Paula D. Kohler, Ph.D. Transition Research Institute University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
It's common for transition-related manuscripts to begin with information about the post-school outcomes of individuals with disabilities. Over the past 10 years, the emergence of this information has had a profound effect on educators, researchers, and policymakers, not to mention the underlying impact on students and their families. Thus, growing public recognition that youths with disabilities have not achieved high levels of quality, full-time employment, independent living, success in postsecondary education, or community engagement has brought about an examination of our educational and adult service delivery systems. This examination has included reflection on the purposes of education, educational practice, desirable educational outcomes, and the roles of students in the educational process.
Recent policy developments (e.g., Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 (IDEA), Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992, School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994) have helped shift the focus of education and adult service delivery from systems to individuals. A new, "consumer-oriented" educational and service delivery paradigm appears to be emerging that is based upon student abilities, options, and self-determination (Szymanski, Hanley-Maxwell, & Parker, 1990; Wehman, 1992). This paradigm reflects a transition perspective of education, a perspective that promotes the idea that educational programs and instructional activities should be (a) based upon students' post-school goals, and (b) driven by individual needs, interests, and preferences (see Clark & Kolstoe, 1995; Edgar & Polloway, 1994; Gajar, Goodman, & McAfee, 1993; Kohler & Rusch, in press; Rusch, DeStefano, Chadsey-Rusch, Phelps, & Szymanski, 1992). This perspective recognizes that transition planning is not an add-on activity for students with disabilities once they reach age 16, but a foundation from which educational programs and activities are developed.
Historically, this transition perspective has guided educational planning for the college-bound student, albeit informally. For typical college-bound students, their educational program is developed around the post-school goal of attending college. As a result, they generally (a) enroll in the academic coursework and two years of foreign language instruction required by most four-year universities; (b) register for and take the SAT or ACT exams required for admission; (c) identify and apply to colleges and universities of interest; (d) identify and apply for appropriate scholarships or financial aid; and (e) participate in school clubs, sports, or activities that develop personal, social, and leadership skills. To see that these various tasks are accomplished, a variety of individuals within the school and community work with the college-bound student, including teachers, guidance counselors, coaches, club sponsors, administrators, parents, and even employers. Most importantly, students are actively involved in planning their schedule each year, choosing electives, identifying careers and colleges of interest, and choosing the clubs and sports in which to participate.
According to a transition perspective, the educational planning process consists of the following three steps: (a) post-school goals are identified based on student abilities, needs, interests, and preferences; (b) instructional activities and educational experiences are developed to prepare students for their post-school goals; and (c) a variety of individuals, including the student, work together to identify and develop the goals and activities (Kohler & Rusch, in press).
Our educational systems have worked to facilitate this "transition planning" for the typical college-bound student; their educational programs and related activities have been designed to help them achieve their post-school training goal--a college education. However, as reflected in the student outcome data (e.g., Bruininks, Thurlow, Lewis, & Larson, 1988; Hasazi, Gordon, & Roe, 1985; Mithaug, Horiuchi, & Fanning 1985; Wagner, D'Amico, Marder, Newman, & Blackorby, 1992), our educational systems have not been effective in developing or delivering educational planning processes or educational programs for students with disabilities. Thus, although special educators in most districts have recognized that IDEA requires transition planning, many continue to struggle with the reality of program development. They want information relevant to developing those "coordinated sets of activities" required in the legislation.
In our efforts to address the issue of student outcomes, we have paid particular attention to the development of theoretical and analytical models to help focus and explain theory relevant to the transition from school to post-school environments. Will's (1984) bridges model was an important initial representation of perceived connections between school experiences and post-school employment and the services that students typically utilized as they moved from one environment to the other. The bridges model also articulated federal initiatives related to services for school-to-work transition.
Halpern's (1985) revised transition model expanded transition-related theory and discussion beyond a focus on employment to include outcomes associated with other aspects of living in one's community. That is, it featured community adjustment as the primary target of transition services, supported by the three pillars of residential environment, social and interpersonal networks, and employment.
A third model, Wehman's Three-Stage Vocational Transition Model (Wehman, Kregel, & Barcus, 1985), focused more on process components rather than on the theoretical and philosophical components addressed by Will (1984) and Halpern (1985). This more detailed representation of the transition process consisted of a series of steps beginning several years prior to a student's exit from school and extending one to two years after school exit.
More recently, Halpern (1993) proposed that quality of life be applied as a conceptual framework for evaluating transition outcomes, adding a number of variables associated with increased quality of life in specific outcome domains. Other researchers (e.g., Gierl & Harnisch, 1995; Harnisch, Wermuth, & Zheng, 1992; Wagner, 1991) have developed conceptual frameworks to guide the investigation of both process and outcome data generated from the National Longitudinal Transition Study.
Together, these models have served to direct attention to the issue of transition and have helped focus research and policy on educational and adult service practices associated with promoting employment and other desirable adult outcomes. However, since the development of these models, no working model has emerged that links theory with transition practice. Such a model, in association with a well-conceived measurement system, would be useful for reporting and comparing status, tracking changes, predicting future performance, explaining conditions and changes, profiling strengths and weaknesses, and informing policy and practice (DeStefano & Wagner, 1991; Haring & Breen, 1989; Oakes, 1986). Specifically, a transition programming model would be important in describing the various theoretical and practical phenomena that are related to promoting student transition in a way that makes sense to the end-user, be they educators, policymakers, service providers, researchers, or families (Eichelberger, 1989).
It has been well documented that a gap exists in education between research and practice (e.g., see Ayres, Meyer, Erevelles, & Park-Lee, 1994; Viadero, 1994), and the area of transition is no exception. If we are to link research and practice, we cannot present schools with an exhaustive list of things they should consider when planning and developing their programs. Instead, to promote transition-focused programs, we must identify proven practices and communicate this information in a format that facilitates use. By identifying "best" practices, we can communicate a need for systems change and convey the critical features of service delivery, and, ultimately translate research into a form that meets the needs of administrators and service providers (Peters & Heron, 1993). In recent years, a number of perceived "best practices" have emerged that appear to be related to the successful transition from school. However, many of the practices described as "best" have not been supported by evidence of effectiveness (Kohler, 1993a). Peters and Heron (1993) contend that as a result of being called "best," such practices are often adopted blindly and accepted as irrefutably superior, are implemented ineffectively or without following prescribed methodologies, or applied to populations other than those within the prescribed disability target group. To ensure that the term "best practice" represents a reliable, valid, and critical aspect of a program, Peters and Heron (1993) suggested that the following five criteria be applied to all strategies and practices under consideration: (a) the practice is well grounded in theory; (b) the practice is supported empirically through studies that are internally and externally valid; (c) the practice has some underpinnings in existing literature; (d) the practice is associated with meaningful outcomes; and (e) the practice is socially valid.
This manuscript provides an overview of four studies that have sought to apply the standard described by Peters and Heron to the identification of effective transition practices. The first three studies were designed to identify practices that were supported to some extent with evidence of effectiveness through a review of literature, an analysis of exemplary transition programs identified through evaluation studies, and a metaevaluation of model demonstration transition program outcomes and activities. The purpose of the fourth study was to extend the list of identified practices, to develop a conceptual framework or model of these practices, and to socially validate the model.
The first investigation (Kohler, 1993a) featured a review of 49 documents related to transition. Evidence in support of particular practices was categorized as either being substantiated in the literature by the results of a research study or implied as effective by the publication's author(s). According to this review of literature, three practices--vocational training, parent involvement, and interagency collaboration and service delivery--were cited in over 50% of the documents analyzed (Kohler, 1993a). Further, social skills training, paid work experience, and individual transition plans and planning were supported in at least one third of the literature reviewed.
The second study (Kohler, DeStefano, Wermuth, Grayson, & McGinty, 1994) analyzed 15 evaluation studies focused on exemplary programs and practices pertaining to transition. Specifically, this investigation examined the methodology used to identify "best" practices and exemplary transition programs and identified practices consistently designated as effective across evaluation studies. Practices associated with transition programs identified as exemplary included vocational assessment, supported employment services, employability and social skills training, parent involvement, interdisciplinary transition teams, transition-focused IEPs, community-based and community-referenced instruction and curricula, least restrictive and integrated settings, and interagency coordination and service delivery. In the third investigation (Rusch, Kohler, & Hughes, 1992), final reports of 42 employment-focused transition programs funded by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services were analyzed to identify project purposes, activities, outcomes, and barriers. Findings indicated that projects provided work skills training, developed programs or materials and evaluated their effectiveness, disseminated information, and conducted public relations activities and training. In line with these activities, projects reported that they achieved specific outcomes: employment of individuals, establishment of training programs and services, and development of cooperative delivery systems (Rusch, Kohler, & Hughes, 1992).
A list of promising transition practices emerged as a result of these three investigations. The practices included were supported to some extent by evidence relevant to those five criteria suggested by Peters and Heron (1993). For example, they were supported in literature; most were based on theory, in many cases, career and or vocational education theory, or emerging theory associated with the concept of transition planning. All were associated with valued post-school outcomes, in some cases, linked with specific, documented outcomes. Many practices had been socially validated, particularly those included in the exemplary programs studies. Finally, empirical support had been generated for a number of the practices.
The present study was undertaken to extend the findings of the previous work. Specifically, its three primary purposes were as follows: (a) to identify additional transition practices perceived to be effective by experts in the field; (b) to organize the practices into a conceptual framework that would be useful for planning, evaluation, and research; and (c) to evaluate the conceptual framework through social validation and statistical analysis.
Method
The methodology utilized in this investigation was based on Trochim and Linton's general model of conceptualization (Linton, 1985; Trochim, 1989a, 1989b; Trochim & Linton, 1986). This model includes three components: (a) the process steps, or specific procedures taken to conduct the conceptualization; (b) the perspective origins, or the individuals who participate in each of the process steps; and (c) the representation form, or the final appearance or format in which the resulting conceptualization is presented (Trochim & Linton, 1986).
Described as concept mapping, the process begins with thoughts, notions, ideas, statements, or some other form of entity, and results in some type of conceptualization. Thus, the process begins with the generation of individual entities, representing basic building blocks, that together work to form broader concepts. The final conceptualization "represents an interpretable arrangement of concepts and/or entities" (Trochim & Linton, 1986, p. 290). As developed by Trochim and his colleagues (Linton, 1985; Trochim, 1989a, 1989b; Trochim & Linton, 1986), the concept mapping process typically involves the following steps: (a) generating the conceptual domain, or generating the entities that will comprise the conceptualization; (b) structuring the conceptual domain, or defining or estimating the relationships between and among the entities; and (c) representing the conceptual domain, or presenting the structured set of entities verbally, pictorially, or mathematically (Trochim & Linton, 1986).
Closely aligned with the concept mapping process described by Trochim and Linton (Linton, 1985; Trochim, 1989a, 1989b; Trochim & Linton, 1986), this study was conducted in three phases: (a) generation of the concept (identification of practices), (b) structuring and representation of the concept (sorting and rating the transition practices and producing the concept maps), and (c) interpretation of concept maps (evaluation of the model by study participants). However, modifications to the general model were made in each phase to meet the specific needs and purposes of this study. For example, whereas Trochim and his colleagues (cf. Galvin, 1989; Linton, 1985; Mannes, 1989; Trochim, 1989a) typically conducted concept mapping with small groups of program stakeholders through a series of meetings, the three phases of the current study were conducted using survey methodology with a national group of transition stakeholders.
Since each phase of the study was a prerequisite of the next, it was imperative to obtain the results of Phase I before initiating Phase II, and so on. Thus, results for each phase are reported within this methods section to facilitate understanding. Findings of the study in general are reported in the results section.
The purpose of Phase I was to develop the concept of transition practices by generating individual entities or statements perceived by study participants as representing transition practices. Specifically, we sought to identify practices viewed as effective in promoting transition from school to post-school life for students with disabilities. As described, a growing list of transition practices emerged from the series of three investigations (i.e., Kohler, 1993a; Kohler et al., 1994; Rusch, Kohler, & Hughes, 1992). To facilitate further investigation of these practices, they were structured into five categories and described: (a) career and vocational development; (b) student-focused systematic planning; (c) interagency and interdisciplinary teaming, collaboration, and service delivery; (d) parent involvement in planning, education, and service delivery; and (e) program structure and attributes.
The categories of practices served as a basis for identifying the hypothetical universe of transition practices that formed the concept of interest. Phase I tasks were designed to socially validate the transition practices identified previously and structured in the form of statements, and to generate additional practice statements.
Participants
In concept mapping, it is the thinking of the participant group, the perspective origins, that defines and organizes the concept of interest--in our case, effective transition planning. The construct validity of the conceptual model produced through the concept mapping process is dependent on the validity of the entities generated and structured during the process, that is, those entities identified by study participants as comprising or defining the concept (Grayson, 1992; Linton, 1985). Therefore, in order to establish construct validity, it is essential that the participant group consist of individuals who are knowledgeable of the concept being studied.
To provide construct validity, a national pool of 296 individuals associated with transition research, programs, and or service delivery was identified to participate in the study. Specifically, the following groups were included: (a) authors represented in the 49 documents included in the review of literature1 (see Kohler, 1993a); (b) OSERS-funded model demonstration transition project directors; (c) state directors of special education or their designate; (d) state transition systems change project directors; (e) Regional Resource Center directors and transition specialists; (f) staff of relevant information clearinghouses; and (g) research faculty at the Transition Research Institute.
To achieve an understanding of whose thinking generated and structured the conceptual model produced in the study, demographic data on study participants were collected. Of the 296 individuals identified as the participant pool, 207 (69.9%) participated in Phase I.
As illustrated in Table 1, respondents represented 47 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa; states not represented included Alaska, Nevada, and Wyoming. Of those responding, 39% were directors of programs, 28.5% represented state-level education agencies, and 38.2% represented four-year colleges or universities; over 95% held a master's, specialist, or doctoral degree. Phase I participants had a mean of 17.8 years of experience working with individuals with disabilities (SD = 7.2, mode = 20) and a mean of 8.4 years of experience pertaining to transition-focused planning, services, or research (SD = 6.1, mode = 10). A majority of respondents (88.9%) based their input about transition practices on their past experience working with individuals with disabilities; 55.1% based their input on research they had conducted. An overview of demographic information pertaining to respondents in each phase of the study is presented in Table 1.
------------------------------------ Insert Table 1 about here --------------------------
As shown, Phase I participants were from all regions of the United States, represented a diversity of organizations, served in a variety of roles, held advanced degrees, and were experienced working with individuals with disabilities--both generally and specifically in the area of transition. These data suggest a heterogeneous group of individuals.
Data Collection
The focus of a structured conceptualization is central to generating ideas and notions--the entities that comprise a concept. Thus, it is the focus, or identified domain of the conceptualization, that guides entity generation. This focus is included in the instructions provided to participants as they begin the task of generating the conceptual domain. The focus that guided Phase I data collection was determined by the purpose of this study: to identify and organize practices perceived effective in promoting transition from school to community for youths with disabilities. By explicitly articulating the focus, ideas and notions representing transition practices as conceptualized by study participants could be collected. The process of concept generation was conducted with a survey instrument through the mail.
The survey packet included a letter, a page of instructions, an eight-page questionnaire, and a return envelope. Pages 1 and 2 of the questionnaire requested demographic information pertaining to the respondent and the respondent's roles and experiences. The transition practices generated in the three investigations (see Kohler, 1993a; Kohler et al., 1994; Rusch, Kohler, & Hughes, 1992) were listed by category on pages 3 through 7. Respondents were asked to: "Read the statements within each category. Then (1) place and "x" by those practices you feel should be included in a comprehensive list of best practices associated with transition services, and (2) in the space provided, list any other practices that you feel should be included on such a list." Respondents were instructed to use the back of the page if necessary. On page 8, space was provided to suggest additional categories and associated transition practices.
Approximately one week after the specified return date, a follow-up letter and duplicate survey packet were mailed to all individuals who had not responded. Of the 207 responses, 36.2% were received after the follow-up letter was mailed.
Data Analysis
As they were received, survey responses were entered into a SAS data file in the University of Illinois' mainframe system. Descriptive statistics were generated for the 207 respondents for each demographic variable on the survey instrument. In addition, frequency counts for practices selected to be retained in each category were tabulated and lists of additional practices suggested by respondents for each of the five categories were generated.
Practices that were socially validated by less than 50% of the respondents were subsequently deleted from each category. These included three practices from Category 1 (simulated business environment in classroom, job club, and participation in a vocational student organization) and one practice from Category 5 (qualifications of staff documented). Content analysis techniques were used to organize and clarify the lists of suggested practices in each category. For example, within categories, suggested practice statements were grouped together based on the primary topic or idea. Subsequently, redundant statements were removed. In some cases, similar statements were combined or reworded to present a single thought. Two categories were renamed to reflect suggestions generated by Phase I responses. Also, at the suggestion of many respondents, most references to parent involvement or participation were expanded to reflect family involvement. Finally, statements were structured to be syntactically parallel. A final list of statements was developed for each category and each statement was assigned an identifying number. Descriptions of the transition practices categories and titles before and after Phase I are listed in Table 2.
------------------------------------ Insert Table 2 about here -----------------------------------
Phase II: Structuring the Transition Practice Statements
The purpose of Phase II was to structure the five sets of transition practice statements so as to develop estimates of conceptual similarity or relatedness. Simply, we wanted to develop an organized arrangement of the transition practice statements based on participants' perceptions of the relationships between and among the statements. The structuring process consisted of three tasks: (a) rating the practices statements for importance, (b) sorting the practices into groups, and (c) graphically representing the practices in the form of concept maps.
Participants
The 207 individuals who participated in Phase I were mailed the packet of materials prepared for Phase II. Ninety-one responses were received, representing a 44% response rate. To determine differences between individuals who did and those who did not participate in Phase II, categorical demographic data for each group were compared using Chi-square analyses. No significant differences were detected for any demographic variable (a = .01) between Phase I participants who did and those who did not participate in Phase II. Years of experience were analyzed using t tests; again, no significant differences were detected (a = .01). Phase II responders had 17.5 years of experience in general, and 7.8 years of experience related to transition planning. Thus, the individuals who structured the concept of transition planning practices were an experienced group, who represented a diversity of organizations, performed in a variety of roles, and worked with a broad range of individuals with disabilities.
Data Collection
Phase II materials included a letter, instructions, a color-coded rating instrument for each category of practices, five stacks of color-coded cards containing the numbered transition practice statements, a color-coded instrument corresponding to each category for recording sorted groups of transition practice statements, rubber bands, and a return envelope.
Participants were asked to rate the transition practice statements within each category for importance on a 1-to-4 scale, where 1 = least important, 2 = somewhat important, 3 = very important, and 4 = most important. Participants were instructed to define importance in terms of their own perception of each practice's degree of importance in preparing students with disabilities to attain positive post-school outcomes.
Participants were then instructed to sort the transition practices statements within each category into groups using the color-coded stacks of cards. Each transition practice statement was recorded on an individual card and identified by a number; practices within each of the five practice categories were recorded on cards of the same color. Participants were asked to sort the practices statements into groups (piles) according to similarity, that is, to sort the practices in whatever way made sense to them. The instructions noted that four restrictions applied: (a) categories (colors) of cards could not be mixed; (b) within each category, there could not be only one pile of cards; (c) an item could not be placed in two piles simultaneously; and (d) every statement could not be placed into a separate pile, although some statements could be sorted by themselves when it made sense to do so. Participants were asked to use the color-coded recording instruments to record the number of each practice statement in each pile and to assign a brief label or name to each group of practices. Finally, they were asked to place a rubber band around each pile of cards, which represented the raw data, and to return all materials in the envelope provided. Approximately three weeks after the requested return date, a follow-up letter was mailed to those who had not responded. Of the 91 responses, 34% were received after the follow-up letter.
Data Analysis
The sort data (groupings of transition practice statements) were entered
into a statistical software program (The Concept System; Trochim, 1989b). For each
category of practices, each participant's sort data were structured into a binary
similarity matrix and individual matrices were aggregated to produce a total matrix of
sort data. This matrix reflected how the total group of Phase II participants organized
the practices statements within categories. A high value associated with any two
statements indicated that many of the participants placed that pair of statements together
in a pile, implying similarity; a low value signified that those statements were seldom
grouped together, thus implying dissimilarity.
Next, a hierarchical cluster analysis (Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984; Everitt, 1980; Trochim & Linton, 1986) was conducted on the multidimensionally scaled outcome coordinates. This analysis was used to partition the individual practice statements into clusters of practices that reflected similar concepts. Beginning with the assumption that all the statements within each category comprised a single category, the statements were successively partitioned into smaller and smaller groups (Grayson, 1992; Linton, 1985). Although larger groups of practices were subdivided into smaller groups during the iterative process, practices were never recombined again in subsequent stages.
A number of cluster "solutions" were prepared for each category, ranging from three to nine clusters of practices. Solutions with fewer clusters tended to represent more general groupings of the practices, whereas a higher number of clusters indicated a higher degree of cohesiveness. The final cluster solution is based upon the interpretation of cluster meaning and depends largely on the degree of generality desired in the particular situation (Trochim & Linton, 1986). Final cluster solutions were identified for each category of practices, and cluster labels were developed, based in part on the pile names suggested by participants during the sorting process. As an example, the labeled cluster map for the Student Development category of practices is presented in Figure 2. The numbers of clusters across categories ranged from four to six.
------------------------------------ Insert Figure 2 about here -----------------------------------
The mean importance ratings for each transition practice statement and for each cluster were computed and represented graphically. Mean cluster ratings were based on the mean rating of the individual statements within each cluster, thus indicating which clusters had relatively high and low importance as perceived by Phase II participants. An analysis of variance (Kirk, 1982) was conducted to determine if mean ratings among the clusters within each category differed significantly; post hoc analyses were conducted using Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) test to determine which clusters differed significantly.
Phase III: Evaluation of the Model
The purpose of Phase III was to evaluate the conceptual model of transition practices developed through the sorting activities of Phase II. Specifically, evaluation focused on social validation of the model and external validity. The conceptual model was evaluated by study participants and through statistical analysis.
Participant Evaluation
Participants. Phase III materials were mailed to the 207 individuals who participated in Phase I. A total of 91 people responded (44%). Of these, 32 (35%) had participated in Phase I only. The remaining 59 (65%) had participated both in Phases I and II; they represented 65% of the group of Phase II respondents. To determine if differences existed between the Phase III responders and those who responded in each of Phases I and II, Chi-square analyses were conducted on the categorical demographic data collected during Phase I; years of experience were analyzed using t tests. No significant differences (a = .01) were detected for any demographic variable, including years of experience. Phase III participants had 18.7 years of experience with individuals with disabilities and 7.6 years of experience related specifically to transition.
Data collection. Phase III materials included (a) a letter, (b) instructions, (c) color-coded materials for each category, and (d) a return envelope. Materials for each category consisted of a list of transition practice statements, a point map, unlabeled and labeled cluster maps, a cluster list with mean rating values for each statement and cluster, a cluster rating map, and an evaluation instrument. A general evaluation instrument for the study in general was included as well.
Participants were instructed to examine sequentially the materials for each category of practices and to complete a one-page evaluation instrument. The first five questions involved a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = low degree, 5 = high degree) and pertained to respondents' perceptions about (a) whether the way the practices were organized made sense, (b) support for the maps as a good working model, (c) agreement with the importance ratings, (d) usefulness of the results, and (e) agreement with the cluster names. In addition, open-ended questions asked for alternate suggestions for cluster names and provided an opportunity for comments. Finally, the one-page general evaluation asked respondents for likes and dislikes about the study process and results, uses for the information generated, preferred formats for dissemination, and comments.
A follow-up letter was mailed approximately 10 days after the requested return date to individuals who had not responded. Thirty-six (39.6%) of the 91 responses were received subsequent to mailing the follow-up letter.
Data analysis. Descriptive statistics were calculated for responses to Questions 1-5 by category of practices. In terms of the open-ended questions for each category and for the general evaluation instrument, the content of each response was analyzed and similar responses were grouped together.
Statistical Evaluation
Analyses of the internal consistency of the rating data were conducted to determine if Phase II participants rated items for importance within clusters consistently, even though rating and sorting were independent tasks. Through these analyses, the "fit" of specific practices (with respect to relative importance) with other practices within clusters was investigated. This information would serve to indicate whether the rating value of one practice statement might be "predicted" by the value of other practices within the same group, and thus indicate the degree of cohesiveness of the practices within clusters, relative to importance. To measure the degree of internal consistency within clusters, Cronbach's alpha (Cunningham, 1986) was computed for each cluster by category.
To investigate "generalizability" of the conceptual model beyond the Phase II participants who generated the sort data, Phase III responses were analyzed according to subgroups of participants. Typically, only those who participate in the sorting procedure are involved in evaluating the emergent model developed through the multidimensional scaling and clustering process (see Kohler, 1993b; Galvin, 1989; Linton, 1985; Mannes, 1989; Trochim, 1989a). Since the purpose of this study was to generate a conceptual model that would be useful to practitioners, policymakers, and researchers in the field, those who participated in Phase I only, as well as those who participated in both Phases I and II, were included in Phase III. Means of Phase III responses for each of these groups, for Questions 1-5 in each category, were analyzed using t tests.
Results
Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations of Phase III responses for each category of practices. In general, respondents indicated agreement with each of the five questions from a moderate to a moderately high degree. With respect to organization of the practices, means across categories ranged from 3.85 to 4.30. Pertaining to the concept maps as a good working model, means ranged from 3.60 to 3.73. Means related to agreement with the importance ratings ranged from 3.72 to 3.89. With respect to usefulness of results, means ranged from 3.47 to 3.61. Finally, for agreement with the suggested cluster names, means ranged from 3.45 to 4.00.
------------------------------------ Insert Table 3 about here -----------------------------------
Based on the open-ended responses of Phase III participants, several modifications were made to cluster names and, in the Student Planning and Family Involvement categories, to cluster organization. Respondents indicated that the greater number of clusters did not increase cluster cohesiveness and that sufficient detail was generated by the three-cluster solution. Consequently, the number of clusters in each of these categories was reduced from five to three. Figure 3 illustrates the five categories and final cluster arrangements within each category.
------------------------------------ Insert Figure 3 about here -----------------------------------
With respect to the study in general, 73 Phase III respondents (80%) identified specific things that they liked about the process utilized in the study. Many comments focused on the sorting and rating processes and the comprehensiveness of the model. Specifically, respondents noted that although challenging intellectually, the sorting process was rewarding, particularly the process of working from detail to general model. Sixty-six participants (72.5%) reported something they disliked about the study process; of these, 41 commented about the amount of time required to perform the sorting and rating processes.
With respect to the results of the study, 76 respondents (83.5%) specified aspects they liked. The majority indicated that they liked the organization of the practices as portrayed through the graphic representation of categories, clusters, and practices. Finally, 85 Phase III participants (93.4%) identified specific uses for the information generated by the study. These included (a) curriculum and program development; (b) strategic planning and budget development; (c) identification of priorities; (d) organization of information for faculty and students; (e) organization of services; (f) program expansion, replication, and evaluation; (g) subject matter in both preservice and graduate curricula; and (h) a research model.
Tables 4 through 8 present the transition practice statements, final cluster arrangements, and mean statement and cluster ratings for each of the five categories. Within Category 1--Student Development--47 practices were identified and organized into six clusters: Life Skills Instruction, Employment Skills Instruction, Career and Vocational Curricula, Structured Work Experience, Vocational Assessment, and Accommodations and Support. On a scale of 1-4, Structured Work Experience received the highest mean cluster rating (3.12). For the Student Development category, the highest rated practices included self-determination skills training (3.48), identification and development of accommodations (3.43), identification and development of natural supports for all transition outcome areas (3.43), and job matching (3.40).
------------------------------------ Insert Table 4 about here -----------------------------------
In Category 2--Student-focused Planning--43 practices were identified and organized into three clusters: IEP Development, Student Participation, and Accommodations and Planning Strategies. Student Participation received the highest mean rating (3.40) and included the practices rated highest across the category: student participation in planning (3.80), student involvement in decision making (3.78), student-centered planning process (3.77), planning decisions driven by student and family (3.71), and self-determination facilitated within the planning process (3.55).
------------------------------------ Insert Table 5 about here -----------------------------------
For Category 3--Interagency and Interdisciplinary Teaming, Collaboration, and Service Delivery--39 practices were identified and organized into five clusters: Individual-Level Planning, Interorganizational Framework, Collaborative Service Delivery, Organization-Level Planning, and Human Resource Development. Individual-Level Planning received the highest mean rating (3.51) and also included the highest rated practices across the category: an interdisciplinary transition planning team (3.70), a student- and family-centered approach to planning and service delivery (3.68), agency contact with the student, and referral to adult service providers prior to the student's exit from school (3.60 each).
------------------------------------ Insert Table 6 about here -----------------------------------
In Category 4--Family Involvement--34 practices were identified and organized into three groups: Family Training, Family Involvement, and Family Empowerment. Family Training featured the highest mean cluster rating (3.23). The practices rated highest across the category included parent/family attendance at the IEP meeting (3.82), information to parents/families provided in their ordinary language (3.78), active parent/family participation in the planning process (3.71), parents/families presented with choices (3.67), and parents/families exercise decision making (3.51).
------------------------------------ Insert Table 7 about here -----------------------------------
Finally, in Category 5--Program Structure and Attributes--49 practices were identified and organized into six clusters: Program Philosophy, Program Policy, Strategic Planning, Program Evaluation, Resource Allocation, and Human Resource Development. The mean rating of this category of practices (3.21) was greater than all other categories. Within this category, Program Philosophy featured the highest cluster mean (3.41). The highest rated practices included student/family role in program planning (3.66); sufficient allocation of resources (3.58); flexible programming to meet student needs (3.55); administrative, school board, and community support for the program (3.54); and qualified staff (3.53).
------------------------------------ Insert Table 8 about here -----------------------------------
Table 9 presents the Cronbach alpha values for each cluster of transition practice statements within each of the five categories. Within categories, alphas ranged as follows: (a) Student Development, .63 to .76; (b) Student-Focused Planning, .76 to .87; (c) Interagency Collaboration, .45 to .86; (d) Family Involvement, .81 to .87; and (e) Program Structure and Attributes, .65 to .85. Using the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula, alpha' was computed to identify the expected reliability coefficient if all clusters across all categories contained the same number of practices. Using the alpha' coefficients, comparisons among clusters are possible since the number of items within clusters has been equalized (see Table 9). Alpha and alpha' provide an indication of the internal consistency of each cluster with respect to the mean rating values.
------------------------------------ Insert Table 9 about here -----------------------------------
To investigate generalizability of the conceptual model beyond those who sorted the transition practice statements, means for Phase III responses were computed for two groups: those who participated in Phase I only (n = 32) and those who participated in both Phases I and II (n = 59). Results of t tests indicated that no significant differences existed (a = .01) in the responses of the two groups on any question in any category. Further, as mentioned, chi-square analyses and t tests indicated that with respect to the demographic variables, no differences existed between the respondents of each phase of the study.
Results from the analysis of variance showed significant differences (a = .05) in mean rating values of clusters within each of the five categories. Further, post hoc analyses indicated significant differences between specific clusters. Table 9 includes the results from the ANOVA and Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test. Within the Student-Focused Planning category, the mean rating of the Student Participation cluster was significantly higher than either of the other two clusters. Within the Interagency Collaboration category, the mean rating of the Individual-level Planning cluster was significantly higher than any of the other five clusters.
Discussion
During Phase I of this study, a national group of 207 individuals participated in a modified conceptual mapping procedure to extend the list of transition practices identified in three previous investigations. During Phase II, participants rated the practices for importance and sorted the practices into groups in whatever way made sense to them. The sort data, in turn, were used to produce concept maps of the transition practices; that is, graphic representations of a conceptual organization of practices, based on the perceptions of study participants. In other words, a conceptual model of transition practices was developed with the input of a national group of individuals with expertise in the area of transition.
The conceptual model features five categories of transition practices: Student Development, Student-Focused Planning, Interagency Collaboration, Family Involvement, and Program Structures and Attributes (see Figure 3). Within each of these categories, numerous practices were identified, organized, and rated for importance (see Table 8).
The conceptual model of transition practices developed in this study directly extends previous work related to transition theory by identifying specific transition practices, issues, and program attributes. By linking transition theory with transition practice, this emergent model focuses on program planning, implementation, and evaluation. By comparison, previous models served to articulate transition-related outcomes, supporting activities, and general processes, but focused primarily on theory and conceptualization. Thus, the taxonomy developed in this study extends theory by providing substance within an agreed-upon conceptual framework.
The taxonomy is supported by evidence of internal and external validity. With respect to internal validity, the practices within the model were evaluated based on the criteria proposed by Peters and Heron (1993). They are associated with positive student outcomes, have a sound basis in theory, are supported in the literature, and have been socially validated by a national group of transition experts. Further, empirical support exists for particular practices.
Construct validity of the conceptual model produced through the mapping process is dependent upon the participants' knowledge of the concept being studied. Participants in this study consisted of individuals with diverse backgrounds from across the United States, responsible for planning, implementing, and evaluating transition-related education and services. They had approximately 18 years of experience working with individuals with disabilities and 8 years of experience specifically associated with transition. Over 90% of the participants held a master's degree or greater. Most of the respondents (88.9%) based their input in this study on their past experience with individuals with disabilities; over 55% based their input on research they had conducted. Thus, participants were knowledgeable and experienced about the concept being studied.
Support for external validity is provided by analyses of respondent demographic characteristics for each phase of the study. Chi-square analyses and t tests revealed that across each phase of the study, no significant differences existed among the respondents for any demographic variable. Thus, even though respondents "volunteered" to continue their participation, those who did and those who did not participate in Phases II and III did not differ significantly from those who participated in Phase I, nor from each other. Strong support for external validity was generated by the analysis of Phase III responses by subgroups of responders. Means of Phase III responses of those who generated the conceptual model (i.e., those who participated in both Phases I and II) did not differ significantly from those who participated in Phase I only. Thus, social validation of the conceptual model was supported equally by those who did and those who did not participate in the sorting and rating processes. This is important, because each individual has his or her own perception of the relative importance of each practice and of how the practices should be organized. Through this study, therefore, a conceptual model of the group's perception of importance and organization was produced. The group model was subsequently validated during Phase III by those who developed it and by those who did not. Thus, support for the model should extend beyond those who participated in its making.
Reliability of the model was investigated also. As indicated by the analysis of internal consistency, the cluster arrangements within each of the five categories were reliable with respect to the rating values (see Table 9). In previous work, Kohler (1993b) investigated the reliability of the concept mapping process. The reader is referred to this work for a detailed analysis and discussion of the reliability of the process.
The results of this investigation should be interpreted with some limitations in mind. The initial participant group was not randomly selected from the population of those involved in transition-related education and service delivery. However, it was, purposively selected to provide for construct validity. Future investigations should include student, family, and teacher perceptions, as these groups were not specifically represented in the sample identified for this study.
With respect to response rates, Phase I participants represented 70% of the sample selected for the study; Phase II represented 44% of the Phase I group; Phase III represented 65% of the Phase II group specifically and 44% of the Phase I group. Thus, Phase III participants represented only 30.7% of the original sample, a percentage generally considered low (Borg, 1987).
This limitation is minimized, however, when the study is examined by phases. During each phase, a sufficient number of individuals participated in the required tasks. For example, the Phase I response rate (70%) is in the range generally considered acceptable in survey research (Borg, 1987). During Phase II, 91 people (44%) participated in sorting and rating tasks. Rosenberg and Kim (1975) reported that generally, sort data generated by 20 participants are relatively stable and that a sample size of 30 or greater is more than adequate to ensure stability. Also, based on the chi-square analyses of demographic variables for Phases I, II, and III participants, it appeared that each group of participants was similar and that no selection bias existed with respect to those who chose to participate.
Implications
Since the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 (IDEA) required transition planning for youths with disabilities, practitioners have sought clear, concise prescriptions shown to result in better programs, positive student outcomes, and increased consumer satisfaction. The taxonomy developed through this study can provide a framework for designing educational programs that reflect a transition perspective for students with disabilities. The taxonomy presents an arrangement of transition practices and program attributes, organized in a way that makes sense to a diverse group of individuals. As such, it has direct implications for transition-related program development and organization of secondary education.
The importance ratings that emerged in this study send a strong message about practices that we may want to give particular attention--practices associated with self-determination and with student and family involvement in transition-focused IEPs. Thus, across all five categories, the highest rated practices included (a) student participation in planning; (b) student involvement in decision making; (c) planning process is student-centered; (d) planning decisions driven by student and family; (e) individual planning team includes student, parents, school personnel, and appropriate related or adult services personnel; (f) parent/family attendance at the IEP meeting; (g) active parent/family participation in the planning process; and (h) information to parents/families provided in their ordinary language. In the Student-Focused Planning and the Interagency Collaboration categories, the mean ratings of the Student Participation cluster and Individual-Level Planning cluster, respectively, were significantly higher than any other clusters within the categories. These practices are central to implementing a transition perspective and will require many schools to reconfigure their IEP process.
Individualized planning is the key to matching students' educational program and school experiences to their post-school goals. Theoretically, an individualized education program (IEP) was intended to serve as a means of adapting education to meet the needs of students. In essence, "the IEP has been the cornerstone of special education policy" (Martin, Marshall, & Maxson, 1993, p. 53). However, over the years, individual planning has been characterized by disability-based planning with little student involvement.
The IDEA requires that a statement of needed transition services be included in a student's IEP beginning at age 16, and at age 14 when considered appropriate. In defining transition services, the legislation focuses on outcomes, activities, students' preferences and interests, and student, parent, and service provider involvement. The planning vehicle is the individual education program. A comprehensive approach to developing outcome-focused educational programs must address the IEP document and process, student and family participation, and accommodations and planning strategies. Student participation in this process is essential, and self-determination skills may be fundamental for participation.
According to Wehmeyer (1992), the construct of self-determination includes "the attitudes and abilities required to act as the primary causal agent in one's life and to make choices regarding one's actions free from undue external influence or interference" (p. 305). Common elements of definitions of self-determination include attitudes and skills, goals, and choices relevant to decisions that affect one's future--all aspects related to a student's participation in the development of outcome-based educational programs (see Schloss, Alper, & Jayne, 1993; Stowitschek, 1992; Ward, 1988; Wehmeyer, 1992).
Wehmeyer (1992) proposed that one reason for poor quality of life after exiting high school is that students in special education lack self-determination skills and infrequently have opportunities to experience self-determination. As a result, educators must begin to take responsibility for giving students opportunities to experience self-determination. Van Reusen and Bos (1990) warned, "If special educators plan and carry out instructional activities without involving or considering the adolescent's perceptions and priorities, they may be minimizing the student's self-determination" (p. 30).
Field, Hoffman, Sarvilowsky, and St. Peter (1994) and The Arc (1994) found that students showed improvements in skills associated with self-determination after completing self-determination project curricula. The University of Colorado at Colorado Springs (1991) developed curricula through which students learned to direct their individualized education program staffing. Initial findings indicated that students in the program participated in IEP activities at much greater rates and identified more IEP goals than peers in control groups (J. Martin, personal communication, April, 1994). Similarly, after developing a strategy to train students and their parents to actively participate as partners in the IEP process, Van Reusen and Bos (1994) reported that strategy-instructed students identified more goals and communicated more effectively during the conferences than did students in the contrast group.
Thus, issues related to student participation in transition planning include the concept of self-determination. Related to self-determination, students must develop skills associated with self-evaluation, problem solving, reviewing choices, and making decisions. Further, they must have opportunities to practice and apply these skills in relation to decisions about their future, particularly their post-school goals and educational objectives.
The underlying purpose of the IEP is to specify the goals and objectives of a student's educational program and the mechanisms for achieving and evaluating progress. The IEP document should reflect activities and services relevant to achieving the post-school goals, as well as the persons or agencies responsible for conducting the activities and providing the services. Further, the IEP should reflect student needs and interests and be based upon assessment information, that reflects the student's current level of functioning. There is a fundamental relationship between the IEP content as reflected in the document, assessment data on student abilities and interests, the educational activities in which a student participates, and student outcomes. However, research indicates that all too often, one or more of these variables are missing in the IEP document.
Trach (1995) reviewed 486 IEPs of transition-aged students, including 258 written for the 1992-93 school year and 228 for the 1993-94 school year. In general, specific activities associated with transition-related goals were not identified in IEP documents. Stodden, Meehan, Bisconer, and Hodell (1989) found similar results after reviewing the educational records of 127 secondary education students. Regardless of students' specified disability level (i.e., mild, moderate, or severe), there was no significant difference in the number of IEP vocational goals and objectives written before and after vocational assessment was conducted (Stodden et al., 1989). These authors also noted that student IEPs included few vocational objectives, and those that existed were vague. Further, in each school investigated, "nearly every student, regardless of handicapping condition or level of programming need, had identical IEP vocational goals and objectives" (Stodden et al., 1989, p. 35).
In a follow-up study of students with disabilities in Oregon and students with and without disabilities in Nevada, Benz and Halpern (1993) identified significant discrepancies between identified student needs and services provided to students with disabilities prior to their leaving school. Specifically, their findings indicated that (a) students with mild mental retardation were reported to have the greatest number of needs related to transition planning; (b) 25%-50% of all identified needs for students with disabilities were not addressed at all during the transition planning process; (c) one third to one half of students' unmet needs occurred in the areas of remedial academics, social skills, vocational training, postsecondary education, and independent living skills; and (d) students with learning disabilities and emotional disabilities were most likely to present unmet transition needs when they left school (Benz & Halpern, 1993).
If we expect to improve the adult outcomes of individuals with disabilities, it is essential that we improve the IEP process and IEP content (Benz & Halpern, 1993; Edgar & Polloway, 1994; Martin et al., 1993; Stodden et al., 1989). Educators must begin early to assist and guide students in developing appropriate education programs based on individual transition goals (Newman & Cameto, 1993). As required in the legislation, educational program planning must become outcome- rather than disability-focused (Edgar & Polloway, 1994; Wehman, 1992). As a student's IEP is the primary vehicle for identifying educational objectives, activities, services, and service providers, educators must reform the IEP process to include student involvement to ensure the development of relevant assessment information and identification of valued and attainable post-school goals.
It is also important to note that the category Program Structures and Attributes received the highest mean rating of the five categories in the model. In order to achieve student development, conduct individual planning, and facilitate collaboration and family involvement, schools and programs must be organized in a way that promotes these activities. Stodden and Leake (1994) noted that past attempts to include transition planning and services in educational programs have met with resistance and have achieved limited success because they have been "hampered by a pervasive tendency to add programs to the core of the education system, rather than infusing essential changes into the core itself" (p. 65). These authors suggested that by infusing a transition perspective into our educational system,
Program structures and attributes associated with outcome-based education and expanded curricular options include community-level strategic planning, cultural and ethnic sensitivity, a clearly articulated mission and values, qualified staff, and sufficient allocation of resources--attributes similar to those identified by Peters and Waterman (1982) as characterizing excellent American businesses and identified by Foss (1991) as being important aspects of excellent schools. Transition-oriented schools must focus also on systematic community involvement in the development of educational options, community-based learning opportunities, systematic inclusion of students in the social life of the school, and increased expectations related to skills, values, and outcomes for all students (Edgar & Polloway, 1994).
Future research is needed to establish further evidence in support of specific practices within the taxonomy. Specifically, we must focus on identifying particular strategies associated with each practice and subsequently assess effectiveness within a specific context. We must also investigate what strategies are most effective for particular students within a particular context. Further, research must continue to address ways to develop student skills, organize planning and instruction, incorporate assessment, and facilitate collaboration and family involvement.
As we move to develop school-to-work systems, we must also investigate the nature of structured work experience, the highest rated cluster in the Student Development category. Research indicates that employment during high school is associated with post-school employment (D'Amico, 1991; Hasazi et al., 1989; Hudson, Schwartz, Sealander, Campbell, & Hensel, 1988; Mithaug et al., 1985; Sitlington, Frank, & Carson, 1992). In addition, paid work experience in high school is negatively associated with the average number of days absent and course failure (Wagner, Blackorby, & Hebbeler, 1993). Some authors, however, have suggested that working too many hours in specific types of employment during high school may have negative effects on student attendance and perceptions of work (Greenberger & Steinberg, 1986; Lichtenstein, 1993).
In addition, work must be done to investigate what, when, and how students with disabilities are educated in regular classrooms. Although positive outcomes for students with and without disabilities who participate in inclusive classrooms have been identified (Giangreco et al., 1993; Janney, Snell, Beers, & Raynes, 1995), some authors have shown that some students in general education settings fail to attain the desired achievement outcomes (Zigmond et al., 1995). As suggested by Polloway, Patton, Epstein, and Smith (1989), our educational programs must balance curricular needs with the need for maximum interaction between students with and without disabilities.
We must also investigate the inclusion of "best practice" research in our preservice and inservice personnel preparation programs across a number of disciplines. For example, Ayers et al. (1994) suggested that staff development activities are an essential part of the process of implementing most promising practices. Thus, a primary task of personnel preparation programs is to help teachers bridge the gap between research and practice (Baumgart & Ferguson,1991). An examination of state certification requirements and corresponding personnel preparation curricula should reflect competency development that supports implementation of transition-focused educational programs.
Further, in order to assess the effectiveness of particular program components and strategies, researchers must form working partnerships with educators. Too often, the effectiveness of educational programs and strategies is not evaluated with respect to short- or long-term outcomes. To identify effective practice requires assessment of interventions as well as targeted outcomes--assessment that may appear to require too much time, effort, or money by those who are already overwhelmed by the everyday demands of teaching, planning, and record keeping.
Model demonstration transition projects are required to evaluate their programs, yet evaluation quality and integrity vary vastly from one project to another (Rusch, Kohler, & Hughes, 1992). In recent efforts to identify strategies for implementing practices in the taxonomy supported by evidence of effectiveness, this author requested "nominations" from participants of this study. The nomination instrument requested a program description, targeted outcomes, evaluation methods, and evaluation findings. Approximately one fourth of the 44 responses included specific evaluation information that documented the effectiveness of the program or strategy. During numerous telephone conversations, respondents indicated that they were doing a lot of "neat" things, but that they were not specifically evaluating either interventions or outcomes. If we want to improve the post-school outcomes of individuals with disabilities, program evaluation and intervention research must become an integral component of our educational efforts.
Finally, we must continue to address issues of cultural diversity and ethnic sensitivity and the problems created by both rural and urban settings. Education occurs within the context of our society, and as the face of that society changes, so must our educational systems. By adopting a transition perspective to our educational programs, we can address the needs and goals of individual students within the context of their communities and investigate and develop responsive, sensitive, effective educational systems.
References
Aldenderfer, M. S., & Blashfield, R. K. (1984). Cluster analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
The Arc. (1994). Final report: Self-determination curriculum project. Arlington, TX: The Arc, National Headquarters.
Ayres, B. J., Meyer, L. H., Erevelles, N., & Park-Lee, S. (1994). Easy for you to say: Teacher perspectives on implementing most promising practices. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 84-93.
Baumgart, D., & Ferguson, D. L. (1991). Personnel preparation: Directions for the next decade. In L. H. Meyer, C. A. Peck, & L. Brown (Eds.), Critical issues in the lives of people with severe disabilities (pp. 271-312). Baltimore: Brookes.
Benz, M. R., & Halpern, A. S. (1993). Vocational and transition services needed and received by students with disabilities during their last year of high school. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 16, 197-211.
Borg, W. B. (1987). Applying educational research (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
Bruininks, R. H., Thurlow, M. L., Lewis, D. R., & Larson, N. W. (1988). Post-school
outcomes for students in special education and other students one to eight years after
high school. In R. H. Bruininks, D. R. Lewis, & M. L. Thurlow (Eds.), Assessing
outcomes, costs and benefits of special education programs (pp. 9-111).
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, University Affiliated Programs.
D'Amico, R. (1991). The working world awaits: employment experiences during and shortly after secondary school. In M. Wagner, L. Newman, R. D'Amico, E. D. Jay, P. Butler-Nalin, C. Marder, & R. Cox. (Eds.), Youths with disabilities: How are they doing? (pp. 8-1 to 8-55). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
DeStefano, L., & Wagner, M. (1991). Outcome assessment in special education: Lessons learned. Champaign: University of Illinois, Transition Research Institute.
Edgar, E., & Polloway, E. A. (1994). Education for adolescents with disabilities: Curriculum and placement issues. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 438-452.
Eichelberger, R. T. (1989). Disciplined inquiry. New York: Longman.
Everitt, B. (1980). Cluster analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Halsted Press, A Division of John Wiley and Sons.
Field, S., Hoffman, A., Sawilowsky, S., & St. Peter, S. (1994). Skills and knowledge for self-determination: Final report. Detroit: Wayne State University.
Foss, P. D. (1991, Spring). The quest for educational excellence. Florida ASCD Journal, 7, 59-64.
Gajar, A., Goodman, L., & McAfee, J. (1993). Secondary schools and beyond: Transition of individuals with mild disabilities. New York: Merrill.
Galvin, P. F. (1989). Concept mapping for planning and evaluation of a Big Brother/Big Sister Program. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 53-57.
Giangreco, M. F., Dennis, R., Cloninger, C., Edelman, S., & Schattman, R. (1993). "I've counted Jon": Transformational experiences of teachers educating students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59, 359-372.
Gierl, M. J., & Harnisch, D. L. (1995, April). Factors associated with dropping out for students with disabilities: A latent variable analysis using data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Grayson, T. E. (1992). Identifying program theory: A step toward evaluating categorical state-funded educational programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Greenberger, E., & Steinberg, L. (1986). When teenagers work: The psychological and social costs of adolescent employment. New York: Basic Books.
Halpern, A. S. (1985). Transition: A look at the foundations. Exceptional Children, 51, 479-486.
Halpern, A. S. (1993). Quality of life as a conceptual framework for evaluating transition outcomes. Exceptional Children, 59, 486-498.
Haring, T. G., & Breen, C. (1989). Units of analysis of social interaction outcomes in supported education. Journal of the Association for persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 255-262.
Harnisch, D. L., Wermuth, T. R., & Zheng, P. (1992, January). Identification and validation of transition quality indicators: Implications for educational reform. Paper presented at the Third International Conference of the Division on Mental Retardation of the Council for Exceptional Children, Honolulu.
Hasazi, S. B., Gordon, L. R., & Roe, C. A. (1985). Factors associated with the employment status of handicapped youth exiting high school from 1979 to 1983. Exceptional Children, 51, 455-469.
Hudson, P. J., Schwartz, S. E., Sealander, K. A., Campbell, P., & Hensel, J. W. (1988). Successfully employed adults with handicaps. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 11, 7-14.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, 20 U.S.C. ¤ 1400 ff.
Janney, R. E., Snell, M. E., Beers, M. K., & Raynes, M. (1995). Integrating students with moderate and severe disabilities into general education classes. Exceptional Children, 61, 425-439.
Kirk, R. E. (1982). Experimental design (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Kohler, P. D. (1993a). Best practices in transition: Substantiated or implied? Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 16, 107-121.
Kohler, P. D. (1993b). Serving students with disabilities in postsecondary education settings: A conceptual model of program outcomesilities. Exceptional Children, 59(3), 221-233.
Kohler, P. D., DeStefano, L., Wermuth, T., Grayson, T., & McGinty, S. (1994). An analysis of exemplary transition programs: How and why are they selected? Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 17, 187-202.
Kohler, P. D., & Rusch, F. R. (in press). Secondary educational programs: Preparing youths for tomorrow's challenges. In M. C. Wang, M. C. Reynolds, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of special and remedial education: Research and practice (2nd ed.). Tarrytown, NY: Elsevier.
Kruskal, J. B., & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Lichtenstein, S. (1993). Transition from school to adulthood: Case studies of adults with learning disabilities who dropped out of school. Exceptional Children, 59(4), 336-347.
Linton, R. (1985). Conceptualizing feminism: A structured method. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.
Mannes, M. (1989). Using concept mapping for planning the implementation of a social technology. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 67-74.
Martin, J. E., Marshall, L. H., & Maxson, L. L. (1993). Transition policy: Infusing self-determination and self-advocacy into transition programs. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 16, 53-61.
Mithaug, D. E., Horiuchi, C. N., & Fanning, P. N. (1985). A report on the Colorado statewide follow-up survey of special education students. Exceptional Children, 51, 397-404.
Newman, L., & Cameto, R. (1993). What makes a difference? Factors related to postsecondary school attendance for young people with disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Oakes, J. (1986). Educational indicators: A guide for policymakers. Santa Monica, CA: Center for Policy Research in Education, Rutgers University, The Rand Corporation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Peters, M. T., & Heron, T. E. (1993). When the best is not good enough: An examination of best practice. The Journal of Special Education, 26, 371 - 385.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America's best-run companies. New York: Harper and Row.
Polloway, E. A., Patton, J. R., Epstein, M. H., & Smith, T. E. C. (1989). Comprehensive curriculum for students with mild handicaps. Focus on Exceptional Children, 21(8), 1-12.
Rosenberg, S., & Kim, M. P. (1975). The method of sorting as a data-gathering procedure in multivariate research. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 10, 489-502.
Rusch, F. R., DeStefano, L., Chadsey-Rusch, J., Phelps, L. A., & Szymanski, E. (1992). Transition from school to adult life: Models, linkages, and policy. Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.
Rusch, F. R., Kohler, P. D., & Hughes, C. (1992). An analysis of OSERS-sponsored secondary special education and transitional services research. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 15, 121-143.
Schloss, P. J., Alper, S., & Jayne, D. (1993). Self-determination for persons with disabilities: Choice, risk, and dignity. Exceptional Children, 60, 215-225.
Sitlington, P. L., Frank, A. R., & Carson, R. (1992). Adult adjustment among high school graduates with mild disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59(3), 221-233.
Stodden, R. A., & Leake, D. W. (1994). Getting to the core of transition: A re-assessment of old wine in new bottles. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 17, 65-76.
Stodden, R. A., Meehan, K. A., Bisconer, S. W., & Hodell, S. L. (1989). The impact of vocational assessment information and the individualized education planning process. The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 12, 31-36.
Stowitschek, J. (1992). Development of a model self-determination program and taxonomy for youth with moderate and severe disabilities (Project Proposal). Seattle: University of Washington, Experimental Education Unit WJ-10.
Szymanski, E., Hanley-Maxwell, C., & Parker, R. M. (1990). Transdisciplinary service delivery. In F. R. Rusch (Ed.), Supported employment: Models, methods, and issues (pp. 199-214). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.
Trach, J. S. (1995). Impact of curriculum on student post-school outcomes. Champaign: University of Illinois, Transition Research Institute. Manuscript in preparation.
Trochim, M. K. (1989a). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 1-16.
Trochim, M. K. (1989b). The concept system. Ithaca, NY: Concept System.
Trochim, M. K., & Linton, R. (1986). Conceptualization for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 9, 289-308.
University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. (1991). Choice makers. Colorado Springs: Author.
Van Reusen, A. K., & Bos, C. S. (1990). Facilitating student participation in individualized education programs through motivation strategy instruction. Exceptional Children, 60, 466-475.
Viadero, D. (1994, October). The great divide. Teacher Magazine, 22-24.
Wagner, M. (1991). The benefits of secondary vocational education for young people with disabilities. Menlow Park, CA: SRI International.
Wagner, M., Blackorby, J., & Hebbeler, K. ( 1993). Beyond the report card: The multiple dimensions of secondary school performance of students with disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Wagner, M., D'Amico, R., Marder, C., Newman, L., & Blackorby, J. (1992). What happens next? Trends in postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities. The second comprehensive report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Ward, M. J. (1988). The many facets of self-determination. Transition Summary, 5, 2-3. (A publication of the National Information Center for Children and Youth with Handicaps.)
Wehman, P. (1992). Transition for young people with disabilities: Challenges for the 1990's. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 27, 112-118.
Wehman, P., Kregel, J., & Barcus, J. M. (1985). From school to work: A vocational transition model for handicapped students. Exceptional Children, 51, 25-37.
Wehmeyer, M. L. (1992). Self-determination and the education of students with mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 27, 302-314.
Will, M. (1984). OSERS programming for the transition of youth with disabilities: Bridges from school to working life. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Zigmond, N., Jenkins, J., Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S., Fuchs, D., Baker, J. N., Jenkins, L., & Couthino, M. (1995). Special education in restructured schools: Findings from three multi-year studies. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 531-540.
Footnotes
For copies of the referenced tables and figures, please contact the Transition Research Institute.
1 Eighty-three authors were represented in the literature review; a mailing address was identified for 64 authors, who were subsequently included in the participant pool.
Author's Note
This research was supported in part by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), U. S. Department of Education, under a cooperative agreement (H158-T-000-1) with the University of Illinois. Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of OSERS.
To cite this chapter: Kohler, P.D. (1996). Preparing Youth with Disabilities for Future Challenges: A Taxonomy for Transition Programming. In P.D. Kohler (Ed.),Taxonomy for transition programming: Linking research and practice (pp.1-62). Champaign, IL: Transition Research Institute. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.