Parent Assessments of Self-determination Importance and
Performance for Students with Autism or
Intellectual Disability
Er...
2009; Zhang, Wehmeyer, & Chen, 2005). An array
of assessment instruments has been developed to
assess students’ self-deter...
As an increasingly prominent educational
construct, self-determination has been defined
and measured in myriad ways (Deci ...
Participants
Participants in this analysis were 627 parents or
caregivers of school-age children and youth served
under th...
Table 1
Parent and Child Characteristics by Reported Special Education Category and Across All Students
Autism
n 5 305
Int...
neath ‘‘self-advocacy and leadership skills’’).
Second, for these same seven skills, parents were
also asked ‘‘How well do...
sample eligible for FRL was considerably higher
than the proportion of all students eligible for
FRL in the sampled distri...
predictors to retain in each model, we examined
residual sums of squares, the multiple correlation
coefficient, and Cp cri...
he or she likes and is good at, less than 10% of
parents provided similar ratings on all five
remaining items. Overall sco...
equipping students with the skills, knowledge,
and opportunities to become more self-determining.
Parents and other caregi...
Table5
VariablesPredictingImportance,Performance,andAIRSelf-DeterminationScale
OutcomevariableStepPredictorvariableParamet...
they considered important for their children and
the degree to which their children presently
performed those skills. For ...
coordination across school and home settings
(Field & Hoffman, 1999; Lee, Palmer, Turnbull,
& Wehmeyer, 2006). For student...
settings, and the paucity of research involving
parents and other caregivers, there is a pressing
need for future research...
ered using computer-assisted instruction on
student participation in educational planning
meetings. Remedial and Special E...
Wehmeyer, M. L., Abery, B., Zhang, D., Ward,
K., Willis, D., Hossain, W. A., … Walker,
H. M. (2011). Personal self-determi...
Re´sume´s en Franc¸ais
E´ tablir l’e´quivalence: le progre` s me´thodologique
dans la conception et l’analyse des
groupes ...
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

article 2

630 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
630
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
69
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

article 2

  1. 1. Parent Assessments of Self-determination Importance and Performance for Students with Autism or Intellectual Disability Erik W. Carter, Kathleen Lynne Lane, Molly Cooney, Katherine Weir, Colleen K. Moss, and Wendy Machalicek Abstract Fostering student self-determination is now considered an essential element of special education and transition services for children and youth with intellectual disability and/or autism. Yet, little is known about the pivotal role parents might play beyond the school campus in fostering self-determination among their children with developmental disabilities. We examined how 627 parents of children with intellectual disability or autism attending one of 34 randomly selected school districts (a) rated the importance of 7 component skills associated with self-determination, (b) assessed their children’s performance in relation to those 7 skills, and (c) evaluated the overall self-determination capacities of their children. Although parents highly valued all of the self-determination skills, the degree to which their children were reported to perform the skills well was fairly low. Several factors predicted higher levels of self-determination, including educational setting, the presence of challenging behaviors, and perceived disability severity. We conclude by offering recommendations for equipping parents to better support their children’s self-determination development. Key Words: self-determination; families; severe disabilities; autism; inclusion As the field of special education has evolved, promoting student self-determination has emerged as a prominent feature of recommended educa- tional and transition services and supports for students with disabilities. This emphasis is intimat- ed within legislative and policy initiatives (e.g., Individuals with Disabilities Education Improve- ment Act of 2004 [IDEA]), advocated by national organizations (e.g., American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities & The Arc, 2008; Field, Martin, Miller, Ward, & Wehmeyer, 1998; TASH, 2000), embedded within professional standards for special educators (Coun- cil for Exceptional Children, 2009; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2008), and reflected in the curricular standards of many states (Wehmeyer, Field, Doren, & Mason, 2004). Moreover, evidence for the importance and impact of fostering self-determination in the lives of students with disabilities has accumulated steadily (Cobb, Lehmann, Newman-Gonchar, & Alwell, 2009; Test et al., 2009; Wehmeyer et al., 2011). Within the professional literature, most of the empirical attention has focused on classrooms and schools as the context within which self- determination might be fostered among students with disabilities. Recent descriptive studies indi- cated general educators, special educators, and paraprofessionals each identify self-determination as an important instructional priority and report taking varied steps to promote skills associated with this domain (Carter, Lane, Pierson, & Stang, 2008; Carter, Lane, & Sisco, 2011; Cho, Wehmeyer, & Kingston, 2011; Stang, Carter, Lane, & Pierson, AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES 2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31 EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16 16 Parent self-determination
  2. 2. 2009; Zhang, Wehmeyer, & Chen, 2005). An array of assessment instruments has been developed to assess students’ self-determination skills and/or their opportunities to develop such capacities (Field & Hoffman, 2007; Shogren et al., 2008; Wehmeyer, 2000). And several instructional and curricular approaches have accumulated compel- ling evidence of efficacy for increasing students’ self-determination skills and opportunities, such as the self-directed Individualized Education Pro- gram (IEP; Kelley, Bartholomew, & Test, in press), the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruc- tion (Shogren, Palmer, Wehmeyer, Williams- Diehm, & Little, in press), Next S.T.E.P. (Halpern, Herr, Doren, & Wolf, 1997), and Whose Future Is It Anyway? (Wehmeyer et al., 2004). Collectively, this body of research confirms how schools provide a critical context within which self- determination can be taught and supported. However, far less attention has addressed the pivotal role parents might play in fostering self- determination among their children with intellec- tual disability or autism (e.g., Zhang, 2006; Zhang, Katsiyannis, & Zhang, 2002; Zhang, Landmark, Grenwelge, & Montoya, 2010). As an enduring influence and prominent source of support in the lives of their children, parents and other caregivers have a unique vantage point from which to observe and promote the development of self- determination. Yet, few researchers have investi- gated the extent to which these family members value self-determination as a learning goal or observe indicators of self-determination beyond the school day (Zhang, 2006; Zhang et al., 2005). Such research could extend the knowledge base in at least three important ways. First, little is known about the extent to which parents prioritize efforts to promote self- determination similarly to the educators who work directly with their children. Both qualitative and quantitative studies suggest parents may hold expectations or priorities that both converge and diverge from those espoused by teachers or are articulated in the professional literature (Carter, Owens, Trainor, Sun, & Swedeen, 2009; Shogren, 2011; Zhang et al., 2005). Although greater congruence in the priorities of IEP team members could facilitate effective planning and contribute to more coordinated efforts on and beyond the school campus, it remains unclear how parents of children with intellectual disability or autism view the importance of teaching skills typically associ- ated with self-determination. Second, parents have unique experiential bases from which to evaluate their children’s skill sets relative to teachers, paraprofessionals, or other service providers operating outside of the home setting. Observing their children daily across home, community, and other out-of-school settings might provide parents with unique insights into the extent to which their children successfully demonstrate choice making, problem solving, self-advocacy, leadership, and other skills that may enhance self-determination. Indeed, parents may identify areas of strength and need related to self-determination not readily apparent to school-based personnel. Although prior studies have reported on parents’ global ratings of the self- determination of their children with intellectual disability or autism (e.g., Carter et al., 2009; Grigal, Neubert, Moon, & Graham, 2003), none has included parental assessments of specific skills often associated with enhanced self-determination. Third, parents’ assessments of their child’s self-determination and its importance may by impacted by myriad factors (Shogren, 2011; Wehmeyer et al., 2011). For example, self- determination may be prioritized more or less depending on a combination of child-level factors (e.g., the student’s age, gender, special education category, or disability severity), parent-level fac- tors (e.g., socioeconomic status), and/or school- level factors (e.g., the student’s educational placement, the use of individually assigned supports). For example, scholars have speculated about whether families from diverse backgrounds place similar priority on skills typically empha- sized within self-determination interventions (Shogren, 2011; Zhang, 2006). Such findings could highlight the value of emphasizing en- hanced awareness, training, or intervention efforts for particular students with intellectual disability or autism and their families. The purpose of this study was to assess the self-determination of children and youth with intellectual disability and/or autism from the perspectives of their parents or caregivers. We answered four questions: How do parents evaluate the importance of seven skills associated with self-determination? How do parents assess their children’s performance on these seven specific skills? How do parents assess the broader self- determination capacities of their children? What child, family, and school factors are associated with variations in parents’ ratings of self-determination importance and performance? AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES 2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31 EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16 E. W. Carter et al. 17
  3. 3. As an increasingly prominent educational construct, self-determination has been defined and measured in myriad ways (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Wehmeyer, Abery, Mithaug, & Stancliffe, 2003). We incorporated two theoretical perspec- tives within this particular investigation. First, Wehmeyer (2005) defines self-determined behav- ior as ‘‘volitional actions that enable one to act as the primary causal agent in one’s life and to maintain or improve one’s quality of life’’ (p. 117). Within this framework, component elements of self-determination such as choice making, deci- sion making, goal setting and attainment, prob- lem solving, self-management and self-regulation, self-advocacy and leadership, and self-awareness and self-knowledge can be emphasized within instructional efforts to enhance students’ capacity to be self-determining (Wehmeyer, Agran, & Hughes, 2000; Wehmeyer & Field, 2007). Indeed, there is accumulating evidence that such skills can be effectively taught and reinforced both within school and home environments. Second, Mithaug, Mithaug, Agran, Martin, and Wehmeyer (2003) emphasize that students’ self-determination pros- pects are influenced both by the opportunities they have at home and school to make and act on choices in pursuing their interests and needs as well as the capacities they have to maximize these opportunities. Within this view, students capacities can be impacted by the knowledge they have about self-determined behaviors, their ability to effective- ly identify and take necessary steps to satisfy their interests and needs, and their perceptions of their own knowledge and abilities to undertake these tasks. Method School Districts and Sampling Procedures The students who were the focus of this study attended 34 randomly selected public school districts. Two districts included grades pre- kindergarten through eighth; the remaining 32 included pre-kindergarten through 12th grade. Enrollment across the involved districts averaged 2,576 students (SD 5 3052, range 5 162–15,081). The race/ethnicity of all students enrolled in these districts was 91.4% White (SD 5 6.1%, range 5 74.6%–99.4%), 4.2% Latino/Latina/Hispanic (SD 5 3.2%, range, 0.0%–15.2%), 2.0% Asian American (SD 5 2.7%, range, 0.0%–11.2%), 1.6% African American (SD 5 1.1%, range 5 0.1%– 4.1%), and 0.9% American Indian (SD 5 1.4%, range 5 0.0%–8.6%). An average of 13.1% (SD 5 2.4%, range 5 8.1%–18.8%) of all students received special education services; 0.7% (SD 5 0.4%, range 5 0.0%–1.7%) of all students received special education under the primary category of autism; and 0.9% (SD 5 0.5%, range 5 0.0%–2.1%) received special education under the primary category of intellectual disability. The average percentage of students eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch (FRL) across districts was 27.1% (SD 5 12.8%, range 5 3.0%–52.3%). We randomly selected 65 public school districts to invite to this study. All districts were located within three regional service areas of Wisconsin and were selected because they includ- ed geographically (i.e., rural, suburban, urban) and economically diverse schools. Using the state’s educational agency Web site, we compiled a list of all 114 school districts in the three regions and gathered available student demographic informa- tion. We also used the state’s Web site to obtain enrollment numbers for each school district, based on a count completed on the third Friday of the first month of school. The following steps were taken to select schools. First, we ordered the 114 districts by size and divided them into small- (i.e., less than 1,000 students), medium- (i.e., 1,000 to 5,000 students), and large-sized districts (i.e., more than 5,000 students). Second, within each of the categories, we ordered the schools based on the proportion of non-White students enrolled in each district and divided them into two groups (higher versus lower percentage of non-White students), creating six cells. Third, we used proportional stratified sampling to randomly select districts from within each of the six cells. Of the 65 districts to which we extended an invitation, 32 districts (10 small, 16 medium, and 6 large) agreed to allow us to invite parents whose children with disabilities attended the schools. Two additional school districts (both small-sized dis- tricts) requested to participate because they shared a special education director with another partici- pating district. Ten districts never responded to our invitation; six districts initially agreed to partici- pate, but never returned a permission form; six districts declined, reporting not having enough time or logistical resources to distribute the survey; two districts declined because they were involved in another survey study; four districts expressed hesitation about the survey procedures; and three districts did not specify their reason for declining. AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES 2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31 EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16 18 Parent self-determination
  4. 4. Participants Participants in this analysis were 627 parents or caregivers of school-age children and youth served under the special education categories of intellec- tual disability or autism. To be included, partic- ipants must have had a child who was (a) receiving special education services under the category of autism (ASD) or intellectual disability (ID; i.e., cognitive disability in Wisconsin), (b) enrolled in grades kindergarten through 12th, (c) between the ages of 5 and 18 years, and (d) enrolled in one of 34 randomly selected public school districts. The majority of parents were White (91.26%), fol- lowed by Latina/Latino/Hispanic (2.91%) and Asian American (2.27%; see Table 1). When asked about their relationship to the focus child, 85.78% indicated they were the mother; 11.47%, the father; .81%, the grandmother; and 1.94% noted some other relationship (e.g., adoptive parent, foster parent, step-parent). Approximately 40% of respondents indicated their child was FRL eligible. The majority of students who were the focus of this survey were male (74.43%), and their average age was 11.72 years (SD 5 3.70, range 5 5 to 18). We removed from the analysis those students who were younger than 5 years and older than 18 (i.e., adults), as their disabilities tended to all be more severe and they were not all privy to the common K-12 educational experiences and contexts. Although schools only sent our instru- ments to parents of children receiving special education services under a primarily label of ID or ASD, 305 of the students were identified by their parents as having a primary special education category of autism, 190 as having intellectual disability, 28 as having both autism and intellec- tual disability, and 94 as having another disability (e.g., cerebral palsy). When asked how they would describe their child’s level of disability, 80% of parents selected mild/moderate and 20% selected severe/profound. Just under half (40.1%) of partic- ipants reported their child currently had a one-to- one assistant in school. When asked about the school setting in which their child with a disability spends the school day, approximately one third (32.52%) selected mostly or all general education classrooms; 27.51% selected both general/ special education classes equally; 38.51% selected mostly or all special education classrooms; and 1.46% selected other (e.g., transition work program, home school, virtual school). When asked how often their child exhibits challenging behaviors (e.g., aggression, tantrums, inappropriate conversation- al topics, self-injury), 13.45% indicated never; 23.82%, rarely; 39.38%, sometimes; and 23.34%, often. See Table 1 for additional participant demographic information. Instrument We developed a 3-page print questionnaire to solicit information from parents regarding the importance of self-determination in the lives of their child, the extent to which their child demonstrates self-determination, key barriers to self-determination, and recommendations for schools and other parents on fostering self- determination. We designed this survey to gather some information in a manner parallel to surveys used in prior studies soliciting the perspectives of general educators (Stang et al., 2009), special educators (Carter et al., 2008), and paraprofes- sionals (Carter, Lane, & Sisco, 2011). In this article, we focus our analyses on the four close- ended sections of this survey, as described below. However, findings from the open-ended qualita- tive survey responses focused on parents’ personal definitions of self-determination, descriptions of key barriers, and recommendations to school staff and other parents will be reported elsewhere. First, we asked parents to rate the importance of seven component skills (i.e., choice-making skills, decision-making skills, goal-setting skills, problem-solving skills, self-advocacy and leader- ship skills, self-awareness and self-knowledge, and self-management and self-regulation skills; see Table 2) associated with self-determination (Weh- meyer et al., 2007; Wehmeyer & Field, 2007). As noted in the introduction, these seven elements are operationalized at the level at which instruc- tion and support might be provided at school or at home. For each skill item, parents were asked, ‘‘How important do you feel it is for your child to learn this skill now?’’ Response options were not important, somewhat important, and very important. These seven skills were drawn from a national survey of special educators conducted by Weh- meyer et al. (2000) and have been socially validated in studies of teachers and paraprofes- sionals (Carter et al., 2008; Carter, Lane, & Sisco, 2011; Stang et al., 2009). Brief examples accom- panied each of the seven component skills (e.g., ‘‘knowing one’s rights, communicating effective- ly, being an effective leader’’ was listed under- AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES 2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31 EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16 E. W. Carter et al. 19
  5. 5. Table 1 Parent and Child Characteristics by Reported Special Education Category and Across All Students Autism n 5 305 Intellectual disability n 5 190 Both n 5 28 Other disabilities n 5 94 All students N 5 627 Child’s gender Female 46 (15.13) 93 (43.92) 7 (25.93) 19 (20.21) 158 (25.57) Male 258 (84.87) 106 (56.08) 20 (74.77) 75 (79.79) 460 (74.43) Perceived disability level of child Mild/moderate 264 (87.13) 136 (73.91) 16 (59.26) 70 (76.09) 488 (80.00) Severe/profound 39 (12.87) 48 (26.09) 11 (40.74) 22 (23.91) 122 (20.00) One-to-one assistant No 193 (64.33) 109 (58.29) 15 (53.57) 47 (51.09) 366 (59.90) Yes 107 (35.67) 78 (41.71) 13 (46.43) 45 (48.91) 245 (40.10) Educational settings Mostly general education 158 (51.97) 19 (10.11) 0 (0.00) 24 (25.53) 201 (32.52) General and special education 71 (23.36) 63 (33.51) 9 (32.14) 25 (26.60) 170 (27.51) Mostly special education 71 (23.36) 105 (55.85) 18 (64.29) 43 (45.74) 238 (38.51) Other setting 4 (1.32) 1 (0.53) 1 (3.57) 2 (2.13) 9 (1.46) Challenging behaviors Never 25 (8.22) 47 (25.13) 1 (3.57) 9 (9.57) 83 (13.45) Rarely 66 (21.71) 57 (30.48) 5 (17.86) 18 (19.15) 147 (23.82) Sometimes 140 (46.05) 54 (28.88) 9 (32.14) 39 (41.49) 243 (39.38) Often 73 (24.01) 29 (15.51) 13 (46.43) 28 (29.79) 144 (23.34) Free/reduced-price lunch No 214 (70.86) 98 (52.97) 11 (40.74) 37 (40.22) 362 (59.34) Yes 88 (29.14) 87 (47.03) 16 (59.26) 55 (59.78) 248 (40.66) Respondent’s relationship to child Father 42 (13.77) 22 (11.64) 3 (10.71) 4 (4.30) 71 (11.47) Mother 256 (83.93) 161 (85.19) 25 (89.29) 85 (91.40) 531 (85.78) Other 7 (2.29) 6 (3.17) 0 (0.00) 4 (4.31) 17 (2.75) Respondent’s race/ethnicity African American 1 (0.33) 1 (0.53) 0 (0.00) 2 (2.15) 5 (0.81) Asian American 5 (1.64) 5 (2.66) 0 (0.00) 4 (4.30) 14 (2.27) Latina/Latino/Hispanic 10 (3.28) 4 (2.13) 0 (0.00) 4 (4.30) 18 (2.91) Native American 1 (0.33) 2 (1.06) 0 (0.00) 1 (1.08) 4 (0.65) Other or multiple 3 (0.98) 8 (4.26) 1 (3.57) 1 (1.08) 13 (2.10) White 285 (93.44) 168 (89.36) 27 (96.43) 81 (87.10) 564 (91.26) Note. Ten respondents did not specify disability type. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the given item. Number of missing responses can be determined by using overall n/N. AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES 2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31 EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16 20 Parent self-determination
  6. 6. neath ‘‘self-advocacy and leadership skills’’). Second, for these same seven skills, parents were also asked ‘‘How well do you feel your child does this now?’’ Responses were provided on a 3-point Likert-type scale (1 5 not well, 2 5 somewhat well, 3 5 very well). Cronbach’s alpha for each scale was .80 for both scales. Third, we asked parents to evaluate their child’s self-determination capacity using the parent version of the AIR Self-Determination Scale (Wolman, Campeau, DuBois, Mithaug, & Sto- larski, 1994). This scale assesses students’ self- determination capacities by measuring the extent to which students connect beliefs about what they need, want, and could do with their expectations, choices, actions, and results. Parents rated each of six statements (e.g., ‘‘My child knows what s(he) needs, likes, and is good at’’; ‘‘My child begins work on plans to meet his or her goals as soon as possible’’; see Table 3) using a 5-point Likert-type scale (i.e., 1 5 never, 2 5 almost never, 3 5 sometimes, 4 5 almost always, or 5 5 always). Adequate reliability and validity for the parent scale has been demonstrated in prior studies (Carter, Lane, Pierson, & Glaeser, 2006; Carter et al., 2009). Cronbach’s alpha for the current study was .87. Fourth, we included 10 questions addressing: (a) the nature of respondents’ relationship to the focus child and their own race/ethnicity; (b) demographic information about the child (i.e., age, gender, primary special education category, disability severity, occurrence of challenging behaviors, and FRL eligibility); and (c) school program information about the child (i.e., receipt of a one-to-one assistant, primary educational settings). Table 1 displays response options for these questions. In addition, parents evaluated their own level of familiarity of the concept of ‘‘self-determination for children with disabilities’’ prior to receiving the survey (i.e., 1 5 not at all, 2 5 somewhat, 3 5 very familiar). Procedures Data collection primarily took place between October and January, with small numbers of surveys returned through the end of the school year. We sent study invitations to the director of special education for each identified district to explain the purpose of the study, include a sample survey, and invite the district’s involvement. A few days later, we called each director to provide additional detail, answer any questions, request verbal permission for the district to assist with the survey, and request districts return signed permis- sion forms. Multiple attempts were made to reach directors by phone before moving to the next district on our list. We asked participating districts to tell us the total number of K-12 students in their district currently receiving special education services under the category of autism or intellectual disability as well as the number of families needing a survey in a language other than English. We mailed the district liaison the appropriate number of prestamped and sealed survey packets. To protect the families’ confidentiality, the district liaison placed address labels on surveys and mailed them on our behalf. Each survey packet contained a survey with cover letter, a postage-paid return envelope, a $2 cash incentive, and a postage-paid postcard families could return separately to enter a drawing and request addi- tional free resources from a state family resource center. Completed surveys were mailed directly to the research team, preventing district staff from knowing which families chose to participate. We used several strategies to achieve a high response rate. First, parents received $2 with each survey and could enter a drawing for one of twenty $25 gift cards. Second, we limited the length of the survey to enable completion in approximately 20 min. Third, we asked districts to mail a second copy of the survey to all parents approximately 5–6 weeks later. The second survey did not include a cash incentive, and parents were asked not to complete it a second time if their initial survey had already been returned. Fourth, we indicated in our cover letter that we would prepare and distribute a free guide for parents based on what we learned from the study. The overall response rate was 37.7% (range 5 16.7%– 66.6% across districts). Data entry was completed by four graduate and undergraduate students. Fidelity of data entry was checked for every survey, and any data entry errors were corrected. To ascertain the extent to which sample biasing was a potential concern, we examined two sources of information. First, we compared our sample’s demographics to the demographics of all students (with and without disabilities) served in the participating school districts from which the sample was drawn as well as from the universe of districts we originally approached. Although race/ethnicity was comparable among the groups, the percentage of students in our AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES 2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31 EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16 E. W. Carter et al. 21
  7. 7. sample eligible for FRL was considerably higher than the proportion of all students eligible for FRL in the sampled districts (40% vs. 27%; cf. Fujiura & Yamaki, 2000). Second, we compared survey findings for parents responding to the initial and follow-up survey requests. No signifi- cant differences were noted. Study Design and Data Analysis Plan To determine how parents evaluate the impor- tance of prominent self-determination skills as well as their assessment of their child’s self- determination capacity, we used descriptive sta- tistics to summarize ratings of importance across respondents. Descriptive statistics for item-level ratings are reported in Tables 2 and 3. Next, we computed Pearson correlation coefficients to examine the association between parents’ ratings of the importance and use of the seven self- determination domains as well as their overall assessment of their child’s capacity for self- determined behavior. Specifically, correlations are reported for (a) item-level skill importance and skill performance ratings, (b) item-level skill importance ratings and the overall AIR score (i.e., average of all six items), and (c) item-level skill performance ratings and the overall AIR score. Finally, we conducted three stepwise regres- sions to identify the extent to which child-, parent-, and school-level factors predicted (a) the importance parents placed on their child learning self-determination skills, (b) the extent to which their children currently performed the skills, and (c) parents’ assessment of their child’s overall self- determination capacity. These factors included: child’s gender (male or female), child’s age (5– 18 years), child’s disability level (mild/moderate or severe/profound), whether the child had a one- to-one assistant (yes or no), the child’s primary school setting (i.e., mostly or all general education classrooms, both general and special education classes equally, mostly or all special education classrooms, or other settings), whether the child had autism (yes or no), whether the child had intellectual disability (yes or no), whether the child had additional disabilities (yes or no), the frequency of challenging behaviors (never, rarely, sometimes, or often), and whether or not the child received free or reduced priced lunches (yes or no). We used a jackknife procedure to detect outliers (Kleinbaum, Kupper, Muller, & Nizam, 1998). To determine the most parsimonious Table2 RatingsofSkillImportanceandReportedPerformance Self-determinationskills Importance%(n) M(SD) Performance%(n) M(SD)Notimportant Somewhat important Very importantNotwellSomewhatwellVerywell Choicemaking2.94(18)19.28(118)77.78(476)2.75(0.50)19.09(117)60.20(369)20.72(127)2.02(0.63) Decisionmaking6.50(40)20.16(124)73.33(451)2.67(0.59)56.96(348)36.99(226)6.06(37)1.49(0.61) Problemsolving1.96(12)11.93(73)86.11(527)2.84(0.42)54.35(331)40.72(248)4.93(30)1.51(0.59) Goalsetting6.54(40)33.33(204)60.13(368)2.54(0.62)71.38(434)25.66(156)2.96(18)1.32(0.53) Self-advocacyandleadership9.79(60)30.18(185)60.03(368)2.50(0.67)70.39(428)25.82(157)3.78(23)1.33(0.55) Self-managementandself-regulation1.95(12)16.42(101)81.63(502)2.80(0.45)57.96(353)37.11(226)4.93(30)1.47(0.59) Self-awarenessandself-knowledge3.10(19)25.49(156)71.41(437)2.69(0.53)37.97(232)53.36(326)8.67(53)1.71(0.62) Note.Percentagesarebasedonthenumberofparticipantswhocompletedthegivenitem. AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES 2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31 EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16 22 Parent self-determination
  8. 8. predictors to retain in each model, we examined residual sums of squares, the multiple correlation coefficient, and Cp criterion values (Borthwick- Duffy, Lane, & Widaman, 1997). We also evaluated the validity of the regression models by examining studentized residuals, leverage, and Cook’s D values (Kleinbaum et al., 1998). Results indicated extreme values were not evidenced suggesting the regression results were considered accurate. Graduate students entered all data, with fidelity of data entry assessed for 100% of the surveys. Any data entry errors were corrected. Results How Do Parents Evaluate the Importance of Seven Self-determination Skills? Overall, parents indicated it was very important for their children to learn each of the seven component elements of self-determination (see Table 2), with mean scores ranging from 2.50 for self-advocacy and leadership skills to 2.84 for problem-solving skills. More than 70% of parents rated choice making, decision making, problem solving, self- management and self-regulation skills, and self- awareness and self-knowledge as being very impor- tant for their children. More than 60% of parents rated goal setting skills and self-advocacy and leadership skills as somewhat important. How Do Parents Assess Their Children’s Performance on Each Self- determination Skill? Despite the high levels of importance parents placed on their child learning each skill, they generally reported their children did not perform these skills well, with mean scores ranging from 1.32 for both goal-setting skills to 2.02 for choice- making skills (see Table 2). More than half of the parents indicated their children did not perform decision-making, problem-solving, goal-setting, self-advocacy and leadership, or self-management and self-regulation skills well. Parents indicated their children were more successful in their ability to perform choice-making skills and to a lesser extent self-awareness and self-knowledge skills. How Do Parents Rate Their Children’s Overall Self-determination Capacity? Although the majority of parents indicated their child almost always or always (45.32%) knew what Table3 ParentRatingsofSelf-DeterminationFromtheAIRSelf-DeterminationScale AIRscaleitem Percentage(n)ofparentsprovidingeachrating M(SD)NeverAlmostneverSometimesAlmostalwaysAlways 1.Mychildknowswhat(s)heneeds,likes,andisgoodat.0.81(5)2.42(15)41.45(257)45.32(281)10.00(62)3.61(0.73) 2.Mychildsetshisorherowngoalstosatisfywantsorneeds. (S)hethinksabouthisorherownabilitieswhensettinggoals.18.78(117)32.74(204)37.40(233)9.47(59)1.61(10)2.42(0.95) 3.Mychildfiguresouthowtomeetgoalsalone.(S)hemakes plansanddecideswhattodoindependently.22.95(143)34.35(214)34.83(217)6.90(43)0.96(6)2.29(0.93) 4.Mychildbeginsworkonplanstomeethisorhergoals assoonaspossible.30.39(189)32.48(202)28.30(176)6.91(43)1.93(12)2.18(1.00) 5.Mychildcheckshisorherownprogresswhencompletinghis orherplan.(S)heasksotherswhattheythinkofhisorherprogress.36.92(230)29.70(185)25.04(156)6.26(39)2.09(13)2.07(1.03) 6.Ifaplandoesn’twork,mychildtriesanotheronetomeet hisorhergoals.25.56(159)30.39(189)35.85(223)5.95(37)2.25(14)2.29(0.99) Note.Percentagesarebasedonthenumberofparticipantswhocompletedthegivenitem. AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES 2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31 EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16 E. W. Carter et al. 23
  9. 9. he or she likes and is good at, less than 10% of parents provided similar ratings on all five remaining items. Overall scores (i.e., average of all six items) on the AIR Self-Determination scale averaged 14.89 (SD 5 4.44) and ranged from 2.07 (Item 5 progress) to 3.16 (Item 1 strengths). To What Extent Are Ratings of Skills Importance, Skill Performance, and Overall Self-determination Related? When comparing importance and performance ratings, we found significant positive correlations for five of the seven items: decision making (r 5 .21), goal setting (r 5 .17), self-advocacy and leadership skills (r 5 .13), and self-awareness and self-knowledge (r 5 .12). Although statistically significant, correlation coefficients suggest low- level relations between ratings of skill importance and actual performance. Comparisons among item-level skill importance and overall AIR ratings also yielded significant, positive correlations for all skills except choice-making skills. Significant correlations were small in magnitude, ranging from 0.11 (problem solving) to 0.26 (self-advocacy and leadership). Comparisons among perfor- mance and overall AIR ratings yielded significant, positive correlations for all items. The correlations were moderate in magnitude, ranging from 0.45 (problem solving; self-advocacy and leadership; and self-management and self-regulations) to 0.53 (decision making). What Factors Are Associated with Parents’ Ratings of Skill Importance, Skill Performance, and Overall Self- Determination Capacity? Skill Importance. Three of the 10 variables— disability level, FRL status, and having intellectual disability—were significant predictors of parents’ importance ratings (see Table 4 for results of significance testing). Disability level accounted for 7% of variance in importance; FRL status accounted for an additional 1% of the variance as did having a special education label of intellectual disability. The overall model accounted for 9% of variance. Parents whose children were eligible for FRL and who did not have intellectual disability placed greater importance on self-determination skills than did parents whose children were not eligible for FRL and had intellectual disability. In addition, parents who described their children as having severe/profound disabilities placed less importance on learning self-determination skills than did parents who described their children as having mild/moderate disabilities. Skill performance. When predicting factors associated with the extent to which parents felt their children performed this collection of seven skills, six variables entered the model (see Table 4). In brief, school setting accounted for 12% of the variance in performance ratings followed by frequency of challenging behavior (6%), disability level (4%), child’s age (2%), child’s gender (1%), and FRL status (1%). There was a positive relation between parents’ ratings of skill performance and their child’s age, gender, and FRL status, suggesting parents offered higher performance for older children and girls. Perfor- mance was also rated higher for children who were eligible for FRL. The remaining variables shared a significant, negative relation, meaning perfor- mance ratings were higher for children spending a greater proportion of time in general education settings, having a lower frequency of challenging behaviors, and having mild/moderate disabilities (versus severe/profound disabilities). Global self-determination. When predicting parents’ overall ratings of their children’s self- determination capacity (assessed using the AIR Self-Determination Scale), six variables entered the model (see Table 4 and Table 5). In brief, disability level accounted for 11% of the variance in AIR ratings followed by frequency of challeng- ing behavior (4%), school setting (2%), child’s age (1%), gender (1%), and FRL status (1%). There was a positive relation between overall AIR scores and the child’s age, gender, and FRL status, indicating parents attributed greater self-determination ca- pacity to older children, girls, and children who were FRL eligible. Furthermore, children identi- fied as having mild/moderate disabilities, fewer challenging behaviors, and spending more time in general education classes were judged to have greater self-determination capacity. Discussion The importance of fostering self-determination across the age span has become increasingly prominent within recommended educational policies and practices for students with develop- mental disabilities. To date, however, this empha- sis has centered most heavily on the contributions special and general educators might make toward AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES 2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31 EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16 24 Parent self-determination
  10. 10. equipping students with the skills, knowledge, and opportunities to become more self-determining. Parents and other caregivers represent an essential— but too often neglected—partner in this endeavor (e.g., Zhang, 2006; Zhang et al., 2002; Zhang et al., 2010). To explore how parents view the importance of self-determination and assess their children’s needs in this domain, we solicited the perspectives of more than 600 parents from numerous randomly selected school districts. Our findings extend the self-determination literature in several important ways. First, parents in the sample clearly empha- sized the importance of their children with intellectual disability or autism learning the seven self-determination skills at their present age. Indeed, we were surprised by just how few parents (i.e., less than 10%) indicated that any of the individual skills were not important. Problem solving, self-management, and choice-making skills garnered particularly high importance rat- ings, while the endorsement of goal setting and self-advocacy and leadership was only slightly less prominent. The overall consistency of these priorities with those identified in prior studies of general educators, special educators, and parapro- fessionals suggests some degree of consensus across stakeholder groups regarding the value of fostering self-determination skill development (Carter et al., 2008; Carter, Lane, & Sisco, 2011; Stang et al., 2009). Although this study was not designed to explore why parents placed such high value on these skills, findings suggest that parents may be receptive to placing more explicit emphasis on promoting self-determination within the curriculum and student’s individualized IEPs. Although there was general consistency in parents’ evaluations of the importance of individ- ual skills, their collective ratings of all seven skills appear to be shaped by at least three factors. Specifically, the seven skills were considered somewhat less important by parents of children described as having severe/profound disabilities or having a special education label of intellectual disability. It may be that the difficulties children with extensive support needs have performing self-determination skills (Carter, Owens, et al., 2009) indirectly temper parents’ views regarding the importance of acquiring those skills. For example, a substantial proportion of parents’ responses to open-ended survey questions about primary barriers to self-determination emphasized communication, social, cognitive, and other skill deficits exhibited by their children. On the other hand, parents of children who were eligible for free or reduced-price meals considered those same skills to be somewhat more important than did parents of children who were not eligible for FRL. This latter finding was unanticipated, as prior research has suggested that parents of lower-income families may engage in fewer self- determination practices (Zhang, 2006). The assessments provided by parents also conveyed striking differences between the skills Table 4 Correlations Between Skill Importance, Skill Performance, and Overall Self-Determination Ratings Self-determination skills Skill importance and skill performance Skill importance and overall self-determination capacity Skill performance and overall self-determination capacity r p value r p value r p value Choice making 20.05 .2145 20.00 .9400 0.46 , .0001 Decision making 0.21 , .0001 0.14 .0007 0.53 , .0001 Problem solving 0.03 .5258 0.11 .0067 0.45 , .0001 Goal setting 0.17 , .0001 0.21 , .0001 0.51 , .0001 Self-advocacy and leadership 0.13 .0012 0.26 , .0001 0.45 , .0001 Self-management and self-regulation 0.08 .0602 0.15 .0002 0.45 , .0001 Self-awareness and self-knowledge 0.13 .0020 0.16 , .0001 0.48 , .0001 Note. Correlations are based on the number of participants who completed the given item. Overall self-determination ratings refer to overall average scores on the AIR Self-Determination Scale. AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES 2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31 EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16 E. W. Carter et al. 25
  11. 11. Table5 VariablesPredictingImportance,Performance,andAIRSelf-DeterminationScale OutcomevariableStepPredictorvariableParameterestimatePartialR2 ModelR2 C(p)Fvaluepvalue Importance1Disabilitylevel21.610.06600.066012.0439.06,.0001 2FRLstatus0.640.01090.07687.496.50.0111 3Intellectualdisability20.490.00840.08534.415.03.0246 Performance1Schoolsetting20.980.12070.1207106.0675.35,.0001 2Challengingbehaviorfrequency20.670.06480.185559.9543.58,.0001 3Disabilitylevel21.320.03530.220835.7024.81,.0001 4Child’sage0.120.02070.241522.3014.93.0001 5Child’sgender0.670.00980.251417.017.15.0077 6FRLstatus0.550.00920.260512.216.74.0097 OverallSD1Disabilitylevel20.440.10920.109261.6870.70,.0001 2Challengingbehaviorfrequency20.150.04020.149334.9727.20,.0001 3Schoolsetting20.170.02440.173719.5316.99,.0001 4Child’sage0.020.01190.185713.018.40.0039 5Child’sgender0.150.00840.19409.045.94.0151 6FRLstatus0.130.00730.20135.855.19.0230 Note.FRL5Free/reducedpriceluncheligible. AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES 2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31 EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16 26 Parent self-determination
  12. 12. they considered important for their children and the degree to which their children presently performed those skills. For example, more than half of the parents in this sample indicated their child did not perform five of the skills well at all. One marked exception was choice making, which has been among the most often emphasized elements in the self-determination literature for this population of students (Shogren, Faggella- Luby, Bae, & Wehmeyer, 2004; Shogren, Weh- meyer, Buchanan, & Lopez, 2006). It may be this particular skill receives greater emphasis within the special education curriculum, and/or perhaps it is the most easily learned skill among the seven. Parents’ ratings on the AIR Scale (both individual items and overall) were also fairly low, with the exception that children were reported to some- times or always know what they need, like, and are good at. Given the nature of those children’s disabilities and support needs (Schalock et al., 2010), these performance discrepancies are likely not unique to the domain of self-determination. Additional work, however, is needed to elucidate factors contributing to observed differences in parents’ ratings of importance and performance. Although study respondents collectively reported numerous ways in which they were encouraging skills potentially enhancing their child’s self- determination (see Weir, Cooney, Walter, Moss, & Carter, 2011), we were unable to discern the extent to which these efforts were implemented in ways and degrees yielding substantive impact. For example, it may be parents highly value self- determination and are striving to encourage it but lack effective strategies to do so. Or, it may be that parents view the skills as important, but lean to schools or others to provide explicit instruction in this domain. Parents’ ratings of self-determination skill performance may be influenced by multiple factors. The most prominent among these factors was school setting. Specifically, children who spent more time in general education settings were given higher ratings of skill performance than were children who spent proportionally more time in separate settings. We emphasize, however, the precise influence of educational placement on students’ self-determination out- comes is clearly complex and remains uncertain (Shogren et al., 2007; Zhang, 2001). In addition, children who engaged in lower rates of challenging behavior were perceived to have higher self- determination skill performance. This is not surprising, as a similar association has been found among students with learning disabilities or emo- tional/behavioral disorders (Pierson, Carter, Lane, & Glaeser, 2008). Additionally, self-determination skills (esp. self-management, choice-making) are routinely recommended as interventions for reduc- ing problem behaviors (Carter, Lane, Crnobori, Bruhn, & Oakes, 2011; Shogren et al., 2004). Finally, we found perceived level of disability to be a prominent predictor of parents’ ratings of self- determination skill performance and overall capac- ity, with children whose disabilities were considered to be severe/profound having more limitations related to self-determination (Wehmeyer & Garner, 2003). Although it was indeed a significant (albeit small) predictor, we were surprised that age was not more strongly related to overall skill perfor- mance or global self-determination capacity. We had anticipated older youth would be viewed as more self-determining than young children. Instead, parents’ ratings of the self-determination skills and capacity of their children with intellec- tual disability or autism were consistently low at all points along the age span, with only nominal increases among children who are older. This finding should not imply children and youth are not developing skills in these seven areas over time, as it is possible parents are heavily anchoring their ratings to what they would expect of their child relative to similar-age peers. This finding does, however, suggest intervention strategies may be needed across the age span, long before self- determination traditionally becomes emphasized during early and middle adolescence. Implications for Research and Practice Findings from this large-scale study of parent perspectives have several implications for research and practice. First, there is an enduring need to develop home-based or family-delivered interven- tions to enhance self-determination—beginning at an early age and continuing throughout children’s schooling. Although several articles and publications have recommended strategies parents might implement at home (e.g., Broth- erson, Cook, Erwin, & Weigel, 2008; Thoma & Wehman, 2010; Weir et al., 2011), there have been few rigorous evaluations of interventions delivered in these out-of-school contexts. Second, existing efforts to foster student self-determination would be enhanced by stronger collaboration and AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES 2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31 EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16 E. W. Carter et al. 27
  13. 13. coordination across school and home settings (Field & Hoffman, 1999; Lee, Palmer, Turnbull, & Wehmeyer, 2006). For students with intellectual disability or autism—who often have difficulties generalizing newly learned skills across contexts— such synchronized efforts could increase both the number and diversity of self-determination skill- building opportunities these children encounter throughout the week. Third, relatively little is known about the everyday ways in which parents are encouraging and supporting the skills, knowl- edge, and behaviors that may coalesce to shape to the self-determination of their school-age children with developmental disabilities over time. Al- though we gathered selected examples of efforts parents were making to encourage individual skills (Weir et al., 2011), in-depth qualitative investiga- tions are needed to document the diverse ways in which parents understand and address this important domain beyond the school day. Fourth, personal and cultural identities likely shape the ways in which families think about and support self-determination beyond the school. As noted in a recent review by Shogren (2011), rigorous studies exploring the intersection of culture and self- determination remain far too few. Although we were able to explore one aspect of socioeconomic diversity in our analyses (i.e., FRL eligibility), we were unable to explore factors like race/ethnicity, nationality, parental education level, and other related factors in this particular sample and state. We encourage future researchers to recruit samples and employ methods that would further the field’s understanding of the ways in which these and other variables, individually and in combination, might shape the understandings and efforts of parents related to this important educational domain. Limitations Several limitations to this study should be considered when discerning the relevance of our findings to other samples of parents and their children. First, we did not sample families with children receiving special education under a category other than autism or intellectual disabil- ity, families of pre-kindergarten children, nor families of children attending private or charter schools. Second, we relied on parental reports of some aspects of their children’s disabilities without conducting direct assessments of stu- dents’ specific support needs. Although we relied on schools’ determination of primary disability category, parents’ descriptions of their children’s disability categories may not have always aligned with those of the school. Third, although demographically similar to the randomly selected school districts from which participating parents were affiliated, our sample does not fully reflect the ethnic and racial diversity of the country nationally. With only 63 parents listing their race/ ethnicity as something other than European American, our sample was too small to meaning- fully explore differences in parents’ perceptions associated with this factor. Readers should con- sider whether the students, parents, and commu- nities involved in this study resemble those with whom they work when considering the generaliz- ability of the findings. Fourth, we were unable to make comparisons to the ratings of parents of same-age children without disabilities to gauge whether our findings simply reflect normative patterns among all children. Conclusion Children and youth with autism or intellectual disability often require explicit instruction and support to acquire and exercise essential self- determination skills, including choice-making skills, decision-making skills, goal-setting skills, problem-solving skills, self-advocacy and leader- ship skills, self-awareness and self-knowledge, and self-management and self-regulation. Historically, research evaluating the effects of intervention targeting these skills has taken place in education- al settings with teachers and teaching staff as interventionists. However, given the enduring presence of parents and other caregivers in a child’s life, these stakeholders likely play a pivotal role in the acquisition and generalization of self- determination skills by children and youth with developmental disabilities. The results of the present study suggest that, although parents rated their child’s performance of self-determined behaviors low, the core skills associated with self-determination are highly valued by parents of children and youth with autism or intellectual disability. Additionally, our findings point to potential relationships between individual factors (i.e., disability severity, presence of challenging behavior), family factors (i.e., economic status), and school factors (i.e., educational placement) on and parent report of their child’s self-determination capacity. Given the documented effectiveness of self-determination interventions in educational AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES 2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31 EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16 28 Parent self-determination
  14. 14. settings, and the paucity of research involving parents and other caregivers, there is a pressing need for future research to address this gap in the literature and deepen our evidence base for interventions. References American Association on Intellectual and Devel- opmental Disabilities & The Arc. (2008). Self- determination policy statement. Washington, DC: Authors. Borthwick-Duffy, S. A., Lane, K. L., & Widaman, K. F. (1997). Measuring problem behaviors in children with mental retardation: Dimensions and predictors. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 18, 415–433. doi:10.1016/S0891- 4222(97)00020-6 Brotherson, M. J., Cook, C. C., Erwin, E. J., & Weigel, C. J. (2008). Understanding self- determination and families of young children with disabilities in home environments. Journal of Early Intervention, 31, 22–43. doi:10.1177/1053815108324445 Carter, E. W., Lane, K. L., Crnobori, M., Bruhn, A. L., & Oakes, W. P. (2011). Self-determina- tion interventions for students with and at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders: Mapping the knowledge base. Behavioral Disorders, 36, 100–116. Carter, E. W., Lane, K. L., Pierson, M., & Glaeser, B. (2006). Self-determination skills and op- portunities of transition-age youth with emo- tional disturbance and learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 333–346. Carter, E. W., Lane, K. L., Pierson, M. R., & Stang, K. K. (2008). Promoting self-determination for transition-age youth: Views of high school general and special educators. Exceptional Children, 75, 55–70. Carter, E. W., Lane, K. L., & Sisco, L. G. (2011). Paraprofessional perspectives on promoting self-determination among elementary and secondary students with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36, 1–10. doi:10.2511/rpsd.36.1- 2.1 Carter, E. W., Owens, L., Trainor, A. A., Sun, Y., & Swedeen, B. (2009). Self-determination skills and opportunities of adolescents with severe intellectual and developmental disabil- ities. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 114, 179–192. doi:10.1352/1944-7558-114.3.179 Cho, H., Wehmeyer, M., & Kingston, N. (2011). Elementary teachers’ knowledge and use of interventions and barriers to promoting self- determination. The Journal of Special Education, 45, 149–156. doi:10.1177/0022466910362588 Cobb, B., Lehmann, J., Newman-Gonchar, R., & Alwell, M. (2009). Self-determination for students with disabilities: A narrative meta- synthesis. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 108–114. doi:10.1177/ 0885728809336654 Council for Exceptional Children. (2009). What every special educator must know: Ethics, stan- dards, and guidelines (6th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.) (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Field, S., & Hoffman, A. (1999). The importance of family involvement for promoting self- determination among adolescents with autism and other developmental disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 14, 36–41. doi:10.1177/108835769901400105 Field, S., & Hoffman, A. (2007). Self-determination in secondary transition assessment. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 181–190. doi:10. 1177/15345084070320030601 Field, S., Martin, J., Miller, R., Ward, M., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (1998). Self-determination for persons with disabilities: A position statement of the Division on Career Devel- opment and Transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 21, 113–128. doi:10.1177/088572889802100202 Fujiura, G. T., & Yamaki, K. (2000). Trends in demography of childhood poverty and dis- ability. Exceptional Children, 66, 187–199. Grigal, M., Neubert, D. A., Moon, M. S., & Graham, S. (2003). Self-determination for students with disabilities: Views of parents and teachers. Exceptional Children, 70, 97– 112. Halpern, A. S., Herr, C. M., Doren, B., & Wolf, N. K. (1997). Next S.T.E.P. curriculum. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Im- provement Act of 2004. Pub. L. No. 108–446, 1 101, 118 Stat. 2647. (2004). Kelley, K. R., Bartholomew, A., & Test, D. W. (in press). Effects of the Self-Directed IEP deliv- AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES 2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31 EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16 E. W. Carter et al. 29
  15. 15. ered using computer-assisted instruction on student participation in educational planning meetings. Remedial and Special Education. doi:10.1177/0741932511415864 Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L., Muller, K. E., & Nizam, A. (1998). Applied regression analysis and other multivariate methods (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: PWS-Kent. Lee, S. H., Palmer, S. B., Turnbull, A. P., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2006). A model for parent-teacher collaboration to promote self-determination in young children with disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 38(3), 36–41. Mithaug, D. E., Mithaug, D., Agran, M., Martin, J., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (Eds.). (2003). Self- determined learning theory: Construction, verifi- cation, and evaluation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2008). Professional standards for the accreditation of teacher preparation institutions. Washington, DC: Author. Pierson, M. R., Carter, E. W., Lane, K. L., & Glaeser, B. (2008). Factors influencing the self-determination of transition-age youth with high incidence disabilities. Career Devel- opment for Exceptional Individuals, 31, 115– 125. doi:10.1177/0885728808317659 Schalock, R. L., Borthwick-Duffy, S., Bradley, V. J., Buntinx, W. H. E., Coulter, D. L., Craig, E. M., … Yeager, M. H. (2010). Intellectual disability: Definition, classification, and systems of support (11th ed.). Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Shogren, K. A. (2011). Culture and self-determi- nation: A synthesis of the literature and directions for future research and practice. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 34, 115–127. doi:10.1177/0885728811398271 Shogren, K. A., Faggella-Luby, M. N., Bae, S. J., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2004). The effect of choice- making as an intervention for problem behav- ior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Positive Behav- ior Interventions, 6, 228–237. doi:10.1177/ 10983007040060040401 Shogren, K. A., Palmer, S. B., Wehmeyer, M. L., Williams-Diehm, K., & Little, T. D. (in press). Effects of intervention with the Self-Deter- mined Learning Model of Instruction on access and goal attainment. Remedial and Special Education. doi:10.1177/0741932511410072 Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Buchanan, C. L., & Lopez, S. J. (2006). The application of positive psychology and self-determination to research in intellectual disability: A con- tent analysis of 30 years of literature. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 338–345. Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Soukup, J. H., Little, T. D., Garner, N., & Lawrence, M. (2007). Examining individual and ecological predictors of the self-determination of students with disabilities. Exceptional Chil- dren, 73, 488–509. Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Soukup, J. H., Little, T. D., Garner, N., & Lawrence, M. (2008). Understanding the construct of self-determination: Examining the relationship between the Arc’s Self- Determination Scale and the American Insti- tutes for Research Self-Determination Scale. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 94–107. doi:10.1177/1534508407311395 Stang, K. K., Carter, E. W., Lane, K. L., & Pierson, M. R. (2009). Perspectives of general and special educators on fostering self-determina- tion in elementary and middle schools. The Journal of Special Education, 43, 94–106. doi:10.1177/0022466907313452 TASH. (2000). TASH resolution on choice. Wash- ington, DC: Author. Test, D. W., Fowler, C. H., Richter, S. M., White, J., Mazzotti, V., Walker, A. R., … Kortering, L. (2009). Evidence-based practices in second- ary transition. Career Development for Excep- tional Individuals, 32, 115–128. doi:10.1177/ 0885728809336859 Thoma, C. A., & Wehman, P. (2010). Getting the most out of IEPs: An educator’s guide to the student-directed approach. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Wehmeyer, M. L. (2000). The Arc’s Self-Determi- nation Scale. Silver Springs, MD: The Arc of the United States. Wehmeyer, M. L. (2005). Self-determination and individuals with severe disabilities: Re-examining meanings and misinterpretations. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30, 113– 120. Wehmeyer, M. L., Abery, B. H., Mithaug, D., & Stancliffe, R. J. (2003). Theory in self- determination: Foundations for educational prac- tice. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas. AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES 2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31 EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16 30 Parent self-determination
  16. 16. Wehmeyer, M. L., Abery, B., Zhang, D., Ward, K., Willis, D., Hossain, W. A., … Walker, H. M. (2011). Personal self-determination and moderating variables that impact efforts to promote self-determination. Exceptionality, 19, 19–30. doi:10.1080/09362835.2011.537225 Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. (2000). A national survey of teachers’ promotion of self-determination and student-directed learn- ing. Journal of Special Education, 34, 58–68. doi:10.1177/002246690003400201 Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., Hughes, C., Martin, J., Mithaug, D. E., & Palmer, S. (2007). Promoting self-determination in students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Wehmeyer, M. L., & Field, S. (2007). Instructional and assessment strategies to promote the self- determination of students with disabilities. Thou- sand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Wehmeyer, M. L., Field, S., Doren, B., & Mason, C. (2004). Self-determination and student involvement in standards-based reform. Ex- ceptional Children, 70, 413–425. Wehmeyer, M. L., & Garner, N. W. (2003). The impact of personal characteristics of people with intellectual and developmental disability on self-determination and autonomous func- tioning. Journal of Applied Research in Intellec- tual Disabilities, 16, 255–265. doi:10.1046/ j.1468-3148.2003.00161.x Wehmeyer, M. L., Lawrence, M., Kelchner, K., Palmer, S., Garner, N., & Soukup, J. (2004). Whose future is it anyway? A student-directed transition planning process (2nd ed.). Lawrence, KS: Beach Center on Disability. Wehmeyer, M. L., & Palmer, S. B. (2000). Promoting the acquisition and development of self-determination in young children with disabilities. Early Education and Development, 4, 465–481. Weir, K., Cooney, M., Walter, M., Moss, C., & Carter, E. W. (2011). Fostering self-determina- tion among children with disabilities: Ideas from parents for parents. Madison, WI: Natural Supports Project, Waisman Center, Universi- ty of Wisconsin-Madison. Wolman, J. M., Campeau, P. L., DuBois, P. A., Mithaug, D. E., & Stolarski, V. S. (1994). AIR self-determination scale and user guide. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research. Avail- able at http://www.zarrow.ou.edu Zhang, D. (2001). Self-determination and inclu- sion: Are students with mild mental retardation more self-determined in regular classrooms? Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36, 357–362. Zhang, D. (2006). Parent practices in facilitating self-determination skills: The influences of culture, socioeconomic status, and children’s special education status. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30, 154–162. Zhang, D., Katsiyannis, A., & Zhang, J. (2002). Teacher and parent practice on fostering self- determination of high school students with mild disabilities. Career Development for Excep- tional Individuals, 25, 157–169. doi:10.1177/ 088572880202500205 Zhang, D., Landmark, L., Grenwelge, C., & Montoya, L. (2010). Self-determination prac- tices among culturally diverse families: Paren- tal perspectives. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 45, 175–186. Zhang, D., Wehmeyer, M. L., & Chen, L. (2005). Parent and teacher engagement in fostering the self-determination of students with dis- abilities: A comparison between the United States and the Republic of China. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 55–64. doi:10.1177/ 07419325050260010701 Received 9/1/2011, first decision 1/5/2012, accepted 6/7/2012. Editor-in-Charge: Marc Tasse´ Authors: Erik W. Carter (e-mail: erik.carter@vanderbilt.edu), Vanderbilt University, Special Education, PMB 228, 110 Magnolia Circle, Nashville, TN 53703, USA; Kathleen Lynne Lane, University of Kansas; Molly Cooney, Katherine Weir, and Colleen K. Moss, Waisman Center, University of North Carolina- Chapel Hill, and Wendy Machalicek, University of Oregon. AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES 2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31 EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16 E. W. Carter et al. 31
  17. 17. Re´sume´s en Franc¸ais E´ tablir l’e´quivalence: le progre` s me´thodologique dans la conception et l’analyse des groupes d’appariement Sara T. Kover et Amy K. Atwood Cette revue me´thodologique attire l’attention sur les de´fis auxquels font face les chercheurs en de´ficience intellectuelle en ce qui a trait a` la conception approprie´e et a` l’analyse d’e´tudes de comparaison de groupes. Nous faisons un survol des me´thodologies d’appariement dans le domaine de la de´ficience intellectuelle, en mettant l’accent sur la conception des groupes d’appariement utilise´s en recherche comportementale sur la cognition et le langage en troubles neurode´veloppementaux, incluant le trou- ble du spectre autistique, le syndrome du X fragile, le syndrome de Down et le syndrome de Williams. Les limites relie´es au fait de se fier aux valeurs p pour e´tablir l’e´quivalence des groupes seront discute´es dans le contexte d’autres me´thodes actuelles: les tests d’e´quivalence, les scores de propension et les analyses de re´gression. Notre recommandation principale pour l’avancement de la recherche en de´ficience intellectuelle est l’utilisation d’indices descriptifs de groupe d’appariement ade´quats: des tailles d’effet (c’est-a`-dire les diffe´rences moyennes normalise´es) et des ratios de variances. L’e´valuation parentale de l’importance de l’autode´termination et de la performance d’e´le` ves ayant un trouble envahissant du de´veloppement ou une de´ficience intellectuelle Erik W. Carter, Kathleen Lynne Lane, Molly Cooney, Katherine Weir, Colleen K. Moss et Wendy Machalicek La promotion de l’autode´termination des e´le`ves est maintenant conside´re´e comme e´tant un e´le´ment essentiel de l’e´ducation spe´cialise´e et des services de transition chez les enfants et les adolescents pre´sentant une de´ficience intellec- tuelle ou un trouble envahissant du de´veloppe- ment. Pourtant, peu d’information est disponible quant au roˆle central que les parents adoptent dans la promotion de l’autode´termination de leurs enfants pre´sentant une de´ficience intellectuelle en dehors du contexte scolaire. Nous avons examine´ de quelle manie`re 627 parents d’enfants pre´sentant une de´ficience intellectuelle ou un trouble envahis- sant du de´veloppement et fre´quentant 1 des 34 districts scolaires choisis ale´atoirement ont e´value´ (a) l’importance de 7 habilete´s relie´es a` l’autode´termina- tion, (b) la performance de leur enfant pour les 7 habilete´s, et (c) les capacite´s ge´ne´rales d’autode´termi- nation de leur enfant. Bien que les parents valorisaient toutes les habilete´s d’autode´termination, le degre´ de performance de leurs enfants en lien avec ces habilete´s e´tait relativement bas. Plusieurs facteurs pre´disaient des niveaux e´leve´s d’autode´termination incluant le contexte scolaire, la pre´sence de troubles du compor- tement et la se´ve´rite´ perc¸ue de la de´ficience. Nous concluons en offrant des recommandations pour aider les parents a` soutenir le de´veloppement de l’autode´termination de leurs enfants. Attitudes des membres de la communaute´ pakistanaise et des prestataires de services envers les personnes ayant une de´ficience intellectuelle Mazna Patka, Christopher B. Keys, David B. Henry et Katherine E. McDonald L’acceptation et l’inclusion des personnes pre´- sentant une de´ficience intellectuelle peuvent varier selon les cultures et la compre´hension des attitudes peut nous e´clairer sur ces variations. A` notre connaissance, aucune e´tude n’a explore´ les attitudes envers les personnes pre´sentant une de´ficience intellectuelle parmi les membres de la communaute´ pakistanaise et les prestataires de services aux personnes handicape´es. Nous avons administre´ le Community Living Attitudes Scale, une mesure des attitudes envers les personnes pre´sentant une de´ficience intellectuelle de´velop- pe´e aux E´ tats-Unis, a` 262 membres de la communaute´ et a` 190 prestataires de services aux personnes handicape´es au Pakistan. Une analyse factorielle confirmatoire a trouve´ une solution a` quatre facteurs (empowerment, similitude, exclu- sion et protection) qui s’adapte a` l’e´chantillon pakistanais. Des attitudes plus positives ont e´te´ observe´es chez le personnel s’occupant des personnes pre´sentant une de´ficience intellectuelle, les femmes, les chre´tiens, les hindous, les sunnites AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES 2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 74–75 EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.74 74 Re´sume´s en Franc¸ais
  18. 18. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

×