Identifying Transition Teacher Competencies Through Literature Review and Surveys of Experts and Practitioners

Participants

We established two survey samples: (a) national transition experts and (b) transition practitioners from school districts of five states. Samples are described below.

Survey Development

We developed the survey instrument for rating competencies using an expert consensus process based on a model with demonstrated effectiveness (Fink, Kosecoff, Chassin, & Brook, 1991; Johnson, 1977). Regarding competency validation, the six steps of expert consensus were as follows: (a) identify the competencies through multiple sources, (b) categorize and organize competencies, (c) develop an instrument, (d) establish a sample of experts, (e) collect data, and (f) analyze data for the purpose in which the competencies will be used, that is, to create and implement a 2-year master’s-level university program to prepare transition teachers.

Identification of transition competencies

We identified competencies from a comprehensive review of the current transition literature by (a) identifying effective transition planning and service delivery practices and (b) examining national standards for inclusion in the survey (CEC, 2012; DCDT, 2000). We examined previous surveys related to transition competencies (e.g., Secondary Teachers Transition Survey [STTS]; Benitez, Morningstar, & Frey, 2009). Table 1 displays the sources from which we derived competencies. The competencies contained in these publications yielded a total of 147 transition competencies.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Sources for Synthesis of Transition Competencies.

Author(s) (publication year)	Survey included in publication	Assessment and evaluation	Transition planning	Instructional planning	Curriculum and instruction	Communication and collaboration	Family involvement
Anderson et al. (2003)	Secondary Transition Program Survey	X	X	X	X	X
Benitez, Morningstar, and Frey (2009)	Secondary Teachers Transition Survey (STTS)	X	X	X	X	X
Blalock et al. (2003)			X	X	X	X	X
Blanchett (2001)	Transition/Inclusion Planning Protocol (TIPP)		X	X	X	X
Division on Career Development and Transition (2000)			X	X	X	X
Defur and Taymans (1995)	Transition Specialist Practitioner (TSP) Survey	X	X	X	X
Flexer and Baer (2005)			X	X	X	X	X
Knott and Asselin (1999)	Transition Competencies Survey	X	X	X	X	X	X
Kohler (1996)			X	X	X	X	X
Kohler and Greene (2004)			X	X	X	X	X
Lubbers, Repetto, and McGorray (2008)	Transition Programs and Services (T-PAS) Survey			X		X
Morningstar and Clark (2003)			X	X	X	X
Test, Aspel, and Everson (2006)		X	X	X	X	X

Categorization and organization of the competencies

We used a content analysis data-reduction method (Miles & Huberman, 1994) to reduce the number of competencies in the original list. We first divided competencies into groups that were similar in content area (e.g., all assessment-related competencies were placed in one group). Next, we selected category headings based on the groups of competencies. The six categories, similar to those included in the Taxonomy for Transition Programming (Kohler, 1996), are shown in Table 2. Furthermore, the first four categories are in chronological order, in terms of the process that transition teachers follow to deliver services and provide support, with family involvement throughout the process and communication and collaboration all-encompassing, as shown in Figure 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Categories of Transition Competencies.

Kohler (1996)	Transition competency categories used in this research
	Assessment and evaluation
Student-focused planning	Transition planning
Program structure	Instructional planning
Student development	Curriculum and instruction
Interagency collaboration	Communication and collaboration
Family involvement	Family involvement

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Categories of competencies that form transition services process.

Once the competencies were grouped into categories, we reviewed each one within a given category to identify themes or subcategories. Then, we examined individual competencies within subcategories. Researchers compared and organized key phrases and words, sometimes combining competencies when the comparison revealed similar intent. In some cases, we reworded competencies using descriptive and operational language. For each competency, we developed and edited operational definitions and/or examples to help respondents more clearly understand objectives, actions, or responsibilities to be carried out. Finally, we reexamined competency statements and definitions for (a) alignment within category (i.e., competencies fitting under the appropriate heading); (b) phraseology, grammatical ease, and clarity; and (c) match of the operational definition and/or examples to the competency statement. This process resulted in a list of 64 transition competencies.

Pilot testing

Once the competency items had been thoroughly reviewed, we asked three university faculty members who were considered experts in transition (who were not members of the survey samples) to meet with us and “think out loud” while ranking the competencies into groups based on importance. Researchers took systematic notes during this process and further edited competencies based on expert feedback to increase clarity, reduce redundancy, and ensure completeness of the listed competencies. We added three competencies as a result of expert feedback, producing a final list of 67 competencies organized in the six categories described previously. These competencies, along with resulting survey data, are shown in Table 3. Operational definitions are available from the first author.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Transition Teacher Competencies Ordered by Percentage of Experts Who Rated an Item as Essential.

Statistically significant Mann-Whitney U showing Cohen’s d						Percentage of responses
						Experts			Practitioners
Ex-Pr	Ex MM-S	Ex M-F	Pr MM-S	Pr M-F	Transition teacher competencies	E	I	LI	E	I	LI
Assessment and evaluation
.21*					1. Assessing young adults’ interests/preferences related to postsecondary goals and educational and vocational experiences	94	6	0	81	19	0
					2. Using a variety of formal and informal postsecondary, career, vocational, and transition assessment methods to identify transition needs	90	10	0	79	20	0
					3. Applying results of student assessments to transition plans	88	10	2	83	16	0
					4. Interpreting results of transition assessments for students, families, and other professionals	82	18	0	71	28	1
					5. Matching/aligning strengths, preferences, and interests to skills and/or demands required by postsecondary, employment, residential, and other community-based settings	78	22	0	88	12	0
.32*					6. Using student data to evaluate effectiveness of transition teaching	73	27	0	56	38	6
.47**					7. Selecting assessments with consideration for cultural and linguistic diversity and family values	67	33	0	43	49	9
					8. Assessing young adults’ work-related skills in the actual training environment or workplace	65	33	2	65	33	2
			.51**		9. Observing/assessing postsecondary, vocational or employment settings for potential placement opportunities	55	39	6	59	36	5
					10. Assessing natural support systems (i.e., available in existing environment) in a variety of settings	54	42	4	54	42	3
	.74*				11. Implementing strategies for shared use of student assessment data across different agencies	37	55	8	37	56	7
			.36*		12. Coordinating/facilitating assistive technology needs assessments	36	60	4	48	45	7
Transition planning
.29**					1. Developing transition goals and objectives based on the young adult’s interests and preferences	94	6	0	78	20	1
.25*					2. Developing transition-related goals and objectives that focus on postsecondary education or training, integrated employment, continuing and adult education, independent living, and/or community participation	92	8	0	80	17	3
.29*					3. Developing the young adult’s skills to participate to the level of their ability in the development of their IEP	84	16	0	69	31	0
					4. Including appropriate team members in the transition planning process	82	18	0	80	18	1
.32*					5. Including transition services and courses of study in the IEP that will reasonably enable the young adult to meet his or her postsecondary goals	82	18	0	65	32	3
.32*					6. Aligning postsecondary goals with instructional activities	78	22	0	63	33	4
.36*					7. Identifying and addressing young adults’ nonacademic personal issues that affect transition	76	22	2	58	35	6
					8. Developing transition IEP goals/objectives based on strengths and needs identified from career, vocational, and transition assessments	75	22	4	70	28	2
			.47**		9. Facilitating referrals related to school, postsecondary, and community services/agencies	71	24	6	56	40	4
			.36*		10. Providing information about school, postsecondary, and community services/agencies available to specific populations of individuals with exceptional needs	69	31	0	66	31	3
					11. Using transition planning and communication strategies to facilitate input from team members	63	37	0	49	46	5
					12. Coordinating and facilitating IEP meetings/transition planning meetings	57	41	2	66	31	3
					13. Including assistive technology in the IEP as needed	56	38	6	48	47	5
					14. Aligning IEP goals and objectives with state and local core standards	35	43	22	33	52	15
					15. Knowing about and applying Department of Labor regulations	29	57	14	39	50	11
Instructional planning
					1. Identifying supports needed for young adults to be successful in work experiences and training opportunities	80	20	0	80	18	2
.36*					2. Planning/developing educational experiences that correspond with IEP postsecondary goals and objectives	80	20	0	64	33	3
					3. Selecting and/or developing appropriate job placements	75	25	0	81	17	2
					4. Facilitating appropriate accommodations/adaptations across a variety of settings	75	25	0	74	25	1
			.47**		5. Developing natural support systems that facilitate transition to postsecondary environments	73	25	2	61	34	5
			.66**		6. Selecting and/or developing appropriate community-based educational programs	71	25	4	61	33	6
				.43*	7. Knowing and applying models or philosophies of transition programs and practices	41	47	12	33	52	14
.36*				.66**	8. Knowing how the history of national transition initiatives affects current directions	6	73	22	8	50	42
Curriculum and instruction
					1. Teaching self-advocacy and self-determination skills	94	6	0	89	10	1
.78**					2. Implementing evidence-based transition practices	88	12	0	51	44	5
					3. Teaching social skills	82	16	2	88	11	1
		.74**			4. Teaching appropriate job readiness skills based on developmental needs, functional limitations	75	18	8	83	15	2
			.43*		5. Coordinating instructional activities related to young adult’s postsecondary goals	74	26	0	73	26	1
					6. Providing experiences to increase awareness and knowledge of careers	69	31	0	62	36	3
			.36*		7. Teaching vocational/work-related skills	67	33	0	74	23	3
					8. Teaching job retention skills identified by employers as essential for successful employment	67	31	2	73	27	0
			.51**	.36*	9. Implementing behavior management strategies in academic, community, and work environments	66	34	0	73	26	1
					10. Ensuring young adults with disabilities have the same career and vocational development opportunities as their peers without disabilities	59	35	6	72	24	4
	.58*		.43*		11. Providing community-based instruction	59	39	2	70	28	2
.40*					12. Being familiar with and evaluating transition education methods and curricula	56	42	2	40	52	8
			.47*		13. Teaching young adults how to access and use assistive technology in academic, work, and community environments if needed	53	37	10	50	42	8
			.36*		14. Teaching learning strategies and study skills	53	39	8	43	49	8
.54**			.62**		15. Teaching daily living skills	46	46	8	73	22	5
			.87**		16. Providing experiences and teaching leisure and recreational skills	39	47	14	31	51	18
Communication and collaboration
			.32*		1. Collaborating with professionals (general educators, administrators, group home providers, employers, etc.) to improve transition outcomes	78	22	0	69	27	4
			.32*		2. Knowing and implementing procedures and requirements for referring young adults to community service agencies and other postsecondary organizations	72	24	4	60	37	4
			.36*	.47*	3. Facilitating partnerships among service providers within school and community to maximize transition outcomes	65	29	6	63	33	4
					4. Training, managing, coordinating and evaluating job coaches and school-based paraprofessionals working with young adults in vocational and community settings	65	33	2	61	34	5
	.70*		.32*		5. Providing transition-related resources, materials to students, parents, educators, service providers, and employers	62	34	4	57	40	3
.36*			.36*		6. Monitoring participation in transition planning and implementation	56	36	8	40	48	11
			.54**		7. Specifying roles and responsibilities of each team member and/or agency	48	38	14	52	41	7
			.36*		8. Resolving differences that may arise in collaborative relationships and interagency agreements	48	44	8	51	37	13
				.40*	9. Facilitating and/or providing training on transition-related topics	40	52	8	38	54	8
Family involvement
.36*					1. Including and collaborating with parents, family members in planning, decision making, implementing transition services	88	12	0	71	29	0
					2. Providing information to families about transition services, programs, and postsecondary options for their young adult	86	14	0	75	24	1
.58**					3. Ensuring transition processes and outcomes are consistent with families’ cultures, beliefs, practices, and values	80	18	2	51	40	9
			.47**		4. Developing relationships to ensure commitment of family members or other caretakers to assist in transition	54	34	12	50	39	10
			.51*		5. Identifying family service needs related to transition outcomes	54	40	6	44	47	8
					6. Working with family systems and the dynamics of individual families and understanding how systems affect the transition process	46	46	8	37	54	9
.58**					7. Assisting families to network with extended family, neighbors, church, employers, and so forth, to promote transition outcomes	41	55	4	21	61	18

Note. Ex-Pr = experts (n = 52) compared with practitioners (n = 231); Ex MM-S = experts in mild/moderate (n = 34) versus severe (n = 18) disabilities; Ex M-F = experts who were male (n = 23) versus those who were female (n = 29); Pr MM-S = practitioners in mild/moderate (n = 190) versus severe (n = 35) disabilities; Pr M-F = practitioners who were male (n = 189) versus those who were female (n = 34); E = essential; I = important but not essential; LI = less important; IEP = Individualized Education Program.

*

p < .05. **p < .005.

Response Rate

We sent initial invitations to participate in the survey via e-mail to all participants. To increase the response rate, a follow-up e-mail was sent to nonrespondents after approximately 2 weeks, with a phone call made 2 weeks later to explain the purpose of the survey and request participation. If a voicemail was left, an additional follow-up phone call was made approximately 1 week later. The exception was the Wisconsin practitioners, for whom the state-level transition coordinator sent the initial e-mail to transition staff in the state and a follow-up e-mail approximately one month later. Thirteen respondents who were not in original sample completed the survey. Their responses were removed from the analysis as their roles could not be verified. Overall response rates for completed surveys based on the total original sample were 52% for experts and 49% for practitioners. Recommendations for survey response rates for valid findings vary, though high response rates (e.g., above 70%, Fink, 2002) are typically deemed best to claim validity of findings. In a recent meta-analysis of survey research, Shih and Fan (2009) reported that Internet survey response rates were, on average, 33% and that mailed paper survey response rates were slightly better than e-mail surveys but that neither typically reached recommended survey response rates. Our survey response rates for completed surveys were reasonable given Shih and Fan’s findings, though potentially not representative of the selected samples or of the population of transition experts and practitioners.

Data Analysis

We analyzed data in multiple ways. First, we used visual inspection (Tufte, 2001) to reveal trends, similarities, and discrepancies in responses. Second, we calculated Mann-Whitney U statistics as well as Probability of Superiority (PS: U/n₁n₂) and Cohen’s d effect sizes (Grissom, 1994; Grissom & Kim, 2005) for each item to determine differences between groups in item-level responses. Mann-Whitney U statistics indicate whether responses from one group are greater in magnitude than another group, which suggests that differences in item-level ratings are large enough to be worthy of consideration. The PS signifies the magnitude of the difference between group responses and is calculated directly from the Mann-Whitney U. However, Cohen’s d is more commonly reported for effect size differences and as such was calculated from the PS and included in the results. Finally, correlations between percentages of essential responses among experts and practitioners (the equivalent of correlations between item-level rankings) indicated the magnitude of agreement in aggregate rankings of competencies, overall and within categories. Analyses were conducted for the following groups: (a) experts and practitioners, (b) male and female respondents, (c) those respondents who focused mainly on mild/moderate versus severe disabilities, and (d) practitioners by state.

Trends, Similarities, and Differences

Table 3 presents percentages of transition competency ratings by experts and practitioners. Figure 2 shows trends in percentages of respondents from different groups who marked competencies as essential. Overall, response trends between experts and practitioners were very similar. No items were rated by all respondents, either collectively or in the subgroup analysis, as essential or as less important. Recurring themes of self-advocacy and the young adult’s interests and preferences were found in many of the items most often rated as essential. Themes of remote skills and knowledge (e.g., history of transition, transition models and philosophies) were typically rated lower in importance by all groups. Response patterns (i.e., ranked order of competencies based on percentage of essential ratings) between experts and practitioners, males and females, and those serving mild/moderate or severe disabilities showed few discrepancies in the top and bottom items in each category. As shown in Figure 2, the highest and lowest ranked three items in each category were the same in almost all cases except as subsequently described, though the order of those three items may have been different. The four items with the greatest absolute discrepancy in agreement between experts and practitioners are listed below.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Percentage of respondents who marked numbered competency as essential.

Implementing evidence-based transition practices was ranked in the highest two items for Curriculum and Instruction by experts, with teaching daily living skills ranked in the lowest two items, but practitioners ranked both these items near the middle compared with others in the category. The third and fourth items (selecting assessments with consideration for cultural and linguistic diversity and family values, and ensuring transition processes and outcomes are consistent with families’ cultures, beliefs, practices, and values) fell near the middle of the ranked items for experts, but lower in aggregated importance for practitioners.

Differences in Rankings of Items (Mann-Whitney U)

The Mann-Whitney U statistic was calculated to determine if item rank differences between experts and practitioners were statistically significant. While the Mann-Whitney U statistic does not assume the underlying distribution is normal, it is based on the assumption that participants are randomly selected, which is not the case in this study. Rather, participants were intentionally selected based on specific criteria. Because of this, conclusions should be drawn cautiously from Mann-Whitney statistics. Response rates were approximately 50%, which were large enough for adequate statistical power (Hilton & Mehta, 1993) though indicative of potential bias in responses. Nonetheless, the Mann-Whitney U statistic provided an indication of the degree to which item rankings among experts and practitioners who responded to the survey were similar.

The percentage of essential responses was used to rank items. The Mann-Whitney statistic (U = 1831, Z = −1.843) was not statistically significant at p = .05, which suggested that experts and practitioners ranked items similarly. The Pearson product–moment correlation between item rankings was r = .81 (statistically significant at p < .001), indicating a strong relationship between expert and practitioner rankings of the competencies.

Item-Level Differences in Ratings (Mann-Whitney U)

The Mann-Whitney U statistic was also used to determine item-level differences in responses between experts and practitioners. For those items that demonstrated a statistically significant difference, the PS was calculated as a measure of effect size indicating the degree to which one group rated an item higher, for example, more important, than the other group. Cohen’s d was calculated from the PS, as it is a more commonly reported measure of effect size.

Overall, the Mann-Whitney U test was statistically significantly different for 18 of 67 competencies, or 27% of the items. The 18 competencies are listed in Table 3. These differences signify that one group (e.g., experts or practitioners) indicated the item was more essential to the knowledge and/or skills of transition teachers than the other group. Three themes were apparent among differences in reviewing the items. First, experts and practitioners rated several items supporting the inclusion of young adult’s interests and preferences in planning and decision making differently. Second, two items that included cultural and linguistic diversity were rated differently. Third, items that included evidence-based practices, history of transition, education methods and curricula, and using student data to evaluate teaching were rated differently, indicating that experts place a higher emphasis on these “academic” items than practitioners.

Item-Level Differences in Ratings Among Subgroups of Experts

Few competencies were rated differently by experts who focused on mild/moderate versus severe disabilities, or who were male or female. In fact, with only 3 of 67 competencies indicating a statistically significant difference in ratings based on disabilities served (i.e., implementing strategies for shared use of student assessment data across different agencies; providing community-based instruction; providing transition-related resources and materials to students, parents, educators, service providers, and employers), and only one item different between male and female respondents (teaching appropriate job readiness skills), it seemed experts rated items with substantial agreement between subgroups.

Item-Level Differences in Ratings Among Subgroups of Practitioners

Mann-Whitney U indicated many differences between subgroups of practitioners (e.g., male/female, those serving mild/moderate or severe populations) on item-level rankings of competencies, particularly those serving mild/moderate or severe disabilities. In fact, 23 of 67 items were rated with statistically significant differences by practitioners who worked mostly with individuals who had mild/moderate versus severe disabilities. In addition, item-level analysis involving state-by-state comparisons indicated substantial differences in rankings of competencies. Again, we picked these states because they were well represented in the authorship of transition publications in refereed journals, so differences between state-level rankings of items infer potentially different transition practices.

Limitations

Four limitations of this study should be considered when interpreting results. First, the survey did not allow participants to revise or delete competencies, which may have limited the expression of their opinions. Second, disaggregating transition services to students with disabilities beyond the traditional mild/moderate and severe disabilities clustering approach may be viewed as a limitation, as deeper inquiry into the types of competencies related to the types of disabilities would afford additional interpretation. Third, some participants did not respond to questions, resulting in missing responses. Finally, nonresponse bias may be present. The nonrespondents may have possessed differing views in comparison with those who responded.

Implications for Research and Practice

Our aim in this study was not to suggest whose opinions (experts or practitioners) better reflect the competencies of transition teachers. Rather, the identified differences in opinion between the two groups, for example, indicated areas of competence for which future investigation is necessary to determine why these differences exist. Future researchers should also seek to broaden data collection to differentiate types of professional positions (e.g., teachers vs. coordinators) while also expanding inquiry into the content, frequency, and duration of transition competencies.

Similar to previous surveys (e.g., Benitez et al., 2009, DeFur & Taymans, 1995) and lists of transition standards (i.e., CEC, 2012; DCDT, 2000), our findings reflect that transition teachers are expected to possess knowledge and skills that, in some respects, are qualitatively different from those of special education teachers. For example, planning transition in integrated employment and postsecondary educational settings and selecting/developing appropriate job placements were two of many competencies considered essential in our surveys, yet vastly different from what most special educators would be required to do. Our findings suggest that teacher educators and national organizations must consider transition competencies alongside other teacher competencies and make tough decisions about teaching priorities. Clearly, adding new knowledge and skills to already burgeoning lists required of teachers is not the answer. But educators and organizations may need to tailor college coursework and in-service training opportunities for transition teachers by identifying critical competencies, prescribing training content, and setting standards to be attained. Nontraditional learning environments, such as online training, webinars, or cross-discipline training (e.g., special educators alongside vocational rehabilitation counselors) may represent some of the options that need to be explored.

Findings from this study add to previous ones (e.g., Benitez et al., 2009; DeFur & Taymans, 1995) to create a data set of specific competencies related to transition. Although it is unrealistic to fully address large numbers of competences in a personnel preparation program, our findings may assist in allocating time and attention to certain ones. Furthermore, the findings from this study may be useful for state credentialing processes, in-service education, and the determination of roles and responsibilities of professionals involved in transition. For example, states considering a credential in transition specialization may examine the competency list and resulting data to develop standards and evaluation procedures. However, we delimit the impact of our findings and call for future research to clarify and strengthen the importance of various competencies. For example, data are needed on potentially different sets of competencies of secondary educators responsible for transition plans (i.e., transition teachers) compared with individuals responsible for job development, placement, and interagency collaboration (i.e., transition coordinators or specialists). Transition teachers and coordinators/specialists are likely to require different sets or rankings of competencies.

Because special education insists on teacher accountability based on student outcomes, a focus on evidence-based practices becomes crucial. Teachers must have access to data not only on what knowledge is considered essential in the field but also what practices (i.e., competencies) are likely to be associated with successful student outcomes. Although this study falls short in providing a connection between competencies and student outcomes, it informs the teacher of a continuum of important-to-less-important practices based on survey responses. Hopefully, this study lays the groundwork for future research investigating the relationship between competencies and postschool outcomes.