The Self-Determination Inventory: Student Report (SDI: SR) was developed to measure the self-determination of adolescents and was recently validated for students aged 13–22 with and without disabilities across diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds. The SDI: SR is aligned Causal Agency Theory and its theoretical conceptualizations of self-determined action. The validation of the SDI: SR was undertaken in two forms: online, computer-based and paper-and-pencil. The present study examined overall self-determination scores of student participants (with and without disabilities) who took the SDI: SR via the online and paper-and-pencil format to inform future research and practice using the SDI: SR. Findings suggest that the same set of items can be utilized across administration formats, but that there appear to be differences in overall SDI: SR scores when online and paper-and-pencil formats are utilized although these differences are not influenced by disability status. Implications for future research and practice are discussed to provide direction to the field related to assessment development and use of the SDI: SR in educational contexts.
AhearnE. P. (1997). The use of visual analog scales in mood disorders: A critical review. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 31, 569–579. doi:10.1016/s0022-3956(97)00029-0
2.
ChangR.LittleT. D. (2018). Innovations for evaluation research: Multiform protocols, visual analog scaling, and the retrospective pretest–posttest design. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 41, 246–269. doi:10.1177/0163278718759396
3.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem0902_5
4.
ConleyD. T. (2012). A complete definition of college and career readiness. Educational Policy Improvement Center. Retrieved fromhttp://www.epiconline.org
5.
Council of Chief State School Officers and National Governors Association. (2011). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: Author.
6.
CouperM. M.TourangeauR.ConradF. G.SingerE. (2006). Evaluating the effectiveness of visual analog scales: A web experiment. Social Science Computer Review, 24, 227–245. doi:10.1177/0894439305281503
7.
DaveyH. M.BarrattA. L.ButowP. N.DeeksJ. J. (2007). A one-item question with a Likert or visual analog scale adequately measured current anxiety. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 356–360. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.07.015
8.
DingL.VelicerW. F.HarlowL. L. (1995). Effects of estimation methods, number of indicators per factor, and improper solutions on structural equation modeling fit indices. Structural Equation Modeling, 2, 119–143. doi:10.1080/10705519509540000
9.
EngleR. F. (1984). Wald, likelihood ratio, and Lagrange multiplier tests in econometrics. Handbook of Econometrics, 2, 775–826.
10.
EndersC. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
11.
GorrallB.CurtisJ.LittleT.PankoP. (2016). Innovations in measurement: Visual analog scales and retrospective pretest self-report designs. Actualidades en Psicologia, 30, 1–6. doi:10.15517/ap.v30i120.22932
12.
HancockG. R. (2001). Effect size, power, and sample size determination for structured means modeling and MIMIC approaches to between-groups hypothesis testing of means on a single latent construct. Psychometrika, 66, 373–388. doi:10.1007/bf02294440
13.
HartleyS. L.MacLeanW. E. (2006). A review of the reliability and validity of Likert-type scales for people with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 50, 813–827. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00844.x
14.
HassonD.ArnetzB. B. (2005). Validation and findings comparing VAS vs. Likert scales for psychosocial measurements. International Electronic Journal of Health Education, 8, 178–192.
15.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
16.
LikertR. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 5–53.
17.
LittleT. D.RhemtullaM. (2013). Planning missing data designs for developmental researchers. Child Development Perspectives, 7, 199–204. doi:10.1111/cdep.12043
18.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998–2018). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
19.
National Alliance for Secondary Education and Transition Standards. (2005). National standards and quality indicators: Transition toolkit for systems improvement (National Center for Secondary Education and Transition). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Community Integration.
20.
RauschM.ZehetleitnerM. (2014). A comparison between a visual analogue scale and a four point scale as measures of conscious experience of motion. Consciousness and Cognition, 28, 126–140. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2014.06.012
21.
ShogrenK. A.LittleT. D.GrandfieldB.RaleyS. K.WehmeyerM. L.LangK.ShawL. A. (2018). The Self-Determination Inventory-Student Report: Confirming the factor structure of a new measure. Assessment for Effective Intervention. doi:10.1177/1534508418788168
22.
ShogrenK. A.LuckassonR.SchalockR. L. (2014). The definition of “context” and its application in the field of intellectual disability. Journal of Policy and practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 11, 109–116. doi:10.1111/jppi.12077
23.
ShogrenK. A.ShawL. A.RaleyS. K.WehmeyerM. L. (2018a). Exploring the effect of disability, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status on scores on the Self-Determination Inventory: Student Report. Exceptional Children. doi:10.1177/0014402918782150
24.
ShogrenK. A.ShawL. A.RaleyS. K.WehmeyerM. L. (2018b). The impact of personal characteristics on scores on the Self-Determination Inventory: Student Report in adolescents with and without disabilities. Psychology in Schools. doi:10.1002/pits.22174
25.
ShogrenK. A.WehmeyerM. L.LaneK. L. (2016). Embedding interventions to promote self-determination within multi-tiered systems of supports. Exceptionality, 24, 213–244. doi:10.1080/09362835.2015.1064421
26.
ShogrenK. A.WehmeyerM. L.PalmerS. B.Forber-PrattA. J.LittleT. J.LopezS. J. (2015). Causal agency theory: Reconceptualizing a functional model of self-determination. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 50, 251–263.
27.
ShogrenK. A.WehmeyerM. L.PalmerS. B.RifenbarkG. G.LittleT. D. (2015). Relationships between self-determination and postschool outcomes for youth with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 53, 30–41. doi:10.1177/0022466913489733
28.
ShuteV. J.LeightonJ. P.JangE. E.ChuM. W. (2016). Advances in the science of assessment. Educational Assessment, 21, 34–59. doi:10.1080/10627197.2015.1127752
29.
SörbomD. (1974). A general method for studying differences in factor means and factor structure between groups. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 27, 229–239. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8317.1974.tb00543.x
ThompsonS. J.ThurlowM.MaloufD. B. (2004). Creating better tests for everyone through universally designed assessments. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 6, 1–15.
32.
WehmeyerM. L.FieldS.DorenB.JonesB.MasonC. (2004). Self-determination and student involvement in standards-based reform. Exceptional Children, 70, 413–425. doi:10.1177/001440290407000402
33.
WehmeyerM. L.KelchnerK. (1995). The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale. Arlington, TX: The Arc National Headquarters.
34.
WolmanJ.CampeauP.DuboisP.MithaugD.StolarskiV. (1994). AIR self-determination scale and user guide. Palo Alto, CA: American Institute for Research.
