The impact of personal characteristics on scores on the Self‐Determination Inventory: Student report in adolescents with and without disabilities

Abstract

The Self-Determination Inventory: Student Report (SDI:SR) is a newly developed measure of self-determination. The purpose of this study was to explore of personal factors, namely age and gender on scores on the SDI:SR. Separate multigroup confirmatory analyses were conducted for age cohorts (13-to 15-, 16-to 18-, and 19-to 22-year-olds) and for females and males to establish measurement invariance and explore latent differences. Findings suggest the same set of items can be used in all groups. No latent differences were found for females and males, but expected age-related differences (e.g., younger participants showed lower levels of selfdetermination) were established. Finally, the degree to which age and gender influenced scores for 12 groups created by crossing disability status and race/ethnicity was examined. Findings suggest that females with no disability or learning disabilities generally score lower in overall self-determination than males and general positive impact of age on scores across disability by race/ethnicity groups.Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Gender Differences in Risk and Protective Factors Among Youth With EBD: Findings From the NLTS2

“…The goal of the present study was to identify gender differences among students with EBD across relevant RPFs to inform the development of gender-specific prevention and intervention strategies for youth with EBD. Our results align with previous research on gender differences in RPFs among SWD (Shogren et al, 2018) and suggest gender differences in RPFs among youth with EBD are complex. Using data from the NLTS2, results indicated males and females with EBD did not differ significantly across demographic characteristics and most RPFs.…”

“…we found no significant gender differences in levels of selfreported self-determination among youth with EBD, providing further evidence that gender differences in levels of self-determination vary according to disability group (Shogren et al, 2018). We found no significant gender differences in youthreported self-concept; however, we also found teachers' and program directors' ratings indicate females with EBD are perceived as performing significantly better than their male peers in some areas.…”

“…Some researchers have reported that females with disabilities have significantly higher levels of self-determination than males with disabilities, whereas others have found no significant gender differences (Shogren et al, 2018). For example, Cavendish (2017) collected data from 190 high-school students in a large, urban southeastern school district and found female students had significantly higher levels of self-determination than male students, controlling for disability group, race/ethnicity, age, and other relevant confounds.…”

“…For example, Cavendish (2017) collected data from 190 high-school students in a large, urban southeastern school district and found female students had significantly higher levels of self-determination than male students, controlling for disability group, race/ethnicity, age, and other relevant confounds. Shogren et al (2018) used the validation sample from the Self-Determination Inventory: Student Report and found no significant gender differences in levels of self-reported self-determination. Instead, the authors found significant age-related effects, such that younger youth reported lower levels of self-determination than older youth.…”

Age and Gender Invariance in the Taiwan Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition: Higher Order Five-Factor Model

“…Among all possible subpopulations, age and gender are considered fundamental for measurements in various domains (Byrne et al, 1993; Cheng & Watkins, 2000; Emerson et al, 2017; Shogren et al, 2018). Studies frequently combine data from examinees of different ages and gender, but nonetheless, age and gender invariance are essential issues pertaining to WISC-V applicability.…”