Perceptions of Interagency Collaboration: Relationships Between Secondary Transition Roles,Communication,and Collaboration

Abstract

A web-based survey was disseminated to examine the relationship between high school special education teachers and direct-service transition professionals’ understanding of stakeholders’ roles in transition, frequency of communication with transition stakeholders, and level of collaboration among stakeholders. Path analyses were also conducted to determine the predictive relationship between understanding of roles, frequency of communication, and level of collaboration between high school special education and direct-service transition professionals. Results indicated a positive, significant relationship between the identified variables (i.e., role understanding, frequency of communication, and level of collaboration). Limitations, future research, and implications for practice are discussed.

Keywords

transition collaboration/consultation transition planning

Transition planning is a critical step in preparing youth with disabilities for future life success. A number of legislative initiatives (e.g., Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act [IDEA] of 2004; Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act [WIOA] of 2015) regulate access to free and appropriate public education and outline support options for youth with disabilities as they transition from high school into adult life (Mazzotti, Test, & Mustian, 2014). While federal mandates are in place to support youth with disabilities transition into post-school life, in-school and post-school outcomes for youth with disabilities continue to lag behind their peers without disabilities. First, the national graduation rate for students with disabilities is only 63%, while it is approximately 82% for students without disabilities (Institute of Educational Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2016). Recent data from the federally funded National Technical Assistance Center on Transition’s (NTACT) summaries of graduation rates and dropout rates reported graduation rates for youth with disabilities ranging from 14% to 90% (M = 70.3%) and dropout rates from 0% to 34% across the 50 states and territories. Given these data, it is not surprising that post-school outcome data for youth with disabilities continue to remain low (U.S. Department of Labor [USDOL], Bureau of Labor Statistics, The Economics Daily, 2015) and indicates gaps between students with and without disabilities in postsecondary education and employment (Newman et al., 2011). Furthermore, in a national survey conducted by the Institute for Community Inclusion, findings indicated that of students with disabilities who attend college, only 50% of youth with disabilities attend 4-year colleges or universities, 40% attend 2-year colleges, and 10% attend trade/technical schools (National Council on Disability, 2012). In 2015, the USDOL, Bureau of Labor Statistics, USDOL, The Economics Daily (2015) indicated that only 17.5% of individuals with disabilities were employed full-time post-school, compared with 65% of individuals without disabilities.

Based on the need to improve both in-school and post-school outcomes for youth with disabilities, one essential, and federally mandated, requirement to facilitate a student’s successful movement from school to adult life is to provide effective transition services beginning no later than age 16. As part of the transition services provision under the IDEA (2004), schools “must invite to the IEP meeting a representative of any participating agency that is likely to be responsible for providing or paying for transition services” [34 CFR §300.321(b)(3)]. In addition, the newly re-authorized WIOA (2015) requires increased collaboration between state and local vocational rehabilitation services (S/LVR) and education agencies (S/LEA) to ensure secondary youth with disabilities are provided effective and extensive pre-employment transition services to obtain and retain competitive integrated employment.

To support youth with disabilities’ successful transition from high school to postsecondary employment or education, transition teams participating in students’ transition service delivery must collaboratively work together to effectively deliver transition services. Transition teams should serve as a support network in identifying and accomplishing personal goals that reflect student’s strengths, needs, and plans for the future (Lehman, Clark, Bullis, Rinkin, & Castellanos, 2002). Transition teams must facilitate interagency collaboration to provide direct support to students and families, including support in accessing community resources necessary for youth with disabilities to be successful in post-school life (Blalock et al., 2003; Lehman et al., 2002). In addition, the newly re-authorized WIOA (2015) requires that S/LVR and S/LEAs collaboratively work together to develop to identify strategies that will support youth with disabilities transition into the world of work, with 15% of funds dedicated to providing youth with pre-employment transition services.

The coordination between S/LEA and other adult agencies is referred to as interagency collaboration. Interagency collaboration refers to key stakeholders, such as S/LEA transition personnel and adult agency professionals, joining together to promote students’ pursuit of successful outcomes during the transition process (Blalock et al., 2003; Mazzotti & Rowe, 2015). Rowe et al. (2015) defined interagency collaboration as “a clear, purposeful, and carefully designed process that promotes cross-agency, cross-program, and cross-disciplinary collaborative efforts leading to tangible transition outcomes for youth” (p. 15). Importantly, interagency collaboration has been identified as an evidence-based predictor of positive post-school education and employment outcomes for youth with disabilities (Haber et al., 2016; Mazzotti et al., 2015; Test et al., 2009).

With the emphasis on transition planning, interagency collaboration, and increasing positive in-school and post-school outcomes for youth, LEAs and adult agencies have started to hire professionals whose sole priority is to specialize in secondary transition. These transition specialists typically work with school-based transition personnel and adult agency professionals by taking a leadership role in many transition activities (Plotner, Trach, & Strauser, 2012). Unfortunately, there is an inconsistency and a lack of clarity among roles of transition specialists resulting in poor collaboration (Plotner, Trach, & Shogren, 2012). In fact, the lack of transition collaboration and research examining collaborative practices in transition continues to be problematic. The literature continues to highlight the importance of interagency collaboration across the special education and other transition stakeholder agency fields (Luecking, Deschamps, Allison, Hyatt, & Stuart, 2015; Oertle & Seader, 2015; Plotner, Oertle, Reed, Tissot, & Kumpiene, 2017). However, there is limited information on what factors contribute to enhanced partnerships. In a recent study, Plotner and colleagues examined whether or not transition professional participant characteristics contributed to perception of successful interagency collaboration. Their findings showed that teachers did not have a clear understanding of other team member roles compared with vocational rehabilitation (VR) transition coordinators. In addition, they found that teachers do not work with professionals outside of their staff to coordinate transition services as often as VR coordinators (Plotner, VanHorn Stinnett, Rose, & Ivester, 2017). Furthermore, other existing studies reinforce that special education professionals believe communication is important but do not always communicate conisistently or effectively (Harvey, Cotton, & Koch, 2007). Schmalzried and Harvey (2014) examined the frequency in which career and technical education professionals (CTE) and secondary education professionals communicate regarding students with disabilities and the perceptions of CTE and special education teacher regarding their role in working collaboratively with students in their program. They found that the majority of their participants believe communication was important, but was impeded due to lack of knowledge and process between special education and career and technical education centers. It is vital to assess the perceived understanding of transition professionals to attempt to identify how role understanding and communication frequency impact overall collaboration.

Interagency collaboration requires continuous interaction between school-based transition personnel and adult agency professionals, which involves a number of activities, such as transition planning, information sharing and communication, and combining multiple resources (Blalock et al., 2003; Mazzotti & Rowe, 2015; Oertle & Trach, 2007). Moreover, one of the most important steps that participating stakeholders need to establish are clearly defined roles and responsibilities and effective methods of communication to increase levels of collaboration (Blalock et al., 2003; Mazzotti & Rowe, 2015). Furthermore, although current legislation (IDEA, 2004; WIOA, 2015) emphasizes the importance of collaboration, the collaboration between stakeholders in the transition planning process still remains insufficient (Oertle & Seader, 2015). Data show that with the exception of the student and family, the only other active participants in transition planning are primarily school-based personnel (e.g., special education teacher, school counselor, school administrator; Shogren & Plotner, 2012; Wehmeyer, Lance, & Bashinski, 2002), and collaborative relationships between school personnel and adult agency professionals remain a challenge (Plotner & Dymond, 2017; Taylor, Morgan, & Callow-Heusser, 2016). In addition, active participation among school professionals is ineffective if role discernment is unknown and communication with adult service professionals is poor. In fact, one of the greatest barriers that prevent successful collaboration among school-based transition personnel and adult service professionals is a lack of communication and clearly defined roles (Noonan, McCall, Zheng, & Gaumer-Erickson, 2012).

The roles of school-based transition personnel and adult service professionals alike have been strategically developed to ensure resource allocation and proper transition planning occurs, as well as ensuring effective transition supports are in place to support a smooth transition into post-school life for youth with disabilities. Yet, a lack of understanding of roles and communication may impact the level of collaboration among these stakeholders. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between perceived understanding of stakeholder roles in the transition planning process, frequency of communication among stakeholders, and the impact of role and communication on levels of collaboration among transition professionals. Specifically, this study addressed the following research questions:

Research Questions 1: Does the perception of increased understanding of roles between high school special education teachers and direct-service transition professionals (DSTPs) predict increased levels of collaboration for DSTPs and high school special education teachers separately?

Research Questions 2: Does the perception of increased frequency of communication between DSTPs and high school special education teachers predict increased levels of collaboration for DSTPs and high school special education teachers separately?

Research Questions 3: Does the perception of frequency of communication moderate the relationship between increased understanding of roles and increased levels of collaboration between DSTPs and high school special education teachers separately?

Method

Participants and Recruitment

This research was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) of the University of South Carolina. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. The web-based survey was developed and disseminated via Survey Monkey^©, a web-based application that allows users to create web-based surveys. A convenient sample of special education district administrators across five states (i.e., Illinois, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin) were obtained online at each of their respective websites and sent the survey web link and asked to disseminate to those individuals who had a primary role in secondary transition (e.g., transition personnel in their school districts and respective adult agency partners). In addition, existing statewide listservs for each of the five states, developed specifically for transition professionals and maintained by state Departments of Education and state divisions of the Council for Exceptional Children’s Division of Career Development and Transition, were utilized to disseminate the survey web link. A follow-up email was sent out through the listservs 4 weeks following initial dissemination to provide another opportunity for individuals who had not completed the survey to respond. The initial dissemination of the the email to special education district administrators and the transition professional listservs had a total of 1,124 contacts. A total of 592 (52% response rate) respondents completed the survey; however, only 427 (38% response rate) participant responses were retained for this study due to a priori decision rules (i.e., must serve secondary transition-aged youth with disabilities). The 167 respondents who were omitted served in administrative roles, taught in middle schools, or were faculty at institutes of higher education, all of which did not directly serve secondary transition-aged youth with disabilities. In addition, a snowball sampling technique was used to recruit survey participants. Snowball sampling procedures include “selecting a few people who fit a researcher’s needs, then using those participants to identify additional participants, and so on” (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2009, p. 137). Therefore, due to the nature of the snowball sampling technique, the authors were unable to obtain an exact response rate, and those reported above are based on the number of contacts the survey was initially disseminated. This study included 224 high school special education teachers and 203 DSTPs (i.e., 122 secondary transition specialists, 45 secondary vocational coordinators, and 36 transition-focused school-based rehabilitation counselors). Furthermore, the use of Surveymonkey ensures that only one response per email address is allowed and safeguards against multiple responses per computer. Table 1 provides respondent demographic information.

Table 1.

Study Respondent Demographics (N = 427).

Category	Special education teachers^a,b		Direct-service transition professionals^b,c
Category	n	%	n	%
Gender
Male	23	10.4	32	18.9
Female	199	89.6	137	81.1
Age (years)
20–30	31	13.9	15	8.9
31–40	56	25.1	27	16.1
41–50	52	23.3	51	30.4
51–60	72	32.1	61	36.3
60+	12	5.4	14	8.3
Ethnicity
African American	18	8.2	15	9.1
Caucasian	200	90.9	147	89.1
Latino/a	1	0.5	0	0.0
Native American/Asian	1	0.5	3	1.8
Education level
High school/associates	0	0.0	4	2.4
Bachelor’s	71	32.1	28	16.7
Master’s	58	26.2	53	31.5
Master’s+	90	40.7	80	47.6
Doctorate	2	0.9	3	1.8
Geographic area
Urban	49	22.1	42	25.0
Rural	95	42.8	53	31.5
Suburban	78	35.1	73	43.5
Years of service
<1	13	5.8	9	4.5
1–6	49	22.0	55	27.2
7–12	64	28.7	43	21.3
13–18	49	22.0	37	18.3
18+	48	21.5	58	28.7
State of service
Illinois	75	33.5	78	38.4
North Carolina	34	15.2	31	15.3
South Carolina	89	39.7	52	25.6
Virginia	7	3.1	21	10.3
Wisconsin	19	8.5	21	10.3

n = 224. ^bRepresents the total number of possible respondents. Due to missing data, some cells may not sum to total number of possible respondents. Percentages represent valid total percentage. ^cn = 203.

Instrumentation

The survey was developed by researchers (first and second authors) and included five sections focused on questions pertaining to (a) demographics, (b) training on secondary transition evidence-based practices (EBPs), (c) implementation of secondary transition EBPs, (d) interagency collaboration, and (e) program evaluation. Four professionals with doctoral degrees in special education, who are considered experts in secondary transition, reviewed the survey instrument for content validity. This process provided the researchers with information to ensure questions were clear and relevant to the intended construct measurement and provided an opportunity for the researchers to refine the instrument. Following refinement based on expert feedback, the survey was piloted with four transition specialists to obtain information regarding clarity of survey content. The pilot study resulted in only minor edits (i.e., clarifying wording, grammatical edits) to the survey instrument.

For the purpose of this study, only the demographic and interagency collaboration sections were analyzed. First, the demographic section included questions related to (a) position title (i.e., high school special education teacher, middle school special education teacher, transition specialist, secondary vocational coordinator, transition-focused school-based rehabilitation counselor, postsecondary education professional), (b) agency affiliation (i.e., state VR agency, local education agency, other), (c) work setting, (d) gender, (e) age, (f) ethnicity, (g) education level/degree, (h) geographic area, (i) years of service in transition, and (j) percent of transition-age students on caseload.

Next, the collaboration section consisted of four total questions, which participants rated on a 4-point Likert-type rating scale on each of the two stakeholders: special educators and DSTP. Collaboration questions were as follows: (a) “Rate your understanding of other stakeholders’ roles in the transition process” (1 = no understanding, 2 = minimal understanding, 3 = moderate understanding, 4 = high understanding), (b) “Rate your frequency of communication with each of the identified transition stakeholders” (1 = no communication, 2 = minimal level of communication, 3 = moderate level of communication, 4 = high level of communication), and (c) “Rate your level of overall collaboration with identified transition stakeholders” (1 = do not collaborate, 2 = minimal level of collaboration, 3 = moderate level of collaboration, 4 = high level of collaboration). Overall collaboration was defined as “a process of participation thorough which people, groups, and organizations form relationships and work together to achieve a set of agreed-upon results” (Kochhar-Bryant, 2008, p. 7).

Data Approach and Analysis

Related to demographics, participants who identified as high school special education teachers, transition specialist, secondary vocational coordinator, or transition-focused school-based rehabilitation counselor were retained for the current study. For the purposes of this study, transition specialists, secondary vocational coordinators, or transition-focused school-based rehabilitation counselors were aggregated to create a DSTP group. DSTP were defined as any professional strictly responsible for transition planning. Path analyses were conducted for high school special education teachers and the DSTP group. Middle school special educator and postsecondary education professional were not included in the present analysis because these individuals are not typically, directly involved with the interagency collaboration process to support youth with disabilities transition from high school into post-school life.

Understanding stakeholders’ roles in the transition process

Participants were asked to rate their understanding of stakeholders’ roles in the transition process. Participants were provided with a list of educational professionals (i.e., special educators, administrators, parents/families, general educators, DSTPs) and rated their understanding of each stakeholder’s specific role (1 = no understanding, 2 = minimal understanding, 3 = moderate understanding, 4 = high understanding). To address Research Question 1, the current study analyzed the relationship between perception of increased understanding of roles between high school special education teachers and DSTPs and increased levels of collaboration for DSTPs and high school special education teachers separately.

Frequency of communication

Participants were asked to rate their frequency of communication with each of the identified transition stakeholders. Participants were provided a list of educational professionals (i.e., special educators, administrators, parents and families, general educators, DSTPs) and rated their frequency of communication with each stakeholder (i.e., 1 = no communication, 2 = minimal level of communication, 3 = moderate level of communication, 4 = high level of communication). To address Research Question 2, the current study analyzed the relationship between the perception of increased frequency of communication between DSTPs and high school special education teachers and increased levels of collaboration for DSTPs and high school special education teachers separately.

Level of collaboration

Participants were asked to rate their overall level of collaboration with identified transition stakeholders. Participants were provided with a list of educational professionals (i.e., special educators, administrators, parents/families, general educators, DSTPs) and rated their level of collaboration with each identified transition stakeholder (i.e., 1 = do not collaborate, 2 = minimal level of collaboration, 3 = moderate level of collaboration, 4 = high level of collaboration). To address Research Question 3, the current study analyzed the relationship of high school special education teachers and DSTPs’ perceptions of the frequency of communication as a moderator between increased understanding of roles and increased levels of collaboration between DSTPs and high school special education teachers separately.

Survey Monkey^© responses were downloaded into SPSS^© to facilitate analysis of the data. To address the issue of missing data, a multiple imputation (MI) procedure was executed using the PROC MI function in SAS 9.2 (SAS Institute, 2008). Because missing data can bias a sample (Davey, Savla, & Luo, 2005; Rubin, 1976), it was necessary to account for missingness to most accurately represent the responses of the teachers and transition-focused professionals. Using the PROC MI function, 100 separate datasets were imputed and imported into SPSS. Within SPSS, an aggregate dataset was constructed that best represents the imputed value (see Kärnä et al., 2011). Overall, the MI procedure was used to preserve the integrity of the data and create one parsimonious dataset.

Descriptive statistics and correlations

Descriptive statistics were used to provide context for the two groups, including gender, age, ethnicity, education level, geographic area, percentage of caseload that includes transition-aged youth, years worked providing transition services, and state services (see Table 1). In addition to descriptive statistics, correlations between understanding stakeholders’ roles in the transition process, frequency of communication, and level of collaboration were conducted separately for high school special education teachers and DSTPs (see Table 2). The three different direct-service transition specialist job titles were aggregated for analysis.

Table 2.

Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Associations.

Scale and group	Understanding	Frequency	Level
Understanding roles	1.00	0.60**	0.68**
Frequency of communication	0.36**	1.00	0.84**
Level of collaboration	0.35**	0.68**	1.00
Group
Direct-service transition professionals: M (SD)	3.68 (0.57)	3.82 (0.43)	3.75 (0.53)
High school special education teachers: M (SD)	3.24 (0.83)	2.70 (0.95)	2.89 (0.95)

Note. Direct-service transition professionals understanding of roles, frequency of communication, and level of collaboration with high school special education teachers are below the diagonal; high school special education teachers understanding of roles, frequency of communication, and level of collaboration with direct-service transition professionals are above the diagonal.

p < .01.

Mean level differences

As an initial step, mean level differences for each construct were examined through three independent t tests. Based on the aggregation of role groups and the structure of the dataset, mean scores, standard deviations, and group sample size were used to calculate t statistics. Therefore, three separate t tests were conducted for the current study.

Path analysis

Given the structure of the data and to evaluate the three research questions, two separate path models were constructed using MPlus version 7.11 (Muthén & Muthén, 2012). Specifically, a model was constructed evaluating high school special education teachers’ perceptions of their understanding of stakeholders’ roles in the transition process, frequency of communication, and level of collaboration with DSTPs (see Figure 1a). A second model was constructed evaluating DSTPs’ perceptions of their understanding other stakeholders’ roles in the transition process, frequency of communication, and level of collaboration with high school special education teachers (see Figure 1b). In each of these models, the direct effect of understanding stakeholders’ roles in the transition process on level of collaboration, the direct effect of frequency of communication on level of collaboration, and the indirect effect of understanding stakeholders’ roles in the transition process on level of collaboration through frequency of communication were analyzed separately for high school special education teachers and DSTPs. In these analyses, data from the item-level responses were treated as interval data, as they demonstrate incremental increases in the assessed construct. Specifically, the ceiling anchor point represents absolute and the floor anchor point represents absence, with the center anchors representing interval-level increases or decreases toward absolute or absence. Therefore, higher mean scores represent closer to absolute, where lower mean scores are approaching absence of a given construct.

Figure 1.

Separate path models evaluating (a) direct-service transition professionals’ perceptions of their understanding of other stakeholders’ roles and (b) high school special education teachers’ perceptions of their understanding of stakeholders’ roles.

Based on the structure of the analyses and the evaluation of indirect paths, an a priori decision was made to retain all paths (i.e., direct, indirect) in the final models. As an initial step, model fit was evaluated by chi-square. This process included dividing chi-square by degrees of freedom, where a ratio of 3 or below is considered an acceptable fit (Kline, 1998). However, as chi-square is sensitive to sample size (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002), additional fit indices that are less sensitive to sample size were considered (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Therefore, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and RMSEA 90% confidence interval were calculated, where scores less than .05 are considered close fitting models (Hu & Bentler, 1999). In addition to RMSEA, the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) and comparative fit index (CFI) were calculated, where scores greater than .95 are considered close fitting models (Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, & Müller, 2003).

Results

As an initial step, associations between understanding stakeholders’ roles in the transition process, level of collaboration, and frequency of communication were calculated separately for high school special education teachers and DSTPs. As expected, each construct was significantly correlated (p < .01) for both DSTPs and high school special education teachers with associations ranging from r = .35 (level with understanding) to r = .68 (level with frequency) for DSTPs, and from r = .60 (level with understanding) to r = .84 (level with frequency) for high school special education teachers. It should also be noted that mean scores ranged from 1.0 through 4.0 on each construct and were high for both groups ranging from 2.70 (.95) through 3.82 (.43). Table 2 includes specific associations, mean scores, and standard deviations for both groups.

Mean Level Differences

To assess the differences between DSTPs and high school special education teachers on role understanding, frequency of communication, and level of collaboration, three separate independent-sample t tests were calculated. DSTPs (M = 3.68, SD = 0.57) reported significantly higher, t(425) = 6.32, p < .001, role understanding than high school special education teachers (M = 3.24, SD = 0.83). DSTPs (M = 3.82, SD = 0.43) also reported significantly higher, t(425) = 15.43, p < .001, frequency of communication than high school special education teachers (M = 2.70, SD = 0.95). Finally, DSTPs (M = 3.75, SD = 0.53) reported significantly higher, t(425) = 11.39, p < .001, levels of collaboration than high school special education teachers (M = 2.89, SD = 0.95). Based on these analyses, DSTPs reported higher levels of role understanding, frequency of communication, and levels of collaboration than high school special education teachers.

Path analysis for DSTP

Based on the theoretical model, the direct paths between understanding stakeholders’ roles in the transition process, frequency of communication, and levels of collaboration were analyzed. In addition, the indirect path between role understanding to level of collaboration through frequency of communication was evaluated. The final model statistics revealed a perfect fitting model, χ²(3) = 169.50, RMSEA = .00 [.00, .00], TLI = 1.00, CFI = 1.00; see Table 3. Within this model, all significant and nonsignificant paths were retained due to a priori decision rules. All direct and indirect effects are presented in Table 4 and Figure 1a. In this model, higher levels of perceived frequency of communication predicted higher levels of perceived collaboration (β = .66, z = 7.13, p < .01) and increased understanding of roles predicted higher levels of perceived frequency of communication (β = .32, z = 3.56, p < .01); however, higher levels of understanding of roles did not directly predict higher levels of perceived collaboration (β = .15, z = 1.914, p > .05). In addition to the direct effects, the indirect effect of understanding of roles through frequency of communication to level of collaboration was significant (β = .21, z = 3.75, p < .01), suggesting that increased understanding of roles leads to increased frequency of communication, which, in turn, leads to higher levels of collaboration.

Table 3.

Fit Indices for Path Models.

Model	χ²	df	p	RMSEA	RMSEA 90% CI	TLI	CFI
VRP	169.50	3	<.001	.00	[.00, .00]	1.00	1.00
HS SPED	407.10	3	<.001	.00	[.00, .00]	1.00	1.00

Note. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CI = confidence interval; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; CFI = comparative fit index; VRP = direct-service transition professionals; HS SPED = high school special education teachers.

Table 4.

Beta Weights and z Scores for Final Path Models.

Construct	B (SE)	z Score	β
Direct-service transition professionals
Direct path to levels of collaboration
Role understanding	.14 (.07)	1.91	.15
Frequency of communication	.79 (.11)	7.13**	.66
Direct path to frequency of communication
Role understanding	.25 (.07)	3.56**	.32
Indirect path to levels of collaboration
Understanding through frequency	.20 (.06)	3.46**	.13
High school special education teachers
Direct path to levels of collaboration
Role understanding	.33 (.05)	6.30**	.28
Frequency of communication	.68 (.05)	13.82**	.67
Direct path to frequency of communication
Role understanding	.68 (.05)	13.18**	.60
Indirect path to levels of collaboration
Understanding through frequency	.46 (.05)	10.27**	.21

p < .01.

Path analysis for high school special education teachers

Based on the theoretical model, the direct paths between understanding of stakeholders’ roles in the transition process, levels of collaboration, and frequency of communication were analyzed. In addition, the indirect path in the model between role understanding to level of collaboration, through frequency of communication, was evaluated. The final model statistics revealed a perfect fitting model, χ²(3) = 407.10, RMSEA = .00 [.00, .00], TLI = 1.00, CFI = 1.00; see Table 3. Within this model, all significant and nonsignificant paths were retained due to a priori decision rules. All direct and indirect effects are presented in Table 4 and in Figure 1b. In this model, increased frequency of communication predicted higher levels of collaboration (β = .67, z = 13.82, p < .01), increased understanding of roles predicted higher levels of collaboration (β = .28, z = 6.30, p < .01), and increased understanding of roles predicted increased frequency of communication (β = .60, z = 13.18, p < .01). In addition to the direct effects, the indirect effect understanding of roles through frequency of communication to level of collaboration was significant (β = .40, z = 10.27, p < .01), suggesting that increased understanding of roles leads to increased frequency of communication, which, in turn, leads to higher levels of collaboration.

Discussion and Future Directions

Results indicated that the DSTPs reported significantly higher levels of role understanding, frequency of communication, and overall levels of collaboration than the special education teachers. This finding is somewhat expected as a key role of specialized transition professionals is to coordinate and collaborate with professionals who serve on transition planning teams. However, special education teachers often take the leadership role on transition teams, especially in districts and schools where specialized transition professionals (e.g., transition specialists) are not prevelant. Thus, the emphasis of collaboration between DSTP and special educators is central to ensure effective transition service delivery. This finding is supported by a robust literature base calling for more systematic efforts in preservice training supporting collaboration across DSTP and special education teachers (e.g., Plotner & Simonsen, 2018) as well as at the inservice level (e.g., Morningstar & Clavenna-Deane, 2014).

Furthermore, results also indicate a positive relationship between understanding of stakeholder roles, frequency of communication, and overall levels of collaboration between high special education teachers and DSTPs. High school special education teachers’ increased understanding of DSTPs’ roles predicted perceived frequency of communication and increased perceived levels of collaboration. High school special education teachers’ perceptions of high frequency of communication also predicted perceived higher levels of overall collaboration. Similar to high school special education teachers, direct-service transition specialists’ increased frequency of communication predicted higher levels of collaboration and increased understanding of stakeholder roles predicted higher frequency of communication. However, higher levels of understanding stakeholder roles reported by DSTPs did not predict higher reported levels of collaboration. More frequent levels of communication reported by high school special education teachers and DSTPs predicted increased perception of understanding of stakeholder roles, as well as overall levels of collaboration.

For both high school teachers and DSTPs, the findings suggested that increased understanding of stakeholder roles leads to increased frequency of communication which, in turn, leads to higher reported levels of collaboration. The positive relationship between understanding of stakeholder roles and frequency of communication and collaboration indicates that understanding others’ roles in the transition team is necessary for successful transition of students. Findings from the present study support the literature indicating frequency of communication is important and that collaboration can be enhanced by greater knowledge of roles in the transition process. The results support the findings of Noonan et al. (2012) and suggest that communication and understanding of stakeholder roles are necessary components to increase collaboration among transition personnel.

The findings of this study also support the research relative to interagency collaboration, in that frequent communication among transition personnel regarding transition activities and tasks is necessary to effectively work with students and families and build relationships with various community agencies (Flowers, Test, & Povenmire-Kirk, 2016; Noonan et al., 2012; Plotner, Trach, & Shogren, 2012). Transition teams should have ongoing communication and must participate in various transition services and activities to help support successful outcomes for students with disabilities. Transition services and activities may be similar across schools and districts, but require high levels of collaboration between transition teams to ensure students attain positive in-school and post-school outcomes (Noonan, Morningstar, & Gaumer-Erickson, 2008).

Teachers and DSTPs alike need to understand how to evaluate the quality of communication. Based on the results of this study, the frequency of communication is a predictor of level of collaboration; however, clear and concise methods are imperative to build efficiency within a partnership. Professionals should set clear expectations for communication, including clarifying communication on an “as needed basis.” Mazzotti and Rowe (2015) suggested that educators should be familiar with the role of each individual and agency. Educators conducting interagency meetings should facilitate introductions of each team member, so that members have an opportunity to explain their understanding of the role of team members. All stakeholders need to be prepared to facilitate meaningful dialogue between team members that is geared toward action and planning.

Noonan et al. (2012) noted additional challenges and potential solutions for teachers who are attempting to build relationships with direct-service professionals and adult agencies. Some educators may not feel comfortable initially reaching out to service providers and agencies to learn about their services, while other educators may not know with whom they need to be building relationships. A potential option to at least identify agencies and individuals with whom educators should begin to build relationships would be to create a community resource map (Mazzotti & Rowe, 2015). Educators should start by identifying agencies of which they are aware that would be part of the transition process, such as VR and the Department of Disabilities and Special Needs. Once all known agencies have been identified, the educator could use resources, such as the Internet, to identify other stakeholders

The present study has a number of limitations, which should be considered in interpreting results. Participants’ perceived understanding of stakeholder roles, frequency of communication, and levels of collaboration self-reported and not evaluated for accuracy. Participants’ understanding of roles may be inaccurate or incomplete, and levels of collaboration may be perceived inaccurately or differently by other members of his or her collaborative team. While participants reported their perceived frequency of communication, clarity of communication was not measured, which may affect overall ability to collaborate. Therefore, future research should consider measuring clarity of communication to further investigate stakeholders’ ability to collaborate and variables that may impact the level of collaboration (Povenmire-Kirk et al., 2015). Another limitation relates to the response rate and representativeness of the sample. The response rate and representativeness of the survey sample could not be estimated with precision due to the snowball sampling technique.

In addition, direct-service transition specialists can be a broad group of professionals, and job duties often vary regardless of job title. The fact that work cultures and professional roles and duties vary from district to district, or school to school in some cases, does present challenges when examining understanding of various roles. Service agencies involved in transition services vary from state to state, which may be different than those states included in this survey. Furthermore, some DSTP in this study did have some variability in job title and home agency. Research should be conducted on the variability between the multitude of direct-service transition specialists. Also, the survey used to collect the data for the present study was researcher made. This is potentially a limitation as the survey was not psychometrically analyzed, which means validity and reliability data could not be reported.

Finally, this study used correlational methodology to investigate the relationships between high school special education teachers’ and direct-service professionals’ perceptions of understanding of stakeholder roles, frequency of communication, and level of collaboration. Because this study is correlational in nature, it does not provide causal inference related to the effect of these variables on increased collaboration among stakeholders. In addition, ordinal data were treated as interval-level data, where a quantifiable distinction between anchors could not be established. Currently, there is a lack of experimental research to support effective models of interagency collaboration to establish an evidence-base (Mazzotti et al., 2014). Therefore, future research should use experimental designs (e.g., group, single-case) to investigate the effect of models of interagency collaboration on teacher and direct-service transition provider outcomes and subsequent student education outcomes to identify models that are evidence-based (Flowers et al., 2016; Povenmire-Kirk et al., 2015).

The importance of role understanding in level of collaboration indicates a need for ongoing training for team members about other transition professionals’ roles on school district transition teams, as well as for special education teachers who are working with transition-aged students. Transition teams and service providers may benefit from additional training and ongoing support in self-evaluation to successfully ensure effective communication and collaborative activities. Identifying areas for improvement may help teams increase successful collaboration. Although there have been substantial resources developed across the country to facilitate effective school and community collaboration efforts, the literature base is still sparse when examining characteristics of teams and how they impact perceptions of collaboration.

Research has indicated that the ability to build relationships with post-school adult service providers is a keystone strategy for ensuring successful collaboration among stakeholders (Noonan et al., 2012). However, few models exist for schools to increase and facilitate better interagency collaboration. Therefore, it is imperative that schools and districts investigate and implement effective models of interagency collaboration to ensure youth with disabilities are linked up with the appropriate services and supports prior to exiting high school. For example, CIRCLES (Communicating Interagency Relationships and Collaborative Linkages for Exceptional Students) is a research-based three-tiered model of interagency collaboration (i.e., community-level, school-level, individual-level teams) which aims to improve transition outcomes for students with disabilities by improving interagency collaboration among teachers, adult service agencies, and community stakeholders to increase (a) student self-determination, (b) knowledge of the transition planning process, and (c) secondary and postsecondary engagement (Povenmire-Kirk et al., 2015). In addition, schools, districts, and state-level personnel should develop state and local interagency teams that include agencies that serve both students with and without disabilities, who have a common desire to provide effective transition services to youth (Rowe et al., 2015). Finally, establishing collaborative teams requires developing effective relationships among team members. Schools and other stakeholders must work together to define common goals, missions, and a vision to ensure sustainable collaboration overtime to support youth in achieving positive outcomes (Mazzotti & Rowe, 2015).

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Lauren Lindstrom

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Blalock

Kochhar-Bryant

C. A.

Test

D. W.

Kohler

White

Lehmann

. . . Patton

(2003). The need for comprehensive personnel preparation in transition and career development: A position statement of the division on career development and transition. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 26, 207–226.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, The Economics Daily. (2015). 17.5 percent of people with a disability employed in 2015. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2016/17-point-5-percent-of-people-with-a-disability-employed-in-2015.htm

Cheung

G. W.

Rensvold

R. B.

(2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

Davey

Savla

Luo

(2005). Issues in evaluating model fit with missing data. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 578–597.

Flowers

Test

Povenmire-Kirk

T. C.

(2017) A demonstration model of interagency collaboration for students with disabilities: A multilevel approach. The Journal of Special Education, 51, 211–221.

Gay

L. R.

Mills

G. E.

Airasian

(2009). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Haber

M. G.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Mustian

A. L.

Rowe

D. A.

Bartholomew

A. L.

Test

D. W.

Fowler

C. H.

(2016). What works, when, for whom, and with whom: A meta-analytic review of predictors of postsecondary success for students with disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 86, 123–162. doi:10.3102/0034654315583135

Harvey

M. W.

Cotton

S. E.

Koch

K. R.

(2007). Indiana secondary CTE instructors’ perceptions of program expectations, modifications, accommodations, and postsecondary outcomes for students with disabilities. Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 29, 16–33.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

10.

Institute of Educational Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Children and youth with disabilities. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.asp

11.

Kärnä

Voeten

Little

T. D.

Poskiparta

Kalijonen

Salmivalli

(2011). A large-scale evaluation of KiVa antibullying program: Grades 4-6. Child Development, 82, 311–330.

12.

Kline

R. B.

(1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guildwood.

13.

Kochhar-Bryant

(2008). Collaboration and system coordination from early childhood to post-high school. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall-Merrill Education Publishers.

14.

Lehman

C. M.

Clark

H. B.

Bullis

Rinkin

Castellanos

(2002). Transition from school to adult life: Empowering youth through community ownership and accountability. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11, 127–141.

15.

Luecking

Deschamps

Allison

Hyatt

Stuart

(2015). A guide to developing collaborative school-community-business partnerships. Charlotte: National Technical Assistance Center on Transition, University of North Carolina–Charlotte.

16.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Rowe

D. A.

(2015). On my side: Building an alliance for transitioning youth through collaboration. Washington, DC: Council for Exceptional Children.

17.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Rowe

D. A.

Sinclair

Poppen

Woods

W. E.

Shearer

M. L.

(2015). Predictors of post-school success: A systematic review of NLTS2 secondary analyses. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 39, 196–215.

18.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Test

D. W.

Mustian

A. L.

(2014). Secondary transition evidence-based practices and predictors: Implications for policymakers. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 25, 5–18.

19.

Morningstar

M. E.

Clavenna-Deane

(2014). Preparing secondary special educators and transition specialists. In Sindelar

P. T.

McCray

E. D.

Brownell

M. T.

Lignugaris/Kraft

(Eds.), Handbook of research on special education teacher preparation (pp. 405–420). Florence, KY: Routledge.

20.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(2012). MPlus (Version 7.11) [Computer software]. Los Angeles, CA: Author.

21.

National Council on Disability. (2012). 2012 publications. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ncd.gov/publications/2012

22.

Newman

Wagner

Knokey

Marder

Nagle

Shaver

Wei

(2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high school: A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-S (NLTS2). Washington, DC: National Center for Special Education Research.

23.

Noonan

P. M.

McCall

Z. A.

Zheng

Gaumer-Erickson

A. S.

(2012). An analysis of collaboration in a state-level interagency transition team. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 35, 143–154. doi:10.1177/2165143412443083

24.

Noonan

P. M.

Morningstar

M. E.

Gaumer Erickson

(2008). Improving interagency collaboration: Effective strategies used by high-performing local districts and communities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31, 132–143.

25.

Oertle

K. M.

Seader

K. J.

(2015). Research and practical considerations for rehabilitation transition collaboration. Journal of Rehabilitation, 81, 3–18.

26.

Oertle

K. M.

Trach

J. S.

(2007). Interagency collaboration: The importance of rehabilitation professionals’ involvement in transition. Journal of Rehabilitation, 73(3), 36–44.

27.

Plotner

A. J.

Dymond

S. K.

(2017). How vocational rehabilitation transition specialists influence curricula for students with severe disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 60, 88–97.

28.

Plotner

A. J.

Oertle

K. M.

Reed

Tissot

Kumpiene

(2017). Centers for independent living and their involvement with transition-age youth with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 46, 39–48.

29.

Plotner

A. J.

Simonsen

M. L.

(2018). Examining federally funded secondary transition personnel preparation programs. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 41, 39–49.

30.

Plotner

A. J.

Trach

J. S.

Shogren

K. A.

(2012). Identifying a transition competency domain structure: Assisting transition planning teams to understand roles and responsibilities of community partners. Journal of Rehabilitation Research, Policy, and Education, 26, 257–272.

31.

Plotner

A. J.

Trach

J. S.

Strauser

D. R.

(2012). Vocational rehabilitation counselors’ identified transition competencies: Perceived importance, frequency, and preparedness. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 55, 135–143.

32.

Plotner

A. J.

VanHorn Stinnett

Rose

Ivester

(2017). Professional characteristics that impact perceptions of successful transition collaboration. Journal of Rehabilitation, 83, 43–51.

33.

Povenmire-Kirk

Diegelmann

Crump

Schnorr

Test

D. W.

Flowers

Aspel

(2015). Implementing CIRCLES: A new model for interagency collaboration in transition planning. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 42, 51–65.

34.

Rowe

D. A.

Alverson

C. Y.

Unruh

D. K.

Fowler

C. H.

Kellems

Test

D. W.

(2015). A Delphi study to operationalize evidence-based predictors in secondary transition. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 38, 113–126.

35.

Rubin

D. B.

(1976). Inference and missing data. Biometrika, 63, 581–592.

36.

SAS Institute Inc. (2008). SAS/STAT® 9.2 User’s Guide. Cary, NC: Author.

37.

Schermelleh-Engel

Moosbrugger

Müller

(2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8, 23–74.

38.

Schmalzried

J. E.

Harvey

M. W.

(2014). Perceptions of special education and career and technical education collaboration and communication. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 37, 84–96.

39.

Shogren

K. A.

Plotner

A. J.

(2012). Transition planning for students with intellectual disability, autism, or other disabilities: Data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 50, 16–30.

40.

Taylor

D. L.

Morgan

R. L.

Callow-Heusser

C. A.

(2016). A survey of vocational rehabilitation counselors and special education teachers on collaboration in transition planning. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 44, 163–173. doi:10.3233/JVR-150788

41.

Test

D. W.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Mustian

A. L.

Fowler

C. H.

Kortering

Kohler

(2009). Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving postschool outcomes for students with disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 160–181.

42.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Lance

G. D.

Bashinski

(2002). Promoting access to the general curriculum for students with mental retardation: A multi-level model. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 223–234.