Effect of self-advocacy training on students with disabilities: Adult outcomes and advocacy involvement after participation

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

The purpose of this study was to examine the long-term advocacy involvement and adult outcomes of the Texas Statewide Youth Leadership Forum (TXYLF) participants.

METHODS:

The relationships between advocacy involvement and adult outcomes of former TXYLF participants at one to six years after participation were examined.

RESULTS:

Participants with low incidence disabilities were involved in inclusive employment more often than what was reported in the literature. Minority status increased the likelihood of involvement in advocacy, having a high incident disability increased the likelihood of post-training employment, and being under 21 years old increased the likelihood of living independently and participating in postsecondary education advocacy and employment advocacy. Exposure to the TXYLF for one full year, participation in the nine-month support phase, attending a regional YLF, and involvement as a mentor increased the likelihood of post-training employment, postsecondary education, and independent living.

Keywords

Disability employment leadership advocacy postsecondary education training

1 Introduction

Self-advocacy has been recognized as important for individuals with disabilities to achieve better in-school and post-school outcomes (Wehmeyer, Bersani, & Gagne, 2000; Test, Fowler, Wood, Brewer, & Eddy, 2005). Test et al. (2005) conceptualized self-advocacy as people with disabilities advocating for their own supports or the supports of others. This conceptualization included four major components of self-advocacy (a) knowledge of self, (b) knowledge of rights, (c) communication, and (d) leadership. Research has demonstrated that students with disabilities can be taught all four self-advocacy components (Test, Fowler, Brewer, & Wood, 2005). Students who receive such instruction have made important gains in self-determination, increased their Individualized Education Program (IEP) knowledge and leadership skills, generalized knowledge and leadership skills for use during real IEP meetings, demonstrated an increased sense of responsibility, and improved work performance skills, leadership, team building, team-membership skills, and sense of empowerment (Arndt, Konrad, & Test, 2006; Woods, Sylvester, & Martin, 2010; Cuenca-Sanchez, 2012; Krajewski, Wiencek, Brady, Trapp, & Rice, 2010).

One method of fostering the self-advocacy skills of high school students with disabilities is through Youth Leadership Forums (YLFs; Grenwelge & Zhang, 2012). Traditional YLF models provide three to five-day leadership training to groups of 30 to 60 youths with disabilities; programs are usually held on a college campus in the state’s capital city (Epstein, Eddy, Williams, & Socha, 2006). High school juniors and seniors with disabilities between the ages of 16 and 22 who live in different regions of the state apply to attend YLF through a competitive application process (Edelman, Gill, Comerford, Larson, & Hare, 2004). As of 2012, 35 states have registered with the Association of Youth Leadership Forums, and 14 states have reported active YLF programs (Association of Youth Leadership Forums, 2012; Foster, Gieck, & Dienst, 2005).

Bauer (2003) used a mixed methods approach and determined the Ohio YLF positively affected participants’ views of themselves as people with disabilities; their appreciation of the disability culture and community; their ability to verbally self-advocate; their overall sense of pride, purpose and direction; their knowledge of leadership and self-advocacy; their leadership and advocacy confidence; their overall leadership skills; and recognition as a leader by peers. Gragoudas (2006) used qualitative methods to conclude that the Kansas YLF helped participants gain a positive self-image, increase their perceptions as self-advocates, learn of resources for independent living, and gain a sense of community. Grenwelge and Zhang (2012) used a pre/post quasi-experimental design to study the effects of a Texas YLF on self-advocacy knowledge and found participants made significant gains in self-advocacy knowledge as compared to a control group.

Individuals with disabilities in leadership roles provide further indications of YLF’s impact. Carter, Swedeen, Walter, Moss and Hsin (2011) interviewed leaders with disabilities to gather their views on what programs developed leadership qualities. Participants identified YLF as a program where people with disabilities could develop leadership skills through opportunities to demonstrate their effective communication skills, enhance their leadership skills, and realize their ability to advocate.

Although much theoretical evidence supports the assumption that self-advocacy leads to more positive outcomes (e.g., Field, 1996; Test, Fowler, Wood, et al., 2005; Wehmeyer, 1997), there is little post-training evidence providing empirical support for postsecondary education, independent living, and employment outcomes of self-advocacy programs such as YLF. Studies designed to assess the effectiveness of self-advocacy programs typically use qualitative means and do not investigate the participants’ outcomes in postsecondary education or employment (Bauer, 2003; Carter et al., 2011; Gragoudas, 2006). Studies that have used quantitative methods to investigate post-training outcomes have not explored the relationships among post-school outcomes and demographic or program components (Hall & Starrett, 2006; Rothman, Maldonado, & Rothman, 2008). Researchers of self-advocacy interventions and YLFs have indicated there is a need for research studying these relationships (Grenwelge & Zhang, 2013; Test, Fowler, Wood, et al., 2005). Furthermore, there is a lack of studies investigating the relationship among adult outcomes and program components, and the few that investigate the relationship among outcomes and demographics have produced conflicting results (Grenwelge & Zhang, 2013; Wehmeyer et al., 2011). Lastly, few studies have investigated the relationships among self-advocacy involvement and adult outcomes in postsecondary education, independent living, and employment. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the long-term advocacy involvement and adult outcomes of the Texas Statewide Youth Leadership Forum (TXYLF) participants. The research questions included:

What are the post-training adult outcomes and self-advocacy involvement experiences of TXYLF participants?

How do post-training adult outcomes and self-advocacy involvement of TXYLF participants vary by demographics?

What are the effects of TXYLF training on post-training adult outcomes and self-advocacy involvement?

2 Method

2.1 Participants

The target population was former delegates and mentors of the TXYLF. A delegate is an individual who attended the TXYLF one time; a mentor is an individual who attended as a delegate and then attended again to serve in a mentoring role to the other delegates. In order to participate as a delegate in the TXYLF, an individual had to be a high school junior or senior between the ages of 16 and 22 years who received special education services. Additionally, individuals chosen to participate in the TXYLF had to submit an application package that included their demographic information, volunteer and work experience, two letters of reference, and an essay detailing their desire to strengthen their advocacy skills. For each year’s round of applicants, the applications were scored using a rubric to select a diverse group of individuals with advocacy potential, and the top 35 students with the highest scores on the rubric were invited to participate as delegates in the TXYLF.

After obtaining approval from the university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), recruitment of participants occurred through multiple means of contact including mailing and emailing flyers to potential participants (i.e., former TXYLF delegates and mentors), posting the recruitment flyer to the TXYLF Facebook page, and calling potential participants. A web-based survey was used to collect data. Responses were limited by addresses that were no longer current (n = 20), phone numbers that were no longer connected or no longer in use (n = 44), and by participants who had not supplied email addresses (n = 37) or by email addresses no longer in use (n = 27). Because some participants fell into more than one of the above categories, the actual number of delegates whose contact information was no longer current was 47 out of 143 delegates, which resulted in a total of 96 available delegates in the population. Fifty-one (53%) of the 96 former delegates completed the survey. We compared the characteristics of these participants with those of delegates who were not available or did not participate in the study using information in their application to YLF and did not find significant differences.

Of the 51 participants, 19 (38%) attended the initial five day training only, 14 (27%) took part in the nine month support phase, and 18 (35%) attended TXYLF as a mentor. Table 1 presents additional participant characteristics. In addition, some of the participants (n = 14, 28%) also attended regional trainings.

Table 1
Participant demographics

Variable Total Percentage

Gender

Male 21 41%

Female 30 59%

Ethnicity

White non-Hispanic 29 57%

Minority 22 43%

Primary disability category

High incidence disability 16 31%

Low incidence disability 35 69%

Age

Under 21 30 59%

21 and older 21 41%

Variable	Total	Percentage
Gender
Male	21	41%
Female	30	59%
Ethnicity
White non-Hispanic	29	57%
Minority	22	43%
Primary disability category
High incidence disability	16	31%
Low incidence disability	35	69%
Age
Under 21	30	59%
21 and older	21	41%

Note. 1. Minority included all delegates who were not White. 2. High incidence disabilities included emotional and/or behavioral disorders (E/BD), learning disabilities (LD), mild intellectual disability (MID), and high-functioning autism; low disabilities included moderate or severe intellectual disability, orthopedic impairments, visual impairments, low-functioning autism, multiple disabilities, and other health impairments.

2.2 Intervention

The TXYLF uses an enhanced self-advocacy development model consisting of the traditional five day YLF training followed by a nine month support phase and follow-up training (Grenwelge, Zhang, & Landmark, 2010). YLF is a five-day advocacy training program provided free of charge to 30 to 35 youths with disabilities on a university campus in the state’s capital city (Epstein et al., 2006). The TXYLF includes regional YLFs where participants attended multiple local forums during the year (Grenwelge et al., 2010).

2.2.1 Five-day training

Participants of the TXYLF traveled to the state capital and stayed on a university campus. During the week, they underwent training on team-building, self-advocacy, legislative advocacy, legislative policy action, and leadership plan development. The curriculum and teaching format integrated Test, Fowler, Wood, et al.’s (2005) self-advocacy conceptualization. The participants also provided self-selected and self-prepared testimonials to state representatives or their staff in the capitol and created leadership plans that outlined what they wanted to accomplish in their hometown to practice the advocacy skills they learned.

2.2.2 Nine-month support phase

After the initial five day training, adult advisors who lived in the participants’ geographic regions were assigned to support the participants in the implementation of their leadership plans. The advisors sent the TXYLF project coordinator monthly reports of each participant’s progress, and the TXYLF project coordinator assisted as needed (e.g., provided advice to overcome obstacles). At the end of the nine months, participants who accomplished their goals were invited to attend a follow-up training event in which they spent two days at a structured camp to celebrate their successes, attend additional training, and give a short presentation highlighting the challenges and triumphs they experienced.

2.3 Instrument

The survey instrument was based on literature and assessment reviews. Studies were reviewed that surveyed or evaluated the self-advocacy and/or adult outcomes of students with disabilities, and assessments used in these studies were reviewed regarding the frameworks used in their development and the data they were designed to collect. To collect adult outcomes data, National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 questions were chosen (NLTS-2, 2009). For advocacy involvement, questions were selected from the ARC’s Self-Determination Scale (Wehmeyer & Kelchner, 1995), AIR Self-Determination Scale (Wolman, Campeau, Dubois, Mithaug, & Stolarski 1994), Self-Determination and Self-Advocacy Skills Questionnaire (Miller, Lombard, & Corbey, 2007), Steps to Self-Determination (Field & Hoffman, 1996), and Me! Lessons for Self-Awareness and Self-Advocacy (Cantley, Little, & Martin, 2010).

The instrument was divided into six sections. The initial section included questions to establish consent and, when appropriate, assent. The second section asked the participants their demographic and TXYLF participation questions. The remaining sections were divided into topics to help the participants focus on one topic at a time and not become overwhelmed by too much content (Krosnik, 1999). These topics included (a) education advocacy (whether they led the IEP meetings and advocated for change or disability awareness while in high school; whether attended postsecondary education classes, spoke with disability service office, and/or talked to professors about accommodations), (b) independent living advocacy (whether they made their own appointments, contacted adult service providers, chose community services, achieved personal goals to live out a dream, and/or described own disability to others when necessary), (c) employment advocacy (whether they asked for accommodations at work, stood-up for self when not fairly treated, independently contacted vocational rehabilitation services, and/or described disability laws to people they worked with), (d) community advocacy (whether they advocated for change under a list of circumstances, took a leadership position at some organizations, spoke to legislators about a petition, and/or gave personal testimonies); and (e) outcomes in home/school/employment settings (high school graduation status, living arrangement, postsecondary education participation, type of postsecondary education, job training, having paid jobs, job earnings and benefits, and inclusive work environment).

2.4 Design

A correlational research design was used to determine the relationships among the intervention, adult outcomes, advocacy involvement, and demographic variables. The intervention variables included the year of attendance as a TXYLF delegate (i.e., the initial year a participant attended the five day initial training), attendance at the initial five day training, participation in the nine month support phase, attendance as a mentor, and attendance at a regional YLF. Three categorical variables were assessed as levels of training (i.e., the initial five day training [level 1], nine month support phase [level 2], mentor [level 3]) to evaluate the effects of the levels of training participants attended through TXYLF. To address the relationships of adult outcome variables with participation in TXYLF, four adult outcome variables were used including living with parents or guardians, attendance in postsecondary education, employment, and employment in an inclusive job. To address the relationship of post-training advocacy involvement after participation in TXYLF, five advocacy involvement variables were used including secondary education advocacy, postsecondary education advocacy, employment advocacy, community advocacy, and independent living advocacy. The demographic variables included disability type, gender, ethnicity, and age.

2.5 Analyses

Descriptive analyses were conducted to investigate what the post-training adult outcomes and self-advocacy involvement were and how they varied by demographic variables. These statistics provided a summary of the data, allowing for a basic understanding of the effects of TXYLF on the participants’ post-training outcomes. Logistic regression analyses were employed to examine research questions two and three. In regression models, the demographic variables and intervention variables operated as predictor variables in each model, whereas adult outcomes variables and self-advocacy variables operated as outcome variables respectively.

The program components were assessed in four stages. First, the three categorical levels of TXYLF (i.e., initial 5 day training [level 1], nine month support phase [level 2], and attendance as a mentor [level 3]) were assessed in a one-tailed ordered level logistic regression. Secondly, attendance of a regional YLF was added to the initial model to determine the effect of attending a regional YLF on participants’ outcomes. Third, each TXYLF attendance component was assessed individually in a one-tailed logistic regression to determine more of the specific effects of attending each level of involvement. Fourth, the participants’ delegate year was assessed in a one-tailed logistic regression. Significant results indicated a predicative relationship among the involvement variables and the adult outcomes variables; however, because of the low power of the research model, further significant results might not have been detected.

To determine significant results one-tailed p-values were used. One-tailed tests were used because the relationship between predictor variables and outcome variables was one directional and we were only interested in examining whether the demographic and intervention variables predicted adult outcomes, not vice versa. Additionally, confidence intervals were established regarding the significant estimated values. Estimating the confidence intervals further supported the accuracy of the logistic regression outputs, thereby increasing the confidence we had in the study’s inferences (Hosmer & Lemeshow, 1995). An MPLUS logistic regression simulation indicated the model had low power to detect differences between groups (i.e., 0.57 for an effect size of 0.7). Therefore, at an alpha level of 0.05, logistic regression may fail to detect significant differences at smaller magnitudes (Cohen, 1992).

3 Results

3.1 Post-training outcomes

3.1.1 Adult outcomes

The descriptive analysis revealed that 31 (61%) of the TXYLF participants attended postsecondary education classes, 14 (28%) lived in a residence other than their parent or guardian’s home, 29 (57%) had been employed after they attended TXYLF, and 24 (83%) of the 29 employed participants had been employed in inclusive settings. Nine (18%) participants had not attended postsecondary education classes, been employed, or lived in a residence outside of their parent or guardian’s home. Seven (14%) had attended postsecondary education classes, been employed, and lived outside of their parent or guardian’s home. Figure 1 provides a graph of these data with group comparisons.

Fig.1

Adult Outcomes for Each Demographic.

White non-Hispanic participants, as compared to minority participants, reported a higher percentage of achievement in all of the four adult outcomes areas. Participants with high incidence disabilities (i.e., learning disabilities) reported a higher percentage of achievement in all four adult outcomes areas than those with low incidence disabilities (i.e., intellectual disability, orthopedic disability, visual impairment, hearing impairment, autism, multiple disabilities). Male participants reported a higher percentage of employment, inclusive employment, and postsecondary education attendance than female participants; female participants reported a higher percentage of living in residences other than in their parent or guardian’s home. Both age groups reported an equal percentage of having been employed; participants aged 21 and over reported a slightly higher percentage of attending postsecondary education classes, and participants under 21 years old reported a higher percentage of living in residences other than in their parent or guardian’s home and of obtaining inclusive employment.

Participants who attended TXYLF as mentors reported the highest percentages in all four outcome areas after attending the forum. Participants who attended the initial training only reported the highest percentage of being employed in inclusive jobs. Participants who attended TXYLF as delegates in 2009 reported the highest percentage of having been employed, having attended postsecondary education classes, and having lived in residences other than in their parent or guardian’s home. Participants who attended TXYLF as delegates in 2008 and 2010 reported 100% employment in an inclusive job setting. No participant from 2008 reported living in a residence outside of his or her parent or guardian’s home.

3.1.2 Advocacy involvement

Figure 2 provides group comparisons on advocacy involvement. Twenty eight participants (55%) reported involvement in secondary education advocacy, 26 (51%) in postsecondary education advocacy, 37 (73%) in independent living advocacy, 30 (59%) in community advocacy, and 28 (55%) in employment advocacy. Furthermore, female participants reported a higher percentage of advocacy involvement in all five advocacy areas. Participants who were under 21 years old reported a higher percentage of advocacy involvement in the five advocacy areas. White non-Hispanic participants, as compared to minority participants, reported higher levels of advocacy in all areas other than secondary education advocacy. Participants with low incidence disabilities also reported higher levels of advocacy in all areas other than secondary education advocacy.

Fig.2

Advocacy Involvement for Each Demographic.

Participants who attended TXYLF as mentors reported the highest percentage of involvement in all areas of advocacy. Participants who attended TXYLF as delegates in 2009 reported the highest percentage of involvement in secondary, postsecondary, and independent living advocacy, as compared to participants who attended as delegates in all other years. Participants who attended TXYLF as delegates in 2010 reported the highest percentage of involvement in community advocacy. Participants who attended TXYLF as delegates in 2010 and 2011 reported the highest percentage of involvement in employment advocacy.

Participants with the highest reported percentage of secondary education advocacy were also the participants who reported the highest percentage of living in residences other than their parent or guardian’s home. Participants with the highest percentage of postsecondary education advocacy were also those participants with the highest percentage of postsecondary education attendance. Participants with the highest percentage of community advocacy were also those participants who reported the highest percentage of employment, and the participants who reported the highest percentage of employment advocacy were also those participants who reported the highest percentage of postsecondary education attendance.

3.2 Relationships among demographics, adult outcomes, and advocacy involvement

Results from the one-tailed logistic regression applied to the second research question. Significant results indicated predictive relationships among the demographic variables, the adult outcomes, and advocacy involvement variables; however, because of the low power of the research model, additional significant results may not have been detected. Table 2 summarizes findings on the outcomes with group comparisons and statistics.

Table 2
Relationships among demographics, post-training outcomes, and self-advocacy involvement

IV Low Incidence Disability Male Minority 21 and older

DV R^2 (1) R^2 (2) P 95% CI R^2 (1) R^2 (2) P 95% CI R^2 (1) R^2 (2) P 95% CI R^2 (1) R^2 (2) P 95% CI

Adult Outcomes

Employment 0.062 0.083 0.042^* [0.085,1.618] 0.027 0.037 0.120 [0.63,6.352] 0.014 0.019 0.198 [0.197,1.902] 0.000 0.000 0.487 [0.331,3.145]

Inclusive Employment 0.041 0.069 0.153 [0.029,3.048] 0.069 0.114 0.096 [0.458,49.77] 0.006 0.010 0.334 [0.094,4.733] 0.029 0.048 0.181 [0.056,2.871]

Post-secondary 0.012 0.017 0.217 [0.173,2.118] 0.010 0.014 0.237 [0.480,4.877] 0.017 0.024 0.174 [0.180,1.828] 0.000 0.001 0.446 [0.345,0.345]

Independent living 0.003 0.005 0.341 [0.207,2.797] 0.025 0.037 0.133 [0.125,1.775] 0.009 0.012 0.256 [0.430,5.449] 0.062 0.090 0.044^* [0.069,1.203]

Advocacy

Secondary 0.000 0.000 0.448 [0.281,3.038] 0.040 0.054 0.076 [0.139,1.357] 0.053 0.071 0.050^* [0.119,1.207] 0.040 0.071 0.050^* [0.119,1.207]

Post secondary 0.012 0.017 0.217 [0.172,2.118] 0.017 0.029 0.236 [0.069,3.440] 0.235 0.400 0.499 [0.000,>100] 0.110 0.188 0.045^* [0.013,1.357]

Independent Living 0.003 0.005 0.341 [0.358,4.822] 0.005 0.007 0.313 [0.484,4.894] 0.007 0.010 0.272 [0.426,5.049] 0.039 0.056 0.080 [0.116,1.426]

Employment 0.011 0.014 0.231 [0.189,2.130] 0.001 0.002 0.394 [0.379,3.587] 0.007 0.010 0.271 [0.464,4.323] 0.125 0.168 0.006^* [0.214,0.709]

Community 0.001 0.002 0.400 [0.352,3.862] 0.036 0.048 0.089 [0.145’1.427] 0.000 0.000 0.487 [0.318,3.025] 0.012 0.016 0.218 [0.205,1.978]

IV	Low Incidence Disability	Male	Minority	21 and older
Adult Outcomes
Employment	0.062	0.083	0.042^*	[0.085,1.618]	0.027	0.037	0.120	[0.63,6.352]	0.014	0.019	0.198	[0.197,1.902]	0.000	0.000	0.487	[0.331,3.145]
Inclusive Employment	0.041	0.069	0.153	[0.029,3.048]	0.069	0.114	0.096	[0.458,49.77]	0.006	0.010	0.334	[0.094,4.733]	0.029	0.048	0.181	[0.056,2.871]
Post-secondary	0.012	0.017	0.217	[0.173,2.118]	0.010	0.014	0.237	[0.480,4.877]	0.017	0.024	0.174	[0.180,1.828]	0.000	0.001	0.446	[0.345,0.345]
Independent living	0.003	0.005	0.341	[0.207,2.797]	0.025	0.037	0.133	[0.125,1.775]	0.009	0.012	0.256	[0.430,5.449]	0.062	0.090	0.044^*	[0.069,1.203]
Advocacy
Secondary	0.000	0.000	0.448	[0.281,3.038]	0.040	0.054	0.076	[0.139,1.357]	0.053	0.071	0.050^*	[0.119,1.207]	0.040	0.071	0.050^*	[0.119,1.207]
Post secondary	0.012	0.017	0.217	[0.172,2.118]	0.017	0.029	0.236	[0.069,3.440]	0.235	0.400	0.499	[0.000,>100]	0.110	0.188	0.045^*	[0.013,1.357]
Independent Living	0.003	0.005	0.341	[0.358,4.822]	0.005	0.007	0.313	[0.484,4.894]	0.007	0.010	0.272	[0.426,5.049]	0.039	0.056	0.080	[0.116,1.426]
Employment	0.011	0.014	0.231	[0.189,2.130]	0.001	0.002	0.394	[0.379,3.587]	0.007	0.010	0.271	[0.464,4.323]	0.125	0.168	0.006^*	[0.214,0.709]
Community	0.001	0.002	0.400	[0.352,3.862]	0.036	0.048	0.089	[0.145’1.427]	0.000	0.000	0.487	[0.318,3.025]	0.012	0.016	0.218	[0.205,1.978]

Note: ⁽¹⁾ = Cox & Snell; ⁽²⁾ = Nagelkerke; ^*indicates p < 0.05.

3.2.1 Adult outcomes

For participants who were under 21 years old there was a statistically significant p value obtained for independent living (p = 0.044). The results demonstrated that the odds were 0.288 (95% CI [0.069, 1.203]) times greater for participants under 21 years old to live in residences other than in their parent or guardian’s home than for participants 21 years old and older. Thus, there is a small predictive effect for participants under 21 years old and their chances of living in a residence other than in a parent or guardian’s home. For participants with a high incidence disability, there was a statistically significant p value (p = 0.042) obtained for employment. The odds were 0.315 (95% CI [0.085, 1.618]) times greater for participants with a high incidence disability to be employed after attending TXYLF than for participants with a low incidence disability. Thus, there is a small predictive effect of having a high incidence disability on the chances of being employed after attending TXYLF.

3.2.2 Advocacy involvement

For participants who are minorities, there was a statistically significant p value obtained for involvement in secondary education advocacy (p = 0.050). The odds were 0.379 (95% CI [0.119, 1.207]) times greater for minority participants to be involved in secondary education advocacy than for white non-Hispanic participants. There is a small predictive effect of being a minority on the chances of involvement in secondary education advocacy. For participants who were under 21 years old there was a statistically significant p value obtained for involvement in employment advocacy (p = 0.006) and postsecondary education advocacy (p = 0.045). The results demonstrated that the odds were 0.214 (95% CI[0.065, 0.709]) times greater for participants under 21 years old to be involved in employment advocacy, and 0.132 (95% CI[0.013, 1.368]) times greater for the same participants to be involved in postsecondary education advocacy than for participants 21 years old and over. Thus, there is a small predictive effect of being under 21 years old on the chances of involvement in employment advocacy and postsecondary education advocacy.

3.3 Relationships among YLF components, adult outcomes, and advocacy involvement

3.3.1 Adult outcomes

For participants involved in TXYLF from level two (i.e., nine month support phase) to level three (i.e., attendance as a mentor), there was a statistically significant p value obtained for employment (p = 0.008). The results demonstrated that the odds of participants being employed were 6 (95% CI [1.407, 9.366]) times greater because they were involved in TXYLF from level two to level three. Thus, there is a small predictive effect of being involved in TXYLF from level one (i.e., initial five day training) to level three on the chances of obtaining employment.

For participants involved in TXYLF as mentors there was a statistically significant p value obtained for employment (i.e., 0.009), postsecondary education (i.e., 0.024), and independent living (i.e., 0.039). The odds of mentors being employed were 4.821 (95% CI [1.307, 17.708]), attending postsecondary education classes were 3.750 (95% CI [1.019, 13.795]), and living in residences other than a parent or guardian’s home were 3.152 (95% CI [0.883, 11.242]). Thus, there are small predictive effects of being involved in TXYLF as a mentor on the chances of obtaining employment, attending postsecondary education, and living in a residence other than in a parent or guardian’s home.

For participants involved in regional YLFs there was a statistically significant p value (i.e., 0.034) obtained for employment. The odds were 0.301 (95% CI [0.083, 1.088]) times greater for participants involved in regional YLFs being employed. Thus, there is a small predictive effect of being involved in a regional YLF on the chances of being employed. No statistically significant relationship was observed for advocacy involvement.

3.3.2 Advocacy involvement

No statistically significant relationship was observed for advocacy involvement. Thus, the results demonstrated no effect of the YLF components on advocacy involvement.

4 Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine the long-term advocacy involvement and adult outcomes of TXYLF participants. This study added to the self-advocacy evidence base by investigating the post-training adult outcomes and self-advocacy involvement of a particular self-advocacy program (i.e., TXYLF) that took place outside of the school environment. The results of the study revealed former participants of the TXYLF were involved in self-advocacy, employed in inclusive jobs, and attended postsecondary education more than the national average for people with disabilities. For example, Hall and Starrett (2006) investigated adult outcomes five years after participants attended the Kansas YLF. A greater percentage of TXYLF participants reported that they moved out of their parent or guardian’s home post-training than those who reported the same outcome in the Hall and Starrett study (17% vs. 28%); however, the percentage of participants who reported being employed was greater in the Hall and Starrett’s study than in this study (70% vs. 57%). Rothman et al. (2008) surveyed participants a few months to seven years after they attended a summer self-advocacy training. They found that a larger percentage enrolled in postsecondary education than in this TXYLF study (78% vs. 61%); however, a greater percentage of the participants in this TXYLF study were employed (57% vs. 15%). Aune (1991) performed a follow-up study of a high school self-advocacy program one year after the participants had graduated. The percentage enrolled in postsecondary education was slightly lower (58%) than the percentage from this study (61%).

The NLTS2 study interviewed participants four years after they graduated from high school and found that 46% had enrolled in postsecondary education, 62% were employed at the time of the interview, and 47% lived independently (Newman, Wagner, Cameto, Knokey, & Shaver, 2010). The participants in the current study reported higher percentages of achievement in postsecondary education attendance (61% vs. 46%), but lower percentages in employment (57% vs. 62%) and living in a residence other than their parent or guardian’s home (28% vs. 47%).

Lee et al. (2012) investigated predictors of gain in self-advocacy knowledge. Among the significant predictors was the amount of intervention the participants received. Similarly, Ankeny and Lehman (2011) identified that amount of time to practice self-advocacy and learning from outcomes were predictors of higher levels of self-advocacy. Likewise, in this study, significant results demonstrated that more involvement and opportunity to practice self-advocacy (i.e., the nine month support phase leading to involvement in TXYLF as a mentor, involvement in TXYLF as a mentor, and attendance of an additional regional YLF) led to better adult outcomes (i.e., employment, postsecondary education, and independent living).

Our results also demonstrated encouraging predictive relationships among demographics and involvement in certain outcomes. Specifically, when a participant was under 21 years old, had a low incidence disability, or was a minority, their of living independently, being employed, being involved in secondary education advocacy, and being involved in employment advocacy increased. However, the analysis and the research design did not allow for a conclusion that involvement in TXYLF was the cause of these predictive relationships.

Newman et al. (2010) reported nationwide adult outcomes data broken down by disability type, gender, and ethnicity for adults with disabilities. These data allow for a direct comparison to the post-training data from this study, using these demographic categories. However, certain categories from this study cannot be compared because of low response rates. In most cases participants in our study from the various demographic categories reported a higher proportion of involvement in adult outcomes than what was reported. Postsecondary education attendance was far above the national average for all categories, but for that of females (47% vs. 49%). Most post-training employment outcomes (with the exception of females and participants with orthopedic impairments [OI]) were far above the national average; participants with OIs were the only group to report a lower rate of employment than the national average (8% vs. 33%), and rates for females were only two percent above the national average. Independent living was a weak area of achievement for participants in this study. Males and participants with OIs reported rates 8% to 10% below the national average, whereas participants with autism and white non-Hispanic participants were the only groups to report substantially higher rates than the national average (i.e., 14% and 10% above the national average, respectively). White non-Hispanics, Hispanics, and participants with autism all reported higher than the national averages in all three adult outcomes areas.

4.1 Limitations and recommendations for future research

The findings of this study should be interpreted with caution because of the following limitations. First, we studied self-advocacy through a program whose participants applied to attend. As a result, the participants may have possessed qualities atypical to their peers with similar disabilities. Second, we explored demographic variables, but not other potential variables such as prior self-advocacy exposure or other motivations that may have affected the study’s results. Third, participants self-identified their disability and answered the survey questions to the best of their knowledge. Therefore, they could have incorrectly labeled their disabilities or answered some questions inaccurately. Moreover, a logistic regression simulation indicated the model had a low power to detect differences between groups. Finally, the descriptive data and the logistic regression analysis could not establish causal relationship; future research is needed that takes the findings from this study and establishes a causal relationship through a randomized group experimental design that eliminates alternative causes (Odom, Brantlinger, Gersten, Horner, Thompson, & Harris, 2005). Furthermore, because of the conflicting results from previous research, little data exist to support or disprove an assumption that the predictive relationships detected in this study resulted from an involvement in a self-advocacy program. Future research is also needed to determine what elements of TXYLF, other than encouraging post-training self-advocacy involvement, increased participants’ post-training likelihood of adult outcomes.

Results from this study and previous studies demonstrated that participants benefited in the area of postsecondary education outcomes. Future research is needed to investigate this relationship in order to further understand the significance and causal factors. Involvement in self-advocacy was not a significant predictor of adult outcomes in this study. However, self-advocacy theory asserts that a higher level of self-advocacy leads to better adult outcomes (Dalke, 1993; Eckes & Ochoa, 2005; Getzel & Thoma, 2008; Lindstrom, Doren, & Miesch, 2011). More research is needed to investigate alternative causes of positive adult outcomes resulting from self-advocacy training.

Self-advocacy theory supports the hypothesis that participants will continue to practice self-advocacy in order to improve their outcomes after participating in self-advocacy programs. However, TXYLF was not a significant predictor of self-advocacy involvement this study. Future research is needed that investigates effective means to promote self-advocacy involvement post-training.

Serving as a mentor is a variable not often included in self-advocacy interventions. However, mentors in this study demonstrated positive adult outcomes in all areas, and the act of serving as a mentor was a predictive variable for all adult outcomes other than inclusive employment. Therefore, future research is needed to establish the cause of these results and to provide data for duplication of these results in practice. The plausible causes and areas for further research include the amount of involvement the mentors had in TXYLF, the manner in which the mentors were chosen (i.e., by application or by being recognized as a potential leader), an increase in self-esteem by being chosen to act as a leader as well as being looked at by their peers as a leader, and the experience of practicing leadership skills on a statewide level.

4.2 Implications for practice

Evidence from this study indicates a need to increase the amount of self-advocacy training in order for participants to significantly increase their chances of above-average adult outcomes for individuals with disabilities. It seems self-advocacy programs should extend the length of intervention to last up to one year to significantly impact the employment outcomes of participants and should include opportunities for participants to mentor their peers in self-advocacy training situations. Additionally, because mentors achieved higher than average adult outcomes over the rates of people with disabilities nationwide and participating as a mentor increased the likelihood of participants’ involvement in employment, postsecondary education, and independent living YLF models should include the component of mentoring.

Findings of the study also provided some validation of the Test et al. conceptualization of self-advocacy. Training targeted on the skills identified in the conceptualization did increase participants’ postschool outcomes. Programs aimed to increase the self-advocacy and leadership skills of students with disabilities can use this conceptualization to develop intervention components.

Conflict of interest

None to report.

References

Ankeny,

, & Lehmann,

J. P.

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

Arndt,

S. A.

, Konrad,

, & Test,

D. W.

(2006). Effects of the “Self-Directed IEP” on student participation in planning meetings. Remedial and Special Education, 27,194–207.

Association of Youth Leadership Forums.. (2012). YLF chapters. Retrieved from http://www.aylf.net/chapters.html

Aune,

(1991) A transition model for post-secondary-bound students with learning disabilities. LearningDisabilities Research & Practice,6, 177–187.

Bauer,

W. M.

(2003). The impact of leadership training on high school students with disabilities(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. (Document ID 305303612).

Cantley,

, Little,

, & Martin,

(2010). Me! Lessons for selfawareness & selfadvocacy. Retrieved from http://www.ou.edu/content/education/centers-andpartnerships/zarrow/trasition-education-materials/me-lessons-for-teaching-selfawareness-and-self-advocacy.html.

Carter,

E. W.

, Swedeen,

, Walter,

M. J.

, Moss,

C. K.

, & Hsin,

(2011). Perspectives of young adults with disabilities on leadershi. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 34, 57–67.

Cohen,

(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.

Cuenca-Sanchez,

, Mastropieri,

M. A.

, Scruggs,

T. E.

, & Kidd,

J. K.

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

10.

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

& Adelman

P. B.

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

11.

Eckes,

S. E.

, & Ochoa,

T. A.

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

12.

Edelman,

, Gill,

, Comerford,

, Larson,

, & Hare,

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

13.

Epstein,

, Eddy,

, Williams,

, & Socha,

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

14.

Field,

(1996). Self-determination instructional strategies for youth with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 40–52.

15.

Field,

, & Hoffman,

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

16.

Foster,

L. K.

, Gieck,

, & Dienst,

(2005). Involving youth in policymaking and coordinating youth policy: State-level structures in California and other states. California Research Bureau, California State Library.

17.

Getzel,

, & Thoma,

C. A.

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

18.

Gragoudas,

(2006). Youth leadership forums empowering transition-aged students with disabilities(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. (Document ID 305319485).

19.

Grenwelge,

, & Zhang,

(2012). The effects of the Texas Youth Leadership Forum summer training on the self-advocacy abilities of high school students with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 24, 158–169.

20.

Grenwelge,

, Zhang,

, & Landmark,

(2010). Comprehensive leadership training for youth with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(4), 62–68.

21.

Hall,

J. P.

, & Starrett,

B. E.

(2006). Assessing the needs (health status, health insurance, employment, and education) of youth with disabilities in Kansas. University of Kansas Division of Adult Studies.. Retrieved from: http://www.workinghealthy.org/downloads/kylfreport.pdf

22.

Hosmer,

D. W.

, & Lemeshow,

(1995). Confidence interval estimates of an index of quality performance based on logistic regression models. Statistics in Medicine, 14, 2161–2172.

23.

Krajewski,

E. R.

, Wiencek,

, Brady,

, Trapp,

, Rice

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

24.

Lee,

, Wehmeyer,

M. L.

, Palmer,

S. B.

, Williams-Diehm,

, Davies,

D. K.

, & Stock,

S. E.

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

25.

Lindstrom,

, Doren,

, & Miesch,

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

26.

National Longitudinal Transition Study 2 [NLTS-2], (2009). Young adult questionnaire. Retrieved from: http://www.nlts2.org/studymeth/downloads/NLTS2_W5_Young_Adult_Survey.pdf.

27.

Newman,

, Wagner,

, Cameto,

, Knokey,

, Shaver,

., (2010). Comparisons across time of the outcomes of youth with disabilities up to 4 years after high school. A report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) and the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2).NCSER 2010-3008. National Center for Special Education Research. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED512149.pdf

28.

Odom,

S. L.

, Brantlinger,

, Gersten,

, Horner,

R. H.

, Thompson,

, & Harris,

K. R.

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

29.

Rothman,

, Maldonado,

J. M.

, & Rothman,

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

30.

Test,

D. W.

, Fowler,

C. H.

, Brewer,

D. M.

, & Wood,

W. M.

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

31.

Test,

D. W.

, Fowler,

C. H.

, Wood,

W. M.

, Brewer,

D. M.

, & Eddy,

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

32.

Wehmeyer,

(1997). Self-determination as an educational outcome: A definitional framework and implications for interventions. Journal ofDevelopmental and Physical Disabilities, 9, 172–209.

33.

Wehmeyer,

M. L.

, Bersani,

, & Gagne,

(2000). Riding the third wave: Self-determination and self-advocacy in the st century. Focus on Autism and Other Disabilities, 15, 106–115.

34.

Wehmeyer,

M. L.

, & Kelchner,

(1995). The Arc’s self-determination scaleArlington, TX: The Arc National Headquarters.

35.

Wolman,

, Campeau,

, Dubois,

, Mithaug,

, & Stolarski,

(1994). AIR self determination scale and user guide–Palo Alto, CA: American Institute for Research.

36.

Woods,

L. L.

, Sylvester,

, & Martin,

J. E.

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

Effect of self-advocacy training on students with disabilities: Adult outcomes and advocacy involvement after participation

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

METHODS:

RESULTS:

Keywords

1 Introduction

2 Method

2.1 Participants

Table 1 Participant demographics Variable Total Percentage Gender Male 21 41% Female 30 59% Ethnicity White non-Hispanic 29 57% Minority 22 43% Primary disability category High incidence disability 16 31% Low incidence disability 35 69% Age Under 21 30 59% 21 and older 21 41%

2.2.1 Five-day training

2.2.2 Nine-month support phase

2.3 Instrument

2.4 Design

2.5 Analyses

3 Results

3.1 Post-training outcomes

3.1.1 Adult outcomes

3.2.2 Advocacy involvement

3.3 Relationships among YLF components, adult outcomes, and advocacy involvement

3.3.1 Adult outcomes

3.3.2 Advocacy involvement

4 Discussion

4.1 Limitations and recommendations for future research

4.2 Implications for practice

Conflict of interest

References

Table 1
Participant demographics

Variable Total Percentage

Gender

Male 21 41%

Female 30 59%

Ethnicity

White non-Hispanic 29 57%

Minority 22 43%

Primary disability category

High incidence disability 16 31%

Low incidence disability 35 69%

Age

Under 21 30 59%

21 and older 21 41%