From the Editor

A persistent challenge in early childhood intervention is the lack of qualified and competent personnel to support the growing number of infants and young children with developmental delays and/or disabilities and their families. In the United States, this issue has persisted for more than 40 years, despite federal legislation supporting early intervention (EI) and early childhood special education (ECSE) programs. The causes of this crisis are well documented and include declining enrollment in EI/ECSE preparation programs, increasing opportunities to enter other higher-paying professions, inconsistent licensing and certification requirements across states, differing personnel competencies and expectations, varied service delivery models, and limited public awareness of EI/ECSE as a career. After entering the profession, EI/ECSE providers continue to face ongoing challenges such as meeting the needs of infants, young children, and families with complex needs, low compensation and long hours, high caseloads, paperwork and regulatory burdens, limited administrative support, and a lack of preparedness and skills required for implementing interventions that address the heterogeneity of children's learning profiles. Addressing these challenges will require intentional efforts to change the root causes of workforce shortages: recruitment and retention of EI/ECSE candidates into preservice preparation programs and changes in service delivery staffing patterns to better serve the EI/ECSE population. These challenges require strategic planning to and both a short- and a long-term solution to meet the personnel needs of a state and local program. Recruitment into the EI/ECSE profession must begin at the secondary school level with programs emphasizing the value and impact that a career in EI/ECSE provides. Other recruitment efforts should target college students, graduates of 2-year college programs, paraprofessionals, and other EI and school-based personnel. Each audience requires contemporary and tailored messaging that provides easily accessible pathways to achieve the required EI/ECSE knowledge and skills. Other supports include financial incentives and tuition remission programs flexible and effective course scheduling (e.g., weekends and evenings) that offer credit structures, expert and peer mentorship opportunities, and partnerships with programs offering paid practicum and internship positions. These and other examples are not new to the field. However, they have not been intentionally, universally, and systematically applied and scaled up by state and regional administrative offices to recruit EI/ECSE candidates at the preservice preparation level. The definition of personnel competence varies among EI/ECSE disciplines and the role of the specific EI/ECSE provider. Each provider must be licensed or certified, and these requirements vary between states and even local agencies. Although licensure and certification requirements are typically guided by national professional accreditation standards, implementation differs considerably across systems. Preservice personnel programs apply accreditation standards to coursework, practicum, or clinical requirements, and some programs develop competencies to measure student performance on the standards. In addition, national and state competencies also exist that focus on specific service delivery content areas (e.g., mental health, inclusion, coaching, and other specialty areas specific to child/family/classroom characteristics). These unique competencies are rarely aligned or integrated into licensing requirements, personnel standards, or across service delivery models. Furthermore, many competency systems focus on service delivery methods; few also address the content of interventions. As national, state, and local systems of EI/ECSE develop strategies to address workforce shortages, one recommendation is to analyze the efficiency and effectiveness of current staffing patterns. Many existing staffing patterns rely on professional personnel to meet the diverse needs of all children and families on their caseload without access to individualized professional development to support the implementation of tailored interventions within home or inclusive classroom settings. Personnel with fewer formal credentials are usually assigned to an individual child or a classroom, without receiving effective training and coaching necessary to address individual needs. Not all personnel need competencies in all areas of practice for individual children and families, but someone on the service delivery team needs expertise in specialty areas. That is, a system or program should define roles, responsibilities, and competencies required across levels of the workforce to achieve targeted child and family outcomes. From this foundation, a tiered system for personnel qualifications and roles could be developed to meet the needs of the EI/ECSE programs or systems. A staffing plan that identifies personnel with specialized training and content-specific expertise (beyond licensure/certification and accreditation standards) could strengthen service delivery by allowing those with specific expertise to support, mentor, and coach other staff to effectively deliver individually tailored interventions. Team-based service delivery and the use of peer mentors and coaches are integral to this model. This also allows personnel with less formal (degrees or licensure/certification) and informal (experience) backgrounds to be supervised, mentored, and coached by specialized and competent EI/ECSE providers. We will not end the workforce shortage in the field of EI/ECSE without targeted, comprehensive, and creative efforts. We need to be intentional about how we recruit into our field. We need to highlight and celebrate the meaningful and rewarding aspects of our field such as the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of families and their children; develop specialized disciplinary expertise; collaborate across disciplines; learn from the families and children we serve; build relationships; and be part of a community that shares a passion to support infants and young children with developmental delays and their families. I look forward to the challenge. Current Issue In our first article, Karin Lifter, Emanuel Mason, Haley Medeiros, and Genevieve Krebs compared the play patterns of 203 young children with disabilities or risk conditions. These included children with autism, Down syndrome, language delays, other developmental delays, and prematurity. These children were compared with a sample of 289 typically developing (TD) children. Each child was observed playing in their home for 30 minutes at 10 age points between 8 and 60 months. The Developmental Play Assessment was used to categorize each child's play into 21 qualitative categories and analyzed for frequency and variety of activities. Findings showed that the children with delays expressed the same play categories as the TD children. Particular difficulties were identified for children with autism and Down syndrome. Implications for assessment and intervention were provided. Next, Rebecca Lieberman-Betz, Nicole Edwards, and Sarah Wiegand conducted a scoping review of studies on parents with intellectual disabilities (ID) or mental health conditions (MHC). The review focused on cross-disciplinary studies from outside of early intervention (EI) to see if the included intervention strategies aligned with best practices in EI. A total of 27 articles were included in the review, and most studies used modified practices with the parents, including behavioral strategies, visuals, role-plays, and feedback for parents with ID and mindfulness/self-regulation, reflection, and videos for parents with MHC. In addition, the studies used practices aligned with EI coaching frameworks. The authors provide recommendations for research and interventions for families with ID or MHC. Elsie Bush, Pam Williams-Arya, Bradley Disbrow, Julie Kline, Ana Livecchi, Maria Materan, Mohan Priya, Anna Esbensen, and Stephanie Weber conducted a study on sensory processing in 61 preschool-age children who had prenatal opioid exposure (POE). The authors assessed the children on the Sensory Processing Measure Preschool (SPM) to identify sensory processing patterns in children across the home, school, and community. They also examined differences in behaviors between children who did and did not receive pharmacological treatment for neonatal withdrawal symptoms at birth. Over 50% of the children exhibited sensory processing issues in all descriptive scales of the SPM. The authors recommend collaborative efforts among families, health care providers, and teachers to screen, monitor, and tailor interventions with children with POE who display sensory processing difficulties. Sarah Shea and Malaikah Davis evaluated an infant and early childhood mental health (IECMH) competency-based curriculum with three cohorts of early childhood professionals who differed by discipline and role. A total of 53 service providers from home visiting, Head Start, early intervention, or early childhood special education participated in the training, which focused on relationship-based and reflective practices. A mixed method design was used to evaluate the training using self-reported pre- and postmeasures of self-efficacy in reflective practice, and the ability to implement IECMH practices. Qualitative feedback was identified through open-ended questions on the post-training surveys. The responses were themed and coded. Results suggested that participants demonstrated growth in IECMH practice as evidenced by self-reported increased confidence in reflective practice skills and increased use of IECMH practice behaviors, with medium effect sizes. The qualitative findings also illustrated positive impacts of the training on participants' IECMH knowledge and skills. Our final article by Margarita Cañadas, Jennifer Grisham, Rómulo Jacobo González-García, Gabriel Martinez Ricco, and Cecilia Simón presents a study that examined the content validity of the Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System for Infants and Children-Third Edition (AEPS-3) following its translation and adaptation for use in Spain. The authors recruited 16 multidisciplinary early childhood experts to review the scale and provide ratings across a variety of dimensions, including functionality, teachability, clarity, and usefulness. The experts evaluated the AEPS-3 items across eight developmental areas using the Content Validity Index and descriptive statistics. Findings showed excellent content validity across all developmental areas, and experts reported that the AEPS-3 promotes authentic, functional, and routine-based assessment practices aligned with Spanish early intervention guidelines. Some items required revision to better fit the Spanish language structure, teaching methods, and cultural expectations. The authors recommend additional validity studies to ensure the compatibility of the AEPS-3 for use in Spain. As always, I thank the authors of these articles for submitting their work to Infants & Young Children and the editorial board members who volunteered their time to help bring these manuscripts to publication. Mary Beth Bruder, PhD Editor