Improving outcomes for workers with mental retardation

Improving Outcomes for Workerswith Mental Retardation

Sandra Fornes, Tonette S. Rocco, Howard Rosenberg

This research presents an analysis of factors predicting job retention, jobsatisfaction, and job performance of workers with mental retardation. Thefindings highlight self-determination as a critical skill in predicting the threeimportant employee outcomes. The study examined a hypothesized jobretention model and the outcome of the three regression analyses used to testthe model. The intent of the study was to develop job retention strategiesthat could offer rehabilitation and HR professionals a useful structure forunderstanding and implementing job retention interventions for people withmental retardation.

Nearly one in five Americans has a disability, constituting the nation’s largestminority group. Among the fifty-four million adults with disabilities in theUnited States, thirty-three million have a severe disability and ten million needassistance in their daily living (U.S. Department of Census, 2000). Eighty per-cent of adults with disabilities report that they want to work; yet more than 75percent remain unemployed (Harris & Associates Survey, 2000; U.S. Depart-ment of Census, 2000). Only 35 percent of people with disabilities areemployed, compared to 78 percent of those who do not have disabilities(Harris & Associates Survey, 2004).

More than seven million people in the United States have mental retarda-tion (MR); one out of ten families are directly affected (U.S. Department ofCensus, 2000). Mental retardation is a cognitive or intellectual disability char-acterized by a significant limitation in both mental ability (with a below aver-age IQ of 70 or less) and adaptive behaviors (American Association of MentalRetardation, 2002). Learning limitations range from profound, total depen-dency and the need for complete supervision to mild, minimal dependencyand supervision (American Association of Mental Retardation, 2002).

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 19, no. 4, Winter 2008 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.1246 373

374 Fornes, Rocco, Rosenberg

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

A hierarchical order of social and work acceptance of individuals with dis-abilities exists, based on the type and severity of their impairments (Strohmer,Grand, & Purcell, 1998). Mental illness and MR are at the bottom of social andwork acceptance (Strohmer et al., 1998). Mental retardation has consistentlybeen identified as the least accepted disability (Harris & Associates Survey,1986, 1994, 1998, 2000), resulting in greater social distance and less oppor-tunity for social integration (Karnilowicz, Sparrow, & Shinkfield, 1994; Lyons & Hayes, 1993) and long-term employment (Konig & Schalock, 1991).

Work provides structure and order and conveys status and purpose topeople’s existence (Salkever, 2000). Work is centrally related to quality of life(Roessler & Rubin, 1998; Salkever, 2000). Yet for many people with MR, thisavenue for a better life has been restricted owing to poor job retention. Jobretention, the ability to remain employed for an extended period of time oncea person has learned a job (Trach, Rusch, & DeStefano, 1987), ensures the eco-nomic benefits of work. These economic benefits include financial indepen-dence and lessening the need for support from government agencies andothers (Anthony, 1994; Rosenberg, Cheyney, & Greenberg, 1991). With mean-ingful work, individuals with MR become respected, constructive members ofsociety involved in the mainstream labor force, fulfilling individual and soci-etal expectations (Ormel, Lindenberg, Steverink, & Verbrugge, 1999; Super,1990) and reducing societal prejudice (Phelan, Linke, Stueve, & Pescosolido,2000). Adults with MR could be trained to many repetitive and low-skill jobs,potentially replacing illegal immigrants. Job retention is a critical componentin the effort to assist individuals with retardation to move from dependency toself-sufficiency (Storey, 2002). Employment statistics, whether they addressthe overall low employment rate of people with MR or their ability to stayemployed over time, document the need for more intensive job retentionefforts (Roessler, 2002).

Vocational rehabilitation (VR) offers individuals with mental or physicaldisabilities services that are designed to enable them to attain skills, resources,attitudes, and expectations needed to compete for, get, and keep a job (Wright,1980). Vocational rehabilitation services prepare qualified applicants to achievea lifestyle of independence and integration within their workplace and localcommunity (Wehman, 2001). Similar to HRD, vocational rehabilitation focuseson individual development through skill training and career development toenhance work performance and satisfaction. Rehabilitation providers need to increase the effectiveness of placement and job retention services (Gilbride,Stensrud, Vandergoot, & Golden, 2003). This requires a better understandingof the relationship between personal and work characteristics of workingadults with MR and their ability to remain employed. It also requires betterknowledge of the relationship between rehabilitation professionals who assistwith development of skills prior to employment and HR professionals whofacilitate skill development activities after employment. A traditional (and stillrelevant) definition of HRD is “integrated use of training and development,

career development, and organizational development to improve individualand organizational effectiveness” (McLagan, 1989, p. 7). These three areas arestill of concern to HRD as scholars move toward broadening the scope of thefield. For instance, McLean and McLean (2001) define HRD as:

Any process or activity that, either initially or over the long term, has thepotential to develop adults’ work-based knowledge, expertise, productivity,and satisfaction, whether for personal or group/team gain, or for the benefitof an organization, community, and nation, or ultimately, the whole ofhumanity [p. 322].

HR and rehabilitation professionals strive to develop work-based knowl-edge. Rehabilitation professionals strive to enhance the employability skills ofworkers with MR and other disabilities prior to placement. Once the workeris ready, a job placement is made according to the person’s employability skills,and at this point HR professionals work through training and other develop-ment activities to further develop job-specific knowledge. After investing train-ing dollars in an employee, most organizations want to retain the workers.

The purpose of the study was to test a hypothesized job retention modelthat one of the authors developed. The model was developed to offer rehabil-itation and HR professionals a useful structure and strategies for understand-ing and implementing job retention interventions. The need for objectiveevaluation and application of alternative strategies, in response to changingwork environments, is critical to rehabilitation and HR professionals support-ing adult workers with MR (Brady & Rosenberg, 2002). The overarchingresearch question is, Are there work and personal characteristics that are pos-itively statistically significant to job retention for workers with MR?

A Hypothesized Job Retention Model

A decision was made to focus the literature review on internal factors of work-ers’ individual characteristics rather than external factors such as economicissues, level of support, and vocational transition. External factors were pur-posely excluded in order to better identify factors that could predict and con-tribute to work outcomes (that is, job retention, job performance, jobsatisfaction) and are within the control of the individual.

The hypothesized job retention model (see Figure 1) was based on the lit-erature on adult workers with disabilities, organizational psychology, and voca-tional rehabilitation. The model suggests that if adult workers with MR maketheir own decisions (self-determination; Wehmeyer & Bolding, 2001;Wehmeyer & Palmer, 2003) and work at jobs that are congruent with theirinterests and abilities (person-job congruency; Holland, 1985), they will havehigh job satisfaction, good job performance, and long-term employment (jobretention). Furthermore, high job satisfaction in individuals with MR predicts

Improving Outcomes for Workers with Mental Retardation 375


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242365668_Professional_manual_self-_directed_search?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-3d97d86c-2539-44b8-ba3e-8032db13ad66&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNzk3Nzg1MztBUzo5ODYzODU3NTQzOTg4N0AxNDAwNTI4Njc3Nzcy


job performance and job retention (Mueser, Becker, & Wolfe, 2001). High jobperformance predicts job satisfaction and job retention (Brady & Rosenberg,2002). Job retention will continue to predict high levels of job satisfaction andjob performance, sustaining good job performance and long-term job reten-tion for workers with MR.

The literature review on adults with disabilities and work lent insight intothe reasons low job retention might exist and identified work variables relatedto job retention of individuals with MR. These variables are person-job con-gruency (PJC), self-determination (SD), job satisfaction (JS), and job perfor-mance (JP).

Person-job congruency is the match between a person’s interests, charac-teristics, skills, and abilities with the job requirements. Successful person-jobcongruency requires careful planning and increases employee job satisfactionand job performance, leading to higher job retention (Holland, 1997; Roessler,2002; Super, 1990).

Self-determination theory (SDT; Deci, 1992) is a general theory of humanmotivation concerned with the development and functioning of personalitywithin social contexts. The theory focuses on the degree to which humanbehaviors are volitional or self-determined, and the degree to which peopleendorse their actions at the highest level of reflection by engaging in the actionswith a full sense of choice (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Self-determination is the capacity to choose and have choices, to be thedeterminant of one’s actions (Deci, 1992). Self-determined behavior is alsodefined as a primary causal agent in one’s life and making choices regardingone’s quality of life free from undue external influences or interferences


H1

H2

H2

H2H3

H1

H3

H1Job performance (JP),criterion variable;predictor for JR, JS

Job retention (JR),criterion variable;

predictor for JS, JP

Person-jobcongruency

(PJC), predictorvariable

Self-determination(SD), predictor

variable

Job satisfaction (JS),criterion variable;predictor for JR, JP

H1

Figure 1. A Hypothesized Model of Job Retention Developed for Workers with MR

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235913783_Intrinsic_motivation?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-3d97d86c-2539-44b8-ba3e-8032db13ad66&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNzk3Nzg1MztBUzo5ODYzODU3NTQzOTg4N0AxNDAwNTI4Njc3Nzcy

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235913783_Intrinsic_motivation?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-3d97d86c-2539-44b8-ba3e-8032db13ad66&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNzk3Nzg1MztBUzo5ODYzODU3NTQzOTg4N0AxNDAwNTI4Njc3Nzcy

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11946306_Self-Determinaton_Theory_and_the_Facilitation_of_Intrinsic_Motivation_Social_Development_and_Well-Being?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-3d97d86c-2539-44b8-ba3e-8032db13ad66&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNzk3Nzg1MztBUzo5ODYzODU3NTQzOTg4N0AxNDAwNTI4Njc3Nzcy

(Wehmeyer, 1996). Self-determination emerges from learning across the life-span and empowers individuals to plan and make choices about their careers,work, and life. SD refers to actions that are identified by four essential charac-teristics: (1) the person acts autonomously, (2) his or her behavior is self-regulated, (3) the person imitates a response to the event in a psychologicallyempowered manner, and (4) the person acts in a self-realizing manner(Wehmeyer, 2001). If individuals with MR capitalize on their self-determina-tion, they are more likely to find competitive long-term employment, achievejob satisfaction, and have good job performance (Field, Martin, Miller, Ward, &Wehmeyer, 1998; Wehmeyer, 1999, 2001; Wehmeyer & Palmer, 2003).

Job performance depends on job responsibility and task production. Jobresponsibility is one’s commitment and dedication to a job and involves workendurance, work motivation, work initiative, and work attitude. Task produc-tion refers to the ability to perform specific work tasks that require a certainquality and quantity of work. Quality of work is an employee’s ability to workat the accepted standard for accuracy; quantity of work is an employee’s abil-ity to work at an accepted rate and pace of productivity. For an individual withMR, job performance improves job retention and increases job satisfaction(Roessler, 2002; Rosenberg & Brady, 2000).

In adult workers with MR, work-related social behaviors contribute to thejob performance facet. For workers with MR, performance measures includeappropriate interaction with supervisors and coworkers, offering assistance, andunderstanding of the work environment; adaptive, subordinate, and aberrant behaviors; ability to deal with the pressures and stress of the job; self-control; and one’s approach to personal appearance and hygiene (Brady &Rosenberg, 2002). The ability to cooperate, accept constructive criticism,manage time, express appreciation, value honesty, and conform to sociallyacceptable standards of truthfulness also contribute to the performance facet(Rosenberg & Brady, 2000).

Job satisfaction refers to the degree to which people like their jobs and thefeelings about their jobs or job experiences in relation to previous experiences,current expectations, or available alternatives (Spector, 1997). Job satisfactionincreases intrinsic motivation and personal well-being. It affects work atten-dance, maintenance of quality standards, and willingness to search forimproved work methods as well as cooperate with other employees. It influ-ences job retention in the population with MR (Balzer et al., 2000; Spencer,1997; Tett & Meyer, 1993) and job performance (Griffin, Rosenberg, Cheyney, &Greenberg,1996; Mueser et al., 2001; Roessler, 2002; Rosenberg & Brady,2000).

Hypothesis

To explore the relationship among the variables, three research hypotheseswere tested:



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239572445_Improving_Job_Tenure_Outcomes_for_People_with_Disabilities_The_3M_Model?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-3d97d86c-2539-44b8-ba3e-8032db13ad66&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNzk3Nzg1MztBUzo5ODYzODU3NTQzOTg4N0AxNDAwNTI4Njc3Nzcy

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216443747_Job_Satisfaction_Application_Assessment_Cause_and_Consequences?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-3d97d86c-2539-44b8-ba3e-8032db13ad66&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNzk3Nzg1MztBUzo5ODYzODU3NTQzOTg4N0AxNDAwNTI4Njc3Nzcy


HYPOTHESIS 1: In working adults with MR, there is a positive significant relation-ship between the predictor variables person-job congruency, self-determination, jobperformance, job satisfaction, and the criterion variable job retention.

HYPOTHESIS 2: In working adults with MR, there is a positive significant relationshipbetween the predictor variables person-job congruency, self-determination, job satis-faction, and the criterion variable job performance.

HYPOTHESIS 3: In working adults with MR, there is a positive significant relation-ship among person-job congruency, self-determination, and the criterion variablejob satisfaction.

Research Design

In this section the research design, sample, measurement instruments, and pro-cedure for data collection are presented. Results are discussed in the next sec-tion. A cross-sectional research design with a survey method was used. Thestudy used three multiple regression analyses to test the hypotheses and exam-ine the relationships among self-determination, person-job congruency, andan individual’s job satisfaction, job performance, and job retention in workerswith MR. Multiple regression is a predictive method that allows analysis of alarge, complex array of variables in an encompassing and integrated analysisaccounting for correlations among several independent variables and onedependent variable (Harlow, 2004; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Modelingcould also be used, multiple regression analysis produces similar results (Lee &Hershberger, 1990). Structural equation modeling (SEM) grew out of andserves purposes similar to multiple regressions. SEM is usually viewed as aconfirmatory rather than exploratory procedure (Lee & Hershberger, 1990)which was the case for this study. Furthermore, multiple regression is moreappropriate with small sample size (Green, 1991).

Sample. The population of interest was composed of working adults withMR, age eighteen or older. A convenience sample of one hundred participantswas used because of the limited access to and availability of the MR popula-tion (Harlow, 2004). For prediction methods, such as multiple regression, asample size of at least five and up to fifty participants per independent variableis suggested (Green, 1991). Given that this study had five independent vari-ables (IV), a minimum total sample size of twenty-five was suggested (Green,1991). However, a sample size of at least one hundred adults with MR wasselected to account for unusable data because of missing information and toincrease the statistical power.

Participants’ disabilities ranged from mild to moderate mental retardation,which suggests an IQ ranging from 50 to 67. The participants were selected fromsupported employment agencies in South Florida. A supported employmentagency provides assistance in locating employment and on-the-job support to maintain employment. This includes introduction, explaining job processes,


and building skills and work relationships. Supported employment is competi-tive work in an integrated work setting for individuals who, because of theirdisability, need ongoing support services to perform the work required. It fur-nishes payment at or above the minimum wage (P.L. 99–506, Rehabilitation ActAmendment of 1986).

Participants were employed in the open labor market earning a competi-tive wage for at least three months. The selected employees with MR wereactive in various jobs, among them animal caretaker, laundry, building main-tenance assistance, mail clerk, food service, clerical work, clerical aide, man-ufacturing and assembly, bench work, janitorial, dishwasher, lawnmaintenance, grocery bagger, and restaurant or store host.

Measurement Instruments. Job retention was measured by the numberof months the participant was employed continuously at the same job in theopen labor market earning a competitive wage. A test battery of four stan-dardized instruments was used to measure job performance, job satisfaction,person-job congruency, and self-determination. Instruments were chosen fortheir ease of comprehension and use, theoretical base development, high reli-ability, and validation with populations with MR (Brady, Rosenberg, & Frain,2006; Holland, 1985; Ironson, Smith, Brannick, Gibson, & Paul, 1989;Wehmeyer, 1996). Each instrument used a simple grammatical sentence struc-ture; content was concrete and did not requiring abstract thinking. The two tothree choices for each items (rather than the usual five to seven of the Likert-typescale) minimized the use of judgment, which is important in dealing with individuals with cognitive impairment.

The Jobs Observation Behavior Scale: Opportunity for Self-Determination(JOBS: OSD; Brady et al., 2006) was used to measure the job performancevariable. The thirty-item instrument is composed of three subscales. TheWork-Required Daily Living Activities (DLA) subscale contains thirteen itemssummarizing the patterns of self-care and personal behavior that allow indi-viduals to function within a competitive work environment. The Work-Required Behaviors (BEH) subscale contains eight items that represent theinterpersonal and social skills needed for employment. The Work-RequiredJob Duties (JD) scale, containing nine items, characterizes the actual job taskfunctions, productivity, and performance common to entry-level jobs. JOBS:OSD includes a three-point Likert-type scale of 1 (no), 2 (sometimes), and 3(yes). An overall job performance score was obtained by summing the scoreson the three subscales BEH, JD, and DLA. The raw score for the combined sub-scales ranges from 35 to 175. The higher the participant’s score, the strongerthe job performance (Brady et al., 2006). Content validity of JOBS: OSD wasestablished by Brady et al. (2006) by linking the actual JOBS: OSD surveyitems to the items of the original Job Observation Behavior Scale (Brady &Rosenberg, 2002). The Job Observation Behavior Scale is a supervisor’s assess-ment of employees’ job performance and work-related behaviors. The contentvalidity for the original JOBS items was established by linking those items to




prior research in the area of work adjustment, employability for entry-levelpositions, and supported employment. Concurrent validity of JOBS: OSD wasobtained by comparing JOB: OSD through a factor analysis, comparing Qual-ity of Performance Composite scores against the Brigance Diagnostic Employ-ability Inventory (Brady et al., 2006). Test-retest reliability was established bycomparing the performance of the person to the scores of the same instrumenttwo weeks later. The test-retest reliability for the performance is 0.83 (Bradyet al., 2006).

The Job-in-General (JIG) Scale (Ironson et al., 1989) measured the job sat-isfaction variable. The JIG is an eighteen-item scale that measures overall globaljob satisfaction (Ironson et al., 1989). Each item is a short phrase about the job in general. The JIG uses three response choices. For each item, partic-ipants are asked if they agree (yes), disagree (no), or are not sure (?). Negativelyworded items are reverse-scored, and the total score is the sum of theresponses. The higher the overall score, the greater the indication of job satis-faction. Internal consistency and reliability was measured by Cronbach’s alphaof .91 to .95 (Smith, Kendal, & Hulin, 1969). Convergent validity has beendemonstrated through statistically significant correlations with four otherglobal job satisfaction scales, ranging from correlations of r � .66 to .80 (Balzeret al., 2000).

The ARC’s Self-Determination Scale (ARC; Wehmeyer, 1996; Wehmeyer &Palmer, 2003) measured the self-determination variable. The ARC (Wehmeyer& Kelchner, 1995, 1997) is a self-report measure of self-determinationdesigned for use by adolescents and adults with cognitive disabilities and men-tal retardation (Wehmeyer, 1998). The scale measures overall self-determina-tion and domain areas such as autonomy, self-regulation, psychologicalempowerment, and self-realization. The scale includes four-point Likert-typescale items, story completion items (that is, the beginning and ending of a storyare furnished and the individual writes or tells the middle section), items thatrequire identifying and breaking goals into smaller steps, and multiple-choiceitems (between two options). On the scale, 148 points are obtainable. Higherscores reflect higher self-determination. The scale’s concurrent criterion-related validity was established by showing relationships between the ARC and conceptually related measures. The factorial validity was established byrepeated factor analyses and internal consistency (Wehmeyer, 1998). Internal consistency reliability was measured by coefficient alpha of 0.90 forthe scales as a whole, 0.90 for the autonomy domain, 0.73 for psychologicalempowerment, and 0.62 for self-realization (Wehmeyer, Agran, & Hughes,2000).

Holland’s Self-Directed Search (SDS; 1985) was used to measure the person-job congruency, or the fit of an individual’s abilities, skills, and interest with the job requirements (Roessler, 2002; Roessler & Rumrill, 1998). Person-job (P-J) fit research shows consistent significant findings with respect to work-related outcomes (Holland, 1997). The SDS is a vocational/


occupational–interest inventory assisting individuals to choose careers bestmatching their self-report skills and interests (Holland, 1985). It uses tworesponse choices, like (L) or dislike (D), to identify participants’ interests in var-ious job tasks and activities. To identify individual skills, participants are askedto mark yes (Y) for skills they do well and no (N) for skills they do not do well.Responses are summed to yield a three-letter summary code, designating theindividual’s interests and skills. Then, using SDS Occupations Finder, a three-letter code of the participant’s current job is compared to the summary code.The degree of P-J congruency is obtained by comparing the summary code tohow closely the individual’s interest and skills codes match their currentjob/occupational code. A score of 3 is given for exact matches (all three lettersmatch); a score of 2 is given when two of the three letters match; a score of 1 isgiven when only one of the three letters match; and a score of 0 is for no match(none of the 3 letters match). The construct validity of the SDS scales has anaverage internal consistency of .88 (Holland, 1985).

Data Collection: Procedures. The data were collected at the supportedemployment agencies rather than the place of employment to avoid disruptionfrom coworkers, supervisors, and customers that could bias the data. The bat-tery of tests was administered to and completed by each participant. All instru-ments were designed for individual or group administration. For thoseparticipants who were able to read, the instruments were administered in smallgroups of three or four individuals. Questions were read orally to each groupas participants followed along. For those individuals unable to participate ingroup administration because of specific disabilities that require more indi-vidualized explanation of questions, instruments were administered one-on-one. Participants were allowed to ask for clarification of questions they did notfully understand, and assistance was furnished by the administrator. It tooksixty to ninety minutes for participants to complete all four instruments. Toavoid fatigue, the instruments were administered in two separate sessions. Thefirst session consisted of the JIG and ARC, the second the SDS and JOBS: OSD.No more than forty-eight hours lapsed between the two sessions. Participationwas voluntary and confidentiality was maintained (participants were identifiedby a code number). All participants were informed about the purpose andnature of the research.

Results

Bivariate scatter plots, tests of normality, and preliminary multiple regressionanalyses were run to check for outliers, nonnormality, nonlinear relationships,and multicollinearity. No violations of assumptions were found. Two cases withextremely low z scores on SD scale of more than 3 standard deviations fromthe mean were found to be univariate outliers and deleted. Four questionnaireswere excluded owing to substantial missing data or participant dropout. Thus,from the original sample of one hundred participants, ninety-four were included




in the analysis. An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical analysis. All thebivariate correlations were positive as expected. Table 1 presents the intercor-relations among variables.

Three multiple regression analyses were used to test the hypothesizedmodel. Multiple regression establishes if a set of predictor variables explains aproportion of the variance in a criterion variable at a significant level (Green &Salkind, 2005).

Hypothesis 1: Regression Analysis 1. Regression analysis 1 confirmedthat the linear combination predictor measure (PJC, SD, JP, JS) was significantlyrelated to job retention, F (4, 89) � 10.295, p � .05. The model was consid-ered significantly better than would be expected by chance. The multiple cor-relation coefficient (R) was .562, and R2, or effect size, was .31, indicating thatapproximately 31 percent of the variance of job retention in the sample couldbe accounted for by the linear combination of the predictor variables, PJC, SD,JP, JS. Table 2 presents indices to indicate the relative strength of the individ-ual predictors by examining, R, R2, adjusted R2, and the change in R2 indicat-ing that two of the four work measures (JS and SD) were statistically significantat .05 (p � .05). To further test the strength of the predictors, a hierarchicalregression was used. In the sample, it could be concluded that SD is the mostimportant predictor and accounted for 24 percent of the variance of the jobretention scale. JS accounted for 5 percent of the variance; PJC and JP were notsignificant and together accounted for 2 percent of the variance. It wasconcluded that the only useful predictors of job retention of adult workers withMR were SD and JS.


Table 1. Intercorrelations Among Variables (N � 94)

Variables 1. JR 2. JP 3. JS 5. PJC 6. SD

1. Job retentions –2. Job performance .416** –3. Job satisfaction .428** .324** –4. Person-job congruency .275** .533** .228** –5. Self-determination .494** .579** .460** .501** –

Note: *p � .05; **p � .01.

Table 2. Hierarchical Regression with Job Retention as the Criterion

Variables Sig R R2 Adjusted R2 R2 Change

SD .000 .494 .244 .236 .244JS .012 .544 .296 .280 .051JP .107 .562 .315 .293 .020PJC .789 .562 .316 .286 .001

Note: *p � .05; **p � .01.

Hypothesis 2: Regression Analysis 2. Regression analysis 2 confirmedthat the linear combination predictor measure (SD, PJC, JS) was significantlyrelated to JP, F (4, 89) � 16.881, p � .05. The model was considered signifi-cantly better than would be expected by chance. The multiple correlation coef-ficient (R) was .657, and R2, or effect size, was .431, indicating thatapproximately 43 percent of the variance of JP in the sample could beaccounted for by the linear combination of the predictor variables. Table 3 pre-sents indices to indicate the relative strength of the individual predictors byexamining the R, R2, adjusted R2, and the change in R2. Two of the measures(SD and PJC) were statistically significant at .05 (p � .05). To further test thestrength of the predictors, a hierarchical regression analysis was performed. Inthe sample, it was concluded that SD was the most important predictor and accounted for 33.5 percent of the variance of the job performance scale.PJC accounted for 7.5 percent of the variance. JS was not significant andtogether accounted for only 2 percent of the variance. It was concluded thatthe only useful predictors for predicting job performance of adult workers withMR were SD and PJC.

Hypothesis 3: Regression Analysis 3. The third regression analysis con-firmed that the linear combination of predictor measures (SD, PJC) was sig-nificantly related to JS, F (4, 89) � 8.085, p � .05, and consideredsignificantly better than would be expected by chance. The multiple correla-tion coefficient (R) was .516, and R2, or effect size, was .267, indicating thatapproximately 27 percent of the variance of JS in the sample could beaccounted for by the linear combination of the predictor variables, SD andPJC. Table 4 presents indices to indicate the relative strength of the individ-ual predictors by examining the R2, adjusted R2, and the change in R2. Self-determination was statistically significant at .05 (p � .05). To further test thestrength of the predictors, a hierarchical regression analysis was used to assesswhether specific variables substantially add to the strength of prediction. Inthe sample, it could be concluded that SD was the most important predictorof JS and accounted for 26 percent of the variance of the job satisfaction scale.PJC was not significant and accounted for less than 1 percent of the variance.It was concluded that the useful predictors of job satisfaction of adult work-ers with MR was SD.



Table 3. Hierarchical Regression with Job Performance as the Criterion

Variables Sig. R R2 Adjusted R2 R2 Change

SD .000 .579 .335 .328 .335PJC .001 .640 .410 .397 .075JS .686 .657 .431 .406 .021

Note: *p � .05; **p � .01.


Discussion

The findings of the three multiple regression analyses confirmed that not allthe variables in the hypothesized JR model were statistically significant. Find-ings consistent and inconsistent with the hypothesized JR model led to arevised model. Consistent with the hypothesized JR model, SD was positivelycorrelated with all three criterion, JR, JP, JS (see Figure 2). Furthermore, JR andJS were positively correlated, and PJC and JP were also positively correlated.

There was no significant relationship between JR and JP or between JP andJS, which is inconsistent with the hypothesized model. The results also showedno significant relationship between PJC and JS or PJC and JR, which suggestsa limited fit between the hypothesized model and the study’s findings.Although only two of the variables (SD and JS) were significant predictors ofjob retention, self-determination revealed a unique and strong predictive capa-bility for all three work outcomes (job retention, job performance, and job sat-isfaction). Furthermore, PJC was a predictor of job performance. Conclusionsand interpretations drawn from the results of this study are discussed by eachcriterion variable or work outcome, job retention, job performance, and jobsatisfaction.

Predictors of Job Retention. As expected, and consistent with thehypothesized model, Hypothesis 1 supported the existence of a positive rela-tionship between SD, JS, and JR of adult workers with MR. SD accounted formost of the variance (24 percent) and is the major predictor of JR. Althoughsignificant, JS accounted for only 5 percent of the variance, and the correla-tions were low to moderate. This indicates that JS was only a small part of the


Table 4. Hierarchical Regression with JS as the Criterion

Variables Sig. R R2 Adjusted R2 R2 Change

SD .00 .460 .211 .203 .211

Note: *p � .05; **p � .01.

SD

PJC

JS

JP

JR

Figure 2. An Illustrated Summary of the Study’s Findings

influence on JR in workers with MR (see Figure 3). PJC and JP were not sig-nificant and together accounted for 2 percent of the variance.

SD–JR Relationship. The significant relationship between SD and JR addsto the current body of knowledge around SD and positive outcomes for youngadults with MR transitioning into community life (Wehmeyer, 1996;Wehmeyer, Lattin, & Agran, 2001). Individuals who possess high self-determination are more independent and more likely to find competitiveemployment (Wehmeyer & Palmer, 2003). These individuals are significantlymore likely to be working for higher wages and receiving more company ben-efits (Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1997), which leads to longer job retention andfinancial independence.

JS–JR Relationship. The significant positive relationship between JS and JRsupports the hypothesized JR model and Roessler’s 3M Job Retention Model(2002), which suggests that individuals with disabilities who are satisfied withtheir job and their work environment are employed longer. Satisfaction occurswhen the job provides activities that reinforce personal preferences. Job satis-faction refers to the degree to which people like their job (Spector, 1997) andthe feelings about their job or job experiences in relation to previous experi-ences, current expectations, or available alternatives (Balzer et al., 2000).

PJC–JR and JP–JR Relationships. Results indicated that both PJC and JPfailed to demonstrate significant predictive relationships with JR. These resultsare inconsistent with the hypothesized JR model prediction and with Roessler’s3M Job Retention Model (2002). The 3M Job Retention Model suggests thatthe appropriate person-job match is a prerequisite to improving job retentionand performance outcomes (Roessler, 2002). The inconsistency may bebecause supported employment is a controlled environment where workerswith MR are placed on the job if they have good job performance regardless oftheir interest in the job (PJC) and work environment. Thus, in a supportedemployment environment, the JP–JR and the PJC–JR relationships are difficultto measure. Further research is needed to understand if person-job fit is related tolevels of job satisfaction and job tenure (Roessler, 2002).

Predictors of Job Performance. In the second regression analysis, JP wasthe criterion variable. Consistent with the hypothesized model, SD and PJCwere significant and positive predictors of JP in adult workers with MR. SD



SD

JS

JR

24%

5%

Figure 3. The Conclusion of Hypothesis 1: Predictors of Job Retention

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239572445_Improving_Job_Tenure_Outcomes_for_People_with_Disabilities_The_3M_Model?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-3d97d86c-2539-44b8-ba3e-8032db13ad66&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNzk3Nzg1MztBUzo5ODYzODU3NTQzOTg4N0AxNDAwNTI4Njc3Nzcy


was the strongest predictor of JP and accounted for the most variance, 33.5percent. Although PJC was significant, it accounted for only a small portion ofthe variance, 7.5 percent (see Figure 4). JR and JS were not significant andtogether accounted for only 2 percent of the variance.

SD–JP Relationship. The significant positive relationship between SD andJP adds to the current body of knowledge around SD and positive outcomes forworking adults with MR. Workers who were more self-determined performedbetter on the job (Brady & Rosenberg, 2002; Wehmeyer & Palmer, 2003) andare more independent (Wehmeyer & Palmer, 2003). Self-determinationempowers individuals to plan and make choices about their careers, work, andlife (Biklen, 1988; Wehmeyer, 1998).

PJC–JP Relationship. The significant relationship between PJC and JP fur-ther confirms Roessler’s 3M Model (2002) and Leach’s suggestions (2002) thatcareful job match or person-job congruency results in good job performance.Additionally, proper placement, support, and careful job match that take intoaccount individual interests, skills, and abilities result in good job performance(Rosenberg & Brady, 2000). With proper job match and support, workers withMR perform their jobs equal to or better than nondisabled workers at entry-level positions (Rosenberg & Brady, 2001).

JS–JP Relationship. Results indicated that JS failed to demonstrate a signif-icant predictive relationship with JP. This result contrasts with Roessler’s 3MModel (2002) but is consistent with research in nondisabled populationswhere no relationship between JP and JS has been found (Iaffaldano &Muchinsky, 1985; Tett & Meyer, 1993). Thus, this study supports industrialand organizational psychology research on the workers without disabilities inthat JP is not related to JS and vice versa (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985; Tett &Meyer, 1993).

Predictors of Job Satisfaction. In the third multiple regression analysis,JS was the criterion variable. Consistent with the hypothesized job retentionmodel, SD and JR were significant and positive predictors of JS. SD accountedfor most of the variance in JS (21 percent), but JR accounted for only 5 per-cent of the variance (see Figure 5). PJC and JP were not significant and togetheraccounted for less than 1 percent of the variance.


SD

PJC

JP

33.5%

7.5%

Figure 4. The Conclusion of Hypothesis 2: Predictors of Job Performance

SD–JS Relationship. The SD–JS relationship is consistent with Roessler’s3M Model (2002) and Ironson and Smith (1981). If individuals with MR cap-italize on their self-determination, they are able to solve unpredictable prob-lems (Ironson & Smith, 1981). Resolving unexpected problems on the jobrequires self-determination skills to define problems accurately, generate feasible options, and implement the steps required to solve the problem. Thisself-determination skill promotes job satisfaction as well as job retention (Ironson & Smith, 1981).

PJC–JS Relationship. Results indicated that PJC failed to demonstrate a sig-nificant predictive relationship with JS; this is inconsistent with the literatureand the hypothesized job retention model. Roessler and Rubin (1998) purporta high correlation between job match or person-job congruency and job satis-faction and quality of life satisfaction. One possible explanation for this incon-sistency might be internal motivation of individuals with MR and their aim toplease and do a good job no matter what the job is (Rosenberg & Brady, 2000).Additionally, the inconsistency may also be because supported employment isa controlled environment where workers with MR are placed on the job regard-less of their interest in the job (PJC). Thus in a supported employment envi-ronment the PJC–JS relationship is difficult to measure. Roessler (2002)suggests further research is needed to understand if person-job fit is related tolevel of job satisfaction.

Implications for HRD Practice

A central goal of HRD professionals is to broaden understanding of the com-plex activities involved in assisting individuals and organizations to improvetheir ability to develop themselves and others in the organization (McLean &McLean, 2001). HRD comprises four primary functions: training and individ-ual development, career development, organizational development, and per-formance improvement (Gilley & Eggland, 1995). Focusing on individualdevelopment and career counseling can enhance job retention, work perfor-mance, and satisfaction.

Human resource development and organizations rarely provide training anddevelopment of self-determination skills, yet self-determination is particularly



SD

JR

JS

21%

5%

Figure 5. The Conclusion of Hypothesis 3: Predictors of Job Satisfaction


relevant in predicting long-term employment, good job performance, and jobsatisfaction for people with MR. Furthermore, person-job congruency canenhance the job performance of individuals with MR. On the basis of the data,HRD individual and career development strategies that encompass self-determination skill development are related to long-term employment, jobsatisfaction, and good performance of workers with MR.

Individual Development. “Individual development refers to the develop-ment of new knowledge, skills, and/or improved behaviors that results in per-formance enhancement and improvement related to one’s current job(training)” (Gilley & Eggland, 1995, p. 15). Although HRD professionals usetraining to impart new skills and knowledge, prior to training an assessmentof current skills and behaviors should be conducted. The purpose of assess-ment is to give employees an opportunity to review the work they have accom-plished, identify and illuminate particularly successful activities, and identifyand define areas that need improvement (Cook & Cripps, 2005). An individ-ual assessment must assess a worker’s weaknesses as well as his or her strengthsand interests. The ultimate end of the assessment process should be a set ofgoals that the supervisor and employee mutually agree on for the subsequentperiod. In the case of workers with MR, the HRD professional might adminis-ter the assessment instrument to small groups of workers, may need to readand explain items, and can explain the process to both the employee andsupervisor. The supervisor, worker, and trainer can then determine, with theassistance of the supported employment agency, the training needs of theworker.

Validation of the study’s revised job retention model developed in thisresearch could lead to development of a diagnostic tool to assess performanceand satisfaction of adult workers with MR. A diagnostic tool developed fromthe results of this study will allow HRD professionals to identify the strengthsand limitations of workers with MR. This knowledge of the strengths andweakness of a worker with MR can promote more focused training.

Training includes learning that is supplied in order to improve perfor-mance on the present job (Gilley & Eggland, 1995) or a method to stimulateindividual change (Sredl & Rothwell, 1987). Individual change includes skillacquisition, which is a result of formal education, vocational training, or on-the-job training (Jacobs, 2003). Though there are many descriptors of thetraining function, the common denominator is that all pertain to a skill orknowledge necessary to do one’s current job.

Training that promotes self-determination skills will enhance workers’ per-formance and job satisfaction, and promote their capacity to progress in thejob. HRD professionals who help managers, supervisors, and coworkers teachindividuals with MR self-determination strategies and goal-setting skillsimprove their critical learning skills and work-community involvement(Gilberts, Agran, Hughes, & Wehmeyer, 2001; Gumpel, Tappe, & Araki, 2000;Wood & Martin, 2004).


Career Development and Employability. Career development is an orga-nized, planned effort comprising structural activities or processes that advanceemployees within an organization and result in their optimal utilization (Gilley & Eggland, 1995). Employability is the ability to survive in the internalor external labor market (Thijssen, van der Heijden, & Rocco, 2008). Similarto person-job congruency, career development and employability focuses on astrategic effort to create a balance among the individual’s interests, values,skills, strengths, abilities, and career aspirations (Gilley & Eggland, 1995).

From the data and results of this study, we posit that when individuals withMR are allowed to be self-determined in their job choice and select jobs thatafford person-job congruency, their performance and job satisfaction isenhanced, ensuring long-term employment and employability. Thus HRD professionals who present career development strategies that encompass self-determined choices based on person-job congruency may assist workers withMR to perform better and be more satisfied on the job, leading to long-termemployment.

Career development is frequently equated with upward mobility, which isa misconception that should be clarified. Organizational information regard-ing other opportunities for job movement should be shared and explored withworkers with MR, such as job enrichment, job rotation, lateral moves, andrealignment moves. This sharing and exploration of jobs encourages employ-ability from the societal, organizational, and individual perspectives. From asocietal perspective, employability is an indicator of the working population’sopportunity to gain full employment. This gainful employment leads to a lowunemployment rate and healthy economy (Thijssen et al., 2008). From anorganizational perspective, employment implies that all jobs done by employ-ees in a certain company are for compensation. For an employer, employabil-ity is an indicator of the opportunity to match supply and demand in achanging organization (Thijssen et al., 2008). From the individual perspective,employment in the sense of an attractive job builds job satisfaction. For anindividual worker, employability is an indicator of his or her opportunity toacquire and keep a job in the internal or external labor market (Thijssen et al.,2008).

Both individual and career development strategies should encourage a nat-ural supported environment of employability. Natural support is any assistancefrom supervisors and coworkers that allows people to secure, maintain, andadvance in jobs of their choosing. This support corresponds to the typical workroutines and social actions of other employees (Rogan, Hagner, & Murphy,1993). Natural supports lead to two complementary outcomes for individualswith MR, extending individual competence and promoting social acceptance.Extending employee competence requires focus on coworkers teaching individual strategies that they can use to adapt to their role as employee.Extended individual competence requires use of procedures that promote accept-able work behavior and performance. By extending employee competence,




employees adapt to changing expectations for performance and increasingresponsibilities and opportunities on the job.

Social acceptance is promoted in a work environment where employeeswith and without disabilities work together. HRD professionals manage socialacceptance by teaching workers the skills that enable them to be more self-determined, helping to facilitate more effective interaction with coworkers andthe community (Fornes, 2005). This study gives HRD understanding of theimportance of developing individuals with MR to be self-determined andallowing them to work at jobs that meet their interests and abilities, leading tobetter job performance, satisfaction, and longer employment of individualswith MR.

Self-Determination Theory (Deci, 1992) is based on the assumption thatpeople are active organisms, with an innate tendency toward psychologicalgrowth and development, who strive to master ongoing challenges and inte-grate their experiences into a coherent sense of self. These natural human ten-dencies do not operate automatically but require ongoing supports from thesocial, educational, and work environments to function effectively. Each envi-ronment can either support or thwart the natural tendency toward activeengagement and psychological growth. Given that this dialectic between theactive organism and the environment serves as a basis for SD theory predic-tions about work behavior, experience, and development (Deci, 1992), itshould be a major focus of HRD professionals. They are in a position to sup-port the natural tendencies for workers with MR to master self-determinationskills and professional growth.

Limitation, Future HRD Research

The findings from this study support ongoing efforts to enhance self-determination in relation to more positive work outcomes. The next step inevaluating the impact of such efforts, in addition to replication of these find-ings, would be to examine longer-term outcomes for workers with MR whoreceive specific interventions that promote self-determination, compared tothose who do not receive similar work training experiences. Such an exami-nation would yield the causal link between self-determination and positive outcomes missing in this study.

A conceptual limitation of all multiple regression and correlational tech-niques is that one can only ascertain relationships but never be sure aboutunderlying causal mechanisms (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). Because this studywas correlational in design, the research was unable to ascertain whether thevarious independent variables caused JR, JP, and JS. For example, there mayexist a positive correlation between training or development initiatives andperformance, but this does not imply a causal linkage. Training may increaseemployee motivation that in turn causes improved performance. If motivationis the key performance factor, other less costly means can be used to improve


employee motivation. Experimental research that examines a cause-and-effectdesign will add to the body of knowledge.

This study highlights the importance of SD skills in working adults withMR, which also has implications for adolescents in transition from school towork. Self-determination in the transition planning process is the most criti-cal factor for youths with disabilities because they are so often relegated to the“second seat” in the decision-making processes of their own lives (Sitlington,Clark, & Kolstoe, 2000). Infusing self-determination instruction into transi-tion curriculum will not only improve educational outcomes but also enhanceskills and abilities needed for adult roles in life. Further research is needed onstrategies to build SD instruction into transition programs and education.

Conceptions of personality and motivational processes in persons with MRare only loosely related to theoretical models derived from mainstream psy-chology; virtually none of the available knowledge is based on any sustainedor systematic study of people with MR (Switzky, 1997). Prior research on peo-ple with MR focused primarily on identifying the cognitive deficits rather thanpersonal characteristics (Switzky, 1997). Despite the evidence that personalityand motivational aspects are equally important to positive outcomes for peo-ple with MR, the importance of the level of intelligence remains overempha-sized (Merighi, Edison, & Zigler, 1990). More research needs to focus onsecuring evidence that IQ and life success are not as strongly correlated as pre-viously presumed, and deemphasizing the intelligence factor as the main deter-minant of positive work outcomes for people with MR.

A useful extension of this research would be a predictive model thatincludes not only proximal outcomes of job retention such as personal char-acteristics but also distal outcomes such as economics and other work-relatedissues (for example, support). Links between economic factors could be usedto inform the proposed job retention model for workers with MR. The litera-ture suggests links between various support strategies, such as natural supportsof coworkers, outside job coach support, vocational support, and job reten-tion. These support strategies could be examined as distal outcome variablesof job retention.

References

American Association of Mental Retardation. (2002). Definition of mental retardation. Washington,DC: Author. Retrieved December 12, 2005, from http://www.aamr.org/Policies/faq_mental_ retardation.shtml

Anthony, W. A. (1994). The vocational rehabilitation of people with severe mental illness: Issuesand myths. Innovations and Research, 3(2), 17–24.

Balzer, W. K., Kihm, J. A., Smith, P. C., Irwin, J. L., Bacheochi, P. D., & Robie, C. (2000). Users’manual for the Job Descriptive Index (JDI; 1997 version) and the Job in General scales. In J. M. Stanton & C. D. Crossley (Eds.), Electronic resources for the JDI and JIG (pp. 34–37).Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University.

Biklen, D. (1988, May). Empowerment: Choices and change. Newsletter of the Association for Persons with Servere Handicaps.




Brady, M. P., & Rosenberg, H. (2002). Job observation and behavior scale: A supported employ-ment assessment instrument. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and DevelopmentalDisabilities, 37, 427–433.

Brady, M. P., Rosenberg, H., & Frain, M. (2006). Job Observation and Behavior Scale: Opportunityfor Self-Determination (JOBS: OSD), examiner’s manual. Wood Dale, IL: Stoelting.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cook, M., & Cripps, B. (2005). Psychological assessment in the workplace. West Sussex, UK: Wiley.Deci, E. L. (1992). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.Field, S., Martin, J., Miller, R., Ward, M., & Wehmeyer, M. (1998). Self-determination for persons

with disabilities: A position statement of the division on career development and transition.Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 21(2), 113–128.

Fornes, S. L. (2005). Integrating individuals with developmental disabilities into the open labormarket. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Disability Studies in Education Conference. New York:Teachers College, Columbia University.

Gilberts, G. H., Agran, M., Hughes, C., & Wehmeyer, M. (2001). The effects of peer-deliveredself-monitoring strategies on the participation of students with severe disabilities in generaleducation classrooms. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26, 25–36.

Gilbride, D., Stensrud, R., Vandergoot, D., & Golden, K. (2003). Identification of the character-istics of work environments and employers open to hiring and accommodating people withdisabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 46(3), 130–138.

Gilley, J., & Eggland, S. (1995). Principles of human resource development. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Green, S. B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis? MultivariateBehavioral Research, 26, 449–510.

Green, S., & Salkind, N. (2005). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh (5th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.

Griffin, D., Rosenberg, H., Cheyney, W., & Greenberg, B. (1996). A comparison of self-esteemand job satisfaction of adults with mild mental retardation in sheltered workshops andsupported employment. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and DevelopmentalDisabilities, 31, 142–151.

Gumpel, T. P., Tappe, P., & Araki, C. (2000). Comparison of social problem-solving abilitiesamong adults with and without developmental disabilities. Education and Training in MentalRetardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 259–268.

Harlow, L. L. (2004). The essence of multivariate thinking: Basic themes and methods. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Harris, L., & Associates Survey. (1986). Survey of disabled Americans: Bringing disabled Americansinto the mainstream. New York: International Center for the Disabled.

Harris, L., & Associates Survey. (1994). The National Organization on Disability/Harris survey onemployment of people with disabilities. New York: International Center for the Disabled.

Harris, L., & Associates Survey. (1998). The ICD Survey III: Employing Disabled Americans.Washington, DC: National Organization on Disability.

Harris, L., & Associates Survey. (2000). Closing the gaps: The National Organization on Disability/Harrison Survey Program on Participation and Attitudes. Washington, DC: National Organization onDisability.

Holland, J. L. (1985). The self-directed search professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assess-ment Resources.

Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work envi-ronments (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Iaffaldano, M. T., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 97, 251–273.


Ironson, G. H., & Smith, P. C. (1981). Anchors away: The stability of meaning when their loca-tion is changed. Personnel Psychology, 34, 249–262.

Ironson, G. H., Smith, P. C., Brannick, M. T., Gibson, W. M., & Paul, K. B. (1989). Constitutionof a Job in General Scale: A comparison of global, composite, and specific measures. Journalof Applied Psychology, 74, 193–200.

Jacobs, R. L. (2003). Structured on-the-job training: Unleashing employee expertise in the workplace.San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Karnilowicz, W., Sparrow, W. A., & Shinkfield, A. J. (1994). High school students’ attitudestoward performing social behaviors with mentally retarded and physically disabled peers. Journalof Social Behaviors and Personality, 9(5), 65–80.

Konig, A., & Schalock, R. (1991). Supported employment: Equal opportunities for severely dis-abled men and women. International Labour Review, 130(1), 21–37.

Leach, S. (2002). A supported employment workbook. London: Jessica Kingsley.Lee, S., & Hershberger, S. (1990). A simple rule for generating equivalent models in covariance

structure modeling. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 313–334.Lyons, M., & Hayes, R. (1993). Student perceptions of person with psychiatric and other disor-

ders. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47, 541–548.McLagan, P. A. (1989). The models: A volume in models for HRD practice. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press.McLean, G. N., & McLean, L. (2001). If we can’t define HRD in one country, how can we define

it in an international context? Human Resource Development International, 4(3), 313–326.Merighi, J., Edison, M., & Zigler, E. (1990). The role of motivational factors in the functioning

of mentally retarded individuals. In R. M. Hadapp, J. A. Burack, & E. Zigler (Eds.), Issues inthe developmental approach to mental retardation (pp. 114–134). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Mueser, K. T., Becker, D. R., & Wolfe, R. (2001). Supported employment, job preferences, jobtenure and satisfaction. Journal of Mental Health (UK), 10, 411–417.

Ormel, J., Lindenberg, S., Steverink, N., & Verbrugge, L. M. (1999). Subjective well-being andsocial production function. Social Indicators Research, 46(1), 61–92.

Phelan, J. C., Linke, B. G., Stueve, A., & Pescosolido, B. A. (2000). Public conceptions of men-tal illness in 1950 and 1996. Has sophistication increased? Has stigma declined? Journal ofHealth and Social Behavior, 41(2), 188–207.

Public Law 99–506: 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.: Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986. 99th Congress(1986).

Roessler, R. T. (2002). Improving job tenure outcomes for people with disabilities: The 3M model.Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 45, 207–212.

Roessler, R. T., & Rubin, S. (1998). Case management and rehabilitation counseling. Austin, TX:Pro-Ed.

Roessler, R. T., & Rumrill, P. D. (1998). Reducing workplace barriers to enhance job satisfaction:An important post-employment service for employees with chronic illnesses. Journal of Voca-tional Rehabilitation, 10, 219–229.

Rogan, P., Hagner, D., & Murphy, S. (1993). Natural supports: Reconceptualizing job coach roles.Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18, 275–281.

Rosenberg, H., & Brady, M. P. (2000). JOBS: Job Observation and Behavior Scale examiner’s manual.Wood Dale, IL: Stoelting.

Rosenberg, H., Cheyney, W., & Greenberg, B. (1991). Dropout prevention in vocational specialneeds education. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 14, 91–101.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic moti-vation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.

Salkever, D. (2000). Activity status, life satisfaction, and perceived productivity for young adultswith developmental disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 66(3), 4–13.

Sitlington, P. L., Clark, G. M., & Kolstoe, O. P. (2000). Transition education and services for ado-lescents with disabilities (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.




Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). Measurement of satisfaction in work and retire-ment. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Spector, P. E. (1997a). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Spector, P. E. (1997b). The role of frustration in anti-social behavior at work. In R. A. Giacalone &J. Greenberg (Eds.), Anti-social behavior in the workplace (pp. 1–17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sredl, H. J., & Rothwell, W. J. (1987). The ASTD reference guide to professional training roles & competencies, Vol. 1 & 2. New York: Random House.

Storey, K. (2002). Strategies for increasing interactions in supported employment settings: Anupdated review. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 17, 231–237.

Strohmer, D. C., Grand, A. A., & Purcell, M. J. (1998). Attitudes toward persons with a disability:An examination of demographic factors, social context, and specific disability. RehabilitationPsychology, 29(3), 131–145.

Super, D. E. (1990). A life-span life-space approach to career development. In D. Brown, L. Brooks, & Associates (Eds.), Career choice and development: Applying contemporary theories topractice (2nd ed., pp. 197–261). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Switzky, H. N. (1997). Individuals’ differences in personality and motivational systems in personswith mental retardation. In W. E. MacLean (Ed.), Ellis’ handbook of mental deficiency, psycholog-ical theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 343–377). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariable statistics (4th ed.). Boston: Allen andBacon.

Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover inten-tion, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46,259–293.

Thijssen, J.G.L., van der Heijden, B.I.J.M., & Rocco, T. S. (2008). Toward the employability–linkmodel: Current employment transition to future employment perspectives. Human ResourceDevelopment Review, 7(2), 165–183.

Trach, J. S., Rusch, F. R., & DeStefano, L. (1987). Supported employment program development:Degree of implementation manual. In J. S. Trach & F. R. Rusch (Eds.), Supported employmentin Illinois: Program implementation and evaluation (Vol. 1, pp. 134–156). Champaign: Universityof Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois Supported Employment Project.

U.S. Department of Census. (2000). Population profile of the USA. Retrieved October 16, 2004,from http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen.2000.html

Wehman, P. (2001). Support employment in business: Expanding the capacity of workers with disabilities.St. Augustine, FL: Training Resource Network.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (1996). Self-determination as an educational outcome: Why is it important to children, youth, and adults with disabilities. In D. J. Sands & M. L. Wehmeyer (Eds.), Self-determination across the life span: Independence and choice for people with disabilities(pp. 17–36). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (1998). Self-determination and individuals with significant disabilities: Examiningmeanings and misinterpretations. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 23,5–16.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (1999). A functional model of self-determination: Describing development andimplementing instruction. Focus on autism and other developmental disabilities, 14(1), 53–61.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (2001). Self-determination and mental retardation. In L. M. Glidden (Ed.), Inter-national review of research in mental retardation (Vol. 24, pp. 1–48). San Diego, CA: AcademicPress.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. (2000). A national survey of teachers’ promotion ofself-determination and student-directed learning. Journal of Special Education, 34, 58–68.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Bolding, N. (2001). Enhanced self-determination of adults with intellectualdisability as an outcome of moving to community-based work or living environments. Journalof Intellectual Disability Research, 45, 1–13.


Wehmeyer, M. L., & Kelchner, K. (1995). The ARC’s self-determination scale. Silver Springs, MD:ARC of the United States.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Kelchner, K. (1997). Whose future is it anyway? A student-directed transitionplanning program. Silver Spring, MD: ARC of the United States.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Lattin, D., & Agran, M. (2001). Promoting access to the general curriculumfor students with mental retardation: A decision-making model. Education and Training in MentalRetardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36, 329–344.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Palmer, S. B. (2003). Adult outcomes for students with cognitive disabili-ties, three years after high school: The impact of self-determination. Education & Training inDevelopmental Disabilities, 38(2), 131–144.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Schwartz, M. (1997). Self-determination and positive adult outcomes: A follow-up study of youth with mental retardation or learning disabilities. Exceptional Children,63(2), 245–255.

Wood, L. L., & Martin, J. E. (2004). Improving supervisor evaluations through the use of self-determination contracts. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 27, 207–220.

Wright, G. N. (1980). Total rehabilitation. Boston: Little, Brown.

Sandra Fornes is the executive director of the Hidden Angel Foundation, Florida, whosemission is to enrich the lives of individuals with cognitive, emotional, and physical challenges.

Tonette S. Rocco is associate professor and program leader of adult education and human resource development at Florida International University, Miami.

Howard Rosenberg is associate professor of educational and psychological studies at Florida International University, Miami.



Documents

Improving outcomes for workers with mental retardation