Parent and student participation in IEP meetings: Transition-aged students still overlooked

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Although parents and transition-aged students are critical stakeholders in Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings, little is known about the extent to which both groups contribute during such meetings.

OBJECTIVE:

We examined the nature and extent of parent and student IEP meeting participation, similarities and differences in participation, and associated predictors for each group.

METHODS:

Responding to a national, web-based survey, 240 parents of transition-aged students (14– 21 years) completed a questionnaire related to their experiences at their child’s most recent IEP meeting.

RESULTS:

For both parents and students, participation items grouped into school- and transition-related input. Overall, parents participated more than students and both parties contributed more toward school-related versus transition-related topics. Predictors of parent involvement included sharing input about the student before the IEP meeting and reviewing data on the student’s past performance during the IEP meeting. Student involvement was predicted by students actively leading their meeting.

CONCLUSION:

We offer recommendations for research and practice for facilitating parents and transition-aged students to actively participate in IEP meetings.

Keywords

Special education IEPs transition parents students

1 Introduction

Transition planning is a process to prepare students who have an individualized education program (IEP) for adulthood. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; 2004) requires this planning to start by the time the student is 16 years of age (or 14 in some states). To develop a transition plan, an IEP team—comprised of the parent/guardian, a general education teacher, a special education teacher, a school district representative, the transition-aged child, and an expert who can interpret evaluation results — collaborates with both the student and their parent to identify strengths and areas of need and develop goals for life after high school. Despite this process, youth with disabilities remain more likely than typically developing peers to lag in critical life skills and to live with their families after high school (Newman et al., 2011). High-quality transition-planning can, however, help close such gaps by providing students with the skills to have meaningful roles in community, living, and work (Wehman, 2013). Successful transition-planning depends on several factors, including successful collaboration among IEP team members, including parents and students (Wagner et al., 2012).

Despite their importance as central stakeholders, parents and students are among the least active participants among the IEP team (Martin et al., 2004; Martin et al., 2006). Yet their participation is crucial because IEP meetings serve as the primary forum regarding the instructional placement, goals, services, and supports. According to IDEA (2004), parent and student involvement is legally mandated in the IEP process during transition planning. School personnel must facilitate active, meaningful parent and student participation (Drasgow et al., 2001). It is therefore critical to examine the factors underlying parent and student participation so that these stakeholders can meaningfully contribute toward the development of an appropriate educational plan.

IEP meetings also provide ideal occasions for the IEP team to collaborate on designing educational programs and transition services based on students’ strengths and needs (Drasgow et al., 2001). Because parents and teachers provide different perspectives (Carter et al., 2014), parents are often considered experts on their child and incorporating their input is essential for capturing the most complete picture of the student. Indeed, low parental involvement is associated with higher rates of due process hearings (Burke & Goldman, 2015). In contrast, parental involvement is associated with many benefits, including increased student preparation for program placements (Wolery, 1989), greater independence and social adjustment (Newman, 2005), and positive postsecondary outcomes (Lindstrom et al., 2007; Test et al., 2009).

Despite these benefits, parent participation at IEP meetings has been difficult to achieve (Blackwell & Rossetti, 2014; Martin et al., 2004). Families want to be perceived as equal stakeholders, yet school professionals often relegate them to passive roles (Mueller & Buckley, 2014). Some families feel marginalized and generally disrespected by school personnel (Wang et al., 2004). Parents also report communication challenges with schools and disagreement regarding how their children are perceived (Tucker & Schwartz, 2013). The tension that then develops in IEP meetings between parents and school professionals can hinder the efficacy of delivered services and the student’s well-being (Lake & Billingsley, 2000). Nevertheless, parents ultimately want to be involved in the IEP process (Staples & Diliberto, 2010).

While benefits and barriers of parent involvement during the IEP meeting have been identified, little is known about the areas of input that comprise participation. Studies have measured only the parents’ general verbal contributions during the IEP meeting, not the contents of that participation (Brinckerhoff & Vincent, 1986; Goldstein & Turnbull, 1982; Jones & Gansle, 2010). For transition-aged youth, more work is needed to understand how parental input might vary by topic discussed at the IEP meeting (e.g., future plans, areas of need). Moreover, it is unknown how different areas of input correspond with one another.

In addition to fostering participation by parents, IDEA also emphasizes student involvement. Specifically, transition-aged students must be invited to attend IEP meetings in which transition goals are being discussed (IDEA, 2004). Even if students cannot attend, then their interests and preferences must be considered when developing the transition plan (IDEA, 2004). Student involvement is associated with higher graduation rates and higher levels of goal attainment (Powers et al., 2001); IEP meetings also provide opportunities for students to practice and develop self-determination skills (Test et al., 2004), which lead to better post-school outcomes such as employment and community access (Shogren et al., 2015).

Although students increasingly attend their IEP meetings as they age (Sanderson & Goldman, 2021), few actively participate (Martin et al., 2004). In one study, students only spoke 3% of the time (Martin et al., 2006); in another, only one-third of students attended their most recent IEP meeting and most did not actively participate (Sanderson & Goldman, 2021). Instead, adults commonly conduct the meeting without the student’s participation or perspectives. Thus, it is important to better understand the factors that could bolster involvement of transition-aged students within the IEP meeting.

In addition to knowing little about the amount of parent or student IEP participation, we also know little about how the two compare with one another. Instead, studies have primarily focused on parent involvement more broadly (e.g., attending meetings and events, volunteering), with conflicting findings. In one study, parent involvement was associated with lower rates of student attendance in their transition planning meetings (Griffin et al., 2014); in another, with higher rates of active student participation (Wagner et al., 2012). Consequently, it is unknown whether the nature or extent of parent participation is related to student participation.

Still, some correlates have been identified of both parent and student participation. Increased parent participation, including forms of participation outside of the IEP meeting, seems associated with more teacher outreach (Anderson & Minke, 2007), positive relationships with the school (Fish, 2008), and higher socioeconomic status (SES; Fantuzzo et al., 2000). Parent participation is negatively associated with ethnic minority status (Lo, 2008; Rodriguez et al., 2014; Wilson, 2015). For students, participation in the IEP meeting is associated with higher functional cognitive skills, social skills, older age, more time in general education, a household income over $50,000, higher parental expectations for post-school education, and greater academic support from parents (Wagner et al., 2012). Additional studies have also linked student participation to higher self-advocacy skills and discussion of post-school plans at home (Griffin et al., 2014), as well as stronger parent-teacher partnerships (Sanderson & Goldman, 2021). To date, however, little is known regarding which parent, student, school, or parent-school relationship variables correlate with specific areas of IEP participation for both parents and their transition-aged students with disabilities.

Finally, the research base has inconsistently defined and measured IEP participation. To illustrate, some studies have measured participation as a dichotomous (i.e., yes/no) variable (e.g., Griffin et al., 2014; Wagner et al., 2012), whereas others have measured it as a small subset of behaviors (e.g., Cease-Cook et al., 2013). Moreover, participation has been conceptually defined in different ways. In one study (Martin et al., 1996), for example, student participation was conceptualized in terms of leadership roles during the IEP meeting; in another (Van Reusen et al., 1994), participation was instead conceptualized in terms of delivering input specific to the IEP. By measuring both these areas of participation, our goal was to more broadly and better understand the behaviors that comprise participation.

In this study, we addressed these research questions: (1) What is the nature (i.e., how does participation look) and extent of parent and transition-aged student participation during IEP meetings?; (2) What are the similarities and differences in parent and transition-aged student participation?; and (3) What are predictors of parent and of transition-aged student participation during IEP meetings?

2 Method

2.1 Participants

To obtain a diverse sample, we recruited participants nationwide. Over 7,500 disability organizations and professionals listed in the A through Z Yellow Pages for Kids with Disabilities were contacted via social media and e-mail. We also contacted organizations dedicated to serving minority groups with children receiving special education services (e.g., Fiesta Educativa in Los Angeles, CA), as well as attendees from the Volunteer Advocacy Project in Nashville, TN. Snowball sampling was also used by asking potential participants to share the study with others.

Comprising a subset of a larger sample, respondents included 240 parents or legal guardians of children with disabilities. Participants were required to have a child with a disability (a) between the ages of 5– 21 years and (b) a current IEP. A total of 1,183 participants responded to the survey. Given that 14 is the age at which some states start including a transition component and we wanted to compare student and parent IEP participation, we excluded all participants whose child was below 14 years of age (n = 382) and those participants whose child did not attend their IEP meeting. Respondents were mostly Caucasian mothers who were college educated and married or in a domestic partnership. See Table 1.

Table 1
Demographics of parent respondents and children with disabilities

Mean (SD) % (n)

Parent respondent

Role Mother 84.6% (203)

Gender Female 96.2% (230)

Age 48.62 (6.97)

Ethnicity Caucasian 90.8% (216)

African American 2.9% (7)

Latino/Hispanic 3.4% (8)

Asian .4% (1)

Native American .4% (1)

Other 2.1% (5)

Education Some high school .8% (2)

High school graduate 5.9% (14)

Some college 21.9% (52)

College graduate 33.3% (79)

Some graduate school 7.2% (17)

Graduate school graduate 30.8% (73)

Marital status Single 4.6% (11)

Married or domestic partnership 76.1% (181)

Divorced or separated 17.6 % (42)

Widowed 1.7% (4)

Number of children 1 16.0% (38)

2 45.8% (109)

3 25.2% (60)

4 9.2% (22)

5 or more 3.8% (9)

Number of children with disability 1 61.9% (148)

2 28.0% (67)

3 8.4% (20)

4 1.3% (3)

5 or more .4 (1)

Income Less than $20,000 6.9% (16)

$20,001 – $50,000 19.8% (46)

$50,001 – $80,000 19.4% (45)

$80,001 – $100,000 15.9% (37)

More than $100,000 37.9% (88)

Employment Full-time 51.7% (124)

Part-time 22.9% (55)

Unemployed 25.4% (61)

Health status Poor 2.1% (5)

Fair 23.8% (57)

Good 38.8% (93)

Very good 25.8% (62)

Excellent 9.6% (23)

Stress 16.40 (4.02)

Stress related to child 40.19 (10.57

Child with disability

Age 16.56 (1.98)

Gender Male 64.8% (151)

With whom lives Respondent 94.6% (226)

Disability Autism 40.0% (96)

Blind/visual impairment 5.0% (12)

Deafness/hearing impairment 8.8% (21)

Developmental delay 23.8% (57)

Emotional disturbance 21.7% (52)

Intellectual disability 24.6% (59)

Multiple disabilities 16.7% (40)

Orthopedic impairment 8.3% (20)

Other health impairment (OHI) 30.4% (73)

Specific learning disability 32.5% (78)

Speech or language impairment 22.9% (55)

Traumatic brain injury 4.2% (10)

Down syndrome 5.8% (14)

Cerebral palsy 7.1% (17)

Health status Poor 2.9% (7)

Fair 12.1% (29)

Good 39.2% (94)

Very good 31.3% (75)

Excellent 14.6% (35)

WeeFIM 103.83 (20.29)

SIB-R ASOC Maladaptive Index – 7.98 (11.78)

		Mean (SD)	% (n)
Parent respondent
Role	Mother		84.6% (203)
Gender	Female		96.2% (230)
Age		48.62 (6.97)
Ethnicity	Caucasian		90.8% (216)
	African American		2.9% (7)
	Latino/Hispanic		3.4% (8)
	Asian		.4% (1)
	Native American		.4% (1)
	Other		2.1% (5)
Education	Some high school	.8% (2)
	High school graduate		5.9% (14)
	Some college		21.9% (52)
	College graduate		33.3% (79)
	Some graduate school		7.2% (17)
	Graduate school graduate		30.8% (73)
Marital status	Single	4.6% (11)
	Married or domestic partnership		76.1% (181)
	Divorced or separated		17.6 % (42)
	Widowed		1.7% (4)
Number of children	1	16.0% (38)
	2		45.8% (109)
	3		25.2% (60)
	4		9.2% (22)
	5 or more		3.8% (9)
Number of children with disability	1	61.9% (148)
	2		28.0% (67)
	3		8.4% (20)
	4		1.3% (3)
	5 or more	.4 (1)
Income	Less than $20,000	6.9% (16)
	$20,001 – $50,000		19.8% (46)
	$50,001 – $80,000		19.4% (45)
	$80,001 – $100,000		15.9% (37)
More than $100,000		37.9% (88)
Employment	Full-time	51.7% (124)
	Part-time		22.9% (55)
	Unemployed		25.4% (61)
Health status	Poor	2.1% (5)
	Fair		23.8% (57)
	Good		38.8% (93)
	Very good		25.8% (62)
	Excellent		9.6% (23)
Stress		16.40 (4.02)
Stress related to child		40.19 (10.57
Child with disability
Age		16.56 (1.98)
Gender	Male		64.8% (151)
With whom lives	Respondent		94.6% (226)
Disability	Autism		40.0% (96)
	Blind/visual impairment		5.0% (12)
	Deafness/hearing impairment		8.8% (21)
	Developmental delay		23.8% (57)
	Emotional disturbance		21.7% (52)
	Intellectual disability		24.6% (59)
	Multiple disabilities		16.7% (40)
	Orthopedic impairment		8.3% (20)
	Other health impairment (OHI)		30.4% (73)
	Specific learning disability		32.5% (78)
	Speech or language impairment		22.9% (55)
	Traumatic brain injury		4.2% (10)
	Down syndrome		5.8% (14)
	Cerebral palsy		7.1% (17)
Health status	Poor		2.9% (7)
	Fair		12.1% (29)
	Good		39.2% (94)
	Very good		31.3% (75)
	Excellent		14.6% (35)
WeeFIM		103.83 (20.29)
SIB-R ASOC Maladaptive Index		– 7.98 (11.78)

Transition-aged students were mostly male and had a range of disabilities, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, Down syndrome, intellectual disability, and learning disability. The mean age of students was 16 years old (range = 14– 21 years). Most lived with the survey respondent and were in good health. The mean scores on the WeeFIM, a scale of an individual’s ability to independently complete a variety of daily living skills, was 103.78 (SD = 20.16; range = 18– 90). Most students were expected to receive a high school diploma.

2.2 Procedures

Through an iterative process, the survey was created using concepts and questions from literature of student participation in IEP meetings (e.g., Van Reusen et al., 1994; Martin et al., 1996). Piloted and revised based on feedback, the survey was then submitted to and approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board. Lastly, the survey was uploaded to REDCap, a secure online platform (Harris et al., 2009), and made available to the public.

Respondents completed surveys anonymously on-line between September 2017 and January 2018. Our purpose was to better understand the IEP process, including student and parent/legal guardian participation. The instructions stated that only one parent/legal guardian per family could participate and that the respondent had to be at least 18 years old. If a household had more than one child with an IEP, respondents were asked to answer for the oldest child. Surveys took approximately 30 minutes to complete and were available in English and Spanish. Upon completing the survey, participants were thanked and provided the option of entering a drawing in which 50 randomly selected winners would receive a $20 electronic gift card. Responses were stored in REDCap and later transferred to SPSS for statistical computations.

2.3 Survey

The survey was comprised of four sections, which included information about: the parent respondent (e.g., parent demographics, personality, stress), the student with a disability (e.g., age, functional ability, behavior), the parent respondent’s relationship with the school (e.g., family-professional partnership, parent-teacher communication, school satisfaction), and the student’s attendance and participation at their IEP meeting (e.g., introducing IEP team members, giving educational input or preferences). Most responses were categorical or on a Likert-type scale. Branching logic was used throughout, such that respondents only saw certain follow-up questions if they answered a particular way to a previous question. A small number of questions involved open-ended responses.

2.3.1 Dependent variables

2.3.1.1. Parent input during IEP meeting. Respondents rated the extent to which, during their child’s most recent IEP meeting, they shared their input or preferences for nine areas: school courses, classroom placement, strengths, area(s) of need, IEP goals, transition goals, post-school employment, post-school living arrangements, and post-school education. Respondents answered on a 5-point Likert-scale: (1) not at all, (2) a little, (3) some, (4) quite a bit, and (5) extensively. Items were developed based on Van Reusen et al. (1994) in which participation was measured in terms of giving input specific to IEP content.

2.3.1.2. Student input during IEP meeting. Respondents also rated the extent to which their transition-aged student shared their input or preferences for the same nine areas listed above. Respondents again answered on a 5-point Likert-scale from (1) not at all to (5) extensively.

2.3.2 Independent variables

Our independent variables ranged across the following four areas.

2.3.2.1. Parent respondent. Independent variables related to the parent respondent included: gender, age, zip code, income, education, ethnicity, marital status, number of children, number of children with a disability, employment status, and personality type measured by the Big Five Inventory-10 (BFI-10; Rammstedt & John, 2007). We also asked 13 specific, school-related questions from the Parent Stress Index (PSI; Abidin, 2012) regarding factors directly related to the child with a disability (i.e., developmental progress, being bullied, behavior problems). Participants rated themselves on a 5-point Likert scale from (1) not at all to (5) a lot. Cronbach’s alpha equaled .865. All items were computed into a single variable to simplify analyses (range = 13 – 65).

2.3.2.2. Student with a disability. Respondents answered questions pertaining to child age, gender, disability, health status, and challenging behavior. See Table 1 for response options. For challenging behavior, we used the Scales of Independent Behavior – Revised (SIB-R; Bruininks et al., 1996), which has been shown to have great reliability in other studies with parents of transition-aged youth with disabilities (e.g., α= .77; Mello et al., 2021). Participants rated their offspring on eight items (e.g., hurtful to self, withdrawal) on a 6-point Likert scale to describe the frequency of behavior from (1) never to (6) one or more times per hour, and the severity of behavior from (1) not severe to (6) extremely severe. Functional ability was measured using the Pediatric Functional Independence Measure for Children (WeeFIMtrademark; Msall et al., 1994), which measures the assistance required for a child with a disability to complete basic tasks. Although originally designed for children aged birth to 7 years, this instrument has been used with older children and teenagers with disabilities (Azaula et al., 2000; Oates et al., 2011). For youth with disabilities, this measure has strong internal consistency reliability (>.90) and concurrent validity (>.85; Msall et al., 1996). Participants rated 18 items (e.g., eating, grooming, bathing) on a 7-point Likert scale from: (1) total assistance to (7) total independence. Total scores range from 18 (requires total assistance in each activity) to 126 (total independence in each activity; α= .95). Higher scores indicated greater independence. For this study, Cronbach’s alpha = .955. To simplify analyses, all items were computed into a single variable (range = 18– 85).

Respondents also indicated their child’s placement on a typical school day by selecting one of the following items: (1) all day in a general education classroom, (2) most of the day in a general education classroom, (3) half of the day in a special education classroom, (4) majority of the day in a special education classroom, (5) all day in a special education classroom, (6) Unsure. Data for respondents who selected “Unsure” (n = 9) were imputed into the item with the greatest frequency (i.e., all day in general education).

2.3.2.3. Parent’s relationship with IEP team members. This section contained questions about the respondent’s relationship with the IEP team, frequency of communication, and familiarity with adult services.

2.3.2.4. Family-professional partnership scale. Respondents answered questions related to their satisfaction with their school relationship. The Family Professional Partnership (FPP) Scale broadly measures partnership, including collaboration, communication, and family involvement (Summers et al., 2005). Both the overall scale and two subscales demonstrate strong psychometric properties; Cronbach’s alpha for satisfaction ratings on the overall scale was 0.96, .94 for child-focused items, and .92 for family-focused items (Summers et al., 2005). For each item, respondents answered on a 5-point Likert-scale, from (1) very dissatisfied to (5) very satisfied. The Child-Professional Relationship subscale assesses the activities, attitudes, and services of the professional caring for the child with a disability (e.g., treating the child with dignity). In this study, Cronbach’s alpha = .961. The Family-Focused Relationship subscale assesses respectful and supportive treatment of the family (e.g., respects the family’s values and beliefs). Internal consistency was high, with Cronbach’s alpha = .957. Items corresponding with each subscale of the FPP were computed into a single variable.

2.3.2.5. Parent-teacher communication. Respondents rated the frequency that they communicated with their child’s teacher. Respondents answered on a 5-point Likert scale: (1) daily, (2) weekly, (3) a few times per month, (4) monthly, (5) less than once per month.

2.3.2.6. Familiarity with adult services. Respondents rated their familiarity with adult services for individuals with disabilities (e.g., vocational rehabilitation, Social Security Administration, postsecondary education). Respondents answered on a 5-point Likert scale: (1) I am not aware of this service, (2) I have heard of this service, (3) my child’s school has mentioned this service, (4) I am in contact with this service, (5) my child receives this service. All items were summed to create a single variable.

2.3.2.7. Child’s most recent IEP meeting. Characteristics of the student’s most recent IEP meeting included student attendance at their most recent IEP meeting (yes/no), parents’ input prior to the IEP meeting, and student input during the IEP meeting.

2.3.2.8. Prior input. Respondents rated the extent to which the school personnel asked for their input about the student prior to the IEP meeting. Items related to the extent to which parents were asked about students’ progress on past IEP goals, strengths, areas of need, input for new IEP goals, input for new transition goals, post-school preferences for work, post-school preferences for education, and post-school preferences for living arrangements. Respondents answered on a 5-point Likert scale: (1) not at all to (5) a lot. As a principal components analysis indicated that all items loaded onto a single factor; items were summed to create a single variable.

2.3.2.9. Person centered planning. Respondents rated the extent to which the IEP team focused on the student’s vision of what they would like to do in the future. A definition was provided and participants responded to a single item on a 5-point Likert scale from (1) not at all to (5) a lot.

2.3.2.10. Strengths based approach. Respondents rated the extent to which school personnel used a strengths-based approach during their child’s last IEP meeting. As above, a definition was provided and participants responded to a single item on a similar 5-point Likert scale.

2.3.2.11. IEP data. Respondents rated the extent to which school personnel presented data on their child’s past goal performance during the IEP meeting, again on a similar 5-point Likert scale.

2.3.2.12. Perceptions of IEP meeting. Respondents rated the extent to which they felt: (a) part of the team; (b) the team cared about the family’s opinions; (c) the team respected the family’s cultural values; (d) the meeting was individualized to the child; (e) the atmosphere was warm and welcoming; and (f) parents felt intimidated by the team (reverse-scored). Respondents answered on a 5-point Likert-scale from (1) not at all, to (5) extremely. As items loaded onto a single factor, they were summed to create a single variable.

2.3.2.13. Student portion of meeting attended. Respondents indicated how much of the IEP meeting their child attended: (1) A small portion (about 25% of the meeting), (2) about half (50% of meeting), (3) A large portion (about 75% of the meeting), (4) the entire meeting (100%).

2.3.2.14. Student IEP activities. Respondents rated the extent to which their child participated in 6 activities during the IEP meeting. Items were developed based on leadership activities discussed in Martin et al. (1996). These included introducing IEP team members, stating the purpose of the meeting, reviewing past goals, stating future goals, stating post-school preferences, and closing the meeting. Respondents answered on a 5-point Likert-scale from (1) not at all to (5) extensively. After principal component analyses revealed that items loaded onto a single factor, all variables were computed into a single variable.

2.4 Analyses

In line with the study’s research questions, we conducted three sets of analyses.

2.4.1 Nature of IEP participation

First, we conducted factor analyses with a varimax rotation to reveal relationships within our two dependent variables. One factor analysis was conducted for parents’ participation and another for students’ participation. To determine average-item scores, items loading onto each factor were added together and divided by the factor’s total number of items. After factor analyses were conducted, missing data (<5% for all DV items) were imputed for scales, with mean scores of remaining factor items substituted for missing values (Harrell, 2001). If a participant missed all items corresponding with parent or student participation, they were removed from subsequent analyses. This resulted in a final participant count of 240.

2.4.2 Comparison of levels of parent and student input

Following the factor analysis, mean item scores were compared for each IEP participation area, for both parents and students. Factor average-item scores were compared using a repeated-measures ANOVA.

2.4.3 Correlates and predictors of parent and student input

2.4.3.1. Univariate analyses. First, univariate analyses were conducted between each potential predictor and each factor domain. Pearson r correlations were conducted for continuous correlates and independent sample t-tests for categorical correlates. Given the large number of potential predictors, univariate predictors were considered significant at the p < .01 level.

2.4.3.2. Regression analyses. Two separate multiple linear regressions were then conducted to assess which of the outcome measures at the p < .01 level predicted parent and student IEP participation. Regression findings were considered significant at the p < .05 level.

3 Results

3.1 Nature of IEP participation

Overall, school personnel solicited the input of both parents (mean = 2.50; SD = 1.12) and students (mean = 2.12; SD = 0.98) only a little. For parents, school personnel mostly asked for their input on their child’s needs, strengths, and IEP goals, respectively. For students, meanwhile, school personnel most asked for their input on courses, placement, and strengths. Both parents and students were asked about postsecondary living the least.

For parents, two factors emerged from the factor analysis: school-related input (Cronbach’s α= .897) and transition-related input (Cronbach’s α= .924). Factor names were created based on loaded items. School-related input accounted for 64.94% of the variance and was comprised of the following five items: school courses, classroom placement, strengths, area(s) of need, and IEP goals. Transition-related input accounted for an additional 11.67% of the variance and was comprised of transition goals, post-school employment, post-school living arrangements, and post-school education.

For students, the same two factors emerged from the factor analysis: school-related input (Cronbach’s α= .885), and transition-related input (Cronbach’s α= .911), with each factor containing the same survey items. School-related input accounted for 61.34% of the variance. Transition-related input accounted for an additional 12.73% of the variance. See Table 2.

Table 2
Factor analysis rotated components

Parent input Student input

Factor loadings Factor loadings

Mean (SD) I (School) II (Transition) Mean (SD) I (School) II (Transition)

Needs 3.03 (1.36) .855 Needs 2.17 (1.26) .830

Placement 2.50 (1.48) .800 Placement 2.26 (1.41) .797

IEP Goal 2.77 (1.39) .800 IEP Goal 1.84 (1.15) .710

Strengths 2.91 (1.41) .768 Strengths 2.26 (1.32) .705

Courses 2.70 (1.43) .695 Courses 2.60 (1.31) .799

Living 1.86 (1.29) .894 Living 1.77 (1.19) .877

Employment 2.09 (1.35) .875 Employment 2.01 (1.22) .861

PSE 2.17 (1.39) .850 PSE 2.15 (1.32) .831

Transition Goal 2.50 (1.40) .658 Transition Goal 2.02 (1.19) .771

Eigenvalue 5.845 1.050 Eigenvalue 5.521 1.146

% of variance 64.940 11.665 % of variance 61.341 12.728

Parent input	Student input
Needs	3.03 (1.36)	.855		Needs	2.17 (1.26)	.830
Placement	2.50 (1.48)	.800		Placement	2.26 (1.41)	.797
IEP Goal	2.77 (1.39)	.800		IEP Goal	1.84 (1.15)	.710
Strengths	2.91 (1.41)	.768		Strengths	2.26 (1.32)	.705
Courses	2.70 (1.43)	.695		Courses	2.60 (1.31)	.799
Living	1.86 (1.29)		.894	Living	1.77 (1.19)		.877
Employment	2.09 (1.35)		.875	Employment	2.01 (1.22)		.861
PSE	2.17 (1.39)		.850	PSE	2.15 (1.32)		.831
Transition Goal	2.50 (1.40)		.658	Transition Goal	2.02 (1.19)		.771
Eigenvalue		5.845	1.050	Eigenvalue		5.521	1.146
% of variance		64.940	11.665	% of variance		61.341	12.728

3.2 Comparison between parent and student participation

Using a 2 participant (parent vs. student) x 2 IEP domain (school vs. transition areas) ANOVA, with both participant and domain repeated, school personnel asked for input more from the parents than from students, F(1, 239) = 32.66, p < .01, and both parents and students gave more input on school-related areas than transition-related areas, F(1, 239) = 72.25, p < .001. An interaction effect was also observed between IEP meeting participant and participatory areas, F(1,239) = 41.77, p < .001. As shown in Fig. 1, a greater disparity was noted between parents and students for school-related than for transition-related input, such that both parties contributed more toward school-related areas, but parents did so far more than students.

Fig. 1

Repeated-measures ANOVA of parent and student input.

3.3 Correlates of parent and student participation

3.3.1 Univariate analyses

The greatest associations to parent and student IEP participation were observed for variables related to the parent-school relationship and the IEP meeting (see Table 3). Positive correlations with parent and student were noted for parental input prior to the IEP meeting, data presented on students’ prior goal performance during the IEP meeting, student IEP activities, and the FPP child and family subscales. Correlations were generally stronger for parent participation than for student participation. To illustrate, prior input yielded a higher correlation with parent input for the school IEP participation, r = .66, than with student input, r = .45, Fisher’s r-to-z p < .001. Similarly concerning transition-related IEP input, correlations of prior input were higher for parents, r = .66, than for students, r = .40, p < .001.

Table 3
Pearson correlations across factors (all pertinent factor variables/# of variables)

Parent input Student input

I (School) II (Transition) I (School) II (Transition)

Parent

Education .003 .012 .079 .075

Income .084 .049 .209 .189

Openness –.047 –.122 .099 –.026

Stress child factors (total) –.273* –.288* –.323* –.281*

PSI –.139* –.094 –.151* –.092

Child

Age –.048 .114 .024 .192

Health –.046 .025 .116 .180

SIB-R INT .013 .067 .184** .127

SIB-R GEN .018 .062 .160* .109

SIB-R EXT .073 .107 .174 .166

SIB-R ASOC .050 .121 .189 .196

WeeFIM total –.082 –.179 .265* .165*

Classroom placement .033 .146* –.223* –.073

School relationship

FPP child total .602* .529* .393* .418*

FPP family total .501* .459* .354* .419*

Parent teacher contact –.192 –.209 .057 –.023

Knowledge of adult services .288* .377 .199 .351

IEP meeting

IEP satisfaction .426* .301* .252* .275*

Prior input .662* .661* .445* .399*

Perceptions .693* .583* .472* .483*

Person centered .605* .587* .458* .468*

Strengths based .661* .623* .444* .449*

IEP data .600* .527* .405* .351*

Student IEP activities .466* .431* .740* .691***

Time student present .144* .210 .214* .167**

	Parent input	Student input
Parent
Education	.003	.012	.079	.075
Income	.084	.049	.209**	.189**
Openness	–.047	–.122	.099	–.026
Stress child factors (total)	–.273***	–.288***	–.323***	–.281***
PSI	–.139*	–.094	–.151*	–.092
Child
Age	–.048	.114	.024	.192**
Health	–.046	.025	.116	.180**
SIB-R INT	.013	.067	.184**	.127
SIB-R GEN	.018	.062	.160*	.109
SIB-R EXT	.073	.107	.174**	.166**
SIB-R ASOC	.050	.121	.189**	.196**
WeeFIM total	–.082	–.179**	.265***	.165*
Classroom placement	.033	.146*	–.223***	–.073
School relationship
FPP child total	.602***	.529***	.393***	.418***
FPP family total	.501***	.459***	.354***	.419***
Parent teacher contact	–.192**	–.209**	.057	–.023
Knowledge of adult services	.288***	.377**	.199**	.351**
IEP meeting
IEP satisfaction	.426***	.301***	.252***	.275***
Prior input	.662***	.661***	.445***	.399***
Perceptions	.693***	.583***	.472***	.483***
Person centered	.605***	.587***	.458***	.468***
Strengths based	.661***	.623***	.444***	.449***
IEP data	.600***	.527***	.405***	.351***
Student IEP activities	.466***	.431***	.740***	.691***
Time student present	.144*	.210**	.214***	.167**

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

3.3.2 Regression analyses

Two separate multiple linear regressions were then conducted to assess which of the potential predictors independently predicted parent and student IEP participation. Using all potential predictors that significantly correlated with each of the outcome measures at p < .01, this regression model included the following variables: parent income, parent stress concerning their child, child age, child health, the SIB-R asocial subscale, the SIB-R externalizing subscale, the WeeFIM, the FPP child subscale, the FPP family subscale, IEP satisfaction, parent input prior to the IEP meeting, perceptions of the IEP meeting, person-centered planning, strengths-based perspective, presentation of IEP data, parent teacher contact, the student’s classroom placement on a typical day, student IEP activities, percent of time the student attended their IEP meeting, and parent knowledge of adult services. For each independent variable, tolerance was greater than .10 and the Variance Inflation Factor was less than 10, suggesting a low concern for multicollinearity.

The overall models for each outcome were all significant (p < .001). For parent input, the regression model explained 71.10% of the variance for school-related and 66.82% for transition-related input. For parent-school and transition-related input, significant independent predictors related to the planning and evaluation of the student. For both outcomes, independent predictors included parents giving input about the student prior to the IEP meeting and reviewing data on the student’s goal performance during the IEP meeting (see Table 4). For school, parent input was further predicted by student IEP activities, whereas for transition, parent input was also predicted by parent knowledge of adult services.

Table 4
Regression for parent input

School Transition

Unstandardized coefficients Unstandardized coefficients

Independent variable Beta Standard error Standardized coefficients p-value Beta Standard error Standardized coefficients p-value

Prior input .039 .011 .335 .001*** .030 .013 .243 .020*

Student IEP activities .032 .015 .181 .043* .007 .018 .038 .687

IEP data .244 .085 .278 .006** .224 .098 .238 .026*

IEP satisfaction .078 .086 .083 .369 –.006 .099 –.006 .953

Perceptions .020 .025 .110 .429 .005 .029 .026 .864

Person centered –.034 .102 –.042 .738 –.034 .117 –.038 .775

Strengths based .097 .108 .119 .374 .240 .124 .275 .059

Portion student attended –.055 .071 –.057 .439 .011 .081 .010 .894

Knowledge of adult services –.033 .023 –.113 .157 .074 .026 .238 .006**

FPP child .005 .020 .041 .803 .001 .023 .010 .955

FPP family .007 .020 .049 .727 .017 .023 .112 .460

Parent teacher contact –.002 .068 –.003 .971 –.021 .078 –.021 .793

Parent income –.065 .069 –.080 .349 –.059 .079 –.068 .455

Parent child-related stress –.007 .010 –.063 .464 –.006 .011 –.050 .588

Child age –.041 .059 –.049 .493 .005 .068 .005 .946

Child placement .075 .086 .074 .389 .156 .099 .144 .121

Child health –.096 .101 –.080 .347 –.088 .116 –.069 .448

SIB-R ASOC –.004 .012 –.037 .759 .013 .013 .126 .331

SIB-R EXT .003 .018 .020 .871 .012 .021 .081 .545

WeeFIM .005 .006 .068 .449 .010 .007 .125 .193

	School	Transition
	Unstandardized coefficients			Unstandardized coefficients
Independent variable	Beta	Standard error	Standardized coefficients	p-value	Beta	Standard error	Standardized coefficients	p-value
Prior input	.039	.011	.335	.001***	.030	.013	.243	.020*
Student IEP activities	.032	.015	.181	.043*	.007	.018	.038	.687
IEP data	.244	.085	.278	.006**	.224	.098	.238	.026*
IEP satisfaction	.078	.086	.083	.369	–.006	.099	–.006	.953
Perceptions	.020	.025	.110	.429	.005	.029	.026	.864
Person centered	–.034	.102	–.042	.738	–.034	.117	–.038	.775
Strengths based	.097	.108	.119	.374	.240	.124	.275	.059
Portion student attended	–.055	.071	–.057	.439	.011	.081	.010	.894
Knowledge of adult services	–.033	.023	–.113	.157	.074	.026	.238	.006**
FPP child	.005	.020	.041	.803	.001	.023	.010	.955
FPP family	.007	.020	.049	.727	.017	.023	.112	.460
Parent teacher contact	–.002	.068	–.003	.971	–.021	.078	–.021	.793
Parent income	–.065	.069	–.080	.349	–.059	.079	–.068	.455
Parent child-related stress	–.007	.010	–.063	.464	–.006	.011	–.050	.588
Child age	–.041	.059	–.049	.493	.005	.068	.005	.946
Child placement	.075	.086	.074	.389	.156	.099	.144	.121
Child health	–.096	.101	–.080	.347	–.088	.116	–.069	.448
SIB-R ASOC	–.004	.012	–.037	.759	.013	.013	.126	.331
SIB-R EXT	.003	.018	.020	.871	.012	.021	.081	.545
WeeFIM	.005	.006	.068	.449	.010	.007	.125	.193

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Among students, the regression model explained 65.69% of the variance for school-related input and 55.88% for transition-related input. For students, both school- and transition-related input were related to IEP activities (see Table 5). For school, student input was additionally predicted by the FPP child-school relationship. For transition, meanwhile, input was further predicted by the FPP family-school relationship.

Table 5

Regression for student input

	School				Transition
	Unstandardized coefficients				Unstandardized coefficients
Independent variable	Beta	Standard error	Standardized coefficients	p-value	Beta	Standard error	Standardized coefficients	p-value
Prior input	.021	.012	.176	.094	.–.003	.014	–.027	.819
Student IEP activities	.124	.017	.681	.000***	.102	.019	.576	.000***
IEP data	.057	.095	.063	.553	.032	.105	.037	.762
IEP satisfaction	.036	.096	.037	.712	.089	.106	.096	.403
Perceptions	–.004	.028	–.022	.883	–.012	.031	–.068	.691
Person centered	–.090	.114	–.106	.435	–.082	.125	–.100	.516
Strengths based	.242	.121	.289	.050	.188	.133	.233	.162
Portion student attended	–.039	.078	–.039	.625	–.138	.087	–.143	.118
Knowledge of adult services	–.032	.026	–.106	.219	.025	.028	.088	.371
FPP child	–.046	.023	–.359	.048*	–.039	.025	–.317	.122
FPP family	.026	.022	.176	.254	.071	.025	.500	.005**
Parent teacher contact	.021	.076	.023	.784	–.090	.084	–.100	.286
Parent income	.088	.077	.106	.254	–.007	.084	–.008	.938
Parent child-related stress	–.012	.011	–.105	.263	.008	.012	.071	.501
Child age	.056	.066	.066	.400	.132	.073	.160	.074
Child placement	.137	.096	.133	.160	–.041	.106	–.041	.701
Child health	.104	.113	.086	.359	.108	.124	.092	.385
SIB-R ASOC	–.009	.013	–.087	.509	.005	.014	.047	.752
SIB-R EXT	.001	.020	.008	.955	–.001	.022	–.005	.976
WeeFIM	.009	.007	.128	.191	.008	.008	.111	.316

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

4 Discussion

By comparing discrete areas of input among both parents and transition-aged students during IEP meetings, this study further adds to the growing literature on student participation (e.g., Griffin et al., 2014; Sanderson & Goldman, 2021; Wagner et al., 2012). We also investigated the factors associated with both parent and student input in IEP meetings by providing insight into a critical but neglected topic. This study has three main findings, each with implications for research and practice.

Our first finding concerned the nature of participation itself. Using factor analysis, we found that participatory contributions were subdivided into two discrete categories: school-related input and transition-related input. School-related input included courses, class placement, strengths, needs, and IEP goals, whereas transition-related input included transition goals, post-school work, post-school education, and post-school living. Moreover, the same areas of input loaded onto identical factors for parents and for students. Findings therefore suggest that IEP participation is nuanced. Specifically, while stakeholders may perceive participation in IEP meetings as a single construct, our analyses suggest that participation is better conceptualized as relating to school or transition topics. Although transition planning is technically a subcomponent within the broader IEP document, our findings suggest that this section requires critical attention during the IEP meeting.

A second finding concerned the similarities and differences in participation among parents and students. For both parents and students in our sample, school personnel reportedly solicited school-related input more than transition-related input. Prior research has found that secondary special education teachers might have limited confidence in planning and implementing evidence-based transition practices (Benitez et al., 2009); consequently, teachers may focus the meeting around and solicit input in areas they perceive themselves to be more competent in. Further, transition networks of secondary special educators can vary based on student disability, experience, and knowledge in establishing collaborative partnerships (Bumble et al., 2022). Given that a paramount goal of special education is to prepare students with disabilities for life after high school (Wehman, 2013), soliciting less transition-related input is a critical oversight.

Across both input areas, school personnel reportedly asked for parents’ input more than students’ input. This finding is congruent with other research (Martin et al., 2006), suggesting that students are less involved at IEP meetings than other stakeholders. Neglecting to solicit students’ input is another significant oversight; given that IEPs serve the student’s education, their voices should play a dominant role in the discussion (Drasgow et al., 2001). For an adulthood that is successful and as independent as possible, student participation is especially important during transition planning.

Third, we identified predictors for both parent and student participation during the IEP meeting. Among parents, school- and transition-related contributions were predicted by giving input prior to the IEP conference and the school reviewing data on students’ performance on previous goals during the conference. Parents might feel more inclined to contribute to IEP meetings if they perceive themselves to be respected, valuable stakeholders from the onset (Kurth et al., 2019; Staples & Diliberto, 2010). Schools should refrain from completing IEPs before families even arrive at the meeting (Drasgow et al., 2001).

Among students, participation for both school- and transition-related input was predicted by the student performing IEP activities such as introducing IEP team members, stating the purpose of the meeting, and reviewing past goals. Oftentimes, students do not understand the purpose and procedures of the meeting, thereby reducing their ability to participate (Martin et al., 2006). Having students engage in IEP activities might thus provide them with enough scaffolding to meaningfully contribute and become part of the team. Additionally, students’ transition-related input was predicted by both the portion of time in which the student was present at the meeting and the scores from the FPP family subscale. Previous research also suggests the importance of strong family-school partnerships (e.g., Bryan & Henry, 2012; Lake & Billingsley, 2000; Slade et al., 2018), which are associated with a variety of positive outcomes, including greater academic achievement (Toldson & Lemmons, 2013) and student attendance (Epstein & Sheldon, 2002).

4.1 Implications for research and practice

Our findings have implications for practitioners and researchers alike. Given that participatory contributions were (a) discretely divided into school and transition areas and that (b) the extent of participation varied between these two areas, researchers should measure participation beyond a dichotomous variable.

First, practitioners should encourage parent participation from the onset. Specifically, this study indicates that soliciting parental input prior to the IEP meeting is positively associated with their participation during the meeting. By asking parents for their input, school personnel can enable parents to become valuable members of the IEP team, thereby establishing rapport (Staples & Diliberto, 2010). Our study also suggests that practitioners should present data during the IEP meeting, reviewing the student’s past goal performance. Indeed, prior work shows that sharing data can help families, schools, and the student to collaboratively develop an action plan for improving student performance (Patton, 2013). Planning for students’ educational programming and post-school goals should not occur in isolation during the IEP meeting. Rather, both before and during the IEP meeting, information about the student should be solicited and reviewed by all stakeholders.

Given that student involvement in IEP activities predicted student input, practitioners should also utilize evidence-based methods to teach students how to contribute during the meeting. Current interventions such as the Self-Directed IEP have been shown to be effective at increasing student participation during IEP meetings (Sanderson & Goldman, 2021). To ensure student programs are individualized to their needs, it is vital for students to give meaningful input in their planning (Hughes & Carter, 2011).

School personnel might also consider structuring the meeting so that sufficient time is allocated to discuss both school-related and transition-related considerations. Given that transition-related input was low for both parents and students, practitioners should be especially proactive in soliciting feedback in these areas; family and student involvement are important elements of effective transition programs (Landmark et al., 2010). More research is needed to explore why participatory contributions were much lower for transition-related topics; given that we included only respondents who had children of an age in which the IEP would have a transition component, this lack of input is especially concerning. For example, teachers need adequate professional development in evidence-based transition practices (Morningstar & Mazzotti, 2014).

This study also reinforces the importance of strong family-school partnerships. Given that the family-school partnership was strongly associated with both parent and student participation, both researchers and practitioners should consider how to strengthen relationships with parents. Schools need to create an environment wherein parent and student input during IEP meetings is both encouraged and valued. Teachers should strive to show families respect, trust, and commitment (Blue-Banning et al., 2004). Our findings suggest that one significant avenue for engaging families might involve soliciting parent input prior to the actual IEP meeting.

4.2 Limitations

Although featuring a national sample, this study utilized a web-based format that likely produced a somewhat biased sample. Most importantly, this format resulted in low participation from low income or minority respondents, who may face special barriers to collaborative relationships, such as deficit-based perspectives (Harry, 2008). In addition, respondents were primarily female; more research is needed to determine whether parents’ contributions vary when fathers attend IEP meetings. The sample also contained many participants involved in the disability field; thus, our sample might be skewed toward families that are more “in the know.” We additionally did not capture other potentially helpful information about participants (e.g., how long the child had an IEP, native language, etc.). All respondents self-reported both their own and students’ input, making it unclear whether different results might have occurred using direct observations or students’ own ratings of their participation. Triangulating self-reported data with direct observation will yield a more holistic view of IEP participation. Finally, our dependent variables assessed the extent to which school personnel asked for input; we cannot address participation that included parents’ or students’ contributions.

5 Conclusion

Despite these limitations, this study provides a comprehensive investigation of parent and student participation during the IEP meeting. For both parents and students, participation can be characterized into discrete school- and transition-related areas. Besides finding that participation for both parties is lacking overall, parent and student participation was especially low for transition-related topics, and parents participated more than students. This study also highlighted the importance of family involvement and strong family-school partnerships for improved student outcomes. Ultimately, if we are to truly value parents and students as essential members of the IEP team, then we must recognize them as critical, legal stakeholders in the IEP process and proactively solicit their participation.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors have no acknowledgements.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics statement

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Vanderbilt University (IRB #171481).

Funding

The authors report no funding.

Informed consent

Participants indicated that they were over the age of 18 and consented to completing the survey.

References

Abidin,

R. R.

(2012), Parenting stress index. (4th ed.). Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Anderson,

K. J.

, Minke,

K. M.

(2007) Parent involvement in education: Toward an understanding of parents’ decision making. The Journal of Educational Research100(5), 311–323. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.100.5.311-323

Azaula,

, Msall,

M.E.

, Buck,

, Tremont,

M.R.

, Wilczenski,

, Rogers,

B.T.

(2000) Measuring functional status and family support in older school-aged children with cerebral palsy: Comon of three instruments. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation81(3), 307–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(00)90076-5paris.

Benitez,

D. T.

, Morningstar,

M. E.

, Frey,

B. B.

(2009) A multistate survey of special education teachers’ perceptions of their transition competencies. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals32(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728808323945

Blackwell,

, Rossetti,

(2014) The development of Individualized Education Programs: Where have we been and where should we go now?SAGE Open4(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014530411

Blue-Banning,

, Summers,

J. A.

, Frankland,

H. C.

, Nelson,

L. L.

, Beegle,

(2004) Dimensions of family and professional partnerships: Constructive guidelines for collaboration. Exceptional Children70(2), 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290407000203

Brinckerhoff,

J. L.

Vincent,

L. J.

(1986) Increasing parental decision making at the Individualized Educational Program Meeting. Journal of Early Intervention11(1), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/105381518601100105

Bruininks,

R. H.

, Woodcock,

R. W.

, Weatherman,

R. F.

, Hill,

B. K.

(1996) Riverside Publishing, Scales of independent behavior-revised (SIB-R).–Chicago, IL.

Bryan,

, Henry,

(2012) A model for building school– family– community partnerships: Principles and process. Journal of Counseling & Development90(4), 408–420. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2012.00052.x

10.

Bumble,

J. L.

, Carter,

E. W.

, Kuntz,

E. M.

(2022) Examining the transition networks of secondary special educators: An explanatory sequential mixed methods study. Remedial and Special Education43(6), 375–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325211063485

11.

Burke,

M. M.

, Goldman,

S. E.

(2015) Identifying the associated factors of mediation and due process in families of students with autism disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders45(5), 1345–1353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2294-4spectrum.

12.

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 Education47(4), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466912456241

13.

Cease-Cook,

, Test,

D. W.

, Scroggins,

(2013) Effects of the CD-ROM version of the Self-Advocacy Strategy on quality of contributions in IEP meetings of high school students with intellectual disability, Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities48(2), 258–268https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/23880644.

14.

Drasgow,

, Yell,

M. L.

, Robinson,

T. R.

(2001) Developing legally correct and educationally appropriate IEPs. Remedial and Special Education22(6), 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250102200606

15.

Epstein,

J. L.

, Sheldon,

S. B.

(2002) Present and accounted for: Improving student attendance through family and community involvement. The Journal of Educational Research95(5), 308–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670209596604

16.

Fantuzzo,

Tighe,

, Childs,

(2000) Family involvement questionnaire: A multivariate assessment of family participation in early childhood education. Journal of Educational Psychology92(2), 367–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.367

17.

Fish,

W. W.

(2008) The IEP meeting: Perceptions of parents of students who receive special education services. Preventing School Failure53(1), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.53.1.8-14

18.

Goldstein,

, Turnbull,

A. P.

(1982) Strategies to increase parent participation in IEP conferences. Exceptional Children48(4), 360–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298204800412

19.

Griffin,

M.M.

, Lounds Taylor,

, Urbano,

R.C.

, Hodapp,

R.M.

(2014) Involvement in transition planning meetings among high school students with autism disorders. Journal of Special Education46(4), 56–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466913475668spectrum.

20.

Harrell,

F. E.

(2001) Regression modeling strategies, –SpringerNew York.

21.

Harris,

P. A.

, Taylor,

, Thielke,

, Payne,

, Gonzalez,

, Conde,

J. G.

(2009) Research electronic data capture (REDCap)— A meta-data-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support, Journal of Biomedical Information, 42, 377–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010

22.

Harry,

(2008) Collaboration with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Families: Ideal versus Reality. Exceptional Children74(3), 372–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400306

23.

Hughes,

, Carter,

(2011) Transition supports: Equipping youth for adult life. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation35(3), 177–180. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-2011-0567

24.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §614 et seq. (2004).

25.

Jones,

B. A.

, Gansle,

K. A.

(2010) The effects of amini-conference, socioeconomic status, and parent education onperceived and actual parent participation in Individual EducationProgram meetings, Research in the Schools17(2), 23–38.

26.

Kurth,

J. A.

, McQueston,

J. A.

, Ruppar,

A. L.

, Toews,

S. G.

, Johnston,

, McCabe,

K. M.

(2019) A description of parent input in IEP development through analysis of IEP documents. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities57(6), 485–498. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-57.6.485

27.

Lake,

J. F.

, Billingsley,

B. S.

(2000) An analysis of factors that contribute to parent— school conflict in special education. Remedial and Special Education21(4), 240–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250002100407

28.

Landmark,

L. J.

, Ju,

, Zhang,

(2010) Substantiated best practices in transition: Fifteen plus years later. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals33(3), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728810376410

29.

Lindstrom,

, Doren,

, Metheny,

, Johnson,

, Zane,

(2007) Transition to employment: Role of the family in career development. Exceptional Children73(3), 348–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290707300305

30.

Lo,

(2008) Chinese families’ level of participation and experiences in IEP meetings. Preventing School Failure53(1), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.53.1.21-27

31.

Martin,

J. E.

, Marshall,

L. H.

, Maxson,

L. M.

, Jerman,

P. L.

(1996) Sopris West, The self-directed IEP.

32.

Martin,

J. E.

, Marshall,

L. H.

, Sale,

(2004) A 3-year study of middle, junior high, and high school IEP meetings, Exceptional Children70(3), 285–29710.1177/001440290407000302.

33.

Martin

J. E.

, Van Dycke

J. L.

, Christensen

W. R.

, Greene

B. A.

, Gardner

J. E.

, Lovett

D. L.

(2006) Increasing student participation in their transition IEP meetings: Establishing the self-directed IEP as an evidenced-based practice. Exceptional Children72(3), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290407000302

34.

Mello,

M. P.

, Burke,

M. M.

, Taylor,

J. L.

, Urbano,

, Hodapp,

R. M.

(2021) Characteristics of students with disabilities who do and do not receive transition services. The Journal of Special Education54(4), 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466920925437

35.

Morningstar,

M. E.

, Mazzotti,

V. L.

(2014) Document No. IC-). University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center, Teacher preparation to deliver evidence-based transition planning and services to youth with disabilities1–http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations/.

36.

Msall,

M. E.

, DiGaudio,

, Rogers,

B. T.

, LaForest,

, Catanzaro,

N. L.

, Campbell,

, Wilczenski,

, Duffy,

L. C.

(1994) The functional independence measure for children (WeeFIM): Conceptual basis and pilot use in children with developmental disabilities. Clinical Pediatrics33(7), 421–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/000992289403300708

37.

Msall,

M.E.

, Ottenbacher,

, Duffy,

, Lyon,

, Heyer,

, Phillips,

, Hard,

B. J.

, Braun,

, Granger,

(1996) Reliability and validity of the WeeFIM in children with neurodevelopmental disabilities. †251. Pediatric Research, 39, 378–378. https://doi.org/10.1203/00006450-199604001-02276

38.

Mueller,

T. G.

, Buckley,

P. C.

(2014) The odd man out: How fathers navigate the special education system. Remedial and Special Education35(1), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513513176

39.

Newman,

(2005) SRI International, Family involvement in the educational development of youth with disabilities.–Menlo Park, CA.

40.

Newman,

, Wagner,

, Knokey,

A. M.

, Marder,

, Nagle,

, Shaver,

, Wei,

(2011) NCSER. National Center for Special Education Research, The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to years after high school: A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study- (NLTS).2011–3005

SRI International

Menlo Park, CA.

41.

Oates,

, Bebbington,

, Bourke,

, Girdler,

, Leonard,

(2011) Leisure participation for school-aged children with Down syndrome. Disability and Rehabilitation33(19-20), 1880–1889. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2011.553701

42.

Patton,

C. L.

(2013) Making data meaningful.),: Harvard Family Research Project. Retrieved from-meaningful, Family Involvement Network of Educators (FINE) Newsletter, (2–Cambridge, MAhttp://www.hfrorg/publications-resources/browse-our-publications/making-data.

43.

Powers,

L. E.

, Turner,

, Westwood,

, Matuszewski,

, Wilson,

, Phillips,

(2001) TAKE CHARGE for the Future: A controlled field-test of a model to promote student involvement in transition planning. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals24(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/088572880102400107

44.

Rammstedt,

John,

O.P.

(2007) Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality41(1), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jr2006.02.001

45.

Rodriguez,

R. J.

, Blatz,

E. T.

, Elbaum

(2014) Strategies to involve parents of Latino students with disabilities: When parent initiative is not enough. Intervention in School and Clinic49(5), 263–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451213513956

46.

Sanderson,

K. A.

, Goldman,

S. E.

(2021) Understanding the characteristics and predictors of student involvement in IEP meetings. The Journal of Special Education56(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669211008259

47.

Shogren,

K. A.

, Wehmeyer,

M. L.

, Palmer,

S. B.

, Rifenbark,

G. G.

, Little,

T. D.

(2015) Relationships between self-determination and postschool outcomes for youth with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education48(4), 256–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466913489733

48.

Slade,

, Eisenhower,

, Carter,

, Blacher,

(2018) Satisfaction with Individualized Education Programs among parents of young children with ASD. Exceptional Children84(3), 242–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917742923

49.

Staples,

K. E.

, Diliberto,

J. A.

(2010) Guidelines for successful parent involvement: Working with parents of students with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children42(6), 58–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991004200607

50.

Summers,

J. A.

, Hoffman,

, Marquis,

, Turnbull,

A. P.

, Poston,

, Nelson,

L. L.

(2005) Measuring the quality of family-professional partnerships in special education services. Exceptional Children72(1), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507200104

51.

Test,

D. W.

, Fowler,

C. H.

, White,

, Richter,

, Walker,

(2009) Evidence-based secondary transition practices for enhancing school completion. Exceptionality17(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362830802590144

52.

Test

D. W.

, Mason

, Hughes

, Konrad

, Neale

, Wood

W. M.

(2004) Student involvement in Individualized Education Program meetings. Exceptional Children70(4), 391–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290407000401

53.

Toldson,

I. A.

, Lemmons,

B. P.

(2013) Social demographics, the school environment, and parenting practices associated with parents’ participation in schools and success among Black, Hispanic, and White students. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment23(2), 237–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2013.747407academic.

54.

Tucker,

, Schwartz,

(2013) Parents’ perspectives of collaboration with school professionals: Barriers and facilitators to successful partnerships in planning for students with ASD. School Mental Health5(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-012-9102-0

55.

Van Reusen,

A. K.

, Bos,

C. S.

, Schumaker,

J. B.

, Deshler,

D. D.

(1994) Edge Enterprises, The self-advocacy strategy for education and transition planning.

56.

Wagner,

, Newman,

, Cameto,

, Javitz,

, Valdes,

(2012) A national picture of parent and youth participation in IEP and transition planning meetings.). Journal of Disability Policy Studies, (140–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207311425384

57.

Wang,

, Mannan,

, Poston,

, Turnbull,

A. P.

, Summers,

J. A.

(2004) Parents’ perceptions of advocacy activities and their impact on family quality of life. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities29(2), 144–155. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.29.2.144

58.

Wehman,

(2013) Transition from school to work: Where are we and where do we need to go?Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals36(1), 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143413482137

59.

Wilson,

N. M.

(2015) Question-asking and advocacy by African American parents at Individualized Education Program meetings: A social and cultural capital perspective, Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners15(2), 36–49.

60.

Wolery,

(1989) Transitions in early childhood special education: Issues and procedures, Focus on Exceptional Children22(2). https://doi.org/10.17161/fec.v22i2.7518

Parent input				Student input
		Factor loadings				Factor loadings
	Mean (SD)	I (School)	II (Transition)		Mean (SD)	I (School)	II (Transition)
Needs	3.03 (1.36)	.855		Needs	2.17 (1.26)	.830
Placement	2.50 (1.48)	.800		Placement	2.26 (1.41)	.797
IEP Goal	2.77 (1.39)	.800		IEP Goal	1.84 (1.15)	.710
Strengths	2.91 (1.41)	.768		Strengths	2.26 (1.32)	.705
Courses	2.70 (1.43)	.695		Courses	2.60 (1.31)	.799
Living	1.86 (1.29)		.894	Living	1.77 (1.19)		.877
Employment	2.09 (1.35)		.875	Employment	2.01 (1.22)		.861
PSE	2.17 (1.39)		.850	PSE	2.15 (1.32)		.831
Transition Goal	2.50 (1.40)		.658	Transition Goal	2.02 (1.19)		.771
Eigenvalue		5.845	1.050	Eigenvalue		5.521	1.146
% of variance		64.940	11.665	% of variance		61.341	12.728