Paula D. Kohler, Ph.D.
and
Saul Chapman, Ph.D.

Preliminary Literature Review Summary

Our efforts have been directed toward discovering and reviewing documents of empirical research relevant to the topic of transition from school to adult life (e.g., work, postsecondary education, etc.) with particular emphasis on practices directed toward positive outcomes for students with disabilities, other special needs, or who are otherwise at-risk. We placed a particular focus on obtaining materials published between 1990 and 1997. Our efforts thus far have uncovered much to become excited about, as well some identifiable problems.

Some of our most encouraging findings are that a number of programs across the country appear to have incorporated many approaches included in the NTA Transition Practices Framework. Thus, many programs were identified that sought partnerships between schools and community businesses and agencies, ostensibly for the purposes of organizing and arranging structured work experiences for students and obtaining supportive services such as those that might be provided by local departments of rehabilitation. There were also many instances where programs stressed individualized student planning, made attempts at facilitating student and family involvement in the planning and career development process, and focused on the development of important skills identified as being important elements for successful transition: daily living skills (e.g. learning how to manage money, buying, and preparing meals); personal and social skills (e.g., achieving socially responsible behavior, pursuing educational goals, self-advocacy, self-determination); and occupational skills (e.g., learning about and exploring opportunities; seeking, securing, and maintaining employment). Many programs also utilized assessment of student functioning and needs to assist in planning and provided a number of support services such as counseling, coaching, etc. There were also many programs that took a long-term approach focused on a gradual building of skills over the school years.

Along with the good news, there is also some discouraging news. First, the vast majority of the documents that were screened turned out to be more of a descriptive or prescriptive nature rather than empirical evaluations. And, although we were able to identify a number of programs that engaged in follow-up or program evaluations of one sort or another, a number of these evaluations were poorly designed and controlled, utilized instruments of questionable reliability and validity, often provided only limited explanations of interventions, and very often focused only on a limited range of outcomes. True experimental studies with control groups and specified independent and dependent variables were rare. More often we found quasi-experimental designs, surveys, and program evaluations; many of these lacking in a discussion of the implications of their research findings or recommending future research. In summary, we would recommend caution to those implementing school-to-work systems and programs in using published information—there are many more recommendations based on opinions as compared to those based on structured evaluation or research.