Archived Information

**Self-Determination and the Empowerment of People with Disabilities**

Michael L. Wehmeyer, Ph.D.

Dr. Wehmeyer is Associate Professor, Department of Special Education,
and Director, Kansas University Center on Developmental Disabilities, at
the University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, and Principal Investigator
for the RSA-funded project "Making it More Than a Job: Infusing
Self-Determination Into the Vocational Rehabilitation Process."

The usage note in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language (2000) states the following with regard to the word empower:

"Although it is a contemporary buzzword, the word empower is not new,
having arisen in the mid-17th century with the legalistic meaning 'to
invest with authority, authorize.' Shortly thereafter it began to be
used with an infinitive in a more general way meaning 'to enable or
permit.' Both of these uses survive today but have been overpowered by
the word's use in politics and pop psychology. Its modern use originated
in the civil rights movement, which sought political empowerment for its
followers" (2000, pp. 586-587).

Leaving aside a discussion as to whether empowerment is merely a
buzzword (when one is not empowered, it probably does not sound very
much like a buzzword), it is worth noting the meaning shift or drift
that has occurred with use of the term since its 17th century
origination and the current linkages between empowerment and issues of
control over one's life. However, despite the American Heritage
Dictionary's indication that the term's meaning has shifted, it remains
less than convincing that the way in which many people use the term is
not closer to the original sense of the term. The problem with that
meaning with regard to people with disabilities is, of course, that in
the end, when one has the power to invest someone else with authority,
one also has the power, presumably, to withhold granting that authority.
Power and control remain, fundamentally, with the granter in that
circumstance. Similarly, the more current meaning, "to enable or
permit," seems to offer two synonyms that, in the end, are not equally
effective in solving the "granting authority" problem (American Heritage
Dictionary, 2000). That is, the act of "permitting" implies authority on
the part of one person to allow another to do something, or not. The
meaning of empowerment (or more accurately, empower), "to enable," is,
in my mind, closer to the sense of the term as used when associated with
social movements, particularly the disability rights movement, which
typically uses the term in reference to actions that "enhance the
possibilities for people to control their lives" (Rappaport, 1981, p.
15). Enable means "to supply with the means, knowledge, or opportunity;
to make feasible or possible" (American Heritage Dictionary).

Consideration of what it means to empower someone with a disability is
more than just a semantic exercise. Well-intentioned professionals
across many disciplines mistake empowerment as something that someone
grants or gives to someone else, to the end that the effort falls short
of the standard of enhancing the possibilities for people to control
their lives. There is a bit of a Catch 22 to issues pertaining to
empowerment and professionals in rehabilitation, in that many such
professionals genuinely want to do whatever they can to empower people
with disabilities but, similarly, don't want to err in assuming that any
ultimate authority to grant power or control lies within those very same
people. The way out of this conundrum is through efforts to enable
people with disabilities to exert control in their lives and, as a
function of such actions, to become empowered to do so to a greater
extent. As professionals in rehabilitation, the route to "enablement" is
by providing opportunities and supports that promote and enhance the
self-determination of people with disabilities.

That this is both an appropriate and important focus is illustrated in
the findings of Congress from the 1992 Amendments to the Rehabilitation
Act (and in the subsequent 1998 reauthorization), which state
"disability is a natural part of the human experience and in no way
diminishes the right of individuals to:

a\. live independently;

b\. enjoy self-determination;

c\. make choices;

d\. contribute to society;

e\. pursue meaningful careers; and

f\. enjoy full inclusion and integration in the economic, political,
social, cultural and educational mainstream of American society"
(Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended).

The 1998 amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 strengthened and
emphasized the importance of self-determination by strengthening the
role of informed choice in the rehabilitation process. Indeed, there is
a national trend toward residential and vocational services that are
delivered in a more consumer-driven manner (Callahan, Shumpert & Mast,
2002; Kilsby & Beyer, 2002; West, 1995). In the end, the intent of
Congress in the Rehabilitation Act and the impact of the choice mandates
will depend on the capacity of rehabilitation professionals to do
business in such a way as to genuinely enable people with disabilities
to become more self-determined.

What Is Self-Determination?

Put most simply, the self-determination construct refers to both the
right and capacity of individuals to exert control over and direct their
lives. The construct's use in reference to a right is grounded in its
meaning referring to the political right of people or peoples to
self-governance. Disability advocates and activists have stressed the
inherent right of people with disabilities to assume responsibility for
and control over their lives (Kennedy, 1996; Ward, 1996). In the 1990s,
promoting and enhancing the self-determination of students with
disabilities, particularly as a function of the transition planning
process, became best practice (Wehmeyer, Agran & Hughes, 1998). These
efforts focused primarily on enhancing student capacity to become
self-determined and exert control in one's life by promoting goal
setting, problem-solving, decision-making and self-advocacy skills; they
also focused on efforts to promote opportunities for students to use
these skills.

A variety of definitions of the construct have emerged from efforts in
special education (see Wehmeyer, Abery, Mithaug & Stancliffe, 2003).
Field, Martin, Miller, Ward and Wehmeyer (1998) summarized these various
definitions of self-determination by stating that self-determined people
apply "a combination of skills, knowledge and beliefs" that enable them
"to engage in goal-directed, self-regulated, autonomous behavior. An
understanding of one's strengths and limitations together with a belief
in oneself as capable and effective are essential in self-determination.
When acting on the basis of these skills and attitudes, individuals have
greater ability to take control of their lives and assume the role of
successful adults in our society" (p. 2). Field et al. (1998) further
delineated the common components of self-determined behavior identified
across multiple self-determination models or frameworks. These include:

a\. awareness of personal preferences, interests, strengths and
limitations;

b\. ability to

> i\. differentiate between wants and needs,
>
> ii\. make choices based on preferences, interests, wants and needs,
>
> iii\. consider multiple options and anticipate consequences for
> decisions,
>
> iv\. initiate and take action when needed,
>
> v\. evaluate decisions based on the outcomes of previous decisions and
> revise future decisions accordingly,
>
> vi\. set and work toward goals,
>
> vii\. regulate behavior,
>
> viii\. use communication skills such as negotiation, compromise and
> persuasion to reach goals, and
>
> ix\. assume responsibility for actions and decisions;

c\. skills for problem-solving;

d\. a striving for independence while recognizing interdependence with
others;

e\. self-advocacy and self-evaluation skills;

f\. independent performance and adjustment skills,

g\. persistence;

h\. self-confidence;

i\. pride; and

j\. creativity.

Is Self-Determination Important for Consumers of Vocational
Rehabilitation Services?

There are several indicators to suggest that the answer to this question
is "yes."

First, as mentioned previously, promoting choice and self-determination
is mandated by federal disability policy and legislation.

Second, people with disabilities have been unequivocal in their demands
for enhanced self-determination (Kennedy, 1996; Ward, 1996).

Third, there is compelling evidence from the special education
literature that enhanced self-determination leads to more positive adult
outcomes, outcomes that are equally valued by the field of
rehabilitation. Wehmeyer and Schwartz (1997) measured the
self-determination status of 80 students with mild mental retardation or
learning disabilities in their final year of high school and one year
after high school. Students with higher self-determination scores were
more likely to have expressed a preference to live outside the family
home, have a savings or checking account, and be employed for pay.
Eighty percent of students in the high self-determination group worked
for pay one year after graduation, while only 43 percent of students in
the low self-determination group did likewise. Among school-leavers who
were employed, youths who were in the high self-determination group
earned significantly more per hour (M=\$4.26) than their peers in the
low self-determination group (M=\$1.93)(where "M" represents "mean.")

Wehmeyer and Palmer (2003) conducted a second study, examining the adult
status of 94 young people with cognitive disabilities (mental
retardation or learning disability) one and three years after high
school. These data were consistent with results from Wehmeyer and
Schwartz (1997). One year after high school, students in the high
self-determination group were disproportionately likely to have moved
from where they were living during high school, and by the third year
they were still disproportionately likely to live somewhere other than
their high school home and were significantly more likely to live
independently. Young adults in the high self-determination group were
more likely to maintain a bank account by year one, an outcome most
likely attributable to the employment status of students in the two
groups. Students in the high self-determination group were
disproportionately likely to hold a job by the first-year follow-up, to
be working either full- or part-time, and to have held a job or have
received job training by year three. For those students across the
complete sample who were employed, students scoring higher in
self-determination made statistically significant advances in obtaining
job benefits, including vacation and sick leave and health insurance, an
outcome not shared by their peers in the low self-determination group.
Overall, there was not a single area in which the low self-determination
group fared more positively then the high self-determination group.
German, Martin, Marshall and Sale (2000) found that instruction in
self-determination could improve student goal setting and enhance
participation in educational planning. Sowers and Powers (1995) showed
that instruction on multiple components related to self-determination
increased the participation and independence of students with severe
disabilities in performing community activities.

Finally, there is a growing body of evidence in the field of vocational
rehabilitation (VR) that enhancing choice opportunities leads to better
VR-related outcomes. For example, Farley, Bolton and Parkerson (1992)
evaluated the impact of strategies to enhance consumer choice and
involvement in the VR process and found that consumers who were actively
involved in VR planning had better vocational career development
outcomes. Similarly, Hartnett, Collins and Tremblay (2002) compared
costs, services received and outcomes achieved between one group served
through the typical VR system and another group involved in a Consumer
Choice Demonstration Project in Vermont. They found that the Choice
group was two times more likely to have completed rehabilitation and
that their mean income was 2.7 times higher.

Promoting the Self-Determination of VR Consumers

If the means by which rehabilitation professionals contribute to the
empowerment of VR consumers with disabilities is to provide
opportunities and supports to enable people to become more
self-determined, what are some of the specific strategies that
rehabilitation professionals can use to achieve this outcome? It is
tempting to take a "skills remediation" approach to "teach" VR consumers
skills they do not have that would enhance self-determination. However,
it is important that adults with disabilities not be treated as if they
are eternal students, which equates too closely with being eternal
children. Thus, it is important that efforts to promote skills such as
career and job goal setting, decision making, problem solving and
self-management be done within a context in which the consumer is in
charge of the process. Like other disability systems, traditional
vocational services tend to have been "other-directed." That is, in too
many cases, decisions about jobs or careers are made for people with
disabilities instead of by people with disabilities. There are many
reasons for this, including the fact that many customers of VR services
simply have not had the experiences and opportunities necessary to
enable them to be more self-directed. VR counselors may experience
frustration because they want to support individuals to make their own
decisions or take greater control and responsibility for their career
advancement, yet the individual's limited capacity and experiences are
barriers to those outcomes.

Under the auspices of a special demonstration project of the
Rehabilitation Services Administration, we at the University of Kansas
Beach Center on Disability have been involved in the development and
evaluation of a model for use with adults specific to the career
decision-making and job-placement processes of VR services in the state
of Kansas (Wehmeyer, Lattimore et al., in press). This model --- the
Self-Determined Career Development Model --- is designed to enable VR
consumers to engage in a self-regulated problem-solving and goal-setting
process leading to job placement. The remainder of this article
describes this model as an example of how to promote self-determination
and thereby empower people with disabilities through the rehabilitation
process.

Table 1. Phase 1, Self-Determined Career Development Model

> Problem to Solve: What are my career and job goals?
>
> Question 1: What career and job do I want?
>
> Objectives of VR counseling:
>
> · Enable person to identify career/job
> preferences/interests/beliefs/values.
>
> · Enable person to identify strengths and needs related to
> jobs/careers.
>
> · Enable and support person to prioritize career and jobs options and
> select preferred option(s).
>
> Question 2: What do I know about it now?
>
> Objectives of VR counseling:
>
> · Enable person to identify his or her current status in relation to
> prioritized job and career option(s).
>
> · Enable person to identify knowledge/skills/needs of job/career
> option.
>
> · Assist person to gather information about opportunities and barriers
> in his or her environments pertaining to prioritized job and career
> option(s).
>
> Question 3: What must change for me to get the job and career I want?
>
> Objectives of VR counseling:
>
> · Support person to prioritize needs related to job/career
> preference(s).
>
> · Enable person to choose primary need and decide if action needs to
> be focused toward capacity building, modifying the environment or
> both.
>
> Question 4: What can I do to make this happen?
>
> Objectives of VR counseling:
>
> · Teach person to state his or her career/employment goals/objectives.
>
> Employment Supports
>
> · Awareness Training.
>
> · Self-Assess Job or Career Preferences/Abilities.
>
> · Career and Job Exploration.
>
> · Job Shadowing and Sampling.
>
> · Organizational Skills Training.
>
> · Problem Solving Instruction.
>
> · Choice-Making Instruction.
>
> · Decision-Making Instruction.
>
> · Goal-Setting Instruction.

Adapted from Wehmeyer, Lattimore et al. (2003).

Table 2. Phase 2, Self-Determined Career Development Model

> Problem to Solve: What is my plan
>
> Question 1: What actions can I take to reach my career or employment
> goal?
>
> Objectives of VR counseling:
>
> · Enable person to identify alternatives to achieve career/employment
> goal.
>
> · Assist person to gather information on consequences of alternatives.
>
> · Enable person to select best action alternatives.
>
> Question 2: What could keep me from taking action?
>
> Objectives of VR counseling:
>
> · Support person to identify barriers to implementing action
> alternatives.
>
> · Support person to identify actions to remove barriers.
>
> Question 3: What can I do to remove these barriers?
>
> Objectives of VR counseling:
>
> · Assist person in identifying appropriate employment supports to
> implement selected action alternative.
>
> · Teach person knowledge/skills needed to implement selected supports.
>
> Question 4: When will I take action?
>
> Objectives of VR counseling:
>
> · Enable person to determine schedule for action plan to remove
> barriers and implement supports.
>
> · Support and enable person to implement the action plan.
>
> · Enable person to self-monitor his or her progress.
>
> Employment Supports
>
> · Exploration of Community Resource/Support.
>
> · Problem Solving Instruction.
>
> · Self-Scheduling Training.
>
> · Self-Instruction Training.
>
> · Picture-Cue Training.
>
> · Decision-Making Instruction.
>
> · Self-Advocacy Instruction.
>
> · Assertiveness Training.
>
> · Self-Monitoring Instruction.

Adapted from Wehmeyer, Lattimore et al. (2003).

Table 3. Phase 3, Self-Determined Career Development Model

> Problem to Solve: What have I achieved?
>
> Question 1: What actions have I taken?

Objectives of VR counseling:

> · Enable person to self-evaluate and articulate progress toward goal.
>
> Question 2: What barriers have been removed?
>
> Objectives of VR counseling:
>
> · Assist person to compare progress with his or her desired outcomes.
>
> Question 3: What has changed to enable me to get the job and career I
> want?
>
> Objectives of VR counseling:
>
> · Support person to re-evaluate goal if progress is insufficient.
>
> · Assist person to decide if goal remains the same or changes.
>
> · Collaborate with person to identify if the action plan is adequate
> or inadequate given revised or retained goal.
>
> · Assist person to change action plan if necessary.
>
> Question 4: Have I achieved what I want to achieve?
>
> Objectives of VR counseling:
>
> · Enable person to decide if progress is adequate, inadequate, or if
> goal has been achieved.
>
> · If this goal has been achieved, enable person to decide if a
> different goal is needed to achieve his or her employment or career
> goals.
>
> Employment Supports
>
> · Self-Evaluation Instruction.

Adapted from Wehmeyer, Lattimore et al. (2003).

The Self-Determined Career Development Model evaluated in this article
was based on the team's previous work with a model of teaching for
students with disabilities. It is simplest to describe the adult version
of this model for VR by first describing the school-based model.

The Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction (SDLMI) was designed
to enable educators to teach students to self-direct the instructional
process and, at the same time, enhance their self-determination
(Mithaug, Wehmeyer, Agran, Martin & Palmer, 1998; Wehmeyer, Palmer,
Agran, Mithaug & Martin 2000). The SDLMI is based on the component
elements of self-determination (Wehmeyer, 1999, 2001), the process of
self-regulated problem solving and on research on student-directed
learning. It is appropriate for students with and without disabilities
across multiple content areas, and it enables teachers to engage
students in their educational programs by increasing opportunities to
self-direct learning. Implementation of the SDLMI consists of a
three-phase process. Each phase presents a problem the student must
solve by posing and answering a series of four Student Questions (per
phase), which students learn, modify to make their own and apply to
reach self-selected goals. Each question is linked to a set of Teacher
Objectives. Each instructional phase includes Educational Supports
identified for teachers to use to enable students to self-direct
learning in a variety of areas including, but not limited to, problem
solving, choice making, goal development, self-evaluation and
self-monitoring.

The problem to solve in Phase 1 is "What is my goal?" In Phase 2, the
problem to be solved is "What is my action plan?" and in Phase 3, the
problem is "What have I learned?" The Student Questions direct the
student through a problem-solving sequence in each instructional phase.
The solutions to the problem in each phase lead to the problem-solving
sequence in the next phase. Question construction was based on theory in
the problem-solving and self-regulation literature that suggests there
is a "means-ends" problem-solving sequence that must be followed for any
person's actions to produce results to satisfy his or her needs and
interests. Teachers implementing the model teach students to solve a
sequence of problems by constructing a "means-ends chain," a causal
sequence that moves them from where they are to where they want to be, a
goal state (Mithaug, et al., 1998).

By answering the questions in this sequence, students are supported to
regulate their own problem solving by setting goals to meet needs,
constructing plans to meet goals, and adjusting actions to complete
plans. The questions differ from phase to phase, but represent identical
steps in the problem-solving sequence. That is, students answering the
questions must:

• identify the problem,

• identify potential solutions to the problem,

• identify barriers to solving the problem, and

• identify consequences of each solution.

These steps are the basic steps in any problem-solving process and they
form the means-end problem-solving sequence represented by the Student
Questions in each phase. The first time a teacher uses the model with a
student, the initial step in the process is to read each question with
or to the student, discuss what the question means and then, as needed,
change the wording to enable that student to better understand the
intent. In wording changes, the problem-solving intent of the question
must remain intact. Going through this process several times as the
student progresses through the model should result in a set of questions
that a student accepts as his or her own.

The Teacher Objectives within the model provide suggestions for teachers
to enable and support students to work through the Student Questions by
scaffolding instruction1, using direct teaching strategies, or
collaborating with students to determine the best strategies to achieve
goals. The Educational Supports are educational and instructional
activities to enable teachers to support students' efforts to answer
questions. The emphasis in the model on the use of educational supports
that are student-directed provides another means of teaching students to
support themselves.

By using the Student Questions, students learn a self-regulated
problem-solving strategy to use in goal attainment. Concurrently,
teaching students to use self-directed learning strategies provides
skills that enable them to begin to become the causal agent in their
lives.

The Self-Determined Career Development Model is equivalent to the SDLMI,
except that it has been modified for use to support adults and it is
specific to the career decision-making process. The three phases of the
model are depicted in Tables 1, 2 and 3. The problem to solve in Phase 1
is "What are my career and job goals?" Within all three phases, supports
focus upon job and career issues. Objectives have been reframed from
teacher objectives to VR counselor or other VR personnel objectives.
Supporting the VR consumer to answer each of the questions in Phase 1
leads to the second phase, where the problem to solve is "What is my
plan?" The problem in the final phase, Phase 3, is "What have I
achieved?"

Wehmeyer, Lattimore et al. (2003) conducted a pilot evaluation of the
career development model using a single-subject research design with six
VR consumers identified by a counselor as needing more support with
career decision making than was traditionally available in the VR
system. Within this pilot evaluation, all participants were able to set
career and job-specific goals, to assist in the design and
implementation of an action plan to achieve those goals and to
self-monitor and evaluate their progress toward the goals. Five of the
six participants showed progress toward achieving that self-set goal.
All participants were able to engage with the facilitator to address
questions in the model and to self-set an employment or job-related
goal. The VR counselor who referred participants to this pilot
evaluation conducted an informal assessment in consumer satisfaction.
All except one participant indicated that they had benefited from their
participation in the process. Perhaps the most suggestive indicator of
the potential for the process to empower people with disabilities
involved one woman who made considerable progress toward her goal and,
after nine years of unemployment, obtained a job shortly after her
involvement with the model. This person expressed her satisfaction with
her participation in the process and mentioned her improved confidence
to the facilitator. She was, we suggest, empowered not by the
professionals with whom she worked but by the skills and positive
attitudes she gained by her use of the model.

Note

1\. Instructional scaffolding is the provision of sufficient supports to
promote learning when concepts and skills are being first introduced to
students. Retrieved July 23, 2004, from
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Instructional_scaffolds.

Author's Note

Preparation of this article was supported, in part, by Rehabilitation
Services Administration (RSA) Special Demonstration Projects PR/Award
Number H235H000059, awarded to the University of Kansas Center for
Research, Inc., Beach Center on Disability. However, the content of this
article does not necessarily represent the policy of RSA or the U.S.
Department of Education, and the reader should not assume endorsement by
the federal government.

References

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. (2000). New York:
Houghton Mifflin Company.

Rehabilitation Act Amendments. (1992). Section 2 (29 U.S.C. 701.)

Callahan, M., Shumpert, N., & Mast, M. (2002). Self-employment, choice
and self-determination. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 17(2),
75-85.

Farley, R.C., Bolton, P., & Parkerson, R. (1992). Effects of client
involvement in assessment on vocational development. Rehabilitation
Counseling Bulletin, 35(3), 146-153.

Field, S, Martin, J., Miller, R., Ward, M., & Wehmeyer, M. (1998). A
practical guide to teaching self-determination. Reston, VA: Council for
Exceptional Children.

German, S.L., Martin, J.E., Marshall, L. H., & Sale, R.P. (2000).
Promoting self-determination: Using Take Action to teach goal
attainment. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 23, 27-38.

Hartnett, J.T., Collins, M., & Tremblay, T. (2002). Longitudinal
outcomes in Vermont's Consumer Choice Demonstration Project (1993-1999).
Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 17(3), 145-154.

Kennedy, M. (1996). Self-determination and trust: My experiences and
thoughts. In D.J. Sands & M.L. Wehmeyer (Eds.), Self-determination
across the life span: Independence and choice for people with
disabilities (pp. 35-47). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Kilsby, M.S., & Beyer, S. (2002). Enhancing self-determination in job
matching in supported employment for people with learning disabilities:
An intervention study. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 17(2),
125-135.

Mithaug, D., Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., Martin, J., & Palmer, S.,
(1998). The self-determined learning model of instruction: Engaging
students to solve their learning problems. In M. L. Wehmeyer & D. J.
Sands (Eds.), Making it happen: Student involvement in educational
planning, decision-making and instruction (pp. 299-328). Baltimore: Paul
H. Brookes.

Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of a paradox: A social policy of
empowerment over prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology,
9, 1-25.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 USC §701(a)(3). (1992, 1998).

Sowers, J., & Powers, L. (1995). Enhancing the participation and
independence of students with severe physical and multiple disabilities
in performing community activities. Mental Retardation, 33, 209-220.

Ward, M.J. (1996). Coming of age in the age of self-determination: A
historical and personal perspective. In D.J. Sands & M.L. Wehmeyer
(Eds.), Self-determination across the life span: Independence and choice
for people with disabilities (pp. 1-16). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (1999). A functional model of self-determination:
Describing development and implementing instruction. Focus on Autism and
Other Developmental Disabilities, 14, 53-61.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (2001). Self-determination and mental retardation. In L.
M. Glidden (Ed.), International Review of Research in Mental
Retardation, 24, 1-48. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Wehmeyer, M.L., Abery, B., Mithaug, D.E., & Stancliffe, R.J. (2003).
Theory in self-determination: Foundations for educational practice.
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, LTD.

Wehmeyer, M.L., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. (1998). Teaching
self-determination to students with disabilities: Basic skills for
successful transition. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Wehmeyer, M., Lattimore, J., Jorgensen, J., Palmer, S., Thompson, E., &
Schumaker, K.M. (2003). The self-determined career development model: A
pilot study. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 19, 79-88.

Wehmeyer, M.L., & Palmer, S.B. (2003). Adult outcomes for students with
cognitive disabilities three years after high school: The impact of
self-determination. Education and Training in Developmental
Disabilities, 38, 131-144.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S.B., Agran, M., Mithaug, D.E., & Martin, J.
(2000). Teaching students to become causal agents in their lives: The
self-determining learning model of instruction. Exceptional Children,
66, 439-453.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Schwartz, M. (1997). Self-determination and positive
adult outcomes: A follow-up study of youths with mental retardation or
learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63, 245-255.

West, M.D. (1995). Choice, self-determination and VR services: Systemic
barriers for consumers with severe disabilities. Journal of Vocational
Rehabilitation, 5(4), 281-290.