Critical Article Analysis 2

The Journal of Special Education 2014, Vol 47(4) 245 –255 © Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2012 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0022466912456241 journalofspecialeducation .sagepub.com

On the brink of adulthood, most youth aspire to pursue a range of personally important experiences, relationships, and outcomes in the years after high school. Although youth with severe intellectual and developmental disabilities share many, if not all, of these same aspirations for their futures (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza, & Levine, 2005), having a significant disability continues to be a pow- erful predictor of the degree to which desired outcomes will materialize in early adulthood (Carter, Austin, & Trainor, 2012; Grigal, Hart, & Migliore, 2011). For most young people with severe disabilities, valued outcomes in the areas of employment, postsecondary education, community participation, social relationships, and health remain unat- tained or fleeting. Formal transition services and supports were initially advocated (Will, 1984) and subsequently mandated (Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 1990) as a means of reversing the disappointing outcomes experienced by youth and young adults with disabilities. A constellation of coordinated and carefully designed pro- gramming during the final years of public schooling is now recommended for preparing youth to transition seamlessly to adulthood (Kohler & Field, 2003; National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth, 2009). Further- more, recent systematic reviews confirm that an array of

transition practices have some indication of promise or evi- dence of effectiveness (Alwell & Cobb, 2009; Test, Fowler, et al., 2009; Test, Mazotti, et al., 2009).

To individually tailor these services and supports, age- appropriate transition assessment is mandated as a means of identifying which educational practices are most essential for a particular student with a disability. Specifically, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004 highlighted the role of assessment within effective transition planning by requiring the individualized education programs (IEPs) of youth to include “appropriate measurable postsecondary goals based on age-appropriate transition assessments related to training, education, employ- ment, and, where appropriate, independent living skills” (§300.320(b)). Indeed, it is now widely acknowledged that meaningful assessment should serve as a cornerstone for

456241 SED47410.1177/0022466912456241 The Journal of Special EducationCarter et al. © The Author(s) 2011

Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

1Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA 2University of Wisconsin–Madison, USA

Corresponding Author: Erik W. Carter, Department of Special Education, PMB 228, Peabody College, 230 Appleton Place, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Transition Assessment and Planning for Youth With Severe Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

Erik W. Carter, PhD1, Matthew E. Brock, MA1, and Audrey A. Trainor, PhD2

Abstract

Although federal law now mandates age-appropriate transition assessment as a key component of high-quality transition planning, little research exists to guide educators on what they might learn when undertaking this process. In this study, the authors examined teacher and parent assessments of the transition-related strengths and needs of 134 youth with severe intellectual and developmental disabilities who were eligible for the state’s alternate assessment. The perspectives of teachers and parents regarding the transition-related strengths and needs of particular students often diverged in key ways. Students with severe disabilities were perceived as having a range of transition-related strengths across the nine transition domains. Although a number of transition-related needs were identified by teachers, the transition profiles of individual students within this sample were quite heterogeneous. The authors offer recommendations for strengthening the transition assessment and planning process by incorporating multiple perspectives, and present important directions for future research on transition assessment.

Keywords

transition assessment, transition planning, teacher and parent perceptions, intellectual and developmental disabilities

Article

246 The Journal of Special Education 47(4)

the design and delivery of transition services (Neubert, 2012; Wehman, 2011).

One essential element of high-quality transition assess- ment and planning involves integrating the perspectives of multiple individuals who know a student well and/or who are familiar with the expectations of current or future envi- ronments in which a student participates or will participate (Carter, Trainor, Sun, & Owens, 2009; Karan, DonAroma, Bruder, & Roberts, 2010; Sitlington & Clark, 2007). Proponents advocate this approach because the scope of transition planning is typically broader than other educa- tional planning endeavors, addressing multiple transition domains (e.g., academics, vocational, interpersonal rela- tionships, health), contexts (e.g., classrooms, workplaces, residential placements), time points (in school and post- school), and support systems (e.g., schools, adult agencies, families, community supports). Individual transition plan- ning team members often have different vantage points from which to observe a student, each may hold distinct expectations about the transition domains that are important to address for a student, and/or each may compile differ- ent information about a student’s competence and support needs. Such multi-informant approaches may be particu- larly important when conducting planning for students who have complex communication challenges and may encoun- ter difficulties articulating their own goals, interests, strengths, and support needs. Thus, the reliance on multiple proxy informants may be heightened when transition plan- ning focuses on students with severe disabilities.

Special educators are typically key—and sometimes the dominant—contributors to the transition planning process, drawing upon information learned through their work with the student over time (Shogren & Plotner, 2012; Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Javitz, & Valdes, 2012). However, par- ents and other family members also have invaluable per- spectives to share within the transition assessment and planning framework (Neece, Kraemer, Blacher, & Ferguson, 2009; Powers, Geenen, & Powers, 2009). For example, fam- ily members may have unique opportunities to observe strengths or needs in contexts that are different from school settings. Family members may also share opinions about transition domains in which services and support needs are not anticipated or which they consider not to be appropriate.

Yet, few studies have explored the degree to which fami- lies and school staff are likely to hold similar perspectives on the strengths and needs of individual youth with severe disabilities, and none have explored views regarding the appropriateness of particular transition planning domains. Carter, Owens, Trainor, Sun, and Swedeen (2009) exam- ined the self-determination prospects of high school stu- dents with severe disabilities from the perspectives of teachers and parents. Teachers evaluated the self-determination capacities of youth more favorably than parents, but both aligned in their views of the opportunities youth had to

engage in self-determined behavior at school and home. In their study of students ages 4 to 18, Tasse and Lecavalier (2000) found that although parents and teachers generally aligned in their ratings of some social and behavioral mea- sures, parents rated three types of problem behaviors as more challenging than did teachers. Similarly, Lecavalier, Leone, and Wiltz (2006) found that parents and teachers did not always agree in their views of the presence and severity of the challenging behaviors of children with intellectual disabilities ages 4 to 18. Given the narrow focus of these studies on a single educational domain and the paucity of studies addressing multirespondent transition assessments, additional research is needed to more closely explore the alignment among parents and teachers within transition planning efforts.

A second critical aspect of high-quality transition assess- ment is that it should inform planning teams about the needs and strengths of individual students (Carter, Trainor, et al., 2009; Neubert, 2012). IDEA specifically states that transi- tion services must be “based on the individual child’s needs, taking into account the child’s strengths, preferences, and interests” (34 CFR 300.43(a), italics added). This emphasis on strengths-based assessment approaches affirms that strengths coexist alongside needs in every person, including persons with severe disabilities (Thompson, Wehmeyer, & Hughes, 2010). Yet, relatively few studies have focused on capturing the strengths and capacities of people with severe disabilities, particularly during adolescence and the transi- tion to adulthood (Dykens, 2006; Shogren, Wehmeyer, Buchanan, & Lopez, 2006). Although disability categorical labels are used to indicate the basis of students’ need for extensive supports across multiple domains, it is also likely that individual strengths are evident alongside individual needs. In identifying these strengths and needs, transition assessment and planning should be comprehensive, address- ing multiple dimensions of the lives of students with dis- abilities (Roberts, 2010; Wehman, 2011). Although the IDEA (2004) transition mandates specifically reference the domains of training, education, employment, independent living skills, and community participation, other areas (e.g., self-determination, interpersonal relationships, health) may be equally relevant to transition planning efforts. In fact, broad-based transition planning efforts are needed to ade- quately consider and plan for the range of contexts in which these students are expecting (and expected) to participate after high school. However, relatively little is known about the extent to which students’ transition planning needs are likely to be limited to relatively few areas (e.g., employ- ment and interpersonal relationships) or span across many of these transition domains. Prior studies addressing the transition needs of students with disabilities have each focused narrowly on a limited number of domains, such as recreation/leisure (Kreiner & Flexer, 2009), employment (Turner, Unkefer, Cichy, Peper, & Juang, 2011), social

Carter et al. 247

competence (e.g., Tasse & Lecavalier, 2000), or self-deter- mination (Carter, Owens, et al., 2009). Additional research is needed that examines multiple transition domains within the same sample of students. Third, the purpose of transi- tion assessment and planning is to inform individualized programming (Cobb & Alwell, 2009). One critique of tran- sition programming, however, is that students may be fit into existing programs rather than building programming around the needs of individual students (Hughes & Carter, 2011). Although students with severe disabilities are per- haps among the most heterogeneous groups of students in secondary schools, their school programs may be strikingly similar in scope and design. If students with severe disabili- ties indeed tend to have unique transition profiles, it follows that transition education should be individually tailored to address those individualized needs. However, prior studies have not explored the nature of these profiles among ado- lescents with severe disabilities.

Despite the explicitness of the most recent IDEA transi- tion mandates, empirical guidance regarding what planning teams might encounter when implementing transition assessment processes is sparse. We examined teacher and parent assessments of the transition-related strengths and needs of 134 youth with severe intellectual and develop- mental disabilities who were eligible for the alternate assessment. The following research questions guided our analyses.

Research Question 1: What are the transition-related strengths and needs, according to teachers, of high school students with severe disabilities? Research Question 2: To what extent do transition- related profiles vary across individual students with severe disabilities? Research Question 3: To what extent do parents and teachers share similar perspectives of the transition- related strengths and needs of students with severe disabilities?

Method Participants

Participants were the parents and teachers of high school students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. We asked these adult respondents to complete a widely used transition assessment (i.e., Transition Planning Inventory) for 134 focus students with severe disabilities. The focus students were selected because they received special education services under a primary disability cate- gory of intellectual disability or autism, were enrolled in high school, participated in a broader federally funded study focused on promoting employment for adolescents, and were eligible for the alternate assessment in their state.

The average age of students was 18.3 years (SD = 1.8 years, range = 14–22) and the slight majority (50.7%) was male. Most participants (86.6%) were European American, 11.2% were African American, and 2.1% were other race/ ethnicities (i.e., Asian American, Native American). Youth were identified by teachers and in school records as having an intellectual disability (82.1%), autism (1.5%), or both an intellectual disability and autism (16.4%). Students were served across grade levels, including 19.4% who were in 9th grade, 12.7% who were in 10th grade, 26.1% who were in 11th grade, 28.4% who were in 12th grade, and 13.4% who received services in community-based, 18 to 21 pro- grams. More than one quarter of students (26.9%) were eli- gible for free or reduced-price meals, 67.9% of students were not eligible, and information was not available for the remaining 5.2% of students.

Transition assessments for the 134 students were com- pleted by 61 different special educators (i.e., some teachers had more than one participating student on their caseload). Among the teachers for whom demographic information was available, 95.1% reported having regular teaching licensure, 45.9% had a master’s degrees and 1.6% had a doctoral degree, 82.5% were female, and all were European American. Among the 90 parents who returned completed transition assessments, 18.9% reported having completed a graduate degree, 15.6% completed a bachelor’s degree, 23.3% reported having attended some college, and 35.6% reported receiving a high school degree or GED. About four fifths (82.0%) reported that either they or their spouse was currently employed outside the home.

Schools Students attended 26 high schools located within 22 rural, suburban, and urban school districts in a large Midwestern state. Student enrollment at each of the high schools aver- aged 1,342 (SD = 663). About half (46.2%) of these schools enrolled between 1,000 and 2,000 students, whereas 30.8% enrolled fewer than 1,000 students and 23.1% enrolled more than 2,000 students. Average race/ethnicity of students across schools ranged from 0.3% to 66.8% African American (M = 7.5%), 0% to 5.3% American Indian (M = 0.9%), 0% to 13.3% Asian American (M = 3.9%), 14.1% to 98.3% European American (M = 81.58%), and 0.6% to 22.2% Hispanic (M = 6.15%). The percentage of students receiving special education services in each school ranged from 7.6% to 57.0% (M = 15.2%) and those eligible for free/reduced- price meals ranged from 1.2% to 74.1% (M = 21.78%). Diversity and affluence were not evenly distributed across schools. The 7 schools with the highest percentage of minor- ity students (greater than one third of the total student popu- lation) were concentrated in 3 urban school districts. These schools also tended to have higher rates of students eligible for free/reduced-price meals (27.0%–74.1%).

248 The Journal of Special Education 47(4)

Transition Planning Inventory

The Transition Planning Inventory (TPI; Clark & Patton, 1997/2006) is a widely used, 46-item assessment tool used to obtain information about students’ transition-related knowledge, behavior, and skills from the perspectives of school staff, family members, and/or students themselves. The 46 items on the TPI are clustered within nine transition domains: employment (5 items), further education/training (5 items), daily living (6 items), leisure activities (3 items), community participation (6 items), health (6 items), self- determination (5 items), communication (4 items), and interpersonal relationships (6 items). For example, items from the self-determination domain include recognizes and accepts own strengths and limitations, expresses feelings and ideas to others appropriately, and sets personal goals. Items from the community participation domain include knows his or her basic legal rights, participates as an active citizen, and knows how to use a variety of services and resources successfully. For each item, raters are asked to assess the focus student’s current level of competence using a 6-point Likert-type scale (0 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Two additional response options also are available. If raters have insufficient knowledge to assess a student’s level of competence, they can select don’t know. If raters consider an item to be an inappropriate area of planning for the focus student, they can select not appropriate.

Both parent and teacher versions of the TPI also include sections requesting student demographic information (e.g., age, gender, grade, name) and information about antici- pated postschool plans related to employment, postsecond- ary education or training, and living arrangements. Although all versions of the TPI address the same planning areas and domains, it is important to note that some of the correspond- ing items are worded slightly differently. For example, the school version item from the interpersonal relationships domain states “Displays appropriate social behavior in a variety of settings”; on the home version it is written as, “Can say and do the right thing wherever he/she is.” The school version item from the employment domain states, “Recognizes and accepts own strengths and limitations”; on the home version it is written as, “Knows and accepts own strengths and limitations.”

Evidence of the validity and reliability of the TPI has been reported in several sources (Clark & Patton, 1997; Rehfeldt, 2006; Smith, 1995). Psychometric properties were established on a sample of 329 school-based person- nel, 227 parents, and 288 students across 10 states. Internal consistency for individual domains (measured by Cronbach’s α) ranged from .83 to .94 for teachers and from .79 to .92 for parents. Test–retest reliability coefficients ranged from .87 to .98 for teachers and from .76 to .91 for parents (Clark & Patton, 1997). During initial development,

a pool of 250 items was drawn from an examination of state transition guidelines, as well as a review of the professional literature. A panel of faculty experts and practitioners eval- uated initial drafts of the instruments to suggest revisions in wording, structure, and item inclusion, as well as to assess the social validity of the overall instrument.

We conducted reliability analyses with our own sample by calculating Cronbach’s alpha for each TPI domain sepa- rately for educators and parents. Alphas averaged .88 for educators (range = .84–.92) and .82 for parents (range = .58–.90). We also conducted exploratory factor analyses on the data provided by teachers, which showed a unidimen- sional structure for each of the nine domains addressed in the inventory. The variance explained by each of the factors ranged from 57.2% to 81.0% (M = 69.3%), suggesting that the items for each domain shared a substantial amount of common variance.

Procedures Participants were recruited as part of a larger study focused on the employment and community experiences of adoles- cents with disabilities. After obtaining human subjects and district approvals to conduct the study in 34 high schools, we identified project liaisons in each school to assist with par- ticipant recruitment. These liaisons were asked to randomly select students with intellectual disabilities proportional to the total enrollment of the school. In addition, liaisons were asked to invite all students with severe disabilities (i.e., we oversampled students eligible for the state’s alternate assess- ment). Permission forms were mailed home to parents and guardians of identified youth and returned directly to the school liaisons, who then shared with us the names of stu- dents for whom permission had been obtained.

During the spring semester, we distributed assessment packets containing the TPI and three other instruments to special educators who worked with and knew each partici- pating youth. These teachers completed the TPI indepen- dently at a time and location convenient to them. Parent versions of the TPI scale were mailed to the students’ homes and completed forms were returned directly to us. Although some students also completed the TPI, the paper-and-pencil assessment was not considered to be appropriate for most students; thus, youth perspectives are not addressed in our analyses. We told the teachers and parents that we would give them a summary profile based on the information gath- ered using the TPI that could be used as part of the student’s transition planning. We obtained TPIs from all 61 teachers (100%) and 90 parents (67.2%).

Data Analysis We conducted a series of analyses to address our research questions. First, we calculated descriptive statistics to

Carter et al. 249

summarize teachers’ ratings for the 134 students with severe disabilities. We summarized domain-level scores by calculating the mean score for each domain across each group. We made this decision to retain reference to the original 6-point scale on which each item was initially rated to ease interpretation of our findings. We analyzed responses of not appropriate and don’t know separately by calculating the percentage of items receiving these ratings within each transition domain.

Second, we explored the individual transition-related profiles for students with severe disabilities based on all available teachers’ ratings. For each student, we catego- rized scores on individual domains as reflecting primarily strengths, needs, or somewhere in between. We categorized domains as reflecting primarily strengths if the teacher scored the majority of items in a given domain with a rating of 4 or 5. Similarly, we categorized domains as reflecting needs if teachers scored the majority of a given domain with a rating of 0 or 1. For domains reflecting neither clear strengths nor needs, a score of 2 or 3, we categorized the domain as equivocal. This interpretation of scores is gener- ally consistent with the guidance given in the TPI manual (Clark & Patton, 1997), although the developers suggested a dichotomy of high (i.e., 3, 4, or 5) versus low (i.e., 0, 1, and 2). We developed a profile for each student consisting of a list of domains considered to be strengths, needs, and equivocal for that student. We then compared profile pat- terns across all youth with severe disabilities in the study.

Finally, we compared the assessments of teachers and parents for the 90 students with severe disabilities (67.2%) for whom both completed assessments were available. A summary of parent and teacher ratings for this subsample is provided in Table 1. To explore the degree to which teacher and parent ratings were aligned at both the item and domain level, we compared yoked teacher and parent ratings for individual students. We considered parent and teacher ratings to be in alignment if the ratings were identical (e.g., 1 and 1,

not appropriate and not appropriate) or if numerical ratings were within one point (e.g., 2 and 3, 5 and 4). When parent and teacher ratings did not align, we categorized the spe- cific nature of those differences (e.g., one person provided a numerical rating and another reported not appropriate or don’t know). We calculated percentages of both overall alignment and domain-level alignment across the entire group of students with severe disabilities.

Results How Do Teachers View the Transition- Related Strengths and Needs of Students With Severe Disabilities?

As shown in Table 2, teachers tended to rate students with severe disabilities most highly on the domains of leisure activities (M = 3.44), interpersonal relationships (M = 3.01), and communication (M = 2.94). Community partici- pation (M = 2.03) and further education/training (M = 1.90) received the lowest ratings. The variance in numerical rat- ings was similar across domains (SD range = 1.10–1.31).

Teachers tended to score more individual items as not appropriate in the domains of further education/training (58.36% of items), community participation (26.44%), daily living (22.51%), employment (21.04%), and health (20.77%). The individual items most often rated as not appropriate were each from the domain of further educa- tion and training: “knows how to gain entry into GED Program” (77.68%), “knows how to gain entry into college or university” (74.44%), and “knows how to gain entry into vocational/technical school” (68.89%). Teachers assigned the highest proportion of don’t know ratings to items in the domains of health (5.85%), leisure activities (3.48%), and community participation (2.51%). The individual items most often rated as don’t know were from the health domain— “makes informed choices regarding sexual behavior”

Table 1. Parent and Teacher Ratings for Students With Severe Disabilities by Transition Domain.

M (SD) Percentage of items

rated NA Percentage of items

rated DK

Domain Teachers Parents Teachers Parents Teachers Parents

Leisure activities 3.16 (1.29) 3.07 (1.52) 5.93 3.33 3.33 1.11 Interpersonal relationships 2.92 (1.58) 2.98 (1.80) 9.07 11.67 2.59 2.59 Communication 2.74 (1.61) 2.56 (1.83) 9.72 10.09 2.00 1.58 Health 2.40 (1.57) 2.36 (1.82) 22.41 13.52 4.07 4.63 Self-determination 2.31 (1.41) 2.16 (1.52) 9.11 12.22 0.44 4.22 Employment 2.12 (1.46) 1.82 (1.65) 19.11 13.33 0.89 8.00 Daily living 1.88 (1.57) 1.44 (1.70) 22.22 20.74 0.74 1.85 Further education/training 1.25 (1.48) 1.01 (1.53) 65.33 36.44 0.22 5.33 Community participation 1.04 (1.24) 0.72 (1.21) 28.15 25.56 1.67 1.30

Note. NA = not appropriate; DK = don’t know. Data are drawn from 90 teacher–parent pairs.

250 The Journal of Special Education 47(4)

(13.3%) and “knows how reproductive system works” (5.6%)—and the leisure activities domain—“uses setting that provide various types of entertainment” (6.7%).

To What Extent Do Individual Transition Profiles Vary for Students With Severe Disabilities?

Individual transition-related profiles of students with severe disabilities based on teacher ratings (N = 134) were created by categorizing each domain as primarily reflecting strengths (majority of items scored as 4 or 5), primarily reflecting needs (majority of items scores as a 1 or 2), or equivocal ratings (neither majority strengths or weak- nesses) for each individual student. For example, a student might be determined to have needs in the domains of employment, further education/training, and daily living; strengths in the areas of leisure activities, communication, and interpersonal relationships; and equivocal ratings in the domains of health, community participation, and self- determination. We found that 107 of the 134 (79.85%) students with severe disabilities had unique profiles that did not match the profile of any other student in our sample. The most common shared profile—reflected among just 9.0% of students—included no clear strengths or weak- nesses, but only equivocal ratings. No other single profile accounted for more than 4% of the group. None of the students had all nine domains categorized as areas of need, suggesting that no student was viewed entirely in terms of weaknesses. Moreover, the majority of students (67.91%) had at least one domain categorized as reflecting primarily strengths. The number of students for which each domain was categorized as a strength, weakness, or equivocal is summarized in Figure 1.

To What Extent Do Parents and Teachers Share Similar Perspectives of the Transition- Related Strengths and Needs of Students With Severe Disabilities?

We calculated percentage of close alignment between teacher and parent ratings for all 46 individual items, with close alignment defined as either an identical response agreement or a numerical rating differing only by one point on the scale. We made 4,140 item comparisons (i.e., 90 participants × 46 items rated by teacher and parent). Overall, teachers and parents provided similar ratings on less than half (48.0%) of all rated items. There were two primary indicators for divergence in ratings. First, teachers and parents provided numerical ratings that differed by more than 1 point on 24.3% of items. Second, on 21.6% of items, one respondent provided a numerical rating, whereas the other marked not appropriate. Other differences included one respondent providing a numerical rating and the other marking don’t know (3.7% of items), one respon- dent marking don’t know and the other marking not appro- priate (1.2% of items), or one of the respondents leaving an item blank (1.3% of items). Categories of alignment and divergence are displayed in Table 3 at the level of each of the nine transition domains.

When two substantially different numerical ratings were provided, the items for which those ratings most often differed included “Establishes and maintains close and/or casual friendships in a variety of settings” (46.7%; interper- sonal relationships domain), “Has needed reading skills for acquiring information from written materials—may include tactile systems or other assistive technology/services” (45.6%; communication domain), and “Has needed writing skills—may include Braille systems and alternative/ augmentative communication” (43.3%, communication

Table 2. Teacher Ratings by Transition Domain (N = 134).

Percentage of teachers rating Percentage of teachers rating

Domain 0 or 1 2 or 3 4 or 5 M SD NA DK

Leisure activities 10.95 40.30 38.56 3.44 1.06 6.22 3.48 Interpersonal relationships 18.03 36.19 33.46 3.01 1.06 9.45 2.74 Communication 20.34 33.58 33.58 2.94 1.31 11.38 1.12 Self-determination 25.82 43.43 20.15 2.64 1.10 9.55 0.75 Health 22.26 32.34 18.16 2.49 1.14 20.77 5.85 Employment 25.52 35.97 15.52 2.28 1.14 21.04 0.75 Daily living 32.71 30.35 13.18 2.09 0.96 22.51 1.12 Community participation 46.74 20.43 3.76 1.31 1.11 26.44 2.51 Further education/training 28.51 10.15 2.84 1.31 1.41 58.36 0.15

Note. NA = not appropriate; DK = don’t know.

Carter et al. 251

domain). For other types of differences in ratings, the items for which differences were most often found included “Can succeed in an appropriate postsecondary program” (63.3%; further education/training domain), “Knows how to gain entry into an appropriate vocational/technical school” (55.6%; further education/training domain), and “Knows how to gain entry into an appropriate vocational/technical school” (50.0%, further education/training domain).

Discussion Understanding the individual strengths and needs of young people with severe disabilities is an essential aspect of high-quality transition planning. The results of this study document a range of transition-related strengths reflected

among students with severe disabilities. Although students with severe disabilities were reported to have prominent transition-related needs in several areas, there was also considerable variability in the transition profiles of indi- vidual students in our sample. Perhaps most intriguing, we found the perspectives of teachers and parents on the transition-related strengths and needs of particular students often diverged from one another for a variety of reasons. Collectively, these findings have a number of direct impli- cations for the design and delivery of effective transition education.

First, students with severe disabilities clearly have strengths that can be both drawn on and deepened through the planning process. For example, many students in our sample were reported to have strengths in leisure activities,

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Further Educa�on/Training

Community Par�cipa�on

Daily Living

Employment

Self-Determina�on

Health

Interpersonal Rela�onships

Leisure Ac�vi�es

Communica�on

Needs

Equivocal

Strengths

Figure 1. Percentage of students for whom ratings on individual domains reflected primarily strengths (majority ratings of 4 or 5), needs (majority ratings of 0 or 1), or equivocal ratings.

Table 3. Percentage Agreement and Nonagreement Between Teacher and Parent Ratings by Domain.

Nature of differences

Domain Alignment (%) Different

numbers (%) Number

and NA (%) Number

and DK (%) DK and NA (%) Blanks (%)

Leisure activities 55.2 31.9 7.8 3.7 0.7 0.7 Interpersonal relationships 52.2 28.0 13.9 4.8 0.4 0.7 Daily living 51.1 22.2 22.8 1.9 0.7 1.3 Self-determination 50.2 29.1 14.7 4.4 0.2 1.3 Community participation 49.6 13.3 32.4 2.4 0.6 1.7 Employment 46.4 27.1 15.8 6.0 2.9 1.8 Health 45.7 25.4 20.7 5.2 1.3 1.7 Further education/training 41.3 8.0 44.4 2.4 3.1 0.7 Communication 41.1 41.1 13.6 1.9 0.6 1.7

Note. NA = not appropriate; DK = don’t know.

252 The Journal of Special Education 47(4)

interpersonal relationships, and communication domains. This is an important finding, as participation in recreational leisure activities is associated with well-being (McGuire & McDonnell, 2008), effective communication skills are highly valued by community employers (Ju, Zhang, & Pacha, 2012), and social relationships contribute to a high quality of life (Carter, 2011). Incorporating strength-based assessment approaches within transition planning can enable team members to leverage existing strengths to fur- ther improve students’ participation and outcomes (Epstein, Rudolph, & Epstein, 2000).

Second, our findings further reinforce the importance of incorporating meaningful assessment within the transition planning process because students with severe disabilities— like all adolescents—clearly possess unique amalgamations of strengths and needs. In the present study, the transition profiles of individual students were very heterogeneous when compared with other students with severe disabilities in this sample. Our findings suggest it would be quite unusual for two students with severe disabilities to have identical transition-related profiles. The tremendous diver- sity of individual transition-related profiles for students with disabilities affirms mandates to assess students fre- quently to determine individual needs and create truly indi- vidualized transition plans. Moreover, providing transition programming to students solely on the basis of having a “severe disability” would be inappropriate and inadequate. Findings from this study reaffirm strong empirical support for previous recommendations for individualized pro- gramming (Karan et al., 2010; Neubert, 2011; Sitlington & Clark, 2007).

Third, it is important to assess the transition-related strengths and needs of students with severe disabilities from multiple perspectives because a single informant would likely provide an incomplete perspective. Although there was some convergence between teacher and parent perspec- tives on individual item ratings, the more prominent theme was one of divergence with 52% of all items receiving dif- ferent ratings. Moreover, overall alignment may have been even lower had complete parent data been obtained for the remaining one third of the sample. Other studies have high- lighted differences among parent and educator perspectives within the transition planning process for students with high-incidence disabilities (Carter, Trainor, et al., 2009; Hogansen, Powers, Geenen, Gil-Kashiwabara, & Powers, 2008) or on other assessment measures for students with severe disabilities (Murray, Ruble, Willis, & Molloy, 2009; Voelker, Shore, Hakim-Larson, & Bruner, 1997). Our find- ings demonstrate that parental perspectives bring new infor- mation to a transition profile that would not have been obtained by relying solely on educators’ perceptions and assessments.

Several possible factors might contribute to why teach- ers and parents may have scored items on the TPI in dif- ferent ways. First, teachers and parents may be drawing

from different sources of information given their unique vantage points. For example, although teachers may assess a student’s communication skills and interpersonal relation- ships based entirely on interactions with school staff or other students with disabilities, parents can be considering interactions with family members, community members, or family friends. Future researchers could explore these pos- sibilities further by querying informants about the variety of factors that contributed to their own rating decisions. Second, teachers and parents may also assign ratings based on different points of reference. For example, although a parent might compare a student’s skills with those of a typi- cally developing sibling or their own expectations for ado- lescents, a special education teacher might anchor ratings to the performance of other students with disabilities. Third, differences in the exact wording of items on the TPI school and home forms may also contribute, in part, to differences in ratings. For example, the item with the highest level of disagreement is worded “Can do well in a program after high school that meets his/her needs” on the home form and “Can succeed in an appropriate postsecondary program” on the school form. The substitution of the word postsecond- ary in the school version may lead a teacher to think specifi- cally about educational placements (such as a college or training programming), whereas the parent may be consid- ering a much broader array of programs (e.g., recreational programs, day programs). Another item with high disagree- ment states the student “Makes friends in different kinds of settings” on the home form, but that the student “Establishes and maintains close and/or casual friendships” on the school version. In this particular case, the behavior being rated (i.e., making friends vs. establishing and maintaining close relationships) may be qualitatively different. Fourth, transi- tion teachers might have knowledge about the expectations and demands of postsecondary educational, workplace, and community settings that parents might not share (and vice versa). Although ratings based on any of these differences could be readily navigated during discussions at or prior to planning meetings, future transition assessment developers should consider carefully the strengths and drawbacks of using alternate wording on multirespondent assessments.

As an enduring source of support in the lives of young people with severe disabilities, parents may be highly invested in a successful transition to adulthood (Blacher, 2001; Kim & Turnbull, 2004) and often report desiring greater involvement in the transition process (Geenen, Powers, & Lopez-Vasquez, 2001). Thus, soliciting their views about their child’s strengths and needs is a natural avenue for engaging these stakeholders more fully. Any identified differences in parent–teacher perspectives should lead to focused discussion among stakeholders and, poten- tially, drive decisions about additional informal or formal assessments that might be carried out (Clark & Patton, 2006). However, without gathering multiple perspectives in the assessment process, opportunities for deeper discussions

Carter et al. 253

and subsequent assessments may be lost. Although our study focused narrowly on parent–teacher congruence, soliciting additional perspectives—such as information from youth themselves, employers, paraprofessionals, or other family members (e.g., siblings)—is likely to bring even richer information to inform the transition planning process. Thus, future research is needed to explore the ways in which expanding the number of assessment informants both deep- ens and challenges such planning decisions.

Fourth, transition planning may be enhanced by holding high expectations for students with severe disabilities. We were surprised by the number of items rated as not appro- priate by teachers. In fact, every single item on the TPI was rated not appropriate by teachers for at least three students. The frequency of not appropriate ratings ranged from 3% to 68% across individual items. In most cases, likely expla- nations for high percentages of not appropriate ratings are straightforward. For example, an item might not align with a student’s goals (e.g., “Knows how to gain entry into a GED program” was rated not appropriate for 77.78% of students). Items also might not be considered relevant because of where the student lives (e.g., “Uses local trans- portation systems when needed” was rated not appropriate for 36.67% of students). It may also be that teachers scored items as NA because they believed parents or advocates intended to take responsibility for certain transition-related tasks and did not expect involvement from the school (e.g., “Knows how to locate a place to live in the community” and “Knows how to obtain financial assistance from specific state/federal agencies” were rated as not appropriate for 36.67% and 30.00% of students, respectively).

For other items, the reasons for ratings of not appropri- ate were less clear (e.g., “Gets along well with family mem- bers,” “Has needed speaking skills—may include sign language or alternative/augmentative communication,” “Performs various indoor leisure activities”). Perhaps teachers marked items as not appropriate when a skill had already been thoroughly assessed and was being addressed in existing intervention plans. It is also possible that some teachers may perceive that basic social, communication, and recreational skills are not attainable goals for some stu- dents with severe disabilities. An alternate possibility is that teachers may simply have considered inappropriate any item not closely aligning with students’ postschool transi- tion goals. Regardless of the underlying reason, this promi- nent finding warrants closer examination in future research, as it is well documented that teacher expectations can strongly influence student outcomes (Carter et al., 2010; Harris & Rosenthal, 1985).

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research Future research is needed to address several limitations associated with this study. First, our study focused on

transition-related information obtained through a single assessment tool. Although the TPI is reported to be widely used (Morningstar & Liss, 2008), it remains unclear whether the general findings and response patterns docu- mented in this study would be found when using other transition assessment approaches. No such studies have yet been conducted. Moreover, recommended transition plan- ning practices stipulate that assessment information should be obtained from multiple sources, usually a combination of both direct and indirect assessments, and should be obtained at multiple points over time. Future research should examine the extent to which our findings are robust across other tools and approaches, particularly as we speak to the importance of multiple perspectives. We see a par- ticular need to incorporate more direct observation ele- ments into existing transition assessment tools. Second, although we prepared summaries of the TPI assessment findings for school teams, we did not study the ways in which those findings were actually utilized within the plan- ning process. It is unclear whether or how knowledge of these assessment findings shaped the discussions that ensued at each student’s next transition meeting. Nor do we know whether and how differences in parent and teacher ratings were navigated. An enduring research need is to more closely examine the link between assessment and planning.

Third, our study explored findings from a single—and likely first—administration of the TPI in participating schools. However, transition assessment should be an ongo- ing process. It is unclear whether teacher–parent conver- gence increases over time or after discussion of the initial findings. It is also unclear whether awareness of students’ strengths and needs become more apparent as youth access more transition experiences, instruction, and supports. Fourth, we did not explore the link between assessment findings and student outcomes. Little is known about whether and how the information gathered on tools like the TPI predict, shape, or reorient the postschool outcomes of any youth. Understanding better the linkages between tran- sition processes and outcomes remains an important ele- ment of improving the quality and impact of transition services for youth with severe disabilities.

Conclusion The transition assessment and planning process is in need of more focused research attention, particularly for youth who are considered to have severe disabilities. Although the extant literature has addressed the perspectives and expectations of parents, youth, and teachers regarding the transition of youth with high-incidence disabilities (e.g., Geenen, Powers, & Lopez-Vasquez, 2005; Trainor, Carter, Swedeen, Cole, & Smith, 2011), much more work is needed to address ways to meaningfully include all stake- holders in the assessment process for youth with severe

254 The Journal of Special Education 47(4)

disabilities. Our findings should strengthen calls to weave their perspectives more tightly into the assessment and planning process.

Authors’ Note

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not repre- sent views of the U.S. Department of Education.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Beth Swedeen, Ye Sun, David Riddler, Nicole Ditchman, Tracy McLeod, and Laura Owens for their contribu- tions to this project.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R324S060023.

References

Alwell, M., & Cobb, B. (2009). Functional life skills curricular interventions for youth with disabilities: A systematic review. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 82–93. doi:10.1177/0885728809336656

Blacher, J. (2001). Transition to adulthood: Mental retardation, families, and culture. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 106, 173–188. doi:10.1352/0895-8017(2001)106<0173:TTA MRF>2.0.CO;2

Carter, E. W. (2011). Supporting peer relationships. In M. E. Snell & F. Brown (Eds.), Instruction of students with severe disabil- ities (7th ed., pp. 431–460). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Carter, E. W., Austin, D., & Trainor, A. A. (2012). Predictors of postschool employment outcomes for young adults with severe disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23, 50–63. doi:10.1177/1044207311414680

Carter, E. W., Ditchman, N., Sun, Y., Trainor, A. A., Swedeen, B., & Owens, L. (2010). Summer employment and community experiences of transition-age youth with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 76, 194–212.

Carter, E. W., Owens, L., Trainor, A. A., Sun, Y., & Swedeen, B. (2009). Self-determination skills and opportunities of adoles- cents with severe intellectual and developmental disabilities. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabil- ities, 114, 179–192. doi:10.1352/1944-7558-114.3.179

Carter, E. W., Trainor, A. A., Sun, Y., & Owens, L. (2009). Assessing the transition-related strengths and needs of adoles- cents with high-incidence disabilities. Exceptional Children, 76, 74–94.

Clark, G. M., & Patton, J. R. (1997). Transition planning inven- tory: Administration and resource guide. Austin, TX: ProEd.

Clark, G. M., & Patton, J. R. (2006). Transition planning inventory– Updated version: Administration and resource guide. Austin, TX: ProEd.

Cobb, R. B., & Alwell, M. (2009). Transition planning/coordinating interventions for youth with disabilities: A systematic review. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 70–81. doi:10.1177/0885728809336655

Dykens, E. M. (2006). Toward a positive psychology of mental retardation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76, 185–193. doi:10.1037/0002-9432.76.2.185

Epstein, M. H., Rudolph, S., & Epstein, A. A. (2000). Using strength-based assessment in transition planning. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 32(6), 50–54.

Geenen, S. J., Powers, L. E., & Lopez-Vasquez, A. (2005). Bar- riers against and strategies for promoting the involvement of culturally diverse parents in school based transition planning. Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 27(3), 4–14.

Geenen, S., Powers, L. E., & Lopez-Vasquez, A. (2001). Multi- cultural aspects of parent involvement in transition planning. Exceptional Children, 67, 265–283.

Grigal, M., Hart, D., & Migliore, A. (2011). Comparing the tran- sition planning, postsecondary education, and employment outcomes of students with intellectual and other disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 34, 4–17. doi:10.1177/0885728811399091

Harris, M. J., & Rosenthal, R. (1985). Mediation of interpersonal expectancy effects: 31 meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 363–386. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.97.3.363

Hogansen, J. M., Powers, K., Geenen, S., Gil-Kashiwabara, E., & Powers, L. (2008). Transition goals and experiences of females with disabilities: Youth, parents, and professionals. Exceptional Children, 74, 215–234.

Hughes, C., & Carter, E. W. (2011). Transition supports: Equip- ping youth for adult life. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 35, 177–180. doi:10.3233/JVR-2011-0567

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1990, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1990).

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).

Ju, S., Zhang, D., & Pacha, J. (2012). Employability skills valued by employers as important for entry-level employees with and with- out disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Excep- tional Individuals, 35, 29–38. doi:10.1177/0885728811419167

Karan, O. C., DonAroma, P., Bruder, M. B., & Roberts, L. A. (2010). Transition assessment model for students with severe and/or multiple disabilities: Competency-based community assessment. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 48, 387–392. doi:10.1352/1934-9556-48.5.387

Kim, K. H., & Turnbull, A. (2004). Transition to adulthood for students with severe intellectual disabilities: Shifting toward person-family interdependent planning. Research and Prac- tice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 29, 53–57.

Carter et al. 255

Kohler, P. D., & Field, S. (2003). Transition-focused education: Foundation for the future. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 174–183. doi:10.1177/00224669030370030701

Kreiner, J., & Flexer, R. (2009). Assessment of leisure preferences for students with severe developmental disabilities and com- munication difficulties. Education and Training in Develop- mental Disabilities, 44, 280–288.

Lecavalier, L., Leone, S., & Wiltz, J. (2006). The impact of behav- ior problems on caregiver stress in young people with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 50, 172–183. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2005.00732.x

McGuire, J., & McDonnell, J. (2008). Relationships between recre- ation and levels of self-determination for adolescents and young adults with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31, 154–163. doi:10.1177/0885728808315333

Morningstar, M. E., & Liss, J. M. (2008). A preliminary investigation of how states are responding to the transition assessment require- ments under IDEIA 2004. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31, 48–55. doi:10.1177/0885728807313776

Murray, D. S., Ruble, L. A., Willis, H., & Molloy, C. A. (2009). Parent and teacher report of social skills in children with autism spectrum disorders. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 109–115. doi:10.1044/0161-1461

National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth. (2009). Guideposts for success (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.

Neece, C. L., Kraemer, B. R., Blacher, J., & Ferguson, D. (2009). Tran- sition satisfaction and family well being among parents and young adults with severe intellectual disability. Intellectual and Develop- mental Disabilities, 47, 31–43. doi:10.1352/2009.47:31-43

Neubert, D. A. (2012). Transition assessment for adolescents. In M. L. Wehmeyer and K. W. Webb (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent transition education for youth with disabilities (pp. 73–90). New York, NY: Routledge.

Powers, K., Geenen, S., & Powers, L. E. (2009). Similarities and differences in the transition expectations of youth and parents. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 132–144. doi:10.1177/0885728809346302

Rehfeldt, J. (2006). Transition Planning Inventory leads to IEP goal development and active student involvement subsequently enhances locus of control (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas. Lawrence, KS.

Roberts, K. D. (2010). Topic areas to consider when planning transi- tion from high school to postsecondary education for students with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Develop- mental Disabilities, 25, 158–162. doi:10.1177/1088357610371476

Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Buchanan, C. L., & Lopez, S. J. (2006). The application of positive psychology and self- determination to research in intellectual disability: A content analysis of 30 years of literature. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 31, 338–345.

Shogren, K., & Plotner, A. (2012). Transition planning for stu- dents with intellectual disability, autism, or other disabilities:

Data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2. Intel- lectual and Developmental Disabilities, 50, 16–30. doi:http:// dx.doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-50.1.16

Sitlington, P. L., & Clark, G. M. (2007). The transition assessment process and IDEIA 2004. Assessment for Effective Interven- tion, 32, 133–142. doi:10.1177/15345084070320030201

Smith, S. M. (1995). Reliability of the Transition Planning Inven- tory (TPI) with secondary special education students, their parents and teachers in Kansas (Unpublished doctoral disser- tation). University of Kansas, Lawrence.

Tasse, M. J., & Lecavalier, L. (2000). Comparing parent and teacher ratings of social competence and problem behaviors. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 105, 252–259.

Test, D. W., Fowler, C. H., Richter, S. M., White, J., Mazzotti, V., Walker, A. R., . . . Kortering, L. (2009). Evidence-based practices in secondary transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 115–128. doi:10.1177/088572 8809336859

Test, D. W., Mazzotti, V., Mustian, A., Fowler, C., Kortering, L., & Kohler, P. (2009). Evidence-based secondary transition pre- dictors for improving postschool outcomes for students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 160–181. doi:10.1177/0885728809346960

Thompson, J. R., Wehmeyer, M. L., & Hughes, C. (2010). Mind the gap! Implications of a person–environment fit model of intellec- tual disability for students, educators, and schools. Exceptional- ity, 18, 168–181. doi:10.1080/09362835.2010.513919

Trainor, A. A., Carter, E. W., Swedeen, B., Cole, O., & Smith, S. A. (2011). Perspectives of adolescents with disabilities on employ- ment and community experiences. The Journal of Special Edu- cation, 45, 157–170. doi:10.1177/0022466909359424

Turner, S., Unkefer, L. C., Cichy, B. E., Peper, C., & Juang, J. (2011). Career interests and self-estimated abilities of young adults with disabilities. Journal of Career Assessment, 19, 183–196. doi:10.1177/1069072710385651

Voelker, S., Shore, D., Hakim-Larson, J., & Bruner, D. (1997). Discrepancies in parent and teacher ratings of adaptive behav- ior of children with multiple disabilities. Mental Retardation, 35, 10–17.doi:10.1352/0047-6765(1997)035<0010:DIPATR>2. 0.CO;2

Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Garza, N., & Levine, P. (2005). After high school: A first look at the postschool experiences of youth with disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Javitz, H., & Valdes, K. (2012). A national picture of parent and youth participation in IEP and transition planning meetings. Journal of Disabil- ity Policy Studies. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/ 1044207311425384

Wehman, P. (2011). Essentials of transition planning. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Will, M. (1984). OSERS programming for the transition of youth with disabilities: Bridges from school to working life. Washington, DC: OSERS.