View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Family Variables Influencing the Social Validity of Telepractice in Early Childhood Intervention

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Family Variables Influencing the Social Validity of Telepractice in Early Childhood Intervention
Language: English
Authors: Gabriel Martínez-Rico (ORCID 0000-0003-0140-5512), Pau García-Grau (ORCID 0000-0002-6790-9089), Margarita Cañadas (ORCID 0000-0002-5496-322X), Rómulo J. González-García (ORCID 0000-0002-0331-4908)
Source: Exceptional Children. 2026 92(3):286-304.
Availability: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 19
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Early Intervention, Parent Background, Educational Attainment, Technological Literacy, Validity, Family (Sociological Unit), Family Role, Client Characteristics (Human Services), Telecommunications, Foreign Countries, Young Children, Parents, Program Effectiveness
Geographic Terms: Spain
DOI: 10.1177/00144029251382565
ISSN: 0014-4029
2163-5560
Abstract: The use of telepractice in early childhood intervention has increased considerably in recent years. It is necessary, therefore, to examine its social validity in order to improve services and meet the needs of families. Determining relevant family variables influencing social validity allows practitioners to ensure their practices are based on socially meaningful and valid processes. We examined the influence of family-level variables through a multiple mediation model with: (a) child and adult age and mother's education level as predictors; (b) family role during sessions and technology skills as mediators; and (c) social validity of telepractice and the focus on family needs as dependent variables. We examined direct, indirect, and total effects through path analysis, as well as the joint effect of both mediators on social validity appraisals and the scores on focus on family needs. Overall, good perception of social validity of telepractice was found. No differences in social validity scores among telepractice modalities or eligibility criteria were found. Higher social validity was associated with greater focus on family needs, a more active role during sessions, better technology skills, and younger children and adults. Higher mother's educational level was related to having an active role in telepractice sessions and perceiving the intervention to be more focused on their needs. Addressing family needs is a priority for telepractice in early childhood intervention. Deciding with families the telepractice modality that could fit best their needs, as well as considering a hybrid approach, could help programs support their families more effectively.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1499976
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwG96QAY8Hhip_RtrAiXaPZtAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIyRCKB0cKZLg4njjAIBEICBm2Za-lpqjoga8DiOSBdtCn6VXp_I11oDN-DnEzG3MgSdfRcOrLt6MRuDX72CY8_aLpvzCZ6CajCUMACb9MzJR0bMAfpN2q-wCHATK4nMauFDA8itv8CZ0rsNiSwGyVcJslKswTj0EWnwR1Duv0AxFBHd4d1G8n6Bpbl_Sp0l7mhhessw-yeuGM3bu2IFFGlYh46QmQcarWbs7Rpa
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0192372882;exc01apr.26;2026Mar23.04:45;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0192372882-1">Family Variables Influencing the Social Validity of Telepractice in Early Childhood Intervention </title> <p>The use of telepractice in early childhood intervention has increased considerably in recent years. It is necessary, therefore, to examine its social validity in order to improve services and meet the needs of families. Determining relevant family variables influencing social validity allows practitioners to ensure their practices are based on socially meaningful and valid processes. We examined the influence of family-level variables through a multiple mediation model with: (a) child and adult age and mother's education level as predictors; (b) family role during sessions and technology skills as mediators; and (c) social validity of telepractice and the focus on family needs as dependent variables. We examined direct, indirect, and total effects through path analysis, as well as the joint effect of both mediators on social validity appraisals and the scores on focus on family needs. Overall, good perception of social validity of telepractice was found. No differences in social validity scores among telepractice modalities or eligibility criteria were found. Higher social validity was associated with greater focus on family needs, a more active role during sessions, better technology skills, and younger children and adults. Higher mother's educational level was related to having an active role in telepractice sessions and perceiving the intervention to be more focused on their needs. Addressing family needs is a priority for telepractice in early childhood intervention. Deciding with families the telepractice modality that could fit best their needs, as well as considering a hybrid approach, could help programs support their families more effectively.</p> <p>Keywords: social validity; telepractice; early childhood intervention; technology skills; active family role</p> <p>Telepractice is the use of telecommunications technology to deliver support services at distance ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref1">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref2">32</reflink>]). It also allows combining real-time technologies (synchronous) and storage and transmission (asynchronous) modalities ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref3">20</reflink>]). Telepractice involves communication technologies such as phone calls, e-mail, video-conferencing, or tablet applications ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref4">25</reflink>]). It is an effective technology-based means of service delivery allowing remote collaboration ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref5">48</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref6">61</reflink>]) and parent training ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref7">30</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref8">51</reflink>]). It has been useful offering increased accessibility, especially for families in rural areas ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref9">58</reflink>]), while reducing costs ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref10">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref11">14</reflink>]). In early childhood intervention (ECI) telepractice has been effective in interventions geared towards various populations, including autism ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref12">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref13">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref14">45</reflink>]), intellectual disabilities (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref15">4</reflink>]), and speech and language interventions ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref16">26</reflink>]). Overall, telepractice has come to stay and can be an important resource in ECI ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref17">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref18">11</reflink>]). While telepractice has proven effective in ECI it is not always implemented consistently in natural environments by caregivers ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref19">10</reflink>]). Potential reasons for this are aspects of social validity such as perceiving telepractice as time-consuming, costly, or not impactful enough on quality of life ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref20">57</reflink>]). Additionally, it is important to highlight the significance of the cultural context in evaluating social validity, as these cultural variables can influence families' perceptions ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref21">59</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref22">60</reflink>]). For this reason, examining families' social validity appraisals is a key factor in order to improve support services ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref23">46</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref24">63</reflink>]).</p> <p>From an overview, social validity is conceptualized in the field of special education as the degree to which the objectives, methods, and outcomes of interventions are regarded as acceptable and meaningful by the individuals receiving them, as well as by their broader social and professional network ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref25">69</reflink>]). More recently, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref26">29</reflink>], in a review of social validity evaluations in social skills intervention studies with children with autism, stated that three critical points should be considered regarding social validity: (a) feasibility of the intervention; (b) acceptability of and satisfaction with target behaviors, intervention, and outcomes; and (c) significance or importance of intervention results. These authors also noted that feasibility could be understood as ecological validity, and some authors consider it as an indicator of social validity ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref27">33</reflink>]). These reviews indicate that the majority of studies on the social validity of telepractice in ECI primarily focus on the specific interventions delivered via telepractice. In contrast, fewer studies have evaluated telepractice as a service delivery modality. The review by [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref28">59</reflink>] noted that there is not a clear consensus on a definition of social validity, and that this could be influenced by the social validity needs of the studies and the philosophical paradigms of researchers. The authors also stated that there is a consensus in identifying social validity as different from pure behavior change. Recent conceptualizations uphold the areas proposed by Wolf and consider factors such as acceptability and feasibility. Additionally, they conceptualize social validity around the social importance of: (a) the intervention objectives; (b) the processes or procedures that are implemented; and (c) outcomes at the societal or community level ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref29">45</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref30">63</reflink>]).</p> <p>The instruments used to assess social validity tend to report on the social perception of the interventions as well as the acceptability and relevance of programs ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref31">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref32">45</reflink>]). In the context of ECI, assessments of social validity involve examining how primary caregivers perceive the relevance, acceptability, and feasibility of telepractice, as well as other family-related factors that may influence these perceptions. This involves evaluating the program's implementation, effectiveness, and fidelity ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref33">36</reflink>]). This valuable information enables professionals to ensure that their practices are grounded in socially meaningful and valid processes; in other words, that the practices fit the needs of families ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref34">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref35">45</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref36">62</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref37">64</reflink>]).</p> <p>The implementation of telepractice has also been shown to be highly compatible with a family-centered approach ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref38">8</reflink>]), considering that the intervention mainly focuses on promoting caregiver–child interactions as well addressing family needs through the main caregiver ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref39">40</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref40">62</reflink>] analyzed aspects of social validity such as feasibility and acceptability of pediatric telehealth services, and found that their implementation was feasible and widely accepted by patients. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref41">41</reflink>] reviewed the social validity assessments in the field of parent-implemented telepractice with families of children aged 0 to 8 years of age. While the use of telepractice in these interventions is generally reported as effective, the authors conclude that information about social validity assessments of the interventions is limited. In order to assess social validity more effectively, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref42">63</reflink>] recommended assessing social validity by getting input from participants to guide decisions and to identify meaningful and functional behaviors in the child's natural environments. Thus, this study responds to [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref43">63</reflink>] recommendation by gathering feedback on caregivers' perspectives of social validity, drawn from their experiences with telepractice services, to pinpoint areas for potential service delivery improvement.</p> <hd id="AN0192372882-2">Influencing Variables on Social Validity of Telepractice</hd> <p>Factors influencing social validity appraisals were reviewed by [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref44">7</reflink>] in a systematic review. The authors analyzed peer-reviewed articles between 2007 and 2018. They specifically analyzed the characteristics of pediatric telepractice with families with a child from 0 to 12 years old. They concluded that effective interventions for both child and outcomes included service characteristics such as weekly sessions addressed to parents or caregivers, the use of parent coaching approaches, and focus on improving children's daily functioning. In addition, the authors found that the technology used did not influence outcomes improvement, and that the combination (multimodal telerehabilitation strategies) of videoconferencing might be effective and accommodate different families' preferences.</p> <p>Several studies suggest that caregivers' experiences with receiving telepractice in ECI may influence their assessments of social validity and are directly shaped by four categories of variables. First, the caregivers' technology skills have been identified as a necessary skill for telepractice ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref45">12</reflink>]), influenced by age, accessibility, and basic computer knowledge. Handling technology and feeling confident with technology can be an important factor for the user's willingness to be engaged in telepractice. In fact, having greater technology skills could lead to greater sense of control, acceptability, and usability of telepractice services ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref46">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref47">56</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref48">70</reflink>] highlighted the importance of providing technological assistance and guidelines to caregivers in order to decrease the caregivers' extra efforts during the intervention and maximize their adherence to telepractice. Second, the active role granted to caregivers during the sessions has also been identified as important. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref49">7</reflink>] in their systematic review pointed out that beyond telling parents what to do, a coaching approach based on building family capacity and reflecting with parents on intervention strategies and goals using a parent coaching approach was found to be associated with a greater percentage of improvements. Thus, giving families an active role—as opposed to providing information and feedback only (or even working directly with the child with little parent involvement)—is a critical component of an effective telepractice. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref50">47</reflink>] also highlighted that telepractice could be more effective when giving families an active and collaborative role during sessions and also pointed out that telepractice is a highly compatible modality for delivering coaching-based services to caregivers. [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref51">54</reflink>] concluded that studies with more engaged parents reported to be more motivated and confident towards their child's intervention. Third is the age and educational level of caregivers. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref52">35</reflink>], in their study on the social validity (SV) of telepractice in ECI, found relevant relations between caregivers' higher education level and greater perceived skills needed for telepractice sessions, indicated as the first group of variables. Fourth is the extent to which telepractice meets the needs of families. [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref53">45</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref54">63</reflink>] also noted that assessing social validity is useful for the evaluation of how services were relevant and met family needs and their demands; that is, how telepractice was socially relevant for the demands and characteristics of the family. [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref55">54</reflink>] reviewed studies exploring engagement in telepractice from the perspective of ECI professionals, families, and services. The authors found that family engagement with professionals via telepractice was facilitated through family-centered practices (e.g., addressing family priorities, relationship building, collaboration and partnership with families). In addition, addressing the needs of the family (either child-related issues or family-level needs) during telepractice sessions, as a characteristic of family-centered practice in ECI, predicted higher social validity appraisals in the Spanish context ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref56">35</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0192372882-3">Study Objectives</hd> <p>Despite the importance of assessing the social validity of telepractice in ECI to improve professional practices and services, there is still little research identifying the family-related factors leading to greater social validity perceptions ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref57">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref58">45</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref59">61</reflink>]). Existing literature predominantly focuses on the general acceptability of telepractice services, thereby creating a significant gap in understanding how family characteristics impact social validity. In addition, little is known regarding the ways in which these variables interact and influence social validity appraisals, which limits the ability to tailor services effectively. In addressing these gaps, this study examines key variables and their interrelationships to provide insights that can guide the development of more responsive and family-centered telepractice services.</p> <p>Specifically, the present study aimed to respond to the following research questions: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref60">1</reflink>) How do families receiving early childhood intervention services perceive the social validity of telepractice services? (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref61">2</reflink>) How do family-related variables influence the social validity scores for these services? (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref62">3</reflink>) What role do technology skills and the family role during sessions play in the relationship between family variables and the social validity of telepractice?</p> <p>For this reason, this study is structured around three main objectives (a) to describe key aspects of social validity of telepractice as a service-delivery modality in ECI according to family-related variables, (b) to analyze the impact of family variables (e.g., eligibility reason, telepractice modality) on social validity appraisals, and (c) to assess the potential predictive effect of family variables (e.g., caregiver's education level and age) on social validity scores mediated by the perception of technology skills and family role during sessions.</p> <hd id="AN0192372882-4">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0192372882-5">Participants</hd> <p>A total of 659 families participated in this nation-wide survey-based study on the social validity of telepractice in ECI services. Participants received services from 31 ECI centers around the country. Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of families. In a previous study focusing on ECI service characteristics this sociodemographic information was also reported ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref63">35</reflink>]). The reason for receiving ECI services was more represented by children with language delay, followed by prematurity, developmental delay, motor delay or motor disorders, and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The average age of the respondents was over 36.70 years (range 18–61 years) and families lived in homes commonly with an average of two adults on average, and approximately 1.70 children. The average age of children was under 4 years (range 1–6 years), who were receiving EI services for more than 16 months, on average. Mothers' most frequent education level was high school diploma, followed by bachelor degree and some college. Fathers' most frequent education level was high school diploma followed by elementary school and bachelor degree. This variable had a skewness of 0.788. Given this moderate skew, the interquartile range (IQR) was calculated to provide a more appropriate representation of the data dispersion. The IQR for fathers' education level was 1.00. Families were contacted through the social services of Castilla-León and Plena Inclusión Spain, the Spanish Confederation with over 900 associations for people with disabilities and their families in Spain, and 109 ECI services- participated in the recruitment. The associations and their service directors sent families a link to an electronic survey in Spanish. All families in ECI were eligible and no exclusion regarding gender, ethnicity, disability, or condition was applied. Services were asked to send the link to all families receiving telepractice as the main modality of support as the only inclusion criterion. The survey included the instruments described below, and was designed by the Social Services of Castilla-León, Plena Inclusión Spain, and the Campus Capacitas researchers. It took about 10 minutes to complete.</p> <p>Table 1. Characteristics of Participants.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="left">%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Mother's Education Level</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> No primary education</td><td>6</td><td>0.91</td></tr><tr><td> Primary education</td><td>96</td><td>14.57</td></tr><tr><td> Secondary, Baccalaureate or Vocational Training</td><td>270</td><td>40.97</td></tr><tr><td> Some college</td><td>103</td><td>15.63</td></tr><tr><td> Bachelor's degree</td><td>129</td><td>19.58</td></tr><tr><td> Postgraduate/Master's</td><td>35</td><td>5.31</td></tr><tr><td> Missing</td><td>20</td><td>3.04</td></tr><tr><td> Total</td><td>659</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Father's Education Level</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> No primary education</td><td>13</td><td>19.73</td></tr><tr><td> Primary education</td><td>186</td><td>28.22</td></tr><tr><td> Secondary, Baccalaureate or Vocational Training</td><td>276</td><td>41.88</td></tr><tr><td> Some college</td><td>32</td><td>4.86</td></tr><tr><td> Bachelor's degree</td><td>98</td><td>14.87</td></tr><tr><td> Postgraduate/Master's degree</td><td>17</td><td>2.58</td></tr><tr><td> Missing</td><td>37</td><td>5.62</td></tr><tr><td> Total</td><td>659</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Intervention Modality</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Phone calls</td><td>132</td><td>20.03</td></tr><tr><td> Phone calls + video calls + e-mail</td><td>205</td><td>31.11</td></tr><tr><td> Phone calls + video calls + e-mail + WhatsApp®</td><td>314</td><td>47.64</td></tr><tr><td> Missing</td><td>8</td><td>1.21</td></tr><tr><td> Total</td><td>659</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Role in ECI</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Caregiver not present during sessions</td><td>31</td><td>4.70</td></tr><tr><td> Caregiver only observes what the professional does</td><td>17</td><td>2.58</td></tr><tr><td> Professional explains what he or she does</td><td>100</td><td>15.17</td></tr><tr><td> Professional teaches caregiver what to do</td><td>172</td><td>26.10</td></tr><tr><td> Professional involves parent and builds capacity</td><td>339</td><td>51.44</td></tr><tr><td> Total</td><td>659</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Eligibility Reason</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Not reported</td><td>6</td><td>0.91</td></tr><tr><td> Sensory disorder</td><td>15</td><td>2.28</td></tr><tr><td> Intellectual Disability</td><td>12</td><td>1.82</td></tr><tr><td> Language Delay</td><td>259</td><td>39.30</td></tr><tr><td> Motor delay or disorder</td><td>89</td><td>13.50</td></tr><tr><td> Prematurity</td><td>117</td><td>17.75</td></tr><tr><td> Autism spectrum disorder</td><td>135</td><td>20.49</td></tr><tr><td> Other</td><td>26</td><td>3.95</td></tr><tr><td> Total</td><td>659</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note.</emph> ECI = early childhood intervention.</p> <hd id="AN0192372882-6">Instruments</hd> <p>Sociodemographic questionnaire. Caregivers provided information on child (age, reason for receiving ECI, gender, months receiving supports), family (parents' education level, caregivers' perceived technology skills for telepractice) and ECI service characteristics (family role during telepractice sessions and how much the intervention was focused on their needs as a family). Both variables were rated from1 to 4. The family role was rated 1 = passive/observe the professional only to 4 = very active and collaborative role during sessions. The continuum from more professional-driven to a more caregiver-centered and collaborative approach was adapted from [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref64">38</reflink>], who measured the degree of collaboration during sessions in a 7-point Likert scale with four descriptors in the odd numbers. The focus on family needs measured whether families received supports addressing child and family priorities and was scored from 1 = <emph>strongly disagree</emph> to 4 = <emph>strongly agree</emph>.</p> <p>In order to the measure social validity of telepractice we used an ECI specific tool: the Social Validity of Early Intervention Through Tele-Intervention (SVEITI; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref65">36</reflink>]). It is a single-factor, 7-item scale measuring key aspects of social validity of telepractice as a means of service delivery in ECI. This instrument was completed by caregivers receiving telepractice sessions. The original tool was designed with social validity indicators from: (a) Plena Inclusión's interviews to families receiving telepractice supports in ECI; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref66">2</reflink>) social validity indicators used by [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref67">15</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref68">16</reflink>], and [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref69">46</reflink>], such as effectiveness, usability, usefulness, confidence in its use or future intentions; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref70">3</reflink>) some items from the Family Tele-Intervention Survey by the National Center Hearing Assessment Management ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref71">43</reflink>]). The design and validation of the tool was detailed in [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref72">36</reflink>]. The components of social validity measured in the SVEITI are: usability, effectiveness (perception of positive consequences in caregiver's confidence and competence), intervention with natural caregivers, feasibility, usefulness, and future intentions. Both the sociodemographic questionnaire and the SVEITI were completed by the same person. Families rated on a Likert scale from 1 to 4 the degree of agreement (1 = <emph>strongly disagree</emph> to 4 = <emph>strongly agree</emph>) with each indicator. The tool was validated with Spanish participants and has been used in [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref73">35</reflink>] with acceptable levels of internal consistency in their study (Cronbach's alpha =.84 for the single-factor overall score). Reliability analysis in the present study showed that the internal consistency of the scores produced by the items in our participants was Cronbach's alpha =.83. Because the SVEITI scale is ordinal, ordinal alpha was also calculated in addition to Cronbach's alpha. The ordinal alpha value was α =.88, indicating the strong internal consistency of the scores.</p> <hd id="AN0192372882-7">Data Analysis</hd> <p>Descriptive and correlational analysis were performed using SPSS (Version 25). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) <emph>t</emph> tests were employed to analyze the differences in social validity according to the sociodemographic variables. Probability values were also interpreted with effect sizes. Partial eta squared was calculated for ANOVA and Cohen's <emph>d</emph> for <emph>t</emph> test. Values of partial eta squared of 0.01,.06, and.14, and Cohen's <emph>d</emph> of.20,.50, and.80 indicate small, medium, and large effect sizes, respectively ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref74">24</reflink>]). In addition, Bonferroni correction was applied in post-hoc multiple testing to minimize Type I error.</p> <p>The JASP software (Version 2.3; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref75">28</reflink>]) was employed in order to assess the model, where technology skills and the family role during sessions mediated the relationship between family characteristics and social validity scores. This model allows us to analyze the indirect effects of a child age and mother's age education level on the perceived social validity of telepractice through key mediators such as active family role and technological proficiency. Through an examination of the ways in which these variables interact and impact family views of telepractice services, we offer a more comprehensive understanding of the ways in which services could enhance ECI services by tailoring supports to family needs.</p> <p>We calculated direct, indirect, and total effects using the bootstrap method of estimation with a 95% confidence interval ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref76">34</reflink>]) with 5.000 bootstrap samples ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref77">49</reflink>]). The estimated statistical power for the model was calculated using G*Power 3 ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref78">19</reflink>]). A post hoc calculation was used with a desired alpha of.05 and 659 participants. A medium effect size was set for the model with six predictors. The statistical power for our sample size showed strong values: 1-β = 1.00, Critical F (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref79">6</reflink>, 652) = 2.11, <emph>p</emph> =.05, f<sups>2</sups> =.15.</p> <hd id="AN0192372882-8">Results</hd> <p>To address our first and second objective, descriptive and variance analyses were performed. The social validity scores of telepractice showed values of approximately 3 points out of 4 on the SVEITI scale, as indicated by the average values in the overall scale. The highest scoring items were intervention with caregiver (<emph>M</emph> = 3.52; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.66) and usability of telepractice, with a mean of 3.35 (<emph>SD</emph> = 0.67). The items that scored the lowest were Utility and Future Intentions, with average scores of 2.55 (<emph>SD</emph> = 0.93) and 2.58 (<emph>SD</emph> = 0.87), respectively (Table 2). The differences in social validity scores according to the study variables were analyzed. ANOVA results indicated that the groups of mother's educational level did not vary significantly (<emph>F</emph> = 1,264; <emph>p</emph> >.05; ηp² = 0.01). In the case of fathers, statistically significant differences were found with a small effect size (<emph>F</emph> = 3.030; <emph>p</emph> =.05; ηp² = 0.01), with the two lower levels of education scoring lower than the rest of the groups. However, after Bonferroni's correction, none of the pairwise comparisons were statistically significant. The eligibility reason (the reason why the child and family received ECI services) did not show statistically significant differences (<emph>F</emph> = 2.086; <emph>p</emph> =.053; ηp² = 0.019). Finally, the telepractice modality (phone calls only, phone calls + e-mail, videoconference, videoconference + messages) did not show statistically significant differences in the scores of social validity (<emph>F</emph> = 1.807; <emph>p</emph> >.05; ηp² = 0.007).</p> <p>Table 2. Item-Level and Overall SVEITI Descriptive Statistics.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Aspect of Social Validity</th><th align="left">Item</th><th align="left"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="left">Missing</th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="left">Min</th><th align="left">Max</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Usability</td><td>The teleintervention methods ... allowed us to participate in the sessions in a simple manner.</td><td>659</td><td>0</td><td>3.35</td><td>0.67</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Effectiveness (competence)</td><td>The teleintervention sessions helped me learn how to facilitate my child's development.</td><td>658</td><td>1</td><td>3.31</td><td>0.70</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Effectiveness (confidence)</td><td>Through the teleintervention sessions, I feel confident in helping my child in daily activities.</td><td>659</td><td>0</td><td>2.60</td><td>0.87</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Intervention With Caregiver</td><td>The teleintervention sessions have focused on collaborating with the child's primary caregivers.</td><td>659</td><td>0</td><td>3.52</td><td>0.66</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Feasibility</td><td>The teleintervention sessions were tailored to our personal and family circumstances.</td><td>659</td><td>0</td><td>3.39</td><td>0.70</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Usefulness</td><td>The teleintervention sessions are as useful as in-person visits.</td><td>617</td><td>42</td><td>2.55</td><td>0.93</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Future Interventions</td><td>I would like to continue receiving teleintervention sessions in the future.</td><td>653</td><td>6</td><td>2.58</td><td>0.87</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Overall Social Validity Score</td><td /><td>659</td><td>0</td><td>3.05</td><td>0.55</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Next, in order to address our third objective, the linear relationships between the quantitative variables of the study with the scores on focus on family needs and social validity were analyzed through Pearson's correlations (Table 3). Statistically significant correlations were found between caregivers' educational level of and the family role during sessions. A higher educational level of both the father and the mother was related to a more active role in telepractice sessions (<emph>p</emph> <.001 in both cases). The mother's educational level was also significantly related to focus on family needs (<emph>p</emph> <.05). Also, a more active family role had a statistically significant relationship with both a higher level of technology skills (<emph>p</emph> <.001) and a lower age of the child (<emph>p</emph> <.001). The perceived technology skills were negatively associated with the age of both the child and the adult, indicating that the younger the age, the better the technology skills (<emph>p</emph> <.01 in both cases). Finally, according to the relevant variables used, we found that overall social validity scores were directly related to (a) focus on family needs (<emph>p</emph> <.001), (b) a more active (higher scores) family role during sessions and technology skills (<emph>p</emph> <.001 in all cases) and (c) negatively with both adult and child age (<emph>p</emph> <.001 and <emph>p</emph> <.05, respectively). A mediation model was performed next, with family variables predicting social validity and focus on family needs mediated by the family role during sessions and technology skills. The analysis of direct effects (Table 4) revealed that there were statistically significant effects on social validity as a function of adult age (z = −3.09, <emph>p</emph> <.01) and the mother's education level (z = −197, <emph>p</emph> <.05). The relationship was negative, indicating that the younger the adult and the lower the mother's education level, the higher the social validity scores of telepractice. With regard to predicting focus on family needs neither the age of the child, the educational level of the mother, or the age of the adult were statistically significant predictors. In terms of indirect effects, we examined how the age of the child, the age of the adult, and the mother's level of education influenced social validity through family roles and technology skills. Results indicated that families with younger children and adults scored higher on social validity through better perceptions of their use of technology (z = 3.54; <emph>p</emph> <.05 and z = −2.29; <emph>p</emph> <.05 respectively). In addition, a relevant indirect effect (Table 5) was found indicating that mothers with a higher level of education predicted better technology skills and thus a greater social validity of telepractice (z = 3.54; <emph>p</emph> <.001). Regarding the prediction of focus on family needs, the mothers' education level was a relevant predictor through both mediators: technology skills and family role during sessions (z = 2.46; <emph>p</emph> =.01 and z = 2.22; <emph>p</emph> <.05, respectively). On the other hand, the age of the child showed a statistically significant and negative indirect effect on focus on family needs through family role (z = −2.20; <emph>p</emph> <.05), indicating that families with younger children were associated with higher scores in focus on family needs through a greater family role during telepractice sessions. Finally, it was found that the age of the adult did not show any significant indirect effects. The total effects (Table 6) indicated that the adult age predicted social validity of telepractice and showed the above-mentioned inverse relationship. This result suggests that younger adults scored significantly higher in social validity (z = −3.49; <emph>p</emph> <.001). The age of the child did not show a relevant total effect on VS scores. On the other hand, the mothers' level of education did not show a statistically significant total effect on social validity, but showed a statistically significant total effect on focus on family needs (z = 2.10; <emph>p</emph> <.05). Finally, considering the effect of both mediators, (Table 7) the results showed statistically significant effects on all three variables (mother's level of education, child age, and adult age), on social validity (z = 3.66; <emph>p</emph> <.001; z = −2.39; <emph>p</emph> <.0 1; and z = −2.34; <emph>p</emph> <.05, respectively). Regarding the prediction of focus on family needs, the relevant predictors were mother's level of education (z = 3.43; <emph>p</emph> <.001) and child age (z = −2.85; <emph>p</emph> <.01). The direction of the effects showed the same inverse relationship as in previous analyses, indicating that the joint effect of both mediators had a relevant effect on social validity and focus on family needs (see Figure 1). Next, Table 8 shows the path coefficients with the significance value. For the prediction of social validity, individual paths from technology skills were statistically significant (z = 5.07; <emph>p</emph> <.001) and the family role during sessions was not (z = 1.07; <emph>p</emph> >.05). Technology skills and family role also predicted focus on family needs (z = 2.81; <emph>p</emph> <.01 and z = 2.51; <emph>p</emph> <.05, respectively). Higher levels of maternal education (z = 5.24; <emph>p</emph> <.001), as well as younger adults (z = −2.54; <emph>p</emph> <.05) and younger children (z = −2.48; <emph>p</emph> <.05), were found to significantly influence technology skills. Finally, higher mother's level of education and younger children also showed significant paths predicting the level of family participation—an active family role—during sessions (z = 4.78; <emph>p</emph> <.001 and z = −5.32; <emph>p</emph> <.001, respectively). Overall, as indicated by the R<sups>2</sups> results, the model explained the 18.0% of the variance for social validity and 6.7% for focus on family needs. The variance explained the mediators was 9.9% for perceived technology skills and 13.2% for the family role. Figure 1 shows the path coefficients of model.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Model Plot with Standardized Path Coefficients.</p> <p>Table 3. Pearson Correlations Between the Continuous Variables of the Study.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Variable</th><th align="left">1</th><th align="left">2</th><th align="left">3</th><th align="left">4</th><th align="left">5</th><th align="left">6</th><th align="left">7</th><th align="left">8</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Mother's Ed. Level</td><td>—</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>2. Father's Ed. Level</td><td>0.506***</td><td>—</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>3. Child Age</td><td>0.002</td><td>0.047</td><td>—</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>4. Adult Age</td><td>0.104*</td><td>0.153***</td><td>0.171***</td><td>—</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>5. Tech skills</td><td>0.243***</td><td>0.108**</td><td>−0.111**</td><td>−0.137**</td><td>—</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>6. Family Role</td><td>0.226***</td><td>0.158***</td><td>−0.284***</td><td>−0.067</td><td>0.206***</td><td>—</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>7. FFN</td><td>0.083*</td><td>0.072</td><td>−0.021</td><td>−0.050</td><td>0.182***</td><td>0.167***</td><td>—</td><td /></tr><tr><td>8. Overall SV</td><td>−0.067</td><td>−0.018</td><td>−0.086*</td><td>−0.164***</td><td>0.364***</td><td>0.140***</td><td>0.262***</td><td>—</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 <emph>Note.</emph> FFN = Intervention Focus on Family Needs; SV = Social validity; ed = education.</item> <item>3 *<emph>p</emph> <.05, **<emph>p</emph> <.01, ***<emph>p</emph> <.001.</item> </ulist> <p>Table 4. Direct Effects of the Mediation Model.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="2">95% CI</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Path</th><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left">Estimate</th><th align="left"><italic>SE</italic></th><th align="left">Z-Value</th><th align="left"><italic>P</italic></th><th align="left">Lower</th><th align="left">Upper</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Mother's Ed. Level</td><td>→</td><td>SV</td><td>−0.178</td><td>0.058</td><td>−3.087</td><td>.002</td><td>−0.264</td><td>−0.093</td></tr><tr><td>Child Age</td><td>→</td><td>SV</td><td>−0.026</td><td>0.058</td><td>−0.459</td><td>.647</td><td>−0.113</td><td>0.058</td></tr><tr><td>Adult Age</td><td>→</td><td>SV</td><td>−0.096</td><td>0.049</td><td>−1.970</td><td>.050</td><td>−0.169</td><td>−0.023</td></tr><tr><td>Mother's Ed. Level</td><td>→</td><td>FFN</td><td>0.014</td><td>0.053</td><td>0.258</td><td>.797</td><td>−0.071</td><td>0.096</td></tr><tr><td>Child Age</td><td>→</td><td>FFN</td><td>0.057</td><td>0.053</td><td>1.083</td><td>.279</td><td>−0.028</td><td>0.139</td></tr><tr><td>Adult Age</td><td>→</td><td>FFN</td><td>−0.016</td><td>0.047</td><td>−0.333</td><td>.739</td><td>−0.102</td><td>0.068</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 <emph>Note.</emph> Robust standard errors, robust confidence intervals, DWLS estimator. Ed. = education; SV = social validity; FFN = Intervention Focus on Family Needs.</p> <p>Table 5. Indirect Effects of the Mediation Model.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="2">95% CI</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Predictor</th><th align="left" /><th align="left">Moderator</th><th align="left" /><th align="left">DV</th><th align="left">Estimate</th><th align="left"><italic>SE</italic></th><th align="left">Z - Value</th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="left">Lower</th><th align="left">Upper</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Mother's Ed. Level</td><td>→</td><td>Tech Skills</td><td>→</td><td>SV</td><td>0.095</td><td>0.027</td><td>3.536</td><td><.001</td><td>0.060</td><td>0.139</td></tr><tr><td>Mother's Ed. Level</td><td>→</td><td>Role in EI</td><td>→</td><td>SV</td><td>0.014</td><td>0.014</td><td>1.018</td><td>.309</td><td>−0.004</td><td>0.037</td></tr><tr><td>Child Age</td><td>→</td><td>Tech Skills</td><td>→</td><td>SV</td><td>−0.046</td><td>0.020</td><td>−2.317</td><td>.021</td><td>−0.082</td><td>−0.016</td></tr><tr><td>Child Age</td><td>→</td><td>Role in EI</td><td>→</td><td>SV</td><td>−0.019</td><td>0.018</td><td>−1.052</td><td>.293</td><td>−0.047</td><td>0.005</td></tr><tr><td>Adult Age</td><td>→</td><td>Tech Skills</td><td>→</td><td>SV</td><td>−0.052</td><td>0.023</td><td>−2.290</td><td>.022</td><td>−0.088</td><td>−0.023</td></tr><tr><td>Adult Age</td><td>→</td><td>Role in EI</td><td>→</td><td>SV</td><td>−0.002</td><td>0.004</td><td>−0.571</td><td>.568</td><td>−0.015</td><td>0.002</td></tr><tr><td>Mother's Ed. Level</td><td>→</td><td>Tech Skills</td><td>→</td><td>FFN</td><td>0.043</td><td>0.017</td><td>2.461</td><td>.014</td><td>0.020</td><td>0.074</td></tr><tr><td>Mother's Ed. Level</td><td>→</td><td>Role in EI</td><td>→</td><td>FFN</td><td>0.036</td><td>0.016</td><td>2.216</td><td>.027</td><td>0.015</td><td>0.066</td></tr><tr><td>Child Age</td><td>→</td><td>Tech Skills</td><td>→</td><td>FFN</td><td>−0.021</td><td>0.011</td><td>−1.836</td><td>0.066</td><td>−0.045</td><td>−0.006</td></tr><tr><td>Child Age</td><td>→</td><td>Role in EI</td><td>→</td><td>FFN</td><td>−0.046</td><td>0.021</td><td>−2.198</td><td>.028</td><td>−0.086</td><td>−0.019</td></tr><tr><td>Adult Age</td><td>→</td><td>Tech Skills</td><td>→</td><td>FFN</td><td>−0.023</td><td>0.013</td><td>−1.860</td><td>.063</td><td>−0.049</td><td>−0.008</td></tr><tr><td>Adult Age</td><td>→</td><td>Role in EI</td><td>→</td><td>FFN</td><td>−0.006</td><td>0.010</td><td>−0.624</td><td>.533</td><td>−0.025</td><td>0.007</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 <emph>Note.</emph> Delta method standard errors, bias-corrected percentile bootstrap confidence intervals, DWLS estimator. Ed. = education; EI = early intervention; DV = dependent variable; SV = social validity; FFN = Intervention Focus on Family Needs.</p> <p>Table 6. Total Effects of the Mediation Model.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="2">95% CI</th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left">Estimate</th><th align="left"><italic>SE</italic></th><th align="left">Z- Value</th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="left">Lower</th><th align="left">Upper</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Mother's Ed. Level</td><td>→</td><td>SV</td><td>−0.068</td><td>0.045</td><td>−1.525</td><td>.127</td><td>−0.153</td><td>0.017</td></tr><tr><td>Child Age</td><td>→</td><td>SV</td><td>−0.091</td><td>0.047</td><td>−1.924</td><td>.054</td><td>−0.177</td><td>−0.005</td></tr><tr><td>Adult Age</td><td>→</td><td>SV</td><td>−0.151</td><td>0.043</td><td>−3.487</td><td><.001</td><td>−0.226</td><td>−0.072</td></tr><tr><td>Mother's Ed. Level</td><td>→</td><td>FFN</td><td>0.092</td><td>0.044</td><td>2.099</td><td>.036</td><td>0.007</td><td>0.175</td></tr><tr><td>Child Age</td><td>→</td><td>FFN</td><td>−0.010</td><td>0.044</td><td>−0.228</td><td>.820</td><td>−0.096</td><td>0.071</td></tr><tr><td>Adult Age</td><td>→</td><td>FFN</td><td>−0.045</td><td>0.044</td><td>−1.026</td><td>.305</td><td>−0.129</td><td>0.035</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>6 <emph>Note.</emph> Delta method standard errors, bias-corrected percentile bootstrap confidence intervals, DWLS estimator. SV = social validity; FFN = Intervention Focus on Family Needs.</p> <p>Table 7. Total Indirect Effects of the Mediation Model.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="2">95% CI</th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left">Estimate</th><th align="left"><italic>SE</italic></th><th align="left">Z-Value</th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="left">Lower</th><th align="left">Upper</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Mother's Ed. Level</td><td>→</td><td>SV</td><td>0.109</td><td>0.030</td><td>3.656</td><td><.001</td><td>0.071</td><td>0.159</td></tr><tr><td>Child Age</td><td>→</td><td>SV</td><td>−0.064</td><td>0.027</td><td>−2.391</td><td>.017</td><td>−0.108</td><td>−0.024</td></tr><tr><td>Adult Age</td><td>→</td><td>SV</td><td>−0.055</td><td>0.023</td><td>−2.339</td><td>.019</td><td>−0.093</td><td>−0.023</td></tr><tr><td>Mother's Ed. Level</td><td>→</td><td>FFN</td><td>0.078</td><td>0.023</td><td>3.429</td><td><.001</td><td>0.046</td><td>0.123</td></tr><tr><td>Child Age</td><td>→</td><td>FFN</td><td>−0.067</td><td>0.023</td><td>−2.851</td><td>.004</td><td>−0.111</td><td>−0.034</td></tr><tr><td>Adult Age</td><td>→</td><td>FFN</td><td>−0.029</td><td>0.016</td><td>−1.820</td><td>.069</td><td>−0.061</td><td>−0.006</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>7 <emph>Note.</emph> Delta method standard errors, bias-corrected percentile bootstrap confidence intervals, DWLS estimator. Ed. = education; SV = social validity; FFN = Intervention Focus on Family Needs.</p> <p>Table 8. Path Coefficients of the Mediation Model.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="2">95% CI</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Predictor</th><th align="left" /><th align="left">Dependent</th><th align="left">Estimate</th><th align="left"><italic>SE</italic></th><th align="left">Z-Value</th><th align="left"><italic>P</italic></th><th align="left">Lower</th><th align="left">Upper</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Tech Skills</td><td>→</td><td>SV</td><td>0.378</td><td>0.066</td><td>5.697</td><td><.001</td><td>0.289</td><td>0.468</td></tr><tr><td>Role in EI</td><td>→</td><td>SV</td><td>0.065</td><td>0.061</td><td>1.075</td><td>.282</td><td>−0.022</td><td>0.158</td></tr><tr><td>Tech Skills</td><td>→</td><td>FFN</td><td>0.1670</td><td>0.060</td><td>2.813</td><td>.005</td><td>0.074</td><td>0.266</td></tr><tr><td>Role in EI</td><td>→</td><td>FFN</td><td>0.164</td><td>0.065</td><td>2.511</td><td>.012</td><td>0.069</td><td>0.271</td></tr><tr><td>Mother's Ed. Level</td><td>→</td><td>Tech Skills</td><td>0.251</td><td>0.048</td><td>5.237</td><td><.001</td><td>0.172</td><td>0.334</td></tr><tr><td>Child Age</td><td>→</td><td>Tech Skills</td><td>−0.121</td><td>0.048</td><td>−2.543</td><td>.011</td><td>−0.200</td><td>−0.043</td></tr><tr><td>Adult Age</td><td>→</td><td>Tech Skills</td><td>−0.138</td><td>0.056</td><td>−2.476</td><td>.013</td><td>−0.224</td><td>−0.057</td></tr><tr><td>Mother's Ed. Level</td><td>→</td><td>Role in EI</td><td>0.218</td><td>0.046</td><td>4.779</td><td><.001</td><td>0.140</td><td>0.299</td></tr><tr><td>Child Age</td><td>→</td><td>Role in EI</td><td>−0.283</td><td>0.053</td><td>−5.323</td><td><.001</td><td>−0.362</td><td>−0.196</td></tr><tr><td>Adult Age</td><td>→</td><td>Role in EI</td><td>−0.036</td><td>0.057</td><td>−0.640</td><td>.522</td><td>−0.121</td><td>0.053</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>8 <emph>Note.</emph> Delta method standard errors, bias-corrected percentile bootstrap confidence intervals, DWLS estimator. Ed. = education; EI = early intervention; SV = social validity; FFN = Intervention Focus on Family Needs.</p> <hd id="AN0192372882-9">Discussion</hd> <p>Our research investigated how family-related factors affect the aspects of social validity of telepractice in ECI as measured by the SVEITI, including eligibility criteria, telepractice modalities, caregiver age and education level, perceived technology skills, and caregiver role during telepractice sessions. Our results pointed to an overall good perception of the social validity of telepractice as a means of service delivery, with a mean score of 3.05 on a scale of 4. This result aligns with previous research highlighting that families commonly report telepractice as an acceptable and feasible approach to services ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref80">67</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref81">68</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref82">41</reflink>], in their review of social validity in parent-implemented interventions through telepractice within autism research, concluded that all the studies consistently reported positive social validity outcomes. For example, interventions were effective for learning strategies ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref83">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref84">27</reflink>]), or caregivers were satisfied and rated online coaching interventions as acceptable ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref85">50</reflink>]). These findings indicate a generally positive perception of telepractice, suggesting that services and programs should consider incorporating this modality as a viable alternative alongside traditional in-person approaches.</p> <p>In our study, intervention with caregivers was the item with the highest mean score. This result aligns with [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref86">52</reflink>], who found that collaborative intervention with the caregiver obtained the highest average score among all items in their study on social validity of telecoaching in ECI. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref87">47</reflink>] also pointed out that support services should give families an active role, which we found to be a relevant mediator. Variables such as a caregiver's level of education, telepractice modality, or eligibility did not show differences in social validity scores between group categories. While [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref88">1</reflink>] found that Italian mothers with a lower level of education had lower participation and engagement in telepractice sessions, no differences in satisfaction, usefulness, or effectiveness of telepractice among virtual modalities were found. In our study, when analyzed through correlational analysis, however, the mother's level of educational and family role had a direct relation with social validity. The mother's level of education was also related to focus on family needs, family role during sessions, and greater perceptions of technology skills. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref89">35</reflink>] analyzed the predictors of caregivers' perceptions of their needs being met through telepractice and found that a greater level of mother's education, a more active family role, and receiving a family-centered approach significantly predicted higher scores. These authors also found that technology skills were positively related to both social validity and caregivers' education level. Previous studies found that technological proficiency could lead to a greater sense of control, comfort with, and acceptability of telepractice ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref90">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref91">56</reflink>]). In contrast, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref92">1</reflink>] pointed out that most parents found that the benefits of telepractice exceeded the technological difficulties encountered. An indicator of the relevance of this variable in our study is the finding that the mother's education level had a direct negative effect on social validity scores, which shifted to positive when mediated by technology skills. This suggests the critical mediating role of technology skills in moderating this relationship.</p> <p>In addition, we found that older caregivers and children had lower perceptions of technology skills and overall social validity scores. In the [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref93">35</reflink>] study, the age of caregivers was also negatively related to the social validity scores of telepractice in ECI. The level of experience with technology has been identified as a key factor in the success of telepractice ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref94">66</reflink>]). In our study, the absence of a direct effect of the mother's level of education on social validity and the presence of a relevant indirect effect through a higher perception of technology skills indicated that the latter variable was a complete mediator. [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref95">55</reflink>], in a tele-mental health study, stated that older adults may have less experience with both the use of technology and telepractice services. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref96">53</reflink>], however, did not find this association to be relevant. In the field of ECI, the use of technology has been more frequently associated with barriers such as access to internet, quality of internet, and personal beliefs about telehealth ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref97">11</reflink>]). However, a recent study with families with children with autism found that the families' technology skills, and software related to telepractice, was a significant predictor of the social validity of teleintervention ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref98">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>Both adult and child age predicted social validity through higher perceptions of technology skills. The effects highlighted that families with younger adults and children perceived greater technology skills, and, as a consequence, predicted social validity scores. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref99">31</reflink>] highlighted that software and hardware problems, as well as internet connectivity, could be potential barriers for telehealth services. Younger adults might be more familiar with the needed software and hardware skills for telepractice. Providing technological guidelines to caregivers could decrease their extra efforts during the intervention as well as increase their adherence to telepractice ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref100">70</reflink>]). A more active family role during ECI sessions was a significant predictor of focus on family needs, and also mediated the relation between focus on family needs and both mothers' level of education and child age. This result indicated that empowering families—rather than interacting with the child only—could balance the lower scores endorsed by mothers with a lower education level and with older children. Collaborating with families has been identified as an important factor to improve caregiver empowerment and buy-in with the intervention ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref101">13</reflink>]), which might also be related to better social validity appraisals. [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref102">70</reflink>] also pointed out that addressing each parent's unique needs was an essential element for increasing parental adherence of their online parent training program on applied behavior analysis.</p> <p>Our results highlight the impact of giving families an active role during the intervention via telepractice. In fact, the prediction of focus on family needs from a mother's education level through both technology skills and active family role indicated a complete mediation in both cases. This indicated that whereas a mother's level of education did not directly predict the scores on focus on family needs, the indirect effect through active family role and greater technology skills was statistically significant. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref103">47</reflink>] also emphasized the significance of actively involving families and fostering collaboration during telepractice sessions. In addition, they identified telepractice as a relevant modality for delivering coaching-based support to caregivers with a child with autism spectrum disorder. The authors found no significant differences in providers' use of evidence-based coaching strategies (collaboration, demonstration, feedback, and reflection) between telepractice sessions and in person. In addition, implementing collaborative procedures such as reflection and real-time feedback has been associated with both family and child positive outcomes such as parents' use of strategies, and improved child communication skills ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref104">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref105">57</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref106">42</reflink>] pointed out that when telepractice focused on families' needs in a family-centered way, families were satisfied, and perceive greater empowerment and advocacy skills. In addition, being responsive to families' needs and encouraging a more active and collaborative family role were, among others, listed by [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref107">53</reflink>] as key behaviors that professionals should take into consideration in telepractice services. In addition, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref108">53</reflink>], in their systematic review of caregivers' engagement in telepractice in ECI services, found that family engagement with professionals via telepractice was facilitated through family-centered practices (i.e., establishing a positive and collaborative relationship with parents, building families' capacity, and focusing on child and family needs). This reflects the principles of a family-centered approach, which underscores, among other aspects, that ECI services should prioritize meeting the needs of families and ensure that families are active participants in decision-making throughout the entire ECI process, fostering a positive and collaborative partnership (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref109">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref110">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref111">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref112">37</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref113">39</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref114">44</reflink>]).</p> <p>The fact that having an active family role was scored lower in families with older children could indicate that, as children grow, they could interact more and be an active part of the session with their parents and professionals. In addition, parents are expected to gain confidence and competence over time. [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref115">65</reflink>] found that parents with children in ECI who were trained through on-line modules decreased their engagement time with the platform as they acquired the skills they needed. As a consequence, the present study found that the overall effect of both mediators together showed that the mother's level of education, and both child and adult age had a statistically significant effect on social validity through the joint effect of an active family role and greater perception of technology skills.</p> <hd id="AN0192372882-10">Limitations and Future Research</hd> <p>The present study gathered information from Spanish families receiving telepractice services in ECI. However, a limitation of the current study is the absence of input from professionals who supported these families. Future studies could consider including both families and professionals. Paired data could be useful to determine the service-related variables that are relevant to improve the social validity of telepractice in ECI. In addition, we recommend a mixed-methods design to continue investigating this topic. Interviewing both families and professionals about their experiences and opinions about telepractice services could inform and guide the quantitative analysis of the data. By employing a mixed-methods approach, the study would not only quantify the social validity of telepractice ECI but also provide rich qualitative insights contextualizing these findings. This comprehensive perspective allows for a deeper understanding of the factors influencing social validity, revealing nuances that quantitative data alone may not capture. For instance, while the quantitative data may reveal that a significant percentage of families reported satisfaction with telepractice, qualitative interviews can uncover specific aspects contributing to this satisfaction (e.g., flexibility in scheduling or convenience of remote access). Qualitative data would also facilitate the analysis and understanding of potential cultural factors influencing various aspects and indicators of social validity, which were not addressed in the present study. Observational studies could assess variables such as real-time interactions between families and practitioners during telepractice sessions to evaluate aspects of family engagement during sessions, adherence to intervention strategies, or expressed satisfaction. Additionally, qualitative methods such as semi-structured interviews or focus groups with families and professionals could provide deeper insights into how families perceive the social validity of telepractice services, as well as the role of technology skills and the family's role during sessions. While this study evaluated the telepractice modality, the specific types of interventions (behavioral, communication, physical, etc.) is unknown to the researchers. Additionally, the service delivery approaches (e.g., family coaching, expert-model, and collaborative consultation) were not controlled in this study. This could be a limitation because the effectiveness or the quality of interventions might affect families' appraisals of social validity. Future studies could consider controlling for type of intervention(s) as well as service delivery models or approaches in order to assess their influence in social validity. Telepractice has the potential to increase families' universal access to ECI services in most circumstances. For this reason, it is necessary to continue collecting scientific evidence on the social validity of remote support-based interventions. Finally, the fact that the researchers do not know the return rate of the questionnaires is also a limitation for the present study. It is possible that families who were dissatisfied with telepractice services were less likely to complete the survey, while those who had positive experiences were more inclined to respond. This limitation should be taken into account to interpret these findings with caution.</p> <hd id="AN0192372882-11">Implications for Practice</hd> <p>In addition to Objective 1 (description of social validity), Objective 2 aimed to analyze the impact of family characteristics, such as caregiver's educational level and age, on social validity scores. According to our results, family role was a relevant mediator between mothers' level of education and both social validity and focus on family needs. Thus, according to [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref116">41</reflink>] giving families a collaborative role and being an active part of the session could be critical to help caregivers perceive telepractice as more socially valid, as well as to strengthen their perception of being part of a collaborative team. In addition, implementing family-centered practices (e.g., using the Routines-Based Model by [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref117">37</reflink>] via telepractice could include collaboration procedures such as: (a) caregivers choosing the agenda (contents) for each session by sharing the screen; (b) asking questions to get enough context before making a suggestion to the family about an intervention; or (c) illustrating the steps of modeling before asking the family to practice the intervention ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref118">22</reflink>]). In addition, family-centered practices have been found in reviews such as [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref119">54</reflink>] to facilitate family engagement with professionals in telepractice services with caregivers from different backgrounds. Moreover, the fact that families with older parents showed lower social validity appraisals might also be an indicator of the need to support families with the incorporation of telepractice services. Potential solutions to be implemented could include selecting families for telepractice based on a comprehensive assessment of their needs and circumstances, ensuring that the allocation of services is non-discriminatory (including family preferences, access to technology, geographical location, etc.). After the assessment, services should collaboratively decide with the family on the telepractice modality—whether it will be telepractice as the main modality, telepractice as a frequent complementary resource, telepractice only when needed, or in-person only. After determining with the family what type of services could best help the family and fit their needs, a period of time to gain confidence and competence with telepractice is needed. Special attention should be paid to families with older children and adults because (a) more child-related issues start to appear as children grow, and (b) older adults show lower tech skills perceptions in general. It is also important to reassure families about the efficacy of telepractice, especially during the adaptation period. This could include sharing research findings, testimonials from other families, and case studies highlighting successful outcomes. Understanding the great impact caregivers have on promoting their child's learning and development is key for families to see telepractice as a relevant resource that could help build their capacity. Regarding Objective 3, which examines the mediating role of technology skills and an active family role in the relationship between family variables and social validity appraisals, our results highlight the importance of technology skills in telepractice services. Therefore, these services should ensure the provision of all necessary technical support, and prioritize meeting family needs. In addition, according to our results, the perceived technology skills can mitigate the negative impact of lower educational attainment in mothers on their social validity of telepractice. Support programs should, therefore, prioritize training and guidance on technology use to ensure families can fully engage with remote services. Building family confidence and competence should be a priority also with technology-related issues. Moreover, the gradual integration of telepractice services may serve as an effective method for acclimating families to this mode of service delivery. This approach has the potential to enhance the comfort levels of families with remote services, irrespective of their educational background. Additionally, programs could consider providing training for service providers on how to promote more family participation during telepractice sessions in order to improve child and family outcomes.</p> <ref id="AN0192372882-12"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref60" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aiello S., Leonardi E., Cerasa A., Servidio R., Famà F. I., Carrozza C., Ruta L. (2022). Video-feedback approach improves parental compliance to early behavioral interventions in children with autism Spectrum disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic: A pilot investigation. Children, 9(11), Article 1710. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9111710</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref61" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Akamoglu Y., Muharib R., Meadan H. (2020). A systematic and quality evaluation of parent-implemented language and communication interventions conducted via telepractice. Journal of Behavioral Education, 29(2), 282–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-019-09356-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref1" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2020). Telepractice services and coronavirus/COVID-19. https://<ulink href="http://www.asha.org/Practice/Telepractice-Services-and-Coronavirus/">www.asha.org/Practice/Telepractice-Services-and-Coronavirus/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref15" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Behl D. D., Blaiser K., Cook G., Barrett T., Callow-Heusser C., Brooks B. M., Dawson P., Quigley S., White K. R. (2017). A multisite study evaluating the benefits of early intervention via telepractice. Infants & Young Children, 30(2), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0000000000000090</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref12" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Boisvert M., Lang R., Andrianopoulos M., Boscardin M. L. (2010). Telepractice in the assessment and treatment of individuals with autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 13(6), 423–432. https://doi.org/10.3109/17518423.2010.499889</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref79" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bruder M. B. (2000). Family-centered early intervention: Clarifying our values for the new millennium. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20(2), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/027112140002000206</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref44" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Camden C., Pratte G., Fallon F., Couture M., Berbari J., Tousignant M. (2020). Diversity of practices in telerehabilitation for children with disabilities and effective intervention characteristics: Results from a systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation, 42(24), 3424–3436. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2019.1595750</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref38" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Camden C., Silva M. (2021). Pediatric teleheath: Opportunities created by the COVID-19 and suggestions to sustain its use to support families of children with disabilities. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 41(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/01942638.2020.1825032</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref104" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Caron E. B., Bernard K., Dozier M. (2016). In vivo feedback predicts parent behavior change in the attachment and biobehavioral catch-up intervention. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 47, S35–S46. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2016.1141359</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chung M. Y., Meadan H., Snodgrass M. R., Hacker R. E., Sands M. M., Adams N. B., Johnston S. S. (2020). Assessing the social validity of a telepractice training and coaching intervention. Journal of Behavioral Education, 29(2), 382–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-020-09372-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cole B., Pickard K., Stredler-Brown A. (2019). Report on the use of telehealth in early intervention in Colorado: Strengths and challenges with telehealth as a service delivery method. International Journal of Telerehabilitation, 11(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.5195/ijt.2019.6273</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis C., Hendon F., McDonald K., Blanco S. (2020). Use of technology in facilitating remote caregiver training for token systems. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 66(5), 330–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2020.1827210</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dempsey I., Dunst C. J. (2004). Helpgiving styles and parent empowerment in families with a young child with a disability. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 29(1), 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668250410001662874</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Drew C. M., Machalicek W., Crowe B., Glugatch L., Wei Q., Erturk B. (2022). Parent-implemented behavior interventions via telehealth for older children and adolescents. Journal of Behavioral Education, 32, 585–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-021-09464-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunst C., Hamby D. (2017). Predictors of the social validity judgments of early childhood intervention performance checklists and practice guides. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 4(1), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.17220/ijpes.2017.01.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunst C. J. (2017). Parents' social validity appraisals of early childhood intervention practice guides. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 7(2), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.5539/jedp.v7n2p51</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunst C. J., Dempsey I. (2007). Family–professional partnerships and parenting competence, confidence, and enjoyment. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 54(3), 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/10349120701488772</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunst C. J., Trivette C. M. (2009). Capacity-building family-systems intervention practices. Journal of Family Social Work, 12(2), 119–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/10522150802713322</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A.-G., Buchner A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10. 3758/BF03193146</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fischer A. J., Dart E. H., Radley K. C., Richardson D., Clark R., Wimberly J. (2017). An evaluation of the effectiveness and acceptability of teleconsultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 27(4), 437–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2016.1235978</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> García-Grau P., Martínez-Rico G., Cañadas M., González-García R. (2024). Social validity of telepractice in families with children with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 110, Article 102295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2023.102295</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> García-Grau P., Pedernera M., Barranco S., McWilliam R. A., Morales-Murillo C. P. (2021). Routines-Based Model and family, social and cultural diversity. Five scenarios for approaching families. In Gràcia M., Frugone M. (Eds.), Hacia la adopción de Prácticas Centradas en la Familia en América Latina. Primeras experiencias y aprendizajes. [Towards the implementation of Family-Centered Practices in Latin America. First experiences and learnings]. Universidad Casa Grande.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glenn E., Taiwo A., Arbuckle S., Riehl H., McIntyre L. L. (2022). Self-directed web-based parent-mediated interventions for autistic children: A systematic review. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 10, 505–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-022-00307-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goss-Sampson M. A. (2020). Statistical analysis in JASP 0.14: A guide for students. University of Greenwich. https://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/50811/7/50811%20GOSS-SAMPSON_Statistical_Analysis_In_JASP_A_Guide_For_Students_7th_Edition_%28OA%29_2025.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gregoski M. J., Mueller M., Vertegel A., Shaporev A., Jackson B. B., Frenzel R. M., Sprehn S. M., Treiber F. A. (2012). Development and validation of a smartphone heart rate acquisition application for health promotion and wellness telehealth applications. International Journal of Telemedicine and Applications, 2012, 696324. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/696324</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grogan-Johnson S., Gabel R. M., Taylor J., Rowan L. E., Alvares R., Schenker J. (2011). A pilot exploration of speech sound disorder intervention delivered by telehealth to school-age children. International Journal of Telerehabilitation, 3(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.5195/ijt.2011.6064</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hao Y., Franco J. H., Sundarrajan M., Chen Y. (2021). A pilot study comparing tele-therapy and in-person therapy: Perspectives from parent-mediated intervention for children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 51, 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-04439-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> JASP Team. (2021). JASP (Version 0.16) [Computer software]. https://jasp-stats.org/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ledford J. R., Hall E., Conder E., Lane J. D. (2016). Research for young children with autism spectrum disorders: Evidence of social and ecological validity. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 35(4), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121415585956</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee J. D., Meadan H., Xia Y. (2022). Impact of challenging behavior online modules on Korean parents of children with developmental disabilities: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 24(3), 222–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007211071119</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee J. F., Schieltz K. M., Suess A. N., Wacker D. P., Romani P. W., Lindgren S. D., Dalmau Y. C. P. (2015). Guidelines for developing telehealth services and troubleshooting problems with telehealth technology when coaching parents to conduct functional analyses and functional communication training in their homes. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 8, 190–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-014-0031-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lustig T. (2012). The role of telehealth in an evolving health care environment: Workshop summary. National Academies Press. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/13466/the-role-of-telehealth-in-an-evolving-health-care-environment</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Machalicek W., O'Reilly M. F., Beretvas N., Sigafoos J., Lancioni G. E. (2007). A review of interventions to reduce challenging behavior in school settings for students with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 1(3), 229–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2006.10.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacKinnon D. P., Lockwood C. M., Williams J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martínez-Rico G., García-Grau P., Cañadas M., González-García R. J. (2023a). Social validity of telepractice in early intervention: Effectiveness of family-centered practices. Family Relations, 72(5), 2535–2550. https://doi. org/10.1111/fare.12834 https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12834</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martínez-Rico G., García-Grau P., Cañadas M., González-García R. J. (2023b). Telepractice in early childhood intervention: Factor structure of a parent-reported social validity scale. Psicothema, 35(2), 271–278. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2022.290</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McWilliam R. A. (2010). Routines-based early intervention: Supporting young children and their families. Paul H.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McWilliam R. A. (2011). Families in natural environments scale of service evaluation II (FINESSE II). Siskin Center for Child and Family Research.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McWilliam R. A. (2016). The routines-based model for supporting speech and language. Revista de Logopedia, Foniatría y Audiología, 36(4), 178–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rlfa.2016.07.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meadan H., Daczewitz M. E. (2015). Internet-based intervention training for parents of young children with disabilities: A promising service-delivery model. Early Child Development and Care, 185(1), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2014.908866</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meadan H., Lee J. D., Chung M. Y. (2022). Parent-implemented interventions via telepractice in autism research: A review of social validity assessments. Current Developmental Disorders Reports, 9(4), 213–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-022-00259-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meadan H., Snodgrass M. R., Meyer L. E., Fisher K. W., Chung M. Y., Halle J. W. (2016). Internet-based parent-implemented intervention for young children with autism: A pilot study. Journal of Early Intervention, 38(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815116630327</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center Hearing Assessment Management. (2011). Family tele-intervention survey. https://<ulink href="http://www.infanthearing.org/ti101/administrators/Family%20TI%20General%20Survey.pdf">www.infanthearing.org/ti101/administrators/Family%20TI%20General%20Survey.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center. (2008). Workgroup on Principles and Practices in Natural Environments (2008, February). Agreed upon practices for providing early intervention services in natural environments. OSEP TA Community of Practice-Part C Settings. https://ectacenter.org/topics/eiservices/keyprinckeyprac.asp</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nicolson A. C., Lazo-Pearson J. F., Shandy J. (2020). ABA Finding its heart during a pandemic: An exploration in social validity. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 13(4), 757–766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-020-00517-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park E. Y., Blair K. S. C. (2019). Social validity assessment in behavior interventions for young children: A systematic review. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 39(3), 156–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121419860195</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pellecchia M., Mandell D. S., Beidas R. S., Dunst C. J., Tomczuk L., Newman J., Stahmer A. C. (2023). Parent coaching in early intervention for autism spectrum disorder: A brief report. Journal of Early Intervention, 45(2), 185–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/10538151221095860</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poole M. E., Fettig A., McKee R. A., Gauvreau A. N. (2020). Inside the virtual visit: Using tele-intervention to support families in early intervention. Young Exceptional Children, 25(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096250620948061</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Preacher K. J., Hayes A. F. (2004). SPSS And SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Qu L., Chen H., Miller H., Miller A., Colombi C., Chen W., Ulrich D. A. (2022). Assessing the satisfaction and acceptability of an online parent coaching intervention: A mixed-methods approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 859145. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.859145</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reese R. J., Slone N. C., Soares N., Sprang R. (2015). Using telepsychology to provide a group parenting program: A preliminary evaluation of effectiveness. Psychological Services, 12(3), 274–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000018</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Resua-Tomeny K. (2020). Telecoaching in early intervention: Supporting professionals and families of toddlers with or at risk for autism spectrum disorder [Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama]. The University of Alabama Electronic Theses and Dissertations. <ulink href="http://ir.ua.edu/handle/123456789/6973">http://ir.ua.edu/handle/123456789/6973</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Retamal-Walter F., Waite M., Scarinci N. (2022). Identifying critical behaviours for building engagement in telepractice early intervention: An international e-Delphi study. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 57(3), 645–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12714</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Retamal-Walter F., Waite M., Scarinci N. (2023). Exploring engagement in telepractice early intervention for young children with developmental disability and their families: A qualitative systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 18(8), 1508–1521. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2022.2048098</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richardson L. K., Frueh B. C., Grubaugh A. L., Egede L., Elhai J. D. (2009). Current directions in videoconferencing tele-mental health research. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 16(3), 323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2850.2009.01170.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Santos R. M., Fowler S. A., Corso R. M., Bruns D. A. (2000). Acceptance, acknowledgment, and adaptability: Selecting culturally and linguistically appropriate early childhood materials. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(3), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990003200303</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shanley J. R., Niec L. N. (2010). Coaching parents to change: The impact of in vivo feedback on parents' acquisition of skills. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39(2), 282–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374410903532627</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sivaraman M., Fahmie T. A. (2020). A systematic review of cultural adaptations in the global application of ABA-based telehealth services. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 53(4), 1838–1855. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.763</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snodgrass M. R., Chung M. Y., Kretzer J. M., Biggs E. E. (2022). Rigorous assessment of social validity: A scoping review of a 40-year conversation. Remedial and Special Education, 43(2), 114–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325211017295</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spear C. F., Strickland-Cohen K., Romer N., Albin R. W. (2013). An examination of social validity within single-case research with students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513490809</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spiker D., Kelley G., Shepherd S., McCullough K., Greer M. (2021). Telepractice for Part C early intervention services: Considerations for effective implementation and Medicaid reimbursement. Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and SRI International. https://fpg.unc.edu/publications/telepractice-part-c-early-intervention-services-considerations-effective-implementation</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tanner K., Bican R., Boster J., Christensen C., Coffman C., Fallieras K., Long R., Mansfield C., O'Rourke S., Pauline L., Sagester G., Marrie J. (2020). Feasibility and acceptability of clinical pediatric telerehabilitation services. International Journal of Telerehabilitation, 12(2), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.5195/ijt.2020.6336</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turan Y., Meadan H. (2011). Social validity assessment in early childhood special education. Young Exceptional Children, 14(3), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096250611415812</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vigil J., Kattlove J., Litman R., Marcin J., Calouro C., Kwong M. W. (2015). Realizing the promise of telehealth for children with special health care needs. Lucile Packard Foundation for Children's Health. https://<ulink href="http://www.cchpca.org/sites/default/files/2018-10/Realizing-the-Promise-of,">www.cchpca.org/sites/default/files/2018-10/Realizing-the-Promise-of,</ulink> Telehealth-FINAL_0.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vismara L. A., McCormick C., Young G. S., Nadhan A., Monlux K. (2013). Preliminary findings of a telehealth approach to parent training in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43, 2953–2969. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-013-1841-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wade S. L., Raj S. P., Moscato E. L., Narad M. E. (2019). Clinician perspectives delivering telehealth interventions to children/families impacted by pediatric traumatic brain injury. Rehabilitation Psychology, 64, 298–306. https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000268</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wainer A. L., Ingersoll B. R. (2015). Increasing access to an ASD imitation intervention via a telehealth parent training program. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(12), 3877–3890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2186-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wallisch A., Little L., Pope E., Dunn W. (2019). Parent perspectives of an occupational therapy telehealth intervention. International Journal of Telerehabilitation, 11(1), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.5195/ijt.2019.6274</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolf M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart 1. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11(2), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1978.11-203</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yi Z., Dixon M. R. (2021). Developing and enhancing adherence to a telehealth ABA parent training curriculum for caregivers of children with autism. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 14(1), 58–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-020-00464-5</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0192372882-13"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> The authors would like to thank the following collaborating entities: Service of Personal Autonomy and Attention to People with Disabilities, Social Services Management of Valladolid, Plena Inclusión Castilla La Mancha and Plena Inclusión Extremadura. In addition, we would like to thank to professionals and families in Campus Capacitas for their collaboration.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, [Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (Spain) ]: State Plan for Scientific, Technical and Innovation Research 2021–2023, under State Program to Promote Scientific-Technical Research and Transfer. Capacitas-UCV research group. Code: PID2022-142309OB-I00.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gabriel Martínez-Rico https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0140-5512 Pau García-Grau https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6790-9089 Margarita Cañadas https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5496-322X Rómulo J. González-García https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0331-4908</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Gabriel Martínez-Rico; Pau García-Grau; Margarita Cañadas and Rómulo J. González-García</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref118"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1499976
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Family Variables Influencing the Social Validity of Telepractice in Early Childhood Intervention
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gabriel+Martínez-Rico%22">Gabriel Martínez-Rico</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0140-5512">0000-0003-0140-5512</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pau+García-Grau%22">Pau García-Grau</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6790-9089">0000-0002-6790-9089</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Margarita+Cañadas%22">Margarita Cañadas</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5496-322X">0000-0002-5496-322X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rómulo+J%2E+González-García%22">Rómulo J. González-García</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0331-4908">0000-0002-0331-4908</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Exceptional+Children%22"><i>Exceptional Children</i></searchLink>. 2026 92(3):286-304.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 19
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Intervention%22">Early Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Background%22">Parent Background</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Attainment%22">Educational Attainment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technological+Literacy%22">Technological Literacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Validity%22">Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+%28Sociological+Unit%29%22">Family (Sociological Unit)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+Role%22">Family Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Client+Characteristics+%28Human+Services%29%22">Client Characteristics (Human Services)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Telecommunications%22">Telecommunications</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Children%22">Young Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parents%22">Parents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Spain%22">Spain</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/00144029251382565
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0014-4029<br />2163-5560
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The use of telepractice in early childhood intervention has increased considerably in recent years. It is necessary, therefore, to examine its social validity in order to improve services and meet the needs of families. Determining relevant family variables influencing social validity allows practitioners to ensure their practices are based on socially meaningful and valid processes. We examined the influence of family-level variables through a multiple mediation model with: (a) child and adult age and mother's education level as predictors; (b) family role during sessions and technology skills as mediators; and (c) social validity of telepractice and the focus on family needs as dependent variables. We examined direct, indirect, and total effects through path analysis, as well as the joint effect of both mediators on social validity appraisals and the scores on focus on family needs. Overall, good perception of social validity of telepractice was found. No differences in social validity scores among telepractice modalities or eligibility criteria were found. Higher social validity was associated with greater focus on family needs, a more active role during sessions, better technology skills, and younger children and adults. Higher mother's educational level was related to having an active role in telepractice sessions and perceiving the intervention to be more focused on their needs. Addressing family needs is a priority for telepractice in early childhood intervention. Deciding with families the telepractice modality that could fit best their needs, as well as considering a hybrid approach, could help programs support their families more effectively.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1499976
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1499976
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/00144029251382565
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 286
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Early Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Background
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Attainment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technological Literacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Family (Sociological Unit)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Family Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Client Characteristics (Human Services)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Telecommunications
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Young Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Spain
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Family Variables Influencing the Social Validity of Telepractice in Early Childhood Intervention
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gabriel Martínez-Rico
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pau García-Grau
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Margarita Cañadas
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rómulo J. González-García
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0014-4029
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2163-5560
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 92
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Exceptional Children
              Type: main
ResultId 1