships between our research team and six PTIs. We present three key findings. First, the partnerships mapped onto the RPP framework developed by Farrell and colleagues ( 2022 ). Thus, this study suggests that the generic framework for RPPs can apply to partnerships between researchers and PTIs. This finding is poignant as it allows researchers to use this pre-existing framework to partner with PTIs instead of creating a new framework. Relatedly, the boundary objects and outcomes, per the framework of Farrell and colleagues ( 2022 ), seem to have special relevance to this project. Indeed, many PTIs suggested that they would continue using some objects (e.g., the CEP curriculum) and knowledge from this project in the future. Replication and scalability are large issues in education research as, to understand whether an intervention works in the real world, it is critical to determine whether an intervention can be replicated and implemented by non-researchers (Ioannidis, 2012 ). By having PTIs report that they may replicate the CEP and/or aspects of the CEP, their interest suggests that the CEP may be effective in the community and outside of a tightly controlled research trial. Second, challenges in participant recruitment (and the reasons for the challenges) may impact RPPs. This finding has several implications. First, it suggests that relying only on PTIs for help with participant recruitment may be insufficient. It may be that the PTI and the research team should go beyond the constituency served by the PTI to recruit a sufficient sample. Especially to recruit a racially and ethnically diverse sample, it may be appropriate for researchers to individually contact community-based organizations outside of the PTI (e.g., Sanderson & Aquino, 2023 ). Second, this study may suggest the changing landscape of family intervention research. With the recent COVID pandemic, it may be that families are no longer interested in in-person trainings (McIntyre et al., 2022 ). To that end, researchers and PTIs may consider offering interventions via Zoom (or another telehealth platform) versus in-person. Also, more data sources are needed to identify the barriers to participant recruitment. In this study, one of the suggested reasons (i.e., a long pre-survey) for limited recruitment did not map onto the data showing that families were not even logging into the survey. Thus, there is a discrepancy between PTI perceptions of the barrier to participant recruitment and the survey data. Relatedly, some PTIs suggested that randomization was a deterrent for families to participate in the project. Yet, randomization was not required for youth participation and youth participation was also low in this project (i.e., none of the PTIs met the goal of 15 youth participants). As a next step, it may be appropriate for the research team to share screenshots of the survey management tool to explain that most people who started the survey, finished the survey making it unlikely that the length of the survey occluded participant recruitment. It could also be helpful to probe further about whether the PTI heard feedback from families about the length of the survey. For the randomization, it may have been helpful to have more discussion about randomization with the PTIs. With feedback from the PTIs, the recruitment flyers could have been clearer about the need for randomization in the study. Altogether, more communication about potential tension between research activities may help the PTI and research team make data-informed decisions. Third, it is important to acknowledge and leverage the PTIs in research. In this study, the PTIs were acknowledged for their expertise with respect to revising the CEP curricula. There were also missed opportunities to include the PTIs in the project (e.g., soliciting their feedback about the recruitment flyer and research measures). Indeed, this acknowledgment aligns with the first step in the framework for understanding RPPs (Farrell et al., 2022 ). The process of multiple meetings and attempts to elicit feedback from the PTI may have also contributed to the PTI’s perception that the CEP was valuable and their intention to continue to use the CEP in the future. Relying on the expertise and experience of the PTI brings up some logistical questions. When is the right time to elicit feedback from the PTI? How should such feedback be elicited? Who should elicit the feedback? With respect to timing, it remains unclear whether a PTI should be asked to provide feedback about the grant proposal or wait to provide feedback until the grant is funded and they can be appropriately compensated for their thoughts. The former allows the PTI to give feedback to the research measures but the latter respects and compensates PTIs for their expertise. The latter questions of how and who should elicit feedback are also up for debate. In this study, we had interesting findings from the interviews versus our individual meetings to understand our partnership with the PTIs. Further, the investigator less connected to the PTI conducted their end-of-project interview to reduce the likelihood that the PTI may provide desired answers. It could be that an external evaluator would be more appropriate to interview the PTIs to elicit their honest feedback. Limitations While an important jumping off point regarding RPPs among researchers and PTIs, this study had a few limitations. First, we only had two meetings with the South Atlantic PTI. Because we were scheduling the CEPs with the other five PTIs at that time, we asked the staff members of the South Atlantic PTI if it would be appropriate to streamline our established six meetings; the PTI agreed to hold two meetings. The lead investigator working with this PTI was in regular contact with them as they engaged in the project. Second, this study was time-limited. It would be important to examine whether the PTIs actually use the curriculum, parts of the curriculum, or other objects from the study in their regular work with families. Directions for Future Research There are several directions for future research. If interested in working with families of children with disabilities, researchers should consider involving community-based organizations (e.g., PTIs) at the beginning of their research projects. While our team was entirely comprised of family members of individuals with disabilities, there were unanticipated issues (e.g., the lacking family-friendly research protocols) that could have been prevented if we had engaged the PTIs at the beginning of the project. The concept of including end users at the beginning of a research project is not new. Coined “human-centered design” (Mohr et al., 2017 ), it is important that for interventions to be successful in the real world, researcher include the targeted end users and receive their feedback at the beginning of a project. Building on our findings, it is especially important that researchers elicit feedback from diverse end users at the beginning of the project. Future research could also use longitudinal designs which reflect multiple data sources from different participants. As reflected in this study, one person’s perspective may conflict with a different data source. Multiple data sources will help paint a more holistic understanding of a phenomenon from different viewpoints. Further, longitudinal data will shed light on a phenomenon (e.g., the partnership between the PTI and research team; the use of objects and knowledge generated from the project) over time. Implications for Practice To improve compensation, researchers may need to be clearer about the time investment in the project, and PTIs may consider sharing their compensation requirements. With clear guidelines of expectations for compensation, it may be easier and more transparent for researchers to partner with PTIs. Such guidelines may include the extent to which PTIs are willing to provide feedback at the stage of a grant proposal (wherein they are not compensated). While there is one PTI in every state, it may be that the payment structure looks different across PTIs. Given the differences in cost of living in various regions in the United States, PTIs may have different charges. PTIs have tremendous knowledge and experience. As can be seen from this project, they can assist with a multitude of tasks in research projects ranging from input into the family-friendly nature of materials, revising curriculum to reflect state regulations, facilitating presentations with fidelity to families and youth with disabilities, and replicating programs and materials beyond the scope of a grant. The ability of PTIs to contribute to research projects is impressive and should be considered as researchers partner with PTIs on research. Declarations Ethical Approval Before initiating this study, we received University Institutional Review Board approval. Funding Funding for this study was received by a large research grant from the Spencer Foundation Availability of data and materials De-identified data are available upon request to the third author. Authors Contributions (please use initials) SRT spearheaded the data analysis and writing of the manuscript. MB and ZR helped with the data collection. MB revised the manuscript. Conflict of Interest Statement The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest References Banerjee, R., Sundeen, T., Hutchinson, S. R., & Jackson, L. (2017). Factors that explain placement decisions for students with multiple disabilities: Findings from national data. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs , 17 (2), 110–122. Barton, E. L. (1999). Informational and interactional functions of slogans and sayings in the. discourse of a support group Discourse & Society , 10 , 461–486. Booth, J. L., Cooper, L. A., Donovan, M. S., Huyghe, A., Koedinger, K. R., & Pare-Blagoev, E. J. (2015). Design-based research within the constraints of practice: Algebra by example. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk , 20 (1–2), 79–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2014.986674 Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., & Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children , 71 (2), 195–207. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology , 3 , 77–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Burke, M. M. (2016). Developing collaborative family-school partnerships . A literature review. of Parent Training and Information Centers in the United States. CAISE Review , 3 , 1–13. Center for Parent Information and Resources (2023). An Action-Packed Year for Parent Centers: 2021–2022. https://www.parentcenterhub.org/an-action-packed-year-for-parent-centers-2021-2022/ Cobb, P., & Smith, T. (2008). The challenge of scale . Designing schools and districts as learning. organizations for instructional improvement in mathematics In K. Krainer & T. Wood (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education . Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Coburn, C. E., Penuel, W. R., & Geil, K. E. (2013). RPPs: A strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement in school districts . William T. Grant Foundation. Coburn, C. E., & Turner, E. O. (2011). Research on data use: A framework and analysis. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives , 9 (4), 173–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2011.626729 Cohen-Vogel, L., Allen, D., Rutledge, S., Cannata, M., Harrison, C., & Smith, T. M. (2018). Organizing for school improvement: The dilemmas of RPPs. Journal of Research on Organization in Education , 2 , 1–24. Duchnowski, A. J., Kutash, K., Green, A. L., Ferron, J. M., Wagner, M., & Vengrofski, B. (2013). Parent support services for families of children with emotional disturbances served in elementary school special education settings: Examination of data from the Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study. Journal of Disability Policy Studies , 24 (1), 36–52. Farrell, C. C., Penuel, W. R., Allen, A., Anderson, E. R., Bohannon, A. X., Coburn, C. E., & Brown, S. L. (2022). Learning at the boundaries of research and practice: A framework for understanding research–practice partnerships. Educational Researcher , 51 (3), 197–208. Farrell, C. C., Harrison, C., & Coburn, C. E. (2019). What the hell is this, and who the hell are you? Role and identity negotiation in RPPs. AERA Open , 5 (2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419849595 Fishman, B. J., Penuel, W. R., Allen, A. R., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. O. R. A. (2013). Design-based implementation research: An emerging model for transforming the relationship of research and practice. Teachers College Record , 115 (14), 136–156. Eskow, K., Ann Summers, J., Chasson, G. S., & Mitchell, R. (2018). The association between family–teacher partnership satisfaction and outcomes of academic progress and quality of life for children/youth with autism. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities , 15 (1), 16–25. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2012). Why science is not necessarily self-correcting. Perspectives on Psychological Science , 7 , 645–654. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108–446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004). Ishimaru, A. M., & Bang, M. (2016). Toward a transformative research and practice agenda for racial equity in family engagement. White paper: University of Washington . Kyzar, K., Haines, S. J., Turnbull, A. P., & Summers, J. A. (2016). Based practices for fostering trusting partnerships with families in educating students with intellectual disability. In M. L. Whemeyer, & K. A. Shogren (Eds.), Handbook of research-based practices for educating students with intellectual disability (pp. 304–327). Routledge. Larson, E., Foe, G., & Lally, R. (2015). Reading level and length of written research consent forms. Clinical and Translational Science , 8 (4), 355–356. McIntyre, L. L., Gab, M., Hoskins, J., Tienson, J., & Neece, C. L. (2022). Lessons learned supporting families of young children with disabilities via telehealth during the COVID-19 Pandemic. In J. Pattnaik, & M. R. Jalongo (Eds.), The Impact of COVID-19 on Early Childhood Education and Care: International Perspectives, Challenges, and Responses (pp. 275–291). Springer International Publishing. Mohr, D., Lyon, A. R., Lattie, E. G., Reddy, M., & Schueller, S. M. (2017). Accelerating digital mental health research from early design and creation to successful implementation and sustainment. Journal of Medical Internet Research , 19 , 7725. National Parent Technical Assistance Center (2013). Parent Centers Helping Families: Outcome . data, 2012–2013 . Minneapolis, MN: PACER Center. Rossetti, Z., Burke, M. M., Hughes, O., Schraml-Block, K., Rivera, J. I., Rios, K., Aleman, J., & Lee, J. D. (2021). Parent perceptions of the advocacy expectation in special education. Exceptional Children , 87 (4), 438–457. Rossetti, Z., & Burke, M. M. (2019). Reaching out to culturally and linguistically diverse families of children with disabilities: Strategies and challenges reported by parent training and information center staff. Exceptionality , 27 , 215–231. Saldaña, J. (2016). Goodall’s verbal exchange coding: An overview and example. Qualitative Inquiry , 22 (1), 36–39. Sanderson, K. A., & Aquino, M. D. (2023). It’s a 24/7 Deal: Parents of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities discuss natural supports. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities , 36 , 1264–1275. Tesch, R. (1990). TEXTBASE ALPHA: a different approach to the management of qualitative data. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education , 3 (3), 285–289. Wentworth, L., & Nagaoka, J. (2020). Early warning indicators in education: innovations, uses, and optimal conditions for effectiveness. Teachers College Record , 122 (14), 1–22. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files AppendixA.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7285736","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":509893974,"identity":"1ef98f73-de56-42aa-8772-56d1350b4800","order_by":0,"name":"Saury Ramos-Torres","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The University of Texas at Austin","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Saury","middleName":"","lastName":"Ramos-Torres","suffix":""},{"id":509893975,"identity":"24ea26df-6511-4bb4-8a38-cfef6dbad5cc","order_by":1,"name":"Meghan Burke","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Vanderbilt University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Meghan","middleName":"","lastName":"Burke","suffix":""},{"id":509893977,"identity":"f31c039e-b93a-4fd0-849d-0d70845c5cb3","order_by":2,"name":"Zack Rossetti","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Boston University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zack","middleName":"","lastName":"Rossetti","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-08-04 00:23:01","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7285736/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7285736/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":90620712,"identity":"7ec1a540-aa09-4ee5-b012-c07e893a2606","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-04 20:12:39","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":625501,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7285736/v1/02bc9e5d-386e-4749-bfa9-18a068155d8e.pdf"},{"id":90620222,"identity":"d922a045-31cf-4147-83c4-0a111829c797","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-04 20:04:34","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":17371,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AppendixA.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7285736/v1/c87307c068f8b60aa85da255.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Exploring Partnerships Between Parent Training and Information Centers","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eSince the passage in 1975 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Congress has legislated the development and maintenance of Parent Training and Information Centers (PTIs). Required to educate and empower families of children with disabilities aged 0\u0026ndash;26, there is at least one PTI in every state in the United States. PTIs are often staffed by families of children with disabilities, with a focus on supporting marginalized families (e.g., families of color). Annually, PTIs serve millions of families of children with disabilities in over 42 languages beyond English and Spanish (Center for Parent Information \u0026amp; Resources, 2023). Specifically, PTIs often provide information and referral assistance, special education trainings, and individualized assistance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile there has been some research with PTIs, they are often not considered as partners in educational research (Burke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Research-practice partnerships (RPPs): (1) are long-term; (2) focus on problems of the practice; (3) are committed to mutualism; (4) use intentional strategies to foster partnership; and (5) produce original analyses (Coburn et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). The limited studies about RPPs is problematic because when researchers and practitioners partner together, student achievement improves (Booth et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), interventions may be sustained and generalized (Wentworth \u0026amp; Nagaoka, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), and equity may increase as marginalized individuals may be more likely to participate in the project (Ishimaru \u0026amp; Bang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). In education research, researchers may partner with schools and/or educational organizations. Established in the 1970s, PTIs have decades of experience in supporting families of children with disabilities. A RPP with PTIs may improve the quality and relevance of research as well as, if the intervention is effective, enable the intervention to be scaled up across the country via the PTI network. The purpose of this study was to explore a RPP with six PTIs in the United States.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is important to understand how researchers can partner with PTIs. Although not specific to PTIs, there are models of RPPs that may help to characterize such partnerships. Farrell and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) developed a framework for understanding RPPs. The first step is to identify the knowledge, leadership, and resources of the practice organization. The second step is to develop a boundary infrastructure wherein the researcher and practice organization identify \u003cem\u003eboundary spanners\u003c/em\u003e (i.e., researchers who interact with the practice organization), \u003cem\u003eboundary practices\u003c/em\u003e (i.e., activities that bring together researchers and practitioners with different roles), and \u003cem\u003eboundary objects\u003c/em\u003e (i.e., tools to support joint activity between the researchers and practitioners). Then, there are intermediary outcomes which may include organizational learning as a result of the project. Finally, there are long-term outcomes which refers to the improvement of the participants and the knowledge produced from the research project. It would be helpful to discern whether this framework can be applied to RPPs with PTIs as, if applicable, it can provide guidelines for researchers to partner with PTIs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is also important to identify barriers to RPPs. When researchers and practitioners partner, they may struggle to communicate with one another (Farrell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Further, there may be issues related to the infrastructure and operations of the research and practitioner teams. Such issues may include turnover, different paces of work, and unique structures to make decisions (Cohen-Vogel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). For example, researchers may turn to their lead researcher to make final decisions whereas PTIs may require their PTI Director to make decisions or, given their reliance on federal funding, request approval from the Office of Special Education Programs. Further, there may be barriers specific to researchers or PTIs. Regarding the former, researchers are bound to their University Institutional Review Boards which often requires jargon in consent forms (Larson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) which may impact participation in the study. With respect to the latter, PTIs often have limited staff, resources, and time to conduct additional activities (Rossetti \u0026amp; Burke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). By identifying the barriers to RPPs with PTIs, the barriers can be targeted and, hopefully, overcome.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor scalability of interventions, it is important to identify ways for researchers to partner with PTIs. Evidence alone of an intervention\u0026rsquo;s effectiveness does not produce scalable change (Coburn \u0026amp; Turner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Fishman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). In addition to being effective, an intervention needs to be feasible and socially valid for it to be scaled up across a population. Indeed, it is necessary to combine effectiveness data with the interest and commitment of practicing organizations to scale-up an intervention (e.g., Cobb \u0026amp; Smith, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Scalability is critical in education research wherein researchers may have clear settings (i.e., schools and districts) to replicate their intervention. PTIs offer a platform for scalability given that there is at least one PTI in every state. By understanding ways for researchers and PTIs to partner, there is potential for researchers to develop and test interventions that, if effective, feasible, and socially valid, can be replicated across the United States.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIncreasingly, RPPs have received tremendous attention due to persistent systemic barriers and problems of practice in schools and the need to ensure effective educational interventions can be replicated outside of randomized controlled trials. Agencies such as the Institute for Education Sciences, the Spencer Foundation, and the W.T. Grant foundation all encourage and fund RPPs. In the context of special education, RPPs may be especially helpful to improve family involvement. Decades of research have shown that when families participate in educational decision-making, their children with disabilities demonstrate greater academic achievement (Duchnowski et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) and are more likely to participate in general education (Banerjee et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Family engagement also improves family quality of life (Eskow et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Kyzar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) and satisfaction with services (Kyzar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Rossetti et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). PTIs offer a wealth of expertise and experience to help researchers conduct meaningful research with families of children with disabilities. Yet, PTIs are often overlooked as partners in research (e.g., Barton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). To this end, this study had three research questions: (1) How do researchers partner with PTIs?; (2) What are the barriers in RPPs among researchers and PTIs?; and, (3) What should researchers know when working with PTIs?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003ePositionality\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAs a research team, it was important to consider our positionality as we embarked on partnerships with PTIs. When introducing ourselves to the PTIs, we (our research team) identified as professors of special education \u003cem\u003eand\u003c/em\u003e family members of individuals with disabilities. Specifically, all authors of this study identify as family members of individuals with disabilities. One of the team members previously worked at a PTI. Each of the PTI staff also identified as family members of individuals with disabilities and/or individuals with disabilities themselves. Our shared connections to the disability community could have helped build rapport and trust with one another. In addition, as family members of individuals with disabilities, we believed in the purpose of the PTIs to educate and empower families so they could participate in their children\u0026rsquo;s education.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eParticipants\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor this study, participants included staff members at six PTIs. To be included in the study, the PTI needed to have agreed to partner in a grant-funded project to develop and test a Civic Engagement Program (CEP) for transition-aged youth with disabilities and their families (see Author, in press). The PTIs were purposefully chosen to reflect different geographic areas of the United States. In return for participating in the project, each PTI received \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e2,000 in Year 1, \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e3,000 in Year 2, \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e3,000 in Year 3 and \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e1,000 in Year 4. See Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDescription of each PTI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePTI name\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStaff person involvement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFamilies served per year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTime as a PTI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSouthwestern PTI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDirector, Self-advocacy Coordinator, Parent Trainer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4,000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSoutheastern PTI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDirector, Self-advocacy Coordinator, Parent Trainer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2,000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMidwestern PTI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDirector, two Parent Trainers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5,241\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNew England PTI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExecutive Director, Parent Trainer, Parent Trainer/Youth Coordinator\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2,000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNortheastern PTI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExecutive Director, Director of Programs and Outreach\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,675\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSouth Atlantic PTI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExecutive Director, Director of Community Health and Policy, Director of Education\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3,300\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eProcedures\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst, we received Institutional Review Board approval for this study. Before receiving a grant for this study, we recruited the PTIs to be involved in the study. The overarching project was to test a CEP with parents of children with disabilities and to develop and test a CEP among transition-aged youth with disabilities (for more information, see Author, in press). To that end, each PTI facilitated the CEP twice with parents and once with youth. For parents, the goal was to recruit 30 participants at each PTI; the researchers randomly assigned the parent participants to a fall (intervention) or spring (waitlist-control) training session. For youth, the goal was to recruit 15 participants to attend a training; there was no randomization for the youth. For parents and youth, the CEP was six hours long; it was facilitated by the PTI staff. With respect to research, three types of data were collected from the families and the youth: (1) pre, post, and follow-up surveys; (2) focus groups; and (3) advocacy or self-advocacy testimonials.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eData Collection with PTIs\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eMeetings\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFor five of the PTIs, there were monthly meetings with the research team for the first six months of the project. Specifically, at the first meeting, the two lead investigators met with each PTI. Then, each lead investigator continually met with the same three PTIs, respectively, for the remainder of the meetings. For one PTI (the Southeastern PTI), there were only two meetings as the original PTI who agreed to participate in the study could no longer participate due to unforeseen health issues. Given the limited time, only two meetings were conducted with the Southeastern PTI. All meetings were conducted over Zoom and recorded and transcribed verbatim. Each meeting had an agenda set by the research team. Fidelity to the agenda was 93%. On average, the meetings lasted 33 minutes (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;18.17). Altogether, there were 1,216 minutes of recorded meetings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSummative Interview\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the conclusion of the project, the lead investigators conducted a semi-structured social validity interview with each of the three other PTIs than the ones they met regularly with. All interviews were conducted over Zoom at the date and time preferred by the PTI. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The interview protocol was developed based on extant research about RPPs (e.g., Coburn et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) and PTIs (e.g., Barton, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). On average, the interview lasted 37 minutes (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.83). See Appendix A for the interview protocol.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWe analyzed the qualitative data (i.e., interviews, transcriptions of the meetings) inductively and systematically. First, we familiarized ourselves with the data by reading the raw data (Tesch, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e). Then, we used Salda\u0026ntilde;a\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) two-stage coding procedures to analyze the data. The first-cycle coding consisted of initial coding with structural, in vivo, and process codes. We discussed the coding. We agreed upon the codes and developed a codebook. We used the codebook to re-code all of the data. The second-cycle coding consisted of pattern coding (Salda\u0026ntilde;a, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). We reviewed the codes, grouped the codes into categories, and organized the categories into themes grounded in the data. We examined the data to identify patterns.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFor example, regarding PTI perspectives about their involvement with the CEP and collaborating with researchers, we first developed a list of codes. Altogether, there were 32 codes. Codes included: training materials, training mode, conversations about the curriculum, marketing, monthly meetings, and instructional strategies. After verifying the codes, categories and themes were developed based on similar codes (Braun \u0026amp; Clarke, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). For instance, we created the following categories: survey length, geographic location, recruitment, compensation and gift cards, online vs in-person, feelings about research, and materials. We reviewed the categories to group them into themes: challenges in participant recruitment, preference for online versus in-person training, geographic location of the training, the survey was too long, feelings of discomfort with research, importance of giving gift cards to families and PTIs, and co-creating family friendly recruitment materials.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eTrustworthiness\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegarding quality indicators of interview studies (Brantlinger et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), we selected appropriate participants based on specific criteria, developed reasonable interview questions based on the literature, recorded and transcribed meetings and interviews verbatim, and maintained confidentiality. We also utilized multiple measures to establish credibility of data analysis: data triangulation, investigator triangulation, peer debriefing, and thick, detailed description (Brantlinger et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). To promote trustworthiness, we triangulated the data across the meetings and interviews. Because multiple members of the research team collaborated throughout the study, we conducted peer debriefing throughout the data analysis. The findings include sufficient quotes and examples to support our analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Findings","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eStructure of the RPP: Ways for Researchers to Partner with PTIs\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003ePer the RPP framework (Farrell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), the researchers recognized the knowledge, leadership, and resources of each PTI. For example, each PTI was chosen because of their long-standing experience as a PTI supporting families. In the individual interview with the Northwestern PTI, a PTI staff person reported that she felt the research team respected her expertise: \u0026ldquo;I think, particularly this [research] team, I think, did a really good job of understanding that we [PTI staff] are experts in what we're experts in\u0026hellip; we have legitimate expertise. And I appreciated that because sometimes that's not the case. And that [the researchers recognizing our expertise] was really powerful\u0026rdquo;. To capitalize on the expertise of each PTI, the research team encouraged each PTI to identify the resources needed for the project. To this end, the PTIs chose which staff members helped with the project. For example, when available, each PTI offered a self-advocacy specialist to support the CEP for transition-aged youth with disabilities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn further alignment with the RPP framework, the research team and PTIs established a boundary infrastructure wherein the researcher and PTI identify boundary spanners (i.e., researchers or activities who interact with the practice organization), boundary practices (i.e., activities that bring together researchers and practitioners with different roles), and boundary objects (i.e., tools to support joint activity between the researchers and practitioners). For example, at the initial meeting, the research team and PTI staff discussed the boundaries of the project. Regarding boundary spanners, the research team designated one researcher to work with each PTI; the PTI designated a lead person to be in communication with the research team. The lead person was often a parent trainer. The research team and PTI also discussed boundaries that were non-negotiable for the research team. For example, parent participants were randomly assigned to an intervention or waitlist-control group. The researchers established the randomization as a boundary in this project as the randomized controlled trial was written in the grant. However, two PTIs reported struggling with the randomization. The Southwestern PTI staff person reported, \u0026ldquo;I get because of the nature of the study it had to be randomized\u0026hellip;if we wouldn\u0026rsquo;t have had to have them [families] sign up so early and try to do that I think there would have been a different dynamic\u0026rdquo;. Thus, the boundary created some tension with the business-as-usual practice at the PTI wherein families just signed up for the trainings they were interested in. They also discussed boundaries that were at the discretion of the PTI (e.g., the mode of the CEP, the date/time of the program, recruitment). For example, we established monthly meetings with each PTI. However, the date/time of the monthly meetings was solely at the discretion of the PTI. Some PTIs chose consistent monthly meetings whereas other PTIs decided on a new date for the meeting every month. At the Midwestern PTI, the researcher and PTI staff person discussed the monthly meeting schedule:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Researcher: What would be easier for you: to set up every meeting, to set up the next\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003emonth\u0026rsquo;s meeting or do you want regular monthly meetings on a certain date and time?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePTI: We could just set up a regular meeting schedule, that would be easier.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe monthly meetings served as \u0026ldquo;boundary practices\u0026rdquo; wherein the researcher and PTI could discuss the project and provide feedback. Specifically, the meetings offered the PTI an opportunity to co-design the CEP; the research team then made the suggested changes from the PTI. Such changes often included whether state-specific regulations should be mentioned during the training and whether the CEP should reflect current issues in special education (e.g., disproportionality in discipline procedures). Recognizing the importance of the monthly meeting, the New England PTI staff person reflected on the monthly meetings, \u0026ldquo;It [monthly meetings] was really great to kind of get all back on the same page\u0026hellip;it was nice to just kind of see the whole project coming together.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe boundary objects were the curricula that were developed for the project. Specifically, objects included curricula for the CEP for the families and a CEP for the transition-aged youth with disabilities. The objects were shared freely with the PTIs. The New England PTI reflected that the research team shared the objects ahead of each monthly meeting providing the opportunity for the PTI to give feedback. Commenting on the ability to provide feedback about the curricula at monthly meetings, the PTI director stated, \u0026ldquo;I felt like it [monthly meetings] was a strong system of technical assistance.\u0026rdquo; In the individual interviews, PTIs positively characterized the objects. Another staff member of the New England PTI spoke about using the testimonial worksheet from the CEP. She stated: \u0026ldquo;It's [the testimonial worksheet] basically how to take your story and turn it into legislative advocacy or stakeholder group participation. And so that's the information that we're going to use and provide advocacy training for parents\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere were intermediary outcomes which included organizational learning as a result of the project. The South Atlantic PTI reported learning that personal invitations for family and youth participants were more effective than sharing flyers to invite participants to be involved in the research project. The PTI staff person reported: \u0026ldquo;I think some of that was just that, personal outreach from our staff to the families to say, \u0026lsquo;Hey, this is coming up. I think you will really like it, or really, you know, be interested in it.\u0026rsquo;\u0026rdquo; The Southwestern PTI had a similar experience with participant recruitment sharing that they learned the importance of personal invitations to attend the CEP: \u0026ldquo;We even did a separate email run of that [recruitment], and I even had like some selected families\u0026hellip;So we did a little bit of some personal invitations to families\u0026hellip;like, \u0026lsquo;Let's invite them [a specific family]\u0026rsquo;\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, there were long-term outcomes (i.e., the knowledge generated from the research project). The Southeastern PTI reported that they plan to continue to elicit testimonials from families in preparation for the IDEA reauthorization. The PTI staff plan to use the testimonial worksheet in that effort: \u0026ldquo;[We would] implement some of those pieces of it especially the testimony pieces\u0026hellip;We will still use some of this stuff [curricula].\u0026rdquo; While a South Atlantic PTI staff person shared: \u0026ldquo;I would personally run it [the CEP] again.\u0026rdquo; Similar to the South Atlantic PTI, the Southwestern PTI reported that they plan to offer the CEP again but they would focus the CEP on state regulations: \u0026ldquo;I think, add a little bit more details that pertain to our actual state.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eBarriers to The RPP\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFive PTIs reported that it was challenging to recruit families and transition-aged youth with disabilities to attend the CEP. PTI staff reported three potential reasons to explain the challenges in recruitment: (1) lack of interest among families to attend in-person programs, (2) concern about the timing and duration of the CEP, and (3) the pre-survey that participants complete before the CEP was too long. Only the South Atlantic PTI and the Southwestern PTI were successful with recruiting the needed sample size (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;30 parents) for the study. The South Atlantic PTI reported: \u0026ldquo;We had interns\u0026hellip; that personally called everyone to encourage them to come and invite them to come and make sure they were coming.\u0026rdquo; Similarly, a Southwestern PTI staff person stated, \u0026ldquo;I think the only way people we could have gotten people probable it's starting to make phone calls to people and begging them.\u0026rdquo; Notably, the Southwestern PTI also conducted personalized invitations to the CEP. While they had the needed sample size register for the training, only five parents actually showed up to attend the CEP in-person.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThree PTIs reported that the modality of the CEP may have occluded participant recruitment. Specifically, the three PTIs reported that if the CEP has been conducted via Zoom (versus in-person), participant recruitment may have been more successful. Summarized by a New England PTI staff person, \u0026ldquo;It's post-pandemic, nobody wants to be in-person.\u0026rdquo; A South Atlantic PTI staff person reported: \u0026ldquo;I think people have just become so accustomed to doing things virtually.\u0026rdquo; Several participants explained that the preference for Zoom over in-person may have resulted from personal calculations about what to attend in-person amidst a busy and unpredictable schedule as the parent of a child with a disability. A staff person from the New England PTI explained:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd it's not necessarily any more about being scared of getting sick. It's the time and effort it takes to come in person. Like it's one thing to sit in your home, log out to Zoom for a two hour meeting that, you know, will be over in two hours. But if you have to travel an hour to get there, travel an hour to get home. Now you're talking about four hours, right?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOther times, the personal calculations related to perceptions of the impact of the program. A staff person from the Northeastern PTI explained:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt's like, I'm trying to deal with \u0026lsquo;Can my child get an IEP? Can they implement my IEP?\u0026rsquo; Do you want me to come to a meeting to talk about advocacy at the federal level? Okay, where's the direct connection and impact for me and my family versus what I'm dealing with today?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSimilarly, a staff person from the Midwestern PTI suggested that the focus on civic engagement may not have been perceived as directly impactful by some families, explaining: \u0026ldquo;I think a lot of families that we work with are kind of in survival mode, trying to get services at school things like that.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFour PTIs reported that the day of the CEP and/or its length may have prevented participant recruitment. Notably, at the outset of the study, the PTIs had full discretion about when and how to present the CEP. Specifically, PTIs had full decision-making authority to decide when to offer the CEP and whether to offer it in two, three-hr sessions or one, six-hr session. Most PTIs offered the CEP on a weekend and as a single, six-hr session. For example, the Midwestern PTI offered the CEP for six hours on a Saturday; a staff person stated \u0026ldquo;Maybe we could suggest that as something that we could do over multiple presentations instead of doing an all day event\u0026rdquo;. Put simply by a Southeastern PTI staff person, \u0026ldquo;Nobody likes all day anything anymore, all day on Saturday\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e Half of the PTIs reported the pre-survey was too long for parents of children with disabilities and transition-aged youth with disabilities. The Midwestern PTI staff person reported, \u0026ldquo;The survey was kind of lengthy. I think that took a lot of time.\u0026rdquo; The New England PTI shared that the survey should be more family friendly. When the PTI staff person made this comment, they reported that the survey length may have been intimidating and challenging for youth. The pre-survey took 30 min to complete. If a family struggled with the survey (because of length and/or jargon), the research team would have been able to see that the survey was started and not completed. Yet, this was often not the case.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eSuggestions for Researcher-PTI Partnerships\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCompensate Families and PTIs for their Participation.\u003c/b\u003e All PTIs agreed that providing gift cards for family and youth participants was important. PTIs reported that compensation for families and youth was necessary to acknowledge the time invested in participating in the CEP. Indeed, each family and youth participant was compensated for their participation in this study. Specifically, each participant received a \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e25 gift card for completing the post-survey. Yet, the question remained about how much to compensate families for the time that they invested in the training. A Southeastern PTI staff person reported: \u0026ldquo;Unfortunately, a couple of \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e25 gift card and lunch isn't probably going to be enough for them [families and youth] to get them to come participate.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePTIs also commented that it is important for researchers to appropriately compensate PTIs as partners in their projects. While PTIs were compensated in this project, they reported that the amount of compensation was not commensurate with the time and effort spent in the project. For example, two PTIs reported that the time they spent in actually getting paid from the University was exorbitant in comparison to their amount of compensation. A Southeastern PTI staff person reported: \u0026ldquo;I'll be honest with you. There was that piece of it [getting paid through the University] was probably the most difficult for me because of the fact that I wasn't clear of when to bill, how to bill. I think there's still a bill floating around out there.\u0026rdquo; Further, the Southeastern PTI staff person reported: \u0026ldquo;It was very minimal money for the amount of work [in the project].\u0026rdquo; The staff person from the Northeastern PTI also articulated that the amount of compensation was disproportionate to the time they spent in the CEP. She stated, \u0026ldquo;If we were basing those [compensation] on the hourly rates, as if we were doing this for fee for service, it would have been more than what we received.\u0026rdquo; When probed, the staff person declined to state an appropriate amount that should have been paid to accurately reflect the work of the PTI in the CEP. Similarly, a Southeastern PTI staff person reported: \u0026ldquo;It was probably a little bit more work than I anticipated, and they probably needed a little bit more time and more hours which would have you know, you had to have a funding stream for that. So definitely be something I would look at in the future, for us is \u0026lsquo;What the workload would look like?\u0026rsquo;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCo-creating family friendly research materials.\u003c/b\u003e PTIs suggested that researchers should solicit their feedback for research materials. For example, with respect to recruitment materials (e.g., flyers), some PTIs suggested that researchers should ask PTIs for their feedback. A staff person at the South Atlantic PTI reported: \u0026ldquo;We had created a different flyer [than the researcher-created flyer] and I think that I mean, we got a lot of response from that.\u0026rdquo; Specifically, the South Atlantic PTI used the researcher-created flyer initially to recruit families. However, after failing to recruit many families, they adapted the flyer. Changes to the flyer included: providing information about the partnership with the university and their PTI and adding their PTI logo. The South Atlantic PTI reported that, after using the revised flyer, they were able to recruit sufficient families for the CEP.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn addition to the recruitment materials, PTIs suggested that researchers should involve them in creating data collection instruments (namely, surveys). Feeling that the survey was a deterrent to family participation, a New England PTI staff person reported: \u0026ldquo;Engaging the parent centers prior to this survey, probably would have been helpful for you [the researcher]. And we would have told you, this [the survey] is way too long. Let's get the data points you need. But how can we pare this down and use family-friendly language?\u0026rdquo; In response to this suggestion, the interviewer asked whether the research team should have involved the PTI while writing the grant for the project. At the grant writing stage, the research team drafted the survey with several measures making it a longer survey. In response, the staff person stated they didn\u0026rsquo;t have time to review research materials at the grant writing stage. Other PTIs also commented on their ability to provide feedback about the accessibility of research measures. A Southeastern PTI staff person stated, \u0026ldquo;We talk a lot about fifth grade reading levels. We need to put this [the survey] in language that people really understand, and there's not going to be confusion to them\u0026hellip;make sure the most important questions are the ones upfront in advance that a mandatory that you need, and if something really is, you know, optional, then put it towards, you know the last one.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn the field of education, RPPs are gaining attention. Yet, little research has examined such partnerships especially in the context of PTIs who, collectively, serve more than 3\u0026nbsp;million children annually (National Parent Technical Assistance Center, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). In this study, we explored the partnerships between our research team and six PTIs. We present three key findings. First, the partnerships mapped onto the RPP framework developed by Farrell and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, this study suggests that the generic framework for RPPs can apply to partnerships between researchers and PTIs. This finding is poignant as it allows researchers to use this pre-existing framework to partner with PTIs instead of creating a new framework.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRelatedly, the boundary objects and outcomes, per the framework of Farrell and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), seem to have special relevance to this project. Indeed, many PTIs suggested that they would continue using some objects (e.g., the CEP curriculum) and knowledge from this project in the future. Replication and scalability are large issues in education research as, to understand whether an intervention works in the real world, it is critical to determine whether an intervention can be replicated and implemented by non-researchers (Ioannidis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). By having PTIs report that they may replicate the CEP and/or aspects of the CEP, their interest suggests that the CEP may be effective in the community and outside of a tightly controlled research trial.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecond, challenges in participant recruitment (and the reasons for the challenges) may impact RPPs. This finding has several implications. First, it suggests that relying only on PTIs for help with participant recruitment may be insufficient. It may be that the PTI and the research team should go beyond the constituency served by the PTI to recruit a sufficient sample. Especially to recruit a racially and ethnically diverse sample, it may be appropriate for researchers to individually contact community-based organizations outside of the PTI (e.g., Sanderson \u0026amp; Aquino, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Second, this study may suggest the changing landscape of family intervention research. With the recent COVID pandemic, it may be that families are no longer interested in in-person trainings (McIntyre et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). To that end, researchers and PTIs may consider offering interventions via Zoom (or another telehealth platform) versus in-person.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlso, more data sources are needed to identify the barriers to participant recruitment. In this study, one of the suggested reasons (i.e., a long pre-survey) for limited recruitment did not map onto the data showing that families were not even logging into the survey. Thus, there is a discrepancy between PTI perceptions of the barrier to participant recruitment and the survey data. Relatedly, some PTIs suggested that randomization was a deterrent for families to participate in the project. Yet, randomization was not required for youth participation and youth participation was also low in this project (i.e., none of the PTIs met the goal of 15 youth participants). As a next step, it may be appropriate for the research team to share screenshots of the survey management tool to explain that most people who started the survey, finished the survey making it unlikely that the length of the survey occluded participant recruitment. It could also be helpful to probe further about whether the PTI heard feedback from families about the length of the survey. For the randomization, it may have been helpful to have more discussion about randomization with the PTIs. With feedback from the PTIs, the recruitment flyers could have been clearer about the need for randomization in the study. Altogether, more communication about potential tension between research activities may help the PTI and research team make data-informed decisions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThird, it is important to acknowledge and leverage the PTIs in research. In this study, the PTIs were acknowledged for their expertise with respect to revising the CEP curricula. There were also missed opportunities to include the PTIs in the project (e.g., soliciting their feedback about the recruitment flyer and research measures). Indeed, this acknowledgment aligns with the first step in the framework for understanding RPPs (Farrell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The process of multiple meetings and attempts to elicit feedback from the PTI may have also contributed to the PTI\u0026rsquo;s perception that the CEP was valuable and their intention to continue to use the CEP in the future.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRelying on the expertise and experience of the PTI brings up some logistical questions. When is the right time to elicit feedback from the PTI? How should such feedback be elicited? Who should elicit the feedback? With respect to timing, it remains unclear whether a PTI should be asked to provide feedback about the grant proposal or wait to provide feedback until the grant is funded and they can be appropriately compensated for their thoughts. The former allows the PTI to give feedback to the research measures but the latter respects and compensates PTIs for their expertise. The latter questions of how and who should elicit feedback are also up for debate. In this study, we had interesting findings from the interviews versus our individual meetings to understand our partnership with the PTIs. Further, the investigator less connected to the PTI conducted their end-of-project interview to reduce the likelihood that the PTI may provide desired answers. It could be that an external evaluator would be more appropriate to interview the PTIs to elicit their honest feedback.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eLimitations\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile an important jumping off point regarding RPPs among researchers and PTIs, this study had a few limitations. First, we only had two meetings with the South Atlantic PTI. Because we were scheduling the CEPs with the other five PTIs at that time, we asked the staff members of the South Atlantic PTI if it would be appropriate to streamline our established six meetings; the PTI agreed to hold two meetings. The lead investigator working with this PTI was in regular contact with them as they engaged in the project. Second, this study was time-limited. It would be important to examine whether the PTIs actually use the curriculum, parts of the curriculum, or other objects from the study in their regular work with families.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eDirections for Future Research\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere are several directions for future research. If interested in working with families of children with disabilities, researchers should consider involving community-based organizations (e.g., PTIs) at the beginning of their research projects. While our team was entirely comprised of family members of individuals with disabilities, there were unanticipated issues (e.g., the lacking family-friendly research protocols) that could have been prevented if we had engaged the PTIs at the beginning of the project. The concept of including end users at the beginning of a research project is not new. Coined \u0026ldquo;human-centered design\u0026rdquo; (Mohr et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), it is important that for interventions to be successful in the real world, researcher include the targeted end users and receive their feedback at the beginning of a project. Building on our findings, it is especially important that researchers elicit feedback from diverse end users at the beginning of the project.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFuture research could also use longitudinal designs which reflect multiple data sources from different participants. As reflected in this study, one person\u0026rsquo;s perspective may conflict with a different data source. Multiple data sources will help paint a more holistic understanding of a phenomenon from different viewpoints. Further, longitudinal data will shed light on a phenomenon (e.g., the partnership between the PTI and research team; the use of objects and knowledge generated from the project) over time.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eImplications for Practice\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo improve compensation, researchers may need to be clearer about the time investment in the project, and PTIs may consider sharing their compensation requirements. With clear guidelines of expectations for compensation, it may be easier and more transparent for researchers to partner with PTIs. Such guidelines may include the extent to which PTIs are willing to provide feedback at the stage of a grant proposal (wherein they are not compensated). While there is one PTI in every state, it may be that the payment structure looks different across PTIs. Given the differences in cost of living in various regions in the United States, PTIs may have different charges.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePTIs have tremendous knowledge and experience. As can be seen from this project, they can assist with a multitude of tasks in research projects ranging from input into the family-friendly nature of materials, revising curriculum to reflect state regulations, facilitating presentations with fidelity to families and youth with disabilities, and replicating programs and materials beyond the scope of a grant. The ability of PTIs to contribute to research projects is impressive and should be considered as researchers partner with PTIs on research.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore initiating this study, we received University Institutional Review Board approval.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eFunding for this study was received by a large research grant from the Spencer Foundation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;De-identified data are available upon request to the third author.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors Contributions (please use initials)\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;SRT spearheaded the data analysis and writing of the manuscript. MB and ZR helped with the data collection. MB revised the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflict of Interest Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBanerjee, R., Sundeen, T., Hutchinson, S. R., \u0026amp; Jackson, L. (2017). Factors that explain placement decisions for students with multiple disabilities: Findings from national data. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Research in Special Educational Needs\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(2), 110\u0026ndash;122.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarton, E. L. (1999). Informational and interactional functions of slogans and sayings in the.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ediscourse of a support group \u003cem\u003eDiscourse \u0026amp; Society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e, 461\u0026ndash;486.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBooth, J. L., Cooper, L. A., Donovan, M. S., Huyghe, A., Koedinger, K. R., \u0026amp; Pare-Blagoev, E. J. (2015). Design-based research within the constraints of practice: Algebra by example. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Education for Students Placed at Risk\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(1\u0026ndash;2), 79\u0026ndash;100. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2014.986674\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10824669.2014.986674\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., \u0026amp; Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. \u003cem\u003eExceptional Children\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e71\u003c/em\u003e(2), 195\u0026ndash;207.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBraun, V., \u0026amp; Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. \u003cem\u003eQualitative Research in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e, 77\u0026ndash;101. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1191/1478088706qp063oa\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBurke, M. M. (2016). \u003cem\u003eDeveloping collaborative family-school partnerships\u003c/em\u003e. A literature review.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eof Parent Training and Information Centers in the United States. \u003cem\u003eCAISE Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;13.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCenter for Parent Information and Resources (2023). \u003cem\u003eAn Action-Packed Year for Parent Centers: 2021\u0026ndash;2022.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.parentcenterhub.org/an-action-packed-year-for-parent-centers-2021-2022/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.parentcenterhub.org/an-action-packed-year-for-parent-centers-2021-2022/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCobb, P., \u0026amp; Smith, T. (2008). \u003cem\u003eThe challenge of scale\u003c/em\u003e. Designing schools and districts as learning.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eorganizations for instructional improvement in mathematics In K. Krainer \u0026amp; T. Wood (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eInternational handbook of mathematics teacher education\u003c/em\u003e. Rotterdam, The Netherlands.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCoburn, C. E., Penuel, W. R., \u0026amp; Geil, K. E. (2013). \u003cem\u003eRPPs: A strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement in school districts\u003c/em\u003e. William T. Grant Foundation.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCoburn, C. E., \u0026amp; Turner, E. O. (2011). Research on data use: A framework and analysis. \u003cem\u003eMeasurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(4), 173\u0026ndash;206. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2011.626729\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/15366367.2011.626729\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCohen-Vogel, L., Allen, D., Rutledge, S., Cannata, M., Harrison, C., \u0026amp; Smith, T. M. (2018). Organizing for school improvement: The dilemmas of RPPs. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Research on Organization in Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;24.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDuchnowski, A. J., Kutash, K., Green, A. L., Ferron, J. M., Wagner, M., \u0026amp; Vengrofski, B. (2013). Parent support services for families of children with emotional disturbances served in elementary school special education settings: Examination of data from the Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Disability Policy Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(1), 36\u0026ndash;52.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFarrell, C. C., Penuel, W. R., Allen, A., Anderson, E. R., Bohannon, A. X., Coburn, C. E., \u0026amp; Brown, S. L. (2022). Learning at the boundaries of research and practice: A framework for understanding research\u0026ndash;practice partnerships. \u003cem\u003eEducational Researcher\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e51\u003c/em\u003e(3), 197\u0026ndash;208.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFarrell, C. C., Harrison, C., \u0026amp; Coburn, C. E. (2019). What the hell is this, and who the hell are you? Role and identity negotiation in RPPs. \u003cem\u003eAERA Open\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(2). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419849595\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/2332858419849595\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFishman, B. J., Penuel, W. R., Allen, A. R., Cheng, B. H., \u0026amp; Sabelli, N. O. R. A. (2013). Design-based implementation research: An emerging model for transforming the relationship of research and practice. \u003cem\u003eTeachers College Record\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e115\u003c/em\u003e(14), 136\u0026ndash;156.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEskow, K., Ann Summers, J., Chasson, G. S., \u0026amp; Mitchell, R. (2018). The association between family\u0026ndash;teacher partnership satisfaction and outcomes of academic progress and quality of life for children/youth with autism. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(1), 16\u0026ndash;25.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIoannidis, J. P. A. (2012). Why science is not necessarily self-correcting. \u003cem\u003ePerspectives on Psychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e, 645\u0026ndash;654.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIndividuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108\u0026ndash;446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIshimaru, A. M., \u0026amp; Bang, M. (2016). Toward a transformative research and practice agenda for racial equity in family engagement. \u003cem\u003eWhite paper: University of Washington\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKyzar, K., Haines, S. J., Turnbull, A. P., \u0026amp; Summers, J. A. (2016). Based practices for fostering trusting partnerships with families in educating students with intellectual disability. In M. L. Whemeyer, \u0026amp; K. A. Shogren (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eHandbook of research-based practices for educating students with intellectual disability\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 304\u0026ndash;327). Routledge.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLarson, E., Foe, G., \u0026amp; Lally, R. (2015). Reading level and length of written research consent forms. \u003cem\u003eClinical and Translational Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(4), 355\u0026ndash;356.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcIntyre, L. L., Gab, M., Hoskins, J., Tienson, J., \u0026amp; Neece, C. L. (2022). Lessons learned supporting families of young children with disabilities via telehealth during the COVID-19 Pandemic. In J. Pattnaik, \u0026amp; M. R. Jalongo (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eThe Impact of COVID-19 on Early Childhood Education and Care: International Perspectives, Challenges, and Responses\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 275\u0026ndash;291). Springer International Publishing.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMohr, D., Lyon, A. R., Lattie, E. G., Reddy, M., \u0026amp; Schueller, S. M. (2017). Accelerating digital mental health research from early design and creation to successful implementation and sustainment. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Medical Internet Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e, 7725.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNational Parent Technical Assistance Center (2013). \u003cem\u003eParent Centers Helping Families: Outcome\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003edata, 2012\u0026ndash;2013\u003c/em\u003e. Minneapolis, MN: PACER Center.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRossetti, Z., Burke, M. M., Hughes, O., Schraml-Block, K., Rivera, J. I., Rios, K., Aleman, J., \u0026amp; Lee, J. D. (2021). Parent perceptions of the advocacy expectation in special education. \u003cem\u003eExceptional Children\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e87\u003c/em\u003e(4), 438\u0026ndash;457.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRossetti, Z., \u0026amp; Burke, M. M. (2019). Reaching out to culturally and linguistically diverse families of children with disabilities: Strategies and challenges reported by parent training and information center staff. \u003cem\u003eExceptionality\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e, 215\u0026ndash;231.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSalda\u0026ntilde;a, J. (2016). Goodall\u0026rsquo;s verbal exchange coding: An overview and example. \u003cem\u003eQualitative Inquiry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(1), 36\u0026ndash;39.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSanderson, K. A., \u0026amp; Aquino, M. D. (2023). It\u0026rsquo;s a 24/7 Deal: Parents of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities discuss natural supports. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e, 1264\u0026ndash;1275.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTesch, R. (1990). TEXTBASE ALPHA: a different approach to the management of qualitative data. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(3), 285\u0026ndash;289.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWentworth, L., \u0026amp; Nagaoka, J. (2020). Early warning indicators in education: innovations, uses, and optimal conditions for effectiveness. \u003cem\u003eTeachers College Record\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e122\u003c/em\u003e(14), 1\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7285736/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7285736/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eResearch-practice partnerships (RPPs) reflect mutual relationships and collaborative approaches to address problems of practice. RPPs can help ensure that interventions are sustained in the real world. Yet, little research has explored how to partner with educational agencies, including Parent Training and Information Centers (PTIs; federally-funded agencies to educate and empower families of children with disabilities about their special education rights). By understanding RPPs among researchers and PTIs, interventions may be more responsive to families of children disabilities and likely to be sustained in the community. In this study, we partnered with six PTIs to conduct a civic engagement program (CEP). The partnership included preparatory meetings and two six-hr CEPs for families of children with disabilities with each PTI. Data included meeting transcripts and a social validity interview with multiple staff members from each PTI. To facilitate a strong partnership with the PTI, the researchers acknowledged and leveraged the expertise and experience of the PTIs. Barriers to the partnerships included challenges with aspects of the research process. When considering partnering with PTIs, researchers may consider ways to ensure the research is family-friendly. Implications for research and practice are discussed.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Exploring Partnerships Between Parent Training and Information Centers","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-09-04 20:04:29","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7285736/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"b2ffc075-e6c0-40be-85ba-72d31e5e85b1","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 4th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-05T12:11:20+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-09-04 20:04:29","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7285736","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7285736","identity":"rs-7285736","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}