Previous research reported differences in student self-determination based on disability status. Specifically, students without disabilities consistently self-report higher self-determination compared with their peers with disabilities, suggesting differential opportunities and supports for self-determination exist within school contexts. To further examine potential differences in student self-determination, the present study examined the impact of an evidence-based practice designed to promote student self-determination, the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction (SDLMI), on student self-determination outcomes when implemented in inclusive, secondary core content classrooms as a universal (i.e., Tier 1) support across an academic year. Findings suggested a relatively small change in overall self-determination during the first year of a multiyear study, but consistent patterns across students with and without disabilities. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
AgranM.BlanchardC.WehmeyerM.HughesC. (2001). Teaching students to self-regulate their behavior: The differential effects of student-vs. teacher-delivered reinforcement. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 22(4), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0891-4222(01)00075-0
2.
AlgozzineB.BrowderD.KarvonenM.TestD. W.WoodW. M. (2001). Effects of interventions to promote self-determination for individuals with disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 219–277.
3.
ArtilesA. J.KozleskiE. B. (2016). Inclusive education’s promises and trajectories. Critical notes about future research on a venerable idea. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(43), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.1919
4.
Brosseau-LiardP. E.SavaleiV. (2014). Adjusting incremental fit indices for nonnormality. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49(5), 460–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.933697
5.
BurkeK. M.RaleyS. K.ShogrenK. A.Adam-MumbardóC.UyanikH.HagiwaraM.BehrensS. (2018). A meta-analysis of interventions to promote self-determination of students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 41, 176–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518802274
6.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem0902_5
7.
FixsenD. L.NaoomS. F.BlaséK. A.FriedmanR. M.WallaceF. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. University of South Florida.
8.
HagiwaraM.ShogrenK. A.LekoM. (2017). Reviewing research on the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction: Mapping the terrain and charting a course to promote adoption and use. Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 1, 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41252-017-0007-7
9.
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02294440
10.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
11.
KennyD. A.McCoachD. B. (2003). Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(3), 333–351. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM1003_1
12.
KlineR. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford.
13.
LaneK. L.MenziesH. M.OakesW. P.KalbergJ. R. (2020). Developing a schoolwide framework to prevent and manage learning and behavior problems (2nd ed.). Guilford.
14.
LaneK. L.RogersL. A.ParksR. J.WeisenbachJ. L.MauA. C.MerwinM. T.BergmanW. A. (2007). Function-based interventions for students who are nonresponsive to primary and secondary prevention efforts: Illustrations at the elementary and middle school levels. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 15(3), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/10634266070150030401
15.
LittleT. D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data: Practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32(1), 53–76. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3201_3
16.
LittleT. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. Guilford.
17.
LittleT. D.PreacherK. J.SeligJ. P.CardN. A. (2007). New developments in latent variable panel analyses of longitudinal data. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31(4), 357–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025407077757
18.
LombardiA.FreemanJ.RifenbarkG. (2018). Modeling college and career readiness for adolescents with and without disabilities: A bifactor approach. Exceptional Children, 84(2), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917731557
19.
MorningstarM. E.LombardiA.TestD. (2018). Including college and career readiness within a multitiered systems of support framework. AERA Open, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418761880
20.
NewmanL.WagnerM.KnokeyA. M.MarderC.NagleK.ShaverD.SchwartingM. (2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high school. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS2; NCSER 2011-3005). SRI International.
21.
NordD.BarkoffA.ButterworthJ.CarlsonD.CimeraR.FabianE.. . . WohlA. (2015). Employment and economic self-sufficiency: 2015 national goals for research, policy, and practice. Inclusion, 3(4), 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-3.4.227
22.
OdomS. L.DudaM. A.KucharczykS.CoxA. W.StabelA. (2014). Applying an implementation science framework for adoption of a comprehensive program for high school students with autism spectrum disorder. Remedial and Special Education, 35(2), 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513519826
23.
RaleyS. K.ShogrenK. A.McDonaldA. (2018a). How to implement the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction in inclusive general education classrooms. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 51(1), 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059918790236
24.
RaleyS. K.ShogrenK. A.McDonaldA. (2018b). Whole-class implementation of the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction in inclusive high school mathematics classes. Inclusion, 6(3), 164–174. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-6.3.164
25.
RaleyS. K.ShogrenK. A.RifenbarkG. G.AndersonM. H.ShawL. A. (2019). Comparing the impact of online and paper-and-pencil administration of the Self-Determination Inventory: Student Report. Journal of Special Education Technology, 35(3), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643419854491
26.
RosseelY. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
27.
SailorW. (2008–2009). Access to general education curriculum: Systems change or tinker some more?Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33–34(4–1), 249–257. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.33.4.249
28.
SatorraA.BentlerP. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75(2), 243–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-009-9135-y
29.
ShogrenK. A.RaleyS. K.RifenbarkG. G.LaneK. L.BojanekE. K.KarpurA.QuirkC. (in press). The Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction: Promoting implementation fidelity. Inclusion.
30.
ShogrenK. A.BurkeK. M.AndersonM. H.AntoshA. A.WehmeyerM. L.LaPlanteT.ShawL. A. (2018). Evaluating the differential impact of interventions to promote self-determination and goal attainment for transition-age youth with intellectual disability. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 43(3), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796918779775
31.
ShogrenK. A.BurkeK. M.AntoshA.WehmeyerM. L.LaPlanteT.ShawL. A.RaleyS. (2019). Impact of the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction on self-determination and goal attainment in adolescents with intellectual disability. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 30(1), 22–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207318792178
32.
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, 45(2), 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508418788168
33.
ShogrenK. A.PalmerS. B.WehmeyerM. L.Williams-DiehmK.LittleT. D. (2012). Effect of intervention with the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction on access and goal attainment. Remedial and Special Education, 33(5), 320–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932511410072
34.
ShogrenK. A.RaleyS. K.BurkeK. M. (2019). SDLMI teacher’s guide supplement: Implementing the SDLMI with the whole class. Kansas University Center on Developmental Disabilities.
35.
ShogrenK. A.RaleyS. K.BurkeK. M.WehmeyerM. L. (2018). The self-determined learning model of instruction: Teacher’s guide. Kansas University Center on Developmental Disabilities.
36.
ShogrenK. A.ShawL. A. (2017). The impact of personal factors on self-determination and early adulthood outcome constructs in youth with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 27(4), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207316667732
37.
ShogrenK. A.ShawL. A.RaleyS. K.WehmeyerM. L. (2018). Exploring the effect of disability, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status on scores on the Self-Determination Inventory: Student Report. Exceptional Children, 85(1), 10–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918782150
38.
ShogrenK. A.WehmeyerM. L. (2017). Self-Determination Inventory: Student Report. Kansas University Center on Developmental Disabilities.
39.
ShogrenK. A.WehmeyerM. L.LaneK. L. (2016). Embedding interventions to promote self-determination within multitiered systems of supports. Exceptionality, 24(4), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2015.1064421
40.
ShogrenK. A.WehmeyerM. L.PalmerS. B. (2017). Causal agency theory. In WehmeyerM. L.ShogrenK. A.LittleT. D.LopezS. J. (Eds.), Development of self-determination through the life-course (pp. 55–70). Springer.
41.
ShogrenK. A.WehmeyerM. L.PalmerS. B.Forber-PrattA. J.LittleT. J.LopezS. (2015). Causal agency theory: Reconceptualizing a functional model of self-determination. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 50(3), 251–263.
42.
ShogrenK. A.WehmeyerM. L.PalmerS. B.RifenbarkG. G.LittleT. D. (2015). Relationships between self-determination and postschool outcomes for youth with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 48(4), 256–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466913489733
43.
SWIFT Education Center. (2017). Equity as a basis for inclusive educational systems change, research to practice brief.
44.
TestD. W.MazzottiV.MustianA.FowlerC.KorteringL.KohlerP. (2009). Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving postschool outcomes for students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32(3), 160–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728809346960
45.
WehmeyerM. L.PalmerS. B.AgranM.MithaugD. E.MartinJ. E. (2000). Promoting causal agency: The Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction. Exceptional Children, 66(4), 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290006600401
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.
