Self-Determination and the Enrollment in and Completion of Postsecondary Education for Students With Disabilities

Abstract

This study conducted a secondary analysis using data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS-2) to examine the degree to which three of the four essential characteristics of self-determination (autonomy, psychological empowerment, and self-realization) predict enrollment in, and completion of, postsecondary education programs for students with disabilities. Results suggest autonomy and psychological empowerment influence students’ enrollment in postsecondary education programs; higher levels of autonomy in females increase their odds of enrolling in a 4-year university; and students attending a rural school with higher levels of psychological empowerment are less likely to enroll in a 4-year university. Self-realization was the only characteristic that affected students’ completion of a postsecondary education program. Implications of the findings for research and practice are discussed.

Keywords

self-determination enrollment in postsecondary education completion of postsecondary education students with disabilities

The benefits of postsecondary education for students with disabilities are well documented in the literature (Newman et al., 2011; Smith, Grigal, & Sulewski, 2012). Despite increased enrollment rates in postsecondary education in the last several decades, students with disabilities enroll in postsecondary education programs at a lower rate than their peers without disabilities (Newman et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2012). The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA) mandates that all students aged 16 years and older who receive transition services to be also prepared for postsecondary education. Research in the field of special education has focused on identifying evidence-based practices associated with enrollment in postsecondary education (Mazzotti et al., 2015). Providing transition services tailored to the student’s skills and interests has been a continuous goal and one approach to increasing the higher education enrollment rate among students with disabilities is to tailor the provision of transition services to student’s specific postsecondary education goals, promoting student self-determination in the process of setting, and going after postschool goals.

Factors that influence college enrollment and persistence for students without disabilities include parental education, socioeconomic status, sex, or racial/ethnic minority status (Hein, Smerdon, & Sambolt, 2013). However, these factors have not been extensively studied for students with disabilities although a small body of research has suggested possible student and family factors that influence postsecondary enrollment for students with disabilities, including gender (Fleming & Fairweather, 2012), disability category (Fairweather & Shaver, 1990), race/ethnicity (Fleming & Fairweather, 2012), functional academic skills (Papay & Bambara, 2014), family income (Fairweather & Shaver, 1990), parents’ education level (Fleming & Fairweather, 2012), family involvement, parents’ expectations, as well as attending rural and suburban schools (Papay & Bambara, 2014). However, more work is needed with representative samples of students with disabilities that examines these factors comprehensively, as some studies have had contradictory findings. For example, some researchers found that college enrollment rates do not differ by sex (Newman et al., 2011), whereas others have suggested differences do exist (Rojewski, Lee, & Gregg, 2014).

Further research is also needed on the characteristics of secondary education program factors on postsecondary enrollment rates for students with disabilities, such as receiving instruction on job preparation, vocational and prevocational preparation (Petcu, Marshall, & Van Horn, 2016), having postsecondary education goals (Chiang, Cheung, Hickson, Xiang, & Tsai, 2012), life skills instruction, interagency collaboration, and work experience (Papay & Bambara, 2014). Although previous research expands our knowledge about factors that influence enrollment in different types of postsecondary education programs, more work needs to understand the factors that have the largest impact on postsecondary enrollment to inform the design of special education programs to meet the postsecondary education goals of each student with disabilities (Test et al., 2009). Furthermore, we need to expand our research focus and move beyond enrollment and identify early predictors of postsecondary success for students with disabilities (Petcu et al., 2016).

Literature indicates that long-term success for students with disabilities is influenced by not only enrollment in, but also completion of a postsecondary education program (Newman et al., 2011). Several decades of research on college persistence show that the success of students without disabilities is affected by a combination of individual and family characteristics coupled with higher education institution characteristics (Bowles Therriault & Krivoshey, 2014). Among those factors are grade point average (GPA) and completion of mathematics, English, or career exploration courses, the number of course credits per semester, immediate enrollment after high school graduation, participation in extracurricular activities, or high educational expectations for self (Hein et al., 2013). Socioeconomic status, sex (Thomas, Dillow, & Hoffman, 2008), and race/ethnicity (Kena et al., 2016) have been found to influence college completion for students without disabilities. In the past several decades, the demographics of students enrolled in higher education changed to include more students with disabilities; however, very little research that focuses on the persistence of students with disabilities in postsecondary education exists.

Research that has been conducted suggests that institutional experiences coupled with social and academic integration (e.g., positive peer relationship, access to accommodations, and college sports involvement) are associated with college persistence for students with disabilities (O’Neil, Markward, & French, 2012). In addition, promoting self-determination has been identified as a predictor of student postschool success (Test et al., 2009) although it has never been studied directly in relation to college persistence. Thus, this study builds on previous literature and examines factors that influence the enrollment and completion of postsecondary education for students with disabilities, with a specific focus on the role of self-determination. Data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS-2) were used to address our research questions, as NLTS-2 provides a nationally representative sample of students with disabilities in school and postschool, and specifically measured three of the four essential characteristics (autonomy, psychological empowerment, and self-realization) of self-determination described by the functional theory of self-determination. The functional theory defines self-determination as “volitional actions that enable one to act as the primary causal agent in one’s life and to maintain or improve one’s quality of life” (Wehmeyer, 2005, p. 17) and describes self-determined behavior as comprised of four essential characteristics: (a) the person acts autonomously (i.e., according to his or her own preferences, interests, and abilities without undue external influence), (b) the behavior(s) are self-regulated (i.e., he or she is able to make decision about what skills are needed to complete a task and enact and evaluate a plan of action to complete the task), (c) the person initiates and responds to the event(s) in a psychologically empowered manner (i.e., believes he or she can engage in behaviors that affect outcomes), and (d) the person acts in a self-realizing manner (i.e., uses knowledge of oneself to act; Wehmeyer, Abery, Mithaug, & Stancliffe, 2003). Specifically, this study addressed the following questions:

Research Question 1: Do autonomy, psychological empowerment, and self-realization predict enrollment in a 2-year college, a 4-year college/university, or a vocational school for students with disabilities after controlling for individual, family, and school characteristics?

Research Question 2: Do autonomy, psychological empowerment, and self-realization predict completion of a 2-year college, a 4-year college/university, or a vocational program for students with disabilities after controlling for individual, family, and school characteristics?

Method

We conducted secondary data analysis of data from the NLTS-2 to examine the extent to which three essential characteristics of self-determination (autonomy, psychological empowerment, and self-realization) measured in NLTS-2 affected the enrollment and completion rates of different types of postsecondary education programs for students with disabilities. In this section, we present a short description of the NLTS-2 data collection, the NLTS-2 sample, and the data sources, as well as data analysis conducted to address the research questions.

Data Source and Sample

NLTS-2 was funded by the Department of Education with the aim of documenting the secondary and postsecondary experiences of students receiving special education services. The sampling plan for NLTS-2 was specially designed to allow generalization to the population of students receiving special education services in the United States in each of the 12 IDEA disability categories. NLTS-2 data were collected by SRI International and included approximately 11,000 students ages 13 through 17 in 2000; students were followed for 10 years in school and as they graduated from high school and began their adult life. NLTS-2 data were collected from multiple sources including students, parents/caregivers, teachers, school administrators, and school records.

The NLTS-2 data used for the analysis were confined to those students for whom postsecondary data were available. Specifically, the following criteria were used to determine the inclusion of the participants in the final sample of the study: (a) response to a parent survey in Wave 1, (b) response to a school characteristics survey in Wave 1, (c) response to a school program survey in Wave 1 or Wave 2, (d) participation in the NLTS-2 direct assessment Wave 2, and (e) response to a parent/youth survey in Wave 3, Wave 4, or Wave 5. The final sample size for this study was 2,290; from the respondents included in this sample, 960 of them reported completion of a 2-year college program, 470 reported their graduation from a 4-year university, and 570 reported completion of a vocational school program. As required by the restricted-use data license requirements imposed by the U.S. Department of Education, for reporting purposes in this study, the unweighted sample size was rounded to the nearest 10.

Measures and Variables

Six dependent variables included in this study were the following: enrollment in a 2-year community college, enrollment in a 4-year university, enrollment in a vocational school, completion of a 2-year community college, completion of a 4-year university, and completion of a vocational school. Data for these six dependent variables were retrieved from Wave 3, Wave 4, and Wave 5 of the parent/youth survey, which were collected in 2005, 2007, and 2009, respectively. As in Petcu et al. (2016), data on students’ enrollment in different types of postsecondary education programs were retrieved from the NLTS-2 questions that asked respondents to specifically indicate in what type of program the person with a disability was enrolled. For example, to determine student enrollment in a 2-year community college, the NLTS-2 question asked if the “youth has [had] taken any classes from a 2-year community college since leaving high school.” Similar questions were asked to determine youth enrollment in a 4-year college or university and in a postsecondary vocational school. To determine students’ completion of each postsecondary program, data were retrieved using the NLTS-2 variable that asked whether “youth has gotten diploma, certificate, or license from a 2-year community college [a 4-year college or university, or a postsecondary vocational or technical school].” Specifically, the data source for both enrollment in and completion of different types of postsecondary education programs were the NLTS-2 collapsed item that used youth reports to the above questions when available and filled in missing information, when available from parent report.

Covariates included measures of demographic factors, family, and school characteristics. Four individual characteristics included disability category (learning disability; intellectual disability; emotional and behavioral disturbance; hearing, visual, and other health impairments; autism; and other), race/ethnicity (White, African American, Hispanic, and other), sex (male and female), and age (from 13 years old to 17–18 years old). Four family characteristics were included as covariates: head of household education (less than high school, high school graduation or General Educational Development (GED), some college, and BA or higher degree), household income (low-income, mid-income, and high-income; see Table 1), single parent, and number of siblings. Data on these variables were from the parent survey from Wave 1. Urbanicity (rural and urban/suburban) and school size (the number of student enrolled in each school) were the school characteristics included in this study; data on these variables were collected from the school characteristics survey Wave 1.

Table 1.

Characteristics of Students With Disabilities Enrolling in Postsecondary Education.

Variables	Weighted sample
Variables	n	%
Ethnicity
White	1,510	68
African American	400	18
Hispanic	280	12
Disability category
Learning disability	1,200	54
Emotional disturbance	100	4
Other health impairments	620	28
Other	130	6
Sex
Male	1,480	66
Female	750	34
Age
13–14	690	31
15–16	1,230	55
17–18	310	14
Household income
Low-income (US$25,000 and less)	720	32
Mid-income (US$25,001–US$50,000)	660	30
High-income (more than US$50,000)	840	38
Head of household education
Less than high school	460	20
High school grad or GED	940	42
Some college	490	22
BA or higher degree	330	15
Single adult family	480	21
Number of siblings
0 to 1	1,340	60
2 to 3	740	33
4 or more	150	7
Urbanicity
Suburban/urban	1,570	71
Rural	660	29
School size
4–1,000	940	42
1,001–2,000	970	43
More than 2,000	320	14

Note. To comply with the Institute of Education Sciences rules, categories with an n smaller than 100 are not reported. GED = General Educational Development.

Data on autonomy, self-realization, and psychological empowerment were generated from the Direct Assessment conducted in Wave 2. Only a subset of items from The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale was included in the Direct Assessment, representing three, of the four, essential characteristics (autonomy, psychological empowerment, and self-realization). Previous research has suggested these essential characteristics are adequately represented by the data collected (Shogren, Kennedy, Dowsett, & Little, 2013; Shogren, Villarreal, Dowsett, & Little, 2016). The essential characteristics of self-regulation were completely omitted from the NLTS-2 survey instrument; thus, it is not included in this current study. For this study, the responses for each autonomy, psychological empowerment, and self-realization were averaged to establish continuous scales reflecting the three essential characteristics.

Data Analysis

To account for the NLTS-2’s stratified design, the use of sampling weights was required; logistic regression analysis were conducted using STATA 8. Primary analyses predicting enrollment in and completion of each type of educational program (2-year community college, a 4-year college or university, and a vocational school) were conducted using logistic regression. Sets of predictors were included for individual characteristics (e.g., sex, age, race/ethnicity, disability), family characteristics (e.g., household income, head of household education, single parent, number of siblings), and each of self-determination domains. The overall effects of each set of predictors were assessed with Wald test followed by specific tests for each of the predictors individually.

Differences between the results of the logistic regression models using the unweighted and weighted sample suggested interactions with the variables used for the weighting. The interactions examined were selected based on the factors that were included in the first stage of NLTS-2 sampling stage (Blackorby et al., 2011): female and rural. Six interactions were therefore included in the models between female and each of the self-determination domains and rural and the self-determination domains.

Results

Demographic Characteristics

Most participants included in the weighted sample of this study were White (68%), male (66%), and between ages of 14 and 16 years in the school year 2000–2001 when data for the first Wave of NLTS-2 were collected (see Table 1). More than half (54%) of the students reported learning disability as their primary disability; as requested by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), cells with an “N” lower than 100 were not included in Table 1. Students included in this study came from families with different levels of household income and 42% of the participants reported high school or GED as the highest level of education of the head of the household. The majority of the students came from families with a small number of children (< 2) in the household and were attending urban schools.

Tables 2 to 4 show selected predictors of enrollment in different types of postsecondary education programs (full tables available from the first author); with the exception of self-determination variables, the predictors were included if their odds ratio was smaller than 0.75 or bigger than 1.40 and if p > .05. The results of the Wald test show that the family characteristics as a group highly influence students’ enrollment rates in all three types of postsecondary education programs; however, with the exception of head of household education, the individual parameters that effect enrollment differ across the type of program as shown in Tables 2 to 4. The results of the study also indicate that, even though as a group individual and school characteristics do not highly influence students’ enrollment, several individual parameters affect their enrollment rate. For example, Hispanic students are more likely to enroll in a 2-year community college than their White Caucasian peers are. Students attending larger schools are more likely to enroll in both 4-year universities and vocational school than their peers attending smaller schools.

Table 2.

Predictors of Enrollment in a 2-Year Community College for Students With Disabilities (N = 2,290).

Parameters	β	SE	OR
Model 1: Individual characteristics
(LL = −1,539.9251; df = 12)
Disability category^a
Other	0.34**	0.13	1.4
Age	0.12**	0.04	1.13
Ethnicity
Hispanic	0.46**	0.14	1.58
Model 2: Family characteristics
(LL = −1,499.6681; df = 17; LR χ²(5) = 80.51**)
Head of household education	0.32**	0.05	1.37
Number of siblings	−0.12**	0.04	0.89
Model 4: Self-determination
(LL = −1,479.1479; df = 22; LR χ²(3) = 30.82**)
Autonomy	0.16	0.11	1.18
Self-realization	0.05	0.10	1.05
Empowerment	1.16**	0.27	3.19
Model 5: Female × Self-determination
(LL = −1,476.6904; df = 25; LR χ²(3) = 4.91)
Female × Autonomy	0.40	0.24	1.49
Model 6: Rural × Self-determination
(LL = −1,475.9178; df = 28, LR χ²(3) = 1.55)
Rural × Empowerment	−0.93	0.92	0.39

Note. The predictors were added in a stepwise fashion. With the exception of the three self-determination domains, the predictors were selected for the table if .75 > OR or OR >1.40; full tables are available on request. SE = robust standard error; OR = odds ratio; LL = pseudo log likelihood; df = degrees of freedom; LR = likelihood-ratio test.

Reference category: Learning disability.

p > .05. **p > .01.

Table 3.

Predictors of Enrollment in a 4-Year University for Students With Disabilities (N = 2,290).

Parameters	β	SE	OR
Model 1: Individual characteristics
(LL = −1,161.3812; df = 12)
Disability category^a
Other	0.75**	0.16	2.11
Age	0.09*	0.04	1.1
Model 2: Family characteristics
(LL = −1,108.8389; df = 17; LR χ²(5) = 105.08**)
Household income
High-income	0.58**	0.17	1.79
Head of household education	0.36**	0.06	1.44
Model 3: School characteristics
(LL = −1,106.4417; df = 19; LR χ²(2) = 4.79)
School size	0.16*	0.08	1.17
Model 4: Self-determination
(LL = −1,070.5058; df = 22; LR χ²(3) = 71.87**)
Autonomy	0.35*	0.14	1.42
Self-realization	0.12	0.13	1.13
Empowerment	2.30**	0.39	9.98
Model 5: Female × Self-determination
(LL = −1,066.6761; df = 25; LR χ²(3) = 7.66*)
Female × Autonomy	0.81**	0.30	2.24
Female × Self-realization	−0.41	0.27	0.66
Model 6: Rural × Self-determination
(LL = −1,063.3748; df = 28; LR χ²(3) = 6.60)
Rural × Self-realization	0.68	0.49	1.98
Rural × Empowerment	−3.01**	1.22	0.05

Note. The predictors were added in a stepwise fashion. With the exception of the three self-determination domains, the predictors were selected for the table if .75> OR or OR >1.40; full tables are available on request. SE = robust standard error; OR = odds ratio; LL = pseudo log likelihood; df = degrees of freedom; LR = likelihood-ratio test.

Reference category: Learning disability.

p > .05. **p > .01.

Table 4.

Predictors of Enrollment in a Vocational School for Students With Disabilities (N = 2,290).

Parameters	β	SE	OR
Model 1: Individual characteristics
(LL = −1,339.4612; df = 12*)
Disability category^a
Emotional impairment	.43	0.24	1.54
Model 2: Family characteristics
(LL = −1,325.588; df = 17; LR χ²(5) = 27.75**)
Household income
Mid-income	.38**	0.14	1.46
High-income	.34*	0.15	1.41
Head of household education	.14**	0.05	1.16
Number of siblings	−.08*	0.04	0.92
Model 3: School characteristics
(LL = −1,324.0506; df = 19; LR χ²(2) = 3.07)
School size	.16*	0.08	1.17
Model 4: Self-determination
(LL = −1,315.5613; df = 22; LR χ²(3) = 16.98**)
Autonomy	.42**	0.12	1.52
Self-realization	.00	0.11	1.00
Empowerment	.16	0.29	1.18

Note. The predictors were added in a stepwise fashion. With the exception of the three self-determination domains, the predictors were selected for the table if .75 > OR or OR > 1.40; full tables are available on request. SE = robust standard error; OR = odds ratio; LL = pseudo log likelihood; df = degrees of freedom. LR = likelihood-ratio test.

Reference category: Learning disability.

p > .05. **p > .01.

Tables 5 to 7 show selected predictors of completion in different types of postsecondary education programs (full tables available from the first author). The Wald test indicates that, as a group, only individual and family characteristics influence students’ completion of a 2-year community college. Being older, female, of a family with higher income, and attending a rural school predict completion of a 2-year community college program. The group of individual characteristics also influences students’ completion of a vocational school program and family characteristics affect completion of a 4-year university program.

Table 5.

Predictors of the Completion of a 2-Year Community College Program for Students With Disabilities (N = 960).

Parameters	β	SE	OR
Model 1: Individual characteristics
(LL = −542.06144; df = 12*)
Disability category^a
Emotional impairment	−0.67	0.48	0.51
Ethnicity
Hispanic	−0.37	0.25	0.69
Other	0.35	0.46	1.42
Age	0.22**	0.06	1.24
Female	0.46**	0.15	1.58
Model 2: Family characteristics
(LL = −538.29104; df = 17;LR χ²(5) = 7.54)
Household income
Mid-income	0.43	0.24	1.54
High-income	0.66**	0.25	1.93
Model 3: School characteristics
(LL = −530.75249; df = 19;LR χ²(2) = 15.08**)
Rural	0.89**	0.27	2.44
Model 4: Self-determination
(LL = −528.80567; df = 22;LR χ²(3) = 3.89)
Autonomy	0.11	0.21	1.11
Empowerment	−0.73	0.48	0.48
Self-realization	0.22	0.18	1.25
Model 5: Female × Self-determination
(LL = −527.89593; df = 25; LR χ²(3) = 1.82
Female × Autonomy	0.43	0.42	1.53
Female × Self-realization	−0.38	0.36	0.68
Female × Empowerment	−0.41	0.98	0.67
Model 6: Rural × Self-determination
(LL = −525.66636; df = 28; LR χ²(3) = 4.46)
Rural × Autonomy	0.91	0.83	2.48
Rural × Self-realization	−0.74	0.61	0.48
Rural × Empowerment	−2.61	1.68	0.07

Note. The predictors were added in a stepwise fashion. With the exception of the three self-determination domains, the predictors were selected for the table if .75 > OR or OR > 1.40; full tables are available on request. SE = robust standard error; OR = odds ratio; LL = pseudo log likelihood; df = degrees of freedom; LR = likelihood-ratio test.

Reference category: Learning disability.

p > .05. **p > .01.

Table 6.

Predictors of the Completion of a 4-Year University Program for Students With Disabilities (N = 470).

Parameters	β	SE	OR
Model 1: Individual characteristics
(LL = −281.89509; df = 12)
Disability category^a
Emotional impairment	0.97	0.69	2.64
Health impairment	−0.48	0.42	0.62
Age	0.42**	0.10	1.52
Model 2: Family characteristics
(LL = −275.5411; df = 17; LR χ²(5) = 12.71*)
Household income
High-income	0.73*	0.37	2.07
Single adult family	0.43	0.30	1.54
Model 4: Self-determination
(LL = −266.68789; df = 22; LR χ²(3) = 17.37**)
Autonomy	0.09	0.30	1.09
Empowerment	0.44	0.79	1.55
Self-realization	0.88**	0.28	2.41
Model 5: Female × Self-determination
(LL = −266.34194; df = 25; LR χ²(3) = 0.69)
Female × Empowerment	−1.15	1.60	0.32
Model 6: Rural × Self-determination
(LL = −264.94374; df = 28; LR χ²(3) = 2.8)
Rural × Empowerment	5.89	4.34	362.06

Note. The predictors were added in a stepwise fashion. With the exception of the three self-determination domains, the predictors were selected for the table if .75 > OR or OR > 1.40; full tables are available on request. SE = robust standard error; OR = odds ratio; LL = pseudo log likelihood; df = degrees of freedom; LR = likelihood-ratio test.

Reference category: Learning disability.

p > .05. **p > .01.

Table 7.

Predictors of the Completion of a Vocational School for Students With Disabilities (N = 570).

Parameters	β	SE	OR
Model 1: Individual characteristics
(LL = −384.81867; df = 12*)
Disability category^a
Other	−0.51*	0.26	0.6
Model 2: Family characteristics
(LL = −380.56489; df = 17; LR χ²(5) = 8.51)
Household income
High-income	0.56	0.29	1.76
Model 4: Self-determination
(LL = −378.30058; df = 22; LR χ²(3) = 3.25)
Autonomy	0.30	0.25	1.35
Empowerment	0.35	0.52	1.42
Self-realization	0.02	0.22	1.02
Model 5: Female × Self-determination
(LL = −377.90804; df = 25; LR χ²(3) = 0.8)
Female × Autonomy	−0.44	0.52	0.65
Female × Empowerment	0.34	1.09	1.41
Model 6: Rural × Self-determination
(LL = −376.28456; df = 28; LR χ²(3) = 3.25)
Rural × Autonomy	1.37	1.00	3.93
Rural × Self-realization	−0.94	0.72	0.39
Rural × Empowerment	−1.62	1.79	5.97

Note. The predictors were added in a stepwise fashion. With the exception of the three self-determination domains, the predictors were selected for the table if .75> OR or OR >1.40; full tables are available on request. SE = robust standard error; OR = odds ratio; LL = pseudo log likelihood; df = degrees of freedom; LR = likelihood-ratio test.

Reference category: Learning disability.

p > .05. **p > .01.

The Role of Self-Determination in Enrollment in and Completion of Postsecondary Education Programs

The Wald tests indicate that autonomy, psychological empowerment, and self-realization as a group significantly influence students’ enrollment rates in all three types of postsecondary education programs (see Tables 2 –4). Autonomy and psychological empowerment specifically influence students’ enrollment in postsecondary education programs. Having higher levels of psychological empowerment increases the odds of enrolling in a 2-year community college by 3.19 times and in a 4-year university by 9.98 times. Students with higher levels of autonomy are 1.42 times more likely to enroll in a 4-year university and 1.52 times more likely to enroll in a vocational program. Figure 1 shows the interaction between being female and levels of autonomy on enrollment in a 4-year university; the results indicate that higher levels of autonomy in females increase by 1.42 times the odds of enrolling in a 4-year university. Figure 2 presents the interaction between attending a school in a rural area and psychological empowerment affecting enrollment in a 4-year university and shows that students attending a rural school with high level of psychological empowerment are less likely to enroll in a 4-year university than those not in a rural area. The results of the logistic regression models (see Tables 5 –7) show that self-realization is the only self-determination domain to affect students’ completion of a postsecondary education program. Thus, higher levels of self-realization increase the odds of completing a 4-year university program by 2.41 times.

Figure 1.

The probability of enrollment in a 4-year college/university for students attending rural and urban/suburban schools by their level of psychological empowerment.

Figure 2.

The probability of enrollment in a 4-year college/university for men and females with disabilities by their level of autonomy.

Discussion

In this study, the aim was to explore the association between three of the four essential characteristics of self-determination (autonomy, self-realization, and psychological empowerment) and enrollment in and completion of different types of postsecondary education programs, as well as the influence of individual, family, and school characteristics. As data were not collected about self-regulation, the fourth essential characteristic of self-determination, conclusions about overall self-determination cannot be inferred. However, the findings provide important data that inform efforts to meet the transition mandates within the IDEA (2004) to enable the effective transition of students with disabilities to postsecondary education by identifying early predictors of college completion for students with disabilities. First, this study adds to the minimal literature that examined the association between the self-determination and the enrollment in different types of postsecondary education. Second, the results of this study contribute to the recently emerging literature that explored the extent to which self-determination plays a role in students’ success in postsecondary settings. Thus, the strength of this study is its longitudinal nature, suggesting that early self-determination status, namely, higher levels of autonomy and psychological empowerment predict enrollment in postsecondary education, and higher levels of self-realization predict completion of such programs.

Limitations

There are several limitations to the present study that should be acknowledged. First, as with any secondary data analysis, we had to limit our analysis to the data available from the NLTS-2. Second, the analyses performed were based on self- and other (parent, teacher)-reported data; a large amount of the data used in this study came from individual survey items from the parent/youth survey, a school program survey, and a school characteristics survey. Thus, characteristics and outcomes, particularly with regard to postsecondary education enrollment and completion could not be independently verified. Second, data on enrollment and completion were retrieved from parents’/youths’ reports from three different data collection points (e.g., Wave 3, Wave 4, and Wave 5) over 6 years and the variables were not mutually exclusive (see Petcu et al., 2016), and the time to enrollment and completion was not considered. Third, data analyzed in this study were limited to students who participated in the Direct Assessment Wave 2, which required that students could engage in a direct assessment situation, providing responses to questions on a rating scale. Finally, the NLTS-2 collected data only for three out of four self-determination essential characteristics (autonomy, psychological empowerment, and self-realization); thus, it might be important to understand the extent to which the missing characteristic—self-regulation—affects students’ path to and through postsecondary education.

Implications for Future Research

The findings confirm the importance of individual, family, and school characteristics in understanding enrollment in postsecondary education. Interestingly, more factors predicted enrollment than completion, suggesting the influence of other factors that have yet to be researched during the college experience that may influence completion, necessitating further research. Future studies should explore the factors affecting college persistence for students without disabilities and determine their role for students with disabilities. However, understanding the influence of factors on enrollment is important, particularly during the transition planning process to inform the design and delivery of the interventions to increase the number of students enrolling in postsecondary education programs. Further research is needed for examining factors, beyond disability, such as sex and race/ethnicity, and the interaction of these factors in shaping transition planning and thus enrollment in postsecondary education. Future research should ensure that these factors are assessed and analyzed, and considered in designing individualized transition interventions (Mazzotti, Rowe, Cameto, Test, & Morningstar, 2013), as well as supports in postsecondary education.

Research has suggested the impact of self-determination on postschool outcomes (Shogren, Wehmeyer, Palmer, Rifenbark, & Little, 2015); however, limited work has specifically examined the influence of self-determination on postsecondary education outcomes. The findings suggest that autonomy, psychological empowerment, and self-realization, in addition to individual, family, and school factors, significantly influence enrollment in and completion of postsecondary education. However, the influence of these factors varies based on postsecondary education types and outcomes (e.g., enrollment or completion). The Wald test indicated that, holding constant individual, family, and school characteristics, the combined effect of autonomy, psychological empowerment, and self-realization predicted enrollment in all three types of postsecondary education programs and completion of a 4-year university program. When looking at the three essential characteristics separately, however, autonomy and psychological empowerment were most strongly associated with enrollment in postsecondary education and self-realization with the completion of a 4-year university program. Specifically, the results show that a high level of psychological empowerment increases the odds of a student enrolling in a 2- and a 4-year program. The results of the study also show that high levels of autonomy increase the odds of a student enrolling in a 4-year program or in a vocational program. Further work is needed to replicate these findings and explore the various mechanisms that underlie these findings. For example, it may be that autonomy, which is associated with having skills associated with making choices, decisions, and directing and initiating goals, leads to students being able to identify and go after goals related to going to college, and feeling psychologically empowered enables the students to navigate barriers and feel confident in getting to where they need to go. Furthermore, self-realization may be more associated with completion as this requires awareness of one’s self and one’s needs, which may influence access and utilization of disability supports in college, which could influence progress (Thoma & Getzel, 2005). Further research is needed to explore these relationships. This is particularly important given that in a postsecondary setting as students are no longer covered by the IDEA they must self-advocate for appropriate accommodations and supports.

The findings also provide important information about the interaction of personal factors and self-determination. For example, previous NLTS-2 reports (Newman et al., 2011) suggest that the enrollment rates at 2- and 4-year universities did not differ significantly by sex although research in the general population suggests that women enroll at a higher rate in higher education than men (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). However, women with disabilities continue to have poorer postsecondary outcomes when compared with their male counterparts (Rojewski et al., 2014). The results of this study suggest that autonomy may be a critical self-determination skill for females to promote greater enrollment and provide insights for practitioners in considering areas to target in transition planning to enhance outcomes for young women with disabilities (Rousso & Wehmeyer, 2001). In addition, for a student with a disability living in a rural area, higher levels of psychological empowerment decrease the odds of enrolling in a 4-year university. Further work is needed to explore if this is associated with access to 4-year universities, choices to attend 2-year or vocational schools, or other factors, particularly as rural location of a high school predicted completion of a 2-year college program. Further work is needed specifically examining postsecondary goals and opportunities for students with disabilities in rural areas and the role of self-determination.

Implications for Practice

Preparing students for postsecondary education is an important step leading to increased chances for competitive employment and independent living. This article has implications for educators, school administrators, and parents who are preparing their students for postsecondary success. First, educators should work with students to improve their autonomy and psychological empowerment. Although there are interventions available to teach students self-determination skills (Rowe, Mazzotti, & Sinclair, 2015); these interventions lack diversity across disability groups and are limited to teaching a subset of self-determination components (e.g., goal setting or self-advocacy). The current research suggests focusing on additional self-determination components as well. In addition, we have limited knowledge about the extent to which educators create opportunities for students to practice the self-determination skills within the school setting (Algozzine, Browder, Karvonen, Test, & Wood, 2001). This appears to be especially important for students who have limited opportunities; for example, in this study, we showed that these factors are more predictive for students attending rural schools.

Conclusion

There is an emerging body of literature suggesting the role of self-determination in improving the in-school and postschool outcomes for students with disabilities (Shogren et al., 2015; Wehmeyer, 2005). Consequently, there has been an increased emphasis on promoting self-determination in the transition process. Although research has documented the impact of self-determination on employment and community participation outcomes, less work has examined the impact of self-determination on enrollment in and successful completion of postsecondary education programs. The findings of this study add additional empirical support to the role of self-determination in postsecondary educational outcomes, as well as the influence of and interaction with other personal, family, and school factors. These findings provide guidance for future research and practice designing and delivering educational support and interventions that are tailored to individual goals and needs of students with disabilities related to postsecondary education.

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

Algozzine

Browder

Karvonen

Test

D. W.

Wood

W. M.

(2001). Effects of interventions to promote self-determination for individuals with disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 71, 219–277.

Blackorby

Cameto

Marder

Sanford

Valdes

Van Campen

(2011). NLTS2 training modules: Study design and sampling. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncser/projects/nlts2/training.asp

Bowles Therriault

Krivoshey

. (2014). College persistence indicators research review. Washington, DC: American Institute for Research.

Chiang

Cheung

Y. K.

Hickson

Xiang

Tsai

L. Y.

(2012). Predictive factors of participation in postsecondary education for high school leavers with autism. Journal of Autism Developmental Disorders, 42, 685–696.

Fairweather

J. S.

Shaver

D. M.

(1990). A troubled future? Participation in postsecondary education by youths with disabilities. The Journal of Higher Education, 61, 332–348.

Fleming

A. R.

Fairweather

J. S.

(2012). The role of postsecondary education in the path from high school to work for youth with disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 55, 71–81.

Hein

Smerdon

Sambolt

(2013). Predictors of postsecondary success. Retrieved from http://www.ccrscenter.org/products-resources/predictors-postsecondary-success

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 § et seq. (2004).

Kena

Hussar

McFarland

de Brey

Musu-Gillette

Wang

… Velez

(2016). The condition of education 2016 (NCES 2016-144). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch

10.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Rowe

D. A.

Cameto

Test

D. W.

Morningstar

M. E.

(2013). Identifying and promoting transition evidence-based practices and predictors of success: A position paper of the Division on Career Development and Transition. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 36, 140–151.

11.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Rowe

D. A.

Sinclair

Poppen

Woods

W. E.

Shearer

(2015). Predictors of post-school success: A systematic review of NLTS2 secondary analyses. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/2165143415588047

12.

Newman

Wagner

Knokey

A. M.

Marder

Nagle

Shaver

… Schwarting

(2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high school: A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2011-3005). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20113005/pdf/20113005.pdf

13.

O’Neil

L. N. P.

Markward

M. J.

French

J. P.

(2012). Predictors of graduation among college students with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 25, 21–36.

14.

Papay

Bambara

(2014). Best practices in transition to adult life for youth with intellectual disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 37, 136–148.

15.

Petcu

S. D.

Marshall

J. K.

Van Horn

M. L.

(2016). Predictors of enrollment in postsecondary education for students with disabilities. Manuscript submitted for publication.

16.

Rojewski

Lee

I. H.

Gregg

(2014). Intermediate work outcomes for adolescents with high-incidence disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 37, 106–118.

17.

Rousso

Wehmeyer

M. L.

(Eds.). (2001). Double jeopardy: Addressing gender equity in special education. Albany: State University of New York Press.

18.

Rowe

D. A.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Sinclair

(2015). Strategies for teaching self-determination skills in conjunction with the common core. Intervention in School and Clinic, 50, 131–141.

19.

Shogren

K. A.

Kennedy

Dowsett

Little

T. D.

(2014). Autonomy, psychological empowerment, and self-realization: Exploring data on self-determination from NLTS2. Exceptional Children, 80, 221–235.

20.

Shogren

K. A.

Villarreal

M. G.

Dowsett

Little

T. D.

(2016). Exploring student, family, and school predictors of self-determination using NLTS2 data. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 39, 23–33.

21.

Shogren

K. A.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Palmer

S. B.

Rifenbark

G. G.

Little

T. D.

(2015). Relationships between self-determination and postschool outcomes for youth with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 48, 256–267. doi:10.1177/0022466913489733

22.

Smith

F. A.

Grigal

Sulewski

(2012). The impact of postsecondary education on employment outcomes for transition-age youth with and without disabilities: A secondary analysis of American community survey data (Think College Insight Brief, Issue No. 15). Boston: University of Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion.

23.

Test

D. W.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Mustian

A. L.

Fowler

C. H.

Kortering

Kohler

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

24.

Thoma

C. A.

Getzel

E. E.

(2005). “Self-determination is what it’s all about”: What post-secondary students with disabilities tell us are important considerations for success. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40, 234–242.

25.

Thomas

S. D.

Dillow

S. A.

Hoffman

C. M.

(2008). Digest of Education Statistics 2007. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

26.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Fast Facts: Students with disabilities. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=60

27.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

(2005). Self-determination and individuals with severe disabilities: Re-examining meanings and misinterpretations. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30, 113–120. doi:10.2511/rpsd.30.3.113

28.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Abery

Mithaug

D. E.

Stancliffe

(2003). Theory in self-determination: Foundations for educational practice. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.