Relationship between Self-Determination and Leadership of Youth …risers.daegu.ac.kr/common/fileDown.aspx?f=14-Christine H... · 특수교육재활과학연구 Journal of Special

특수교육재활과학연구Journal of Special Education & Rehabilitation ScienceVol. 57, No. 1, pp. 305~331, 2018.

Relationship between Self-Determination and Leadership of Youth with Intellectual Disabilities

Christine H. Kimm* ㆍ Sung Phil Yoon** ㆍ Roxanna Pebdani**

지적장애학생의 자기결정력과 지도자역량의 상관연구


< Abstract >Accessing post-secondary education has gained great attention in the special

education field. Post-secondary education contributes to the advancement of career opportunities and educational equity for all. One of the fundamental functions of higher education is developing self-determination and leadership skills for the future. However, studies on leadership of students with intellectual disabilities are very limited. The main purposes of this study were to explore the relationship between self-determination skills and leadership and to investigate the factors impacting these two skills. It also compared self-determination and leadership of youth who attended community college programs and those who attended transition programs offered by the public schools. The results indicate that self-determination and leadership were significantly related and that youth attending post-secondary education demonstrated higher self-determination and leadership skills. Discussion was focused on the demographic variables that contributed to these skills and the recommendation was made that we must increase self-determination training in order to develop leadership skills in youth with intellectual disabilities.

Key Words : Intellectual disabilities, Post-secondary education, Self-determination, Leadership, Transition

* California State University, Los Angeles (교신저자 : [email protected])** California State University, Los Angeles

특수교육재활과학연구(제57권 제1호)

- 306 -

Ⅰ. Introduction

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1997 (Public Law 105-17) require that children and youth with disabilities ages 14 to 16 are to be invited to participate in meetings where their individualized education programs (IEPs) and the transition service plan (ITP) are discussed. The program decisions should be based on the students’ interests and preferences (34 C.F.R.300.344 (b)(1) and 300.29). Despite such requirements of the IDEA, the majority of students with disabilities are reported as “only somewhat involved with their IEP process,” and their involvements are described as “students attended the IEP meeting, but were not that involved.” (Mason, Field, & Sawilowsky, 2004; Martin, Van-Dycke, Greene, Gardner, Christensen, Woods, & Lovett, 2006; Griffin, Taylor, & Urbano, 2014). Students with disabilities tend to simply attend and play a passive role rather than actively participating in the process. Mason et al. (2004) also suggest that better transition and educational outcomes for youth with disabilities tend to be positively related with active IEP involvement and self-determination activities. Thus, promoting self-determination in students with disabilities has been a major need in the field of special education and transition-related services over the past decades.

Students who demonstrate self-determined behaviors are those with “volitional actions that enable one to act as the primary causal agent in one’s life and to maintain or improve one’s quality of life” (p.117, Wehmeyer, 2005a). In this definition, casual agency implies “the individual who makes or causes things to happen in his or her life does so with an eye toward causing an effect to accomplish a specific end or to cause or create change” (p.117). In simpler language, self-determined students make choices, act on those choices, experience the results, and then make new choices (Martin, Woods, Sylvester, & Gardner, 2005).

Research has indicated that providing instruction and opportunities in self-determination may improve the post-school outcomes of students with disabilities. After high school, students with intellectual disabilities fared better across outcomes such as independent living, financial independence and


- 307 -

employment, when they had higher levels of self-determination (Wehmeyer & Palmer, Shogren, Willianms-Diehm, & Soukup, 2013; Arndt, Konrad & Test, 2006; Getzel & Thoma, 2008; Griffin, 2011). For adults with intellectual disabilities, higher self-determination skills predicted independent residential arrangements (Wehmeyer & Palmer, 2003). In general, the more self-determined adults with intellectual disabilities tended to report higher quality of life (Lachapelle et al., 2005).

It has been a consensus in the field of special education that promoting self-determination of students with intellectual disabilities forecasts successful transition to adulthood. Thus, identifying factors that can promote self-determination have been of major interest. Since Wehmeyer (1999) introduced a functional model of self-determination predicting that both environmental and personal characteristics contribute to the enhancement of self-determination. Several studies have investigated possible factors which can promote self-determination (Test & Nele, 2004; McGuire & McDonnell, 2008; Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2012; Bacon, Walker, & Schwartz, 2011). Wehmeyer and his colleagues identified various factors contributing to the development of self-determination (Wehmeyer & Palmer, 2003; Wehmeyer, Abery, & Zhang, 2011; Shogren, Wehmeyer, Palmer, Soukup, Little, Garner, & Lawrence, 2008).

Wehmeyer and Garner (2003) examined the impact of personal characteristics of people with intellectual disabilities on self-determination and autonomous functioning. They found that intellectual capacity was not a significant predictor for either self-determination or autonomous functioning, but that opportunities to make choices contributed significantly and positively to greater self-determination and autonomy. However, when considering the outcome status, i.e., living independently, the intelligence score was a significant predictor along with self-determination and autonomy. Shorgen and colleagues (2008) examined individual and ecological predictors of the self-determination of high school students across four different disability groups including mild intellectual disability, moderate intellectual disability, learning disability, and other health impairment. This study employed two self-determination scales (i.e., The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale and the AIR Self-Determination Scale), and yielded contradictory results. The only consistent predictor for both scales was gender.


- 308 -

Lee and his colleagues (2012) examined eight predictors of the self-determination of secondary students with disabilities after they received transition-related instructions. The eight factors included personal, instructional, dispositional, and knowledge variables. They found that instructional, knowledge, and dispositional factors predicted students’ self-determination over personal predictor variables, such as age, gender, and IQ level. However, when considering all the factors after the transition instructions, self-efficacy, one of the dispositional predictors, was the only significant predictor of self-determination on both scales (i.e., The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale and the AIR Self-Determination Scale).

Such inconsistent findings from previous studies ironically reflect various characteristics of the construct of self-determination. Self-determination emerges across the life span as children and adolescents learn skills and develop attitudes that enable them to be casual agents in their own lives (Wehmeyer, 2005a). These attitudes and abilities are the component elements of self-determination skills that include choice-making, decision-making, problem-solving skills; goal setting and attainment skills, self-management skills; and self-advocacy and leadership skills, as well as perception of control, efficacy, self-awareness, and knowledge (Wehmeyer, Shogren, Zager, Smith, & Simpson, 2010). Ankeny, Madson, and Lehmann (2011) also pointed out that the four areas of practice influencing the process of becoming a self-determined person include promoting self-knowledge, complementing the self-determination skills fostered at home, increasing opportunities to take risks, and providing opportunities for reflection. Since self-determination encompasses such multiple attitudes and abilities as its component elements, it is not an easy task to pinpoint one strong predictor of self-determination. Thus, in the study of self-determination, exploring relationships between self-determination and its components may contribute to accumulating research-supported or validated practices for promoting self-determination of students with disabilities.


- 309 -

1. Leadership and Self-Determination of Students with Intellectual Disabilities

Given the focus of self-determination for youth with disabilities on autonomy and self-regulation (Wehmeyer, 1999), much of the research on self-determination in this population has focused on internal factors in self-determination. Research on internal factors such as self-efficacy, self-advocacy, self-management (Wehmeyer, Shogren, Zager, Smith, & Simpson, 2010), self knowledge (Ankeny, Madson, & Lehmann, 2011), self-regulation, self-initiation, and self realization (Wehmeyer, Kelchner, & Richards, 1996) to name a few, are all important factors of self-determined behavior. However, external demonstrations of self-determination (i.e. using self-determination skills in ways that can influence self and others) are often ignored in the literature. Leaders are often high achievers who ambitious, energetic, self-confident, and intrinsically motivated, the latter two of which could be broadly defined as self-determination skills (Kirkpatrick, & Locke, 1991).

Leadership, along with self-advocacy, has been considered one of the major components of self-determination (Carter, Swedeen, Walter, Moss, & Hsin, 2012; Wehmeyer et al., 2011). However, the relationship between leadership and self-determination has only been cursorily examined within the professional literature despite many studies exploring the relationship of self-determination and other components of the theory (i.e. Caldwell, 2010; Callahan, Griffin, & Hammis, 2011; Cobb, Lehmann, Newman-Gonchar, & Alwell, 2009; Eckes & Ochoa, 2005; Eisenman, 2007; Fiedler & Danneker, 2007; Fowler, Konrad, & Walker, 2007; Getzel & Thoma, 2008; Katsiyannis, Zhang, & Mackiewicz, 2009; Lindstrom, Doren, & Miesch, 2011; Wehmeyer, Garner, & Yeager, 2006; Woods, Sylvester, & Martin, 2010; Zhang, Landmark, & Grenwelge, 2010). Since the National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth (NCWD/Youth, June 2004) published “Youth Development & Youth Leadership” in which suggested guidelines for youth development and youth leadership programs, youth leadership of students with intellectual disabilities has gained attention in the special education field. Still, studies on the leadership of students with disabilities are very limited.


- 310 -

The study of Woods, Sylvester, and Martin (2010) investigated the relationship of student-directed transition planning with student knowledge and self-efficacy. It was found that students receiving Student-Directed Transition Planning instruction experienced a statistically significant knowledge gain and a statistically significant increase in perceived self-efficacy compared to the students who did not receive the instruction. Numerous studies have also demonstrated a positive connection between self-determination instruction and various factors such as self-advocacy, high school completion rates, success in post-secondary education, improving independent living skills, and achieving better results in employment (Caldwell, 2010; Callahan, Griffin, & Hammis, 2011; Cobb, Lehmann, Newman-Gonchar, & Alwell, 2009; Eckes & Ochoa, 2005; Eisenman, 2007; Fiedler & Danneker, 2007; Fowler, Konrad, & Walker, 2007; Getzel & Thoma, 2008; Katsiyannis, Zhang, & Mackiewicz, 2009; Lindstrom, Doren, & Miesch, 2011; Wehmeyer, Garner, & Yeager, 2006; Zhang, Landmark, & Grenwelge, 2010).

Test, Fowler, Brewer, and Wood (2005) developed a conceptual framework of self-advocacy for students with disabilities based on a review of the literature and input from stakeholders. Knowledge of self, knowledge of rights, communication, and leadership were included as subcomponents of self-advocacy. They defined leadership as “learning the roles and dynamics of a group and the skill to function in a group” (p.50). Carter and colleagues (2012) explored the concept of leadership by examining the perspectives of youth leadership development of youth with disabilities. Since their study employed a qualitative method, their definition of leadership was broad and included eight different attitudes and skills and four abilities that influence others. Although the literature lacks the consistent definition or components of leadership for students with disabilities, its relationship with self-determination deserves investigation.

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between leadership and self-determination of youth with intellectual disabilities. Ultimately, it will provide a concrete method of leadership development for students with intellectual disabilities in the post-secondary education institutes by utilizing the self-determination and self-advocacy curricula. Moreover, based on the functional model of self-determination (Wehmeyer et al., 2003), individual factors that


- 311 -

include personal variables and dispositional factors that are related to self-determination level were also explored in this study.

Ⅱ. Method

1. Participants

Study participants were 90 youth with intellectual disabilities at a transition program in public schools and post-secondary educational institutes. Participants were recruited from local school districts and the post-secondary education institutes in Southern California using cluster sampling. A list of the schools and the community colleges that have the transition programs for the students with intellectual disabilities was developed and three institutes were randomly selected. Invitations were sent to all students from each institute who met the following criteria: (a) were in or exited from secondary Special Education (beyond the 12thgrade),(b)wereattendingtransitionprogramsorpost-secondaryeducation;(c)hadanIEPinthecategoryofintellectualdisabilities;and(d)agedbetween18to25yearsold.Allstudentswhoagreedtoparticipateinthestudywererecruitedasparticipants.Accordingtothemissingcasesoncertainmeasuresanditems,someresultsshowadiscrepancyintotalparticipants.

Participants ranged in age from 18 to 25 years (M=22; SD=3.2). IQ scores were collected from their school records, but scores were available for only 37 participants. The average IQ score for this group was 61.24 (SD=15.11) and ranged from 32 and to 89. There are a few students with IQ higher than 70 which is one of the criteria for intellectual disabilities, however, they were eligible for services from the Department of Developmental Service due to their limited adapted skills and functions. Other demographic characteristics of the participants such as gender, ethnicity, disability type, disability severity, and transition program settings are shown in Table 1. Sixty-two percent of the participants were male. A large number of participants were Caucasian (52.2 %). Hispanic Americans comprised 15.6%, African Americans 8.9 percent, Asian Americans 10 percent, and other ethnic groups totaled 10 percent. Fifty-five


- 312 -

percent reported as mild/moderate disabilities, and 45 percent as moderate/severe disabilities. For disability type, a participant may have more than one disability. Sixty-eight participants (75.6%) had intellectual disabilities and 29 (32.2%) had autism. Thirty-six participants (40.0%) reported to have severe behavior problems. Seventy-two percent of the participants were from the post-secondary education institutes and 24 percent were from the transition programs in the public-school districts.

<Table 1> Demographic characteristics of the Participants Variable n %Gender

Male 56 62.2Female 31 34.4

Ethnicity White 47 52.2Hispanic 14 15.6African-American 8 8.9Asian 9 10.0Other 9 10.0

Severity of DisabilityMild/Moderate 45 55.0Moderate/Severe 36 45.0

Disability TypeIntellectual Disability 68 75.6Autism 29 32.2Behavior 36 40.0

Transition ProgramPost-secondary Setting 65 72.2Secondary Setting 22 24.4

2. Measures

We used three measurement tools to investigate the relationship between self-determination and leadership among students with intellectual disabilities:


- 313 -

Demographic Survey, Arc’s Self-Determination Scale, and Youth Leadership Self-Assessment.

Demographic Survey. We developed a survey to collect demographic information from the participants’ forms in their admission files and IEP documents, and special education teachers and program instructors in the student-support service center at the college. The items included the participant’s ethnicity, severity of disability, types of disability, history of special education, living arrangement, and parent’s information.

Arc’s Self-Determination (SDS). The SDS is a 72 item self-report measure that provides data on self-determination through the measurement of the four essential characteristics of self-determined behavior: autonomy, self-regulation, psychological empowerment, and self-realization (Wehmeyer & Kelchner, 1995; Wehmeyer, 1995b, 1996a). Subscale scores can be calculated for the autonomy, self-regulation, psychological empowerment, and self-realization domains, along with a total self-determination score. The scale consists of a total of 148 points, with higher scores indicating higher levels of self-determination. The SDS was developed and normed with 500 adolescents with cognitive disabilities (Wehmeyer, 1996b) to assess individual student’s level of self-determination skills. It was demonstrated to have adequate reliability and validity in the measurement of self-determination for adolescents with cognitive disabilities. The Cronbach’s alpha for the internal consistency of SDS ranges between 0.62 and 0.90. The adequate construct validity was reported by the authors.

Youth Leadership Self-Assessment. Students’ leadership was measured with Youth Leadership Self-Assessment (Berry, 2010). Youth Leadership Self-Assessment is an informal assessment consisting of a 35-item questionnaire that measures one’s leadership behaviors from age 12 to adult. It has five domains including support of others, self-management, awareness, excellence, and motivation of others. Participants were asked to evaluate their leadership behaviors with scores of 1 (lowest or least) to 10 (highest or most). Each domain has 7 items so the possible total score for each domain is 70 points and the possible total score for the scale is 350 points. The reliability of the measure, Cronbach alpha for the Leadership was 0.96 for the participants. Although this assessment itself needs to be tested for its reliability and validity, we chose it


- 314 -

because of its item relevancy and modification flexibility to use with students with intellectual disabilities. It does not have a time limit for completion and the examiner is allowed to provide age appropriate examples to encourage participants to give the closest number reflecting their evaluation of leadership.

3. Procedures

The researcher contacted the special education directors in the public school districts and the Office for Students with Disabilities (OSD) at several colleges that support students with intellectual disabilities by sending out invitation letters explaining the purpose of the study. Among them, several directors of the special education division and the OSD at a higher-education institute expressed enthusiasm to participate in this research. The special education teachers and OSD staff assisted us in sending out the consent letters that had been reviewed and approved by the IRB, to individual potential participants and his/her parents informing them of the purpose of the study and confirming the anonymity and voluntarism in study participation.

Once we secured the consent forms from participants and their parents, we provided training for the special education teachers and OSD counselors on data collection and administration of each instrument. School administration allowed us access to admission applications and cumulative record files. We collected demographic information on individual participant using the Demographic Survey. Some of demographic information was missing for some participants. For example, the IQ score was not available for all students.

To assess the self-determination skills (The Arc’s Self Determination Scale) and the leadership, we made a schedule to meet with participants individually during the data collection period. The ASD took approximately 40 to 60 minutes for each student. The trained research assistants administered the ASD to students individually during their personal time after the daily schedule. For the best environmental condition to assess participants, each school provided a quiet place on campus for assessment.

During the Arc’s Self-determination Scale (ASD) assessment, we instructed individuals that there were no “right or wrong” answers and that they could quit


- 315 -

at any time if they were not comfortable with any part of the ASD. We tried to assure that each participant could understand each item in the scale to get the answers most representing their status and feelings and to encourage them to answer every question in the ASD. We checked to see that they understood the concept of answer choices by rephrasing and shortening the questions. In Autonomy domain, participants responded to each statement with one of four choices: (1) I do not even if I have the chance, (2) I do sometimes when I have the chance, (3) I do most of the time when I have the chance, and (4) I do every time when I have the chance. We also presented these four choices in a visual aid resembling a pie chart to enhance the understanding of participants. The visual aid provided participants with concrete examples of quantifying their actions with ease. Also, participants were allowed to check only one answer for each question.

Self-regulation domain had two sub-domains: interpersonal cognitive problem-solving and goal setting with task performance. In interpersonal cognitive problem-solving, participants were presented with a story’s beginning and end. Participants were asked to write what they think would happen in the middle of the story, bridging the beginning and the ending of the story. We assisted them by transcribing their oral responses. To clarify their answers, we asked back short questions and rephrased their answers in full sentences. The second part consisting of the goal setting and task performance asked participants’ their plans for the future. First, we asked each participant if they had a future plan about the given statement. If they did not have a plan, no further steps were taken other than filling out “no future plan of the given statement” as their answer. Second, when they answered that they had a plan, we helped them describe the plan and tell how they were going to accomplish the goal with at least four steps. We transcribed their dictated answers so that they could focus on responding to the questions.

The psychological empowerment section asked the participants to select one of two statements that best described themselves. We read the statements slowly and clearly to ensure that each participant understood the difference between the two statements. We also allowed them to ask questions at any time if they needed further explanation and/or clarification. The self-realization section had


- 316 -

“agree” or “disagree” questions. Participants read each statement and had to think about how they felt about themselves. For those who needed more concrete examples of answer choices, we develop pictures representing “agree” and “disagree.”

The questions in the Youth Leadership Self-Assessment were carefully reviewed and prepared with different examples and simpler sentences before the assessment was administered. For those who had difficulty reading, the examiner read each item to the participant and used a prepared simpler item with different examples to facilitate their understanding. To assist them in quantifying their answer, we used the “pie chart” visual template showing different amounts.

4. Data Analysis

The researcher used nominal measurement for demographic information and interval measurement for the self-determination scale. All data analysis for descriptive and inferential statistics were completed using SPSS 22.0 for MicroSoft Windows. Before conducting a descriptive analysis, the several nominal scale variables were created for further analysis from the demographic information survey that each participant completed: Ethnicity in two groups (white vs. non-white), IQ in three groups, and disability groups. The descriptive analyses of data included the descriptive statistics on each variable in the study. The researcher used independent sample t-test to investigate the differences between two different transition program settings: post-secondary and secondary transition program. The t-test is a parametric test of significance used to determine whether, at a selected probability level, significant difference exists between the means of two independent samples. Some independent samples could not be tested using parametric statistics due to the skewed distributions that violate the assumption using the parametric methods. The researcher used Mann-Whitney u-test for nonparametric test.

The research also used Pearson product-moment correction (Pearson r) to investigate the relationship between self-determination and its sub-domains: autonomy, self-regulation, psychological empowerment, and self-realization. This parametric statistic method was selected based on normal distribution assumption


- 317 -

of the samples, and the variables using the ratio or interval measurement (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2011). Univariate Analysis of Variance (ANCOVA) was conducted to identify predictors of self-determination of youth with intellectual disabilities using the demographic variables as independent variables contributing to self-determination skills.

Ⅲ. Results

1.Self-determination of Youth with Intellectual Disabilities

Scoring the Arc Self-Determination Scale Test involved the determination of raw scores for all domains and sub-domain areas. Using the conversion table in the manual, the researcher converted raw scores into percentile scores for comparison with the sample norms (Norm Sample) and the percentage of positive response (Positive Scores). All scores of the self-determination scale were converted to positive scores from raw scores by following the manual. Positive Score of Self-Determination Scale’s maximum score was 100 and the minimum score was 0.

Table 2 shows 86 participants’ scores on self-determination and its subscales. The scores of self-determination and four subscales did not distribute normally. Thus, non-parametric analyses were employed for further analyses and median scores were shown in Table 2. Out of possible 148 points, the participants reported average 100.50 (range 33-134) points. For the comparison with the norm group, their scores were converted to normed positive percentage scores and shown in Table 3. When the raw scores were converted to normed positive percentage scores, participants’ average scores in self-determination were 68.0. This indicates 68% of scores from the norm sample were the same or lower than the participants’ scores (Wehmayer, 1995a).


- 318 -

<Table 2> Scores on Self-determination and Its Subscales Measures M Minimum MaximumSelf-determination 100.50 33 134

Autonomy 67.50 12 93Self-regulation 10.00 0 21Psychological empowerment 13.00 5 16Self-realization 12.00 6 16

Note: N = 86 for all the

<Table 3> Normed Positive Percentage Scores on Self-determination and Its Subscales Measures M Minimum MaximumSelf-determination 68.0 22 91

Autonomy 70.5 12 97Self-regulation 48.0 0 100Psychological empowerment 81.0 31 100Self-realization 76.5 27 100

Note: N = 86 for all the measures.

Correlation between the total self-determination score and its subscale scores were examined with Kentall’s t. Table 4 shows correlation coefficients between the total self-determination score and its subscales. There were similar findings of significantly strong correlation between self-determination and autonomy and moderate association between self-determination and the other subscales. In this study, the results show that each subscale was significantly correlated with one another (Wehmeyer, Abery, Zhang, Ward, Willis, Hossain, Balcazar, Ball, Bacon, Calkins, Heller, Goode, Dias, Jesien, McVeigh, Nygren, Palmer, & Walker, 2007).

<Table 4> Correlation Coefficients Variable Autonomy Self-

regulationPsychological empowerment

Self-realization

Self-determination .780** .455** .514** .330**

Autonomy --- .235** .359** .213**

Self-regulation --- .426** .238**

Psychological empowerment --- .307**

Self-realization **p < .01


- 319 -

Mann-Whiney U tests were used to examine the differences in self-determination scores by demographic variables. Table 5 shows that white participants had significantly higher levels of self-determination than non-white participants (U=612, p=.00). The participants with mild disability showed higher level of self-determination than those with severe disability (U=499, p=.00). The participants with autism reported a significantly lower level of self-determination than those without autism (U=1116, p=.00). The participants in the post-secondary transition setting had a significantly higher level of self-determination than those in the secondary transition program (U=257.5, p=.000). However, there were no differences in self-determination levels based on gender, disability, or behavior issues of the participants. The correlation between age and self-determination of the participants was examined by using Kendall’s t and found to have a positive correlation (t=.248, p=.000).

<Table 5> Scores of Self-determination by Demographic Variables Variable n % M U p

Gender Male 55 62.2 98.00 955.00 .356Female 31 34.4 101.00

Ethnicity White 46 53.4 103.50 612.00 .008**

Non-White 40 46.6 81.00Severity of Disability

Mild/Moderate 44 51.1 107.00 499.50 .005**

Moderate/Severe 36 48.9 89.50Intellectual Disability

Yes 67 77.9 70.00 499.50 .154No 19 22.1 53.00

Autism Yes 29 33.7 56.00 1116.00 .008**

No 57 66.3 71.00Behavior Issues

Yes 36 41.8 97.50 1,012.00 .327No 50 58.2 99.00

Transition Program Post-Secondary Transition 47 54.6 113.00 257.50 .000***

Secondary Transition 39 45.4 79.00N = 86, **p < .01, ***p < .001


- 320 -

2. Leadership of Youth with Intellectual Disabilities

The table 6 shows the leadership scores of youth with intellectual disabilities. The distribution of the participants’ leadership scores were negatively skewed, which indicates that the participants reported high level of leadership.

<Table 6> Scores on Leadership and Its Subscales Measures M Minimum MaximumLeadership 287 35 350

Supporting Others 56 7 70Self-management 60 7 70Awareness 57 7 70Excellence 59 7 70Motivating Others 55 7 70

Note: N =87 for all the measures.

Correlation between leadership and its subscale were examined with Kentall’s t. Table 7 shows correlation coefficients between leadership and its subscales. The leadership scale and each subscale were strongly correlated with each other.

<Table 7> Correlation Coefficients Variable Supporting

othersSelf-

management Awareness Excellence Motivatingothers

Leadership .734** .760** .783** .737** .782**

Supporting Others ---- .579** .654** .547** .643**

Self-management . ---- .688** .621** .622**

Awareness ---- .646** .617**

Excellence ---- .692**

Motivating Others ----Note: N = 87 for all the measures, **p < .01

Mann-Whiney U tests were used to examine the differences in leadership scores by demographic variables. There were significant differences in leadership


- 321 -

levels by ethnicity (U=709.5, p=.05), autism (U=1084, p=.03), and transition program setting (U=562.5, p=.00). The results are shown in Table 8.

<Table 8> Scores of Leadership by Demographic Variables Variable n % M U p

Gender Male 56 64.3 289.00 750.00 .296Female 31 35.7 281.50

Ethnicity White 47 54.0 292.50 709.50 .050Non-White 40 46.0 280.00

Severity of DisabilityMild/Moderate 45 51.7 295.00 662.50 .161Moderate/Severe 36 48.3 278.50

Intellectual DisabilityYes 68 78.1 294.00 458.50 .054No 19 21.9 260.50

Autism Yes 29 33.3 256.00 1084.00 .029*

No 58 66.6 297.50Behavior Issues

Yes 36 41.3 260.00 1091.50 .135No 51 58.7 295.00

Transition Program Post-Secondary Transition 47 54.0 310.00 562.50 .001**

Secondary Transition 40 46.0 264.50Note: N = 87, *p < .05, **p < .0

3. Relationship between Self-determination and Leadership

Kentall’s t was used to examine the correlation between self-determination and leadership. Self-determination was significantly correlated with leadership and its five subscales (See Table 9). The total self-determination score showed significant correlation with leadership total score and leadership sub-domain scores. Among


- 322 -

sub-domains of self-determination skills, all except self-regulation sub-domain shows significant correlation with leadership scores.

<Table 9> Correlation between Self-determination and Leadership

Variables Self-determination

Sub-Scales

Autonomy Self-regulation

Psychologicalempowerment

Self-realization

Leadership .261** .263** .039 .220** .199*

Supporting Others .227** .247** .019 .162* .137Self-management .254** .227** .114 .270** .161*

Awareness .228** .207** .051 .230** .159*

Excellence .236** .244** .008 .201* .259**

Motivating Others .207** .242** -.043 .139 .188*

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

4. Predictors of Self-determination

Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to identify predictors of self-determination of youth with intellectual disabilities. Ethnicity, severity of disability, autism, and transition program setting were entered as fixed factors, and age and leadership were entered as covariates in the analysis. Table 10 shows that the covariates, leadership and age, were significantly related to the self-determination level of the participants. Demographic variables of participants without autism and attending post-secondary transition program were significant predictors of higher levels of self-determination.

<Table 10> ANCOVA Results for self-determination and demographic variablesDemographic

Variables MS df F p

Autism 2519.85 1 8.39 .00**

Placement 7445.43 1 24.80 .00***

Ethnicity 770.06 1 2.57 .11Severity 169.57 1 .565 .45Error 300.24 73**p < .01, ***p < .001


- 323 -

Ⅳ. Conclusion

The basic purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between self-determination skills and leadership ability of youth with intellectual disabilities. This study also tested factors identified in previous studies as facilitating self-determination of youth with intellectual disabilities (Jameson, 2007; Pierson, Carter, Lane, & Glaeser, 2008; Wehmeyer et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2012). When self-determination is promoted, it impacts many performance outcomes including quality of life (Wehmeyer et al., 2003; Lachapelle et al., 2005; McGuire & McDonnell, 2008). The ultimate goal of this study was to identify effective factors that post-secondary education can develop leadership skills in youth with intellectual disabilities.

Although this study included 90 participants, they were from two different pools of educational settings: post-secondary education and public school transition program. These two already existing groups brought with them an intact group difference that could influence the research interpretation, which was a significant limitation in this study. This group difference created confounded results in some demographic variables such as program settings, severity of disability, and possibly ethnicity. One of the biggest issues was that students who attend the public school transition programs had more significant disabilities than those who attended the college programs. To overcome this group difference, we verified that all transition programs in the pool of potential participating institutes emphasized self-determination instruction in their curricula. Moreover, we analyzed the correlation between self-determination and leadership skills as one group which included everyone from the two different intact groups.

Hinshaw (2007) defined moderator variables as “baseline factors that define subgroups with greater vs. lesser intervention response” (p.1). Moderator variables refer to characteristics of a treatment sample that may influence intervention outcomes. Gender, ethnicity, severity of disability, type of disability, problem behavior, and placement were examined in this study as possible moderating variables. The results show that some of these factors were indeed


- 324 -

moderator variables which influenced the results of self-determination skills of youth with disabilities. One of the most significant moderator variables was program setting. When youth with intellectual disabilities are enrolled in the post-secondary education institutes, they are more likely to have higher self-determination skills. This can be interpreted in two different ways. Students in the post-secondary education institutes showed higher self-determination skills because they are already self-determined to pursue higher education after completing special education in public schools. The other possible interpretation is that the program in the post-secondary education institutes have greater emphasis on self-determination skills in their curricula. Definitely, youth with intellectual disabilities in the post-secondary education have more responsibilities and get more opportunities to practice their self-determination skills.

Self-determination scores were around 68 percent of the norm group. In a way, youth with intellectual disabilities do possess considerable self-determination. However, there are big gaps regarding youth in general to exercise their rights and make informed choices in the community after leaving education settings for adulthood. The results show that the self-regulation sub-domain has the lowest influence in overall self-determination. Mason et al. (2004) reported unsatisfactory participation of students with disabilities in their IEP meetings as well as unsatisfactory teaching of self-determination skills in public schools. Youth with intellectual disabilities are not given opportunities to practice their self-regulation while they are in school.

Participants self-assessed their leadership skills with the Youth Leadership Assessment, which has five categories: (a) supporting others, (b) self-management, (c) awareness, (d) excellence, and (e) motivating others. This tool was not tested for its validity nor reliability by the developer (Berry, 2010). The five subscales showed strong correlation among themselves demonstrating consistency in the concept of leadership. In this study, the leadership scores self-reported by the participants with intellectual disabilities resulted in quite high scores in leadership. This finding is different from the previous study on leadership conducted by Caldwell (2010). The participants in the Caldwell study self-reported low leadership ability, however they were already serving a leadership role in a variety of organizations. They were interviewed using a


- 325 -

semi-structured interview guide. Caldwell’s participants were already facing the opposition and difficulties of real-life situations and gave answers based on the organizational and societal factors that impacted their leadership. In contrast to this study in which the participants were asked what they thought of their ability as a leader. The results found in this study are critical in showing that people with intellectual disabilities believe that they have a leadership ability and can serve as a leader helping and motivating others. As Caldwell concluded, when they are not provided with adequate training and ample opportunities to exercise their leadership skills while they are in school, their leadership skill will be hampered.

The crucial finding of this study was achieved when we conducted the ANCOVA to identify the moderator factors which impact self-determination skills of youth with intellectual disabilities. Interestingly, ethnicity and the severity of disabilities were not factors in influencing self-determination, which concurred with the previous findings (Wehmeyer & Garner, 2003). The moderator factors were disability type (e.g., autism or non-autism) and the placement setting (e.g., post-secondary institutes or public schools). It is apparent that youth with autism, who are characterized with difficulties in social skills and communication skills, might have difficulty demonstrating leadership ability requiring intense interaction with others. It should be a topic for future study on how to develop self-determination and leadership skills of youth with autism. The placement setting imposes important insight regarding post-secondary education. There should be serious consideration for development of post-secondary education opportunities for youth with intellectual disabilities in which they can exercise their freedoms of choice, responsibilities, and higher learning practices.

The ultimate goal of this study was to find the correlation between self-determination skills and leadership. When there is a significant relationship, educators can develop a more concrete and well-constructed content of self-determination skills training to increase the leadership skills of youth with intellectual disabilities. The results show that there are significant correlations between all subscales of self-determination and leadership. As Caldwell (2010) suggested, self-advocacy training is one of the essential tools needed to develop leadership. The results of this current study suggest that self-determination is


- 326 -

significantly correlated with leadership which can be used to develop teaching strategies in leadership. However, although the significant relationships were found, the correlation coefficients between the two variables were low (r range of .20-.26). This means that self-determination and leadership are related but are still distinct concepts from each other. Leadership training should be focused on in education and investigated in-depth to develop effective strategies. Besides self-advocacy training, Caldwell (2010) also recommended various opportunities for learning leadership such as participation on boards and committees in community organizations.

Leadership development in youth with intellectual disabilities is critical for quality leadership improvements in public services, achieving quality of life, and in development of role models in the disability community. In Korea, the law has mandated accessibility to post-secondary education for all students with disabilities since 1995. National Human Rights Commission of the Republic of Korea (2009) overviewed the implementation of the law and surveyed demographics of students with disabilities in colleges. In its comprehensive report, the foci were on the special admission procedures, environmental supports, and various accommodations and adaptations to assist students with disabilities in post-secondary education. However, it is emphasizing the importance of special admission and students’ independent activities. In this context, it should be remembered that leadership development is one of the most important roles of higher education and that the leadership role of persons with disabilities in the disability community is critical for the improvement of the quality of life. In the post-secondary education setting, there are many opportunities to learn self-determination and youth with intellectual disabilities cannot succeed in the post-secondary education without self-determination skills (Jameson, 2007; Getzel & Thoma, 2008). The results of this study strongly suggest that accessing the post-secondary education opportunities and structured leadership training would be the main components in developing leadership in youth with intellectual disabilities.


- 327 -

ReferenceAnkeny, E. M., Madson, E., & 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(4), 279-289.

Arndt, S. A., Konrad, M., Test, D. W., (2006). Effects of the “Self-Directed IEP” on student participation in planning meetings. Remedial and Special Education. 27(4), 194-207.

Bacon, A., Walker, H. M., Schwartz, A. A. (2011). Lessons learned in scaling up effective practices: Implications for promoting self-determination within developmental disabilities. Exceptionality, 19(1), 46-60.

Berry, B. A. (2010). Youth Leadership Assessment. Youth Products and Services: Encinitas, CA.Caldwell, J. (2010). Leadership development of individual with developmental disabilities in

the self-advocacy movement. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities Research, 54(11), 1004-1014.

Carter, E. W., Swedeen, B., Walter, M. J., Moss, C. K., & Hsin, C. (2011). Perspectives of young adults with disabilities on leadership. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 34(1), 57-67.

Eckes, T. A. & Eckes, S. E. (2005). Urban youth in correctional facilities. Education and Urban Society, 38(1), 21-34.

Edelman, A., Gill, P., Comerford, K., Larson, M., Hare, R. (2004). Youth Development & Youth Leadership. National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth (NCWD/Youth): Washington, D.C.

Eisenman, L. T. (2007). Social networks and careers of young adults with intellectual disabilities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 45(3), 199-208.

Fiedler, C. R., Danneker, J. E. (2007). Self-advocacy instruction: Bridging the research-to-practice gap. Focus on Exceptional Children, 39(8), 1-20.

Fowler, C. H., Konrad, M., & Walker, A. R. (2207). Self-determination interventions’ effects on the academic performance of students with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 42(3), 270-285.

Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2011). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications (10THEd.).UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:Allyn&Bacon.

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.

Griffin, M. M. (2011). Promoting IEP participation: Effects of interventions, considerations for CLD students. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 34(3), 153-164.


- 328 -

Griffin, M. M., Taylor, J. L., Urbano, R. C. (2014). Involvement in transition planning meetings among high school students with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Special Education. 47(4), 256-264.

Grigal, M., Hart, D., & Weir, C. (2012). A survey of postsecondary education programs for students with intellectual disabilities in the United States. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9(4), 223-233.

Hinshaw, S. P. (2007). Moderators and Mediators of treatment outcome for youth with ADHD: Understanding for whom and how interventions work. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 32(6), 664-675.

Jameson, D. R. (2007). Self-determination and success outcomes of two-year college students with disabilities. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 37(2), 26-46.

Katsiyannis, A., Zhang, D., & Mackiewicz, S. M. (2012). Promising practices for effective transition for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Advances in Special Education, ED539318.

Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 48-60.

Lachapelle, Y., Wehmeyer, M. L., Haelewyck, M. C., Courbois, Y., Keith, K. D., Schalock, R., Verdugo, M. A., & Walsh, P. N. (2005). The relationship between quality of life and self-determination: an international study. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49(10), 740-744.

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(3). 150-161.

Lindstrom, L., Doren, B., Miesch, J. (2011). Waging a living: Career development and long-term employment outcomes for young adults with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 77(4), 423-434.

Martin, J. E., Van Dycke, H. 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(2), 187-200.

Martin, J. E., Woods, L. L., Sylvester, L., & Gardner, J. E. (2005). A challenge to self-determination: Disagreement between the vocational choices made by individuals with severe disabilities and their caregivers. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities. 30(3), 147-153.


- 329 -

Mason, C., Field, S., & Swailowsky, S. (2004). Implementation of self-determination activities and student participation in IEPs. Exceptional Children, 70(4), 441-451.

McGuire, J., & McDonnell, J. (2008). Relationships between recreation and levels of self-determination for adolescents and young adults with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31(3), 154-163.

National Human Rights Commission of the Republic of Korea (2009). A study on demographic of students with disabilities attending universities and recommendations for improvement. Retrieved from https://edi.kead.or.kr/usr/kr/jsp/common/FileDownLoad.jsp?fileName

Pierson, M. R., Carter, E. W., Lane, K. L., & Glaeser, B. C. (2008). Factors influencing the self-determination of transition-age youth with high-incidence disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals. 31(2), 115-125.

Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Soukup, J. H., Little, T. D., Garner, N., & Lawrence, M. (2007). Examining individual and ecological predictors of the self-determination of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 488-509.

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(1), 101-125.

Test, D. W., & Neale, M. (2004). Using the self-advocacy strategy to increase middle graders’ IEP participation. Journal of Behavior Education, 13(2), 135-145.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (1999). A functional model of self-determination: Describing development and implementing instruction. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 14(1), 53-62.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (2005a). Self-determination and individuals with severe disabilities: Re-examining meanings and misinterpretations. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities. 30(3), 113-120.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (2005b). The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale: Procedural Guidelines. ARC, Arlington, TX

Wehmeyer, M. L. (2006a). Student self-report measure of self-determination for students with cognitive disabilities. Education and training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 31(4), 282-293.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (2006b). Essential characteristics of self-determined behavior of individuals Wehmeyer, M. L., Abery, B. H., Zhang, D., Ward, K., Willis, D., Hossain, W. A., Balcazar,

F., Ball, A., Bacon, A., Calkins, C., Heller, T., Goode, T., Dias, R., Jesien, G., S., McVeigh, T., Nygren, M. A., Palmer, S. B., & Walker, H. M. (2011) Personal self-determination and moderating variables that impact efforts to promote self-determination. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal, 19(1), 19-30.


- 330 -

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Garner, N. W. (2003). The impact of personal characteristics of people with intellectual and developmental disability on self-determination and autonomous functioning. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 16(4), 255-265.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Garner, N., Yeager, D. (2006). Infusing self-determination into 18-21 services for students with intellectual or developmental disabilities: A multi-stage, multiple component model. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities. 41(1), 3-13.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Kelchner, K. (1995). Whose Future Is It Anyway? A Student-Directed Transition Planning Process. ARC, Arlington, TX.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Kelchner, K., & Richards, S. (1996). Characteristics of self determined behavior of individuals with mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 100(6), 632-642.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Palmer, B. (2003). Adult outcomes for students with cognitive disabilities three-years after high school: The impact of self-determination. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38(2). 131-144.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, 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(4), 195-210.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Shogren, K. A., Zager, D., Smith, T. E. & Simpson, R. (2010). Research-based principles and practices for educating students with Autism: Self-determination and social interactions. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45(4), 475-486.

Woods, L. L., Sylvester, L., Martin, J. E. (2010). Student-directed transition planning: Increasing student knowledge and self-efficacy in the transition planning process. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 33(2) 106-114.

Zhang, D. Landmark, L., & Grenwelge, C. (2010). Culturally diverse parents’ perspectives on self-determination. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45(2), 175-186.


- 331 -

<국문초록>

지적장애학생의 자기결정력과 지도자역량의 상관연구


장애학생의 고등교육으로의 전환은 특수교육계에서 지대한 관심을 보이고 있는 분야이다. 고등교육은 직업생활에서 보다 좋은 직장과 직책으로의 전진에 중요한 영향을 미칠뿐만 아니라 모든 사람에게 동등한 교육권을 인정하는 중요한 의미를 갖는다. 고등교육을 중요한 기능중에 하나는 대학교육이 자기결정력과 지도력을 계발하고 향상시킨다는 점이다. 현재까지는 지적장애인의 지도력에 관한 연구가 제한적이었다. 이연구의 주요목적은 자기결정능력과 지도자적 역량간의 상관관계를 연구하고 이 두능력에 영향을 미치는 변인들을 알아보는 것이다. 또한 공교육에서 실시하는 전환교육 프로그램과 2년제 대학에서 실시하는 전환교육에 참여하는 학생들 간의 차이를 측정하였다. 자기결정능력과 지도자적 역량간에는 의미있는 상관관계가 나타났으며 2년제 대학의 전환교육 프로그램에 재학중인 학생들의 자기결정능력이 공교육에서 실시하는 전환교육 참가자보다 유의한 수준의 차이로 높았다. 지적장애인들의 지도자적 역량을 계발하기위해서는 자기결정능력을 키우는 다양한 프로그램의 실시가 매우 중요한 역할을 한다.

핵심어 : 지적장애, 고등교육, 자기결정력, 지도력, 전환교육

논문접수 : 2018. 01. 31 / 논문심사일 : 2018. 03. 07 / 게재승인 : 2018. 03. 14

Documents

Relationship between Self-Determination and Leadership of Youth …risers.daegu.ac.kr/common/fileDown.aspx?f=14-Christine H... · 특수교육재활과학연구 Journal of Special