132

Career Development for Exceptional Individuals

Volume 32 Number 3December 2009 132-144© 2009 Hammill Institute

on Disabilities10.1177/0885728809346302

http://cdei.sagepub.comhosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

Authors’ Note: We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Simon Kim in assisting with this study. The development of this manuscript was supported, in part, by grant H324D010026 awarded by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). The opinions expressed herein are exclusively those of the authors and no official endorsement of OSEP should be inferred. Please address correspondence to Kristin Powers, 1250 Bellflower Road, College of Education, California State University Long Beach, Long Beach, CA 90840; e-mail: kpowers@csulb.edu.

The 1990 and 1997 reauthorizations of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) shifted the

focus from identifying and serving students with dis-abilities and ensuring proper due process in these “child-find” activities to emphasizing the outcomes of special education. For the first time, IDEA focused on the adult outcomes of students with disabilities by mandating transition planning as a component of secondary stu-dents’ Individualized Education Plans (IEP). The most recent reauthorization of IDEA defined transition plan-ning as “a coordinated set of activities for a child with a disability that is designed within a results-oriented pro-cess that is focused on improving the academic and functional achievement of the child with a disability to facilitate the child’s movement from school to post-school activities” (IDEA, 2004). Ideally, transition plan-ning provides a road map in which goals for adulthood are clearly articulated, methods for achieving those goals are sufficiently detailed, and clear benchmarks for mea-suring progress are outlined. Furthermore, the road map should reflect a synergistic collaboration between the youth, family, teachers, support staff, and service provid-ers where there is shared agreement on the steps neces-sary for a young person to successfully move into independent, well-adjusted, and satisfying adult life. However, the extent to which youth and parents have a similar vision for transition and the supports and services

needed to move into self-sufficiency have not been well explored and are the goals of this study.

The Need for Quality Transition Planning

Arguably all students would benefit from transition planning; however, students with disabilities have a greater need because they are more likely to face barriers to success in adulthood. For example, compared to their peers without disabilities, young adults with disabilities have lower rates of high school graduation and employ-ment (Henderson, 2001; U.S. Department of Education, 2002; Wagner, Blackorby, & Hebbeler, 1993; Wagner, Cameto, & Newman, 2003). More recently, the National Organization on Disability (2004) found that people with disabilities are more than twice as likely to be unem-ployed, twice as likely to drop out of high school, and

Similarities and Differences in the Transition Expectations of Youth and ParentsKristin PowersCalifornia State University Long Beach

Sarah GeenenLaurie E. PowersPortland State University

This study explored similarities and differences in the transition expectations of parents and youth. Independent samples of parents (N = 270) of transition-age youth with disabilities and students with disabilities (N = 242) were surveyed about the importance of achieving various adult goals, having specific types of transition-related training and skills, and potential barriers to transition. Factor analysis of the data yielded six scales, and significant differences were found between youth and parents on four of these scales indicating that parents tend to value teacher support more, whereas youth reported higher levels of self-esteem, greater barriers to transition, and more interest in assuming caretaking roles in their future. Parents and students were in agreement, however, around the goals they felt were most important for transition: finishing high school, having health insurance, and having access to a good doctor.

Keywords: transition; development; collaboration; parents

at CALIF STATE UNIV LONG BEACH on April 28, 2015cde.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Powers et al. / Youth and Parents 133

three times more likely to live in poverty, as compared to people without disabilities. Furthermore, youth without disabilities are twice as likely to attend a postsecondary school, as compared to youth with disabilities (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, & Levine, 2005). Missing out on col-lege not only reduces employment and career options, but also limits youths’ opportunities to benefit from supports found at college, such as room and board independent from family but under the guidance of a dorm counselor; physical and mental health services; and access to instruc-tors, career counselors, social clubs, and goal oriented peers (Wald, 2005).

Since transition planning became mandatory, progress has been made in the graduation rates, postsecondary enrollment, and employment of former special education students. In comparison to data collected for the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) in 1987, the NLTS2 data (collected in 2001) indicate that youth with disabilities have experienced a reduction in their drop-out rate by 17%, they are more likely to have worked for pay within 2 years after leaving high school (70% vs. 55% in 1987), and their participation in postsecondary education has doubled to 32% (Wagner et al., 2005).

Though findings from the NLTS2 suggest the gap between individuals with and without disabilities has narrowed, there remains considerable room for improve-ment. Specifically, researchers have identified a number of shortcomings in the transition-planning process, including an absence of adult service providers (Agran, Cain, & Cavin, 2002; Cameto, Levine, Wagner, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, & SRI International, 2004), vague and mediocre transition goals with unspecific action plans (Grigal, Test, Beattie, & Wood, 1997; K. Powers et al., 2005), and insufficient parental and youth participation (Thoma, Rogan, & Baker, 2001; Thompson, Fulk, & Piercy, 2000), particu-larly among culturally and linguistically diverse parents (Cameto et al., 2004; Geenen, Powers, & Lopez-Vasquez, 2001). Perfunctory and hasty transition planning that precludes meaningful collaboration among professionals, parents, and youth is unlikely to lead to improved adult outcomes (Thompson et al., 2000).

Developmental Influences on Transition Planning With Parents and Youth

For most youth, family support lasts long past the age of majority and high school graduation; thus, a shared vision of students’ lives after high school is essential to transition planning. However, parent–child relationships, at this time, often shift to reflect the youth’s growing

autonomy and expectations for self-sufficiency. Although peers become increasingly influential in social and psy-chological domains, parents continue to provide essen-tial financial support and engage in goal and future-oriented discussions with their sons and daughters (Lichtenstein, 1998). For example, NLTS2 found transition-age youth (15–19 years of age) with disabilities identified ‘parents’ as the people they are most likely to turn to for support (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Levine, & Marder, 2007). Although adolescence is often described in terms of parent–teen conflict, in actuality most adolescents enjoy positive relationships with their parents, who provide a secure base for youths’ future relationships (Lichtenstein, 1998; Wagner et al., 2007).

The Influence of Disability on Transition Planning With Parents and Youth

In general, youth with disabilities are more likely than youth in the general population to report receiving a high level of parental attention (Wagner et al., 2007). One rea-son may be because parents of students with disabilities, compared to parents of students without disabilities, expect transition to adulthood to be more difficult for their child (Whitney-Thomas & Hanley-Maxwell, 1996). Parents also may be concerned about their children’s capacities to manage the complexity of transition plan-ning and to successfully communicate and advocate for their needs with the myriad of professionals who are typically involved (L. Powers, Turner, Matuszewski, Wilson, & Loesch, 1999). Because many parents of stu-dents with disabilities provide greater levels of support, they may find it more difficult than other parents to relin-quish influence over their child’s life (Hanley-Maxwell, Whitney-Thomas, & Pogologg, 1995). For example, stu-dents with Down’s syndrome were found to be at risk for having overprotective parents who consciously or uncon-sciously thwart their efforts to become independent (Hobart, 1995, as cited in Lichtenstein, 1998). Parents’ desire to support and protect their children may be incongruent with youths’ burgeoning demands for self-determination and independence. On the other hand, it has long been established that high levels of parental involve-ment can be a critical factor in promoting the successful transition of youth into adulthood (Hasazi, Gordon, & Roe, 1985; Schalock & Lilley, 1986). Over 20 years ago, Schalock and colleagues (1986), in studying young adults with learning and developmental disabilities, found that students whose families were actively involved in transition programming were more successful on employment measures than students whose parents had

at CALIF STATE UNIV LONG BEACH on April 28, 2015cde.sagepub.comDownloaded from

134 Career Development for Exceptional Individuals

little involvement. More recently, a survey of 202 transi-tion-aged youth with disabilities, conducted by the National Youth Leadership Network, revealed that youths identified family encouragement and help as the most important factor in their transition success (L. Powers et al., 2007).

Existing Literature on Parents and Youths’ Transition Expectations

Though parental involvement can be a key factor in students experiencing positive adult outcomes, the impact of involved parents may depend upon the extent to which parents and students have a shared view of which transi-tion goals and experiences are most important, suitable, and realistic. It is possible, if not likely, that parents and students sometimes have dissimilar expectations, goals, and beliefs about transition; however, this area has not been well researched. One exception is the NLTS2 that surveyed youth and their parents about their expectations for the youth’s future, and found youth to hold much higher expectations for their future achievement than did their parents. For example, 52% of youth indicated that they will definitely attend college compared to 29% of parents expected their child to attend college one day; 81% of youth compared to 68% of parents expected the youth to get a drivers’ license, and 72% of youth com-pared to 54% of parents expect the youth to live on their own without supervision some day. A limitation of this study is that parents were surveyed about their expecta-tions for their child’s future 2 years prior to the student survey administration, thus their seemingly lower expec-tations may be because of their child’s younger age.

Comparisons between parents’ and students’ values around transition can also be gleaned from a qualitative study by Thompson and colleagues (2000) that, in con-trast to NLTS2, involved interviews with parents and students within the same time period. Specifically, the study involved interviews with 22 students with disabili-ties (mean age 17.24) and their parents, and an analysis of students’ transition plans. The investigators found lit-tle agreement between the transition plans and postschool outcomes and supports identified by the youth and par-ents. In general, parents and youth were in agreement, except parents anticipated that their sons/ daughters would require more support to find and keep a job and access recreational activities than the students projected, and students were more likely than parents to indicate they would live outside their family home within 1 year. Hogansen, Powers, Geenen, Gil-Kashiwabara, and Powers (2008) conducted focus groups with young women with disabilities and their parents and found

youth and parents agree that parental support is essential to transition. The parents, however, expressed conflict over their desires to promote their daughters’ indepen-dence and self-determination and their wish to maintain their daughters’ safety. Finally, the young women and their parents appeared to have diverging views on moth-erhood, with some youth expressing a desire to become a parent sooner rather than later and their parents voicing concern that early motherhood could stifle their daugh-ters’ future opportunities or that they would have to care for a grandchild if their daughter could not.

There is evidence to suggest that, although youth value their parents’ support, they diverge from their par-ents in terms of their expectations for success in adult-hood, level of support they think they will need in adulthood, current and future goals for independence—particularly if their parents view the activity as poten-tially dangerous—and ideas about establishing their own family. The purpose of this study is to compare in more detail parents’ and youths’ vision for the transition expe-riences of young adults with disabilities. Specifically, we posed four research questions: (a) Do parents and youth concur on what are important goals for the youth to attain in adulthood? (b) Do parents and youth agree upon the level of support they think the youth will need to achieve those goals? (c) Do parents’ and youths’ assessments of the youths’ assets converge? (d) Does agreement between parents and youth on these topics vary by the youth’s age? Based on the literature, we formed the following hypotheses: (a) Youths will empha-size, more than parents, the importance of goals related to independence; (b) parents will place more emphasis than youths on the need for students with disabilities to receive continued support; (c) youth will report stronger skills and higher level of preparedness; and (d) the age of the youth will mediate the differences between par-ents and youth, with larger discrepancies found among older youth and their parents.

Method

Setting

The research study took place in two large, urban school districts from two states in the Western USA. Approximately 2,500 students between the ages of 16 and 22 receive special education services in the two dis-tricts, primarily for learning disabilities (36%), mental retardation (19%), autism (13%), emotional disturbance (9%), and health (9%), hearing (3%), or vision (2%) impairments. More than half (66%) of the students are male. The districts’ transition students are quite diverse,

at CALIF STATE UNIV LONG BEACH on April 28, 2015cde.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Powers et al. / Youth and Parents 135

with 37% European American, 28% African American, 26% Latino American, 7% Asian American, and 2% Native American.

Participant Selection and Data Collection Procedures

Youth and parent participants were randomly selected from the same population of students, aged 16 to 22, who received special education services from each school district. Surveys were mailed to 300 randomly selected female and 300 randomly selected male students in each of the two school districts, for a total of 1,200 youth surveys. Similarly, parent surveys were mailed to the parents of 300 randomly selected female and 300 ran-domly selected male students in each district, totaling 1,200 parent surveys. Households selected to receive the youth survey also were eligible to receive the parent survey. Participants were offered US$20.00 for complet-ing the survey. English and Spanish translations were mailed to households identified by the districts’ records as speaking Spanish in the home. The directions included a phone number youth could call to receive assistance in completing the surveys.

A total of 521 surveys (279 parent and 242 youth) were returned for a response rate of 23% for parents and 20% for youths. The response rates across the two dis-tricts were similar (24% and 18%). These response rates are consistent with those typically obtained in research by means of mailed surveys (Miller, 1991). Fewer than 3% of the surveys were completed in Spanish. Fewer than half (43%) of the respondents were European American, 25% were African American, 16% were Latino/a, 4% were Asian American, 2% were Pacific Islanders, and 2% were Native American/Alaskan. There were no signifi-cant differences in ethnic/racial makeup of youth and parent respondents (χ2 = 9.64, df = 6, p = .141). European Americans were somewhat overrepresented compared to the population sampled (43% vs. 37%) and Latino/as were slightly underrepresented (16% vs. 26%).

Youth completing the survey identified themselves as having the following disabilities: learning (56%), other health impairment (7%), emotional/behavioral (7%), hearing (7%), visual (7%), mobility (3%), cognitive (2%), and other (13%); the parent respondents identified very similar disabilities among their children: learning (54%), other health impairment (7%), emotional/ behavioral (11 %), hearing (6%), visual (4%), mobility (6%), cognitive (4%), and other (8%). There were no significant differences between parents’ report of their child’s disability and the type of disabilities reported by

the youth participants (even though the parent and the youth samples are independent; χ2 = 13, df = 7, p = .08). The parent and self-report disability status generally reflects the distribution of the two districts, with the exception of fewer students with cognitive and more stu-dents with sensory and motor impairments represented in the sample.

Among the youth, fewer males than females responded (42.9% and 47.1%, respectively; χ2 = 24, df = 1, p < .001). The average age was 18.3 years of age; 82% of either the respondents (youth survey) or the subject of the responses (parent survey) were between the ages of 17 and 19. There were no significant differences between the age (χ2 = 12.45, df = 11, p =.331) and gender (χ2 = .029, df = 1, p = .789) of the children the parents reported on and the youth respondents’ own age and gender.

Instrumentation and Data Analysis

Data were collected as part of the Gender and Transition Project that investigated the impact of gender on transition-planning beliefs and experiences. The sur-veys were developed to measure the experiences and expectations of youth with disabilities as they transition to adulthood. Based on previous research (Powers et al., 2005) the following topics were identified: postschool goal areas cited in the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA; i.e., independent living, community participation, postsecondary educa-tion), self-determination skills, and barriers and sources of support for transition. Multiple items for each of these topics were developed; including items that solicit respondents’ beliefs about the importance of various transition activities and whether those activities had actually occurred. The response options for each item were organized as a 4-point Likert scale (not important, sort of important, quite important, and very important; or not much, sometimes, quite a bit, and a lot), which was coded 0 to 3 (0 = not important or not much to 3 = very important or a lot).

The draft surveys were pilot tested by 30 youth with dis-abilities and 12 parents of youth with disabilities, revised, and pilot tested again. A content analysis of the resulting 91 item Young Adult Transition Expectations and Experiences survey (YATEE-P and YATEE-Y) was conducted by two community member panels consisting of young adults with disabilities and their teachers, service providers, and par-ents. Both panels suggested the survey had adequate breadth and depth of the topics we identified.

For the current study, 55 items related to the research questions were retained: (a) Do parents and youth concur

at CALIF STATE UNIV LONG BEACH on April 28, 2015cde.sagepub.comDownloaded from

136 Career Development for Exceptional Individuals

on what are important goals for the youth to attain in adulthood? (b) Do parents and youth agree upon the level of support they think the youth will need to achieve those goals? (c) Do parents’ and youths’ assessments of the youths’ assets converge? (d) Does agreement between parents and youth on these topics vary by the youth’s age? A principal component factor analysis using a Varimax rotation on the remaining 55 items yielded 15 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0; an examination of the scree plot suggested a 5 or 6 factor solution. A 6-factor model was selected because each factor contained at least three items with factor loadings exceeding .40 and explained 43% of the variance. Of the 55 items, 20 were eliminated because they had factor pattern loadings less than .40 on the 6 factors. As shown in Table 1, the remaining 35 items had primary loadings on one of six scales: (a) Teacher Support that contained 7 items about the importance of having multifaceted support from educators and had a alpha coefficient of .841; (b) Self-Determination Skills that contained 10 items that assessed the perceived impor-tance of mastering a variety of skills including future planning, self-advocacy, independent living skills, and being able to access programs and people as resources and had an alpha coefficient of .873; (c) Self-Esteem that was comprised of 5 items that assessed how often youth (as reported by either the youth or their parents) felt proud of themselves and confident enough to advocate for them-selves and had an alpha coefficient of .693; (d) Barriers to Transition that was comprised of 5 items related to challenges youth face in transitioning to adulthood, including holding desires and goals that diverge from oth-ers (particularly family), acquiescing their goals to those held by others, and family and larger societal problems and had an alpha coefficient of .708; (e) Goals for Adulthood that included 5 items that relate to major benchmarks for adulthood including graduating from high school, attending college, becoming established in a career, and living independently from one’s parents and had an alpha coefficient of .625; and (f) Future Family that contained 3 items on the importance of youth cou-pling, having children, and caring for their family of ori-gin during the first years of adulthood and had an alpha coefficient of .697. The correlations between the factors are presented in Table 2. Overall, the factors had moder-ate to low correlations; the highest correlation was between teacher support and self-determination skills (r = .581). The barriers to adulthood factor was not signifi-cantly correlated with either the goals for adulthood or self-esteem factors; the future family factor was not sig-nificantly correlated to the teacher support factor. The exploratory factor analysis and low correlations between

scales (with the exception of Teacher Support and Self-Determination) provide evidence of the construct validity of the survey. Specifically, different items appear to mea-sure various aspects of transition (future goals, support from teachers, and student assets, such as self-esteem and self-determination); however, some scales had low inter-nal consistency, suggesting more items or a different set of items may measure these constructs more reliably.

Data analyses. First descriptive statistics were com-puted on the 55 items to identify parent and student pri-orities in transition. Next, a two-way analysis of variance was computed separately for each scale to determine if parents and youth differed significantly in their responses, as well as whether results varied by the youth’s age, and to examine possible interactions between these variables. For these analyses, the continuous variable of age was transformed to a categorical variable that represent vari-ous stages of transition and development: (a) early phases of transition/adolescences, i.e. ages 15 to 17 (n = 142); (b) the age most students graduate from high school/coming of age of majority; i.e. ages 18 and 19 (n = 292); and (c) extended transition services/young adulthood 20 to 24 (n = 70).

Results

Descriptive Analysis

To examine the research question “Do parents and youth concur on what are important goals for the youth to attain in adulthood?,” a rank order of items was computed to identify commonalities and priorities among youth and parents’ vision for transition. The mean and standard deviation of the youth responses are reported first. Youth and parents identified the same top three transition pri-orities to accomplish within the next 5 years: (a) complet-ing high school or a transition program (M = 2.75, SD = 0.59; M = 2.90, SD = 0.37); (b) having health insurance (M = 2.72, SD = 0.62; M = 2.84, SD = 0.44); and (c) hav-ing a good doctor (M = 2.73, SD = 0.59; M = 2.84, SD = 0.42). Likewise, youth and parents rated having a child (M = 0.97, SD = 1.15; M = 0.54, SD = 0.915) and living with one’s parents (M = 1.05, SD = 1.09; M = 1.00, SD = 1.06) as among the least important goals for transition.

Regarding the second research question, parents and youth generally agreed upon the most important ser-vices youth need to achieve their goals. The following three items were among the youths’ and parents’ top five most important activities for transition: (a) learning skills to take care of myself (him/herself) as much as

at CALIF STATE UNIV LONG BEACH on April 28, 2015cde.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Powers et al. / Youth and Parents 137

Table 1Means, Standard Deviations, and Factor Loadings

Factor Loadings

Item M (SD) I II III IV V VI

Stem: How important is it to you (to your child) to have . . .

1. Teachers who listen with interest 2.41 (0.739) 0.110 0.026 −0.075 0.039 −0.054 to your (her/his) opinions. (0.789)

2. Teachers who respect your (his/her) 2.28 (0.665) 0.160 0.082 0.013 0.085 −0.059 culture or family background. (0.921)

3. Teachers who encourage you (her/him) 2.39 (0.668) 0.188 0.016 −0.055 0.222 0.033 to take classes you (she/he) wants. (0.808)

4. Teachers who help you (him/her) better 2.30 (0.614) 0.159 0.102 0.156 0.111 −0.084 understand your (his/her) (0.973) disability or condition.

5. Teachers who respect your 2.36 (0.605) 0.233 0.025 −0.047 −0.176 0.058 (her/his) family’s point of view. (0.865)

6. Teachers who arrange for you 2.24 (0.612) 0.219 0.001 0.086 −0.006 0.170 (him/her) to get work experience. (0.947)

Stem: How important is it to you (to your child) to have . . .

7. Have teachers who share their 1.90 (0.574) 0.162 0.056 0.095 0.001 0.111 experiences with you (her/him). (0.975)

8. Have a clear plan for what you (he/she) 2.58 0.302 (0.468) 0.106 0.010 0.332 0.024 want to do in the future after high school. (0.722)

9. Speak up for what you (she/he) wants. 2.63 0.227 (0.528) 0.083 −0.067 0.178 0.118 (0.646)

10. Learn skills to live as independently as 2.65 0.052 (0.764) 0.039 −0.048 0.112 0.055 possible in the community. (0.669)

11. Learn skills to take care of 2.80 0.145 (0.738) 0.066 −0.071 −0.008 −0.076 yourself (him/herself) as much as possible (0.504)

12. Learn how to protect 2.76 0.316 (0.688) 0.072 0.004 −0.033 −0.058 your (her/his) safety (0.556)

13. Learn what accommodations or supports 2.34 0.292 (0.470) 0.021 0.124 0.123 −0.075 you (he/she) need for your (0.980) (his/her) disability or condition

Stem: How important is it to you (to your child) to have . . .

14. Learn how to get the services you 2.38 0.347 (0.516) −0.017 0.105 0.033 −0.003 (she/he) needs to prepare for adult (0.946) life (like vocational rehabilitation).

15. Learn about parenting and 2.14 0.148 (0.429) 0.016 0.049 0.069 0.300 family planning. (1.07)

16. Learn about careers that 2.65 0.153 (0.626) 0.065 0.025 0.318 0.024 interest you (him/her). (0.683)

17. Find people who can help 2.53 0.141 (0.633) 0.035 0.115 0.181 0.101 you (her/him) get a job. (0.804)

Stem: How often did the following happen?18. You (he/she) were proud of 1.99 0.215 0.099 (0.745) −0.055 0.013 0.066

how you (he/she) looked. (0.930)19. You (she/he) felt comfortable 1.87 0.071 0.124 (0.631) −0.143 0.066 0.048

speaking up for yourself (him/herself) (1.02)Stem: How often did the following happen?20. You (he/she) were proud of the way 0.84 −0.031 0.086 (0.534) 0.218 0.027 0.153

you (he/she) are different because (1.03) of your (his/her) disability or condition

(continued)

at CALIF STATE UNIV LONG BEACH on April 28, 2015cde.sagepub.comDownloaded from

138 Career Development for Exceptional Individuals

possible (M = 2.76, SD = 0.56; M = 2.82, SD = 0.45); (b) learning how to protect my (her/his) safety (M = 2.69, SD = 0.63; M = 2.81, SD = 0.48); and (c) speaking up for what I (he/she) want (M = 2.61, SD = 0.66; M = 2.65, SD = 0.63). Although not related to a specific research question, we compared the responses of par-ents and youth to two items on family support for transi-tion. More youth and parents rated their families as

supporting (M = 2.15, SD = 0.90; M = 2.52, SD = 0.70) compared to inhibiting (M = 1.63, SD = 1.07; M = 1.26, SD = 0.98) the youth’s transition to adulthood.

Univariate Analysis

Scores for each factor on the parent/caregiver survey were obtained by averaging a respondent’s item scores

Table 1 (continued)

Factor Loadings

Item M (SD) I II III IV V VI

21. You (she/he) were comfortable 1.06 −0.070 0.047 (0.494) 0.146 0.020 0.056 asking people to make accommodations (1.03) for your (her/his) disability/condition

22. You (he/she) felt good 1.88 0.039 −0.018 (0.788) −0.114 0.062 −0.048 about yourself (him/herself) (0.965)

23. Your family had different ideas 0.85 0.068 −0.036 0.008 (0.732) −0.050 0.125 about your (his/her) future. (0.981)

24. Your family did not want you (her/him) 1.44 0.004 0.036 0.106 (0.663) −0.129 −0.003 to do certain things because they (we) (1.14) were worried about your (her/his) safety.

25. You (he/she) kept quiet about what you 0.85 0.064 0.007 −0.103 (0.704) 0.003 0.094 (he/she) wanted because other people expected (1.02) you (him/her) to go along with their ideas.

26. People kept me (him/her) 2.26 0.085 −0.015 0.040 (0.672) −0.093 0.046 from doing things you (he/she) (0.914) thought were important.

Stem: How often did the following happen? 27. Problems in my (her/his) day-to-day life, like 2.26 −0.109 −0.017 0.124 (0.430) −0.086 −0.009

poverty, family illness or discrimination, kept me (0.999) (her/him) from planning for the future.

Stem: During the next five years, how important will it be for you (your child) to . . .

28. Have a good paying job. 2.52 0.016 0.210 0.111 0.043 (0.662) 0.253 (0.780)

29. Have a job in a career 2.62 0.127 0.138 −0.020 −0.100 (0.647) 0.114 that I (he/she) likes. (0.648)

30. Live on my (her/his) own or with friends. 1.77 −0.127 0.154 −0.011 0.082 (0.452) 0.414 (1.07)31. Complete high school or a transition program. 2.85 0.318 0.083 0.151 −0.187 (0.414) −0.226

(0.485)Stem: During the next five years, how important

will it be for you (your child) to . . .32. Go to college. 2.24 0.071 0.109 0.083 0.013 (0.594) −0.009

(0.986)33. Get married or have an intimate, 1.41 0.002 0.079 0.019 0.073 0.145 (0.754)

committed relationship. (1.13)34. Have children. 0.74 0.076 −0.072 0.102 0.046 0.065 (0.711) (1.05)35. Take care of my (his/her) parents, sisters, 1.40 −0.043 0.040 .216 0.136 0.078 (0.468)

brothers or other family members. (1.19)

Note: Factor I = Teacher Support; Factor II = Self-determination Skills; Factor III = Self-esteem; Factor IV = Barriers to Transition; Factor V = Goals for Adulthood; Factor VI = Future Family.

at CALIF STATE UNIV LONG BEACH on April 28, 2015cde.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Powers et al. / Youth and Parents 139

for that scale. Scale items means and standard deviations are presented in Table 1. A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was run for each factor to determine if there were mean differences between parents and youth respondents, and whether there was an interaction between parent and youth responses and the age of the transitioning youth. A total of six ANOVAs were con-ducted. For one factor, self-determination skills, none of the main effects or the interaction was statistically sig-nificant at the .05 level. Main effects for the type of respondent (i.e., parent or student) were found for four factors: (a) teacher support, F (1, 504) = 10.38, MSE = 4.35, p < .001; (b) self-esteem, F (1, 509) = 19.01, MSE = 8.22, p < .001; (c) barriers to transition, F (1, 508) = 6.84, MSE = 3.18, p < .01; and (d) future family, F (1, 509) = 56.89, MSE = 38.12, p < .00. For each of these factors, there was not a significant main effect for age or an interaction effect between age and type of respondent. Post-hoc t-tests found youth gave higher rat-ings than parents to scales for Self-Esteem (M = 1.70, SD = 0.68 vs. M = 1.38, SD = 0.64; p = .001), Barriers to Transition (M = 1.02, SD = 0.72 vs. M = 0.83, SD = 0.65; p = .01), and Future Family (M = 1.56, SD = 0.81 vs. M = 0.85, SD = 0.82; p = .001). Parents (M = 2.35, SD = 0.60) gave higher ratings to the importance of Teacher Support than did youth (M = 2.15, SD = 0.70; p = .001).

A main effect for age was found for the Goals for Adulthood scale, F (2, 509) = 5.55, MSE = 1.44, p < .01. There was no significant main effect for respondent or an interaction effect. Post-hoc analysis using Tukey HSD found that the mean responses of youth (or parents of youth) ages 20 and older (M = 2.22, SD = 0.65) was sig-nificantly lower (p < .01) than those of youth (or parents of youth) ages 18 and 19 (M = 2.45, SD = 0.45) and youth (or parents of youth) ages 15 to 17 (M = 2.42, SD = 0.50).

Discussion

This study examined the extent to which parents and youth share the same beliefs and expectations around transition. Specifically, four hypotheses were put for-ward and examined: (a) Youths will emphasize, more than parents, the importance of goals related to indepen-dence; (b) parents will place more emphasis than youths on the need for students with disabilities to receive con-tinued support; (c) youth will report stronger skills and higher level of preparedness; and (d) the age of the youth will mediate the differences between parents and youth with larger discrepancies found among older youth and their parents. Results indicate that parents and students were in general agreement regarding the three most important goals to accomplish in the near future (finish-ing high school, having health insurance, and having a good doctor). This is impressive given the range of tran-sition goals presented to youth and parents (i.e., a total of 17 items related to postsecondary goals were listed on the survey for consideration). Similarly, there was con-sensus among students and parents about what skills are important for youth to learn as they are preparing to tran-sition into adulthood (learning to take care of oneself, learning to protect one’s safety, speaking up for oneself), and agreement on the importance of self-determination skills. The emphasis youth and parents placed on these broad skills is consistent with Hanley-Maxwell and col-leagues’ (1995) study that found parents to value ser-vices that promoted independence skills across a variety of contexts not just within the workplace. Both students and parents were more likely to see family involvement as helpful while moving into adulthood rather than get-ting in the way. Study participants seemed aware that establishing adult levels of independence often requires

Table 2Correlation Between Six Factors

Correlations

Teacher Self- Self- Barriers Goals Pearson Correlation Support Determination Esteem to Transition for Adulthood Family

Teacher support 1 Self-determination 0.581** 1 Self-esteem 0.176** 0.218** 1 Barriers to transition 0.098* 0.100* 0.025 1 Goals for adulthood 0.210** 0.387** 0.229** 0.007 1 Family 0.075 0.093* 0.262** 0.188** 0.338** 1

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

at CALIF STATE UNIV LONG BEACH on April 28, 2015cde.sagepub.comDownloaded from

140 Career Development for Exceptional Individuals

family support throughout the late teen and early twenties as youth learn to navigate the demands of postsecondary education, living outside the home, employment, and, in some cases, parenthood (Osgood, Foster, Flanagan, & Ruth, 2005). In sum, there were no significant differences between youth and parents on the importance of goals related to independence; rather, there was strong agree-ment between the two groups of respondents in this area.

Despite these general areas of agreement, our hypothe-ses were confirmed in some areas. For example, in regards to our second hypothesis, parents placed much more importance on teacher support than did youth, perhaps reflecting parental views that students need more assis-tance than students themselves feel they need. This poses an interesting paradox, however, as students reported greater barriers to transition than did parents. It is possible that students are acutely aware of the challenges that stand between them and their transition goals, but are more likely than their parents to look outside the school setting for help and support in overcoming those obsta-cles. Additionally, three of the five items on this scale specifically relate to challenges that originate from ones family. Thus, youth may be experiencing more pressures to conform to parental expectations than their parents are cognizant of, which is consistent with our hypothesis that youth place a greater premium on independence.

Generally, parents also appear to underestimate the level of positive self-esteem youth possessed; in other words, youth may feel more confident in their abilities to address road blocks to transition than parents perceive them to be. This is consistent with our second hypothesis that predicted youth would report stronger skills or per-ceptions of preparedness. The relatively high levels of self-assuredness expressed by students in our study may mirror the results from NLTS2. Specifically, in that study three quarters of the youth reported feeling proud of who they are and 82% scored high on the Psychological Empowerment subscale of the ARC Self-Determination Scale, indicating a large portion of students with disabili-ties are confident in who they are and what they can accomplish (Wagner et al., 2007). Unfortunately, NLTS2 did not collect parents’ assessments of their child’s self-esteem and sense of empowerment. More research is needed on how differences among youth and parents’ assessment of youth’s self-esteem and empowerment impacts transition planning, particularly the types of supports and services that are identified and provided. Furthermore, the significant main effect among youth and parents on the Barriers to Transition scale suggests youth appeared more likely to identify barriers to transition

caused by parents or family life. These results confirm the qualitative research of Hanley-Maxwell et al. (1995) and Hogansen et al. (2008) that parents’ concern for their child’s safety and security may hamper youths’ burgeon-ing independence.

NLTS2 results suggest transitioning students expect to achieve more in adulthood than their parents expect them to achieve (Wagner et al., 2007). However, our study found parents and youth to generally agree in their ratings of items related to postschool outcomes. One reason may be that we asked survey respondents to indi-cate how important rather than how likely finishing school, attending college, establishing a career, and liv-ing independently, are to occur. It may be that parents and youth equally value these benchmarks of adulthood, but parents are less optimistic that their child will attain them. Kraemer and Blacher (2001) investigated the dif-ference between parents’ ideal and realistic goals for their children and found that among parents of students with cognitive disabilities, over 70% hoped their child would work independently or in a supported employ-ment situation; but most presumed their child would realistically end up working in a segregated workshop.

One area in which youth and parents diverged was in their vision of the youth’s future family. Compared to parents, youth placed more importance on getting mar-ried, having children, and taking care of their parents/siblings within the next 5 years. This finding is consistent with research that found transition-age girls with disabili-ties to be more likely than their parents to identify getting married and/or having children as a transition goal (Hogansen et al., 2008). Perhaps youth aspire to take on more marriage and parenting activities in early adulthood because they view movement into these roles as important for being an “adult,” whereas parents remain conflicted about their own caretaking role in their child’s adult life, or parents may be more concerned because they have personally experienced the demands of being a parent.

In regards to our final formal hypothesis, our findings do not suggest that parents’ and students’ views about transition become more divergent as youth grow older. Though, as we mentioned, youth and parents differed on four factors (teacher support, self-esteem, barriers to transition, and future family), these differences did not vary by age group. A main effect for age was obtained for the factor “goals for adulthood,” suggesting that the emphasis placed on different transition goals shifts as students become older. Interestingly, our analysis indi-cates that adult outcomes, such as attending college, engaging in a career, and living on one’s own, were rated

at CALIF STATE UNIV LONG BEACH on April 28, 2015cde.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Powers et al. / Youth and Parents 141

as less important by older students (20 and older) and their parents than their younger peers (or parents of youth aged 15–19). This result may be due to older students who remain in the K-12 system past the age of 19 tend to have more severe disabilities than those who exit at age of 18. Researchers have found parental views on transition to vary by the disability of their child. Grigal and Neubert (2004) found parents of students with low-incidence disabilities (e.g. autism, multiple/severe dis-abilities) ranked life skills as the most important instructional area and placed a strong emphasis on resi-dential living as a transition area. In contrast, parents of students with high-incidence disabilities (e.g., learning, emotional, mild/moderate cognitive disabilities) rated academic skills as the most important instructional area and were more likely to stress employment in transition planning. Of note, both groups of parents in the Grigal and Neubert (2004) study rated recreation and social activities as the least important areas of transition plan-ning. Though not focused exclusively on transition, several other studies have explored how parental values and beliefs vary depending upon the age or disability of their child (Epps & Meyers, 1989; Hamre-Nietupski, Nietupski, & Strathe, 1992). It is somewhat paradoxical that the views of parents around transition have been better investigated than the perspectives of students, as it is students who are the ones actually transitioning; however, this may reflect an overall oversight in special education research where students with disabilities are too infrequently asked directly about their experiences, opinions, and values even though ultimately they may be the target of the research. Using Grigal and Neubert’s (2004) study as an example, one cannot help but wonder if students them-selves would rank recreation and social activities as the least important areas of transition planning.

Two out of the three transition goals ranked as most important by youth and parents were related to health care (having a good doctor and access to health insur-ance). This serves as a reminder that transition is multi-dimensional, and, though school staff may typically focus on employment, education, and independent liv-ing, health facilitates or hinders transition in all these areas for most, if not all, students in special education. Although there is increasing awareness that health issues should be considered and addressed in any planning that focuses on helping adolescents move successfully into independence and adulthood, this is often difficult to do because health care providers often do not participate in the IEP/TP meeting. However, a survey of health care providers (primarily pediatricians) conducted by Geenen,

Powers, and Sells (2003) suggests that providers see themselves as having an important role in transition and are generally receptive to having a conversation with parents and youth about their role in this process. In par-ticular, providers felt these discussions should include a plan for youth to transition from pediatric to adult-centered health care. The emphasis youth and parents place on having a good doctor may reflect this transition, as young people moving into adult health care are intro-duced to new providers who may be unfamiliar with their medical history, health priorities, and concerns. Similarly, access to health insurance may reflect transi-tion challenges; as youth move into adulthood they may no longer be covered by their parents’ insurance. Though many youth in America face this problem, it may be especially salient for youth with disabilities who are more likely to work in lower paying jobs where insur-ance is not offered (American Academy of Pediatrics, 1996). Although the IEP team may not be able to directly address a student’s lack of access to good health care or insurance, school staff can help the student develop the skills necessary to communicate with others about their health care concerns, and needed services and accom-modations. In partnership with parents, school staff can encourage students to communicate directly with their health care providers about their health care needs, ques-tions, and priorities. Additionally, the IEP team can make sure that the important influence health has on other transition areas such as work and education is reflected in the transition plan.

Implications for Practice

The extent to which youths and their parents have divergent desires and goals for students’ movement into independence has implications for the transition-planning process because disagreements could curb student-centered planning if youth acquiesce to parental demands and expectations or, conversely, familial support during the transition years may wane if parental expectations and perceptions are not taken into account. As we move to more collaborative and person-centered transition plans, educators need to know where parents’ and youths’ agreement and disagreement is likely to occur in order to fully and collaboratively engage them in the planning process. The results of this study suggest par-ents and youth are likely to hold different views on at least one of the following issues: youth’s preparedness for transition, desired resources and supports, and the influence of family on transition, including youth

at CALIF STATE UNIV LONG BEACH on April 28, 2015cde.sagepub.comDownloaded from

142 Career Development for Exceptional Individuals

starting their own family in the near future. Educators can identify and minimize potential conflict between parents and youth through systematic collaboration with families. Systematic person-centered collaboration involves planning meetings in advance throughout the years as youths’ and parents’ attitudes toward transition evolve and structuring the meetings so these important topics are discussed. Furthermore, this collaborative pro-cess permits youth and parents to make meaningful contributions to the discussion and balances the need to remain goal-oriented with the benefits of reflecting on the collaborative process (i.e., is it equitable, is one per-son’s vision dominating the others?).

A special or general educator, school psychologist, counselor, transition specialist, or any other qualified school personnel may facilitate the meeting by posing broad questions such as “What do you think your (your son’s/daughter’s) life will be like in 2 years . . . 5 years . . . 10 years?,” followed by more specific questions such as “Do you think you (your daughter/son) will marry?,” “Do you think you (your daughter/son) will have chil-dren?,” “Do you think you (your daughter/son) will become (continue to be) a care-taker for your (his/her) sibling, parents or grandparents?” The facilitator can pose clarifying questions as well as paraphrase, reflect, and summarize the discussion to ensure participant’s contributions are understood (Busse & Beaver, 2000). The facilitator can also counterbalance the questioning, redirect the discussion, and collect and share observa-tional data collected during the discussion if one collabo-rator becomes too dominant.

Person-centered collaboration involves strength-based problem solving that should appeal to youths’ compe-tence sensibilities and help parents to focus on their child’s developing skills, thus, reducing any discrepancy between parents and youths’ assessments of youths’ developmental assets. Strength-based problem solving reframes individual challenges or barriers to achieving successful adulthood from focusing on student deficits to defining them as a gap between what is desired and what is currently achievable. An emphasis is made on problem solving which student skills need to be developed, as well as which resources from the school, family, and community can be applied to close that gap. Based on the seminal work of Bergan and Kratochwill (1990), four components of the problem-solving process are: (a) Problem identification—describing in functional terms the gap between the transition goal and current skills, experiences and opportunities, and developing transition goals; (b) problem analysis—identifying barriers and

sources of support for achieving the transition goal; (c) plan implementation—detailing a plan for achieving the transition goal, including benchmarks, timelines, and measures of progress toward the goals; and (d) plan evaluation—evaluating whether the plan was imple-mented with fidelity and whether the plan was efficient and effective, including whether transition goals were achieved or are likely to be achieved. Thus, the focus on problem solving keeps the discussion results-orientated.

The current research on person-centered transition planning is far from complete. It does appear to promote a focus on both outcomes and processes, and increase student and family participation and satisfaction with the transition planning processes; however, the extent to which IEP teams implement this process with fidelity remains an important topic for further study (Michaels & Ferrara, 2005). Michaels and Ferrara suggest applying an interpretive inquiry paradigm to examine the efficacy, treatment integrity, and outcomes of person-centered planning. Researchers applying such a paradigm “seek to characterize and understand how people experience the world, how they interact together, where those interac-tions take place and how individually and collectively they understand reality” (p. 305). Our research study is more aligned to the empirical-analytic tradition in that it seeks to test various a priori hypotheses and advance the measurement of transition-related constructs, yet it pro-vides a picture of how parents and youth may both agree and disagree in their visions for the adult lives of indi-viduals with disabilities.

Limitations

Several limitations prompt caution in interpreting our findings. First, the parents and students were sampled from the same population independently. As such, there was no one-to-one correspondence between youth and their parents, thus, the children of the parents who com-pleted the survey could differ in some systematic way from the youth who completed the survey. However, the two groups did not vary in terms of ethnicity, age, gen-der, or disability status. Second, the issue of response bias and the nature of our sample prevent us from mak-ing direct, conclusive statements about parents and youth not participating in the study. Though the response rate for the study (22%) is consistent with that typically obtained in research using mailed surveys (Miller, 1991), the possibility exists that respondents who are most involved in transition are also most likely to return a survey, and our results do not reflect the experiences or

at CALIF STATE UNIV LONG BEACH on April 28, 2015cde.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Powers et al. / Youth and Parents 143

beliefs of youth and parents who are disengaged from the planning process. Specifically, the sample contained pro-portionally more European American youth and students with motor and sensory impairments and less Latino youth and students with cognitive disabilities compared to the population of transition-age youth in the two dis-tricts. In addition, females were oversampled compared to males to meet the design of the primary study.

Third, the findings are based on an exploratory factor analysis that yielded conceptually sound factors that will require replication to confirm their structure. Of the items, 20 did not sufficiently load on any factors; some of these items may not have loaded because they were unique to other items in the set (e.g., how important will it be to have good friends.). Additionally, two additional factors were identified, each with two logically related items [i.e., have medical insurance (.831) and have a good doctor (.775) loaded on a factor; and participate in spiritual activities such as prayer or attending church (.624) and learn the traditions and values of my culture or family background (.642) loaded on a factor]. Further research is needed to clarify and expand items that con-tribute to the factor structure suggested by this study. Fourth, our sample was drawn from relatively large urban areas that further limits the generalizability of the study (e.g., to rural areas). Finally, further research is needed to specifically investigate the interaction of racial and ethnic factors with youth and parent perceptions of experiences important for transition.

Conclusion

Parents’ intentions to support their child’s developing autonomy may occasionally conflict with their desire to keep their child from harms way. The results of this study suggest that this issue may be particularly salient for parents of students with disabilities. Parental support for transition is essential, but without sufficient commu-nication, parents and youth may be at odds in some areas of transition planning. Because transition is multifac-eted, we need more precise assessment of parents’ and students’ transition-related expectations and desires. Furthermore, there is a lack of research directly compar-ing the responses of youth, parents, and educators on parallel transition assessments. In practice, a good place to begin might be to have youth describe their ideal adulthood, followed by a thoughtful and nonjudgmental discussion about some of the hallmarks of adulthood that might otherwise be overlooked, including health care, college aspirations, independent living, and future fam-ily plans. Harry S. Truman once stated, “I have found the

best way to give advice to your children is to find out what they want and then advise them to do it.”

References

Agran, M., Cain, H. M., & Cavin, M. D. (2002). Enhancing the involvement of rehabilitation counselors in the transition process. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 25(2), 141–155.

American Academy of Pediatrics. (1996). Transition of care provided for adolescents with special health care needs. Pediatrics, 1203–1206.

Bergan, J. R., & Kratochwill, T. R. (1990). Behavioral consultation and therapy. New York: Plenum Press.

Busse, R. T., & Beaver, B. R. (2000). Informant report: Parent and teacher interviews. In E. S. Shapiro & T. R. Kratochwill (Eds.), Conducting school-based assessments of child and adolescent behavior (pp. 235–273). New York: NY: Guilford Press.

Cameto, R., Levine, P., Wagner, M., Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (ED), Washington, D.C., & SRI International, Menlo Park, CA. (2004). Transition planning for students with dis-abilities: A special topic report of findings from the national longitu-dinal transition study-2 (NLTS2). Washington, DC: National Center for Special Education Research.

Epps, S., & Meyers, C. L. (1989). Priority domains for instruction, satisfaction with school teaching, and post-school living and employment: An analysis of perceptions of parents of students with severe and profound disabilities. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 24, 157–167.

Geenen, S., Powers, L. E., & Lopez-Vasquez, A. (2001). Multicultural aspects of parent involvement in transition planning. Exceptional Children, 67(2), 265–282.

Geenen, S., Powers, L., & Sells, W. (2003). Understanding the role of health care providers during the transition of adolescents with dis-abilities and special health care needs. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32(3), 225–233.

Grigal, M., & Neubert, D. A. (2004). Parents’ in-school values and post-school expectations for transition-aged youth with disabili-ties. Career Development for Exceptional Children, 27(1), 65–85.

Grigal, M., Test, D., Beattie, J., & Wood, W. (1997). An evaluation of transition components of individualized education programs. Exceptional Children, 63(3), 357–372.

Hamre-Nietupski, S., Nietupski, J., & Strathe, M. (1992). Functional life skills, academic skills and friendship/social relationship devel-opment: What do parents of students with moderate/severe/pro-found disabilities value? The Journal of Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps, 17, 53–58.

Hanley-Maxwell, C., Whitney-Thomas, J., & Pogologg, S. M. (1995). The second shock: A qualitative study of parents’ perspectives and needs during their child’s transition from school to adult life. The Journal of Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20(1), 3–15.

Hasazi, S. B., Gordon, L. R., & Roe, C. A. (1985). Factors associated with the employment status of handicapped youth exiting high school from 1979 to 1983. Exceptional Children, 51, 455–469.

Henderson, C. (2001). 2001 College freshmen with disabilities: A biennial statistical profile. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, American Council of Education, HEALTH Resource Center.

Hogansen, J., Powers, K. M., Geenen, S., Gil-Kashiwabara, E., & Powers, L. E. (2008). Transition goals and experiences of females

at CALIF STATE UNIV LONG BEACH on April 28, 2015cde.sagepub.comDownloaded from

144 Career Development for Exceptional Individuals

with disabilities: Youth, parents and professionals. Council for Exceptional Children, 74(2), 215–234.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108–446, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.

Kraemer, B. R., & Blacher, J. (2001). Transition for young adults with severe mental retardation: School preparation, parent expectations, and family involvement. Mental Retardation, 39(6), 423–435.

Lichtenstein, S. (1998). Characteristics of youth and young adults. In F. R. Rusch & J. G. Chadsey (Eds.), Beyond high school: Transition from school to work (pp. 3–31). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Michaels, C. A., & Ferrara, D. L. (2005). Promoting post-school suc-cess for all: The role of collaboration in person-centered transition planning. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 16, 287–313.

Miller, D. C. (1991). Handbook of research design and social mea-surement. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

National Organization on Disability. (2004). 2004 N.O.D./Harris survey of Americans with disabilities. Retrieved April 15, 2008, from http:www.nod.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Feature .showFeature&FeatureID=1422

Osgood, D. W., Foster, E. M, Flanagan, C., & Ruth, G. R. (2005). Introduction: Why focus on the transition to adulthood for vul-nerable populations. In D. W. Osgood, E. M. Foster, C. Flanagan, & G. R. Ruth (Eds.), On your own without a net: The transition to adulthood for vulnerable populations (pp. 1-26). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Powers, K., Gil-Kashiwabara, E., Geenen, S., Powers, L. E., Balandran, J., & Palmer, C. (2005). Mandates and effective transition planning practices reflected in IEPs. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 28(1), 47–59.

Powers, L. E., Garner, T., Valnes, B., Squire, P., Turner, A., Couture, T., & Dertinger, R. (2007). Building a successful adult life: Findings from youth-directed research. Exceptionality, 15(1), 45–56.

Powers, L. E., Turner, A., Matuszewski, J., Wilson, R., & Loesch, C. (1999). A qualitative analysis of student involvement in transition planning. Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 21(3), 18–26.

Schalock, R. L, & Lilley, M. A. (1986). Placement from community-based mental retardation programs: How well do clients do after 8–10 years? American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 90(6), 669–676.

Schalock, R. L., Wolzen, B., Ross, I., Elliott, B., Werbel, G., & Peterson, K. (1986). Post-secondary community placement of handicapped students: A five year follow-up. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 295–303.

Thoma, C. A., Rogan, P., & Baker, S. R. (2001).Student involvement in transition planning: Unheard voices. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36(1), 16–29.

Thompson, J. R., Fulk, B. M., & Piercy, S. W. (2000). Do individual-ized transition plans match the postschool projections of students

with learning disabilities and their parents. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 23(1), 3–25.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Twenty-fourth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.

Wagner, M., Blackorby, J., & Hebbeler, K. (1993). Beyond the report card: The multiple dimensions of secondary school performance of students with disabilities. A report from the National Longitu-dinal Study of Special Education Students. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Wagner, M., Cameto, R., & Newman, L. (2003). Youth with dis-abilities: A changing population (Report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study [NLTS] and the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 [NLTS2]). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., & Levine, P. (2005). Changes over time in the early postschool outcomes of youth with disabili-ties. A report of findings from the National Longitudinal Study (NLTS) and the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Levine, P., & Marder, C. (2007). Perceptions and expectations of youth with disabilities. A Report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Wald, M. S. (2005). Forward. In D. W. Osgood, E. M. Foster, C. Flanagan, & G. R. Ruth (Eds.), On your own without a net: The transition to adulthood for vulnerable populations (pp. vii-xii). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Whitney-Thomas, J., & Hanley-Maxwell, C. (1996). Packing the parachute: Parents’ experiences as their children prepare to leave high school. Exceptional Children, 63, 75–87.

Kristin Powers, PhD, is an associate professor of School Psychology and director of the Educational Psychology Clinic at California State University Long Beach. Her current research interests include transition planning, school engage-ment, and academic interventions.

Sarah Geenen, PhD, is an associate professor at the School of Social Work, Regional Research Institute at Portland State University. Her research areas include foster care, self-determination, disability, and transition.

Laurie E. Powers, PhD, is a professor and associate dean for research at the School of Social Work and director of the Regional Research Institute. Her research areas include self-determination, foster care, disability, and transition.

at CALIF STATE UNIV LONG BEACH on April 28, 2015cde.sagepub.comDownloaded from