Contextual Factors 1 Running Head : CONTEXTUAL FACTORS Developing Student , Family , and School Constructs from NTLS 2 Data

The purpose of this study was to use data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 to (a) conceptually identify and empirically establish student, family, and school constructs, (b) explore the degree to which the constructs can be measured equivalently across disability groups, and (c) examine latent differences (means, variances, and correlations) in the constructs across disability groups. Conceptual analysis of NLTS2 individual survey items yielded 21 student, family, and school constructs, and 16 were empirically supported. Partial strong metric invariance was established across disability groups, and in the latent space a complex pattern of mean and variance differences across disability groups was found. Disability group moderated the correlational relationships between multiple predictor constructs, suggesting the key role of disability-related characteristics in understanding the experiences of youth with disabilities. Implications for future research and practice are discussed. Contextual Factors 3 Developing Student, Family, and School Constructs from NTLS2 Data Researchers increasingly acknowledge the impact of contextual factors on the experiences and outcomes of youth with disabilities. Two related movements, the adoption of a social-ecological model of disability (Schalock et al., 2010; World Health Organization, 2007) and the application of the tenets of implementation science to the field of special education (Cook & Odom, 2013) have brought increased attention to the impact that context has on (a) the experiences of youth with disabilities and (b) the implementation and impact of interventions to promote valued educational outcomes. However, despite the attention directed to contextual factors, defining context remains vexing. Shogren, Luckasson, and Schalock (in press), in a review of the literature on context and intellectual disability, identified over 70,000 articles, with the majority published in the last 10 years, that used the term context, but found no consistent definition. Researchers used context to refer to both independent (or moderating) variables that were typically not directly manipulated but had a relationship with outcomes (e.g., disability label) as well as intervening (or mediating) variables that could be directly manipulated to impact outcomes (e.g., school polices or family practices) (Shogren, Luckasson, et al., in press). One of the most difficult aspects of fully exploring the influence of contextual factors is identifying, cataloguing, and examining the impact of a diverse array of relevant contextual factors (Shogren, in press). Such work is necessary, however, to build a comprehensive understanding of the diversity of student, family, and schools factors that influence student experiences and outcomes. The traditional approach in research has been to study a narrow range of factors, typically at one level of the ecological system (e.g., personal characteristics such as gender or disability label), rather than attempting to identify and explore factors across ecological systems (Bronfenbrenner, 2005). And, perhaps related to the lack of focus on Contextual Factors 4 systematically exploring contextual factors in research, there has also been limited assessment and integration in practice of a comprehensive understanding of contextual factors in designing systems of supports to improve youth experiences and outcomes. The availability of data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) provides researchers with access to a large, nationally representative dataset with extensive information on student’s secondary and post-school experiences and, potentially, the opportunity to define and explore contextual factors that might impact youth’s secondary experiences and outcomes. Although a tremendous amount of information was collected under NLTS2, nearly all of the data was comprised of individual survey items rather than scales with established reliability and validity. Researchers interested in examining the complex pattern of relationships between student, family, and school factors therefore, must identify conceptually-related survey items using a strong theoretical basis, and investigate measurement properties using analytical approaches, such as structural equation modeling (Little, 2013) that allow the integration of measurement models, which specify the relationships among latent and observed variables, with structural models, which specify the relationship between latent factors. The purpose of this study was to use data from NLTS2 to develop and test student, family, and school factors to examine the measurement of contextual factors in youth with disabilities. Such work has the potential to promote the systematic consideration of contextual factors when designing systems of supports. Relatedly, we were interested in examining the influence of disability label on contextual factors. There were three primary research questions: 1. Can latent student, family, and school constructs be generated from NLTS2? 2. Can the latent constructs be measured equivalently across disability groups? 3. Are there differences in the latent means, variances, and correlations across disability groups? Contextual Factors 5