Abstract
Introduction
Transition of students with disabilities
One of the primary functions of secondary education is to facilitate a successful transition into adulthood by preparing students for postsecondary education, employment, and independent living (Landmark, Ju, & Zhang, 2010; Test, Fowler, Richter et al., 2009; Wehman, 2013). Unfortunately, however, after high school, individuals with disabilities often experience poor educational and employment outcomes, both of which play a role in their ability to live independently (Luecking, 2011; Targett, 2013; Wehman, 2013; Wehmeyer, 2011). More than 10% of individuals with disabilities are unemployed, a rate over double that of individuals who do not have disabilities (Heasley, 2015).
In an effort to improve outcomes related to employment and other postsecondary goals, federal mandates have been put in place that require schools to provide transition services to students with disabilities. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004 established the requirement that students with disabilities exiting from high school need to be adequately prepared for post-school education, employment, and independent living. IDEA has required educators to plan for students’ post-school outcomes, while taking into account each student’s needs, strengths, interests, and preferences. Thus, schools must provide opportunities for students to learn skills identified in annual transition goals in order to facilitate their attainment of post-school goals.
Additionally, the recently enacted Work Force Innovation Opportunities Act (WIOA) focuses, in part, on improving outreach to students with disabilities while they are in school so that they are able to be more successful in competitive, integrated employment (U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.). In an effort to make Vocational Rehabilitation more accountable, new requirements have been placed on the delivery of transition-related services and coordination with school districts. For example, WIOA requires that at least 15% of Vocational Rehabilitation funding must be reserved for pre-employment transition services to individuals with disabilities. Additionally, Vocational Rehabilitation is now required to provide pre-employment transition services to in-school youth with disabilities starting at age 14.
Student self-assessment within the transition planning process
Active student engagement in the transition planning process is encouraged by IDEA 2004, and has been identified as a meaningful, evidence-based way for students to develop their own self-determination (Martin & Williams-Diehm, 2013). Students can develop self-determination skills by learning to identify their strengths and limitations, by setting goals, and by participating in making decisions about their own transition plans. If students are not provided opportunities to participate in transition planning, the plan may not be tailored to their specific needs and preferences. Additionally, students will have missed an opportunity to develop critical self-determination skills that would serve them well later in life. One way for students to be more involved in the transition planning process is to allow them to provide their own opinions and perceptions via self-report on transition assessments (Martin & Williams-Diehm, 2013; Wehmeyer et al., 2007). By providing information about their own knowledge, opinions, and interests, the transition plan can be better tailored to meet each student’s individual needs. One such self-report transition assessment is the Student Transition Questionnaire (STQ), which affords students an avenue to provide their input during the transition assessment process.
Pilot study of self-assessment for transition-age students
The STQ was developed in an earlier pilot study (Collier, Griffin, & Wei, 2014) in order to address a need in the field for teacher- and student-friendly transition assessments that can be readily integrated into the school day. As an informal assessment, the STQ is meant to gather information about students’ perspectives on transition-related topics, in conjunction with other assessment data. Focus groups from this pilot study found that students and teachers alike felt the STQ to be user-friendly and helpful in facilitating student involvement in the transition planning process.
In the pilot study, students’ self-ratings on the STQ factors identified general areas of strength and weakness. For example, as a group the students rated highly items in the Independent Living Skills factor, including skills related to maintaining health, managing money, and accessing transportation. Also, within the Independent Living Skills factor, students rated highly their own skills and dispositions for independence, such as the item, “I understand that I am responsible for my actions.”
In terms of areas needing improvement, Knowledge and Understanding of Vocational Rehabilitation was the lowest rated of the five factors in the STQ (Collier et al., 2014). On a 7-point scale, the item “I have heard of Vocational Rehabilitation,” had an average rating of 2.76 (SD = 2.56). Similarly, the item “I understand how Vocational Rehabilitation can be useful to me” had an average rating of 2.15 (SD = 2.41). Further analysis revealed that students with learning disabilities rated the first of these items significantly lower than participants with other disabilities. Thus, students’ knowledge pertaining to Vocational Rehabilitation was extremely low overall; lack of knowledge of Vocational Rehabilitation among students with learning disabilities was even more pronounced.
In this way, the STQ proved to be sufficiently sensitive to detect differences in students’ ratings of their knowledge and abilities across five transition-related factors. This information can be used to inform the support and services needed by an individual student, a subgroup of students, or the population of students with disabilities in a given school or district. The purposes of the current study were (a) to refine the STQ according to stakeholder feedback from the pilot study and (b) to replicate the STQ with a novel population.
Method
Participants
Participants included 130 high school students with disabilities; 59% were male and 41% were female. In terms of ethnicity, 73% of the students were Hispanic/Latino (n = 95); 15% were Caucasian (n = 19); 9% were Native American (n = 12); 2% were African American (n = 3); and 1% were Asian (n = 1). Nearly all participants (92%; n = 119) were from families of low socioeconomic status. Most participants had a specific learning disability (70%; n = 91). The remaining participants had speech language impairment (11%; n = 14), other health impairment (9%; n = 12), intellectual disability (4%; n = 5), multiple disability (2%; n = 3), autism spectrum disorder (2%; n = 2), traumatic brain injury (2%; n = 2), and emotional behavioral disorder (1%; n = 1). All grade levels were represented in this sample; participants in the 9th–12th grade levels were 32%, 28%, 18%, and 22%, respectively. The mean grade point average (GPA) for all of the participating students was 2.08, with a standard deviation of 0.77. On a 4.00 grade point scale, students’ GPA ranged from a low of.06 to 4.0.
Refinement of the STQ
The STQ is a self-report transition assessment that gathers information about students’ perspectives on five transition-related factors: (a) Independent Living Skills, (b) Participation in School, Community, and Work, (c) Planning and Goal Attainment, (d) Disability Awareness and Personal Empowerment, and (e) Knowledge and Understanding of Vocational Rehabilitation. These five areas were identified by conducting a factor analysis on the pilot administration of the STQ with 186 students (see Collier et al., 2014). Minor changes from the pilot version of the STQ were made in response to stakeholder feedback. Specifically, individual items that addressed two distinct topics were divided into two separate items. For example, a pilot item reading, “Being in charge of my own life and planning my future is important,” was divided into two items: “Being in charge of my own life is important,” and “Planning my future is important.” The revised version of the STQ contains 40 items (as compared to the original 38-item assessment).
Procedures
To recruit participants, the principal investigator (PI) worked with special education teachers and transition specialists from three high schools in a rural school district in a southwestern state. The teachers and transition specialists distributed the permission packets to students with disabilities who would be eligible to participate. Once permissions were received, the STQ was administered to participating students.
Participants completed the STQ by rating each statement on a 7-point Likert-type scale (0 = disagree, 6 = strongly agree). Most participants completed the STQ in small-group settings, but in some cases, it was administered one-on-one, with support as needed (e.g., items read aloud to participants). Although there was no set time limit for completing the STQ, past participants reported it to be brief and easy to fit into the typical school day (Collier et al., 2014).
After participants completed the STQ, responses were entered into a database. Twenty percent of entries were checked for reliability by the PI. Very few errors (<1% of entries) were identified, and these errors were corrected. Additionally, very few data were missing (<1% of data points). We used mean imputation to generate values for any missing data, in keeping with the guidelines provided by Harrell (2001). One student for whom over half of the data points were missing was not included in data analysis.
To analyze participant responses, we calculated descriptive statistics on the five factors included in the STQ. For each item, means and standard deviations were calculated. Additionally, we calculated means and standard deviations for each of the five factors; Cronbach’s alpha values were also calculated for each factor. Based on our prior pilot study, we hypothesized that responses might differ based on demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability category, and grade level). To follow up our descriptive statistics, we conducted group comparisons to determine if individual items differed by group.
Facilitation of focus groups
Purposeful sampling for focus groups was used to select the participants from two of the three participating high schools in the school district in which the study had been conducted. The special education administration was asked to extend an invitation to identified staff to participate in the evaluation of the STQ. Special education teachers were asked to extend an invitation to students who had taken the STQ earlier that year. The focus group participants consisted of special educators (n = 9) and students (n = 13). All participants volunteered to participate in evaluating the STQ.
Participants
Special educators participated in one focus group. These professionals consisted of special education teachers and IEP specialists. The special education teachers who participated in the study worked in either (a) resource rooms or (b) self-contained classrooms. Of the 9 professionals who participated, 7 were female. In terms of ethnicity, the professionals were either Caucasian (n = 6) or Hispanic (n = 3).
Participants included high school students with disabilities who had completed the STQ. Three student focus groups were conducted, with 3–5 participants in each group. Of the 13 student participants, 39% were male (n = 5), and 61% were female (n = 8). In terms of ethnicity, student participants were 44% Hispanic (n = 7), and 23% Caucasian (n = 3). Of the remaining participants (n = 3), the ethnicity of one student participant was Native American; the second, African American; and the third, Asian. In terms of disability, 46% of student participants had learning disabilities (n = 6), and 15% had multiple disabilities (n = 2). The remaining 39% of participants (n = 5) each had a disability in the following categories: speech language impairment, autism spectrum disorder, emotional behavioral disorder, other health impairment and intellectual disability.
Procedures
Open-ended questions were developed for both the student and special educator focus groups that related to the utility and usability of the STQ, the relationship between using the STQ and transition planning, as well as any limitations of the STQ. Two members of the research team facilitated the focus group meetings and recorded all comments made by participants; comments were later transcribed for analysis.
To analyze the focus group data, initially the PI read focus group comments and identified preliminary themes. We use the term theme in the sense described by Boyatzi (1998), who defined it as “a pattern in the information that at minimum describes and organizes the possible observations and at maximum interprets aspects of the phenomenon” (p. 161). Two members of the research team (the PI and a student investigator) independently coded the comments, and then compared their codes. They then discussed any differences in coding, refined the themes, and came to consensus regarding the final themes. A third member of the research team then coded the comments made by the focus groups in order to assess the trustworthiness of the final themes. The third researcher’s codes were in agreement with the PI’s codes for 95% of comments.
Results
Results on the STQ
Reliability
Cronbach’s alpha values for the five factors on the STQ ranged from 0.81–0.91 (see Table 1). Because these values all were above 0.80, they document good internal consistency for each factor (Gliem & Gliem, 2003).
Responses on the STQ
Mean ratings on the five factors ranged from 3.72 (2.09) to 5.02 (1.56) on a 7-point scale (0 = disagree, 6 = strongly agree). The highest rated (M = 5.02; SD = 1.56) was Factor 1: Independent Living Skills. Two items in this factor were the most highly rated items by this sample of students: “I understand that I am responsible for my actions” (M = 5.48; SD = 1.21), and “Being in charge of my own life is important” (M = 5.48; SD = 1.03).
Rated much lower than the other five factors was Factor 5: Knowledge and Understanding of Vocational Rehabilitation (M = 3.72; SD = 2.09). The two items in this factor were the lowest rated of all items in the STQ. The first, “I have heard of Vocational Rehabilitation,” had a mean rating of 3.66 (2.08). The second, “I understand how Vocational Rehabilitation can be useful to me,” had a mean rating of 3.78 (2.10).
Participants similarly rated several other individual items low. For example, two items within Factor 4: Disability Awareness and Personal Empowerment were rated particularly low. The statement, “I am willing to identify myself as having a disability when I need help,” had a mean rating of 3.80 (2.11). Similarly, the statement, “I can explain my disability to someone who doesn’t understand,” had a mean score of 3.78 (2.16).
Group differences
We performed follow-up tests to determine if group differences existed for the items rated lowest. Chi-square statistics were calculated for the two items rated lowest in Factor 4: Disability Awareness and Personal Empowerment, and for the two items in Factor 5: Knowledge and Understanding of Vocational Rehabilitation. Chi-squares were conducted for these four items by the following demographics: gender, ethnicity, disability category, and grade level.
Significant differences were found for only one item in Factor 5: “I have heard of Vocational Rehabilitation.” First, differences were found by ethnicity, with Caucasian students rating this item higher than Hispanic students, and Hispanic students rating it higher than students of other ethnicities, χ2 (12, N = 130) = 28.27, p = 0.005. Second, differences were found by disability category. Individuals with learning disability rated this item lower than students with other disabilities, χ2 (6, N = 130) = 14.52, p = 0.02.
Responses from focus groups: Themes revealed
Professionals
Three themes emerged from the focus group comprised of educators: (a) information about students’ perspectives, (b) engagement of the student in the IEP, and (c) limitations of the STQ (see Table 2). The majority of comments (56%) indicated that results from the STQ provided information that they would not have otherwise considered and that helped them to better understand the student perspective when engaging in transition planning. Relatedly, a second theme (representing 22% of comments) focused on the usefulness of the STQ in helping students to identify goals and to prepare for their IEP meetings. The final theme related to limitations of the STQ; some comments included specific recommendations, with one educator suggesting that the STQ not be administered to groups, but only individually.
Students
Five themes emerged from analysis of student comments: (a) communication with teachers, (b) information about oneself, (c) participation in the IEP meeting and transition planning, (d) non-stressful quality of the STQ, and (e) limitations (see Table 2). The most common theme, representing 31% of comments, related to the experience of talking about the STQ with a teacher. Several comments (23%) also focused on how completing the STQ helped them to better understand their own interests and how their interests related to planning for their futures. Further, in a few comments (23%), students described how the STQ helped them to better engage in transition planning by developing goals and participating in their IEP meetings. A few comments (15%) related to the non-stressful experience of taking the STQ. Finally, one comment (8%) suggested that the STQ needed improvement, indicating that taking the STQ in a group setting was distracting.
Discussion
As recommended in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (2014), attention to the purpose of this assessment has helped guide the development of the STQ. Evaluating students’ familiarity, knowledge, and interest relative to various areas can inform and improve instruction to better meet students’ transition needs.
Extending findings from the initial pilot study of the STQ, the current study has further documented the internal consistency of the five factors in this assessment. And, though the current study was conducted in a different state with a rural population (versus the urban population in the pilot study), similar patterns of responding were found.
For example, in both studies, there were commonalities in the educators’ focus group responses. Specifically, teachers appreciated gaining insight into student perspectives and acknowledged that the STQ provided an opportunity to assist their students in previewing the IEP process, which led to more student engagement in their IEP meetings. Likewise, students who participated in the focus groups in both studies favorably commented on the communication with their teachers when discussing responses to the STQ.
Additionally, in both studies, participating students rated highest the items in Factor I: Independent Living Skills. Likewise, in both studies, by far the lowest rated was Factor V: Knowledge and Understanding of Vocational Rehabilitation. Furthermore, our finding from the pilot that students with learning disabilities were less familiar with Vocational Rehabilitation than other students was replicated in the current study.
Beyond these similarities, the current study also revealed several unique findings. First, group differences by ethnicity were found in relation to students’ familiarity with Vocational Rehabilitation, with Caucasian students more familiar than Hispanic students, and Hispanic students more familiar than students of other ethnicities (e.g., African American, Asian, Native American). Though unfortunate, this is not surprising, given that the vast majority of applicants for Vocational Rehabilitation Services are Caucasian (Honeycutt et al., 2013).
A second unique finding relates to students’ low ratings on items in Factor 4: Disability Awareness and Personal Empowerment. Two of the lowest-rated items overall fell within that factor (“I am willing to identify myself as having a disability when I need help,” and “I can explain my disability to someone who doesn’t understand”). In addition to specific needs related to Vocational Rehabilitation, then, this study has identified disability disclosure as a particular area of need, as reported by students.
Thus, the STQ has proven valuable in identifying students’ self-reported areas of strength and need, as a group. Further analysis has also highlighted certain populations that might be specifically targeted for intervention. In the following sections, we discuss these findings in terms of their implications for research and practice.
Implications
Vocational Rehabilitation
As was the case in an earlier pilot study (Collier et al., 2014), findings from this study demonstrated that a large number of participating students had no knowledge of the existence or purpose of Vocational Rehabilitation. Studies have shown that receiving Vocational Rehabilitation services while in high school is beneficial to students with disabilities in terms of employment outcomes (e.g., Defur, 1994; Muthumbi, 2008). Together, schools and Vocational Rehabilitation have a shared responsibility to facilitate a successful transition from school to work for students with disabilities.
However, connecting school-age students with Vocational Rehabilitation services has been inconsistent for far too many students, if not an altogether missed opportunity (Honeycutt, Thompkins, Bardos, & Stern, 2013). Research has shown that Vocational Rehabilitation representatives rarely attend IEP meetings (Defur, 1994; Rutkowski et al., 2006; Shearin, Roessler, & Schriner, 1999). Additionally, very few transition plans include goals related to the involvement of Vocational Rehabilitation services (Everson, Zhang, & Guillory, 2001; Grigal et al., 1997; Powers et al., 2005).
However, increased outreach from Vocational Rehabilitation counselors is only half of the equation. Educators also need to increase their efforts to teach students and their families about Vocational Rehabilitation and to proactively connect students with the services needed to support their employment. Successful transition into adult life requires collaboration between schools and adult service agencies, such as Vocational Rehabilitation. Fragmentation, duplication, and inadequacy of programs and services can impede successful post-school outcomes for students with disabilities (Sitlington & Clark, 2006). As Oertle and Trach (2007) have noted, it is imperative that both educators and Vocational Rehabilitation counselors invest further in collaboration to meet their joint responsibilities to students with disabilities.
Disability disclosure and self-advocacy
Overall, participants did not agree that they would be willing to identify themselves as having a disability when they need help. This is an important issue for individuals who go on to either postsecondary education or employment after high school. A critical difference between high school and college is that a student’s education in high school is governed by IDEA, whereas education in college is subject to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). One important result of this difference is that in postsecondary education, students must disclose their disability in order to receive accommodations (Eckes & Ochoa, 2005). In contrast, during high school, students do not have this responsibility. Thus, it is critical that students understand this requirement and are taught skills related to disclosure and self-advocacy prior to entering the postsecondary education setting.
Likewise, accessing the rights afforded by both Section 504 and the ADA require individuals to disclose their disability status to employers, as well (Madaus et al., 2002; Price, Gerber, & Mulligan, 2003). Despite protections afforded by law, research suggests that workers disclose their disability status at low rates (Honeycutt et al., 2013). Reasons that individuals might opt not to disclose disability status include thinking that it will not benefit them, that it is not necessary because their disability does not affect their performance, and that it might negatively affect them (e.g., they might be discriminated against). Students at the high school level need to be taught about the potential benefits of disability disclosure in the workplace, as well as advocacy skills needed to avail themselves of the rights they are afforded by law.
Numerous resources are available for professionals, families, and self-advocates to assist with the development of such skills. For example, the National Collaborative for Workforce and Disability for Youth (2009) published a workbook that specifically focuses on disability disclosure. This workbook includes information about relevant laws, discusses potential advantages and disadvantages of disclosure, and addresses disclosure of a disability across postsecondary education, workplace, and community settings.
Limitations and areas for future research
These results should be interpreted with several important limitations in mind. First, this was a convenience sample: the study was limited to three high schools in a single school district, and all participants volunteered to participate. Thus, our findings may not necessarily generalize to the larger population. In future studies, researchers should recruit a representative sample in order to better test the usefulness of the STQ with all students with disabilities. Second, the focus groups included only educators and students; several stakeholders were not represented—namely parents and other professionals (e.g., Vocational Rehabilitation counselors). Future studies should solicit the feedback of these important stakeholders, as well. Third, students were not provided the opportunity to share their postsecondary goals. It might be useful to include an open-ended question related to postsecondary goals at the end of the STQ. Finally, future studies on the STQ should measure the effect of taking this assessment on student engagement in transition planning. Anecdotal evidence suggests its value, but this has yet to be documented through data.
In addition, our findings highlight several areas of need that would benefit from further study. First, much more work is needed on students’ awareness of Vocational Rehabilitation. Future studies should focus on the ways in which students can be taught about Vocational Rehabilitation services and how they might be connected with such services. As noted previously, collaboration between schools and Vocational Rehabilitation counselors is critical to connecting students with this resource prior to exiting high school.
A second area of need relates to students’ skills in the areas of self-advocacy and disability disclosure. These skills are critical to post-school success as students navigate postsecondary education, employment, and community settings. Future research should focus on the training—delivered by both transition teachers and Vocational Rehabilitation counselors—that impact the development of skills in these areas.
These two areas highlight the utility and application of the STQ for students with disabilities. By identifying areas of need shared by many students in a given school or district, the STQ can help practitioners target those areas. With growing demands to “do more with less,” educators and other practitioners in the field of disability must focus their attention and time on the areas of great need that affect many. The STQ is one way to identify areas of systemic need so that they can be targeted for improvement.
With the recent enactment of WIOA, the need for collaboration between Vocational Rehabilitation and other entities—including school systems—has been made more explicit. Ultimately, the schools and Vocational Rehabilitation have a joint responsibility to meet students’ needs, connect them with services, and facilitate their smooth transition into the workforce.
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to report.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge the students and educators in the Los Lunas School District who participated in the study. We would also like to express our gratitude to both James Martin and Tim Riesen for the helpful comments they offered on an earlier version of this manuscript.