Implementing Secondary Transition Evidence-Based Practices

Abstract

Inadequate transition outcomes for youth with disabilities have produced a call for enhanced transition service delivery that includes implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs). However, research indicates transition service providers still lack the knowledge and skills to effectively implement EBPs to ensure youth with disabilities experience positive in-school and post-school success. The purpose of this study was to investigate transition service provider and implementation factors that may impact transition service providers’ use of secondary transition EBPs. Results indicated transition service providers had limited training, access, and preparation related to secondary transition EBPs. In addition, results were promising indicating the majority of respondents were always, often, or sometimes using EBPs across the transition-related skill categories. Future research, implications for practice, and limitations are discussed.

Keywords

survey research secondary transition evidence-based practices high school students with disabilities

In 2004, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) required special education teachers to use “scientifically-based” instruction to improve both in-school and post-school outcomes for students with disabilities. To address federal policy related to using scientifically based instruction in special education, Odom et al. (2005), in a special issue of Exceptional Children, used the term “evidence-based special education practices” (p. 141) to refer to special education practices that demonstrate effectiveness based on high-quality research. The evidence-based practices (EBPs) movement has influenced the field of secondary transition in a number of ways. Specifically, inadequate transition outcomes for youth with disabilities have produced a call for enhanced transition service delivery that includes implementation of EBPs (Mazzotti, Test, & Mustian, 2014; Morningstar & Mazzotti, in press). Furthermore, numerous research, education, and policy efforts have been implemented to improve student outcomes, including changes to the secondary transition mandate under IDEA (2004), increased federal funding of national technical assistance (TA) centers focused on transition EBPs, compliance, and post-school outcomes (e.g., National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center [NSTTAC], National Post-School Outcomes Center), and identification of EBPs for secondary youth with disabilities (e.g., Cobb et al., 2013; Test, Fowler, et al., 2009). All of this has lead to increased emphasis on EBPs to ensure teachers are making informed decisions about use of instructional practices that are based on research evidence (Detrich & Lewis, 2012).

Because it has been over a decade since the EBP movement began in the field of special education, it might be assumed teachers are effectively implementing EBPs for teaching students with disabilities. Unfortunately, recent studies have indicated this is not the case. Researchers have found that special education teachers (a) were not using EBPs to instruct students with disabilities (Boardman, Arguelles, Vaughn, Hughes, & Klingner, 2005; Burns & Ysseldyke, 2009; Hess, Morrier, Heflin, & Ivey, 2008) and (b) professional development (PD) opportunities focused on EBPs were needed to meet the needs of these students (Boardman et al., 2005). For example, Boardman et al. (2005) conducted focus groups with special education teachers to determine perceptions of EBP implementation. Findings indicated teachers felt (a) no obligation to implement EBPs regardless of school district requirements, (b) frustrated with districts because EBPs were never retained over extended periods of time, and (c) PD related to implementation of EBPs was inadequate. Next, Burns and Ysseldyke (2009) surveyed special education teachers to investigate their use of EBPs with students with disabilities. Findings indicated participants were using practices with little research base more often than practices with strong research support. Finally, Hess et al. (2008) conducted a survey of teachers to investigate their use of EBPs with students with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD). Findings indicated that fewer than 10% of teachers were actually using EBPs to teach students with ASD.

While these studies provided information related to teacher implementation of EBPs, they do not address transition service providers’ (e.g., secondary special educators, administrators, transition specialists, adult service providers) use of EBPs to improve secondary transition services for youth with disabilities. In an attempt to ensure transition service providers had access to secondary transition EBPs, NSTTAC was funded in 2006 by the U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs with the purpose of identifying and disseminating secondary transition EBPs. Since 2006, a number (i.e., 64) of secondary transition EBPs based on experimental research have been identified and disseminated (Test, Fowler, et al., 2009). While the identified EBPs are specific to secondary transition for youth with disabilities, the use of these EBPs have relevance for adult service providers as well (Test & Cease-Cook, 2012). For example, adult service providers can use many of the secondary transition EBPs to enhance employment and independent living skills for young adults with disabilities (Test & Cease-Cook, 2012).

Based on dissemination of these practices by national TA centers and researchers over the last several years, it might be assumed that transition service providers are now prepared with the necessary knowledge and skills to effectively implement secondary transition EBPs. However, research indicates transition service providers may still lack the knowledge and skills to effectively implement effective transition practices to ensure youth with disabilities experience positive in-school and post-school success (Benitez, Morningstar, & Frey, 2009). A general lack of knowledge and utility of EBPs may stem from a lack of (a) understanding EBP terminology, (b) opportunities to participate in PD focused on secondary transition EBPs, and (c) access to secondary transition EBPs and resources.

Therefore, it is important to investigate the factors related to knowledge and use of EBPs by transition service providers. By doing so, this may provide the field of secondary transition with information about variables that influence implementation of EBPs by transition service providers and may help identify methods for bridging the research-to-practice gap. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate transition service provider factors (i.e., training, access, preparation) and implementation factors (i.e., knowledge and use of secondary transition EBPs) that may impact transition service providers’ use of EBPs with youth with disabilities. The following research questions were addressed (a) To what extent do transition service providers receive training on and have access to secondary transition EBPs? (b) To what extent do transition service providers feel prepared to use EBPs? and (c) To what extent do transition service providers have knowledge of and use secondary transition EBPs?

Method

Participants and Recruitment

An online survey was disseminated to transition service providers across five states, including participants from three states in the Southeast region and two states in the Midwest region. A total of 592 participants completed the survey. Survey participants included personnel from 503 Local/State Education Agencies (LEAs/SEAs), 58 State Vocational Rehabilitation Services personnel, and 31 other transition service providers (e.g., Institutes of Higher Education, Mental Health, long-term care). It was important to include transition service providers, other than SEAs/LEAs, because these individuals can often play a key role in providing services to youth and young adults with disabilities or prepare pre-service/in-service teachers to provide transition services to youth with disabilities. Specifically, there were 224 high school special educators, 56 middle school special educators, 122 transition specialists, 70 school administrators/special education program coordinators, 45 vocational coordinators, 36 rehabilitation counselors, and 39 other disability professionals. Table 1 provides respondent demographic information.

Table 1.

Respondent Demographics (N = 592).

Category	n	%
Gender
Male	81	13.7
Female	469	79.2
Age
20–30	69	11.7
31–40	108	18.2
41–50	136	23.0
51–60	196	33.1
60+	41	6.9
Ethnicity
African American	44	7.4
Caucasian	490	82.8
Hispanic	4	0.7
Native American/Alaska native	4	0.7
Asian/pacific Islander	1	0.2
Education level
High school/associates	8	1.3
Bachelors	126	21.3
Masters	137	23.1
Masters +	261	44.1
PhD	16	2.7
Degrees earned
Special education	283	47.8
General education	166	28.0
Rehabilitation counselor	23	3.9
Counselor education	28	4.7
Other	47	4.9
Geographic area
Urban	122	20.6
Rural	240	40.5
Suburban	186	31.4
State
Illinois	220	37.2
North Carolina	84	14.2
South Carolina	195	32.9
Virginia	40	6.8
Wisconsin	53	9.0
Frequency of training related to secondary transition services
Never	28	4.7
Seldom	133	22.5
Occasionally	301	50.9
Very often	129	21.8
How much transition-related training received per year?
1 day or less	197	33.3
2–4 days	218	36.8
5–8 days	121	20.4
9 or more days	54	9.1

Note. Not all participants responded to each question; therefore, numbers may not total 592 due to missing data in some categories. Overall missing data ranged from 0.3% to 8.3% of total N across demographic categories.

A snowball sampling procedure was used to recruit participants. Snowball sampling is a procedure that includes “selecting a few people who fit a researcher’s needs, then using those participants to identify additional participants, and so on” (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2009, p. 137). Participants were recruited in three ways: (a) special education district administrators were contacted and asked to send the survey web-link to transition service providers, who partner with district/school transition teams; (b) transition listservs maintained by SEAs in each respective state were used to disseminate the survey web-link; and (c) state divisions of the Division of Career Development and Transition were asked to send the survey web-link through organizations’ listserv. Each listserv had various transition service providers, including transition specialists, middle/high school special education teachers, administrators, higher education faculty, and adult service personnel. Participants were asked to complete the survey via Survey Monkey^©, an online company that allows users to create web-based surveys. Four weeks after the first mailing, the survey had generated 441 responses. To increase the response rate, a follow-up email was disseminated via listservs to provide one more opportunity to respond for those who had not participated, which generated an additional 209 responses (total N = 650).

Instrumentation

The researchers developed the survey instrument. Survey items were generated based on secondary transition EBP literature (i.e., Test, Fowler, et al., 2009), and the secondary transition EBPs found on the NSTTAC website. Prior to dissemination, four experts in the field of secondary transition vetted the survey to assess content validity and ensure survey questions measured the intended content areas (Gay et al., 2009). Based on expert feedback, several edits were made to the survey, including (a) reordering three questions related to participation in PD; (b) adding Developmental Disability Services to the list of transition service providers and any questions that related to collaboration; (c) clarification of wording (e.g., transition age [ages 14–21]); and (d) correction of spelling errors. In addition, the survey was piloted with four transition specialists to obtain feedback on clarity of questions and response options. Based on feedback from the four transition specialists, only minor changes were made (e.g., reword items for clarity), and no additional items were added.

The final survey instrument consisted of five sections and 46 questions. The five sections included demo-graphics, community factors (i.e., collaborative relationships), program evaluation factors, transition service provider factors, and implementation factors related to training, access, preparation, knowledge, and use of secondary transition EBPs. Demographic data included questions about state affiliation, agency affiliation, job title, work setting, gender, age, ethnicity, highest degree earned, disability group served, community setting, and percent of caseload served through transition. For the purpose of this article, the authors focused on analyzing data related to transition service provider factors and implementation factors. Transition service provider factors included 6 questions, which assessed transition service providers’ training, access, and preparedness to implement secondary transition EBPs. Participants were asked to complete a 4-point Likert-type rating scale (i.e., 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree) related to each question. Lastly, implementation factors included 10 questions, which assessed transition service providers’ knowledge and use of secondary transition EBPs. The first question in this section focused on transition service providers’ knowledge and understanding of EBP-related terms (i.e., EBPs, research-based practices, promising practices, unestablished practices; see www.nsttac.org/content/evidence-based-practices for descriptions of terms), and participants were asked to complete a 4-point Likert rating scale (i.e., 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree). The next 7 questions in this section focused on use of secondary transition EBPs (see “Results” section for transition-related skill categories and EBPs). For these 7 questions, participants were asked to complete a 4-point Likert-type rating scale (i.e., 1 = never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often, 4 = always).

More specifically, the seven survey questions that focused on use of secondary transition EBPs were identified based on the secondary transition EBPs identified by Test, Fowler, et al. (2009) and the current EBPs on the NSTTAC website. NSTTAC has defined EBPs in two ways, first by dependent variable (DV; that is, transition-related skill being taught; Test, Fowler, et al., 2009), and next by independent variable (IV; that is, strategy/intervention used to teach the transition-related skill; NSTTAC, 2013). For the purposes of this survey, the researchers wanted to identify the specific strategies/interventions that transition service providers were using to teach transition-related skills (e.g., self-determination skills, employment skills) because these would be the strategies that transition service providers should choose when teaching a transition-related skill. Therefore, the survey questions for this section requested information about the specific EBP (i.e., IV) used to teach the transition-related skill (i.e., DV). For example, the question about EBPs to teach self-determination skills was written as “I use the following EBPs to provide self-determination skills instruction (e.g., goal-setting/attainment, decision-making, choice-making) to secondary students with disabilities.” Following the question, respondents were provided the opportunity to select all of the EBPs (e.g., Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction, Who’s Future Is It Anyway, self-management strategies) they used to provide self-determination skill instruction.

Data Analysis

Survey Monkey^© responses were downloaded into IBM^© SPSS^© Statistics 20 (SPSS, 2011) to analyze the survey data. Missing data were addressed in several ways. First, cases were deleted for participants who failed to complete anything other than the demographic section of the survey because relevant information related to the purpose of the survey could not be obtained (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Next, to address the issue of other missing data, a multiple imputation (MI) procedure was executed using the PROC MI function in SAS 9.2^© (SAS, 2008). A MI procedure was employed to preserve the integrity of the data and create one parsimonious data set. It was necessary to account for missingness to best represent the self-report data because missingness can bias a sample (Davey, Savla, & Luo, 2005). Overall, missingness per item ranged from 0% to 22%, with a mean percentage of missing data across all measured variables of 17%. Final data analysis was conducted using IBM^© SPSS^© Statistics 20 (SPSS, 2011). Data analysis included running descriptive statistics for transition service provider factors and implementation factors. Percentages and means were reported for transition service provider factor and implementation factor variables.

Results

Of the approximate 920 surveys disseminated, 650 responses were initially completed. Of those, 58 were deemed unusable (i.e., participants did not complete the survey after the demographic section) resulting in a total of 592 usable surveys.

Transition Service Provider Factors

To determine whether transition service providers received training, had access to, and/or were prepared to implement secondary transition EBPs, transition service provider factors were assessed. Data were analyzed to determine whether districts or agencies provided survey participants with PD opportunities specific to EBPs and access to EBP resources. In addition, participants reported the extent to which they gained knowledge of EBPs though professional journals and university personnel preparation programs. Findings indicated that 26.0% (n = 154) were seldom provided PD opportunities, and 25.8% (n = 153) of participants were never provided PD opportunities by their district or agency. Next, 35.8% (n = 212) indicated they were occasionally provided with PD opportunities, and only 12.3% (n = 73) reported receiving PD opportunities very often by their district or agency. Furthermore, 45.3% (n = 268) of participants reported they were never or seldom provided resources related to secondary transition EBPs. Only 16.9% (n = 100) of participants (n = 100) reported their district or agency very often provided secondary transition EBP resources. Of the 592 participants, 61.1% (n = 362) indicated they had seldom or never received PD opportunities related to EBPs that included training on using data-based decision making to determine effectiveness of EBPs for improving student outcomes.

When asked about other methods of gaining access to EBPs and preparedness to implement EBPs, 55.2% (n = 327) agreed or strongly agreed they gained knowledge of EBPs through professional journals, while 44.8% (n = 265) disagreed or strongly disagreed. Furthermore, 67.4% (n = 399) reported they disagreed or strongly disagreed they gained knowledge of EBPs in their university teacher preparation programs. Only 32.6% (n = 193) agreed or strongly agreed they gained knowledge of EBPs through their university teacher preparation programs. Overall, when asked to rate whether PD opportunities had fully prepared them to implement EBPs with secondary youth with disabilities, more than half of the participants (56.3%; n=333) reported they disagreed or strongly disagreed. Table 2 provides details of participant responses related to training, access, and preparedness to implement EBPs.

Table 2.

Transition Service Provider Factors (N = 592).

Question	n	%
My district (or agency) has provided me with training on EBPs related to secondary transition
Never	153	25.8
Seldom	153	25.8
Occasionally	213	36.0
Very often	73	12.3
My district (or agency) has provided me with resources on EBPs related to secondary transition
Never	117	19.8
Seldom	151	25.5
Occasionally	224	37.8
Very often	100	17.0
My PD opportunities have fully prepared me to implement EBPs with transition-age youth
Strongly disagree	103	17.4
Disagree	230	38.9
Agree	231	39.0
Strongly agree	28	4.7
My PD opportunities related to EBPs have included training on using DBDM to determine effectiveness of EBPs for improving student outcomes
Never	200	33.8
Seldom	162	27.4
Occasionally	190	32.1
Very often	40	6.8
I gain knowledge of EBPs for transition-age youth with disabilities by reading professional journals
Strongly disagree	102	17.2
Disagree	163	27.5
Agree	291	49.2
Strongly agree	36	6.1
I gain knowledge of EBPs for transition-age youth with disabilities in my university-based teacher preparation program
Strongly disagree	194	32.8
Disagree	205	34.6
Agree	158	26.7
Strongly agree	35	5.9

Note. EBPs = evidence-based practices; PD = professional development; DBDM = data-based decision making.

Implementation Factors

To determine the extent to which transition service providers have knowledge of and use secondary transition EBPs, implementation factors were assessed. Specifically, participants were asked to indicate (a) level of understanding about EBP-related terms (i.e., evidence-based, research-based, promising, unestablished practices) and (b) use of 18 secondary transition EBPs (i.e., IVs) to teach transition-related skills (i.e., DVs) identified by NSTTAC.

First, data were analyzed to determine whether participants understood the difference between EBP-related terms. Findings indicated that 68.1% (n = 393) agreed or strongly agreed they understood the difference between EBP-related terms, whereas only 31.9% (n = 189) indicated they disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Next, participants were asked to indicate use of 18 secondary transition EBPs (i.e., IVs) to teach transition-related skills (i.e., DVs) identified by NSTTAC. Participants were asked to identify use of secondary transition EBPs (i.e., always, often, sometimes, never) across seven transition-related skill categories identified by Test, Fowler, et al. (2009) including (a) student participation in the Individualized Education Program (IEP)/transition planning process, (b) academic skill instruction, (c) self-determination skill instruction, (d) life skills instruction, (e) employment/job skills training, (f) social communication skills instruction, and (g) facilitating parent involvement. Table 3 provides details of participants’ use of secondary transition EBPs across the seven transition-related skill categories.

Table 3.

Use of Secondary Transition EBPs.

		% of EBPs used
Transition-related skill category	EBPs used within category	Always	Often	Sometimes	Never
Student participation in the IEP/transition planning process	Self-directed IEP	13.5 (n = 80)	24.7 (n = 146)	37.0 (n = 219)	12.0 (n = 136)
	Self-advocacy strategy	14.5 (n = 86)	35.6 (n = 211)	30.2 (n = 179)	17.7 (n = 105)
	Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction	5.7 (n = 34)	18.6 (n = 110)	26.7 (n = 158)	47.1 (n = 279)
	Who’s Future Is It Anyway?	2.9 (n = 17)	10.5 (n = 62)	22.6 (n = 134)	62.2 (n = 367)
Academic instruction	Mnemonic strategies	6.3 (n = 37)	31.6 (n = 187)	37.5 (n = 222)	22.5 (n = 133)
	Self-management strategies	14.4 (n = 85)	47.6 (n = 282)	24.2 (n = 143)	11.7 (n = 69)
	Computer-assisted instruction	10.1 (n = 60)	46.3 (n = 274)	27.8 (n = 164)	13.7 (n = 81)
	Peer-assistance strategies (e.g., cooperative learning, peer tutoring)	9.5 (n = 56)	43.4 (n = 257)	32 (n = 189)	13.0 (n = 77)
	Visual displays (e.g., graphic organizers, Venn diagrams, mapping)	17.2 (n = 102)	47.0 (n = 278)	20.9 (n = 124)	12.7 (n = 75)
Self-determination skills instruction	Self-Determined Learning Model Of Instruction	4.7 (n = 28)	21.5 (n = 127)	27.4 (n = 162)	44.3 (n = 262)
	Who’s Future Is It Anyway?	2.5 (n = 15)	10.5 (n = 62)	24.0 (n = 142)	60.8 (n = 360)
	Self-management strategies (e.g., self-monitoring, self-instruction)	11.7 (n = 69)	31.1 (n = 184)	29.4 (n = 174)	25.7 (n = 152)
Life skills instruction	Time delay strategies (e.g., constant, progressive)	4.1 (n = 24)	18.6 (n = 110)	30.6 (n = 181)	44.4 (n = 263)
	Computer-assisted instruction	6.8 (n = 40)	34.6 (n = 205)	32.6 (n = 193)	23.6 (n = 140)
	Community-based instruction	17.7 (n = 105)	31.9 (n = 189)	25.2 (n = 149)	22.8 (n = 135)
	Video modeling	3.2 (n = 19)	21.1 (n = 125)	34.0 (n = 201)	39.4 (n = 233)
	Prompting strategies (e.g., least to most, most to least, response)	14.2 (n = 84)	32.6 (n = 193)	26.0 (n = 154)	24.8 (n = 147)
	Mnemonic strategies	5.9 (n = 35)	28.4 (n = 168)	33.7 (n = 199)	29.7 (n = 176)
	Self-management (e.g., self-monitoring, self-instruction)	12.8 (n = 76)	37.6 (n = 222)	28.4 (n = 168)	18.9 (n = 112)
	One-More-Than strategy (i.e., next dollar strategy)	7.6 (n = 45)	19.8 (n = 117)	28.9 (n = 171)	41.4 (n = 245)
Employment/job skills training instruction	Mnemonics	4.2 (n = 25)	21.6 (n = 128)	36.7 (n = 217)	35.1 (n = 208)
	Prompting strategies (e.g., least to most, most to least, response)	12.7 (n = 75)	34.0 (n = 201)	28.6 (n = 169)	22.5 (n = 133)
	Self-management (e.g., self-monitoring, self-evaluation)	13.2 (n = 78)	38.5 (n = 228)	29.4 (n = 174)	16.6 (n = 98)
	Computer-assisted instruction	7.8 (n = 46)	35.2 (n = 208)	32.8 (n = 194)	22.0 (n = 130)
	Community-based instruction	19.4 (n = 115)	32.4 (n = 192)	25.8 (n = 152)	20.1 (n = 119)
Social communication skills instruction	Prompting strategies (e.g., least to most, most to least, response)	12.4 (n = 73)	34.5 (n = 204)	31.8 (n = 188)	19.1 (n = 113)
	Self-management (e.g., self-monitoring, self-instruction)	12.3 (n = 73)	40.2 (n = 238)	29.3 (n = 173)	15.9 (n = 94)
	Simulation (e.g., role-play)	12.2 (n = 72)	34.7 (n = 205)	33.8 (n = 200)	17.1 (n = 101)
	Community-based instruction	17.1 (n = 101)	34.2 (n = 203)	25.7 (n = 152)	20.8 (n = 123)
	Modeling (e.g., video modeling, live modeling)	33.6 (n = 199)	32.6 (n = 193)	21.1 (n = 125)	21.4 (n = 127)
	Peer training (e.g., peer-mediated instruction, peer networks)	5.7 (n = 34)	30.6 (n = 181)	40.0 (n = 237)	21.3 (n = 126)
Facilitating parent involvement	Training modules	3.0 (n = 18)	15.9 (n = 94)	28.0 (n = 166)	51.2 (n = 303)

Note. Responses do not add to 592; missing responses indicate participants who selected the answer choice “do not teach/does not apply.” EBPs = evidence-based practices; IEP = Individualized Education Program.

Student participation in the IEP/transition planning process

In this category, participants were asked to identify their use of four EBPs (i.e., Self-Directed IEP, Self-Advocacy Strategy, Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction, Who’s Future is it Anyway) to teach student participation in the IEP/transition planning process. The most commonly used EBP was the Self-Advocacy Strategy, with 80.3% (n = 476) of participants indicating their use as always, often, or sometimes. Next, 75.2% (n = 445) of participants indicated they always, often, or sometimes used the Self-Directed IEP. Finally, approximately half of participants (51%; n = 302) indicated they always, often, or sometimes used the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction. The least used EBP in this category was Who’s Future is it Anyway? with 62.2% (n = 367) indicating they never used this EBP.

Academic instruction

In this category, participants were asked to identify their use of five EBPs for providing academic instruction, including mnemonic strategies, self-management strategies, computer-assisted instruction, peer-assistance strategies (e.g., cooperative learning, peer tutoring), and visual displays (e.g., graphic organizers, Venn diagrams, mapping). The most commonly used EBPs were self-management strategies, with 86.2% (n = 510) of participants indicating they always, often, or sometimes used self-management strategies. Next, 85.1% (n = 504) of participants indicated they always, often, or sometimes used visual displays, and 84.9% (n = 502) indicated they always, often, or sometimes used peer assistance strategies. Finally, approximately three fourths of participants (75.4%; n = 446) indicated they always, often, or sometimes used mnemonic strategies.

Self-determination skills instruction

In this category, participants were asked to identify their use of three EBPs (i.e., Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction, Who’s Future is it Anyway, self-management strategies) to provide self-determination skills instruction. The most commonly used EBP was self-management strategies, with 72.2% (n = 427) of participants indicating they always, often, or sometimes used self-management strategies. Next, approximately half of participants (53.6%; n = 317) indicated they always, often, or sometimes used the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction. The least used EBP in this category was Who’s Future is it Anyway? with 60.8% (n = 360) indicating they never used this EBP.

Life skills instruction

In this category, participants were asked to identify their use of eight EBPs for providing life skills instruction, including time delay strategies, computer-assisted instruction, community-based instruction, video modeling, prompting strategies, mnemonic strategies, self-management strategies, and the One-More-Than Strategy. Approximately 75% of participants indicated they always, often, or sometimes used four EBPs in this category, including self-management strategies (78.8%; n = 466), community-based instruction (74.8%; n = 443), computer-assisted instruction (74.0%; n = 438), and prompting strategies (72.8%; n = 431). Next, 68.0% (n = 402) of participants indicated they always, often, or sometimes used mnemonic strategies. Finally, approximately half of participants indicated they always, often, or sometimes used video modeling (58.3%; n = 345), the One-More-Than Strategy (56.3%; n = 333), and time delay strategies (53.3%; n = 315).

Employment/job training skills instruction

In this category, participants were asked to identify their use of five EBPs (i.e., mnemonic strategies, prompting strategies, self-management strategies, computer-assisted instruction, community-based instruction) to provide employment/job training skills instruction. The most commonly used EBP was self-management strategies, with 81.1% (n = 480) of participants indicating they always, often, or sometimes used self-management strategies. Next, approximately 75% of participants indicated they always, often, or sometimes used community-based instruction (77.6%; n = 459), computer-assisted instruction (75.8%; n = 448), and prompting strategies (75.3%; n = 445). Finally, 62.5% (n = 370) of participants indicated they used mnemonic strategies always, often, or sometimes to teach employment/job skills training instruction.

Social communication skills instruction

In this category, participants were asked to identify their use of six EBPs to provide social communication skills instruction, including prompting strategies, self-management strategies, simulation (e.g., role-play), community-based instruction, modeling (e.g., video modeling, live modeling), and peer-training. The most commonly used EBP was modeling, with 87.3% (n = 517) of participants indicating they always, often, or sometimes used modeling to teach social communication skills. Next, responses across the other five EBPs were similar in that participants indicated they always, often, or sometimes used self-management strategies (81.8%; n = 484), simulation (80.7%; n = 477), prompting strategies (78.7%; n = 465), community-based instruction (77.0%; n = 456), and peer-training (76.3%; n = 452).

Facilitating family involvement

In this final category, participants were asked to identify their use of one EBP (i.e., training modules) to facilitate family involvement. The majority of participants (51.2%; n = 303) indicated they never used training modules to facilitate family involvement. Whereas, 46.9% (n = 278) indicated they always, often, or sometimes used training modules to facilitate family involvement.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate transition service provider factors and implementation factors that may impact transition service providers’ use of secondary transition EBPs for youth with disabilities. Data were analyzed based on a multi-state survey that focused on transition service providers’ training, access, preparation, knowledge, and use of secondary transition EBPs. Results indicated transition service providers had limited training, access, and preparation related to secondary transition EBPs. In addition, results were promising indicating the majority of respondents were always, often, or sometimes using secondary transition EBPs across the transition-related skill categories. The study results have important implications for both research and practice.

Equipping Transition Service Providers to Implement EBPs

There continues to be more emphasis placed on secondary transition service delivery than ever before (Plotner, Trach, & Strauser, 2012). Unfortunately, many transition service providers indicate they lack the preparation necessary to deliver secondary transition EBPs. Results of this study revealed that more than half (i.e., 52%) of participants reported they seldom or never were provided with PD related to secondary transition EBPs. Similarly, approximately half (i.e., 46%) reported they seldom or never were provided with resources related to EBPs. Therefore, nearly one out of two professionals providing services to transition-age youth with disabilities are not equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to implement EBPs. These findings closely align with findings from previous research indicating transition service providers are not receiving adequate PD opportunities related to EBPs (Boardman et al., 2005). It is imperative transition service providers receive on-going PD related to secondary transition EBPs to ensure they have the training, access, and preparation to effectively implement EBPs (Morningstar & Benitez, 2013).

Furthermore, approximately 68% of participants indicated they agreed or strongly agreed they understood the difference between EBP-related terms. This is promising for the field because transition service providers need to understand the differences between the terms to determine which practices or curricula to use (Mazzotti, Rowe, & Test, 2013). However, somewhat concerning was that one third of the transition service providers indicated they were not sure of the difference between the terms indicating more PD is required. These findings have implications for researchers in that it is imperative researchers identify ways to further bridge the research-to-practice gap by identifying innovative methods of dissemination at the local level (Odom, Cox, & Brock, 2013).

Innovative and sustainable ways (e.g., podcasts, video demonstrations of EBP implementation, self-paced asynchronous learning) to provide opportunities for transition service providers to grow their skill set in EBP areas is also a critical need. Findings of this study indicated transition service providers are not receiving training on secondary transition EBPs in university teacher preparation programs. Therefore, it is imperative that university personnel preparation programs provide ample training related to secondary transition EBPs, as well as opportunities to implement these practices in the classroom. To do this, special education faculty must evaluate teacher preparation programs to ensure secondary transition EBPs are incorporated across special education coursework (Morningstar & Mazzotti, in press). Additional research must be conducted on how to best evaluate pre-service and in-service teacher preparation in secondary transition to ensure transition competencies and EBPs are included (Morningstar & Benitez, 2013). Also, ways to build EBP trustworthiness and accessibility is sorely needed to increase the likelihood that these practices are incorporated into the classroom (Cook, Landrum, Tankersley, & Kauffman, 2003). Trustworthiness refers to practitioners having confidence in the effectiveness of EBPs, and accessibility refers how easy it is to access EBPs (Carnine, 1995).

Utility of Specific EBPs

Although a substantial gap in research-to-practice regarding transition service providers’ training, access, and preparedness to implement EBPs exists, it appears that a substantial amount of transition service providers are using EBPs at least some of the time. Overall, the results were promising and indicated that approximately 70% of participants were always, often, or sometimes using EBPs. This is promising only because one third of the participants indicated they were not provided with access to resources or PD opportunities, and one third of participants did not know the difference between EBP-related terms.

Among the most commonly used EBPs were self-management strategies. Self-management strategies were an option listed in each of the areas targeted in this study. There is a robust literature base discussing the relationship between self-management and valued outcomes. Self-management skills allow youth to become self-regulated learners and encompass many types of strategies (e.g., antecedent cue regulation, self-monitoring, self-regulation, self-evaluation; Walker & Kelley, 2012). Furthermore, self-management for teaching academic skills is one of the secondary transition EBPs that has a strong level of research evidence (NSTTAC, 2013) and has been commonly used as an intervention to improve academic, behavior, and transition outcomes for youth with disabilities for decades (e.g., Briesch & Chafouleas, 2009; Mooney, Ryan, Uhing, Reid, & Epstein, 2005; Moore, Agran, & Fodor-Davis, 1989; Sutherland & Wehby, 2001). Therefore, it is not surprising that transition service providers commonly use self-management EBPs with youth. Future research should focus on identifying the types of evidence-based self-management strategies used by transition service providers, including the specific skills being taught using self-management to expand the literature base.

Another interesting finding was that four of the six academic instruction EBPs (i.e., self-management strategies, computer-assisted instruction, peer assistance strategies, visual displays) were used always, often, or sometimes by approximately 85% of participants. This was interesting as only 47% of the participants were classroom teachers (i.e., middle school, high school teachers) and indicates that other transition services providers appear to be using these practices for academic instruction. The extent of time other transition service providers are spending in the classroom is unknown, but it is likely they are not spending a vast majority of time in the classroom working on academic skills. Therefore, future research should focus on the use of academic skill EBPs by other transition service providers, including the context in which the skills are being taught, and whether regular or functional academic skills are being taught using the academic instruction EBPs.

Similarly, the life skills instruction area had the most EBPs (i.e., eight) and also reported promising results. Six of the eight EBPs were reported as being used always, often, or sometimes by approximately 70% of participants. In addition, EBPs to teach employment skills were being used often or always by approximately 62% of participants. These findings are interesting because it might be assumed that transition service providers of youth with more moderate/severe disabilities would be providing this type of instruction, as well as that transition service providers of youth with more mild disabilities would focus on academic instruction instead of life/employment skill instruction. Therefore, future research should disaggregate data by type of disability taught to determine the population of youth who are receiving life and employment skill instruction. This may provide important information to the field and could potentially provide evidence of the importance of teaching these skills to all youth with disabilities.

Next, EBPs to provide social communication skills instruction were used always, often, and sometimes by over 75% of participants. This again is a promising finding in that teaching social skills in school has been linked to positive post-school success in the areas of education and employment (Test, Mazzotti, et al., 2009). However, future research should focus on investigating the context in which EBPs are being used to teach these skills. This would potentially provide the field with information that may inform not only research but practice as well.

Only one transition EBP related to family involvement has been identified (i.e., training modules). The majority of participants indicated they never used training modules to enhance family involvement in the transition planning process. However, there are multiple ways to facilitate and maximize family involvement that have not been studied. Some of which might be conducted at the school level (e.g., transition fairs, parent information events) or at the teacher level (e.g., enhanced communication modes, increased communication). While the use of training modules is important, the positive aspects of parent and professional interaction are also essential and should be examined further. As there is a continuum of family involvement, variability in family cultures and dynamics, and various professionals involved in the transition process, more EBPs practices must be identified. Future research should focus on high-quality research studies related to all aspects of family involvement, including transition service provider use of strategies to facilitate and support family involvement (Rowe & Test, 2010).

Limitations

There are several limitations to this study that should be addressed. Although, the researchers were diligent in recruiting participants and yielded a large sample size, a response rate and representativeness could not be estimated with maximum precision due to the sampling procedure (i.e., snowball technique). In addition, the researchers developed the survey instrument, and although the instrument was vetted by professionals in the field and piloted with four transition specialists, this is a limitation to this study. Specifically, the survey was not psychometrically analyzed, and reliability and validity (other than content validity) could not be reported. Therefore, future research should include survey measures that have been psychometrically analyzed to ensure the instrument includes “validated, reliable measures” (Carter et al., 2013, p. 22).

Another limitation was that transition service providers were asked to identify their perceived level of understanding of EBP-related terms; however, they were not asked to define the terms. Therefore, their level of actual understanding could not be measured. Future research should include level of transition service providers’ knowledge around understanding of “what” are EBPs and explore reasons “why” transition personnel are using EBPs (e.g., university training program influences). Next, participants were asked to indicate the extent of use of specific EBPs, but were not measured on their knowledge of each EBP; therefore, future research should investigate transition personnel knowledge of EBPs and why those EBPs are being used. Furthermore, participants were asked to indicate how often they used EBPs to teach specific skills; however, were not asked what types of specific EBPs they used to teach those skills. For example, if computer-assisted instruction was used, then which types of computer-assisted instruction were used? One final limitation was the lack of analysis conducted on the primary disability group served. Primary disability group served could very well dictate the implementation prevalence of numerous EBPs. For instance, transition professionals, who work primarily with youth with learning disabilities, would be likely to report greater utility of academic EBPs as opposed to life skill EBPs. Further examining what EBPs were used by transition professionals, who work specifically with differing student populations, should be examined in future research studies.

Conclusion

The EBP movement has had critical implications as a quality standard in the field of special education. According to the results of the current study, transition service providers seem to be using these practices at a desirable level (i.e., always, often, sometimes). These results are promising and provide some evidence that EBPs are being used in the field of secondary transition, which is an improvement when considering that previous research has indicated teachers were not using EBPs to instruct students with disabilities (Boardman et al., 2005; Burns & Ysseldyke, 2009; Hess et al., 2008). Bridging the research-to-practice gap has proven challenging for researchers and educators (Cook, Cook, & Landrum, 2013; Cook & Odom, 2013). The scope of the current study was to better understand transition service provider training, access, preparation, knowledge, and utility across several transition EBP areas. It is imperative that future researchers examine training levels, access, understanding, and utility of EBPs. Transition service providers should consider using resources from NSTTAC, the National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders (http://autismpdc.fpg.unc.edu/content/autism-internet-modules-aim), and the Transition Coalition (http://transitioncoalition.org) to evaluate secondary transition programs (i.e., predictor implementation table, quality indicators for transition programming) and implement EBPs (e.g., research to practice lesson plan starters, EBP fidelity checklists). As stated previously, it is also imperative that transition service providers receive on-going PD to ensure they have the necessary skill set to effectively implement secondary transition EBPs with youth and young adults with disabilities (Morningstar & Benitez, 2013). Finally, the field must continue to identify methods for bridging the research-to practice gap to ensure transition service providers have the knowledge and skills to implement secondary transition programs and practices that are evidence based.

Footnotes

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Benitez

Morningstar

M. E.

Frey

(2009). Transition service and delivery: A multi-state survey of special education teachers’ perceptions of their transition competencies. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 6–16.

Boardman

A. G.

Arguelles

M. E.

Vaughn

Hughes

M. T.

Klingner

(2005). Special education teachers’ views of research-based practices. The Journal of Special Education, 39, 168–180.

Briesch

A. M.

Chafouleas

S. M.

(2009). Review and analysis of literature on self-management intervention to promote appropriate classroom behaviors. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 106–118.

Burns

M. K.

Ysseldyke

J. E.

(2009). Reported prevalence of evidence-based instructional practices in special education. The Journal of Special Education, 43, 3–11. doi:10.1177/0022466908315563

Carnine

(1995). Trustworthiness, usability, and accessibility of educational research. Journal of Behavioral Education, 5, 251–258.

Carter

E. W.

Brock

M. E.

Bottema-Beutel

Bartholomew

Boehm

T. L.

Cease-Cook

(2013). Methodological trends in secondary education and transition research: Looking backward and moving forward. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 36, 15–24. doi:10.1177/2165143413475659

Cobb

R. B.

Lipscomb

Wolgemuth

Schulte

Veliquette

Alwell

. . . Weinberg

(2013). Improving post-high school outcomes for transition-age students with disabilities: An evidence review (NCEE 2013-4011). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Cook

B. G.

Cook

Landrum

(2013). Moving research into practice: Can we make dissemination stick? Exceptional Children, 79, 163–180.

Cook

B. G.

Landrum

T. J.

Tankersley

Kauffman

J. M.

(2003). Bringing research to bear on practice: Effecting evidence-based instruction for students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Education & Treatment of Children, 26, 345–361.

10.

Cook

B. G.

Odom

S. L.

(2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children, 79, 135–144.

11.

Davey

Savla

Luo

(2005). Issues in assessing model fit with missing data. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 578–597.

12.

Detrich

Lewis

(2012). A decade of evidence-based education: Where are we and where do we need to go? Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15, 214–220. doi:10.1177/1098300712460278

13.

Gay

L. R.

Mills

G. E.

Airasian

(2009). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

14.

Hess

K. L.

Morrier

M. J.

Heflin

L. J.

Ivey

M. L.

(2008). Autism Treatment Survey: Services received by children with autism spectrum disorders in public school classrooms. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 961–971. doi:10.1007/s10803-007-0470-5

15.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).

16.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Rowe

D. R.

Test

D. W.

(2013). Navigating the evidence-based practice maze: Resources for teachers of secondary students with disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 48, 159–166. doi:10.1177/1053451212454004

17.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Test

D. W.

Mustian

A. L.

(2014). Evidence-based practices and predictors: Implications for policy makers. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 25, 5–18. doi:10.1177/1044207312460888

18.

Mooney

Ryan

J. B.

Uhing

B. M.

Reid

Epstein

M. H.

(2005). A review of self-management interventions targeting academic outcomes for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14, 203–221.

19.

Moore

S. C.

Agran

Fodor-Davis

(1989). Using self-management strategies to increase the production rates of workers with severe handicaps. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 24, 324–332.

20.

Morningstar

M. E.

Benitez

(2013). Teacher training matters: The results of a multi-state survey of secondary special educators regarding transition from school to adulthood. Teacher Education and Special Education, 36, 51–64.

21.

Morningstar

M. E.

Mazzotti

V. L.

(in press). Teacher preparation and professional development to deliver evidence-based transition planning and services to youth with disabilities. Gainesville: Collaboration for Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform Center, University of Florida.

22.

National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center. (2013). Evidence-based practices and predictors in secondary transition: What we know and what we still need to know. Charlotte, NC: Author.

23.

Odom

S. L.

Brantlinger

Gersten

Horner

R. H.

Thompson

Harris

K. R.

(2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137–148.

24.

Odom

S. L.

Cox

Brock

(2013). Implementation science, professional development, and autism spectrum disorders: National Professional Development Center on ASD. Exceptional Children, 79, 233–251.

25.

Plotner

A. J.

Trach

Strauser

(2012). Vocational rehabilitation counselors identified transition competencies: Perceived importance, frequency, and preparedness. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 55, 135–143.

26.

Rowe

D. A.

Test

D. W.

(2010). The effects of computer-based instruction on the transition planning process knowledge of parent of students with disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 35, 102–115.

27.

Sutherland

K. S.

Wehby

J. H.

(2001). The effect of selfevaluation on teaching behavior in classrooms for students with emotional or behavioral disorders. The Journal of Special Education, 35, 161–171.

28.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

29.

Test

D. W.

Cease-Cook

(2012). Evidence-based secondary transition practices for rehabilitation counselors. Journal of Rehabilitation, 78, 30–38.

30.

Test

D. W.

Fowler

C. H.

Richter

White

J. A.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Walker

A. R.

. . . Kortering

(2009). Evidence-based practices in secondary transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 115–128.

31.

Test

D. W.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Mustian

A. L.

Fowler

C. H.

Kortering

L. J.

Kohler

P. H.

(2009). Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving post-school outcomes for students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 160–181.

32.

Walker

Kelley

(2012). Strategies for teaching academic skills. In Test

D. W.

(Ed.), Evidence-based instructional strategies for transition (pp. 117–130). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.