1
SELF-DETERMINATION IN TRANSITIONING FIRST-YEAR COLLEGE STUDENTS
WITH AND WITHOUT DISABILITIES: USING MAP-WORKS FOR ASSESSMENT
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
IN ADULT, HIGHER, AND COMMUNITY EDUCATION
BY
LORNA C. TIMMERMAN
DR. ROGER D. WESSEL - ADVISOR
BALL STATE UNIVERSITY
MUNCIE, INDIANA
MAY 2014
2
SELF-DETERMINATION IN TRANSITIONING FIRST-YEAR COLLEGE STUDENTS
WITH AND WITHOUT DISABILITIES: USING MAP-WORKS FOR ASSESSMENT
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
BY
LORNA C. TIMMERMAN
APPROVED BY:
___________________________________________________
Roger D. Wessel, Committee Chairperson
__________________
Date
___________________________________________________
Thalia Mulvihill, Committee Member
__________________
Date
___________________________________________________
Rachel Kraus, Committee Member
__________________
Date
___________________________________________________
Michael W. Harvey, Committee Member
__________________
Date
___________________________________________________
Jocelyn Bolin, Committee Member
__________________
Date
___________________________________________________
Robert Morris, Dean of Graduate School
__________________
Date
Ball State University
Muncie, IN
May 2014
3
ABSTRACT
DISSERTATION PROJECT: Self-Determination in Transitioning First-Year College Students
with and without Disabilities: Using MAP-Works for Assessment
STUDENT: Lorna C. Timmerman
DEGREE: Doctor of Education in Adult, Higher, and Community Education
COLLEGE: Teachers College
DATE: May 2014
PAGES: 198
This research project explored levels of self-determination in transitioning first-year
college students using the MAP-Works Fall Transition Survey. Competency in selfdetermination skills has been called the most important element for students’ successful
postsecondary experiences. The purpose of this research was to investigate whether there were
statistically significant differences in levels of self-determined behavior between students with
and without disabilities; and within the students with disabilities (SWD) grouping, whether there
were meaningful differences in levels of self-determined behavior between students who had and
had not registered with the Disability Services office and sought assistance. Comparisons of
levels of self-determination were also made among students with varying demographic and
student characteristics (i.e., gender, race, and GPA) as well as between SWD with visible and
non-apparent disabilities. Gaining an understanding of how levels of self-determination differ
among different incoming student groups can help success and retention strategists directly target
interventions to students at risk and most likely to benefit. Recommendations for practice and
future research are provided.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………………3
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………………...8
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………..…………..10
Federal Support for Transition to Postsecondary Education for Students with Disabilities…......14
Importance of Self-Determination Skills for Transition to and Success in College……………..15
Barriers to Postsecondary Education for Students with Disabilities……………….……………16
Statement of the Problem……..………………………..………………………………………...20
Purpose of the Study………………………….......……….……………………………………..20
Research Questions……………………..…..…………...……………………………………….21
Research Hypotheses………………………………………….…………..……………………..21
Significance of the Study to the Field…………………….…..……………………………….…22
Definition of Terms……………………………………….…..………………………………….29
Summary and Organization of the Study……………………………………..…..……………...33
CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………………….35
Summary of the Project……………………………..……………..…………………………….35
Theoretical Framework………………...….……………………………………………………..35
History of Self-Determination……...……………………….…………………………………...39
Origin of Self-Determination…………………………………………………………………….40
Importance of Self-Determination for Students with Disabilities Transitioning to Postsecondary
Education…………………………………...……………………………………………….…...44
Individual Autonomy…………………………..………………………………………...52
Self-Regulation…………..………………………………………………………………56
5
Self-Realization……………………..……………………………………………………58
Psychological Empowerment…………………..………………………………………...63
Summary……………………..….……………………………………………………………….71
CHAPTER 3 – METHOD…………………………………………………………………….…74
Summary of the Study………………..……………………….…………………………………74
Design of the Study……………………………..………………………………………………..74
Purpose Statement…………..……………………………………………………………………75
Research Questions……………………..………………………………………………………..75
Research Hypotheses………………………………..…………………………………………...76
Research Method and Research Approach..……………………………………………………..76
Research Technique……………..……………………………………………………….77
Setting of the Study………………………………………………………………………………77
Population………………………………..………………………………………………77
Data Collection Procedures……………………...……………………………………………….78
Instrumentation……………..……………………………………………………………………79
Question Development…………..……………………………………………………….80
Seek Validation through Panel of Experts………………………………..……………...81
Pilot Test for Clarity………………………………………………………………..……82
Test for Reliability……………………………..………………………………………...82
Data Analysis Procedures……………………...………………………………………………...83
Plan for Data Presentation…………………………...…………………………………………..84
Summary……………………...………………………………………………………………….84
CHAPTER 4 – RESULTS……………………………………………………………………….85
6
Summary of the Study………………………...…………………………………………………85
Population Characteristics………………...……………………………………………………..85
Organization of Factors……………………………………...………….………………………..86
Descriptive Data Presentation of Survey Items……………………………………………….....91
Resilience Scale………………………………………...……...………………………...92
Self-Regulation Scale…………………………………………………………………….92
Psychological Empowerment Scale………………………………………...…..………..93
Questions Asked Only of Students with Disabilities……......…………..…………….....95
Self-Determination of Students With and Without Disabilities (RQ1)..….……………………..95
Self-Determination of Students with Disabilities Registered with Disability Services or Not
(RQ2)…………………………………………………………………………………...………..96
Questions Asked Only of Students with Disabilities……...………………………..……97
Self-Determination of Students with Disabilities by Disability Type (RQ3).….………………..98
Self-Determination by Student Characteristics (RQ4)………………………………………......98
Self-Determination by Gender…………………………………………………………...99
Self-Determination by Race ……………………………………………………………100
Self-Determination by High School GPA........................................................................100
Self-Determination by First Semester GPA…………………………………………….103
Self-Determination by Retention to Spring Semester…………………………………..106
Summary……………………...………………………………………………………………...107
CHAPTER 5 – DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………….…108
Summary of the Research Project……………...……………………………………………….108
Resilience….……………………………………………………………………………………108
7
Key Findings……………………………..……………………………………………………..116
Discussion of Descriptive Data…………………………………………………………………117
Psychological Empowerment Items…………………………………………………….117
Self-Regulation Items…………………………………………………………………..120
Resilience Items………………………………………………………………………...121
Discussion of Differences in Self-Determination……………………………………………....124
Differences between Students With and Without Disability…………………………...124
Differences among SWD by Registration Status and Disability Type…………………125
Differences by Student Characteristics…………………………………………………127
Gender…………………………………………………….…………………….127
Race……………………………………………………….…………………….128
Grade Point Average………………………….…………………………….…..129
Retention to Spring Semester………………….………………………….….…130
Limitations of the Study………………………….……………………………….………….…131
Unique Characteristics of Ball State University.………………..……………………...131
Limitations of the Research Technique……….……………..……………………..…..131
Recommendations for Practice and Future Research…………………………………………..134
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………141
APPENDIX A – FREQUENTLY USED ABBREVIATIONS………………………………...173
APPENDIX B – QUESTIONS ADDED TO MAP-WORKS 2013 FALL TRANSITION
SURVEY……………………………………………………………………………………….174
APPENDIX C – TABLES…………………...…………………………………………………176
8
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Self-Determination Essential Characteristics and Component Elements………………38
Table 2. First-Year Transitioning Students Demographics……………………………………...87
Table 3. Factor Loadings for Exploratory Factor Analysis with Promax Rotation and 4 Factor
Extraction………………………………………………………………………………….....…177
Table 4. Factor Loadings for Exploratory Factor Analysis with Promax Rotation and 3 Factor
Extraction……………………………………………………………………………………….179
Table 5. Reliability of Scales Retained from Exploratory Factor Analysis..…………………...181
Table 6. Percentages for Survey Items on Resilience Scale……………………………………182
Table 7. Percentages for Survey Items on Self-Regulation Scale..…………………………….183
Table 8. Percentages for Survey Items on Psychological Empowerment Scale – Items Assessing
Academic Self-Efficacy…………………….…………………………………………………..184
Table 9. Percentages for Survey Items on Psychological Empowerment Scale – Items Assessing
Stress………………………………………..…………………………………………………..185
Table 10. Percentages for Survey Items on Psychological Empowerment Scale –Items Assessing
Test Anxiety……………………………………………………...……………………………..186
Table 11. Percentages for Items Asked Only of Students with IEP/504 Plan in High School…187
Table 12. Differences between Students with Disabilities and Students without Disabilities
(Research Question #1)……………………………………………………………..…………..188
Table 13. Differences by Students with Disabilities who Have or Have Not Registered with
Disability Services (Research Question #2)………………………………………..…………..189
Table 14. SWD-Specific Questions by Registered with Disability Services or Not …………..190
Table 15. Differences by Disability Type for SWD (Research Question #3).………………....191
9
Table 16. Differences by Gender (Research Question #4)……………….…………………….192
Table 17. Differences by Race (Research Question #4)…………………..……………………193
Table 18. ANOVA Equal Variance for Psychological Empowerment Scale by High School GPA
(Research Question #4)…………………………………………………………………...…….194
Table 19. ANOVA Unequal Variance for Resilience and Self-Regulation Scales by High School
GPA (Research Question #4)……………………………………..…………………….………195
Table 20. ANOVA Equal Variance for Psychological Empowerment Scale by First Semester
GPA (Research Question #4)………………………………..……………………………….…196
Table 21. ANOVA Unequal Variance for Resilience and Self-Regulation Scales by First
Semester GPA (Research Question #4)……..……………………………………………….…197
Table 22. Differences by Retention to Spring Semester (Research Question #4)……………...198
10
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
Historically, students with disabilities (SWD – see Appendix A for a list of commonly
used abbreviations) were excluded from participation in postsecondary education. Before
passage of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Education for All Handicapped Children Act
in 1975, most students with disabilities were not adequately prepared for postsecondary work by
their elementary and secondary school educations and did not participate in postsecondary
educational programs (Murray, Goldstein, Nourse & Edgar, 2000). The Education for All
Handicapped Children Act (1975) was the cornerstone of national special education legislation
and mandated that elementary and secondary students with disabilities were provided a free and
appropriate education in the least restrictive environment (Turnball & Turnball, 1998; Yell,
2011). Having undergone numerous reauthorizations with the latest revision being the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004), this act mandates full
inclusion for students with disabilities from preschool through high school and requires outcomeoriented postschool transition programming for students with disabilities (Shaw & Dukes, 2013).
Government oversight of postsecondary instruction did not begin until the passage of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA, 1965). In 2008, the HEA (1965) was reauthorized as the
Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA, 2008). It was in the HEOA (2008) that the federal
government first actively encouraged the recruitment and enrollment of students with disabilities
in institutions of higher education (IHE) by distributing grant money to institutions that
supported the success of students with disabilities. HEOA (2008) also expanded the definition of
disability, thereby broadening eligibility for accommodations to greater numbers of SWD, and
mandated that all IHE that receive federal funds be accessible, provide accommodations, and
11
prohibit discrimination against qualified SWD (Brinckerhoff, McGuire, & Shaw, 2002; Shaw,
Scott, & McGuire, 2001).
The legal protections for postsecondary students with disabilities derive from two antidiscrimination laws: the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Keenan & Shaw, 2011). Both of these laws are civil rights laws that
prohibit discrimination against a student whose “physical or mental disability substantially limits
one or more major life activities, such as . . . learning.” Section 504 is designed to level the
playing field for SWD by barring discrimination and providing equal access to all students.
Section 504 provides that:
No otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his
disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
Thus, Section 504 provides SWD a means to receive accommodations such that they can have
access to all school programs and activities. In contrast to the prescriptive Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004) that applies to all SWD from preschool through
high school, college students with disabilities are only guaranteed an equal educational
opportunity when they are otherwise qualified (Shaw & Dukes, 2013).
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 was ratified nearly 25 years ago; the
ADA mandated that all Americans be accorded equality in pursuing jobs, goods, services and
other opportunities. The intent of the ADA was to prevent discrimination against persons with
disabilities and allow them equal access to all elements of mainstream American life. Revisions
that went into effect in 2009 under the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act
(ADAAA, 2008) furthered the possibilities for SWD to transition to postsecondary education
12
(Shaw & Dukes, 2013). Despite these legislative efforts to provide equal access and opportunity,
unemployment and underemployment rates for individuals with disabilities have remained
extremely high. The employment rate of working-age Americans with disabilities in March
2012 was 14.5 percent – an all-time low since these statistics have been collected. For
comparison, in 1990 when the ADA went into effect, the employment rate for working-age
Americans with disabilities was 28.6 percent; and in March of 2007 prior to the Great Recession,
the employment rate for Americans with disabilities was 18.7 percent (Burkhauser, 2013).
Persons without disabilities are nearly four times more likely than persons with disabilities to be
employed, and 33 percent of persons with a disability are employed part-time compared to 19
percent of persons without a disability (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012). Because youth
with disabilities are only half as likely to go to college (National Center for Education Statistics,
2010), their lack of education compounds employment issues and contributes to the greater rates
of poverty and dependence on public assistance among individuals with disabilities (BarnardBrak, Davis, Tate, & Sulak, 2009; Sanford et al., 2011; She & Livermore, 2006).
Increasingly, a college education is critical for success in our global economy. Indeed,
with economies having changed from a manufacturing base to that of information, technology,
and services, the need for postsecondary education is greater than ever before (Arnett, in press).
College degree attainment has been referred to as the “gold standard of increased opportunities in
adulthood” (Anctil, Ishikawa, & Scott, 2008, p. 164). Kaye (2010) reported that the recession
exacerbated already low employment levels for individuals with disabilities and made college
attainment even more critical to job attainment and security. Persons with disabilities often hold
lower status, less stable jobs – those most likely to be eliminated in periods of recession (Kaye,
13
2009). According to the National Council on Disability (2011), the current economic crisis
disproportionately affected employment opportunities for persons with disabilities.
Postsecondary education is typically the first rung on the ladder toward realization of
one’s employment and economic goals. Youth with disabilities have consistently been less
likely than their peers to participate in postsecondary education (Fleming & Fairweather, 2012).
A recipient of a bachelor’s degree will make approximately 65% more over the course of a
lifetime than a high school graduate (College Board, 2013). In the fiercely competitive world of
today, employment options increase with any amount of postsecondary education (Institute for
Higher Education Policy, 2005), and some college experience has become a minimum
qualification for most jobs that pay a reasonable wage (Shaw & Dukes, 2013). That said, pursuit
of higher education is limited among students with disabilities (Fleming & Fairweather, 2012).
While more than two-thirds of all high school graduates enroll in postsecondary institutions, less
than one-quarter of students with disabilities participate (Snyder, Dillow, & Hoffman, 2009), and
less than one-tenth of students with learning disabilities (LD) enroll in postsecondary institutions
(Gregg, 2007).
Similarly, college graduation rates for SWD lag behind their peers without disabilities.
Approximately 12% of SWD graduate with a college degree compared to 31% of students
without disabilities (Erickson, Lee, & von Schrader, 2010). These low educational attainment
rates of individuals with disabilities have adverse lifelong effects (Fleming & Fairweather,
2012). However, education brings forth greater chances to secure satisfying and gainful
employment as well as financial independence (Shaw & Dukes, 2013). Educational attainment
has been deemed to be the “most effective means for persons with disabilities to achieve
financial independence and equality with their able-bodied peers” (Barnard-Brak & Lan, 2010, p.
14
30). SWD and students without disabilities who have successfully earned a Bachelor of Arts
degree are equally likely to attain employment (College Board, 2010). Attainment of a bachelor
degree is critical to adult success, however, SWD are unlikely to attend four-year institutions –
only 15 percent of SWD enrolled at a four-year institution in 2007 compared to 37 percent of all
students (Sanford et al., 2011).
Federal Support for Transition to Postsecondary Education for Students with Disabilities
To counteract the dismal educational and employment rates of youth with disabilities and
the lack of effective transition planning (Will, 1983), the federal government has enacted
legislation focused on improving postschool outcomes for SWD. The Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA, 2004) mandates that postsecondary
education be considered as a goal for all students (deFur, 2008; Shaw & Dukes, 2013), and 80%
of secondary students with disabilities list postsecondary education as a primary goal (Newman,
Wagner, Cameto, & Knokey, 2009). The transition from high school to postsecondary settings
has been the focus of increased research in the recent past (King, Baldwin, Currie, & Evans,
2006). This transitional period is difficult for many students, and is often especially trying for
students with disabilities (Gil-Kashiwabara, Hogansen, Geenen, Powers, & Powers, 2007). To
foster improved transition and postsecondary outcomes, the National Secondary Transition
Technical Assistance Center (NSTTAC, 2010) devised twenty indicators for improved
postschool outcomes for SWD. State Performance Plan Indicator 13 related to transition services
and stated that SWD aged 16 and older with an IEP must have measurable postsecondary goals.
One of these stated postsecondary outcome goals was postsecondary education (NSTTAC,
2013). While compliance with Indicator 13 did not impact rates of college enrollment for SWD,
secondary students with Indicator 13 compliant IEPs were found to be more likely to remain
15
enrolled and experience success in postsecondary education (Erickson, Noonan, Brussow, &
Giplin, 2013). Erickson et al. (2013) posited that these gains may be the result of better
preparation of students through self-determination (SD) strategies, thus highlighting the
importance of SD skills to postsecondary success. SWD who are self-determined are more likely
to successfully transition to college. College participation will substantially improve their
chances to “lead personally fulfilling and socially meaningful lives” (Ludlow, 2010, p. 6).
Importance of Self-Determination Skills for Transition to and Success in College
Retention, persistence and successful completion of college hinge on student acquisition
and development of self-determination skills (Garrison-Wade, 2012). Self-determined persons:
Know how to choose – they know what they want and how to get it. From an awareness
of personal needs, self-determined individuals choose goals, and then doggedly pursue
them. This involves asserting an individual’s presence, making his or her needs known,
evaluating progress toward meeting goals, adjusting performance, and creating unique
approaches to solve problems. (Martin & Marshall, 1995, p. 147)
When students have the capacity to assume responsibility for the choices and decisions they
make, when they are aware of their strengths and limitations, when they persevere in the face of
problems, and when they advocate for their needs, they are self-determined and have greater
potential to be successful in college. Self-determination skills are important for all students to
develop; however, due to additional transitional barriers faced by SWD, self-determination is of
even greater importance for SWD transitioning to IHE. SWD who are self-determined are more
likely to experience academic success in postsecondary educational pursuits (Field & Hoffman,
2007; Parker, 2004), and self-determination has been positively correlated with higher GPA
(grade point average) for college SWD (Sarver, 2000). Self-determination skills have been
16
named as some of the “most important skills young adults can bring with them to colleges and
universities” (Kochhar-Bryant, Bassett, & Webb, 2009, p. 39). Self-determination “has become
best practice in transition services” (Suk-Hyang, Wehmeyer, Palmer, Soukup, & Little, 2008, p.
92).
Barriers to Postsecondary Education for Students with Disabilities
Students with disabilities encounter many barriers to postsecondary enrollment and
success. The transition to college can be a difficult adjustment for any student, but SWD have
additional hurdles to overcome (Adams & Proctor, 2010; Barber, 2012; Barnard-Brak & Lan,
2010; Connor, 2012; Gil, 2007; Wolanin & Steele, 2004). These obstacles can be surmounted
with effective transition planning, the use of accommodations, and well-developed selfdetermination on the part of the SWD (Fleming & Fairweather, 2012; Getzel & Thoma, 2008,
Squire, 2008). Even with effective transitional planning and appropriate use of accommodations,
SWD will likely flounder if they are not self-determined (Brinckerhoff et al., 2002). Despite the
research documenting the importance of transition planning and self-determination for students
transitioning to postsecondary institutions, lack of skills in self-determination continues to be
identified as a major barrier in achieving academic success (Finn, Getzel, & McManus, 2008;
Izzo & Lamb, 2002; Salmirs, 2011; Wehmeyer, Palmer, Shogren, Williams-Diehm, & Soukup,
2013).
Some of the barriers to postsecondary education access and attainment for SWD are
directly related to components of self-determination, and others are not. It is important to
acknowledge the barriers not specifically related to self-determination as they impact retention
and graduation rates; however this study specifically addressed the importance of selfdetermination and focused on those barriers that have underpinnings of self-determination.
17
Some of the barriers not specifically related to self-determination that have been
identified as negatively impacting retention for SWD include being underprepared academically
for the rigors of college (Bangser, 2008; Connor, 2012; Gregg, 2007; Mellard, 2005) and a lack
of effective transitional planning in high school (Brinckerhoff, 1994; Garrison-Wade, 2012; Gil,
2007; Kochhar-Bryant et al., 2009; Salmirs, 2011). The transition from high school to college
has been referred to as a “transition cliff” for youth with disabilities (Kochhar-Bryant et al.,
2009, p. 23). Squire (2008), himself a young adult with learning disability and ADHD, spoke of
the bursting of his “bubble of support” that occurred when he transitioned to college and became
responsible for making his own educational decisions and seeking disability-related services (p.
126).
There are also numerous informational barriers that impede SWD progress in meeting
their college goals. These include inadequate knowledge on the part of the SWD of the
differences in legislation and policy concerning the rights and responsibilities of SWD in the
secondary and postsecondary environments (Beale, 2005; deBettencourt, 2002; Garrison-Wade,
2012; Lindstrom & Lindstrom, 2011; Madaus & Shaw, 2004, 2006; Skinner & Lindstrom, 2003).
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1990), which governs K-12 special
education services, and Section 504/ADA, which secure access for college SWD, are conflicting
federal statutes which create transition barriers (Keenan & Shaw, 2011; Lindstrom & Lindstrom,
2011; Shaw & Dukes, 2013). Other information barriers include a lack of knowledge of
postsecondary academic expectations (DaDeppo, 2009; Kochhar-Bryant et al., 2009; Webb,
Patterson, Syverud, & Seabrooks-Blackmore, 2008) and the documentation divide (Keenan &
Shaw, 2011; Lindstrom & Lindstrom, 2011; Madaus & Shaw, 2004; Sitlington, 2003) where
SWD find that they have inadequate documentation to support their accommodation requests in
18
the college sector (Gregg, 2007; Keenan & Shaw, 2011). SWD transitioning to college also
frequently do not understand the differences in disability services and supports available to them
at the postsecondary level (Getzel & McManus, 2005; Gil, 2007). College SWD frequently
expected the same disability supports and services as they had received in high school and were
uncertain how to access the supports available to them (Garrison-Wade, 2012).
Not related to self-determination, but nonetheless acting as a barrier to postsecondary
success for SWD, is a lack of faculty knowledge of the laws regarding accommodations (Zhang
et al., 2010). Two decades after implementation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, a study of faculty attitudes and practices indicated that 67% of faculty had no familiarity or
very limited familiarity (14%) with Section 504 mandates. Forty percent of these faculty
members were not familiar with ADA and 26% had only limited familiarity with this law
(Leyser, Vogel, Wyland, & Brulle, 1998). The existence of negative faculty attitudes and faculty
misperceptions toward disability and students with disabilities (Barnard-Brak & Lan, 2010;
Cook, Hennessey, Cook, & Rumrill, 2007; Denhart, 2008; Hartman-Hall & Haaga, 2002;
Marshak, Van Wieren, Ferrell, Swiss, & Dugan, 2010; Vogel, Leyser, Wyland, & Brulle, 1999)
also inhibit SWD from disclosing their disabilities and seeking the accommodations that could
enhance their academic achievement (Cook, Rumrill, & Tankersley, 2009; Cowen, 1993;
Garrison-Wade, 2012; Garrison-Wade & Lehmann, 2007; Mellard, 2005; Rao, 2004; Madaus &
Shaw, 2006). SWD also have reported that some faculty show a lack of sensitivity to the needs
of SWD that impedes performance in the classroom (Carney et al., 2007; Dowrick, Anderson,
Heyer, & Acosta, 2005; Garrison-Wade & Lehmann, 2007; Garrison-Wade & Lehmann, 2009).
Other faculty hold misperceptions about the abilities of SWD (Denhart, 2008; Kochhar-Bryant et
al., 2009) and/or lack knowledge of disability and how to support SWD in their classrooms
19
(Garrison-Wade, 2012; Humphrey, Woods, & Huglin, 2011). Rao (2004) indicated that faculty
play a vital role in facilitating the assimilation of students with disabilities and can greatly impact
the success or failure of students with disabilities in the postsecondary arena. When faculty held
positive attitudes toward disability and persons with disabilities, students were more likely to be
successful academically; when faculty held negative attitudes toward disability and person with
disabilities, students were less likely to use their self-advocacy skills and were therefore less
likely to experience success academically. Humphrey et al. (2011) also cited a lack of faculty
awareness of how to support the needs of SWD. Faculty in their study indicated an awareness of
their legal obligations to provide reasonable accommodations to SWD, but they felt they needed
increased exposure to SWD such that they could look beyond the differences and note the
commonalities among all students. Many of the faculty in this study reported discomfort and
lack of knowledge regarding the diverse needs of SWD and stated that they tended not to
communicate with the disability services (DS) office in a proactive manner; instead they waited
until issues arose before consulting DS staff for assistance. At this point, the situation had often
become reactive and unnecessarily complicated, leading to misunderstanding between the faculty
member, the SWD, and the DS staff. Humphrey et al. (2011) found a positive relationship
between student success and perception of faculty support by SWD.
The focus of this study will be on those barriers to advanced education that directly relate
to self-determination. These include a lack of self-awareness or incomplete understanding of
how one’s disability impacts one’s learning; lack of self-advocacy skills which often results in
failure to disclose one’s disability, register with the Disability Services (DS) office, and seek the
accommodations that can facilitate one’s learning; and insufficient beliefs about one’s self-
20
efficacy manifested in failure to accept control over one’s life decisions and assume self-reliance
and in failure to effectively plan and set goals for realizing one’s educational aspirations.
Statement of the Problem
Self-determination knowledge and skills are necessary for success in life (Field &
Hoffman, 2007), and self-determination skills are critical for postsecondary success (Anctil et al.,
2008; Garrison-Wade, 2012; Morningstar et al., 2010; Webster, 2004); yet lack of selfdetermination skills has been identified as a major barrier to students’ academic success in
college (Finn et al., 2008). Supporting student development of self-determination (SD) has been
found to be an effective strategy for helping students achieve educational goals; however,
transition planning for SWD often lacks adequate training in development of SD skills (Izzo &
Lamb, 2002; Squire, 2008; Wehmeyer, Agran, & Hughes, 2000) and some of the skills needed
for SD are compromised by the nature of students’ disabilities (Layton & Lock, 2003). Students
who are self-determined are more likely to be successful in college because they tend to be more
aware of their strengths, weaknesses, preferences, interests, and needs; they self-advocate for
their needs; and they tend to believe themselves to be more capable of achieving success in
college. Students who are self-determined possess the ability to make appropriate choices and
decisions, clearly state and advocate for their needs, and plan for their futures. These selfdetermined dispositions will situate all students, with and without disabilities, with the best
potentials for postsecondary success.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to see if statistically significant differences exist between
self-reported levels of self-determination among incoming freshmen college students without
disabilities and students with disabilities. Among the students with disabilities (SWD), there
21
were two student groupings – those students who had an IEP (individualized education plan) or
504 Plan in high school and had not registered with the Disability Services (DS) office, and those
who had an IEP or 504 Plan in high school and who had registered with DS. A further purpose
of the study was to see if statistically significant differences exist between self-reported levels of
self-determination based on demographic variables, including disability type among SWD.
Research Questions
1) Do statistically significant differences in self-determination (SD) exist between
students with and without disabilities?
2) Do statistically significant differences in SD exist between students self-reporting
disability who are registered and those who are not registered with the office of
Disability Services?
3) Do statistically significant differences exist in SD based upon disability type (i.e.,
physical/sensory disabilities, non-apparent disabilities)?
4) Do statistically significant differences exist in SD based upon other demographic
variables (i.e., gender, race/ethnicity, high school GPA, first semester GPA, retention
to spring semester)?
Research Hypotheses
1) It was hypothesized that statistically significant differences would exist between
students with disabilities (SWD) and students without disabilities (SWoD), with
SWD having lower levels of self-determination skills than students without
disabilities. [t-test]
22
2) It was also hypothesized that those SWD who had registered with the Disability
Services (DS) office on campus would have greater levels of SD competencies than
those SWD who had not registered and sought services. [t-test]
3) It was hypothesized that students with non-apparent disabilities would have lower
levels of SD than students with physical or sensory disabilities. [t-test]
4) It was hypothesized that there would be statistically significant differences between
levels of SD and the demographic grouping variables (exploratory). [t-test and
ANOVA]
Significance of the Study to the Field
Given the differences in opportunities and quality of life that college completion
provides, students with disabilities must be supported in their pursuit of postsecondary education
(Hamblet, 2011). While students with disabilities have increased participation in postsecondary
education, successful postsecondary outcomes for adults with disabilities have not been realized.
(Shaw & Dukes, 2013). By assessing self-determination skill sets required for college success,
this study enhanced students’ opportunities to realize their postsecondary goals and increase
lifelong earnings and opportunities. The first step toward achieving postsecondary educational
success is acquisition of self-determination skills; and research suggests that there is a continued
need to teach and study self-determination skills in college students (Garrison-Wade, 2012).
This study contributed to the professional literature on the importance of selfdetermination in students transitioning to institutions of higher education. Only a small body of
research has focused on how self-determination affects postsecondary success for students with
disabilities. Postschool outcomes for students with disabilities typically include employment,
independent living, quality of life, and postsecondary education. Most of the previous research
23
has looked at quality of life and employment outcomes for youth exiting high school. Other
transition research has focused on demographics, federal policy, and differences between
secondary and postsecondary expectations (Shaw & Dukes, 2013). This study added to the body
of knowledge indicating that higher levels of self-determination when exiting high school lead to
improved postsecondary success and more positive adult outcomes for youth with disabilities.
The current body of research on the relationship between self-determination and postschool
outcomes was promising, yet limitations such as small sample sizes had led to inconclusive
results (Shogren, Wehmeyer, Palmer, Rifenbark, & Little, 2013). Also, most prior research on
self-determination has focused on students with moderate to severe disabilities and has neglected
the importance of self-determination in students with high incidence disabilities, such as learning
disabilities and ADHD. Students with these milder disabilities are more likely to pursue
postsecondary education.
Previous researchers stated that additional research on the role self-determination plays in
facilitating success for postsecondary SWD was needed (Mamiseishvili & Koch, 2011).
Furthermore, most research on postsecondary education for SWD had focused on certificate
programs or two-year college degrees. This study looked at SWD enrolled in a four-year
comprehensive university. Further, this study had sufficient sample size to allow for better
generalization and more reliable conclusions regarding the impact of self-determination on
postsecondary outcomes for SWD in the four-year college environment.
This study also made significant contributions to practice as direct application of the
findings of this research could facilitate special education transition programming in secondary
schools as well as provide direction to disability support services at the postsecondary level. The
focus for SWD transitioning to college must be redirected from access to improvement of
24
postsecondary educational outcomes (Sharpe, Johnson, Izzo, & Murray, 2005; Shaw & Dukes,
2013). Jameson (2007) and Finn et al. (2008) stated research concerning the relationship of selfdetermination skills and academic success in college students remains largely unexamined. This
study addressed the need for further research on the importance of self-determination skills to
postsecondary academic success. Hong, Haefner, and Slekar (2011) found that more than twothirds of college faculty viewed self-determination as a skill set necessary for academic success
in college students, both with and without disabilities. The faculty agreed that all students, but
especially those with disabilities, could benefit from the development of SD skills both during
college and in their post-college lives. Faculty believed that the promotion of SD skills was most
beneficial to freshmen students and that there was a positive relationship between the
development of SD skills and increased retention and improved postsecondary outcomes.
Furthermore, most of the research on students with disabilities in the college setting is
qualitative. There has not been much numerical data collected on SWD due to the decentralized
aspect of postsecondary education and, in comparison to the K-12 sector, the much laxer
recordkeeping required (Hamblet, 2011). This study took a quantitative approach to studying
characteristics of self-determination in students early in their college journey. As declared by
Levitz and Noel (1989), “The freshman’s most critical transition period occurs during the first
two to six weeks” (p. 66).
Research on the importance of the first year of college is mature and comprehensive
(Huntly & Donovan, 2009; Seidman, 2012; Woosley, 2003; Woosley & Shepler, 2011). Many
researchers have found that most attrition occurs in the first year of college (McInnis, 2001;
Tinto, 1993; Tuckman & Kennedy, 2011; Woosley & Shepler, 2011). Research has also found
that if students can successfully make the transition to college life, there is little difference in
25
graduation rates between SWD and students without disabilities when they persist through the
first two years of college (Horn, Berktold, & Bobbit, 1999). Importance of persistence through
the second year was reiterated by Mamiseishvili and Koch (2011) who found that retention to the
second year was critical for subsequent graduation and employment options. A study conducted
in 2009 at the same institution as this study found no differences in graduation rates between
students with and without disabilities once they had successfully completed one year of higher
education (Wessel, Jones, Markle, & Westfall, 2009). Shepler and Woosley (2012) reported that
the “greatest attrition of college students occurs in the first fall quarter after enrollment” and
suggested that it was imperative to investigate the very early integration experiences of students,
and especially students with disabilities who “may have unique predictors of persistence
compared to students with no reported disabilities” (p. 38).
Whether males or females typically demonstrate higher levels of self-determined
behavior has been studied by numerous researchers but no agreement has been reached.
Wehmeyer (2003b) found no statistically significant gender differences on the overall, global
measure of self-determination; however, females scored higher than males. Within the essential
components of self-determined behavior, there were no significant differences by gender for the
autonomy subdomain, although again females scored higher than their male counterparts.
Females scored higher in independence and acting on the basis of their own preferences,
interests, and abilities. No differences between the genders were found on the self-regulation or
the self-realization components; however, for the psychological empowerment subdomain,
females scored more positively than did males.
Shogren, Wehmeyer, Palmer, and Paek (2013) reported conflicting findings regarding
whether males or females tend to develop greater self-determination skills. Shogren et al. (2007)
26
found that females in the U.S. exhibited greater SD skills; however, a 2007 study of Italian
adolescents with disabilities found that males had higher levels of SD (Nota, Ferrari, Soresi, &
Wehmeyer, 2007). In another study by Lee et al. (2012), there were no statistically significant
differences in levels of SD between males and females. Hence, the influence of gender on
development of SD skills was inconsistent and appeared to be in part determined by cultural
environments. This study helped to fill in this gap in the current research on the complex link
between gender and levels of self-determination.
The interaction of self-determination with different racial, ethnic, and cultural
backgrounds has not yet been thoroughly studied (Shogren, Wehmeyer, Palmer, & Paek, 2013;
Wood et al., 2005). Part of the limited research on how race may influence self-determination is
due to the lack of data collected on race/ethnicity in previous studies of self-determination.
Trainor (2005) hypothesized that cultural differences, including differing emphases on the
importance of family or the collective, may influence how persons view and express selfdetermination. Francois and Overstreet (2010) also discussed how a sense of family
connectedness (or familisimo) among African Americans is positively correlated with
educational resilience and academic success. This study increased the number of research
studies where the association of race with self-determined behavior has intentionally been
studied.
This study advanced research concerning gender and racial differences in selfdetermination acquisition. Additionally, this study corroborated findings from earlier studies on
early integration experiences of college students (Woosley, 2003; Woosley & Miller, 2009) and
determined previous findings were still relevant and applicable. Shepler and Woosley (2012)
stated that the transition experience of SWD was a research area that had not received much
27
attention and suggested that “there is still much to learn about the successful transition
experiences of students with disabilities” (p. 39). Further research could help explain retention
and persistence differences between students with and without disabilities. Additionally, Shepler
and Woosley (2012) as well as Hindes and Mather (2007) suggested that future research should
explore differences between students based on the type of disability (visible vs. non-apparent) as
differences in disability type may affect perceptions and behaviors. Jensen, McCrary, Krampe.
& Cooper (2004) found that faculty viewed students with learning disabilities differently than
students with more visible disabilities and were more likely to question the legitimacy of the
learning disability diagnosis. Adams and Proctor (2010) found that students with visible
disabilities showed better adaptation to college than did students with non-visible disabilities;
they suggested that this adaptation difference related to visibility of disability be investigated
further. Woosley and Shepler (2011) posited that the earliest experiences of transitioning
freshmen are significantly related to future student outcomes including academic performance,
persistence, and ultimately graduation.
This study authenticated previous research on the importance of self-determination in
enhancing students’ postsecondary outcomes. A 2013 study on cross-cultural comparisons of the
self-determination construct indicated that Wehmeyer’s (1999, 2013) functional theory of selfdetermination is increasingly being applied to persons without disabilities (Ginerva et al., 2013).
What was unique about this study was its use of the assessment instrument, Making
Achievement Possible (MAP) Works Fall Transition Survey (MAP-Works), to collect selfreported data on incoming students’ levels of self-determination skills. MAP-Works could
recognize deficits in acquisition of self-determination skills and could suggest strategies,
interventions, and services that promote student success early--as early as the third week of the
28
student’s first semester. Direct application of this knowledge by academic advisors, residence
life coordinators, and students themselves could enhance retention, persistence, and completion
rates.
Additionally, the intent of this research project was that the data collected from this study
would inform the development of a Survey Factor for self-determination within the MAP-Works
Fall Transition Survey. By assessing incoming students’ self-determination skill sets, strengths
and weaknesses in the components of self-determination, and attitudes, MAP-Works could
generate a unique, customized report for each incoming student with recommendations and
strategies for further development of self-determination skills that increase retention and
postsecondary success. MAP-Works could provide direct help to all students navigating the
transition from high school to college, serving as an early warning system for at-risk students and
suggesting interventions to enhance their academic experiences. The development of a Survey
Factor for self-determination could later be used to track students longitudinally to explore how
levels of self-determination among incoming students influence their subsequent persistence and
completion of college.
This study also compared levels of SD between SWD and students without disabilities.
As research supports the importance of SD to college success, MAP-Works could be used as a
diagnostic tool to identify students, with or without disabilities, who scored lower in SD.
Effective intervention programs to increase SD skills and minimize attrition could target the
identified students. Although findings may mirror what has been presented in previous research,
this study authenticated the existing knowledge base on the importance of the acquisition and
cultivation of SD skills for SWD transitioning to college. The results of this research hold
29
particular importance for four-year institutions seeking to improve the academic performance of
first-year students and increase student likelihood of retention.
Definition of Terms
504 Plan: Section 504 is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against
individuals with disabilities. A 504 Plan ensures students with disabilities have equal access to
all educational activities. A 504 Plan often specifies accommodations and modifications that
ensure access, however a 504 Plan provides fewer procedural safeguards than does an IEP. The
504 Plan derives from the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504.
Acting in a Psychologically Empowered Manner: One of the four components of selfdetermined behavior as delineated by the ARC’s Self-Determination Scale, adolescent version
(Wehmeyer & Kelchner, 1995). Characteristics of psychological empowerment include: selfadvocacy, believing in oneself as capable; self-efficacy; believing that one possesses the
requisite skills to achieve desired outcomes; believing that identified, expected outcomes will
result (outcome expectancy); having an internal locus of control; using metacognitive strategies;
and using self-reinforcement strategies.
Behavioral Autonomy: One of the four components of self-determined behavior as
delineated by the ARC’s Self-Determination Scale, adolescent version (Wehmeyer & Kelchner,
1995). Characteristics of behavioral autonomy include: acting according to one’s own
preferences, interests and abilities; making choices and planning activities independently, free
from undue external influence or interference; and acting in a self-directed manner, with a
progression away from dependence on others, including making an emotional separation from
one’s parents. College students with disabilities demonstrate behavioral autonomy when they
30
self-disclose their disability to their campus office of Disability Services and/or to their
professors and advocate for their academic needs.
Individual Education Program (IEP): A written statement of the individual educational
program designed to meet a student's special educational needs. Every K-12 student who
receives special education services must have an IEP. Once a student with special needs reaches
the age of 16, the IEP must include transition planning. The IEP derives from IDEA mandates.
Institution of Higher Education (IHE): Postsecondary education; includes the work of
colleges, junior colleges, community colleges, two-year colleges, four-year colleges and
universities, professional and technical schools, and other degree-granting institutions.
Outcome Expectancy: Refers to the belief that if a behavior is enacted, the outcome
expected will occur. For example, if one attends and participates in class, does one’s homework,
and studies for an exam, one will do well on the exam. Outcome expectancy is a component of
acting in a psychologically-empowered manner.
Resilience: A flexible disposition that helps people handle acute or chronic hardships
by buffering the adverse effects of minor annoyances and everyday hassles as well as major life
events. Students who exhibit a strong disposition toward resilience are more adept at problemsolving and remaining confident in the face of setbacks or conflict. Resilient students are more
likely to persist and be successful in their college endeavors.
Self-Advocacy: An individual's ability to effectively communicate, convey, and
negotiate or assert his or her own interests, desires, needs, and rights. It involves making
informed decisions and taking responsibility for those decisions (Van Reusen & Bos, 1994).
Field (1996) defined self-advocacy as students taking action on their own behalf. Self-advocacy
includes knowledge of oneself; knowledge of one’s legal rights; an ability to communicate one’s
31
needs and request accommodations; and assuming responsibility for one’s educational
programming. Self-advocacy is a component skill indicating self-regulation and psychological
empowerment.
Self-Awareness: An individual’s awareness of one’s strengths, preferences, interests,
and needs and an understanding of how to leverage one’s strengths. When a person is selfaware, that person has a better understanding of him or herself and feels empowered to make
changes to build on areas of strength as well as identify areas where improvements could be
made. Self-awareness is often a first step to planning and setting goals. Self-awareness is a
component skill of self-realization.
Self-Determination (SD): A consensus definition for Self-Determination adopted by
the Division on Career Development and Transition reads:
Self-determination is a combination of skills, knowledge and beliefs that enable a person
to engage in goal-directed, self-regulated, autonomous behavior. An understanding of
one’s strengths and limitations together with a belief in oneself as capable and effective
are essential to self-determination. (Field, Martin, Miller, Ward, & Wehmeyer, 1998, p.
115)
Self-determination takes into account one’s strengths, preferences, interests, and needs (Flexer &
Baer, 2008). Self-determined individuals act autonomously; regulate their behavior; initiate and
respond to events in psychologically empowering manners; and behave in ways that show selfrealization (Wehmeyer, 2003a, 2005). Self-determined students with disabilities demonstrate
awareness of their disability and realize how it impacts their learning; act autonomously in selfdisclosing their disability to enable access to reasonable accommodations; self-regulate by
32
planning, setting, and achieving goals; self-advocate for their educational needs; persevere
through challenges; and believe themselves capable of achieving academic success.
Self-Efficacy: One’s belief in one’s ability to succeed in an academic context. When
confronted with a challenge, a person with strong self-efficacy will believe himself capable of
performing well and will view the challenge as something to be mastered rather than avoided.
Bandura (1977) defined self-efficacy as “the conviction that one can successfully execute the
behavior required to produce a given outcome” (p. 193). Self-efficacy is a component skill of
psychological empowerment.
Self-Realization: One of the four components of self-determined behavior as delineated
by the ARC’s Self-Determination Scale, adolescent version (Wehmeyer & Kelchner, 1995).
Characteristics of self-realization include: understanding one’s strengths and weaknesses and
having the ability to capitalize on this knowledge; self-esteem/self-concept; self-awareness/selfknowledge/self-understanding; using the self-management strategies of self-monitoring, selfinstruction, self-evaluation and self-reinforcement; using goal setting and attainment behaviors;
and using problem-solving behaviors.
Self-Regulated Behavior: One of the four components of self-determined behavior as
delineated by the ARC’s Self-Determination Scale, adolescent version (Wehmeyer & Kelchner,
1995). Characteristics of self-regulated behavior include planning; setting goals; the ability to
problem-solve and cope with difficulties; and the ability to make decisions about how to act and
then to evaluate and revise one’s plan of action.
Student with Disability (SWD): Under ADA, an individual with a "disability:"

has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more life
activities;
33

has a record of such an impairment; or

is regarded as having such an impairment.
Major life activities include such functions as caring for oneself, walking, seeing, hearing,
speaking, breathing, learning, and/or working.
Summary and Organization of the Study
While students with disabilities (SWD) are attending college in increasing numbers
(Walker & Test, 2011), they are less likely to graduate than their non-disabled peers (Erickson et
al., 2010; Newman et al., 2009; Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza, & Levine, 2005).
Historically, SWD had little control over decisions affecting their educations and transitions into
adulthood (Arndt, Konrad, & Test, 2000; Squire, 2008; Wood, Karvonen, Test, Browder, &
Algozzine, 2004), and rates of college participation and retention for SWD were limited. One
factor in the decreased college retention of SWD is lack of self-determination skills (Finn et al.,
2008; Karvonen, Test, Wood, Browder, & Algozzine, 2004; Palmer & Roessler, 2000; Salmirs,
2011; Skinner, 2004). Self-determination includes multiple elements (e.g., behavioral autonomy,
self-regulation, self-realization, psychological empowerment, internal locus of control, selfawareness and self-advocacy, positive attributes of efficacy and outcome expectancy) that can
counteract some of the retention risks faced by SWD (Bandura, 1977; Karvonen et al., 2004;
Lock & Layton, 2001; Thoma & Getzel, 2005; Wehmeyer & Field, 2007). SWD who have
strong self-determination skills have been found to experience greater likelihoods of persistence
and success in college (Morningstar et al., 2010; Salmirs, 2011). Numerous researchers have
associated acceptance of disability to the development of self-determination and more positive
outcomes (Ankeny & Lehmann, 2011; Belch, 2004; Gore, 2006; Hong, Ivy, Gonzalez, &
Ehrensberger, 2007; Kochhar-Bryant et al., 2009; Thoma & Getzel, 2005).
34
This study investigated the importance of self-determination as a key factor in SWD
successful transition to postsecondary education by assessing SD skill development using the
transition survey Making Achievement Possible (MAP) Works. The interplay of self-awareness,
self-advocacy, and self-efficacy as key components of the four essential characteristics of selfdetermination were studied to explore how self-determination competency relates to successful
transition to and achievement in postsecondary education.
This project is organized into five chapters. Chapter one introduced the topic of the
importance of self-determination in students making the transition to postsecondary education
and set the stage for the review of literature that comprises chapter two. The purpose of chapter
two is to describe the theoretical foundation upon which the study is based, the history of selfdetermination, and the four essential characteristics of self-determined behavior. Chapter two
also chronicles and reports the research and findings of previous researchers who have studied
self-determination in students transitioning to college. Chapter three details the methods used in
this study and includes information on the design of the research project, the setting of the study,
and the data collection and data analysis procedures. Chapter four presents the findings; and
chapter five concludes the study with a discussion of the results. The references follow chapter
five.
35
CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW
Life transitions are about change, and about movement,
and about becoming something other than what you are at this very moment.
--Kochhlar-Bryant and Bassett, 2002, p. 1
Summary of the Project
Chapter one introduced the topic of self-determination as a critical element for students
transitioning from secondary schools to postsecondary institutions. Self-determination is a
competency demonstrated by persons who act autonomously, regulate their behavior by
capitalizing on a realization of their strengths and weaknesses, and act in ways that are
psychologically empowering. Historically, students with disabilities (SWD) had limited
opportunities to develop or apply self-determination skills, and their participation in higher
education was similarly restricted. Today, although increasing numbers of SWD are pursuing
postsecondary education, their rates of completion have not equaled their participation. When
students transition to college with well-developed self-determination skills, they are more likely
to experience success. In addition to the transitional issues all students experience, SWD often
encounter additional challenges brought about by the nature of their disability. Transition
experts have designated the lack of self-determination to be the most prominent barrier to
postsecondary success for SWD, and fostering self-determination is considered the most
essential element of postsecondary programming for SWD.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical basis of this study was M. L. Wehmeyer’s (1999) functional theory of
self-determination. The functional theory of self-determination conceptualizes selfdetermination as a dispositional characteristic of an individual based upon the function or
36
purpose a behavior serves for the individual. Hence, a person is not self-determined based on
what one does, but on the purpose or function of one’s action (Wehmeyer, 1999, 2007). If the
function of the action is to take control over one’s life or to improve the quality of one’s life, the
person has acted in a self-determined manner. People have the disposition of self-determination
based on the functional purpose of their behaviors. Self-determination is defined as “acting as
the primary causal agent in one’s life and making choices and decisions regarding one’s quality
of life free from undue external influence or interference” (Wehmeyer, 1996, p. 24). The
concept of causal agency is central to the functional theory of self-determination. Persons act
with causal agency when their actions are purposeful, intentional, and performed to achieve an
end. Self-determined persons act as causal agents in their lives, and their behavior is volitional,
intentional and self-initiated (Wehmeyer, 1999, 2005, 2013). Self-determined behavior is not a
function of luck, randomness, or happenstance; it is purposefully initiated with the express and
conscious function of acting as a causal agent in one’s life (Wehmeyer, 2005).
According to Wehmeyer’s (1999, 2013) functional theory of self-determination, selfdetermined actions are volitional and are identified by four essential characteristics: (a) the
person acts with behavioral autonomy, (b) the person self-regulates behavior, (c) the person
initiates and responds to events in a psychologically empowered manner, and (d) the person acts
in a self-realizing manner. Self-determined actions, performed with intention, allow a person to
act as a causal agent in one’s life. A self-determined person’s actions must reflect elements of all
four essential characteristics of self-determined behavior. Each essential characteristic must be
present in self-determined actions; but none alone is sufficient to qualify one’s behavior as selfdetermined (Wehmeyer, 1999, 2003c). The functional theory of self-determination considers
self-determination as a dispositional characteristic where the functional characteristics of
37
behavior define a person’s level of self-determination. To reiterate, the essential characteristics
refer not to the actual behavior one demonstrates, but to the function the behavior serves for the
individual (Wehmeyer, 2013).
The four essential characteristics that define self-determined behavior emerge through
development of multiple, interrelated components (Wehmeyer, 2003c). These individual
elements of self-determined behavior are acquired throughout the life span, beginning in early
childhood, and are deemed to be especially important to the emergence of self-determination
(Wehmeyer, 2003a, 2007). As shown in Table 1, the component elements of self-determination
include: (a) choice-making, (b) decision-making, (c) problem-solving, (d) goal setting and
attainment, (e) self-regulation – including self-monitoring, self-evaluation, self-instruction, and
self-reinforcement skills, (f) self-advocacy and leadership skills, (g) internal locus of control, (h)
perceptions of self-efficacy and positive outcome expectancies, and (i) self-awareness and selfknowledge (Field et al., 1998; Wehmeyer, 2007). Again, it is not demonstration itself of these
behaviors that shows self-determination; when the function of the behavior is to take control over
one’s life or to improve the quality of one’s life, the behavior is self-determined.
Based on the functional theory of self-determination, Wehmeyer and Kelchner (1995)
developed the Arc’s Self-Determination Scale (SDS) to examine the relationship between selfdetermination and positive adult outcomes for all persons, with and without disabilities. This
self-report assessment, the Arc’s Self-Determination Scale, operationalized the definitional
framework of the functional theory of self-determination. The validity and reliability of the scale
have been well-established (Wehmeyer, 2003b). The SDS was normed on 500 students from
five states and included students with and without disabilities and students living in rural, urban
and suburban school districts. The SDS has been found to have concurrent criterion-related
38
Table 1
Self-Determination Essential Characteristics and Component Elements
_____________________________________________________________________________
Essential Characteristics
Component Elements
______________________________________________________________________________
Behavioral Autonomy
Self-Direction; Self-Advocacy Skills
Progression Away from Dependence on Others
Choice-Making Skills; Problem-Solving Skills
Decision-Making Skills (e.g., decision to disclose disability)
Self-Regulation
Planning for One’s Future
Setting, Following Through, Evaluating, and Achieving Goals
Using Accommodations to Enhance Learning
Self-Monitoring; Self-Observation; Self-Evaluation
Assessing Time on Task
Problem-Solving Skills; Self-Advocacy Skills
Self-Realization
Self-Awareness
Self-Knowledge (e.g., knowledge of need to disclose disability)
Understanding of Strengths and Weaknesses
Psychological
Self-Advocacy Skills; Leadership Skills
Empowerment
Self-Efficacy; Outcomes Expectancy
Possessing Internal Locus of Control
Using Accommodations to Enhance Learning
Task Engagement and Persistence on Challenging Tasks
______________________________________________________________________________
Note. Table adapted from Field et al. (1998) and Wehmeyer (2007).
39
validity, construct validity, factorial and discriminative validity as well as internal consistency
with a Cronbach’s alpha of .90 (Lee et al., 2012). Completion of the scale provided data on
global measures of self-determination as well as data on each of the four essential elements of
self-determined behavior – individual autonomy, self-regulation, psychological empowerment,
and self-realization. The primary purpose of the scale has been to enable persons to self-assess
their strengths and weaknesses in an effort to determine personal goals whose achievement,
through self-directed actions, would enhance development of self-determination. The scale is
available for free to any interested person or organization in an effort to fulfill the authors’
purpose of promoting self-determination in all persons, both with disability and without
(Wehmeyer, 2003a).
History of Self-Determination
Self-determination is both a civil right and a civic responsibility (Fleischer, 2011). Both
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 1990) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA, 1990) include provisions that specifically address the importance of the development
of self-determination skills for students with disabilities (Field et al., 1998). The construct of
self-determination has only been recognized in federal policy for the past 20 years (Denney &
Daviso, 2012). Nonetheless, promotion of self-determination has become a “pillar of disability
policy” in the United States (Wehmeyer, Abery, Mithaug, & Stancliffe, 2003, p. vii). A guiding
principle of disability policy and practice in the U.S. is that all disability policy and legislation
should empower people with disabilities by stressing the importance of self-determination,
choice making, and full participation in all aspects of society. That the construct of selfdetermination has become institutionalized “as a key component of disability policy” dictates
self-determination theory will remain at the forefront of transition services for students with
40
disabilities, and “more and more, in the education of all students” (Wehmeyer et al., 2003, p.
viii).
Since the 1990s, the federal government has provided funding to promote the
development of self-determination skills as a critical element across the lifespan but particularly
in the successful transition to work or postsecondary school for youth with disabilities (IDEA
Regulations, 2006). Due to the federal government’s emphasis on the importance of selfdetermination and subsequent allocation of funding specifically dedicated to model programs to
promote development of self-determination skills, numerous resources have been designed
including assessment tools, curricular materials, instructional methods, position papers, and
student-directed transition planning programs. Self-determination has been studied across the
age span, from preschool (Erwin & Brown, 2003; Palmer et al, 2013; Shogren & Turnbull, 2006)
to older adulthood (Ferrand, Nasarre, Hautier, & Bonnefoy, 2012) , and across disability
categories including intellectual disability (Carter, Owens, Trainor, Sun, & Swedeen, 2009),
autism (Carter et al., 2013), and learning disability (Field, Sarver, Shaw, 2003; Klassen, 2002;
Konrad, Fowler, Walker, Test, & Wood, 2007) to enhance the ability of persons with disabilities
to become more self-determined individuals.
Origin of Self-Determination
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the earliest known use of the term selfdetermination occurred in 1683 when it was defined as “the determination of one’s mind or will
by itself toward an object” (Simpson & Weiner, 1989, p. 919). The American Heritage
Dictionary of the English Language (2011) defined self-determination as the “determination of
one’s own fate or course of action without compulsion; free will.” Hence, self-determination
involves acting on one’s own accord with autonomy and without undue external influence.
41
Deriving from the normalization and self-advocacy movements of the 1970’s and early 1980’s,
self-determination first appeared in federal legislation in the Fair Housing Amendments Act of
1988. It was not until passage of IDEA 1990 and its reauthorization in 1997 that selfdetermination was written into transition legislation (Wood et al., 2004).
The first use of the term self-determination in reference to disability was in a chapter
written by Nirje (1972) entitled The Right to Self-Determination. This chapter appeared in a text
on normalization by Wolfensberger (1972). Nirje (1972) identified many of the same personality
and behavioral attributes currently seen in the literature on self-determination. He referenced the
salient characteristics of personal self-determination including choice and decision making,
problem-solving, self-knowledge, self-advocacy, self-efficacy, self-regulation and autonomy.
Nirje linked self-determination to empowerment in that acting in a self-determined manner
increases one’s ability to control one’s life. Specifically, Nirje (1972) stated:
One major facet of the normalization principle is to create conditions through
which a [handicapped] person experiences the normal respect to which any human
being is entitled. Thus the choices wishes, desires and aspirations of a [handicapped]
person have to be taken into consideration as much as possible in actions affecting him.
Thus, the road to self-determination is indeed both difficult and all important for a
person who is impaired. (p. 177)
The disability rights and advocacy community has unequivocally recognized selfdetermination as a form of empowerment that increases one’s opportunities to experience an
enhanced quality of life (Rappaport, 1981; Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1998). Wehmeyer and
Schwartz (1998) found a positive relationship between self-determination and quality of life for
adults with disabilities. Self-determination is an important construct for all persons to develop,
42
regardless of disability status. However, self-determination is often believed to be a more critical
skill for persons with disabilities to develop as well as being a skill that is more difficult for
persons with disabilities to develop due to historical discrimination and negative stereotypes
about the capabilities of persons with disabilities (Ward, 1988). Legislation supports the belief
that all persons should have the right to direct their own lives, and these rights aptly apply to
students with disabilities (Field & Hoffman, 2002). Numerous studies support the notion that
development of self-determination skills leads to increased attainment of transition goals and
improved postsecondary educational outcomes (Parker, 2004; Sarver, 2000).
Self-determination has been described in various ways, but a consensus definition was
adopted in 1998 by the Division on Career Development and Transition (a chapter of the Council
for Exceptional Children). This consensus definition read:
Self-determination is a combination of skills, knowledge and beliefs that enable a person
to engage in goal-directed, self-regulated, autonomous behavior. An understanding of
one’s strengths and limitations together with a belief in oneself as capable and effective
are essential to self-determination. When acting on the basis of these skills and attitudes,
individuals have a greater ability to take control of their lives and assume the role of
successful adults in our society. (Field et al., 1998, p. 115)
Subsumed under the four essential characteristics of self-determined behavior are several
component elements of self-determination (Wehmeyer, 2003c). Wehmeyer and Schalock (2001)
listed the component elements of self-determined behavior to include choice making, decision
making, problem solving, goal setting and attainment, self-regulation, self-awareness, selfefficacy, and self-advocacy. Hamblet (2011) defined self-determination as “the ability to set
goals and the skills to make a plan to meet them, execute the plan, and reflect on the plan’s
43
outcome” (p. 31). Each of the component skills of self-determined behavior is interrelated and
multifaceted (Campbell-Whatley, 2008). The component skills often express behavioral
attributes from more than one of the four essential characteristics of self-determination. For
example, self-advocacy is a characteristic of behavioral autonomy, self-regulated behavior, as
well as acting in a psychologically-empowering manner.
All behaviors that indicate self-determination are expressions of personal agency (Cobb,
Lehmann, Newman-Gonchar, & Alwell, 2009). A person with personal agency understands his
strengths, limitations, needs, and preferences to the extent that he is able to effectively evaluate
options and goals and can envision a clear path for his future. Self-determined persons actively
choose a direction for their lives and behave autonomously to achieve their personal goals.
These goals are chosen based upon an assessment of one’s needs; and achievement of goals is
accomplished through doggedly pursuing them. Self-determined persons make things happen in
their lives that they want to see happen. They capitalize upon a realization of their personal
needs to assertively advocate for those needs. Once preliminary action has been taken, they
evaluate the progress they have made toward their goals, use their problem-solving and decisionmaking skills to re-adjust their goals or ways of attaining them as necessary, and enlist supports
to help reach their goals. The construct of self-determination involves both internal, personal
attitudes and characteristics (such as self-awareness and self-efficacy) and external behaviors
(such as goal setting and problem-solving).
Wehmeyer (2005) reported in an article on self-determination subtitled “Re-examining
Meanings and Misinterpretations” that there is considerable misinterpretation of the construct of
self-determination. Too often self-determination is erroneously deemed to be synonymous with
the notion of control; however, self-determination is more than simple control over one’s life.
44
Wehmeyer contributed his definition of self-determined behavior to be “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. 177). Thus, a person acts in a self-determined manner when he acts
autonomously, regulates his behavior, initiates and responds to events in a psychologically
empowering manner, and behaves in a way that shows self-realization (Wehmeyer, 2003a,
2005). The self-determined person uses knowledge and understanding of his preferences,
strengths and needs to set goals; make decisions; see possible options; speak up for his needs;
and understand which supports are necessary for his success and effectively communicate those
needs. The self-determined person knows how to evaluate outcomes, make adjustments, and
persist in the face of challenges (Wehmeyer & Field, 2007).
Importance of Self-Determination for Students with Disabilities Transitioning to
Postsecondary Education
Increasing numbers of students with disabilities (SWD) are entering institutions of higher
education (Connor, 2012; Hadley, 2007; Kurth & Mellard, 2006; National Center for Education
Statistics, 2003, 2011; National Council on Disability, 2011; Raue & Lewis, 2011; Walker &
Test, 2011). Garrison-Wade (2012) reported that the rate of college attendance for students with
disabilities has more than doubled in the past 20 years. Approximately 31% of students with
disabilities pursue postsecondary educations after leaving high school (Morningstar et al., 2010).
While high school graduation rates for students with disabilities are approaching those of
students without disabilities, the same cannot be said at the postsecondary level (Wagner et al.,
2005). Students with disabilities tend to struggle more academically (Salmirs, 2011) and
continue to lag behind their peers without disabilities in college completion rates (Belch, 2004;
Getzel & Thoma, 2008). Overall adjustment to college life, while demanding for any student, is
45
even more challenging for students with disabilities navigating the transition (Brinckerhoff et al.,
2002; Finn et al., 2008).
A 2010 quantitative study by Morningstar et al. investigated the relationship between
college SWD perceptions of their high school transition preparation and their self-reported levels
of self-determination. The researchers found that those students who were better prepared in
high school for the transition to college exhibited higher levels of self-determined behavior in
college and had improved postsecondary outcomes.
Study participants were recruited using a convenience sampling procedure and included
76 students with disabilities from nine four-year colleges/universities and four community
colleges who had had an IEP in high school and had graduated after the implementation of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA, 1997), which had strengthened
transition planning requirements. Of the 76 participants, 65% indicated that their disability was a
learning disability. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 29, and 95% were undergraduate
students. Each participant completed two online surveys that measured perceived levels of selfdetermination, hope, psychological empowerment, and locus of control as well as perceived
quality of their high school transition preparation, including school-based and family-driven
transition preparation (Morningstar et al., 2010).
Correlational statistics were conducted to analyze relationships between transition
preparation and dimensions of postsecondary self-determination. Students who indicated they
had been well-prepared for the transition from high school to college tended to exhibit higher
personal levels of self-determination (psychological empowerment, internal locus of control, and
hope). This study by Morningstar et al. corroborated many earlier studies (Cobb & Alwell,
2009; Martin et al., 2006; Test et al., 2004; Test et al., 2009) linking effective transition to higher
46
levels of self-determination in college students with disabilities (Kellems & Morningstar, 2010).
.
Promotion of self-determination for students with disabilities has been prominently
recommended as an essential element of special education and transition services for increasing
the numbers of SWD who pursue and succeed in postsecondary education (Barnard-Brak &
Lechtenberger, 2010; Carter et al., 2013; Finn et al., 2008; Getzel & Thoma, 2008; Stodden,
2001; Stodden & Conway, 2003; Wehman, 2012). Fostering self-determination has been
deemed the “sine qua non of postsecondary programming” (Brinckerhof et al., 2002, p. 487).
Numerous researchers (Carter et al., 2013; Finn et al., 2008; Jameson, 2007; Ruban, McCoach,
McGuire, & Reis, 2003; Wehman, 2012) documented lack of self-determination as “the one
major barrier” to postsecondary retention and success for SWD (Campbell-Whatley, 2008, p.
176). For at least the past 20 years, the National Association for Higher Education and Disability
has stressed that the development of SD skills was the clearest path toward ensuring that SWD
persist in college (AHEAD, 2013). SWD with stronger self-determination dispositions perform
better in school, exert greater control over their lives through setting and achievement of goals,
and experience more favorable adult outcomes (Martin et al., 2003).
Self-determination is an essential tool in any student’s transition from high school into
the college environment, and all students are at risk of dropping out and failing to complete their
degrees. That said, the presence of disability further decreases the likelihood a student will
successfully earn a degree (deFur, Getzel, & Trossi, 1996; Murray et al., 2000). Selfdetermination skill development is crucial to the successful transition of SWD into adulthood,
and it is particularly salient to their success in attaining a degree in a postsecondary setting
(Belch, 2004; Finn et al., 2008, Hamblet, 2011). Mazzotti, Rowe, Cameto, Test, & Morningstar
47
(2013) listed self-advocacy/self-determination as one of the evidence-based practices that
predicts post-school success for SWD in areas of both education and employment.
While the transition from high school to college is daunting for many students, the
additional challenges incurred by the SWD disabling status makes the journey indisputably more
arduous (Field et al., 2003; Getzel & Thoma, 2008; Madaus, 2005; Madaus, Faggella-Luby, &
Dukes, 2011; Trammell & Hathaway, 2007). Research has indicated that SWD lack adequate
self-determination skills (Finn et al., 2008). Hong et al. (2007) directly stated that SWD “are not
self-determined” and lack planning, goal setting, decision-making, and advocacy skills (p. 33).
Rohlfer (2011) found in a study of college students that first-year students had the lowest levels
of self-determination, reiterating that development of self-determination proceeds throughout the
life course. Her finding that freshmen students had lesser developed self-determination skills
than upperclassmen lent further credence to the lack of self-determination being a reason for the
increased attrition of freshmen students. Finn et al. (2008) similarly emphasized the importance
of self-determination skills in students entering their second year of college and beyond by
stating that continuing to develop and refine self-determination skills once “students are in
college appears to be equally critical to ensure that they remain equipped to meet the challenges
that they will face and become able to complete their postsecondary education and so enter their
chosen careers” (p. 91).
It is important that all students develop capacities in each of the four essential
characteristics of self-determined behavior. As students with disabilities tend to have poorer
academic outcomes than students without disabilities, development of self-determination skills
are imperative to their successful postsecondary experiences. Students who are self-determined
exert control over their lives and make decisions intentionally. Self-determined students with
48
disabilities possess an awareness of their strengths and limitations, understand the strategies that
help their learning, realize the necessity (or not) of disclosing their disability, self-advocate for
their needs, assume responsibility for making choices and decisions and living with the
consequences, exhibit self-regulation by setting goals and evaluating progress toward their goals,
and respond to events with autonomy, empowerment, and self-realization (Campbell-Whatley,
2008; Wehmeyer et al., 2000). Self-determined students’ behavior will reflect elements of
individual autonomy, self-regulation, self-realization, and psychological empowerment.
Numerous studies support the notion that development of self-determination skills leads
to improved postsecondary educational outcomes. For instance, Sarver (2000) found that college
students with learning disabilities who scored higher on the Self-Determination Student Scale
(Field, Hoffman, & Sawilowsky, 1996; Hoffman, Field, & Sawilowsky, 1996) achieved higher
grade point averages (GPAs). Contrary to Sarver’s findings, Bae (2007) found no significant
correlation between global or component elements of self-determination and postsecondary
academic achievement in SWD as measured by GPA. Parker (2004) found results similar to
Sarver (2000) in a study of university students with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD); his qualitative study found that college students with ADHD perceived selfdetermination to be an important factor in their academic success.
Much of the previous research suggested that many SWD transitioning to IHE lack
necessary SD skills for a successful college experience; however, Barber (2012) conducted a
study of SWD who had successfully graduated from college. The SWD in this study claimed
that their personal characteristics of self-awareness, self-determination, and perseverance were
critical to their successful completion of college. These successful completers indicated that
self-understanding and self-advocacy skills improved their academic outcomes; and disability
49
support coordinators also considered self-understanding and self-advocacy to be especially
critical for SWD during transition to college and throughout the first year of college, when most
student departure occurs (Barber, 2012; Huntly & Donovan, 2009).
Thoma and Getzel (2005) conducted a qualitative study in which college SWD took part
in focus group interviews where they discussed the importance of self-determination to their
successful postsecondary experiences. Twelve core components of self-determined behavior
were identified by these researchers: choice-making; decision-making; problem-solving; goal
setting and attainment; independence, risk-taking and safety skills; self-observation, evaluation,
and reinforcement skills; self-instruction; self-advocacy and leadership skills; internal locus of
control; positive attributes of efficacy and outcome expectancy; self- awareness; and selfknowledge. The purpose of this qualitative study was to discover which of the core components
of self-determination successful college students with disabilities felt had been the most
instrumental in their educational success.
Thirty-four participants were purposively selected college students aged 18 to 48 who
were receiving services and support from their disability office and who had been identified as
possessing self-determination skills. The participants had disclosed their disability to their
postsecondary institution so that they could receive disability-related supports and services. This
self-disclosure on the part of the participants was indicative that they had at least basic levels of
self-determination. Participants came from three community colleges and three
colleges/universities in Virginia. The focus group process used a semi-structured interview
protocol; and data in the form of transcriptions and scribed notes was analyzed for emergent
themes across groups (Thoma & Getzel, 2005).
50
Self-determination clearly rang as an essential element in the participants’ success in
college. The most-mentioned core skills necessary for these students were problem-solving
skills, self-awareness, self-knowledge (understanding one’s disability and one’s strengths and
weaknesses), goal setting, and self-regulation (especially time management). Students reported
that they learned these skills primarily through trial and error, where they tried one way, failed at
it, and tried another way until they achieved success. Participants also discussed the importance
of peer support, mentoring relationships, and parent support, unless the parents were overbearing
and did not let the SWD act on their own (Thoma & Getzel, 2005).
Garrison-Wade (2012) conducted a qualitative analysis using focus group discussions
with 59 college SWD and in-depth interviews of six postsecondary disability coordinators to
ascertain the factors which inhibit or enhance postsecondary outcomes for SWD. Three themes
emerged from the data, the first being capitalizing on student self-determination skills. Students
indicated that when they did not capitalize on their self-determination skills, their self-confidence
and self-efficacy eroded, and they experienced feelings of self-doubt and marginalization, which
inhibited their capacities for acting autonomously and using self-regulated learning strategies.
The disability coordinators interviewed perceived that students’ poor academic preparation for
the rigors of college-level coursework compounded by the students’ lack of self-awareness were
the most significant deterrents to SWD academic success. The disability coordinators spoke of
SWD who had no idea of the impact of their disability on their learning and no knowledge of the
types of accommodations that might best meet their learning needs.
Similarly, Field et al. (2003) conducted a qualitative study where they sought to learn
more about the college environment from the perspective of students with disabilities. In-depth
interviews were conducted with four students with learning disabilities ranging in age from 21 to
51
42. Thematic analysis indicated that the participants perceived support for self-determination in
the college setting to be strongly influenced by both environmental factors and personality
markers.
Environmental factors that impacted postsecondary success included institutional
infrastructure, in terms of dealing with bureaucratic offices, and unrealistic expectations about
the rigor of college courses; information access and lack of assertive communication skills
needed to self-advocate; availability of role models, social support systems, especially positive
peer relationships; and accessibility and approachability of faculty, including large class sizes
and remoteness of faculty contributing to a fragile sense of self. Participants perceived selfdetermination to be the personality factor most instrumental to their postsecondary success.
Themes that emerged from the interviews were clustered into several components of selfdetermination including behavioral autonomy, problem solving, and persistence. All participants
accepted responsibility for self-regulating their behavior by planning and carrying out their
goals, and indicated competency in acting in a psychologically empowering manner by
recognizing that their past successes had enabled their development of beliefs of self-efficacy
and outcomes expectancy (Field et al., 2003).
The ability to effectively problem-solve and to think and act flexibly in the face of
obstacles were factors in the students’ perceptions of what contributes to their postsecondary
success. Participants also voiced their beliefs that persistence was essential to their academic
success. They understood that they could not quit in the face of adversity but had to carry on,
sometimes even changing majors or colleges to one that might better suit their strengths and
needs (Field et al., 2003). These needed attributes demonstrated students’ abilities to act in
psychologically-empowering ways and to self-regulate their behavior.
52
Overall, the students in the study by Field et al. (2003) perceived that self-determination
needed to be a central organizing theme of programs that support students with disabilities in
institutions of higher education. The participants agreed that success in college hinges on several
dimensions of self-determination – the belief in themselves as the decision-makers in their lives
(behavioral autonomy and psychological empowerment); an understanding of their preferences,
strengths and needs (self-realization); having an ability to problem-solve, negotiate and be
flexible; having the ability to plan for and persist until they attain their goals (self-regulation);
and exhibiting an attitude of self-efficacy and outcomes expectancy (psychological
empowerment).
At the college level, it is necessary for SWD to learn self-determination skills, and use
them, in order to achieve at a level equal to their classmates without disabilities (Anctil et al.,
2008). These essential skill areas incorporated under the umbrella of self-determination include
development of individual autonomy, self-regulation, self-realization, and psychological
empowerment.
Individual Autonomy
A well-addressed barrier to successful postsecondary experiences for SWD involves the
shift in responsibility from parents/teachers to students themselves at the college level.
Chickering (1967) listed the development of autonomy in college students as a process of
disengagement from parents and an ability to act independently while recognizing one’s
strengths and weaknesses. Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) seven vectors that guide student
development included “the move through autonomy toward interdependence” (p. 115). During
this vector, students learn to act volitionally, translate ideas into focused, intentional action,
problem-solve, revise parent/child relationships, and respect the autonomy of others. Students
53
come to understand that they cannot operate in a vacuum and success relies on reciprocal,
balanced, interdependent interactions. Renowned experts in college student development
repeatedly name autonomy as an important developmental goal for college students (Boyer,
1987; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Students themselves have
listed the development of autonomous behavior as one of the most important non-academic,
outside-of-the-classroom learning outcomes of college (Kuh, 1993).
Connor (2012) suggested that perhaps the most significant demand on transitioning SWD
is the “shift from others leading their learning to students leading their own learning” (p. 17).
Numerous researchers have noted that the K-12 educational system perpetuates a sense of
dependency in SWD by allowing well-meaning parents and professionals to make educational
decisions for students, even at the point of transition to college (Brinckerhoff, 1994; Madaus,
2005; Thoma, Baker, & Saddler, 2002). Finn et al. (2008) and Trainor (2005) discussed how an
overprotective high school environment can hinder students’ capacity to assume greater
responsibility in the college sector. Squire (2008) stated that high school students with
disabilities are too dependent on others; they are falsely served by a “bubble of support” created
by well-intentioned parents and educators who assume responsibility for making educational
decisions for SWD. When SWD transition to college, their bubble bursts, regardless of whether
the SWD is ready to take control. Lewis (2006), a Harvard University dean and professor, spoke
about the failure of American institutions to fulfill their purpose of transforming young people
into adults who will assume responsibility for our society’s future. Lewis (2006) claimed
students are too often coddled and infantilized and lack autonomous behavior and decisionmaking skills. In the postsecondary realm, students are responsible for their own success, or
failure. Students who lack the ability to make decisions autonomously and who resist assuming
54
responsibility for their actions will stumble in their negotiation of the complex demands of
college (Hadley, 2007). Alternately, students with a strong sense of self-autonomy can actively
determine what they need to do and why they need to take these steps to be successful students
(Allsopp, Minskoff, & Bolt, 2005).
Transition specialists concurred that the most important participant in the transition
process is the student; however, high school students with disabilities have often played a
passive role in their transition planning (Sitlington, 2003; Sitlington, Neubert, Begun, Lombard,
& Leconte, 2007; Trainor, 2005). For students to experience success in the postsecondary
environment, a shift in responsibility for their learning must occur. To be successful in college,
parents must relinquish responsibility and students must assume this responsibility. This transfer
of responsibility has been cited as an obstacle for students who frequently have become too
reliant on parents and teachers to prescribe their learning activities (Squire, 2008). In the
American college system, students are responsible for what they learn, how they learn, and when
they learn. SWD, used to others managing their disability and related accommodations, found
college life demanding a level of self-advocacy and self-direction that was daunting and
unfamiliar to them (McCarthy, 2007).
Other research validating self-determination competency supported the importance of
students assuming control and parents relinquishing control (Madaus, 2005; Shepler & Woosley,
2012). Parents, while well-intentioned, often thwarted the development of independence and
decision-making skills in SWD (McCarthy, 2007; Shepler & Woosley, 2012). Madaus (2005)
called the shift in parental and student responsibility a “sharp reversal” and spoke about how
parents tended to speak for the transitioning SWD and stifle development of self-determination
skills (p. 32). Shepler and Woosley (2012) corroborated that when SWD are integrating into the
55
college environment, family members need to rethink how they offer support. Rather than
advocating for and orchestrating accommodations for the SWD, the parents need to step back
and encourage the student to be self-directed, independent and self-sufficient. This study also
recommended the SWD develop good working relationships with disability support personnel
and faculty that could assist them in integrating into and feeling connected to the campus
community. Cullaty (2011) studied the increase in parental involvement in college students’
lives and found evidence that over-involvement puts parents at odds with the mission of the
university of advancing teenagers into responsible, productive adults. The college years are
designed to allow for individuation from parents, increased self-governance, and autonomous
decision-making (Zarrett & Eccles, 2006). These non-academic learning outcomes are important
aspects of college student development that can be impeded by too much parent involvement.
The results of Cullaty’s (2011) qualitative study suggested that a supportive rather than an
interfering relationship best fostered student development of autonomy. Furthermore, his
thematic analysis found that students were best served by parents who established adult-to-adult
relationships with their college-age children, relinquished unnecessary involvement in both
minute daily decisions as well as larger term career goals, and allowed their adult children the
freedom to make mistakes and assume responsibility for their decisions.
Friedman and Mandel (2012) conducted a study on freshmen students three weeks after
the semester had begun. They were interested in determining predictors of college student
academic achievement and retention. Specifically, they wanted to find if students’ needs for
achievement, affiliation, autonomy, and dominance were reliable predictors of academic success
beyond high school GPA and SAT scores. Their analysis revealed that only students’ needs for
achievement (which is a component of SD under the psychological empowerment characteristic)
56
and behavioral autonomy at the beginning of their college career were significant predictors of
GPA by the end of the freshmen year.
Self-Regulation
Self-regulation:
Enables individuals to examine their environments and their repertoires of responses for
coping with those environments to make decisions about how to act, to act, to evaluate
the desirability of the outcomes of the action, and to revise their plans as necessary.
(Whitman, 1990, p. 373)
Self-regulated people make realistic decisions about what skills to use under any given
circumstance; examine the task in light of their resources at hand; and formulate, enact, and
evaluate a plan of action, adjusting the original plan when necessary. Self-regulated persons are
persistent in realizing their goals; they have the ability to consider multiple options and anticipate
consequences of chosen actions, evaluate their course of action based on the outcomes of
previous decisions, and revise plans through self-reflection and self-evaluation. Once an action
has been taken, the self-regulated person assumes responsibility for his choices and decisions.
The self-regulated individual monitors his progress toward goals and has the ability to selfreinforce through both positive and negative means (Field, 2003). Academic self-regulation
indicates that students are self-directed, independent learners who plan, monitor, and evaluate
their progress and use a variety of learning strategies to meet their specific academic goals
(Zimmerman, 2008; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2008).
The transition to the more challenging university setting places increased demands on
students to demonstrate autonomy, independence, and self-regulated behavior (Ruban et al.,
2003; Tuckman & Kennedy, 2011). Meeting the demands of college can be difficult for any
57
student, but especially so for SWD. College learning requires more higher-order thinking and
more independent learning than secondary academic tasks (Conley, 2005; Mackenzie, 2009).
Learning how to learn and using strategic learning strategies are indicative of self-regulated
learning, and all are positive predictors of college success (Bembenutty, 2008; Kitsantas,
Winsler, & Huie, 2008). Hong et al. (2007) stated that SWD exhibit skill deficits in the selfregulation tasks of problem-solving, self-evaluation, self-monitoring, and communication;
furthermore, these self-regulation skill insufficiencies increased SWD reliance on others and
limited their autonomy.
“Self-regulated learning variables” have been found to be better predictors of first year
success and GPA for first-generation students than are the students’ incoming ACT scores
(Naumann, Bandalos, & Gutkin, 2003, p. 7). Zimmerman (2000) and Schunk (2001) highlighted
the importance of self-regulation in successful college learning. When SWD used a repertoire of
self-regulated learning strategies and compensation strategies, they were found to act more
independently and showed improvement in their academic performance. Park, Edmondson, and
Lee (2012) found that self-regulated behavior was predictive not only of academic performance
but also of psychological adjustment in first year college students. Ruban et al. (2003) and
Tuckman (2003) both found that the self-regulated behaviors predicative of academic
achievement can effectively be taught to students, and academic self-regulation is an alterable
variable. Students who self-regulate become independent learners by personalizing the strategies
they use to meet their individual needs. These self-regulated strategies, once learned, carry over
from the academic setting to all realms of life, including employment.
58
Self-Realization
Self-determination is a composite construct that includes a multitude of skills necessary
for postsecondary success (Cobb et al., 2009). Research has established that the extent to which
students are able to successfully transition from high school to adult life is predicated, at least in
part, on performance of self-determination skills (Ankeny & Lehmann, 2011; Chambers et al.,
2007; Kochhar-Bryant et al., 2009; Quick, Lehmann, & Deniston, 2003; Shogren et al, 2007;
Wehmeyer et al., 2003). Students who attempt to navigate the transition from high school to
postsecondary life without SD skills find themselves ill-prepared for the realities they encounter
(Kochhar-Bryant et al., 2009). Perhaps the foremost necessity for development of selfdetermination skills for SWD is knowing yourself (Field & Hoffman, 1996) and having a
thorough understanding of one’s disability and how it impacts one’s learning. It is not
uncommon for college SWD to believe that they are no longer disabled and no longer need
assistance in the academic realm (Barnard-Brak et al., 2009; Squire, 2008). Ankeny and
Lehmann (2011) found in their research on self-determination skills in community college SWD
that none of their participants could specify their disability. Half of students with learning
disabilities in the National Longitudinal Transition Study – 2 (NLTS-2) who had received special
education services while in high school reported that they did not consider themselves to have a
disability by the time they enrolled in college (Barnard-Brak et al., 2009; Cameto, Knokey, &
Sanford, 2011). Another 16 percent indicated that they considered themselves to have a
disability but they chose not to inform their postsecondary institution of their disability. Only 28
percent of students with learning disabilities in NLTS-2 considered themselves to have a
disability and had disclosed their disability to their IHE (Cameto et al., 2011).
59
Field and Hoffman (1996) suggested that self-awareness or self-understanding may be
the most critical factor in one’s level of self-determination. In order for a student to be selfaware, he or she must accept his or her disability. Self-awareness also includes a knowledge of
one’s preferences and areas of strengths and weaknesses (Wehmeyer, 2005).
Students who have well-developed self-determination skills set their goals based on an
awareness of their interests, strengths, and limitations (Hong et al., 2011; Martin, Portley, &
Graham, 2010). Many students with disabilities at the college level lack sufficient knowledge of
the nature of their disability and how it impacts their learning (Hong et al., 2011). Without this
self-realization of how their disability affects their learning, SWD are unlikely to disclose their
disability or effectively communicate their needs for instructional or testing accommodations to
their professors (Getzel & McManus, 2005).
At the college level, self-disclosure of one’s disability is a requirement to receive
accommodations and/or other disability-related services. This is a radical difference from the K12 public school system from which students have transitioned. In the K-12 educational system,
IDEIA (2004) mandates that it is the responsibility of the school to find, identify, and provide
accommodations and services to students with disabilities in an effort to ensure their academic
success (Finn et al., 2008). This is a huge shift in responsibility, especially since in the collegiate
sector, institutions are not allowed to seek information about a potential disability. Furthermore,
achieving success is not a requirement of legislation governing the postsecondary system. At the
college level, the only requirement is that a student is ensured access – not success. If a student
desires to receive accommodations or services from his college, the student must self-disclose his
disability, provide appropriate documentation of his disability, and speak with his professors to
self-advocate for his needs (Eckes & Ochoa, 2005; Gil, 2007). Obviously, if a student is
60
unaware of how his disability affects his learning, his capacity to advocate for his needs will be
compromised.
SWD who know themselves and their strengths and weaknesses tend to be better
prepared to cope with challenging circumstances in a self-regulated and psychologicallyempowering manner (Campbell-Whatley, 2008). College SWD who persist to graduation
possess traits of resiliency, determination, and resourcefulness, and make better use of
accommodations than SWD who lack awareness of their learning differences (Vogel, Hruby, &
Adelman, 1993). It is not uncommon for students transitioning to college to have an incomplete
understanding of the nature of their disability and how it affects their learning (Gil, 2007;
Skinner & Lindstrom, 2003). Wagner et al. (2005) analyzed National Longitudinal Transition
Study – II (NLTS–II) data and found that two-thirds of postsecondary students with disabilities
were not receiving accommodations due to their failure to disclose their disability. This analysis
revealed that half of these students no longer believed they had a disability even though they had
been the recipients of special education services in high school. Another seven percent of
students who had received special education services in high school made the decision not to
disclose their disability to their college.
Disability is a life-long impairment and functional limitations in life’s essential activities
(such as learning) do not go away with time (Skinner & Lindstrom, 2003). Shaywitz (2003)
stressed that learning disabilities are chronic, persistent problems that are not outgrown with
time. Lock and Layton (2001) found that college SWD are often “unaware of exactly what they
need for success in higher education” (p. 66) and are unable to articulate the strategies that assist
their academic performance. When SWD are self-aware, with knowledge of their strengths and
61
weaknesses and a full understanding of their learning process, they are more able to experience
academic success in college coursework.
Getzel and McManus (2005) also found that many SWD did not have sufficient
knowledge of their disability to effectively communicate their needs. Quinlan, Bates, and Angell
(2012) stated that many students with learning disabilities were unsophisticated as
communicators of their learning needs, especially in uncomfortable situations where lack of
privacy and discrimination were inherent risks of disclosure. Other SWD did not disclose their
disability due to their fear of the stigmatizing effects of self-identification (Corrigan &
Matthews, 2003; Denhart, 2008; Egan & Giuliano, 2009; Izzo, Murray, & Novak, 2008; Scotch,
2001; Trammell, 2009a, 2009b). Wagner et al. (2005) found that some SWD had the erroneous
belief that if they had successfully been accepted into college, their learning disabilities must
have been cured such that they no longer needed accommodations and/or services. Disability
support personnel, too, indicated lack of self-awareness skills by SWD as well as limited
understanding of their disability and related needs were significant deterrents to SWD academic
success. Finn et al. (2008) also reported that disability support service providers listed the lack
of self-determination skills as a critical area of need in college students. Furthermore, disability
services coordinators in the Getzel and McManus (2005) and Wagner et al. (2005) studies
corroborated Garrison-Wade (2012) in pointing out that lack of self-awareness compromised
SWD ability to ask for help and advocate for their learning needs.
Lack of self-awareness by SWD and corresponding incomplete understanding of one’s
disability and how it impacts one’s learning have received much attention in the research on
SWD (Garrison-Wade, 2012). Gabel (2010) stated that many SWD do not realize that their
conditions impede their learning. It has been found that SWD who can reframe any negative
62
associations with the label “disabled” and accept their disability as an integral part of who they
are will be better positioned to describe how their disability affects their learning and seek the
accommodations that enhance successful outcomes (Armstrong, 2010, 2012; Connor, 2012;
Mooney, 2008). Madaus (2005) and Squire (2008) documented that SWD typically arrive at
college unable to describe their disability and unable to articulate their accommodation needs.
Cowen (1993) and Crawford (2002) found that SWD, especially those with non-visible disabling
conditions such as learning disabilities, feel uncomfortable in disclosing their disability or feel
unable to adequately express how their disability affects their classroom participation and
academic performance. College SWD who do not understand the nature of their disability and
its impact on their learning will be poorly positioned to deal with the realities of the college
environment (Beale, 2005; Cawthon & Cole, 2010). Self-determined students are self-aware,
know what they do well in, and act on this knowledge about themselves to capitalize on their
strengths. Squire (2008), asserting that self-determination skills are critical for success, declared
“the ability to examine who and what you like (or dislike) and develop plans based on your own
needs and goals are critical for educational and employment success and, most important, for
achieving an inclusive and independent life” (p. 127).
One aspect of self-realized behavior is the recognition by SWD of their need to disclose
their disability and register with their campus Disability Services office (Janiga & Costenbader,
2002). Students with disabilities must assume responsibility for their own educations. While
students can choose not to disclose their disability at the college level, SWD who are aware of
their strengths and limitations will assume responsibility for disclosing their disability to enable
access to the accommodations and/or services for which they are eligible (Connor, 2012).
Newman et al. (2009) found that only 37% of secondary students who had received special
63
education services while in high school had identified their disability at their postsecondary
school; and of those SWD who had self-identified, only 24% actually used support services
and/or accommodations at their college. When SWD fail to disclose their disability status, they
effectively close the door to the available disability support services and academic
accommodations that might enhance their postsecondary success. Many SWD postpone
disclosing their disability and wait until they are in academic crisis before they seek disability
services (Lightner, Kipps-Vaughan, Schulte, & Trice, 2012). SWD who proactively seek
services earlier were found to perform better academically than those SWD who delay accessing
services.
Webster (2004) also found that SWD who had successfully made the transition to college
indicated that self-awareness of their unique learning needs had been essential to their success.
The 22 students in this study stated they needed additional opportunities to develop the skills
necessary for becoming self-determined adults. The students in this study wanted easier access
to disability-related knowledge. They desired more emphasis to be put on person-centered
planning for self-determination skill development. These SD skills would allow SWD to selfadvocate for the kinds of educational opportunities and supports they felt necessary for their
postsecondary success.
Psychological Empowerment
One aspect of feeling a sense of psychological empowerment is having well-developed
self-advocacy skills. When students feel that they can effectively advocate for their needs, they
feel empowered and in charge of their futures. Hamblet (2011) defined self-advocacy as “being
able to communicate one’s needs and rights” (p. 35). Skinner (1998) put forth that self-advocacy
is intricately related to self-determination and is integral to success at the college level. Self-
64
advocacy, according to Skinner (1998), is a three-pronged concept, with the three points being
knowing one’s rights, understanding one’s disability, and communicating effectively.
Lack of self-advocacy skills among SWD has been prominently addressed in the research
concerning college student success (Carney et al., 2007; Garner, 2008; Hadley, 2006; Lock &
Layton, 2001; Quick et al., 2003; Test, Fowler, Wood, Brewer, & Eddy, 2005). The transition to
college is typically the first time a SWD finds himself with sole responsibility for meeting his
academic needs. In contrast to the K-12 educational system where the school is responsible for
identifying and subsequently serving a student’s special needs; in the college system, the SWD
must decide whether or not to self-identify and request disability supports and/or services. Selfadvocacy requires the ability to recognize and meet the needs specific to one’s disability without
compromising one’s dignity (Brinckerhoff, 1994). Three related skills comprise self-advocacy
for college SWD – knowledge of what you want; knowledge of what you are legally entitled to;
and the ability to effectively reach one’s academic goals. SWD who realistically assess their
strengths and weaknesses, become informed of the nature of their disability and its impact on
their learning, assume a willingness to take risks, disclose their disability, and request
appropriate accommodations that compensate for their difficulties are well-versed in selfadvocacy skills. SWD who exhibit these attributes and behaviors were more likely to succeed in
their college experience.
Foley (2006) confirmed the importance of firmly developed self-advocacy skills for
SWD transitioning to college and maintained that success or failure for SWD was in large part
determined by ability to self-advocate. She indicated that college SWD may fumble when
entering the less structured and more challenging higher education environment if they do not
self-disclose their disability. By the time SWD realized that they were in academic trouble and
65
needed the academic assistance that accommodations provide, it was often “too little and too
late” (p. 642). The prerequisite cognitive and academic skills that enable student success are the
same for all students. However, in addition to these skills, SWD need nonacademic prerequisite
skills that require confidence in self-advocating for one’s academic needs. SWD must selfadvocate by self-identifying their disability status, describing how their disability affects their
learning, suggesting appropriate accommodations, and communicating openly with disability
support personnel and faculty about their diverse learning needs. When SWD possessed these
additional nonacademic skills and attributes, especially those skills associated with selfadvocacy, they were better equipped to act autonomously and achieve success in the more highly
demanding IHE.
McCarthy (2007) contributed that “for students with disabilities, self-advocacy is not
preferred; it is essential” (p. 16). As a former SWD and currently a disability educator, her
article signaled the importance of self-advocacy in transitioning to and succeeding in college.
McCarthy (2007) made mention of the lack of control over their lives experienced by many
SWD prior to coming to college, where SWD had been the recipients rather than the authors of
their educational accommodations. To be successful, SWD must find – and use – their voice to
self-advocate for the accommodations that enhance their opportunities to succeed and make
valuable contributions to society.
Anctil et al. (2008) put forth that receipt of accommodations was essential to the
academic success of SWD and required competence in self-advocacy skills. SWD who have
strong self-determination skills have also been found to experience greater likelihoods of
persistence and success in college (Morningstar et al., 2010) and have a greater understanding of
the factors that both facilitate and hinder their use of accommodations (Janiga & Costenbader,
66
2002). Conversely, when SWD lacked effective self-advocacy skills, they were unlikely to
request the accommodations that could facilitate their educational success. Many SWD cited
their lack of self-advocacy skills, resulting in their failure to request accommodations, as barriers
to their success (Bolt, Decker, Lloyd, & Morlock, 2011). Bolt et al. (2011) also found that SWD
acknowledged the role they personally played in hindering their successful use of
accommodations. In Bolt et al.’s 2011 study, SWD were more likely to see their self as a barrier
to accessing accommodations (19.4%) rather than as a facilitator in their access to
accommodations (6.8%).
While Wehmeyer (2005) considered goal attainment as the most important component of
self-determined behavior, the Office for Civil Rights has stated that “attitude [i.e., self-efficacy]
and self-advocacy may be two of the most important factors in determining their [students with
disabilities] success or failure in postsecondary education” (U.S. Department of Education, 2007,
n.p.). Goal attainment, self-advocacy and self-efficacy are intricately linked, regardless of which
of the three is deemed the most important component of self-determined behavior. Previous
success in attaining one’s goals is likely a prerequisite for the development of beliefs of selfefficacy; and the ability to self-advocate for one’s needs is a factor in the SWD successful
attainment of goals.
Academic achievement relies not only on academic proficiency, but depends also on a
student’s attitude and belief that one is capable of achieving academic success (Baird, Scott,
Dearing, & Hamill, 2009). Self-efficacy refers to a person’s belief as to his ability to meet task
requirements under specific conditions (Bandura, 1977). Academic self-efficacy is the belief
that you are capable of successfully completing future academic tasks in a specified context
(Bandura, 1997). Bean and Eaton (2002) also promoted the importance of academic self-
67
efficacy as an indicator of student integration and persistence. Students’ decisions to stay in
college were predicated on believing that they are capable, taking a proactive approach to
problems rather than avoiding them, and seeing themselves as the primary force in their
successes and failures (having an internal locus of control). Davidson and Beck (2007) defined
academic self-efficacy as “the belief in one’s ability to master academic tasks and assignments
and attain one’s academic goals” (p. 298). They found that academic self-efficacy was a
significant predictor of re-enrollment decisions of college freshmen, and students with low levels
of self-efficacy and high levels of academic apathy were more likely to drop out of school.
Similarly, students in better academic standing were found to exhibit higher levels of academic
self-efficacy and showed better use of the self-regulation goal-setting skills of developing,
demonstrating, and improving academic abilities (Hsieh, Sullivan, & Guerra, 2007). Hsieh et al.
found that students who had faith in their ability to complete academic tasks and students who
were motivated to complete tasks for mastery and/or improved performance were more likely to
achieve academically and to stay enrolled in college. Students who lacked self-efficacy and
students who demonstrated performance-avoidance goals (motivation to avoid academic tasks as
a means of hiding their lack of ability) were less likely to be successful academically and were
more likely to drop out of college.
Bandura (1997) stressed that self-efficacy is multi-faceted, varies across domains, and
focuses on beliefs about one’s future performance. Academic self-efficacy is task-dependent –
academic self-efficacy looks at a student’s belief in his ability to master a specific academic task
and is not an indicator of a student’s belief in his generalized performance. Self-efficacy is a
malleable psychological trait, and as such, there are strategies that raise levels of self-efficacy.
Typically, one has an inclination to engage in tasks in which one feels capable and to disengage
68
from tasks that seem too difficult. However, Bandura (1986) found that witnessing someone else
who seems similar to oneself succeed at a task raises one’s perception of one’s ability to
personally succeed at said task. Additionally, setting realistic and progressive (proximal to
distal) goals as well as verbal persuasion increase one’s sense of self-efficacy. When students
meet a proximal goal, their feelings of competence increase, thus motivating them to tackle more
distal goals. Numerous researchers have found that academic self-efficacy is positively
correlated with academic performance and predicts academic achievement better than other
motivational constructs (Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001; Robbins et al., 2004). Out of nine
predictors of GPA and retention, Robbins et al. (2004) found in a meta-analysis study that
academic self-efficacy was the strongest predictor of GPA. In a study of nontraditional college
freshmen, academic self-efficacy was similarly found to be a more robust and consistent
indicator of success in college academics than was stress (Zajacova, Lynch, & Espenshade,
2005).
Previous success in academic tasks will influence one’s level of self-efficacy. One’s
perceptions of their level of self-efficacy will influence “choice of activity, task perseverance,
level of effort expended, and ultimately, degree of success achieved” (Klassen, 2002, p. 88).
Other researchers have reiterated that a well-developed sense of self-efficacy leads students to
choose to participate in activities that enhance performance both inside and outside the
classroom, thus contributing to improved academic success (Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, &
Hayek, 2007). Exhibiting independence in choosing to participate in an activity is indicative of
self-determination as a self-determined individual will choose goals that match his interests and
skills (Martin et al., 2010). Self-efficacy, including holding an expectation for success, has been
found to more important to predicting first year success measured by GPA than ACT scores for
69
first-generation students (Naumann et al., 2003). Students who believed themselves to be
capable were more likely to practice effective learning strategies, experience success, and have a
better sense of self-worth.
Gore (2006) found that self-efficacy explains between 11% and 14% of the variance in
academic performance and persistence for students with disabilities. Among other things, selfefficacy is an indicator of how long an individual will persist in the face of adversity. College
students with disabilities have the typical adjustments to college to make as all students; but in
addition to the normal social and academic adjustments, SWD must account for the differences
their disability brings to the new environment (Getzel & McManus, 2005; Getzel & Thoma,
2008; Gil, 2007). Gore (2006) claimed self-efficacy is positively related to improved college
performance, increased college persistence and completion, and enhanced range of perceived
career options.
Students who are self-determined will plan how they are going to achieve their
educational goals, will evaluate the progress they are making toward their goals, will make any
needed adjustments, and will experience higher levels of academic achievement (Madaus et al.,
2011; Martin et al., 2010). Students with learning disabilities have been found to exhibit lower
levels of self-efficacy and to view themselves as less academically competent than their normally
achieving peers (Gore, 2006; Salman, 2009; Sleman & Shafrir, 1997). Procrastination works
alongside low levels of self-efficacy in playing a role in the underachievement of college
students with disabilities (Hen & Goroshit, 2012; Klassen, Krawchuk, Lynch, & Rajani, 2008).
Procrastination by students implies a lack of goal attainment and a failure to successfully plan
one’s behavior to meet goals previously identified as necessary in creating a successful learning
experience (Klassen et al., 2008; Martin et al., 2010). Self-determination in students, on the
70
other hand, typically reflects a greater volitional involvement in one’s education, an increased
degree of motivation for excelling in academics, and a resultant higher academic achievement
(Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991; Komarraju & Nadler, 2013)
Friedman and Mandel (2009) found that the application of outcomes expectancy skills at
the beginning of a student’s college career was significantly related to cumulative GPA at the
end of the freshman year. Both expectancy theory and goal-setting theory were found to be
positive predictors of college student performance and retention. Expectancy theory refers to the
belief that increased effort will result in improved performance, and better performance will
result in certain expected and desired outcomes. These expectations hinge on past experiences in
similar situations, where past successes with increased effort led to increased outcomes
expectancy and past failures led to decreased outcomes expectancy. These researchers found
evidence, too, of the importance of self-regulatory goal-setting skills in successful college
students. Students who set specific, relevant, and measurable goals for events that were under
their control were found to be more academically successful than students who did not set goals.
Students who set academic goals had an outcomes expectation that goal-setting and goalattainment would enhance their academic performance. These researchers found that students
who had positive outcomes expectations that increased effort would be rewarded with better
grades and who set attainable academic goals had higher GPAs at the end of their freshman year.
There is tremendous interplay and overlap among the components of self-determined
behavior. Self-awareness, self-advocacy, and self-efficacy are inherently linked elements of selfdetermination. Awareness of one’s strengths, preferences, interests, and needs is necessary for a
student to be able to advocate for those needs (Anctil et al., 2008; Eckes & Ochoa, 2005;
McCarthy, 2007). Lack of self-awareness by students with disabilities inhibits their progress in
71
college by reducing the likelihood that they will advocate for their needs (Eckes & Ochoa, 2005).
Self-advocacy is considered to be an indispensable component of self-determination (Field,
1996; Field et al., 1998; Test, Fowler, Brewer, & Wood, 2005). Students who are aware of their
disability can disclose their disability and self-advocate for the accommodations that can enable
them to experience success in their postsecondary educations (Lindstrom, 2007). Previous
successful academic experiences lead to development of feelings of self-efficacy and outcomes
expectancy. When SWD lack self-awareness, they are unlikely to self-advocate by disclosing
their disability and seeking accommodations. If they cannot manage the rigor of college courses
without accommodation, development of feelings of self-efficacy will be impaired. In short,
without each of these component skills, students will not be self-determined. Without the
dispositional characteristics of self-determination, any student’s chance for a successful college
experience will be compromised.
Summary
Self-determination skills are a prerequisite for lifelong success. Fortunately, selfdetermination competencies can effectively be taught to students with disabilities (CampbellWhatley, 2008), and most special educators believe that it is extremely important to include
instruction on self-determination in both undergraduate and graduate level university courses
(Thoma, Nathanson, Baker, & Tamura, 2002). Clearly, the promotion and development of selfdetermination skills is not something that should be relegated only to the K-12 system (Palmer,
2010). Squire (2008) stressed that self-determination skills do not merely appear at a given age
but are learned through experience. The acquisition of self-determination skills occurs
throughout the life course and is a “lifelong liaison between the individual and society” (Ankeny
& Lehmann, 2011, p. 282). Teaching self-determination is “one of the key practices in
72
facilitating transition” to postsecondary education and adult employment for SWD (Thoma &
Getzel, 2005, p. 234).
Research supports a strong relationship between student development of selfdetermination skills, academic achievement, and post-school outcomes (Field & Hoffman, 2012;
Konrad et al., 2007; Madaus et al., 2011; Martin et al., 2010; Wehman, 2012). More than half of
college SWD are at risk of failure due to lack of the self-empowerment skills needed for
postsecondary success (Hong et al., 2007). Many SWD enter college without sufficient selfawareness of their strengths and weaknesses and without the self-advocacy skills to
communicate their needs (Izzo & Lamb, 2002). Belch (2004) stated that success in college for
SWD is more likely to occur in the presence of self-determination and self-esteem. Lack of selfdetermination skills impedes access to, participation in, and completion of college
(Mamiseishvili & Koch, 2011). College is the perfect time for students to develop and practice
the behaviors of choice making, decision making, goal setting and attainment; problem solving;
self-management and self-regulation; self-advocacy and leadership; and self-awareness and selfknowledge that indicate self-determined behavior.
When SWD have a clear understanding of their disability and can effectively articulate
how it impacts their learning, they are self-aware. This self-realization component enhances
their ability to act autonomously, disclose their disability, advocate for their needs, and request
the accommodations and supports that level the educational playing field for SWD (Martin et al.,
2010). Success in the self-regulatory skills of setting and achieving goals, evaluating one’s
learning, and advocating for one’s needs leads to greater levels of self-efficacy and increased
outcomes expectations. SWD who exhibit self-efficacy respond to events in psychologically
empowering ways; show resilience in the face of academic pressures, challenges or setbacks; and
73
have an internal locus of control. These components of self-determined behavior have been
found to positively correlate with improved educational outcomes for students with disabilities –
indeed all students -- attending institutions of higher education (Carter et al., 2013; Izzo & Lamb,
2002; Lee et al., 2012).
74
CHAPTER 3 -- METHOD
Summary of the Study
Students who have strong self-determination skills have been found to experience greater
likelihoods of persistence and success in college. Self-determination skills are especially
important for postsecondary success in students with disabilities (Morningstar et al., 2010).
Numerous researchers have associated acceptance of disability to the development of selfdetermination and more positive outcomes (Ankeny & Lehmann, 2011; Belch, 2004; Gore,
2006; Hong et al., 2007; Kochhar-Bryant et al., 2009; Thoma & Getzel, 2005).
This study investigated the importance of self-determination as a key factor in successful
transition to postsecondary education by assessing SD skill development using MAP-Works.
The interplay of self-awareness, self-advocacy, and self-efficacy as key components of the four
essential characteristics of self-determination were studied to explore how self-determination
competency relates to successful transition to and achievement in postsecondary education.
Design of the Study
Because acquisition and implementation of self-determination skills are so critical for
postsecondary success, it was logical to conduct a thorough examination of the variables that
indicate self-determination in transitioning first-year college students. While the construct of
self-determination has been extensively researched at the secondary level, there is scarce
research at the postsecondary level. Further, an aim of this study was to compare levels of selfdetermination among students with and without disabilities; and also to determine if those
students with disabilities who had registered with their campus disability services office had
greater levels of self-determination than SWD who had not registered and/or sought services. By
using the MAP-Works assessment to identify students who self-reported low levels of self-
75
determined behavior, retention interventions and success strategies could be targeted to these
students, with or without disabilities, early in the semester before they begin to flounder with the
demands of college life or lose their sense of self-efficacy. As SWD tend to have decreased
retention, persistence, and completion rates compared to students without disabilities (SWoD),
and as well-developed self-determination skills are indicative of improved college success for all
students, this study was designed to explore levels of self-determination in an effort to increase
our knowledge base on the influence of self-determination on college success.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of the study was to see if statistically significant differences exist between
self-reported levels of self-determination among incoming first-year college students without
disabilities and students with disabilities. Among the students with disabilities (SWD), there
were two student groupings – those students who had an IEP (individualized education plan) or
504 Plan in high school and had not registered with the Disability Services (DS) office, and those
who had an IEP or 504 Plan in high school and who had registered with DS. A further purpose
of the study was to see if statistically significant differences exist between self-reported levels of
self-determination based on demographic variables, including disability type among SWD.
Research Questions
1) Do statistically significant differences in self-determination (SD) exist between
students with and without disabilities?
2) Do statistically significant differences in SD exist between students self-reporting
disability who are registered and those who are not registered with the office of
Disability Services?
76
3) Do statistically significant differences exist in SD based upon disability type (i.e.,
physical/sensory disabilities, non-apparent disabilities)?
4) Do statistically significant differences exist in SD based upon other demographic
variables (i.e., gender, race/ethnicity, high school GPA, first semester GPA, retention
to spring semester)?
Research Hypotheses
1) It was hypothesized that statistically significant differences would exist between
students with disabilities (SWD) and students without disabilities (SWoD), with
SWD having lower levels of self-determination skills than students without
disabilities [t-test].
2) It was also hypothesized that those SWD who had registered with the Disability
Services (DS) office on campus would have greater levels of SD competencies than
those SWD who had not registered and sought services [t-test].
3) It was hypothesized that students with non-apparent disabilities would have lower
levels of SD than students with physical or sensory disabilities [t-test].
4) It was hypothesized that there would be statistically significant differences between
levels of SD and the demographic grouping variables (exploratory) [t-test and
ANOVA].
Research Method and Research Approach
Quantitative research was used to produce findings arrived at through statistical analysis
of quantifiable, numerical data. With quantitative research, examining the relationships between
and among variables is critical for answering questions and testing theories (Creswell, 2014).
The research approach employed was the deductive reasoning approach, framed by the theory of
77
functional self-determination developed by Wehmeyer (1999). The intent of the research was to
examine differences between student groupings and to generalize the findings of this study to the
larger body of incoming first-year students across the nation. This study used both descriptive
and inferential statistical analysis to explore variables that indicate levels of self-determination in
students transitioning to college (Creswell, 2014). As the data had already been collected by the
university’s Office of Institutional Effectiveness (OIE), it was considered archival data (Elder,
Pavalko, & Clipp, 1993).
Research Technique
Survey methodology (Fowler, 2009) was the research technique used for this study.
Participants answered survey questions administered online (Sue & Ritter, 2012) through
Educational Benchmarking’s (EBI) MAP-Works 2013 Fall Transition Survey, an assessment of
self-reported student strengths and weaknesses designed to identify areas for further student
growth and development.
Setting of the Study
Ball State University is a public, mid-sized, doctoral-granting, primarily residential,
Midwestern university situated in Muncie, Indiana. Founded in 1918, Ball State University
enrolls approximately 21,000 undergraduate and graduate students each year in seven academic
colleges and awards about 5,000 degrees annually. Each year, approximately 3,500 freshmen
students matriculate at Ball State University.
Population
The population was all incoming first-year students matriculating to Ball State University
in the fall semester of 2013. There was no sample selection as this was a population sample.
The sample size was 3,241 first-year students. During the third week of the fall semester 2013,
78
all matriculating students received an online survey through their campus email and were asked
to participate in the transition study. Of the 3,660 first-time freshmen students, 3,241 returned
useable survey responses. The overall response rate was 89 percent.
Data Collection Procedures
The data were gathered in September 2013 by the Ball State University Office of
Institutional Effectiveness (OIE) through the Making Achievement Possible (MAP) Works 2013
Fall Transition Survey. The research instrument used, Making Achievement Possible (MAPWorks), is a web-based assessment system designed to reveal student strengths and talents as
well as to identify areas for further student development. The survey takes approximately 15
minutes to complete and the annual transition survey was given to all enrolled, first-time, firstyear, and transfer students during the third week of their first fall semester as a Ball State
University student. Incoming students received an email invitation to participate in the online
survey. Reminders were emailed twice to non-responders.
MAP-Works is a comprehensive, integrated measurement of student retention and
success that allows for early identification of at-risk students by campus professionals (Woosley,
& Jones, 2012; Woosley & Whitaker, 2004). MAP-Works is a national survey administered at
over 130 institutions in the United States. For incoming students, MAP-Works assists in
recognizing individual strengths and weaknesses, developing self-awareness, analyzing
discrepancies between behaviors and expected outcomes, and assessing behaviors and
dispositions that impact social and academic success (EBI MAP-Works, 2012). Students are
provided an individualized feedback report with information about campus resources that may
assist them in improving academic achievement as well as increasing their social integration.
79
Data collected from this assessment are used by campus officials to inform planning and strategy
efforts.
Instrumentation
The research instrument used for this study, Making Achievement Possible (MAPWorks), is an assessment system designed to reveal student strengths and talents as well as to
identify areas for further student development. The survey is given to all incoming first-year and
transfer students during the first few weeks of their first semester as a Ball State University
student. Many of the questions asked on the MAP-Works Fall Transition Survey closely align
with scientifically validated indicators of self-determination. Thirty-four existing items from
MAP-Works that addressed components of self-determination were analyzed to gather selfreported data on SD. These 34 existing MAP-Work questions were complemented by the 11
institution-specific items which were added to the MAP-Works 2013 Fall Transition Survey
administered at Ball State University. Additionally, 10 items were added to the instrument at
Ball State University as part of a MAP-Works pilot test for a new grit/resilience factor. These 10
grit/resilience items were included in the analysis for this project. As a high percentage of
incoming students complete the MAP-Works Fall Transition instrument, with response rates
approximating 75%, already captured data was used. Furthermore, the MAP-Works instrument
has well-established validity and reliability (EBI MAP-Works, 2012). Additionally, to guard
against survey fatigue, students were not asked to complete an additional survey for the
collection of data on self-determination. Only 11 questions were added to the MAP-Works
instrument for the purpose of this study, thus relieving students of the request to complete yet
another survey.
80
Thus, a total of 50 Likert-scale items, including 34 pre-existing MAP-Works questions,
the 10 resilience factor items, and six questions added at the institutional level, were categorized
into the four essential characteristics of SD as delineated by the ARC’s Self-Determination
Scale, Adolescent version (Wehmeyer & Kelchner, 1995). These four broad categories of selfdetermination are behavioral autonomy, self-regulated behavior, self-realization, and acting in a
psychologically empowered manner. The ARC’s Self-Determination Scale can be found at
http://www.ou.edu/content/dam/Education/documents/miscellaneous/the-arc-self-determinationscale.pdf.
Question Development
Eleven questions were developed and added to the MAP-Works 2013 Fall Transition
Survey at the institutional level. Each of the questions was evaluated and justified as adding
explicitly needed information to the data set (Leedy & Ormrod, 2012). Two of the eleven
questions were categorical items that were developed to allow for comparisons between student
groupings. One of these categorical items inquired whether the student had an IEP or 504 Plan
in high school as the result of a documented disability. That question served as a filter for the
next four questions which were answered only by students who answered that, as a result of a
documented disability, they had received accommodations and/or services through an IEP or 504
Plan in high school. One of the four disability-specific questions asked the respondent to specify
whether their disability was a physical or sensory disability (such as visual or hearing
impairment or wheelchair user) or a non-apparent disability (such as ADHD or a learning
disability). The other three disability-specific questions addressed how well the students were
able to describe why they had received services and/or accommodations in high school, how
81
their disability impacted their learning, and how familiar they were with the different disability
services provided at the high school and college levels.
Six questions were added to the instrument to round out the four essential characteristics
of SD where existing MAP-Works questions did not completely address the essential
characteristics (Appendix B). These six questions were to be answered by all respondents.
Other than the two categorical variables (did the student have an IEP or 504 Plan in high school,
and type of disability), the questions were all treated as continuous variables and were answered
using a 7-point Likert scale, with 1 defined as “Not at All,” 4 defined as “Moderately,” and 7
defined as “Completely.” The 7-point Likert scale was used for the added questions to maintain
consistency with the 7-point Likert scale used throughout MAP-Works.
An ethical justification for the 11 questions added to the MAP-Works 2013 Fall
Transition Survey was that the research conducted was significant and relevant to the success of
the participants. If this research leads to the development of a Survey Factor for SelfDetermination within MAP-Works potentially thousands of students could benefit. The purpose
of the research is ultimately to improve rates of student success and to contribute to the growing
body of research on how self-determination skills impact retention, persistence and graduation
rates. Improving college completion rates is imperative for the strengthening of our nation in the
global economy and in improving employment of individuals in economically fulfilling and
personally meaningful jobs.
Seek Validation through Panel of Experts
The 11 questions that were developed and added to the Ball State administration of the
MAP-Works 2013 Fall Transition Survey were peer reviewed by a panel of experts. The six
individuals on the review panel included two expert practitioners in the field of disability support
82
in higher education settings, the original developer of the MAP-Works assessment instrument, a
director of Institutional Effectiveness who administers the MAP-Works assessment annually, an
expert in the field of special education and transition, and an educational researcher in the field
of higher education, retention, and students with disabilities. The questions were sent out to each
panel member who reviewed the questions for clarity, readability, effectiveness, accuracy,
efficiency, and relevance (Davis, 1992). The questions went through several cycles of revision
until there were no further improvements to be made.
Pilot Test for Clarity
A group of six undergraduate students pilot tested the 11 institutional questions. These
students were specifically asked to indicate if the directions and the response scale were clear
and if they understood what was being asked by each question. They were questioned to ensure
that all participants understood the questions to mean the same thing. One further revision to the
questions was made after the pilot test of the questions.
Test for Reliability
The questions were pre-tested by 20 undergraduate students, both with disabilities and
without disabilities (excluding freshmen), attending Ball State in the first week of fall semester
2013. One week later, the same undergraduate students were administered the same questions,
which served as a post-test for reliability. The 11 questions took participants less than five
minutes to complete. The rate of reliability was .83, indicating that the questions exceeded the
minimum threshold for reliability (Cronbach & Meele, 1955; Iacobucci & Duhachek, 2003;
Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). The final questions were then forward to the OIE for inclusion in
the MAP-Works 2013 Fall Transition Survey.
83
Data Analysis Procedures
All data were analyzed using IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences, version 21
[IBM-SPSS]. Analysis included descriptive statistics for independent variables including
frequencies/percentages for categorical variables and means and standard deviations for
continuous variables. These descriptive statistics were also performed on the independent
grouping variables, which included whether the student did or did not have a disability (SWD or
SWoD); and if a SWD, whether the SWD had registered with Disability Services or not (SWDR
or SWDNR).
Independent demographic variables included:

Gender.

Caucasian/non-Caucasian.

Student with disability or student without disability (SWD or SWoD).

Student with disability registered or student with disability not registered (SWDR or
SWDNR) with the disability services office.
Independent academic variables included:

High school GPA.

First semester GPA.

Retention to spring semester.
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted to develop a scale to measure the
latent construct of self-determination (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Fifty variables were entered
into the equation from which 35 variables factored into three scales.
Inferential statistics including independent samples t-tests were conducted to determine
significance and to ascertain whether the results from this population of Ball State students could
84
be generalized to the larger student body of incoming college freshmen nationwide. The
significance level calculated informed the probability that the results of the analysis in the
population studied could have occurred by chance alone when there were no differences at all
between the variables studied.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine whether the means of two or more
groups were significantly different from one another on one dependent variable (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2013). ANOVA was performed to analyze statistically significant differences between
students’ high school grade point average (GPA) and each of the scales supported by the EFA.
ANOVA was also used to analyze mean differences between students’ first semester GPA and
each of the scales.
Plan for Data Presentation
Data are presented in Chapter 4 in both narrative and numerical representation in table
formats. Descriptive statistics for demographic variables are displayed first. Results of the EFA
are presented next as they show how the variables grouped into scales. Descriptive statistics for
each of the scale items are then presented. Finally, inferential statistics including t-test and
analysis of variance are presented. The presentation of the data follows the order of the research
questions.
Summary
Chapter three presented information regarding the methods used in this research project.
The purpose of the study, the setting, and the research questions were presented as well as data
collection procedures. Information regarding instrumentation was described; and question
development was explained, addressing the validation, clarity, and reliability of questions. A
plan for statistical analysis and presentation of the data collected was given.
85
CHAPTER 4 -- RESULTS
Summary of the Study
The development and application of self-determination skills by students transitioning
from high school to college have been well-documented as fundamental for postsecondary
success. This chapter presents the findings from statistical analysis of data collected through the
MAP-Works 2013 Fall Transition Survey at Ball State University. Demographic and population
characteristics will be presented, followed by results of the exploratory factor analysis. Next, the
research questions will be addressed. Differences in self-determined behavior by students with
and without disabilities will be examined, as well as differences in self-determined behaviors by
SWD who have and have not registered with the Disability Services Office and among SWD
with visible and non-apparent disabilities. Differences in self-determination by gender, race,
high school and first semester GPAs, and retention to spring semester will be analyzed.
Population Characteristics
This study included 3,241 first-year students at Ball State University. Table 2 presents
descriptive statistics for all first-year transitioning students including gender, disability status,
registration with disability services, disability type, race/ethnicity, high school and first semester
GPA, and retention to spring semester. Missing data are not included in the statistical analysis of
data. Therefore, because all students did not answer every question, the numbers do not always
total the entire sample (or subsample) size. Sixty-three percent of students (n = 2,053) were
female, and 37% (n = 1,188) were male. Ninety-five percent of students (n = 2,749) did not
report a documented disability; five percent (n = 142) were students with disabilities (defined
SWD by having had an IEP or 504 Plan in high school). Of the SWD, 24% reported a visible
disability (n = 33), and 76% reported that their disability was non-apparent (n = 106). Of the 142
86
first-year transitioning students with disabilities, only 38% (n = 54) self-reported that they had
registered with the Disability Services Office.
Caucasian students (n = 2,661) made up 82% of the first-year students, with nonCaucasian students comprising 18% (n = 580). Regarding high school GPA, 84% (n = 2,711) of
incoming students reported that they had made mostly As and Bs in high school. Sixteen percent
(n = 522) reported making mostly Bs and Cs in high school.
After one semester of college coursework, first semester GPAs were lower than high
school GPAs, with only 54% (n = 1,710) of students making mostly As and Bs and 32% (n =
1,021) of students making mostly Bs and Cs. After one semester of college courses, one in seven
students (n = 462) had GPAs under 2.0 (lower than a C average). There were more students with
first semester GPAs less than C average (n = 462) than students with first semester GPAs of
Mostly Cs (n = 360). Of the 3,241 first-time, first-year students who began fall semester, 95% (n
= 3,073) were retained to spring semester, with 5% (n = 168) not returning to Ball State for their
second semester.
Organization of Factors
Through the use of exploratory factor analysis (EFA), the data supported the
development of three scales, or factors, as measures of the construct of self-determination. In an
ideal world, data will play out exactly as the researcher intends. While it had been hypothesized
that four scales would emerge to correspond with the four essential components of selfdetermined behavior delineated by Wehmeyer (1999, 2013), the analysis of data instead
supported a structure of three statistically significant and conceptually meaningful factors that
supported the theoretical framework. When four factors were extracted, the way the variables
loaded into the factors did not appear to make theoretical sense. A three-factor extraction, which
87
TABLE 2
First-Year Transitioning Students Demographics
______________________________________________________________________________
Variable
n
%
______________________________________________________________________________
Total First-Year Transitioning Students
3,241
100.0
Gender
Male
Female
1,188
2,053
36.7
63.3
Disability Status
Student Without Disability (SWoD)
Student With Disability (SWD)
2,749
142
95.1
4.9
54
88
38.0
62.0
Disability Type
Visible
Non-Apparent
33
106
23.7
76.3
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian
Non-Caucasian
2,661
580
82.1
17.9
Registration with Disability Services Status
SWD Registered
SWD Not Registered
High School GPA
3.5 to highest (Mostly As)
1,424
44.0
3.0 to 3.49 (Mostly Bs)
1,287
39.8
2.5 to 2.99 (Some Bs & Cs)
519
16.1
2.0 to 2.49 (Mostly Cs)
3
0.1
Lowest to 1.99 (Less than C Average)
0
0.0
______________________________________________________________________________
Note. Student Without Disability (SWoD)=Student either Did Not Have IEP/504 Plan in High School or Did Not Know.
SWD=Student Had IEP/504 Plan in High School. SWD Registered=Students with IEP/504 Plan in High School and SelfReported Registered with Disability Services. SWD Not Registered=Student with IEP/504 Plan in High School and SelfReported Not Registered with Disability Services. GPA=grade point average.
88
TABLE 2, cont.
First-Year Transitioning Students Demographics
______________________________________________________________________________
Variable
n
%
______________________________________________________________________________
First Semester GPA
3.5 to highest (Mostly As)
3.0 to 3.49 (Mostly Bs)
2.5 to 2.99 (Some Bs & Cs)
2.0 to 2.49 (Mostly Cs)
Lowest to 1.99 (Less than C Average)
866
844
661
360
462
27.6
26.3
20.6
11.2
14.4
Retention to Spring Semester 2014
Retained
3,073
94.8
Not Retained
168
5.2
______________________________________________________________________________
Note. Student Without Disability (SWoD)=Student either Did Not Have IEP/504 Plan in High School or Did Not Know.
SWD=Student Had IEP/504 Plan in High School. SWD Registered=Students with IEP/504 Plan in High School and SelfReported Registered with Disability Services. SWD Not Registered=Student with IEP/504 Plan in High School and SelfReported Not Registered with Disability Services. GPA=grade point average.
89
necessarily discarded some of the more trivial factors/variables, led to more meaningful and
substantive interpretation of the data. Factor extraction in exploratory factor analysis is not an
exact science with clear cut rules. The intent of EFA is to discover common variance between
variables and reduce variables into the most meaningful factors. This data supported three
factors, or scales, as indicators of self-determined behavior. The MAP-Works instrument had
previously been validated for 20 factors. Variables of interest to this study came from five of the
established factors including self-assessment of self-discipline, basic academic behaviors,
advanced study skills, academic self-efficacy, and test anxiety.
Exploratory factor analysis of this data did not precisely support Wehmeyer’s (1999,
2003a, 2013) construct which delineated four essential components of self-determination, but the
data upheld two of Wehmeyer’s four previously established components. Other researchers have
also studied the construct of self-determination using fewer than the four originally validated
subscales. For example, Shogren, Kennedy, Dowsett, and Little (2014) used three of the four
subscales of self-determined behavior in their analysis of NLTS-2 data. The data from the
current study represented two of the original components and also suggested an additional
indicator, resilience, which is closely related to and in many ways overlaps with selfdetermination. Hence, for this study, three scales were supported. These scales were SelfRegulation and Psychological Empowerment, which corroborated the original framework, as
well as Resilience. Ten survey items had been pilot-tested at this university as a potential
resilience survey factor. The Resilience Factor in this study is not specifically compatible with
any of the four essential components previously validated by Wehmeyer and Kelchner (1995).
However, since the construct of resilience has been so closely associated with elements of selfdetermined behavior by previous researchers, it seemed appropriate to consider resilience an
90
equally important indicator in the current study. Therefore, for the purposes of this research
project, three key indicators of self-determined behavior are discussed. These include SelfRegulation, Psychological Empowerment, and Resilience.
To derive the scales, a principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted on 35 items
with oblique rotation (Promax). Both measures of the appropriateness of exploratory factor
analysis were met with high marks. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant at p < .001 with
1,225 degrees of freedom. This indicated that there are correlations in the data set appropriate
for factor analysis. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy
requirement was also met at .934, indicating correlations between pairs of variables can be
explained by the other variables. With the KMO approaching one (1.0), this requirement of
appropriateness of factor analysis was met. An initial analysis was run specifying that four
factors be extracted from the data. As shown in Table 3 (see Appendix C for tables) the fourth
factor was comprised of only three items. To find the best fit both theoretically as well as
mathematically, a three-factor solution was extracted. Shown in Table 4, the three factor
analysis included the constructs of Resilience, Self-Regulation, and Psychological
Empowerment. Combined, these three retained factors explained 48% of the variance. Items
which cross-loaded on more than one factor were retained within the factor where they best fit
conceptually. Table 5 shows the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for internal consistency reliability
for each scale as well as for the overall scale. Each scale has high internal consistency. Each
retained factor is briefly discussed below.

Component #1: Resilience. The Resilience Factor was comprised of 14 items. These
questions included six of the institutional Likert-style items added to the instrument
91
as well as eight questions being piloted by MAP-Works as a new resiliency/grit
factor.

Component #2: Self-Regulation. The Self-Regulation Factor was comprised of 14
items which inquired about students’ self-discipline, follow-through, punctuality, and
dependability. Also included in the Self-Regulation Factor were questions regarding
students’ academic behaviors, such as study habits, taking notes, and turning in
homework, and students’ ability to balance their time among their various
commitments.

Component #3: Psychological Empowerment. The Psychological Empowerment
Factor was comprised of seven items. Two of the questions asked students to rate
their levels of being responsible for themselves and motivating themselves to get their
work done. Three items inquired about students’ beliefs in their abilities and levels of
academic self-efficacy. These items asked students how certain they were about
being able to do well on all tasks and assignments, do well in their hardest course, and
persevere when challenged. Two items assessed students’ test anxiety levels and
beliefs that expected outcomes would result from given behaviors.
Descriptive Data Presentation of Survey Items
The next section describes the individual survey items that factored into each of the three
scales. For each survey item asked, descriptive data including percentages, means, standard
deviations, and number of respondents are presented. All tables for presentation of numerical
data can be found in Appendix C.
92
Resilience Scale
Table 6 shows the survey items that factored into the Resilience scale, as well as the
percentages, means, standard deviations, and number of respondents for each of the survey
items. Nearly 50% of students reported always completing their assignments. Most scores on
the 14 measures of resilience were towards the higher end of the 7-point rating scale. After
completing class assignments, the next highest mean scores were for the items concerning being
a hard worker in my classes and working harder when one gets a poor grade. The lowest
reported means for measures of resilience were for being able to advocate for one’s needs in
academic settings and setting academic goals at the beginning of the semester that do not change
as the semester progresses.
Self-Regulation Scale
Table 7 shows the survey items that factored into the Self-Regulation scale, as well as the
percentages, means, standard deviations, and number of respondents for each of the survey
items. Students reported the highest mean scores on turning in homework, followed by being the
kind of person who is dependable and who shows up on time. The mean scores for turning in
homework, being dependable, and showing up on time are the highest mean scores for any of the
items discussed. All mean scores in the Self-Regulation domain were towards the upper level of
the rating scale indicating greater self-regulation skills, with more than 90% of students reporting
to a greater than moderate degree that they are the kind of person who follows through with what
they say they are going to, and 84% reporting to the same degree that they are self-disciplined.
The overwhelming majority of students (92%) reported nearly always turning in homework.
Students reported lower means on the measures of making to do lists and working in advance on
long projects. The lowest mean scores were reported for studying on a regular schedule.
93
Psychological Empowerment Scale
Tables 8 through 10 show the survey items that factored into the Psychological
Empowerment scale, as well as the percentages, means, standard deviations, and number of
respondents for each of the survey items. The Psychological Empowerment component
contained seven survey items inquiring into students’ beliefs in their abilities, how much stress
they experienced in being responsible for and motivating themselves, and their levels of test
anxiety and beliefs in positive outcomes expectancy. These seven items are reported in three
different tables as the response categories for the various subsets of items differed somewhat.
For example, the questions that addressed students’ beliefs in their academic abilities (i.e., their
academic self-efficacy), had response categories that were coded such that 1 stood for “not at all
certain,” to 4 standing for “moderately certain,” to 7 standing for “absolutely certain.” However,
the items that assessed stress levels and test anxiety were each reverse coded and had different
question bases than the items assessing academic self-efficacy. Hence, it was necessary to
display the results of the psychological empowerment scale in three separate tables.
Zimmerman (1990) proposed that the construct of psychological empowerment is
comprised of three elements of perceived control -- self-efficacy, locus of control, and
motivation to control. According to Zimmerman, persons’ beliefs in themselves coupled with
perceived control over their lives help persons to cope with stress and solve life problems. Thus,
a perception of psychological empowerment allows one to believe in oneself, handle stress, and
achieve desired outcomes.
Self-efficacy was also identified by Wehmeyer (1997) as one of the components of
psychological empowerment. As shown in Table 8, which assesses academic self-efficacy, a
large majority of students (83%) reported that they were more than moderately certain that they
94
could persevere on class projects even when there are challenges; and a similar majority (81%)
stated that they could do well on all problems and tasks assigned. Students reported the least
certainty with their ability to do well in their hardest course.
Wehmeyer (1999), as well as Zimmerman (1990), stressed the importance of personal
control over one’s life as elements of self-determination. Feeling in control allows persons to
deal with stress. On the psychological empowerment items which assessed stress related to
being responsible for oneself and motivating oneself to get one’s work done (shown in Table 9),
higher mean scores represented less stress related to the skill being assessed. These items were
reverse coded such that 1 was coded as “extremely,” 4 was coded as “moderately,” and 7 was
coded as “not at all.” Students reported feeling stressed to a slightly less than moderate degree in
terms of being responsible for themselves. With respect to feeling stressed concerning
motivating themselves to get their work done, the students’ reported stress level was also at a
slightly lower than moderate level.
Positive outcomes expectancy is another component element of psychological
empowerment (Wehmeyer, 1999). When persons have positive outcomes expectancy, they
believe that acting with intent will result in achieving a desired outcome. Hence, if a student
with positive outcomes expectancy is adequately prepared for an exam, the student should worry
less and experience decreased test anxiety. Two items on the psychological empowerment scale
assessed test anxiety. The items assessing test anxiety (shown in Table 10) were reverse coded
such that 1 was coded as “extremely,” 4 was coded as “moderately,” and 7 was coded as “not at
all.” The two questions assessing test anxiety scale were reverse coded since the question base
asked to what degree students felt anxious or worried. Hence, higher mean scores indicated less
anxiety or worry.
95
Table 10 shows the degree to which students reported feeling anxious about exams even
when they are prepared and the degree that they performed worse on exams due to worrying that
they would do poorly. Students reported feeling anxious about exams to a greater degree than
they reported doing worse on exams because they worried that they would do poorly. Overall,
approximately 60% of students reported to at least a moderate degree that they felt anxious about
exams even when they are prepared; and roughly 50% reported performing worse on exams due
to worry at a moderate or higher degree.
Questions Asked Only of Students with Disabilities
Table 11 shows the percentages, means, standard deviations, and number of respondents
for the questions answered only by students with disabilities. A student was defined to be a
student with a disability (SWD) if they had had an IEP or 504 Plan in high school. Responses
for these questions are reported only for SWD. Students reported the least degree of
understanding of the differences between the disability services provided at the high school and
college levels, with 17% reporting no understanding at all of these differences. Students reported
the greatest mean scores for understanding why they had received the accommodations and/or
services on their IEP/504 Plan.
Self-Determination of Students With and Without Disabilities (RQ1)
Table 12 (see Appendix C) shows the results of the independent samples t-test analysis of
mean differences between students with and without disabilities for each scale. Only one scale
found significant differences between students with and without disabilities. This was the SelfRegulation scale. Mean differences between students with disabilities and students without
disabilities were statistically significant, with students with disabilities scoring higher mean
scores than students without disabilities, t (2,672) = -2.576, p = .010, 95% CI [-4.617, -.626], d =
96
-.235. The Bonferroni correction is a method of controlling for the familywise error rate since
the error rate is inflated when one does multiple comparisons. With the Bonferroni correction
for repeated tests, the self-regulation scale is significant at p ≤ .05. The effect size for the selfregulation scale is small in strength.
The self-regulation scale inquired about students’ study habits including working in
advance on long projects, studying on a regular schedule, studying in a place with fewer
distractions, taking good notes, recording assignments in a calendar, and spending sufficient time
studying. Also included on this scale were items that assessed the degree to which students
showed up on time, followed through with what they said they were going to do, were
dependable, and were self-disciplined. Students with disabilities scored significantly higher in
self-regulation skill areas than did students without disabilities. Table 12 corresponds to
Research Question #1 which inquires whether statistically significant differences in levels of
self-determined behavior exist between students with and without disabilities.
Self-Determination of Students with Disabilities Registered with Disability Services or Not
(RQ2)
Table 13 (see Appendix C) shows the results of the independent samples t-test analysis of
mean differences among students with disabilities who had and had not registered with the
disability services office and sought services and/or accommodations. The Resilience scale
found significant differences between SWD who had and had not registered. For the measures of
resilience, SWD who had registered with the disability services office scored significantly higher
than did SWD who had not registered. For the Resilience factor, mean differences between
SWD who had registered and SWD who had not registered were statistically significant, t
(124.42) = -2.273, p = .025, 95% CI [-11.354, -.785], d = .396. The Resilience Scale is not
97
significant at p≤.05 with the Bonferroni correction applied. The effect size (.396) for the
Resilience Scale is small-medium in strength. Reporting results using the Bonferroni correction
gives more accurate and more conservative levels of significance. However, due to the nature of
this being exploratory research, this study also reports as significant those findings where p
values were significant prior to the Bonferroni correction to emphasize where differences
between groups exist and to encourage further exploration of these differences. The smallmedium effect size is another indicator that differences exist in levels of SD between these
student groupings. Table 13 corresponds to Research Question #2 which inquires if statistically
significant differences in levels of self-determined behavior exist between SWD who have and
have not registered with the disability services office.
Questions Asked Only of Students with Disabilities
Table 14 shows the results of a t-test analysis comparing group means of SWD who had
registered with the disability services office (SWDR) and SWD who had not registered
(SWDNR) for the three institution-specific variables asked only of students defined as SWD by
having had an IEP or 504 Plan in high school. For all three questions, students with disabilities
who had registered had significantly higher mean scores than did students with disabilities who
had not registered and sought services.
For the question inquiring how well SWD understood the accommodations and services
on their high school IEP or 504 Plan, SWD who had registered scored significantly higher mean
scores than SWD who had not registered, t (130) = -5.325, p < .001, 95% CI [-2.004, -.918], d =
.879. This difference is significant at p ≤ .01 with the Bonferroni correction applied. Cohen’s d
effect size strengths are d = 0.2 for a small effect; d = 0.5 for a medium effect; d = 0.8 for a large
effect. Hence, the effect size for this comparison is large.
98
For the question inquiring how well SWD were able to communicate how their disability
impacts their learning, SWD who had registered scored significantly higher mean scores than
SWD who had not registered, t (135) = -4.394, p < .001, 95% CI [-1.850, -.918], d = .738. This
difference is significant at the p ≤ .01 with the Bonferroni correction applied. This indicates a
medium to large effect size.
For the question inquiring how well SWD understood the differences between the
disability services provided at the high school and college levels, SWD who had registered
scored significantly higher mean scores than SWD who had not registered, t (136) = -5.139, p <
.001, 95% CI [-2.389, -1.061], d = .908. This difference is significant at p ≤. 01 with the
Bonferroni correction applied. The Cohen’s d of .908 indicates a large effect size.
Self-Determination of Students with Disabilities by Disability Type (RQ3)
Table 15 shows the results of the t-test analysis of mean differences among students with
disabilities by disability type (visible or non-apparent). The results of the t-test analysis found
no statistically significant differences in levels of self-determined behavior by disability type.
This table corresponds to Research Question #3 which inquired whether there were differences
in levels of self-determined behavior among SWD who had visible vs. non-apparent disability.
Self-Determination by Student Characteristics (RQ4)
Students transitioning to college bring with them a multitude of student characteristics
that may influence the development and execution of self-determined behavior. This research
project explored whether there were statistically significant differences in self-determination
between the genders, by race, by high school and first semester GPAs, and by retention to spring
semester.
99
Self-Determination by Gender
Table 16 shows the results of the t-test analysis of mean differences by gender. Each of
the scales showed statistically significant differences between male and female students, with
females scoring higher than males on both the resilience and the self-regulation factors. Males
scored higher levels of self-determined behavior on the psychological empowerment factor.
For the Resilience factor, mean differences between females and males were statistically
significant, t (1,902.77) = -5.380, p ≤ .001, 95% CI [-3.602, -1.677], d = .215. With the
Bonferroni correction applied, the resilience factor is significant at p ≤ .01. The Cohen’s d
represents a small effect size. For the Self-Regulation factor, mean differences between females
and males were also statistically significant, t (2,088.52) = -17.065, p ≤ .001, 95% CI [-8.005, 6.355], d = .658. The self-regulation factor is significant at p ≤ .01 with the Bonferroni
correction applied. The effect size for this comparison is medium large. On each of these two
scales, females scored higher means on measures of self-determination than did males.
For the Psychological Empowerment factor, mean differences between females and
males were likewise statistically significant, with males scoring higher means than females, t
(3,017) = 6.559, p ≤ .001, 95% CI [1.217, 2.256], d = .250. With the Bonferroni correction
applied, the psychological empowerment factor is significant at p ≤ .01. The Cohen’s d for this
comparison represents a small effect size.
Overall, each of the scales showed significantly different mean scores between the
genders, with females scoring higher on two factors, resilience and self-regulation and males
scoring higher on one scale, psychological empowerment. Males reported more confidence in
their academic abilities (academic self-efficacy), less stress over assuming responsibility for and
100
motivating themselves, and less test anxiety than did females. Females reported higher skill
levels in the areas of resilience and self-regulation.
Self-Determination by Race
Table 17 shows the results of the t-test analysis of mean differences by race. Race was
recoded as a dummy variable, with 0 being non-Caucasian, and 1 being Caucasian. Only the
Resilience factor showed statistically significant differences between non-Caucasian and
Caucasian students, with non-Caucasian students scoring higher in measures of resilience than
Caucasian students, t (2,789) = 2.215, p = .027, 95% CI [.154, 2.522], d = .109. The resilience
scale is not significant at p≤.05 with the Bonferroni correction applied. However, due to this
being an exploratory study, it is important to recognize these differences in Resilience between
Caucasian and non-Caucasian students so that future researchers will focus further investigation
on these differences. The effect size for the resilience scale, d = .109, is very small in strength.
Self-Determination by High School GPA
An independent one-way between-subjects ANOVA test was conducted to evaluate mean
differences between students’ high school GPAs on each factor. Tables 18 and 19 show the
results of the ANOVA analysis of mean differences by students’ high school GPA. High school
GPA was recoded into three categories for this analysis. The original high school GPA collapsed
groupings had been coded into five groups (shown on Table 2), such that students reporting high
school GPAs of 3.5 to highest were coded 0 (Mostly As); GPAs of 3.0 to 3.49 were coded 1
(Mostly Bs); GPAs of 2.5 to 2.99 were coded 2 (Mostly Bs & Cs); GPAs of 2.0 to 2.49 were
coded 3 (Mostly Cs); and GPAs under 2.0 were coded 4 (Less than C Average). For the
purposes of this ANOVA analysis, since only three students reported a high school GPA of 2.0
to 2.49, this group was collapsed with the Some Bs & Cs group (GPAs of 2.5 to 2.99) to
101
comprise a group of students with GPAs from 2.0 to 2.99. This high school GPA grouping was
labeled Bs & Cs. There were no students who reported a high school GPA of 1.99 or below.
Therefore, there were three high school GPA groups (Mostly As; Mostly Bs; and Bs & Cs)
analyzed by the independent, one-way ANOVA. Once data were recoded as indicated there
were 1,424 students (44%) in the Mostly As group; 1,287 students (40%) in the Mostly Bs
group; and 522 students (16%) in the Bs & Cs group.
All of the factors showed statistically significant differences between groupings by high
school GPA. For each scale, the higher the GPA, the higher the mean score for that component.
For scales where homogeneity of variance was assumed, the F statistic was reported and post hoc
tests were conducted using Tukey’s HSD (honestly significant difference) test to determine
which GPA groupings differed from each other. All Tukey’s HSD post hoc analyses were
reported at the p < .05 level. The Psychological Empowerment scale met the homogeneity of
variance assumption, and findings from this scale are shown in Table 18.
When equal variance between the groups could not be assumed, the Welch F statistic was
reported and post hoc tests were conducted using Tamhane’s T2 test. The Welch F statistic
adjusts F and the residual degrees of freedom to correct issues concerning violations of the
homogeneity of variance assumption. When equal variance could not be assumed, Tamhane’s
T2 test was conducted for post hoc comparisons. Tamhane's T2 is a conservative pairwise
comparisons test based on a t-test; it is appropriately used when the equal variance assumption is
violated. All Tamhane’s T2 post hoc analyses were reported at the p <.05 level. All findings
from scales where equal variance between the groups could not be assumed were reported in
Table 19. The two scales with unequal variance are the Resilience and the Self-Regulation
scales.
102
For the Psychological Empowerment factor, students with higher GPAs scored
significantly higher in the assessment of skills associated with psychological empowerment than
did students with lower GPAs. Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that
the mean psychological empowerment score for students with Mostly As was significantly
different than the mean psychological empowerment score for students with Mostly Bs. There
was also a significant difference in mean psychological empowerment scores between students
with high school GPAs of Mostly As and high school GPAs of Bs & Cs; however, there were no
significant differences in psychological empowerment between students with high school GPAs
of Mostly Bs and high school GPAs of Bs & Cs. The eta squared measure of variance indicated
that 1.9% of the total variation in average students’ high school GPAs was attributable to
differences in levels of psychological empowerment competencies.
For the Self-Regulation factor, students with higher GPAs scored significantly higher in
self-regulation skills. Since the assumption of homogeneity of variance was not met for this
data, the Welch F statistic was reported. Post hoc comparisons using the Tamhane’s T2 test
indicated that the mean self-regulation score for students with high school GPAs of Mostly As
was significantly different than the mean self-regulation score for students with Mostly Bs.
There was also a significant difference in mean self-regulation scores between students with high
school GPAs of Mostly As and high school GPAs of Bs & Cs. There were also significant
differences in self-regulation between the high school GPA groupings of Mostly Bs and Bs &
Cs. The eta squared measure of variance indicated that 5% of the total variation in students’ high
school GPAs could be attributed to differences in self-regulation skills.
For the Resilience factor, students with higher GPAs scored significantly higher in
resilience skills. Since Levene’s statistic had indicated that unequal variances existed between
103
the groupings, the Welch F statistic was reported, and post hoc comparisons were made with
Tamhane’s T2 test. Post hoc comparisons using the Tamhane’s T2 test indicated that the mean
resilience score for students with Mostly As was significantly different than the mean resilience
score for students with Mostly Bs. There was also a significant difference in mean resilience
scores between students with high school GPAs of Mostly As and high school GPAs of Bs & Cs;
however, there were no significant differences in resilience between students with other high
school GPA groupings. The eta squared measure of variance indicated that 5.4% of the variation
in high school GPAs was accounted for by differences in levels of resilience.
Tables 18 and 19 correspond to Research Question #4 which inquires if statistically
significant differences in levels of self-determined behavior exist among students with differing
high school GPAs. The findings indicated that students’ high school GPAs were higher for
students with greater scores on measures of self-determination.
Self-Determination by First Semester GPA
An independent one-way between-subjects ANOVA test was conducted to evaluate mean
differences between students’ first semester GPAs on each of the three factors. Tables 20 and 21
show the results of the ANOVA analysis of mean differences by students’ first semester GPA.
First semester GPA was recoded into five categories for this analysis such that students reporting
first semester GPAs of 3.5 to highest were coded 0 (Mostly As); GPAs of 3.0 to 3.49 were coded
1 (Mostly Bs); GPAs of 2.5 to 2.99 were coded 2 (Some Bs & Cs); GPAs of 2.0 to 2.49 were
coded 3 (Mostly Cs); and GPAs under 2.0 were coded 4 (Less than C Average). As shown on
Table 2, students’ GPAs went down substantially after one semester of college coursework.
While students’ high school GPAs were self-reported, the data for first semester GPA are
institutional data (not student provided). Since students’ high school GPAs were reported by the
104
students themselves, it is possible that some students inflated their high school GPAs. First
semester GPA does not contain any such inflation.
All of the factors showed statistically significant differences by first semester GPA. For
each scale, the higher the students’ first semester GPA, the higher the mean score for that
component of self-determined behavior. On one scale, the measure of psychological
empowerment, homogeneity of variance could be assumed. For the Psychological
Empowerment scale, the F statistic was reported and post hoc tests were conducted using
Tukey’s HSD (honestly significant difference) test to determine which first semester GPA
groupings differed from each other. The Tukey’s HSD post hoc analyses were reported at the p
< .05 level. The findings from the Psychological Empowerment scale with equal variance are
shown in Table 20.
When equal variance between the groups could not be assumed, the Welch F statistic was
reported and post hoc tests were conducted using Tamhane’s T2 test. The Welch F statistic
adjusts F and the residual degrees of freedom to correct issues concerning violations of the
homogeneity of variance assumption. When equal variance could not be assumed, Tamhane’s
T2 test was conducted for post hoc comparisons. Tamhane's T2 is a conservative pairwise
comparisons test based on a t-test; it is appropriately used when the equal variance assumption is
violated. All Tamhane’s T2 post hoc analyses were reported at the p <.05 level. All findings
from the Resilience and Self-Regulation scales, where equal variance between the groups could
not be assumed, were reported in Table 21.
For the Psychological Empowerment factor, students with higher first semester GPAs
scored significantly higher on measures of psychological empowerment (see Table 20). Post hoc
comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean psychological empowerment
105
score for students with Mostly As was significantly different than the mean psychological
empowerment score for students with all other first semester GPA groupings. Hence, there were
significant difference between students with Mostly As and students with Mostly Bs, Some Bs
and Cs, Mostly Cs, and Less than C Average first semester GPAs. There were no statistically
significant differences in psychological empowerment between other first semester GPA
groupings. The eta squared statistic indicated that 3.5% of the total variation on first semester
GPA could be attributed to psychological empowerment competencies.
On the Resilience factor, students with higher first semester GPAs scored significantly
higher in resilience skills (see Table 21). Since Levene’s statistic indicated that unequal
variances existed between the groupings, the Welch F statistic was reported, and post hoc
comparisons were made with Tamhane’s T2 test. Post hoc comparisons using the Tamhane’s T2
test indicated that the mean resilience score for students with Mostly As was significantly
different than the mean resilience score for students with all other first semester GPAs. There
were also significantly different mean scores in resilience skills for students with first semester
GPAs of Mostly Bs and students with first semester GPAs of Some Bs and Cs, Mostly Cs, and
Less than C Average. According to the eta squared statistic, 7% of the total variation in first
semester GPAs could be accounted for by skills measured by the Resilience Factor.
For the Self-Regulation factor, students with higher first semester GPAs scored
significantly higher in self-regulation skills (see Table 21). Since Levene’s statistic indicated
that unequal variances existed between the groupings, the Welch F statistic was reported, and
post hoc comparisons were made with Tamhane’s T2 test. Post hoc comparisons using the
Tamhane’s T2 test indicated that the mean self-regulation score for students with Mostly As was
significantly different than the mean self-regulation score for students with all other first
106
semester GPAs. There were also statistically significant differences in mean self-regulation
scores among students with first semester GPAs of Mostly Bs and all other first semester GPAs
including students with first semester GPAs of Some Bs and Cs, Mostly Cs, and Less than C
Average. In addition, students with first semester GPAs of Some Bs and Cs scored significantly
different in self-regulation skills than students with first semester GPAs that were Less than C
Average. The eta square statistic indicated that 9.9% of the total variation in first semester GPA
could be accounted for by differences in self-regulation skills.
Self-Determination by Retention to Spring Semester
Table 22 shows the results of the t-test analysis of mean differences by retention to spring
semester. Two of the three scales showed statistically significant differences between students
who were and were not retained to spring semester, with students who were retained scoring
higher mean scores than students who were not retained. For the Resilience factor, students who
were retained to spring semester scored significantly higher on measures of resilience skills than
did students who were not retained, t (2,789) = -2.791, p = .005, 95% CI [-5.089, -.889], d =
.232. This difference is significant at p ≤ .05 with the Bonferroni correction applied. The effect
size for this comparison is small (Cohen’s d = .232). Students who were retained to spring
semester reported higher mean scores on the Psychological Empowerment scale than did
students who were not retained, t (3,017) = -4.338, p ≤ .001, 95% CI [-3.652, -1.378], d = .348.
This difference on the psychological empowerment scale is significant at p ≤ .01 with the
Bonferroni correction applied, and the effect size for this comparison is small to medium in
magnitude.
107
Summary
Chapter 4 presented the findings from statistical analysis of data collected through the
MAP-Works 2013 Fall Transition Survey at Ball State University. Student demographics and
population characteristics were presented, followed by results of the exploratory factor analysis.
Three factors were supported by the data. The research questions were addressed, in turn, by
looking at differences in self-determined behavior by students with and without disabilities.
Within the SWD group, differences in self-determined behavior were examined for SWD who
had and had not registered with the Disability Services office as well as differences in selfdetermined behavior for SWD with visible and non-apparent disabilities. Differences in selfdetermination by gender, race, high school and first semester GPAs, and retention to spring
semester were analyzed. Data were presented in both narrative and numerical representation in
table formats.
108
CHAPTER 5 – DISCUSSION
Summary of the Research Project
This research project examined levels of self-determination in transitioning first-year
college students. Competency in self-determination skills has been called the most important
element for students’ successful postsecondary experiences. The intent of this research was to
investigate whether there were statistically significant differences in levels of self-determined
behavior between students with and without disabilities; and within the students with disabilities
(SWD) grouping, whether there were meaningful differences in levels of self-determined
behavior between students who had and had not registered with the Disability Services office and
sought assistance. Comparisons of levels of self-determination were also made among students
with varying demographic and student characteristics (i.e., gender, race, and GPA) as well as in
different types of disability among SWD (visible or non-apparent). Gaining an understanding of
how levels of self-determination differ among different incoming student groups can help
success and retention strategists to directly target interventions to students at risk and most likely
to benefit. This chapter presents a discussion of the findings as they relate to the research
questions. Recommendations for future research conclude the chapter.
Resilience
In addition to psychological empowerment and self-regulation, resilience is another
personal characteristic that successful college students demonstrate. Since resilience was not one
of the original four components of self-determination in the framework proposed by Wehmeyer
and Kelchner (1995), the literature on resilience was not introduced in chapter two. This section
provides a review of the literature as it relates to resilience. Specifically this discussion focuses
109
on how resilience overlaps with and shares commonalities with self-determination as well as
how resilience contributes to academic success.
Resilience refers to a flexible combination of attitudes that persons use to help them
successfully negotiate and cope with hard times (Benard, 2004; Neenan, 2009). A person who is
resilient is like “a twig with a fresh, green living core. When twisted out of shape, such a twig
bends, but it does not break; instead, it springs back and continues growing” (Vaillant, 2002, p.
285). Greater resilience improves students’ stress management and ability to adapt to and
bounce back from adversity.
A well-developed resilience disposition in first-year students mitigates against any
adverse life events and provides a psychological buffer against stress caused by everyday trials
and tribulations. As students make the transition to college, they typically encounter unfamiliar
environments coupled with additional academic demands and personal responsibilities
(DeRosier, Frank, Schwartz, & Leary, 2013). Modern college life is full of stressors. First-year
students experience greater levels of stress and anxiety than upperclassmen (Martin & Marsh,
2008). Those students who are able to use multiple and flexible coping strategies have been
found to be more resilient (Galatzer-Levy, Burton, & Bonanno, 2012). First-year students who
reported possessing attributes of resiliency were found to be better at handling stress, had higher
levels of self-esteem, and engaged in more behaviors that promoted positive mental and
emotional well-being. The first year of college is an opportunity for students to make tremendous
personal and academic advances; but it can also be a time of extreme distress due to rapidly
expanding and conflicting student responsibilities (Klibert et al., 2014) in addition to the
unavoidable change in identity from that of a high school student to a college student (ClaussEhlers & Wibrowski, 2007).
110
Previous researchers have found that low levels of resilience in college students are
predictive of greater anxiety and stress as well as being correlated with low self-esteem,
depression, and neuroticism. College students who lack effective resilience skills were found to
have greater difficulty using effective problem-solving strategies to resolve stressful situations
(Campbell-Sills, Cohan, & Stein, 2006; Wilks & Spivey, 2010). Hartley (2012, 2013) found that
the growing segment of college students with mental health issues, who now comprise
approximately one-third of the college population, consistently showed poor levels of resilience
skills and high drop-out rates. Students dealing with mental health issues often experienced
compromised abilities to self-regulate and maintain focus on academic tasks. Other research on
resilience has looked at students with learning disabilities (Meltzer, 2004; Miller, 2002; Werner,
1993). Miller identified seven elements of resilience that assisted college SWD in beating the
odds by achieving in their postsecondary pursuits. One of the characteristics of resilience
reported by students in Miller’s study was self-determination.
Students who approach life struggles with resilient attitudes tend to cope more effectively
with ordinary stressors and have increased likelihoods of persisting in college (Hartley, 2010,
2011, 2013; Weston & Parkin, 2010). Much of the early research on resilience focused on the
extraordinariness and remarkableness of disadvantaged children who appeared to have a
protective bubble of inner strength, invulnerability, invincibility, and resiliency that allowed
them to carry on through extreme threats and challenges (Garmezy, 1981; Werner & Smith,
1982). However, more recent research has concluded that resilience is not something
extraordinary or rare (Masten, 2001). Resilience is a remarkably ordinary and common
phenomenon of normal adaptation that most persons exhibit in response to the ups and downs of
everyday life. Resilience provides a protective layer that enables students to bounce back from
111
encounters with adversity and maintain positive affects (Steinhardt & Dolbier, 2008). Students
who exhibit resiliency are hardy; they are better able to cope with the new demands they
encounter as they adapt to the transition to college.
Resilient students take a proactive approach to dealing with everyday hassles and
pressures by capitalizing on their strengths (Martin & Marsh, 2008). Some researchers have
differentiated between resilience and academic buoyancy, suggesting that academic buoyancy is
more relevant to the full range of students as they encounter typical stress related to academics,
such as dips in motivation, getting a poor grade, receiving negative feedback on an assignment,
dealing with competing deadlines, or experiencing periods of low confidence and lack of
engagement (Martin, Colmar, Davey, & Marsh, 2010; Martin & Marsh, 2006, 2008). In the
traditional research, resilience has referred primarily to the relatively small number of persons
undergoing acute or chronic adversities that are experienced as quite extreme assaults (Anthony,
1974; Garmezy, 1974, 1981; Murphy & Moriarty, 1976; Rutter, 1979; Werner & Smith, 1982).
The concept of academic buoyancy, however, is applicable to the multitudes of students who
experience less extreme yet ongoing and problematic everyday stressors, challenges, and
setbacks. Martin and Marsh (2008) concluded that “resilient students are likely to also be
buoyant” (p. 55).
The construct of resilience is very closely related to the competencies of selfdetermination. In a similar vein to how the phenomenon of self-determination has been
increasingly studied in persons without disabilities (Ginerva et al., 2013), the construct of
resilience has been broadened and employed in reference to all persons and their everyday
stressors and strains (Martin & March, 2008). Miller (2002) interviewed students with learning
disabilities and recounted that his participants revealed self-determination to be one of the facets
112
of resilience. Resilience is intricately related to behavioral autonomy, self-realization, selfregulation, and psychological empowerment (Weston & Parkin, 2010). Resilient students exhibit
behavioral autonomy in taking responsibility for their actions. Students who are resilient are
most likely to possess high levels of self-realization and self-efficacy. Resilient students do not
shy away from challenging tasks but exert even more effort, use more effective strategies, and
approach difficult tasks with persistence. Resilient students self-regulate by planning for and
setting academic goals and monitoring their progress toward these goals. Students who exhibit
self-realization are aware of their strengths and abilities, reflect upon their past successes with
challenging events, develop self-efficacious beliefs in their abilities, and demonstrate greater
capacities for responding to future events with resilience. Students demonstrate psychological
empowerment when they adapt to the demands of new environments, assume an internal locus of
control, and believe themselves capable of achieving their academic goals.
A study of undergraduate nursing students found a strong association between
psychological empowerment and resilience (Pines et al., 2012). Students who felt powerless and
experienced psychological distress had less resilience, poorer defense mechanisms, and were
more likely to drop out of nursing programs. When students had weak resiliency and
psychological empowerment skills, they were less likely to believe in their abilities or feel that
they had a voice. They were less likely to use effective problem-solving strategies to navigate
challenges, were less skilled at conflict negotiation, and were more likely to focus on their
deficiencies than students with strong resilience and psychological empowerment competencies.
However, research has shown that behavioral skills that mitigate stress and empower students to
act with greater resiliency can effectively be taught (Steinhardt & Dolbier, 2008). Young (2009)
found that undergraduate students who participated in an intervention to increase resiliency and
113
empowerment experienced greater academic success. Beauvais, Stewart, DeNisco, and Beauvais
(2013) found very similar conclusions from studying the interaction between psychological
empowerment, resilience, spiritual well-being, and academic success. Their study of
undergraduate and graduate nursing students corroborated previous literature that these factors
play a positive role in student persistence and in students’ ability to deal with educational
challenges. Specifically, they found positive relationships between resilience and academic
success and between psychological empowerment and academic success. Psychological
empowerment and resiliency interact to create a line of defense against stress; in combination,
they strengthen the individual’s capacity to set and attain goals, to cope flexibly with daily
stressors, and to persist and experience academic success (Pines et al., 2012, Young, 2009).
The bond between psychological empowerment, resilience, and self-determination has
been noted by numerous scholars. Spreitzer (1995) stated that psychological empowerment
consists of four dimensions, one of which is self-determination. Spreitzer further stated that
persons who are empowered demonstrate greater resilience. Empowered students display
“power, control, ability, competence, self-efficacy, autonomy, knowledge, development, selfdetermination” (Uner & Turan, 2010, p. 1). Lee et al. (2013) found that self-efficacy (an element
of psychological empowerment) had a strongly positive relationship to resilience. Field et al.
(2003) found that the ability to effectively problem-solve (a self-regulatory behavior) and to
think and act flexibly in the face of obstacles (a resilient behavior) were factors that contributed
to students’ postsecondary success. Students’ abilities to act in psychologically-empowering
ways, to self-regulate their behavior, and to demonstrate resilience lead to greater academic
achievement.
114
Researchers hold inconsistent notions of the connections between autonomy,
psychological empowerment, self-regulation, self-realization, and resilience. For example, some
have posited that psychological empowerment is a trait of self-determination (Wehmeyer, 1997),
and others have expressed that self-determination is a component of psychological empowerment
(Spreitzer, 1995; Uner & Turan, 2010). What is clear is that each of these behavioral and
dispositional traits is positively correlated to increased academic outcomes and retention and
their development should be supported.
Just as data on how gender may influence self-determination has been contradictory,
previous research has found conflicting results on how gender interplays with resilience. Some
researchers have found that females exhibit greater resilience than males (Davidson et al., 2005;
DuMont, Widom, & Czaja, 2007; McGoin & Widom, 2001); others have found that males are
more resilient than females (Campbell-Sills, Forde, & Stein, 2009; Martin & Marsh, 2006; Stein,
Campbell-Sills, & Gelernter, 2009).
Race, ethnicity, and cultural diversity also play a role in the level of educational
resilience students demonstrate and in how students cope with new experiences and demands
during transitional periods. DuMont et al. (2007), studying adolescents and young adults who
had been abused or neglected as children, found that White, non-Hispanic persons demonstrated
less resilience during adolescence but not during young adulthood. For young adults, stressful
life events, as well as a supportive partner, were associated with increases in resilience. Weaver
(2009) conducted a study of high school students and found that having a strong cultural/ethnic
identity was positively correlated with resilience; he also reported that resilience was predictive
of academic success measured by GPA. His research, however, did not find statistically
significant differences in resilience between Caucasians and non-Caucasians.
115
A 2008 study investigating relationships between stress and resilience in college women
of diverse backgrounds also stressed the importance of considering cultural factors when
studying resilience (Clauss-Ehlers, 2008). One significant take-away from this study on
resilience that is also important to the study of self-determination is the acknowledgment that
cultural norms in the United States may be quite different from those in other cultures. For
example, the notion of autonomy and individual control is a predominantly Western ideal.
Persons from societies where there is more emphasis on the collective or familial, rather than on
the individual, may not perceive individual autonomy as a desirable skill to foster. Some
societies define resilience differently and interpret its manifestation in different ways. The
emergence, stability, and presentation of resilience are affected, both positively and negatively,
by ecological and cultural factors (Clauss-Ehlers, 2008; DuMont et al., 2007). Resilience, and
self-determination in general, needs to be assessed in ways that take into account the diversity of
cultural norms, values, and ideals.
The findings of resilience researchers have suggested that achievement of difficult
academic and college-related goals results not only from dispositional characteristics of selfdetermined behavior, but also from the sustained and focused application of the personal quality
of resilience. Academic achievement hinges on successful implementation of the four
components of self-determined behavior (Field et al., 1998; Wehmeyer, 2007) as well as on
effective application of resilience attributes (Weston & Parkin, 2010). A resilient personality
paired with the traits of self-determined behavior best prepares first-year students to adapt to new
environments and to the increases in personal responsibility and academic pressures they
encounter. Students who capably demonstrate self-determined behaviors and resilience
consistently work toward achieving their challenging goals without losing interest or lessening
116
their effort despite hitting a plateau or experiencing outright failure on their first attempt.
Students with resilience and self-determination maintain stamina in pursuit of their academic
goals and stay the course rather than changing trajectories when confronted with obstacles. Like
the components of self-determination (Ruban et al., 2003; Tuckman, 2003), resilience is a quality
that can be learned, oftentimes develops with experience and developmental growth, and
contributes positively to academic accomplishment. Educational resilience is not a static trait but
is dynamic and can be fostered or squelched by both environmental and contextual factors
(DuMont et al., 2007; Francois & Overstreet, 2010; Lee et al., 2013; Roberts & Masten, 2005;
Southwick & Charney, 2012). Transitioning first-year students with well-developed traits of
self-determination and resilience have the greatest potentials for succeeding in their educational
endeavors.
Key Findings
This discussion first presents findings regarding each of the scales and then addresses
each of the research questions and highlights where significant differences were found in the
self-reported characteristics of self-determined behavior among differing student populations. In
brief, on the Self-Regulation Factor, students with and without disabilities reported statistically
significant differences in skill competencies related to self-regulation. Students with disabilities
(SWD) scored higher group means on the Self-Regulation Scale than did students without
disabilities. Students with disabilities who had registered with the Disability Services office had
higher mean scores on the Resilience Factor than students with disabilities who had not
registered and sought services and/or accommodations. There were no statistically significant
differences in levels of self-determined behavior among SWD by disability type. Females scored
higher self-reported levels of self-determined behavior than did males on the Resilience and Self-
117
Regulation Scales; and males scored higher means than females on the Psychological
Empowerment Scale. Non-Caucasians scored higher means on the Resilience Scale than did
Caucasians. Students who reported higher high school and first semester GPAs scored higher
mean scores on measures of self-determined behavior than did students with lower GPAs.
Similarly, students who were retained to spring semester scored higher in measures of selfdetermined behavior than students who were not retained.
Discussion of Descriptive Data
The results of this study confirmed two of the four essential components of selfdetermined behavior as established by Wehmeyer (1999, 2013). The two previously validated
components that this study supported were Self-Regulation and Psychological Empowerment.
This study also found that Resilience, which has previously been linked with self-determination,
was a factor positively associated with transition and first-year student success. The Resilience
factor came about through the exploratory factor analysis as another indicator to consider in selfdetermined behavior. Hence, this study found three factors of self-determined behavior,
including Self-Regulation, Psychological Empowerment, and Resilience, that assist first year
students in making the transition from high school to college. The following discussion
highlights main discoveries from each component.
Psychological Empowerment Items
Seven survey items comprised the Psychological Empowerment scale. Two of these
items asked students to indicate the degree to which they were experiencing stress regarding
being responsible for themselves and motivating themselves to get their work done. The means
for both of these items showed that students were slightly less than moderately stressed regarding
these indicators of psychological empowerment. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being “extremely
118
stressed,” 4 being “moderately stressed,” and 7 being “not at all stressed,” mean scores were 4.79
for stress regarding being responsible for oneself and 4.61 for stress regarding motivating oneself
to get one’s work done. Overall, these mean scores indicate that students, at this very early (third
to sixth week) stage in their first college semester, are not feeling overly stressed concerning
their need to develop independence and acquire the skills of being responsible for themselves
and motivating themselves to get their work done on time. That said, roughly 25% of students
selected stress ratings at a moderate or higher degree on these items. These findings support
Connor’s (2012) assertion that perhaps the most significant demand on transitioning SWD is the
“shift from others leading their learning to students leading their own learning” (p. 17). The
results of this study are also similar to those found by McCarthy (2007) and Squire (2008) whose
research indicated that the college transition period can be daunting and unfamiliar as students,
often for the first time, assume direction for their lives.
Future research should inquire whether levels of reported stress regarding being
responsible for and motivating oneself increase or decrease as the semester and/or year
progresses for first-year students. Students in this study had not yet taken midterm exams and
may not be fully aware of the increased demands and rigors of college courses and/or the
differences in course design, delivery, and assessment between high school and college classes.
Perhaps students were overly confident and will face a rude wake-up call as the semester
progresses. Or perhaps this one-quarter of transitioning students who indicated greater than
moderate levels of difficulty in assuming responsibility will learn to rely more fully on
themselves and will assume greater independence and self-responsibility as they gain more
college experience.
119
Another line of research should explore how students adapt to the reversal of parent and
student responsibility roles as students learn to lead their own learning, assume responsibility for
managing how they spend their time and motivating themselves to complete academic tasks, and
integrate into the college environment. Numerous experts in the field of college student
development assert the importance of autonomy and self-direction as essential developmental
goals for college students (Boyer, 1987; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini,
2005). Students, too, stress that the acquisition of personal responsibility is one of the most
important non-academic, outside-of-the-classroom learning outcomes of college (Kuh, 1993).
Most attrition occurs in the first semester after enrollment (Shepler & Woosley, 2012),
and first-year students have the lowest levels of self-determination (Rohlfer, 2011). All attrition
cannot be accounted for by lack of self-determination skill competencies; however, lack of
ability to assume responsibility over one’s life and motivate oneself to complete necessary
academic tasks certainly plays a role in student attrition. Students who indicate high levels of
stress regarding being responsible for themselves should be made aware of on-campus outreach
programs emphasizing stress management, development of autonomy, time management, and
other similar skill areas.
Other items that factored into the Psychological Empowerment scale, in addition to the
two items assessing stress related to self-responsibility, concerned levels of test anxiety and
perceptions of academic self-efficacy. Academic self-efficacy was assessed according to
students’ self-reported certainty that they could do well on all tasks assigned, could do well in
their hardest course, and could persevere when challenged. Test Anxiety was assessed by two
items inquiring into students’ levels of anxiety and worry concerning exams.
120
The Psychological Empowerment factor indicated that statistically significant differences
existed in levels of psychological empowerment measures of self-determination between males
and females and for the academic variables of high school and first semester GPAs and retention
to spring semester. Students who reported higher GPAs in both high school and in their first
semester of college stated they experienced lesser degrees of stress regarding indicators of
assuming self-responsibility, less test anxiety, and greater perceptions of academic self-efficacy.
In a similar vein, students who were retained to spring semester reported experiencing lower
levels of stress regarding being responsible for themselves and motivating themselves to get their
work done on time, less test anxiety, and a greater sense of academic self-efficacy. Males
reported greater mean scores on measures of Psychological Empowerment than did females.
These differences included males scoring lower levels of stress related to assuming selfresponsibility, lesser degrees of test anxiety, and higher means on measures of academic selfefficacy than those scored by females. No statistically significant differences in reported
psychological empowerment skills were found between students with or without disabilities,
within disability groupings, or between the races.
Self-Regulation Items
Fourteen survey items factored into the Self-Regulation scale. These questions asked
students to what degree they were the type of person who was dependable, was self-disciplined,
followed through with what they said they were going to do, and showed up on time. The
majority of students reported that they were dependable and showed up on time, with mean
scores of 6.26 and 6.20, respectively, on a 7-point scale from one “not at all” to seven
“extremely.” Students also reported to a much stronger than moderate degree that they were
self-disciplined and followed through with what they said they were going to do. Other items on
121
the self-regulation factor concerned planning and balancing one’s time, study skills, and
academic behaviors. Most scores on measures of self-regulation competencies were at a greater
than moderate level. These high means on measure of self-regulation are encouraging and
indicate that students feel that they are demonstrating competency in self-regulating their
behavior.
Significant differences were found in self-regulation competencies between students with
disabilities (SWD) and students without disabilities (SWoD), with SWD scoring significantly
higher means than SWoD. In light of Hong et al. (2007) directly stating that SWD “are not selfdetermined” (p. 33) and lack planning, goal setting, decision-making, and advocacy skills, the
results of the current study are promising and indicate that transitioning SWD at this particular
university have better self-regulation capacities than students without disabilities.
When comparing self-regulation skills between males and females, female students
scored significantly higher on measures of self-regulation than did male students. Female
students reported that they were more self-disciplined, more dependable, more likely to utilize
good study habits, and more likely to plan out their time. Students who had higher high school
and first semester GPAs reported significantly higher scores on measures of self-regulation than
students with lower GPAs.
Resilience Items
Fourteen items factored into the Resilience scale. Students reported the weakest
Resilience domain skills in their abilities to speak up for what they need and to set academic
goals that do not change over the semester. The ability to self-advocate and make one’s needs
known is an essential characteristic of self-determined behavior (Martin & Marshall, 1995). The
ability to speak up for what one needs is a valuable competency all students should develop; but
122
for students with disabilities, effective self-advocacy skills are a must. That students in this
study reported the weakest mean scores in self-advocating for their needs supports the findings
of Field et al. (2003) and Hong et al (2007). College SWD are required to proactively seek
assistance to compensate for their disabilities. SWD in the university setting must request the
accommodations and/or services necessary to support their learning. Students who can
successfully self-advocate have greater potentials for positive college experiences and
meaningful, productive lives once college is completed. The relative lack of self-advocacy skills
reported by students in the current study corroborates many previous research studies addressing
college student success (Carney et al., 2007; Garner, 2008; Hadley, 2006; Lock & Layton, 2001;
Quick et al., 2003; Test, Fowler, Brewer et al., 2005; Test, Fowler, Wood et al., 2005). The lack
of effective self-advocacy skills reported by students in this study is cause for concern as
Mazzotti et al. (2013) listed competency in self-advocacy as predictive of post-school success for
SWD in areas of both education and employment.
This study found no statistically significant differences between students with disabilities
and students without disabilities or between SWD by type of disability (visible or non-apparent)
on the Resilience scale. These results conflicted with the Adams and Proctor (2010) study.
While not specifically investigating resilience, they found that students with visible disabilities
were better adapted to college than students with non-visible disabilities. Students who can
adapt to change are generally more resilient than those who have difficulty adapting to new
environments and demands.
When looking at differences in resilience between students with disabilities who had and
had not registered with the disability services office, students who had registered scored
significantly higher on measures of Resilience than did SWD who had not registered. These
123
findings support earlier research which stated that college SWD who persist to graduation
possess traits of resiliency, determination, and resourcefulness, and make better use of
accommodations than SWD who lack awareness of their learning differences (Vogel et al.,
1993). Also, non-Caucasian students scored higher means on measures of resilience than did
Caucasian students. Perhaps resulting from previous experiences in school or family life where
resilience skills were honed, it may be that non-Caucasian students have a greater understanding
of the importance of putting in extra effort in difficult classes, working harder when they receive
poor grades, overcoming barriers, and staying motivated through setbacks than non-Caucasian
students. Additionally, the importance of family and community connectedness prevalent among
many minority groups may contribute positively to resiliency in non-Caucasian students
(Francois & Overstreet, 2010).
Another significant difference was found in resilience skill competencies between males
and females. Female students scored higher means scores on measures of resilience than did
male students. These findings regarding gender contradict those of many other researchers who
found that males were more academically resilient (Campbell-Sills et al., 2009; Martin & Marsh,
2006; Stein et al., 2009). Students with higher GPAs and students who were retained to spring
semester also scored higher in measures of resilience. This finding supports that of Hartley
(2011). Regardless of differences in resilience skills by differing student characteristics, it is
somewhat troubling that students as a whole indicated the greatest relative weakness on the
Resilience scale to be in their ability to self-advocate. Gaining competence in advocating for
one’s needs will serve students well as they progress throughout their educational, family, and
work lives.
124
The ability to set goals and persist until the goal is attained is another important
characteristic of self-determined behavior. Students in the current study reported relatively weak
abilities to set academic goals that did not change over the course of the semester. Martin et al.
(2003) found that students who were successful at setting and achieving goals realized greater
self-determination in their lives; however, successful goal setting and attainment was a skill
weakness for many students that inhibited their academic success. Hong et al. (2007), studying
students with disabilities, found that SWD lack necessary self-advocacy skills. The results of
this study support earlier findings by Martin et al. (2003) and Hong et al. (2007).
Discussion of Differences in Self-Determination
This study sought to investigate levels of self-determination among transitioning firstyear college students as well as examine differences in acquisition and demonstration of selfdetermined behavior between students with and without disabilities and among varying student
characteristics. Self-determination has been hailed as one of the most important traits for making
progress toward postsecondary goals. While self-determination is a preferred dispositional
quality for all transitioning students, having well-developed self-determination skills is
imperative for students with disabilities.
Differences between Students With and Without Disabilities
The first research question that guided this study inquired whether there were statistically
significant differences in levels of self-determination between incoming first-year college
students with and without disabilities. The only significant difference found was on the selfregulation factor. That SWD scored higher in self-regulation than SWoD may suggest that SWD
realize their need to implement these regulatory skills in order to compensate for any limitations
125
they may experience due to their disabling conditions. These findings contradict those by Hong
et al. (2007) who found that SWD exhibit skill deficits in self-regulation tasks.
Perhaps part of the reason there did not appear to be greater differences in levels of selfdetermination between students with and without disabilities stems from the lack of college
readiness soft-skills in the majority of students making the transition to college (and also in
students’ transition to the workplace). Even students who are academically well prepared for
college may be poorly prepared in non-academic ways to make the adjustment to college.
Students may experience difficulties in goal setting, problem-solving, time management, and
study skills and habits – all indicators of self-regulation and essential skills needed for
postsecondary success. When many students, with or without disabilities, have trouble with selfregulatory competencies, there is less likely to be found any statistically significant differences
between student groupings.
Differences among SWD by Registration Status and Disability Type
This study found significant differences in self-determination among students with
disabilities who had registered and those who had not registered on the Resilience scale. No
previous research investigating differences in self-determination between SWD by registration
with disability services status could be located. It was assumed that SWD who had registered
would exhibit greater self-determination than those who had not registered and sought
accommodations and/or support services. As relatively few SWD who had IEP or 504 Plans in
high school register with their disability services office once they reach college, it bodes well
that registration does not appear to radically affect self-determination levels in SWD.
Three questions in this study were asked only of students defined as SWD by having had
an IEP or 504 Plan in high school. For all three questions, SWD who had registered had
126
significantly higher mean scores than did SWD who had not registered and sought services.
These questions were not included in the factor analysis as the factors were built upon responses
by the entire sample of students whereas these three questions were asked only of SWD. That
SWD who had registered scored higher than SWD who had not registered confirmed the
hypothesis that those SWD who register have greater self-realization, autonomy, self-regulation,
and psychological empowerment. They had better understanding of their disability and need for
accommodations and were better able to communicate how their disability affects their learning.
The SWD who had registered also had greater understanding of the differences in disability
services at the high school and college levels compared to SWD who had not registered. The
SWD who had registered had either been provided greater resources by teachers or parents, or
they had proactively advocated for their needs and sought knowledge regarding these
differences. It is too often the case that transitioning SWD do not fully understand the
differences in services and supports available at the college level and/or have inaccurate
expectations (Garrison-Wade, 2012; Getzel & McManus, 2005; Gil, 2007). Although previous
research has not inquired into differences in self-determination among SWD by registration
status, this study does support earlier research on SWD regarding the importance of awareness of
disability and how one’s disability affects learning as well as the importance of self-disclosing
disability and advocating for necessary supports (Getzel & McManus, 2005; Gil, 2007; Hong et
al., 2011; Skinner & Lindstrom, 2003; Wagner et al., 2005).
This study found no differences in self-determination among SWD by disability type.
These results conflict with those of Adams and Proctor (2010) who found students with visible
disabilities were better adapted to college than those with non-visible disabilities. As suggested
by Hindes & Matthews (2007), additional research is needed that explores differences by
127
disability type as these differences may affect perceptions and manifestations of self-determined
behavior.
Differences by Student Characteristics
Gender. Determining that females, overall, reported greater levels of self-determined
behavior than males is much easier than establishing why gender proved to be so powerful in this
study. Previous research exploring the relationship of gender to self-determination has been
mixed (Lee et al., 2012; Martin & Marsh, 2006; Nota et al., 2007; Pines et al., 2012; Shogren et
al., 2007; Shogren, Wehmeyer, Palmer, & Paek, 2013; Wehmeyer, 2003b). In the current study,
statistically significant differences in mean scores by gender were found on each of the three
scales, with females scoring higher means than males on two indicators of self-determined
behavior. Female students scored significantly higher means on the factors of Self-Regulation
and Resilience; males scored higher levels of self-determined behavior on the measures of
Psychological Empowerment.
This study found statistically significant differences by gender on the Psychological
Empowerment factor, with males outperforming females on this measure; however, the
Wehmeyer study referenced above found that females scored significantly higher than males on
the psychological empowerment component. The Wehmeyer study also found no differences
between the genders on the self-regulation component, which conflicts with the findings of this
study. This study found that females scored higher means than males on the self-regulation
component. Furthermore, this study found that females indicated significantly greater levels of
resilience (which was not assessed by Wehmeyer) than did males. Resilience differences by
gender have been mixed in previous research studies (Campbell-Sills et al., 2009; Davidson et
al., 2005; McGloin & Widom, 2001; Pines et al., 2012; Stein et al., 2009). The finding of this
128
research that females exhibit greater resilience supports previous scholarly research by Davidson
et al. (2005) and McGloin and Widom (2001).
In this study, males reported significantly higher means than females on the
Psychological Empowerment measure, where higher mean scores for males symbolized lesser
test anxiety, less stress over personal responsibility, and greater feelings of academic selfefficacy. Martin and Marsh (2008) also found that females experienced greater test anxiety,
especially in math-oriented subjects, than males. They posited that it may be more socially
acceptable for females to admit weakness and report higher levels of test anxiety. Differences in
test anxiety measures may thus be somewhat skewed due to different societal expectations of
males and females. The results of the current study could indicate that males experience stronger
beliefs in positive outcomes expectancy than females. On the other hand, the lower test anxiety
and stress levels felt by males may be due to over-estimation of their level of preparation or
knowledge and concurrent hesitance to acknowledge weakness. While previous research has
found inconsistent and contradictory findings on the influence of gender on development of selfdetermination skills, this study added yet another piece to the puzzle of the complex relationship
between gender and levels of self-determination.
Race. Earlier research has suggested that race can influence the expression of selfdetermination and that persons from varying cultural backgrounds may perceive and experience
self-determination differently; however, the intersection of race and self-determination has not
been thoroughly studied (Shogren, Wehmeyer, Palmer, & Paek, 2013; Trainor, 2005). This
study did not find significant differences between Caucasian and non-Caucasian students on
measures of self-regulation or psychological empowerment, but it did find that non-Caucasians
scored significantly higher than Caucasians in resilience skills. This finding supports the
129
hypotheses by Francois and Overstreet (2010) that the sense of connectedness, along with strong
family unity and loyalty common in the African American community, leads to greater
educational resilience. This study does not support the findings of Weaver (2009) or Pines et al.
(2012), who found that ethnicity had no significant relationship to resilience or psychological
empowerment. That non-Caucasians scored higher on measures of resilience in the current study
also lends credence to the idea that demonstration of self-determined behavior must be assessed
in an ecological context, and not merely as an individual trait (Clauss-Ehlers, 2008). If persons
from diverse cultural backgrounds perceive manifestation of self-determination in differing
ways, an assessment coming strictly from a Western vantage point may not be a valid indicator.
Any interpretations or recommendations based upon of the findings of this exploration of selfdetermination and race must acknowledge the role cultural variations may play.
Grade point average. In this study, both high school GPA and first semester GPA were
significantly related to measures of self-determined behavior, with increases in selfdetermination positively related to higher GPAs. This was true for every scale assessed for both
high school and first semester GPAs. These results support previous research by Sarver (2000)
and Parker (2004) who found that college students scoring higher in self-determination achieved
higher GPAs but contradict Bae (2007) who found no significant correlation between selfdetermination and postsecondary GPA.
Friedman and Mandel (2009, 2012) also found that students who held positive outcomes
expectations that increased effort would be rewarded with better grades and who set attainable
academic goals (both traits associated with self-determination) had higher GPAs at the end of
their freshman year. The findings regarding the differences between GPA and self-determination
from the current study corroborate those found by Friedman and Mandel. Weaver (2009) also
130
found that resiliency in students is predictive of higher GPA. This study supports those earlier
claims.
Retention to spring semester. Retention to spring semester was significantly impacted
by students’ self-reported Resilience and Psychological Empowerment skills. This study
confirms findings by Beauvais et al. (2013) and Pines et al. (2012) that psychological
empowerment and resilience are positively related to student persistence. It is logical that
resilient students and students who feel empowered would have greater success and increased
likelihood of coming back for their second semester of college than students who do not feel
resilient or empowered. This study supports findings by Garrison-Wade (2012) as well as Field
& Hoffman (2007) that self-determination skills are critical for improving retention and
postsecondary success. While it is important to note the scales where significant differences
existed between students who were and were not retained to spring semester, it is important to
also acknowledge that the self-regulatory skill areas did not appear to be significantly related to
whether students were or were not retained. Of course, there are many possible reasons that
some students fail to return for their second semester. Some of these reasons are purely nonacademic and are not due to a lack of skill competencies. They can be financial or familyrelated. However, analysis of this data indicated that differences in self-reported self-regulation
skills, many of which addressed academic skills and behaviors, had no impact on retention to
spring semester. One might assume that differences in perceived self-regulation would impact
retention, but this data did not support that assumption.
131
Limitations of the Study
Unique Characteristics of Ball State University
Ball State University is known as a campus that goes above and beyond the mandates of
the ADA and Section 504 in providing exemplary support services to SWD and in having a
welcoming campus environment for SWD. Due to the university’s commitment to embracing
SWD and providing a campus that is both physically hospitable and emits a campus atmosphere
that is warm and friendly towards the diverse learning needs of SWD, generalization to other
campuses without the same level of services and acceptance for SWD may be hampered. Any
time data are gathered from one singular institution, generalization of the findings should
proceed with caution. Readers should understand that findings from this study may not apply to
other colleges or universities. Due to the proactive nature of the Disability Services (DS) office,
most SWD disclose their disability and send appropriate documentation of their disability to the
DS office prior to the official statistics day. However, SWD can disclose their disability and
begin receiving accommodations and/or services at any point. Those SWD who did not have
their disability verified prior to the official statistics day were not included in this study.
Additionally, the study was conducted at a university with a well-developed first year experience
program which teaches components of self-determined behavior. Principles of Universal Design
for Learning (UDL) infused throughout both campus and classroom environments may also
serve to make this university more accessible than its peers.
Limitations of the Research Technique
A limitation of any self-reported survey of attitudes and behaviors is that the participants
may not answer truthfully and/or the participants may perceive their abilities to be greater or
lesser than they really are (Northrup, 1997). However, Nisbett and Wilson’s (1977) seminal
132
article on the validity of self-report acknowledged that humans are highly capable of validly
answering questions about a variety of constructs such as attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, plans
and behavioral outcomes. Nisbett and Wilson stated:
The individual knows a host of personal historical facts; he knows the focus of his
attention at any given point in time; he knows what his current sensations are and has . . .
knowledge at least quantitatively superior to that of observers concerning his emotions,
evaluations, and plans. (p. 255)
The potential problems faced in obtaining accurate information from surveys are the
same problems faced in any instance of everyday communication (Northrup, 1997). However,
the structure of the survey is designed to encourage honesty by incorporating voluntary
participation, by telling respondents that they have valuable contributions to make and that their
views matter; and in the case of the MAP-Works instrument, the participants receive
recommendations for increasing student success that are tailored to the specific strengths and
weaknesses they indicated on the survey. Further, when the questions asked in a survey are not
of a sensitive nature and have little perceived threat, misreporting and/or dishonesty of response
is very limited.
Haeffel and Howard (2010) stated that the self-report is a valuable and valid
measurement tool for assessing plans, attitudes, beliefs and behaviors. Even in cases where
respondents misrepresent attitudes and behaviors, the predictive power of the self-report can be
more important than its validity. If the self-report, however inaccurate, can predict important
measureable outcomes, validity may not matter. A person’s inaccurate perception may be a
more robust predictor of future outcomes than an objective reality. Added that self-report
133
measures are cost-effective and easy to administer, the self-report is a measurement strategy with
many merits.
To counteract any potential concerns regarding the validity and scientific rigor of selfreport measures, the construct validity and fidelity of the added questions was ensured by putting
the questions through a review by a panel of experts. Additionally, pre- and post-testing of the
added questions by students had a reliability rate of .83, exceeding the .70 threshold for
reliability (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Cronbach and Meehl (1955) stated that measures are
merely tools that test theories. Science is distinguished by its falsification (Popper, 1959) – if a
theory is falsifiable, it is scientific. Science is characterized by it theories and not by its
measurement tools; ergo, science does not depend upon a certain measurement strategy but only
upon having falsifiable theories (Haeffel & Howard, 2010).
The defense of the self-report measure lies in the fact that measurement decisions must be
theory-driven. Theories define the constructs to be measured and describe how those constructs
behave. The best measurement tool is the one that best fits the theory, and dozens of studies
have found that the construct validity coefficients of self-report measures were nearly always
superior to behavioral observations, thus indicating the strength of self-report as a valid measure
of behavioral outcomes (Haeffel & Howard, 2010).
An ethical justification for the 11 questions added to the MAP-Works 2013 Fall
Transition Survey was that the research conducted was significant and relevant to the success of
the participants. If this research leads to the development of a Survey Factor for SelfDetermination within MAP-Works, potentially thousands of students can benefit. The purpose
of the research is ultimately to improve rates of student success and to contribute to the growing
body of research on how self-determination skills impact retention, persistence and graduation
134
rates. Improving college completion rates is imperative for the strengthening of our nation in the
global economy and in improving employment of individuals in economically fulfilling and
personally meaningful jobs.
Another limitation of this study is that causal inferences cannot be made. One cannot
conclude that higher levels of self-determination will result in better student outcomes, but this
study can help detect students who may need additional assistance to further develop their selfdetermination skills. Longitudinal studies could better track the importance of self-determination
to college completion. Too, this is the first time that MAP-Works has been used as an indicator
of the self-determination skills necessary for successful transition to and success in college.
Replication of this study using MAP-Works will be necessary to confirm the importance of selfdetermination skills.
Recommendations for Practice and Future Research
During both the high school and college years (and indeed throughout the life course),
there is a need for more frequent use of effective methods and strategies for helping students
acquire, implement, practice, and benefit from self-determination skills. College faculty have
repeatedly indicated a lack of self-determination in their students, and especially in first-year
students and students with disabilities (Hong et al., 2011; Rohlfer, 2011). As first-year students
are known to experience the greatest stress and weakest self-determination skills, institutions of
higher education should directly address self-determination promotion and stress reduction in
transitioning students. To date, little research on self-determination has been conducted in the
postsecondary sector, and most of this has focused on the community college. The majority of
research on self-determination has involved persons with lower cognitive ability and more severe
disabilities than the disabilities represented by most SWD who attend four-year comprehensive
135
colleges. Future research should investigate the most effective strategies for building selfdetermination in college students so that IHE can make informed decisions regarding
implementation of evidence-based approaches most applicable for their student body. These
strategies should build on student strengths and should emphasize proactive rather than reactive
approaches to addressing challenges experienced during transition. Additionally, assessments of
self-determination competencies, while notably important during transition and the first year,
should continue through graduation. Development of self-determination is a lifelong endeavor.
So that the findings of this study can be used in the most actionable ways, the importance
of self-determination promotion in optimizing student success must be transmitted down the
pipeline. At all levels – from the overall institution, through the college, to the specific
department, to each particular course and its curricular requirements, to the individual faculty
working directly with students – greater collaboration in promotion of self-determination
competencies can improve student outcomes and increase institutional effectiveness. Centers of
Teaching and Learning can offer professional development workshops to faculty, who are in the
front-line position, to share how student acquisition and practice of self-determination skills can
be facilitated in the classroom through instructional strategies, curricular decisions, and
assessment of student learning.
There is also a need for additional research on self-determination in college students
using quantitative methods that can be generalized to the greater body of college students. Most
previous research has been qualitative in nature and lacks generalizability. As more research is
done in this area, meta-analyses can extrapolate best practices. Longitudinal studies should also
be conducted to investigate the long-term impact of self-determination on retention and
completion. If a survey factor for self-determination can be developed within the MAP-Works
136
Fall Transition survey, retention strategists could use the data to more accurately detect students
at-risk, better identify points of early intervention, and significantly improve retention and
completion rates. MAP-Works is currently used by over 130 institutions of higher education.
The potential value of a survey factor for self-determination is clear; it could lead to exponential
growth in student success thereby putting our nation in a more competitive position in the global
economy.
Another area where further research is warranted deals with the increasingly multicultural
and interconnected society and our habitual use of culturally-insensitive measures of selfdetermination. The greater number of persons with diverse cultural patterns demands that
constructs be aligned to accommodate different cultural preferences, values, and norms for
behavior. A one-size-fits-all model of self-determination will not suffice. Instruments that can
be interpreted in light of diverse cultures must be developed to effectively assess selfdetermination. It could very well be that a student from an Eastern culture would report low
levels of self-determined behaviors as evaluated by Western standards. But that individual may
in fact, in terms of his/her own culture, demonstrate remarkable self-determination.
Development of measures of self-determination that are valid, reliable, and informative for
divergent cultures is needed.
Fostering development of self-determination is crucial; it cannot be left to any one
educational sector, and it certainly cannot be postponed until the transitional years. At all
educational levels, beginning in early childhood, continuing throughout secondary school, and all
the way through the college years, students need to be supported in developing the selfdetermination competencies that will benefit them for the duration of their lives. Improved P-20
collaborative relationships are needed to ensure that students are prepared for college and
137
careers. Maximum synchronization and coordination must occur between secondary schools and
colleges to prepare students prior to transition for the decreased support and changes in
instruction and assessment experienced at the postsecondary level. College preparatory classes,
time-management workshops, and focused study training courses can assist students in their
transition. Academic readiness coupled with strong self-determination skills will facilitate a
more seamless transition from high school to college.
Parents, too, can help by gradually reducing direct involvement in their adolescent’s daily
life throughout high school so that by entrance to college it is reasonable to expect students to
assume personal responsibility, take greater initiative, talk for themselves and communicate
directly with faculty, staff, and service personnel, and practice their self-determination skills.
Supportive parents are not meticulous managers but allow their young adult children to be the
primary operators of their lives. While parents may wish to protect their children from failure or
disappointment, they instead need to encourage independence, self-regulation, and self-efficacy
that will empower their children to capitalize on their strengths and develop into autonomous and
self-determined students capable of college and post-school success.
Research has consistently found that self-determination strategies can effectively be
taught, and students who participate in these interventions experience less attrition and improved
academic performance. Too few institutions address this need. Institutions of higher education
who desire to increase retention and completion rates are well-advised to implement programs
that nurture development of self-determination skills. These interventions should not be directly
solely to students with disabilities or to those at-risk but should be used with the entire student
population. All students, from those transitioning to college through those ready to graduate and
transition to the workforce, can benefit from programs that can assist them in bettering their self-
138
determination capacities. More evidence-based approaches for increasing self-determination
skills in postsecondary settings need to be developed and implemented. Additionally, more
research exploring resilience in postsecondary students is needed. The study of both resilience
and self-determination in college students is scarce.
Institutions should incorporate disability awareness into orientation for faculty and staff.
The importance of self-determination to successful student outcomes should also be shared with
student affairs professionals whose work prioritizes student success. Purposeful use of the
evidence-based assessment findings of this study can strengthen enrollment management
planning and inform decision making by program directors in academic advising, learning
support and supplemental instruction, disability services, and the compendium of First-Year
Experience, Freshman Seminar, Summer Bridge, and other transition and orientation-to-college
programs. First Year Experience (FYE) programs are one perfect place to promote selfdetermination skill development in incoming students. All students must be made aware of the
array of support services available to them including college and career counseling, psychiatric
counseling, and disability support services. Students in this study reported low levels of selfadvocacy. This is an area of weakness that needs to be addressed through assertiveness training
skills workshops offered by counseling centers. Offering these workshops in the students’
residences may help alleviate any potential reluctance to visit the counseling center.
Retention strategists must realize that students most in need of focused intervention may
be the least likely to seek help. Assessment allows for early identification of students with weak
self-determination skills. Flags raised on at-risk students enable retention strategists to focus
intervention efforts on students most in need and likely to benefit. The MAP-Works assessment
139
provides immediate and personalized feedback to students who may not be fully aware of the
discrepancies between their actual behaviors and expectations for success.
Transition is a part of life, and the transition to college can be an especially stressful time
for some students as they learn to assume increased personal and academic responsibilities. The
transition to college can be even more difficult to navigate for students with disabilities who are
accountable for managing their educational accommodations and supports in addition to
handling the increase in responsibilities all college students face. Students with greater selfdetermination are more likely to achieve their postsecondary goals. The practical significance of
the current research lies in the functional application of this information. The MAP-Works Fall
Transition survey can used to assess self-determination competencies in incoming first-year
students. It is firmly established that targeted self-determination education improves student
success. Greater numbers of institutions of higher education need to assess levels of selfdetermination and directly support student acquisition and practice of self-determination skills.
Forward thinking institutions intent on increasing persistence and college completion will see
value in funding educational programs that provide resources to explicitly help students build
self-determination competencies. Institutions can expect a high return on investment as selfdetermination education works and positively impacts student achievement and success.
Self-determination as a key element of successful first-year transition, persistence, and
college completion cannot be understated. Greater collaboration across institutional units to
make student development of self-determination a priority is needed. Buy-in from a network of
academic and student service resources, including faculty, central administration, academic
support and advising, disability support, counseling services, athletics, recreational services,
admissions and enrollment, and residence life, to name a few, will bring about optimal student
140
success. All students, with or without disabilities, need to be supported in developing the selfdetermination skills that will improve college success as well as contribute to a more meaningful
and economically prosperous life after college.
141
REFERENCES
Adams, K. S., & Proctor, B. E. (2010). Adaptation to college for students with and without
disabilities: Group differences and predictors. Journal of Postsecondary Education and
Disability, 22, 166-184. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/
detail?accno=EJ906691
Allsopp, D. H., Minskoff, E. H., & Bolt, L. (2005). Individualized course-specific strategy
instruction for college students with learning disabilities and ADHD: Lessons learned
from a model demonstration project. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20,
103-118. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00126.x
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th ed.). (2011). Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt Trade.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. Pub. L. No. 101-336, 42 U.S.C., 12101-12132.
(1990).
Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) of 2008. Pub. L. No. 110-325, 42
U.S.C. § 12201. (2008).
Anctil, T. M., Ishikawa, M. E., & Scott, A. T. (2008). Academic identity development through
self-determination: Successful college students with learning disabilities. Career
Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31, 164-174. doi:10.1177/0885728808315331
Ankeny, E. M., & Lehmann, J. P. (2011). Journey toward self-determination: Voices of students
with disabilities who participated in a secondary transition program on a community
college campus. Remedial and Special Education, 32, 279-289.
doi:10.1177/0741932510362215
Anthony, E. J. (1974). The syndrome of the psychologically invulnerable child. In E. J. Anthony
& C. Koupernik (Eds.), The child in his family: Vol. 3. Children at psychiatric risk
(pp.529-545). New York: Wiley.
Armstrong, T. (2010). Neurodiversity: Discovering the extraordinary gifts of autism, ADHD,
dyslexia, and other brain differences. Cambridge, MA: Da Cappo Press.
Armstrong, T. (2012). Neurodiversity in the classroom: Strength-based strategies to help
students with special needs succeed in school and life. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Arndt, S. A., Konrad, M., & Test, D. W. (2000). Effects of the self-directed IEP on student
participation in planning meetings. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 194-207.
doi:10.1177/07419325060270040101
142
Arnett, J. J. (in press). Emerging adulthood(s): The cultural psychology of a new life stage. In L.
A. Jensen (Ed.), Bridging cultural and developmental psychology: New syntheses in
theory, research, and policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Association for Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD). (2013). Final program standards
with performance indicators. Huntersville, NC: AHEAD. Retrieved from
http://www.ahead.org/learn/resources
Bae, S. J. (2007). Self-determination and academic achievement of individuals with disabilities
in postsecondary education: A meta-analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.
Baird, G., Scott, W. D., Dearing, E., & Hamill, S. (2009). Examining cognitive self-regulatory
differences in learning disabilities and non-learning disabilities youth: Implicit theories of
intelligence, academic self-efficacy, and academic goal preferences. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 28, 881-908. doi:10.1521/jscp.2009.28.7.881
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological
Review, 84, 191-215. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article
/pii/0146640278900024
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Bangser, M. (2008). Preparing high school students for successful transitions to postsecondary
education and employment. U.S. Department of Education, The National High School
Center. Retrieved from http://www.betterhighschools.org/pubs/usergd_prepare.asp
Barber, P. (2012, September). College students with disabilities: What factors influence
successful degree completion? A case study. Disability and Work Research Report,
Rutgers University: John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development. Retrieved from
http://www.heldrich.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/content/College_Students_Disabilities
_Report.pdf
Barnard-Brak, L., Davis, T., Tate, A., & Sulak, T. (2009). Attitudes as a predictor of college
students requesting accommodations. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 31, 189-198.
doi:10.3233/JVR-2009-0488
Barnard-Brak, L., & Lan, W. Y. (2010). Analyzing disability accommodation statements.
Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 21(4), 29-47. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ915274
143
Barnard-Brak, L., & Lechtenberger, D. (2010). Student IEP participation and academic
achievement across time. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 343-349.
doi:10.1177/0741932509338382
Beale, A. V. (2005). Preparing students with learning disabilities for postsecondary education:
Their rights and responsibilities. Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers, 80(3),
24-27. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ698940
Bean, J., & Eaton, S. B. (2002). The psychology underlying successful retention practices.
Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, and Practice, 30, 73-89.
Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ635275
Beauvais, A. M., Stewart, J. G., DeNisco, S., & Beauvais, J. E. (2013). Factors related to
academic success among nursing students: A descriptive correlational research study.
Nurse Education Today. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2013.12.005
Belch, H. A. (2004). Retention and students with disabilities. Journal of College Student
Retention: Research Theory, and Practice, 6, 3-22. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ683616
Bembenutty, H. (2008). The teacher of teachers talks about learning to learn: An interview with
Wilbert (Bill) J. McKeachie. Teaching of Psychology, 35, 363–372.
doi:10.1080/00986280802390787
Benard, B. (2004). Resiliency: What we have learned. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Bolt, S. E., Decker, D. M., Lloyd, M., & Morlock, M. (2011). Students’ perceptions of
accommodations in high school and college. Career Development for Exceptional
Individuals, 34, 165-175. doi:10.1177/0885728811415098
Boyer, E. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. New York: Harper &
Row.
Brinckerhoff, L. C. (1994). Developing effective self-advocacy skills in college-bound students
with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 29, 229-237.
doi:10.1177/105345129402900407
Brinckerhoff, L. C., McGuire, J. M., & Shaw, S. F. (2002). Postsecondary education and
transition for students with learning disabilities (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Burkhauser, R. V. (2013). Congress should reform social security disability insurance. Dallas,
TX: National Center for Policy Analysis. Retrieved from http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/
index.php?Article_ID=23570
144
Cameto, R., Knokey, A. M. , & Sanford, C. (2011). Participation in postsecondary education of
young adults with learning disabilities: Findings from NLTS2. Learning Disabilities: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 17, 45-54. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/
ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ961675
Campbell-Sills, L., Cohan, S L., & Stein, M. B. (2006). Relationship of resilience to personality,
coping, and psychiatric symptoms in young adults. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44,
585-599. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2005.05.001
Campbell-Sills, L., Forde, D. R., & Stein, M. B. (2009). Demographic and childhood
environmental predictors of resilience in a community sample. Journal of Psychiatric
Research, 43, 1007-1012. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2009.01.013
Campbell-Whatley, G. D. (2008). Teaching students about their disabilities: Increasing selfdetermination skills and self-concept. International Journal of Special Education, 23,
137-144. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/
detail?accno=EJ814451
Carney, K., Ginsberg, S., Lee, L., Li, A., Orr, A, Parks, L., & Schulte, K. (2007). Meeting the
needs of students with disabilities in higher education: How well are we doing? The
Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 73(4), 35-38. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/
login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=27106729&site=ehost-live
Carter, E. W., Lane, K. L., Cooney, M., Weir, K., Moss, C. K., & Machalicek, W. (2013).
Parent assessments of self-determination importance and performance for students with
autism or intellectual disability. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental
Disabilities, 118, 16-31. doi:10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16
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
disabilities. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 114, 179192. doi:10.1352/1944-7558-114.3.179
Cawthon, S. W., & Cole, E. V. (2010). Postsecondary students who have a learning disability:
Student perspectives on accommodations access and obstacles. Journal of Postsecondary
Education and Disability, 23, 112-128. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/
ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ906696
Chambers, C. R., Wehmeyer, M. L., Saito, Y., Lida, K. M., Lee, Y., & Singh, V. (2007). Selfdetermination: What do we know? Where do we go? Exceptionality, 15(1), 3-15.
doi:10.1207/s15327035ex1501_2
Chemers, M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year college
student performance adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 55–64.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.55
145
Chickering, A. W. (1967). The development of autonomy. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
37, 203-204. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/?id=ED014749
Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Clauss-Ehlers, C. S. (2008). Sociocultural factors, resilience, and coping: Support for a culturally
sensitive measure of resilience. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 197–
212. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.02.004
Clauss-Ehlers, C. S. & Wibrowski, C. R. (2007). Building educational resilience and social
support: The effects of the Educational Opportunity Fund Program among first- and
second-generation college students. Journal of College Student Development, 48, 574584. doi:10.1353/csd.2007.0051
Cobb, B., & Alwell, M. (2009). Transition planning/coordinating interventions for youth with
disabilities: A systematic review. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32,
70-81. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ848301
Cobb, B., Lehmann, J., Newman-Gonchar, R., & Alwell, M. (2009). Self-determination for
students with disabilities: A narrative metasynthesis. Career Development for
Exceptional Individuals, 32, 108-114. doi:10.1177/0885728809336654
College Board. (2010). Education pays 2010. New York, NY: College Board. Retrieved from
http://trends.collegeboard.org/education-pays
College Board. (2013). Education pays 2013: The benefits of higher education for individuals
and society. New York: NY: College Board. Retrieved from
http://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/education-pays-2013-full-report.pdf
Conley, D. T. (2005). College knowledge: What it really takes for students to succeed and what
we can do to get them ready. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Connor, D. J. (2012). Helping students with disabilities transition to college: 21 tips for students
with LD and/or ADD/ADHD, Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(5), 16-25. Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=
74695064&site=ehost-live
Cook, L., Hennessey, M. L., Cook, B. G., & Rumrill, P. D. (2007). The views of university
faculty members and service providers regarding the increased enrollment of students
with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 205216. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno= EJ803310
146
Cook, L., Rumrill, P. D., & Tankersley, M. (2009). Priorities and understanding of faculty
members regarding college students with disabilities. International Journal of Teaching
and Learning in Higher Education, 21, 84-96. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/
ERICWebPortal/detail?accno= EJ896246
Corrigan, P. W., & Matthews, A. K. (2003). Stigma and disclosure: Implications for coming out
of the closet. Journal of Mental Health, 12, 235-248. doi:10.1080/
0963823031000118221
Cowen, S. (1993). Transition planning for LD college-bound students. In S. A. Vogel & P. B.
Adelman (Eds.), Success for college students with learning disabilities (pp. 39-56). New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Crawford, V. (2002). Embracing the monster: Overcoming the challenges of hidden disabilities.
Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Publishing.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meele, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological
Bulletin, 52, 281-302. doi:10.1037/h0040957
Cullaty, B. (2011). The role of parental involvement in the autonomy development of traditionalage college students. Journal of College Student Development, 52, 425-439.
doi:10.1353/csd.2011.0048
DaDeppo, M. W. (2009). Integration factors related to the academic success and intent to persist
of college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
24, 122-131. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00286.x
Davidson, J. R., Payne, V. M., Connor, K. M., Foa, E. B., Rothbaum, B. O., Hertzberg, M. A., &
Weisler, R. H. (2005). Trauma, resilience and saliostasis: Effects of treatment in posttraumatic stress disorder. International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 20, 43-38.
Davidson, W. B., & Beck, H. (2007). Survey of academic orientations scores and persistence in
college freshmen. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8,
297-305. doi:10.2190/H18T-6850-77LH-0063
Davis, L. L. (1992). Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied
Nursing Research, 5, 194-197. doi:10.1016/S0897-1897(05)80008-4
deBettencourt, L. U. (2002). Understanding the differences between IDEA and Section 504.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(3), 16-34. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=5995641&site=ehostlive
147
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education:
The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26, 325-346. Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=
6370941&site=ehost-live
deFur, S. H. (2008). Transition to postsecondary education. Exceptionality, 16, 175-177.
doi:10.1080/09362830802412125
deFur, S. H., Getzel, E. E., & Trossi, K. (1996). Making the postsecondary education match: A
role for transition planning. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 6, 231-241.
Denhart, H. (2008). Deconstructing barriers: Perceptions of students labeled with learning
disabilities in higher education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 483-497.
doi:10.1177/0022219408321151
Denney, S. C., & Daviso, A. W. (2012). Self-determination: A critical component of education.
American Secondary Education, 40, 43-51. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/
ERICWebPortal/detail accno E 986834
DeRosier, M. E., Frank, E., Schwartz, V., & Leary, K. A. (2013). The potential role of resilience
education for preventing mental health problems for college students. Psychiatric Annals,
43, 538-544. doi:10.3928/00485713-20131206-05
Dowrick, P. W., Anderson, J., Heyer, K., & Acosta, J. (2005). Postsecondary education across
the USA: Experiences of adults with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation,
22, 41-47. Retrieved from http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=
WF77RC176EHANQQEWRJ2
DuMont, K. A., Widom, C. S., & Czaja, S. J. (2007). Predictors of resilience in abused and
neglected children grown-up: The role of individual and neighborhood characteristics.
Child Abuse & Neglect: The International Journal, 31, 255-274.
doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.11.015
EBI MAP-Works. (2012). The foundation of MAP-Works: Research and theoretical
underpinnings of MAP-Works. Springfield, MO: Author.
Eckes, S. E., & Ochoa, T. A. (2005). Students with disabilities: Transitioning from high school
to higher education. American Secondary Education, 33(3), 6-20. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17885642&site=ehost
-live
Education for All Handicapped Children Act, Pub L. No. 94-142. (1975).
148
Egan, P. M., & Giuliano, T. A. (2009). Unaccommodating attitudes: Perceptions of students as a
function of academic accommodation use and test performance. North American Journal
of Psychology, 11, 487. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=
GALE%7CA213084804&v=2.1&u=munc80314&it=r&p=HRCA&sw=w
Elder, G. H., Pavalko, E. K., & Clipp, E. C. (1993). Working with archival data: Studying Lives.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Erickson, A. S. G., Noonan, P. M., Brussow, J. A., & Giplin, B. J. (2013). The impact of IDEA
Indicator 13 compliance on postsecondary outcomes. Career Development and
Transition for Exceptional Individuals. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1177/2165143413481497
Erickson, W., Lee, C., von Schrader, S. (2010, March 17). Disability statistics from the 2008
American Community Survey (ACS). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Rehabilitation
Research and Training Center on Disability Demographics and Statistics (StatsRRTC).
Retrieved from www.disabilitystatistics.org.
Erwin, E. J., & Brown, F. (2003). From theory to practice: A contextual framework for
understanding self-determination in early childhood environments. Infants and Young
Children, 16, 77-87. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/
detail?accno=EJ667881
Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-430, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq. (1988).
Ferrand, C., Nasarre, S., Hautier, C., & Bonnefoy, M. (2012). Aging and well-being in French
older adults regularly practicing physical activity: A self-determination perspective.
Journal of Aging & Physical Activity, 20, 215-230. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22472581
Field, S. (1996). Self-determination instructional strategies for youth with learning disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 40-52. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/
ERICWebPortal/detail?accno= EJ517928
Field, S. (2003). Self-determination: Assuming control of your plans for postsecondary
education. George Washington University: Heath Resource Center. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED482309
Field, S., & Hoffman, A. (1996). Steps to self-determination. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Field, S., & Hoffman, A. (2002). Lessons learned from implementing the Steps to SelfDetermination curriculum. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 90-98.
doi:10.1177/074193250202300205
149
Field, S., & Hoffman, A. (2007). Self-determination in secondary transition assessment.
Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 181-190. doi:10.1177/
15345084070320030601
Field, S., & Hoffman, A. (2012). Fostering self-determination through building productive
relationships in the classroom. Intervention in School and Clinic, 48(1), 6-14.
doi:10.1177/1053451212443150
Field, S., Hoffman, A., & Sawilowsky, S. (1996). Self-determination assessment battery user’s
guide. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University.
Field, S., Martin, J., Miller, R., Ward, M., & Wehmeyer, M. (1998). Self-determination for
persons with disabilities: A position statement of the Division on Career Development
and Transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 21, 113-128. Retrieved
from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ579472
Field, S., Sarver, M. D., & Shaw, S. F. (2003). Self-determination: A key to success in
postsecondary education for students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special
Education, 24, 339-349. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=
true&db=aph&AN=11398991&site=ehost-live
Finn, D., Getzel, E. E., & McManus, S. (2008). Adapting the self-determined learning model for
instruction of college students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional
Individuals, 31, 85-93. doi:10.1177/0885728808318327
Fleischer, D. Z. (2011). The disability rights movement: from charity to confrontation.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Fleming, A. R., & Fairweather, J. S. (2012). The role of postsecondary education in thepath from
high school to work for youth with disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 55,
71-81. doi:10.1177/0034355211423303
Flexer, R. W., & Baer, R. M. (2008). Life satisfaction and productive futures. In R. W. Flexer, T.
J. Simmons, P. Luft, & R. M. Baer (Eds.), Transition planning for secondary students
with disabilities (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Foley, N. E. (2006). Preparing for college: Improving the odds for students with learning
disabilities. College Student Journal, 40, 641-645. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno= E 765362
Fowler, F. J. (2009). Survey research methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Francois, S., & Overstreet, S. (2010). Educational resilience. In C. S. Clauss-Ehlers (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Cross-Cultural School Psychology (pp. 416-418). New York: Springer.
150
Friedman, B. A., & Mandel, R. G. (2009). The prediction of college student academic
performance and retention: Application of expectancy and goal setting theories. Journal
of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, & Practice, 11, 227-246.
doi:10.2190/CS.11.2.d
Friedman, B. A., & Mandel, R. G. (2012). Motivation predictors of college student academic
performance and retention. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, &
Practice, 13, 1-15. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/
detail?accno=EJ935758
Gabel, S. L. (2010). A disability studies framework for policy activism in postsecondary
education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 23, 63-70. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ888645
Galatzer-Levy, I. R., Burton, C. L., & Bonanno, G. A. (2012). Coping flexibility, potentially
traumatic life events, and resilience: A prospective study of college student adjustment.
Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 31, 542-567. doi:10.1521/jscp.2012.31.6.542
Garmezy, N. (1974). The study of competence in children at risk for severe psychopathology. In
E. J. Anthony & C. Koupernik (Eds.), The child in his family: Vol. 3. Children at
psychiatric risk (pp. 77-97). New York: Wiley.
Garmezy, N. (1981). Children under stress: Perspectives on antecedents and correlates of
vulnerability and resistance to psychopathology. In A. I. Rabin, J. Aronoff, A. Barclay,
& R. A. Zucker (Eds.), Further explorations in personality (pp. 196-269). New York:
Wiley.
Garner, D. B. (2008). Postsecondary education success: Stories of three students with learning
disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 4(4), 1-10. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov.proxy.bsu.edu/fulltext/EJ967484.pdf
Garrison-Wade, D. F. (2012). Listening to their voices: Factors that inhibit or enhance
postsecondary outcomes for students with disabilities. International Journal of Special
Education, 27, 113-125. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/
detail accno E 982866
Garrison-Wade, D. F., & Lehmann, . P. (2007). Students’ perceptions about successfully
transitioning into postsecondary institutions. Review of Disability Studies: An
International Journal, 2(4), 37-49. Retrieved from http://www.rds.hawaii.edu/downloads/
issues/pdf/RDSv02iss04.pdf
Garrison-Wade, D. F., & Lehmann, J. P. (2009). A conceptual framework for understanding
students with disabilities transition to community college. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 33, 415-443. doi:10.1080/10668920802640079
151
Getzel, E. E., & McManus, S. (2005). Expanding support services on campus. In E. E. Getzel &
P. Wehman (Eds.), Going to college: Expanding opportunities for people with disabilities
(pp. 139-154.) Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks.
Getzel, E. E., & Thoma, C. A. (2008). Experiences of college students with disabilities and the
importance of self-determination in higher education settings. Career Development for
Exceptional Individuals, 31(2), 77-84. doi:10.1177/0885728808317658
Gil, L. A. (2007). Bridging the transition gap from high school to college: Preparing students
with disabilities for a successful postsecondary experience. TEACHING Exceptional
Children, 40(2), 12-15. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/
detail?accno=EJ849797
Gil-Kashiwabara, E., Hogansen, J. M., Geenen. S., Powers, K., & Powers, L. E. (2007).
Improving transition outcomes for marginalized youth. Career Development for
Exceptional Individuals, 30(2), 80-91. doi:10.1177/08857288070300020501
Ginerva, M. C., Nota, L., Soresi, S., Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., & Little, T. D. (2013). A
cross-cultural comparison of the self-determination construct in Italian and American
adolescents. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1080/02673843.2013.808159
Gore, P. A. (2006). Academic self-efficacy as a predictor of college outcomes: Two incremental
validity studies. Journal of Career Assessment, 14(1), 92-115. doi:10.1177/
1069072705281367
Gregg, N. (2007). Underserved and unprepared: Postsecondary learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 219-228. Retrieved from
http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=4C29833ECCAD1C91EDB3
Hadley, W. M. (2006). L.D. students’ access to higher education: Self-advocacy and support.
Journal of Developmental Education, 30(2), 10-16. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=23830676&site=ehost
-live
Hadley, W. M. (2007). The necessity of academic accommodations for first-year college students
with learning disabilities. Journal of College Admissions, 195, 9-13. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ783943
Hadley, W. M. (2011). College students with disabilities: A student development perspective.
New Directions for Higher Education, 154, 77-81. doi:10.1002/he.436
Haeffel, G., & Howard, G., (2010). Self-report: Psychology’s four-letter word. American Journal
of Psychology, 123, 181-189. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/
amerjpsyc.123.2.0181
152
Hamblet, E. C. (2011). 7 steps for success: High School to college transition strategies for
students with disabilities. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Hartley, M. T. (2010). Increasing resilience: Strategies for reducing dropout rates for college
students with psychiatric disabilities. American Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilitation, 13,
295-315. doi:10.1080/15487768.2010.523372
Hartley, M. T. (2011). Examining the relationships between resilience, mental health, and
academic persistence in undergraduate college students. American Journal of College
Health, 59, 596-604. doi:10.1080/07448481.2010.515632
Hartley, M. T. (2012). Assessing and promoting resilience: An additional tool to address the
increasing number of college students with psychological problems. Journal of College
Counseling, 15, 37-51. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1882.2012.00004.x
Hartley, M. T. (2013). Investigating the relationship of resilience to academic persistence in
college students with mental health issues. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 56, 240250. doi:10.1177/0034355213480527
Hartman-Hall, H. M., & Haaga, D. A. (2002). College students’ willingness to seek help for
their learning disability. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 263-274. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511357
Hen, M., & Goroshit, M. (2012). Academic procrastination, emotional intelligence, academic
self-efficacy, and GPA: A comparison between students with and without learning
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1177/0022219412439325
Higher Education Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-329, 20 U.S.C. § 1001 (1965).
Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-315, 122 Stat. 3078 (2008).
Hindes, Y., & Mather, J. (2007). Inclusive education at the post-secondary level: Attitudes of
students and professors. Exceptionality Education Canada, 17, 107-127. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ773911
Hoffman, A., Field, S., & Sawilowsky, S. (1996). Steps to self-determination: A curriculum to
help adolescents learn to achieve their goals. Self-Determination Knowledge Scale.
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed., Inc. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/
detail?accno=ED425551
Hong, B., Haefner, L., & Slekar, T. (2011). Faculty attitudes and knowledge toward promoting
self-determination and self-directed learning for college students with and without
disabilities. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23,
175-185. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?
accno=EJ946142
153
Hong, B., Ivy, W. F., Gonzalez, H. R., & Ehrensberger, W. (2007). Preparing students for
postsecondary education. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 40, 32-38. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=26753958&site=ehost
-live
Horn, L., Berktold, J., & Bobbit, L. (1999). Students with disabilities in postsecondary
education: A profile on preparation, participation, and outcomes (NCES 1999 – 187).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=1999187
Horn, L., Cataldi, E. F., & Sikora, A. (2005). Waiting to attend college: Undrgraduates who
delay their postsecondary enrollment (NCES 2005 – 152). U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/das/epubs/2005152/
Hsieh, P., Sullivan, J. R., & Guerra, N. S. (2007). Closer look at college students: Self-efficacy
and goal orientation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18, 454-476. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=26214810&site=ehost
-live
Humphrey, M., Woods, L., & Huglin, L. (2011). Increasing faculty awareness of students with
disabilities: A two-pronged approach. Journal of Postsecondary Education and
Disability, 24, 255-261. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/
detail?accno=EJ966128
Huntly, H., & Donovan, J. (2009). Supporting the development of persistence: Strategies for
teachers of first year undergraduate students. International Journal of Teaching and
Learning in Higher Education, 21, 210-220. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ899307
Iacobucci, D., & Duhachek, A. (2003). Advancing alpha: Measuring reliability with confidence.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 478-487. doi:10.1207/S15327663JCP1304_14
IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Version 21.0) [computer software]. Armonk,
NY: IBM.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. (1990).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1997).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 USC §1401 et seq. (2004).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Regulations (2006), 71 FR 46540-46844. 34 C.F.R. §
300.1 et seq. (July, 2010). Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/download/finalregulations.
pdf
154
Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2005). The investment pay-off: A 50-state analysis of the
public and private benefits of higher education. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.ihep.org/assets/files/publications/g-l/InvestmentPayoff.pdf
Izzo, M. V., & Lamb, P. (2002). Self-determination and career development: Skills for successful
transition to postsecondary education and employment. A White Paper written in
collaboration with Ohio State University, the Center on Disability Studies at the
University of Hawaii at Manoa, and the National Center on Secondary Education and
Transition. Retrieved from http://www.ncset.hawaii.edu/Publications/pdf/
self_determination.pdf
Izzo, M. V., Murray, A., & Novak, J. (2008). The faculty perspective on universal design for
learning. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 21, 60-72. Retrieved from
http://www.ahead.org/publications/jped/vol_21
Jameson, D. R. (2007). Self-determination and success outcomes of two-year college students
with disabilities. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 37, 26-46. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ767765
Janiga, S. J., & Costenbader, V. (2002). The transition from high school to postsecondary
education for students with learning disabilities: A survey of college service coordinators.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 462-468. Retrieved from http://ejournals.ebsco.com/
direct.asp?ArticleID=464DBE9B23194BED1347
Jensen, J. M., McCrary, N., Krampe, K., & Cooper, J. (2004). Trying to do the right thing:
Faculty attitudes toward accommodating students with learning disabilities. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 17, 81-90. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ876004
Karvonen, M., Test, D. W., Wood, W. M., Browder, D., & Algozzine, B. (2004). Putting selfdetermination into practice. Exceptional Children, 72, 23-41. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ696632
Kaye, H. S. (2009). Stuck at the bottom rung: Occupational characteristics of workers with
disabilities. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 19, 115-128. doi:10.1007/s10926009-9175-2
Kaye, H. S. (2010, October). The impact of the 2007-09 recession on workers with disabilities.
Monthly Labor Review, 19-30. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2010/
10/art2full.pdf
Keenan, W. R., & Shaw, S. F. (2011). The legal context for serving students with learning
disabilities in postsecondary education. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 17, 55-62. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?
accno=EJ961676
155
Kellems, R. O., & Morningstar, M. E. (2010). Tips for transition. TEACHING Exceptional
Children, 43(2), 60-68. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=
true&db=aph&AN=54970247&site=ehost-live
King, G. A., Baldwin, P. J., Currie, M., & Evans, J. (2006). The effectiveness of transition
strategies for youth with disabilities. Children’s Health Care, 35, 155-178. Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN
=21860184&site=ehost-live
Kitsantas, A.,Winsler, A., & Huie, F. (2008). Self-regulation and ability predictors of academic
success during college: A predictive validity study. Journal of Advanced Academics,
20(1), 42–68. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=
aph&AN=37378786&site=ehost-live
Klassen, R. M. (2002). A question of calibration: A review of the self-efficacy beliefs of
students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 88-102. Retrieved
from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ647139
Klassen, R. M., Krawchuk, L. L., Lynch, S. L., & Rajani, S. (2008). Procrastination and
motivation of undergraduates with learning disabilities: A mixed-methods inquiry.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 137-147. doi:10.1111/j.15405826.2008.00271.x
Klibert, J., Lamis, D. A., Collins, W., Smalley, K. B., Warren, J. C., Yancey, C. T., &
Winterowd, C. (2014). Resilience mediates the relations between perfectionism and
college student distress. Journal of Counseling and Development, 92, 75-82.
doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00132.x
Kochhar-Bryant, C. A., & Bassett, D. S. (2002). Challenge and promise in aligning transition and
standards-based education. In C. A. Kochhar-Bryant, & D. S. Bassett (Eds.), Aligning
transition and standards-based education: Issues and strategies (pp. 1-24). Arlington,
VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Kochhar-Bryant, C., Bassett, D. S., & Webb, K. W. (2009). Transition to postsecondary
education for students with disabilities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Komarraju, M., & Nadler, D. (2013). Self-efficacy and academic achievement: Why do implicit
beliefs, goals, and effort regulation matter? Learning and Individual Differences, 25, 6772. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=
true&db=eric&AN=EJ1008472&site=ehost-live
Konrad, M., Fowler, C. H., Walker, A. R., Test, D. W., & Wood, W. (2007). Self-determination
interventions on the academic skills of students with learning disabilities. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 30, 89-113. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/
30035545
156
Kuh, G. D. (1993). In their own words: What students learn outside the classroom. American
Educational Research Journal, 30, 277-304. doi:10.3102/00028312030002277
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J. A., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2007). Piecing together
the student success puzzle: Research, propositions, and recommendations. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kurth, N., & Mellard, D. (2006). Student perceptions of the accommodation process in
postsecondary education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19, 71-84.
Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ844625
Layton, C. A., & Lock, R. H. (2003). Reasoning and self-advocacy for postsecondary students
with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 12(2), 4955. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ853893
Lee, J. H., Nam, S. K., Kim, A., Kim, B., Lee, M. Y., & Lee, S. M. (2013). Resilience: A metaanalytic approach. Journal of Counseling and Development, 91, 269-279.
doi:10.1002.j.1556-6676.2013.00095.x
Lee, Y., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Williams-Diehm. K., Davies, D. K., & Stock, S. E.
(2012). Examining individual and instruction-related predictors of the self-determination
of students with disabilities: Multiple regression analysis. Remedial and Special
Education, 33, 150-161. doi:10.1177/0741932510392053
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2012). Practical research: Planning and design (10th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Levitz, R., & Noel, L. (1989). Connecting students to institutions: Keys to retention and success.
In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, and Associates (Eds.), The freshman year experience (p.
65-81). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Lewis, H. R. (2006). Excellence without a soul: How a great university forgot education (1st
ed.). New York: PublicAffairs.
Leyser, Y., Vogel, S., Wyland, S., & Brulle, A. (1998). Faculty attitudes and practices regarding
students with disabilities: Two decades after implementation of Section 504. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 13, 1-18. Retrieved from
http://www.ahead.org/publications/jped/vol_13
Lightner, K. L., Kipps-Vaughan, D., Schulte, T., & Trice, A. D. (2012). Reasons university
students with a learning disability wait to see disability services. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 25, 145-159. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ994283
157
Lindstrom, J. H. (2007). Determining appropriate accommodations for postsecondary students
with reading and written expression disorders. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 22, 229-236. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00251.x
Lindstrom, J. H., & Lindstrom, W. (2011). Assessment and documentation considerations for
postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 72, 63-68. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.
gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ961677
Lock, R. H., & Layton, C. A. (2001). Succeeding in postsecondary ed through self-advocacy.
TEACHING Exceptional Children, 34(2), 66-71. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.
com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=5545739&site=ehost-live
Ludlow, B. (2010). Self-determination. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 43(2), 6. Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=
54970240&site=ehost-live
Mackenzie, A. H. (2009). Preparing high school students for college science classes. The
American Biology Teacher, 71(1), 6–7. doi:10.1662/005.071.0102
Madaus, J. W. (2005). Navigating the college transition maze: A guide for students with
learning disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 37(3), 32-37. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=15543104&site=ehost
-live
Madaus, J. W., Faggella-Luby, M. N., & Dukes, L. L. (2011). The role of non-academic factors
in the academic success of college students with learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities, 17(2), 77-82. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?
accno E 961679
Madaus, J. W., & Shaw, S. F. (2004). Section 504: The differences in the regulations regarding
secondary and postsecondary education. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40, 81-87.
doi:10.1177/10534512040400020301
Madaus, J. W., & Shaw, S. F. (2006). The impact of the IDEA 2004 on transition to college for
students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21, 273281. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00223.x
Mamiseishvili, K., & Koch, L. C. (2011). First-to-second year persistence of students with
disabilities in postsecondary institutions in the United States. Rehabilitation Counseling
Bulletin, 54, 93-105. doi:10.1177/0034355210382580
Marshak, L., Van Wieren, T., Ferrel, D. R., Swiss, L., & Dugan, C. (2010). Exploring barriers to
college student use of disability services and accommodations. Journal of Postsecondary
Education and Disability, 21, 151-165. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.
gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno= EJ906688
158
Martin, A. J., Colmar, S. H., Davey, L. A., & Marsh, H. W. (2010). Longitudinal modelling of
academic buoyancy and motivation: Do the 5Cs hold up over time? British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 80, 473–496. doi:10.1348/000709910X486376
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2006). Academic resilience and its psychological and educational
correlates: A construct validity approach. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 267-282.
doi:10.1002/pits.20149
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2008). Academic buoyancy: Towards an understanding of
students’ everyday academic resilience. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 53-83.
doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2007.01.002
Martin, J. E., & Marshall, L. H. (1995). ChoiceMaker: A comprehensive self-determination
transition program. Intervention in School and Clinic, 30, 147-156.
doi:10.1177/105345129503000304
Martin, J. E., Mithaug, D. E., Cox, P., Peterson, L. Y., Van Dycke, J. L., & Cash, M. E. (2003).
Increasing self-determination: Teaching students to plan, work, evaluate, and adjust.
Exceptional Children, 69, 431-446. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/
ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ671459
Martin, J. E., Portley, J., & Graham, J. W. (2010). Teaching students with disabilities selfdetermination skills to equalize access and increase opportunities for postsecondary
educational success. In S. F. Shaw, J. W. Madaus, & L. L. Dukes (Eds.), Preparing
Students with Disabilities for College Success: A Practical Guide to Transition Planning
(pp. 65-81). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Martin, J. E., Van Dycke, J. L., Greene, B. A., Gardner, J. E., Christensen, W. R., Woods, L. L.,
& Lovett, D. L. (2006). Direct observation of teacher-directed IEP meetings: Establishing
the need for student IEP meeting instruction. Exceptional Children, 72, 187-200.
Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ754344
Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American
Psychologist, 56, 227-238. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227
Mazzotti, V. L., Rowe, D. A., Cameto, R., Test, D. W., & Morningstar, M. E. (2013). Identifying
and promoting transition evidence-based practices and predictors of success: A position
paper pf the Division on Career Development and Transition. Career Development and
Transition for Exceptional Individuals. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1177/2165143413503365
McCarthy, D. (2007). Teaching self-advocacy to students with disabilities. About Campus,
10(5), 10-16. doi:10.1002/abc.225
159
McGoin, J. M., & Widom, C. S. (2001). Resilience among abused and neglected children grown
up. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 1021-1038.
doi:10.1017/S095457940100414X
McInnis, C. (2001). Researching the first year experience: Where to from here? Higher
Education Research & Development, 20, 105-114. doi:10.1080/07294360125188
Mellard, D. (2005). Strategies for transition to postsecondary education settings. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 37(9), 1-19. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/
login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=21833131&site=ehost-live
Meltzer, L. (2004). Resilience and learning disabilities: Research on internal and external
protective dynamics: Introduction to the special series. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 19, 1–2. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2004.00083.x
Miller, M. (2002). Resilience elements in students with learning disabilities. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 58, 291-298. doi:10.1002/jclp.10018
Mooney, J. (2008). The short bus: A journey beyond normal. New York, NY: Henry Holt.
Morningstar, M. E., Frey, B. B., Noonan, P. M., Ng, J., Clavenna-Deane, B., Graves, P.,
Kellems, R., McCall, Z., Pearson, M., Bjorkman Wade, D., & Williams-Diehm, K.
(2010). A preliminary investigation of the relationship of transition preparation and selfdetermination for students with disabilities in postsecondary educational settings. Career
Development for Exceptional Individuals, 33(2), 80-94. doi:10.1177/0885728809356568
Murphy, L. B., & Moriarty, A. E. (1976). Vulnerability, coping, and growth: From infancy to
adolescence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Murray, C., Goldstein, D. D., Nourse, S., & Edgar, E. (2000). The postsecondary school
attendance and completion rates of high school graduates with learning disabilities.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 119-127. doi:10.1207/SLDRP1503_1
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Student effort and educational progress:
Elementary and secondary persistence and progress. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/section3/indicator18.asp
National Council on Disability. (2011). National disability policy: A progress report.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ncd.gov/progress_reports/Oct312011
National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center. (NSTTAC, 2010). Evidence-based
practices and predictors in secondary transition: What we know and what we still need to
know. Charlotte, NC: NSTTAC. Retrieved from http://www.nsttac.org/sites/default/files/
assets/pdf/pdf/ebps/ExecsummaryPPs.pdf
160
National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center. (NSTTAC, 2013). What is Indicator
13? Charlotte, NC: NSTTAC. Retrieved from http://www.nsttac.org/content/whatindicator-13
Naumann, W. C., Bandalos, D., & Gutkin, T. B. (2003). Identifying variables that predict college
success for first-generation college students. Journal of College Admission, 181, 4-9.
Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ675909
Neenan, M. (2009). Developing resilience: A cognitive-behavioural approach. New York, NY:
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Newman, L., Wagner, M., Cameto, R., & Knokey, A. M. (2009). The post-high school outcomes
of youth with disabilities up to 4 years after high school. A report of findings from the
National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2009-3017). Menlo Park,
CA: SRI International. Retrieved from www.nlts2.org/reports/2009_04/nlts2_report_
2009_04_complete.pdf
Nirje, B. (1972). The right to self-determination. In W. Wolfensberger, (Ed.), Normalization:
The principle of normalization (pp. 176-200). Toronto: National Institute on Mental
Retardation.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on
mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259. Retrieved from
http://people.virginia.edu/~tdw/nisbett&wilson.pdf
Northrup, D. A. (1997). The problem of the self-report in survey research. York University:
Institute for Social Research. Retrieved from http://www.math.yorku.ca/ISR/self.htm
Nota, L., Ferrari, L., Soresi, S., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2007). Self-determination, social abilities
and the quality of life of people with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual
Disability Research, 51, 850-865. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00939.x
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw
Hill.
Palmer, S. B. (2010). Self-determination: A life-span perspective. Focus on Exceptional
Children, 42(6), 1-16. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct
=true&db=aph&AN=54428590&site=ehost-live
Palmer, S. B., & Roessler, R. T. (2000). Requesting classroom accommodations: Self-advocacy
and conflict resolution training for college students. Journal of Rehabilitation, 66(3), 3843. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/236229832?accountid=8483
Palmer, S. B., Summers, J. A., Brotherson, M. J., Erwin, E. J., Maude, S. P., Stroup-Rentier, V.,
Wu, H., Peck, N. F., Zheng, Y., Weigel, C. J., Chu, S., McGrath, G. S., & Haines, S. J.
(2013). Foundations for self-determination in early childhood: An inclusive model for
161
children with disabilities. Topics in Early childhood Special Education, 33(1), 38-47.
doi:10.1177/0271121412445288
Park, C. L., Edmondson, D., & Lee, J. (2012). Development of self-regulation abilities as
predictors of psychological adjustment across the first year of college. Journal of Adult
Development, 19, 40-49. doi:10.1007/s10804-011-9133-z
Parker, D. R. (2004). Voices of self-determined college students with ADHD: Undergraduates’
perceptions of factors that influence their academic success. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Connecticut-Storrs.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: Volume 2. A third
decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pines, E. W., Rauschhuber, M. L., Norgan, G. H., Cook, J. D., Canchola, L., Richardson, C., &
Jones, M. E. (2012). Stress resiliency, psychological empowerment and conflict
management styles among baccalaureate nursing students. Journal of Advanced Nursing 68,
1482–1493. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05875.x
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.
Quinlan, M. M., Bates, B. R., & Angell, M. E., (2012). ‘What can I do to help ’: Postsecondary
students with learning disabilities perceptions of instructors’ classroom accommodations.
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12, 224-233. doi:10.1111/j.14713802.2011.01225.x
Quick, D. Lehmann, J., & Deniston, T. (2003). Opening doors for students with disabilities on
community college campuses: What have we learned? What do we still need to know?
The Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27, 815-827.
doi:10.1080/713838274
Rao, S. (2004). Faculty attitudes and students with disabilities in higher education: A literature
review. College Student Journal, 38, 191-198. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=14098753&site=ehost
-live
Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of a paradox: A social policy of empowerment over prevention.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 9(1), 1-25. doi:10.1007/BF00896357
Raue, K., & Lewis, L. (2011). Students with disabilities at degree-granting postsecondary
institutions: First Look (NCES 2011-018). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011018.pdf
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (1973).
162
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504, 29 U.S.C. § 794. (1977).
Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do
psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 130, 261–288. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261
Roberts, J. M., & Masten, A. S. (2005). Resilience in context. In R. DeV. Peters, R. McMahon,
& B. Leadbeater (Eds.). Resilience in children, families, and communities: Linking
context to practice and policy (pp. 13-25). New York, NY: Springer.
Rohlfer, E. G. (2011). The self-determination of college students with and without disabilities.
Unpublished thesis. Miami University, Oxford, OH.
Ruban, L. M., McCoach, D. B., McGuire, J. M., & Reis, S. M. (2003). The differential impact of
academic self-regulatory methods on academic achievement among university students
with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 270-286.
doi:10.1177/002221940303600306
Rutter, M. (1979). Protective factors in children’s responses to stress and disadvantage. In M. W.
Kent & J. E. Rolf (Eds.), Primary prevention of psychopathology: Vol. 3. Social
competence in children (pp. 49-74). Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
Salman, H. (2009). Understanding the perceptions of self-efficacy of students with learning
disabilities: A review and critique of the current literature. Masters Thesis, University of
Cincinnati.
Salmirs, D. (2011). Helping students with disabilities transition from high school. RussianAmerican Education Forum: An Online Journal, 3(1). Retrieved from http://www.rusameeduforum.com/content/en/?task=art&article=1000822&iid=9
Sanford, C., Newman, L., Wagner, M., Cameto, R., Knokey, A. M., & Shaver, D. (2011). The
post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to six years after high
school. Key finding from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo
Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20113004/
pdf/20113004.pdf
Sarver, M. D. (2000). A study of the relationship between personal and environmental factors
bearing on self-determination and the academic success of university students with
learning disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida,
Gainesville.
Schunk, D. (2001). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. Zimmerman & D.
Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical
perspectives (pp. 125–146). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
163
Scotch, R. (2001). American disability policy in the twentieth century. In P. Longmore & L.
Umansky (Eds.). The new disability history: American perspectives (pp. 375-392). New
York: New York University Press.
Seidman, A. (Ed.) (2012). College student retention: Formula for student success (2nd ed.).
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Sharpe, M. N., Johnson, D. R., Izzo, M., & Murray, A. (2005). An analysis of instructional
accommodations and assistive technologies used by postsecondary graduates with
disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 22, 3-11. Retrieved from
http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=KHRXG91UQ7PFC1W2AEJW
Shaw, S. F., & Dukes, L. L. (2013). Transition to postsecondary education: A call for evidencebased practice. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals. Advance
online publication. doi:10.1177/2165143413476881
Shaw, S. F., Scott, S. S., & McGuire, J. M. (2001). Teaching college students with learning
disabilities. ERIC Digest, 4. ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education,
Council for Exceptional Children. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/
ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED459548
Shaywitz, S. E. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for
reading problems at any level. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
She, P., & Livermore, G. (2006). Material hardship, disability, and poverty among working-age
adults: Research brief. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Rehabilitation Research and
Traning Center on Employment Policy for Persons with Disabilities. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1223&context=edicolct
Shepler, D. K., & Woosley, S. A. (2012). Understanding the early integration experiences of
college students with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 25,
37-50. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ970018
Shogren, K. A., Kennedy, W., Dowsett, C, & Little, T. D. (2014). Autonomy, psychological
empowerment, and self-realization: Exploring data on self-determination from NLTS2.
Exceptional Children, 80, 221-235. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=
GALE%7CA354442805&v=2.1&u=munc80314&it=r&p=HRCA&sw=w&asid=e59e5ed
ba336c6ba6311ab303c2deeb1
Shogren, K. A., Kennedy, W., Dowsett, C, Villarreal, M. G., & Little, T. D. (2013). Exploring
essential characteristics of self-determination for diverse students using data from
NLTS2. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, Advance
online publication. doi:10.1177/2165143413486927
Shogren, K. A., & Turnball, A. P. (2006). Promoting self-determination in young children with
disabilities: The critical role of families. Infants & Young Children, 19, 338–352.
164
Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., & Paek, Y. (2013). Exploring personal and
school environment characteristics that predict self-determination. Exceptionality, 21,
147-157. doi:10.1080/09362835.2013.802231
Shogren,. K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Rifenbark, G. G., & Little, T. D. (2013).
Relationships between self-determination and postschool outcomes for youth with
disabilities. Journal of Special Education. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1177/0022466913489733
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 selfdetermination of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 73, 488-509. Retrieved
from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ817517
Simpson, G., & Weiner, W. (1989). Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Sitlington, P. L. (2003). Postsecondary education: The other transition. Exceptionality, 11, 103113. doi:10.1207/S15327035EX1102_05
Sitlington, P. L., Neubert, D. A., Begun, W., Lombard, R., & Leconte, P. (2007). Assess for
success: Handbook on transition assessment (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Skinner, M. E. (1998). Promoting self-advocacy among college students with learning
disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 33, 278-284. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ568623
Skinner, M. E. (2004). College students with learning disabilities speak out: What it takes to be
successful in postsecondary education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and
Disability, 17, 91-104. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?
accno=EJ876005
Skinner, M. E., & Lindstrom, B. D. (2003). Bridging the gap between high school and college:
Strategies for the successful transition of students with learning disabilities. Preventing
School Failure, 47, 132-137. doi:10.1080/10459880309604441
Slemon, J. C., & Shafrir, U. (1997, March). Academic self-efficacy of post-secondary students
with and without learning disabilities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Snyder, T. D., Dillow, S. A., & Hoffman, C. M. (2009). Digest of education statistics 2008
(NCES 2009-020). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
165
Southwick, S. M., & Charney, D. S. (2012). Resilience: The science of mastering life’s greatest
challenges. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions,
measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/256865
Squire, P. N. (2008). A young adult’s personal reflection and review of research on selfdetermination. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31, 126-128.
doi:10.1177/0885728808317442
Stein, M. B., Campbell-Sills, L., & Gelernter, J. (2009). Genetic variation in 5HTTLPR is
associated with emotional resilience. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B:
Neuropsychiatric Genetics. 150B, 900–906. doi:10.1002/ajmg.b.30916.
Steinhardt, M., & Dolbier, C. (2008). Evaluation of a resilience intervention to enhance coping
strategies and protective factors and decrease symptomatology. Journal of American
College Health, 56, 445-453. doi:10.3200/JACH.56.44.445-454
Stodden, R. A. (2001). Postsecondary education supports for students with disabilities: A review
and response. The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 23(2), 4-9. Retrieved
from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ646611
Stodden, R. A., & Conway, M. A. (2003). Supporting individuals with disabilities in
postsecondary education. American Rehabilitation, 27, 24-33. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/222452987?accountid=8483
Sue, V. M., & Ritter, L. A. (2012). Conducting online surveys (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Suk-Hyang, L., Wehmeyer. M. L., Palmer, S. B., Soukup, J. H., & Little, T. D. (2008). Selfdetermination and access to the general education curriculum. Journal of Special
Education, 42, 91-107. doi:10.1177/0022466907312354
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Test, D. W., Fowler, C. H., Brewer, D. M., & Wood, W. M. (2005). A content and
methodological review of self-advocacy intervention studies. Exceptional Children, 72,
101-125. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?
accno=EJ754706
Test, D. W., Fowler, C. H., Wood, W. M., Brewer, D. M, & Eddy, S. (2005). A conceptual
framework of self-advocacy for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special
Education, 26, 43-54. doi:10.1177/07419325050260010601
166
Test, D. W., Mason, C., Hughes, C., Konrad, M., Neale, M., & Wood, W. (2004). Student
involvement in individualized education program meetings. Exceptional Children, 70,
391-412. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=
aph&AN=13580436&site=ehost-live
Test, D. W., Mazzotti, V. L., Mustian, A. L.; Fowler, C. H.; Kortering, L., & Kohler, P. (2009).
Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving postschool outcomes for
students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 160-181.
doi:10.1177/0885728809346960
Thoma, C. A., Baker, S. R., Saddler, S. J. (2002). Self-determination in teacher education: A
model to facilitate transition planning for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special
Education, 23, 82-89. doi:10.1177/074193250202300204
Thoma, C. A., & Getzel, E. E. (2005). Self-determination is what it’s all about: What postsecondary students with disabilities tell us are important considerations for success.
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40, 234-242. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno= EJ754165
Thoma, C. A., Nathanson, R., Baker, S. R., & Tamura, R. (2002). Self-determination: What do
special educators know and where do they learn it? Remedial and Special Education, 23,
242-247. doi:10.1177/07419325020230040701
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Trainor, A. (2005). Self-determination perceptions and behaviors of diverse students with LD
during transition. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 233-248.
doi:10.1177/00222194050380030501
Trammell, J. (2009a). Postsecondary students and disability stigma: Development of the
Postsecondary Student Survey of Disability-Related Stigma (PSSDS). Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 22, 106-116. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ868135
Trammell, J. (2009b). Red-shirting college students with disabilities. The Learning Assistance
Review, 14(2), 21-31. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/
detail?accno=EJ866923
Trammell, J., & Hathaway, M. (2007). Help-seeking patterns in college students with
disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 20, 5-15. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ825757
Tuckman, B. W. (2003). The effect of learning and motivation strategies training on college
students’ achievement. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 430-437.
doi:10.1353/csd.2003.0034
167
Tuckman, B. W., & Kennedy, G. J. (2011). Teaching learning strategies to increase success of
first-term college students. The Journal of Experimental Education, 79, 478–504.
doi:10.1080/00220973.2010.512318
Turnbull, H. R. III, & Turnbull, A. P. (1998). Free and appropriate public education: The law
and children with disabilities (5th ed.). Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.
Uner, S., & Turan, S. (2010). The construct validity and reliability of the Turkish version of
Spreitzer’s psychological empowerment scale. BMC Public Health, 10, 117.
doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-117
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012). Persons with a disability: Workforce characteristics –
2012. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/
pdf/disabl.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2007, March). Transition of students with disabilities to
postsecondary education: A guide for high school counselors. Office for Civil Rights.
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/transitionguide.html
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2003). The condition of
education 2003. NCES 2003-067, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2011). Students with
disabilities at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: First look. NCES 2011-018,
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED520976
Vaillant, G. E. (2002). Aging well: Surprising guideposts to a happier life from the landmark
Harvard Study of Adult Development. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
Van Reusen, A. K., & Bos, C. S. (1994). Facilitating student participation in individualized
education programs through motivation strategy instruction. Exceptional Children, 60,
466-475. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=
EJ479472
Vogel, S. A, Hruby, E J., & Adelman, E. B. (1993). Educational and psychological factors in
successful and unsuccessful college students with learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 8, 35-43. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/
ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ465471
Vogel, V. A., Leyser, Y., Wyland, S., & Brulle, A. (1999). Students with learning disabilities in
higher education: Faculty attitude and practices. Learning Disabilities Research and
Practice, 14, 173-186. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/
ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ593075
168
Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Garza, N., & Levine, P. (2005). After high school: A first
look at the postschool experiences of students with disabilities. A report of findings from
the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) and the National Longitudinal
Transition Study-2 (NLTS-2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED494935
Walker, A. R., & Test, D. W. (2011). Using a self-advocacy intervention on African American
college students’ ability to request academic accommodations. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 26, 134-144. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00333.x
Ward, M. J. (1988). The many facets of self-determination. NICHCY National Information
Center for Children and Youth with Handicaps Transition Summary. National
Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities, 5, 2–3. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED305805
Weaver, D. E. (2009). The relationship between cultural/ethnic identity and individual
protective factors of academic resilience. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of
William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.
Webb, K. W., Patterson, K. B., Syverud, S. M., & Seabrooks-Blackmore, J. L. (2008). Evidencebased practices that promote transition: Listening to a decade of expert voices.
Exceptionality, 16, 192-206. doi:10.1080/09362830802412182
Webster, D. D. (2004). Giving voice to students with disabilities who have successfully
transitioned to college. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 27, 151-175.
doi:10.1177/088572880402700203
Wehman, P. (2012). Life beyond the classroom: Transition strategies for young people with
disabilities (5th ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks Publishing.
Wehmeyer, M. L. (1996). Self-determination as an educational outcome: Why is it important to
children, youth and adults with disabilities? In D. J. Sands & M. L. Wehmeyer (Eds.),
Self-determination across the life span: Independence and choice for people with
disabilities (pp. 15-34). Baltimore, MD: Brooks Publishing.
Wehmeyer, M. L. (1999). A functional model of self-determination: Describing development
and implementing instruction. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities,
14, 53-62. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=
true&db=aph&AN=1784522&site=ehost-live
Wehmeyer, M. L. (2003a). A functional theory of self-determination: Model overview. In M. L.
Wehmeyer, B. H. Abery, D. E. Mithaug, & R. J. Stancliffe (Eds.), Theory in SelfDetermination: Foundations for Educational Practice (pp. 182-201). Springfield, IL:
Charles C. Thomas Publisher, Ltd.
169
Wehmeyer, M. L. (2003b). Research to practice: Implications of the functional theory. . In M. L.
Wehmeyer, B. H. Abery, D. E. Mithaug, & R. J. Stancliffe (Eds.), Theory in SelfDetermination: Foundations for Educational Practice (pp. 261-282). Springfield, IL:
Charles C. Thomas Publisher, Ltd.
Wehmeyer, M. L. (2003c). Self-determination: A review of the construct. In M. L. Wehmeyer,
B. H. Abery, D. E. Mithaug, & R. J. Stancliffe (Eds.), Theory in Self-Determination:
Foundations for Educational Practice (pp. 5-24). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas
Publisher, Ltd.
Wehmeyer, M. L. (2005). Self-determination and individuals with severe disabilities: Reexamining meanings and misinterpretations. Research and Practice for Persons with
Severe Disabilities, 30, 113-120. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=aph&AN=19992768&site=ehost-live
Wehmeyer, M. L. (2007). Promoting self-determination in students with developmental
disabilities. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Wehmeyer M. L. (2013). Self-determination. In J. H. Stone & M. Blouin (Eds.), International
Encyclopedia of Rehabilitation. Retrieved from http://www.cirrie.buffalo.edu/
encyclopedia/en/article/34/#s
Wehmeyer, M. L., Abery, B. H., Mithaug, D. E., & Stancliffe, R. J. (2003). Theory in selfdetermination: Foundations for educational practice. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas
Publisher, Ltd.
Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. (2000). A national survey of teachers’ promotion of
self-determination and student-directed learning. Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 5868. doi:10.1177/002246690003400201
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Field, S. L. (2007). Self-determination: Instructional and assessment
strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Kelchner, K. (1995). The Arc’s self-determination scale: Adolescent
version. Arlington, TX: The Arc of the United States National Headquarters. Retrieved
from http://www.beachcenter.org/Books/FullPublications/PDF/
TheArcsSelfDeterminationScale.pdf
Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Shogren, K., Williams-Diehm, K., & Soukup, J. H. (2013).
Establishing a causal relationship between intervention to promote self-determination and
enhanced student self-determination. The Journal of Special Education, 46, 195-210.
doi:10.1177/0022466910392377
170
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Schalock, R. L. (2001). Self-determination and quality of life: Implications
for special education services and supports. Focus on Exceptional Children, 33(8), 1-16.
Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db
=aph&AN=4740771&site=ehost-live
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Schwartz, M. (1998). The relationship between self-determination and
quality of life for adults with mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental
Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, 3-12. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ577358
Werner, E. E. (1993). Risk, resilience, and recovery: Perspectives from the Kauai Longitudinal
Study. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 503-515.
doi:10.1017/S095457940000612X
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A longitudinal study of resilient
children and youth. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill.
Wessel, R. D., Jones, J. A., Markle, L., & Westfall, C. (2009). Retention and graduation of
students with disabilities: Facilitating student success. Journal of Postsecondary
Education and Disability, 21, 116-125. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/
ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ831430
Weston, K. J., & Parkin, J. R. (2010). From at-risk to at-promise: The resilience movement. In C.
S. Clauss-Ehlers (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Cross-Cultural School Psychology (pp. 808-815).
New York: Springer.
Whitman, T. L. (1990). Development of self-regulation in persons with mental retardation.
American Journal on Mental Retardation, 94, 373-376. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ405338
Will, M. (1983). OSERS programming for the transition of youth with disabilities: Bridges from
school to working life. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation
Sercies, U.S. Office of Education. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/
ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED256132
Wilks, S. E., & Spivey, C. A. (2010). Resilience in undergraduate social work students: Social
support and adjustment to academic stress. Social Work Education, 29, 276-288.
doi:10.1080/02615470902912243
Wolanin, T., & Steele, P. (2004). Higher education opportunities for students with disabilities.
Washington, DC: The Institute for Higher Education Policy. Retrieved from
http://www.ihep.org/Publications/publications-detail.cfm?id=59
Wolfensberger, W. (1972). Normalization: The principle of normalization. Toronto: National
Institute on Mental Retardation.
171
Wood, W. M., Fowler, C. H., Uphold, N., & Test, D. W. (2005). A review of self-determination
interventions with individuals with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons
with Severe Disabilities, 30, 121-146. doi:10.2511/rpsd.30.3.121
Wood, W. M., Karvonen, M., Test, D. W., Browder, D., & Algozzine, B. (2004). Promoting
student self-determination skills in IEP planning. TEACHING Exceptional Children,
36(3), 8-16. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/
detail accno E 679559
Woosley, S. A. (2003). How important are the first few weeks of college? The long term effects
of initial college experiences. College Student Journal, 37, 201-207. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=10049276&site=ehost
-live
Woosley, S. A., & Jones, D. (2012). MAP-Works: A tool for student evaluation and feedback. In
M. Morgan (Ed.). Improving the student experience: A practical guide for universities
and colleges. London: Routledge
Woosley, S. A., & Miller, A. L. (2009). Integration and institutional commitment as predictors of
college student transition: Are third week indicators significant? College Student Journal,
43, 1260-1271. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=
s3h&AN=48318648&site=ehost-live
Woosley, S. A., & Shepler, D. K. (2011). Understanding the early integration experiences of
first-generation college students. College Student Journal, 45, 700-714. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=77305723&site=ehost
-live
Woosley, S. A., & Whitaker, D. R. (2004). A collaborative MAP to early interventions.
Academic Exchange Quarterly, 8, 172-176.
Yell, M. L. (2011). The law and special education (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Young, A. (2009). Effect of stress resiliency and psychological empowerment on nursing student
success. Southern Online Journal of Nursing Research, 9(2). Abstract retrieved from
http://www.resourcenter.net/images/SNRS/Files/SOJNR_articles2/
Vol09Num02W-Z.html#Young
Zajacova, A., Lynch, S. M., & Espenshade, T. J. (2005). Self-efficacy, stress, and academic
success in college. Research in Higher Education, 46, 677–706. doi:10.1007/s11162-0044139-z
Zarrett, N., & Eccles, J. (2006). The passage to adulthood: Challenges of late adolescence. New
Directions for Youth Development, 111, 13-28. doi:10.1002/yd.179
172
Zhang, D., Landmark, L., Reber,. A., Hsu, H., Kwok, O., & Benz, M. (2010). University faculty
knowledge, beliefs, and practices in providing reasonable accommodations to students
with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 276-286.
doi:10.1177/0741932509338348
Zimmerman, M. A. (1990). Toward a theory of learned helplessness: A structural model analysis
of participation and empowerment. Journal of Research in Personality, 24, 71-86.
doi:10.1016/0092-6566(90)90007-S
Zimmerman, B. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M.
Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Seidner (Eds.), Self-regulation theory, research, and
applications (pp. 13–39). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background,
methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research
Journal, 45, 166–183. doi:10.3102/0002831207312909
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2008). Motivation: An essential dimension of selfregulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and selfregulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 1–30). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
173
APPENDIX A – FREQUENTLY USED ABBREVIATIONS
ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act
ARC: Association for Retarded Citizens (now known as The ARC for people with intellectual
and developmental disabilities)
DS: Disability Services
GPA: Grade Point Average
HEA: Higher Education Act
HEOA: Higher Education Opportunity Act
IDEIA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
IEP: Individual Education Program
IHE: Institution of Higher Education
MAP-Works: Making Achievement Possible-Works
SD: Self-Determination
SES: Socioeconomic Status
SWD: Student(s) with Disability(ies)
SWoD: Student(s) without Disability(ies)
SWDR: Student(s) with Disability(ies) Registered (with DS)
SWDNR: Student(s) with Disability(ies) Not Registered (with DS)
174
APPENDIX B – QUESTIONS ADDED TO MAP-WORKS 2013 FALL TRANSITION
SURVEY
1. To what degree are you able to advocate (or speak up) for what you need in academic
settings? [Scale for Questions 1-6 & 9-11 is a 7 point Likert scale coded (1) Not at All; (4)
Moderately; (7) Completely]
2. To what degree are you confident in your abilities to meet your academic goals?
3. To what degree do you act independently, without pressure or influence from others, when
working on academic tasks?
4. To what degree do you know how you learn best?
5. To what degree do you know how to compensate for any limitations you may have in the
classroom and on assignments?
6. To what degree can you overcome barriers to your academic goals so that you can be
successful?
7. As a result of a documented disability, did you have an Individual Education Program (IEP)
or 504 Plan in high school [Yes, No, I Don’t Know]
8. (if Yes to #7) Was your disability in high school a physical or sensory disability (such as
visual or hearing impairment or wheelchair user) or a non-apparent disability (such as
ADHD or a learning disability)? [Physical/Sensory or Non-Apparent]
9. (if Yes to #7) To what degree do you understand why you received the accommodations
and/or services listed on your IEP or 504 Plan?
10. (if Yes to #7) To what degree are you able to communicate how your disability impacts your
learning?
175
11. (if Yes to #7) To what degree do you understand the differences between the disability
services provided at the high school and college levels?
176
APPENDIX C – TABLES
177
TABLE 3
Factor Loadings for Exploratory Factor Analysis with Promax Rotation and 4 Factor Extraction
______________________________________________________________________________
Survey Item
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
______________________________________________________________________________
Hard Worker In Classes
.723
.589
.227
.500
Extra Effort In Difficult Course
.720
.523
.219
.391
Work Harder When Grades Poor
.708
.390
.232
.345
Confident In Abilities
.702
.347
.500
.355
Do Everything To Meet Goals
.701
.517
.249
.390
Overcome Barriers
.697
.351
.444
.356
Stay Motivated Through Setbacks
.670
.341
.408
.291
Use Negative Feedback To Improve .630
.298
.326
.277
Act Independently
.630
.345
.314
.363
Completes Class Assignments
.627
.469
.201
.443
Know How Learn Best
.615
.369
.396
.346
Compensate For Limitations
.613
.353
.448
.351
Sets Goals That Do Not Change
.606
.422
.269
.299
Advocates For Needs
.557
.286
.361
.197
Studies On Regular Schedule
.434
.759
.252
.350
Spends Sufficient Study Time
.476
.757
.293
.419
Works In Advance
.426
.673
.278
.428
Balances Time
.447
.654
.332
.623
Plans Out Time
.366
.653
.177
.625
Studies Where Avoid Distraction
.390
.643
.221
.336
Is Motivated To Complete Work
.534
.614
.383
.417
Records Assignments
.303
.601
.097
.304
Makes To Do Lists
.254
.598
.056
.405
Turns In Homework
.429
.562
.154
.546
Takes Good Notes
.352
.538
.177
.393
______________________________________________________________________________
Note. Factor loadings > .50 are in boldface.
178
TABLE 3, cont.
Factor Loadings for Exploratory Factor Analysis with Promax Rotation and 4 Factor Extraction
______________________________________________________________________________
Survey Item
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
______________________________________________________________________________
Do Well On All Tasks
.439
.385
.656
.409
Do Well In Hardest Course
.427
.351
.618
.295
Motivating Self To Do Work
.310
.356
.582
.228
Being Responsible For Self
.262
.235
.579
.190
Persevere When Challenged
.511
.446
.566
.434
Know How To Allocate Time
.428
.506
.565
.404
Do Worse Due To Worry
.106
-.081
.564
-.025
Balance Life Commitments
.317
.291
.528
.230
Feel Anxious About Exams
.006
-.135
.522
-.091
Know Expectations For Success
.425
.432
.455
.361
Follows Through
.422
.484
.312
.731
Is Dependable
.376
.430
.225
.729
Shows Up On Time
.290
.409
.172
.654
______________________________________________________________________________
Note. Factor loadings > .50 are in boldface.
179
TABLE 4
Factor Loadings for Exploratory Factor Analysis with Promax Rotation and 3 Factor Extraction
______________________________________________________________________________
Survey Item
Factor 1
(Resilience)
Factor 2
Factor 3
(Self-Regulation) (Psych. Empowerment)
______________________________________________________________________________
Hard Worker In Classes
.746
.598
Overcome Barriers
.742
.411
Extra Effort In Difficult Course
.727
.519
Confident In Abilities
.716
Work Harder When Grades Poor
.710
Stay Motivated Through Setbacks
.706
Do Everything To Meet Goals
.694
Compensate For Limitations
.672
Know How Learn Best
.652
.414
.449
.421
.511
.451
Use Negative Feedback To Improve .650
Act Independently
.646
Completes Class Assignments
.614
.471
Sets Goals That Do Not Change
.575
.415
Advocates For Needs
.553
Plans Out Time
.720
Spends Sufficient Study Time
.514
.707
Balances Time
.442
.705
Studies On Regular Schedule
.425
.661
Is Self-Disciplined
.437
.646
Works In Advance
.434
.641
Makes To Do Lists
Follows Through
.601
.413
Studies Where Avoid Distractions
Turns In Homework
.596
.589
.419
.582
______________________________________________________________________________
Note. Factor loadings > .50 are in boldface.
180
TABLE 4, cont.
Factor Loadings for Exploratory Factor Analysis with Promax Rotation and 3 Factor Extraction
______________________________________________________________________________
Survey Item
Factor 1
(Resilience)
Factor 2
Factor 3
(Self-Regulation) (Psych. Empowerment)
______________________________________________________________________________
Takes Good Notes
.562
Is Dependable
.559
Records Assignments
.541
Shows Up On Time
.511
Do Worse Due To Worry
.642
Responsible For Self
.623
Motivating Self To Do Work
.619
Feel Anxious About Exams
.598
Do Well On All Tasks
.496
.450
.589
Do Well In Hardest Course
.511
.415
.583
Persevere When Challenged
.549
.499
.534
______________________________________________________________________________
Note. Factor loadings > .50 are in boldface.
181
Table 5
Reliability of Scales Retained from Exploratory Factor Analysis
________________________________________________________________________
Scale Name
Cronbach’s Alpha
________________________________________________________________________
Overall Scale
.689
Resilience Scale
.916
Self-Regulation Scale
.887
Psychological Empowerment Scale
.786
______________________________________________________________________________
Note. KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy .934. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity sig. at p<.001 with 1,225 df.
182
Table 6
Percentages for Survey Items on Resilience Scale
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Not at
All
Moderately
Completely
Survey Items
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
M
SD
N
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1) Complete Class Assignments
0.6
0.3
0.9
6.4
10.6
33.8
47.4
6.17 1.04
3,124
2) Set Academic Goals that Do Not Change
4.3
1.9
5.9
26.0
22.5
21.6
17.8
4.96
1.51
3,131
3) Do Everything to Meet Goals
1.7
1.5
3.2
17.6
22.9
27.8
25.3
5.43
1.35
3,122
4) Hard Worker in Classes
0.4
0.7
1.3
11.2
22.8
33.6
30.0
5.76
1.12
3,119
5) Extra Effort In Difficult Course
0.9
0.7
2.0
15.7
23.5
29.4
27.7
5.59
1.23
3,112
6) Stay Motivated Through Setbacks
1.6
1.4
5.1
25.9
28.7
23.2
14.1
5.05
1.28
3,110
7) Use Negative Feedback
1.3
2.0
3.8
22.0
26.2
25.4
19.4
5.23
1.32
3,111
8) Work Harder If Poor Grades
0.7
0.6
2.3
13.1
19.5
29.9
33.9
5.75
1.22
3,100
9) Advocate for Needs
2.6
4.5
7.7
34.3
21.0
15.0
14.9
4.71
1.46
3,116
10) Confident in Abilities
0.6
0.7
2.4
17.8
23.3
31.4
23.8
5.52
1.20
3,118
11) Act Independently
0.6
0.6
1.7
16.6
19.9
31.3
29.3
5.65
1.20
3,113
12) Know How I Learn Best
1.1
0.7
1.9
20.5
25.1
28.4
22.4
5.43
1.23
3,113
13) Compensate for Limitations
1.3
1.1
4.1
30.8
25.9
21.3
15.5
5.05
1.27
3,110
14) Overcome Barriers
0.6
0.5
2.7
22.1
27.4
29.2
17.5
5.33
1.16
3,104
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Note. Excludes respondents who selected N/A.
183
Table 7
Percentages for Survey Items on Self-Regulation Scale
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Not at
All
Moderately
Extremely
Survey Items
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
M
SD
N
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To what degree are you the kind of person who:
1) Is Self-Disciplined
0.2
0.7
2.1
13.1
22.1
32.8
29.0
5.70
1.14
3,233
2) Follows Through
0.0
0.1
1.3
7.4
17.6
42.3
31.4
5.95
0.96
3,217
1) Is Dependable
0.0
0.3
0.6
4.4
10.3
35.9
48.5
6.26
0.90
3,215
2) Shows Up On Time
0.0
0.3
1.3
6.8
11.0
31.3
49.3
6.20
1.00
3,206
3) Plans Out Your Time
0.5
1.7
5.0
15.6
20.4
27.5
29.2
5.53
1.33
3,202
4) Makes To Do Lists
5.1
6.0
9.9
15.8
14.9
18.5
29.7
5.04
1.81
3,187
5) Balances Time
0.3
0.8
3.2
13.2
21.6
33.3
27.6
5.65
1.18
3,218
6) Turns in Homework
0.0
0.1
0.3
1.4
5.9
22.9
69.5
6.59
0.71
3,206
7) Takes Good Notes
0.3
0.3
0.9
4.9
14.8
35.6
43.2
6.13
0.92
3,214
8) Spends Sufficient Study Time
0.2
0.7
3.1
11.7
24.0
33.9
26.2
5.65
1.15
3,208
9) Works in Advance On Long Projects
0.9
3.0
6.4
17.8
22.8
26.5
22.7
5.29
1.39
3,203
10) Records Assignments in Calendar
6.1
4.3
5.0
13.4
13.7
19.2
38.3
5.35
1.82
3,208
11) Studies Where Avoid Distractions
1.7
2.5
5.5
17.5
21.5
26.4
25.1
5.34
1.43
3,210
12) Studies on Regular Schedule
3.0
4.5
9.9
23.8
21.3
20.2
17.3
4.86
1.55
3,179
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Note. Excludes respondents who selected N/A.
184
Table 8
Percentages for Survey Items on Psychological Empowerment Scale – Items Assessing Academic Self-Efficacy
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Not at
Moderately
Absolutely
All Certain
Certain
Certain
Scale Name and Survey Items
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
M
SD
N
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Psychological Empowerment (Academic Self-Efficacy)
To what degree are you certain that you can:
1) Do Well On All Tasks Assigned
0.2
0.7
2.0
15.6
27.1
38.4
15.9
5.47
1.07
3,212
2) Do Well in Hardest Course
0.8
1.7
6.7
23.4
30.0
26.1
11.4
5.04
1.22
3,201
3) Persevere When Challenged
0.3
0.7
1.7
14.5
25.1
36.9
20.8
5.58
1.09
3,167
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Note. Excludes respondents who selected N/A.
185
Table 9
Percentages for Survey Items on Psychological Empowerment Scale – Items Assessing Stress
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Not at
Extremely
Moderately
All
Survey Items
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
M
SD
N
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Psychological Empowerment (Stress)
To what degree are you experiencing stress regarding:
1) Being Responsible for Yourself
5.4
6.2
9.9
20.8
16.4
22.4
18.8
4.79
1.72
3,168
2) Motivating Self to Get Work Done
5.9
7.7
10.9
20.4
18.6
23.7
12.9
4.61
1.70
3,152
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Note. Excludes respondents who selected N/A.
186
Table 10
Percentages for Survey Items on Psychological Empowerment Scale– Items Assessing Test Anxiety
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Not
Extremely
Moderately
at All
Scale Name & Survey Items
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
M
SD
N
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Psychological Empowerment (Test Anxiety)
When you have a test, to what degree do you:
1) Feel Anxious About Exams
12.3
12.3
14.3
23.0
14.8
14.0
9.3
3.95
1.81
3,156
2) Do Worse Because of Worry
8.8
8.7
10.8
21.7
14.5
19.4
16.0
4.47
1.84
3,146
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Note. Excludes respondents who selected N/A.
187
Table 11
Percentages for Items Asked Only of Students with IEP/504 Plan in High School
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Not At All
Moderately
Completely
Survey Items
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
M
SD
N
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To what degree do you
understand why you received
the accommodations and/or
services on your IEP/504 Plan?
To what degree are you
able to communicate how
your disability impacts
your learning?
8.1
0.0
5.2
14.1
5.9
10.4
8.8
2.2
3.6
19.0
13.1
13.1
56.3
40.1
5.66
1.90
5.26
1.91
135
137
To what degree do you
understand the differences
between the disability
services provided at the high
16.7
3.6
8.0
27.5
6.5
13.0
24.6
4.41
2.10
138
school and college levels?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Note. Excludes respondents who selected N/A.
188
Table 12
Differences between Students with Disabilities and Students without Disabilities (Research Question #1)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Scale
n
M
SD
t
df
p
Cohen’s d
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Resilience Scale
Student with Disability (SWD)
Student without Disability (SWoD)
128
2,453
75.07
75.57
16.17
11.99
Self-Regulation Scale
Student with Disability (SWD)
Student without Disability (SWoD)
127
2,547
82.35
79.73
11.05
11.20 2.576
.348
134.38
.728
.035
2,672
.010*
-.235
Psychological Empowerment Scale
Student with Disability (SWD)
130
33.26
7.35
Student without Disability (SWoD)
2,608
34.00
7.01 1.176
2,736
.240
.103
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Note. Excludes respondents who selected N/A. SWD=Student had IEP or 504 Plan in High School.*p≤.05. Self-Regulation Scale is significant at p≤.05 with Bonferroni correction
applied. Self-Regulation Scale is significant at p≤.01 level without Bonferroni correction applied. Effect size for Self-Regulation Scale is small in strength.
189
Table 13
Differences by Students with Disabilities who Have or Have Not Registered with Disability Services (Research Question #2)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Scale
n
M
SD
t
df
p
Cohen’s d
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Resilience Scale
Student with Disability Registered
Student with Disability Not Registered
49
79
78.82
72.75
12.34
17.83
-2.273
124.42
.025
Self-Regulation Scale
Student with Disability Registered
Student with Disability Not Registered
48
79
84.25
81.20
10.46
11.30
-1.515
125
.132
.396
.280
Psychological Empowerment Scale
Student with Disability Registered
51
33.04
6.72
Student with Disability Not Registered
79
33.41
7.77
.276
128
.783
.051
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Note. Excludes respondents who selected N/A. SWD= Student had IEP or 504 Plan in High School. Registered=self-reported registered with Disability Services Office. Resilience
Scale is not significant at p≤.05 with Bonferroni correction applied; Resilience Scale is significant at p≤.05 without Bonferroni correction applied. Effect size for Resilience Scale
is small-medium in strength.
190
Table 14
SWD-Specific Questions by Registered with Disability Services or Not
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Survey Item
n
M
SD
t
df
p
Cohen’s d
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To what degree do you understand why
you received the accommodations and/or
services on your IEP/504 Plan?
Student with Disability Registered
Student with Disability Not Registered
52
83
6.56
5.10
1.11
2.07
53
84
6.04
4.76
1.36
2.04
-5.325
130
.001**
.879
135
.001**
.738
To what degree are you able to communicate
how your disability impacts your learning?
Student with Disability Registered
Student with Disability Not Registered
-4.394
To what degree do you understand the
differences between the disability services
provided at the high school and college levels?
Student with Disability Registered
54
5.46
1.75
Student with Disability Not Registered
84
3.74
2.03
-5.139
136
.001**
.908
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Note. Excludes respondents who selected N/A. SWD= Student had IEP or 504 Plan in High School. Registered=self-reported registered with Disability Services Office. **p≤.01.
Differences are significant at p≤.01 with Bonferroni correction applied. Differences are significant at p≤.001 without Bonferroni correction applied. Cohen’s d effect size strengths
are d=0.2, small effect; d=0.5, medium effect; d=0.8, large effect.
191
Table 15
Differences by Disability Type for SWD (Research Question #3)
______________________________________________________________________________
Scale
n
M
SD
t
df
p
______________________________________________________________________________
Resilience Scale
Visible Disability
Non-Apparent Disability
29
97
70.97
76.22
20.55
14.70
-1.531
124
.128
Self-Regulation Scale
Visible Disability
Non-Apparent Disability
32
92
81.69
82.34
11.40
11.07
-.284
122
.777
Psychological Empowerment Scale
Visible Disability
Non-Apparent Disability
30
97
34.13 6.91
33.14 7.56
.639
125
.524
______________________________________________________________________________
Note. Excludes respondents who selected N/A. Visible Disability=Physical/Sensory Disability (such as visual or hearing
impairment or wheelchair user). Non-apparent Disability=Non-Apparent Disability (such as ADHD or a learning disability).
192
Table 16
Differences by Gender (Research Question #4)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Scale
n
M
SD
t
df
p
Cohen’s d
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Resilience Scale
Male
Female
1,000
1,791
73.88
76.52
12.85
11.65
-5.380
1,902.77
.001**
.215
Self-Regulation Scale
Male
Female
1,088
1,888
75.16
82.34
11.44
10.36
-17.065
2,088.52
.001**
.658
Psychological Empowerment Scale
Male
1,102
35.06 6.76
Female
1,917
33.32 7.14
6.559 3,017
.001**
.250
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Note. Excludes respondents who selected N/A. **p≤.01. Differences are significant at p≤.01 with Bonferroni correction applied. Differences are significant at p≤.001 without
Bonferroni correction applied. Cohen’s d effect size strengths are d=0.2, small effect; d=0.5, medium effect; d=0.8, large effect.
193
Table 17
Differences by Race (Research Question #4)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Scale
n
M
SD
t
df
p
Cohen’s d
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Resilience Scale
Non-Caucasian
Caucasian
491
2,300
76.68
75.34
12.42
12.09
2.215
2,789
.027
.109
Self-Regulation Scale
Non-Caucasian
Caucasian
518
2,458
79.01
79.87
11.48
11.26
-1.564
2,974
.960
-.076
Psychological Empowerment Scale
Non-Caucasian
530
34.06
7.06
Caucasian
2,489
33.93
7.05
.377 3,017
.706
.018
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Note. Excludes respondents who selected N/A. Resilience Scale is not significant at p≤.05 with Bonferroni correction applied; Resilience Scale is significant at p≤.05 without
Bonferroni correction applied. Effect size for Resilience Scale is very small in strength.
194
Table 18
ANOVA Equal Variance for Psychological Empowerment Scale by High School GPA (Research Question #4)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Scale
n
M
SD
df1
df2
F
p
Eta Squared
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Psychological Empowerment Scale
Mostly As
1,327
34.77
6.81
Mostly Bs
1,199
33.21
7.17
2
3,008
16.832
.001**
.019
Bs & Cs
485
33.49
7.15
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Note. Excludes respondents who selected N/A. **p<.01. Psychological Empowerment Scale is significant at p≤.01 with Bonferroni correction applied. Psychological
Empowerment Scale is significant at p≤.001 without Bonferroni correction applied. Psychological Empowerment explains 1.9% of the variance in High School GPA.
195
Table 19
ANOVA Unequal Variance for Resilience and Self-Regulation Scales by High School GPA (Research Question #4)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Scale
n
M
SD
df1
df2
Welch F
p
Eta Squared
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Resilience Scale
Mostly As
Mostly Bs
Bs & Cs
1,261
1,078
445
77.92
74.04
72.69
11.03
12.33
13.44
2
1,160.60
49.993
.001**
.054
Self-Regulation Scale
Mostly As
1,320
81.60
10.50
Mostly Bs
1,176
78.86
11.62
2
1,269.30
40.175
.001**
.050
Bs & Cs
472
76.64
11.72
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Note. Excludes respondents who selected N/A. **p<.01. Differences are significant at p<.01 with Bonferroni correction applied. Differences are significant at p≤.001 without
Bonferroni correction applied. Resilience explains 5.4% of the variance in First Semester GPA, and Self-Regulation explains 5.0% of the variation in High School GPA.
196
Table 20
ANOVA Equal Variance for Psychological Empowerment Scale by First Semester GPA (Research Question #4)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Scale
n
M
SD
df1
df2
F
p
Eta Squared
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Psychological Empowerment Scale
Mostly As
840
35.73
6.86
Mostly Bs
792
33.64
6.70
Some Bs & Cs
602
33.15
6.93
4
2,989
20.696
.001**
.035
Mostly Cs
336
33.05
7.21
Less than Cs
424
32.75
7.43
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Note. Excludes respondents who selected N/A. **p<.01. Psychological Empowerment Scale is significant at p≤.01 with Bonferroni correction applied. Psychological
Empowerment Scale is significant at p≤.001 without Bonferroni correction applied. Psychological Empowerment explains 3.5% of the variance in First Semester GPA.
197
Table 21
ANOVA Unequal Variance for Resilience and Self-Regulation Scales by First Semester GPA (Research Question #4)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Scale
n
M
SD
df1
df2
Welch F
p
Eta Squared
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Resilience Scale
Mostly As
Mostly Bs
Some Bs & Cs
Mostly Cs
Less than Cs
784
740
553
306
386
79.32
75.98
73.52
72.44
72.35
10.91
11.85
11.93
12.93
12.75
4
1,111.06
37.597
.001**
.070
Self-Regulation Scale
Mostly As
828
83.26
9.92
Mostly Bs
775
81.39
10.17
Some Bs & Cs
607
77.95
11.53
4
1,185.36
57.870
.001**
.099
Mostly Cs
328
76.16
11.13
Less than Cs
411
74.72
12.72
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Note. Excludes respondents who selected N/A. **p<.01. Differences are significant at p≤.01 with Bonferroni correction applied. Differences are significant at p≤.001 without
Bonferroni correction applied. Resilience explains 7.0% of the variance in First Semester GPA, and Self-Regulation explains 9.9% of the variation in First Semester GPA.
198
Table 22
Differences by Retention to Spring Semester (Research Question #4)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Scale
n
M
SD
t
df
p
Cohen’s d
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Resilience Scale
Retained
Not Retained
2,656
135
75.72
72.73
12.05
13.70
-2.719
2,789
.005*
.232
Self-Regulation Scale
Retained
Not Retained
2,826
150
79.80
78.21
11.29
11.41
-1.682
2,974
.093
.140
Psychological Empowerment Scale
Retained
2,864
34.08
7.01
Not Retained
155
31.57
7.39
-4.338 3,017
.001**
.348
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Note. Excludes respondents who selected N/A. *p<.05. **p<.01. Resilience Scale is significant at p≤.05 with Bonferroni correction applied. Resilience scale is significant at
p≤.01 without Bonferroni correction. Psychological Empowerment Scale is significant at p≤.01 with Bonferroni correction applied. Psychological Empowerment Scale is
significant at p≤..001 without Bonferroni correction applied. Cohen’s d effect size strengths are d 0.2, small effect; d 0.5, medium effect; d 0.8, large effect.