Constructing and Validating a Multiple-Indicator Construct of Economic Hardship in a National Sample of Adolescents with Disabilities

Abstract

The purpose of the current study was to develop a multi-indicator construct of economic hardship among adolescents with disabilities ( N = 9,230) participating in the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2, the largest, most comprehensive investigation of adolescents with disabilities ever conducted. Five theoretically relevant indicators (i.e., family income, head-of-household education, head-of-household employment, participation in social programs, and lack of resources) contributed to the formation of an economic hardship latent construct. Scores on this factor were validated through associations with demographic, tangible-resource, school, and family factors. The implications of these findings for continued efforts to understand and respond to economic hardship among adolescents with disabilities are discussed.

Patterns of early adult work and postsecondary participation among individuals with high-incidence disabilities: A longitudinal person-centered analysis.

“…Numerous researchers have reported that females, students of color (i.e., particularly African American and Native Americans), and youth with disabilities from low-SES backgrounds have poorer posthigh-school employment rates than do males, Caucasians, and those from middle and high SES backgrounds (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996; Doren & Benz, 1998; Sima et al, 2015). These findings are consistent with those from community samples and likely reflect a constellation of challenges facing these populations including those encompassed in family SES (Murray et al, 2015; Swartz et al, 2017).…”

“…Despite low rates of employment and postsecondary participation among young adults with disabilities, little attention has been devoted to understanding potential interrelationships between these activities. Among normative samples, participation in some form of postsecondary education contributes to greater employment stability and higher quality employment (Neumark & Rothstein, 2006; Vuolo et al, 2016), issues that remains critically important to adults with disabilities who are disproportionately represented in poverty (Murray et al, 2015). Evidence derived from normative samples also indicates that participation in these activities is often interrelated such that some youth who attend postsecondary school delay engaging in employment until finishing school (Eliason et al, 2015; Vuolo et al, 2014) whereas others pursue more intensive employment directly following high school, but then may enter postsecondary school after working for several years in an effort to achieve higher quality work opportunities (Vuolo et al, 2014).…”

The Inventory of Teacher‐Student Relationships: Factor structure and associations with school engagement among high‐risk youth

“…This sense of security is derived from access to a supportive and responsive adult, which provides the confidence, or self‐assuredness, to take on new challenges but may also assist in recovering from setbacks that occur (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987; Bowlby, 1973; Pianta, 1999). The felt security derived from having access to a supportive adult relationship may be particularly important for youth experiencing disability or other academic risks because these students are more likely to also experience concurrent difficulties in other areas of functioning (e.g., social, emotional, behavioral), in other social relationships (e.g., parents & peers), and in communities outside of school (Al‐Yagon, 2012; Ansari et al, 2020; Murray et al, 2015; Panicker & Chelliah, 2016). For these youth, supportive teacher–student relationships may help to buffer the negative effects of such risks on educational outcomes (Murray, 2009; Sharkey et al, 2008).…”

A Summary of NCSER-Funded Projects in the Area of Transition Outcomes for Secondary Students With Disabilities

“…Results from the first causal comparative study identified predictors of school dropout for students with LD such as (a) grades and engagement in high-risk behaviors, (b) family and parent expectations, and (c) school environment (Doren, Murray, & Gau, 2014). Findings from the second causal comparative study identified five significant indicators of economic hardship including (a) family income, (b) head-of-household education, (c) head-of-household employment, (d) participation in social programs, and (e) lack of resources (Murray, Doren, Gau, Zvoch, & Seeley, 2015).…”