From the Editor

I am excited to report that we have received approximately 600 abstracts from 50 countries for the upcoming International Early Childhood Intervention Conference in Lisbon on September 2-5, 2025. To me, this large number of submissions represents the growth of early childhood intervention (ECI) throughout the world. This growth is also evident in the diversity of topics, methodologies, and outcomes proposed in the abstracts. It is my hope that the conference will offer many opportunities to further grow and elevate the field through the exchange of knowledge, experiences, and effective interventions between both presenters and participants. These exchanges could culminate in opportunities to collaborate on future research initiatives involving novel intervention content, methodologies, and populations across countries, thus advancing the science of ECI. Likewise, those in personnel preparation and professional development will also have opportunities to collaborate on teaching models, personnel standards and competencies, and evaluation methodology. Lastly, ECI program administrators and practitioners will have many opportunities to learn about effective interventions across developmental areas for specific populations of children. All of these collaborative opportunities will elevate the field further. Collaborations are hard and can be complex, especially when involving different people, universities, and countries. Research, especially, can be challenging when involving multiple investigators at different sites. Yet, without collaboration, we are left with many studies that may have the same outcomes but use different methodologies or may use the same methodologies but have different outcomes. And the heterogeneity of the ECI population creates an added dimension that may not be addressed adequately. As a result, the ECI field has gaps between research findings and applications to practice, practice gaps when interventions are not implemented with fidelity to the research protocol that was used to achieve the positive outcomes for children and families, and outcome gaps when research practices are not able to be replicated because of challenges with the interpretation, application, and implementation of intervention features. The Lisbon conference will provide many opportunities to address a broad agenda of ECI research, training, and intervention. Let’s use these opportunities to join together and collectively advance the field by collaboratively solving the most critical learning challenges facing infants and young children with disabilities and their families. CURRENT ISSUE Our first article by Sarah Carlon, Jessica Zanuttini, Coral Kemp, and Susana Gavidia-Payne describes a study that examined the alignment of early childhood intervention position descriptions advertised by Australian employers to the National Best Practice Guidelines. The authors reviewed 246 online job advertisements collected to identify whether they included descriptions of key best practices. Over 97% of the advertised roles included one or more of the key best practices, but less than half of the advertisements addressed family-centered or inclusive practices. The authors conclude by providing implications for future research and practice. In our next article, Kendra Guinness, Catherine Diercks, Kelly Vaughn, Betsy Davis, Susan Landy, and Edward Feil present data from a study with parents with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) using an adaptation of the digital Play and Learning Strategies (ePALS) intervention program. The authors used a single-case design with three parent-child dyads to assess the adapted program’s efficacy. Results demonstrated increased positive parent and infant behaviors and increased parenting knowledge, though the authors acknowledged implementation challenges with the program. These included the recruitment and retention of families and the assessment and acquisition of parent skill acquisition within the ePALS program. The authors’ concluded with a discussion about additional revisions they planned to make to the ePALS they planned to implement to increase efficacy. The third article by Shimpei Yamamoto, Yeonghee Lee, Umi Matsumura, and Toshiya Tsurusaki presents a longitudinal study from Japan that examined the differences in crawling variation among 21 infants. The authors evaluated the infants’ development at 2 years of age using the Japanese version of the DENVER II and identified those with and without developmental delays. They then compared the children’s crawling variations between the two groups. The results indicated that the infants with developmental delays had lower cumulative numbers of crawling variations than those infants without delays. The authors discuss the potential of using infant crawling variation as a predictor of those infants who would benefit from intervention. Serra Acar, Dudu Melek Er, Katherine Volk, and Christine Spence conducted semi-structured virtual interviews with 8 parents of children with disabilities in Turkey during the COVID-19 pandemic. Qualitative methodology was used to analyze and interpret the interviews. Parents reported various difficulties in the EI/ECSE system, including concerns about the quality of state-funded services. The families reported that some of the difficulties were present before the pandemic. Parents also expressed a need for inclusive early childhood education and qualified, well-trained early childhood educators. The authors concluded with implications for further research, policy, and practice. Our final article by Asha Yadav, Randall Alan Phelps, and Jane Squires presents the experiences of 4 general pediatricians and 14 Part C EI personnel who delivered services to children and families during the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors conducted qualitative analyses of semi-structured interviews conducted over 4 months during the first year of the pandemic. The analysis of the interviews yielded four main themes: (1) transition to telehealth, (2) experiences with identification and referral, (3) experiences with eligibility evaluations and developmental screenings, and (4) challenges faced by families and children. Both groups of informants reported that less children were identified and referred to EI programs during this time. The authors conclude with implications for further research. As always, I would like to thank the authors for submitting their work to Infants & Young Children and the members of the editorial board who helped bring these manuscripts to publication. —Mary Beth Bruder, PhDEditor