556746

research-article2014
CDEXXX10.1177/2165143414556746Career Development and Transition for Exceptional IndividualsCollier et al.

Article
Career Development and Transition for

Facilitating Student Involvement in

Exceptional Individuals
2016, Vol. 39(3) 175­–184
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2014
Transition Assessment: A Pilot Study Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

of the Student Transition Questionnaire DOI: 10.1177/2165143414556746

cdtei.sagepub.com

Margo L. Collier, PhD1, Megan M. Griffin, PhD1, and Yonghua Wei, MA1

Abstract
This article describes the pilot study of an informal assessment, the Student Transition Questionnaire (STQ). The STQ is
a 38-item assessment designed to elicit student perspectives on transition-related topics. In this mixed-methods study,
we piloted the STQ with 186 participants, and then conducted focus groups with various stakeholders. A factor analysis
revealed STQ items grouped together around five factors. We found that the STQ was useful in distinguishing students’
perceptions of personal strengths and needs. Focus group participants considered the STQ to be user-friendly and helpful
in promoting student engagement in transition planning; participants also identified several areas needing improvement.
Implications for revising the STQ, its application in transition planning, and future research are discussed.

Keywords
assessment, self-determination, student-focused planning, high school, education, disabilities

Students with disabilities should have a voice in the transi-
tion-planning process; one avenue for student input is
through transition assessment. Transition assessment has
been defined as “an ongoing process of collecting informa-
tion on the youth’s needs, strengths, preferences, and inter-
ests as they relate to measureable postsecondary goals and
the annual goals that will help facilitate attainment of post-
secondary goals” (Neubert & Leconte, 2013, p. 74).
Transition assessments, then, should collect this informa-
tion from a range of individuals who know the student
well—including the students themselves.
By engaging in the transition assessment process, stu-
dents can practice various self-determination skills within
this real-life, personally meaningful context. For example,
by identifying their own strengths, needs, preferences, and
interests, students are engaging in self-determined behav-
iors such as self-observation and evaluation, thus building
self-awareness (Wehmeyer et al., 2007). Such involvement
in transition assessment might also prompt students to
engage in goal-setting, another critical component of self-
determination. Finally, actively engaging in transition
assessment may also better prepare students to participate
in meaningful discussions about their own transition with
teachers, parents, and other Individualized Education
Program (IEP) team members.
Although several self-report assessments are available to
learn about students’ interests and preferences, most focus on
a particular transition-related domain. For example, several
self-report assessments focus on student self-determination
(e.g., The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale; Wehmeyer &
Kelchner, 1995). Likewise, various self-report assessments
focus on vocational interests and goals (Walker, Kortering,
Fowler, Rowe, & Bethune, 2013). However, far fewer assess-
ments collect self-report data from students on a broader
range of issues, allowing a more complete view of their
perspectives.
One transition assessment that does ask students to
report on a wider range of topics is the second edition of the
Transition Planning Inventory (TPI-2; Patton & Clark,
2014). The TPI-2 is a criterion-referenced instrument
designed to assess students’ transition-planning needs after
age 14 across 11 transition-planning areas (Patton & Clark,
2014). The TPI-2 gathers rating and written comment data
from the student, the student’s parent(s), and a school pro-
fessional. Although there are several advantages of using
the TPI-2 as a way to assess student perspectives, one chal-
lenge is that school personnel may not have access to it.
Because the student assessment is one of several instru-
ments in the TPI-2, it is likely that school professionals will
only have access to it if the school has purchased the set of
TPI-2 assessments.
1
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, USA
Corresponding Author:
Megan M. Griffin, Department of Educational Specialties, University of
New Mexico, MSC05 3040, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque,
NM 87131-0001, USA.
Email: griffinm@unm.edu

Downloaded from cde.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on October 14, 2016

176 Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals 39(3)
Another way to gather information about student per-
spectives is to engage the student in person-centered plan-
ning. Although there are various models for facilitating
person-centered planning, their common goal is to gather
information from the individuals with a disability, their
family members, friends, and involved others (e.g., teach-
ers, support professionals). Ultimately, the purpose is to use
this information to develop a profile of the individuals with
a disability, a vision for their future, and a plan to achieve
that vision (Wells & Sheehey, 2012). Because person-
centered planning involves a conversation among multiple
individuals who know the person with a disability well, this
process likely will provide richer qualitative data than most
written assessments. However, an accompanying challenge
is that the person-centered planning process requires facili-
tation, preferably by someone who has received training on
this process. An additional challenge relates to the time
required to schedule and conduct person-centered planning
meetings.
Having the time needed to conduct comprehensive tran-
sition assessment is a challenge for school professionals.
Educators must have the time necessary to (a) create a tran-
sition assessment plan that uses multiple types of measures,
(b) conduct the assessments, (c) interpret and synthesize the
results of the assessments, and (d) collaborate with multiple
stakeholders to apply the results (Neubert & Leconte, 2013).
In addition to tasks related to transition assessment, special
education teachers experience many other job demands—
from planning instruction and preparing materials to com-
pleting required paperwork. Given these demands, transition
assessments that are time-efficient will be particularly valu-
able to teachers.
Another critical challenge relates to the needed expertise
to conduct and interpret transition assessments. In a national
survey, Morningstar and Liss (2008) found that secondary
educators frequently lacked understanding of how to collect
transition-related data and how to use the results to develop
transition plans. In addition, some formal assessments
require specific qualifications or training; to use these
assessments, then, educators would need to meet those
additional requirements (Walker et al., 2013). Thus, educa-
tors may need both general preparation in transition assess-
ment and training related to specific formal assessments.
Finally, educators may be challenged to collect data that
provide a picture of students’ perspectives across various
domains. A wide variety of transition assessments exist—
many of which are specific to a particular topic (e.g.,
employment, self-determination). Given limited time,
teachers are challenged to find an easy-to-use assessment
that will be able to provide them with a more complete view
of their students’ perspectives.
Taken together, the challenges to conducting compre-
hensive transition assessment that includes the student
voice are daunting. As noted in the most recent position
Downloaded from cde.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on October 14, 2016
paper of the Council for Exceptional Children’s Division on
Career Development and Assessment, “Much of what we
know about effective assessment practices, [transition
assessment] methods, changing demographics in schools,
and individualized planning for optimal postsecondary out-
comes is not a reality for many youth and their families”
(Neubert & Leconte, 2013, p. 81). Although research and
federal law support the inclusion of student perspectives in
transition planning, this is not always accomplished in
practice.
To address this need, we developed the Student Transition
Questionnaire (STQ). Our intention in developing this tool
was to provide teachers with an easy-to-use, socially valid
assessment focused specifically on gathering students’ per-
spectives on a broad range of transition issues. This informal
measure was developed to be a complementary assessment,
used in conjunction with other formal and informal assess-
ments that gather data from students, parents, and teachers.
It may also be used in conjunction with other more in-depth
methods of gathering information about student perspec-
tives, such as person-centered planning.
This article describes the development and pilot study of
the STQ. Three goals guided our study. The first goal was to
investigate the factor structure of the STQ. The second goal
was to document students’ self-ratings using the STQ.
Finally, our third goal was to investigate how consumers
(education professionals, parents, and students) perceive
the STQ. To investigate these issues, we first conducted a
pilot administration of the STQ (Phase 1), which addressed
our first two goals. Then, we conducted focus groups
regarding the usability and utility of the STQ (Phase 2),
which addressed our third goal.
Method
Development and Description of the Assessment
The STQ is an assessment in which students rate themselves
on a wide range of transition-related items. To develop the
STQ items, a pool of more than 200 items was drawn from
a review of transition literature and assessments, including
the TPI-2, the Enderle-Severson Transition Rating Scale
(Enderle & Severson, 2003), The Arc’s Self-Determination
Scale (Wehmeyer & Kelchner, 1995), and the Choice Maker
Assessments (Martin et al., 2000). A panel of five professors
with expertise in the field of transition and transition assess-
ment reviewed the initial conceptual framework of the STQ.
Their feedback regarding the conceptual framework guided
the selection of items. The panel also provided feedback
regarding item clarity, specificity, and wording. Furthermore,
feedback from other valued stakeholders (e.g., transition
specialists, special education teachers, students with dis-
abilities, and their parents) was gathered in focus groups
after the initial pilot of the STQ.
Collier et al. 177
The STQ is a 38-item paper-and-pencil assessment used
to obtain information about students’ perspectives related to
various transition-related areas. To complete the STQ, stu-
dents rate their agreement with each item on a 7-point
Likert-type scale (0 = disagree, 6 = strongly agree); higher
scores denote more agreement/positive perceptions regard-
ing a particular topic. This assessment may be self-adminis-
tered, administered individually, or administered as a group.
Although there is no time limit, students frequently com-
plete the STQ in approximately 15 min. For STQ items, see
Table 1.
Phase 1: Pilot Administration of STQ
Participants.  A total of 186 students with disabilities in
Grades 10 through 12 participated. This sample of stu-
dents was 60% male and 40% female. Regarding ethnic-
ity, 75% of the students were Caucasian (n = 140), 15%
were Hispanic/Latino (n = 27), 4% were African Ameri-
can (n = 7), 3% were Native American (n = 6), 2% were
Asian (n = 4), and 1% were Pacific Islander (n = 2). Stu-
dents from families of low socioeconomic status
accounted for 68% of the participants. The majority of
participants (73%) had a learning disability. The other
27% of participants had disabilities that included other
health impairment (8.6%), mild intellectual delay (5.4%),
autism spectrum disorder (3.8%), emotional behavioral
disorder (3.8%), speech language impairment (2.2%),
traumatic brain injury (1.6%), and orthopedic impairment
(1.6%).
Procedures. Participants were recruited from nine high
schools in a large school district in a southwestern state.
After receiving Institutional Review Board approval and
school district administration permission, special education
teachers and transition specialists were identified from each
school. These individuals assisted the principal investigator
(PI) with participant recruitment. Permission packets were
sent home with the students and returned to the students’
teacher. Students who returned the permission forms,
regardless of whether permission was given, received a $5
gift certificate.
After the administration of the STQ, three graduate stu-
dents entered participant responses into a database; 25% of
the data entries were checked for reliability. Less than 0.5%
of entries contained errors; the errors were corrected. Less
than 1% (0.72%) of data points were missing. Mean impu-
tation was used to generate values for missing data points,
per the guidelines provided by Harrell (2001). After calcu-
lating initial descriptive statistics, we conducted a maxi-
mum-likelihood factor analysis on the data matrix with
Promax rotation to determine which factors emerged from
the STQ items.
Downloaded from cde.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on October 14, 2016
Phase 2: Stakeholder Evaluations
Participants.  Participants were students (n = 29), parents of
participating students (n = 5), and professionals (n = 13;
special education teachers, Vocational Rehabilitation coun-
selors, transition specialists). All participants volunteered to
participate in the focus groups.
Students. Participants were all high school students who
had completed the STQ. Teachers announced the opportu-
nity to participate in a focus group and students volunteered
if interested. Five student focus groups were conducted,
with four to six participants in each group.
Of the 29 student participants, 45% were male (n = 13),
and 55% were female (n = 16). In terms of ethnicity, student
participants were 62% Caucasian (n = 18), 24% Hispanic
(n = 7), 7% Native American (n = 2), 3% African American
(n = 1), and 3% Asian (n = 1). In terms of disability, 62% of
student participants had learning disabilities (n = 19), and
17% had other health impairment (n = 5). The remaining par-
ticipants had speech language impairment (n = 2), emotional
behavioral disorder (n = 2), and intellectual disability (n = 1).
Parents and professionals.  Parents and professionals partici-
pated in the same focus groups. These consisted of (a) par-
ents of students with disabilities who were members of a
district-wide parent council and (b) professionals with an
interest in transition who worked in districts where the STQ
was implemented (e.g., special education teachers, Voca-
tional Rehabilitation counselors, and transition specialists).
Participants received an e-mail or telephone call invitation.
A total of four focus groups were conducted with parents
and professionals. Each focus group consisted of four to
five participants.
Of the five parents who participated, four were female.
In terms of ethnicity, parent participants were Caucasian
(n = 2), Hispanic (n = 1), Asian (n = 1), and Native American
(n = 1). Of the 13 professionals who participated, 10 were
female. In terms of ethnicity, the professionals were
Caucasian (n = 6), Hispanic (n = 3), Native American (n =
2), African American (n = 1), and Asian (n = 1). The profes-
sionals included special education teachers (n = 6), transi-
tion specialists (n = 4), and Vocational Rehabilitation
counselors (n = 3). Participants’ mean age was 34 years.
Procedures.  Open-ended questions were developed for both
the student and parent/professional focus groups that related
to the utility and usability of the STQ, the relationship
between using the STQ and transition planning, as well as
any limitations of the STQ. Three members of the research
team facilitated the focus group meetings and recorded all
comments made by participants; comments were later tran-
scribed for analysis.
178 Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals 39(3)
Transcripts of the comments made by focus group mem-
bers were then analyzed to reveal themes. The PI initially
reviewed participant comments and identified themes. The
term theme is used here in the sense described by LeCompte
and Schensul (1999), who defined it as codes that describe
a group of similar ideas. After developing the themes, the PI
met with another member of the research team to discuss
and refine the themes. The two researchers independently
coded the comments by theme, and then compared their
codes. Any discrepancies in coding were discussed, and
consensus was met.
To assess the trustworthiness of themes, a third researcher
coded the focus group comments. This allowed the research-
ers to assess whether the themes appropriately represented
the content of participants’ comments. The third research-
er’s codes were in agreement with the PI’s codes for 92% of
comments.
Results
In the following section, we first report results of the factor
analysis and descriptive statistics related to participants’
responses on the STQ (Phase 1). We then report results of
stakeholder focus groups (Phase 2).
Phase 1: Pilot Administration of STQ
Factor analysis of the STQ.  Five factors emerged from the
factor analysis, accounting for 45% of the variance; all
items were retained in this preliminary analysis. Factor I
consisted of 13 items and related to independent living
skills. Factor II consisted of 11 items that related to partici-
pation in school, community, and work settings. Factor III
consisted of eight items related to future planning and goal
attainment. Factor IV consisted of four items related to dis-
ability awareness and personal empowerment. Finally,
Factor V consisted of two items related to Vocational
Rehabilitation.
Thus, the factor analysis identified five clusters of
variables (factors) that relate to distinct areas addressed
by the STQ. Each factor explains a certain proportion of
the variance; the higher percentage of variance explained
by a factor, the higher that factor’s eigenvalue will be. For
each factor’s percentage of variance and eigenvalues, see
Table 1.
Variable loadings for each factor are reported in Table 1,
and represent the correlation between the individual vari-
ables and the factor (DeVellis, 2011). Variables with the
highest loadings are most suited to the factor, but factor
loadings above .30 can be considered moderately high
(Laher, 2010). One item (“I am interested in some sort of
training or going to college after high school”) had a load-
ing of .29; because this fell only slightly below the cutoff of
.30, it was retained in our analysis.
Downloaded from cde.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on October 14, 2016
In addition, one item (“I know what I want to do when I
finish high school [training, education, or job related].”)
had a loading of 1.03. Occasionally, when multicol-linearity
exists, this can result in a factor loading greater than 1 when
the factors have been rotated obliquely as in Promax rota-
tion. In this case, we recognize that some items were cor-
related, resulting in a variable with a loading higher than the
cutoff of 1. Because this value only slightly exceeded 1, it
was retained in our analysis.
Because the first two factors included more than 10
items, we created subcategories of items within these fac-
tors by topic. Although we did not analyze items by subcat-
egories, we consider these subcategories to be helpful in
understanding how individual items within a factor relate to
the others. Items in the first two factors are divided into
these subcategories in Table 2.
To measure the internal consistency of each factor, we
calculated Cronbach’s alpha for each. Alpha values for the
five factors ranged from .76 to .88 (see Table 2), indicating
acceptable internal consistency for all factors and docu-
menting good internal consistency for those with values
above .80 (Gliem & Gliem, 2003).
Ratings on STQ.  Participants’ highest self-rated factor was
Factor I: Independent Living Skills (M = 4.94, SD = 1.99).
Within Factor I, two items were the highest-rated of all 38
items in the STQ. Participants strongly agreed with the
statement, “I believe that I can and will graduate from high
school” (M = 5.55, SD = 0.96). Likewise, participants
strongly agreed with the statement, “I understand that I am
responsible for my actions” (M = 5.52, SD = 1.06). Means
and standard deviations for factors and individual items are
reported in Table 2.
The lowest self-rated factor was Factor V: Knowledge
and Understanding of Vocational Rehabilitation (M = 2.46,
SD = 2.50), indicating less agreement related to these items.
Factor V consists of the two lowest-rated STQ items. In
response to the statement, “I have heard of Vocational
Rehabilitation,” participants’ mean rating was 2.76 (SD =
2.56). In response to the statement, “I understand how
Vocational Rehabilitation can be useful to me,” participants’
mean rating was 2.15 (SD = 2.41). Forty percent of partici-
pants (n = 75) indicated 0 or 1 in response to these two
items, indicating the lowest levels of agreement.
Because such a large percentage of participants rated
Factor V so low, we analyzed descriptive statistics for this
factor by disability type. In this initial analysis, we identi-
fied students with learning disabilities as rating Factor V
lower than students with other disabilities. Follow-up tests
were conducted to determine whether students with learn-
ing disabilities answered items in Factor V significantly dif-
ferently than respondents with other disabilities. Students
with learning disabilities rated the first of these items (“I
have heard of Vocational Rehabilitation”) significantly
Collier et al. 179

Table 1.  Variable Loadings and Factor Structure of the STQ.

Factor

STQ items I II III IV V

I take care of myself (including my health). 0.87  
I can bank in a variety of ways (checking or saving accounts, credit cards, etc.). 0.78  
I explain my health needs. 0.76  
I can list two ways of how I travel around my community. 0.69  
I can follow doctor’s orders and/or take prescriptions correctly. 0.61  
I can travel where I want to in my community. 0.50  
I have good communication skills. 0.49  
I understand that I am responsible for my actions. 0.48  
I believe that I can and will graduate from high school. 0.43  
I can plan and save money for big purchases, taxes, etc. 0.37  
I can explain my rights guaranteed by law in education or work settings. 0.35  
Being in charge of my own life and planning my future is important. 0.34  
I can make my own doctor appointments and/or explain my needs to my doctor. 0.30  
I know which accommodations work best for me in a job. 0.83  
I have skills to develop or classes to take to do work or activities that interest me. 0.66  
I can list where I want to volunteer. 0.62  
When I’m not in school, I do activities in my community. 0.61  
I am interested in doing an internship (practicing a job). 0.58  
I think watching a person do a job or practice doing a job is useful. 0.55  
I have fun doing activities in my neighborhood. 0.52  
I am good at organizing my time and making decisions. 0.50  
I know which accommodations work best for me in school. 0.46  
I feel comfortable participating and speaking at my IEP meetings. 0.44  
I can name community resources that help me. 0.38  
I know what I want to do when I finish high school (training, education, or job related). 1.03  
I am taking steps that help me achieve my goal (training, education, or job related). 0.82  
I have strengths that make me good at some classes or some types of work. 0.47  
I am willing to adjust or change my plans and actions to get better results. 0.41  
I can name some classes or work that interest me. 0.40  
I know how to make my housing meet my needs (ramps, railing, special equipment). 0.35  
I am willing to ask for help when I need it. 0.30  
I am interested in some sort of training or going to college after high school. 0.29  
I am willing to identify myself as having a disability when I need help. 0.83  
I am aware that I have a disability. 0.82  
I can explain my disability to someone who doesn’t understand. 0.65  
I know that I have a right to decide what I want to do with my life. 0.33  
I understand how Vocational Rehabilitation can be useful to me. 0.94
I have heard of Vocational Rehabilitation. 0.77
Eigenvalue 4.90 4.28 3.71 2.48 1.79
Percentage of variance 12.91 11.26 9.76 6.53 4.71

Note. STQ = Student Transition Questionnaire; IEP = Individualized Education Program.

lower than participants with other disabilities, χ2 (6, N =
186) = 12.59, p < .01. On the second question (“I under-
stand how Vocational Rehabilitation can be useful to me”),
no significant differences were found between respondents
with learning disabilities and those with other disabilities,
χ2 (6, N = 186) = 5.71, p = .45. This item-level analysis
provides important information about the specific needs of
students with learning disabilities.
Phase 2: Stakeholder Evaluations
Students. Four themes emerged from analysis of student
comments, including (a) user-friendly features, (b) support
provided by teachers, (c) active participation in transition
planning, and (d) limitations of the STQ (see Table 3). The
most common theme, representing 56% of comments,
related to the user-friendly nature of the STQ. In comments

Downloaded from cde.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on October 14, 2016

180 Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals 39(3)

Table 2.  Mean Scores for STQ Factors and Items.

Factors and items M (SD) α

I. Independent living skills 4.94 (1.99) .76
  A. Skills related to maintaining health
   I take care of myself (including my health). 5.24 (1.19)  
   I explain my health needs. 4.98 (1.46)  
   I can follow doctor’s orders and/or take prescriptions correctly. 4.06 (1.90)  
   I can make my own doctor appointments and/or explain my needs to my doctor. 5.31 (4.73)  
  B. Skills related to managing money
   I can bank in a variety of ways (checking or saving accounts, credit cards, etc.). 4.50 (1.61)  
   I can plan and save money for big purchases, taxes, etc. 4.36 (2.06)  
  C. Skills related to transportation
   I can list two ways of how I travel around my community. 5.20 (1.32)  
   I can travel where I want to in my community. 5.17 (1.32)  
  D. Skills and dispositions for independence
   I understand that I am responsible for my actions. 5.52 (1.06)  
   I believe that I can and will graduate from high school. 5.55 (0.96)  
   Being in charge of my own life and planning my future is important. 5.43 (1.08)  
   I have good communication skills. 4.63 (1.30)  
   I can explain my rights guaranteed by law in education or work settings. 4.32 (1.99)  
II. Participation in school, community, and work 4.15 (2.10) .84
  A. Community participation
   I can name community resources that help me. 3.50 (2.13)  
   I have fun doing activities in my neighborhood. 4.85 (1.59)  
   When I’m not in school, I do activities in my community. 4.47 (2.01)  
  B. Advocacy and accommodations
   I feel comfortable participating and speaking at my IEP meetings. 4.74 (1.59)  
   I know which accommodations work best for me in school. 4.10 (2.11)  
   I know which accommodations work best for me in a job. 2.90 (2.44)  
  C. Preparation for employment
   I think watching a person do a job or practice doing a job is useful. 4.66 (1.79)  
   I can list where I want to volunteer. 3.82 (2.42)  
   I am interested in doing an internship (practicing a job). 4.41 (1.98)  
  D Skills needed to participate successfully.
   I am good at organizing my time and making decisions. 4.07 (2.18)  
   I have skills to develop or classes to take to do work or activities that interest me. 4.16 (1.89)  
III. Planning and goal attainment 4.62 (1.78) .83
  I have strengths that make me good at some classes or some types of work. 4.59 (1.76)  
  I can name some classes or work that interest me. 4.68 (1.74)  
  I am interested in some sort of training or going to college after high school. 4.85 (1.68)  
  I am taking steps that help me achieve my goal (training, education, or job related). 4.28 (1.91)  
  I am willing to adjust or change my plans and actions to get better results. 4.30 (1.99)  
  I know how to make my housing meet my needs (ramps, railing, special equipment). 4.63 (1.82)  
  I am willing to ask for help when I need it. 5.00 (1.28)  
IV. Disability awareness and personal empowerment 4.37 (1.83) .79
  I am aware that I have a disability. 4.48 (1.79)  
  I am willing to identify myself as having a disability when I need help. 4.31 (1.95)  
  I can explain my disability to someone who doesn’t understand. 3.90 (2.01)  
  I know that I have a right to decide what I want to do with my life. 4.81 (1.41)  
V. Knowledge and understanding of Vocational Rehabilitation 2.46 (2.50) .88
  I have heard of Vocational Rehabilitation. 2.76 (2.56)  
  I understand how Vocational Rehabilitation can be useful to me. 2.15 (2.41)  

Note. STQ = Student Transition Questionnaire; IEP = Individualized Education Program.

Downloaded from cde.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on October 14, 2016

Collier et al. 181

Table 3.  Themes and Representative Comments From Focus Groups.

Theme Representative comment

Students
  a. User-friendly
  b. Teacher support
  c. Active participation
  d. Limitations
Parents and professionals
  a. Student perspective
  b. Preview of the IEP
  c. User-friendly
  d. Limitations
I could read all the statements. [The STQ] was easy and it didn’t take long to do.
Although I wasn’t sure how to answer some of the sentences, talking with my teacher about them
helped.
This was the first time that it seemed like my teachers paid attention to my opinions at my IEP meeting.
[The STQ] was okay, but I’m still not sure that I know how I feel about some of the things on this test.
I think that [the STQ] has the potential to be useful primarily because it provides the opportunity to
review a student’s interests and preferences, which is what we are responsible to address when it
comes to transition.
Even though I pride myself as knowing my students very well, I have to admit that some of their
responses . . . surprised me, which gives me more to think about when working on creating
meaningful transition goals.
The beauty of [the STQ] is in its simplicity; simple to fit into the limited time within a class day and yet
informative.
Some of the categories seemed too broad. Although most of the sentences seemed clear, nonetheless,
some sentences could be edited to improve their clarity.

Note. STQ = Student Transition Questionnaire; IEP = Individualized Education Program.

for this theme, students described the experience of com- Discussion

pleting the STQ as quick, easy, and enjoyable. Several
comments (26%) related to the experience of talking about
the STQ with a teacher, saying that it was interesting to dis-
cuss answers with a teacher, and that talking with a teacher
helped better understand the results. Furthermore, a few
comments (7%) described how the STQ helped students
better engage in transition planning by developing goals
and participating in their IEP meetings. Finally, a few com-
ments (11%) suggested that the STQ needed improvement,
indicating uncertainty about particular items or the useful-
ness of the results.
Parents and professionals. Four themes emerged from the
parent and professional focus groups, including (a) infor-
mation about students’ perspectives, (b) preview of the IEP,
(c) user-friendly features, and (d) limitations of the STQ
(see Table 2). Several comments (30%) indicated that
results from the STQ provided information to parents and
professionals about the student that they would not have
known otherwise, and helped them better understand the
student perspective. Another theme related to the usefulness
of the STQ in helping students identify goals and to prepare
for their IEP meetings (9%). Like the student comments,
many comments made by parents and professionals (35%)
indicated that the STQ was user-friendly, in that it was writ-
ten in understandable language, easy for students to com-
plete, easy to administer, and took little time. Finally,
several comments (26%) identified areas needing improve-
ment, such as revision of item wording, and whether the
items adequately represented a specific construct.
The STQ allows students to provide their perspectives as
part of the transition assessment process, prompts discus-
sion with teachers regarding goals, and can facilitate stu-
dent participation in IEP meetings. In this pilot study, we
collected and analyzed the ratings of 186 students with dis-
abilities related to the five factors of the STQ. We also gath-
ered evaluations of critical stakeholders on the usability and
utility of the STQ, documenting the perspectives of profes-
sionals, parents, and the students themselves. In the follow-
ing section, we highlight and discuss findings from this
study that can inform improved transition assessment and
planning for students with disabilities.
Phase 1: Pilot Administration of STQ
This initial pilot study of the STQ revealed it to be a sensitive
measure that distinguishes between students’ self-rated areas
of strength and weakness. For example, participants clearly
rated Factor I: Independent Living Skills (M = 4.94, SD =
1.99) higher than Factor V: Knowledge and Understanding of
Vocational Rehabilitation (M = 2.46, SD = 2.50). These
results identify a gap in students’ familiarity with Vocational
Rehabilitation, and suggest the potential need for greater col-
laboration between school professionals and Vocational
Rehabilitation counselors, or for explicitly teaching students
about Vocational Rehabilitation.
In addition, ratings on a given factor or item might dis-
tinguish a particular subgroup of students with specific
needs related to transition planning. For example, within

Downloaded from cde.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on October 14, 2016

182 Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals 39(3)
this sample, students with learning disabilities differed sig-
nificantly from students with other disabilities on the state-
ment, “I have heard of Vocational Rehabilitation,” with
many of these students indicating the lowest level of agree-
ment. This is not surprising, given that only a small percent-
age of students with learning disabilities receive Vocational
Rehabilitation services (Dowdy, Smith, & Nowell, 1992;
Gonzalez, Rosenthal, & Kim, 2011).
Although they are less likely to receive Vocational
Rehabilitation services than their peers with other disabili-
ties, individuals with learning disabilities do encounter
challenges related to finding and maintaining employment,
and to earning higher wages. Vocational Rehabilitation ser-
vices could be of benefit to many individuals with learning
disabilities, and depending on their postschool goals, it is
important for these students and their transition-planning
teams to consider this potential source of support. By iden-
tifying this area of need, the STQ can help school profes-
sionals address deficits that are specific to a particular group
of students.
Beyond recognizing areas of strength by identifying fac-
tors that are rated higher than others, the STQ also allows
for analysis within factors. For example, within Factor II:
Participation in School, Community, and Work, students
generally agreed with the statement, “I know which accom-
modations work best for me in school” (M = 4.10, SD =
2.11). In contrast, however, students rated a similar state-
ment much lower: “I know which accommodations work
best for me in a job” (M = 2.90, SD = 2.44). This analysis at
the item level allows for more detailed information about
the support and instruction needs of a given student or a
group of students. If an individual student’s answers showed
this discrepancy, teachers and parents might then develop
opportunities for that student to learn more about employ-
ment and accommodations. This might involve developing
internship or job-shadowing opportunities for the student,
and might also involve direct instruction related to work-
place accommodations. And, if a group of students showed
such a difference between items, this suggests the need for
more systematic development of opportunities in a given
school or district.
Phase 2: Stakeholder Evaluations
Comments from the focus group participants revealed much
about the social validity of the STQ and about areas needing
improvement. Participants in both sets of focus groups
highlighted the user-friendliness of the STQ. The STQ was
described as enjoyable and easy to use by students, which
will likely make it appealing to their teachers as well.
Participants in the parent and professional focus groups also
considered the STQ to be user-friendly. This is an important
finding in light of the barriers to transition assessment
reported by teachers, such as lacking expertise in this area
Downloaded from cde.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on October 14, 2016
(Morningstar & Liss, 2008) and lacking sufficient time to
accomplish the various components of effective transition
assessment (Neubert & Leconte, 2013).
Participants in both sets of focus groups also noted the
connection between students completing the STQ and
engagement in transition planning. Students reported that
the STQ helped them identify their own transition goals and
voice their opinions in their IEP meetings. Similarly, partici-
pants in the parent and professional focus groups saw the
STQ as a tool to develop goals based on student interests and
to help students prepare for the IEP meeting. Thus, utilizing
the STQ has the potential to facilitate students’ active
involvement and self-determination in their own transition
planning.
Another common theme reported by both sets of focus
groups was that the STQ facilitated greater understanding
and prompted communication between students and
adults. Parents and professionals valued the STQ because
it helped them gain information about student perspectives
that they would not have had otherwise. In addition, stu-
dents described talking with their teachers about the
results of the STQ, commented that teachers helped them
understand their results, and reported using the STQ to
develop transition goals. Thus, by bringing students’ per-
spectives to the forefront, the STQ proved invaluable in
developing meaningful, individualized goals related to
student perspectives.
As noted in the literature, supporting youth to take such
an active, prominent role in the transition-planning process
has been linked to increased self-determination (Test et al.,
2004), greater motivation to attain goals (Arndt, Konrad, &
Test, 2006), and enhanced transition outcomes (Rehfeldt,
Clark, & Lee, 2012). However, supporting students to take
on a more active role can be challenging and time-consum-
ing for teachers and parents. The STQ presents one practi-
cal, convenient way to focus on the student voice and
promote more active involvement in the transition-planning
process, thus beginning to address the research-to-practice
gap in this area.
Finally, both sets of focus groups identified areas need-
ing improvement. Students offered less specific sugges-
tions, indicating uncertainty about particular items or about
their results on the STQ. Teachers could help students better
understand these issues. In the future, teacher training on
the STQ should include information about how to help stu-
dents interpret items and how to explain the purpose of the
STQ to students.
Parents and professionals also identified areas needing
improvement. Their suggestions largely related to the need
for more items to better represent a given concept and the
need for making items more specific. Participants also sug-
gested rewording certain items for clarity. We have used
this participant feedback to refine the items in the STQ for
administration in future studies.
Collier et al. 183
Recommendations for Future Research
This pilot study is an initial step in evaluating the STQ.
Future studies should focus on documenting the reliability
and validity of the STQ. For example, future studies should
collect data on test–retest reliability and should compare
results on the STQ to established instruments, such as the
TPI-2. An important area of future research would be to
compare the STQ with other measures on various levels,
including how long the assessment takes to complete and
stakeholders’ perspectives of their utility.
Further studies are also needed to investigate the useful-
ness of the STQ among more diverse populations. Future
participants should include youth from a variety of cultural
backgrounds, a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds,
and youth who live in rural areas. An online version of the
STQ needs to be offered in addition to the hard-copy surveys
to reach rural and geographically dispersed communities.
In addition, like the current study, future studies should
continue to include students with severe disabilities and
should strive to recruit more of these students. Although
we did not receive this feedback from stakeholders, we
have identified the need to develop a more accessible for-
mat of the STQ. We envision this to be a universally
designed video-based assessment that would provide stu-
dents the opportunity to view and respond to vignettes
based on the written items that are currently included in the
STQ. We anticipate that a more accessible assessment
would be preferred by students in general and would allow
for greater access among students with severe disabilities.
Also, in response to requests from school personnel, there
is a need to involve students in this self-evaluation process
earlier in their schooling. By exposing middle school students
to transition-related issues and providing them practice in
expressing their perspectives via transition assessments, schools
can actively prepare students for participation in their own tran-
sition planning. Future research efforts should develop an age-
appropriate version of the STQ for middle school students.
Future studies should also examine the relationship
between use of the STQ and various outcomes for students
with disabilities. For example, future research should exam-
ine the relationship between using the STQ and student
involvement in the transition-planning process. Future
research should also examine the results of the STQ in rela-
tion to students’ postschool outcomes. This sort of longitu-
dinal study would allow an investigation into the usefulness
of information gathered by the STQ, the application of this
information to improve services and supports for students,
and long-term effects on postschool outcomes.
Study Limitations
Several limitations should be noted when discussing this
study. First, participants were a convenience sample recruited
Downloaded from cde.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on October 14, 2016
from schools in a single district, all within 30 miles of the
largest city in a southwestern state. Second, most participants
were Caucasian (75%), from lower socioeconomic house-
holds (68%), and had a diagnosis of learning disabilities
(73%). These issues limit the generalizations that can be
drawn from our findings.
With regard to the method, we acknowledge that mean
imputation for missing values has various limitations that
have been well documented (Little, 2013); however,
because less than 1% of data points were missing, the use of
mean imputation is more acceptable (Harrell, 2001).
Related to the factor analysis, we also acknowledge that
45% of overall variance explained is not optimal. In addi-
tion, two items with loading values slightly lower than .30
and slightly higher than 1 were retained in this initial analy-
sis. The current study is a pilot investigation of the STQ,
and further study of its factor structure is warranted.
Finally, because parents and professionals participated in
the same focus groups, it may have been the case that mem-
bers of one group affected the participation of the other; for
example, parents may have been intimidated by the pres-
ence of professionals, or professionals’ comments may have
been affected by the presence of parents. Future efforts to
gather focus group data should facilitate separate groups for
these distinct populations to avoid such concerns. Despite
these limitations, this pilot study provides promising evi-
dence of the utility of the STQ as a way to include student
perspectives in the transition-planning process.
Conclusion
Student involvement in transition planning is considered
best practice in special education and rightfully so. Effective
planning for a student’s future must be driven by the stu-
dent’s perspectives, hopes, interests, and preferences.
Participation in the assessment process not only allows stu-
dents an avenue for involvement in the transition-planning
process but also offers opportunities for enhanced self-
determination. The STQ provides students the opportunity
to express their own perspectives, to evaluate themselves,
and to share this information with teachers and parents as
part of the transition-planning process. This information
can then be used to identify postsecondary goals that are
important to students, and to identify supports and services
that can help them achieve their goals. Thus, the STQ can
provide a systematic way for students to become more
actively involved in transition planning.
The results of this pilot study provide preliminary support
for the internal consistency and utility of scores from the
STQ. Students considered it easy and enjoyable to complete.
Parents and professionals found that student responses to the
STQ provided information that they would not have had oth-
erwise. Moreover, the STQ was generally considered easy
and quick to administer—posing no logistical challenges to
184 Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals 39(3)
teachers’ already busy schedules. In this way, the STQ offers
students a much-needed avenue to share their perspectives
within the context of transition assessment, thereby provid-
ing the transition-planning team with a view of students’
self-reported strengths and challenges.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This
work was supported by the University of Utah Creative Grant
Award.
References
Arndt, S. A., Konrad, M., & Test, D. W. (2006). Effects of the
“self-directed IEP” on student participation in planning meet-
ings. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 194–207.
DeVellis, R. F. (2011). Scale development: Theory and applica-
tions (Vol. 26). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Dowdy, C. A., Smith, T. E. C., & Nowell, C. H. (1992). Learning
disabilities and vocational rehabilitation. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 25, 442–447.
Enderle, J., & Severson, S. (2003). Enderle-Severson Transition
Rating Scales (3rd ed.). Moorhead, MN: ESTR Publications.
Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003, October 8–10). Calculating,
interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coef-
ficient for Likert-type scales. Paper presented at the Midwest
Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and
Community Education, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Gonzalez, R., Rosenthal, D. A., & Kim, J. H. (2011). Predicting
vocational rehabilitation outcomes of young adults with spe-
cific learning disabilities: Transitioning from school to work.
Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 34, 163–172.
Harrell, F. E. (2001). Regression modeling strategies. New York,
NY: Springer.
Laher, S. (2010). Using exploratory factor analysis in personal-
ity research: Best-practice recommendations. SA Journal of
Industrial Psychology, 36, 1–7.
Downloaded from cde.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on October 14, 2016
LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (1999). Analyzing and inter-
preting ethnographic data. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira
Press.
Little, T. D. (Ed.). (2013). The Oxford handbook of quantitative
methods. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Martin, J. E., Huber-Marshall, L. H., Maxson, L., Jerman, P.,
Hughes, W., Miller, T., & McGill, T. (2000). Choice maker
set: Tools for school-to-work transition. Frederick, CO:
Sopris West.
Morningstar, M., & Liss, J. M. (2008). A preliminary investiga-
tion of how states are responding to the transition equirements
under IDEIA 2004. Career Development for Exceptional
Individuals, 31, 48–55.
Neubert, D. A., & Leconte, P. J. (2013). Age-appropriate transi-
tion assessment: The position of the division on career devel-
opment and transition. Career Development and Transition
for Exceptional Individuals, 36, 72–83.
Patton, J. R., & Clark, G. M. (2014). Transition Planning
Inventory–Second Edition: Administration and resource
guide. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Rehfeldt, J. D., Clark, G. M., & Lee, S. W. (2012). The effects
of using the Transition Planning Inventory and a structured
IEP process as a transition planning intervention on IEP
meeting outcomes. Remedial and Special Education, 33,
48–58.
Test, D. W., Mason, C., Hughes, C., Konrad, M., Neale, M., &
Wood, W. M. (2004). Student involvement in individual-
ized education program meetings. Exceptional Children, 70,
391–412.
Walker, A. R., Kortering, L. J., Fowler, C. H., Rowe, D., &
Bethune, L. (2013). Age appropriate transition assessment
toolkit (3rd ed.). Charlotte: University of North Carolina
at Charlotte, National Secondary Transition Technical
Assistance Center.
Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., Hughes, C., Martin, J. E., Mithaug,
D., & Palmer, S. (2007). Promoting self-determination for
students with developmental disabilities. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Kelchner, K. (1995). The Arc’s Self-
Determination Scale. Washington, DC: The Arc of the United
States.
Wells, J. C., & Sheehey, P. H. (2012). Person-centered planning:
Strategies to encourage participation and facilitate communi-
cation. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44, 32–39.