employment status and perceptions of control of adults with cognitive and developmental disabilities

Pergamon Research in Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 15, No. 2. pp. 119-131, 1994

Copyright 0 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd

Printed in the USA. All rights reserved

089 l-422294 $6.00 + .OO

0891-4222(93)EOOO7-H

Employment Status and Perceptions of Control of Adults With Cognitive and

Developmental Disabilities

Michael 1. Wehmeyer

National Headquarters of The Arc

This study was designed to examine the relationship between individual perceptions of control and employment status among adults with cognitive and developmental disabilities. The literature implies that one factor influencing percep-

tions of qualiry of life is the amount of control the person experiences across various domains. It was hypothesized that individuals employed in competitive

work situations would evidence more positive perceptions of control than would

their peers currently unemployed or employed in sheltered settings. Surveys con- taining the Adult version of the Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Scale and requesting information about age, gender; and employment status were mailed to

self-advocacy groups. For the more than 200 respondents, there were significant

differences in locus of control scores among individuals employed competitively, individuals employed fill-time, respondents in sheltered environments, individu-

als currently unemployed, and all other groups. Individuals unemployed and

employed in sheltered settings perceived themselves as having less control than individuals employed competitively. These results are examined in light of quali-

ty of l$e findings, focusing on the need to include choice and contml in pro- gramming for people with cognitive and developmental disabilities.

Funding for this article was provided by Grant #158K00046 from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs awarded to The Arc (formerly Association for Retarded Citizens of the United States). The contents of this article do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education and endorsement by the Federal Government should not be assumed.

The author expresses appreciation to the members and advisors of the self-advocacy groups who participated in the study.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Michael L. Wehmeyer, Department of Research and Program Services, The Arc, 500 East Border Street, Suite 300, Arlington, TX 76010.

119

120 M. L.. Wehmeyer

Of the many variables that are hypothesized to contribute to an improved quality of life for adults with developmental disabilities, perhaps the most frequently cited is employment status (Gersten, Crowell, & Bellamy, 1986; Inge, Banks, Wehman, Hill, & Schafer, 1988; Schalock, Keith, Hoffman, & Karan, 1989). The transition from adolescence to adulthood is typically conceptualized as a movement from student to employee roles. Holding a job is not only essential for financial security for most people, but contributes significantly to the degree to which one is perceived as being an adult.

Several of the investigations evaluating quality of life and employment status of adults with developmental disabilities have compared individuals in sheltered and competitive work environments. For example, Schalock et al. (1989) found significantly higher scores on the quality of life index for individuals employed in competitive or supported settings versus those employed in sheltered environments. Likewise, Sinnot-Oswald, Gliner, and Spencer (1991) reported that individuals in supported employment evi- denced higher scores on a quality of life indicator than did peers in sheltered employment.

The relationship between type of employment and an enhanced quality of life involves not one but many variables. Quality of life as measured by Schalock et al. (1989) involves “the degree of independence, productivity and community integration that a person experiences” (p. 25). Indeed, Schalock et al. found that higher scores on their quality of life index were attained by “persons in programs that more nearly approximated normal community life and that imposed fewer environmental restrictions” (p. 28). Individuals working and living in normalized settings have greater access to experiences and activities that quality of life indices would tap. However, the presence or absence of environmental restrictions are also indicators of the amount of control a person experiences in his or her daily life.

The degree to which people perceive themselves as having control over outcomes and reinforcers has been linked to various adaptive and, in the case of little or no control, maladaptive outcomes (Lefcourt, 1976; Seligman, 1975). Educators have suggested that one means of addressing the discouraging evidence that students with disabilities become adults who are unemployed or underemployed (see Chadsey-Rusch, Rusch, & O’Reilly, 1991) is to view student self-determination, choice, and control as important educational and transitional outcomes (Halloran & Henderson, 1990; Wehmeyer, 1992a).

Social learning theorists have examined the relationships between control, or the perception thereof, and various outcomes, including academic achievement (Bar-Tal & Bar-Zohar, 1977; Findley & Cooper, 1983), response to stressful situations, susceptibility to social influences, and

L.ocus of Control and Employment 121

impulsivity and distractibility (Lefcourt, 1976). These relationships were established using scales measuring individual locus of control.

Locus of control refers to the degree to which a person perceives contin- gency relationships between his or her actions and outcomes (Rotter, 1966). This is conceptualized in two dichotomous orientations; an internal or external locus of control. Individuals having an internal locus of control view themselves as able to control consequences, whereas an external locus of control indicates that one believes that reinforcers and outcomes are pri- marily controlled by others. Externality is progressively associated with more maladaptive outcomes (Lefcourt, 1976).

There are relationships between age and locus of control orientation (Hertz-Lazarowitz & Sharan, 1979; Knoop, 1981; Sherman, 1984). Studies reveal that there is a predictable developmental course for such orientation. Younger children demonstrate more external orientations and become increasingly internal. Adolescents show significantly more internal scores than do elementary age children, and this trend continues into adulthood. There are no consistent gender differences during childhood and adolescence (Chandler & Dugovics, 1977; Crandall, Katovsky, & Preston, 1962), but some research indicates post-school differences between male and female subjects, with female subjects more externally oriented than male subjects of the same age (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1978).

Most research regarding individuals with cognitive impairments has focused on adolescents. Dudley-Marling, Snider, and Tarver (1982) reviewed the literature on locus of control and learning disabilities and determined that six of seven studies examining orientations of students with learning disabilities found that these students were more externally oriented when compared with nondisabled children. Additional studies have replicated this outcome (Grolnick & Ryan, 1990; Lewis & Lawrence-Patterson, 1989; Mindinghall, Libb, & Welch, 1980; Rogers & Saklofske, 1985). Likewise, students with mental retardation have been found to be more externally oriented than their nondisabled peers. Mercer and Snell (1977) determined that four of five studies attributed more external scores to students with mental retardation than nondisabled peers (Fox, 1972; Gruen, Ottinger, & Ollendick, 1974; Riedel & Milgram, 1970; Shipe, 1971).

This investigation sought to corroborate implications from the quality of life literature that employment status and perceptions of control are related. Based on findings from the quality of life literature and the general literature pertaining to locus of control and outcome expectations, it was hypothesized that adults with cognitive impairments working in competitive or supported employment would have more internal locus of control orientations than do peers working in sheltered environments and those currently unemployed.

122 M. L. Wehmeyer

METHOD

Participants

Study participants were 216 adults ranging in age from 19 to 64 (M = 33.47) belonging to self-advocacy groups in 23 states and 2 Canadian provinces. Forty-six percent of the respondents were male (n = 99, Mean age = 32.27); 54% were female (n = 117, Mean age = 34.58). Self-advocacy groups are consumer-organized and run entities that serve as vehicles for individual and group advocacy activities and socialization opportunities. There are some 500 such organizations currently in existence across the United States (Berkobien, 1989). Most members of self-advocacy groups have moderate to mild levels of mental retardation or other developmental disabilities or cognitive impairments.

Procedure

Surveys composed of the instrument described subsequently and requesting demographic information were mailed to each self-advocacy group list- ed in the Self-Advocacy Programs Directory (Berkobien, 1989). One copy of the survey was mailed to each chapter. Chapter advisors, or the group president, were asked to: (a) Identify group members who could respond to the survey, and (b) to request a sufficient number of protocols (from the author). The response rate varied from 1 or 2 respondents per group to more than 20 responses, although most groups used the survey as part of a group meeting and included all available members. Two hundred forty surveys were returned; however, only 216 were complete. Demographic information collected included age, gender, type of work in which the individual was currently engaged, and employment status (e.g., full-time, part-time, or unemployed). Respondents were instructed to identify their current type of employment from the following choices: (a) no job at present time; (b) sheltered employment or piece/rate; and (c) competitive or supported employment, including office or clerical work, food services, construction or labor, retail sales or stocking, child care or education, machine operator, health related, human services, or other. Respondents were advised to complete the survey independently, but could rely on the group advisor to read the questions orally if necessary.

Instrument

Each participant completed the Adult version of the Nowicki- Strickland Internal-External Scale, or ANS-IE (Nowicki & Duke, 1974; Nowicki & Strickland, 1973). The ANS-IE is a general locus of control

L.ocus of Control and Employment 123

scale consisting of 40 items answered in a “yes” or “no” format. The scale includes questions pertaining to problem-solving style (Do you believe that most problems will solve themselves if you just don’t fool with them?), the role of luck/fate vs. hard work and persistence (Do you think it is better to be smart than to be lucky? Do you believe that people can get their own way if they just keep trying? Are some people just born lucky? Do you believe that if somebody studies hard enough, he or she can pass any subject?), and general perceptions of futility/helplessness versus control and choice (Do you feel you have a lot of choice in decid- ing who your friends are? Do you feel that when you do something wrong there’s very little you can do to make it right? Most of the time, do you feel that you can change what might happen tomorrow by what you do today?).

This scale has reported split-half reliability figures ranging from .74 to .86, with test-retest reliability figures ranging from .63 to .76, and was designed to be administered either individually or in group settings. Reported mean scores on the ANS-IE for college age students were 9.06 with a standard deviation of 3.89. For nondisabled adults in the community, a mean of 10.96 and a standard deviation of 5.61 was reported. The assessment yields a final score based on the number of items answered in an external direction. The higher the score, the more external the person’s orientation. Although normed with individuals without disabilities, the instrument has been used to determine locus of control orientation for individuals with cognitive impairments in previous research efforts (Fincham & Barling, 1978; Hallahan, Gajar, Cohen, & Thrver, 1978; Rogers & Saklofske, 1985; Swanson, 1980, 1981). Wehmeyer (1993a) determined that the factor structure of the ANS-IE, when used with adolescents and adults with mental retardation, was comparable to the factor structure for youth and adults without disabilities.

Analysis

A 5 x 2 x 2 analysis of variance was computed with type of employment (Currently unemployed, Sheltered/full-time, Sheltered/part-time, Competitive/full-time and Competitive/part-time), gender, and age as inde- pendent variables and locus of control as the dependent variable. Participants were divided into two age groups based on a frequency distri- bution, with one group ages 19 through 31 and the second group ages 32 to 64. Due to relatively small cell sizes for higher order interactions, three- way interactions were suppressed and pooled into the residual sum of squares. Significant main effects were examined post hoc using Duncan’s multiple-range test at the .05 significance level. Data were analyzed using SPSS-PC+ (Norusis, 1986).

124 M. L. Wehmeyer

RESULTS

There was a significant overall effect (p = .OOl), with a significant main effect for type of employment, [F(4,6) = 5.935, p > .OOl]. There were no significant main effects for either gender or age, but there was a moderately significant interaction effect for employment by gender [F(4,9) = 2.462, p = .047]. One way analysis for locus of control by employment type indi- cated significant differences, using the Duncan test at the .05 level, between individuals employed competitively/full-time and those employed in sheltered environments/full-time. There were also significant post hoc results between individuals currently unemployed and all other groups. The overall locus of control mean score for the sample was 16.4. Mean scores, standard deviations, and group sizes for each employment type are given in Table 1.

Examination of the means for employment status by gender showed no consistent patterns. Female subjects who were unemployed had more external orientations (M = 20.74) than did male subjects (M = 16.3). However, male subjects employed in sheltered environments full time showed more external scores (M = 18.0) than did female subjects (M = 16.53). Other levels were roughly comparable for gender.

DISCUSSION

Results from the analysis supported the hypothesis that perceptions of control are related to employment status. As the quality of life literature has suggested, individuals in sheltered environments perceived themselves as having less control than did counterparts in competitive settings. Individuals with disabilities who were unemployed had the highest, and thus most external, locus of control scores, suggesting they experienced the least control of the subjects studied. Figure 1 compares scores for each

TABLE 1 Group Size, Mean Locus of Control Scores (Adult Version of the Nowicki-Strickland

Internal-External Scale), and Standard Deviations by Employment Status (Unemployed, Sheltered Employment and Competitive Employment,

Full/Part-Time)

Employment Status n

CompetitiveFull-time 51 Competitive/Part-time 38 Sheltered&WI-time 55 Sheltered/Part-time 34 Unemployed 32

Total group 216

Mean ANS-IE Score SD __- __-.

14.95 5.05 16.03 3.51 17.09 3.89 15.74 3.04 18.97 4.98

16.40 4.40 _ ~_ ~~~ _~ ~_~ _~ .~

Locus of Control and Employment 125

group (collapsed into unemployed, sheltered environment, competitive environment) with established means for adults without disabilities (Nowicki Jz Duke, 1974). This illustrates the positive relationship between internality and greater control when one moves along a continuum of environments allowing less control (unemployment, sheltered) to those providing opportunities for control and choice (competitive employment).

These results also provide information concerning how people with cognitive disabilities, overall, perceive themselves in terms of control. As Figure 1 shows, even individuals employed in competitive settings had more external scores than expected from scale norms. Individuals in sheltered settings or who were unemployed scored more than one standard deviation above the norm for adults. This is consistent with findings reviewed previously that people with disabilities on the whole, and people with cognitive impairments specifically, hold more externally oriented perceptions of control. As discussed, externality is related to maladaptive outcomes (Lefcourt, 1976) whereas internality has been found to correlate with higher self-esteem and self-concept, peer acceptance and popularity, leadership and lower anxiety.

It is, of course, impossible to ascribe causality or directionality based upon these results. Individuals who have more internal orientations are probably more likely to obtain competitive employment, whereas individuals with more external orientations may be more likely to be in more sheltered

L 0 19375 - c ”

s 16.57 .

Do;

f ’ o 13.765 . .

nC’ o= n 10.96 . . t r 0 8.155 . I Cognitive

Disability, Unemployed

Cognitive Cognitive Disability, Disability, Sheltered Competitive

Employment Employment

Group

Scale Mean, Adults

without Disabilities

FIGURE 1. Locus of control scores for three levels of employment status (unemployed, sheltered, and competitive) compared with standardized scores (M, SD) from the adult version of the Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Scale. Note: Scale intervals reflect ANS-IE standardization data, with a mean of 10.96 and a Standard Deviation of 5.61.

126 M. L. Wehmeyer

environments or unemployed. It is unlikely, however, that this is the sole or primary explanation for these findings. Too often individuals with cognitive disabilities have very few opportunities to make choices or decisions regarding employment and are, instead, reliant upon the availability of services and the effectiveness of case managers and vocational rehabilitation person- nel. Wehmeyer (1992b) found that only 9% of individuals active in self- advocacy groups (n = 215) who were employed had located their current job by themselves.

Second, Schalock et al. (1989) found that quality of life indicators were higher for individuals in residential and vocational programs that more nearly approximated typical community life with fewer restrictions. These authors argued that the consistent differences across domain areas (e.g. vocational and living) suggested that the actual environment and the amount of environmental control can account for some of the differences in perceptions of quality of life. In support of this, Kishi, Teelucksingh, Zollers, Park-Lee, and Meyer (1988) found that adults with mental retardation who lived in group homes had significantly fewer choices in their daily activities than did a control group of nondisabled peers. When compared with nondisabled adults, adults with mental retardation reported fewer opportunities to chose what to eat, what to do in leisure time, what television shows to watch, how to spend money, who to live with, when to go to bed, and what job or work they wanted to do.

A second variable that confounds interpretation involves the relationship between the severity of the disability and perceptions of control. It was not possible to control for severity within the design used in this study. It is suggested that the nature of the survey (e.g., pencil/paper scale), the relative complexity of the questions on the ANS-IE, and instructions to the group advisor/president to select participants who could complete the ques- tionnaire independently served to limit the participation of individuals with severe cognitive disabilities. This procedure was introduced, at least mini- mally, to provide some assurance of homogeneity in severity of disability (e.g., probable respondents would be those individuals capable of reading the questions or, if having them read to them, able to independently answer the questions). By so doing, however, we cannot eliminate the possibility of a nonresponse bias. Participants might have been included because of convenience or their willingness to cooperate.

Several factors suggest that this is probably not the case. The majority of responses were from entire groups who had participated in the activity as a part of their regularly scheduled meeting, not from selected individuals at a greater number of sites. Responses were received from a widely dispersed geographic area, including 23 states, ranging from Maine to California and two Canadian provinces (Ontario and British Columbia) and represented urban and rural locations. It is likely that any nonresponse bias would


reflect, mainly, an inability to complete the survey due to cognitive or physical limitations. It should also be noted that although there were no specific controls introduced to ensure that all participants had a cognitive disability, self-advocacy groups, almost without exception, limit member- ship to individuals who have been labeled as having mental retardation. This is, in most cases, included in the groups charter. Many of the self- advocacy groups participating were affiliated with service or advocacy organizations that serve the needs of individuals with mental retardation and developmental disabilities, and it is probable that the vast majority of respondents were adults with mental retardation.

To the extent that individuals working in sheltered employment settings disproportionately represent people with more severe mental retardation, differences in locus of control perceptions could be related more to the severity of the individual’s disability than the setting. However, this should not be accepted a priori. First, there are many individuals with mild levels of cognitive disability working in sheltered environments simply because nothing else was available. For example, people living in rural areas may have more limited access to vocational rehabilitation and placement spe- cialists than do individuals in metropolitan areas.

Second, intelligence may play a less important role in perceptions of control than do other factors, such as gender. Research findings with the ANS-IE have not found IQ-related differences, but there are suggestions of gender differences. Our own research found that although scores for students with mental retardation were more external than scores for students with learning disabilities, these differences were not statistically significant, and both groups differed significantly from a control group of students without a disability (Wehmeyer, in press). However, among all subjects, girls with learning disabilities had the most external scores. These scores were significantly more external than were scores of boys with learning disabilities (Wehmeyer 1993b).

In addition to examining differences in total locus of control scores, it is necessary to look at what these scores reflect. There have been numerous reports that the factors contributing to the ANS-IE total score vary according to gender. A factor analysis of ANS-IE scores of adolescents and adults with mental retardation found no gender differences in locus of control scores, but different factor structures by gender (Wehmeyer, 1993a). External scores for male subjects reflected an overreliance on luck or chance and internal scores reflected an emphasis on hard work and persistence, whereas external scores for female subjects reflected a sense of futility and helplessness and internal scores focused more on personal and familial relationships and their importance. Thus, higher scores reflected different perceptions of control, and different interpretations of scores according to gender. Dudley-Marling, Snider, and Tarver (1982) suggested

128 M. L. Wehmeyer

that students with learning disabilities have a tendency to attribute failures internally and successes externally. Fox (1972) suggested that this was the opposite for students with mental retardation, with failures attributed externally (to luck, chance, or fate) and successes attributed internally. Again, scores that may be equally external require different interpretations, this time according to disability label.

Given that severity of disability is a factor, in conjunction with other variables like gender or type of disability, in the development of less opti- mal perceptions of control, it is not possible to attribute that outcome solely to the individual’s inability to take control and make choices. Kishi et al. (1988) found that the degree to which adults with mental retardation were allowed to make choices was directly related to the severity of the individual’s disability. It may well be that more external perceptions of control associated with severity are resultant not from individual characteristics but severe restrictions on the opportunities to choose and take control.

A final caution regarding these results is that participants may have been overly influenced by advisors when completing the survey, and as such the results reflect the perceptions of others. Although there is no way to eliminate this possibility, there is reason to doubt its validity. Self-advocacy groups are particularly oriented toward personal advocacy and empowerment. Most advisors routinely face the dilemma of providing assistance without setting the agenda of the group. The goals and activities of these organizations are geared toward empowering the individual to act on his or her own behalf.

It seems likely that the environment in which an individual works contributes to his or her perception that they are in control of reinforcers and outcomes that impact them. The literature suggests and these findings support the fact that individuals with cognitive and developmental disabilities are at risk for perceiving themselves as lacking control. Subsequent research should examine the role of variables, such as severity of disability, gender, and type of disability, and there is a need for research that provides information regarding causality, both in terms of what experiences lead to external/internal perceptions of control and what impact locus of control orientation has on outcomes such as employment, community integration, and so forth.

Although there are questions yet to be answered regarding the relative self-determination of individuals with cognitive and developmental disabilities, there are, nonetheless, valid reasons that clinicians, service providers, educators, and others should provide instruction and day-to-day experiences to enhance choice and control and self-determination. People with disabilities have emphasized both the importance of and the barriers to self- determination in their lives (Ward, 1988; Williams, 1989). Perceptions of self-determination, such as locus of control, self-efficacy, self-awareness


and self-esteem have been identified as contributing to more positive educational, achievement, and adult outcomes (Deci & Chandler, 1986; Lefcourt, 1976; Schunk, 1985). Finally, recent federal initiatives have provided the impetus for more attention to the promotion of self-determination, providing specific instructional and noninstructional means of achieving this outcome (Martin, Marshall, & Maxson, 1993; Mithaug, 1992; Wehmeyer, 1992a, 1992b).

REFERENCES

Bar-Tal, D., & Bar-Zohar, Y. (1977). The relationship between perception of locus of control and academic achievement: Review and some educational implications. Contemporary Educafional Psychology, 2, 181-199.

Berkobien, R. (1989). Self-advocacy programs directory: Self-advocacy groups around the coun- try. Arlington, TX: The Arc National Headquarters.

Chadsey-Rusch, J., Rusch, F. R., & O’Reilly, M. F. (1991). Transition from school to integrated communities. Remedial and Special Education, 12, 23-33.

Chandler, T. A., & Dugovics, D. A. (1977). Sex differences in research on locus of control. Psychological Reports, 41.47-53.

Crandall, V. J., Katovsky, W., & Preston, A. (1962). Motivational and ability determinants of young children’s intellectual achievement behaviors. Child Developmenf, 33, 643-661.

Deci, E. L., & Chandler, C. L. (1986). The importance of motivation for the future of the LD field. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 587-594.

Dudley-Marling, C. C., Snider, V., & Tarver, S. G. (1982). Locus of control and learning disabilities: A review and discussion. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 54, 503-5 14.

Fincham, F., & Barling, J. (1978). Locus of control and generosity in learning disabled, normal achieving and gifted children. Child Development, 49.530-533.

Findley, M. J., & Cooper, H. M. (1983). Locus of control and academic achievement: A literature review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44.419-427.

Fox, P B. (1972). Locus of control and self concept in mildly retarded adolescents (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota). Dissertation Abstracts, 33, 2807B.

Gersten, R., Crowell, F., & Bellamy, T. (1986). Spill-over effects: Impact of vocational training on the lives of severely mentally retarded clients. American Journal of Menfal Deficiency, 90, 501-506.

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1990). Self-perceptions, motivation, and adjustment in children with learning disabilities: A multiple group comparison study. Journal of Learning Disabilifies, 23, 177-184.

Gruen, G. E., Ottinger, D. R., & Ollendick, T. H. (1974). Probability learning in retarded children with differing histories of success and failure in school. American Journal of Mental

Deficiency, 79.417-423.

Hallaban, D. I?, Gajar, A. H., Cohen, S. B., & Tarver, S. G. (1978). Selective attention and locus of control in learning disabled and normal children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 47-52.

Halloran, W., & Henderson, D. R. (1990). Transition issues for the 1990s. Universiry of Minnesota Institute on Community Integration IMPACT Feature Issue on Transition, 3(3), 2-3.

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Sharan, S. (1979). Self-esteem, locus of control and children’s perception of classroom social climate: A developmental perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4, 154-l 6 1.

Inge, K. J., Banks, D., Wehman, I!, Hill, J., & Shafer, M. S. (1988). Quality of life for individuals who are labeled mentally retarded: Evaluating competitive employment versus sheltered work- shop employment. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 23, 97-104.

130 h4. L. Wehmeyer

Kishi, G., Teelucksingh, B., Zollers, N., Park-Lee, S., & Meyer, L. (1988). Daily decision-making in community residences: A social comparison of adults with and without mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 92,430-435.

Knoop, R. (1981). Age and correlates of locus of control. The Journal of Psychology, 108,

103-106. Lefcoutt, H. M. (1976). The psychology of control. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Lewis, S. K., & Lawrence-Patterson, E. (1989). Locus of control of children with learning disabil-

ities and perceived locus of control by significant others. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22,

255-257.

Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1978). The psychology of sex diflerences (Vol. I). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Martin, J. E., Marshall, L. H., & Maxson, L. (1993). Transition policy: Infusing self-determination and self-advocacy into transition programs. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 16,53-61.

Mercer, C. D., & Snell, M. E. (1977). Learning theory research in mental retardation: Implications for teaching. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

Mindingall, A., Libb, J. W., & Welch, M. (1980). Locus of control and personality functioning of learning disabled children. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36, 137-141.

Mithaug, D. E. (1991). Se[fdetetmined kids: Raising satisfied and successful children. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Norusis, M. J. (1986). SPSS/PC+ for the IBM PC/XT/AT. Chicago: SPSS, Inc. Nowicki, S., & Duke, MI? (1974). A locus of control scale for non-college as well as college

adults. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, 136-137. Nowicki, S., & Strickland, B. R. (1973). A locus of control scale for children. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40, 14X-154. Riedel, W. W., & Milgram, N. A. (1970). Level of aspiration, locus of control and n-achievement

in retardates and normal children. Psychological Reports, 27, 55 l-557.

Rogers, H., & Saklofske, D. H. (1985). Self-concepts, locus of control and performance expecta tions of learning disabled children. Journal r,fLearning Disabilities, 18, 273-278.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforce- ment. Psychological Monographs, 80( 1, Whole No. 609).

Schalock, R. L., Keith, K. D., Hoffman, K., & Karan, 0. C. (1989). Quality of life: Its measurement and use. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 27, 25-3 1.

Schunk, D. H. (1985). Participation in goal setting: Effects on children’s self-efficacy and achievement. The Journal of Special Education, 19,307-316.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development and death. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Sherman, L. W. (1984). Development of children’s perceptions of internal locus of control: A cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality, 52, 338-354.

Shipe, D. (1971). Impulsivity and locus of control as predictors of achievement and adjustment in mildly retarded and borderline youth. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 76, 12-22.

Sinnot-Oswald, M., Gliner, J. A., & Spencer, K. C. (1991). Supported and sheltered employment: Quality of life issues among workers with disabilities. Education and Training in Mental

Retardation, 26,388-397.

Swanson, L. (1980). Cognitive style, locus of control, and school achievement in learning disabled females. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36, 965-967.

Swanson, L. (1981). Locus of control and academic achievement in learning disabled children.

The Journal of Social Psychology, 113, 141-142. Ward, M. J. (1988). The many facets of self-determination. National Information Center for

Children and Youth with Handicaps: Transition Summary, 5, 2-3.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (1992a). Self-determination and the education of students with mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 27, 302-3 14.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (1992b). Self-determination: Critical skills for outcome-oriented transition services. The Journal qf Vocational Special Needs Education, 1.5, 3-7.


Wehmeyer, M. L. (1993a). Factor structure and construct validity of a locus of control scale with individuals with mental retardation. Educarional and Psychological Measurement, 53, 1055-1066.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (1993b). Gender differences in locus of control scores for students with learning disabilities. Perceptual andMotor Skills. 77, 359-366.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (in press). Perceptions of self-determination and psychological empowerment of adolescents with mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation.

Williams, R. (1989). Creating a new world of opportunity: Expanding choice and self-determination in the lives of Americans with severe disabilities by 1992 and beyond. In R. Perske (Ed.), Proceedings of the National Conference on Self-determination (pp. 16-20). Minneapolis: Institute on Community Integration.

employment status and perceptions of control of adults with cognitive and developmental disabilities

Documents