DOI: 10.3886/icpsr38349.v1
title: Paths 2 the Future (P2F): Testing the Efficacy of a Career Development Curriculum for High School Girls with Disabilities, Oregon, 2015-2019
title: Version 1

description: Young women with disabilities often experience limited career options and opportunities. The "Paths 2 the Future" (P2F) curriculum is designed to meet the unique career development needs of young women with disabilities. P2F includes seventy-five (75) lessons covering topics of self-awareness, disability knowledge, gender identity, and career and college readiness. A randomized controlled trial was conducted between 2015-2020 to examine the effects of the P2F curriculum on career and college readiness of high school female students with disabilities. Twenty-six (26) participating high schools were matched on school characteristics and randomly assigned to the intervention or control conditions. In the intervention condition, students received lessons from the P2F curriculum daily. In the control condition, students received business as usual career and transition services. Survey data were collected from three hundred sixty six (366) young women with learning, health, intellectual, and emotional disabilities who participated at four time points (pre-intervention, post-intervention (2 collection periods), and follow-up).
description: Five broad <strong>research questions</strong> guided the study; hypotheses for each are provided: <strong>Research Question 1:</strong> Is the P2F intervention more effective than business as usual transition services at increasing career knowledge and skills (e.g., self-determination, disability knowledge, gender awareness, career and college readiness)? <strong>Hypothesis 1:</strong> Relative to the business as usual comparison condition, the researchers anticipate that P2F will produce larger improvements over time on the four proximal career knowledge and skill outcomes included in this study. <strong>Research Question 2:</strong> Is the P2F intervention more effective than business as usual transition services at increasing engagement in career-related activities? This question explores the effect of P2F on improvements in the distal outcome: career engagement (e.g., enrollment in career technical education, work experience, and paid employment). <strong>Hypothesis 2:</strong> The researchers anticipate greater increases over time in career engagement activities for those randomly assigned to receive the intervention relative to the control group. In addition to this direct effect, based on the researchers theoretical model, they anticipate a partially-mediated effect via the proximal career knowledge and skills outcomes. Specifically, the researchers hypothesize that P2F will lead to greater career engagement both directly and via increases in career knowledge and skills. <strong>Research Question 3:</strong> What role do student characteristics (family socioeconomical status, disability type, race/ethnicity, grade) and school characteristics (school size, rural/urban) play in influencing career knowledge and skills and career engagement outcomes? For this research question the researchers will test the main effects of student and school characteristics on the researchers proximal and distal outcomes, as well as conduct exploratory analyses examining their potential moderating effect. <strong>Hypothesis 3:</strong> Based on previous transition research, the investigators hypothesize main effects of student and school characteristics on career knowledge, skills and engagement (e.g., students from low income families will be less likely to obtain paid employment). The researchers will explore potential moderating effects to determine whether the intervention works for certain groups of students but not others, or in settings with particular characteristics. <strong>Research Question 4:</strong> Do the intervention effects vary based on implementation characteristics, including curriculum dosage and fidelity of implementation? <strong>Research Question 4a:</strong> Dosage. This question will allow the researchers to conduct a dosage analysis to examine whether greater receipt of services is associated with larger gains in proximal and distal outcomes. <strong>Hypothesis 4a:</strong> Based on the researchers goals, they anticipate that girls who are exposed to higher dosage of the curriculum (regardless of P2F or business as usual condition) will have larger gains in career knowledge and skills and greater involvement in career engagement activities. <strong>Research Question 4b:</strong> Fidelity. This question will focus on a within-group analysis of girls assigned to the P2F intervention condition. <strong>Hypothesis 4b:</strong> The researchers hypothesize that girls will experience more positive changes in outcomes over time when they are in classrooms where teachers implement P2F lessons with higher fidelity. <strong>Research Question 5:</strong> How do key stakeholders perceive the social validity of P2F? <strong>Hypothesis 5: </strong>Information about acceptability, feasibility, and perceived impact of the intervention will be collected from individuals who are directly involved in the implementation of the intervention in order to evaluate the social validity of the model. The researchers will collect information from teachers, school administrators, parents, and high school girls with disabilities. These data will allow the researchers to identify the organizational supports and procedures needed for sufficient implementation of the core components of the intervention. This information will help maximize the likelihood of uptake of the intervention into routine practice, should the Goal Three results suggest evidence of efficacy.
description: <strong>Design category:</strong> Propensity score matched clustered randomized trial (RT) <strong>Unit of random assignment:</strong> School <strong>Presence of blocking:</strong> No, blocking was not used. <strong>Matching:</strong> Prior to randomization, schools were matched in pairs using propensity scores defined as the conditional probability of being assigned to treatment based on Department of Education school data, including number enrolled, percent free and reduced lunch, percent special education, and percent African American, European American, and Hispanic American. <strong>Probability of assignment to treatment:</strong> Schools were randomized with a 1:1 allocation (50%), 13 intervention schools and 13 controls. <strong>Type of intervention:</strong> Curriculum/Product <strong>Topic Area of Intervention:</strong> Career development for high school girls with disabilities <strong>Number of intervention arms:</strong> 1 intervention arm (1 intervention condition, 1 control condition) <strong>Comparison Condition:</strong> Business-as-usual <strong>Target School level of Intervention:</strong> 9th-12th grades <strong>Target School Type:</strong> Urban, suburban and rural
description: Response Rates: <strong>Total N:</strong> 386 <strong>Time 1:</strong> Student data: 366 (20 missing) Teacher data: 378 (8 missing) Parent data: 90 (296 missing)* * Some students had 2 parents participate: total parent surveys = 110 <strong>Time 2:</strong> Student data: 87 (299 missing)* * Only 7 schools from cohort 2 participated in this assessment - see collection notes above. <strong>Time 3:</strong> Student data: 327 (59 missing) <strong>Time 4:</strong> Student data: 265 (121 missing)
description: Presence of Common Scales: <strong>Student scales</strong> Self Determination Autonomy Scale (AUT) = MEAN (AUT1 to AUT14). Self-Realization Scale (SRS)= MEAN (SRS1 to SRS15.1). Career Outcome Expectancy scale (COE) = MEAN (COE1, COE2, COE3, COE4, COE5, COE6). Disability and Gender Awareness Scale (DAG) = MEAN (DISAB1, DISAB2, DISAB3, GEN1, GEN2, GEN3). Early Adolescent Temperament Attention Scale (EATQ) = MEAN (EATQ1, EATQ2(REV), EATQ3(REV), EATQ4(REV), EATQ5, EATQ6(REV), EATQ7). Self Advocacy Scale (SAS) = MEAN (SAS1, SAS2, SAS3, SAS4, SAS5.1(REV), SAS6.1(REV)). Student Engagement Instrument (SEI) = MEAN (SEI1, SEI2, SEI3, SEI4, SEI5, SEI6, SEI7, SEI8, SEI9, SEI10, SEI11). Future Aspirations (FAS)* = MEAN (SEI7, SEI8, SEI9, SEI10, SEI11).* SEI subscale Peer Support for Learning (PSL)* = MEAN (SEI1, SEI2, SEI3, SEI4, SEI5, SEI6). * SEI subscale Vocational Skills Self Efficacy scale (VSSE) = MEAN(VSSE1, VSSE2, VSSE3, VSSE4, VSSE5, VSSE6, VSSE7, VSSE8, VSSE9, VSSE10, VSSE11, VSSE12, VSSE13, VSSE14, VSSE15, VSSE16, VSSE17, VSSE18, VSSE19, VSSE20, VSSE21, VSSE22, VSSE23, VSSE24, VSSE25, VSSE26, VSSE27, VSSE28, VSSE29). Student Career Development Construct (CARDEV) =MEAN ( (((AUT-1)*4/3)+1), (((SRS-1)*4/3)+1), (((COE-1)*4/3)+1), (((SEI-1)*4/3)+1), DAG, VSSE,SAS). <strong>Teacher scales</strong> Total barriers for success (BARRS) = COUNT ABSENTEE, SUSPENDS, DETENTION, DROPOUT, CREDIT, MODIFIED (1=checked). Total family problems (FAMPROBS) = COUNT DIFCLTFAM, HOMELESS, FOSTERCARE, MOVED, TRANSPORT (1=checked). Total risk behaviors (RISKBEH) = COUNT ARREST, SUBUSE, PREGNANCY (1=checked). Total health problems (HLTHPROB) = COUNT MENTHEALTH, HEALTH(1=checked). Work problems (WRKPRBS) = WORKPROBS. Total Risk Count Teacher Report (TOTRISK)* = SUM (BARRS,FAMPROBS,RISKBEH,HLTHPROB1).* Does not include work problems! <strong>Parent scales</strong> Parent Low expectations (LWEXP) = MEAN (exp1r, exp2r, exp3r, exp4r, exp5r, exp6r, exp7r, exp9r, exp10r). Parent AIRC scale = MEAN (AIRC1, AIRC2, AIRC3, AIRC4, AIRC5, AIRC6). Parent AIRH scale = MEAN (AIRH1, AIRH2, AIRH3, AIRH4, AIRH5, AIRH6). Parent AIRS scale = MEAN (AIRS1, AIRS2, AIRS3, AIRS4, AIRS5, AIRS6). Parent Involvement scale (INV) = MEAN (PINV1,PINV2,PINV3,PINV4). Financial stress (FSTRS) = MEAN (FSTRS1(REV), FSTRS2(REV), FSTRS3(REV), FSTRS4(REV), FSTRS5(REV)). * All items are Reversed!
description: <strong>Total:</strong> 496 participants enrolled in study (this includes the 386 students + 110 parents enrolled in the study) <strong>Students:</strong> 386 total students (however, there is some missing survey data; across each of the demographics variables that students report on, the researchers are missing 20 cases on the variable most reported on by students, so they have 366 completed student surveys) <strong>Teachers:</strong> Teachers in 26 high schools reported on 378 students (there are 8 cases where the researchers do not have teacher report on the student's disability category) <strong>Parents:</strong> 110 parents returned a parent survey <strong>Approximate number of students per school:</strong> 15 <strong>Number of schools in the comparison condition:</strong> 13 <strong>Number of schools in the intervention condition:</strong> 13 <strong>Sampling Procedure:</strong> To be included in the study, students had to identify as female, have a documented disability under IDEA, and be enrolled in one of the high schools participating in this research study. High schools in Oregon were targeted for the study because high school is the age group for which the curriculum was developed, and Oregon is close in proximity to the research center, which allows schools more frequent face-to-face professional development, data collection, and support from project staff. Only high schools were targeted for the current study, so any other school was excluded. Schools outside Oregon were not recruited given logistical issues with providing frequent face-to-face professional development, data collection, and support from project staff.
description: Datasets: DS0: Study-Level Files DS1: Time 1 Student, Teacher, Parent Data DS2: Time 1 Student, Teacher, Parent Scores DS3: Time 2 Student Data DS4: Time 2 Student Scores DS5: Time 3 Student Data DS6: Time 3 Student Scores DS7: Time 4 Student Data DS8: Time 4 Student Scores
description: 26 urban and rural high schools in Oregon across 9 counties. Smallest Geographic Unit: County
description: coded video observation; on-site questionnaire; web-based surveyCohorts were enrolled one year apart. Cohort 1: schools 1-9 Cohort 2: schools 10-20 Cohort 3: schools 21-26 Originally, only three (3) time points were planned: Time 1 = Baseline Time 2 = Post-treatment Time 3 = 1 year follow-up The timetable was adjusted when seven (7) schools from cohort two (2) had collected their post treatment data early, due to implementing over a one-year period instead of one semester. The dataset was thus changed to insert this extra time point for the seven (7) schools. This resulted in four (4) collection time points. Most of the schools only have data collected at Time 1 (baseline), Time 3 (post-treatment) and Time 4 (1 year follow-up). The Time 2 data collection for the seven (7) cohort two (2) schools occurs mid-way through the course of their intervention, but around the same time of the academic school year as all the other schools' post-treatment assessment.Parent work/job information was collected as part of the student survey: For cohort 1, these data were collected at Time 4. For cohorts 2 and 3, these data were collected at Time 1.