Building consensus from transition experts on social integration outcomes and interventions.

Building consensus from transition experts on social integration outcomes and interventions. The push for accountability in education has caused policymakers,parents, and educators to rethink re��think?tr. & intr.v. re��thought , re��think��ing, re��thinksTo reconsider (something) or to involve oneself in reconsideration.re educational goals and how best tomeasure their attainment. This thinking process has been fueled furtherby a number of disturbing studies revealing that many young adults withdisabilities are (a) not employed, (b) not living on their own, (c) notintegrated into their communities, and (d) not very satisfied with theirsocial lives (Edgar, Levine Le��vine? , James Lawrence Born 1943.American pianist and conductor. He began his career with the Metropolitan Opera as principal conductor in 1973 and has since served as both music and artistic director. , & Maddox This article is about the Internet satirist. For other uses, see Maddox (disambiguation).George Ouzounian,[1] better known by his screen name Maddox , 1986; Halpern This page or section lists people with the surname Halpern. If an internal link for a specific person referred you to this page, you may wish to add the given name(s) to that wikilink. , Close, &Nelson, 1986; Hasazi, Gordon, & Roe, 1985; Kregel, Wehman, &Seyfarth, 1985). As a result, educators are increasingly focusing theirattention on the outcomes that should be associated with education andon interventions that will maximize schools, effectiveness (DeStefano& Wagner, 1992).Although various school outcome models for youths with disabilitieshave been proposed, Halpern's model (1985) seems to be the mostcomprehensive and widely cited. In this model, Halpern suggested thatthe desired outcomes of education and transition services should becommunity adjustment, which consists of three distinct components:employment, residential adjustment, and the establishment of desirablesocial and interpersonal in��ter��per��son��al?adj.1. Of or relating to the interactions between individuals: interpersonal skills.2. networks. Interestingly, although all threeoutcomes have been proposed a being equal in importance, less than halfof the follow-up follow-up,n the process of monitoring the progress of a patient after a period of active treatment.follow-upsubsequent.follow-up plan studies of graduating youths with disabilities haveassessed the status of social and interpersonal networks (Halpern,1990). This omission omissionn. 1) failure to perform an act agreed to, where there is a duty to an individual or the public to act (including omitting to take care) or is required by law. Such an omission may give rise to a lawsuit in the same way as a negligent or improper act. may reflect the difficulty of defining andmeasuring social relationships (Chadsey-Rusch 1992; Mank & Buckley,1989).Even though measuring the social dimension of one's life isproblematic, it is critical for youths in transition for severalreasons. First, the social dimension of one's life is related to apositive quality of life. When people with disabilities have been asked,they have reported that friendships and interactions with others areamong the most valued aspects of their lives (Gollay, Wyngaarden,Freedman, & Kurtz, 1978; Landesman-Dwyer, & Berkson, 1984;O'Connor, 1983). Goode (1990) and Halpern (1993) also haveindicated that one's quality of life is influenced by the socialrelationships experienced across a variety of settings.A second reason social relationships and integration are critical isthe positive association between these variables and other aspects of aperson's life. For example, Moseley (1988) indicated that increasedlevels of job satisfaction are related to opportunities to work closelywith a group of people to complete a common task. When workers aresatisfied with their jobs, they are more productive and efficient(Locke, 1983). House (1981) has indicated that the formation offriendships and social support networks helps to reduce stress.A third reason for focusing on the social lives of youths intransition relates to the importance of social behaviors in worksettings. When asked, employers have indicated that a variety of socialbehaviors are necessary in employment contexts (e.g., McCrea, 1992;Rusch, Schutz, & Agran, 1982; Salzberg, Agran, &Lignugaris/Kraft, 1986). Supported employment service providers havealso indicated that they have many questions about establishing socialrelationships and friendships (Johnson, 1990). Finally, jobs have beenterminated due to the display of inappropriate social behaviors(Brickey, Campbell, & Browning, 1985; Greenspan & Shoultz, 1981;Hanley-Maxwell, Rusch, Chadsey Rusch, & Renzaglia, 198G; Iagomarcino, 1990). The importance of social behaviors in postschoolsettings has been underscored by Resnick (1987). As she indicated, oncewe leave school, most of the activities in which we engage are sociallyshared. Graduating youths must be able to function within social systemsto get tasks accomplished and to forge forgeOpen furnace for heating metal ore and metal for working and forming, or a workshop containing forge hearths and related equipment. From earliest times, smiths (see smithing) heated iron in forges and formed it by hammering on an anvil. and enhance social relationshipswith others.Although more information is needed regarding the types of socialrelationships experienced by youths in transition, it appears that thesocial outcomes typically experienced are not all positive. If less thanpositive outcomes occur, strategies must be formulated for��mu��late?tr.v. for��mu��lat��ed, for��mu��lat��ing, for��mu��lates1. a. To state as or reduce to a formula.b. To express in systematic terms or concepts.c. to affect theseoutcomes. In the employment realm, many researchers have studied ways toincrease the social behaviors of people with disabilities (e.g., Agran,Fodor-Davis, Moore Moore,city (1990 pop. 40,761), Cleveland co., central Okla., a suburb of Oklahoma City; inc. 1887. Its manufactures include lightning- and surge-protection equipment, packaging for foods, and auto parts. , & Deer, 1989; Agran, Salzberg, &Stowitschek, 1987; Breen, Haring Haring is an English surname of Austrian origin.Notable individuals with this surname: Keith Haring, American street artist and social activist John Haring, American lawyer and delegate to the Continental Congress , Pitts-Conway, & Gaylord-Ross,1985; Chadsey-Rusch, Karlan, Riva, & Rusch, 1984; Collet-Klingenberg& Chadsey-Rusch, 1991; Park & Gaylord-Ross, 1989). In most ofthese studies, the range of social behaviors taught has been narrow, andthe interventions have been restricted to changing the behavior of theperson with the disability, rather than changing the behavior of others(e.g., co-workers). Nisbet (1992) and other proponents of naturalsupports (e.g., Callahan, 1992; Hagner, 1992) have argued that moreeffective intervention A procedure used in a lawsuit by which the court allows a third person who was not originally a party to the suit to become a party, by joining with either the plaintiff or the defendant. strategies may be those involving co-workers intheir naturally occurring routines and contexts.Clearly, research is needed that begins to define a set of outcomesthat can be used to judge the quality of the social lives experienced bytransitioning youths. In addition, information is needed about the rangeof interventions that can enhance social experiences. Although socialrelationships can be established in a variety of settings, manyrelationships are formed in employment settings (Barber A barber (from the Latin barba, "beard") is someone whose occupation is to cut any type of hair, give shaves, and trim beards. In previous times, barbers also performed surgery and dentistry. & Hupp,1993; Pogrebin, 1987).The purpose of the present study was to begin building consensus on arange of social integration outcomes and interventions related toyouths, making the transition from school to employment contexts.Transition experts--individuals with federally funded modeldemonstration programs in transition--responded to a questionnairedesigned to gather this information. Using experts to build consensusprovides a way to begin to select socially valid interventions andoutcomes for youths in transition. In addition, these experts were askedif they had assessed any of the outcomes proposed or implemented theinterventions suggested. They also were asked to rank order barriers tosocial integration.METHODSParticipantsThe initial pool of participants included 349 project directors orcoordinators who had received federal funds Federal FundsFunds deposited to regional Federal Reserve Banks by commercial banks, including funds in excess of reserve requirements.Notes:These non-interest bearing deposits are lent out at the Fed funds rate to other banks unable to meet overnight reserve to conductmodel-demonstration projects through the Secondary Education andTransitional Services Branch, Office of Special Education Programs,Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative re��ha��bil��i��tate?tr.v. re��ha��bil��i��tat��ed, re��ha��bil��i��tat��ing, re��ha��bil��i��tates1. To restore to good health or useful life, as through therapy and education.2. Services, U.S. Departmentof Education. The projects represented all the model-demonstrationprojects funded in the United States United States,officially United States of America, republic (2005 est. pop. 295,734,000), 3,539,227 sq mi (9,166,598 sq km), North America. The United States is the world's third largest country in population and the fourth largest country in area. since 1984 across 16 priorityareas. The primary purpose of the projects was to improve the transitionexperiences for youths with disabilities as they left high school andentered adulthood.A total of 228 (65%) participants returned their questionnaires. Tomake certain that the sample responding represented the population ofprojects funded, a number of variables were investigated. First, 88% ofthe sample responding did not differ from the total population in any ofthe 16 funded priority areas by more than 2 percentage points. Second,57% of the projects had expired; and it was found that the expiredprojects responding represented 51% of the sample, and currently fundedprojects represented 49% of the sample (43% in the population). Third,university projects represented 57% of the sample (48% in thepopulation), and nonuniversity projects were 43% of the sample (52% inthe population). These data led us to believe that the sample hadsimilar characteristics to all of the projects funded since 1984.Two types of questionnaires were mailed to the projects. Onequestionnaire focused on the social outcomes and interventionsassociated with postsecondary education (e.g., community colleges anduniversities), and the other questionnaire focused on the socialoutcomes and interventions associated with employment settings. Thisreport presents the employment results only.A sample of 149 (64% of the 228 respondents In the context of marketing research, a representative sample drawn from a larger population of people from whom information is collected and used to develop or confirm marketing strategy. ) returned questionnairesrelated to social integration outcomes and interventions in employmentsettings. Of that sample, the majority of the respondents indicated thatthey were project directors or coordinators (50%), university professors(23%), or transition specialists (19%). All respondents had more than 5years of experience working in the area of transition. The majority ofrespondents were in special education (48%) or rehabilitation rehabilitation:see physical therapy. (15%).Most of these people had master's degrees (45%) or doctorates(38%).When asked to indicate the characteristics of the transition-agedindividuals with whom they worked, the majority of the respondentsserved high school students (66%) or those not attending school, butworking in an integrated employment setting (21%). The majority of theprojects serving high school youths (75%) were actively engaged in jobplacement, vocational training, and coordination with adult serviceagencies about employment. Of the youths served, 51% were classified ashaving mental retardation mental retardation,below average level of intellectual functioning, usually defined by an IQ of below 70 to 75, combined with limitations in the skills necessary for daily living. , 34% as having learning disabilities, and 11%as having a behavioral behavioralpertaining to behavior.behavioral disorderssee vice.behavioral seizuresee psychomotor seizure. or emotional disturbance DISTURBANCE, torts. A wrong done to an incorporeal hereditament, by hindering or disquieting the owner in the enjoyment of it. Finch. L. 187; 3 Bl. Com. 235; 1 Swift's Dig. 522; Com. Dig. Action upon the case for a disturbance, Pleader, 3 I 6; 1 Serg. & Rawle, 298. . Most of the youths hadeither a moderate disability (52%) or a severe disability (38%). Whenthe respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they believed thetransition-aged youths wanted to receive some type of social integrationintervention, 53% responded affirmatively af��fir��ma��tive?adj.1. Asserting that something is true or correct, as with the answer "yes": an affirmative reply.2. . Forty percent of therespondents themselves believed that all the people they worked withneeded some type of social integration intervention, and an additional46% of the respondents reported that more than half of the youths theyworked with needed some type of intervention.Questionnaire and ProcedureA specially designed questionnaire was used to survey the respondentsregarding their beliefs about social integration outcomes andinterventions in employment settings. The questionnaire consisted offive parts, with questions related to the following topics:1. Characteristics of the transition-aged individuals.2. Social integration outcomes.3. Potential interventions to increase social integration.4. Barriers to social integration.5. Demographic characteristics of the respondents.The questionnaire items of critical importance to the study werethose focused on social integration outcomes and interventions. Theseitems were generated from the literature on social integration,transition, and employment, and from prior work by Haring and Breen(1989). The complete set of items represent a sampling of components ina conceptual framework For the concept in aesthetics and art criticism, see .A conceptual framework is used in research to outline possible courses of action or to present a preferred approach to a system analysis project. for viewing social integration outcomes andinterventions (Chadsey-Rusch & O'Reilly, 1992). Respondentsindicated how much they agreed that the outcomes proposed reflectedsocial integration, and how much they agreed that the interventionssuggested would lead to improved social integration. Once thequestionnaire was designed, it was sent to nine nationally recognizedscholars in transition for their feedback on content and clarity.Revisions were made to the questionnaire and then pilot-tested onstudents and staff associated with the Transition Research Institute (N=23). Feedback from this group resulted in the final form of thequestionnaire, which was mailed to the project directors.Participants were first asked to indicate their agreement, using a5-point Likert-type scale, that three proposed global categories ofoutcomes were ones that could be used to reflect social integrationThese three categories were (a) increased social participation, (b)increased social acceptance, and (c) increased positive self-perceptionsof the individual. Then the respondents were asked to indicate if a listof component items reflected a particular outcome category. For example,social participation was defined as the "scope, type, and frequencyof participation in social events and a description of other peopleparticipating in the social activity." One of the outcome componentitems of social participation was "interacting with co-workersand/or supervisors about work-related topics during arrival towork."After the respondents rated the outcome categories and theircomponent items, they were asked to indicate, with a "yes" ora "no," if they had ever assessed any of the outcomecategories or component items proposed. Respondents rated a total of 25items in the social integration outcome section.Participants were asked to respond similarly to the items included inthe intervention section. First they indicated their agreement withthree broad categories of interventions (i.e., individual, contextual,and interactant) and then indicated if a particular item reflected theintervention described. For example, interactant interventions weredefined as "those interventions that change the behavior(s) ofco-workers or supervisors toward the individual with a disability."An example of one of the types of interactant interventions was"requesting that several co-workers develop a social integrationplan for the employee with a disability." Respondents were alsoasked to indicate whether or not they had ever implemented theinterventions. A total of 18 items were included in the socialintegration intervention section.In addition to questions about outcomes and interventions, the surveyalso included a section on barriers to social integration. Participantswere asked to select from among seven barriers the ones they felthindered social integration; they also were asked to rank order the onesselected.All respondents received the questionnaire along with a cover letterthat briefly explained the purpose of the study and guaranteedanonymity. A stamped self-addressed envelope was enclosed en��close? also in��closetr.v. en��closed, en��clos��ing, en��clos��es1. To surround on all sides; close in.2. To fence in so as to prevent common use: enclosed the pasture. , andrecipients were asked to mail back the survey by a specific date. Tworeminder letters were sent, and other copies of the questionnaire, 3 and4 weeks later, respectively, to people who had not responded.Data AnalysisTo determine consensus on the outcome and intervention categories,and the individual items in those categories, several analyses wereconducted. First, computed mean ratings and standard deviations werecomputed for all respondents for each of the questionnaire items.Second, the items included in the three outcome categories (socialparticipation, social acceptance by others, positive self-perceptions ofthe individual) and intervention categories (contextual, individual, andinteractant interventions) were evaluated to determine their internalconsistencies as subscales.In addition, a factor analysis was conducted to evaluate thecorrespondence between the subscale structure of the questionnaire andthe factor structure of the subjects, responses to it. The resultingfactors were meaningful and could be interpreted as independent(orthogonal) components. These factors were then used in analyses ofvariance The discrepancy between what a party to a lawsuit alleges will be proved in pleadings and what the party actually proves at trial.In Zoning law, an official permit to use property in a manner that departs from the way in which other property in the same locality (ANOVAs) to evaluate the associations between the questionnaireresults and the characteristics of the respondents.Means and standard deviations were computed for the ranks of sevenbarriers and used ANOVAs to evaluate the association between barriersand respondent In Equity practice, the party who answers a bill or other proceeding in equity. The party against whom an appeal or motion, an application for a court order, is instituted and who is required to answer in order to protect his or her interests. characteristics. In addition, correlations were computedbetween the barrier ranking and factor scores to detect anyrelationships between the types of outcomes and interventions andbarrier rankings.Finally, correlations were calculated to determine if there was acorrespondence between respondents, ratings of outcomes andinterventions and their claims of assessment of outcomes orimplementation of interventions.RESULTSMean RatingsMean ratings and standard deviations were calculated for respondents,ratings of each item's relevance to social integration. A rating of5.0 represented the highest relevance or agreement rating, and a ratingof 1.0 represented highest irrelevance ir��rel��e��vance?n.1. The quality or state of being unrelated to a matter being considered.2. Something unrelated to a matter being considered.Noun 1. or disagreement. Because thestandard error of the mean was approximately .1, any mean greater than3.3 was considered to be significantly (.01) greater than the neutralrating of 3.0.All ratings on the three global outcome and intervention categorieswere above 4.0 (i.e., significantly above neutral). For the outcomes,increased social participation had a mean rating of 4.53 (SD= .76);increased social acceptance by others, 4.57 (SD=.74); and positiveself-perceptions of the individual, 4.29 (SD=.96). For theinterventions, contextual interventions were rated 4.50 (.76);individual interventions, 4.63 (SD= .73); and interactant interventions,4.46 (SD= .88).Table 1 shows the mean ratings of the component items associated withthe outcome and intervention categories. The subheadings on Table 1 arenot identical to the labels used for the outcome and interventionscategories on the questionnaire, but have been modified to reflect theresults of the factor analysis. All the component items received a meanrating higher than 3.2.[TABULAR DATA OMITTED]Subscale Consistency AnalysisAn item analysis was completed on each of the six categories (i.e,three outcome categories and three intervention categories) to evaluatetheir internal consistencies as subscales. The results of these analysesindicated sufficient subscale internal consistency In statistics and research, internal consistency is a measure based on the correlations between different items on the same test (or the same subscale on a larger test). It measures whether several items that propose to measure the same general construct produce similar scores. to suggest that eachrepresented a unidimensional construct. Cronbach's alpha Cronbach's (alpha) has an important use as a measure of the reliability of a psychometric instrument. It was first named as alpha by Cronbach (1951), as he had intended to continue with further instruments. coefficient coefficient/co��ef��fi��cient/ (ko?ah-fish��int)1. an expression of the change or effect produced by variation in certain factors, or of the ratio between two different quantities.2. , a coefficient that equals the average of all possible splithalf correlation coefficients and is used to index internal consistency,was calculated at .809, .820, .811, .642, .890, and .840 on the sixrespective categories.Factor AnalysisA factor analysis was completed to evaluate the correspondencebetween the subscale structure of the questionnaire and the factorstructure of the subjects, responses to it. A modifiedprincipal-components analysis featured multiple correlations on thediagonal of the input correlation matrix Noun 1. correlation matrix - a matrix giving the correlations between all pairs of data setsstatistics - a branch of applied mathematics concerned with the collection and interpretation of quantitative data and the use of probability theory to estimate population , and a varimax (orthogonal)rotation of six factors following the initial factor solution. Sixfactors were chosen for rotation because of the six categories includedin the questionnaire, but this number was also reasonable from the screeplot, whose eigenvalues eigenvaluesstatistical term meaning latent root. were 1.34 for Factor VI, 1.05 for Factor VII factor VIIn.A factor in the clotting of blood that forms a complex with tissue thromboplastin and calcium to activate the prothrombinase, thus acting to accelerate the conversion of prothrombin to thrombin. ,and .97 for Factor VIII factor VIIIn.A factor in the clotting of blood, a deficiency of which is associated with hemophilia A. Also called antihemophilic factor, antihemophilic globulin, antihemophilic globulin A, .The pattern matrix of item-factor loadings (i.e., item-factorcorrelations) resulting from the varimax rotation appears on Table 1.These were exceptionally interpretable. Four of the six factors--(I)Individual Interventions, (III) Coworker co��work��eror co-work��er ?n.One who works with another; a fellow worker. or Employer Interventions(originally Interactant Interventions), (IV) Increased SocialParticipation Outcome, and (V) Feelings of Social Support Outcome(originally Positive Self-Perceptions of the Individual)--were clearlyidentified as original questionnaire subscales. The other two factorswere constructed from the interpretable decomposition decomposition/de��com��po��si��tion/ (de-kom?pah-zish��un) the separation of compound bodies into their constituent principles. de��com��po��si��tionn.1. of the IncreasedSocial Acceptance by Others subscale into separate (II) IncreasedPersonal Acceptance Outcome and (VI) Increased Workplace AcceptanceOutcome factors. Only the subset A group of commands or functions that do not include all the capabilities of the original specification. Software or hardware components designed for the subset will also work with the original. of items intended to evaluateContextual Interventions decomposed de��com��pose?v. de��com��posed, de��com��pos��ing, de��com��pos��esv.tr.1. To separate into components or basic elements.2. To cause to rot.v.intr.1. into several areas. Because thefactors were so meaningful and could be interpreted as independent(orthogonal) components of workplace interventions and outcomes, factorscores were used in the analyses of variance to evaluate theassociations between the questionnaire results and the characteristicsof the respondents.Factor Score Differenees for Different Types of RespondentsUnivariate univariateadjectiveDetermined, produced, or caused by only one variable ANOVAs were completed for seven respondentcharacteristics. The dependent variables for these analyses were factorscores, standardized (X= 0.0, SD= 1.0) estimates of individuals, scoresbased on the factor pattern coefficients. Three of the characteristicswere related to the students the respondents served, including (a) thetype of school, college, or employment setting where the studentsreceived services; (b) students, type of disability; and (c) students,severity of disability. The other four characteristics were related tothe respondents themselves and included their (a) job title, (b) yearsof transition-related activities, (c) education level, and (d)professional field. Significant overall differences were evaluated usingTukey comparisons. The dependent variables for each analysis were thesix factor score described previously. Only three significant F-ratios(p < .05) were detected by these analyses, one more than expected bychance. First, disability types varied on Factor II (Personal AcceptanceOutcome), F(3, 108) = 7.08; respondents serving individuals with mentalretardation gave this a higher value than those serving persons witheither learning disabilities or multiple disability types. Second,setting type differed on Factor IV (Increased Social ParticipationOutcome), F (6, 108) = 2.82; respondents working with middle schoolstudents valued this outcome more than did those working with studentsin community colleges; and on Factor VI (Increased Workplace AcceptanceOutcome), F (G, 108) = 2.71, those working with students in middleschools rated this higher than did those serving students in multiplesetting types. Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations for thesesignificant effects.[TABULAR DATA 2 OMITTED]Rankings and Differences in Barriers Noted by Different Types ofRespondentsRespondents were asked to rank seven frequently cited barriers to theimplementation of social integration programs in workplace settings.Because respondents were asked to rank only those barriers that theythought were serious, many failed to rank all seven. To make therankings of all respondents comparable for analysis purposes, thehighest-ranked barrier was given a rank score of 7, the second-highestbarrier was given a rank score of 6, and so forth until all those thatthe respondent had ranked actively were scored. The remaining barrierswere assigned as��sign?tr.v. as��signed, as��sign��ing, as��signs1. To set apart for a particular purpose; designate: assigned a day for the inspection.2. a rank equal to the average of the unused rank scores. Forexample, when a subject ranked only 5 listed barriers, his or herunranked barriers were assigned a rank score of 1.5, the average of thetwo unused rank scores. When four barriers were ranked actively, theremaining three barriers were assigned a rank score of 2, the average of1, 2, and 3.Table 3 lists the percentage of respondents who ranked each barrieras being the most detrimental det��ri��men��tal?adj.Causing damage or harm; injurious.detri��men barrier to achieving social integration.Barrier 1, "There are not enough resources to implementinterventions (e.g., staff, time, money)," was selected as the mostdifficult barrier to overcome by 55% of the respondents. Barrier 7,"Coworkers and employers won,t participate in interventionactivities," was selected by the fewest number of respondents (2%)as being the most difficult barrier to overcome.[TABULAR DATA 3 OMITTED]ANOVAs were completed to determine if the rankings of the barriersdiffered by respondent characteristics. Using Tukey comparisons,significant overall differences were evaluated. Respondentcharacteristics were the same as those used for the comparisons offactor scores. Table 4 shows the means and standard deviations forrespondent types whose barrier rankings differed significantly. Sixsignificant F-ratios (p < .05) were detected by these analyses, twiceas many as expected by chance. Disability types varied on "coworkerand employer attitudes," F (3, 99) = 2.79, and on "parents,reluctance to promote social integration," F (3, 99) = 4.34;respondents serving people with learning disabilities ranked these asgreater barriers than those serving people with mental retardation."Co-worker and employer resistance to participating ininterventions" was ranked differently by respondents with varyingexperience in transition activities, F (3, 90) = 3.15; those with 1-3years, experience ranked these barriers higher than those with 3-5years, experience. "Parent reluctance to promote socialintegration," F (3, 90) = 2.79, was also rated significantlydifferent by respondents with varying years of transition experience,but there were no significant differences among the groups according to according toprep.1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.2. In keeping with: according to instructions.3. Tukey comparisons (alpha= .05 for each set of means). The lack ofsignificant results for Tukey comparisons was also found for respondentsserving people with varying levels of disability on their ranking of"co-worker and employer attitudes toward participating ininterventions," F (3, 90) = 2.90. Respondents working withindividuals in different setting types differed on their ranking of the"client's disability as a barrier to implementinginterventions," F (6, 99) = 2.31; respondents from integrated worksettings ranked this barrier higher than did those serving people inmultiple settings.[TABULAR DATA 4 OMITTED]Correlation of Factor Scores with Barrier RankingsTo evaluate the relationships between the types of outcomes andinterventions and the barrier rankings, the six factor scores werecorrelated cor��re��late?v. cor��re��lat��ed, cor��re��lat��ing, cor��re��latesv.tr.1. To put or bring into causal, complementary, parallel, or reciprocal relation.2. with the seven barrier rankings. None of these correlationswas statistically significant.Assessment and Implementation ResultsIn addition to rating the relevance of each questionnaire item tosocial integration, respondents were also asked to check "yes"if they had assessed the outcome, and "no" if they had not;and each intervention item was checked "yes" if the respondenthad implemented the intervention, and "no" if it was notimplemented. Nearly half of all respondents indicated they had assessedthe three global outcome categories (Social Participation assessed by64%, Co-worker/Supervisor Acceptance assessed by 55%, and PositiveSelf-Perceptions of the Individual assessed by 48% of the respondents).Similar claims were made for implementation of the three globalcategories of interventions: Implementation of Contextual Interventionswas indicated by 57%, Individual Interventions by 67%, and InteractantInterventions by 57%.The assessment and implementation results for the component itemsassociated with the global categories showed more variability. For thecomponent items associated with the Social Participation Outcome, thepercentage of respondents who had assessed the items ranged from 46% to48% for all but two items. The assessment of the interactions of peoplewith disabilities during company-sponsored social events (e.g., birthdayparties) had been done by only 27% of the respondents, and theassessment of whether the individual participated during socialoccasions that occurred after work (e.g., at a co-worker's house)had been done by only 25% of the respondents.For Social Acceptance by Others, the percent of respondents who hadassessed these component items ranged from 30% to 43% for all but threecomponent items. Three component items were assessed by less than 30% ofthe respondents: Asking co-workers or supervisors if they "liked tosee the person after work" (23%), "considered the person withthe disability to be an acquaintance" (2G%), and "liked theperson to attend company social events" (22%).Assessment of the component items associated with PositiveSelf-Perceptions of the Individual ranged between 42% and 44% for allbut one component item. Assessing the feelings about whether theperson's social goals or needs had been met through interactionswith others in the work settings was done by 30% of the respondents.For the intervention component items associated with ContextualInterventions, implementation of the items ranged from 45% to 55% forall but two items. Sixty-three percent of the respondents hadsupervisors or co-workers training the person with a disability on worktasks, but only 24% of the respondents had ever had the individualinvolved with more popular or highly regarded co-workers.Of all the interventions, the component items associated withIndividual Interventions were implemented by the greatest percentage ofrespondents, with a range of 59%-75%. The items associated with theInteractant Interventions were implemented by a range of 43%-45% of therespondents except for three items. Only 15% of the respondents had everrequested that co-workers develop a social integration plan for workerswith disabilities, and only 25% had taught co-workers to implement asocial skills training program with a worker or asked co-workers wholiked the same type of recreation and leisure activities to do thingswith the individual after work.Analyses were also completed to evaluate the correspondence betweenthe respondents, relevance ratings and claims of assessment orimplementation; to evaluate this correspondence, a correlation wascalculated between the 5-point Likert rating and the yes-no claim forevery item. Correspondence of ratings with assessment or implementationwould require that the correlations between ratings and claims would besignificantly above zero.Two of the 25 correlations for the outcome items and 11 of the 18 forinterventions were significantly above zero, with alpha, the probabilityof accidental significance, set at .01. Thus, 13 of 43 correlationsdiffered significantly from zero when none (43 x .01 = .43) would haveoccurred in random data. Furthermore, none of the correlations werenegative, indicating that the correlation of ratings with assessment ofoutcomes and implementation of interventions, while modest, wasunquestionably un��ques��tion��a��ble?adj.Beyond question or doubt. See Synonyms at authentic.un��question��a��bil stable and nonrandom in these participants, responses.A final analysis (ANOVAs) was done to determine if claims ofassessment and implementation differed by respondent characteristics.This analysis yielded no significant results.DISCUSSIONThe purpose of this study was to use transition experts--individualswith federally funded model demonstration programs in transition--tobegin to build consensus on the validity of a range of socialintegration outcomes and interventions related to youths making thetransition from school to employment contexts. In addition, theseexperts were asked whether or not they had ever assessed any of theoutcomes proposed or implemented the interventions suggested. Finally,barriers to achieving social integration in employment contexts wereranked, and respondent characteristics were related to questionnaireresults.The results from this study are presented from three viewpoints.First, consensual CONSENSUAL, civil law. This word is applied to designate one species of contract known in the civil laws; these contracts derive their name from the consent of the parties which is required in their formation, as they cannot exist without such consent. 2. agree ment of the major constructs and item componentsassociated with the conceptual framework of social integration outcomesand interventions that emerged from both the ratings of the originalitems and the subsequent factor analyses are discussed. In addition,modifications of the conceptual framework that emerged as a function ofrespondent demographics The attributes of people in a particular geographic area. Used for marketing purposes, population, ethnic origins, religion, spoken language, income and age range are examples of demographic data. are highlighted. Second, the barriers to socialintegration are discussed and individual variations are noted. Finally,the limitations of the study are pinpointed and recommendations are madefor future research.Conceptual FrameworkIn the original conceptual framework, three broad categories ofoutcomes as being reflective Refers to light hitting an opaque surface such as a printed page or mirror and bouncing back. See reflective media and reflective LCD. of social integration in employmentsettings were proposed, and three broad categories of interventions asstrategies to change or impact these outcomes were suggested.Descriptive data indicated that respondents agreed with the outcomes andinterventions proposed; however, the factor analysis of the ratings ofthe individual items associated with each of the outcome andintervention categories suggested a slightly different framework forviewing social integration in employment contexts.Outcomes. In the new framework, respondents agreed that four broadcategories of outcomes were reflective of social integration and twobroad categories of interventions could be used as strategies to changesocial integration outcomes. Two of the outcome categories and two ofthe intervention categories were retained (but relabeled) from theoriginally proposed framework. The two outcome categories retained wereIncreased Social Participation, which refers to information aboutparticipation in social activities with people from work, and Feelingsof Social Support, which refers to assessing workers about how they feelabout their social integration and relationships with others. The twonew outcomes categories that emerged from the factor analysis wereIncreased Work Acceptance, which refers to assessing co-workers,feelings of accepting a person as a fellow worker or a colleague in thework culture, and Increased Personal Acceptance, which refers toco-workers, feelings of wanting to get to know a person better and maybedeveloping a personal or closer relationship with him or her. These twonew outcome categories resulted from a decomposition of the originaloutcome Social Acceptance by Others, and suggest that workers can beaccepted on two levels--as a colleague and on a more personal level,such as a friend.These results from respondents indicate their belief that socialintegration outcomes should be viewed from multiple perspectives. Inpast research investigating the effects of training social behaviors(e.g., Chadsey-Rusch et al., 1984), the range of outcomes assessed hasoften been narrow in scope, consisting primarily of objective measuresof social behavior In biology, psychology and sociology social behavior is behavior directed towards, or taking place between, members of the same species. Behavior such as predation which involves members of different species is not social. . In this study, respondents agreed that objectivecounts of the individual's participation in social activities wasimportant; but, in addition, subjective measures of individual'sfeelings of social support and subjective measures from co-workersregarding their feelings about working with the target individual andtheir desire to affiliate more closely with the individual were alsoneeded.In addition to indicating agreement with the social integrationoutcomes proposed, respondents also indicated which outcomes they hadassessed. Respondents rated all of the component items in the outcomecategories above the neutral, mid-range rating; and correlationalanalyses indicated a small but stable relationship between relevanceratings and claims of assessments, but descriptive data showed that someoutcome component items had been infrequently in��fre��quent?adj.1. Not occurring regularly; occasional or rare: an infrequent guest.2. assessed. For example, inthe area of Personal Acceptance, only a small proportion of respondentshad assessed whether the person with a disability had ever participatedin social occasions that occurred after work, or had asked co-workers ifthey liked to see the person after work, or liked the person to attendcompany social events. Even though these types of items were notfrequently assessed, they may be important to social integration and toa quality worklife (Hagner, 1992; Lagomarcino, 1989; Parent, Kregel,Wehman, & Metzler, 1991) and therefore worthy of assessmentconsideration. Also, even though respondents were not frequentlyassessing these items, their ratings suggested that they were importantfor reflecting social integration.Interventions. In addition to reaching agreement on outcomes,respondents also reached agreement on social integration interventions.In the original conceptual framework, three broad categories ofintervention: Individual, Interactant, and Contextual were proposed. Theresults from the factor analysis, however, revealed the decomposition ofContextual Interventions into several areas, leaving only twointervention categories as viable factors: Individual Interventions,which focus on changing the social skills of the individual with thedisability, and Co-worker or Employer Interventions (previously labeledInteractant Interventions), which address changing the behaviors orattitudes of co-workers or employers toward the worker with adisability.The implementation results showed that a majority of respondents notonly agreed with Individual Interventions as a strategy to affect socialintegration outcomes, but also had implemented this type of interventionto change the social behaviors of a worker with a disability. Someintervention strategies associated with Co-worker or EmployerInterventions, however, were rarely implemented by respondents. Forexample, few respondents had the person with a disability involved withthe more popular or highly regarded co-workers, or had requested thatcoworkers develop a social integration plan for the worker, or had askedco-workers to participate in jointly enjoyed leisure activities with theindividual after work. Recently, a number of people have advocated formore interventions that focus on changing the behavior of others, ratherthan focusing on changing the behavior of the person with a disability(e.g., Chadsey-Rusch & O'Reilly, 1992; Nisbet, 1992); thisstance also reflects the recent paradigm shift A dramatic change in methodology or practice. It often refers to a major change in thinking and planning, which ultimately changes the way projects are implemented. For example, accessing applications and data from the Web instead of from local servers is a paradigm shift. See paradigm. occurring in the field inwhich it has been suggested that people with disabilities should not beviewed from a deficit-remedial model (Meyer, 1991; Smull & Bellamy,1991). Transition specialists and other professionals considering socialintegration interventions may want to give more thought to thoseinterventions that do not focus exclusively on the person with adisability. In addition to its humanistic hu��man��ist?n.1. A believer in the principles of humanism.2. One who is concerned with the interests and welfare of humans.3. a. A classical scholar.b. A student of the liberal arts. appeal, the effectiveness ofthis approach has been supported by empirical evidence (Haring &Breen, 1992; Sasso & Rude, 1987).Demographic Differences. Although respondents reached consensualagreement on the new conceptual framework, differences emerged as afunction of respondent demographics for the social integration outcomes;no differences were found for the interventions. Respondents who servedpeople with mental retardation rated the Personal Acceptance Outcomehigher than respondents who served people with learning disabilities orother disability types. This difference may result from the influence ofthe supported employment initiative which has emphasized socialintegration from its inception, and has increasingly valued personalrelationships and friendships as important work-related outcomes(Hagner, 1992; Mank & Buckley, 1989; Wilson & Coverdale, 1993).This influence from supported employment may also explain whyrespondents from the rehabilitation field were more likely thanrespondents from special education or other fields to assess items fromthe Personal Acceptance Outcome.A second finding showed that the outcomes of Social Participation andWorkplace Acceptance were rated higher by respondents working withstudents in middle school settings than by those working with studentsin community college settings (for Social Participation) or multiplesetting types (for Workplace Acceptance). This finding is difficult tointerpret and may have been an anomaly Abnormality or deviation. Pronounced "uh-nom-uh-lee," it is a favorite word among computer people when complex systems produce output that is inexplicable. See software conflict and anomaly detection. of the particular sample ofrespondents in the middle school group. The result suggests, however,that respondents providing young students with their first workopportunities may recognize the value of Social Participation andWorkplace Acceptance as legitimate outcomes.Barriers to Social IntegrationRespondent rankings of the barriers to social integration revealed anumber of interesting results. First, the highest ranking barrier wasthe "lack of resources (e.g., staff, time, money) to implementsocial integration interventions." This barrier seems even moreinterpretable when one considers that the barrier ranked second was the"low priority given to social integration outcomes." If socialintegration outcomes are not considered a priority, then it is doubtfulthat time, staff, money, and other resources will be allocated to thiseffort. A limitation of this study is that it is not known ifrespondents themselves believed social Integration outcomes were not apriority, or if they believed others in the system (e.g., employers,administrators) did not believe they were important. Regardless, thesedata suggest that the absence of the social integration outcome fromresearch on transition (Halpern, 1990) may reflect its low priorityrather than its assessment challenges, as has been suggested by others(Chadsey Rusch & O'Reilly, 1992; Mank & Buckley, 1989).With increasing emphasis being placed on this outcome (e.g., Amado,1993; Halpern, 1993), future research will reveal whether socialintegration commands the status of other outcomes (e.g., wages earned,hours worked) in the lives of youths with disabilities.Several barrier rankings varied by respondent characteristics.Respondents working with people with learning disabilities ranked the"difficulty of changing the attitudes of co-workers andemployers," and "parents, reluctance to promote socialintegration" as being greater barriers to social integration thandid those respondents working with people with mental retardation. Withrespect to attitude change, Minskoff, Sautter, Hoffman, and Hawks Hawks? , Howard Winchester 1896-1977.American filmmaker whose works include His Girl Friday (1940) and The Big Sleep (1946). (1987)have speculated that employers may feel they can understand disabilitiesthey can "see" better (e.g., mental retardation stigmata stigmata(stĭg`mətə, stĭgmăt`ə)[plural of stigma, from Gr.,=brand], wounds or marks on a person resembling the five wounds received by Jesus at the crucifixion. ) thandisabilities they "cannot see" (such as learningdisabilities).It is more difficult to interpret the barrier of parents, reluctanceto promote social integration. Heal, Gonzalez, Rusch, Copher, andDeStefano (1990) found that the only factor cited as both a positive andnegative influence in affecting students, transition into competitiveemployment was parental influence. In a survey conducted by Hoffman etal. (1987), consumers (half of whom were parents of people with learningdisabilities) listed social skills training as the 5th (out of 11) mostimportant need of adults with learning disabilities; the greatest needwas that adults with learning disabilities find a job suited to theirabilities and disabilities. In the present study, it is not known ifrespondents meant that parents actively resisted social integrationefforts, or simply valued other employment outcomes (e.g., type of job)more strongly. In a related study conducted by Hamre-Nietupski,Nietupski, and Strathe (1992), parents of children with moderate mentalretardation were more concerned with their children's acquiringfunctional life and academic skills in school, while parents of childrenwith severe mental retardation were more concerned with theirchildren's acquiring friends and developing social relationships.As cognitive abilities increase, it is possible that parents want theirchildren to acquire outcomes that are typically valued more by society(e.g., jobs, math skills) than those less traditionally valued outcomes(e.g., relationships with others). Research is needed to further exploreparents, feelings and beliefs about this issue.Several other barriers were associated with respondentcharacteristics. Respondents with fewer years of transition experience(1-3 years) ranked employers, and co-workers, reluctance to participatein intervention activities as greater barriers than did respondents withmore years of transition experience (3-5 years). Amado, Conklin, andWells (1990) have suggested that barriers such as these may be due moreto staff attitudes and reluctance to speak to community members (e.g.,employers) than to actual negative attitudes on the part of communitymembers. In Amado et al. (1990), when staff finally spoke to communitymembers about establishing interpersonal connections for people withdisabilities, community members were happy to do so. With moreexperience, transition professionals may become increasingly skilled atworking and communicating with employers and co-workers and mayincreasingly appreciate the value of this networking for their students.Nisbet, Covert, and Schuh (1992) have stated that this communication isa critical component of transition activities, and providing informationto employers has also been related to best practices in transition(Kohler, 1993).The last finding related to barriers was that respondents workingwith transition-aged people in integrated work settings believed thatthe person's disability made it more difficult to implementinterventions than did respondents working with individuals across avariety of setting types. This finding is of concern because respondentsmay view the youths, disabilities and the difficulties of implementinginterventions as a reason to exclude the youths from integrated worksites. As a solution, respondents need to make certain thatinterventions are actively pursued in integrated work sites beforeyouths leave high school. In addition, interventions that focus onchanging the work setting or the behavior of people in the work settingshould also be considered.Limitations and Future Research AreasAlthough this study revealed a reliable, interpretable consensus ofsocial integration outcomes and interventions, these results must stillbe interpreted within the context of several limitations. First, all ofthe items received higher than chance levels of agreement, which couldreflect a leniency le��ni��en��cy?n. pl. le��ni��en��cies1. The condition or quality of being lenient. See Synonyms at mercy.2. A lenient act.Noun 1. or social desirability bias Social desirability bias is the inclination to present oneself in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others. Being by nature social creatures, people are generally inclined to seek some degree of social acceptance, and as with other psychological terms, "social desirability" . It may have beenworthwhile to have included items that reflected negative outcomes orinterventions to demonstrate respondents, willingness to make positiveand negative discriminations among items.Second, with six factor scores as dependent variables and sevenrespondent characteristics, there were 42 analyses of variance, eachwith an error rate of .05. Thus, one would expect two significanteffects by chance alone, so the variations in the conceptual frameworkby respondent characteristics must be interpreted with caution.Third, because the size of the sample was relatively small, thegeneralizability of the findings is limited. The data from this studyrepresent the opinion of experts in the transition field who weredefined by their success in securing federal monies to operate modeldemonstration programs. It is unknown whether professionals outside ofthe unique group associated with model demonstration programs would viewsocial integration outcomes and integration in the same way.Nevertheless, securing the opinions from "experts" seems agood place from which to build a consensus. Future research effortsshould focus on securing the opinions of a more representative sampleand, in addition, should also probe the opinions of employers, parents,and youths with disabilities about social integration.Finally, the results from this study represent personal judgments ofprofessionals, rather than direct measures of the social integration ofyouths with disabilities. Research is needed to validate To prove something to be sound or logical. Also to certify conformance to a standard. Contrast with "verify," which means to prove something to be correct.For example, data entry validity checking determines whether the data make sense (numbers fall within a range, numeric data empiricallywhether any of the outcomes can discriminate dis��crim��i��nate?v. dis��crim��i��nat��ed, dis��crim��i��nat��ing, dis��crim��i��natesv.intr.1. a. between youths who are orare not socially integrated. In addition, efforts must begin to verify (1) To prove the correctness of data.(2) In data entry operations, to compare the keystrokes of a second operator with the data entered by the first operator to ensure that the data were typed in accurately. See validate. that the interventions agreed on in this study result in desired socialintegration outcomesAlthough further research is needed to refine and validate theconceptual framework, additional research is also needed to explain whythe project directors of federally funded model demonstration programsrarely assessed outcome items that may be critical to the formation ofsocial relationships--those items associated with the PersonalAcceptance Outcome. It could be that respondents were not sure how tocollect this information, or perhaps failure to assess acceptancereflects the low priority given to it during the barrier rankings. Itseems critical to determine the reasons for this finding, because ifproject directors of model-demonstration projects are not assessingthese outcome items, or do not believe that social integration outcomesare a priority, then it may be that many current professionals withoutfederal funding are only giving cursory cur��so��ry?adj.Performed with haste and scant attention to detail: a cursory glance at the headlines.[Late Latin curs attention to achieving socialintegration.Research is also needed to determine why project directors wereprimarily implementing only interventions that could be regarded astraditional (i.e., Individual Interventions). Again, it could be thatmany project directors were unsure of how to implement Co-worker orEmployer Interventions, or the implementation of these interventionsmight be forestalled by the barrier of insufficient resources. A recentstudy by Odom, McConnell, and Chandler Chandler,city (1990 pop. 90,533), Maricopa co., S central Ariz., in the Salt River valley; inc. 1920. It is both a residential community and a center for research and technology. Tourism is also important, and the San Marcos Golf Resort is in Chandler. (1994), involving ratings byteachers on the acceptability and feasibility of social interactioninterventions for young children with disabilities, may help explain theresults in the present study. Odom et al. found that teachers ratedchild-specific strategies as being very acceptable and feasible, butpeer-mediated strategies were rated as being less feasible although veryacceptable. If Co-worker and Employer Interventions are beingimplemented less often because of feasibility, then research and programdevelopment efforts are needed to determine how these interventions canbe used more successfully and easily.In conclusion, transition experts associated with federally fundedmodel demonstration projects reached consensus on a conceptual frameworkof social integration outcomes and interventions in employment settings.In addition, these experts indicated which outcome items they typicallyassessed and which interventions they typically used to achieve socialintegration. Finally, they rank ordered barriers to social integration.Although future research is needed to refine the conceptual frameworkand shed further light on the reasons for the assessment,implementation, and barrier results, the process of building consensushas been advanced.REFERENCESAgran, M., Fodor-Davis, J., Moore, S., & Deer, M. (1989). Theapplication of a self-management program on instruction-followingskills. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps,14, 147-154.Agran, M., Salzberg, C. L., & Stowitschek, J. J. (1987). Ananalysis of the effects of a social skills training program usingself-instructions on the acquisition and generalization gen��er��al��i��za��tionn.1. The act or an instance of generalizing.2. A principle, a statement, or an idea having general application. of two socialbehaviors in a work setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis The Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA) was established in 1968 as a The Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis is a peer-reviewed, psychology journal, that publishes research about applications of the experimental analysis of behavior to problems of social importance. , 12,131-139.Amado, A. N. (1993). Friendships and community connections betweenpeople with and without developmental disabilities. Baltimore Baltimore,city (1990 pop. 736,014), N central Md., surrounded by but politically independent of Baltimore co., on the Patapsco River estuary, an arm of Chesapeake Bay; inc. 1745. : Paul H.Brookes.Amado, A. N., Conklin, F., & Wells, J. (1990). Friends: A manualfor connecting persons with disabilities and community members. St.Paul St. Paulas a missionary he fearlessly confronts the “perils of waters, of robbers, in the city, in the wilderness.” [N.T.: II Cor. 11:26]See : Bravery , MN: Human Services Research and Development Center. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 363 985)Barber, D., & Hupp, S. C. (1993). A comparison of friendshippatterns of individuals with developmental disabilities. Education andTraining in Mental Retardation, 28, 13-22.Breen, C., Haring, T., Pitts-Conway, V., & GaylordRoss, R.(1985). The training and generalization of social interaction duringbreaktime at two job sites in the natural environments. The Journal ofthe Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 10 (1), 41-50.Brickey, M. P., Campbell, K. M., & Browning, L. J. (1985). Afive-year follow-up of sheltered workshop employees placed incompetitive jobs. Mental Petardation, 23, 67-73.Callahan, M. J. (1992). Job site training and natural supports. In J.Nisbet (Ed.), Natural supports in school, at work, and in the communityfor people with severe disabilities (pp. 257-276). Baltimore: Paul H.Brookes.Chadsey-Rusch, J. (1992). Toward defining and measuring social skillsin employment settings. American Journal on Mental Petardation, 96,405-418.Chadsey-Rusch, J., Karlan, G. R., Riva, M., & Rusch, F. R.(1984). Competitive employment: Teaching conversation skills to adultswho are mentally retarded Noun 1. mentally retarded - people collectively who are mentally retarded; "he started a school for the retarded"developmentally challenged, retarded . Mental Retardation, 22, Z18-225.Chadsey-Rusch, & O'Reilly, M. (1992). Social integration inemployment and postsecondary education settings: Outcome and processvariables. In F. R. Rusch, L. DeStefano, J. Chadsey-Rusch, A. Phelps,& E. Szymanski. (Eds.), Transition from school to adult life:Models, linkages, and policy (pp. 245-263). Sycamore sycamore:see plane tree. sycamoreAny of several distinct trees called by the same name though in different genera and families. In the U.S. the term refers to the American plane tree or buttonwood (Platanus occidentalis), a hardy street tree. , IL: Sycamore.Collet-Klingenberg, L., & Chadsey-Rusch, J. (1991). Using acognitive-process approach to teach social skills. Education andTraining in Mental Retardation, 26, 258-270.DeStefano, L., & Wagner, J. (1992). Outcome assessment in specialeducation: What lessons have we learned? In F. R. Rusch, L. DeStafano,J. ChadseyRusch, L. A. Phelps, & E. Szymanski (Eds.), Transitionfrom school to adult life: Models, linkages, and policy (pp. 173-207).Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.Edgar, E., Levine, P., & Maddox, M. (1986). Statewide follow-upstudies of secondary special education students in transition. Workingpaper of the Networking and Evaluation Team (DMRC), University ofWashington, Seattle.Gollay, E., Wyngaarden, M., Freedman, R, & Kurtz, C. (1978) .Coming home. Boston: Apt Associates.Goode, D. A. (1990). Thinking about and discussing quality of life.In R. L. Schalock (Ed.), Quality of life: Perspectives and issues (pp.41-57). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 323 698)Greenspan, S., & Shoultz, B. (1981). Why mentally retarded adultslose their jobs. Social competence as a factor in work adjustment.Applied Pesea7ch in Mental Petardation, 2 (1), 23-38.Hagner, D. C. (1992). The social interactions and job supports ofsupported employees. In J. Nisbet (Ed.), Natural supports in school, atwork, and in the community for people with severe disabilities (pp.217-239). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Halpern, A. S. (1985). Transition: A look at the foundations.Exceptional Children, 51, 479-502.Halpern, A. S. (1990). A methodological review of follow-up andfollow-along studies tracking school leavers from special education.Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 13, 13-27.Halpern, A. S. (1993). Quality of life as a conceptual framework forevaluating transition outcomes. Exceptional Children, 59, 486-498.Halpern, A. S., Close, D. W., & Nelson, D. J. (198G). On my own:The impact of semi-independent living programs for adults with mentalretardation. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Hamre-Nietupski, S., Nietupski, J., & Strathe, M. (1992).Functional life skills, academic skills, and friendship/socialrelationship development: What do parents of students with moderate,severe/profound disabilities value? The Journal of the Association forPersons with Severe Handicaps, 17, 53-58.Hanley-Maxwell, C., Rusch, F. R., Chadsey-Rusch, J., & Renzaglia,A. (1986). Reported factors contributing to job terminations ofindividuals with severe disabilities. The Journal of the Association forPersons with Severe Handicaps, 11, 45-52.Haring, T. G., & Breen, C. (1989). Units of analysis in socialinteraction outcomes in supported education. The Journal of theAssociation for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 255-262.Haring, T. G., & Breen, C. G. (1992). A peer-mediated socialnetwork intervention to enhance the social integration of persons withmoderate and severe disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,25, 319333.Hasazi, S. B., Gordon, R., & Roe, C. A. (1985). Factorsassociated with the employment status of handicapped youth exiting highschool from 1979 to 1983. Exceptional Children, 51, 455-473.Heal, L., Gonzalez, P., Rusch, F. R., Copher, J., & DeStefano, L.(1990). A comparison of successful and unsuccessful placements of youthswith mental handicaps into competitive employment. Exceptionality, 1,181-195.Hoffman, F. J., Sheldon, K. L., Minskoff, R. J., Sautter, S. W.,Steidle, E. F., Baker, D. P., Bailey, M. B., & Echols, L. D. (1987).Needs of learning disability adults. Journal of Learning Disabilities,20, 43-52.House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Redding Redding,city (1990 pop. 66,462), seat of Shasta co., N central Calif., on the Sacramento River; inc. 1872. A principal tourist center for a mountain and lake region, it also has lumbering, food-processing, and diverse manufacturing. , MA:Addison-Wesley.Johnson, J. R. (1990). Looking toward the future: Questions andconcerns of supported employment service providers. In F. R. Rusch(Ed.), Supported employment: Models, methods and issues (pp. 349-361).Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.Kohler, P. D. (1993). Best practices in transition: Substantiated orimplied? Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 16, 107-121.Kregel, J., Wehman, P., & Seyfarth, J. (1985). Communityintegration of young adults with mental retardation. Transition fromschool to adulthood. In P. Wehman & J. W. Hill (Eds.), Competitiveemployment for persons with mental retardation: From research topractice (Vol. 1). Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University Formed by a merger between the Richmond Professional Institute and the Medical College of Virginia in 1968, VCU has a medical school that is home to the nation's oldest organ transplant program. ,Rehabilitation Research and Training Center.Lagomarcino, T. R. (1989). Assessing integration in supportedemployment contexts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation dis��ser��ta��tion?n.A lengthy, formal treatise, especially one written by a candidate for the doctoral degree at a university; a thesis.dissertationNoun1. . University ofIllinois at Urbana-Champaign Early years: 1867-1880The Morrill Act of 1862 granted each state in the United States a portion of land on which to establish a major public state university, one which could teach agriculture, mechanic arts, and military training, "without excluding other scientific .Lagomarcino, T. R. (1990). Job separation issues in supportedemployment. In F. R. Rusch (Ed.), Supported employment models, methodsand issues (pp. 301-316). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.Landesman-Dwyer, S., & Berkson, G. (1984). Friendship and socialbehavior. In J. W. Wortis (Ed.), Mental retardation and developmentaldisabilities: Annual review (Vol. 13). New York New York, state, United StatesNew York,Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of : Plenum In a building, the space between the real ceiling and the dropped ceiling, which is often used as an air duct for heating and air conditioning. It is also filled with electrical, telephone and network wires. See plenum cable. Press. Locke, E.A. (1983). The nature and causes of job dissatisfaction. In M. D.Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology Industrial and organizational psychology (also known as I/O psychology, work psychology, work and organizational psychology, W-O psychology, occupational psychology, personnel psychology or talent assessment (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago: Rand McNally Rand McNally & Company is the preeminent American publisher of maps, atlases, and globes for travel, reference, commercial, and educational uses. It also provides online consumer street maps and directions, as well as commercial transportation routing software and mileage data. .Mank, D. M., & Buckley, J. (1989). Strategies for integratedemployment. In W. E. Kiernan & R. L. Schalock (Eds.), Economics,industry, and disability: A look ahead (pp. 319- 335). Baltimore: PaulH. Brookes.McCrea, L. D. (1992). A comparison between the perceptions of specialeducators and employers: What factors are critical for job success?Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 14, 121-130.Meyer, L. H. (1991). Advocacy, research, and typical practices: Acare for the reduction of discrepancies between what is and what oughtto be, and how to get there. In L. H. Meyer, C. A. Peck peck:see English units of measurement. , & L. Brown(Eds.), Critical issues in the lives of people with severe disabilities(pp. 629-649). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Minskoff, E. H., Sautter, S. W., Hoffman, F. J., & Hawks, R.(1987). Employer attitudes toward hiring the learning disabled. Journalof Learning Disabilities, 20, 53-57Moseley, C. R. (1988). Job satisfaction research: Implications forsupported employment. The Journal of the Association for Persons withSevere Handicaps, 13, 211219.Nisbet, J. (1992). Natural supports in school, at work, and in thecommunity for people with severe disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H.Brookes.Nisbet, J., Covert, S., & Schuh, M. (1992). Family involvement inthe transition from school to adult life. In F. R. Rusch, L. DeStefano,J. Chadsey-Rusch, L. A. Phelps, & E. Szymanski (Eds.), Transitionfrom school to adult life: Models, linkages, and policy (pp. 407-424).Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.O'Connor, O. (1983). Social support of mentally retardedpersons. Mental Retardation, 21, 187-196.Odom, S. L., McConnell, S. R., & Chandler, L. K. (1994).Acceptability and feasibility of classroom-based social interactioninterventions for young children with disabilities. ExceptionalChildren, 60, 226-236.Parent, W., Kregel, J., Wehman, P., & Metzler, H. (1991).Measuring the social integration of supported employment workers.Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 1, 35-49Park, H. S., & Gaylord-Ross, R. (1989). A problem solving problem solvingProcess involved in finding a solution to a problem. Many animals routinely solve problems of locomotion, food finding, and shelter through trial and error. approach to social skills training in employment settings with mentallyretarded youth. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 373-380.Pogrebin, L. C. (1987). Among friends. New York: McGraw-Hill.Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. EducationalResearcher, 16, 13-20.Rusch, F. R., Schutz, R. P, & Agran, M. (1982). Validating val��i��date?tr.v. val��i��dat��ed, val��i��dat��ing, val��i��dates1. To declare or make legally valid.2. To mark with an indication of official sanction.3. entrylevel survival skills for service occupations: Implications forcurriculum development. The Journal of the Association for Persons withSevere Handicaps, 7, 32-41.Salzberg, C. L., Agran, M., & Lignugaris/Kraft, B. (1986).Behaviors that contribute to entry-level employment: A profile of fivejobs. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 7, 299-314.Sasso, G. M., & Rude, H. A. (1987). Unprogrammed effects oftraining high-status peers to interact with severely handicappedchildren. Journal of Applied Behauior Analysis, 20, 35-44.Smull, M. W., & Bellamy, G. T. (1991). Community services foradults with disabilities: Policy changes in the emerging supportparadigm. In L. H. Meyer, C. A. Peck, & L. Brown (Eds.), Criticalissues in the lives of people with severe disabilities (pp. 527-536).Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Wilson, S. C., & Coverdale, M. C. (1993). Partnerships at workand in the community. In A. N. Amado (Ed.), Friendships and communityconnections between people with and without developmental disabilities(pp. 327-350). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.ABOUT THE AUTHORSJANIS CHADSEY-RUSCH (CEC (Central Electronic Complex) The set of hardware that defines a mainframe, which includes the CPU(s), memory, channels, controllers and power supplies included in the box. Some CECs, such as IBM's Multiprise 2000 and 3000, include data storage devices as well. #51), Associate Professor; and LAIRD laird?n. ScotsThe owner of a landed estate.[Scots, from Middle English lard, variant of lord, owner, master; see lord. W. HEAL(CEC #51), Professor, Department of Special Education, University ofIllinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois Illinois, river, United StatesIllinois,river, 273 mi (439 km) long, formed by the confluence of the Des Plaines and Kankakee rivers, NE Ill., and flowing SW to the Mississippi at Grafton, Ill. It is an important commercial and recreational waterway. .Address correspondence to Janis Chadsey-Rusch, Department of SpecialEducation, 288 Education, University of Illinois University of Illinois may refer to: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (flagship campus) University of Illinois at Chicago University of Illinois at Springfield University of Illinois system It can also refer to: , 1310 S. 6th Street,Champaign Champaign(shămpān`), city (1990 pop. 63,502), Champaign co., E central Ill.; inc. 1860. It adjoins the city of Urbana and is a commercial and industrial center in a fertile farm area. The Univ. , IL G 1821.We thank Ben Wallace For the British MP, see .Ben Wallace (born September 10, 1974 in White Hall, Alabama) is an American professional basketball player in the NBA with the Chicago Bulls. Nicknamed Big Ben and The Body , John Johnson John Johnson may refer to:Artists and entertainers John Johnson (composer) (c. 1550-1594), English lutenist & composer John Johnson (reporter), American television reporter and anchor J. , and Del Harnisch for theirstatistical help.This study was supported in part by the Office of Special Educationand Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education, pursuant tocontract #H158T00001-92. However, the opinions do not necessarilyreflect the position or policy of the Office of Special Education, U.S.Department of Education. Manuscript manuscript,a handwritten work as distinguished from printing. The oldest manuscripts, those found in Egyptian tombs, were written on papyrus; the earliest dates from c.3500 B.C. received November 1993; revisionaccepted January 1995.