Examining the Role of Peer Support on Work Experiences for Young Women With Disabilities

Abstract

This study examined the protective effect of perceived peer support on involvement in work experiences in a sample of 366 young women receiving special education services in 26 high schools. Career self-efficacy and career outcome expectations are well-established predictors of behaviors aimed at achieving career goals, such as obtaining work experiences. Hence, we also evaluated their role as mediators of the hypothesized effect of perceived peer support on work experiences. Regression analyses (accounting for clustering within schools) revealed that perceived peer support had an indirect effect on work experiences, with the effect being channeled through career self-efficacy, but not through career outcome expectations. Although perceived peer support was significantly associated with career self-efficacy and career outcome expectations, only career self-efficacy predicted work experiences at follow-up. Our findings suggest that perceived peer support, a relatively malleable factor, can promote career self-efficacy and career outcomes for this population.

Keywords

high school students person with disability career-related self-efficacy peer support social learning and cognitive theory

Decades of education policy have focused on improving postschool outcomes for youth with disabilities, particularly in the area of transition to employment. However, youth with disabilities continue to experience lower rates of postschool employment and significantly lower wages in comparison to their same-age peers without disabilities (Butterworth & Migliore, 2015; Newman et al., 2011). Within this broad category, young women with disabilities face unique barriers to securing and maintaining postschool employment (Lindsay et al., 2017). Compared to their male peers, females with disabilities are more likely to be employed part-time, earn lower wages, and are less likely to work in high skill/high wage jobs once they leave high school (Doren et al., 2011). The persistence of these inequities over time suggests that women with disabilities are less likely to escape poverty through employment than men (Berlan & Harwood, 2018; Mwachofi et al., 2009). Identification of malleable protective factors that can be promoted prior to high school graduation could be critical in ensuring equal access to regular income and employment opportunities.

Engaging in paid employment or work experience can be a robust in-school predictor of postschool employment outcomes. Several studies including participants with a range of disabilities have found that those who had paid or unpaid work experience during high school were more likely to be employed after graduating from high school (e.g., Carter et al., 2012; McDonnall, 2011; McDonnall & O’Mally, 2012; Wagner et al., 2014). This effect remains significant even after accounting for participation in a “transition to employment” program (Dong et al., 2016), suggesting that early work experiences can have a unique effect on postschool employment outcomes. Early work experiences can also serve to increase student motivation to work toward a career, increase student awareness of careers and job skills necessary to be successful at work, and strategies for requesting accommodations at school and work (Burgstahler & Bellman, 2005). Despite the importance of work experience, recent data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012 indicate that nearly 60% of high school students with disability have not had a recent (in the last year) paid work experience (Lipscomb et al., 2017). Identifying ways to promote early work experiences among young women with disabilities can inform strategies to better support the needs of this population and better prepare them for successful postschool employment, thereby closing the employment gap between male and female youth with disabilities.

Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT)

We utilized SCCT as a guiding framework for formulating our research questions (S. D. Brown & Lent, 2005). Based on Bandura’s social cognitive principles, SCCT is an integrated career development framework that describes how dynamic and situation-specific aspects of people (e.g., self-views, future expectations, behaviors) and their environments (e.g., social support, employment opportunities) jointly predict occupational and academic interests, choices, and attainment of career goals (S. D. Brown & Lent, 2005). It specifically focuses on the interplay between three key constructs: (a) self-efficacy, or the confidence that one will be successful in completing a specific task or set of tasks; (b) outcome expectations, which are the results one expects to achieve for putting forth the effort to complete a task; and (c) goals, or one’s resolve to obtain a particular outcome. These goals are expected to guide educational and career behavior over time (Lent et al., 1999).

Consistent with social learning principles, self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations can be shaped by observing others (including peers) and, verbal encouragement or discouragement from the beliefs and opinions of others, and positive or negative mood states (Bandura, 1986). As such, perceived peer support during high school could play a significant role in shaping self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations related to career outcomes. These beliefs and expectations in turn could influence educational and career goals and behaviors. Nevertheless, the effect of perceived peer support on career self-efficacy and outcome expectations has not been previously explored for young women with disabilities. This is a critical gap as perceived peer support is a highly malleable construct that has been successfully promoted in interventions with other adolescent populations (e.g., Hossfeld, 2008; Schumacher, 2014).

Peer Support and Career Development

The influence of peer relationships on the career development of young women with disabilities warrants attention as one of the hallmarks of youth with high incidence disabilities (e.g., specific learning disability, intellectual disability, emotional and behavioral disorders, and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorders) are social skills deficits (Gresham et al., 2001). When compared to their peers without disabilities, youth with disabilities report having fewer friends, lower quality friendships (e.g., less likely to communicate regularly or get together outside of school), and more likelihood of being bullied (Lipscomb et al, 2017). Additionally, youth with disabilities are more likely to report feeling powerless and alienated (M. R. Brown et al., 2003), suggesting that students with disabilities may have less access to the protective factors of friendship including self-esteem and a sense of belonging (Salmon, 2013).

The importance of peers during adolescence is supported by extensive literature highlighting the positive association of prosocial relationships with peers and adolescent identity development (Rageliene, 2016). Felsmen and Bluestein (1999) highlighted the influence of peer relationships on career development tasks in late adolescence, reporting that adolescents with greater attachment to peers reported higher levels of career exploration (e.g., investigated career possibilities, obtained information on specific jobs) and made greater progress in committing to careers. In contrast, students reporting lower levels of peer support experience sharper declines in sense of school belonging and valuing of learning and declines in participation in extracurricular activities including volunteering, as compared to their counterparts who report higher levels of peer support (Wang & Eccles, 2012). Some research also suggests that girls tend to have stronger peer attachments than boys (Gorrese & Ruggieri, 2012), making it even more relevant to examine the effects of perceived peer support among young women with disabilities.

Purpose of the Study

The application of SCCT to the transition from school to work (Lent et al., 1999) highlights interrelated processes whereby students acquire self-efficacy and outcome expectations throughout childhood and adolescence. Self-efficacy and outcome expectations influence academic and career interests, career goals, and actions aimed at attaining goals. These processes are iterative and ongoing, throughout childhood and adolescence. During the elementary and middle school years, prominent tasks include acquiring self-efficacy and outcome expectations, developing career-related interests, and forming early career goals although these tasks are refined throughout high school and beyond (Lent et al., 1999).

One aspect of the SCCT model that has received less research attention is the effect of contextual variables, including environmental inputs such as peer support, on these processes. The SCCT model posits that career interests are more likely to develop into goals and goals into actions in supportive environments. In contrast, nonsupportive or hostile environments can interfere with these processes (Lent, 2005). Given what we know about the importance of peers during adolescence (Rageliene, 2016), it is important to continue to explore the role of peer influence on adolescent’s career development processes, including participating in work experience, which is a robust predictor of future employment. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of perceived peer support on recent work experiences of young women with disabilities. Our research questions were as follows:
Does perceived peer support at school predict greater likelihood of paid or unpaid work experience in a sample of high-school aged young women with disabilities?

Do career self-efficacy and career outcome expectations mediate the potential effect of perceived peer support at school on work experience?

Guided by the SCCT framework, we hypothesized that perceived peer support would predict career self-efficacy and career outcome expectations, which would in turn predict behaviors toward attaining these goals, such as engaging in work experiences during school. Given that efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations are more proximal predictors, we expected perceived peer support to influence work experience through these mediators and not as a direct effect.

Method

Study Procedures

The current study used data from 366 participants enrolled in a randomized trial evaluating the efficacy of an intervention designed to improve career outcomes for young women in high school receiving special education services. Students were recruited from 26 public high schools in the Northwestern region of the United States. Special education teachers and school counselors at each school were asked to identify a sample of young women in their schools to participate in the study based on the following inclusion criteria: (1) identify as female, (2) currently enrolled in Grades 9 through 12 in a participating high school, and (3) determined eligible for special education services with a high incidence disability including learning disability, other health impairment (including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder/attention deficit disorder), autism spectrum disorder, speech/language disability, and emotional disability.

Schools in the larger study were randomly assigned to intervention and control conditions using propensity score matching procedures. A total of 153 participants from 13 schools were randomized to the intervention condition and 213 participants from 13 schools were randomized to the control condition. Participants in the intervention condition received the Paths 2 the Future intervention, a 75-lesson career development curriculum designed to promote positive career development outcomes for young women with disabilities, completed over 2–9 months depending on the school schedule (e.g., daily class vs. block schedule). The curriculum is divided into four modules: (a) self-awareness, (b) disability knowledge, (c) gender identity, and (d) career and college readiness. Participants in the control condition received “business as usual” career and transition services within their high school. For additional details about the intervention or study design, see (Lindstrom et al., 2019). Parent consent and student assent were obtained prior to the study onset.

Students in both control and intervention groups completed a web-based survey at four time points: (a) preintervention (T1), (b) midway through the academic year (for schools implementing a full year schedule; T2), (c) postintervention (T3), and (d) 6-month follow-up (T4). Students took between 15 and 60 min to complete the surveys, and the research team members were available to answer any questions the students had about the survey. At T1, teachers provided data on the student’s diagnosis qualifying them to receive special education services as well as information on academic, family, health, work, and other barriers that often limit educational attainment and may influence postschool outcomes. The present analyses were conducted using T1 and T3 data (for outcome variable only).

Sample

The study sample (N = 366; mean baseline age = 16.54 ± 1.12 years) included 61% non-Hispanic White and 19% Latina youth, enrolled in Grades 9 (14%), 10 (34%), 11 (30%), and 12 (22%). Most participants were receiving special education services under the specific learning disability (55.2%) and other health impairment (14.8%) categories. For each participant, teachers were asked to indicate whether the student was experiencing any additional risk factors/barriers in five areas including academics, family or living, work, at-risk behaviors, and health challenges. Most common teacher-reported barriers included difficult family circumstances (43.7%), mental health issues (42.6%), chronic absences (27.6%), no prior work or volunteer experience (25.1%), or behind in completing credits toward graduation (16.4%). According to teacher reports, 22.7% of the sample did not experience any barriers while 53.6% experienced more than one barrier (see Tables 1 and 2 for additional demographic data on all participants.)

Table 1.
Sample Demographics.

Demographic Variables Total Sample (N = 366)

n %

Grade

9th Grade 53 14.5

10th Grade 124 33.9

11th Grade 110 30.1

12th Grade 79 21.6

Hispanic or Latina

Yes 71 19.4

Race/ethnicity

White 225 61.5

Black or African American 17 4.6

American Indian or Alaskan Native 16 4.4

Asian 8 2.2

Other 44 12.0

More than one race 49 13.4

Missing 7 1.9

Disability type

Specific learning disability 202 55.2

Other health impairment 54 14.8

Emotional disturbance 22 6.0

Intellectual disability 22 6.0

No disability specified 21 5.7

Speech or language impairment 14 3.8

Other 25 6.8

Missing 6 1.6

Table 2.
Participant Summary of Barriers.

Total Sample (N = 366)

Background Risk Variables n %

Academic issues

Absenteeism 101 27.6

Modified diploma track 76 20.8

Credit deficient 60 16.4

Detentions 34 9.3

Suspensions/expulsions 22 6.0

Dropping out 12 3.3

None 152 41.5

Don’t know 24 6.6

Missing 29 7.9

Family or living issues

Difficult family circumstance 160 43.7

Has moved a lot 47 12.8

In foster care 22 6.0

No transportation 18 4.9

Homelessness 13 3.6

None 141 38.5

Don’t know 31 8.5

Missing 37 10.1

Work issues

No prior volunteer, unpaid, or paid work experience 92 25.1

Work responsibilities exceed 20 hr per week 21 5.7

None 176 48.1

Don’t know 69 18.9

Missing 8 2.2

At-risk behaviors

Current or history of substance abuse 35 9.6

Prior arrest 11 3.0

Pregnancy or parenting responsibilities 3 0.5

None 249 68.0

Don’t know 63 17.2

Missing 69 18.9

Health challenges

Mental health issues 156 42.6

Chronic health condition 36 9.8

None 125 34.2

Don’t know 57 15.6

Missing 62 16.9

Measures

Work experience (T3)

Work experience was assessed using the following Y/N question: “Have you had any work experiences in the past 6 months?” We used the T3 assessment of work experience to ensure that the outcome did not temporally precede the predictor variables. Forty-two percent of the baseline sample (n = 152) indicated involvement in work experience at T3. There was 14% loss of participants at T3.

Perceived peer support (T1)

The Peer Support for Learning subscale of the Student Engagement Instrument (Appleton et al., 2006) was used to measure perceived peer support at school (e.g., “Other students here like me the way I am,” “Students here respect what I have to say”). Responses for the six items ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The items were averaged to create a single scale score at T1 (α = .90; mean = 17.52; standard deviation [SD] = 3.66). Appleton et al. (2006) reported a Cronbach’s α of .82 with a sample of high school freshman. An α coefficient of .90 was obtained in the pilot sample (Lindstrom et al., 2013) and a study with young women in high school identified with a special education label or multiple risk factors (Doren & Kang, 2015).

Career self-efficacy (T1)

An adapted version of the Vocational Self-Efficacy Scale (McWhirter et al., 2000) used in the pilot study (Lindstrom et al., 2013) was used in the current study to assess confidence in completing tasks related to job preparation skills, time management, and goal setting. In order to increase developmental and content appropriateness for the study population, eight items focused on specific careers or skills needed to pursue specific careers were eliminated, reducing the number of items from 37 to 29. The scale range was also reduced from nine to five choices. Participants rated their level of confidence on 29 items related to job preparation skills, time management, and goal setting (e.g., “state my general career interests [areas of interest],” “find out the education requirements for a job”) on a scale ranging from 1 (no confidence at all) to 5 (complete confidence). Items were averaged to create a composite score at T1 (α = .97; mean = 94.66; SD = 23.41). McWhirter et al. (2000) reported a Cronbach’s α of .97 with a sample of high school sophomores. An α coefficient of .94 was obtained with the adapted scale in the pilot study (Lindstrom et al., 2013) and an α coefficient of .88 was obtained in a study with young women in high school identified with a special education label or multiple risk factors (Doren & Kang, 2015).

Career outcome expectations (T1)

We used the six-item Vocational Outcome Expectations Scale (McWhirter et al., 2000) to measure adolescents’ level of agreement with questions about career expectations, satisfaction, and feelings about the future (e.g., “my career planning will lead to a satisfying career for me,” “I have control over my career decisions”). Responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The six items were averaged to create a composite score (α = .88; mean = 18.91; SD = 3.20). McWhirter et al. (2000) reported a Cronbach’s α of .83 with a sample of high school sophomores. An α coefficient of .88 was obtained in the pilot sample and a study with young women in high school identified with a special education label or multiple risk factors (Doren & Kang, 2015).

Covariates

Age, race, ethnicity, disability type (learning disability vs. other), and teacher-reported barriers to academic success and future employment were included as covariates. Students were asked to self-report their birth date and race ethnicity. Teachers were asked to report the primary disability category under which each student was receiving special education services. Since the majority of the students (55%) qualified under the learning disability category, we categorized this variable as learning disability versus other. Teachers also reported risk factors or barriers to academic success or future employment experienced by each student from a list of 18 items in five areas including academics, work, difficult family/living circumstances, at-risk behaviors, and health challenges. A total risk variable was used (M = 2.29, SD = 2.15; range = 0–10). Controlling for these variables is important as employment rates for high school students with disabilities have been found to vary according to age, race/ethnicity, and disability type (Wagner et al., 2003). Additionally, we controlled for intervention versus control group assignment and days between T1 and T3 data collection (M = 166.10; SD = 71.82) because the outcome variable was assessed at T3.

Analytic Method

Given the binary nature of our outcome variable, we used logistic regression analyses to test our models. Clustering of students within schools was accounted for in the analyses. We used a Bayesian estimator in Mplus to estimate the asymmetric confidence intervals of the direct and indirect effects. Descriptive analyses were conducted in STATA Version 14.0, and path analyses were conducted using MPlus, with robust estimation procedures. Missing data were handled using full information maximum likelihood in Mplus v8.

Results

Sample Descriptives

At T3, nearly half of the sample (48%) reported having engaged in a paid/unpaid work experience in the past 6 months. Work experience was positively related to age and career self-efficacy. Perceived peer support was positively related to career outcome expectations and career self-efficacy. Correlations, means, and SDs of study variables can be found in Table 3.

Table 3.
Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations (SDs) for Study Variables.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Work experience (Y/N) —

2 Perceived peer support (at school) −.08 —

3 Career outcome expectations .09 .26 —

4 Career self-efficacy .16 .21 .62 —

5 Age .18 −.09 .07 .14 —

6 Non-Hispanic White (vs. other) .03 −.01 −.01 −.03 .03 —

7 Latina (vs. Non-Hispanic/Latina) .06 .05 .003 .00 .02 −.44 —

8 Learning disability (vs. other) .02 .05 .003 .14 −.07 −.00 .07 —

9 Background risk .11 −.13 −.09 −.10 .11 .17 −.05 −.12 —

10 Intervention group assignment .16 −.09 −.04 −.01 .08 .02 −.01 −.12 .14

Mean (SD); range 48%; 0/1 2.92 (0.61); 1–4 3.15 (0.53); 1–4 3.37 (0.82); 1–5 16.54 (1.12); 14–19 72%; 0/1 19%; 0/1 56%; 0/1 2.28 (2.1); 0–8 42%; 0/1

Note. Values significant at p < .05 are highlighted in bold.

Logistic Regression Models

The direct effect of perceived peer support on work experience at T3 was not significant, B (SE) = −.25 (.21), p = .23. Perceived peer support was however significantly related to career self-efficacy, B (SE) = .29 (.09), p = .002 (95% CI [0.16, 0.42]), and career outcome expectations, B (SE) = .24 (.05), p < .001 (95% CI [0.15, 0.32])——the two proposed mediators in our model (see Figure 1 for standardized estimates). In turn, career self-efficacy was a significant predictor of work experiences at T3, B (SE) = .44 (.20), p = .03 (95% CI [0.07, 0.54]). However, career outcome expectations were not significantly related to engagement in work experience, B (SE) = −.01 (.24), p = .96. The indirect effect of perceived peer support on work experience was channeled through career self-efficacy, B (SE) = .08 (.04), 95% CI [0.02, 0.18]. Of the controls, age, B (SE) = .27 (.11), p = .01, and group assignment, B (SE) = .57 (.25), p = .02, had significant effects on work experience, such that participants who were older as well as those assigned to the intervention group were more likely to report work experiences at T3.

Figure 1.
Model showing significant pathways of influence and standardized regression estimates. Note. The indirect effect of perceived peer support on work experience, as mediated by career self-efficacy, was significant (B = .08; 95% CI [0.02, 0.18]). The effect of age, race, ethnicity, disability type, teacher-reported barriers, and group assignment was accounted for.

Discussion

This study examined the role of perceived peer support in predicting work experiences in sample of young women with disabilities enrolled in high school. We found that perceived peer support had an indirect effect on work experiences that was channeled through career self-efficacy. Specifically, participants who reported high levels of perceived peer support also had higher ratings of career self-efficacy which in turn was a significant predictor of having engaged in paid/unpaid work experience (at T3). Perceived peer support was also positively related to career outcome expectations, but expectations were not predictive of work experience in our sample.

The association between perceived peer support and career self-efficacy is consistent with previous research identifying peers as influential social agents for adolescent career development (Ali et al., 2005). Other studies have similarly found that adolescents’ career expectations tend to be more strongly influenced by their same-sex peers, likely due to vicarious learning experiences from similar role models (Paa & McWhirter, 2000). In a recent meta-analysis examining associations between career self-efficacy and nine predictors commonly used across studies (gender, age, race, self-esteem, vocational identity, career barriers, peer support, career outcome expectations, and career indecision), Choi and colleagues (2012) found that peer support significantly and positively predicted career self-efficacy in a sample of students aged 10–26 (r_c = .41, p < .001; effect size = .35). Given these consistent findings, it appears that young women see their peers as important and accessible role models and sources of support and information related to career development. This finding supports Lent’s (2005) assertion that while self-beliefs are embedded within a complex web of systems, including cultural and structural factors that serve as barriers to career development for all women, there are “developmental and preventative routes for redressing socially imposed limitations” (Lent, 2005, p. 115). These routes include learning environments, where women’s career development can be constricted or expanded depending upon their access to efficacy information including social encouragement.

Also consistent with the SCCT model and prior research, we found that perceived peer support was positively associated with career outcome expectations. For example, using a sample of urban high school youth, Kenny et al. (2003) found that students who reported higher levels of social support also reported higher levels of career outcome expectations. Our findings show that perceived social support can have similar effects on career outcome expectations among young women with disabilities in high school. Contrary to our predictions however, in this study sample, career outcome expectations did not predict engagement in work experiences during high school. According to SCCT (Lent, 2005), although both self-efficacy and outcome expectations influence career-related behaviors, self-efficacy may be more influential in situations that require complex skills or that are perceived as difficult courses of action. For example, a young woman could think that obtaining work experience could lead to desired outcomes or payoffs but avoid action necessary to obtain a work experience if she does not believe she has the ability to successful obtain a work experience (i.e., low self-efficacy). Also, while in high school, there are significant differences in the types of employment reported by females and males with disabilities. Young women with disabilities are more likely to report working at informal jobs (for unlicensed employers) with the most common type of job being personal care, including babysitting (Wagner et al., 2003). It could be that young women in this study did not link their expectation of long-term success in their chosen career to the work experiences most commonly available to them in high school.

To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess the effect of perceived peer support on work experience using a sample of high school-age young women with disabilities. In a cross-sectional sample of 147 undergraduate students, Felsman and Bluestein (1999) found that students who reported a greater attachment and closeness to their peers also reported higher levels of commitment to pursuing a chosen career and engaging in more career exploration activities. While we found a significant indirect effect, we did not observe a direct effect of perceived peer support on work experiences. Numerous factors can influence a youth’s decision to work including parent support (Lindsey et al., 2017) and availability of school-based work experiences and job placement services (Carter et al., 2010). Further, given the relatively young age of our sample (as compared to Felsman & Bluestein, 1999), many young women might not have had the opportunity to engage in work experiences, which could have impeded our ability to detect stronger associations with perceived peer support.

Considerations for Practice

Overall, our findings suggest that perceived peer support at school can improve the odds of engaging in work experience for young women with disabilities in high school. The effectiveness of school-based interventions that enhance connectedness among all students could be examined for their effectiveness for helping to build support networks for young women with disabilities in particular and increase their perceptions of peer support. Interventions can be implemented within a multitiered framework of service delivery (Grapin et al., 2016). At the universal or school-wide level, social and emotional learning (SEL) program interventions are typically aimed at enhancing school climate and promoting positive relationships among the school community (Demaray & Malecki, 2014). Student development of cognitive, affective, and behavioral competencies through SEL programs have been shown to increase student prosocial behaviors, reduce problem behaviors, and improve both academic performance and peer relationships (Durlak et al., 2011).

Past efforts aimed at improving peer relationships of students with disabilities have focused on social skills training and increasing interactions with peers without disabilities. For example, several peer-mediated interventions have been found to be effective at increasing social interactions for students receiving services under the autism and intellectual disability categories in inclusive settings including peer tutoring, peer partner programs, and peer support arrangements (Carter et al., 2011). In peer-mediated interventions, a student without a disability is usually trained to work with a student with a disability in a general education classroom. Carter et al. (2011) partnered students with an interventionist who helped students to identify strategies to support focal students during different portions of class (i.e., at the beginning, during lectures or whole group instruction, during small group activities, during independent work, and at the end of class). All students in the intervention reported experiencing immediate and pronounced increases in social interactions. Other interventions aimed to increase peer networks of students with ASD have also resulted in participants increasing peer interactions and social engagement (Hochman et al., 2015).

In addition to focusing on social skill development and fostering friendships with peers without disabilities, high school transition programs could include an emphasis on fostering connections with peers with disabilities. People are more likely to form friendships with people who are similar to them (McPherson et al., 2001), and there is no exception for people with disabilities who may find it easier to connect with others who can relate to experiences associated with having a disability (Fulford & Cobigo, 2018). Additionally, some youth have indicated sensing power dynamic differentials in friendship with youth without disabilities in which they feel more vulnerable to exploitation or teasing and for this reason prefer friendships with others with similar disabilities to which they can relate (Mason et al., 2013). Most efforts at promoting social relationships for youth with disabilities have focused on integration and development of friendships with other youth without disabilities (Fulford & Cobigo, 2018), yet promoting friendships with other peers with disabilities would also be beneficial as these youth have expressed the importance of reciprocal friendships that promote a sense of belonging and social connectedness (Mahar et al., 2013; Western et al., 2007).

Peers could also participate in employment or career interventions to help facilitate career awareness and information-gathering processes (Paa & McWhirter, 2000) or to enhance self-efficacy (Lindsey et al., 2017). For example, Lindsey et al. (2017) are currently examining the effectiveness of online peer support and mentoring program for youth with physical disabilities aimed at improving self-determination, career maturity, and social supports. Given documented gender differences in peer attachment (Gorrese & Ruggieri, 2012), these may be especially important strategies for young women with disabilities.

Limitations and Future Research

There are several limitations to our study that should be considered. First, we did not differentiate between the type of work experience (paid/unpaid), or the quality and duration of work experience, which would be helpful in better understanding the role of perceived peer support in promoting work experiences. Variability in work experience is associated with long-term career outcomes. For example, paid employment/work experiences are associated with the likelihood of postschool employment (Mazzotti et al., 2015), and young women are more likely to enter personal care and service occupations versus nontraditional careers such as installation, mechanics, maintenance, and repair (Newman et al., 2011). Second, we did not account for how students found employment, that is, if they actively searched for it (reflecting greater career self-efficacy) or if they were placed into specific opportunities by school staff or family members.

Also, contrary to our expectations, career outcome expectations did not predict work experience. Future research should further explore the function or motivation young women have for seeking employment experiences during high school in order to better assess how or if this is connected to career expectations. Work experience is an important outcome that is predictive of long-term employment trajectories, health, and well-being, but it may not be sufficient to fully understand how variables assessed in this study impact broader career exploration and commitment outcomes. As compared to prior cross-sectional research (e.g., Felsman & Bluestein, 1999), we used a longitudinal design to predict future work experiences, which increases the relevance of our findings and also might explain why our associations were different as compared to prior studies.

Scientific or Scholarly Significance of the Study or Work

Despite the unique and persistent barriers faced by young women with disabilities in securing postschool employment, very few studies have focused on identifying malleable factors that are associated with improved career outcomes. Work experience gained during high school is one of the most robust predictors of postschool employment, yet young women are less likely than their male peers with disabilities to obtain this experience. This study adds to the sparse body of literature by identifying the unique role of perceived peer support at school in promoting career self-efficacy and work experiences among young women with disabilities. These findings, if replicated in future work, can have important implications for the integration of perceived peer support interventions into transitioning programming and curricula, particularly for young women with disabilities.

Demographic Variables	Total Sample (N = 366)
	n	%
Grade
9th Grade	53	14.5
10th Grade	124	33.9
11th Grade	110	30.1
12th Grade	79	21.6
Hispanic or Latina
Yes	71	19.4
Race/ethnicity
White	225	61.5
Black or African American	17	4.6
American Indian or Alaskan Native	16	4.4
Asian	8	2.2
Other	44	12.0
More than one race	49	13.4
Missing	7	1.9
Disability type
Specific learning disability	202	55.2
Other health impairment	54	14.8
Emotional disturbance	22	6.0
Intellectual disability	22	6.0
No disability specified	21	5.7
Speech or language impairment	14	3.8
Other	25	6.8
Missing	6	1.6

	Total Sample (N = 366)
Academic issues
Absenteeism	101	27.6
Modified diploma track	76	20.8
Credit deficient	60	16.4
Detentions	34	9.3
Suspensions/expulsions	22	6.0
Dropping out	12	3.3
None	152	41.5
Don’t know	24	6.6
Missing	29	7.9
Family or living issues
Difficult family circumstance	160	43.7
Has moved a lot	47	12.8
In foster care	22	6.0
No transportation	18	4.9
Homelessness	13	3.6
None	141	38.5
Don’t know	31	8.5
Missing	37	10.1
Work issues
No prior volunteer, unpaid, or paid work experience	92	25.1
Work responsibilities exceed 20 hr per week	21	5.7
None	176	48.1
Don’t know	69	18.9
Missing	8	2.2
At-risk behaviors
Current or history of substance abuse	35	9.6
Prior arrest	11	3.0
Pregnancy or parenting responsibilities	3	0.5
None	249	68.0
Don’t know	63	17.2
Missing	69	18.9
Health challenges
Mental health issues	156	42.6
Chronic health condition	36	9.8
None	125	34.2
Don’t know	57	15.6
Missing	62	16.9

	Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1	Work experience (Y/N)	—
2	Perceived peer support (at school)	−.08	—
3	Career outcome expectations	.09	.26	—
4	Career self-efficacy	.16	.21	.62	—
5	Age	.18	−.09	.07	.14	—
6	Non-Hispanic White (vs. other)	.03	−.01	−.01	−.03	.03	—
7	Latina (vs. Non-Hispanic/Latina)	.06	.05	.003	.00	.02	−.44	—
8	Learning disability (vs. other)	.02	.05	.003	.14	−.07	−.00	.07	—
9	Background risk	.11	−.13	−.09	−.10	.11	.17	−.05	−.12	—
10	Intervention group assignment	.16	−.09	−.04	−.01	.08	.02	−.01	−.12	.14
	Mean (SD); range	48%; 0/1	2.92 (0.61); 1–4	3.15 (0.53); 1–4	3.37 (0.82); 1–5	16.54 (1.12); 14–19	72%; 0/1	19%; 0/1	56%; 0/1	2.28 (2.1); 0–8	42%; 0/1

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by the Institute for Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through grant R324A170148.

ORCID iD

Kara A. Hirano

References

Ali

S. R.

McWhirter

E. H.

Chronister

K. M.

(2005). Self-efficacy and vocational outcome expectations for adolescents of lower socioeconomic status: A pilot study. Journal of Career Assessment, 13(1), 40–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072704270273

Appleton

J. J.

Christenson

S. L.

Kim

Reschly

A. L.

(2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Prentice Hall.

Berlan

Harwood

(2018). National snapshot: Poverty among women and families, 2018. National Women’s Law Center. www.nwlc.org

Brown

M. R.

Higgins

Pierce

Hong

Thoma

(2003). Secondary students’ perceptions of school life with regard to alienation: The effects of disability, gender, and race. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(4), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.2307/1593636

Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.). (2005). Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work. Wiley & Sons.

Burgstahler

Bellman

(2005). Perceived benefits of work-based learning: Differences between high school and postsecondary students with disabilities. The Asia-Pacific Journal of Inclusive Education, 2(1), 1–20.

Butterworth

Migliore

(2015). Trends in employment outcomes of young adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities, 2006–2013. Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston.

Carter

E. W.

Austin

Trainor

A. A.

(2012). Predictors of postschool employment outcomes for young adults with severe disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23(1), 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207311414680

10.

Carter

E. W.

Moss

C. K.

Hoffman

Chung

Sisco

(2011). Efficacy and social validity of peer support arrangements for adolescents with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 78(1), 107–125.

11.

Carter

E. W.

Trainor

A. A.

Cakiroglu

Swedeen

Owens

(2010). Availability of and access to career development activities for transition-age youth with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 33(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728809344332

12.

Choi

B. Y.

Park

Yang

Lee

S. Ki.

Lee

S. M.

(2012). Understanding career decision self-efficacy: A meta-analytic approach. Journal of Career Development, 39(5), 443–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845311398042

13.

Demaray

M. K

Malecki

C. K

. (2014). Best practices in assessing and promoting social support. In Harrison

P. L.

Thomas

(Eds.), Best practices in school psychology: Student-level services (pp. 239–249). National Association of School Psychologists.

14.

Dong

Fabian

Leucking

R. G.

(2016). Impacts of school structural factors and student factors on employment outcomes for youth with disabilities in transition: A secondary analysis. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 59(4), 224–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034355215595515

15.

Doren

Gau

Lindstrom

(2011). The role of gender in the long-term employment outcomes of young adults with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 34(1), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-2010-0532

16.

Doren

Kang

H. J.

(2015). Autonomy, self-realization, and self-advocacy and the school-and career-related adjustment of adolescent girls with disabilities. Career Development & Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 39(3), 132–143.

17.

Durlak

J. A.

Weissberg

R. P.

Dymnicki

A. B.

Taylor

R. D.

Schellinger

K. B.

(2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432.

18.

Felsman

D. E.

Bluestein

D. L.

(1999). The role of peer relatedness in late adolescent career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(2), 279–295. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1998.1664

19.

Fulford

Cobigo

(2018). Friendship and intimate relationships among people with intellectual disabilities: A thematic synthesis. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 31(1), e18–e35. https://doi.org/doi:10.1111/jar.12312.

20.

Gorrese

Ruggieri

(2012). Peer attachment: A meta-analytic review of gender and age differences and associations with parent attachment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 650–672. https://doi.10.1007/s10964-012-9759-6

21.

Grapin

S. L.

Sulkowski

M. L.

Lazarus

P. J.

(2016). A multilevel framework for increasing social support in schools. Contemporary School Psychology, 20, 93–106. https://doi.10.1007/s40688-015-0051-0

22.

Gresham

F. M.

Sugai

Horner

R. H.

(2001). Interpreting outcomes of social skills training for students with high-incidence disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67(3), 331–344. https://doi.10.1177/001440290106700303

23.

Hochman

J. M.

Carterm

E. W.

Bottema-Beutel

Harvey

M. N.

Gustafson

J. R.

(2015). Efficacy of peer networks to increase social connections among high school students with and without autism spectrum disorder. Exceptional Children, 82, 96–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915585482

24.

Hossfeld

(2008). Developing friendships and peer relationships: Building social support with the girls circle program. In LeCroy

Mann

(Eds.), Handbook of prevention and intervention programs for adolescent girls (pp. 43–80). Wiley & Sons.

25.

Kenny

M. E.

Bluestein

D. L.

Chaves

Grossman

J. M.

Gallagher

L. A.

(2003). The role of perceived barriers and relational support in the educational and vocational lives of urban high school students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(2), 142–155. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.50.2.142

26.

Lent

R. W.

(2005). A social cognitive view of career development and counseling. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting their and research to work (pp. 101–127). John Wiley & Sons.

27.

Lent

R. W.

Hackett

Brown

S. D.

(1999). A social cognitive view of school-to-work transition. The Career Development Quarterly, 47(4), 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.1999.tb00739.x

28.

Lindstrom

Hirano

K. A.

Ingram

DeGarmo

D. S.

Post

(2019). “Learning to be myself“ : Paths to the Future career development curriculum for young women with disabilities. Journal of Career Development, 46(4), 469–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845318776795

29.

Lindstrom

Doren

Post

Lombardi

(2013). Building career PATHS (Postschool Achievement Through Higher Skills) for young women with disabilities. Career Development Quarterly, 61(4), 330–338. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2013.00059.x

30.

Lindsay

Stinson

Stergiou-Kita

Leck

(2017). Improving transition to employment for youth with physical disabilities: Protocol for peer electronic mentoring intervention. JMIR Research Protocols, 6(11), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.2196/resprot.8034

31.

Lipscomb

Haimon

Liu

A. Y.

Burghardt

Johnson

D. R.

Thurlow

M. L.

(2017). Preparing for life after high school: The characteristics and experiences of youth in special education. Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012. Volume 1: Comparisons with other youth: Full report (NCEE 2017-4016). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

32.

Mahar

A. L.

Cobigo

Stuart

(2013). Conceptualizing belonging. Disability and Rehabilitation, 35(12), 1026–1032. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2012.717584

33.

Mason

Tims

Hayburn

Watters

(2013). How do people described as having a learning disability make sense of friendship? Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disability, 26(2), 108–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12001

34.

Mazzotti

Rowe

D. A.

Sinclair

Poppen

(2015). Predictors of post-school success: A systematic review of NLTS2 secondary analysis. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 39(4), 196–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143415588047

35.

McDonnall

M. C.

(2011). Predictors of employment for youth with visual impairments: Findings from the second national longitudinal transition study. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 105, 453–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1110500802

36.

McDonnall

M. C.

O’Mally

(2012). Characteristics of early work experiences and their association with future employment. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 106(3), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1210600302

37.

McPherson

Smith-Lovin

Cook

J. M.

(2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415

38.

McWhirter

E. H.

Rasheed

Crothers

(2000). The effects of high school career education on social-cognitive variables. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(3), 330- 341. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.47.3.330

39.

Mwachofi

A. K.

Broyles

Khaliq

(2009). Factors affecting vocational rehabilitation intervention outcomes: The case of minorities with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20(3), 170–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207309338670

40.

Newman

Wagner

Knokey

A.-M.

Marder

Nagle

Shaver

Wei

with Cameto

Contreras

Ferguson

Greene

Schwarting

. (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-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2011-3005). SRI International.

41.

Paa

H. K.

McWhirter

E. H.

(2000). Perceived influences on high school students’ current career expectations. The Career Development Quarterly, 49(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2000.tb00749.x

42.

Rageliene

(2016). Links of adolescent identity development and relationship with peers: A systematic literature review. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 25(2), 97–105.

43.

Salmon

. (2013). “We just stick together”: How disabled teens negotiate stigma to create lasting friendships. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 57(4), 347–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01541.x

44.

Schumacher

(2014). Talking circle for adolescent girls in an urban high school: A restorative practices program for building friendship and developing emotional literacy skills. SAGE Open, October–December, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014554204

45.

Wagner

M. M.

Cadwallader

Marder

. (with Cameto

Cardoso

Garza

Levine

Newman

.). (2003). Life outside the classroom for youth with disabilities. A report from the national longitudinal transition study-2 (NLTS2). SRI International.

46.

Wagner

M. M.

Newman

L. A.

Javitz

H. S.

(2014). The influence of family socioeconomic status on the post-high school outcomes of youth with disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 37(1), 5–17.

47.

Wang

Eccles

J. S.

(2012). Social support matters: Longitudinal effects of social support on three dimensions of school engagement from middle to high school. Child Development, 83(3), 877–895. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01745.x

48.

Western

McCrea

Stimson

(2007). Quality of life and social inclusion. International Review of Sociology, 17(3), 525–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/03906700701574448

	Total Sample (N = 366)
Background Risk Variables	n	%
Academic issues
Absenteeism	101	27.6
Modified diploma track	76	20.8
Credit deficient	60	16.4
Detentions	34	9.3
Suspensions/expulsions	22	6.0
Dropping out	12	3.3
None	152	41.5
Don’t know	24	6.6
Missing	29	7.9
Family or living issues
Difficult family circumstance	160	43.7
Has moved a lot	47	12.8
In foster care	22	6.0
No transportation	18	4.9
Homelessness	13	3.6
None	141	38.5
Don’t know	31	8.5
Missing	37	10.1
Work issues
No prior volunteer, unpaid, or paid work experience	92	25.1
Work responsibilities exceed 20 hr per week	21	5.7
None	176	48.1
Don’t know	69	18.9
Missing	8	2.2
At-risk behaviors
Current or history of substance abuse	35	9.6
Prior arrest	11	3.0
Pregnancy or parenting responsibilities	3	0.5
None	249	68.0
Don’t know	63	17.2
Missing	69	18.9
Health challenges
Mental health issues	156	42.6
Chronic health condition	36	9.8
None	125	34.2
Don’t know	57	15.6
Missing	62	16.9