Successful outcomes for youth with disabilities require collaboration within and beyond the school system. Collaboration ideally includes a range of professionals across school systems, service systems, and communities coming together as part of a “transition network” to support the transition process. Using a quantitative survey of 509 secondary special educators and 25 semi-structured interviews, this explanatory sequential mixed methods study (a) examined the characteristics of transition networks (i.e., the social networks of secondary special educators), (b) identified variables associated with larger networks, and (c) explored educators’ interpretations of these associations. Quantitative analyses indicated that larger networks were associated with working at the high school level, supporting students with moderate/severe disabilities, increased years of experience, and greater knowledge about establishing collaborative partnerships. Interview analyses provided context for the quantitative results. These findings provide a deeper portrait of prevailing transition collaborations and have implications for educators charged with delivering high-quality transition programming.
AwsumbJ. M.CarterE. W.SchutzM. A.McMillanE. D. (2021). Perspectives of pre-employment transition services providers on preparing youth with disabilities for employment. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 53(2), 205–218. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-201097
2.
Bates-HarrisC. (2012). Segregated and exploited: The failure of the disability service system to provide quality work. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 36, 39–64. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-2012-0581
3.
BenitezD. T.MorningstarM. E.FreyB. B. (2009). A multistate survey of special education teachers’ perceptions of their transition competencies. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728808323945
4.
CarolanB. V. (2013). Social network analysis and education: Theory, methods & applications. SAGE.
5.
CarterE. W.AwsumbJ. M.SchutzM. A.McMillanE. D. (2020). Preparing youth for the world of work: Educator perspectives on pre-employment transition services. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 44(3), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143420938663
6.
CarterE. W.BumbleJ. L. (2018). The promise and possibilities of community conversations: Expanding opportunities for people with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 28(4), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207317739408
7.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. SAGE.
8.
DriskellJ. E.SalasE.HughesS. (2010). Collective orientation and team performance: Development of an individual differences measure. Human Factors, 52(2), 316–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720809359522
9.
FettersM. D.CurryL. A.CreswellJ. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6, Pt. 2), 2134–2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117
10.
FreyB. B.LohmeierJ. H.LeeS. W.TollefsonN. (2006). Measuring collaboration among grant partners. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(3), 383–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214006290356
11.
GilsonC. B.BethuneL.CarterE. W.McMillanE. (2017). Informing and equipping parents of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 55(5), 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-55.5.347
12.
HayesA. F.CaiL. (2007). Using heteroskedasticity-consistent standard error estimators in OLS regression: An introduction and software implementation. Behavior Research Methods, 39(4), 709–722. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192961
13.
HsiehH. F.ShannonS. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
14.
LinN. (2001). Building a network theory of social capital. In LinN.CookK.BurtR. S. (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 3–30). Aldine de Gruyter.
15.
LinN.FuY. C.HsungR. M. (2001). The position generator: Measurement techniques for investigations of social capital. In LinN.CookK.BurtR. S. (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 57–81). Aldine de Gruyter.
16.
MazzottiV. L.RoweD. A.KwiatekS.VoggtA.ChangW.FowlerC. H.PoppenM.SinclairJ.TestD. W. (2021). Secondary transition predictors of postschool success: An update to the research base. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 44(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143420959793
17.
NoonanP.EricksonA. G.McCallZ.FreyB. B.ZhengC. (2014). Evaluating change in interagency collaboration of a state-level interagency education team: A social network approach within a utilization-focused framework. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26(3), 301–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-014-9193-2
18.
NoonanP. M.McCallZ. A.ZhengC.EricksonA. S. (2012). An analysis of collaboration in a state-level interagency transition team. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 35(3), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143412443083
19.
NoonanP. M.MorningstarM. E.EricksonA. (2008). Improving interagency collaboration: Effective strategies used by high-performing local districts and communities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31(3), 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728808327149
20.
OertleK. M.SeaderK. J. (2015). Research and practical considerations for rehabilitation transition collaboration. Journal of Rehabilitation, 81(2), 3–18.
21.
Parker-KatzM. B.CushingL. S.AthamanahL. (2018). Fostering collaboration as transition specialists through community conversations. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 28(4), 244–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207317739407
22.
PattonM. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE.
23.
PlotnerA. J.MazzottiV. L.RoseC. A.TeasleyK. (2020). Perceptions of interagency collaboration: Relationships between secondary transition roles, communication, and collaboration. Remedial and Special Education, 41(1), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518778029
24.
Povenmire-KirkT.DiegelmannK.CrumpK.SchnorrC.TestD.FlowersC.AspelN. (2015). Implementing CIRCLES: A new model for interagency collaboration in transition planning. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 42(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-140723
25.
PrinceA. M. T.HodgeJ.BridgesW. C.KatsiyannisA. (2017). Predictors of postschool education/training and employment outcomes for youth with disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 41(2), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143417698122
26.
SanfordC.NewmanL.WagnerM.CametoR.KnokeyA.ShaverD. (2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 6 years after high school. Key findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2011—3004). U. S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED523539.pdf
27.
ShogrenK. A.PlotnerA. J. (2012). Transition planning for students with intellectual disability, autism, or other disabilities: Data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 50(1), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-50.1.16
28.
TaylorD. L.MorganR. L.Callow-HeusserC. A. (2016). A survey of vocational rehabilitation counselors and special education teachers on collaboration in transition planning. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 44(2), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-150788
29.
TestD. W.FowlerC. H. (2018). A look at the past, present, and future of rural secondary transition. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 37(2), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870517751607
30.
TrachJ. S. (2012). Degree of collaboration for successful transition outcomes. Journal of Rehabilitation, 78(2), 39–48.
31.
TrainorA. A. (2008). Using cultural and social capital to improve postsecondary outcomes and expand transition models for youth with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 42(2), 148–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466907313346
WeissM. P.PellegrinoA.BrighamF. J. (2017). Practicing collaboration in teacher preparation: Effects of learning by doing together. Teacher Education and Special Education, 40(1), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/08884064166554
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.
