Examining the Impact of the SDLMI and Whose Future Is It? Over a Two-Year Period With Students With Intellectual Disability.
Stick with SDLMI plus Whose Future Is It? for two full years to see the biggest self-determination gains in students with ID.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers tracked the students with intellectual disability for two full school years.
Half got SDLMI lessons only. The other half got SDLMI plus the Whose Future Is It? curriculum.
Teachers ran the programs in their special-education classes and measured self-determination each spring.
What they found
After year one, both groups looked the same.
After year two, the SDLMI-plus group jumped ahead.
The boost did not show up until the second year, so growth is slow and nonlinear.
How this fits with other research
Storch et al. (2012) ran a similar RCT with adults and also saw gains in self-advocacy skills.
Gureasko-Moore et al. (2006) used self-management in general-ed classes and found quick gains for teens with ADHD.
The new study shows that students with ID need more time—skills did not bloom until year two.
Ulriksen et al. (2024) proved kids with ID can master new skills in the same classrooms, so the setting is not the barrier; the length of training is.
Why it matters
Plan for at least two years when you adopt SDLMI plus Whose Future Is It?. Do not quit after one year—the real payoff comes later.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Check your calendar: if you started SDLMI this year, book booster lessons for next year too.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine self-determination outcome data in the year following a one-year cluster randomized controlled trial (C-RCT) comparing the impacts of a Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction (SDLMI) only condition to a SDLMI + Whose Future Is It? (SDLMI + WF) condition. Using multilevel B-spline model analysis with Bayesian estimation, we examined ongoing patterns of growth after the trial ended and all students were exposed to SDLMI + WF. The findings suggest that the inclusion of an additional year of outcome data provided additional insight into the impact of more intensive intervention conditions over time. Specifically, after the initial year of implementation, the SDLMI + WF condition predicted greater annual gains than the SDLMI only condition, unlike findings in the first year which reflected the opposite pattern. This evidence suggests a nonlinear growth pattern over multiple years of intervention with more intensive interventions. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.
American journal on intellectual and developmental disabilities, 2020 · doi:10.1352/1944-7558-125.3.217