The article provides an overview and integration of work examining the multiple applications of context to enhancing personal outcomes, with a focus on how a clearer understanding of context can be leveraged in disability policy development, implementation, and evaluation. Specifically, a clear operational definition of context and an empirically based conceptual model of context are presented, followed by an approach to the analysis or measurement of context, and guidelines for applying an understanding of context to enhance personal outcomes through policy development, implementation, and evaluation. The article concludes with a discussion of five specific actions that can be taken to leverage the power of context.
BecherA.Orland-BarakL. (2018). Context matters: Contextual factors informing mentoring in art initial teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 69, 477–491.
2.
BradleyV. J.MoseleyC. (2007). National core indicators: Ten years of collaborative performance measurement. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 354–358.
3.
BronfenbrennerU. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
4.
BronfenbrennerU. (Ed.). (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. SAGE.
5.
BuntinxW. H. E. (2006). The relationship between the WHO-ICF (International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health) and the AAMR 2002 system. In SwitzkyH.GreenspanS. (Eds.), What is mental retardation? (pp. 6–10). American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
6.
ClaesC.FerketN.VanderveldeS.VerletD.DeMaeyerJ. (2017). Disability policy evaluation: Combining logic models and systems thinking. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 55, 247–257.
7.
Council on Quality and Leadership. (2010). Personal outcome measures.
8.
DurantiA.GoodwinC. (Eds.). (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge University Press.
GómezL. E.VerdugoM. A. (2016). Outcomes evaluation. In SchalockR. L.KeithK. D. (Eds.), Cross-cultural quality of life: Enhancing the lives of persons with intellectual disability (pp. 71–80). American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
11.
LuckassonR.Borthwick-DuffyS.BuntinxW. H. E.CoulterD. L.CraigE. P. M.ReeveA.. . . TasseM. J. (2002). Mental retardation: Definition, classification, and systems of support (10th ed.). American Association on Mental Retardation.
12.
ManchesterJ.Gray-MiceliD. L.MetcaffJ. A.PaoliniC. A.NapierA. H.CoogleC. L.OwensM. G. (2014). Facilitating Lewin’s change model with collaborative evaluation in promoting evidence-based practices in health professions. Evaluation and Program Planning, 47, 82–90.
13.
MorreT.BakkenL. L.WallaceB. (2019). The importance of systems thinking, context, and inclusion in evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 74, 10–17.
14.
OnnisL.HakendorfM.DiamondM.TseyK. (2019). CQI approaches for evaluating management development programs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 74, 91–101.
15.
RogD. J. (2012). When background becomes foreground: Towards context-sensitive evaluation practice. New Directions for Evaluation, 135, 25–40.
16.
SchalockR. L. (2017). Introduction to the special issue on disability policy in a time of change. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 55, 215–222.
17.
SchalockR. L.BakerA.ClaesC.GonzalezJ.MalatestR.van LoonJ.. . . WesleyG. (2018). The use of quality of life scores for monitoring and reporting, quality improvement, and research. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 15, 175–182.
18.
SchalockR. L.Borthwick-DuffyS.BradleyV.BuntixW. H. E.CoulterD. L.CraigE. P. M.. . . YeagerM. H. (2010). Intellectual disability: Definition, classification, and systems of support (11th ed.). American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
19.
SchalockR. L.LuckassonR. (2014). Clinical judgment (2nd ed.). American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
20.
SchalockR. L.LuckassonR.ShogrenK. A. (2020). Going beyond environment to context: Leveraging the power of context to produce change. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(6), 1885. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17061885
21.
SchalockR. L.ThompsonJ. R.TasseM. J. (2018). A systematic approach to personal support plans. American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
22.
SchalockR. L.VerdugoM. A. (2012). A conceptual and measurement framework to guide policy development and systems change. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9, 70–79.
23.
SchalockR. L.VerdugoM. A.van LoonJ. (2018). Understanding organization transformation in evaluation and program planning. Evaluation and Program Planning, 67, 53–60.
24.
SchegloffE. A. (1992). In another context. In DurantiA.GoodwinC. (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 191–227). Cambridge University Press.
25.
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12077
26.
ShogrenK. A.LuckassonR.SchalockR. L. (2015). Using context as an integrative framework to align policy goals, supports, and outcomes in intellectual disability. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 53, 367–376. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-53.5.367
27.
ShogrenK. A.LuckassonR.SchalockR. L. (2017). An integrated approach to disability policy development, implementation, and evaluation. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 55, 258–268.
28.
ShogrenK. A.LuckassonR.SchalockR. L. (2018). The responsibility to build contexts that enhance human functioning and promote valued outcomes for people with intellectual disability: Strengthening system responsiveness. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 56, 287–300.
29.
ShogrenK. A.LuckassonR.SchalockR. L. (2020). Using a multi-dimensional model to analyze context and enhance personal outcomes. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 58(2), 95–110.
30.
ShogrenK. A.SchalockR. L.LuckassonR. (2018). The use of a context-based change model to unfreeze the status quo and drive change to enhance personal outcomes of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 15, 101–109.
31.
StancliffeR. J.ArnoldS. R.RichesV. C. (2016). The supports paradigm. In SchalockR. L.KeithK. D. (Eds.), Cross-cultural quality of life: Enhancing the lives of people with intellectual disability (pp. 133–142). American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
32.
ThompsonJ. R.SchalockR. L.AgostaJ.TenintyL.FortuneJ. (2014). How the supports paradigm is transforming the developmental disabilities service system. Inclusion, 2, 86–99. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-2.2.86
33.
TurnbullH. R.StoweM. J. (2001). A taxonomy for organizing the core concepts according to their underlying principles. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 12(177–197), 144–176.
34.
TurnbullH. R.StoweM. J. (2017). A model for analyzing disability policy. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 55, 223–233.
35.
VerdugoM. A.JenaroC.CalvoI.NavasP. (2017). Disability policy implementation from a cross-cultural perspective. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 55, 234–246.
36.
World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability, and health.
37.
World Health Organization. (2007). International classification of functioning, disability and health: Children and youth version.
