INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ’AAIDD

2012, Vol. 50, No. 1, 16–30 DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.1.16

Transition Planning for Students With Intellectual Disability,

Autism, or Other Disabilities: Data from the National
Longitudinal Transition Study-2
Karrie A. Shogren and Anthony J. Plotner

Abstract
To compare the status of transition planning for students with intellectual disability, autism, or
other disabilities, we used data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2, a federally
funded, national study of the secondary and postschool experiences of students with disabilities.
Results show that although transition planning had been conducted for the majority of students, few
of them took a leadership role in their transition planning. Students with autism or intellectual
disability were significantly less likely than students with other disabilities to take a leadership role.
The majority of the active participants in transition planning were school-based personnel. We also
found limited participation from other agencies/support persons (e.g., vocational rehabilitation).
Students with autism or intellectual disability had more identified needs for support after school
than did students with other disabilities.

Key Words: autism and transition planning; intellectual disability and transition planning; National
Longitudinal Transition Study-2; transition planning

The transition to adulthood can be a challeng-
ing period for all adolescents as they move from the
education system to various postschool environ-
ments (e.g., college, employment, community).
Adolescents with disabilities face additional chal-
lenges (Chambers, Rabren, & Dunn, 2009; Weh-
meyer & Palmer, 2003), including the transition
from an entitlement-driven system (i.e., special
education) to multiple eligibility-driven systems
(e.g., adult services, postsecondary education dis-
ability services, housing supports) (Hanley-Maxwell,
Whitney-Thomas, & Pogoloff, 1995). The supports
and services that youth experience for most of their
education are no longer guaranteed and can be
complex to reestablish in the adult world (McDon-
nell & Hardman, 2010; Wehman, 2006). Research-
ers have suggested that adolescents with autism or
intellectual disability or their families particularly
struggle with the transition to adulthood (Blacher,
Kraemer, & Howell, 2010; Neece, Kraemer, &
Blacher, 2009). Students with intellectual disability
or autism lag behind their peers with other dis-
abilities in achieving employment, independent
living, and community participation (Billstedt,
Gillberg, & Gillberg, 2005; Luftig & Muthert,
2005; National Organization on Disability, 2004).
The 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) defines
transition services as a coordinated set of activities
for a child with a disability that is designed within a
results-oriented process, focused on improving the
academic and functional achievement of the child
to facilitate movement from school to postschool
activities. IDEA requires that transition planning
commence by age 16 for students with disabilities
(the 1997 amendments to IDEA required that
transition planning commence by age 14) and that
measurable postsecondary goals be developed and
included in the Individualized Education Plan (IEP)
for transition-age students. Transition planning is
not formally defined in IDEA. However, the law
emphasizes the importance of student and family
involvement in the process and taking into account
student’s preferences and interests in developing
postschool goals. Further, the law indicates that a
diversity of activities can be involved in transition
planning and emphasizes the coordination of these
activities in transition services.

16 Transition Planning
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
2012, Vol. 50, No. 1, 16–30
Researchers have suggested that transition
planning can have a positive impact on postschool
outcomes (Test et al., 2009) and that families who
are actively involved in transition planning report
greater satisfaction with transition outcomes for
their children (Cooney, 2002; Neece et al., 2009).
Best practices in transition planning emphasize
student and family involvement, the development
of an individualized transition plan focused on
developing student skills linked with desired life
outcomes, and coordination with adult service
agencies (Alwell & Cobb, 2006; Test, Aspel, &
Everson, 2006). However, although mandated by
IDEA, transition planning has often been described
as inadequate for student with disabilities. Research-
ers have suggested that many schools fail to meet
minimum levels of compliance with the federal
transition mandates, particularly in the areas of
service coordination and interagency collaboration,
student and family involvement, basing goals on
student’s preferences and interests, and linking
transition goals to academic experiences (Johnson,
Stodden, Emanuel, Luecking, & Mack, 2002).
Researchers have also suggested differences in the
characteristics of transition planning based on
disability label (Katsiyannis, Zhang, Woodruff, &
Dixon, 2005; Wagner & Davis, 2006), although no
investigators have compared students with intellec-
tual disability, autism, and other disabilities using
nationally representative data.
Given the emphasis on transition planning in
disability policy and research and the empirical link
between effective transition planning and post-
school outcomes, including postschool education,
employment, and independent living (Test et al.,
2009), it is critical to understand the characteristics
of transition planning (e.g., student involvement,
active participation in transition planning, charac-
teristics and suitability of transition goals, postschool
service needs and contacts) for students with
disabilities, particularly for those with intellectual
disability or autism who struggle with achieving
employment and community participation in adult-
hood (Billstedt et al., 2005; Wehmeyer & Palmer,
2003). Limited research has been conducted to
explicitly compare characteristics of transition
planning for representative samples of students with
intellectual disability, autism, and other disabilities.
Therefore, our purpose in this study was to use extant
data from the National Longitudinal Transition
Study-2 (NLTS2), a federally funded, national study
of the secondary and postschool experiences of
K. Shogren and A. Plotner
’AAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.1.16
students with disabilities, to compare the charac-
teristics of transition planning for students with
intellectual disability, autism, or other disabilities.
Method
NLTS2
The NLTS2 was funded by the U.S. Depart-
ment of Education to collect longitudinal data on
the secondary and postsecondary experiences of a
national sample of students representing each of the
12 federal disability classifications in IDEA (SRI
International, 2000; Wagner, Kutash, Dunch-
nowski, & Epstein, 2005). Data collection began
during the 2000–2001 school year and was
collected in 2-year waves over a 10-year period.
Data were collected from multiple respondents and
in multiple formats, including parent and student
telephone interviews, direct assessments of stu-
dents, teacher and school surveys, and student
transcript analysis (SRI International, 2000).
The NLTS2 sampling process was designed to
allow the results to generalize to the full population of
students receiving special education services in the
United States. To achieve this, the developers used a
two-stage sampling process. In the first stage, districts
serving students ages 14–16 years who were in 7th
grade or above were randomly selected from all school
districts in the nation. The sample of districts was
stratified to represent different geographic regions,
sizes, and socioeconomic statuses. In the second stage,
students were randomly selected from each of the
districts (Wave 1, n 5 11,270 students). Approxi-
mately 1,000 students from each IDEA disability
category (i.e., autism, deafness–blindness, emotional
disturbance, hearing impairment, intellectual disabil-
ity, multiple disabilities, orthopedic impairment,
other health impairment, specific learning disability,
speech–language impairment, traumatic brain injury,
visual impairment) were sampled to ensure adequate
representation of each of the categories. Sample
weights were then calculated that allowed the study
sample to be weighted to represent students nation-
wide who receive special education services. Weights
were calculated for each data-collection instrument in
each wave of the study and are available to researchers
accessing the complete NLTS2 dataset through the
National Center for Education Statistics at the
Institute of Education Sciences.
For our purposes here, we used data from Wave
1 of NLTS2, which provided an initial picture of the
transition planning experiences of students aged 14
17
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
2012, Vol. 50, No. 1, 16–30
(the age at which transition planning was required
to commence under IDEA 1997) and older. We
analyzed data on transition supports and services
collected through the Parent Telephone Interview
and the School Program Survey (completed by the
teacher most knowledgeable about the student’s
educational program). The interview, which lasted
approximately 60 minutes, was completed using
Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI)
software, where skip logic was preprogrammed into
the questions seen by the interviewer on the
computer screen (e.g., if a parent reported that he
or she was not present at the child’s last IEP meeting,
further questions dependent on being present at the
meeting were skipped). The Parent Telephone
Interview included a section on family interaction/
involvement to assessed parents’ perceptions of
student and family involvement in the IEP and the
usefulness of planning for life after high school. The
response rate for the interview for Wave 1 was 82%.
In terms of the number of respondents per disability
category on the Parent Telephone Interview, for the
first question relevant to transition planning, the raw
sample size was as follows: intellectual disability, n 5
730; autism, n 5 830; and other disabilities, n 5
6,080. The sample size varied for different questions
because of the CATI skip logic; however, there was a
sufficient sample for all questions to enable us to
perform the analyses described below.
The School Program Survey included questions
about all aspects of the student’s school program,
including a section on the transition to adult life.
The survey was a paper and pencil questionnaire,
and the response rate for Wave 1 was 59%. In terms
of the number of respondents per disability category
on the School Program Survey, for the first
question relevant to transition planning, the raw
sample size was as follows: respondents with
intellectual disability, n 5 420; autism, n 5 420;
and other disabilities, n 5 3,150. The sample size
varied for different questions; however, there was a
sufficient sample for all questions to allow us to
perform the analyses described below. (Further
information can be obtained on the NLTS2
website: http://www.nlts2.org/.)
Analyses
We extracted questions from the Parent
Telephone Interview and the School Program
Survey relevant to transition services, and supports
were extracted from the overall NLTS2 dataset.
18
’AAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.1.16
The following tables present the questions extract-
ed from the NLTS2 dataset. Because our primary
interest was in the experiences of students with
intellectual disability or autism, we also recoded the
NLTS2 disability classification variable to create
three groups: intellectual disability, autism, and
other disability (all other disability labels com-
bined). This allowed us to make comparisons among
students with intellectual disability, autism, and
other disabilities. Then, using the Complex Samples
Module in SPSS 18.0, we calculated descriptive
statistics (mean ratings or percentages of students)
for each of the three groups (i.e., intellectual
disability, autism, other disabilities) on the relevant
transition services and supports questions. Complex
sample procedures calculate estimated standard
errors for weighted data in a stratified sample such
as the NLTS2. Through use of the sample weights
calculated for NLTS2 data, the reported percentag-
es, means, and standard errors represent population
estimates for students with intellectual disability,
autism, and other disabilities nationally. Next, for
categorical variables, we used the Crosstabs
procedure; and for continuous variables, we used
the General Linear Model procedure within the
Complex Samples Module to compare the three
groups, using a significance level of p , .01
because of the number of comparisons made.
When significant omnibus differences were found,
we followed up with paired contrasts to identify
the source of the omnibus differences.
Results
School Perspectives
Transition planning, instruction, goals,
and progress. The average age when transition
planning began was similar for all three groups
(14.4 years for students with autism or other
disabilities and 14.5 for students with intellectual
disability). Table 1 provides information on the
status of transition planning and transition-focused
instruction, the linkage between course of study
and transition goals, and the primary goal of
education programs for students with intellectual
disability, autism, or other disabilities. Students
with intellectual disability were significantly more
likely than those with other disabilities to have
received instruction specific to transition. Table 1
also provides data on the primary postschool goals
across disability groups, and there were significant
differences in goals across groups. (Note that in the
Transition Planning
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ’AAIDD
2012, Vol. 50, No. 1, 16–30 DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.1.16

Table 1
Transition Planning, Instruction, and Progress by Group
Intellectual
disability Autism Other disability
NLTS2 question % SE % SE % SE
There has been planning for the transition to adult
life. 87.8 1.6 86.3 1.9 88.9 1.2
Instruction focused on transition planning has been
provided. 75.8 2.8* 70.6 2.6 62.8 2.0
Transition plan/IEP specifically states course of
study/classes needed to meet transition goals. 72.1 2.7 66.0 3.0 74.5 2.0
Following high school, the primary goal of the
student’s education program is
to prepare him or her to:
Attend college 2 or 4 year 9.8 1.6*{ 22.9 2.9* 52.4 2.2
Attend postsecondary vocational training 25.5 2.6* 18.5 2.9* 42.0 1.9
Get competitive employment 44.1 3.2*{ 22.4 2.8* 54.8 2.1
Get sheltered employment 19.9 2.1*{ 38.8 3.0* 2.4 0.4
Get supported employment 34.3 2.9* 38.7 3.3* 4.1 0.6
Live independently 51.4 3.3{ 27.9 3.2* 49.4 2.0
Maximize functional independence 48.3 2.9* 57.9 3.2* 15.6 1.5
Enhance social/interpersonal relationships and
satisfaction 45.6 2.7*{ 57.1 3.2* 22.0 1.6
Other 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.1
Note. NLTS2 5 National Longitudinal Transition Study-2; IEP 5 Individual Education Plan.
*Statistically significant difference from other disability group, p , .01.
{Statistically significant difference from autism group, p , .01.

survey, respondents were asked to check all of the
primary goal areas that applied rather than rank-
ing goals by importance/emphasis.) Students with
intellectual disability or autism were significantly
less likely to have primary goals related to
integrated postsecondary education or employment
(i.e., college, vocational training, and competitive
employment), but they were more likely to have
primary goals related to maximizing functional
independence and social relationships. However,
there were also differences between students with
autism or intellectual disability; for example,
students with autism were significantly less likely
than students with intellectual disability to have
goals related to competitive employment and living
independently.
Teachers were also asked to rate the progress
students were making toward their transition goals
(see Table 2). Those with intellectual disability or
autism tended to receive lower ratings of progress
across domains than were students with other
disabilities; statistically significant differences were
found in the domains of graduation, independent
living, social/interpersonal skills, and self-advocacy.
When asked to rate the suitability of the school
program for preparing students to achieve goals,
teachers rated the suitability as fairly well to very
well for all students.
Participation in transition planning. In the
School Program Survey, teachers were asked to
report on the student’s involvement in the
transition planning process as well as other active
participants in the transition planning process (see
Table 3). Students with intellectual disability or
autism had significantly higher levels of no or
limited participation compared with students with
other disabilities, and students with autism were the
least likely to attend their meetings. Students with

K. Shogren and A. Plotner 19

INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ’AAIDD
2012, Vol. 50, No. 1, 16–30 DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.1.16

Table 2
Progress and Suitability of Goals by Group
Intellectual disability Autism Other disability
NLTS2 question M SE M SE M SE
Amount of progress toward
transition goals related to:a
Graduation 2.72 .05* 2.76 .06* 3.07 .04
Vocational 2.78 .05 2.72 .05 2.88 .04
Postsecondary education 2.40 .07* 2.59 .08 2.80 .04
Independent living 2.76 .06* 2.60 .06* 3.13 .05
Behavior management 2.83 .07 2.86 .05 3.01 .04
Social/Interpersonal 2.85 .05* 2.82 .05* 3.07 .03
Self-advocacy 2.55 .06* 2.40 .07* 2.94 .04
Suitability of school program for
preparing student to achieve
transition goalsb 3.14 .05 3.26 .04 3.20 .03
Note. NLTS2 5 National Longitudinal Transition Study-2.
a
Rating scale 5 1 (no progress), 2 (a little progress), 3 (some progress), 4 (a lot of progress).
b
Rating scale 5 1 (not at all well-suited), 2 (somewhat well-suited), 3 (fairly well-suited), 4 (very well-suited).
*Statistically significant difference from other disability group, p , .01.
{Statistically significant difference from autism group, p , .01.

other disabilities were significantly more likely to
provide input or lead their transition planning than
were students with autism or intellectual disability.
Table 3 also provides information on active
participants in the transition planning process.
Teachers were asked to indicate (yes/no) the degree
to which various stakeholders were active partici-
pants, which was defined in the survey as being
involved in discussions on choosing services and
goals. The special education teacher was the most
likely to be involved for all students, followed by
parents/guardians and the student. However, stu-
dents with autism were much less likely to be
characterized as active participants than were
students with intellectual disability or other dis-
abilities. Students with intellectual disability or
those with autism were less likely to have general
education academic teachers as active participants
than were students with other disabilities, and
students with autism were significantly less likely to
have general education vocational teachers as
active participants. Students with autism were
more likely to have related service personnel, and
students with intellectual disability were more
likely to have active participants from vocational
rehabilitation. Students with autism were more
likely to have an advocate present at their meeting
than were students with other disabilities. All
students had very low percentages of active
involvement by staff of the Social Security
Administration, potential employers, and represen-
tatives of postsecondary education.
Postschool service needs and contact made.
Table 4 identifies the key service or program needs
identified for students with intellectual disability,
autism, or other disabilities. Teachers were asked to
indicate (yes/no) whether students had needs in
each of the areas listed in Table 4. Vocational,
transportation, postsecondary education, and inde-
pendent living supports were identified as needs
for the largest numbers of students with intellec-
tual disability or autism. With the exception of
postsecondary education supports, students with
autism or intellectual disability were significantly
more likely to be identified as having needs in these
areas compared with students with other disabilities
(the reverse was true for postsecondary education).
Students with autism were also significantly
more likely to be identified as having speech
or communication, mental health, behavioral
intervention, occupational therapy, and mobility
training needs than were students with other

20 Transition Planning
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ’AAIDD
2012, Vol. 50, No. 1, 16–30 DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.1.16

Table 3
Participants in Transition Planning by Group
Intellectual
disability Autism Other disability
NLTS2 question % SE % SE % SE
Student’s role in transition planning
Not attended or participated 10.6 1.6*{ 22.6 3.5* 4.6 0.9
Present but participated very little or not at all 36.4 2.6* 44.7 3.0* 22.7 1.8
Provided some input 49.7 2.8*{ 30.1 2.7* 59.1 2.1
Leadership role 3.3 1.0* 2.6 1.0* 13.6 1.5
Active participants in transition planning
Special education 99.3 0.2 95.9 1.4 97.2 0.7
Parent/Guardian 83.1 2.6 91.4 1.6 85.0 1.5
Student 80.9 2.3*{ 66.3 2.8* 88.5 1.5
School administrator 61.5 3.1 57.0 3.2 54.7 2.2
School counselor or psychologist 54.5 3.1 54.5 3.7 62.5 2.3
General education academic teacher 39.0 3.4* 38.9 3.3* 61.6 2.4
General education vocational teacher 32.4 3.2{ 20.0 2.9* 31.7 2.0
Related services personnel 29.6 3.0*{ 57.7 3.0* 16.5 2.0
Vocational rehabilitation agency counselor 22.6 2.4* 19.2 2.6 13.1 1.4
Staff of other outside agency 15.1 2.2* 15.6 2.5* 4.1 0.7
Advocate 2.4 0.7 5.1 1.4* 1.0 0.3
Staff of Social Security Administration 2.7 0.9 1.4 0.7 0.4 0.2
Employer 2.1 0.7 0.5 0.3 1.9 0.6
Representative of postsecondary education 1.1 0.5 1.7 0.7 2.1 0.6
Other 10.6 1.7 10.4 2.0 7.1 1.0
Note. NLTS2 5 National Longitudinal Transition Study-2.
*Statistically significant difference from other disability group, p , .01.
{Statistically significant difference from autism group, p , .01.

disabilities. Students with autism were the least
likely to be identified as having no support needs
after high school.
Teachers also were asked to indicate whether
contact had been made with agencies/supports that
could meet student’s postschool needs. Students with
intellectual disability or autism were more likely than
students with other disabilities to have had contacts
made with vocational rehabilitation providers, sup-
ported employment providers, social service agencies,
the Social Security Administration, mental health
agencies, sheltered workshops, supervised residential
support agencies, and adult day programs. Students
with intellectual disability were significantly less
likely, however, than were students with other
disabilities to have had contacts made with colleges.
A complete list of the identified support needs and
contacts made about postschool support needs can be
found in Table 4 as can the percentage of parents
who had been provided information about services
available after high school.
Parent Perspectives and Satisfaction
Parent/guardian responses to Parent Telephone
Interview questions relevant to transition planning
are presented in Table 5. Parents indicated that
significantly fewer youth with autism or intellectual
disability attended their IEP meetings compared
with students with other disabilities. Significantly
more parents/guardians of youth with autism
reported attending the last IEP meeting than did
parents/guardians of students with intellectual
disability or other disabilities. However, parents
reported that youth with autism were significantly

K. Shogren and A. Plotner 21

INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ’AAIDD
2012, Vol. 50, No. 1, 16–30 DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.1.16

Table 4
Service Needs and Contacts Made
Intellectual disability Autism Other disability
NLTS2 question % SE % SE % SE
Service or program needs identified for student
after high school on IEP or transition plan
Vocational training, placement, or support 34.1 2.6{ 54.9 3.2* 33.4 2.1
Transportation 23.1 2.4*{ 34.1 3.4* 2.9 0.4
Accommodations for postsecondary education 23.0 2.5* 28.1 2.5* 51.4 2.0
Supporting living 20.3 2.3*{ 30.8 3.0* 2.9 0.5
Social work 16.3 2.1* 16.4 2.2* 4.8 0.8
Speech or communication 9.5 1.5*{ 23.2 2.6* 3.3 0.9
Mental health services 6.8 1.4 13.5 2.5* 4.1 0.8
Behavioral intervention 6.1 1.3{ 18.4 2.5* 6.4 0.9
Occupational therapy 4.2 1.1 7.2 1.9* 1.5 0.4
Physical therapy 3.2 1.1 3.5 1.5 1.0 0.1
Mobility training 2.9 0.8 5.5 1.3* 1.0 0.1
Nursing or other medical 2.8 1.0 3.0 0.9 0.4 0.1
Vision 1.1 0.4 — 0.9 0.1
Audiology — — 1.4 0.2
Other 6.0 1.3 8.2 1.7 4.8 0.8
None 18.6 2.5 12.4 2.5* 24.6 1.7
Contacted about programs/employment postschool
Vocational rehabilitation 55.7 3.5* 51.5 4.5* 34.8 3.7
Supported employment programs 36.0 3.4* 35.6 4.4* 9.4 1.7
Other vocational training programs 33.5 3.3 24.3 3.8 25.0 3.0
Other social service agencies 32.2 3.4* 37.0 3.9* 15.1 2.4
Job placement programs or agencies 32.9 3.6 25.0 4.0 22.6 2.7
Social Security Administration 29.9 4.1* 35.1 3.9* 8.1 1.7
Potential employers 28.6 3.2* 22.9 4.0 18.4 2.0
Sheltered workshops 23.9 2.7* 29.7 3.7* 3.8 1.2
Mental health agencies 21.3 3.2* 30.6 4.3* 8.7 1.7
Supervised residential support agencies 17.7 2.6* 20.6 2.9* 2.7 0.5
Adult day programs 17.1 2.8* 21.3 3.3* 2.3 0.8
Postsecondary vocational schools 16.5 3.2 21.1 4.0 25.2 3.2
Colleges 10.9 3.0* 22.8 4.2 25.1 2.3
Congregate care facilities of institutions 5.8 2.0 5.2 1.7 1.2 0.4
U.S. military 4.8 1.7* 5.7 2.5* 16.3 2.2
Other agencies 12.5 2.9 14.3 3.3 6.1 1.7
Parents provided with information about
services available after high school
Yes 61.6 2.9 55.8 2.3 66.9 3.1
No 1.0 0.8 3.5 1.4 1.6 0.6
Not yet 37.3 2.9 42.5 2.4 29.6 3.1
Note. NLTS2 5 National Longitudinal Transition Study-2; IEP 5 Individual Education Plan.
*Statistically significant difference from other disability group, p , .01.
{Statistically significant difference from autism group, p , .01.

22 Transition Planning
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ’AAIDD
2012, Vol. 50, No. 1, 16–30 DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.1.16

Table 5
Family Perspectives on Transition Planning
Intellectual
disability Autism Other disability
NLTS2 question % SE % SE % SE
Youth attended last IEP meeting 67.9 2.0*{ 56.3 2.6* 77.3 2.0
Adult in household attended last IEP
meeting 85.4 1.4{ 93.2 1.4* 88.8 1.8
Youth met with teachers to set
postgraduation goals 50.4 2.2*{ 30.4 .3* 57.8 1.7
Adult in household met with teachers to set
postgraduation goals 51.6 2.3 52.6 2.4 48.6 2.0
Who mostly came up with goals?
Mostly school 52.1 2.1 45.6 2.3 43.7 2.1
Mostly parent/youth 17.7 1.7 14.1 1.7 21.8 1.2
Combination 29.0 1.9 39.5 0.2 33.6 2.0
Do not know about goals 1.2 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.2
Feelings about family involvement in
IEP decisions
Wanted to be more involved 40.1 1.9 34.9 2.1 32.8 2.1
Involved the right amount 58.5 1.9 63.9 2.2 65.9 2.1
Wanted to be less involved 1.4 0.5 1.1 0.5 1.3 0.3
Note. NLTS2 5 National Longitudinal Study-2; IEP 5 Individual Education Plan.
*Statistically significant difference from other disability group, p , .01.
{Statistically significant. difference from autism group, p , .01.

less likely to have met with teachers to set Discussion

postgraduation goals. As shown in Table 5, there
were no differences across groups in parents’
perceptions of who primarily developed the IEP
goals and in the family’s perceptions of their
involvement in the IEP process. Parents were also
asked how to rate the usefulness of the planning
for their child’s life after school on a scale of 1 to 4
(very useful to not at all useful). Parents of students
with intellectual disability ranked the planning as
most useful (M 5 1.7, SE 5 .04), followed by
parents of students with other disabilities (M 5
1.9, SE 5 .06), and parents of students with autism
(M 5 2.1, SE 5 .03). These scores significantly
differed from each other, F(2, 410) 5 21.57, p ,
.001, with significant differences in the usefulness
rankings made by parents of students with
intellectual disability or autism, F(1, 410) 5
35.19, p , .001, and parents of students with
intellectual disability or other disabilities, F
(1, 410) 5 22.68, p , .001.
School Perspectives
At a surface level, the data suggest that schools
are in compliance with the transition mandates
of IDEA. The average age at which transition
planning commenced was around 14 for students,
which is congruent with the 1997 amendments to
IDEA, requiring that transition planning begin at
age 14, that were in place when the NLTS2 Wave 1
data were collected (the 2004 reauthorization of
IDEA increased the required age to 16). As shown
in Table 1, the majority of students had received
instruction on transition planning and had an IEP
that detailed a course of study linked to transition
goals. When probing these results in greater depth,
however, issues emerged. For example, only 66% of
students with autism had an IEP that specifically
linked the student’s course of study to transition
goals. Because these numbers represent population
estimates, this can be interpreted to mean that 34

K. Shogren and A. Plotner 23

INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
2012, Vol. 50, No. 1, 16–30
out of every 100 secondary students with autism in
our nation do not have an IEP that links their
course of study with transition goals. A student’s
plan of study creates a process (i.e., coursework and
other learning opportunities, educational supports
and services) for moving through secondary educa-
tion in a purposeful way; however, it appears that
for a large number of students in our nation, limited
consideration is being given to individualizing
a program of study based on a comprehensive
understanding of the student’s interests, preferenc-
es, and postschool dreams. More research is needed
on the implementation of strategies in schools to
link a student’s program of study to his or her
postschool outcomes and the impact of including
this statement in the transition plan (Johnson
et al., 2002). Between 24 and 36 of every 100
secondary students with disabilities have not
received instruction focused on transition planning.
Although students with intellectual disability were
more likely than were students with autism or other
disabilities to receive such instruction—perhaps
because of the emphasis on self-determination and
self-advocacy for this group of students (Wehmeyer
& Mithaug, 2006; Wehmeyer & Shogren, 2008)—
it is troubling that given the importance placed on
transition planning, a large percentage of students
are not receiving specific instruction on the skills
necessary to be successful in this process. A variety
of strategies exist for teaching students how to
become active participants in transition planning
(Martin, van Dycke, Christensen, et al., 2006; Test
& Neale, 2004; Wehmeyer & Lawrence, 1995), and
more research is needed regarding the factors that
enhance and impede the inclusion of this instruc-
tion in student’s education.
Not unexpectedly, when looking at the prima-
ry goals of transition planning for students with
intellectual disability, autism, or other disabilities,
we found that goals related to employment were
common for all students. However, there were
significant differences across the groups both in the
specific types of goals related to employment and in
other domains. For example, students with intel-
lectual disability or autism were much less likely
to have goals related to competitive employment
and more likely to have goals related to sheltered
and supported employment. Further, students with
autism were much more likely than those with
intellectual disability to have goals related to
sheltered employment and less likely to have goals
related to competitive employment. It is troubling
24
’AAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.1.16
that 39 out of every 100 students with autism and
20 out of every 100 students with intellectual
disability in our nation had primary goals related to
sheltered employment, despite the focus on inte-
grated employment, community participation, and
equal access for people with disabilities as well as
data suggesting that people with disabilities earn
higher wages in competitive employment (Mi-
gliore, Grossi, Mank, & Rogan, 2008). However,
Migliore and colleagues found that 46% of adults
with intellectual disability or 40% of families did
not recall anyone encouraging them to pursue
employment outside of sheltered workshops. Given
the availability of supported and customized
employment options that create opportunities for
integrated, wage-earning work experiences with
appropriate supports (Griffin, Hammis, Geary, &
Sullivan, 2008; Wehman & Revell, 1997), there is
a critical need to explore the individual and
ecological factors that predict the employment
goals (and the associated instruction and postschool
contacts) for students with intellectual disability or
autism.
Individuals with autism or intellectual disabil-
ity were significantly more likely to have goals
related to maximizing functional independence and
enhancing interpersonal relationships, which is
congruent with research establishing these as key
domains for students with intellectual disability or
autism (Browning, Osborne, & Reed, 2009). It is
troubling, however, that students with autism were
significantly less likely to have goals related to
living independently than were students with
intellectual disability or other disabilities. Only 28
out of every 100 students with autism in our nation
had primary goals in this area. Further research is
needed to determine the factors that influence the
lack of emphasis on independent living for this
population. Students with intellectual disability or
autism were also significantly less likely to have
goals related to attending college or postsecondary
vocational training. In fact, only 10% of students
with intellectual disability and 23% of students
with autism, compared with 52% of students with
other disabilities, had goals related to attending
college. Given the emphasis on postsecondary
options for students with intellectual disability or
autism (Hart, Grigal, & Weir, 2010), it is troubling
that the number of students for whom college is a
goal remains so low. Research is needed on barriers
to IEP teams identifying college or postsecondary
vocational training as a realistic option for students
Transition Planning
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
2012, Vol. 50, No. 1, 16–30
with intellectual disability or autism. Finally, as
shown in Table 2, students with autism or intel-
lectual disability were perceived as making signif-
icantly less progress on transition goals (e.g.,
postsecondary education, independent living) than
were students with other disabilities. This finding is
worthy of further investigation, particularly because
the teachers did not rate the suitability of the
educational program differently across the three
groups of students.
Despite the emphasis on student involvement
in transition planning reflected in IDEA and best-
practice recommendations, the results indicate
that a very small number of students with any
disability label take a leadership role at their IEP
meeting, but significantly fewer students with
intellectual disability or autism take a leadership
role than do students with other disability labels. It
is particularly concerning that 10 out of every 100
students with intellectual disability and 23 out of
every 100 students with autism did not even attend
their transition planning/IEP meeting and that
36% and 45% attended but participated very little
or not at all. These findings are congruent with
other research (e.g., Martin, Van Dycke, Greene,
et al., 2006), suggesting limited student involve-
ment at IEP meetings, but brings attention to the
fact that despite the critical importance placed on
student involvement and leadership, significant
numbers of students are not prepared to effectively
participate in the IEP meetings (Agran, Blanchard,
& Wehmeyer, 2000). Further research is needed to
explore the nature of the instruction on transition
planning that students receive, particularly be-
cause (as shown in Table 1) 76% of students with
intellectual disability and 71% of students with
autism were reported to have received instruction
focused on transition planning. The nature of this
instruction must be further explored, particularly
because researchers have found that teachers
report being ill-prepared to promote student self-
determination and involvement in the IEP meet-
ing (Mason, Field, & Sawilowsky, 2004). In
addition, with all of the demands on teacher time,
barriers and facilitators of providing high quality
instruction and opportunities for IEP and transi-
tion planning involvement need to be examined.
Work is needed to shift from a teacher-directed
IEP/transition planning model to a student-directed
model (Field, Martin, Miller, Ward, & Wehmeyer,
1998; Martin, Van Dycke, Greene, et al., 2006), as
well as to explore ways that such content can be
K. Shogren and A. Plotner
’AAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.1.16
merged with an academic curriculum (Johnson &
Sharpe, 2000).
It is also critical to effective transition
planning that students and their families have
access to a diverse team to identify future supports
and services and to develop a postschool vision
(Noonan, Morningstar, & Erickson, 2008). How-
ever, as shown in Table 3, with the exception of
the student and his or her family, the only other
active participants in transition planning identified
for over half of students were school-based
personnel (e.g., special education teacher, school
counselor, school administrator). In addition,
students with intellectual disability or autism were
significantly less likely to have the involvement of
a general education academic teacher. Given the
focus on access to the general education curriculum
for all students (Wehmeyer, Lance, & Bashinski,
2002), the lack of general education input is
troubling. Research has suggested that special
education teachers do not perceive access to be as
important for students with more severe disabilities
(Agran, Alper, & Wehmeyer, 2002); the contrib-
utors to these perceptions need to be further
examined, and strategies for increasing the partic-
ipation of general educators in transition planning
for students with intellectual disability or autism
explored. The most common nonschool partici-
pants were vocational rehabilitation counselors.
Students with intellectual disability were more
likely than students with other disabilities to have a
vocational rehabilitation counselor present, and
students with intellectual disability or autism were
more likely to have staff of some other outside
agency present. However, only 23% of students
with intellectual disability had an actively involved
vocational rehabilitation counselor, and only 15%
to 16% of students with intellectual disability or
autism in our nation had active participation from
another outside agency. Successful collaborative
partnerships among school professionals and essen-
tial adult service providers to create postschool
supports cannot exist unless active participation
becomes a reality (Johnson et al., 2002). Research
examining expectations and involvement of tran-
sition team professionals as well as on facilitators of
interagency collaboration is needed.
For almost all students, teachers reported that
the special education teacher was an active
participant; given the leadership role special
education teachers take in the process, this is not
surprising. Strangely, teachers also reported that
25
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
2012, Vol. 50, No. 1, 16–30
only 88% to 91% of parents and guardians and 66%
to 86% of students were active participants, with
students who have intellectual disability or autism
being significantly less likely to be active partici-
pants. Given that transition planning is about
the student’s future and that a recent analysis of
the transition literature suggests a large effect of
student-focused transition planning (Cobb &
Alwell, 2009), it seems clear that all students and
their families should be involved. Further, as Cobb
and Alwell suggested, it is not just about student
and family involvement, it is also about having
peer advocates, friends, and mentors as active
participants; however, the NLTS2 data suggest
that is rarely the case. Although students with
autism were more likely to have advocates present
than were students with intellectual disability or
other disabilities, this was still only for 5% of
students. All students had very low participation
from employers; representatives of postsecondary
education; and other persons, which could include
friends, peers, and other mentors. This low
participation occurs despite the fact that the
literature and the law emphasize the importance
of using a team process to build and implement
a vision for the child’s future. Further research
is needed to implement and evaluate strategies
for promoting diverse participation in transition
planning.
Finally, when teachers were asked to identify
postschool service needs for students, congruent
with the most commonly identified program goals
for students with intellectual disability or autism,
they noted that the largest numbers of students had
identified needs related to vocational training,
placement, or support. Students with autism
(55%) were significantly more likely than those
with intellectual disability (34%) to have needs in
this area, perhaps related to the fact that they were
more likely to have goals in more restrictive
placements (e.g., sheltered employment). Further
research is needed to identify the features specific
to autism that leads IEP teams to be more likely to
identify needs related to employment. With the
exception of accommodations for postsecondary
education, students with intellectual disability or
autism tended to have higher needs for support in
all domains. Those with autism had significantly
higher needs identified related to speech or
communication and behavioral intervention than
did students with intellectual disability. This
likely relates to the significant support needs
26
’AAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.1.16
demonstrated by students with labels like autism
or intellectual disability; however, there is only
limited research in which these differences have
been systematically explored. Given the higher
identified need, we found that it is reasonable that
when looking at program contacts (see Table 4),
we found that students with intellectual disability
or autism had more contacts in most areas than did
students with other disabilities. It is troubling,
however, that those with intellectual disability
were significantly less likely to have had contacts
made with colleges, although this is congruent with
other findings reported previously.
Despite the significant needs identified for
students with intellectual disability or autism or the
number of contacts made by schools, it is troubling
that only 62% and 67% of families of students with
intellectual disability or autism, respectively, had
received information about services available after
high school. It is important that parents have a
comprehensive understanding as early as possible of
services available for their children if successful
transitions are to occur. In addition, for parents to
work to develop a vision for the possibilities of their
children’s future, information needs to be shared
about these possibilities (Blalock et al., 2003).
One possible reason for lack of knowledge
sharing and service coordination could be that
schools themselves are unaware of disability-
specific resources that may be available in their
community (Blalock et al., 2003). Teachers report-
ed limited active participation of the persons/
agencies that may address the service or program
needs identified for students after high school. For
example, although state vocational rehabilitation
offices were contacted for 52% of students with
autism, which is congruent with the number of
students with autism who had needs identified in
this area, only 19% of these students had a
representative from vocational rehabilitation as an
active participant on their transition planning
team. As mentioned previously, further research is
needed to promote interagency collaboration and
the active involvement of persons outside of the
educational system.
Parent Perspectives
Thus far, we have discussed the findings from
the School Program Survey. The Parent Telephone
Interview also provides important information
about how parents/guardians perceive transition
Transition Planning
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
2012, Vol. 50, No. 1, 16–30
planning. Unfortunately, the questions (and re-
sponse options) on the School Program Survey and
Parent Telephone Interview were not congruent, so
direct comparisons of parent and teacher responses
are not possible. However, by examining similar
questions, we clearly found that that there may be
differences in how parents and teachers perceive
student and family involvement in transition
planning. For example, parents tended to report
that fewer youth had attended their last IEP
meeting than had teachers. Teachers reported that
11% of students with intellectual disability had
not attended or participated in the last transition
planning meeting, whereas parents said that only
68% had attended the last meeting (meaning 32%
had not). The discrepancies were similar for
students with autism or other disabilities. Although
it is possible that parents and teachers were
thinking about different meetings, there seems to
be a large discrepancy between parent and teacher
perceptions of student attendance. This could be
because some students may attend only part of the
meeting (Martin, Van Dycke, Greene, et al., 2006).
Further research is needed to understand the origins
of this discrepancy and to promote greater student
attendance and meaningful participation, particu-
larly from a parent’s perspective. Researchers need
to examine how parents define meaningful youth
participation to understand ways to actively, and
appropriately, involve students.
In terms of parent attendance, parents of
students with autism and those with other disabil-
ities were more likely than parents of students with
intellectual disability to indicate that they had
attended the meetings. However, when asked
whether an adult in the household or the youth
had met with the teacher prior to the meeting to set
postgraduation goals, a much lower number of
parents reported having done so. In fact, only 30%
of parents of students with autism reported having
done this, the lowest of all students. This finding
likely corresponds to the perception of 44% to 52%
of parents that the school was primarily responsible
for IEP goals. If parents and teachers are not
meeting prior to the IEP meeting to discuss goals, it
seems likely that the school is taking the primary
role in developing the goals. Between 33% and
40% of parents in our nation indicated that they
wanted to be more involved in IEP decisions,
suggesting that a large number of the parents who
were not involved in identifying goals wanted to
play a more active role.
K. Shogren and A. Plotner
’AAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.1.16
These data confirm that there remains a
breakdown in the communication and collabora-
tion within transition planning teams. Central
tenets in IDEA (i.e., family involvement and
transition planning being based on students’
dreams, interests, and strengths) do not appear to
be occurring for one-third to one-half of students
and their families. It also appears that the majority
of transition planning is occurring during the IEP
team meeting, which is not conducive to building a
collaborative, functional, trusting team (Turnbull
& Turnbull, 2001; Turnbull, Turnbull, Erwin, &
Soodak, 2006). Further research is needed on the
multiple student, family, and system-level factors
that influence family and student involvement and
strategies to implement family–professional part-
nerships in transition planning in practice.
It is important to note, however, that between
59% and 66% of all parents did feel that they were
involved ‘‘about the right amount’’ in transition
planning and that all parents tended to rate the
usefulness of the process of planning for life after high
school between somewhat useful and very useful. Further
research is needed to examine the factors that
contribute to parents feeling like they are experiencing
the right level of involvement in the transition process.
This information could be used to guide the develop-
ment and implementation of evidence-based practices
that actively involve the diverse individuals that will
support students postschool.
Limitations
The NLTS2 provides useful information re-
garding the status of transition planning for
students with disabilities across the nation. How-
ever, there are limitations that must be considered
in interpreting the data. First, as mentioned above,
it is problematic that direct comparisons cannot
be made between teacher and parent perceptions.
Given that questions about the same topics were
included in both data sets, it would have been
useful to examine whether there were significant
differences on ratings of student participation and
involvement. Further, NLTS2 is a broad study,
addressing all aspects of students educational
programs. Thus, the included questions are broad,
rather than going in-depth into one area. There-
fore, we only get a picture of the overall status of
the implementation of best practices. However,
the results do provide indicators for future, more
detailed analyses.
27
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
2012, Vol. 50, No. 1, 16–30
Conclusion
The transition requirements set forth by IDEA
charge transition planning teams with ensuring that
transition planning is a results-oriented process that
focuses on improving academic and functional
achievement to facilitate movement from school
to postschool activities. Student and family in-
volvement as well as active involvement from
school and adult services and supports must
continue to be at the forefront of the transition
planning process. Lack of active participation/
involvement from these core stakeholders will not
lead to the intended outcomes of the transition
mandates: improved postschool outcomes for all
students with disabilities. In addition, the IEP/
transition planning process must be understood by
all team members. The absence of linkages between
transition goals and students’ course of study
suggests that schools are offering dated models
(one-size fits all) that do not promote individual-
ized instruction for students that allow them to
make progress toward their dreams for their future
(Cooney, 2002; Trainor, Lindstrom, Simon-Bur-
roughs, Martin, & Sorrells, 2008). Finally, the
higher level of support needs identified postschool
for students with autism or intellectual disability,
in many cases, leads to increased contacts with
providers who can address these needs. However,
there are ongoing challenges with stereotypes and
low expectations related to the degree to which
students with autism or intellectual disability can
access integrated environments postschool and the
appropriateness of goals that will facilitate access to
postsecondary education, competitive employment,
and community integration.
References
Agran, M., Alper, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2002). Access
to the general curriculum for students with
significant disabilities: What it means to teachers.
Education and Training in Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities, 37, 123–133.
Agran, M., Blanchard, C., & Wehmeyer, M. L.
(2000). Promoting transition goals and self-
determination through student self-directed
learning: The Self-Determined Learning Model
of Instruction. Education and Training in Mental
Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35,
351–364.
28
’AAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.1.16
Alwell, M., & Cobb, B. (2006). A map of the
intervention literature in secondary special
education transition. Career Development for
Exceptional Individuals, 29, 3–27.
Billstedt, E., Gillberg, I. C., & Gillberg, C. (2005).
Austism after adolescence: Population-based
13- to 22-year follow-up study of 120 individ-
uals with autism diagnosed in childhood.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
35, 351–360.
Blacher, J., Kraemer, B. R., & Howell, E. J. (2010).
Family expectations and transition experiences
for young adults with severe disabilities: Does
syndrome matter? Advances in Mental Health
and Learning Disabilities, 4, 3–16.
Blalock, G., Kochhar-Bryant, C. A., Test, D. W.,
Kohler, P. D., White, W., Lehmann, J., et al.
(2003). The need for comprehensive personnel
preparation in transition and career develop-
ment: A position statement of the Division on
Career Development and Transition. Career
Development for Exceptional Individuals, 26,
207–226.
Browning, J., Osborne, L., & Reed, P. (2009). A
qualitative comparison of perceived stress and
coping in adolescents with and without autistic
spectrum disorders as they approach leaving
school. British Journal of Special Education, 36,
36–43.
Chambers, D., Rabren, K., & Dunn, C. (2009). A
comparison of transition from high school
to adult life of students with and without
disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional
Individuals, 32, 42–52.
Cobb, R. B., & Alwell, M. (2009). Transition
planning/coordinating interventions for youth
with disabilites: A systematic review. Career
Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 70–81.
Cooney, B. F. (2002). Exploring perspectives on
transition of youth with disabilities: Voices of
young adults, parents, and professionals. Mental
Retardation, 40, 425–435.
Field, S., Martin, J. E., Miller, R., Ward, M. J., &
Wehmeyer, M. L. (1998). Self-determination
for persons with disabilities: A position state-
ment of the Division on Career Development
and Transition. Career Development for Excep-
tional Individuals, 21, 113–128.
Griffin, C., Hammis, D., Geary, T., & Sullivan, M.
(2008). Customized employment: Where we
are; where we’re headed. Journal of Vocational
Rehabilitation, 28, 135–139.
Transition Planning
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
2012, Vol. 50, No. 1, 16–30
Hanley-Maxwell, C., Whitney-Thomas, J., &
Pogoloff, S. (1995). The second shock: A
qualitative study of parents’ perspectives and
needs during their child’s transition from
school to adult life. Journal of the Association
for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, 3–15.
Hart, D., Grigal, M., & Weir, C. (2010). Expanding
the paradigm: Postsecondary education options
for individuals with autism spectrum disorders
and intellectual disabilities. Focus on Autism
and Other Developmental Disabilities, 25, 134–
150.
Johnson, D. R., & Sharpe, M. N. (2000). Results of
a national survey on the implementation of
transition service requirements of IDEA. Jour-
nal of Special Education Leadership, 13, 15–26.
Johnson, D. R., Stodden, R. A., Emanuel, E. J.,
Luecking, R., & Mack, M. (2002). Current
challenges facing secondary education and
transition services: What research tells us.
Exceptional Children, 68, 519–531.
Katsiyannis, A., Zhang, D., Woodruff, N., & Dixon,
A. (2005). Transition supports to students with
mental retardation: An examination of data
from the National Longitudinal Transition
Study 2. Education and Training in Developmen-
tal Disabilities, 40, 109–116.
Luftig, R. L., & Muthert, D. (2005). Patterns of
employment and independent living of adult
graduates with learning disabilities and mental
retardation of an inclusionary high school
vocational program. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 26, 317–325.
Martin, J. E., Van Dycke, J. L., Christensen, W. R.,
Greene, B. A., Gardner, J. E., & Lovett, D. L.
(2006). Increasing student participation in IEP
meetings: Establishing the self-directed IEP as
an evidenced-based practice. Exceptional Chil-
dren, 72, 299–316.
Martin, J. E., Van Dycke, J. L., Greene, B. A.,
Gardner, J. E., Christensen, W. R., Woods,
L. L., et al. (2006). Direct observation of
teacher-directed IEP meetings: Establishing
the need for student IEP meeting instruction.
Exceptional Children, 72, 187–200.
Mason, C., Field, S., & Sawilowsky, S. (2004).
Implementation of self-determination activi-
ties and student participation in IEPs. Excep-
tional Children, 70, 441–451.
McDonnell, J., & Hardman, M. L. (2010). Success-
ful transition programs: Pathways for students with
K. Shogren and A. Plotner
’AAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.1.16
intellectual and developmental disabilities (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Migliore, A., Grossi, T., Mank, D., & Rogan, P.
(2008). Why do adults with intellectual
disabilities work in sheltered workshops? Jour-
nal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 28, 29–40.
National Organization on Disability. (2004). Na-
tional Organization on Disability/Harris Survey of
Americans with Disabilities. Washington, DC:
Author.
Neece, C. L., Kraemer, B. R., & Blacher, J. (2009).
Transition satisfaction and family well being
among parents of young adults with severe
intellectual disability. Intellectual and Develop-
mental Disabilities, 47, 31–43.
Noonan, P. M., Morningstar, M. E., & Erickson,
A. G. (2008). Improving interagency collabo-
ration: Effective strategies used by high-
performing local districts and communities.
Career Development for Exceptional Individuals,
31, 132–143.
SRI International. (2000). National Longitudinal
Transition Study-2 (NLTS2): Study design,
timeline and data collection plan. Menlo Park,
CA: Author.
Test, D. W., Aspel, N. P., & Everson, J. M. (2006).
Transition methods for youth with disabilities.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Test, D. W., Mazzotti, V. L., Mustian, A. L.,
Fowler, C. H., Kortering, L., & Kohler, P.
(2009). Evidence-based secondary transition
predictors for improving postschool outcomes
for students with disabilities. Career Develop-
ment for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 160–181.
Test, D. W., & Neale, M. (2004). Using the Self-
Advocacy Strategy to increase middle graders’
IEP participation. Journal of Behavioral Educa-
tion, 13, 135–145.
Trainor, A., Lindstrom, L., Simon-Burroughs, M.,
Martin, J. E., & Sorrells, A. M. (2008). From
marginalized to maximized opportunities for
diverse youths with disabilities: A position
paper of the Division on Career Development
and Transition. Career Development for Excep-
tional Individuals, 31, 56–64.
Turnbull, A. P., & Turnbull, H. R. (2001). Families,
professionals, and exceptionality: Collaborating for
empowerment. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill
Prentice Hall.
Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull, H. R., Erwin, E., &
Soodak, L. (2006). Families, professionals, and
exceptionality: Positive outcomes through partner-
29
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
2012, Vol. 50, No. 1, 16–30
ships and trust (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Wagner, M., & Davis, M. (2006). How are we
preparing students with emotional disturbances
for the transition to young adulthood? Findings
from the National Longitudinal Transition
Study-2. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders, 14, 86–98.
Wagner, M., Kutash, K., Dunchnowski, A. J., &
Epstein, M. H. (2005). The Special Education
Elementary Longitudinal Study and the Na-
tional Longitudinal Transition Study: Study
designs and implications for children and youth
with emotional distrubance. Journal of Emo-
tional and Behavioral Disorders, 13, 25–41.
Wehman, P. (2006). Life beyond the classroom:
Transition strategies for young people with disabil-
ities (4th ed.). Baltimore: Brookes.
Wehman, P., & Revell, W. G. (1997). Transition
into supported employment for young adults
with severe disabilities: Current practices and
future directions. Journal of Vocational Rehabil-
itation, 8, 65–74.
Wehmeyer, M. L., Lance, G. D., & Bashinski, S.
(2002). Promoting access to the general
curriculum for students with mental retarda-
tion: A multi-level model. Education and
Training in Mental Retardation and Developmen-
tal Disabilities, 37, 223–234.
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Lawrence, M. (1995). Whose
future is it anyway? Promoting student involve-
ment in transition planning. Career Development
for Exceptional Individuals, 18, 69–83.
30
’AAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.1.16
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Mithaug, D. E. (2006). Self-
determination, causal agency, and mental
retardation. In H. Switzky (Ed.), Current
perspectives on individual differences in personality
and motivation in persons with mental retardation
and other developmental disabilities (Vol. 31, pp.
37–71). San Diego: Academic Press.
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Palmer, S. B. (2003). Adult
outcomes for students with cognitive disabil-
ities three-years after high school: The
impact of self-determination. Education and
Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 131–
144.
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Shogren, K. A. (2008). Self-
determination and learners with autism spec-
trum disorders. In R. L. Simpson & B. S. Myles
(Eds.), Educating children and youth with autism
(2nd ed., pp. 433–476). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Received 11/17/10, first decision 3/21/11, accepted 4/
23/11.
Editor-in-charge: Steven J. Taylor
Authors:
Karrie Shogren, PhD (e-mail: kshogren@illinois.
edu), Assistant Professor, Department of Special
Education, 1310 S. 6th St., Champaign, IL 61820.
Anthony Plotner, PhD, Assistant Professor,
Department of Educational Studies, Wardlaw
College 235c, University of South Carolina,
Columbia, SC 61801.
Transition Planning
Copyright of Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities is the property of American
Association on Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.