Comparison of self-determination of students with disabilities: multivariate and discriminant function analyses.
A quick three-survey pack reveals different self-determination teaching targets for students with ID versus LD or ED.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Y-Cohrs et al. (2017) gave three short self-report surveys to students with intellectual disability, learning disability, or emotional disturbance.
They looked at autonomy, problem-solving, and locus-of-control scores together, not one at a time.
What they found
The combined scores made clear, separate profiles for students with ID versus LD or ED.
The data say self-determination is many skills, not one big trait.
How this fits with other research
Andrews et al. (2024) took the same battery into young adults and showed higher self-determination predicts better quality of life in mild ID. The 2017 diagnostic split now links to real-life outcomes.
Nader-Grosbois (2014) saw no overall self-perception gap between ID and younger peers, but did find lower self-regulation. Y-C’s finer profiles explain why: self-determination parts differ, not the whole self.
Kleinert et al. (2007) found lower IQ and fewer social ties predicted lower self-determination in adults. Y-C confirms the pattern in school students and adds LD/ED contrasts.
Why it matters
Stop using a single self-determination checklist. Give the three-part battery to see which slice—autonomy, problem-solving, or control beliefs—needs teaching for each diagnosis. Match your lesson plan to the profile, not the label.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add the autonomy and problem-solving scales to your intake packet; score them together to pick the first self-determination goal.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Self-determined behaviour is composed of multiple, interrelated component elements, and yet little empirical study has researched the self-determination components other than choice making and goal setting. Also, few theoretical relationships have been drawn between the component elements of self-determined behaviour and the impact of disability category. Therefore, this study examined profiles of the combination of three self-report measures of component elements of self-determined behaviour (autonomous functioning, problem solving and internal locus of control) between two groups (ID and learning disabilities/emotional disorders). METHOD: We analysed data from 96 middle school and high school students ages 13 through 22 years who completed three self-report instruments of the Autonomy - section 1 of The Arc's Self-determination Scale, the Problem Solving Survey and the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale. A multivariate analysis of covariance was conducted to investigate the differences between the two groups after controlling for the developmental effects of age. A discriminant function analysis examined whether membership of the two groups could be predicted from the three component elements. RESULTS: Results showed that each group had different profiles within the combined three component elements of self-determination but groups were not different on any single measure of component elements of self-determined behaviour exclusively. The combination of three variables was useful in confirming the membership of two dichotomous groups. CONCLUSIONS: Score differences on the three component behaviour imply that the two groups have different instructional needs and therefore require differentiated instructional approaches. The three measures of the component elements of self-determined behaviour collectively separate the two groups, suggesting that the component elements should be considered in a combination as opposed to being treated as individual elements in the context of discussing self-determined behaviour.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2017 · doi:10.1111/jir.12297