article 2

Parent Assessments of Self-determination Importance andPerformance for Students with Autism or

Intellectual Disability

Erik W. Carter, Kathleen Lynne Lane, Molly Cooney, Katherine Weir, Colleen K. Moss, and

Wendy Machalicek

Abstract

Fostering student self-determination is now considered an essential element of specialeducation and transition services for children and youth with intellectual disability and/orautism. Yet, little is known about the pivotal role parents might play beyond the schoolcampus in fostering self-determination among their children with developmentaldisabilities. We examined how 627 parents of children with intellectual disability orautism attending one of 34 randomly selected school districts (a) rated the importance of7 component skills associated with self-determination, (b) assessed their children’sperformance in relation to those 7 skills, and (c) evaluated the overall self-determinationcapacities of their children. Although parents highly valued all of the self-determinationskills, the degree to which their children were reported to perform the skills well was fairlylow. Several factors predicted higher levels of self-determination, including educationalsetting, the presence of challenging behaviors, and perceived disability severity. Weconclude by offering recommendations for equipping parents to better support theirchildren’s self-determination development.

Key Words: self-determination; families; severe disabilities; autism; inclusion

As the field of special education has evolved,promoting student self-determination has emergedas a prominent feature of recommended educa-tional and transition services and supports forstudents with disabilities. This emphasis is intimat-ed within legislative and policy initiatives (e.g.,Individuals with Disabilities Education Improve-ment Act of 2004 [IDEA]), advocated by nationalorganizations (e.g., American Association onIntellectual and Developmental Disabilities &The Arc, 2008; Field, Martin, Miller, Ward, &Wehmeyer, 1998; TASH, 2000), embedded withinprofessional standards for special educators (Coun-cil for Exceptional Children, 2009; NationalCouncil for Accreditation of Teacher Education,2008), and reflected in the curricular standards ofmany states (Wehmeyer, Field, Doren, & Mason,

2004). Moreover, evidence for the importance andimpact of fostering self-determination in the lives ofstudents with disabilities has accumulated steadily(Cobb, Lehmann, Newman-Gonchar, & Alwell,2009; Test et al., 2009; Wehmeyer et al., 2011).

Within the professional literature, most of theempirical attention has focused on classroomsand schools as the context within which self-determination might be fostered among studentswith disabilities. Recent descriptive studies indi-cated general educators, special educators, andparaprofessionals each identify self-determinationas an important instructional priority and reporttaking varied steps to promote skills associated withthis domain (Carter, Lane, Pierson, & Stang, 2008;Carter, Lane, & Sisco, 2011; Cho, Wehmeyer, &Kingston, 2011; Stang, Carter, Lane, & Pierson,

AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31

EAAIDD

DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16

16 Parent self-determination

2009; Zhang, Wehmeyer, & Chen, 2005). An arrayof assessment instruments has been developed toassess students’ self-determination skills and/ortheir opportunities to develop such capacities(Field & Hoffman, 2007; Shogren et al., 2008;Wehmeyer, 2000). And several instructional andcurricular approaches have accumulated compel-ling evidence of efficacy for increasing students’self-determination skills and opportunities, suchas the self-directed Individualized Education Pro-gram (IEP; Kelley, Bartholomew, & Test, in press),the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruc-tion (Shogren, Palmer, Wehmeyer, Williams-Diehm, & Little, in press), Next S.T.E.P. (Halpern,Herr, Doren, & Wolf, 1997), and Whose Future Is ItAnyway? (Wehmeyer et al., 2004). Collectively,this body of research confirms how schoolsprovide a critical context within which self-determination can be taught and supported.

However, far less attention has addressed thepivotal role parents might play in fostering self-determination among their children with intellec-tual disability or autism (e.g., Zhang, 2006; Zhang,Katsiyannis, & Zhang, 2002; Zhang, Landmark,Grenwelge, & Montoya, 2010). As an enduringinfluence and prominent source of support in thelives of their children, parents and other caregivershave a unique vantage point from which toobserve and promote the development of self-determination. Yet, few researchers have investi-gated the extent to which these family membersvalue self-determination as a learning goal orobserve indicators of self-determination beyondthe school day (Zhang, 2006; Zhang et al., 2005).Such research could extend the knowledge base inat least three important ways.

First, little is known about the extent to whichparents prioritize efforts to promote self-determination similarly to the educators whowork directly with their children. Both qualitativeand quantitative studies suggest parents may holdexpectations or priorities that both converge anddiverge from those espoused by teachers or arearticulated in the professional literature (Carter,Owens, Trainor, Sun, & Swedeen, 2009; Shogren,2011; Zhang et al., 2005). Although greatercongruence in the priorities of IEP team memberscould facilitate effective planning and contributeto more coordinated efforts on and beyond theschool campus, it remains unclear how parents ofchildren with intellectual disability or autism viewthe importance of teaching skills typically associ-ated with self-determination.

Second, parents have unique experientialbases from which to evaluate their children’s skillsets relative to teachers, paraprofessionals, orother service providers operating outside of thehome setting. Observing their children dailyacross home, community, and other out-of-schoolsettings might provide parents with uniqueinsights into the extent to which their childrensuccessfully demonstrate choice making, problemsolving, self-advocacy, leadership, and other skillsthat may enhance self-determination. Indeed,parents may identify areas of strength and needrelated to self-determination not readily apparentto school-based personnel. Although prior studieshave reported on parents’ global ratings of the self-determination of their children with intellectualdisability or autism (e.g., Carter et al., 2009; Grigal,Neubert, Moon, & Graham, 2003), none hasincluded parental assessments of specific skillsoften associated with enhanced self-determination.

Third, parents’ assessments of their child’sself-determination and its importance may byimpacted by myriad factors (Shogren, 2011;Wehmeyer et al., 2011). For example, self-determination may be prioritized more or lessdepending on a combination of child-level factors(e.g., the student’s age, gender, special educationcategory, or disability severity), parent-level fac-tors (e.g., socioeconomic status), and/or school-level factors (e.g., the student’s educationalplacement, the use of individually assignedsupports). For example, scholars have speculatedabout whether families from diverse backgroundsplace similar priority on skills typically empha-sized within self-determination interventions(Shogren, 2011; Zhang, 2006). Such findingscould highlight the value of emphasizing en-hanced awareness, training, or intervention effortsfor particular students with intellectual disabilityor autism and their families.

The purpose of this study was to assess theself-determination of children and youth withintellectual disability and/or autism from theperspectives of their parents or caregivers. Weanswered four questions: How do parents evaluatethe importance of seven skills associated withself-determination? How do parents assess theirchildren’s performance on these seven specificskills? How do parents assess the broader self-determination capacities of their children? Whatchild, family, and school factors are associated withvariations in parents’ ratings of self-determinationimportance and performance?


2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31

EAAIDD

DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16

E. W. Carter et al. 17

As an increasingly prominent educationalconstruct, self-determination has been definedand measured in myriad ways (Deci & Ryan,2002; Wehmeyer, Abery, Mithaug, & Stancliffe,2003). We incorporated two theoretical perspec-tives within this particular investigation. First,Wehmeyer (2005) defines self-determined behav-ior as ‘‘volitional actions that enable one to act asthe primary causal agent in one’s life and tomaintain or improve one’s quality of life’’ (p. 117).Within this framework, component elements ofself-determination such as choice making, deci-sion making, goal setting and attainment, prob-lem solving, self-management and self-regulation,self-advocacy and leadership, and self-awarenessand self-knowledge can be emphasized withininstructional efforts to enhance students’ capacityto be self-determining (Wehmeyer, Agran, &Hughes, 2000; Wehmeyer & Field, 2007). Indeed,there is accumulating evidence that such skills canbe effectively taught and reinforced both withinschool and home environments. Second, Mithaug,Mithaug, Agran, Martin, and Wehmeyer (2003)emphasize that students’ self-determination pros-pects are influenced both by the opportunities theyhave at home and school to make and act onchoices in pursuing their interests and needs as wellas the capacities they have to maximize theseopportunities. Within this view, students capacitiescan be impacted by the knowledge they have aboutself-determined behaviors, their ability to effective-ly identify and take necessary steps to satisfy theirinterests and needs, and their perceptions of theirown knowledge and abilities to undertake thesetasks.

Method

School Districts and Sampling ProceduresThe students who were the focus of this studyattended 34 randomly selected public schooldistricts. Two districts included grades pre-kindergarten through eighth; the remaining 32included pre-kindergarten through 12th grade.Enrollment across the involved districts averaged2,576 students (SD 5 3052, range 5 162–15,081).The race/ethnicity of all students enrolled in thesedistricts was 91.4% White (SD 5 6.1%, range 5

74.6%–99.4%), 4.2% Latino/Latina/Hispanic(SD 5 3.2%, range, 0.0%–15.2%), 2.0% AsianAmerican (SD 5 2.7%, range, 0.0%–11.2%), 1.6%African American (SD 5 1.1%, range 5 0.1%–4.1%), and 0.9% American Indian (SD 5 1.4%,

range 5 0.0%–8.6%). An average of 13.1% (SD 5

2.4%, range 5 8.1%–18.8%) of all studentsreceived special education services; 0.7% (SD 5

0.4%, range 5 0.0%–1.7%) of all studentsreceived special education under the primarycategory of autism; and 0.9% (SD 5 0.5%, range5 0.0%–2.1%) received special education underthe primary category of intellectual disability. Theaverage percentage of students eligible to receivefree or reduced-price lunch (FRL) across districtswas 27.1% (SD 5 12.8%, range 5 3.0%–52.3%).

We randomly selected 65 public schooldistricts to invite to this study. All districts werelocated within three regional service areas ofWisconsin and were selected because they includ-ed geographically (i.e., rural, suburban, urban) andeconomically diverse schools. Using the state’seducational agency Web site, we compiled a list ofall 114 school districts in the three regions andgathered available student demographic informa-tion. We also used the state’s Web site to obtainenrollment numbers for each school district,based on a count completed on the third Fridayof the first month of school.

The following steps were taken to selectschools. First, we ordered the 114 districts by sizeand divided them into small- (i.e., less than 1,000students), medium- (i.e., 1,000 to 5,000 students),and large-sized districts (i.e., more than 5,000students). Second, within each of the categories,we ordered the schools based on the proportionof non-White students enrolled in each districtand divided them into two groups (higher versuslower percentage of non-White students), creatingsix cells. Third, we used proportional stratifiedsampling to randomly select districts from withineach of the six cells.

Of the 65 districts to which we extended aninvitation, 32 districts (10 small, 16 medium, and 6large) agreed to allow us to invite parents whosechildren with disabilities attended the schools. Twoadditional school districts (both small-sized dis-tricts) requested to participate because they shareda special education director with another partici-pating district. Ten districts never responded to ourinvitation; six districts initially agreed to partici-pate, but never returned a permission form; sixdistricts declined, reporting not having enoughtime or logistical resources to distribute the survey;two districts declined because they were involvedin another survey study; four districts expressedhesitation about the survey procedures; and threedistricts did not specify their reason for declining.


2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31

EAAIDD

DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16


ParticipantsParticipants in this analysis were 627 parents orcaregivers of school-age children and youth servedunder the special education categories of intellec-tual disability or autism. To be included, partic-ipants must have had a child who was (a) receivingspecial education services under the category ofautism (ASD) or intellectual disability (ID; i.e.,cognitive disability in Wisconsin), (b) enrolled ingrades kindergarten through 12th, (c) between theages of 5 and 18 years, and (d) enrolled in one of34 randomly selected public school districts. Themajority of parents were White (91.26%), fol-lowed by Latina/Latino/Hispanic (2.91%) andAsian American (2.27%; see Table 1). Whenasked about their relationship to the focus child,85.78% indicated they were the mother; 11.47%,the father; .81%, the grandmother; and 1.94%noted some other relationship (e.g., adoptiveparent, foster parent, step-parent). Approximately40% of respondents indicated their child was FRLeligible.

The majority of students who were the focusof this survey were male (74.43%), and theiraverage age was 11.72 years (SD 5 3.70, range 5 5to 18). We removed from the analysis thosestudents who were younger than 5 years and olderthan 18 (i.e., adults), as their disabilities tended toall be more severe and they were not all privy tothe common K-12 educational experiences andcontexts. Although schools only sent our instru-ments to parents of children receiving specialeducation services under a primarily label of ID orASD, 305 of the students were identified by theirparents as having a primary special educationcategory of autism, 190 as having intellectualdisability, 28 as having both autism and intellec-tual disability, and 94 as having another disability(e.g., cerebral palsy). When asked how they woulddescribe their child’s level of disability, 80% ofparents selected mild/moderate and 20% selectedsevere/profound. Just under half (40.1%) of partic-ipants reported their child currently had a one-to-one assistant in school. When asked about theschool setting in which their child with adisability spends the school day, approximatelyone third (32.52%) selected mostly or all generaleducation classrooms; 27.51% selected both general/special education classes equally; 38.51% selectedmostly or all special education classrooms; and 1.46%selected other (e.g., transition work program, homeschool, virtual school). When asked how often

their child exhibits challenging behaviors (e.g.,aggression, tantrums, inappropriate conversation-al topics, self-injury), 13.45% indicated never;23.82%, rarely; 39.38%, sometimes; and 23.34%,often. See Table 1 for additional participantdemographic information.

InstrumentWe developed a 3-page print questionnaire tosolicit information from parents regarding theimportance of self-determination in the lives oftheir child, the extent to which their childdemonstrates self-determination, key barriers toself-determination, and recommendations forschools and other parents on fostering self-determination. We designed this survey to gathersome information in a manner parallel to surveysused in prior studies soliciting the perspectives ofgeneral educators (Stang et al., 2009), specialeducators (Carter et al., 2008), and paraprofes-sionals (Carter, Lane, & Sisco, 2011). In thisarticle, we focus our analyses on the four close-ended sections of this survey, as described below.However, findings from the open-ended qualita-tive survey responses focused on parents’ personaldefinitions of self-determination, descriptions ofkey barriers, and recommendations to school staffand other parents will be reported elsewhere.

First, we asked parents to rate the importanceof seven component skills (i.e., choice-makingskills, decision-making skills, goal-setting skills,problem-solving skills, self-advocacy and leader-ship skills, self-awareness and self-knowledge, andself-management and self-regulation skills; seeTable 2) associated with self-determination (Weh-meyer et al., 2007; Wehmeyer & Field, 2007). Asnoted in the introduction, these seven elementsare operationalized at the level at which instruc-tion and support might be provided at school orat home. For each skill item, parents were asked,‘‘How important do you feel it is for your child tolearn this skill now?’’ Response options were notimportant, somewhat important, and very important.These seven skills were drawn from a nationalsurvey of special educators conducted by Weh-meyer et al. (2000) and have been sociallyvalidated in studies of teachers and paraprofes-sionals (Carter et al., 2008; Carter, Lane, & Sisco,2011; Stang et al., 2009). Brief examples accom-panied each of the seven component skills (e.g.,‘‘knowing one’s rights, communicating effective-ly, being an effective leader’’ was listed under-


2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31

EAAIDD

DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16


Table 1Parent and Child Characteristics by Reported Special Education Category and Across All Students

Autism

n 5 305

Intellectual

disability

n 5 190

Both

n 5 28

Other disabilities

n 5 94

All students

N 5 627

Child’s gender

Female 46 (15.13) 93 (43.92) 7 (25.93) 19 (20.21) 158 (25.57)

Male 258 (84.87) 106 (56.08) 20 (74.77) 75 (79.79) 460 (74.43)

Perceived disability level of child

Mild/moderate 264 (87.13) 136 (73.91) 16 (59.26) 70 (76.09) 488 (80.00)

Severe/profound 39 (12.87) 48 (26.09) 11 (40.74) 22 (23.91) 122 (20.00)

One-to-one assistant

No 193 (64.33) 109 (58.29) 15 (53.57) 47 (51.09) 366 (59.90)

Yes 107 (35.67) 78 (41.71) 13 (46.43) 45 (48.91) 245 (40.10)

Educational settings

Mostly general education 158 (51.97) 19 (10.11) 0 (0.00) 24 (25.53) 201 (32.52)

General and special education 71 (23.36) 63 (33.51) 9 (32.14) 25 (26.60) 170 (27.51)

Mostly special education 71 (23.36) 105 (55.85) 18 (64.29) 43 (45.74) 238 (38.51)

Other setting 4 (1.32) 1 (0.53) 1 (3.57) 2 (2.13) 9 (1.46)

Challenging behaviors

Never 25 (8.22) 47 (25.13) 1 (3.57) 9 (9.57) 83 (13.45)

Rarely 66 (21.71) 57 (30.48) 5 (17.86) 18 (19.15) 147 (23.82)

Sometimes 140 (46.05) 54 (28.88) 9 (32.14) 39 (41.49) 243 (39.38)

Often 73 (24.01) 29 (15.51) 13 (46.43) 28 (29.79) 144 (23.34)

Free/reduced-price lunch

No 214 (70.86) 98 (52.97) 11 (40.74) 37 (40.22) 362 (59.34)

Yes 88 (29.14) 87 (47.03) 16 (59.26) 55 (59.78) 248 (40.66)

Respondent’s relationship to child

Father 42 (13.77) 22 (11.64) 3 (10.71) 4 (4.30) 71 (11.47)

Mother 256 (83.93) 161 (85.19) 25 (89.29) 85 (91.40) 531 (85.78)

Other 7 (2.29) 6 (3.17) 0 (0.00) 4 (4.31) 17 (2.75)

Respondent’s race/ethnicity

African American 1 (0.33) 1 (0.53) 0 (0.00) 2 (2.15) 5 (0.81)

Asian American 5 (1.64) 5 (2.66) 0 (0.00) 4 (4.30) 14 (2.27)

Latina/Latino/Hispanic 10 (3.28) 4 (2.13) 0 (0.00) 4 (4.30) 18 (2.91)

Native American 1 (0.33) 2 (1.06) 0 (0.00) 1 (1.08) 4 (0.65)

Other or multiple 3 (0.98) 8 (4.26) 1 (3.57) 1 (1.08) 13 (2.10)

White 285 (93.44) 168 (89.36) 27 (96.43) 81 (87.10) 564 (91.26)

Note. Ten respondents did not specify disability type. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completedthe given item. Number of missing responses can be determined by using overall n/N.


2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31

EAAIDD

DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16


neath ‘‘self-advocacy and leadership skills’’).Second, for these same seven skills, parents werealso asked ‘‘How well do you feel your child doesthis now?’’ Responses were provided on a 3-pointLikert-type scale (1 5 not well, 2 5 somewhat well,3 5 very well). Cronbach’s alpha for each scale was.80 for both scales.

Third, we asked parents to evaluate theirchild’s self-determination capacity using the parentversion of the AIR Self-Determination Scale(Wolman, Campeau, DuBois, Mithaug, & Sto-larski, 1994). This scale assesses students’ self-determination capacities by measuring the extentto which students connect beliefs about what theyneed, want, and could do with their expectations,choices, actions, and results. Parents rated each ofsix statements (e.g., ‘‘My child knows what s(he)needs, likes, and is good at’’; ‘‘My child beginswork on plans to meet his or her goals as soon aspossible’’; see Table 3) using a 5-point Likert-typescale (i.e., 1 5 never, 2 5 almost never, 3 5 sometimes,4 5 almost always, or 5 5 always). Adequatereliability and validity for the parent scale has beendemonstrated in prior studies (Carter, Lane,Pierson, & Glaeser, 2006; Carter et al., 2009).Cronbach’s alpha for the current study was .87.

Fourth, we included 10 questions addressing:(a) the nature of respondents’ relationship to thefocus child and their own race/ethnicity; (b)demographic information about the child (i.e.,age, gender, primary special education category,disability severity, occurrence of challengingbehaviors, and FRL eligibility); and (c) schoolprogram information about the child (i.e., receiptof a one-to-one assistant, primary educationalsettings). Table 1 displays response options forthese questions. In addition, parents evaluatedtheir own level of familiarity of the concept of‘‘self-determination for children with disabilities’’prior to receiving the survey (i.e., 1 5 not at all,2 5 somewhat, 3 5 very familiar).

ProceduresData collection primarily took place betweenOctober and January, with small numbers ofsurveys returned through the end of the schoolyear. We sent study invitations to the director ofspecial education for each identified district toexplain the purpose of the study, include a samplesurvey, and invite the district’s involvement. Afew days later, we called each director to provideadditional detail, answer any questions, request

verbal permission for the district to assist with thesurvey, and request districts return signed permis-sion forms. Multiple attempts were made to reachdirectors by phone before moving to the nextdistrict on our list.

We asked participating districts to tell us thetotal number of K-12 students in their districtcurrently receiving special education servicesunder the category of autism or intellectualdisability as well as the number of familiesneeding a survey in a language other than English.We mailed the district liaison the appropriatenumber of prestamped and sealed survey packets.To protect the families’ confidentiality, thedistrict liaison placed address labels on surveysand mailed them on our behalf. Each surveypacket contained a survey with cover letter, apostage-paid return envelope, a $2 cash incentive,and a postage-paid postcard families could returnseparately to enter a drawing and request addi-tional free resources from a state family resourcecenter. Completed surveys were mailed directly tothe research team, preventing district staff fromknowing which families chose to participate.

We used several strategies to achieve a highresponse rate. First, parents received $2 with eachsurvey and could enter a drawing for one oftwenty $25 gift cards. Second, we limited thelength of the survey to enable completion inapproximately 20 min. Third, we asked districts tomail a second copy of the survey to all parentsapproximately 5–6 weeks later. The second surveydid not include a cash incentive, and parents wereasked not to complete it a second time if theirinitial survey had already been returned. Fourth,we indicated in our cover letter that we wouldprepare and distribute a free guide for parentsbased on what we learned from the study. Theoverall response rate was 37.7% (range 5 16.7%–66.6% across districts). Data entry was completedby four graduate and undergraduate students.Fidelity of data entry was checked for everysurvey, and any data entry errors were corrected.

To ascertain the extent to which samplebiasing was a potential concern, we examinedtwo sources of information. First, we comparedour sample’s demographics to the demographicsof all students (with and without disabilities)served in the participating school districts fromwhich the sample was drawn as well as from theuniverse of districts we originally approached.Although race/ethnicity was comparable amongthe groups, the percentage of students in our


2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31

EAAIDD

DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16


sample eligible for FRL was considerably higherthan the proportion of all students eligible forFRL in the sampled districts (40% vs. 27%; cf.Fujiura & Yamaki, 2000). Second, we comparedsurvey findings for parents responding to theinitial and follow-up survey requests. No signifi-cant differences were noted.

Study Design and Data Analysis PlanTo determine how parents evaluate the impor-tance of prominent self-determination skills aswell as their assessment of their child’s self-determination capacity, we used descriptive sta-tistics to summarize ratings of importance acrossrespondents. Descriptive statistics for item-levelratings are reported in Tables 2 and 3. Next, wecomputed Pearson correlation coefficients toexamine the association between parents’ ratingsof the importance and use of the seven self-determination domains as well as their overallassessment of their child’s capacity for self-determined behavior. Specifically, correlationsare reported for (a) item-level skill importanceand skill performance ratings, (b) item-level skillimportance ratings and the overall AIR score (i.e.,average of all six items), and (c) item-level skillperformance ratings and the overall AIR score.

Finally, we conducted three stepwise regres-sions to identify the extent to which child-,parent-, and school-level factors predicted (a) theimportance parents placed on their child learningself-determination skills, (b) the extent to whichtheir children currently performed the skills, and(c) parents’ assessment of their child’s overall self-determination capacity. These factors included:child’s gender (male or female), child’s age (5–18 years), child’s disability level (mild/moderateor severe/profound), whether the child had a one-to-one assistant (yes or no), the child’s primaryschool setting (i.e., mostly or all general educationclassrooms, both general and special educationclasses equally, mostly or all special educationclassrooms, or other settings), whether the childhad autism (yes or no), whether the child hadintellectual disability (yes or no), whether thechild had additional disabilities (yes or no), thefrequency of challenging behaviors (never, rarely,sometimes, or often), and whether or not thechild received free or reduced priced lunches (yesor no). We used a jackknife procedure to detectoutliers (Kleinbaum, Kupper, Muller, & Nizam,1998). To determine the most parsimonious T

able

2R

atin

gsof

Ski

llIm

port

ance

and

Rep

orte

dP

erfo

rman

ce

Self-determinationskills

Importance

%(n)

M(SD)

Perform

ance

%(n)

M(SD)

Notim

portant

Somew

hat

important

Very

important

Notwell

Somew

hat

well

Verywell

Choicemaking

2.94(18)

19.28(118)

77.78(476)

2.75(0.50)

19.09(117)

60.20(369)

20.72(127)

2.02(0.63)

Decisionmaking

6.50(40)

20.16(124)

73.33(451)

2.67(0.59)

56.96(348)

36.99(226)

6.06(37)

1.49(0.61)

Problem

solving

1.96(12)

11.93(73)

86.11(527)

2.84(0.42)

54.35(331)

40.72(248)

4.93(30)

1.51(0.59)

Goal

setting

6.54(40)

33.33(204)

60.13(368)

2.54(0.62)

71.38(434)

25.66(156)

2.96(18)

1.32(0.53)

Self-advocacy

andleadership

9.79(60)

30.18(185)

60.03(368)

2.50(0.67)

70.39(428)

25.82(157)

3.78(23)

1.33(0.55)

Self-managem

entandself-regulation

1.95(12)

16.42(101)

81.63(502)

2.80(0.45)

57.96(353)

37.11(226)

4.93(30)

1.47(0.59)

Self-aw

arenessandself-knowledge

3.10(19)

25.49(156)

71.41(437)

2.69(0.53)

37.97(232)

53.36(326)

8.67(53)

1.71(0.62)

Not

e.Per

cen

tage

sar

eb

ased

on

the

nu

mb

ero

fp

arti

cip

ants

wh

oco

mp

lete

dth

egi

ven

item

.


2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31

EAAIDD

DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16


predictors to retain in each model, we examinedresidual sums of squares, the multiple correlationcoefficient, and Cp criterion values (Borthwick-Duffy, Lane, & Widaman, 1997). We alsoevaluated the validity of the regression modelsby examining studentized residuals, leverage, andCook’s D values (Kleinbaum et al., 1998). Resultsindicated extreme values were not evidencedsuggesting the regression results were consideredaccurate. Graduate students entered all data, withfidelity of data entry assessed for 100% of thesurveys. Any data entry errors were corrected.

Results

How Do Parents Evaluate the Importanceof Seven Self-determination Skills?Overall, parents indicated it was very important fortheir children to learn each of the seven componentelements of self-determination (see Table 2), withmean scores ranging from 2.50 for self-advocacyand leadership skills to 2.84 for problem-solvingskills. More than 70% of parents rated choicemaking, decision making, problem solving, self-management and self-regulation skills, and self-awareness and self-knowledge as being very impor-tant for their children. More than 60% of parentsrated goal setting skills and self-advocacy andleadership skills as somewhat important.

How Do Parents Assess Their Children’sPerformance on Each Self-determination Skill?Despite the high levels of importance parentsplaced on their child learning each skill, theygenerally reported their children did not performthese skills well, with mean scores ranging from1.32 for both goal-setting skills to 2.02 for choice-making skills (see Table 2). More than half of theparents indicated their children did not performdecision-making, problem-solving, goal-setting,self-advocacy and leadership, or self-managementand self-regulation skills well. Parents indicatedtheir children were more successful in theirability to perform choice-making skills and to alesser extent self-awareness and self-knowledgeskills.

How Do Parents Rate Their Children’sOverall Self-determination Capacity?Although the majority of parents indicated theirchild almost always or always (45.32%) knew whatT

able

3P

aren

tR

atin

gsof

Sel

f-D

eter

min

atio

nF

rom

the

AIR

Sel

f-D

eter

min

atio

nS

cale

AIR

scaleitem

Percentage(n)ofparentsprovidingeach

rating

M(SD)

Never

Alm

ost

never

Sometim

esAlm

ostalways

Always

1.Mychildknowswhat(s)heneeds,likes,andisgoodat.

0.81(5)

2.42(15)

41.45(257)

45.32(281)

10.00(62)

3.61(0.73)

2.Mychildsetshisorher

owngoalsto

satisfywantsorneeds.

(S)hethinksabouthisorher

ownabilitieswhen

settinggoals.

18.78(117)

32.74(204)

37.40(233)

9.47(59)

1.61(10)

2.42(0.95)

3.Mychildfiguresouthow

tomeetgoalsalone.

(S)hemakes

plansanddecides

what

todoindependently.

22.95(143)

34.35(214)

34.83(217)

6.90(43)

0.96(6)

2.29(0.93)

4.Mychildbeginswork

onplansto

meethisorher

goals

assoonas

possible.

30.39(189)

32.48(202)

28.30(176)

6.91(43)

1.93(12)

2.18(1.00)

5.Mychildcheckshisorherownprogress

when

completinghis

orherplan.(S)heasksotherswhatthey

thinkofhisorherprogress.

36.92(230)

29.70(185)

25.04(156)

6.26(39)

2.09(13)

2.07(1.03)

6.Ifaplandoesn’twork,mychildtriesanother

oneto

meet

hisorher

goals.

25.56(159)

30.39(189)

35.85(223)

5.95(37)

2.25(14)

2.29(0.99)

Not

e.Per

cen

tage

sar

eb

ased

on

the

nu

mb

ero

fp

arti

cip

ants

wh

oco

mp

lete

dth

egi

ven

item

.


2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31

EAAIDD

DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16


he or she likes and is good at, less than 10% ofparents provided similar ratings on all fiveremaining items. Overall scores (i.e., average ofall six items) on the AIR Self-Determination scaleaveraged 14.89 (SD 5 4.44) and ranged from 2.07(Item 5 progress) to 3.16 (Item 1 strengths).

To What Extent Are Ratings of SkillsImportance, Skill Performance, andOverall Self-determination Related?When comparing importance and performanceratings, we found significant positive correlationsfor five of the seven items: decision making (r 5

.21), goal setting (r 5 .17), self-advocacy andleadership skills (r 5 .13), and self-awareness andself-knowledge (r 5 .12). Although statisticallysignificant, correlation coefficients suggest low-level relations between ratings of skill importanceand actual performance. Comparisons amongitem-level skill importance and overall AIR ratingsalso yielded significant, positive correlations forall skills except choice-making skills. Significantcorrelations were small in magnitude, rangingfrom 0.11 (problem solving) to 0.26 (self-advocacyand leadership). Comparisons among perfor-mance and overall AIR ratings yielded significant,positive correlations for all items. The correlationswere moderate in magnitude, ranging from 0.45(problem solving; self-advocacy and leadership;and self-management and self-regulations) to 0.53(decision making).

What Factors Are Associated withParents’ Ratings of Skill Importance,Skill Performance, and Overall Self-Determination Capacity?

Skill Importance. Three of the 10 variables—disability level, FRL status, and having intellectualdisability—were significant predictors of parents’importance ratings (see Table 4 for results ofsignificance testing). Disability level accountedfor 7% of variance in importance; FRL statusaccounted for an additional 1% of the variance asdid having a special education label of intellectualdisability. The overall model accounted for 9% ofvariance. Parents whose children were eligible forFRL and who did not have intellectual disabilityplaced greater importance on self-determinationskills than did parents whose children were noteligible for FRL and had intellectual disability. Inaddition, parents who described their children as

having severe/profound disabilities placed lessimportance on learning self-determination skillsthan did parents who described their children ashaving mild/moderate disabilities.

Skill performance. When predicting factorsassociated with the extent to which parents felttheir children performed this collection of sevenskills, six variables entered the model (seeTable 4). In brief, school setting accounted for12% of the variance in performance ratingsfollowed by frequency of challenging behavior(6%), disability level (4%), child’s age (2%), child’sgender (1%), and FRL status (1%). There was apositive relation between parents’ ratings of skillperformance and their child’s age, gender, andFRL status, suggesting parents offered higherperformance for older children and girls. Perfor-mance was also rated higher for children who wereeligible for FRL. The remaining variables shared asignificant, negative relation, meaning perfor-mance ratings were higher for children spendinga greater proportion of time in general educationsettings, having a lower frequency of challengingbehaviors, and having mild/moderate disabilities(versus severe/profound disabilities).

Global self-determination. When predictingparents’ overall ratings of their children’s self-determination capacity (assessed using the AIRSelf-Determination Scale), six variables enteredthe model (see Table 4 and Table 5). In brief,disability level accounted for 11% of the variancein AIR ratings followed by frequency of challeng-ing behavior (4%), school setting (2%), child’s age(1%), gender (1%), and FRL status (1%). There wasa positive relation between overall AIR scores andthe child’s age, gender, and FRL status, indicatingparents attributed greater self-determination ca-pacity to older children, girls, and children whowere FRL eligible. Furthermore, children identi-fied as having mild/moderate disabilities, fewerchallenging behaviors, and spending more time ingeneral education classes were judged to havegreater self-determination capacity.

Discussion

The importance of fostering self-determinationacross the age span has become increasinglyprominent within recommended educationalpolicies and practices for students with develop-mental disabilities. To date, however, this empha-sis has centered most heavily on the contributionsspecial and general educators might make toward


2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31

EAAIDD

DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16


equipping students with the skills, knowledge,and opportunities to become more self-determining.Parents and other caregivers represent an essential—but too often neglected—partner in this endeavor(e.g., Zhang, 2006; Zhang et al., 2002; Zhang et al.,2010). To explore how parents view the importanceof self-determination and assess their children’sneeds in this domain, we solicited the perspectivesof more than 600 parents from numerous randomlyselected school districts. Our findings extend theself-determination literature in several importantways.

First, parents in the sample clearly empha-sized the importance of their children withintellectual disability or autism learning the sevenself-determination skills at their present age.Indeed, we were surprised by just how few parents(i.e., less than 10%) indicated that any of theindividual skills were not important. Problemsolving, self-management, and choice-makingskills garnered particularly high importance rat-ings, while the endorsement of goal setting andself-advocacy and leadership was only slightly lessprominent. The overall consistency of thesepriorities with those identified in prior studies ofgeneral educators, special educators, and parapro-fessionals suggests some degree of consensusacross stakeholder groups regarding the value offostering self-determination skill development(Carter et al., 2008; Carter, Lane, & Sisco, 2011;Stang et al., 2009). Although this study was notdesigned to explore why parents placed such high

value on these skills, findings suggest that parentsmay be receptive to placing more explicitemphasis on promoting self-determination withinthe curriculum and student’s individualized IEPs.

Although there was general consistency inparents’ evaluations of the importance of individ-ual skills, their collective ratings of all seven skillsappear to be shaped by at least three factors.Specifically, the seven skills were consideredsomewhat less important by parents of childrendescribed as having severe/profound disabilitiesor having a special education label of intellectualdisability. It may be that the difficulties childrenwith extensive support needs have performingself-determination skills (Carter, Owens, et al.,2009) indirectly temper parents’ views regardingthe importance of acquiring those skills. Forexample, a substantial proportion of parents’responses to open-ended survey questions aboutprimary barriers to self-determination emphasizedcommunication, social, cognitive, and other skilldeficits exhibited by their children. On the otherhand, parents of children who were eligible forfree or reduced-price meals considered those sameskills to be somewhat more important than didparents of children who were not eligible forFRL. This latter finding was unanticipated, asprior research has suggested that parents oflower-income families may engage in fewer self-determination practices (Zhang, 2006).

The assessments provided by parents alsoconveyed striking differences between the skills

Table 4Correlations Between Skill Importance, Skill Performance, and Overall Self-Determination Ratings

Self-determination

skills

Skill importance and

skill performance

Skill importance and overall

self-determination capacity

Skill performance and overall

self-determination capacity

r p value r p value r p value

Choice making 20.05 .2145 20.00 .9400 0.46 , .0001

Decision making 0.21 , .0001 0.14 .0007 0.53 , .0001

Problem solving 0.03 .5258 0.11 .0067 0.45 , .0001

Goal setting 0.17 , .0001 0.21 , .0001 0.51 , .0001

Self-advocacy and

leadership 0.13 .0012 0.26 , .0001 0.45 , .0001

Self-management and

self-regulation 0.08 .0602 0.15 .0002 0.45 , .0001

Self-awareness and

self-knowledge 0.13 .0020 0.16 , .0001 0.48 , .0001

Note. Correlations are based on the number of participants who completed the given item. Overall self-determinationratings refer to overall average scores on the AIR Self-Determination Scale.


2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31

EAAIDD

DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16


Table

5V

aria

bles

Pre

dict

ing

Impo

rtan

ce,

Per

form

ance

,an

dA

IRS

elf-

Det

erm

inat

ion

Sca

le

Outcomevariable

Step

Predictorvariable

Param

eter

estimate

Partial

R2

Model

R2

C(p)

Fvalue

pvalue

Importance

1Disabilitylevel

21.61

0.0660

0.0660

12.04

39.06

,.0001

2FRLstatus

0.64

0.0109

0.0768

7.49

6.50

.0111

3Intellectual

disability

20.49

0.0084

0.0853

4.41

5.03

.0246

Perform

ance

1Schoolsetting

20.98

0.1207

0.1207

106.06

75.35

,.0001

2Challengingbehaviorfrequency

20.67

0.0648

0.1855

59.95

43.58

,.0001

3Disabilitylevel

21.32

0.0353

0.2208

35.70

24.81

,.0001

4Child’sage

0.12

0.0207

0.2415

22.30

14.93

.0001

5Child’sgender

0.67

0.0098

0.2514

17.01

7.15

.0077

6FRLstatus

0.55

0.0092

0.2605

12.21

6.74

.0097

OverallSD

1Disabilitylevel

20.44

0.1092

0.1092

61.68

70.70

,.0001

2Challengingbehaviorfrequency

20.15

0.0402

0.1493

34.97

27.20

,.0001

3Schoolsetting

20.17

0.0244

0.1737

19.53

16.99

,.0001

4Child’sage

0.02

0.0119

0.1857

13.01

8.40

.0039

5Child’sgender

0.15

0.0084

0.1940

9.04

5.94

.0151

6FRLstatus

0.13

0.0073

0.2013

5.85

5.19

.0230

Not

e.FR

L5

Fre

e/re

du

ced

pri

celu

nch

elig

ible

.


2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31

EAAIDD

DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16


they considered important for their children andthe degree to which their children presentlyperformed those skills. For example, more thanhalf of the parents in this sample indicated theirchild did not perform five of the skills well at all.One marked exception was choice making, whichhas been among the most often emphasizedelements in the self-determination literature forthis population of students (Shogren, Faggella-Luby, Bae, & Wehmeyer, 2004; Shogren, Weh-meyer, Buchanan, & Lopez, 2006). It may be thisparticular skill receives greater emphasis withinthe special education curriculum, and/or perhapsit is the most easily learned skill among the seven.Parents’ ratings on the AIR Scale (both individualitems and overall) were also fairly low, with theexception that children were reported to some-times or always know what they need, like, and aregood at. Given the nature of those children’sdisabilities and support needs (Schalock et al.,2010), these performance discrepancies are likelynot unique to the domain of self-determination.Additional work, however, is needed to elucidatefactors contributing to observed differences inparents’ ratings of importance and performance.Although study respondents collectively reportednumerous ways in which they were encouragingskills potentially enhancing their child’s self-determination (see Weir, Cooney, Walter, Moss,& Carter, 2011), we were unable to discern theextent to which these efforts were implemented inways and degrees yielding substantive impact. Forexample, it may be parents highly value self-determination and are striving to encourage it butlack effective strategies to do so. Or, it may be thatparents view the skills as important, but lean toschools or others to provide explicit instruction inthis domain.

Parents’ ratings of self-determination skillperformance may be influenced by multiplefactors. The most prominent among these factorswas school setting. Specifically, children whospent more time in general education settingswere given higher ratings of skill performancethan were children who spent proportionallymore time in separate settings. We emphasize,however, the precise influence of educationalplacement on students’ self-determination out-comes is clearly complex and remains uncertain(Shogren et al., 2007; Zhang, 2001). In addition,children who engaged in lower rates of challengingbehavior were perceived to have higher self-determination skill performance. This is not

surprising, as a similar association has been foundamong students with learning disabilities or emo-tional/behavioral disorders (Pierson, Carter, Lane,& Glaeser, 2008). Additionally, self-determinationskills (esp. self-management, choice-making) areroutinely recommended as interventions for reduc-ing problem behaviors (Carter, Lane, Crnobori,Bruhn, & Oakes, 2011; Shogren et al., 2004).Finally, we found perceived level of disability to bea prominent predictor of parents’ ratings of self-determination skill performance and overall capac-ity, with children whose disabilities were consideredto be severe/profound having more limitationsrelated to self-determination (Wehmeyer & Garner,2003).

Although it was indeed a significant (albeitsmall) predictor, we were surprised that age wasnot more strongly related to overall skill perfor-mance or global self-determination capacity. Wehad anticipated older youth would be viewed asmore self-determining than young children.Instead, parents’ ratings of the self-determinationskills and capacity of their children with intellec-tual disability or autism were consistently low atall points along the age span, with only nominalincreases among children who are older. Thisfinding should not imply children and youth arenot developing skills in these seven areas overtime, as it is possible parents are heavily anchoringtheir ratings to what they would expect of theirchild relative to similar-age peers. This findingdoes, however, suggest intervention strategies maybe needed across the age span, long before self-determination traditionally becomes emphasizedduring early and middle adolescence.

Implications for Research and PracticeFindings from this large-scale study of parentperspectives have several implications for researchand practice. First, there is an enduring need todevelop home-based or family-delivered interven-tions to enhance self-determination—beginningat an early age and continuing throughoutchildren’s schooling. Although several articlesand publications have recommended strategiesparents might implement at home (e.g., Broth-erson, Cook, Erwin, & Weigel, 2008; Thoma &Wehman, 2010; Weir et al., 2011), there havebeen few rigorous evaluations of interventionsdelivered in these out-of-school contexts. Second,existing efforts to foster student self-determinationwould be enhanced by stronger collaboration and


2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31

EAAIDD

DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16


coordination across school and home settings(Field & Hoffman, 1999; Lee, Palmer, Turnbull,& Wehmeyer, 2006). For students with intellectualdisability or autism—who often have difficultiesgeneralizing newly learned skills across contexts—such synchronized efforts could increase both thenumber and diversity of self-determination skill-building opportunities these children encounterthroughout the week. Third, relatively little isknown about the everyday ways in which parentsare encouraging and supporting the skills, knowl-edge, and behaviors that may coalesce to shape tothe self-determination of their school-age childrenwith developmental disabilities over time. Al-though we gathered selected examples of effortsparents were making to encourage individual skills(Weir et al., 2011), in-depth qualitative investiga-tions are needed to document the diverse waysin which parents understand and address thisimportant domain beyond the school day. Fourth,personal and cultural identities likely shape theways in which families think about and supportself-determination beyond the school. As noted ina recent review by Shogren (2011), rigorous studiesexploring the intersection of culture and self-determination remain far too few. Although wewere able to explore one aspect of socioeconomicdiversity in our analyses (i.e., FRL eligibility), wewere unable to explore factors like race/ethnicity,nationality, parental education level, and otherrelated factors in this particular sample and state.We encourage future researchers to recruit samplesand employ methods that would further the field’sunderstanding of the ways in which these and othervariables, individually and in combination, mightshape the understandings and efforts of parentsrelated to this important educational domain.

LimitationsSeveral limitations to this study should beconsidered when discerning the relevance of ourfindings to other samples of parents and theirchildren. First, we did not sample families withchildren receiving special education under acategory other than autism or intellectual disabil-ity, families of pre-kindergarten children, norfamilies of children attending private or charterschools. Second, we relied on parental reports ofsome aspects of their children’s disabilitieswithout conducting direct assessments of stu-dents’ specific support needs. Although we reliedon schools’ determination of primary disability

category, parents’ descriptions of their children’sdisability categories may not have always alignedwith those of the school. Third, althoughdemographically similar to the randomly selectedschool districts from which participating parentswere affiliated, our sample does not fully reflectthe ethnic and racial diversity of the countrynationally. With only 63 parents listing their race/ethnicity as something other than EuropeanAmerican, our sample was too small to meaning-fully explore differences in parents’ perceptionsassociated with this factor. Readers should con-sider whether the students, parents, and commu-nities involved in this study resemble those withwhom they work when considering the generaliz-ability of the findings. Fourth, we were unable tomake comparisons to the ratings of parents ofsame-age children without disabilities to gaugewhether our findings simply reflect normativepatterns among all children.

Conclusion

Children and youth with autism or intellectualdisability often require explicit instruction andsupport to acquire and exercise essential self-determination skills, including choice-makingskills, decision-making skills, goal-setting skills,problem-solving skills, self-advocacy and leader-ship skills, self-awareness and self-knowledge, andself-management and self-regulation. Historically,research evaluating the effects of interventiontargeting these skills has taken place in education-al settings with teachers and teaching staff asinterventionists. However, given the enduringpresence of parents and other caregivers in achild’s life, these stakeholders likely play a pivotalrole in the acquisition and generalization of self-determination skills by children and youth withdevelopmental disabilities. The results of thepresent study suggest that, although parents ratedtheir child’s performance of self-determinedbehaviors low, the core skills associated withself-determination are highly valued by parents ofchildren and youth with autism or intellectualdisability. Additionally, our findings point topotential relationships between individual factors(i.e., disability severity, presence of challengingbehavior), family factors (i.e., economic status),and school factors (i.e., educational placement) onand parent report of their child’s self-determinationcapacity. Given the documented effectiveness ofself-determination interventions in educational


2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31

EAAIDD

DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16


settings, and the paucity of research involvingparents and other caregivers, there is a pressingneed for future research to address this gap in theliterature and deepen our evidence base forinterventions.

References

American Association on Intellectual and Devel-opmental Disabilities & The Arc. (2008). Self-determination policy statement. Washington,DC: Authors.

Borthwick-Duffy, S. A., Lane, K. L., & Widaman,K. F. (1997). Measuring problem behaviors inchildren with mental retardation: Dimensionsand predictors. Research in DevelopmentalDisabilities, 18, 415–433. doi:10.1016/S0891-4222(97)00020-6

Brotherson, M. J., Cook, C. C., Erwin, E. J., &Weigel, C. J. (2008). Understanding self-determination and families of young childrenwith disabilities in home environments.Journal of Early Intervention, 31, 22–43.doi:10.1177/1053815108324445

Carter, E. W., Lane, K. L., Crnobori, M., Bruhn,A. L., & Oakes, W. P. (2011). Self-determina-tion interventions for students with and atrisk for emotional and behavioral disorders:Mapping the knowledge base. BehavioralDisorders, 36, 100–116.

Carter, E. W., Lane, K. L., Pierson, M., & Glaeser,B. (2006). Self-determination skills and op-portunities of transition-age youth with emo-tional disturbance and learning disabilities.Exceptional Children, 72, 333–346.

Carter, E. W., Lane, K. L., Pierson, M. R., & Stang,K. K. (2008). Promoting self-determinationfor transition-age youth: Views of high schoolgeneral and special educators. ExceptionalChildren, 75, 55–70.

Carter, E. W., Lane, K. L., & Sisco, L. G. (2011).Paraprofessional perspectives on promotingself-determination among elementary andsecondary students with severe disabilities.Research and Practice for Persons with SevereDisabilities, 36, 1–10. doi:10.2511/rpsd.36.1-2.1

Carter, E. W., Owens, L., Trainor, A. A., Sun, Y.,& Swedeen, B. (2009). Self-determinationskills and opportunities of adolescents withsevere intellectual and developmental disabil-ities. American Journal on Intellectual and

Developmental Disabilities, 114, 179–192.doi:10.1352/1944-7558-114.3.179

Cho, H., Wehmeyer, M., & Kingston, N. (2011).Elementary teachers’ knowledge and use ofinterventions and barriers to promoting self-determination. The Journal of Special Education,45, 149–156. doi:10.1177/0022466910362588

Cobb, B., Lehmann, J., Newman-Gonchar, R., &Alwell, M. (2009). Self-determination forstudents with disabilities: A narrative meta-synthesis. Career Development for ExceptionalIndividuals, 32, 108–114. doi:10.1177/0885728809336654

Council for Exceptional Children. (2009). Whatevery special educator must know: Ethics, stan-dards, and guidelines (6th ed.). Arlington, VA:Author.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.) (2002). Handbookof self-determination research. Rochester, NY:University of Rochester Press.

Field, S., & Hoffman, A. (1999). The importanceof family involvement for promoting self-determination among adolescents with autismand other developmental disabilities. Focus onAutism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 14,36–41. doi:10.1177/108835769901400105

Field, S., & Hoffman, A. (2007). Self-determinationin secondary transition assessment. Assessmentfor Effective Intervention, 32, 181–190. doi:10.1177/15345084070320030601

Field, S., Martin, J., Miller, R., Ward, M., &Wehmeyer, M. L. (1998). Self-determinationfor persons with disabilities: A positionstatement of the Division on Career Devel-opment and Transition. Career Developmentfor Exceptional Individuals, 21, 113–128.doi:10.1177/088572889802100202

Fujiura, G. T., & Yamaki, K. (2000). Trends indemography of childhood poverty and dis-ability. Exceptional Children, 66, 187–199.

Grigal, M., Neubert, D. A., Moon, M. S., &Graham, S. (2003). Self-determination forstudents with disabilities: Views of parentsand teachers. Exceptional Children, 70, 97–112.

Halpern, A. S., Herr, C. M., Doren, B., & Wolf,N. K. (1997). Next S.T.E.P. curriculum. Austin,TX: Pro-Ed.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Im-provement Act of 2004. Pub. L. No. 108–446,1 101, 118 Stat. 2647. (2004).

Kelley, K. R., Bartholomew, A., & Test, D. W. (inpress). Effects of the Self-Directed IEP deliv-


2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31

EAAIDD

DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16


ered using computer-assisted instruction onstudent participation in educational planningmeetings. Remedial and Special Education.doi:10.1177/0741932511415864

Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L., Muller, K. E., &Nizam, A. (1998). Applied regression analysisand other multivariate methods (3rd ed.).Boston, MA: PWS-Kent.

Lee, S. H., Palmer, S. B., Turnbull, A. P., & Wehmeyer,M. L. (2006). A model for parent-teachercollaboration to promote self-determination inyoung children with disabilities. TEACHINGExceptional Children, 38(3), 36–41.

Mithaug, D. E., Mithaug, D., Agran, M., Martin,J., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (Eds.). (2003). Self-determined learning theory: Construction, verifi-cation, and evaluation. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

National Council for Accreditation of TeacherEducation. (2008). Professional standards for theaccreditation of teacher preparation institutions.Washington, DC: Author.

Pierson, M. R., Carter, E. W., Lane, K. L., &Glaeser, B. (2008). Factors influencing theself-determination of transition-age youthwith high incidence disabilities. Career Devel-opment for Exceptional Individuals, 31, 115–125. doi:10.1177/0885728808317659

Schalock, R. L., Borthwick-Duffy, S., Bradley,V. J., Buntinx, W. H. E., Coulter, D. L.,Craig, E. M., … Yeager, M. H. (2010).Intellectual disability: Definition, classification,and systems of support (11th ed.). Washington,DC: American Association on Intellectualand Developmental Disabilities.

Shogren, K. A. (2011). Culture and self-determi-nation: A synthesis of the literature anddirections for future research and practice.Career Development for Exceptional Individuals,34, 115–127. doi:10.1177/0885728811398271

Shogren, K. A., Faggella-Luby, M. N., Bae, S. J., &Wehmeyer, M. L. (2004). The effect of choice-making as an intervention for problem behav-ior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Positive Behav-ior Interventions, 6, 228–237. doi:10.1177/10983007040060040401

Shogren, K. A., Palmer, S. B., Wehmeyer, M. L.,Williams-Diehm, K., & Little, T. D. (in press).Effects of intervention with the Self-Deter-mined Learning Model of Instruction on accessand goal attainment. Remedial and SpecialEducation. doi:10.1177/0741932511410072

Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Buchanan,C. L., & Lopez, S. J. (2006). The applicationof positive psychology and self-determinationto research in intellectual disability: A con-tent analysis of 30 years of literature. Researchand Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities,31, 338–345.

Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B.,Soukup, J. H., Little, T. D., Garner, N., &Lawrence, M. (2007). Examining individual andecological predictors of the self-determinationof students with disabilities. Exceptional Chil-dren, 73, 488–509.

Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B.,Soukup, J. H., Little, T. D., Garner, N., &Lawrence, M. (2008). Understanding theconstruct of self-determination: Examiningthe relationship between the Arc’s Self-Determination Scale and the American Insti-tutes for Research Self-Determination Scale.Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 94–107.doi:10.1177/1534508407311395

Stang, K. K., Carter, E. W., Lane, K. L., & Pierson,M. R. (2009). Perspectives of general andspecial educators on fostering self-determina-tion in elementary and middle schools. TheJournal of Special Education, 43, 94–106.doi:10.1177/0022466907313452

TASH. (2000). TASH resolution on choice. Wash-ington, DC: Author.

Test, D. W., Fowler, C. H., Richter, S. M., White,J., Mazzotti, V., Walker, A. R., … Kortering,L. (2009). Evidence-based practices in second-ary transition. Career Development for Excep-tional Individuals, 32, 115–128. doi:10.1177/0885728809336859

Thoma, C. A., & Wehman, P. (2010). Getting themost out of IEPs: An educator’s guide to thestudent-directed approach. Baltimore, MD: PaulH. Brookes.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (2000). The Arc’s Self-Determi-nation Scale. Silver Springs, MD: The Arc ofthe United States.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (2005). Self-determination andindividuals with severe disabilities: Re-examiningmeanings and misinterpretations. Research andPractice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30, 113–120.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Abery, B. H., Mithaug, D., &Stancliffe, R. J. (2003). Theory in self-determination: Foundations for educational prac-tice. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.


2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31

EAAIDD

DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16


Wehmeyer, M. L., Abery, B., Zhang, D., Ward,K., Willis, D., Hossain, W. A., … Walker,H. M. (2011). Personal self-determination andmoderating variables that impact efforts topromote self-determination. Exceptionality, 19,19–30. doi:10.1080/09362835.2011.537225

Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. (2000).A national survey of teachers’ promotion ofself-determination and student-directed learn-ing. Journal of Special Education, 34, 58–68.doi:10.1177/002246690003400201

Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., Hughes, C., Martin,J., Mithaug, D. E., & Palmer, S. (2007).Promoting self-determination in students withintellectual and developmental disabilities. NewYork, NY: Guilford Press.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Field, S. (2007). Instructionaland assessment strategies to promote the self-determination of students with disabilities. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Field, S., Doren, B., & Mason,C. (2004). Self-determination and studentinvolvement in standards-based reform. Ex-ceptional Children, 70, 413–425.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Garner, N. W. (2003). Theimpact of personal characteristics of peoplewith intellectual and developmental disabilityon self-determination and autonomous func-tioning. Journal of Applied Research in Intellec-tual Disabilities, 16, 255–265. doi:10.1046/j.1468-3148.2003.00161.x

Wehmeyer, M. L., Lawrence, M., Kelchner, K.,Palmer, S., Garner, N., & Soukup, J. (2004).Whose future is it anyway? A student-directedtransition planning process (2nd ed.). Lawrence,KS: Beach Center on Disability.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Palmer, S. B. (2000).Promoting the acquisition and developmentof self-determination in young children withdisabilities. Early Education and Development,4, 465–481.

Weir, K., Cooney, M., Walter, M., Moss, C., &Carter, E. W. (2011). Fostering self-determina-tion among children with disabilities: Ideas fromparents for parents. Madison, WI: NaturalSupports Project, Waisman Center, Universi-ty of Wisconsin-Madison.

Wolman, J. M., Campeau, P. L., DuBois, P. A.,Mithaug, D. E., & Stolarski, V. S. (1994). AIRself-determination scale and user guide. Palo Alto,CA: American Institutes for Research. Avail-able at http://www.zarrow.ou.edu

Zhang, D. (2001). Self-determination and inclu-sion: Are students with mild mental retardationmore self-determined in regular classrooms?Education and Training in Mental Retardationand Developmental Disabilities, 36, 357–362.

Zhang, D. (2006). Parent practices in facilitatingself-determination skills: The influences ofculture, socioeconomic status, and children’sspecial education status. Research and Practicefor Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30, 154–162.

Zhang, D., Katsiyannis, A., & Zhang, J. (2002).Teacher and parent practice on fostering self-determination of high school students withmild disabilities. Career Development for Excep-tional Individuals, 25, 157–169. doi:10.1177/088572880202500205

Zhang, D., Landmark, L., Grenwelge, C., &Montoya, L. (2010). Self-determination prac-tices among culturally diverse families: Paren-tal perspectives. Education and Training inDevelopmental Disabilities, 45, 175–186.

Zhang, D., Wehmeyer, M. L., & Chen, L. (2005).Parent and teacher engagement in fosteringthe self-determination of students with dis-abilities: A comparison between the UnitedStates and the Republic of China. Remedialand Special Education, 26, 55–64. doi:10.1177/07419325050260010701

Received 9/1/2011, first decision 1/5/2012, accepted6/7/2012.Editor-in-Charge: Marc Tasse

Authors:Erik W. Carter (e-mail: [email protected]),Vanderbilt University, Special Education, PMB 228,110 Magnolia Circle, Nashville, TN 53703, USA;Kathleen Lynne Lane, University of Kansas; MollyCooney, Katherine Weir, and Colleen K. Moss,Waisman Center, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, and Wendy Machalicek, University ofOregon.


2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31

EAAIDD

DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16


Resumes en Francais

Etablir l’equivalence: le progres methodologiquedans la conception et l’analyse desgroupes d’appariement

Sara T. Kover et Amy K. Atwood

Cette revue methodologique attire l’attention sur lesdefis auxquels font face les chercheurs en deficienceintellectuelle en ce qui a trait a la conceptionappropriee et a l’analyse d’etudes de comparaison degroupes. Nous faisons un survol des methodologiesd’appariement dans le domaine de la deficienceintellectuelle, en mettant l’accent sur la conceptiondes groupes d’appariement utilises en recherchecomportementale sur la cognition et le langage entroubles neurodeveloppementaux, incluant le trou-ble du spectre autistique, le syndrome du X fragile, lesyndrome de Down et le syndrome de Williams. Leslimites reliees au fait de se fier aux valeurs p pouretablir l’equivalence des groupes seront discuteesdans le contexte d’autres methodes actuelles: lestests d’equivalence, les scores de propension et lesanalyses de regression. Notre recommandationprincipale pour l’avancement de la recherche endeficience intellectuelle est l’utilisation d’indicesdescriptifs de groupe d’appariement adequats: destailles d’effet (c’est-a-dire les differences moyennesnormalisees) et des ratios de variances.

L’evaluation parentale de l’importance del’autodetermination et de la performanced’eleves ayant un trouble envahissant dudeveloppement ou une deficience intellectuelle

Erik W. Carter, Kathleen Lynne Lane, MollyCooney, Katherine Weir, Colleen K. Moss etWendy Machalicek

La promotion de l’autodetermination des elevesest maintenant consideree comme etant unelement essentiel de l’education specialisee etdes services de transition chez les enfants et lesadolescents presentant une deficience intellec-tuelle ou un trouble envahissant du developpe-ment. Pourtant, peu d’information est disponiblequant au role central que les parents adoptentdans la promotion de l’autodetermination de leursenfants presentant une deficience intellectuelle endehors du contexte scolaire. Nous avons examine

de quelle maniere 627 parents d’enfants presentantune deficience intellectuelle ou un trouble envahis-sant du developpement et frequentant 1 des 34districts scolaires choisis aleatoirement ont evalue (a)l’importance de 7 habiletes reliees a l’autodetermina-tion, (b) la performance de leur enfant pour les 7habiletes, et (c) les capacites generales d’autodetermi-nation de leur enfant. Bien que les parents valorisaienttoutes les habiletes d’autodetermination, le degre deperformance de leurs enfants en lien avec ces habiletesetait relativement bas. Plusieurs facteurs predisaientdes niveaux eleves d’autodetermination incluant lecontexte scolaire, la presence de troubles du compor-tement et la severite percue de la deficience. Nousconcluons en offrant des recommandations pouraider les parents a soutenir le developpement del’autodetermination de leurs enfants.

Attitudes des membres de la communautepakistanaise et des prestataires de servicesenvers les personnes ayant unedeficience intellectuelle

Mazna Patka, Christopher B. Keys, David B.Henry et Katherine E. McDonald

L’acceptation et l’inclusion des personnes pre-sentant une deficience intellectuelle peuventvarier selon les cultures et la comprehension desattitudes peut nous eclairer sur ces variations. Anotre connaissance, aucune etude n’a explore lesattitudes envers les personnes presentant unedeficience intellectuelle parmi les membres de lacommunaute pakistanaise et les prestataires deservices aux personnes handicapees. Nous avonsadministre le Community Living Attitudes Scale,une mesure des attitudes envers les personnespresentant une deficience intellectuelle develop-pee aux Etats-Unis, a 262 membres de lacommunaute et a 190 prestataires de services auxpersonnes handicapees au Pakistan. Une analysefactorielle confirmatoire a trouve une solution aquatre facteurs (empowerment, similitude, exclu-sion et protection) qui s’adapte a l’echantillonpakistanais. Des attitudes plus positives ont eteobservees chez le personnel s’occupant despersonnes presentant une deficience intellectuelle,les femmes, les chretiens, les hindous, les sunnites


2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 74–75

EAAIDD

DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.74

74 Resumes en Francais

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited withoutpermission.