Work performance and support needs analysis of students with intellectual disabilities

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

School-to-work transition planning for students with intellectual disabilities should include community-based early work experiences to prepare for possible future integrated employment. Employers have noted job performance levels and appropriate use of supports as important for maintaining employment.

OBJECTIVE:

The purpose of this study was to assess work performance and support needs of students with intellectual disabilities attending a short summer early work experience.

METHOD:

RESULTS:

The groups deviated significantly in their pre-assessment and post-assessment ratings. Job coaches and students both reported significant increases in perception of quality of student performance. In addition, job coaches reported students needing significantly less employment supports by program end. Student participants also reported needing less employment supports by program end; however, results were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS:

When both student and job coach realistically view student work performance and supports needed, the school-to-work transition can be improved.

Keywords

Work quality employment supports intellectual disability students

1 Introduction

People with disabilities, especially those with intellectual disabilities, find multiple barriers to gainful employment. In a systematic review, job performance and employment supports like job coaches influenced the level of ongoing, paid employment for individuals with an intellectual disability; but more research on work participation factors in this population is needed (Ellenkamp et al., 2016). Different levels of employment support (from vocational rehabilitation to teach job skills to on-site job coaches to act as liaisons between employee and employer) have been utilized to assist those with disabilities in securing competitive, integrated employment (American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 2017). In a study of employed adults with intellectual disabilities, most used supports like adapted equipment and flexible work schedules that required little cost to overcome employment barriers (Denny-Brown et al., 2015).

Youth with disabilities, too, are less likely than those without disabilities to participate in community life and secure some type of part-time or summer employment. School-to-post-school-transition services and vocational rehabilitation programs are provided by schools and agencies to address low employment levels. These programs help prepare students for adult life and work in the community (Patton & Kim, 2016). Paid employment while still in school as well as vocational rehabilitation and job skill training were reported as key predictors of future competitive employment for transition-age students with intellectual disabilities (Southward & Kyzar, 2017). Those transition-aged youth in a large case-control study who participated in supported employment while still in school were also more likely to secure future competitive employment (Wehman et al, 2014).

Early paid work experiences for secondary-level students with intellectual disabilities integrated into the community setting, an essential part of transition services, helps students obtain important job and social skills (Carter et al., 2011). In a nationally representative sample, Carter et al. (2011a), however, reported that although most students with intellectual disabilities were offered vocational instruction, few students accessed these rather limited work experiences, and most jobs were low-wage and not particularly aligned with their future career interests. Also, even for youth with intellectual disabilities participating in a vocational rehabilitation program, in one study, poor program participation was still noted as a barrier to employment (Noel et al., 2017).

Because early work experience is a key predictor of future competitive employment, working during the summer months may be a better way to explore careers, obtain job skills, and integrate into the community. For students with an intellectual disability in one study of summer work experiences, about half held summer jobs, most jobs were part-time, paid, and in the service sector; and with most hours logged during the week. In addition, only about one-quarter of students with intellectual disabilities used supports such as transition staff or case managers, and most relied on family members for transportation to and from the job site. For those not working over the summer, lack of job skills and support were noted as barriers by one-fourth of students with an intellectual disability (Carter et al., 2011).

School-to-work transition planning for students with intellectual disabilities should include these community-based early work experiences to prepare for possible future integrated employment. It is recommended that work experiences include career interest and skill assessment along with individualized job and environmental supports (American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 2017). Beginning by age 14, a student’s transition capabilities and needs are assessed to help coordinate individualized instruction, planning, and transition services. Transition plans are put into place to secure employment and improve work performance as well as coordinate the delivery of any necessary employment supports. Student voice in the plan and student career training and development are important predictors of positive post-school results (Patton & Kim, 2016). This individualized, person-centered planning strategy for youth with intellectual disabilities has demonstrated some improvements in successful transition outcomes in academics, vocation, self-determination, and independent living (Gosse et al., 2017).

As part of quality transition planning and vocational rehabilitation service delivery, the use of meaningful assessments related to work performance levels and number and types of employment supports needed should come from multiple points of view including student, parents, service providers, and employers (Carter et al., 2014). Interestingly, for job performance, points of view among those assessed greatly diverged. The ability to perform job duties and produce desired results was a key characteristic, along with personality, related to length of employment in a job for adults with disabilities (O’Sullivan et al., 2012). For adults with developmental disabilities, employee and employer perceptions of job performance ratings and support needs did not match. In a study by Bennett et al. (2009), employees rated their job performance higher and support needs lower than did their employers. For students, in one study, student transition-related capacities were assessed by teachers and parents, and in most cases, their perceptions of student vocational abilities and needs in most self-determination domains did not match (Carter et al., 2014). In a vocational rehabilitation program, students with intellectual disabilities also rated their job performance higher and support needs lower than did their experienced special education teachers in the program (Brady et al., 2010).

Additionally, for those employers who hired students with disabilities in a large school-to-work transition program, job performance and abilities were important factors in the hiring transition-age youth with disabilities (Simonsen et al., 2015). Supports, those resources and methods to assist the individual with an intellectual disability with functioning, may also be necessary to obtain and keep employment (Thompson et al., 2009). The type and number of employment supports needed are individualized, appropriately planned and implemented, and based on matching the person to the job environment (Thompson et al., 2009).

1.1 Objective

A short, half-day, summer vocational rehabilitation program for secondary-level students with intellectual disabilities was offered by a regional employment and community engagement service agency during summer 2020. The program consisted of six weeks of integrated and supported early work experience for six small groups of students mentored by a job coach for each group. Groups worked four days each week from 8am to noon with one day of classroom-based self-determination and social skills training curricula. Best practice recommends that early work experiences include career and support assessments (American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 2017) from multiple points of view (Carter et al., 2014). More research on factors related to work participation for those with intellectual disabilities; a group employed at lower rates than for most other disability groups (Ellenkamp et al., 2016), is also recommended. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify any changes in work performance and support needs of students with intellectual disabilities attending a short summer early work experience.

2 Method

2.1 Participants

After Truman State University Institutional Review Board (HES/12320) approval in accord with the ethical standards of the institution in which the study was conducted, employment agency director consent, parent/guardian consent, and participant consent/assent; all 18 secondary level students with intellectual disabilities participating in a short, half-day summer early work experience program were invited to participate in the study. [The program was conducted during a pandemic; therefore, participant capacity was intentionally capped, and all safety protocols such as masking and distancing were followed]. In addition, all five job coaches (all 18–22 years old, four females, one male; two worked as coaches in the program the previous summer) in the summer program who mentored and supervised the students were also invited to participate in the study. All (100%) students and job coaches consented to participation.

2.2 Instruments

The Job Observation and Behavior Scale: Opportunity for Self-Determination (JOBS-OSD) was used by student participants to self-assess their employee perspective of work performance quality and support needs early in the program and after the program (Brady et al., 2008). The written JOBS-OSD consisted of two quantitative segments: Quality of performance and types of support. Students self-rated their quality of performance on a scale of 1 to 3 [1 = “No, not really”, 2 = “Sometimes”, and 3 = “Yes”]. Students also rated their perception of types of support needed to perform proficient work on a scale of 1 to 3 [1 = “Do you need a lot of help?”, 2 = Can you do it with some help?”, and 3 = “Can you do it by yourself?”].

The Job Observation and Behavior Scale: System (JOBS) was used by job coach participants to assess work performance quality and support needs of their supervised student participants early in the program and after the program (Brady & Rosenberg, 2002). The JOBS consisted of two quantitative segments: Quality of performance and types of support. Job coach assessors were to compare their student’s performance to employees not receiving support. For quality of performance, job coaches rated how they perceived their student’s performance on a scale of 1 to 5 [1 = “Not acceptable for competitive employment”, 2 = “Below average”, 3 = “Average”, 4 = “Above average”, and 5 = “Superior”]. For types of support, job coaches indicated how much support their students needed on a scale of 1 to 5. [1 = “Continuous supervision from job coach or supervisor”, 2 = “Frequent supervision from job coach or supervisor”, 3 = “Intermediate supervision from job coach or supervisor”, 4 = “Intermediate supervision from co-worker”, and 5 = “No unique supervision needed or support needed beyond that provided by other workers”].

With content and concurrent validity established, the original instruments possessed high test-retest reliability for work performance quality (r = 0.83) and supports needed (r = 0.91) as well as high internal reliability for total scale (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.96) and subscales for work performance quality (0.88–0.90) and supports needed (0.74–0.85). The thirty items in the instrument comprises three subscales (Work-required daily living activities/personal behaviors –13 items, Work-required behavior/social skills –8 items, Work-required job duties/job functions-9 items). Cronbach’s alpha for the total scale in this study was.995 for job coaches and.905 for student participants.

2.3 Procedure

During the first week of the six-week, half-day, summer early work experience program and during their first day of classroom-based self-determination and social skills training curricula at each of the sites, the researcher administered the written Pre-JOBS-OSD to all student participants and the Pre-JOBS to all job coach participants. Student participants were allotted as much time as they needed (and could stop and come back to finish) as well as were allowed reading assistance by agency administrators to help with completion.

Specifically, parents/guardians enrolled qualified student participants (student must possess below average IQ with a deficit in adapted behaviors) into the program late spring/early summer 2020. Agency administrators also recruited interested organizations, businesses, and agencies to accept students and job coach placements for the summer. Students were placed at a job site based on results of prior student-parent interviews regarding student career interests. One week before the start of the program, agency program administrators met with all job coaches for a daylong orientation to the program, training and professional development for working with individuals with intellectual disabilities, and program logistics and documentation. Job coaches also received their list of two to four students to supervise, student job sites, and work tasks. Job sites included schools, businesses, parks, and grocery stores. Job tasks included maintenance, customer service, and landscaping activities.

At program start and each workday for six weeks, students were transported to their job sites where they met their job coaches and received their daily work tasks. The small groups at each site with job coach supervision worked from 8:00 am to noon four days each week. Job coaches conducted worksite and job analyses to determine any potential barriers for required tasks and then performed a task analysis to break down each of the major job tasks. Coaches modeled the different tasks and provided individualized, customized support for each student participant to be successful as they learned their new job tasks (Table 4). Frequency of coaching support varied according to complexity of job task and learning speed of the student participants, however, less support was provided as student participants became more competent at their tasks. As the weeks went by, student participants were encouraged to use more natural supports, advocate for themselves, and rely less on their job coaches. On the last day of each week, the groups met in a classroom for structured, manualized lessons on self-determination and social skills for employment success. The lecture, interactive activities, and video curriculum focused specifically on the social and professional skills of communication, teamwork, attitude, and professional behavior in the workplace.

During their last day of classroom-based self-determination and social skills training curricula at each of the sites, the researcher administered the Post-JOBS-OSD to all student participants and the Post-JOBS to all job coach participants.

2.4 Analysis

Content in both instruments was similar allowing some comparison between results of both instruments. All items asked respondents to assess both work performance quality and support needs. For the purposes of comparison, scale and sub-scale scores were computed to a percentage of total points in order to create comparable values. Responses to the pre-post JOBS-OSD and JOBS items were summed for total score and subscale scores. Paired t-tests were conducted to determine pre-post program differences between the student and job coach groups.

3 Results

In a comparison of overall job coach and student perceptions on quality of performance and types of support (Table 1), both job coaches and students reported an increase in the quality of student performance at the conclusion of the program, however, students and job coaches were significantly different in their pre-assessment (p < 0.001) and post-assessment (p = 0.02) ratings. Prior to beginning the work program, job coaches rated the quality of the students’ performance with only a score of 61.20% (SD = 25.32). At the completion of the 8-week program, job coach ratings increased to only 75.56% (SD = 4.99), although, a statistically significant increase (p = 0.001). Students’ self-reported quality of performance prior to beginning the work program was a very high 85.09% (SD = 9.47), and following the 8-week program, student reports of the quality of their performance increased to an even higher 88.15% (SD = 4.99), a statistically significant increase (p = 0.017).

Table 1
Paired samples comparing pre/post student and job coach perceptions of quality of performance and types of support

Student Job coach

M SD M SD t-test

Quality performance – pre 85.09 9.47 61.20 25.32 –4^***

Quality performance – post 88.15 4.99 75.56 4.99 –2.64^*

Types of support – pre 74.72 16.64 60.56 30.29 –2.37^*

Types of support – post 82.13 10.83 72.36 27.74 –1.80

	Student	Job coach
Quality performance – pre	85.09	9.47	61.20	25.32	–4^***
Quality performance – post	88.15	4.99	75.56	4.99	–2.64^*
Types of support – pre	74.72	16.64	60.56	30.29	–2.37^*
Types of support – post	82.13	10.83	72.36	27.74	–1.80

^***p < 0.001, ^**p < 0.01, ^*p < 0.05.

Regarding types of support, job coaches reported students needing less help at the conclusion of the program. At the pre-test, job coaches scored students as 60.56% (SD = 30.29), which increased to a 72.36% score (SD = 27.74) by the end of the program, indicating less supports needed. This was a statistically significant increase (p = 0.03). The students’ reporting of support needed also increased pre-post, but not significantly. At pre-testing, students rated their need at 74.72% (SD = 16.64), and at post-testing an 82.13% score was also noted, indicating less supports needed (SD = 10.83, p = 0.09).

Pre-post mean scores in each of the 30 quality of performance items reported by job coaches and students were compared (Table 2). An increase in job coach perception of student quality of performance was consistent for all 30 items. Students’ self-reported perceptions of their quality of performance increased in the majority (16/30) of items, did not improve in four items, and decreased in eight items. It is to be noted students rated their quality of performance higher on average than did the job coaches. Key areas of improvement self-reported by students included verbal/nonverbal communication, work and personal schedule, stress tolerance, work and social interactions, honesty, reaction to criticism, quality of work, and motivation.

Table 2

Quality of performance student/job coach comparison

Student question	Job coach word	Student pre	Student post	Job coach pre	Job coach post
		Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Do you have good attendance?	Attendance	2.94	0.24	2.78	0.55	4.11	1.32	4.56	0.86
Are you at work when you are supposed to be there?	Punctuality	2.94	0.24	2.83	0.38	3.78	1.31	4.44	0.98
Do you keep yourself clean for work?	Personal hygiene	3.00	0.00	3.00	0.00	3.72	0.96	4.61	0.70
Do you get to work and back home without any trouble?	Travel	2.72	0.46	2.83	0.38	2.89	1.45	4.56	0.78
When you talk to people at work, do you understand them, and do they understand you?	Verbal communication	2.78	0.43	3.00	0.00	3.11	1.08	4.00	0.97
When you are at work, do you understand people, and do they understand you without talking?	Non-verbal communication	2.61	0.70	2.83	0.38	3.17	1.10	4.06	1.00
Do you understand how workers’ pay depends on how much work they do?	Money use	2.67	0.69	2.72	0.67	3.28	1.32	4.22	1.17
Do you read and understand the signs at work?	Reading	2.94	0.24	2.89	0.32	3.33	1.28	4.06	1.16
Do you understand how to use numbers to weight things measure things, and figure out how long it will take to do something at work?	Math	2.56	0.71	2.83	0.38	3.06	1.11	3.83	1.10
Do you carry an ID card, bus pass, or badge when you go to work? Do you use it when you need to?	Self-identification	2.28	0.96	2.28	0.96	3.33	1.24	4.44	0.98
Do you know which days you should go to work? Do you know when your holidays and days-off are?	Work schedule	2.72	0.67	2.94	0.24	3.39	1.29	4.56	0.92
Do you make appointments so they are not at the same time you go to work?	Personal schedule	2.50	0.71	2.61	0.70	3.33	1.33	4.50	0.86
Do you know where to find different places like the cafeteria and the restrooms at work?	Work facilities	2.78	0.55	3.00	0.00	3.33	1.28	4.50	0.92
Do you have good self-control?	Stress tolerance	2.61	0.50	2.72	0.46	3.11	1.13	3.56	1.10
Do you work well with people when you do your job?	Interpersonal work interactions	2.72	0.67	2.94	0.24	3.28	1.23	3.78	1.22
Do you get along with the people you work with when you take a break from your job duties?	Interpersonal social interactions	2.89	0.32	3.00	0.00	2.94	1.31	3.61	1.20
Do you keep doing good work when you have to do something new, or when your schedule changes?	Changes in routines	2.89	0.32	2.89	0.32	3.17	1.20	3.83	1.25
Are you honest?	Honesty	2.83	0.38	3.00	0.00	3.39	1.29	4.28	1.18
Do you change the way you work when your supervisor or co-worker asks you to?	Reaction to criticism	2.39	0.78	2.78	0.43	3.22	1.26	3.56	1.42
Do you start your work when you’re supposed to?	Work initiative	3.00	0.00	2.94	0.24	3.06	1.21	3.83	1.15
Do you pay attention when you need to, and finish all your work?	Work endurance	2.83	0.38	2.83	0.38	3.00	1.14	3.44	1.15
Do you work without making mistakes?	Quality of work	2.17	0.62	2.11	0.58	3.11	1.32	3.61	1.15
Are you fast enough to get your work done?	Quantity of work	2.61	0.70	2.72	0.46	3.17	1.38	3.78	1.17
When you have to do new things at work, can you learn them quickly?	Speed of learning new tasks	2.44	0.51	2.61	0.61	3.06	1.06	3.56	1.25
If you don’t do a job for a while, can you work as fast as you did before? Can you do the job without making mistakes?	Performance on previously learned tasks	2.61	0.70	2.17	0.71	3.17	1.15	4.06	1.00
Can you work on a few different things at the same time without making mistakes?	Multiple task performance	2.00	0.77	1.89	0.76	3.06	1.11	3.72	1.18
Do you set up your work materials so it’s easy to do your job?	Organization of work tasks	2.72	0.58	2.89	0.32	3.11	1.18	3.72	1.27
Do you follow safety rules at work?	Safety procedures	3.00	0.00	2.89	0.32	3.28	1.32	3.89	1.28
Do you keep yourself and your work materials clean?	Cleanliness of work environment	3.00	0.00	2.94	0.24	3.06	1.11	4.17	1.04
Do you enjoy your job and the people you work with?	Employee motivation	2.89	0.47	3.00	0.00	3.06	1.21	3.94	1.21

Pre-post mean scores in each of the 30 types of support items reported by job coaches and students were compared (Table 3). An increase in job coaches’ perception of types of support needed by students was consistent for all 30 areas, indicating coach perception of increased overall self-efficacy of the students by the end of the 8-week program. Students’ self-reported needs for types of support considerably increased with an indicated 25 areas (out of 30) of improvement self-identified by the end of the 8-week work program.

Table 3

Types of support student/job coach comparison

Student question	Job coach word	Student pre	Student post	Job coach pre	Job coach post
		Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Do you need help so you can get to work?	Attendance	2.39	0.70	2.50	0.51	4.00	1.33	4.11	1.37
Do you need help to get to work on time?	Punctuality	2.56	0.62	2.50	0.62	4.00	1.33	4.17	1.34
Do you need help to keep yourself clean?	Personal hygiene	2.83	0.38	2.78	0.43	3.89	1.02	4.39	1.09
Do you need help to get to work and back home?	Travel	2.22	0.81	2.44	0.62	3.17	1.65	4.06	1.35
Do you need help talking to other people and understanding them?	Verbal communication	2.61	0.50	2.78	0.43	3.22	1.22	3.72	1.27
Do you need help so you can understand other people and they can understand you without talking?	Non-verbal communication	2.44	0.51	2.72	0.46	3.44	1.29	4.22	1.17
Do you need help so you can understand how workers get paid?	Money use	2.61	0.61	2.67	0.49	3.50	1.43	4.22	1.22
Do you need help so you can read and understand these words and signs at work?	Reading	2.78	0.43	2.67	0.59	3.56	1.38	4.00	1.24
Do you need help so you can use numbers to weigh and measure things at work? Do you need help to figure out how long it takes to do things?	Math	2.28	0.90	2.61	0.61	3.22	1.26	3.83	1.15
Do you need help so you can use an ID card, bus pass, or badge when you go to work?	Self-identification	2.44	0.86	2.89	0.32	3.67	1.41	4.33	1.14
Do you need help to know which days and times you should go to work?	Work schedule	2.50	0.86	2.78	0.43	3.67	1.41	4.33	1.24
Do you need help to make your appointments so they don’t take away from work?	Personal schedule	1.89	0.90	2.11	0.76	3.67	1.41	4.33	1.19
Do you need help so you can find the different places like the cafeteria and the restrooms at work?	Work facilities	2.67	0.49	2.83	0.38	3.56	1.38	4.33	1.24
Can you keep working when you’re stressed out?	Stress tolerance	2.33	0.69	2.61	0.50	3.44	1.38	3.72	1.41
Do you need help getting along with people when you’re doing your work?	Interpersonal work interactions	2.78	0.43	2.89	0.32	3.33	1.33	3.61	1.46
Do you need help getting along with people during breaks, lunch, or before and after work?	Interpersonal social interactions	2.83	0.51	3.00	0.00	3.17	1.30	3.50	1.38
Do you need help to keep working well when your schedule or job duties change?	Changes in routines	2.39	0.61	2.44	0.62	3.33	1.41	3.78	1.44
Do you need help being honest?	Honesty	2.72	0.58	2.83	0.51	3.56	1.38	4.06	1.43
Do you need help changing the way you work when your supervisor or a co-worker asks you to?	Reaction to criticism	2.39	0.61	2.61	0.61	3.56	1.38	3.61	1.61
Do you need help getting started with your job duties?	Work initiative	2.72	0.46	2.67	0.49	3.22	1.35	3.89	1.41
Do you need help paying attention and finishing your work?	Work endurance	2.50	0.51	2.56	0.62	3.11	1.28	3.50	1.38
Do you need help with your work so you don’t make mistakes?	Quality of work	2.22	0.55	2.33	0.59	3.17	1.38	3.39	1.38
Do you need help to work faster so you can get everything finished?	Quantity of work	2.33	0.49	2.78	0.43	3.17	1.38	3.44	1.42
Do you need help learning to do new things at work?	Speed of learning new tasks	2.06	0.42	2.28	0.46	3.22	1.26	3.39	1.42
If you don’t do a job for a while, do you need help to learn how to do it again?	Performance on previously learned tasks	2.50	0.51	2.33	0.59	3.28	1.27	3.83	1.25
When you have to work on different things at the same time, do you need help so you don’t make mistakes?	Multiple task performance	2.00	0.49	2.17	0.51	3.39	1.38	3.78	1.26
Do you need help setting up your work materials to make your job easier?	Organization of work tasks	2.56	0.62	2.78	0.55	3.50	1.43	3.78	1.35
Do you need help following the safety rules at work?	Safety procedures	2.72	0.46	2.89	0.32	3.44	1.38	3.72	1.36
Do you need help keeping yourself and your materials clean?	Cleanliness of work environment	2.83	0.51	3.00	0.00	3.17	1.25	4.06	1.21
Do you enjoy your job and the people you work with?	Employee motivation	2.72	0.46	2.83	0.38	3.06	1.31	3.72	1.57

Table 4

Job sites

Job site	Type of workplace	Work tasks	Number of student program participants	Types of customized support provided by the job coach
Site 1	School district	Janitorial, maintenance, painting	3	Worksite analysis as setting changes, communication assistance, social skills training, time management assistance
Site 2	City parks	Yard work, painting, janitorial, landscaping	2	Emotional self-regulation, job analysis as jobs change in different parks, finding natural supports
Site 3	City buildings	General maintenance, painting, janitorial	2	Communication assistance, social skills training, social inclusion assistance
Site 4	Private businesses	Swimming pool care, yard work, janitorial	2	Job analysis as tasks and settings change, finding natural supports, memory strategies/cues
Site 5	Grocery store	Stocking, customer service, janitorial	4	Reading assistance, memory strategies/cues, assistive technology, social skills training, finding natural supports, task analysis/checklists
Site 6	School district	Janitorial, maintenance, painting, disinfecting	3	Communication assistance, social skills training
Site 7	School district	Janitorial, general maintenance	2	Job task preparation assistance, social skills training

4 Conclusions

A small group of secondary-level school students with intellectual disabilities attended a summer-long vocational rehabilitation program where they worked with a job coach at a work setting. Student participants and job coaches rated their perceptions of the students’ work performance quality and support needs before and after the program. Job coaches and students both reported significant increases in perception of quality of student performance. In addition, job coaches reported students needing significantly less employment supports by program end. Student participants also reported needing less employment supports by program end; however, results were not significant. Overall, results identified statistically significant changes in both groups pre-post-program, indicating a perceived increase in work performance and a decrease in support needs. Both assessments, therefore, were sufficient in detecting these differences.

Early work experiences for students with intellectual disabilities, such as the summer vocational rehabilitation program in this study, serve as an important foundation for future integrated employment (American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 2017). The most effective programs obtain student input (Patton & Kim, 2016), include assessment, and provide employment supports (American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 2017). It was previously recommended that work performance and support needs be analyzed by various stakeholders (Carter et al., 2014). In this program and study, student and family input was obtained for choice of work setting, job coaches were provided as a first level of support, and both students and their job coaches were assessed about their perceptions. Participation in summer early work experiences for students with intellectual disabilities is influenced by job skill and support levels (Carter et al., 2011). Because those with intellectual disabilities are employed at low rates, and more study on work participation factors is recommended for this group (Ellenkamp et al., 2016), the current study aimed to close this research gap and add to the literature by analyzing quality of work as well as need for support for students in a summer work program.

When perceptions of the students’ work performance quality were surveyed in this study, both student participants and their job coaches noted improvement over the course of the program. Possibly, the students felt more confident in performing their job tasks because they provided pre-program input into choice of job setting. Student input during school-work transition meetings has been found to predict positive future outcomes (Patton & Kim, 2016). Post-program, too, experience gained not only at the job site but also from the curriculum sessions may have influenced their higher work quality ratings. Specific work skills perceived as most improved post-program by the students included those focused on during the curricular lessons including social skills, relationships, and accepting constructive criticism.

When student support needs before and after the program were assessed, both students and job coaches also perceived less need for employment supports over time. Lack of supports has been described as a barrier to summer work experience participation for some (Carter et al., 2011). If students initially perceive that they need few supports for summer program participation, they may be more apt to enroll in the vocational rehabilitation program. Post-program, students reported that support needs in some areas did not decrease. Possibly, with only a summer-long experience, they may not have had enough time to try enough supports to overcome all barriers, or they may have learned that some supports may always be needed.

Early summer work experiences are important events that assist in job and social skill improvements as students move from school to work. Specifically, the program in this study included student input into choice of work setting, use of job coaches, as well as use of a supporting social skills training curriculum that may have helped positively influence student and coach perceptions of enhanced work quality and reduced support needs. Program improvements, appreciating limited time and resources, are recommended. Extending the length of the program or number of work hours may allow more time to practice skills learned in the curriculum session. Also, more training for job coaches on not only student limitations but also strengths and possibly more involvement with their students’ treatment plans may help with their assessment of personalized supports for their students.

The self-report nature of the surveys and the possibility that some questions were misunderstood, although accessibility was improved for students with assistance of administrators, if needed; limited results. In addition, the use of only one agency’s summer vocational rehabilitation program and small sample size due to pandemic safety guidelines limited study generalizability. When comparing data from the two similar instruments, the scales were not exactly the same. The job coach’s instrument rated perception of student quality of performance and types of support needed on a 1–5 scale. The student’s instrument rated those perceptions on a scale of 1–3. The lack of consistency between scale measurements required results to be reported on an average scale to make the two quantities comparable.

For vocational rehabilitation agencies that conduct summer early work experience programs, results of this study suggest that, although time may limit application, that students be involved in choice of setting but also initially and specifically educated about the expectations and quality demands of the chosen job. Personalized supports should be discussed with the student by the job coach initially and continue during the experience. The job coach, too, should be trained, and possibly take a certification course, in understanding intellectual disability from a strengths-based approach as well as be more informed on the variety of employment supports available. When both student and job coach realistically view student work performance and supports needed, the school-to-work transition can be improved.

Interestingly, student participants perceived their work quality before and after the program at a significantly higher level than did their coaches. Results of this study mirror two other studies where students with intellectual disabilities rated their job skills and abilities at higher levels than did the adults and teachers working with them (Carter et al., 2014; Brady et al., 2010). Also, student participants perceived their support needs lower than the ratings of their coaches, similar to results of another study (Brady et al., 2010). Although this may be an interesting finding, and the difference in instrument scoring could explain it; the result may be not be pertinent or a concern in this study as both instruments detected similar significant trends. However, if these assessment instruments are used to individualize training or provide on-the-job supports, differences in expectations of students and coaches in the areas of work performance and job supports should be further studied. For example, if students over-estimated job skills, opportunities to teach specific skills could be missed; or if job coaches over-estimated support needs, the supports may possibly reduce student independence.

Employment of students with intellectual disabilities as they transition from school to work (Simonsen et al., 2015) and in the future as adults (O’Sullivan et al., 2012) will hinge on their ability to perform quality work and use employment supports. A possible follow-up to this study would be to further delineate specific types and tools for each of the generalized areas of support indicated in the instruments. In addition, an avenue for future research would be to obtain input on student work performance and supports needed from additional stakeholders such as parents and summer program employers. Comparing their scores to scores of the job coach who spends the most time with the student may produce further understanding and clarification.

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

None to report.

Conflict of interest

None to report.

Ethical declaration

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from Truman State University Institutional Review Board (HES/12320).

Funding

A small university-sponsored grant funded this project (no. TS-S20).

Informed consent

Employment agency director consent, parent/guardian consent, and participant consent/assent were obtained.

References

American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. (2017). Employment: Joint position statement of the AAIDD and the ARC. Retrieved from https://www.aaidd.org/news-policy/policy/position-statements/employment.

Bennett,

, Frain,

, Brady,

M. P

, Surinak,

, & Rosenberg,

(2009) Differences between employees’ and supervisors’ evaluations of work performance and support needs. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44(4), 471–480.

Brady,

M. P

, Frain,

, Duffy,

M. L

, & Bucholz,

(2010) Evaluating work performance and support needs in supported employment training programs: Correspondence between teachers’ ratings and students’ self ratings?Journal of Rehabilitation, 76(3), 24–31.

Brady,

M. P

, & Rosenberg,

(2002) Job observation and behavior scale: A supported employment assessment instrument. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37(4), 427–433.

Brady,

M. P

, Rosenberg,

, & Frain,

M. P.

(2008) A self-evaluation instrument for work performance and support needs. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 31(3), 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728808327150.

Carter,

E. W

, Trainor,

A. A

, Ditchman,

, Swedeen,

, & Owens,

(2011) Community-based summer work experiences of adolescents with high-incidence disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 45(2), 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466909353204.

Carter,

E. W.

, Austin,

, & Trainor,

A. A.

(2011a) Factors associated with the early work experiences of adolescents with severe disabilities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 49(4), 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-49.4.233.

Carter,

E. W

, Brock,

M. E

, & Trainor,

A. A.

(2014) Transition assessment and planning for youth with severe intellectual and developmental disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 47(4), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466912456241.

Denny-Brown,

, O’Day,

, & McLeod,

(2015) Staying employed: Services and supports for workers with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 26(2), 124–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207315583899.

10.

Ellenkamp,

J. J

, Brouwers,

E. P

, Embregts,

P. J

, Joosen,

M. C

, & Weeghel,

J. V.

(2016) Work environment-related factors in obtaining and maintaining work in a competitive employment setting for employees with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 26(1), 56–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-015-9586-1.

11.

Gosse,

, Griffiths,

, Owen,

, & Feldman,

(2017) Impact of an individualized planning approach on personal outcomes and supports for persons with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 14, 198–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12209.

12.

Noel,

V. A

, Oulvey,

, Drake,

R. E

, & Bond,

G. R.

(2017) Barriers to employment for transition-age youth with developmental and psychiatric disabilities. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 44(3), 354–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-016-0773-y.

13.

O’Sullivan,

, Strauser,

D. R

, & Wong,

A. W.

(2012) Five-factor model of personality, work behavior self-efficacy, and length of prior employment for individuals with disabilities: An exploratory analysis. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 55(3), 156–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034355212437046.

14.

Patton,

J. R.

, & Kim,

M. K.

(2016) The importance of transition planning for special needs students. Revista Portugesa de Educação, 29(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.21814/rpe.8713.

15.

Simonsen,

, Fablan,

, & Luecking,

R. G.

(2015) Employer preferences in hiring youth with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 81(1), 9–18.

16.

Southward,

J. D

, & Kyzar,

(2017) Predictors of competitive employment for students with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 52(1), 26–37.

17.

Thompson,

J. R

, Bradley,

V. J

, Buntinx,

W. H

, Schalock,

R. L

, Shogren,

K. A

, Snell,

M. E

, Wehmeyer,

M. L

, Borthwick-Duffy,

, Coulter,

D. L

, Craig,

E. P. M

, Gomez,

S. C

, Lachapelle,

, Luckasson,

R. A

, Reeve,

, Spreat,

, Tassá,

M. J

, Verdugo,

M. A

, & Yeager,

M. H.

(2009) Conceptualizing supports and thesupport needs of people with intellectual disability. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 47(2), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-47.2.135.

18.

Wehman,

, Chan,

, Ditchman,

, & Kang,

(2014) Effect of supported employment on vocational rehabilitation outcomes of transition-age youth with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A case control study. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 52(4), 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-52.4.296.

	Student		Job coach
	M	SD	M	SD	t-test
Quality performance – pre	85.09	9.47	61.20	25.32	–4^***
Quality performance – post	88.15	4.99	75.56	4.99	–2.64^*
Types of support – pre	74.72	16.64	60.56	30.29	–2.37^*
Types of support – post	82.13	10.83	72.36	27.74	–1.80