The Effects of the Texas Youth Leadership Forum Summer Training on the Self-Advocacy Abilities of High School Students With Disabilities

Abstract

Federal and state policies concerning disability issues are often made based on advocacy efforts by individuals with disabilities and their allies. Providing self-advocacy and leadership training to youth with disabilities has been widely regarded as critically important to promote legislation and policies that support these individuals. This study evaluated the effects of the youth leadership summer training on the self-advocacy abilities of high school students with disabilities. A nonequivalent group design was used. The sample included 68 high school juniors and seniors aged 16 to 22, with 34 in the experimental group and 34 in the control group. The Texas Statewide Youth Leadership Forum Pre/Post Questionnaire was used to measure the participants’ self-advocacy abilities a week prior to the training and immediately following the training. Results indicated that the training improved the self-advocacy abilities of the participants, individuals with developmental disabilities gained significantly more than the other disability groups, and gender did not interact with treatment to affect the self-advocacy abilities of these participants. Implications to policy and practices are discussed.

Keywords

advocacy policy self-advocacy self-determination transition

The Effects of Youth Leadership Training on Self-Advocacy of Youth With Disabilities: Implications for Policies and Practices

Numerous prior studies have been conducted to examine the efficacy of self-determination/self-advocacy interventions and have demonstrated the importance of the skills related to self-determined behavior (e.g., Benz, Lindstrom, & Yovanoff, 2000; Zhang & Benz, 2006). For example, Cobb, Lehmann, Newman-Gonchar, and Alwell (2009) conducted a narrative metasynthesis of seven narrative and systematic reviews published on self-determination/self-advocacy since 2000. Results from this study indicated that positive outcomes related to self-determination/self-advocacy interventions were best achieved or maximized by instructional or curricular interventions that contain multiple components.

Taking a different approach, Test et al. (2009) conducted a review of evidence-based practices in secondary transition. Based on this review, self-advocacy was highlighted as a moderately effective intervention strategy for student development related to secondary transition. Promoting self-determination/self-advocacy has been recognized as the best practice in the education of adolescents with disabilities since the early 1990s, when the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandated increased student involvement in transition planning (Abery, Rudrud, Arndt, Schauben, & Eggebeen, 1995; Wehman, 2006; Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1997). However, the uniqueness of the Youth Leadership Forum (YLF) model does not allow for the generalization of these results to support the efficacy of the YLF training.

To date, only four studies have been conducted to evaluate the impact of the YLF, three of which were qualitative in nature. The evaluation questions were developed to assess specific themes related to the YLF training. These questions were primarily inquiry based and were not designed for causal inferences (Bauer, 2003; Burrows, 2003; Gragoudas, 2006). Concepts and underlying skills assessed included self-advocacy and skills related to self-advocacy. Common findings across these qualitative studies included (a) increased understanding and appreciation of disability culture, (b) increased self-advocacy skills, (c) increased realization of common barriers, (d) increased sense of purpose and pride, (e) increased self-confidence in ability to be a leader, and (f) increased leadership skills. One quantitative study used a quasiexperimental two-group pre/post design (Brown, 2000) and reported significant growth from preintervention to postintervention on self-determination skills as measured by the ARC Self-Determination Scale (Wehmeyer & Kelchner, 1995) and the researcher-developed Self-Advocacy Knowledge Scale. However, this study did not measure some of the important components of the YLF program, such as legislative experiences.

While numerous studies have reported differences in students’ abilities to develop self-advocacy/self-determination skills, and those differences have been associated with level of intelligence, studies prove that self-advocacy/self-determination training can assist all youth with disabilities to improve self-advocacy/self-determination (L. E. Powers, Turner, Westwood, Matuszewski, & Wilson, 2001; Shogren, Wehmeyer, Palmer, Soukup, Little, Garner, & Lawrence, 2007; Test, Fowler, Brewer, & Wood, 2005). Shogren et al. (2007) and Wehmeyer and Lawrence (1995) examined disability-related differences of the total self-determination scores for three groups: students without cognitive disabilities, students with learning disabilities (LDs), and students with mental retardation. The statistical analyses of the study by Wehmeyer and Lawrence (1995) indicated statistical differences between students with LDs and students with mental retardation. The findings of this study appear to corroborate the findings of Wehmeyer and Lawrence’s (1995) study, as the Texas Statewide Youth Leadership Forum (TXYLF) study results demonstrated significant differences in self-advocacy ability between the type of disability groups, which were youth with physical disabilities (PHY), youth with LDs, and youth with developmental disabilities (DDs). A deviation of this study’s grouping categories may affect the interpretation as the DD group in this study included youth with intellectual disabilities and youth with autism. Furthermore, measurement instruments were different as well as conceptual components. Although the terms of self-determination and self-advocacy are often used interchangeably, the ARC Self-Determination Scale was developed to measure self-determination, and the TXYLF Pre/Post Questionnaire was developed to measure self-advocacy.

This type of disability-related difference in self-determination ability was also examined in the study by Shogren and colleagues (2007). While the above findings were not supported by the statistical analyses as determined by the AIR Self-Determination Scale, type of disability differences in self-determination ability was supported by the statistical analysis using the ARC Self-Determination Scale. Differences across disability types included the areas of “capacity,” “inclusion,” and “self-determination,” indicating that students with more significant disabilities had lower levels of self-determination.

In addition, studies have reported gender differences among youth with disabilities (Fiedler & Danneker, 2007; Hogansen, Powers, Geenan, Gil-Kashiwasara, & Powers, 2008; Wehmeyer & Lawrence, 1995). The studies reported that difficulties achieving self-advocacy and successful postsecondary outcomes for this population were exacerbated if the youth with a disability was a female (Benz et al., 2000; Dunn & Shumaker, 1997; K. Powers, Hogansen, Geenen, Powers, & Gil-Kashiwabara, 2008; Rabren, Dunn, & Chambers, 2002). Reasons mentioned for the lower self-advocacy levels of youth with disabilities who were female included (a) the complex interrelationship of parents, schools, and community agencies contributing to the lack of access and equal participation for girls with disabilities and (b) females with disabilities are often viewed as more vulnerable, thus more dependent and in need of additional protection (K. Powers et al., 2008).

The purpose of this study, therefore, was to investigate the effect of one YLF—the TXYLF (more specifically the summer training event)—on the self-advocacy and leadership skills of youth with disabilities as conceptualized by Test, Fowler, Wood, Brewer, and Eddy (2005), who developed a framework to examine the self-advocacy concept and the underlying skills related to it. The framework was developed based on a thorough examination of the definitions and interventions in the self-advocacy literature and broad input from individuals with various positions within the disability community. There are four components in the framework: knowledge of self, knowledge of rights, communication, and leadership. All these components were addressed by the TXYLF and served as the foundation of the curriculum for TXYLF.

This study is significant because it contributed to the theory and practice of self-advocacy. First, the study investigated an area of self-advocacy where little has been studied by previous empirical research. This was accomplished by examining the effectiveness of self-advocacy and leadership training implemented through the TXYLF format. Second, our study examined the interactive effects of certain demographic and internal factors on the effect of the self-advocacy instruction. In addition, this study is significant because it contributed nationally to the field of youth development by providing empirical data to evaluate the effectiveness of the YLF model. Findings from this study can be used to identify the curricular components of self-advocacy that are supported through the TXYLF summer training. In addition, knowledge gleaned from this study could validate the need for the program and substantiate the importance of teaching self-advocacy and self-determination holistically, in natural settings, with hands-on, real-world activities and experiences.

The study addressed one primary and two exploratory research questions. The primary research question was, “Is the TXYLF summer training effective for teaching youth with disabilities self-advocacy and leadership skills?” In considering this primary question, two exploratory research questions were proposed. First, “Does disability type affect the youth participants’ acquisition of self-advocacy skills as measured by the posttest?” Second, “Does gender affect the youth participants’ acquisition of self-advocacy skills?” The hypothesis was that the TXYLF training had a positive impact on the attainment of self-advocacy and leadership skills by youth with disabilities.

Method

Participants

The participants for this study included 68 high school juniors and seniors in the state of Texas who were 16 to 22 years of age. A total of 34 were in the experimental group and 34 in the control group.

The experimental group

The 34 youth who were selected to participate in the TXYLF served as the experimental group. These youth were selected through an application and selection process. To be considered, youth completing the application had to be juniors or seniors in high school at the time of the TXYLF training. Applicants were required to submit an application form, an essay, and letters of recommendation. The selection committee reviewed and scored the applications, and applicants were scored with an emphasis placed on the level of student’s demonstration of leadership potential, participation in extracurricular activities, school and/or community involvement, and ability to interact well with other students. In addition, geographic location, ethnicity, disability type, gender, and other demographic information were also considered to ensure that TXYLF represented a diverse group of students.

The control group

Thirty-four youth with disabilities who matched the profiles of youth in the experimental group served as the control group. The youth were identified based on the following six characteristics: (a) age, (b) gender, (c) disability type, (d) ethnicity, (e) geographic region, and (f) reading level. The control group was selected using a four-step procedure. First, the researchers provided school personnel and parent groups an information sheet on the proposed study and youth profiles required for this study. Second, control group participants were identified as matching a TXYLF participant profile by either an educator or their parent. Third, the researchers contacted identified possible participants and invited him or her to join the study. Fourth, if the participant decided to join the study, participant consent/assent and parental consent were obtained. Demographic information of the two groups is included in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic Information of Treatment and Control Groups.

Demographic variable	Treatment group (n = 34)	Control group (n = 34)
Age
Range	15–21	16–21
M	17.63	17.62
SD	1.18	1.18
Gender
Male	15 (44.1%)	16 (47.1%)
Female	19 (55.9%)	18 (52.9%)
Primary disability
Developmental disability	10 (29.4%)	10 (29.4%)
Learning disability	18 (53.0%)	18 (53.0%)
Physical disability	6 (17.6%)	6 (17.6%)
Ethnicity
African American	7 (20.6%)	6 (17.6%)
Caucasian	12 (35.3%)	12 (35.3%)
Hispanic	15 (44.1%)	16 (47.1%)
Grade-level reading
Range	1–12	1–12
M	7.26	7.06
SD	3.71	3.34

Measures

Two researcher-developed instruments were used in this study. A demographic information sheet was used to collect participant information regarding age, gender, ethnicity, primary disability, reading level, geographic location, and school district size.

The TXYLF Pre/Post Questionnaire

This questionnaire is a self-report that consists of 39 items that measure four domains of skills: knowledge of self, knowledge of rights, communication, and leadership. These items are presented in various formats, including multiple choices, open-ended questions, sequencing, and polar questions. Each item in the TXYLF Pre/Post Questionnaire is scored dichotomously with (a) a score of 1 for a correct answer and (b) a score of 0 for an incorrect answer. The questionnaire was constructed based on the Arc’s Self-Determination Scale, the AIR Self-Determination Scale, the Self-Determination Knowledge Scale, and the National Youth Leadership Forum Leadership Scale. It can be administered individually or in a group format, orally or written. Scoring for the TXYLF Pre/Post Questionnaire involved three steps. The first step was to score each of the 39 items. The second step involved obtaining raw scores for each of the subcomponents. The third step was to obtain a total self-advocacy raw score. The highest possible composite self-advocacy score was 35. Highest possible domain scores for subcomponents were 15 for knowledge of self, 6 for knowledge of rights, 3 for communication, and 13 for leadership. Two pilot studies were conducted to establish the reliability and validity of the instrument. Revisions were made to the questionnaire based on the results from Pilot Study 1. The revised instrument was then tested in Pilot Study 2. The results yielded a Cronbach’s alpha score of .834, which indicated good internal consistency according to George and Mallery (2003). A factor analysis was then conducted using results from Pilot Study 2. All variables fell on one of the four factors. The four factors combined to explain 80.1% of the variance.

Dependent variable

The dependent variable for the study included composite scores of leadership and advocacy skills and domain scores (knowledge of self, knowledge of rights, communication, and leadership) obtained from the administration of the TXYLF Pre/Post Questionnaire. Raw scores were collected by administering the TXYLF Pre/Post Questionnaire to the experimental and control groups twice: once before the training and once after the training. A total self-advocacy composite score for each individual was reported.

Independent variable

The independent variable under investigation was the TXYLF summer training event. Two levels existed within this variable. The first level was the treatment group, in which the participants received instruction on the TXYLF training curriculum. The second level was the control group that did not receive this training. Based on results from prior research studies, disability type and gender were hypothesized to have an interactive effect with self-advocacy interventions (Fiedler & Danneker, 2007; Hogansen et al., 2008; K. Powers et al., 2008; Shogren et al., 2007; Wehmeyer & Lawrence, 1995).

Intervention

Participants in the treatment group received training using the TXYLF training curriculum during the week of July 20–24, 2009. The training was conducted by the researchers and trained volunteers. Volunteers were trained prior to the training over the curriculum components, objectives, guidelines for participant and group interaction, and data collection rules and guidelines.

The TXYLF curriculum addressed skills in the following areas: (a) disability history, (b) team-building and leadership, (c) self-advocacy, (d) legislative advocacy, (e) postsecondary education, (f) employment, and (g) volunteerism. Construct validity of the curriculum was established by comparing its contents with the self-advocacy framework (Test, Fowler, Wood, et al., 2005). The core curricular concepts taught in the TXYLF were represented in the self-advocacy conceptualization, and the YLF curriculum supports the acquisition of self-advocacy skills (Epstein, Eddy, Williams, & Socha, 2006). The curriculum was built around a theme or themes for each day of the training with activities incorporated to support those themes. The TXYLF curriculum emphasizes an experiential, interactive approach to learning and provides a framework that includes a safe environment for youth with disabilities to develop leadership and advocacy skills. To achieve this, three key program elements were incorporated to address the curricular areas: the environmental element, the mentoring element, and the training methodology.

The purpose of YLF training is to guide and support youth’s acquisition of leadership and advocacy skills. The efficacy of the YLF training program is inherently dependent on the ability to accommodate needs specific to youth with disabilities and requires an understanding of the interrelationship of multiple factors, such as sociocultural background, the concept of self and self-determination, and workplace issues pertaining to disability (Edelman, Gill, Comerford, Larson, & Hare, 2004; Epstein, Eddy, Williams, & Socha, 2006).

Primary activities of the TXYLF summer training event include a 5-day, 4-night stay at a university campus in the state’s capitol city. Participants arrive on Monday at 3:00 p.m. and leave on Friday at 1: 00 p.m. Youth participants are selected through a competitive process and travel to their state’s capital during a summer month. They are trained and housed on a college campus. The training event encompasses an intensive schedule incorporating a workshop-style training format to present information on disability history, leadership style and team-building techniques, career and employment, volunteerism, disability rights, and legislative action. The combined 5-day, 4-night stay comprises a total of 96 hr, of which 36 are designated for sleeping and 15 are designated for consuming meals, leaving a remainder of 45 available waking hours for training. Youth participants for this study were engaged in formalized activities for 37 of their 45 available waking hours during their 5-day stay.

TXYLF graduates and adults with disabilities present the information with facilitation support from the researchers and volunteers. Selected TXYLF graduates and adults provided the mentoring element. Youth participants traveled to the state’s capitol building on the 4th day of the training event to use their newly acquired advocacy skills and to experience legislative action processes firsthand. On the final day of the training, youth participants developed a personal leadership plan to implement on returning to their communities.

Program components

The TXYLF curriculum addresses skills in the following areas: (a) disability history, (b) team-building and leadership, (c) self-advocacy, (d) legislative advocacy, (e) postsecondary education, (f) employment, and (g) volunteerism. These areas are addressed in a workshop-style training environment with hands-on activities, speaker presentations, large and small group discussions, and field excursions. The curriculum is built around a theme or themes for each day of the training with activities incorporated to support those themes.

Setting

Environmental elements include the following: (a) travel to the state’s capitol city, (b) a 5-day/4-night stay on a college campus, (c) a campus tour, and (d) an excursion to the state’s capitol building. The environmental element mentioned above is critical to the acquisition of self-advocacy and leadership skills. Wehmeyer (2002) highlighted the necessity of combining the instruction of specific skills with environmental opportunities to practice those skills.

Mentoring

The mentoring element of the TXYLF is provided by TXYLF graduates and adults with disabilities. TXYLF graduates from the previous year’s training apply to attend the training as mentors to the newly selected trainees. Eight TXYLF graduates were selected as mentors/facilitators through a review and scoring process. The majority of the training was facilitated by these young adults who successfully navigated the transition to postsecondary pursuits and who demonstrated effective leadership and advocacy. Adults with disabilities from the private and public sectors who have successful careers provided an interactive level of support for the training.

Training methodology

The workshop-style training format includes small and large group interaction. Youth participants are assigned to a team prior to arrival considering diversity in disability type, gender, geographic region, and reading ability. Training fidelity is assured through the incorporation of volunteers. Seventeen special educators and regional TXYLF training personnel provided guidance and ensured the proper delivery of the curriculum during this training event. Volunteers were provided the curriculum, a detailed training agenda, and face to face training on the curriculum design and intent prior to the TXYLF summer training event. Volunteers met nightly with researchers during the training week to address any concerns and to ensure training structure and fidelity. More specific information about this curriculum and the steps to implement the curriculum are reported by Grenwelge, Zhang, and Landmark (2010).

Research Design

A quasiexperimental nonequivalent group design (NEGD) was used in this study (see Figure 1). According to Trochim and Donnelly (2007), the quasiexperimental NEGD is perhaps the most commonly used design in social research. The design is structured like a randomized pretest–posttest experiment; however, it does not use the key characteristic of the randomized designs, which is random assignment. In the NEGD, researchers try to select groups that are as similar as possible so that they can fairly compare the treated one with the comparison one (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002; Trochim & Donnelly, 2007). For our study, control group participants were selected to match experimental group’s participants’ profile on six determining variables in an attempt to control for group differences.

Figure 1.

Notational representation of the design.

Data Analysis

Two types of data analyses were conducted. Descriptive analyses were conducted to obtain overall performance on each of the four domains in the TXYLF Pre/Post Questionnaire and self-advocacy composite score, performance by the treatment group and by the control group, and performance by gender and disability type. The purpose of these descriptive analyses was to gain a basic understanding of the data.

Inferential analyses were conducted to answer the primary and exploratory research questions. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to answer the primary research question (George & Mallery, 2003; Shadish et al., 2002). The null hypothesis for the ANCOVA was as follows: The adjusted mean self-advocacy posttest score of the treatment group was the same as the adjusted self-advocacy posttest score of the control group. The dependent variable of the ANCOVA was the self-advocacy posttest score. The independent variable was the TXYLF summer training event, with two levels: receiving self-advocacy training (the treatment group) and not receiving self-advocacy training. The covariates were the self-advocacy pretest score and the participant’s reading level. Two factorial analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted to examine interaction effects between the treatment and disability type and between the treatment and gender.

Results

Descriptive Statistics of Participant Performance

Descriptive statistics summarizing the participants’ scores on the TXYLF Pre/Post Questionnaire are presented in Table 2. The average pretest score for the entire group was 21.79. The treatment group’s pretest score was 0.44 higher than the control group (21.59 vs. 22.03). In the posttest, the average score for the entire sample was 25.40. The treatment group outperformed the control group by 5.56 points. Skewness and kurtosis were well within a tolerable range for assuming a normal distribution.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics of Self-Advocacy Pretest and Posttest by the Treatment and Control Groups.

Type	Statistics	Treatment group (n = 34)	Control group (n = 34)	Total (N = 68)
Pretest	Minimum	11.00	10.00	10.00
	Maximum	31.00	31.00	31.00
	Range	20.00	21.00	21.00
	M	22.02	21.56	21.79
	SD	5.83	5.52	5.64
Posttest	Minimum	16.00	10.00	10.00
	Maximum	36.00	31.00	36.00
	Range	20.00	21.00	26.00
	M	28.18	22.62	25.40
	SD	5.25	5.52	6.04

Note: The highest possible score on the Texas Statewide Youth Leadership Forum Pre/Post Questionnaire is 36.

Effect of the Intervention

Both the control and the treatment groups scored higher in the posttest than in the pretest. However, the treatment group gained an average of 5.56 points, which was 4.53 points higher than the control group’s gain (1.03 points). To determine the statistical significance of the difference between the treatment and control groups, a mixed between–within participants ANCOVA was conducted. The results of the ANCOVA are summarized in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, the F value for the adjusted between groups is 6.04, which was significant at the .05 level and, according to Dimitrov and Rumrill (2003), is a very conservative measure of mean difference. Therefore, the null hypothesis that the mean self-advocacy posttest score of the treatment group was the same as the adjusted self-advocacy posttest score of the control group was rejected. The observed power for the adjusted between was .75. Effect size derived from a partial eta squared score was .09 (Bakeman, 2005; Barnette, 2006).

Table 3.

Analysis of Covariance for the TXYLF Self-Advocacy Training.

Source	Type III SS	df	F	p
Between participants
Group (TOI)	302.32	1	6.04 *	.017
Between-group error	3,053.56	61
Within participants
Group (TOI)	223.50	1	57.41	.000
Within-group error	237.44	61
Covariate (pretest)	570.25	1	156.16*	.000
Covariate (reading level)	0.29	1	0.08	.781

Note: TXYLF = Texas Statewide Youth Leadership Forum; TOI = type of instruction; SS = Sum of Squares.

p < .05.

Effects of Type of Disability and Gender

The effect of disability type

The effect of treatment, disability type, and the treatment by disability interaction were examined by a factorial ANOVA. The dependent variable of the ANOVA was the self-advocacy postscore. The independent variables were disability type and type of instruction. Table 4 shows the mean self-advocacy score, standard deviation, and number of students by disability group and by treatment and control groups. Disability type had three levels: learning disability, developmental disability, and physical disabilities. An examination of data in Table 4 indicates relatively large differences by treatment group, with lower scores being obtained by individuals with DDs in both groups and higher scores being obtained by individuals with PHY. However, variation is fairly consistent across groups.

Table 4.

M, SD, and n for Type of Disability by the Treatment Group and the Control Group.

Group	Type of disability	M	SD	n
Treatment group	LD	28.39	4.74	18
	DD	26.40	5.72	10
	PHY	30.50	5.82	6
Control group	LD	23.11	4.80	18
	DD	19.70	5.49	10
	PHY	26.00	6.13	6

Note: LD = learning disability; DD = developmental disability; PHY = physical disabilities.

The results of the ANOVA are presented in Table 5. As shown in Table 5, the F values for type of disability and interaction are 5.39 and 0.05, respectively. The F value for type of disability is significant exceeding the criticalF value at the .05 level of significance. This indicates that there is a significant main effect by type of disability. TheF value for the interaction effect between treatment type and disability type is not significant. This indicates that there is no significant interaction effect between type of disability and type of instruction. Levene’s test of equal variance yielded an F value of 0.14 (p > .05), which indicates that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was met.

Table 5.

ANOVA for Self-Advocacy Posttest by Type of Disability and Type of Instruction.

Source	Type III SS	df	F	p
Type of instruction	258.57	1	4.97*	.029
Type of disability	560.53	2	5.39*	.007
Interaction	4.86	2	0.05	.954
Error	3,223.86	62

Note: ANOVA = analyses of variance; SS = Sum of Squares.

p < .05.

An examination of treatment group by disability type

Summarized in Table 6 are the mean pretest self-advocacy scores and the mean posttest self-advocacy scores, standard deviations, and number of participants in each disability type in the treatment group. The data reveal that participants with DDs gained the most from pretest to posttest (7.4), followed by those with LDs (6.0) and with PHY (4.5). Because a statistically significant main effect of disability was found (F = 5.39, p < .05), the previous ANOVA was repeated with the following changes: (a) combining the other two disability types into one group to compare with the DD group and (b) reidentifying the alpha level at .10, which is acceptable in social sciences (Gall, 2001). These changes were made to examine the significance of the difference between those with DDs and those with other disabilities. Thus, in this ANOVA, participants with DDs (n = 10) were compared with all other participants in the treatment group (n = 24). The result indicated that individuals with DDs gained significantly more than others (F = 3.37, p < .10). Although youth with DDs started the TXYLF summer training with lower pretest scores than the other groups, they were much closer to the overall posttest mean score (28.18) at the end of the training.

Table 6.

M, SD, and n for TXYLF Pretest and Posttest Scores by Disability Type.

Type of disability	M	SD	n
TXYLF pretest
LD	22.39	5.55	18
DD	19.00	5.24	10
PHY	26.00	5.69	6
TXYLF posttest
LD	28.39	4.74	18
DD	26.40	5.71	10
PHY	30.50	5.82	6

Note: TXYLF = Texas Statewide Youth Leadership Forum; LD = learning disability; DD = developmental disability; PHY = physical disabilities.

Examination of selection as a threat to the external validity

A selection threat was created with this study’s quasiexperimental design. One method to reduce a selection bias in a quasiexperimental design is to match cases to controls based on individual characteristics. A refinement to this method is to create a propensity score (a predicted score) and then match cases to controls based on this score, which controls for multiple confounding variables (Blackford, 2008; Blackstone, 2001). The use of stratification or matching on the propensity score removes the effect of covariate imbalance and allows for a fair and unbiased comparison of the treatment group with the control group.

To test the selection threat, an ANCOVA repeated measures model analysis was conducted again using the corrected sample. The F value for the adjusted between groups is 4.96 in comparison with the 6.04 reported in the original analysis. The F statistic was again significant at the .05 level, indicating an increase from pretest to posttest for the treatment group. Therefore, the null hypothesis that the mean self-advocacy posttest score of the treatment group was the same as the adjusted self-advocacy posttest score of the control group was rejected. The observed power for the adjusted between was .77. Effect size derived from a partial eta squared score was .11 (Bakeman, 2005; Barnette, 2006). Even with the removal and correction of variance between paired samples, the findings still revealed a significance pre- to posttest for the treatment group. The observed power for the analysis was higher for the corrected sample (.75 vs. .77).

The effect of gender

The effect of treatment, gender, and treatment by gender interaction was examined by a factorial ANOVA. The dependent variable of the ANOVA was self-advocacy postscore. The independent variables were gender and type of instruction. Gender had two levels: male or female. Type of instruction also had two levels: treatment group or control group. The ANOVA yielded an F value 0.39 for interaction effect and an F value 0.10 for gender. Neither was statistically significant (p > .05). These values indicate that there was neither significant interaction effect between type of instruction and gender nor a significant main effect for gender.

Discussion

The primary research question for our study was, “Is the TXYLF summer training effective for teaching youth with disabilities self-advocacy and leadership skills?” Results indicate that the adjusted mean self-advocacy score of the treatment group was significantly higher than that of the control group. This means that youth who participated in the training significantly improved their self-advocacy and leadership skills and that the TXYLF was effective in improving these skills among youth with disabilities. This finding provides empirical evidence that youth with disabilities can achieve higher levels of self-advocacy with intensive training in a relatively short amount of time. The finding is significant because it contributes to the theory and practice of self-advocacy and offers empirical support for the YLF program. More broadly, the finding further demonstrates that self-advocacy/self-determination training could assist all youth with disabilities to improve self-advocacy/self-determination skills as previously reported by other researchers (e.g., Field & Hoffman, 1996; L. E. Powers et al., 2001; Rothman, Maldonado, & Rothman, 2008; Test, Fowler, Brewer, et al., 2005).

Youth development theorists (Gambone, Klem, & Connell, 2002; MacNeil & McClean, 2006) have identified adolescence as a critical stage for the development of skills necessary to successfully transition to adulthood, a transition that has been proven to be complex and difficult for youth with disabilities (e.g., National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth, 2009; Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1997). To help these youth successfully transition to adulthood, effective youth development programs providing participatory activities need to be accessible to teach youth with disability self-advocacy and leadership skills (Larson, 2000; Test, Fowler, Brewer, et al., 2005). Providing instruction to increase self-advocacy skills is a proven method that enhances the possibility of positive postschool outcomes for youth with disabilities (Benz et al., 2000; Test et al., 2009; Zhang & Benz, 2006). Results from the present study indicate that the TXYLF summer training event is an instructional mechanism that had a positive impact on the self-advocacy abilities of high school students with disabilities. It seems that the YLF summer training is one effective way to promote self-advocacy and leadership skills of high school students with disabilities, and therefore, likely to enhance their adolescent development and the transition to adulthood. The current effort by the states that fund YLF training is warranted and should continue.

The current study also found that type of disability significantly affected the youths’ gain in self-advocacy skills, with individuals with DDs experiencing the most gains. It is possible that the TXYLF summer training event was more effective for participants with DDs. This finding is practically significant because many youth with significant disabilities are sheltered from typical developmental activities such as risk taking, advocating for necessary accommodations, and the communication of strengths as well as weaknesses (Beirne-Smith, Ittenbach, & Patton, 2002; Grigal, Neubert, Moon, & Graham, 2003; Zhang, Landmark, Grenwelge, & Montoya, 2010). The format of the TXYLF summer training may provide the necessary supports that allow these youth to experience and gain from these activities in participatory naturalistic ways. This finding appears to corroborate the findings of Wehmeyer and Lawrence’s (1995) study that indicated statistical differences between students with LDs and students with mental retardation in their acquisition of self-determination skills.

The effectiveness of the TXYLF summer training might attribute to its multifaceted approach involving direct experience strategies, such as mentoring and the creation of individualized opportunities, to learn self-advocacy and leadership concepts and skills. Just as TAKE CHARGE for the Future (L. E. Powers et al., 2001), which is an effective self-determination curriculum, the TXYLF curriculum provides direct mentoring, individualized opportunities, and provision of direct experiences to youth during the summer training.

Another possible reason why the TXYLF summer training was effective was its connections to the community and real life, which was different from most other programs that offer self-advocacy/self-determination instruction in educational settings. Professionals in the field agree that no one program can be expected to provide all the necessary experiences and supports for youth with disabilities to gain the essential skills needed for successful transition to adulthood (Test et al., 2009; Test, Fowler, Wood, et al., 2005). If youth with disabilities are to achieve full citizenship, their challenges must become the challenges of the communities in which they live. Collaboration of affiliates in the educational community and agencies must occur to provide these optimal challenges and experiences. Youth with disabilities must be provided the access to community-based programs and the opportunities to learn and practice self-advocacy in real-world settings. In addition, these youth must be provided the opportunities to experience the recompense of being a self-advocate and leader in their schools and their communities.

Implications to Policy and Practice

Based on the findings of the present study and prior research, several recommendations concerning policies and practices can be made. With regard to practice, parents and professionals working with students with disabilities are encouraged to (a) collaborate at a community level to provide multilevel self-advocacy/self-determination participatory instructional programs to provide the training of these concepts and skills, (b) provide a variety of opportunities for youth to learn and practice their self-advocacy/self-determination skills in real-world settings, (c) provide youth with disabilities opportunities that allow risk taking and problem solving, (d) provide instruction on disability history and culture for youth with disabilities to gain a positive self-identity and connection to the disability community, (e) provide youth with disabilities the opportunity to connect and learn from mentors with disabilities, (f) provide youth with disabilities opportunities to develop a range of leadership skills in a variety of real-world settings, (g) develop sound research evaluation and reporting activities for all youth development and leadership programs, and (h) acknowledge the reality of self-advocacy/self-determination capacity biases toward youth with more significant disabilities and the impact of those biases on this particular population’s access to opportunities to gain self-advocacy/self-determination. In this study, risk-taking behaviors refer to structured risk-taking behaviors, that is, participants make decisions, or taking actions within a structured limit of choices.

Regarding policies, federal and state government should continue to provide funding for youth leadership programs that are designed to promote leadership and advocacy skills among youth and young adults with disabilities. These can be done through grants, contracts, and service programs to organizations that have the capacity to conduct these programs. Congress and state legislatures are encouraged to hold public hearings on disability issues where individuals with disabilities have a way to make suggestions and engage in legislative advocacy. Whenever appropriate, policy development teams should include self-advocates. Federal and state policies should require state agencies to apply self-determination principles and implement person-centered policies in their service determination process. For example, decisions about education, employment, and living arrangements must be made with adequate input of the individual with a disability who is the recipient of services (Bannerman, Sheldon, Sherman, & Harchik, 1990; Dowse, 2001).

Limitations of the Study

Youth in the treatment group were selected because they had applied to participate in the TXYLF summer training event. Members of the control group were selected because they matched the profile of one of the youth selected to attend the TXYLF summer training event. Participating youth were, therefore, not randomly selected or assigned. Youth in the treatment group could be more or less capable in academic performance across the curriculum. Although a self-reported reading-level score was used as a proxy measure of academic performance and as a covariate in the analysis to control for group differences across treatment groups and type of disability groups, only one score might not fully address this issue.

In addition, the study’s small sample size limits the amount of true sample representation and does not allow for generalization to the disability populations represented by membership in the study. Generalizability of the study’s results can be problematic for studies having small sample sizes. For generalization purposes, these studies would have to be replicated systematically several times to completely rule out other alternative hypotheses (Wehmeyer, Yeager, Bolding, Agran, & Hughes, 2003).

Another limitation of this study was that the control group’s summer activities were not controlled. It was unknown whether some the control group members engaged in certain activities that could promote self-determination/self-advocacy skills. Control group participants’ leadership abilities and previous leadership experience were not measured or taken into account in the selection process. Therefore, comparison with the control group was limited to the postulation that individuals in the control group did not attend similar leadership training activities

Finally, additional variables such as environmental differences, instructor (mentor and facilitator) differences, socioeconomic level, and ethnic composition were not controlled for in the present study. All these factors could affect the results of the study. Generalizations concerning settings, self-advocacy programs, youth development programs, and ethnic origins should be made with caution.

Recommendations for Future Research

Self-advocacy, through the implementation of self-determination, self-awareness, and participatory leadership activities, is essential for youth with disabilities (Argan, Wehmeyer, Cavin, & Palmer, 2008; Benz et al., 2000; Stroman, 2003; Wehmeyer, Garner, Yeager, Lawrence, & Davis, 2006). The terminal goal for the TXYLF in teaching self-advocacy is to enable youth with disabilities to have the opportunity for a smoother transition into postsecondary education, into the workforce, and into becoming active leaders of change in their communities. To examine the effect of the TXYLF training on youth participants’ future lives, research studies are needed to examine the long-term effect of self-advocacy training on the adult outcomes of these participants. This should be done by using a longitudinal group design that contains several phases, including a follow-up phase.

Odom et al. (2005) suggested that educational research occur in stages to establish evidence-based practices. As stated,

The first stage would involve observational, focused exploration, and flexible methodology, which qualitative and correlational methods allow. The second phase would involve controlled experiments involving single subject design or quasi-experimental design for causal inferences. The third phase needs to incorporate the knowledge from the previous research to design “well documented” interventions, and “prove” their effectiveness through well controlled randomized trials. (Odom et al., 2005, pp. 19–20)

The third stage toward evidence-based program status for YLF programs should be replication of the current study (Alberto & Troutman, 2006) or randomized control studies (Odom et al., 2005). The fourth phase or follow-up phase would be to investigate the factors that could lead to adoption of the effective practices in typical school or community settings under naturally existing conditions. The present study, in conjunction with the other studies on YLF training events, satisfies the first two stages of providing evidence of program intervention effectiveness.

Future research studies should respond to the third phase through replication of this study. Linking with other states to examine the effects of the YLF model would expand the sample sizes for better predictive power in the study, thus allowing for the examination of additional variables. For fidelity purposes, a standard curriculum and daily training schedule would need to be implemented across the YLF sites, thus possibly increasing the likelihood of a standardized curriculum and measurement for YLF programs. In addition, according to Alberto and Troutman (2006), if these study results were paired with several replications showing significance, any threats caused by the nonrandomized assignment component could be removed. Finally, the results of these replications could provide strong evidence that the program works, thus elevating the YLF training model to evidence-based program status.

Future research should respond to the fourth phase by using longitudinal group experimental designs to further investigate short-term effects and to establish long-term effects for postschool adult outcomes in the areas of postsecondary education, employment, community involvement, and civic engagement. Established positive long-term effects for this population could possibly be the determining factor that would lead to the adoption of the program at the community level and at the school system level.

Conclusion

In summary, the present study examined the effects of the TXYLF summer training program on the self-advocacy and leadership skills of high school students with disabilities. In addition, the present study examined the interaction effects of gender and disability type on the improvement of the participants’ self-advocacy skills. Results indicated that the TXYLF training had a significant positive effect on the self-advocacy of high school students with disabilities and that youth with DDs gained the most from the intervention. These results provide empirical evidence to support continued effort and funding for YLFs. Future research should focus on the firm establishment of program effectiveness and the long-term effects of the TXYLF training on participants’ postschool outcomes in the areas of postsecondary education, employment, and community involvement while controlling for disability type.

Footnotes

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 research was supported in part by grants from the Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities and the Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services.

References

Abery

Rudrud

Arndt

Schauben

Eggebeen

(1995). Evaluating a multicomponent program for enhancing the self-determination of youth with disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 30, 170–179.

Alberto

P. A.

Troutman

A. C.

(2006). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (7th ed.). Upper Saddle. River, NJ: Pearson.

Argan

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Cavin

Palmer

(2008). Promoting student active classroom participation through instruction to promote self-regulated learning and self-determination. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31, 106–114.

Arnold

Czamanske

(1991, April 1–5). Can I make it? A transition program for college bound learning disabled students and their parents. Paper presented at the Council for Exceptional Children 69th Annual Convention, Atlanta, GA.

Bakeman

(2005). Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs. Behavioral Research Methods, 37, 379–384.

Bannerman

D. J.

Sheldon

J. B.

Sherman

J. A.

Harchik

A. E.

(1990). Balancing the right to personal liberties: The rights of people with developmental disabilities to eat too many doughnuts and take a nap. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 79–89.

Barnette

J. J.

(2006, June 12–14). Effect size and measures of association. Presentation at the 2006 Summer Evaluation Institute Sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.

Bauer

W. M.

(2003). The impact of leadership training on high school students with disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus.

Beirne-Smith

Ittenbach

Patton

J. R.

(2002). Mental retardation (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill (Prentice Hall).

10.

Benz

M. R.

Lindstrom

Yovanoff

(2000). Improving graduation and employment outcomes of students with disabilities: Predictive factors and student perspectives. Exceptional Children, 66, 509–529.

11.

Blackford

J. U.

(2008). Propensity scores: Method for matching on multiple variables in Down Syndrome research. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 348–357.

12.

Blackstone

E. H.

(2001). Breaking down barriers: Helpful breakthrough statistical methods you need to understand better. Journal of Thoracic Cardiovasculary Surgery, 122, 430–439.

13.

Brown

(2000). An assessment of a self-advocacy skills training program for secondary students with disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, Auburn, AL.

14.

Burrows

(2003). A comparison of self-determination of high school students with disabilities pre- and post-youth leadership forum. Unpublished master’s thesis, Auburn University, Auburn, AL.

15.

Cobb

Lehmann

Newman-Gonchar

Alwell

(2009). Self-determination for students with disabilities: A narrative metasynthesis. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 108–114.

16.

Dimitrov

D. M.

Rumrill

P. D.

Jr. (2003). Pretest-posttest designs and measurement of change. Speaking of Research, 20, 159–165.

17.

Dowse

(2001). Contesting practices, challenging codes: Self advocacy, disability politics and the social model. Disability & Society, 16, 123–141.

18.

Dunn

Shumaker

(1997). A follow-up study of former special education students from a rural and urban county school system. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 20, 43–54.

19.

Edelman

Gill

Comerford

Larson

Hare

(2004). Youth development & youth leadership. Retrieved from http://www.ncwd-youth.info/assets/background/YouthDevelopment.pdf

20.

Epstein

Eddy

Williams

Socha

(2006). Youth leadership forums: Providing development opportunities for youth with disabilities. NCSET Information Brief, 5(3), 1–6.

21.

Fiedler

C. R.

Danneker

J. E.

(2007). Self-advocacy instruction: Bridging the research-to-practice gap. Focus on Exceptional Children, 39(8), 1–20.

22.

Field

Hoffman

(1996). Steps to self-determination: A curriculum to help adolescents learn to achieve their goals. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

23.

Gall

M. D.

(2001). Figuring out the importance of research results: Statistical significance versus practical significance. Retrieved from http://www.uoregon.edu/~mgall/statistical_significance_v.htm

24.

Gambone

M. A.

Klem

A. M.

Connell

J. P.

(2002). Finding out what matters for youth: Testing key links in a community action framework for youth development. Philadelphia, PA: Youth Development Strategies, Inc. and Institute for Research and Reform in Education.

25.

George

Mallery

(2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

26.

Gragoudas

(2006).Youth leadership forums: Empowering transition-aged students with disabilities. Unpublished dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.

27.

Grenwelge

Zhang

Landmark

(2010). Comprehensive leadership training for youth with disabilities: A new and improved youth leadership forum model. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 42(4), 61–68.

28.

Grigal

Neubert

Moon

Graham

(2003). Self determination for students with disabilities: Views of parents and teachers. Exceptional Children, 70, 99–112.

29.

Hogansen

J. M.

Powers

Geenan

Gil-Kashiwasara

Powers

(2008). Transition goals and experiences of females with disabilities: Perspectives of youth, parents, and professionals. Exceptional Children, 74, 215–234.

30.

Larson

(2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American Psychologists, 55, 170–183.

31.

MacNeil

McClean

(2006). Moving from “youth leadership development” to “youth in governance.” Learning leadership by doing leadership. New Direction for Youth Development, 109, 99–106.

32.

National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth. (2009). Youth development and leadership. Retrieved from http://www.iel.org/pubs/ncwd.html

33.

Odom

S. L.

Brantlinger

Gersten

Horner

R. H.

Thompson

Harris

K. R.

(2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137–148.

34.

Powers

Hogansen

Geenen

Powers

L. E.

Gil-Kashiwabara

(2008). Gender matters in transition to adulthood: A survey study of adolescents with disabilities and their families. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 349–364.

35.

Powers

L. E.

Turner

Westwood

Matuszewski

Wilson

(2001). TAKE CHARGE for the future: A controlled field-test of a model to promote student involvement in transition planning. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 24, 89–104.

36.

Rabren

Dunn

Chambers

(2002). Predictors of post-high school employment among young adults with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 25, 25–40.

37.

Rothman

Maldonado

J. M.

Rothman

(2008). Building self-confidence and future career success through a pre-college transition program for individuals with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 28, 73–83.

38.

Shadish

W. R.

Cook

T. D.

Campbell

D. T.

(2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

39.

Shogren

K. A.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Palmer

S. B.

Soukup

J. H.

Little

T. D.

Garner

Lawrence

(2007). Examining individual and ecological predictors of the self-determination of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 73, 488–509.

40.

Stroman

D. F.

(2003). The disability rights movement: From deinstitutionalization to self-determination. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

41.

Test

D. W.

Fowler

C. H.

Brewer

D. M.

Wood

W. M.

(2005). A content and methodological review of self-advocacy intervention studies. Exceptional Children, 72, 101–125.

42.

Test

D. W.

Fowler

C. H.

Richter

S. M.

White

Mazzotti

Walker

A. R.

. . . Kortering

(2009). Evidence-based practices in secondary transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 115–128.

43.

Test

D. W.

Fowler

C. H.

Wood

W. M.

Brewer

D. M.

Eddy

(2005). A conceptual framework of self-advocacy for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 43–54.

44.

Trochim

Donnelly

J. P.

(2007).The research methods knowledge base (3rd ed.). Mason, OH: Atomic Dog.

45.

Ward

(1988). The many facets of self-determination. NICHCY Transition Summary: National Information Center for Children and Youth With Disabilities, 5, 2–3.

46.

Wehman

(2006). Life beyond the classroom: Transition strategies for young people with disabilities (4th ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks.

47.

Wehmeyer

(2002). Self-determination and the education of students with disabilities. Reston, VA: Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. Retrieved from ERIC Digest. (ED470036)

48.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Garner

Yeager

Lawrence

Davis

A. K.

(2006). Infusing self-determination into 18-21 services for students with intellectual or developmental disabilities: A multi-stage, multiple component model. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 3–13.

49.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Kelchner

(1995). The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale (adolescent version). Arlington, TX: The Arc National Headquarters.

50.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Lawrence

(1995). Whose future is it anyway? Promoting student involvement in transition planning. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 18, 69–83.

51.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Schwartz

(1997). Self-determination and positive adult outcomes: A follow-up study of youth with mental retardation or learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63, 245–256.

52.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Yeager

Bolding

Agran

Hughes

(2003). The effects of self-regulation strategies on goal attainment for students with developmental disabilities in general education classrooms. Journal of Developmental & Physical Disabilities, 15, 79–91.

53.

Zhang

Benz

M. R.

(2006). Enhancing self-determination of culturally-diverse students with disabilities: Current status and future directions. Focus on Exceptional Children, 38(9), 1–12.

54.

Zhang

Landmark

Grenwelge

Montoya

(2010). Self-determination practices among culturally diverse families: Parental perspectives. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 45, 175–186.