SPECIAL EDUCATION - Essay Example

TYPE OF RESEARCH: Action Study: Qualitative, level of self-determination as a measure of adult success for with learning disabilities and ified as mentally retarded● POPULATION SAMPLE: Study participants are made up of 80 students with cognitive disabilities, from school districts in Virginia, Connecticut, Alabama and Texas. Eligibility is based on receiving special education services. Students must also have been completing the school year by graduation or certificate, at the end of the 1994-1995 school year.

Mean age of the sample is 19.82 years, with an age range of 17-22 years. Mean IQ is77.31. Fifty percent of the sample are classified with mild mental retardation, while the remainder are classified with learning disabilities.● SUMMARY OF PROCEDURES: Initially, consent was obtained from students and family members to administer measures of self determination and conduct a follow up survey the following year. Demographic date for each student was collected from school records and includes student age, birth date, ethnicity, intelligence score, verification of high school exit and special education eligibility.

Information on vocational education classes was also obtained, when available. Initially, each student’s teacher collected data on self determination and locus of control. All assessments were scored by project personnel. Nine months after studentsexited high school, questionnaires were mailed. Telephone contacts were made fornon-respondents and personal interviews. Face to face interviews were also conducted.The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale (Wehmeyer &Kelchner, 1995), a 72-item self-report scale that provides data on each of the four essential characteristics, as well as overall student self-determination were collected: section 1 measures autonomy, section 2 measures self-regulation, section 3 measures empowerment, section 4 measures self-realization.

“Self-determined people are self-realizing in that they use a comprehensive, and reasonably accurate, knowledge of themselves and their strengths and limitations to act in such a manner as to capitalize on this knowledge in a beneficial way” (Wehmeyer& Schwartz).● SUMMARY OF RESULTS: Based on results of questionaires, students were scored in either the low self determination group(mean score of 86.4) or high self determination group(mean score of103.38). The majority of students still lived with their parents or guardians almost 1 year after leaving high school.

Parents provided information on where their son or daughter would prefer to live. 44 percent of those in the high self determination group indicated their son or daughter would prefer to live away from home, compared to 19 percent in the low self determination group. Though 60 percent of the students were working part time or full time, those in the high self determination group were more likely to be employed.Those in the high self determination group also received higher wages. ● STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF STUDY: The study indicates the need for students classified as mentally retarded to receivelife skills training and preparation.

It also indicates that all students, regardless of disability, should and can be encouraged to achieve to the best of their abilities. Thosewho were placed in the high self determination have undoubtedly been encouraged toset and reach achievement goals. The study also shows that, despite disabilities, studentswith mental retardation and other obstacles do desire to achieve and become productivemembers of society. The need for life skills or additional training programs is a necessary component of education for students with mental retardation and other learningdisabilities.

Though students in the study came from rural, urban and suburban districts, no datawas provided for the two different groups, on which type of district the majority of thosestudents came from. Some smaller, more rural districts will likely have less access to training programs in life skills, due to lack of funding available, transportation issues andother variables. In other words, those in the low self determination group may representa disproportionately large number in the rural districts, where additional training is lessavailable.

It is assumed that without additional services, students do not receive the encouragement and awareness of abilities.ReferencesWehmeyer, M. & Schwartz, M. (1997). Self-Determination and Positive Adult Outcomes: A Follow-Up Study of Youth with Mental Retardation or Learning Disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63(2), 245-255. Retrieved September 27, 208 from http://www.beachcenter.org/research/FullArticles/PDF/ SD3_SD%20and%20Positive%20/Adutl%20outcomes.pdf.Exceptional Children, Vol. 63, No. 2, pp. 245-255.©1997 The Council for Exceptional ChildrenSelf-Determination andPositive Adult Outcomes:A Follow-Up Study of Youthwith Mental Retardation orLearning DisabilitiesMICHAEL WEHMEYERMICHELLE SCHWARTZThe Arc National HeadquartersABSTRACT: There is increased emphasis on self-determination as an important outcome for youth with disabilities if they are to achieve positive adult outcomes after they leave school.

However, the causal link between self-determination and positive adult outcomes has remained untested. The Arc conducted a follow-up study of students with mental retardation or learning disabilities for whom data regarding self-determination had been collected prior to their high school exit. Data regarding adult outcomes for these students nearly 1 year after graduation were collected. The resulting analysis determined that self-determined students were more likely to have achieved more positive adult outcomes, including being employed at a higher rate and earning more per hr than peers who were not self-determined.

A framework for promoting self-determination as an educational outcome is presented.From 1989 to 1993 the U.S. Department ofEducation, Office of Special Education Programs funded a series of model-demonstration projects to promote self-determination for youth withdisabilities (Ward & Kohler, 1996). This fundinginitiative was implemented in response to (a) the growing body of literature indicating that studentswith disabilities were graduating to generallydisappointing adultoutcomes (Chadsey-Rusch, Rusch, & OReilly,1991) and (b) the call from people with disabilities for increased choice and more control overdecisions that impact their lives (Gagne, 1994;Kennedy, 1996).

Self-determination has beenidentified as a critical outcome of the transitionprocess for students with disabilities (Halloran,1993; Wehman, 1993).Page 2246Winter 1997There are a number of reasons why educators should devote instructional time and resources to promoting self-determination. First, adults withdisabilities have consistently emphasized theimportance of this outcome for an enhanced quality of life (Gagne, 1994; Kennedy, 1996).Second, the acquisition of attitudes and abilities related to self-determination can contribute toincreased student involvement in educational planning and decision making (Van Reusen & Bos, 1994; Wehmeyer & Ward, 1995).

Third,students who leave school as self-determined young people should achieve more positive adult outcomes.Although this third reason has considerable face validity, it remains essentially an untestedhypothesis because, until recently, there havebeen few definitional frameworks within which to evaluate self-determination as an educational out-come, and even fewer means of measuring such an outcome. Wehmeyer (1996) defined self-deter-mination as "acting as the primary causal agent in ones life and making choices and decisions regarding ones quality of life free from undue external influence or interference [italics added]." (p. 22).

A causal agent makes or causes things to happen in his or her life (Deci & Ryan, 1985).In this definitional framework, an act or event is self-determined if the individuals action(s)reflect four essential characteristics: (a) theindividual acts autonomously; (b) the behaviorsare self-regulated; (c) the person initiates and re-sponds to event(s) in a "psychologically empow-ered" manner; and (d) the person acts in self-realizing manner (Wehmeyer, 1996). Behavior is1. Autonomous if the person acts according to his or her own preferences, interests and/or abilities, and independently, free fromundue external influence or interference.2. Self-regulated if people make decisions about which skills to use in a situation;examine the task at hand and theiravailable repertoire; and formulate, enact, and evaluate a plan of action withrevisions when necessary.3. Psychologically empowered if people act based on the beliefs that they have the capacity to perform behaviors needed toinfluence outcomes in their environmentand, if they per form suchbehaviors, anticipated outcomes will result.4. Self-realized if people use a comprehensive, and reasonably accurate, knowledge ofthemselves and their strengths and limitations to act in such a manner as to capitalize on this knowledge in a beneficial way.

(Wehmeyer,1996)Wehmeyer, Kelchner, and Richards (1996)conducted an empirical validation of this concep-tual framework with more than 400 adults with mental retardation in which data were collected on self-determined behavior and each of the four essential characteristics. The sample was divided into two dichotomous groups based on the per-formance of behaviors generally agreed upon as reflecting self-determination. Analyses indicatedthat, on measures of each of the four essential characteristics, there were significant differences between individuals who engaged in behaviorsreflecting self-determination and those who didnot.

Based on these findings, we developed andfield-tested a self-report measure of self-determi-nation for adolescents with cognitive disabilities. The Arcs Self-Determination Scale (Wehmeyer & Kelchner, 1995) operationalizes thedefinitional framework described previously.Completion of the scale provides data on student global self-determination, as well as individualautonomy, self-regulation, psychological empowerment, and self-realization. Using The Arcs Self-Determination Scale we measured the self-determination of students with mentalretardation and learning disabilities during theirfinal year of high school.

This article reports the findings of a follow-up study to link self-determination and adult outcomes.PROCEDURES ParticipantsStudy participants were 80 students with cogni-tive disabilities from school districts in Virginia,Connecticut, Alabama, and Texas. Students were recruited for participation if they were receiving special education services based on a cognitive disability (mental retardation or learning disabil-ity) and would be leaving school (either by gradu-Page 3Exceptional Children247ation or certificate of attendance) at thecompletion of that school year (1994-1995).

The mean age of the sample was 19.82 years (SD = 1.52), and students ranged from 17 to 22 years of age. The mean IQ for the group was 77.31 (IQ no available for five students). Fifty percent of the sample consisted of students with mildmental retardation (mean age = 20.15, SD =1.78, mean IQ = 61.43). The remainder were students with learning disabilities (mean age =19.42, SD = 1.18, mean IQ = 93.10). Fifty-five percent of the students were female (n = 55,mean age = 20.05, SD = 1.70, mean IQ = 70.61), while 45% were males (n = 35, mean age = 19.

56, SD = 1.25, mean IQ = 85.38). Sixty-nine percent (n = 55) of the students were classified as white, 21% (n = 17) as African American, 5% as Hispanic (n = 4); and the remainder either Native American of Asian American. Asdescribed subsequently, analyses took intoaccount the effects of differing levels ofintelligence on self-determination.ProceduresDuring the last half of the 1994-1995 schoolyear, students graduating from school (or aging out) in each school district were identified.Consent from students and family members was obtained to administer measures of self-determination and to conduct a follow-up survey during the subsequent year.

Data on self-determination and locus of control was collected in the students school by his or her classroom teacher. Both measures are designed for group or individual administration and require limitedinformation to administer. All assessments were scored by project personnel.After developing a follow-up survey,project staff conducted mail and telephoneinterviews to collect information about student outcomes. There were a total of 111 students who had graduated, aged out, or dropped out for whom we had self-determination information.

Data collection began 9 months after thestudents exited high school. Three mailings were conducted in a 3month period, followed bytelephone contacts for nonrespondents andpersonal interviews. A protocol for telephoneand face-to-face interviews was developed based on suggestions from Edgar, Levine, and Maddox (1988). There were a total of 80 completedsurveys received. Thirty-eight percent of thecompleted surveys were received bymail (16% from the first mailing, 18% from the second, and 4% from the third), 35% from tele-phone contacts, and 27% from personal inter-views.

In most cases, the survey was completed by a family member, with the ex-student participating when possible. For less than 10% of the sample, the respondent was not thestudents parent but another significant other (in most cases a teacher) who had had contact with the student in the previous 2 months and was familiar with the students adult outcomes. Of the 31 students for whom we were unable toobtain follow-up data, 74% (n=23) had moved and no forwarding information was available,and 26% (n = 8) refused to complete the survey when contacted by phone or mail.

Demographic data for students were col-lected by a school records review. This included the students age and birth date; ethnicity; verifi-cation of high school exit and special education eligibility; intelligence score; and, whenavailable, the number and types of vocationaleducation classes completed by the student.InstrumentationMeasuring self-determination and locus of control. Data regarding student self-determination were collected using The Arcs Self-Determination Scale (Wehmeyer &Kelchner, 1995), a 72-item self-report scale that provides data on each of the four essentialcharacteristics as well as overall self-determination.

Section 1 measures studentautonomy, including the students independence and degree to which he or she acts on the basis of personal beliefs, values, interests andabilities. Section 2 measures student self-regula-tion and is composed of two subdomains; (a) in-terpersonal cognitive problem-solving and (b)goal-setting and task performance. Section 3 is an indicator of psychological empowerment or the various dimensions of perceived control(Zimmerman, 1990). Section 4 measures student selfrealization.

Self-determined people are self-realizing in that they use a comprehensive, and reasonably accurate, knowledge of themselves and their strengths and limitations to act in such a manner as to capitalize on this knowledge in a beneficial way. Self-knowledge forms throughexperience with and interpretation of onesenvironment and is influenced by evaluations of others,Page 4248Winter 1997reinforcements, and attributions of ones own be-havior (Wehmeyer, 1996).There are a total of 148 points available on the Scale and higher scores reflect higher self-de-termination.

The Arcs Self-Determination Scale was normed with 500 students with and without cognitive disabilities in rural, urban, and subur-ban school districts in five states. Informationabout this process is available in the procedural guidelines for the Scale (Wehmeyer & Kelchner, 1995). The Scales concurrent criterion-related validity was established by showing relationships between The Arcs Self-Determination Scale and conceptually related measures. It had adequate construct validity, including factorial validity es-tablished by factor analysis and discriminativevalidity as well as adequate internal consistency (Wehmeyer, in press).

Student locus of control was measuredusing the adult version of the Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Scale (ANS-IE; Nowicki &Duke, 1974). People who see themselves as in control of outcomes in their lives have an internal locus of control, while people who perceive out-comes as controlled by others, fate, or chance hold an external locus of control. The ANS-IE consists of 40 items answered with a "yes" or "no" and higher scores reflect more externalorientations. The scale has reported split-half reliability figures ranging from .74 to .86, withtest-retest reliability figures ranging from .63 to .76.

Although normed with adults withoutdisabilities, the instrument has been found to be reliable and valid for use with individuals withmental retardation or learning disabilities (seeWehmeyer, 1993).Measuring adult outcomes. Project person-nel reviewed follow-up and follow-along studies to identify instruments to collect data regardingadult outcomes and identified 24 unique studies conducted since 1984. From this set, we collected all instruments available, either through the pub-lished report or from the authors.

After an exami-nation of these survey instruments, we selected and adapted questions from the National Con-sumer Survey (Jaskulski, Metzler, & Zierman,1990) and the National Longitudinal Survey(Wagner, DAmico, Marder, Newman, &Blackorby, 1992).The survey instrument was to be mailed to a students last known address, in all cases that of his or her parents. Based on the possibility that former students might not live at that address and concerns that students with cognitive disabilities would not be able to independently complete the survey, we decided to construct the instrument with a parent or family member as the primary respondent.

We wanted students involved to the greatest extentfeasible and requested that, if at all possible,family members include their son or daughter inthe process. The final instrument contained a series of questions pertaining to student livingarrangements, current and past employment situations, postsecondary education status, andcommunity integration outcomes. Many of thequestions developed are identified in the resultssection with their relevant outcome (see Author Notes for information on obtaining a copy of the survey).

Levine and Edgar (1994) found highagreement between parental and postgraduate students on most variables in follow-up studies but determined that there were problems on agreement in the areas of salary level, hours worked, andmedical benefits received. Because we were reliant on parent report and concerned about the problems with reliability in these areas, we asked parents to report specifically how they identified thisinformation. This information was used only when it was obtained from a pay stub, an employment contract, or from the student.

AnalysesAnalyses of variance between respondents andnonrespondents indicated no significant differences between these groups on total self-determination and subdomain scores or locus of control scores. A second series of analyses of variance determined that there were no significant differences, either on self-determination and locus of control measures or age and IQ score, between data collected by the three methods (e.g., mail, telephone, personalinterview). As a second check of the reliability of the mail survey, 10 mail respondents were alsocontacted by telephone and completed a second survey.

In all 10 cases, responses were identical between the two surveys.For most variables, data collection yieldedpercentage scores of respondents who answered Page 5Exceptional Children249either yes or no. To examine the effect of self-determination on these outcomes, we divided the sample into two dichotomous groups based on a frequency distribution of self-determination total scores and conducted chi-square analyses based on this distribution. Because we have found small but significant correlations between intelligenceand self-determination scores (Wehmeyer et al., 1996), we were concerned that the self-determi-nation groups would reflect level of intelligence instead of self-determination.

Primarily we were concerned that the high self-determination group would consist disproportionately of students with learning disabilities, while the low self-determination group would consistdisproportionately of students with mentalretardation. To prevent this, we computed twofrequency counts, one each by disability (learning disability, mental retardation). The top andbottom third of each frequency count wereassigned to the high or low self-determination groups, respectively. By assigning students in the top and bottom third of the sample, rather than determining group membership by a median split, we ensured that groups consisted of students with clearly different levels of self-determination.

To verify that the groups were not different according to intelligence, we performed ananalysis of variance for IQ score by self-determination group. There were no significant differences between groups (F = .24, p = .63). The mean IQ of the low self-determination group was 72 (SD = 24.7), the mean for the high group was 75 (SD = 18.52). The mean age for the high group was 20.28 and the average total self-determination score was 113. The mean age of the low self-determination group was 19.62 with a mean total self-determination score of 70.86. There were a total of 46 students assigned to one of the two groups.

A chi-square analysisindicated that there were no differences between whether students were assigned to the low or high self-determination group based on the state inwhich they lived.Although the majority of respondents (n = 75, 94%) either graduated from high school or left bearing a certificate of completion, a smallproportion (n = 5, 6%) were classified as having dropped out. We were concerned about theimpact of these students on the analyses,presuming that students who dropped out ofschool would fare more poorly as young adults.

Two factors allayed this concern. First, several of the students who dropped out left school to pursue jobs, and all were over 18, the age at which most students without disabilities exit school. Second,in the final assignment to groups, only threestudents who dropped out ended up in either the high or low self-determination group. A chi-square analysis for self-determination group byhigh school exit indicated no significantdifferences in the distribution from that expected. As such, analyses proceeded with these students in the sample.

In addition to conducting chi-square analyses for survey results to examine outcomes by self-determination group, two questionsyielded ratio-level data (wage per hour and hours worked). In both circumstances, however, westipulated that only data based on something other than parental estimate (e.g., pay stub,employment contract, student report) would beused. This limited the number of responses and skewed the number of participants in each of the two self-determination groups. In these cases, we assigned the students to one of two groups, high and low wage or high and low hours worked,based on frequency counts.

We then conducted a multivariate analysis of covariance with wage or hours worked groups as the independent variable, total self-determination and subscale scores asdependent variables, and intelligence score as the covariate. To further explore the factors thatcontributed to higher earning power forgraduates, we conducted a linear regressionanalysis with wage per hour as the dependent variable; and IQ, self-determination subscalescores, and the number of vocational classes in which students had been enrolled duringsecondary education as predictor variables.

Allanalyses were conducted using SPSS forWindows (Norusis, 1992).RESULTSAs depicted in Figure 1, the vast majority of ex-students (90%; n = 72) still lived with their par-ents nearly 1 year after graduation. These figures were virtually the same for students independent of self-determination group, and there were nosignificant differences on the chi-square analysis for this variable. The low number of studentsliving outside the family home (n = 8) made Page 6250Winter 1997analyses inadvisable regarding who helpedstudents find housing.

However, there weresignificant findings for the analysis for self-determination group by stated preference to live elsewhere. In the group as a whole, 31%indicated that their son or daughter would prefer to live elsewhere, 60% that he or she would not want to live elsewhere, and 9% were unsure or felt the question was not applicable. However, 44% of the respondents for the high self-determined group indicated that their son ordaughter wanted to live elsewhere, while only19% of the low self-determined group indicated likewise (x2 = 8.13, p = .04).

There were significant differencesbetween low and high self-determination groups on whether they maintained a checking account (x2= 4.75, p = .03) or a savings account (x2= 5.34, p = .02). As illustrated by Figure 2, the high self-determination group was more likely to maintain both a checking and savings account than the low self-determination group.There were no significant differences by self-determination groups for either current orpast postsecondary education enrollment, the re-ceipt o a diploma, or license from such a body.

For the group as a whole, 60% of the students were, working either full- or part-time for pay outside the home. There were significantdifferences between self-determination groupson this variable (x2= 6.75, p = .009). Former students in the high self-determination groupwere more likely to be employed than their peers in the low self-determination group.As Figure 3 presents, ex-students in the high self-determination group were more likely to be employed than their peers in the low self-de-termination group.

Multivariate analysis of co-variance of self-determination total and subscale scores and locus of control scores, controllingfor intelligence level, for high and low wage per hour (from respondents whose information came from a source other than parental estimate)yielded significant differences for low and high wage earners on self-determination total [F(1,10) = 10.22, p = .01], autonomy [F(1, 10) = 6.01; p = .04], and psychological empowerment [F(l, 10) = 11.62, p = .007] scores. For all three of these indicators, scores for the high self-determination group were more positive thanscores for the low self-determination group.

For total self-determination, the mean score for the high self-determination group was 103.38, thescore for the low group was 86.4. There were no differences between high and low groups based on hours worked per week on any measure. There were too few respondents who met the abovecriterion to analyze the presence or absence ofbenefits by low or high self-determination group.The regression analysis with hourly pay rate as the dependent variable and IQ, self-determina-tion subscale scores, and the number of vocational education classes in which students were enrolled during high school as independent variables yielded an R2 of .81. Variables contributingsignificantly to the variance in the dependentvariable included IQ, psychological empowerment, self-realization, and self-regulation subscalescores.

Table 1 presents regression statistics for this analysis and Table 2 presents the correlation matrix from this analysis.DISCUSSIONThese results provide preliminary empirical evi-dence that self-determination is an important ed-ucational outcome if youth with disabilities are to achieve positive adult outcomes after they leave high school. Interpretation of these data mustproceed with caution, however. One limitation to the current design was that we measured self-de-termination with a self-report measure and adult outcomes with a parental report measure.

The po-tential measurement problems with this are miti-gated somewhat by the fact that the outcomemeasure was a report of observable outcomes, such as whether students were employed, how muchthey earned, or where they lived. Levine and Edgar (1994) found considerable agreement betweenparents and students on such variables, and, for those variables where Levine and Edgar foundpoor agreement, we put controls in place to ensure more reliable information.Second, we were unable to control for the fact that students had different school experiences based either on where they lived or on the type of disability.

Data were collected from four different states and from rural, urban, and suburban areas. The school experiences and curricular content no