Review of Practices That Promote Self-Advocacy for Students With Disabilities

Abstract

Self-advocacy skills for students with disabilities have been linked to elevated school retention rates and more successful adult outcomes. Test, Fowler, Brewer, and Wood examined evidence of self-advocacy practices published from 1972 to June 2004. As an update to their study, we reviewed empirical studies (N = 18) published from June 2004 to June 2012 that promote self-advocacy for students with disabilities. Interpretations included a continued need to study program effects on students from diverse backgrounds and more rigorous research on self-advocacy predictors and outcomes. Compared with the previously reviewed studies, recent single-case studies improved participant selection reporting and procedural fidelity but declined in controlling for internal validity; group experimental studies improved from the previously reviewed studies in measuring dependent variables at appropriate times and using appropriate analysis and declined in reporting intervention agent details. Two studies (one single-case and one group experimental) met quality indicator standards for “high quality,” and no study met the “acceptable” standards.

Keywords

disabilities self-advocacy literature reviews programs research methodology

Educational research over the past two decades established self-advocacy as an important skill for students with disabilities to achieve successful outcomes (Cobb, Lehmann, Newman-Gonchar, & Alwell, 2009; Fiedler & Danneker, 2007; Newman, Wagner, Cameto, & Knokey, 2009; Test, Fowler, Brewer, & Wood, 2005; Zhang, Landmark, Grenwelge, & Montoya, 2010). Studies demonstrate a link between self-advocacy and high school completion rates (Fowler & Konrad, 2007; Katsiyannis, Zhang, Landmark, & Reber, 2009; Riccomini, Zhang, & Katsiyannis, 2005; Wehman, 2006; Wehmeyer, Garner, Yeager, Lawrence, & Davis, 2006). Adults with self-advocacy skills achieve better results in employment (Callahan, Griffin, & Hammis, 2011; Farley & Parkerson, 1992; Lindstrom, Doren, & Miesch, 2011), independent living (Caldwell, 2010; Eisenman, 2007), and post-secondary education settings (Dalke, 1993; Eckes & Ochoa, 2005; Getzel & Thoma, 2008).

Researchers and self-advocates believe that self-advocacy is a skill that can and should be taught in schools. Consequently, a number of researchers conceptualize self-advocacy as a sub-skill within the concept of self-determination, which can be developed through formal classroom instruction and informal daily activities. Test, Fowler, Wood, Brewer, and Eddy (2005) defined self-advocacy as an act that a person with a disability engages in to demand supports. This conceptualization involves four major components: (a) knowledge of self, (b) knowledge of rights, (c) communication, and (d) leadership.

To effectively support students with disabilities to develop self-advocacy skills, a great number of practices have been developed and implemented over the past three decades. Many of these practices have also been empirically tested for their efficacy as part of the quest for best practices and evidence-based practices. Consequently, a significant number of studies have been produced to provide empirical support for certain practices. The scientific approaches to these inquiries, however, vary a great deal. To help practitioners and researchers obtain an overall understanding of these studies, systematic reviews of these studies and related practices became necessary. The first such effort was done by Test, Fowler, Brewer, and Wood (2005), who reviewed self-advocacy intervention studies published from 1972 to June 2004. Based on reviews of 25 studies (i.e., 11 single-case, 11 group experimental, and 3 qualitative), they concluded that research was strong in recording or employing observation of self-advocacy skills and the use of multiple measures to capture the data; but weak in reporting or executing “participant selection, describing intervention agents, data collection and analysis, and independent variable description and implementation” (p. 121). Furthermore, Test and colleagues recommended that teachers consider using the Self-Advocacy Strategy (Van Reusen, Bos, Schumaker, & Deshler, 1994), Self-Directed Individualized Education Program (IEP; Martin, Marshall, Maxson, & Jerman, 1996), the student’s IEP process as a teaching opportunity, and possible cultural biases of self-advocacy development strategies.

As the field continues to grow, many more self-advocacy practices and more research studies on self-advocacy have been conducted since the Test, Fowler, Brewer, and Wood (2005) review. However, no up-to-date review of these new studies has been conducted. Furthermore, previous reviews did not examine quality indicators. Therefore, there is a need for an updated review of the self-advocacy research literature. More importantly and as a complement to the Test et al. review, the update review needs to include the use of quality indicators for consistency, and provide effect sizes to support evidence of the studies. The purpose of this study is to provide an update on the state of self-advocacy research since Test, Fowler, Brewer, and Wood’s content and methodological review. More specifically, this literature review investigates self-advocacy practices for students with disabilities published in peer-reviewed journals from June 2004 to June 2012. The study identifies practices with evidential support, discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the current research, and provides recommendations for future research and practitioners.

Method

Inclusion Criteria

For inclusion in the review, a practice had to meet two criteria aligned with the purpose of this study: The practice used an empirical study design (i.e., group experimental, quasi-experimental, single-case, or qualitative) and was designed to promote self-advocacy. Therefore, we did not include manuscripts that were not firsthand accounts of studies, that did not use an empirical study design, and studies that were not designed to promote self-advocacy. The participant characteristics included persons who, at the time of the intervention, were students (i.e., elementary school, middle school, or high school) with disabilities or with a special education classification according to the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; 2004). To capture studies published since the Test, Fowler, Wood, et al. (2005) study, all studies were published in a peer-reviewed journal between June 2004 and June 2012. To determine that the practice promoted self-advocacy, dependent variables included at least one component of self-advocacy as defined by Test, Fowler, Wood, et al. (i.e., knowledge of self, knowledge of rights, communication, or leadership).

Literature Search Procedures

We conducted the literature review through databases and secondary searches of research syntheses. The databases for the initial search included ERIC (EBSCO), Academic Search Complete (EBSCO), Education Full Text (EBSCO), and PsycINFO 1872–current (ProQuest). The search was narrowed to articles written in English and published in a peer-reviewed journal between June 2004 and June 2012. The database search included combinations of 30 descriptors (contact the first author for a list of the descriptors). The secondary search of research syntheses included several studies (i.e., Chambers et al., 2007; Cobb et al., 2009; Fowler, Konrad, Walker, Test, & Wood, 2007; Konrad, Fowler, Walker, Test, & Wood, 2007; Pierson, Carter, Lane, & Glaeser, 2008; W. M. Wood, Fowler, Uphold, & Test, 2005) to discover practices not found in the database search. Following the inclusion procedure, 18 articles were selected for review in this investigation.

Description and Evaluation

For data collection and evaluation purposes, we used forms developed by the National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center (NSTTAC; 2007), which is a federally funded technical assistance and dissemination center charged to assist states to collect Indicator 13 data and identifies empirical studies for secondary transition (Test, Fowler, Kohler, & Kortering, 2010). To assist in the identification of empirical studies, NSTTAC developed forms for reviewing and evaluating transition studies. The forms allow for the evaluation and review of studies in a manner consistent across reviewers through the use of detailed instructions for collecting data and rubrics for evaluating the studies.

To collect data on the procedures used in the investigations (i.e., setting, participants, design, practice, dependent variables, results), the review team utilized the NSTTAC Project Research Coding Sheet. However, to collect quality indicator data, the Quality Indicators for Single-Subject Design and the Quality Indicators for Group Experimental Design forms were used. To evaluate the studies’ quality, the review team used NSTTAC’s Level of Evidence form (for more details on quality indicators and level of evidence, see Table 1).

Table 1.

Quality Indicator and Level of Evidence Decision Table.

Group study indicators	High quality	Acceptable quality	Single-case indicators	High quality	Acceptable quality
Participants			Participants
Participants described with evidence of disability	Y	Y	Described sufficiently	Y	Y
Comparable across conditions	Y	Y	Selection process described	Y	N
Intervention providers described sufficiently	Y	Y	Setting
Independent variable/intervention			Described sufficiently	Y	Y
Described sufficiently	Y	Y	Dependent variable/measures
Fidelity described	Either/or*	Either/or*	Dependent variable described sufficiently	Y	Y
Comparison conditions described	Y	Y	Measures generated quantifiable index	Y	Y
Dependent variables/measures			Measurement process described sufficiently	Y	Y
Closely aligned multiple measures	Either/or*	Either/or*	Measured repeatedly	Y	Y
Measured at appropriate times	Y	Y	Reliability or inter-observer data collected	Y	Y
Results			Independent variable/intervention
Appropriate data analysis	Y	Y	Described sufficiently	Y	Y
Reported effect size	Y	Y	Systematically controlled	Y	Y
Desirable quality indicators			Fidelity measures	Y	N
Participants	At least four of the desirable quality indicators	At least one desirable quality indicator	Procedures
Documented attrition rates <30%			Repeated baseline measures	Y	Y
Dependent variables/measures			Described sufficiently	Y	Y
Reliability evidenced			Results
Documented sufficient inter-scorer agreement			Three demonstrations of effect	Y	Y
Blind data collectors and/or scores			Internal validity controls	Y	Y
Maintenance data			External validity established	Y	Y
Criteria and construction validity			Social validity
Independent variable/intervention			Socially important dependent variable	Y	Either/or**
Surface and quality fidelity described			Socially important magnitude of change	Y	Y
Described and documented comparison conditions			Practical/cost-effective independent variable	Y	Y
Results			Enhanced social validity	Y	Either/or**
Included audio- or videotape excerpts
Clear and coherent results

Source. “Literature Review Process” by National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center (2007).

Note. Y = required; N = not required; Either/or* = requires either “fidelity described” or “closely aligned multiple measures”; Either/or** = requires either “socially important dependent variable” or “enhanced social validity.”

Results

Practice Development

Ten studies investigated a previously developed practice without adding modifications, or a previously developed practice modified to fit the study’s population or to include self-advocacy instruction. Four studies developed the practice through a review of relevant literature and/or by consulting other outside sources. Four studies did not report the development process (for details on the development of the practices, see Table 2).

Table 2.

Self-Advocacy Studies’ Content Summary.

Study	Setting/participants	Study design	Intervention	Self-advocacy components	Findings related to self-advocacy
Ankeny and Lehmann (2011)	4 high school students with an ID or LD on a community college campus	Qualitative interviews	High school transition/dual credit employment preparation	Knowledge of selfCommunicationLeadership	Identified variables that foster SD: Opportunities to practice SD, learn from experiences, and leadership role in IEP meetings
Arndt, Konrad, and Test (2006)	5 high school students with an ID, LD, PD, or EBD in a self-contained class	Single subject, multiple baseline	Adapted self-directed IEP (Martin, Marshall, Maxson, & Jerman, 1996).	Knowledge of selfCommunicationLeadership	Increased leadership skills
Bobroff and Sax (2010)	6 high school students with an EBD, AU, or Multi in a special education school	Single subject, AB design	Student peer tutoring	Knowledge of selfCommunication	Increased self-confidence
Campbell-Whatley (2008)	13 middle school students with an LD or ID in resource classrooms	Mixed-methods, single-subject AB design, qualitative survey	Teacher instruction (development procedure not reported)	Knowledge of selfCommunicationKnowledge of rights	Increased self-esteemLearned to identify needs and request assistance as needed, and how to explain their disability
Cuenca-Sanchez, Mastropieri, Scruggs, and Kidd (2012)	11 middle and high school students with an EBD in behavior schools	Qualitative interviews	POW + TREE strategy (Mason & Shriner, 2008)	Knowledge of selfCommunication	Significant gains in SD
Danneker and Bottge (2009)	4 middle school students with an LD, AD/HD, OHI, and EBD in special education classrooms	Quantitative group experimental design	Customized lessons and Standing Up for Me (Cooper, Roder, Wichmanowski, & Yeretzian, 2004)	Knowledge of selfCommunicationLeadership	Practiced SD in authentic settingSD not seen as important by adults
Kotzer and Margalit (2007)	111 middle school students with LD in general education and self-contained classrooms	Qualitative interviews	Self-developed lessons (development procedure not reported)	Knowledge of selfCommunicationLeadership	Significant gains self-awareness.Significant predictive variables for levels of self-awareness were loneliness, hope for the future, and relatedness
Krajewski, Wiencek, Brady, Trapp, and Rice (2010)	34 high school students with AD/HD, ID, AU, EBD, or TBI on a university campus	Quantitative group experimental design	Self-developed program–—TeenBiz: Teens in Business Through the Arts	CommunicationLeadership	Reported improved empowermentDemonstrated increased leadership, team-building, and team-membership skills
Lee et al. (2011)	86 middle school students with AD/HD, ID, speech disorder, OHI, AU, or LD in general and resource classrooms	Quantitative correlational study	Modified Whose Future Is It Anyway?	Knowledge of selfCommunicationLeadership	Significant difference in SD and self-realizationSignificant difference in self-efficacy, expected outcomes, and transition planning knowledge
Lee et al. (2012)	168 middle school students with AD/HD, ID, speech disorder, OHI, AU, or LD. (intervention setting not reported)	Quantitative group quasi-experimental design	Modified Whose Future Is It Anyway?	Knowledge of selfCommunicationLeadership	Outcome expectancy, efficacy, and prior transition planning knowledge predicted SD; age, gender, and IQ did not predict SDSD level, higher IQ, and amount of intervention received predicted transition planning knowledge
Levin and Rotheram-Fuller (2011)	15 high school students with VI in a private school for the visually impaired	Quantitative group experimental design	The Empowered Curriculum	Knowledge of self	No significant differences observed between pre–post intervention or between groups
Martin et al. (2006)	65 middle and high school students with LD, OHI, EBD, PD, and “other” in middle and high schools	Single subject, multiple-baseline design	Self-directed IEP (Martin et al., 1996)	Knowledge of selfCommunicationLeadership	Strong effect on expressing goals, learning IEP leadership steps, moderate effect on take action, and small effect on students’ perceptions
Mishna, Muskat, Farnia, and Wiener (2011)	32 students high school students with LD in Catholic high schools	Single subject, multiple-baseline design	Self-advocacy workshops and lessons	Knowledge of selfCommunication	Statistically significant and practically significant gains in self-advocacy
Neale and Test (2010).	4 students with ID or LD in a resource classroom	Mixed-methods correlational study, qualitative survey	Adapted Self-Advocacy Strategy (Van Reusen, Bos, Schumaker, & Deshler, 1994)	Knowledge of selfCommunication	Increased and maintained IEP communicationGeneralized skills to mock IEP meeting
Rothman, Maldonado, and Rothman (2008)	27 high school students with VI, AD/HD, LD, AU, Arthritis, PD, HI, Multi, and “other” on a college campus	Group experimental design	One-week residential advocacy workshop (development procedure not reported)	Knowledge of selfCommunicationLeadershipKnowledge of rights	Reported that learned the most about self-advocacy and ADA rights and responsibilities, and least on employment advocacyThe most important for future success was reported as self-advocacy, and lesser so was social skills and ADA
Wehmeyer, Palmer, Lee, Williams-Diehm, and Shogren (2011)	351 middle and high school students with Multi, AD/HD, EBD, ID, OHI, AU, LD, and “other” in general and special education schools	Single subject, multiple-baseline design	Future Is It Anyway?	Knowledge of selfCommunicationLeadership	Age and gender contributed significantly to gains in SD and transition knowledge.IQ level and time spent on intervention contributed significantly for high school in SD
C. L. Wood, Kelley, Test, and Fowler (2010)	4 high school students with LD, AD/HD, and EBD in a general education school	Group experimental design	OCR’s “Students With Disabilities Preparing for Postsecondary Education: Know Your Rights and Responsibilities”	Knowledge of rights	Increased knowledge of rights and responsibilities, and post-secondary education accommodations
Woods, Sylvester, and Martin (2010)	19 high school students with disabilities at a general school and a school for the visually impaired	Group experimental design	Student-directed transition planning. Teacher delivered	Knowledge of selfCommunication	Large significant gains in transition planning knowledgeMedium significant in self-efficacy

Note. ID = Intellectual Disability; LD = Learning Disability; SD = Self-Determination; IEP = Individualized Education Program; PD = Physical Disability; EBD = Emotional Behavioral Disability; AU = Autism Spectrum Disorder; AB = pretest/posttest; AD/HD= Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder; OHI = Other Health Impairment; TBI = Traumatic Brain Injury; VI = Vision Impairment; HI = Hearing Impairment; ADA = Americans With Disabilities Act; OCR = Office for Civil Rights.

Purposes of the Studies

The studies served different purposes that can be roughly divided into four categories. These included the following: (a) evaluated the effects of a published practice (n = 7), (b) tested the effects of an unpublished practice (n = 4), (c) studied the effects of a practice but did not report development information (n = 2), and (d) served a purpose that was unique to that individual study (n = 5). Table 2 includes more details on the purpose of the studies.

Participants and Setting

Participants who received the interventions totaled 960 students (281 females and 572 males). Levin and Rotheram-Fuller (2011), Martin et al. (2006), and Rothman, Maldonado, and Rothman (2008) did not report genders of their studies’ 107 participants. Reported ethnicities included Caucasian (n = 292), African American (n = 142), Hispanic (n = 68), Asian (n = 11), Native American (n = 5), and multi-racial (n = 1). Studies with participants totaling 518 did not report participant ethnicity (Campbell-Whatley, 2008; Kotzer & Margalit, 2007; Lee et al., 2012; Levin & Rotheram-Fuller, 2011; Martin et al., 2006; Mishna, Muskat, Farnia, & Wiener, 2011; Rothman et al., 2008).

Participants were identified as having a Learning Disability (LD; n = 379), Intellectual Disability (ID; n = 156), “other” (n = 72), Emotional Behavioral Disability (EBD; n = 64), Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)/Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD; n = 52), Other Health Impairment (OHI; n = 40), Autism Spectrum Disorder (AU; n = 36), Vision Impairment (VI; n = 26), Speech Disorder (n = 21), Multiple Disabilities (n = 3), Orthopedic Impairment (n = 2), Hearing Impairment (HI; n = 1), and Arthritis (n = 1). Three studies with 118 total participants reported disability categories but did not provide a count for the categories (ADD/ADHD, ID, AU, EBD, Traumatic Brain Injury [TBI], Krajewski, Wiencek, Brady, Trapp, & Rice, 2010; LD, OHI, EBD, Physical Disability [PD], Other, Martin et al., 2006; LD, EBD, ID, Multiple Disabilities, OHI, Woods, Sylvester, & Martin, 2010).

The interventions took place while the students were in high school (n = 12), middle school (n = 6), and elementary (n = 1). Three studies included students in both middle school and high school. Two studies did not report grade level information.

Reported participant ages included 11 to 13 years old (n = 12), 14 to 17 years old (n = 27), and ages 18 to 26 years old (n = 41). Other studies not reporting participant ages reported grade level (Campbell-Whatley, 2008; Kotzer & Margalit, 2007; Krajewski et al., 2010; Neale & Test, 2010), mean age (Lee et al., 2011, 2012; Wehmeyer, Palmer, Lee, Williams-Diehm, & Shogren, 2011), age range (Mishna et al., 2011), or did not report an indicator of age (Martin et al., 2006).

All but three practices took place in the students’ school, with one on a community college campus and two on university campuses. Three interventions took place in public special education schools and one in a Catholic high school. Three interventions were held in special education classrooms, and four in both special education and general education classrooms. One study did not report school setting. Community settings were reported as rural (Ankeny & Lehmann, 2011; Danneker & Bottge, 2009) and urban (Arndt, Konrad, & Test, 2006; Bobroff & Sax, 2010; Mishna et al., 2011; Neale & Test, 2010; C. L. Wood, Kelley, Test, & Fowler, 2010); Lee et al.’s (2011), Martin et al.’s (2006), and Woods et al.’s (2010) studies reported that the interventions occurred in both rural and urban settings.

Research Design

The researchers applied single-case, group experimental, quasi-experimental, correlational, qualitative, and mixed-methods designs. Four studies used a single-case design with multiple probes across participants, or an alternating treatments design. Seven investigations employed a group experimental design with a pre–post intervention evaluation. One study used a quasi-experimental design with pre–post evaluations, one a correlational design, one a mixed-methods design combining a pre-experimental quantitative and qualitative design, one a mixed-methods correlational and qualitative design, and three employed qualitative designs.

Five studies applied randomized sampling procedures at the school level (Lee et al., 2011; Wehmeyer et al., 2011), classroom level (Cuenca-Sanchez, Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Kidd, 2012), instructor level (Martin et al., 2006), or student level (Woods et al., 2010). The Mishna et al. (2011) study did not report participant selection procedures. The remaining 12 studies selected the participants using a purposeful selection procedure.

Interventions

Several studies used commercial curricula that educators may purchase or obtain for free. Interventions incorporated skills in employment (n = 3), IEP leadership (n = 4), self-awareness (n =3), writing (n =1), transition knowledge (n = 3), college readiness (n = 1), and rights and responsibilities (n = 1). Nearly half of the studies (n = 8, 44%) used the students’ special education teachers as intervention agents. Other intervention agents included program staff (n = 2), researchers (n = 3), school counselors (n = 1), special and general educators (n = 2), social workers and school psychologists (n = 1), and successful persons with disabilities (n = 1).

Dependent Variable

Five studies incorporated self-determination as a dependent variable. Three of these studies also evaluated student gains in transition knowledge, and one study further examined transition outcome expectancy and self-efficacy. One investigation, along with student self-determination skills, included self-concept and self-esteem; one assessed students’ understanding of self-determination and the influences of their beliefs on self-determination development; and one evaluated students’ self-determination knowledge and behavior along with writing skills.

The IEP/transition process was used in five studies as a dependent variable. Two evaluated student involvement in an IEP meeting, one further included student responses to IEP questions, and the others also measured IEP length. In addition, of the studies, one study measured student mock IEP performance, and one measured students’ transition planning knowledge and self-efficacy. Likewise, the final study assessed students’ ability to identify the purpose of an IEP, name his or her interests and strengths, and evaluate and modify his or her goal progression.

Four studies included employment/post-secondary education measures as dependent variables. One study investigated an intervention’s effect on students’ interview skills and evaluated the effectiveness of the intervention’s tutoring components (i.e., student matching, tutee training, and teacher’s role), one measured students’ knowledge of post-secondary education rights and accommodations, and one investigation followed up with past participants to measure employment and post-secondary education outcomes and to examine intervention components that might contribute to these outcomes. One study measured students’ (a) communication of employer expectations; (b) leadership, team building, organization, and time management knowledge; (c) accountability; and (d) self-confidence.

Three studies included dependent variables related to self-awareness. One investigation evaluated students’ self-awareness and self-concept. One study measured self-reported problem behavior; social competence; disability knowledge; strengths, weaknesses, and needs; knowledge of accommodations and advocating for them; and self-efficacy. To estimate participant self-awareness, one study assessed the intervention’s effect on students’ self-confidence, relatedness, hope, and feeling of loneliness.

Outcomes/Results

One study that incorporated self-determination as a dependent variable found no significant differences between pre- and post-tests. More negative results included the following: (a) the special educator (instead of the student) continued to be seen as most responsible for IEP meetings, (b) student self-determination was not seen as important, and (c) the special educators did not know how to prepare students to lead their own IEP meeting. In a different study that examined an intervention that taught students how to lead their IEP meetings, no significant difference was observed before and after the intervention with regard to IEP meeting length or the amount of transition items students discussed in IEP meetings. In addition, the Mishna et al. (2011) study found that the participants demonstrated gains in self-advocacy but did not demonstrate differences in problem behavior or social competence.

Studies that used self-determination as a dependent variable identified elements that lead to significant gains in self-determination, found significant differences in transition planning knowledge, and identified factors that foster self-determination. Significant increases were observed in IEP knowledge and leadership skills, and participants generalized the skills to IEP meetings. Participants in work-related studies made increases in work-related knowledge, gained an improved sense of empowerment, and gained positive post-training outcomes (i.e., employment and post-secondary education). Furthermore, respondents reported that the most important topic learned for future success was self-advocacy, and lesser so was social skills and Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). They also benefited from learning about their own and others’ disability, and their own strengths and weaknesses. The most useful aspects for achieving adult outcomes were learning about college, meeting others with disabilities, and meeting role models. In addition, study participants made increases in self-awareness and self-esteem. They also learned how to explain their disability, and how to identify needs and request assistance. Finally, some predictive variables were found to affect levels of self-awareness.

Quality of the Studies

One single-case study reported all the required indicators for “high quality” (Neale & Test, 2010). No other single-case studies met all the required single-case study quality indicators for “acceptable.” The studies missed meeting the requirements for “high quality” by 5 or 10 indicators.

One group study reported all required group experimental indicators for “high quality” (Cuenca-Sanchez et al., 2012). No other group experiment study met all the required group experimental study quality indicators for “acceptable.” The studies missed meeting the requirements for “high quality” by one (Lee et al., 2011; Wehmeyer et al., 2011), two (Martin et al., 2006), three (Mishna et al., 2011), four (Woods et al., 2010), or seven (Levin & Rotheram-Fuller, 2011) indicators.

Magnitude of Intervention

Eight studies reported an effect size (Kotzer & Margalit, 2007; Lee et al., 2011, 2012; Martin et al., 2006; Wehmeyer et al., 2011; Woods et al., 2010) or measures that allowed for an effect size to be calculated (Campbell-Whatley, 2008; Cuenca-Sanchez et al., 2012). Weak, moderate, and strong effects were determined by standards suggested by Cohen (1988). Strong effects were reported in six studies (Cuenca-Sanchez et al., 2012; Martin et al., 2006; Mishna et al., 2011; Woods et al., 2010). Two studies (Lee et al., 2011, 2012) reported small effects only and all other studies reported varied effects within the study.

Discussion

This review described the content and evaluated the quality of studies that investigated self-advocacy practices for students with disabilities from June 2004 to June 2012. The review provided an update on the state of self-advocacy intervention evidence since Test, Fowler, Brewer, and Wood’s (2005) content and methodological review.

The reviewed practices taught self-advocacy skills through published curricula, peer tutoring, writing strategies, employment skills training, transition planning involvement, direct instruction, college-based transition programs, a weeklong program, and supporting students to lead their IEP meetings. Most studies used quantitative designs (n = 12) and high school participants (n = 11); few studies took place out of the school setting (n = 2) or measured post-program outcomes (n = 1). The studies measured student self-reports on self-advocacy (n = 4), change in self-advocacy knowledge (n = 7), and involvement in self-advocacy activities (n = 7).

The current review found a large discrepancy in reported disability representation with LD far more represented than any other category, males were two thirds of the participants, and most participants were in high school. Furthermore, few interventions were outside the students’ classroom environment and only one measured post-program data. Thus, a more balanced gender representation despite disproportionality of males in the population of persons with disabilities, interventions outside the classroom environment, and post-program outcomes studies is needed in future research, and there remains a need continued from the Test, Fowler, Brewer, and Wood (2005) review for greater representation of students with disabilities other than LD, and students in levels other than high school. In addition, no study investigated the relationship between ethnicity and self-advocacy; therefore, there remains a need for studies to investigate this relationship. Furthermore, in this review, seven studies did not report ethnicity and eight did not report community setting information—important details to understand an intervention’s impact and for replication. A student’s cultural difference may affect the impact of an intervention (Cartledge, 2011).

Few studies investigated self-advocacy predictors anecdotally and empirically. One study used a follow-up investigation to anecdotally determine long-term effects of self-advocacy training. Test, Fowler, Brewer, and Wood (2005) reported the need for research on self-advocacy predictors and self-advocacy outcomes; therefore, there remains a need to rigorously evaluate predictors of self-advocacy components and student outcomes of self-advocacy training and self-advocacy component trainings. Furthermore, this review and Test, Fowler, Brewer, and Wood found knowledge of self and communication were the self-advocacy components most investigated and all but one study included involvement in IEP activities or transition knowledge. Similarly, only one intervention included all four components of self-advocacy concurrently. For greater understanding of self-advocacy development and impact on adult and academic outcomes, future research is needed, which includes all four self-advocacy components concurrently. It may also be good to consider knowledge of rights and leadership in other contexts.

Eleven of the eighteen studies reviewed in this investigation used single-case or group experimental designs—the two designs that allow for causal inference and to establish a relationship between the independent and dependent variables. To meet “high-quality” or “acceptable” standards, single-case studies must report all 20 indicators or 18 of the 20 indicators, and group experimental studies must report 9 essential indicators and 4 or 1 “desired” indicator. Only one study each in the single-case and group experimental design categories met the standards for “high quality” and no study met the standards for “acceptable.” Since the Test, Fowler, Brewer, and Wood (2005) review, quality increased for some indicators and declined in others. Future research must attend closer to design quality and reporting to meet the quality indicator standards and thereby demonstrate causal and relational connections for self-advocacy interventions.

Inadequate or a lack of controlling for internal validity was a weakness of the single-case studies in this review. This weakness demonstrated an area of decline in the quality of single-case reporting. Single-case studies, however, improved since the Test, Fowler, Brewer, and Wood (2005) review in describing participant selection procedures and reporting procedural fidelity.

Quality indicator improvement for group experimental studies included researchers measuring dependent variables at appropriate times and using appropriate data analysis. In regard to required indicators, a decline in quality since the Test, Fowler, Brewer, and Wood (2005) review, and a weakness of the studies in the current review, included reporting sufficient intervention provider details. Furthermore, studies must attend to one or four “desired” quality indicators for “acceptable” or “high quality.” No study reported measuring maintenance data or provided audio or video study support, and the only “desirable” quality indicator met by a majority (n = 10) of group experimental studies was reporting results in a clear and coherent manner. The current review found no change since Test, Fowler, Brewer, and Wood in the low reporting rates of attrition and independent variable description. Research must attend to high-quality reporting standards to allow for replication, intervention fidelity, and readers’ evaluation of the results to improve on previous work and, thereby, advancing the effectiveness of the field (Gersten et al., 2005).

Strong effects were observed in practices instructing students to advocate through writing (Cuenca-Sanchez et al., 2012), using Self-Directed IEP (Martin et al., 2006) and Student-Directed Transition Planning (Woods et al., 2010). Single-case studies demonstrated promising results for the use of I Can Use Effort (Neale & Test, 2010), direct instruction and audio support (C. L. Wood et al., 2010), and Self-Directed IEP (Arndt et al., 2006).

Limitations

Readers should interpret the content of this review with caution due to process limitations. A thorough attempt was made to include all relevant studies but some studies may not have been identified in the search procedures owing to database limitations or the search criteria used. All studies were from peer-reviewed journals, therefore, other relevant interventions may have been excluded (e.g., dissertations). Finally, results would be affected if studies collected content or quality indicators but did not report the information.

Implications for Practitioners

The transition from adolescence to adulthood is difficult for everyone, but people with disabilities often face greater challenges because they frequently are asked to transition from passivity and dependency to independence (Daniels, 1982). Parents and service providers often provide the students with greater levels of supports than they do for the students without disabilities. Consequently, opportunities to learn self-advocacy frequently are lacking in both school and community settings.

In addition, the IDEA no longer applies to post-school settings. Instead, disability law provides people with disabilities access to services and support under the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Eckes & Ochoa, 2005). The ADA and Section 504 make discrimination illegal, but do not require individualized decision making. Therefore, in post-school settings, people with disabilities must request needed support or else likely will not receive it. Research has established self-advocacy as an important skill for a successful transition into adulthood.

Two published curricula for increasing self-advocacy skills found support for use by practitioners in the Test, Fowler, Brewer, and Wood (2005) study (i.e., Self-Advocacy Strategy, Self-Directed IEP) and one curriculum found further support in this study (i.e., Self-Directed IEP). The current review also found support for the use of I Can Use Effort, writing strategies, and direct instruction. Practitioners that use these interventions should implement them with fidelity and with careful consideration when working with diverse students. Implementing an intervention by dutifully following guidelines will assure that the intervention produces the intended results (O’Donnell, 2008). Furthermore, students from minority backgrounds may respond differently to interventions because of cultural or language differences (Ogbu & Simons, 1998).

To effectively promote self-advocacy, practitioners should provide students with opportunities to practice self-advocacy skills. Some effective approaches include IEP participation or leadership and advocating through writing. Programs not qualifying for this study such as the Youth Leadership Forum provide students opportunities to practice self-advocacy skills through the completion of leadership plans (Grenwelge, Zhang, & Landmark, 2010). Including activities that provide skill practice increases the level of student knowledge and skill proficiency. Moreover, following an intervention with skill practice increases the amount of exposure to self-advocacy and, thereby, further increasing the amount of impact of the intervention. The reviewed studies pointed out that an increased amount of exposure to an intervention leads to greater effects on student learning.

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

References

*Ankeny

Lehmann

J. P.

(2011). Journey toward self-determination: Voices of students with disabilities who participated in a secondary transition program on a community college campus. Remedial and Special Education, 32, 279–289. doi:10.1177/0741932510362215

*Arndt

S. A.

Konrad

Test

D. W.

(2006). Effects of the “self-directed IEP” on student participation in planning meetings. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 194–207. doi:10.1177/07419325060270040101

*Bobroff

Sax

C. L.

(2010). The effects of peer tutoring interview skills training with transition-age youth with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 33, 143–157. doi:10.3233/JVR-2010-0523

Caldwell

J. J.

(2010). Leadership development of individuals with developmental disabilities in the self-advocacy movement. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 54, 1004–1014. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01326

Callahan

Griffin

Hammis

(2011). Twenty years of employment for persons with significant disabilities: A retrospective. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 35, 163–172.

*Campbell-Whatley

G. D.

(2008). Teaching students about their disabilities: Increasing self-determination skills and self-concept. International Journal of Special Education, 23(2), 137–144.

Cartledge

(2011). Introduction to the special issue: Cultural diversity and special education. Exceptionality, 19, 137–139. doi:10.1080/09362835.2011.579841

Chambers

C. R.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Saito

Lida

K. M.

Lee

Singh

(2007). Self-determination: What do we know? Where do we go? Exceptionality, 15, 3–15. doi:10.1080/09362830709336922

Cobb

Lehmann

Newman-Gonchar

Alwell

(2009). Self-determination for students with disabilities: A narrative metasynthesis. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 108–114. doi:10.1177/0885728809336654

10.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

11.

Cooper

Roder

Wichmanowski

Yeretzian

(2004). Standing up for me: Strategies for teaching self-determination skills. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Education.

12.

*Cuenca-Sanchez

Mastropieri

M. A.

Scruggs

T. E.

Kidd

J. K.

(2012). Teaching students with emotional and behavioral disorders to self-advocate through persuasive writing. Exceptionality, 20, 71–93.

13.

Dalke

(1993). Making a successful transition from high school to college: A model program. In Vogel

Adelman

P. B.

(Eds.), Success for college students with learning disabilities (pp. 56–79). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

14.

Daniels

S. M.

(1982). From parent-advocacy to self-advocacy: A problem of transition. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 3(2), 25–32.

15.

*Danneker

J. E.

Bottge

B. A.

(2009). Benefits of and barriers to elementary student-led individualized education programs. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 225–233. doi:10.1177/0741932508315650

16.

Eckes

S. E.

Ochoa

T. A.

(2005). Students with disabilities: Transitioning from high school to higher education. American Secondary Education, 33(3), 6–20.

17.

Eisenman

L. T.

(2007). Self-determination interventions: Building a foundation for school completion. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 2–8.

18.

Farley

R. C.

Parkerson

(1992). Effects of client involvement in assessment on vocational development. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 35, 146–153.

19.

Fiedler

C. R.

Danneker

J. E.

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

20.

Fowler

C. H.

Konrad

(2007). Self determination interventions effects on the academic performance of students with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 42, 270–285. doi:10.2307/30035545

21.

Fowler

C. H.

Konrad

Walker

A. R.

Test

D. W.

Wood

W. M.

(2007). Self-determination interventions’ effects on the academic performance of students with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 42, 270–285. doi:10.2307/30035545

22.

Gersten

Fuchs

L. S.

Compton

Coyne

Greenwood

Innocenti

M. S.

(2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149–164.

23.

Getzel

Thoma

C. A.

(2008). Experiences of college students with disabilities and the importance of self-determination in higher education settings. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31, 77–84.

24.

Grenwelge

Zhang

Landmark

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

25.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, §§ 1400-1487, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004).

26.

Katsiyannis

Zhang

Landmark

Reber

(2009). Postsecondary education for individuals with disabilities: Legal and practice considerations. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20, 35–45. doi:10.1177/1044207308324896

27.

Konrad

Fowler

C. H.

Walker

A. R.

Test

D. W.

Wood

W. M.

(2007). Effects of self-determination interventions on the academic skills of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 89–113. doi:10.2307/30035545

28.

*Kotzer

Margalit

(2007). Perception of competence: Risk and protective predictors following an e-self-advocacy intervention for adolescents with learning disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22, 443–457. doi:10.1080/08856250701650060

29.

*Krajewski

E. R.

Wiencek

Brady

Trapp

Rice

Jr. (2010). Teaching employable skills to special education youth: An empowerment approach. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 5, 167–176.

30.

*Lee

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Palmer

S. B.

Williams-Diehm

Davies

D. K.

Stock

S. E.

(2011). The effect of student-directed transition planning with a computer-based reading support program on the self-determination of students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 45, 104–117. doi:10.1177/0022466909358916

31.

*Lee

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Palmer

S. B.

Williams-Diehm

Davies

D. K.

Stock

S. E.

(2012). Examining individual and instruction-related predictors of the self-determination of students with disabilities: Multiple regression analyses. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 150–161. doi:10.1177/0741932510392053

32.

*Levin

D. S.

Rotheram-Fuller

(2011). Evaluating the empowered curriculum for adolescents with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 105, 350–360.

33.

Lindstrom

Doren

Miesch

(2011). Waging a living: Career development and long-term employment outcomes for young adults with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 77, 423–434.

34.

Martin

J. E.

Marshall

L. H.

Maxson

Jerman

(1996). The self-directed IEP. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

35.

*Martin

J. E.

Van Dycke

J. L.

Christensen

Greene

B. A.

Gardner

Lovett

D. L.

(2006). Increasing student participation in IEP meetings: Establishing the self-directed IEP as an evidenced-based practice. Exceptional Children, 72, 299–316.

36.

Mason

L. H.

Shriner

(2008). Self-regulated strategy development instruction for writing an opinion essay: Effects for six students with emotional/behavioral disorders. Reading and Writing, 21, 71–93.

37.

*Mishna

Muskat

Farnia

Wiener

(2011). The effects of a school-based program on the reported self-advocacy knowledge of students with learning disabilities. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 57, 185–203.

38.

National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center. (2007). Literature review process. Retrieved from http://www.nsttac.org/content/literature-review-process

39.

*Neale

M. H.

Test

D. W.

(2010). Effects of the “I Can Use Effort” strategy on quality of student verbal contributions and individualized education program participation with third- and fourth-grade students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 184–194. doi:10.1177/0741932508327462

40.

Newman

Wagner

Cameto

Knokey

A. M.

(2009). The post-school outcomes of youth with disabilities up to 4 years after high school. A Report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSR 2009-3017). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

41.

O’Donnell

C. L.

(2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K-12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78, 33–84.

42.

Ogbu

J. U.

Simons

H. D.

(1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural-ecological theory of school performance with implication for education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 29, 155–188.

43.

Pierson

M. R.

Carter

E. W.

Lane

Glaeser

B. C.

(2008). Factors influencing the self-determination of transition-age youth with high-incidence disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31, 115–125. doi:10.1177/0885728808317659

44.

Riccomini

P. J.

Zhang

Katsiyannis

(2005). Promising interventions for reducing aggressive behavior and drop-out rates. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 11(2), 11–16.

45.

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.

46.

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.

47.

Test

D. W.

Fowler

C. H.

Kohler

Kortering

(2010). Evidence-based practices and predictors in secondary transition: What we know and what we still need to know. Retrieved from http://www.nsttac.org/sites/default/files/assets/pdf/pdf/ebps/ExecsummaryPPs.pdf

48.

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. doi:10.1177/07419325050260010601

49.

Van Reusen

A. K.

Bos

C. S.

Schumaker

J. B.

Deshler

D. D

. (1994). The self-advocacy strategy for education and transition planning. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises.

50.

Wehman

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

51.

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.

52.

*Wehmeyer

M. L.

Palmer

S. B.

Lee

Williams-Diehm

Shogren

(2011). A randomized-trial evaluation of the effect of Whose Future Is It Anyway? on self-determination. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 34, 45–56.

53.

*Wood

C. L.

Kelley

K. R.

Test

D. W.

Fowler

C. H.

(2010). Comparing audio-supported text and explicit instruction on students’ knowledge of accommodations, rights, and responsibilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 33, 115–124. doi:10.1177/0885728810361618

54.

Wood

W. M.

Fowler

C. H.

Uphold

Test

D. W.

(2005). A review of self-determination interventions with individuals with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 30, 121–146. doi:10.2511/rpsd.30.3.121

55.

*Woods

L. L.

Sylvester

Martin

J. E.

(2010). Student-directed transition planning: Increasing student knowledge and self-efficacy in the transition planning process. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 33, 106–114. doi:10.1177/0885728810368056

56.

Zhang

Landmark

Grenwelge

Montoya

(2010). Culturally Diverse Parents’ Perspectives on Self-Determination. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 175–186.