arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Comparing the Transition Planning, Postsecondary Education, and Employment Outcomes of Students With Intellectual and Other Disabilities

Meg Grigal et al.

Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals2011https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728811399091article
ABDC C
Weight
0.72

What the paper says

This article describes a secondary analysis of variables from the National Longitudinal Transition Survey 2 (NLTS-2) database. Specifically, students with intellectual disability (ID) were compared to students with other disabilities regarding post-school transition goals listed on their IEPs/Transition Plans, contacts/referrals made to outside agencies during transition planning, participation of other agencies/organizations in transition planning (e.g., vocational rehabilitation and higher education representatives), and students’ postsecondary education and employment outcomes. Students with ID were less likely to have postsecondary education or competitive employment goals and outcomes and more likely to have sheltered and supported employment goals and outcomes compared to students with other disabilities. Contacts with and participation of external professionals in IEP/Transition Plan meetings also differed between the two groups of students.

222 citations

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728811399091

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{meg2011,
  title        = {{Comparing the Transition Planning, Postsecondary Education, and Employment Outcomes of Students With Intellectual and Other Disabilities}},
  author       = {Meg Grigal et al.},
  journal      = {Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals},
  year         = {2011},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728811399091},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Comparing the Transition Planning, Postsecondary Education, and Employment Outcomes of Students With Intellectual and Other Disabilities

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.72

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact1.00 × 0.4 = 0.40
M · momentum0.60 × 0.15 = 0.09
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.