Assistive Technology and Students With High-incidence Disabilities

Abstract

Assistive technology use in secondary school and postschool has been shown to improve the educational attainment and life outcomes of students with high-incidence disabilities. This study used data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2—collected in the early to mid-2000s—to explore the relationship between receipt of assistive technology in school and postschool outcomes. Few students in this study reported receiving assistive technology in high school (7.8%) and fewer still after high school (1.1%). In general, students with high-incidence disabilities who reported receiving assistive technology in school had more positive postschool outcomes in terms of a paid job, wages, and participation in postsecondary education. Yet assistive technology receipt was not a statistically significant factor in the logistic regression model for any dependent variable (i.e., postschool outcome). Although positive implications for receipt of assistive technology in school were suggested, receipt was not a predictor for positive postschool outcomes.

Keywords

assistive technology NLTS2 postschool outcomes high-incidence disabilities secondary education

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alper

Raharinirina

(2006). Assistive technology for individuals with disabilities: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(2), 47–64.

Blackhurst

A. E.

(2005). Historical perspectives about technology applications for people with disabilities. In Edyburn

Higgins

Boone

(Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 3–30). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.

Blackorby

Cameto

McCracken

Valdes

(2009, January). NLTS2 data training. Washington, DC: SRI International.

Cavalier

A. R.

Ferretti

R. P.

Okolo

C. M.

(1994). Technology and individual differences. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12(3), 175–181.

Christ

T. W.

Stodden

(2005). Advantages of developing survey constructs when comparing educational supports offered to students with disabilities in postsecondary education. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 22, 23–31.

Curtis

R. S.

Rabren

Reilly

A. S.

(2009). Post-school outcomes of students with disabilities: A quantitative and qualitative analysis. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 30, 31–48. doi:10.3233/JVR-2009-045110.3233/JVR-2009-0451

Edgar

Polloway

E. A.

(1994). Education for adolescents with disabilities: Curriculum and placement issues. Journal of Special Education, 27, 438–452. doi:10.1177/00224669940270040510.1177/002246699402700405

Edyburn

D. L.

(2000). Assistive technology and students with mild disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 32(9), 1–24.

Edyburn

D. L.

(2006). Cognitive prostheses for students with mild disabilities: Is this what assistive technology looks like? Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(4), 62–65.

10.

Edyburn

D. L.

Higgins

Boone

(2005). Preface. In Edyburn

Higgins

Boone

(Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. xiii–xvi). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.

11.

Garza

(2005). Engagement in postsecondary education, work, or preparation for work. In Wagner

Newman

Cameto

Garza

Levine

(Eds.), After high school: A first look at the postschool experiences of youth with disabilities. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS2) (pp. 3-1–3-6). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from http://www.nlts2.org/pdfs/afterhighschool_report.pdf

12.

Golden

(1999). Assistive technology policy and practice: What is the right thing to do? What is the reasonable thing to do? What is required and must be done? Special Education Technology Practice, 1(1), 12, 14.

13.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Pub. L. No. 105-17, 111 Stat. 37 (1997).

14.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004).

15.

Institute of Education Sciences. (n.d.). Perceptions and expectations of youth with disabilities (NLTS2). Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20073006/appa_g.asp

16.

Javitz

Wagner

(2003). Analysis of the potential basis in the sample of local educational agencies (LEAs) in the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS2) sample. Retrieved from http://www.nlts2.org/studymeth/nlts2_analysis_bias_sample.pdf

17.

Lahm

E. A.

(2003). Assistive technology specialists. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 141–153. doi:10.1177/0741932503024003030110.1177/07419325030240030301

18.

Lamb

(2007). Implications of the summary of performance for vocational rehabilitation counselors. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 30(1), 3–12. doi:10.1177/0885728807030001040110.1177/08857288070300010401

19.

Langton

A. J.

Ramseur

(2001). Enhancing employment outcomes through job accommodation and assistive technology resources and services. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 16, 27–37.

20.

Lewis

R. B.

(1993). Special education technology: Classroom applications. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

21.

Mull

C. A.

Sitlington

P. L.

(2003). The role of technology in the transition to postsecondary education of students with learning disabilities: A review of the literature. Journal of Special Education, 37, 26–32. doi:10.1177/0022466903037001030110.1177/00224669030370010301

22.

Newman

Wagner

Cameto

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 http://nlts2.org/reports/2009_04/index.html

23.

Nochajski

S. M.

Oddo

Beaver

(1999). Technology and transition: Tools for success. Technology and Disability, 11, 93–101.

24.

Okolo

C. M.

(2008). Technology and individuals with mild disabilities. In Lindsey

J. D.

(Ed.), Technology and exceptional individuals (pp. 325–376). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

25.

Parette

Peterson-Karlan

G. R.

Wojcik

B. W.

(2005). The state of assistive technology services nationally and implications for future development. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 2(1), 13–24.

26.

Quinn

B. S.

Behrmann

Mastropieri

Bausch

M. E.

Ault

M. J.

Chung

(2009). Who is using assistive technology in schools? Journal of Special Education Technology, 24(1), 1–13.

27.

Rapp

W. H.

(2005). Using assistive technology with students with exceptional learning needs: When does an aid become a crutch? Reading and Writing Quarterly, 21, 193–196. doi:10.1080/1057356059091599610.1080/10573560590915996

28.

Raskind

M. H.

Higgins

E. L.

(1998). Assistive technology for postsecondary students with learning disabilities: An overview. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 27–40. doi:10.1177/00222194980310010410.1177/002221949803100104

29.

Sharpe

M. N.

Johnson

D. R.

Izzo

Murray

(2005). An analysis of instructional accommodations and assistive technologies used by postsecondary graduates with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 22, 3–11.

30.

SRI International. (2000a). National Longitudinal Transition Study II (NLTS2): Sampling plan. Retrieved from http://www.nlts2.org/studymeth/nlts2_sampling_plan.pdf

31.

SRI International. (2000b). National Longitudinal Transition Study II (NLTS2): Study design, timeline, and data collection plan. Retrieved from http://www.nlts2.org/studymeth/nlts2_design_timeline.pdf

32.

SRI International. (n.d.). Supporting statement for paperwork reduction act submission Part B: Collections of information employing statistical methods. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Information Collection System. Retrieved from http://edicsweb.ed.gov/edics_files_web/03698/Att_Supporting%20Statement%20Part%20B.doc

33.

Stodden

R. A.

Conway

M. A.

Chang

K. B. T.

(2003). Findings from the study of transition, technology, and postsecondary supports for youth with disabilities: Implications for secondary school educators. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(4), 29–44.

34.

Stodden

R. A.

Roberts

K. D.

Picklesimer

Jackson

Chang

(2006). An analysis of assistive technology supports and services offered in postsecondary educational institutions. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 24, 111–120.

35.

Stodden

Whelley

Chang

Harding

(2001). Current status of educational support provision to students with disabilities in postsecondary education. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 16, 189–198.

36.

Stumbo

N. J.

Martin

J. K.

Hedrick

B. N.

(2009). Assistive technology: Impact on education, employment, and independence of individuals with physical disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 30, 99–110. doi:10.3233/JVR-2009-045610.3233/JVR-2009-0456

37.

Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-406 (1988).

38.

Wagner

Kutash

Duchnowski

A. J.

Epstein

M. H.

(2005). The Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study and the National Longitudinal Transition Study: Study designs and implications for children and youth with emotional disturbance. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 13(1), 23–41. doi:10.1177/1063426605013001030110.1177/10634266050130010301

39.

Wagner

Newman

Cameto

Levine

(2005). Changes over time in the early postschool outcomes for youth with disabilities. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from http://www.nlts2.org/pdfs/str6_completereport.pdf

40.

Yeager

Kaye

H. S.

Reed

Doe

T. M.

(2006). Assistive technology and employment: Experiences of Californians with disabilities. Work, 27, 333–344.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.07 MB