article 2

Parent Assessments of Self-determination Importance and
Performance for Students with Autism or
Intellectual Disability
Erik W. Carter, Kathleen Lynne Lane, Molly Cooney, Katherine Weir, Colleen K. Moss, and
Wendy Machalicek
Abstract
Fostering student self-determination is now considered an essential element of special
education and transition services for children and youth with intellectual disability and/or
autism. Yet, little is known about the pivotal role parents might play beyond the school
campus in fostering self-determination among their children with developmental
disabilities. We examined how 627 parents of children with intellectual disability or
autism attending one of 34 randomly selected school districts (a) rated the importance of
7 component skills associated with self-determination, (b) assessed their children’s
performance in relation to those 7 skills, and (c) evaluated the overall self-determination
capacities of their children. Although parents highly valued all of the self-determination
skills, the degree to which their children were reported to perform the skills well was fairly
low. Several factors predicted higher levels of self-determination, including educational
setting, the presence of challenging behaviors, and perceived disability severity. We
conclude by offering recommendations for equipping parents to better support their
children’s self-determination development.
Key Words: self-determination; families; severe disabilities; autism; inclusion
As the field of special education has evolved,
promoting student self-determination has emerged
as a prominent feature of recommended educa-
tional and transition services and supports for
students with disabilities. This emphasis is intimat-
ed within legislative and policy initiatives (e.g.,
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improve-
ment Act of 2004 [IDEA]), advocated by national
organizations (e.g., American Association on
Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities &
The Arc, 2008; Field, Martin, Miller, Ward, &
Wehmeyer, 1998; TASH, 2000), embedded within
professional standards for special educators (Coun-
cil for Exceptional Children, 2009; National
Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education,
2008), and reflected in the curricular standards of
many states (Wehmeyer, Field, Doren, & Mason,
2004). Moreover, evidence for the importance and
impact of fostering self-determination in the lives of
students with disabilities has accumulated steadily
(Cobb, Lehmann, Newman-Gonchar, & Alwell,
2009; Test et al., 2009; Wehmeyer et al., 2011).
Within the professional literature, most of the
empirical attention has focused on classrooms
and schools as the context within which self-
determination might be fostered among students
with disabilities. Recent descriptive studies indi-
cated general educators, special educators, and
paraprofessionals each identify self-determination
as an important instructional priority and report
taking varied steps to promote skills associated with
this domain (Carter, Lane, Pierson, & Stang, 2008;
Carter, Lane, & Sisco, 2011; Cho, Wehmeyer, &
Kingston, 2011; Stang, Carter, Lane, & Pierson,
AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31
EAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16
16 Parent self-determination

2009; Zhang, Wehmeyer, & Chen, 2005). An array
of assessment instruments has been developed to
assess students’ self-determination skills and/or
their opportunities to develop such capacities
(Field & Hoffman, 2007; Shogren et al., 2008;
Wehmeyer, 2000). And several instructional and
curricular approaches have accumulated compel-
ling evidence of efficacy for increasing students’
self-determination skills and opportunities, such
as the self-directed Individualized Education Pro-
gram (IEP; Kelley, Bartholomew, & Test, in press),
the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruc-
tion (Shogren, Palmer, Wehmeyer, Williams-
Diehm, & Little, in press), Next S.T.E.P. (Halpern,
Herr, Doren, & Wolf, 1997), and Whose Future Is It
Anyway? (Wehmeyer et al., 2004). Collectively,
this body of research confirms how schools
provide a critical context within which self-
determination can be taught and supported.
However, far less attention has addressed the
pivotal role parents might play in fostering self-
determination among their children with intellec-
tual disability or autism (e.g., Zhang, 2006; Zhang,
Katsiyannis, & Zhang, 2002; Zhang, Landmark,
Grenwelge, & Montoya, 2010). As an enduring
influence and prominent source of support in the
lives of their children, parents and other caregivers
have a unique vantage point from which to
observe and promote the development of self-
determination. Yet, few researchers have investi-
gated the extent to which these family members
value self-determination as a learning goal or
observe indicators of self-determination beyond
the school day (Zhang, 2006; Zhang et al., 2005).
Such research could extend the knowledge base in
at least three important ways.
First, little is known about the extent to which
parents prioritize efforts to promote self-
determination similarly to the educators who
work directly with their children. Both qualitative
and quantitative studies suggest parents may hold
expectations or priorities that both converge and
diverge from those espoused by teachers or are
articulated in the professional literature (Carter,
Owens, Trainor, Sun, & Swedeen, 2009; Shogren,
2011; Zhang et al., 2005). Although greater
congruence in the priorities of IEP team members
could facilitate effective planning and contribute
to more coordinated efforts on and beyond the
school campus, it remains unclear how parents of
children with intellectual disability or autism view
the importance of teaching skills typically associ-
ated with self-determination.
Second, parents have unique experiential
bases from which to evaluate their children’s skill
sets relative to teachers, paraprofessionals, or
other service providers operating outside of the
home setting. Observing their children daily
across home, community, and other out-of-school
settings might provide parents with unique
insights into the extent to which their children
successfully demonstrate choice making, problem
solving, self-advocacy, leadership, and other skills
that may enhance self-determination. Indeed,
parents may identify areas of strength and need
related to self-determination not readily apparent
to school-based personnel. Although prior studies
have reported on parents’ global ratings of the self-
determination of their children with intellectual
disability or autism (e.g., Carter et al., 2009; Grigal,
Neubert, Moon, & Graham, 2003), none has
included parental assessments of specific skills
often associated with enhanced self-determination.
Third, parents’ assessments of their child’s
self-determination and its importance may by
impacted by myriad factors (Shogren, 2011;
Wehmeyer et al., 2011). For example, self-
determination may be prioritized more or less
depending on a combination of child-level factors
(e.g., the student’s age, gender, special education
category, or disability severity), parent-level fac-
tors (e.g., socioeconomic status), and/or school-
level factors (e.g., the student’s educational
placement, the use of individually assigned
supports). For example, scholars have speculated
about whether families from diverse backgrounds
place similar priority on skills typically empha-
sized within self-determination interventions
(Shogren, 2011; Zhang, 2006). Such findings
could highlight the value of emphasizing en-
hanced awareness, training, or intervention efforts
for particular students with intellectual disability
or autism and their families.
The purpose of this study was to assess the
self-determination of children and youth with
intellectual disability and/or autism from the
perspectives of their parents or caregivers. We
answered four questions: How do parents evaluate
the importance of seven skills associated with
self-determination? How do parents assess their
children’s performance on these seven specific
skills? How do parents assess the broader self-
determination capacities of their children? What
child, family, and school factors are associated with
variations in parents’ ratings of self-determination
importance and performance?
2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31
EAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16
E. W. Carter et al. 17

As an increasingly prominent educational
construct, self-determination has been defined
and measured in myriad ways (Deci & Ryan,
2002; Wehmeyer, Abery, Mithaug, & Stancliffe,
2003). We incorporated two theoretical perspec-
tives within this particular investigation. First,
Wehmeyer (2005) defines self-determined behav-
ior as ‘‘volitional actions that enable one to act as
the primary causal agent in one’s life and to
maintain or improve one’s quality of life’’ (p. 117).
Within this framework, component elements of
self-determination such as choice making, deci-
sion making, goal setting and attainment, prob-
lem solving, self-management and self-regulation,
self-advocacy and leadership, and self-awareness
and self-knowledge can be emphasized within
instructional efforts to enhance students’ capacity
to be self-determining (Wehmeyer, Agran, &
Hughes, 2000; Wehmeyer & Field, 2007). Indeed,
there is accumulating evidence that such skills can
be effectively taught and reinforced both within
school and home environments. Second, Mithaug,
Mithaug, Agran, Martin, and Wehmeyer (2003)
emphasize that students’ self-determination pros-
pects are influenced both by the opportunities they
have at home and school to make and act on
choices in pursuing their interests and needs as well
as the capacities they have to maximize these
opportunities. Within this view, students capacities
can be impacted by the knowledge they have about
self-determined behaviors, their ability to effective-
ly identify and take necessary steps to satisfy their
interests and needs, and their perceptions of their
own knowledge and abilities to undertake these
tasks.
Method
School Districts and Sampling Procedures
The students who were the focus of this study
attended 34 randomly selected public school
districts. Two districts included grades pre-
kindergarten through eighth; the remaining 32
included pre-kindergarten through 12th grade.
Enrollment across the involved districts averaged
2,576 students (SD 5 3052, range 5 162–15,081).
The race/ethnicity of all students enrolled in these
districts was 91.4% White (SD 5 6.1%, range 5
74.6%–99.4%), 4.2% Latino/Latina/Hispanic
(SD 5 3.2%, range, 0.0%–15.2%), 2.0% Asian
American (SD 5 2.7%, range, 0.0%–11.2%), 1.6%
African American (SD 5 1.1%, range 5 0.1%–
4.1%), and 0.9% American Indian (SD 5 1.4%,
range 5 0.0%–8.6%). An average of 13.1% (SD 5
2.4%, range 5 8.1%–18.8%) of all students
received special education services; 0.7% (SD 5
0.4%, range 5 0.0%–1.7%) of all students
received special education under the primary
category of autism; and 0.9% (SD 5 0.5%, range
5 0.0%–2.1%) received special education under
the primary category of intellectual disability. The
average percentage of students eligible to receive
free or reduced-price lunch (FRL) across districts
was 27.1% (SD 5 12.8%, range 5 3.0%–52.3%).
We randomly selected 65 public school
districts to invite to this study. All districts were
located within three regional service areas of
Wisconsin and were selected because they includ-
ed geographically (i.e., rural, suburban, urban) and
economically diverse schools. Using the state’s
educational agency Web site, we compiled a list of
all 114 school districts in the three regions and
gathered available student demographic informa-
tion. We also used the state’s Web site to obtain
enrollment numbers for each school district,
based on a count completed on the third Friday
of the first month of school.
The following steps were taken to select
schools. First, we ordered the 114 districts by size
and divided them into small- (i.e., less than 1,000
students), medium- (i.e., 1,000 to 5,000 students),
and large-sized districts (i.e., more than 5,000
students). Second, within each of the categories,
we ordered the schools based on the proportion
of non-White students enrolled in each district
and divided them into two groups (higher versus
lower percentage of non-White students), creating
six cells. Third, we used proportional stratified
sampling to randomly select districts from within
each of the six cells.
Of the 65 districts to which we extended an
invitation, 32 districts (10 small, 16 medium, and 6
large) agreed to allow us to invite parents whose
children with disabilities attended the schools. Two
additional school districts (both small-sized dis-
tricts) requested to participate because they shared
a special education director with another partici-
pating district. Ten districts never responded to our
invitation; six districts initially agreed to partici-
pate, but never returned a permission form; six
districts declined, reporting not having enough
time or logistical resources to distribute the survey;
two districts declined because they were involved
in another survey study; four districts expressed
hesitation about the survey procedures; and three
districts did not specify their reason for declining.
2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31
EAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16

Participants
Participants in this analysis were 627 parents or
caregivers of school-age children and youth served
under the special education categories of intellec-
tual disability or autism. To be included, partic-
ipants must have had a child who was (a) receiving
special education services under the category of
autism (ASD) or intellectual disability (ID; i.e.,
cognitive disability in Wisconsin), (b) enrolled in
grades kindergarten through 12th, (c) between the
ages of 5 and 18 years, and (d) enrolled in one of
34 randomly selected public school districts. The
majority of parents were White (91.26%), fol-
lowed by Latina/Latino/Hispanic (2.91%) and
Asian American (2.27%; see Table 1). When
asked about their relationship to the focus child,
85.78% indicated they were the mother; 11.47%,
the father; .81%, the grandmother; and 1.94%
noted some other relationship (e.g., adoptive
parent, foster parent, step-parent). Approximately
40% of respondents indicated their child was FRL
eligible.
The majority of students who were the focus
of this survey were male (74.43%), and their
average age was 11.72 years (SD 5 3.70, range 5 5
to 18). We removed from the analysis those
students who were younger than 5 years and older
than 18 (i.e., adults), as their disabilities tended to
all be more severe and they were not all privy to
the common K-12 educational experiences and
contexts. Although schools only sent our instru-
ments to parents of children receiving special
education services under a primarily label of ID or
ASD, 305 of the students were identified by their
parents as having a primary special education
category of autism, 190 as having intellectual
disability, 28 as having both autism and intellec-
tual disability, and 94 as having another disability
(e.g., cerebral palsy). When asked how they would
describe their child’s level of disability, 80% of
parents selected mild/moderate and 20% selected
severe/profound. Just under half (40.1%) of partic-
ipants reported their child currently had a one-to-
one assistant in school. When asked about the
school setting in which their child with a
disability spends the school day, approximately
one third (32.52%) selected mostly or all general
education classrooms; 27.51% selected both general/
special education classes equally; 38.51% selected
mostly or all special education classrooms; and 1.46%
selected other (e.g., transition work program, home
school, virtual school). When asked how often
their child exhibits challenging behaviors (e.g.,
aggression, tantrums, inappropriate conversation-
al topics, self-injury), 13.45% indicated never;
23.82%, rarely; 39.38%, sometimes; and 23.34%,
often. See Table 1 for additional participant
demographic information.
Instrument
We developed a 3-page print questionnaire to
solicit information from parents regarding the
importance of self-determination in the lives of
their child, the extent to which their child
demonstrates self-determination, key barriers to
self-determination, and recommendations for
schools and other parents on fostering self-
determination. We designed this survey to gather
some information in a manner parallel to surveys
used in prior studies soliciting the perspectives of
general educators (Stang et al., 2009), special
educators (Carter et al., 2008), and paraprofes-
sionals (Carter, Lane, & Sisco, 2011). In this
article, we focus our analyses on the four close-
ended sections of this survey, as described below.
However, findings from the open-ended qualita-
tive survey responses focused on parents’ personal
definitions of self-determination, descriptions of
key barriers, and recommendations to school staff
and other parents will be reported elsewhere.
First, we asked parents to rate the importance
of seven component skills (i.e., choice-making
skills, decision-making skills, goal-setting skills,
problem-solving skills, self-advocacy and leader-
ship skills, self-awareness and self-knowledge, and
self-management and self-regulation skills; see
Table 2) associated with self-determination (Weh-
meyer et al., 2007; Wehmeyer & Field, 2007). As
noted in the introduction, these seven elements
are operationalized at the level at which instruc-
tion and support might be provided at school or
at home. For each skill item, parents were asked,
‘‘How important do you feel it is for your child to
learn this skill now?’’ Response options were not
important, somewhat important, and very important.
These seven skills were drawn from a national
survey of special educators conducted by Weh-
meyer et al. (2000) and have been socially
validated in studies of teachers and paraprofes-
sionals (Carter et al., 2008; Carter, Lane, & Sisco,
2011; Stang et al., 2009). Brief examples accom-
panied each of the seven component skills (e.g.,
‘‘knowing one’s rights, communicating effective-
ly, being an effective leader’’ was listed under-
2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31
EAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16

Table 1
Parent and Child Characteristics by Reported Special Education Category and Across All Students
Autism
n 5 305
Intellectual
disability
n 5 190
Both
n 5 28
Other disabilities
n 5 94
All students
N 5 627
Child’s gender
Female 46 (15.13) 93 (43.92) 7 (25.93) 19 (20.21) 158 (25.57)
Male 258 (84.87) 106 (56.08) 20 (74.77) 75 (79.79) 460 (74.43)
Perceived disability level of child
Mild/moderate 264 (87.13) 136 (73.91) 16 (59.26) 70 (76.09) 488 (80.00)
Severe/profound 39 (12.87) 48 (26.09) 11 (40.74) 22 (23.91) 122 (20.00)
One-to-one assistant
No 193 (64.33) 109 (58.29) 15 (53.57) 47 (51.09) 366 (59.90)
Yes 107 (35.67) 78 (41.71) 13 (46.43) 45 (48.91) 245 (40.10)
Educational settings
Mostly general education 158 (51.97) 19 (10.11) 0 (0.00) 24 (25.53) 201 (32.52)
General and special education 71 (23.36) 63 (33.51) 9 (32.14) 25 (26.60) 170 (27.51)
Mostly special education 71 (23.36) 105 (55.85) 18 (64.29) 43 (45.74) 238 (38.51)
Other setting 4 (1.32) 1 (0.53) 1 (3.57) 2 (2.13) 9 (1.46)
Challenging behaviors
Never 25 (8.22) 47 (25.13) 1 (3.57) 9 (9.57) 83 (13.45)
Rarely 66 (21.71) 57 (30.48) 5 (17.86) 18 (19.15) 147 (23.82)
Sometimes 140 (46.05) 54 (28.88) 9 (32.14) 39 (41.49) 243 (39.38)
Often 73 (24.01) 29 (15.51) 13 (46.43) 28 (29.79) 144 (23.34)
Free/reduced-price lunch
No 214 (70.86) 98 (52.97) 11 (40.74) 37 (40.22) 362 (59.34)
Yes 88 (29.14) 87 (47.03) 16 (59.26) 55 (59.78) 248 (40.66)
Respondent’s relationship to child
Father 42 (13.77) 22 (11.64) 3 (10.71) 4 (4.30) 71 (11.47)
Mother 256 (83.93) 161 (85.19) 25 (89.29) 85 (91.40) 531 (85.78)
Other 7 (2.29) 6 (3.17) 0 (0.00) 4 (4.31) 17 (2.75)
Respondent’s race/ethnicity
African American 1 (0.33) 1 (0.53) 0 (0.00) 2 (2.15) 5 (0.81)
Asian American 5 (1.64) 5 (2.66) 0 (0.00) 4 (4.30) 14 (2.27)
Latina/Latino/Hispanic 10 (3.28) 4 (2.13) 0 (0.00) 4 (4.30) 18 (2.91)
Native American 1 (0.33) 2 (1.06) 0 (0.00) 1 (1.08) 4 (0.65)
Other or multiple 3 (0.98) 8 (4.26) 1 (3.57) 1 (1.08) 13 (2.10)
White 285 (93.44) 168 (89.36) 27 (96.43) 81 (87.10) 564 (91.26)
Note. Ten respondents did not specify disability type. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed
the given item. Number of missing responses can be determined by using overall n/N.
2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31
EAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16

neath ‘‘self-advocacy and leadership skills’’).
Second, for these same seven skills, parents were
also asked ‘‘How well do you feel your child does
this now?’’ Responses were provided on a 3-point
Likert-type scale (1 5 not well, 2 5 somewhat well,
3 5 very well). Cronbach’s alpha for each scale was
.80 for both scales.
Third, we asked parents to evaluate their
child’s self-determination capacity using the parent
version of the AIR Self-Determination Scale
(Wolman, Campeau, DuBois, Mithaug, & Sto-
larski, 1994). This scale assesses students’ self-
determination capacities by measuring the extent
to which students connect beliefs about what they
need, want, and could do with their expectations,
choices, actions, and results. Parents rated each of
six statements (e.g., ‘‘My child knows what s(he)
needs, likes, and is good at’’; ‘‘My child begins
work on plans to meet his or her goals as soon as
possible’’; see Table 3) using a 5-point Likert-type
scale (i.e., 1 5 never, 2 5 almost never, 3 5 sometimes,
4 5 almost always, or 5 5 always). Adequate
reliability and validity for the parent scale has been
demonstrated in prior studies (Carter, Lane,
Pierson, & Glaeser, 2006; Carter et al., 2009).
Cronbach’s alpha for the current study was .87.
Fourth, we included 10 questions addressing:
(a) the nature of respondents’ relationship to the
focus child and their own race/ethnicity; (b)
demographic information about the child (i.e.,
age, gender, primary special education category,
disability severity, occurrence of challenging
behaviors, and FRL eligibility); and (c) school
program information about the child (i.e., receipt
of a one-to-one assistant, primary educational
settings). Table 1 displays response options for
these questions. In addition, parents evaluated
their own level of familiarity of the concept of
‘‘self-determination for children with disabilities’’
prior to receiving the survey (i.e., 1 5 not at all,
2 5 somewhat, 3 5 very familiar).
Procedures
Data collection primarily took place between
October and January, with small numbers of
surveys returned through the end of the school
year. We sent study invitations to the director of
special education for each identified district to
explain the purpose of the study, include a sample
survey, and invite the district’s involvement. A
few days later, we called each director to provide
additional detail, answer any questions, request
verbal permission for the district to assist with the
survey, and request districts return signed permis-
sion forms. Multiple attempts were made to reach
directors by phone before moving to the next
district on our list.
We asked participating districts to tell us the
total number of K-12 students in their district
currently receiving special education services
under the category of autism or intellectual
disability as well as the number of families
needing a survey in a language other than English.
We mailed the district liaison the appropriate
number of prestamped and sealed survey packets.
To protect the families’ confidentiality, the
district liaison placed address labels on surveys
and mailed them on our behalf. Each survey
packet contained a survey with cover letter, a
postage-paid return envelope, a $2 cash incentive,
and a postage-paid postcard families could return
separately to enter a drawing and request addi-
tional free resources from a state family resource
center. Completed surveys were mailed directly to
the research team, preventing district staff from
knowing which families chose to participate.
We used several strategies to achieve a high
response rate. First, parents received $2 with each
survey and could enter a drawing for one of
twenty $25 gift cards. Second, we limited the
length of the survey to enable completion in
approximately 20 min. Third, we asked districts to
mail a second copy of the survey to all parents
approximately 5–6 weeks later. The second survey
did not include a cash incentive, and parents were
asked not to complete it a second time if their
initial survey had already been returned. Fourth,
we indicated in our cover letter that we would
prepare and distribute a free guide for parents
based on what we learned from the study. The
overall response rate was 37.7% (range 5 16.7%–
66.6% across districts). Data entry was completed
by four graduate and undergraduate students.
Fidelity of data entry was checked for every
survey, and any data entry errors were corrected.
To ascertain the extent to which sample
biasing was a potential concern, we examined
two sources of information. First, we compared
our sample’s demographics to the demographics
of all students (with and without disabilities)
served in the participating school districts from
which the sample was drawn as well as from the
universe of districts we originally approached.
Although race/ethnicity was comparable among
the groups, the percentage of students in our
2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31
EAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16

sample eligible for FRL was considerably higher
than the proportion of all students eligible for
FRL in the sampled districts (40% vs. 27%; cf.
Fujiura & Yamaki, 2000). Second, we compared
survey findings for parents responding to the
initial and follow-up survey requests. No signifi-
cant differences were noted.
Study Design and Data Analysis Plan
To determine how parents evaluate the impor-
tance of prominent self-determination skills as
well as their assessment of their child’s self-
determination capacity, we used descriptive sta-
tistics to summarize ratings of importance across
respondents. Descriptive statistics for item-level
ratings are reported in Tables 2 and 3. Next, we
computed Pearson correlation coefficients to
examine the association between parents’ ratings
of the importance and use of the seven self-
determination domains as well as their overall
assessment of their child’s capacity for self-
determined behavior. Specifically, correlations
are reported for (a) item-level skill importance
and skill performance ratings, (b) item-level skill
importance ratings and the overall AIR score (i.e.,
average of all six items), and (c) item-level skill
performance ratings and the overall AIR score.
Finally, we conducted three stepwise regres-
sions to identify the extent to which child-,
parent-, and school-level factors predicted (a) the
importance parents placed on their child learning
self-determination skills, (b) the extent to which
their children currently performed the skills, and
(c) parents’ assessment of their child’s overall self-
determination capacity. These factors included:
child’s gender (male or female), child’s age (5–
18 years), child’s disability level (mild/moderate
or severe/profound), whether the child had a one-
to-one assistant (yes or no), the child’s primary
school setting (i.e., mostly or all general education
classrooms, both general and special education
classes equally, mostly or all special education
classrooms, or other settings), whether the child
had autism (yes or no), whether the child had
intellectual disability (yes or no), whether the
child had additional disabilities (yes or no), the
frequency of challenging behaviors (never, rarely,
sometimes, or often), and whether or not the
child received free or reduced priced lunches (yes
or no). We used a jackknife procedure to detect
outliers (Kleinbaum, Kupper, Muller, & Nizam,
1998). To determine the most parsimonious
Table2
RatingsofSkillImportanceandReportedPerformance
Self-determinationskills
Importance%(n)
M(SD)
Performance%(n)
M(SD)Notimportant
Somewhat
important
Very
importantNotwellSomewhatwellVerywell
Choicemaking2.94(18)19.28(118)77.78(476)2.75(0.50)19.09(117)60.20(369)20.72(127)2.02(0.63)
Decisionmaking6.50(40)20.16(124)73.33(451)2.67(0.59)56.96(348)36.99(226)6.06(37)1.49(0.61)
Problemsolving1.96(12)11.93(73)86.11(527)2.84(0.42)54.35(331)40.72(248)4.93(30)1.51(0.59)
Goalsetting6.54(40)33.33(204)60.13(368)2.54(0.62)71.38(434)25.66(156)2.96(18)1.32(0.53)
Self-advocacyandleadership9.79(60)30.18(185)60.03(368)2.50(0.67)70.39(428)25.82(157)3.78(23)1.33(0.55)
Self-managementandself-regulation1.95(12)16.42(101)81.63(502)2.80(0.45)57.96(353)37.11(226)4.93(30)1.47(0.59)
Self-awarenessandself-knowledge3.10(19)25.49(156)71.41(437)2.69(0.53)37.97(232)53.36(326)8.67(53)1.71(0.62)
Note.Percentagesarebasedonthenumberofparticipantswhocompletedthegivenitem.
2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31
EAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16

predictors to retain in each model, we examined
residual sums of squares, the multiple correlation
coefficient, and Cp criterion values (Borthwick-
Duffy, Lane, & Widaman, 1997). We also
evaluated the validity of the regression models
by examining studentized residuals, leverage, and
Cook’s D values (Kleinbaum et al., 1998). Results
indicated extreme values were not evidenced
suggesting the regression results were considered
accurate. Graduate students entered all data, with
fidelity of data entry assessed for 100% of the
surveys. Any data entry errors were corrected.
Results
How Do Parents Evaluate the Importance
of Seven Self-determination Skills?
Overall, parents indicated it was very important for
their children to learn each of the seven component
elements of self-determination (see Table 2), with
mean scores ranging from 2.50 for self-advocacy
and leadership skills to 2.84 for problem-solving
skills. More than 70% of parents rated choice
making, decision making, problem solving, self-
management and self-regulation skills, and self-
awareness and self-knowledge as being very impor-
tant for their children. More than 60% of parents
rated goal setting skills and self-advocacy and
leadership skills as somewhat important.
How Do Parents Assess Their Children’s
Performance on Each Self-
determination Skill?
Despite the high levels of importance parents
placed on their child learning each skill, they
generally reported their children did not perform
these skills well, with mean scores ranging from
1.32 for both goal-setting skills to 2.02 for choice-
making skills (see Table 2). More than half of the
parents indicated their children did not perform
decision-making, problem-solving, goal-setting,
self-advocacy and leadership, or self-management
and self-regulation skills well. Parents indicated
their children were more successful in their
ability to perform choice-making skills and to a
lesser extent self-awareness and self-knowledge
skills.
How Do Parents Rate Their Children’s
Overall Self-determination Capacity?
Although the majority of parents indicated their
child almost always or always (45.32%) knew what
Table3
ParentRatingsofSelf-DeterminationFromtheAIRSelf-DeterminationScale
AIRscaleitem
Percentage(n)ofparentsprovidingeachrating
M(SD)NeverAlmostneverSometimesAlmostalwaysAlways
1.Mychildknowswhat(s)heneeds,likes,andisgoodat.0.81(5)2.42(15)41.45(257)45.32(281)10.00(62)3.61(0.73)
2.Mychildsetshisorherowngoalstosatisfywantsorneeds.
(S)hethinksabouthisorherownabilitieswhensettinggoals.18.78(117)32.74(204)37.40(233)9.47(59)1.61(10)2.42(0.95)
3.Mychildfiguresouthowtomeetgoalsalone.(S)hemakes
plansanddecideswhattodoindependently.22.95(143)34.35(214)34.83(217)6.90(43)0.96(6)2.29(0.93)
4.Mychildbeginsworkonplanstomeethisorhergoals
assoonaspossible.30.39(189)32.48(202)28.30(176)6.91(43)1.93(12)2.18(1.00)
5.Mychildcheckshisorherownprogresswhencompletinghis
orherplan.(S)heasksotherswhattheythinkofhisorherprogress.36.92(230)29.70(185)25.04(156)6.26(39)2.09(13)2.07(1.03)
6.Ifaplandoesn’twork,mychildtriesanotheronetomeet
hisorhergoals.25.56(159)30.39(189)35.85(223)5.95(37)2.25(14)2.29(0.99)
Note.Percentagesarebasedonthenumberofparticipantswhocompletedthegivenitem.
2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31
EAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16

he or she likes and is good at, less than 10% of
parents provided similar ratings on all five
remaining items. Overall scores (i.e., average of
all six items) on the AIR Self-Determination scale
averaged 14.89 (SD 5 4.44) and ranged from 2.07
(Item 5 progress) to 3.16 (Item 1 strengths).
To What Extent Are Ratings of Skills
Importance, Skill Performance, and
Overall Self-determination Related?
When comparing importance and performance
ratings, we found significant positive correlations
for five of the seven items: decision making (r 5
.21), goal setting (r 5 .17), self-advocacy and
leadership skills (r 5 .13), and self-awareness and
self-knowledge (r 5 .12). Although statistically
significant, correlation coefficients suggest low-
level relations between ratings of skill importance
and actual performance. Comparisons among
item-level skill importance and overall AIR ratings
also yielded significant, positive correlations for
all skills except choice-making skills. Significant
correlations were small in magnitude, ranging
from 0.11 (problem solving) to 0.26 (self-advocacy
and leadership). Comparisons among perfor-
mance and overall AIR ratings yielded significant,
positive correlations for all items. The correlations
were moderate in magnitude, ranging from 0.45
(problem solving; self-advocacy and leadership;
and self-management and self-regulations) to 0.53
(decision making).
What Factors Are Associated with
Parents’ Ratings of Skill Importance,
Skill Performance, and Overall Self-
Determination Capacity?
Skill Importance. Three of the 10 variables—
disability level, FRL status, and having intellectual
disability—were significant predictors of parents’
importance ratings (see Table 4 for results of
significance testing). Disability level accounted
for 7% of variance in importance; FRL status
accounted for an additional 1% of the variance as
did having a special education label of intellectual
disability. The overall model accounted for 9% of
variance. Parents whose children were eligible for
FRL and who did not have intellectual disability
placed greater importance on self-determination
skills than did parents whose children were not
eligible for FRL and had intellectual disability. In
addition, parents who described their children as
having severe/profound disabilities placed less
importance on learning self-determination skills
than did parents who described their children as
having mild/moderate disabilities.
Skill performance. When predicting factors
associated with the extent to which parents felt
their children performed this collection of seven
skills, six variables entered the model (see
Table 4). In brief, school setting accounted for
12% of the variance in performance ratings
followed by frequency of challenging behavior
(6%), disability level (4%), child’s age (2%), child’s
gender (1%), and FRL status (1%). There was a
positive relation between parents’ ratings of skill
performance and their child’s age, gender, and
FRL status, suggesting parents offered higher
performance for older children and girls. Perfor-
mance was also rated higher for children who were
eligible for FRL. The remaining variables shared a
significant, negative relation, meaning perfor-
mance ratings were higher for children spending
a greater proportion of time in general education
settings, having a lower frequency of challenging
behaviors, and having mild/moderate disabilities
(versus severe/profound disabilities).
Global self-determination. When predicting
parents’ overall ratings of their children’s self-
determination capacity (assessed using the AIR
Self-Determination Scale), six variables entered
the model (see Table 4 and Table 5). In brief,
disability level accounted for 11% of the variance
in AIR ratings followed by frequency of challeng-
ing behavior (4%), school setting (2%), child’s age
(1%), gender (1%), and FRL status (1%). There was
a positive relation between overall AIR scores and
the child’s age, gender, and FRL status, indicating
parents attributed greater self-determination ca-
pacity to older children, girls, and children who
were FRL eligible. Furthermore, children identi-
fied as having mild/moderate disabilities, fewer
challenging behaviors, and spending more time in
general education classes were judged to have
greater self-determination capacity.
Discussion
The importance of fostering self-determination
across the age span has become increasingly
prominent within recommended educational
policies and practices for students with develop-
mental disabilities. To date, however, this empha-
sis has centered most heavily on the contributions
special and general educators might make toward
2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31
EAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16

equipping students with the skills, knowledge,
and opportunities to become more self-determining.
Parents and other caregivers represent an essential—
but too often neglected—partner in this endeavor
(e.g., Zhang, 2006; Zhang et al., 2002; Zhang et al.,
2010). To explore how parents view the importance
of self-determination and assess their children’s
needs in this domain, we solicited the perspectives
of more than 600 parents from numerous randomly
selected school districts. Our findings extend the
self-determination literature in several important
ways.
First, parents in the sample clearly empha-
sized the importance of their children with
intellectual disability or autism learning the seven
self-determination skills at their present age.
Indeed, we were surprised by just how few parents
(i.e., less than 10%) indicated that any of the
individual skills were not important. Problem
solving, self-management, and choice-making
skills garnered particularly high importance rat-
ings, while the endorsement of goal setting and
self-advocacy and leadership was only slightly less
prominent. The overall consistency of these
priorities with those identified in prior studies of
general educators, special educators, and parapro-
fessionals suggests some degree of consensus
across stakeholder groups regarding the value of
fostering self-determination skill development
(Carter et al., 2008; Carter, Lane, & Sisco, 2011;
Stang et al., 2009). Although this study was not
designed to explore why parents placed such high
value on these skills, findings suggest that parents
may be receptive to placing more explicit
emphasis on promoting self-determination within
the curriculum and student’s individualized IEPs.
Although there was general consistency in
parents’ evaluations of the importance of individ-
ual skills, their collective ratings of all seven skills
appear to be shaped by at least three factors.
Specifically, the seven skills were considered
somewhat less important by parents of children
described as having severe/profound disabilities
or having a special education label of intellectual
disability. It may be that the difficulties children
with extensive support needs have performing
self-determination skills (Carter, Owens, et al.,
2009) indirectly temper parents’ views regarding
the importance of acquiring those skills. For
example, a substantial proportion of parents’
responses to open-ended survey questions about
primary barriers to self-determination emphasized
communication, social, cognitive, and other skill
deficits exhibited by their children. On the other
hand, parents of children who were eligible for
free or reduced-price meals considered those same
skills to be somewhat more important than did
parents of children who were not eligible for
FRL. This latter finding was unanticipated, as
prior research has suggested that parents of
lower-income families may engage in fewer self-
determination practices (Zhang, 2006).
The assessments provided by parents also
conveyed striking differences between the skills
Table 4
Correlations Between Skill Importance, Skill Performance, and Overall Self-Determination Ratings
Self-determination
skills
Skill importance and
skill performance
Skill importance and overall
self-determination capacity
Skill performance and overall
self-determination capacity
r p value r p value r p value
Choice making 20.05 .2145 20.00 .9400 0.46 , .0001
Decision making 0.21 , .0001 0.14 .0007 0.53 , .0001
Problem solving 0.03 .5258 0.11 .0067 0.45 , .0001
Goal setting 0.17 , .0001 0.21 , .0001 0.51 , .0001
Self-advocacy and
leadership 0.13 .0012 0.26 , .0001 0.45 , .0001
Self-management and
self-regulation 0.08 .0602 0.15 .0002 0.45 , .0001
Self-awareness and
self-knowledge 0.13 .0020 0.16 , .0001 0.48 , .0001
Note. Correlations are based on the number of participants who completed the given item. Overall self-determination
ratings refer to overall average scores on the AIR Self-Determination Scale.
2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31
EAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16

Table5
VariablesPredictingImportance,Performance,andAIRSelf-DeterminationScale
OutcomevariableStepPredictorvariableParameterestimatePartialR2
ModelR2
C(p)Fvaluepvalue
Importance1Disabilitylevel21.610.06600.066012.0439.06,.0001
2FRLstatus0.640.01090.07687.496.50.0111
3Intellectualdisability20.490.00840.08534.415.03.0246
Performance1Schoolsetting20.980.12070.1207106.0675.35,.0001
2Challengingbehaviorfrequency20.670.06480.185559.9543.58,.0001
3Disabilitylevel21.320.03530.220835.7024.81,.0001
4Child’sage0.120.02070.241522.3014.93.0001
5Child’sgender0.670.00980.251417.017.15.0077
6FRLstatus0.550.00920.260512.216.74.0097
OverallSD1Disabilitylevel20.440.10920.109261.6870.70,.0001
2Challengingbehaviorfrequency20.150.04020.149334.9727.20,.0001
3Schoolsetting20.170.02440.173719.5316.99,.0001
4Child’sage0.020.01190.185713.018.40.0039
5Child’sgender0.150.00840.19409.045.94.0151
6FRLstatus0.130.00730.20135.855.19.0230
Note.FRL5Free/reducedpriceluncheligible.
2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31
EAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16

they considered important for their children and
the degree to which their children presently
performed those skills. For example, more than
half of the parents in this sample indicated their
child did not perform five of the skills well at all.
One marked exception was choice making, which
has been among the most often emphasized
elements in the self-determination literature for
this population of students (Shogren, Faggella-
Luby, Bae, & Wehmeyer, 2004; Shogren, Weh-
meyer, Buchanan, & Lopez, 2006). It may be this
particular skill receives greater emphasis within
the special education curriculum, and/or perhaps
it is the most easily learned skill among the seven.
Parents’ ratings on the AIR Scale (both individual
items and overall) were also fairly low, with the
exception that children were reported to some-
times or always know what they need, like, and are
good at. Given the nature of those children’s
disabilities and support needs (Schalock et al.,
2010), these performance discrepancies are likely
not unique to the domain of self-determination.
Additional work, however, is needed to elucidate
factors contributing to observed differences in
parents’ ratings of importance and performance.
Although study respondents collectively reported
numerous ways in which they were encouraging
skills potentially enhancing their child’s self-
determination (see Weir, Cooney, Walter, Moss,
& Carter, 2011), we were unable to discern the
extent to which these efforts were implemented in
ways and degrees yielding substantive impact. For
example, it may be parents highly value self-
determination and are striving to encourage it but
lack effective strategies to do so. Or, it may be that
parents view the skills as important, but lean to
schools or others to provide explicit instruction in
this domain.
Parents’ ratings of self-determination skill
performance may be influenced by multiple
factors. The most prominent among these factors
was school setting. Specifically, children who
spent more time in general education settings
were given higher ratings of skill performance
than were children who spent proportionally
more time in separate settings. We emphasize,
however, the precise influence of educational
placement on students’ self-determination out-
comes is clearly complex and remains uncertain
(Shogren et al., 2007; Zhang, 2001). In addition,
children who engaged in lower rates of challenging
behavior were perceived to have higher self-
determination skill performance. This is not
surprising, as a similar association has been found
among students with learning disabilities or emo-
tional/behavioral disorders (Pierson, Carter, Lane,
& Glaeser, 2008). Additionally, self-determination
skills (esp. self-management, choice-making) are
routinely recommended as interventions for reduc-
ing problem behaviors (Carter, Lane, Crnobori,
Bruhn, & Oakes, 2011; Shogren et al., 2004).
Finally, we found perceived level of disability to be
a prominent predictor of parents’ ratings of self-
determination skill performance and overall capac-
ity, with children whose disabilities were considered
to be severe/profound having more limitations
related to self-determination (Wehmeyer & Garner,
2003).
Although it was indeed a significant (albeit
small) predictor, we were surprised that age was
not more strongly related to overall skill perfor-
mance or global self-determination capacity. We
had anticipated older youth would be viewed as
more self-determining than young children.
Instead, parents’ ratings of the self-determination
skills and capacity of their children with intellec-
tual disability or autism were consistently low at
all points along the age span, with only nominal
increases among children who are older. This
finding should not imply children and youth are
not developing skills in these seven areas over
time, as it is possible parents are heavily anchoring
their ratings to what they would expect of their
child relative to similar-age peers. This finding
does, however, suggest intervention strategies may
be needed across the age span, long before self-
determination traditionally becomes emphasized
during early and middle adolescence.
Implications for Research and Practice
Findings from this large-scale study of parent
perspectives have several implications for research
and practice. First, there is an enduring need to
develop home-based or family-delivered interven-
tions to enhance self-determination—beginning
at an early age and continuing throughout
children’s schooling. Although several articles
and publications have recommended strategies
parents might implement at home (e.g., Broth-
erson, Cook, Erwin, & Weigel, 2008; Thoma &
Wehman, 2010; Weir et al., 2011), there have
been few rigorous evaluations of interventions
delivered in these out-of-school contexts. Second,
existing efforts to foster student self-determination
would be enhanced by stronger collaboration and
2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31
EAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16

coordination across school and home settings
(Field & Hoffman, 1999; Lee, Palmer, Turnbull,
& Wehmeyer, 2006). For students with intellectual
disability or autism—who often have difficulties
generalizing newly learned skills across contexts—
such synchronized efforts could increase both the
number and diversity of self-determination skill-
building opportunities these children encounter
throughout the week. Third, relatively little is
known about the everyday ways in which parents
are encouraging and supporting the skills, knowl-
edge, and behaviors that may coalesce to shape to
the self-determination of their school-age children
with developmental disabilities over time. Al-
though we gathered selected examples of efforts
parents were making to encourage individual skills
(Weir et al., 2011), in-depth qualitative investiga-
tions are needed to document the diverse ways
in which parents understand and address this
important domain beyond the school day. Fourth,
personal and cultural identities likely shape the
ways in which families think about and support
self-determination beyond the school. As noted in
a recent review by Shogren (2011), rigorous studies
exploring the intersection of culture and self-
determination remain far too few. Although we
were able to explore one aspect of socioeconomic
diversity in our analyses (i.e., FRL eligibility), we
were unable to explore factors like race/ethnicity,
nationality, parental education level, and other
related factors in this particular sample and state.
We encourage future researchers to recruit samples
and employ methods that would further the field’s
understanding of the ways in which these and other
variables, individually and in combination, might
shape the understandings and efforts of parents
related to this important educational domain.
Limitations
Several limitations to this study should be
considered when discerning the relevance of our
findings to other samples of parents and their
children. First, we did not sample families with
children receiving special education under a
category other than autism or intellectual disabil-
ity, families of pre-kindergarten children, nor
families of children attending private or charter
schools. Second, we relied on parental reports of
some aspects of their children’s disabilities
without conducting direct assessments of stu-
dents’ specific support needs. Although we relied
on schools’ determination of primary disability
category, parents’ descriptions of their children’s
disability categories may not have always aligned
with those of the school. Third, although
demographically similar to the randomly selected
school districts from which participating parents
were affiliated, our sample does not fully reflect
the ethnic and racial diversity of the country
nationally. With only 63 parents listing their race/
ethnicity as something other than European
American, our sample was too small to meaning-
fully explore differences in parents’ perceptions
associated with this factor. Readers should con-
sider whether the students, parents, and commu-
nities involved in this study resemble those with
whom they work when considering the generaliz-
ability of the findings. Fourth, we were unable to
make comparisons to the ratings of parents of
same-age children without disabilities to gauge
whether our findings simply reflect normative
patterns among all children.
Conclusion
Children and youth with autism or intellectual
disability often require explicit instruction and
support to acquire and exercise essential self-
determination skills, including choice-making
skills, decision-making skills, goal-setting skills,
problem-solving skills, self-advocacy and leader-
ship skills, self-awareness and self-knowledge, and
self-management and self-regulation. Historically,
research evaluating the effects of intervention
targeting these skills has taken place in education-
al settings with teachers and teaching staff as
interventionists. However, given the enduring
presence of parents and other caregivers in a
child’s life, these stakeholders likely play a pivotal
role in the acquisition and generalization of self-
determination skills by children and youth with
developmental disabilities. The results of the
present study suggest that, although parents rated
their child’s performance of self-determined
behaviors low, the core skills associated with
self-determination are highly valued by parents of
children and youth with autism or intellectual
disability. Additionally, our findings point to
potential relationships between individual factors
(i.e., disability severity, presence of challenging
behavior), family factors (i.e., economic status),
and school factors (i.e., educational placement) on
and parent report of their child’s self-determination
capacity. Given the documented effectiveness of
self-determination interventions in educational
2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31
EAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16

settings, and the paucity of research involving
parents and other caregivers, there is a pressing
need for future research to address this gap in the
literature and deepen our evidence base for
interventions.
References
American Association on Intellectual and Devel-
opmental Disabilities & The Arc. (2008). Self-
determination policy statement. Washington,
DC: Authors.
Borthwick-Duffy, S. A., Lane, K. L., & Widaman,
K. F. (1997). Measuring problem behaviors in
children with mental retardation: Dimensions
and predictors. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 18, 415–433. doi:10.1016/S0891-
4222(97)00020-6
Brotherson, M. J., Cook, C. C., Erwin, E. J., &
Weigel, C. J. (2008). Understanding self-
determination and families of young children
with disabilities in home environments.
Journal of Early Intervention, 31, 22–43.
doi:10.1177/1053815108324445
Carter, E. W., Lane, K. L., Crnobori, M., Bruhn,
A. L., & Oakes, W. P. (2011). Self-determina-
tion interventions for students with and at
risk for emotional and behavioral disorders:
Mapping the knowledge base. Behavioral
Disorders, 36, 100–116.
Carter, E. W., Lane, K. L., Pierson, M., & Glaeser,
B. (2006). Self-determination skills and op-
portunities of transition-age youth with emo-
tional disturbance and learning disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 72, 333–346.
Carter, E. W., Lane, K. L., Pierson, M. R., & Stang,
K. K. (2008). Promoting self-determination
for transition-age youth: Views of high school
general and special educators. Exceptional
Children, 75, 55–70.
Carter, E. W., Lane, K. L., & Sisco, L. G. (2011).
Paraprofessional perspectives on promoting
self-determination among elementary and
secondary students with severe disabilities.
Research and Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 36, 1–10. doi:10.2511/rpsd.36.1-
2.1
Carter, E. W., Owens, L., Trainor, A. A., Sun, Y.,
& Swedeen, B. (2009). Self-determination
skills and opportunities of adolescents with
severe intellectual and developmental disabil-
ities. American Journal on Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities, 114, 179–192.
doi:10.1352/1944-7558-114.3.179
Cho, H., Wehmeyer, M., & Kingston, N. (2011).
Elementary teachers’ knowledge and use of
interventions and barriers to promoting self-
determination. The Journal of Special Education,
45, 149–156. doi:10.1177/0022466910362588
Cobb, B., Lehmann, J., Newman-Gonchar, R., &
Alwell, M. (2009). Self-determination for
students with disabilities: A narrative meta-
synthesis. Career Development for Exceptional
Individuals, 32, 108–114. doi:10.1177/
0885728809336654
Council for Exceptional Children. (2009). What
every special educator must know: Ethics, stan-
dards, and guidelines (6th ed.). Arlington, VA:
Author.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.) (2002). Handbook
of self-determination research. Rochester, NY:
University of Rochester Press.
Field, S., & Hoffman, A. (1999). The importance
of family involvement for promoting self-
determination among adolescents with autism
and other developmental disabilities. Focus on
Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 14,
36–41. doi:10.1177/108835769901400105
Field, S., & Hoffman, A. (2007). Self-determination
in secondary transition assessment. Assessment
for Effective Intervention, 32, 181–190. doi:10.
1177/15345084070320030601
Field, S., Martin, J., Miller, R., Ward, M., &
Wehmeyer, M. L. (1998). Self-determination
for persons with disabilities: A position
statement of the Division on Career Devel-
opment and Transition. Career Development
for Exceptional Individuals, 21, 113–128.
doi:10.1177/088572889802100202
Fujiura, G. T., & Yamaki, K. (2000). Trends in
demography of childhood poverty and dis-
ability. Exceptional Children, 66, 187–199.
Grigal, M., Neubert, D. A., Moon, M. S., &
Graham, S. (2003). Self-determination for
students with disabilities: Views of parents
and teachers. Exceptional Children, 70, 97–
112.
Halpern, A. S., Herr, C. M., Doren, B., & Wolf,
N. K. (1997). Next S.T.E.P. curriculum. Austin,
TX: Pro-Ed.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Im-
provement Act of 2004. Pub. L. No. 108–446,
1 101, 118 Stat. 2647. (2004).
Kelley, K. R., Bartholomew, A., & Test, D. W. (in
press). Effects of the Self-Directed IEP deliv-
2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31
EAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16

ered using computer-assisted instruction on
student participation in educational planning
meetings. Remedial and Special Education.
doi:10.1177/0741932511415864
Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L., Muller, K. E., &
Nizam, A. (1998). Applied regression analysis
and other multivariate methods (3rd ed.).
Boston, MA: PWS-Kent.
Lee, S. H., Palmer, S. B., Turnbull, A. P., & Wehmeyer,
M. L. (2006). A model for parent-teacher
collaboration to promote self-determination in
young children with disabilities. TEACHING
Exceptional Children, 38(3), 36–41.
Mithaug, D. E., Mithaug, D., Agran, M., Martin,
J., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (Eds.). (2003). Self-
determined learning theory: Construction, verifi-
cation, and evaluation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
Education. (2008). Professional standards for the
accreditation of teacher preparation institutions.
Washington, DC: Author.
Pierson, M. R., Carter, E. W., Lane, K. L., &
Glaeser, B. (2008). Factors influencing the
self-determination of transition-age youth
with high incidence disabilities. Career Devel-
opment for Exceptional Individuals, 31, 115–
125. doi:10.1177/0885728808317659
Schalock, R. L., Borthwick-Duffy, S., Bradley,
V. J., Buntinx, W. H. E., Coulter, D. L.,
Craig, E. M., … Yeager, M. H. (2010).
Intellectual disability: Definition, classification,
and systems of support (11th ed.). Washington,
DC: American Association on Intellectual
and Developmental Disabilities.
Shogren, K. A. (2011). Culture and self-determi-
nation: A synthesis of the literature and
directions for future research and practice.
Career Development for Exceptional Individuals,
34, 115–127. doi:10.1177/0885728811398271
Shogren, K. A., Faggella-Luby, M. N., Bae, S. J., &
Wehmeyer, M. L. (2004). The effect of choice-
making as an intervention for problem behav-
ior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Positive Behav-
ior Interventions, 6, 228–237. doi:10.1177/
10983007040060040401
Shogren, K. A., Palmer, S. B., Wehmeyer, M. L.,
Williams-Diehm, K., & Little, T. D. (in press).
Effects of intervention with the Self-Deter-
mined Learning Model of Instruction on access
and goal attainment. Remedial and Special
Education. doi:10.1177/0741932511410072
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 con-
tent analysis of 30 years of literature. Research
and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities,
31, 338–345.
Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B.,
Soukup, J. H., Little, T. D., Garner, N., &
Lawrence, M. (2007). Examining individual and
ecological predictors of the self-determination
of students with disabilities. Exceptional Chil-
dren, 73, 488–509.
Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B.,
Soukup, J. H., Little, T. D., Garner, N., &
Lawrence, M. (2008). Understanding the
construct of self-determination: Examining
the relationship between the Arc’s Self-
Determination Scale and the American Insti-
tutes for Research Self-Determination Scale.
Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 94–107.
doi:10.1177/1534508407311395
Stang, K. K., Carter, E. W., Lane, K. L., & Pierson,
M. R. (2009). Perspectives of general and
special educators on fostering self-determina-
tion in elementary and middle schools. The
Journal of Special Education, 43, 94–106.
doi:10.1177/0022466907313452
TASH. (2000). TASH resolution on choice. Wash-
ington, DC: Author.
Test, D. W., Fowler, C. H., Richter, S. M., White,
J., Mazzotti, V., Walker, A. R., … Kortering,
L. (2009). Evidence-based practices in second-
ary transition. Career Development for Excep-
tional Individuals, 32, 115–128. doi:10.1177/
0885728809336859
Thoma, C. A., & Wehman, P. (2010). Getting the
most out of IEPs: An educator’s guide to the
student-directed approach. Baltimore, MD: Paul
H. Brookes.
Wehmeyer, M. L. (2000). The Arc’s Self-Determi-
nation Scale. Silver Springs, MD: The Arc of
the United States.
Wehmeyer, M. L. (2005). Self-determination and
individuals with severe disabilities: Re-examining
meanings and misinterpretations. Research and
Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30, 113–
120.
Wehmeyer, M. L., Abery, B. H., Mithaug, D., &
Stancliffe, R. J. (2003). Theory in self-
determination: Foundations for educational prac-
tice. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.
2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31
EAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16

Wehmeyer, M. L., Abery, B., Zhang, D., Ward,
K., Willis, D., Hossain, W. A., … Walker,
H. M. (2011). Personal self-determination and
moderating variables that impact efforts to
promote self-determination. Exceptionality, 19,
19–30. doi:10.1080/09362835.2011.537225
Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. (2000).
A national survey of teachers’ promotion of
self-determination and student-directed learn-
ing. Journal of Special Education, 34, 58–68.
doi:10.1177/002246690003400201
Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., Hughes, C., Martin,
J., Mithaug, D. E., & Palmer, S. (2007).
Promoting self-determination in students with
intellectual and developmental disabilities. New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Field, S. (2007). Instructional
and assessment strategies to promote the self-
determination of students with disabilities. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Wehmeyer, M. L., Field, S., Doren, B., & Mason,
C. (2004). Self-determination and student
involvement in standards-based reform. Ex-
ceptional Children, 70, 413–425.
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Garner, N. W. (2003). The
impact of personal characteristics of people
with intellectual and developmental disability
on self-determination and autonomous func-
tioning. Journal of Applied Research in Intellec-
tual Disabilities, 16, 255–265. doi:10.1046/
j.1468-3148.2003.00161.x
Wehmeyer, M. L., Lawrence, M., Kelchner, K.,
Palmer, S., Garner, N., & Soukup, J. (2004).
Whose future is it anyway? A student-directed
transition planning process (2nd ed.). Lawrence,
KS: Beach Center on Disability.
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Palmer, S. B. (2000).
Promoting the acquisition and development
of self-determination in young children with
disabilities. Early Education and Development,
4, 465–481.
Weir, K., Cooney, M., Walter, M., Moss, C., &
Carter, E. W. (2011). Fostering self-determina-
tion among children with disabilities: Ideas from
parents for parents. Madison, WI: Natural
Supports Project, Waisman Center, Universi-
ty of Wisconsin-Madison.
Wolman, J. M., Campeau, P. L., DuBois, P. A.,
Mithaug, D. E., & Stolarski, V. S. (1994). AIR
self-determination scale and user guide. Palo Alto,
CA: American Institutes for Research. Avail-
able at http://www.zarrow.ou.edu
Zhang, D. (2001). Self-determination and inclu-
sion: Are students with mild mental retardation
more self-determined in regular classrooms?
Education and Training in Mental Retardation
and Developmental Disabilities, 36, 357–362.
Zhang, D. (2006). Parent practices in facilitating
self-determination skills: The influences of
culture, socioeconomic status, and children’s
special education status. Research and Practice
for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30, 154–162.
Zhang, D., Katsiyannis, A., & Zhang, J. (2002).
Teacher and parent practice on fostering self-
determination of high school students with
mild disabilities. Career Development for Excep-
tional Individuals, 25, 157–169. doi:10.1177/
088572880202500205
Zhang, D., Landmark, L., Grenwelge, C., &
Montoya, L. (2010). Self-determination prac-
tices among culturally diverse families: Paren-
tal perspectives. Education and Training in
Developmental Disabilities, 45, 175–186.
Zhang, D., Wehmeyer, M. L., & Chen, L. (2005).
Parent and teacher engagement in fostering
the self-determination of students with dis-
abilities: A comparison between the United
States and the Republic of China. Remedial
and Special Education, 26, 55–64. doi:10.1177/
07419325050260010701
Received 9/1/2011, first decision 1/5/2012, accepted
6/7/2012.
Editor-in-Charge: Marc Tasse´
Authors:
Erik W. Carter (e-mail: erik.carter@vanderbilt.edu),
Vanderbilt University, Special Education, PMB 228,
110 Magnolia Circle, Nashville, TN 53703, USA;
Kathleen Lynne Lane, University of Kansas; Molly
Cooney, Katherine Weir, and Colleen K. Moss,
Waisman Center, University of North Carolina-
Chapel Hill, and Wendy Machalicek, University of
Oregon.
2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 16–31
EAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16

Re´sume´s en Français
E´ tablir l’e´quivalence: le progre` s me´thodologique
dans la conception et l’analyse des
groupes d’appariement
Sara T. Kover et Amy K. Atwood
Cette revue me´thodologique attire l’attention sur les
de´fis auxquels font face les chercheurs en de´ficience
intellectuelle en ce qui a trait a` la conception
approprieé et a` l’analyse d’e´tudes de comparaison de
groupes. Nous faisons un survol des me´thodologies
d’appariement dans le domaine de la de´ficience
intellectuelle, en mettant l’accent sur la conception
des groupes d’appariement utilise´s en recherche
comportementale sur la cognition et le langage en
troubles neurode´veloppementaux, incluant le trou-
ble du spectre autistique, le syndrome du X fragile, le
syndrome de Down et le syndrome de Williams. Les
limites relieés au fait de se fier aux valeurs p pour
e´tablir l’e´quivalence des groupes seront discuteés
dans le contexte d’autres me´thodes actuelles: les
tests d’e´quivalence, les scores de propension et les
analyses de re´gression. Notre recommandation
principale pour l’avancement de la recherche en
de´ficience intellectuelle est l’utilisation d’indices
descriptifs de groupe d’appariement ade´quats: des
tailles d’effet (c’est-a`-dire les diffe´rences moyennes
normaliseés) et des ratios de variances.
L’e´valuation parentale de l’importance de
l’autode´termination et de la performance
d’e´le` ves ayant un trouble envahissant du
de´veloppement ou une de´ficience intellectuelle
Erik W. Carter, Kathleen Lynne Lane, Molly
Cooney, Katherine Weir, Colleen K. Moss et
Wendy Machalicek
La promotion de l’autode´termination des e´le`ves
est maintenant conside´reé comme e´tant un
e´le´ment essentiel de l’e´ducation spećialiseé et
des services de transition chez les enfants et les
adolescents pre´sentant une de´ficience intellec-
tuelle ou un trouble envahissant du de´veloppe-
ment. Pourtant, peu d’information est disponible
quant au roˆle central que les parents adoptent
dans la promotion de l’autode´termination de leurs
enfants pre´sentant une de´ficience intellectuelle en
dehors du contexte scolaire. Nous avons examine´
de quelle manie`re 627 parents d’enfants pre´sentant
une de´ficience intellectuelle ou un trouble envahis-
sant du de´veloppement et fre´quentant 1 des 34
districts scolaires choisis aleátoirement ont e´value´ (a)
l’importance de 7 habilete´s relieés a` l’autode´termina-
tion, (b) la performance de leur enfant pour les 7
habilete´s, et (c) les capacite´s geńe´rales d’autode´termi-
nation de leur enfant. Bien que les parents valorisaient
toutes les habilete´s d’autode´termination, le degre´ de
performance de leurs enfants en lien avec ces habilete´s
e´tait relativement bas. Plusieurs facteurs pre´disaient
des niveaux e´leve´s d’autode´termination incluant le
contexte scolaire, la pre´sence de troubles du compor-
tement et la se´ve´rite´ perçue de la de´ficience. Nous
concluons en offrant des recommandations pour
aider les parents a` soutenir le de´veloppement de
l’autode´termination de leurs enfants.
Attitudes des membres de la communaute´
pakistanaise et des prestataires de services
envers les personnes ayant une
de´ficience intellectuelle
Mazna Patka, Christopher B. Keys, David B.
Henry et Katherine E. McDonald
L’acceptation et l’inclusion des personnes pre´-
sentant une de´ficience intellectuelle peuvent
varier selon les cultures et la compre´hension des
attitudes peut nous ećlairer sur ces variations. A`
notre connaissance, aucune e´tude n’a explore´ les
attitudes envers les personnes pre´sentant une
de´ficience intellectuelle parmi les membres de la
communaute´ pakistanaise et les prestataires de
services aux personnes handicapeés. Nous avons
administre´ le Community Living Attitudes Scale,
une mesure des attitudes envers les personnes
pre´sentant une de´ficience intellectuelle de´velop-
peé aux E´ tats-Unis, a` 262 membres de la
communaute´ et a` 190 prestataires de services aux
personnes handicapeés au Pakistan. Une analyse
factorielle confirmatoire a trouve´ une solution a`
quatre facteurs (empowerment, similitude, exclu-
sion et protection) qui s’adapte a` l’ećhantillon
pakistanais. Des attitudes plus positives ont e´te´
observeés chez le personnel s’occupant des
personnes pre´sentant une de´ficience intellectuelle,
les femmes, les chre´tiens, les hindous, les sunnites
2013, Vol. 118, No. 1, 74–75
EAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.74
74 Re´sume´s en Français

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

article 2

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Semelhante a article 2

Semelhante a article 2 (20)

Mais de Siti Marissa Hussin

Mais de Siti Marissa Hussin (7)

Último

Último (20)

article 2