Exceptional Children2015, Vol. 81(3) 329 –349© 2015 The Au.docx

Exceptional Children
2015, Vol. 81(3) 329 –349
© 2015 The Author(s)
DOI: 10.1177/0014402914563703
ec.sagepub.com
Article
Equipping students with disabilities for
postsecondary education and meaningful
employment stands as a central purpose of spe-
cial education and transition services (i.e., Indi-
viduals With Disabilities Education Act, 2006;
see 34 C.F.R. $ 300). Indeed, the outcomes these
students attain in the early years after leaving
high school serve as a leading measure of the
effectiveness of the educational services and
supports provided during secondary school. As
students served within special education under
the autism label graduate, however, almost every
available metric suggests many leave school
without the skills, experiences, supports, and
linkages that will prepare them well for college
and future careers (e.g., Carter, Austin, &
Trainor, 2012; Shattuck et al., 2012). For exam-
ple, up to 4 years after leaving high school, only
57% of young adults with autism spectrum dis-
order (ASD) have ever enrolled in any type of
postsecondary education, only 47% are cur-
rently employed, only 11% live independently,
and just 59% see friends outside of work or

school at least weekly (Newman, Wagner, Cam-
eto, & Knokey, 2009). Reflection on these post-
school outcomes is driving the field to consider
how secondary and transition services might be
optimally designed and delivered to meet the
needs of these adolescents.
Accompanying these calls has been grow-
ing recognition of the need for comprehensive
563703ECXXXX10.1177/0014402914563703Exceptional
ChildrenKucharczyk et al.
research-article2015
1University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
2University of Texas at Austin
3Vanderbilt University
Corresponding Author:
Suzanne Kucharczyk, EdD, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, Frank Porter Graham Child
Development Institute, Campus Box 8040, Chapel Hill,
NC 27599-8040, USA.
E-mail: [email protected]
Addressing the Needs of
Adolescents With Autism
Spectrum Disorder: Considerations
and Complexities for High School
Interventions
Suzanne Kucharczyk1, Colleen K. Reutebuch2,
Erik W. Carter3, Susan Hedges1, Farah El Zein2,
Hannah Fan3, and Jenny R. Gustafson3
Abstract
The outcomes of students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD)

are driving the field to address
how secondary education might be optimally designed and
delivered. We conducted 28 focus
groups across four states to explore the contexts,
considerations, and complexities associated
with delivering and combining evidence-based interventions to
meet the needs of adolescents
with ASD from the vantage point of 152 practitioners, parents,
and other key stakeholders.
Participants emphasized the inadequacy of prevailing
intervention approaches in secondary
schools, underscored the importance of attending to feasibility
and alignment with the diverse
needs of students with ASD, and stressed the need for broader
awareness and training efforts
surrounding autism. We offer recommendations for designing
comprehensive interventions and
incorporating stakeholder feedback into such undertakings.
330 Exceptional Children 81(3)
interventions that address the breadth of edu-
cational and transition needs experienced by
students with disabilities (Handleman & Har-
ris, 2006; Odom, Boyd, Hall, & Hume, 2010).
Although social-related challenges are among
the defining features of ASD, the needs of
adolescents with ASD are often more global
as they prepare to pursue goals in the areas of
postsecondary education, careers, community
participation, and independent living. In other
words, interventions addressing just one
dimension of students’ lives may be far too
narrow to produce substantial improvements

in the postschool outcomes of graduates with
ASD (Carter, Brock, & Trainor, 2014).
Although literature is replete with evaluations
of interventions addressing individual educa-
tional domains (e.g., social interactions, read-
ing, self-management) for elementary and
preschool students (Carter, Sisco, Chung, &
Stanton-Chapman, 2010; El Zein, Solis,
Vaughn, & McCulley, 2013), far less attention
has focused on adolescents. For example, a
recent meta-analysis by de Bruin, Deppeler,
Moore, and Diamond (2013) identified just
three areas (e.g., antecedent-, consequence-,
and video-based interventions) in which
strong evidence of intervention efficacy has
been found for secondary students with ASD.
In addition, a recent review of literature pub-
lished from 1990 to 2011 found three times
more intervention studies conducted with par-
ticipants with ASD ages 6 to 14 than ages 15 to
22 (Wong et al., 2013). Moreover, efforts to inte-
grate individual interventions into comprehen-
sive and coordinated packages at the secondary
level have been entirely absent (see review by
Odom, Collett-Klingenberg, Rogers, & Hatton,
2010).
When crafting such comprehensive school-
based interventions, it is critical they be
designed in ways that are feasible and accept-
able within typical high schools. Interventions
with strong evidence of efficacy—but limited
social validity—are likely to be delivered with
poor fidelity (if even delivered at all), espe-
cially as interventions gain more complexity
and engage more educational stakeholders.

Indeed the field has long lamented the
“research-to-practice gap” and has highlighted
inattention to the social validity of intervention
goals and procedures as a prominent contribut-
ing factor (e.g., Carnine, 1997). Yet a compre-
hensive review of the literature (using ERIC,
Academic Search Complete, and PsycINFO
databases) yielded no data on efforts to engage
critical stakeholders in informing the design
and delivery of comprehensive intervention
efforts for secondary students with ASD.
When crafting such comprehensive
school-based interventions, it is
critical they be designed in ways that
are feasible and acceptable within
typical high schools.
The Center on Secondary Education for
Students With Autism Spectrum Disorder
(CSESA) is a 5-year project funded to
develop, refine, and rigorously evaluate a
comprehensive intervention package aimed
at improving the in- and postschool out-
comes for youth with ASD. Our model com-
bines five individual intervention components
(i.e., evidence-based foundations, social
competence, academics, transition and fami-
lies, and adaptive behavior), each of which
has strong initial research support but has not
typically been delivered in tandem with the
others (see Odom, Duda, Kucharczyk, Cox,
& Stable, 2014, for a fuller description of the

proposed model and conceptual framework).
The foundational component involves pro-
fessional development to improve the quality
of program features for students with ASD
(National Professional Development Center
on ASD, 2011), establishment of meaningful
goals, and alignment of evidence-based prac-
tices with the individualized needs. The
social competence component incorporates
both peer-mediated support interventions to
foster social connections (Carter, Moss,
Hoffman, Chung, & Sisco, 2011) and group-
based training to teach targeted social skills
(Schmidt, Stichter, Lierheimer, McGhee, &
O’Connor, 2011; Carter, Commons, et al.,
2014). The academic component addresses
literacy comprehension either using a coop-
erative approach in core content areas or by
Kucharczyk et al. 331
making adaptations of the text and providing
systematic instruction (see Fleury et al.,
2014). The transition-and-families compo-
nent incorporates (a) student-level efforts
aimed at promoting student-led transition
planning and work-based learning, (b) fam-
ily-level strategies aimed at equipping par-
ents with knowledge about resources and
problem solving related to transition, and (c)
school- and community-level strategies
aimed at mapping existing transition-related
resources and opportunities (Test, Smith, &
Carter, 2014). Finally, the adaptive behavior

component focuses on planning and instruc-
tion related to promoting independence and
self-management. Within these five compo-
nents—each of which is elaborated upon in a
special issue of Remedial and Special Educa-
tion (Volume 35, Issue 2)—we intentionally
incorporate intervention variations to address
the needs of adolescents along the entire
autism spectrum.
In the first phase of our project, we devel-
oped initial iterations of each of these compo-
nents drawing upon the extant literature and
our own extensive intervention work with
schools. We then solicited feedback from crit-
ical stakeholders on the acceptability, feasibil-
ity, design, and anticipated impact of these
interventions. Recognizing that few studies
have explored the extent to which interven-
tion efforts have permeated the classrooms,
cafeterias, and other settings in which second-
ary and transition services are delivered (e.g.,
Wei, Wagner, Christiano, Shattuck, & Yu,
2013), we also sought their insights into
whether and how individual proposed com-
ponents were already being implemented in
secondary schools. Such information is criti-
cal to better understanding the settings in
which comprehensive interventions will be
introduced.
The purpose of this qualitative study is to
explore the contexts, considerations, and com-
plexities associated with delivering interven-
tions to meet the needs of high school students
with ASD from the vantage point of practitio-

ners, parents, and other key stakeholders. Spe-
cifically, we sought to address three questions:
First, how are the transition-related needs of
adolescents with ASD currently being
addressed in secondary schools? Second, what
considerations and challenges might arise—or
are anticipated—when implementing interven-
tions for adolescents with ASD? Third, what
professional development, resources, and sup-
ports are needed to address the transition-
related needs of adolescents with ASD well?
Method
We held 28 focus groups across four states
(i.e., North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wis-
consin). We selected focus group methodol-
ogy to gain insight into the perspectives of
multiple stakeholder groups on the experi-
ences of high school students with ASD as
well as their views of proposed interventions
to improve the relevance and impact of sec-
ondary and transition education. Focus groups
are ideal for identifying key issues and themes
in areas where little previous research exists
(Fontana & Frey, 2005). Since data are gener-
ated through facilitated discussion, focus
groups allow for perspectives to emerge in
ways not possible through methods focused
on individual, rather than group, perspectives
(e.g., interviews, surveys). These groups com-
prised parents of individuals with ASD, young
people with ASD, general educators, special
educators, administrators, related service pro-
viders, and community members. Member-

ship for each focus group was homogenous
based on participant roles (e.g., educators,
parents) to enhance group efficiency due to
shared experiences and to lessen social power
issues that could arise between groups. We
obtained institutional review board approval
at each university.
Participants and Recruitment
We recruited focus group participants purpose-
fully to ensure sufficient representation among
key stakeholder groups (Maxwell, 2012). We
invited educators, administrators, related ser-
vice providers, and community members who
had experience with high school students with
ASD and asked them to speak from the vantage
point of their professional role. Recruitment
materials included flyers and e-mails sent to
ASD advocacy groups, service providers,
schools, and electronic mailing lists for the uni-
versities and ASD-specific groups; direct con-
tacts; and flyers placed in community locations.
Two sites also used snowball sampling to iden-
tify additional potential participants from
already enrolled participants.
A total of 152 participants attended the 28
focus groups (see Table 1 for participant
demographics). The focus groups varied in
size from two to 11 participants (median = 5);

the largest stakeholder groups represented
across sites were parents and educators
(although only six youth with ASD partici-
pated in focus groups, we individually inter-
viewed 33 youth and young adults with ASD;
findings reported elsewhere in Bottema-
Beutel, Mullins, Harvey, Gustafson, & Carter,
2014). In addition to the 47 parent group par-
ticipants, 11 participants not in parent focus
groups (e.g., administrators, educators, ser-
vice providers) also reported having children
with ASD. The average age of their children
with ASD was 17.6 years (range 10–29 years).
Focus Group Process
Focus groups were facilitated by 11 university-
based personnel who had graduate degrees and
extensive experience working with individuals
with ASD. Focus group questions were
determined in collaboration with members of
the broader CSESA project team. To ensure
greater consistency in procedures across sites
and groups, facilitator training was led by an
expert in focus group methodology and
included development of the recruitment pro-
cess, questions, and materials presented to par-
ticipants as well as discussion of critical skills
of effective facilitators.
Although a core set of questions was asked
across all focus groups (see Table 2), sites also
incorporated questions specific to the CSESA
intervention components they were responsible
for developing. To ensure coverage of the five
CSESA intervention components described

earlier, nine focus groups addressed social
competence interventions, six addressed aca-
demic interventions, seven addressed transition
and family interventions, and seven addressed
Table 1. Focus Group Demographics.
Variable
Parents or
caregivers
Individuals
with ASD Educators Administrators
Service
provider or
community
member
All study
participants
Focus groups 10 1 9 5 3 28
n 47 6 45 30 24 152
Race or ethnicitya
Black 7 1 7 1 1 17
Hispanic 1 0 2 0 1 4
Multiracial 2 1 5 2 2 12
White 38 4 35 27 19 123
Gender
Female 45 1 38 27 22 133
Male 2 5 7 3 2 19
Age
18 or under 0 3 0 0 0 3
19–25 — 1 5 0 2 8

26–40 4 2 22 10 13 51
41–55 35 0 14 12 6 67
56 or over 8 0 4 8 3 23
Note. ASD = autism spectrum disorder.
aOne participant identified as “other,” one preferred not to
answer, and one identified as both Hispanic and White.
adaptive behavior interventions. (One group
addressed two components.) Examples of
intervention-specific questions include “Which
aspects of the proposed intervention strike you
as most and least promising for improving
‘social competence’?” and “How do you see
the transition and family component support-
ing your child or students’ overall educational
plan or goals?” All questions were semistruc-
tured and open-ended. At all sites, focus groups
included a description of the CSESA project
and the relevant intervention components.
These descriptions were supported by either a
PowerPoint presentation or a handout summa-
rizing the CSESA project and the intervention
components planned for that location. For the
remainder of the time, facilitators provided
the group with questions and guided discus-
sion. We provided additional supports (e.g., a
visual schedule of the focus group, clip art
embedded in PowerPoint to represent key
information) to young adults with ASD to
facilitate their participation.

Focus group locations varied across sites and
included universities, high schools, public librar-
ies, a school district administration building, and
a state disability agency. Present at each focus
group was a facilitator, a note taker, and at least
one additional person to handle logistics and
recording. Participants introduced themselves
using pseudonyms and provided information on
their experiences related to ASD. Facilitators
took notes, as described in the facilitator training
(e.g., use the words of the participant rather than
paraphrase, use short quotes), or summarized
discussions for focus group members. Partici-
pants were encouraged to dispute facilitators’
summarized interpretations, clarify their own
thoughts, and expand on a presented idea. Ses-
sions varied in length from approximately 1 to 2
hr (M = 93 min). We provided light snacks and
some sites provided stipends (i.e., $25–$60). All
focus groups were audio recorded, and one site
video recorded. Summaries of the key focus
group findings were subsequently shared with
participants.
Data Analysis
We adopted a multistep, team-based approach
to analyze data collected across the 28 focus
groups. Our coding team included eight mem-
bers working across three universities. We
revisited and refined our initial research ques-
tions (described previously) as a team after all
focus groups were completed but before
launching the coding process. We adopted
these research questions to directly inform the

design and delivery of a comprehensive inter-
vention package as well as to suggest salient
directions for other researchers undertaking
intervention efforts focused on the transition
and secondary education of students with
ASD.
After deidentifying all transcripts and pre-
paring our documents for analyses within
Table 2. Core Focus Group Questions.
1. What might be missing from this intervention approach that
you think ought to be added? Why?
2. How might this approach look similar or different for
students all along the autism spectrum?
3. To what extent are the proposed elements already being
implemented with students in your
schools?
a. If they are being implemented: What suggests to you that
these strategies are working well? What
suggests they are not?
b. If they are not being implemented: Why not? What stands in
the way?
4. What potential challenges might arise when trying to
implement this approach consistently (i.e., with
fidelity) in your school? What steps can we take now to
circumvent these potential challenges?
5. How would implementing this intervention align with other
intervention strategies you are already
implementing for students with autism?

6. What training, resources, coaching, and support would school
staff need to implement this
intervention well? How would that best be delivered?
7. As we implement this national center, what resources,
supports, and information ought we consider
developing? How might we best share what we are learning
back with you?
NVivo10 (2012), coding proceeded using a
constant comparative approach (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985). We established three pairs of
coders who each assumed lead responsibility
for coding all transcripts in light of one of our
three research questions. We first selected five
transcripts from focus groups involving dif-
ferent stakeholder groups and addressing dif-
ferent transition domains. Each coding pair
examined these same five data sources to
form and define initial categories for analysis
(e.g., “positive indicators,” “negative indica-
tors,” “training for whom,” “barriers to train-
ing”). Segments of each transcript—ranging
from a single sentence to several paragraphs—
were coded and tentatively categorized. Within
each pair, team members independently gener-
ated categories and then met together to com-
pare, collapse, or refine their codes through
discussion and revisiting the transcripts. After
developing an initial coding framework and
associated definitions for each question, the
pairs shared their emerging findings with the

entire team for critical feedback and alternative
considerations. Once revisions were made to
the initial coding frameworks (e.g., greater
definition, and thus differentiation, was given
to codes related to implementation and profes-
sional development), the pairs continued their
analyses by individually examining half of all
remaining focus group transcripts. The process
of comparing and combining categories again
occurred within pairs for each question, and
feedback was subsequently provided by the
entire coding team. After additional revisions
were made (e.g., reorganizing themes, clarify-
ing definitions, collapsing categories)—some
of which were substantial—the pairs com-
pleted independent coding of all remaining
transcripts and again met to come to consensus.
Feedback on each pair’s work was again pro-
vided by the entire coding team, and all tran-
scripts were re-reviewed against the final
coding framework.
In addition to identifying and defining
themes aligned with each of our research
questions, we also analyzed the extent to
which references supporting these codes
appeared across stakeholder groups (i.e., edu-
cators, administrators, parents, youth with
ASD, service providers, community mem-
bers) and transition domains (i.e., social com-
petence, academics, transition planning and
families, adaptive behavior). Although counts
of data falling under individual categories do
not always correspond to the attention and
weight given to each by participants, we were

interested in gauging the degree to which key
issues were raised within and across groups
(see Tables 3 to 5). These frequencies helped
us detect patterns, discern issues emphasized
by participants, and collapse codes, but we
interpreted participants’ meanings by ground-
ing data in context rather than by relying
exclusively on those counts (Huberman &
Miles, 1994). Thus, Tables 3 through 5 dis-
play the number of references to each code,
the number of different focus groups in which
each code was raised, the number of times
each code was raised in relation to our four
intervention components, and the number of
times each code was raised by each group.
Involving participants with a
range of perspectives, experiences,
and geographic locales provided
multiple opportunities to triangulate
our research findings within and across
focus groups.
As described earlier, we took care to ensure
our analyses were both rigorous and reflective
by attending to quality indicators (Brantlinger,
Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach, & Richardson,
2005; Maxwell, 2012). Involving participants
with a range of perspectives, experiences, and
geographic locales provided multiple opportu-
nities to triangulate our research findings
within and across focus groups (Creswell,
2007). Peer debriefing was undertaken at mul-
tiple points throughout the coding process to

offer additional critique of assumptions and
conclusions. In addition, we presented our ini-
tial findings to 152 stakeholders at a national
autism conference and solicited their feedback.
335
T
a
b
le
3
.
C
o
di
ng
b
y
C
o
m
po
ne
nt
s

an
d
St
ak
eh
o
ld
er
s
fo
r
R
es
ea
rc
h
Q
ue
st
io
n
1.
T
o

ta
l r
ef
er
en
ce
s
by
C
SE
SA
c
o
m
po
ne
nt
T
o
ta
l r
ef
er
en

ce
s
by
s
ta
ke
ho
ld
er
g
ro
up
T
he
m
e
T
o
ta
l
re
fe
re
nc
es

D
iff
er
en
t
gr
o
up
s
A
C
T
F
A
B
SC
Y
F
E
A
SC
Ex
te

nt
o
f
m
ee
ti
ng
n
ee
ds
Po
si
ti
ve
in
di
ca
to
rs
16
8
3
6

2
7
0
9
6
1
0
N
eg
at
iv
e
in
di
ca
to
rs
N
o
t
ad
dr

es
se
d
at
a
ll
54
15
12
15
5
23
2
33
16
0
3
N
o
t
ad
dr

es
se
d
ef
fe
ct
iv
el
y
49
17
5
18
12
14
0
28
13
2
6
In
co
ns

is
te
nt
ly
w
it
hi
n
sc
ho
o
ls
19
12
4
2
5
8
0
8
3
5
3

N
o
t
pr
io
ri
ti
ze
d
17
11
6
4
0
7
0
8
8
0
1
N
o
lo

ng
er
a
dd
re
ss
ed
16
10
2
1
1
12
0
9
3
0
4
In
co
ns
is
te
nt

ly
a
cr
o
ss
s
ch
o
o
ls
10
8
1
3
2
4
0
4
5
0
1
N

o
t
ad
dr
es
se
d
ea
rl
y
en
o
ug
h
7
5
0
4
2
1
0
5
2
0
0

In
co
ns
is
te
nt
ly
a
cr
o
ss
s
tu
de
nt
s
4
4
1
1
1
1
0

1
2
0
1
Pr
o
vi
de
rs
o
f
se
rv
ic
es
a
nd
s
up
po
rt
s
Pe
er

s
42
13
0
0
8
34
2
10
16
3
11
G
en
er
al
e
du
ca
to
rs
36
15

11
3
14
8
3
17
11
5
0
Fa
m
ily
m
em
be
rs
19
11
2
4
4
9
0

15
2
1
1
Sp
ec
ia
l e
du
ca
to
rs
17
11
2
2
9
4
0
3
9
3
2

Sp
ec
ia
lis
ts
o
ut
si
de
o
f
sc
ho
o
l
17
11
0
5
5
7
0
10
5

2
0
A
dm
in
is
tr
at
o
rs
9
7
1
0
3
5
1
2
5
1
0
A

du
lt
s
er
vi
ce
s
9
5
0
6
3
0
0
1
7
1
0
C
o
un
se
lo

rs
8
6
0
1
5
2
2
1
2
2
1
Jo
b
co
ac
he
s
6
4
0
4
1

1
0
1
5
0
0
R
el
at
ed
s
er
vi
ce
p
ro
vi
de
rs
6
5
1
1

3
1
0
2
1
2
1
Pa
ra
pr
o
fe
ss
io
na
ls
3
2
1
0
0
2
0
1

0
0
2
A
du
lt
s
(n
o
ns
pe
ci
fic
)
12
8
1
3
4
4
3
2
4

0
3
O
th
er
p
er
so
nn
el
8
6
2
1
1
4
0
6
1
1
0
(c
on

tin
ue
d)
336
T
o
ta
l r
ef
er
en
ce
s
by
C
SE
SA
c
o
m
po
ne

nt
T
o
ta
l r
ef
er
en
ce
s
by
s
ta
ke
ho
ld
er
g
ro
up
T
he
m
e

T
o
ta
l
re
fe
re
nc
es
D
iff
er
en
t
gr
o
up
s
A
C
T
F
A
B
SC

Y
F
E
A
SC
A
ve
nu
es
o
f
se
rv
ic
es
Fo
rm
al
p
ro
gr
am

s
65
27
7
12
20
26
2
15
28
7
13
A
cc
o
m
m
o
da
ti
o
ns
35
12

20
1
11
3
2
13
15
5
0
IE
P
an
d
pl
an
ni
ng
26
14
0
13
7
6

0
11
9
5
1
In
di
vi
du
al
iz
ed
in
te
rv
en
ti
o
ns
22
11
6
2

11
3
0
5
13
3
1
In
ci
de
nt
al
ly
a
dd
re
ss
ed
18
9
1
0
7

10
6
5
4
1
2
In
fo
rm
at
io
n
sh
ar
in
g
17
9
0
10
6
1
0

2
9
5
1
G
ro
up
in
te
rv
en
ti
o
ns
13
9
0
1
5
7
0
4
6
1

2
C
o
m
m
un
it
y-
ba
se
d
in
st
ru
ct
io
n
12
7
0
9
2
1

0
7
4
1
0
G
en
er
ic
s
up
po
rt
s
8
6
1
4
2
1
2
5
0

1
0
A
ca
de
m
ic
s
up
po
rt
6
5
3
1
1
1
0
2
3
1
0

C
o
lla
bo
ra
ti
o
n
w
it
h
ex
te
rn
al
s
o
ur
ce
s
4
2
0
2
2

0
0
0
2
2
0
A
ss
es
sm
en
ts
3
3
0
2
1
0
0
1
2
0
0

Em
be
dd
ed
in
g
en
er
al
c
ur
ri
cu
lu
m
2
2
1
0
1
0
0
0

1
1
0
Sc
ho
o
lw
id
e
ed
uc
at
io
na
l e
ffo
rt
s
1
1
0
0
0

1
0
0
0
0
1
O
th
er
a
ve
nu
es
15
5
6
1
0
8
0
8
0
6

1
N
ot
e.
C
SE
SA
=
C
en
te
r
o
n
Se
co
nd
ar
y
Ed
uc
at
io
n

fo
r
St
ud
en
ts
W
it
h
A
ut
is
m
S
pe
ct
ru
m
D
is
o
rd
er
; A
C

=
a
ca
de
m
ic
s;
T
F
=
t
ra
ns
it
io
n
an
d
fa
m
ili
es
; A
B

=
a
da
pt
iv
e
be
ha
vi
o
r;
S
C
=
s
o
ci
al
co
m
pe
te
nc

e;
Y
=
y
o
ut
h
w
it
h
au
ti
sm
s
pe
ct
ru
m
d
is
o
rd
er
; F
=

f
am
ili
es
; E
=
e
du
ca
to
rs
; A
=
a
dm
in
is
tr
at
o
rs
; S
C
=
s

er
vi
ce
p
ro
vi
de
rs
o
r
co
m
m
un
it
y
m
em
be
rs
; I
EP
=
in

di
vi
du
al
iz
ed
e
du
ca
ti
o
n
pr
o
gr
am
.
T
a
b
le
3
.
(c
o

nd
in
ue
d)
Findings: Research
Question 1
Stakeholders addressed (a) the extent to which
needs of adolescents with ASD were addressed
in secondary schools and (b) the specific ave-
nues through which this occurred.
Extent to Which Schools Are
Addressing the Needs of Youth With
ASD
Stakeholders offered myriad positive and
negative descriptions of the extent to which
secondary schools were meeting the needs of
adolescents with ASD (see Table 3).
Positive Indicators. Of the 192 references we
coded related to this question, just 16 reflected
a view that the efforts of schools were effec-
tive, relevant, or produced positive student
outcomes. One parent stated, “We are clearly
having an entirely different experience. Ours
is sort of beyond wonderful. . . . They’re defi-
nitely hitting on these goals, at least with my

child.” Although some positive mention was
made related to all four intervention compo-
nents, much variability existed across stake-
holder groups, with parents highlighting
successful efforts of schools more often than
other groups.
Negative Indicators. The overwhelming message
of these stakeholders was that schools were
inadequately addressing the educational needs
of students with ASD (176 references; see Table
3). Some participants indicated no efforts were
being made to address specific components,
whereas others lamented the general ineffective-
ness of existing programming.
Nonexistent efforts. Numerous references
were made to the overall absence of efforts
within high schools to meet particular needs of
adolescents with ASD. In some groups, high
school was said to mark the point at which
attention to these issues ceased, whereas oth-
ers intimated such an emphasis had never truly
been part of educational services. As noted by
an educator and a parent, respectively, “I’m
seeing a whole lot of that [social skills] falling
to the wayside come middle school and then
high school,” and “The school that we go to
now is a completely neurotypical school. To
my knowledge, it doesn’t have any programs
for kids on the spectrum. So, we’re in cold
turkey.”
The overwhelming message of
these stakeholders was that schools

were inadequately addressing the
educational needs of students with
ASD.
Ineffective efforts. A pervasive view across
component areas and stakeholder groups
was that existing efforts were ineffective.
Multiple reasons were proffered. First, other
educational demands were said to receive
precedence over efforts to meet the needs of
students with ASD. For example, pressure to
promote academic achievement trumped an
emphasis on social needs, and overwhelming
paperwork left little time for instruction. One
educator shared,
I think teachers have so many things on them
and so many benchmarks that they have to meet
that sometimes, that [social success] is not a
priority at the high school. It’s more the
academics and getting them through and getting
their credits.
Second, limited resources were cited as some-
times preventing particular needs from being
fully addressed. In some cases, fiscal resources
were constrained. Other times, the paucity of
staff and the lack of training made it difficult
to deliver needed interventions. The com-
ments of one parent illustrated this point:
“The education system is so far behind and
underfunded. He only got speech for 15 min-
utes, once a month. That’s because there aren’t
enough therapists to go around. And that all
goes back to the money.”

Third, some stakeholders voiced concerns
about the consistency with which needed
services and interventions were provided to
students with ASD. The phrase “it depends on .
. .” captures a recurring sentiment. Some par-
ticipants (n = 4) felt the quality of services
depended on the disability severity of stu-
dents, noting a lack of consistency in what
students across the spectrum received. A
larger number of comments (n = 19) focused
on inconsistencies observed within schools
based on which teacher, class, or program a
student accessed. For example, a parent
observed, “It is very person dependent. Some-
times we had teachers who would help us
around the system that were not very friendly.”
Other comments (n = 10) highlighted school-
to-school variability, suggesting differences in
educational services had more to do with
where a student attended rather than his or her
individualized needs. One service provider
reflected,
If you’re lucky, there’s at least one person in a
school that’s willing to address that [needs of
adolescents with ASD]. You can go to School A
at this end of the road and School B at this end
of the road, and you have completely different
views about what autism and what goes with it
looks like.

Avenues Through Which Schools Are
Addressing the Needs of Youth With
ASD
Despite expressing overall disappointment
with the responsiveness of schools to the
needs of adolescents with ASD, these stake-
holders did share specific avenues through
which needs were being addressed. We high-
light findings about (a) who is said involved
in addressing these needs and (b) the particu-
lar pathways through which services and sup-
ports are delivered.
Providers of Services and Supports. The breadth of
individuals identified as being involved in the
addressing the comprehensive needs of students
with ASD was striking (see Table 3). These indi-
viduals were sometimes described as being part
of an overarching team, as suggested by one
educator: “It’s a team effort, tapping into these
connections. We have to tap into the connections
the parents have, everybody.” Most often, indi-
viduals were mentioned in isolation of one
another. The prominent mention of peers was
especially intriguing, although this was primar-
ily limited to discussion of the social compe-
tence and adaptive behavior components.
Similarly, general educators were often men-
tioned as critical and prominent players in the
education of students with ASD, raising impor-
tant considerations about how best to equip
these staff to meet the diverse needs of students

in their classrooms. Perhaps most surprising to
us was the limited mention of the involvement
of paraprofessionals. Despite the prominent role
they play in the education of adolescents with
severe disabilities, paraprofessionals were
explicitly mentioned only three times. One
teacher noted, “I see a lot of adults providing the
supports, especially paraprofessionals who are
prompting conversations with both typical stu-
dents as well as students with disabilities.”
Avenues of Service and Support Provision. Par-
ticipants identified myriad ways in which the
needs of students with ASD were addressed
(see Table 3). A variety of structured or formal
programs were the most commonly men-
tioned avenues. These included peer-mediated
programs (e.g., peer supports, peer buddy
groups), formal seminars, and other orienta-
tion events. For example, one parent high-
lighted the benefits of a program in which his
child was involved:
They’re doing freshman seminar at the school
that my son goes to. And what they’re teaching
are life skills in freshman seminar. That
freshman year was very enlightening and
comforting for me because it also helped him
transition for that first year, because your world
is just rocked when you first step foot on that
high school campus. And his was. And so, they
do a lot to kind of support the kids and make
sure that they get to their classes and have
everything that they need.
The provision of individualized accommoda-

tions and interventions, including the individual-
ized education program (IEP), were also
mentioned often. For example, self-monitoring
checklists, specific seating arrangements, and
other self-management strategies were all cited
by participants. An administrator noted, “Some
students have FBAs [functional behavior assess-
ments] and BIPs [behavior intervention plans].
We’re doing a lot of Google docs for collecting
data and monitoring behavior now across set-
tings with the teachers. That’s been very help-
ful.” Similarly, many respondents addressed
planning meetings as the context through which
students’ needs were met. A special educator
highlighted, “An IEP team meeting—that’s
where all of this has to come down to. It’s a lot
of work . . . but the end result is that the student
is supported in the co-teaching and in the school
setting.”
Findings: Research
Question 2
We asked focus groups about the consider-
ations and challenges that arise—or are
anticipated—when implementing interven-
tions for adolescents with ASD. Stakeholders
raised several issues associated with the pro-
posed implementation of the four proposed
intervention components (see Table 4). We
defined considerations and challenges as

potential obstacles to implementation of inter-
ventions for adolescents with ASD. These
obstacles originated from three distinct sources:
(a) agency authorities (i.e., prominent school or
district, state, and federal leaders or administra-
tors in positions responsible for interpreting
and executing policies and procedures as well
as for allocating funding and making funding
decisions regarding resources, personnel, and
services), (b) environmental contexts (i.e., the
settings and conditions under which interven-
tions are implemented), and (c) curricular pri-
orities (i.e., decisions regarding skills and
instructional priorities identified to maximize
student potential). For example, challenges
stemming from persons of authority include
adopting “all-or-nothing” service models
across disabilities as well as achievement stan-
dards. In terms of environmental contexts,
issues included the inconsistency of teacher
and support staff skills and knowledge across
education settings and content areas. Finally, in
relation to curricular priorities (i.e., decisions
regarding skills and instructional priorities),
impediments included addressing core symp-
toms of ASD (e.g., social interaction and com-
munication skills) while failing to address
academics or focusing solely on academics
while neglecting behavior and communication.
However, most prominent were concerns
related to implementation and sustainability,
including (a) the feasibility of intervention
efforts and (b) the challenges related to the het-
erogeneity of students with ASD. Each is elab-
orated on next.

Table 4. Coding by Components and Stakeholders for Research
Question 2.
Total references
by CSESA component
Total references by
stakeholder group
Theme
Total
references
Different
groups AC TF AB SC Y F E A SC
Feasibility 430 40 77 92 152 107 0 75 274 47 20
Autism
variability
220 28 47 34 38 90 1 89 90 19 11
Agency 109 23 6 33 32 29 3 60 26 15 5
Environmental
context
100 24 16 15 32 37 7 33 39 14 7
Curriculum
priorities
82 19 16 8 39 17 15 13 38 12 4
Note. CSESA = Center on Secondary Education for Students
With Autism Spectrum Disorder; AC = academics; TF =

transition and families; AB = adaptive behavior; SC = social
competence; Y = youth with autism spectrum disorder;
F = families; E = educators; A = administrators; SC = service
providers or community members.
Feasibility of Implementation
Overall, concern about the feasibility of the
proposed interventions was high. Specifically,
the viability of the components being carried
out as prescribed without much difficulty was
raised more than 400 times, particularly in
relation to the adaptive behavior component
and by educators. Participants acknowledged
feasibility would be influenced by the skill
level and willingness of professionals to pro-
vide interventions as designed within the
confines of available time and resources.
One service provider lamented, “There is
always a challenge with school staff because
they are already short [staffed] and over-
worked basically.”
A special educator expressed her
concern, saying, “I have to make a
choice about how much effort I put
into ensuring it’s implemented
with fidelity.
“Buy-in” of the interventions and the addi-
tional time, effort, and alteration of educa-

tional plans in place were also noted as
obstacles to feasibility, especially if educators
are skeptical about the likelihood of achieving
improved student outcomes. A special educa-
tor expressed her concern, saying, “I have to
make a choice about how much effort I put
into ensuring it’s implemented with fidelity. I
have to know if I do it as directed, I’m more
likely to get results.” Parents worried that any
success would be limited if educators and
administrators did not commit fully to pro-
posed interventions. As one parent noted,
“People don’t understand well enough to buy
in, or maybe they are not certain that it would
even be a successful thing to do. I could see
that being something that might hinder them
[school personnel] from helping it work.”
Interestingly, participating educators and
both school- and district-level administrators
also worried about feasibility being affected
negatively by limited parent buy-in. A behav-
ioral specialist expressed the importance of
parent support, claiming, “Parent buy-in can
often lead to everyone else giving buy-in in
our system.” Not surprisingly, parents wanted
interventions with functional applications that
made sense to them. For example, an educator
shared why one parent was not in favor of aca-
demic intervention: “You are trying to get my
kids to read Grapes of Wrath when they don’t
know how to brush their teeth.”
Variability of Autism

The challenges related to designing interven-
tions to address the wide-ranging needs of stu-
dents with ASD were frequently raised,
particularly in relation to the social competence
component as well as by many educators and
parents. For example, a classroom teacher
wondered how professionals would select the
right intervention and level of support:
I guess part of it is going to be depending on where
they’re [students with ASD] at on the spectrum
and how much support they need. Some students
might need lots of support and one-on-one
teaching and on-going practice where some might
pick it up after one or two times.
A parent of a child with ASD summed up the
main difficulty in designing and planning
interventions that target high school students
with ASD, saying, “Our kids, they’re all over
the place.” Another added,
These individuals that are classified as ASD . . .
it really is a huge spectrum. And that to me is the
most troubling aspect. What you are trying to
tackle here—you have folks that are extremely
bright—some that would not be classified,
maybe your low IQ—you just have a huge gamut
of issues that you’re trying to deal with.
There was strong consensus that the varied
profile of individuals with ASD will require
interventions components to be tailored to
individuals. They further expressed fear in a
“one-size-fits-all” approach to implementation.
One service provider highlighted why a range

of needs must be addressed: “The college-
bound student is not going to be working on
the same things as a student that is non-verbal
and had an IQ of 30.”
Table 5. Coding by Components and Stakeholders for Research
Question 3.
Total references
by CSESA component
Total references
by stakeholder group
Theme
Total
references
Different
groups AC TF AB SC Y F E A SC
Training topics
Autism 109 19 9 16 13 68 0 55 20 4 19
Individual
intervention
components
77 21 7 17 13 38 0 25 22 14 13
Evidence-based
practices

16 11 2 5 5 5 0 6 6 1 2
Other 53 15 3 16 14 19 0 6 6 0 2
Training for whom
General
educators
70 20 10 8 20 28 1 26 21 7 8
Peers 58 11 2 2 2 48 0 22 13 0 17
Special
educators and
related services
54 6 3 8 16 23 1 22 12 3 9
Parents 53 17 6 30 4 14 0 17 12 21 1
Whole school 42 11 5 5 5 31 0 17 14 0 8
Students with
ASD
32 14 4 10 7 14 0 13 7 6 5
Administrators 16 10 3 3 2 10 0 4 7 0 4
Community
members
12 6 0 0 0 12 0 8 2 0 2
Employers 5 3 1 4 0 1 0 4 1 0 0
Others 19 8 1 2 2 15 0 10 4 0 5
Barriers to and
supports for

training
0
Investment in
or support of
training
23 13 5 8 3 8 0 6 10 5 2
Resistance 18 10 0 7 2 7 0 9 5 1 1
Overwhelmed
by other
commitments
14 7 1 7 1 5 0 4 3 7 0
Administrative
support
11 8 1 0 2 7 0 2 7 0 1
Lack of
knowledge
11 8 1 3 5 3 0 6 4 1 0
PD and training
incentives
9 4 0 4 0 4 0 6 0 2 0
Individualized
needs

8 2 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 7 1
“Things that are
hard to teach”
7 7 0 2 3 2 1 2 2 1 1
Lack of training
opportunity
6 6 1 2 2 1 0 2 3 1 0
Note. CSESA = Center on Secondary Education for Students
With Autism Spectrum Disorder; AC = academics;
TF = transition and families; AB = adaptive behavior; SC =
social competence; Y = youth with autism spectrum
disorder; F = families; E = educators; A = administrators; SC =
service providers or community members; ASD =
autism spectrum disorder; PD = professional development.
Stakeholders also indicated that how adoles-
cents view their autism and its impact may
impede the success of certain interventions. One
educator noted, “I think you might have a harder
time convincing kids with Asperger that they
have social deficits that they are willing to work
on versus kids who might be a little bit more
aware of where their deficits are.” Ana, a high
school student with ASD, shared,
When I was a sophomore, I was put with kids
who have ADHD [attention deficit hyperactivity

disorder] and stuff, which for me made me feel
like I was retarded. Because I was put with
other kids with disabilities and I’m like what is
this . . . a classroom or an institution?
Moreover, a mother suggested that her son
had enough issues being a high school student
and would not want any part of an interven-
tion that singles him out to peers who could be
less than kind or not accepting of differences.
Another parent further asserted apprehensions
over his son’s right to privacy in concealing
his ASD:
Speaking for my own son, and I know that there
are other people with autism like this in high
school, I mean, he doesn’t want anyone to
know. He still doesn’t. He’s 20. He doesn’t want
anyone to know he has autism. He would be
mortified if he thought that the teacher was
telling other kids and trying to train them to
help him as a person with autism.
Findings: Research
Question 3
We asked all stakeholders (with the exception
of youth) to share their perspectives on what
training, resources, coaching, and other pro-
fessional development support high schools
would need to implement the various inter-
ventions. Although a number of issues were
raised (see Table 5), we highlight themes
related to (a) broad professional development
needs related to general awareness about ASD
and needs of students across the spectrum, (b)

professional development specifically for
general educators, and (c) concerns about
delivering this training.
Awareness of Autism Across
Stakeholders
Collectively, stakeholders expressed a strong
need for developing knowledge related to
autism, the individual interventions that
would make up the CSESA package, general
evidence-based practices, and other topics
(e.g., sexuality, relationships, independence,
self-management, available services for ado-
lescents with ASD). Although all groups were
asked direct questions by facilitators about
training and professional development needs
related to the individual components planned
for their site, the groups also expanded on the
critical need for professional development and
training to increase awareness about ASD and
the needs of students across the spectrum. This
need for awareness of ASD was discussed
across all component-specific focus groups.
Stakeholders described the difficulties faced by
students when school staff, peers, and others
hold assumptions of ASD based on their per-
sonal experiences or limited information. They
described challenges resulting when assump-
tions did not align with actual needs.
Overall, parents felt teachers understood
the needs of some students with ASD but not
others (e.g., with or without severe disabili-
ties). Some parents described the incongruity
between teachers’ expectations and their

child’s inability to meet those expectations.
One parent shared,
I think that for my son in particular, there was
always a disconnect with his IQ and his other
deficits that he had. The teachers, even though
they knew his diagnosis, would see him as more
capable than he actually was, or that they would
see him as lazy, or stubborn, or whatever.
Another parent shared, “My son is on the
Aspie [Asperger’s syndrome] side, so he’s
high-functioning intelligent. They get the intel-
ligence mixed up with the Asperger’s, and they
don’t understand. ‘If you are so smart, why
can’t you understand this?’” Educators often
echoed the concerns of parents, recognizing
gaps in the knowledge of other school mem-
bers which they perceived would negatively
affect their school’s ability to meet students’
needs. One special educator reflected,
We really have to be strong advocates because of
the ignorance about autism. Even with our
administration sometimes—they don’t know a lot
about autism or they have misconceptions or they
don’t understand the spectrum or they think
because it’s a higher functioning student that they
don’t have a lot of needs that a lower functioning
student might have that’s more obvious.

A majority of focus groups raised the need for
schoolwide autism awareness training. This
need specifically included peers who do not
have ASD. One service provider encapsulated
the need for other high school students to bet-
ter understand ASD in saying,
There has to be training for the typical students
or the regular education peers because now
there’s bullying with everything, even with
students that look different, but especially with
someone (with) autism, people don’t always
know. I mean they don’t stand out, they don’t
look different . . . so students may not be
sensitive to reading how to adapt their behavior.
It’s an invisible disability.
Professional Development and
Training Related to Autism for
General Educators
Although the need for autism awareness
emerged as an issue for all of those who inter-
act with and educate high school students with
ASD, it was considered most critical for gen-
eral educators.
Many special educators felt the limited
knowledge of ASD held by general educators
affected their ability to collaborate on imple-
menting interventions for students with ASD.
One special educator shared her sister’s expe-
rience:
My sister’s a regular education teacher and she’ll
get these IEPs and have all these goals and

modifications she needs to do and these
combinations. She doesn’t know if the kid is
learning disabled, if they have autism, if they
have intellectual disability . . . so she has a lack of
knowledge across the board. She doesn’t know
how to address his need, just what the goals are.
As described earlier, parents noted a dis-
connect between their child’s behavior, learn-
ing difficulties, social issues, and teachers’
ability to recognize these as challenges related
to the child’s ASD and address them accord-
ingly. One parent described her role in educat-
ing teachers:
I think most regular ed [education] teachers
have a very limited knowledge of autism in
general. I think it’s going to be very different for
the self-contained classrooms, the [vocational
instruction] teachers . . . anything that my kid’s
teachers knew, it was because of me. We bugged
them, bugged them, and bugged them.
Parents and educators described their con-
fusion in understanding the role of general
educators in relation to students on the spec-
trum. One parent shared her frustration:
The only time I heard from the school was when
something happened. I think there is a lot of
mainstream teachers passing it off on “that is on
the special education teacher to figure out, sort
through, deal with” and when he is in the
classroom, he is a mainstream kid and we do not
have to recognize or deal with the autism. If he

has a problem, we will send him out of the
classroom.
An educator echoed this frustration when
asked how best to communicate professional
development expectations across school pro-
fessionals:
. . . thinking about high school content teachers
who are not going to assume that it’s their
responsibility to go through modules about how
to teach . . . even though we would hope they
would want to do everything they can, in reality,
it’s not clear it’s their job.
Data across stakeholders revealed that the
need for understanding of ASD and interven-
tions specific to ASD was particularly great
for general educators, and addressing this
need could have a particularly positive impact
on the experiences of students with ASD.
Additionally, confusion existed about the
roles and responsibilities of all educators spe-
cific to students with ASD.
Barriers to Professional
Development and Training
We asked focus group participants to consider
the potential challenges to implementation of
the individual intervention components we

were planning as well as interventions for stu-
dents on the spectrum in general. Across stake-
holder groups, issues were raised related to
resistance from teachers; difficulty in getting
“buy-in” from school staff, peers, parents, and
adolescents with ASD; the importance of
administrator support; the importance of incen-
tives for time spent learning to implement new
interventions and encouraging parent participa-
tion; lack of foundational knowledge about
teaching students with disabilities; current
learning opportunities; and the idea that there is
simply “too much” to do. Too much also
described those situations when schools and
educators feel torn between various mandated
priorities or those to which they have chosen to
attend to in their work. One educator summa-
rized this concern well:
I’m thinking about even with autism training in
general, teachers have a lot. They have the
whole staff. They have so many things. Yes,
they do have students with autism, but they
have students with a lot of disabilities, and they
have students with ESL [English as a second
language]. They have a lot. You have to be
careful about how much you expect, and I know
that we want teachers to be trained, all staff to
be trained. I guess, that for some, it’s going to
be more the awareness, and if they’re working
with these students, maybe it’s going to be more
specific training.
Additionally, parents, another group with “too
much” on their plates, were identified as hav-
ing limited buy-in to training absent an imme-

diate concern. A parent validated this concern:
I think getting parents to come is also a problem. I
have been involved in things where we try to get
parents to come to trainings and things and they
don’t come. Trying to get people in. They don’t
come until they realize, “Oh my gosh, wait!”
Related to this issue of “too much,” focus
group participants expressed an overall con-
cern about gaining buy-in and combating
resistance for professional development and
training that is targeted to meet the needs of a
relatively small percentage of the school pop-
ulation. Groups suggested gaining buy-in
through direct compensation, giving certifica-
tions to participating educators, being creative
in finding opportunities for parents to partici-
pate, and illustrating to educators and admin-
istrators how resources and knowledge would
positively affect all students.
Existing intervention efforts
were described as ineffective or
inconsistent, and there was general con-
sensus that suitable programs and transi-
tion services were few and far between.
Discussion
Despite the persistence of dismal outcomes
for young people with ASD, limited attention
has focused on considerations related to the
design and delivery of intervention efforts in
high school for these young people. Several

themes received particular prominence across
these 28 focus group conversations. First, par-
ticipants felt strongly that secondary schools
were insufficiently addressing the educational
needs of adolescents with ASD. Existing
intervention efforts were described as ineffec-
tive or inconsistent, and there was general
consensus that suitable programs and transi-
tion services were few and far between.
Second, stakeholders affirmed the impor-
tance of (and challenges with) ensuring inter-
ventions are both feasible to implement and
responsive to the diversity of educational
needs among students with ASD. Third, stake-
holders advocated for undertaking concerted
efforts to promote greater awareness of and
knowledge about ASD for all stakeholders,
including general educators. At the same time,
they acknowledged myriad barriers to effec-
tive professional development (e.g., compet-
ing professional demands; limited time, funds,
and buy-in; pressures to address standards).
Although knowledge of effective interven-
tions for adolescents with ASD is emerging,
the ability to support translation into day-to-
day practice continues to lag (Greenwood &
Abbott, 2001).
Stakeholders consistently
expressed strong concern that a “one-

size-fits-all-students-with-autism”
approach to intervention was fraught
with limitations.
Collectively, these findings highlight sev-
eral critical needs at the intersection of
research and practice. First, concerted and
coordinated intervention efforts are sorely
needed within secondary schools. Across all
focus groups, stakeholders lamented the
absence of compelling educational and transi-
tion programming aimed at meeting the
diverse needs of high school students with
ASD. Although myriad factors may contrib-
ute to this perceived landscape, two issues
warrant further attention. One is the lack of
intervention practices rigorously evaluated at
the high school level. Almost every system-
atic literature review addressing students with
ASD illustrates the limited attention given to
youth and young adults in high schools (e.g.,
Carter et al., 2010; El Zein et al., 2013). Edu-
cators currently lack a strong, research-based
foundation upon which to guide their inter-
vention decisions.
Second, efforts to implement comprehen-
sive intervention efforts at the high school level
require careful consideration of how best to
integrate the perspectives and practices of
numerous stakeholders. The sheer number of
different individuals whose involvement (or
support) is needed to address sufficiently each
intervention component across multiple set-

tings was described as daunting. Although this
concern is not altogether different from provid-
ing services to students served under other spe-
cial education categories, it does reinforce the
importance of efforts aimed at ensuring all of
these stakeholders are equipped with the com-
mitment, skills, and strategies needed to be
involved effectively in intervention efforts.
Moreover, it raises questions about how best to
identify venues that enable these professionals
to plan collaboratively. Identifying effective
pathways for professionals to work together in
tractable, but effective, ways is an enduring
issue in need of resolution.
Third, it is essential that interventions be
tailored to address the diverse and individual-
ized needs of students across the entire spec-
trum. Stakeholders consistently expressed
strong concern that a “onesize-fits-all-stu-
dents-with-autism” approach to intervention
was fraught with limitations.
Although individualization is a hallmark of
all of special education, the diversity of stu-
dents served under the ASD category seems to
be especially wide. To meaningfully align
interventions with the needs of individual stu-
dents, educators need access to high-quality
assessments and effective planning processes.
Additional work is needed to identify practi-
cal avenues for determining which evidence-
based interventions are most appropriate for
which students when seeking to improve spe-
cific outcomes. Such efforts, however, must

be accompanied by research focused on
understanding individual differences and
exploring the boundaries of specific interven-
tion practices.
Fourth, strong professional development,
training, and resources must be delivered in
creative and compelling ways to ensure prac-
titioners are well prepared to meet the educa-
tional and transition needs of high school
students with ASD. Studies indicate educators
report having limited opportunities to acquire
information about the implementation of
evidence-based practices with their students
and may feel poorly equipped to adopt prom-
ising interventions (e.g., Brock, Huber, Carter,
Juarez, & Warren, 2014; Scheuermann, Web-
ber, Boutot, & Goodwin, 2003). High-quality
professional development is needed in both
preservice and in-service contexts (Barnhill,
Sumutka, Polloway, & Lee, 2014; Morrier,
Hess, & Heflin, 2011). Such efforts must
extend beyond single-day workshops and
one-shot trainings that have little lasting
impact on the frequency and quality of inter-
vention implementation (Knight, 2007).
Indeed, without follow-up feedback and sup-
port, implementation of newly acquired skills
and knowledge rarely transfers to the class-
room and sustainability suffers. Coaching
models—used widely in elementary schools—

warrant additional exploration at the second-
ary level (Lang & Fox, 2003). However,
additional research is needed to examine the
viability and impact of these approaches in
relation to implementing comprehensive inter-
vention models.
Fifth, targeted professional development
should also be accompanied by broader efforts
to ensure a basic awareness and understand-
ing of ASD permeates secondary schools.
Stakeholders repeatedly called for schools to
undertake efforts to enhance attitudes toward
and knowledge about ASD for everyone in a
school but particularly for general educators.
Although numerous studies have examined
avenues for improving attitudes and aware-
ness of various disabilities (e.g., Scior, 2011;
Segall & Campbell, 2012; Sharma, Forlin, &
Loreman, 2008), research is inconclusive on
the most effective approaches for undertaking
these efforts.
Because most schools have shifted
away from categorical service delivery,
future studies should explore the
extent to which the needs of students
served under the autism category con-
verge and diverge from those served
under other disability categories.
Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations to this study suggest direc-
tions for future research. First, our efforts
to solicit the views of stakeholders were
not accompanied by direct observations of
their classrooms and schools. Although our
primary purpose was to understand critical
contextual factors from the vantage point of
professionals, parents, and others, we are
unable to confirm their characterizations
about the degree to which transition-related
needs of adolescents were being addressed in
secondary schools. Future descriptive studies
should explore in greater depth the nature and
quality of service delivery in secondary
schools to identify practice variations within
and across schools. Second, although we
selected participants on the basis of having
sufficient experience and expertise to offer
perspective on particular intervention compo-
nents, it is unlikely any had direct experience
implementing a comprehensive intervention
model. Although these participants could con-
fidently speak to the possibilities and pitfalls
associated with implementing high school
interventions, it is likely other issues will
emerge from stakeholders directly involved in
implementing the full CSESA model. Because
most schools have shifted away from categor-
ical service delivery, future studies should
explore the extent to which the needs of stu-
dents served under the autism category con-
verge and diverge from those served under
other disability categories.
Third, the voice of youth and young adults

with disabilities is not prominent within these
focus group findings. Recognizing the poten-
tial challenges of implementing focus groups
with adolescents in general, and adolescents
with ASD in particular, we opted to conduct
individual interviews using multiple formats
(i.e., in person, telephone interviews, written
interviews, and instant messaging) to solicit
their views on the acceptability of some inter-
vention approaches (reported in Bottema-
Beutel et al., 2014). We encourage additional
pursuit of methodologies that enable young
people with ASD to have a meaningful voice
in interventions designed to address their
needs, including educational interventions
(cf., Kramer, Olsen, Mermelstein, Balcells, &
Liljenquist, 2012; Powers et al., 2007). Fourth,
our narrow focus on the intervention needs of
adolescents with ASD within these focus
groups makes it impossible for us to deter-
mine from our data whether the core concerns
and considerations raised by stakeholders are
really just reflective of the challenges of
designing effective secondary programming
for students with any disabilities (and even
students without disabilities). Although the
most prominent themes were specifically
anchored to the needs of students with ASD,
others were just as relevant to students with
other disabilities. Because most schools have
shifted away from categorical service deliv-

ery, future studies should explore the extent to
which the needs of students served under the
autism category converge and diverge from
those served under other disability categories.
Implications for the Implementation
of Comprehensive Treatment
Models
We designed this qualitative study as just one
strand of our efforts to inform the development
and refinement of a comprehensive intervention
package aimed at addressing the transition-
related needs of high school students with
autism. We took seriously both the general and
targeted recommendations of these stakehold-
ers. For example, we revised our adaptive
behavior component to be more responsive to
calls to use technology to support the planning
and implementation process. We revised our
planned orientation sessions for peer-mediated
interventions based on recommendations to
give greater input from youth with ASD and to
address disclosure issues. We adapted our fam-
ily and transition component to more fully
incorporate community development and
career-related supports based on recommenda-
tions to educate community members about the
characteristics and needs of people with ASD.
And we revised our academic interventions by
standardizing the lesson format, adding a prim-
ing technique and a self-monitoring checklist,
and changing text type. These perspectives—
coupled with pilot data collected the same
year—offered critical input when refining our
initial plans to ensure they were effective for

students, acceptable to stakeholders, and feasi-
ble to implement. We plan to continue captur-
ing and drawing upon stakeholder feedback
throughout our research cycle to inform policy
and practice decisions related to the adoption
of comprehensive interventions. We recom-
mend other research teams consider similar
efforts when undertaking new intervention
efforts in areas in which little is known and few
studies are available.
The perspectives of these 152 stakeholders
further reinforce both the importance—and
challenges—of integrating multiple interven-
tion efforts in schools within comprehensive
intervention models. In the remaining years of
this project, we will be implementing and
evaluating a comprehensive model that
addresses all five intervention areas concur-
rently, each area having been refined and
strengthened based on lessons learned from
both our stakeholder interviews and pilot
efforts (see Odom et al., 2014, for a deeper
description of the model). For secondary
schools wanting to integrate these approaches
into their own program efforts, several con-
siderations are important to consider. First,
stakeholder input and buy-in is essential to
ensuring both feasibility, fit, and fidelity given
available resources and structures. Second, a
clear description of and vision for a compre-
hensive transition program must be carefully
crafted and communicated with all school
staff. Third, secondary schools are likely to
need considerable coaching (likely from

external sources) to shift to a more coordi-
nated and comprehensive model of service
delivery. Fourth, such changes will require
both a catalyst and considerable time to per-
meate any single high school. Finally, effec-
tive and sustained implementation necessitates
ongoing reflection on both the process and
outcomes associated with model implementa-
tion. However, we are convinced such efforts
hold particular promise for elevating the in-
school and postschool outcomes of adoles-
cents with ASD.
References
Barnhill, G. P., Sumutka, B., Polloway, E. A., &
Lee, E. (2014). Personnel preparation prac-
tices in ASD: A follow-up analysis of con-
temporary practices. Focus on Autism and
Other Developmental Disabilities, 29, 39–49.
doi:10.1177/1088357612475294
Bottema-Beutel, K., Mullins, T., Harvey, M.,
Gustafson, J. R., & Carter, E. W. (2014).
Avoiding the “brick wall of awkward”:
Perspectives of youth with ASD on social
competence, friendships, and intervention.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach,
M., & Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative stud-

ies in special education. Exceptional Children,
71, 195–207.
Brock, M. E., Huber, H. B., Carter, E. W., Juarez,
A. P., & Warren, Z. E. (2014). Statewide
assessment of professional development needs
related to educating students with autism spec-
trum disorder. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1177/1088357614522290
Carnine, D. (1997). Bridging the research-to-practice
gap. Exceptional Children, 63, 513–521.
Carter, E., Austin, D., & Trainor, A. (2012).
Predictors of postschool employment out-
comes for young adults with severe disabili-
ties. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23,
50–63. doi:10.1177/1044207311414680
Carter, E. W., Brock, M. E., & Trainor, A. A. (2014).
Transition assessment and planning for youth
with severe intellectual and developmental
disabilities. The Journal of Special Education,
47, 244–255. doi:10.1177/0022466912456241
Carter, E. W., Common, E. A., Sreckovic, M. A.,
Huber, H. B., Bottema-Beutel, K., Gustafson, J.
R., . . . Hume, K. (2014). Promoting social com-
petence and peer relationships for adolescents
with ASD. Remedial and Special Education,
35, 91–101. doi:10.1177/0741932513514618
Carter, E. W., Moss, C. K., Hoffman, A., Chung,
Y., & Sisco, L. G. (2011). Efficacy and social
validity of peer support arrangements for

adolescents with disabilities. Exceptional
Children, 78, 107–125.
Carter, E. W., Sisco, L. G., Chung, Y., & Stanton-
Chapman, T. (2010). Peer interactions of
students with intellectual disabilities and/
or autism: A map of the intervention litera-
ture. Research and Practice for Persons With
Severe Disabilities, 35, 63–79.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and
research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
de Bruin, C. L., Deppeler, J. M., Moore, D. W.,
& Diamond, N. T. (2013). Public school–
based interventions for adolescents and young
adults with an autism spectrum disorder: A
meta-analysis: Review of Educational Research,
83, 521–550. doi:10.3102/0034654313498621
El Zein, F., Solis, M., Vaughn, S., & McCulley, L.
(2013). Reading comprehension interventions
for students with autism spectrum disorders:
A synthesis of research. Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders, 43, 1–20.
doi:10.1007/s10803-1982-2
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2005). The interview:
From neutral stance to political involvement. In
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE
handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.; pp.
695–727). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Fleury, V. P., Hedges, S., Hume, K., Browder,

D. M., Thompson, J. L., Fallin, K., . . .
Vaughn, S. (2014). Addressing the aca-
demic needs of adolescents with autism
spectrum disorder in secondary education.
Remedial and Special Education, 35, 68–79.
doi:10.1177/0741932513518823
Greenwood, C. R., & Abbott, M. (2001). The
research to practice gap in special education.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 24,
276–289. doi:10.1177/088840640102400403
Handleman, J. S., & Harris, S. L. (2006). School-
age education programs for children with
autism. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1994). Data
management and analysis methods. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (pp. 428–444). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement
Act, Pub. L. No. 108-446 (2004).
Knight, J. (2007). Instructional coaching: A part-
nership approach to improving instruction.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Kramer, J. M., Olsen, S., Mermelstein, M.,
Balcells, A., & Liljenquist, K. (2012). Youth
with disabilities’ perspectives of the envi-
ronment and participation: A qualitative
meta-synthesis. Child: Care, Health and
Development, 38, 763–777. doi:10.1111/
j.1365-2214.2012.01365.x

Lang, M., & Fox, L. (2003). Breaking with tra-
dition: Providing professional develop-
ment for instructional personnel supporting
students with severe disabilities. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 26, 17–26.
doi:10.1177/088840640302600103
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic
inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research: An
interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Morrier, M. J., Hess, K. L., & Heflin, L. (2011).
Teacher training for implementation of teaching
strategies for students with autism spectrum disor-
ders. Teacher Education and Special Education,
34, 119–132. doi:10.1177/0888406410376660
National Professional Development Center on
ASD. (2011). Autism Program Environment
Rating Scale (APERS). Chapel Hill, NC:
Author.
Newman, L., Wagner, M., Cameto, R., & Knokey,
A. M. (2009). The post–high school out-
comes of youth with disabilities up to 4 years
after high school. Menlo Park, CA: SRI
International.

NVivo 10 [Computer software]. (2012). Melbourne,
Australia: QSR International.
Odom, S. L., Boyd, B. A., Hall, L. J., & Hume,
K. (2010). Evaluation of comprehensive
treatment models for individuals with autism
spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 40, 425–436.
doi:10.1007/s10803-009-0825-1
Odom, S. L., Collet-Klingenberg, L., Rogers,
S. J., & Hatton, D. D. (2010). Evidence-
based practices in interventions for children
and youth with autism spectrum disorders.
Preventing School Failure, 54, 275–282.
doi:10.1080/10459881003785506
Odom, S. L., Duda, M., Kucharczyk, S., Cox, A.
W., & Stable, A. (2014). Applying an imple-
mentation science framework for adoption of
a comprehensive program for students with
ASD. Remedial and Special Education, 35,
123–132. doi:10.1177/0741932513519826
Powers, L. E., Garner, T., Vaines, B., Squire, P.,
Turner, A., Couture, T., & Dertinger, R. (2007).
Building a successful adult life: Findings from
youth-directed research. Exceptionality, 15,
45–56. doi:10.1080/09362830709336925
Scheuermann, B., Webber, J., Boutot, E. A., &
Goodwin, M. (2003). Problems with person-
nel preparation in autism spectrum disorders.
Focus on Autism and Other Developmental
Disabilities, 18, 197–206. doi:10.1177/10883
576030180030801

Schmidt, C., Stichter, J. P., Lierheimer, K., McGhee,
S., & O’Connor, K. V. (2011). An initial inves-
tigation of the generalization of a school-based
social competence intervention for youth with
high-functioning autism. Autism Research and
Treatment. doi:10.1155/2011/589539
Scior, K. (2011). Public awareness, attitudes and
beliefs regarding intellectual disability: A sys-
tematic review. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 32, 2164–2182. doi:10.1016/j.
ridd.2011.07.005
Segall, M. J., & Campbell, J. M. (2012). Factors
relating to education professional’s class-
room practices for the inclusion of students
with autism spectrum disorders. Research in
Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6, 1156–1167.
doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2012.02.007
Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & Loreman, T. (2008).
Impact of training on pre-service teachers’
attitudes and concerns about inclusive educa-
tion and sentiments about persons with dis-
abilities. Disability and Society, 23, 773–785.
doi:10.1080/09687590802469271
Shattuck, P. T., Narendorf, S. C., Cooper, B.,
Sterzing, P. R., Wagner, M., & Taylor, J. L.
(2012). Postsecondary education and employ-
ment among youth with an autism spectrum dis-
order. Pediatrics, 129, 1042–1049. doi:10.1542/
peds.2011-2864

Test, D. W., Smith, L., & Carter, E. W. (2014).
Equipping youth with autism spectrum disorders
for adulthood: Promoting rigor, relevance, and
relationships. Remedial and Special Education,
35, 80–90. doi:10.1177/0741932513514857
Wei, X., Wagner, M., Christiano, E. R. A.,
Shattuck, P., & Yu, J. W. (2013). Special
education services received by students with
autism spectrum disorders from preschool
through high school. The Journal of Special
Education. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1177/0022466913483576
Wong, C., Odom, S. L., Hume, K., Cox, A. W., Fettig,
A., Kucharczyk, S., . . . Schultz, T. R. (2013).
Evidence-based practices for children, youth,
and young adults with autism spectrum disorder.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Frank
Porter Graham Child Development Institute,
Autism Evidence-Based Practice Review Group.
Authors’ Note
The contributions of the first three authors were
equal. The research reported here was supported by
the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Depart-
ment of Education through Grant R324C120006
awarded to the University of North Carolina–
Chapel Hill. The opinions expressed represent
those of the authors and do not represent views of
the institute or the U.S. Department of Education.
Manuscript received February 2014; accepted
April 2014.

Copyright of Exceptional Children is the property of Sage
Publications Inc. and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for
individual use.
183
MOTOR PERFORMANCE
Exploring the Effect of
Gender and Disability on
Gross Motor Performance in
Kindergarten Children
Andrew M. Colombo-Dougovito
Abstract
Background: Gross motor movement is a vital part of the grow-
ing process and ultimately plays a role in a person’s ability to
lead a
physically active life. Researchers have analyzed the different
ways
in which individuals develop skills. At the heart of that
discussion
has been gender. Most recently, researchers have focused on the
dif-

ferences among various forms of disability. However, little has
been
done to understand how these variables interact with each other
in
the development of gross motor skills. Objective: Therefore, in
this
study I sought to explore the interaction of disability and gender
on
gross motor performance. Method: Utilizing a national dataset,
the
Early Childhood Longitudinal Study - Kindergarten Class of
1998–99
dataset (ECLS-K), I utilized a 2 × 2 factorial ANOVA to
understand
the effects of gender and disability on gross motor score.
Results: A
large sample (N = 16,960) was utilized to indicate a significant
interac-
tion effect of gender and disability, as well as significant main
effects.
Results suggest that both gender and disability have an effect on
gross
motor performance; specifically, boys with disabilities are at a
higher
risk for having low gross motor skills. Conclusion: The
significant re-
Andrew M. Colombo-Dougovito is a doctoral student,
Department of Kinesiology,
University of Virginia. He will be joining, as an assistant
professor, the Department of
Kinesiology, Health Promotion, and Recreation at the
University of North Texas this Fall
2017. Please send author correspondence to [email protected]
The Physical Educator Vol. 74 • pp. 183–197 • 2017
https://doi.org/10.18666/TPE-2017-V74-I2-7274

184 Exploring the Effect of Gender and Disability
sults from this analysis demonstrate that gender and disability
have an
effect on the gross motor ability of young children. In contrast
to other
literature, in this study female participants performed slightly
better
than male participants did, and in line with other research, in
this re-
search the group without disabilities demonstrated a better gross
motor
score than the group with disabilities.
Gross motor movement stems from large muscle groups and
whole body movement and is essential for all locomotor
movement
such as walking and running and for object-control movements
such
as throwing and kicking. These skills are typically attained and
de-
veloped through early childhood and mastered as children age
into
adolescence (Davies & Rose, 2000). Gross motor movement is
essen-
tial for daily functioning and for physical activity. Without
proper
development of these large muscle movements, future
advancement
to more complex motor movements or development of motor
com-
petence is difficult. Individuals with a limited or lower motor
com-

petence have been shown to have lower fitness levels when
compared
with individuals with an average motor competence (Fransen et
al.,
2014; Stodden et al., 2008). Early development of gross motor
skills
is vital to increasing the likelihood of continued physical
activity.
Understanding individual difference in development is the best
way to understand how to improve the development of skills.
Motor
deficits among various populations with disabilities are
apparent
with the research literature, when these individuals are
compared
with their peers without disabilities. In recent research, children
with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have shown significant
delays
in motor skill performance when compared to typical peers (Liu,
Hamilton, Davis, & ElGarhy, 2014), as tested with the Test of
Gross
Motor Development (TGMD-2; Ulrich, 2000). Additionally,
indi-
viduals with mild intellectual disabilities (ID) have been shown
to
perform poorly on fitness measures (muscular strength,
muscular
endurance) when compared with peers without ID (Frey &
Chow,
2006). Limited muscular strength and endurance needed for
gross
motor activities can lead to a limitation of gross motor
movements
and therefore is concerning for the future possibility of lifetime
phys-

ical activity. Furthermore, gross motor issues have been
documented
even in children with learning disabilities who have
demonstrated
similar development patterns, although behind their typical
peers
185Colombo-Dougovito
(Westendorp et al., 2014). Outside of cognitive and
developmental
disabilities, children who are blind have shown lower locomotor
ability and object control skills when compared to their sighted
peers
(Wagner, Haibach, & Lieberman, 2013). With individual
evidence of
the deficits of groups with disabilities, it is necessary to look
broader
to gain a better understanding of how individuals with
disabilities
vary from those without disabilities.
On the other hand, gender differences among boys and girls
have
not been as clearly defined. The recent literature has
demonstrated
differences between genders in locomotor and object control
skills
(Butterfield, Angell, & Mason, 2012; Crespo et al., 2013;
Venetsanou
& Kambas, 2011), as well as limited or no differences in
locomotor
skills (Goodway, Robinson, & Crowe, 2010). Early development
of

motor ability is dependent on the interaction between
environmen-
tal and biological factors (Saraiva, Rodrigues, Cordovil, &
Barreiros,
2013; Thomas & French, 1985; Valentini, Clark, & Whitall,
2015).
Barnett, van Beurden, Morgan, Brooks, and Beard (2010) dem-
onstrated that boys performed better on object control skills
than
did similarly aged girls. This was further evidenced in a study
of
3–6-year-old children in which boys performed better in
throwing
for distance (du Toit & Pienaar, 2002). Du Toit and Pienaar
(2002),
in the same study, conversely demonstrated that girls performed
better in hopping and balance on one leg. Furthermore,
Kakebeeke,
Caflisch, Locatelli, Rousson, and Jenni (2012) demonstrated
girls
performed higher than boys on a majority of balance-type gross
mo-
tor tasks such as standing on one leg, walking on a beam,
hopping on
one leg, rising, running, and jumping up and down. Gender
differ-
ences are evident across a magnitude of motor skills; however,
there
appears to be a trend that girls perform better on locomotor-type
skills and boys on object control skills (Goodway et al., 2010;
Lorson,
Stodden, Langendorfer, & Goodway, 2013).
Few researchers have looked at how the interaction of gender
and disability affect gross motor performance. Evidence
suggests

how the individual variables may affect gross motor
performance;
however, it is not clear how they work together. Therefore, the
aim of
this study was to explore the relationship of gender and
disability on
gross motor performance, in order to understand (1) How do
gender
and disability affect gross motor performance? and (2) If an
interac-
tion effect is occurring, which variable is accounting for the
effect?
Method
Dataset
A sample from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study -
Kindergarten Class of 1998–99 dataset (ECLS-K; U.S.
Department
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2001)
was
utilized in this analysis. This dataset provides a substantial
amount
of information on the children’s status at entry to school, their
tran-
sition into school, and their progress through eighth grade. The
ECLS-K recruited children from public and private schools and
from
diverse socioeconomic and racial/ethnic backgrounds.
Information
was recorded on information from reading and math skills, to

social/
emotional skills, to fine and gross motor skills. Trained
evaluators
assessed children in their schools and collected information
from
parents over the telephone. Teachers and school administrators
were
contacted in their schools and asked to complete questionnaires.
(Rock & Pollack, 2002). The original dataset contained over
18,000
variables and around 22,000 child participants (Rock & Pollack,
2002).
For this study, three variables were chosen for analysis: gen-
der, disability, and gross motor score. A sample of 16,960 cases
was
used in this analysis. The sample included 58% White, 14.7%
Black/
African American, 17.5% Hispanic, 4.2% Asian, 1.7% American
Indian or Alaskan Native, and 2.8% identifying as more than
one
race. Data were taken at the initial entry into school.
Independent Variables
Two grouping variables, gender and disability, were used to
break the sample into comparable groups. Each variable
contained
two levels. Gender was labeled as male (n = 8620) or female (n
=
8340), roughly 50.8% and 49.2% of the sample, respectively.
The dis-
ability group was designated as “yes” a disability is present (n =
2299)
or “no” the child has no disability (n = 14,661), for 13.6% and
86.4%

of the sample, respectively. In the case of the disability
variable, proj-
ect staff asked schools whether the child had an individual
education
plan (IEP), an individualized family service plan (IFSP), or a
504
plan; once children were identified as receiving special
education as-
sistance due to disability, project staff identified what
accommoda-
tions were needed to be made to administer the direct child
assess-
ment batteries appropriately (Rock & Pollack, 2002).
Considering
the difference in sample size between the group with a
disability and
the group without, and considering the U.S. population as a
whole,
this sample is fairly representative of what would be expected.
In this
dataset, disability is a very dichotomous simplification of a
heteroge-
neous group; however, the use of this variable allows for a
global un-
derstanding of the differences of those with and without
disabilities.
Additionally, this was the only indication of this population
within
the dataset. The original collectors of this data did not go into
depth
into what specific disabilities the included children had. The

sample
for this study was limited to cases in which both independent
vari-
ables were known; data were considered missing completely at
ran-
dom, as data was being analyzed secondarily, and missing data
were
independent of observed variables.
Dependent Variable
The gross motor score of participants was utilized as the depen-
dent variable. The gross motor score is a summative score of a
multi-
tude of tests taken from outside assessments and utilized in
aggregate
for the dataset; assessment items combine jumping, balancing,
hop-
ping, skipping, walking backward, and a bean bag catch.
Maximum
scores for individual tests were between 1 and 2. Total scores
ranged
from a minimum of 0 to a maximum of 8 (see Tables 1 and 2).
Only an
aggregated gross motor score was included in the dataset;
individual
assessment items scores were not included. Individual testing
items
were taken from a multitude of assessment batteries; these
focused
predominantly on body control and coordination (e.g., balancing
on
one foot, hopping on each foot, skipping, and walking backward
on
a line; West, Dento, & Germino-Hausken, 2000).

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics of Gender
Gender n
Gross
motor
M
Gross
motor
SD Kurtosis Skewness
Male 8620 6.13 1.918 0.461 -1.016
Female 8340 6.64 1.645 1.116 -1.247
Total 16960 6.385 1.782
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics of Disability
Disability
category n
Gross
motor
M
Gross
motor

SD Kurtosis Skewness
Yes 2299 5.97 2.014 0.131 -0.901
No 14661 6.45 1.764 0.932 -1.177
Total 16960 6.21 1.889
Data Analysis
The relationship of gender and disability on gross motor score
was explored utilizing a two-way factorial ANOVA to analyze
the
interaction. The factorial ANOVA tested for any differences of
between-subject effects of gender, disability, and the interaction
of
gender and disability. Prior to analysis, data were analyzed for
uni-
variate outliers through analysis of the histograms, skewness,
and
kurtosis as well as the standardized values (M < 3.29) within
groups.
No outliers were identified; therefore, all 16,960 cases were
used in
the analysis.
Results
Descriptive analysis revealed female participants both with and
without disabilities (M = 6.64, SD = 1.645) scored slightly
higher
than male participants (M = 6.13, SD = 1.918; see Figure 1).
Similarly,
the group without disabilities (M = 6.45, SD = 1.764)
demonstrated
a higher mean gross motor performance, than the group with
dis-
abilities (M = 5.97, SD = 2.014) (See Figure 1). Each of the
groups

demonstrated scores very close to the maximum possible of 8,
dem-
onstrating a potential ceiling effect.
EXPLORING THE EFFECT OF GENDER AND DISABILITY 1
Appendices B 1
Figure 1: Difference within Gender and Disability 2
3
4
5.1 5.4 5.7 6 6.3 6.6 6.9
Yes
No
Mean
Gross
Motor
Score
D
is
ab
il
it
y

Ca
te
go
ry Total
Female
Male
Figure 1. Difference within gender and disability.
The factorial ANOVA resulted in a significant result within the
interaction between gender and disability on gross motor score,
F(1, 16956) = 39.424, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.002, demonstrating a
signifi-
cant interaction effect of both gender and disability on gross
motor
ability. Furthermore, significant results were shown in the main
ef-
fects between the gender groups, F(1, 16956) = 272.895, p <
0.001,
η2 = 0.016, and between the disabilities groups, F(1, 16956) =
75.672,
p < 0.001, η2 = 0.004, further showing a significant difference
be-
tween each of the levels of both gender and disability. However,
each
of the eta-squared effect sizes reveals that gender and disability
ac-
count for a very small amount of the variance.
Further, the effect sizes of the main and simple effects were
mea-
sured with the guidelines outlined by Cohen (1977), and each
group
demonstrated a small effect. Main effects between the female

and
male group (ES = 0.285) and the group without disability and
with
disability (ES = 0.254) were small, demonstrating about a
quarter
standard deviation difference between the groups. The simple
ef-
fect analysis of the female group without disabilities and the
male
group without disabilities revealed a small effect size (ES =
0.262). A
moderate effect size (ES = 0.492) was shown in the difference
of the
D
is
ab
ili
ty
C
at
eg
or
y
Yes
No
Mean Gross Motor Score

female group with disabilities and the male group with
disabilities,
demonstrating a relatively large difference between girls and
boys
with disabilities.
Discussion
In this study, I sought to explore the relationship of the interac-
tion between gender and disability on gross motor score. A
facto-
rial ANOVA demonstrated significant although very small main
ef-
fects and a significant interaction effect. Results indicate that
gender
and disability play a role in the differences revealed in this
analysis.
Through this analysis, it can be suggested that both gender and
dis-
ability have a factor in how a child develops motor skills. This
result
in itself is not surprising or overtly contrary to the commonly
held
beliefs that (1) boys and girls perform skills differently and (2)
in-
dividuals with disabilities would have gross motor scores less
than
those of their peers without disabilities, but it does provide
sufficient
foundational evidence to warrant an inquiry into which gross
motor
skills are hindered because of the disability.

Moreover, these results provide contrary evidence to the previ-
ous research on gender, but more important provide a unique
look
at a young, large sample of boys and girls with and without
disabili-
ties. Results from this study suggest that gender and disability
have
some type of mitigating effect on the development of gross
motor
skills, but the exact effect within this analysis is difficult to
ascertain.
Furthermore, in this analysis the small effect sizes for the
ANOVA
suggest that other factors (e.g., age, race, or socioeconomic
status)
may explain the differences, as gender and disability account
for
less than 2% of the results. Previous research (Saraiva et al.,
2013;
Thomas & French, 1985; Valentini et al., 2015) has suggested
that the
differences in gender groups are caused by an interaction of
social
and biological factors, which often favor boys (Crespo et al.,
2013).
However, results from this analysis are taken from a sample of
pre-
pubescent children, so biological factors should be limited.
In a recent analysis of parent and child perceptions of funda-
mental movement skills, Liong, Ridgers, and Barnett (2015)
found
that parents’ perceptions of girls’ locomotor skills were signifi-
cantly and positively associated with girls’ actual locomotor
scores
(r = .48). Parents had similar perceptions with boys’ scores for

object
control skills (r = .58). Evidence from this study suggests that
par-
ents’ judgment of skills indicates some level of stereotyping
(Liong
et al., 2015). Perhaps differences seen in young children are a
factor
of what children are expected to do, as well as encouraged to
do. If
young boys are encouraged to perform more stereotypical
activities
such as soccer and baseball, then they will likely be more
proficient
in the fundamental motor tasks associated with those skills. If
girls
are encouraged to participate in activities such as jump roping
and
hopscotch, then they will likely have a higher affinity to
activities
using balance and locomotion. These differences are evident
within
these results, as well as in previous research (Barnett et al.,
2010; du
Toit & Pienaar, 2002; Kakebeeke et al., 2012), as the motor
assess-
ment battery chosen for this assessment contained a majority
loco-
motor and balance–type skills, with one singular object control
task
(catching a tossed bean bag). Within the assessment battery
there

were no other throwing or object control items, which, based on
pre-
vious research, would favor boys. A lack of object control
activities
in the assessment likely attributed to the girls having a greater
mean
score regardless of disability. It also does not completely
capture the
skills necessary to be proficient in all gross motor movement.
Considering the differences shown between the group with and
without disabilities, the results in this analysis are, again, what
would
be expected. This analysis allows for global understanding of
the dif-
ferences between those with and without disabilities; however,
the
effect of the disability is difficult to understand fully because
all chil-
dren labeled “with a disability” were included in this group
based
on the presence of an IEP. An IEP is not a detailed enough
record
when trying to understand why there are differences between
these
groups. Children with an IEP have this for a multitude of
reasons,
which stem from physical, cognitive, or behavioral disabilities,
all of
which have drastically different effects on the their ability to
learn
and utilize knowledge. The database used for this study, by
defining
disability based on the presence of an IEP, may indicate the
presence
of limited opportunity, as with stereotyping between gender

groups.
The pressures to provide services within the IEP process and for
schools to prioritize services (Whitby, Marx, McIntire, &
Wienke,
2013) may lead to some children being given certain services
(e.g.,
speech) over others (e.g., adapted physical education [APE] or
oc-
cupational therapy [OT]). When schools prioritize and place
more
emphasis on certain services, the child may have a limited
opportu-
nity to learn motor skills. Further, there may be a
misunderstand-
ing of the items taught in OT versus APE, with a belief that
services
are similar and therefore both are not needed. Research has
demon-
strated that deficits exist among children with disabilities in
regard
to motor ability; therefore, what may be evidenced in this result
is
that although biological factors may exist, perhaps it is also a
limited
accessibility (e.g., environmental factor) to learn tasks that is
causing
a difference.
There were simple effects with each group, and again, in this
study girls outperformed boys in both groups regardless of
having or

Exceptional Children2015, Vol. 81(3) 329 –349© 2015 The Au.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Exceptional Children2015, Vol. 81(3) 329 –349© 2015 The Au.docx

Similar to Exceptional Children2015, Vol. 81(3) 329 –349© 2015 The Au.docx (16)

More from cravennichole326

More from cravennichole326 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Exceptional Children2015, Vol. 81(3) 329 –349© 2015 The Au.docx