SELF-DETERMINATION AND END-OF-LIFE PLANNING
FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
By
David Bryan Schroeder

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Rehabilitation Counselor Education
2012

ABSTRACT
SELF-DETERMINATION AND END-OF-LIFE PLANNING
FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
By
David Bryan Schroeder
For nearly a half century, self-determination has been a prominent topic for
discussion within the field of disability, and prevalent within the research literature
(Bekemeier, 2009). Disability literature is clear regarding the value on the voice of
the people with disabilities (PWD) to guide and direct their own lives as they see fit
(Moye, Wood, Edelstein, Arnesto, Harrison & Wood, 2007). Despite this high value,
many PWD continue to experience interventions, in the form of legal maneuvering,
that seek to strip them of legal rights and responsibilities for their own decision
making (Black, 2008). Guardianship and conservatorship are the most common
methods used to take control of another’s life, and leave PWD voiceless to control
the events in their lives (Black, 2008). Often, these decisions are made in response
to a crisis, at a time when PWD may be unable to carefully consider and
communicate their preferences (Black, 2008). Concerns regarding the use of
guardianship and conservatorship have been increasingly reported in the media,
practices and ethics have come under intensive scrutiny (Paillaud, Ferrand, Lejonc,
Henry, Boullianne, & Montagne, 2007). The ability to appoint proxies to serve in
times when an individual is unable to relay their desires has been codified with the

introduction of the Patient Self Determination Act and expanded with the Uniform
Healthcare Decisions Act (Galambos, 1998).
The study proposed seeks to determine the relationship between constructs of
self determination and engagement in the creation of a durable power of attorney
for healthcare among persons with disabilities served by Centers for Independent
Living in Lansing, Michigan and Lubbock, Texas. The study will utilize a well
developed survey to measure the presence of self-determined behaviors and a
created survey regarding the creation of a durable powers of attorney document.
The created ‘Participant Planning Questionnaire’ will additionally seek information
regarding the interest of respondents in learning more about the durable powers of
attorney creation process. Demographic information will be gathered to allow for
description of the respondent population.

Copyright by
DAVID BRYAN SCHROEDER
2012

DEDICATION
To Kris – who never paused in her belief!

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wanted to write this today, because it’s a Wednesday. Not my favorite day
of the week, per se, but clearly one of the most reflective. As I sit thinking about
this task, I am terrified that I will forget someone – someone important – and that
is something I wouldn’t want to do – so to cover my lapses, if you are reading this, it
is likely because you love me – and therefore I thank you for sharing my journey…
No. That’s not enough. Some people have to be named! Some honored with
titles! It’s required! So, here goes: First and foremost I acknowledge my family –
all of them – living and dead. If not for you, I could not have gone down this long
path. You believed in me, challenged me, held me when I wanted to cry (or did),
and for that I owe you everything. My family includes my partner Kris, and
children (Julie, Ryan, Ren & Dan); my parents (deceased) Bill, Mary & Audrey; My
siblings: Dean (dcd), Pat (& Joyce), Julia (& Dale), Gary, Bert (& Kathleen); Nieces
& Nephews: Sherry, Randy, Ralph, Derek (Christin), Nikki, Robbie, J. Mike, Joseph
& Christopher; and my Julia M. Also my myriad of Aunts, Uncles, Cousins – you
know who you are! And I need to include the family of my heart – Frank & Sharon,
Dorothy, Jan, Mary, Jim & Elaine, Pati & J., Dennis & DeLane, Deb & Chris,
Sharon and many more. This journey could never have begun without the clearing
of space, so some credit goes to my men’s group (Robert, David, Bill, Dave); my
recovery group (David, Lawrence, Mary Ann), and the skills of David L. Lowe. Some
of you are far away, others only a flit of an eyelid.

vi

I need to thank my educational family, beginning with the crew at MSU – as
a triple Spartan, you sustained me through much: Drs. John Kosciulek, Michael
Leahy, Nancy Crewe (dcd), Kristen Renn, Steven Geiger, Ginny Theilsen, Su Pi;
Rhonda Egidio, Wendy Coduti; and Ms. Joyce Schultz, & Ms. Erin Johnson. My
wonderful cohort: Andrea, Deb, & Roxanne – I miss you all. My COMP buddies
(Wendy & Steve) (Ronnie & Amanda) and all in my community of learning – thank
you. Of course, I need to thank my TTUHSC family as well: Dr. Evans Spears, Dr.
Robin Satterwhite, Ms. Michelle Aliff, Ms. Amy Doty, Ms. Amy Jo Smith, Mr. Curt
Finger, Dr. Jacque Dalton, Dr. Michael Keller, Ms. Nancy Mangun; Ms. Tanya
Gillit; Dr. Raj Koul; & Dr. Rubini Pasupathy – y’all make me look good! My
predecessors who left me in good shape: Drs. Katherine Byers & Anna Harpster.
And those who know me understand my need to acknowledge my sources of
unconditional positive regard: R.C., Goldie, Nermal, Patches, Jasmine, Shoogie,
Fred, Maxx, Luna, Kitten and Varrick. Nothing is as comforting as a wet nose!
Finally, to my clinical community – you shaped me in so many ways. All the
folks at CEI Community Mental Health, Peckham, Inc., the Michigan
Rehabilitation Association, CACIL, LIFE/RUN and Sparrow Community Health
Centers. And I cannot exclude the individuals who have honored me by trusting
and allowing me to provide you with services – I would not be where I have gotten
without your faith – thank you.
I know that this can never be complete, and I live in terror that I will forget
you. If I have, please know that it was unintentional, and that I do remember….

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

vii

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Statement of Problem
Importance of Self-determination
Proxy Appointment
Conflict
Purpose of the Study
Prevalence
Research Questions
Results of Prior Study
Overview of Study
Definition of Terms
Self Determination
Empowerment
Durable Power of Attorney for Healthcare
Guardianship
Proxy Appointment

1
1
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
10

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Self Determination
Life Planning
Planning and Disability
Important Intersections
Role of Autonomy
Importance of Planning
Guardianship
Healthcare Reform
Approaches to Planning
Call for Planning
Planning and the Elderly
Application to Persons with Disability
Planning Practices for Persons with Disability
Planning and Cognition
Planning and Mental Illness
Planning at the End of Life

11
12
26
27
27
28
33
33
37
41
42
43
44
44
45
47
48

viii

CHAPTER 3
METHODS
Participants
Variables and Measures
Self Determination
Participant Planning
Procedure
Data Analysis

50
50
58
58
60
61
62

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Results Related to Research Question 1
Descriptive Statistics & Correlation Analysis Raw Data
Descriptive Statistics & Correlation Analysis Clean Data
Descriptive Statistics & Correlation Analysis SDS Subsets
Descriptive Statistics & Correlation Analysis SDS-A & PPQ
Descriptive Statistics & Correlation Analysis SDS-B & PPQ
Results Related to Research Question 2

65
65
65
66
68
68
70
71

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Limitations of the Study
Narrative Summary of Results
Relation of Findings to Prior Research
Theoretical Implications
Practice Implications
Considerations for Future Research

74
76
77
79
81
83
83

APPENDICES
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Appendix F:
Appendix G:

Participant Demographic Questionnaire
Self-Determination Scale
Participant Planning Questionnaire
Requests to Conduct Research
Announcement/Invitation Poster
Letter of Informed Consent
Scripted Definitions

REFERENCES

86
87
89
91
93
98
100
103
105

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1:

Overall Demographic Characteristics

56

Table 2:

Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables (RAW)

66

Table 3:

Correlations among Study Variables (RAW)

66

Table 4:

Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables (CLEAN)

67

Table 5:

Correlations among Study Variables (CLEAN)

67

Table 6:

Descriptive Statistics for SDS Subsets (CLEAN)

68

Table 7:

Correlations among SDS Subsets (CLEAN)

68

Table 8:

Descriptive Statistics for Perceived Choice & PPQ (CLEAN)

69

Table 9:

Correlations among Perceived Choice & PPQ (CLEAN)

69

Table 10:

Descriptive Statistics for Awareness of Self & PPQ (CLEAN)

70

Table 11:

Correlations among Awareness of Self & PPQ (CLEAN)

70

Table 12:

Descriptive Statistics Participant Planning Questionnaire

71

Table 13:

Descriptive Statistics for Participant Planning Questionnaire

72

Table 14:

Participant Demographics Questionnaire

88

Table 15:

Self-Determination Scale

90

Table 16:

Participant Planning Questionnaire

92

Table 18:

Letter of Informed Consent

101

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Self-Determination Theory

17

xi

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
For nearly a half century, self-determination has been a prominent topic for
discussion within the field of disability, and prevalent within the research literature
(Bekemeier, 2009). Disability literature is clear regarding the value on the voice of
the people with disabilities (PWD) to guide and direct their own lives as they see fit
(Moye, Wood, Edelstein, Arnesto, Harrison et al, 2007). Despite this high value,
many PWD continue to experience interventions, in the form of legal maneuvering,
that seek to strip them of legal rights and responsibilities for their own decision
making (Black, 2008). Guardianship and conservatorship are the most common
methods used to take control of another’s life, and leave PWD voiceless to control
the events in their lives (Black, 2008). Often, these decisions are made in response
to a crisis, at a time when PWD may be unable to carefully consider and
communicate their preferences (Black, 2008). Concerns regarding the use of
guardianship and conservatorship have been increasingly reported in the media,
practices and ethics have come under intensive scrutiny (Paillaud, Ferrand, Lejonc,
Henry, Boullianne, & Montagne, 2007).
Statement of Problem
Importance of Self-determination.

Built on patriarchal and protective

value systems, most PWD have encountered resistance to self-direction as they
encounter the service systems designed to provide services they require (Wilber &
1

Reynolds, 1995). Although references to personal control and self-determination
have been present in disability literature for nearly a century, the concept has only
recently come to be viewed as the ‘gold standard’ of services (Owen, 2009). First
relayed as a fully developed theory by Wehmeyer (2003), self-determination theory
has been adopted as a guide for policy across many public and private service
structures (Owen, 2009, Wehmeyer, 1999).

Self-Determination Theory is based on

the measurement of motivation as it interacts with factors of promotion or
extinction (Gagne & Deci, 2005). As individuals move along the continuum from
amotivation to intrinsic motivation, varying types of regulation intercede as the
individual seeks coherence and autonomy (Gagne & Deci, 2005). In brief, selfdetermination theory calls for both the ‘right and capacity’ of PWD to control their
lives (Wehmeyer, 1999; Gagne & Deci, 2005). Further extension of selfdetermination work has built both structure and methods of measurement that
further define the self-determination construct (Owen, 2009). Using the structure
and measures, supportive studies have been published advocating for selfdetermination in the appointments of proxies by PWD (MacGuire, Rao, Anderson &
Ford, 2007).
Proxy Appointment. Appointment of proxy agents occurs primarily in two
ways in the State of Michigan, each with many distinct implications and capacities
(Geller, 2000). For PWD, the most common proxy appointment occurs within the
realm of the Probate or Family Court, and occurs as either a guardianship or
conservatorship (Geller, 2000). Guardianship typically has two prescriptive levels,
2

plenary and partial, and proxies may be appointed to decide on issues involving the
person and estate (Geller, 2000). Plenary guardianships grant power for substitute
decision making across wide domains, and often are considered to strip the ‘ward’ of
most of their adult rights and responsibilities (Geller, 2000). Partial guardianship
is more common, and often limits powers to specific decision making tasks – like
medical care (Geller, 2000). Conservatorship is typically applied only to control
access to one’s assets or estate (Geller, 2000). Although persons with disabilities
are often consulted during the appointment process used by the courts to create
these proxy relationships, if differences of opinion exist between the person with a
disability and other persons without a disability familiar with their lives, it is often
difficult to ascertain which parties most commonly prevail in the court system
(Geller, 2000).
Under scrutiny for issues of overuse and abuse, questions have been posed
regarding the necessity of guardianship (Moye et al, 2007). Advocates point to other
options, including use of proxy decision making arrangements commonly used with
other population groups such as the elderly (McCarthy et al, 2007). Proxy
arrangements, commonly referred to as ‘Durable Power of Attorney for Healthcare’,
exist in nearly all states. Some states allow for ‘Living Wills’, which are a very
similar document that extends to cover decision making regarding assets and living
arrangements (Paillaud, et al, 2007). While creation of a Durable Power of Attorney
for Healthcare or a Living Will does not prohibit a court from appointing a
guardian, many states are guided in their decision making by their presence, using
3

the creation of such documents as evidence of the capacity to engage in informed
consent (Sith, 2006). Common among persons without disabilities, use of proxies
has been slow to catch on in use for PWD (Lingler et al, 2008). Changes in legal
interpretations have increasingly held that a person is presumed competent to act
on their own behalf until adjudicated incompetent (Sith, 2006; Gregory, Roked,
Jones, & Patel, 2007).
Conflict. At first glance, it would appear that an insurmountable chasm
would exist between the implementation of self-determination theory and proxy
appointment practices. This would be particularly true with traditional methods of
appointment. However, when we embrace the idea of self-appointment of proxies as
methods of extending the ability to self govern, we begin to see convergence.
Although courts have held that PWD are assumed to have the capacity to enter into
such arrangements, little information is reported in the literature regarding the
prevalence of such activities.
Self-determination theory (SDT), a model of decision making that has been
increasingly adopted for use with PWD, has adapted from an initial state of conflict
to embrace the self-appointment of proxies as a method of living a self-determined
life (Owen, 2009). Self-determination theory reflects a continuum of interaction
between motivation and sources of regulation to measure the level of autonomy
experienced by PWD (Gagne & Deci, 2005). As the individual experiences
integration of regulation, their autonomy increases (Gagne, Deci, 2005).
Appointment of a guardian would be a strong reflection of external regulation, and
4

thus is not desirable to persons seeking to live self-determined lives (Dore, 2008).
Appointing a proxy with limited powers to act only in compliance with the explicit
wishes of the PWD and only during periods of incapacity would represent fully
integrated regulation, and would thus increase self-determination for the PWD
(Gagne & Deci, 2005).
Despite increased acknowledgement of the congruence of self-appointment of
healthcare proxies with extension of recovery, empowerment and selfdetermination, little has been documented regarding the frequency of utilization
(Castle & Mor, 1998). It is clear that guardianship is neither necessary nor
preferred in many of the instances in which it is invoked (Hommel, 1996). A review
of the literature finds increasing support for consumer-driven healthcare decision
making, although little reporting is present regarding the frequency of use, or levels
of adherence to the wishes of the consumer arising from such arrangements (Owen,
2009).
Purpose of the Study
This study sought to develop an understanding of the frequency of use of
documents such as Durable Power of Attorney for Healthcare or Living Wills by
persons with disabilities. While studies have demonstrated that appointment of
guardians, particularly public or non-related guardians, for PWD is decreasingly
nationally, alternatives allowing for self-appointment of advocates have met with
resistance in legal and jurisdictional locales (Wilber & Reynolds, 1995). The

5

discourse regarding issues of competency to create Durable Powers of Attorney for
Healthcare or Living Wills has been extensive, and appears to generally have been
solved by assuming competence until incompetence has been adjudicated (Gregory
et al, 2007; Sith, 2006). Coupling this assumption with the increased call for the
development of proxy arrangements amongst the general public, it would appear a
prudent time to measure the occurrence of self-appointment of proxy within the
disability community (Pozzuolo, Lassoff & Valentine, 2005).
Prevalence. Frequency of use of advanced planning practices that are
inclusive of health care proxy appointment was the primary focus of this study. As
advocates for persons with disabilities have increasingly voiced support for such
arrangements, little literature is available to indicate growth in adoption by PWD
(McGuire et al, 2007). Of the literature available regarding use of Durable Power of
Attorney for Healthcare appointment by PWD, the majority places focus on two
specific populations: those with life-long cognitive impairments and those with
acquired cognitive impairments (Allen & Hilgeman, 2009; Gregory et al, 2007;
Heller, Factor, Sterns & Sutton, 1996; Johns, 2004; McGuire, et al, 2007; Stratling
et al, 2004). Furthermore, the majority of the studies have limited their focus to
end of life issues, and have not been inclusive of planning for short term health
incapacities or psychiatric health interventions (Pape, Jaffe, Savage, Collins &
Warden, 2004). If we develop an understanding of the frequency of usage of proxy
appointment by PWD, we can then attempt to identify barriers to selection and
usage.
6

Knowledge regarding usage of proxy appointments to extend decision making
for PWD also appears to be under-represented in the research literature. Although
limited information is available regarding proxy appointment for persons with
Dementia, Alzheimer’s Disease, Mental Retardation and Traumatic Brain Injury
has been located, virtually no information has been presented regarding use of
proxy arrangements for persons with other health impairments or disabilities (Allen
& Hilgeman, 2009; Gregory, et al, 2007; Heller, et al, 1996; Johns 2004; McGuire, et
al, 2007; Stratling, et al, 2004). Only one specific outcome report of a training
exercise regarding development of proxy arrangements for PWD is reported, and
that report is dated (Heller, et al, 1996). Furthermore, that study was limited in
participation to a specific disability (Heller, et al, 1996). The result is a dearth of
information regarding the practice and preparation Durable Powers of Attorney for
Healthcare by PWD.
Research Questions
To address this research vacuum, this study sought to gather information
regarding both current practice and level of education regarding use of Durable
Powers of Attorney for Healthcare across a more diverse population of PWD. To
gain understanding of the relationships between two important social constructs
within the field of disability (self-determination, life planning), this study posed two
research questions, used two assessment instruments that will be offered to a
diverse grouping of PWD in service settings at two locations. Research Question
One poses the following: “What is the relationship between the presence of SD
7

behaviors and the creation of Durable Powers of Attorney for Healthcare?” This
was measured by self-report during completion of a voluntary questionnaire offered
to program participants. Data collection compared answers to three questions for
each construct (SD & proxy appointment), and analysis explored the relationship
between responses. A positive relationship was expected to occur between these two
constructs. Research Question Two poses the following: “What is the frequency of
creation of Durable Powers of Attorney for Healthcare documents for persons with
disabilities?” Data collection occurred in voluntary reporting utilizing a
questionnaire created by the study author. There does not appear to be adequate
existing data to predict the nature of this relationship.
Results of Prior Study
Both proxy planning and self-determination theory benefit from a wealth of
study establishing their efficacy (Gregory, et al, 2007). Little information, however,
is available to examine the relationship between the constructs of Self
Determination, and creation of Durable Powers of Attorney for Healthcare. Studies
measuring the creation of Durable Powers of Attorney by persons with disabilities
have typically focused on a small, precise segment of the population (Lingler, et al,
1998). A brief review of current literature regarding each construct and studied
applications will follow to grant insight into the building of the questions for this
study.

8

Proxy Appointment Planning is often studied in context with healthcare and
aging, estate planning, and memorial funding (Allen, et al, 2009; Asche, 2005;
Black, 2008; Galambos, 1998; O’Neill, 2001). Although options for proxy
appointment have been legally available for decades, such activities are
increasingly in popularity among the general population (Palliuard, et al, 2007).
Increasingly studied in relation to changes in cognition related to disease process,
researchers have consistently established that such an illness has little effect on the
individual’s ability to engage in meaningful planning processes (McGuire, et al,
2007).
Self-determination has been measured as a construct for many life domains:
Housing, Employment, Education, and Relationships (Gagne’ & Deci, 2005; Hardy,
2008; Hellar, et al, 1996; Kosciulek, 2005). In nearly all studies, high levels of SD
have been found congruent with higher levels of quality of life and satisfaction with
decision making (Gagne’ & Deci, 2005; Hardy, 2008; Hellar, et al, 1996; Kosciulek,
2005).
Overview of the Study
Definition of Terms
Self Determination. Self Determination as a rehabilitation construct refers
to using one’s values, preferences and experiences as a guide to the decision making
processes (Wehmeyer, 1999). Self-determined behavior and treatment arises from
self-knowledge, and focuses on skill building to transfer that knowledge to action.
9

Empowerment. Disability literature has struggled with the definitions of
empowerment, despite it being heralded as the desired outcome of services for
decades (Dempsey & Forman, 1997). The most commonly accepted definition of
empowerment is not a true definition – moreover, it is the collection of components
that signify the presence of empowerment (Dempsey & Forman, 1997). Current
models call for the presence of seven components: self-efficacy, participation and
collaboration, a sense of control, the meeting of personal needs, and an
understanding of the environment, the taking of personal action, and the access to
resources (Dempsey & Forman, 1997).
Durable Power of Attorney for Healthcare. A legal document, accepted by
law nationally, that allows an individual to formalize the appointment of a decision
making role to another person if they are either unavailable or incapacitated to
make medical decisions regarding their care (McGuire, et al, 2007)
Guardianship. Guardianship is the appointment, by a state agency, of an
alternate entity to make decisions for an individual based upon two criteria: 1) court
determined incapacity; and 2) the need to protect the person’s well-being (Wright,
2010).
Proxy Appointment. Proxy Appointment is generally expected to make
crucial life decisions by “applying the person’s prior statements and personal values
to determine what the patient would want to have done under the circumstances”
(Bellard, 2001).

10

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of the current study was to examine the relationships between
two elements that are central to the rehabilitation process: self-determination and
life planning. To provide a comprehensive review of each of the variables and their
intersections, the literature review will be organized into four sections. First, the
construct of self-determination was examined from theoretical underpinnings to
contribution to the rehabilitation process. Secondly, the current status of life
planning activities for persons with disabilities was examined. Third, the related
legal precedents were reviewed to provide a platform for the study at hand. Finally,
the areas of convergence and interplay between each of these constructs were
investigated with an eye towards current practices, service modification, and policy
development.
Rehabilitation policy continues to evolve in efforts to build programs and
interventions to embrace the concept of self-determination. Engagement in life
planning is addressed distinctly and separately in the 1992 and 1998 Rehabilitation
Act Amendments (P.L. 102-569), although discussion of this engagement as a
desirable outcome requiring measurement is not clearly specified in these
documents (Field & Hoffman, 2002). Moreover, the true success found in these
legislative actions is commonly linked to their strong voice in the areas of social
justice. Disability is described as a “natural part of the human experience…that in
no way diminishes the right of individuals to live independently, enjoy self-

11

determination, make choices, contribute to society, pursue meaningful careers, or to
enjoy fill inclusion and integration in the economic, political, social, cultural, and
educational mainstream…” (Field & Hoffman, 2002, p 113). These legislative
mandates influenced the direction of service provision and outcome measurement in
rehabilitation for nearly two decades.
During the assessment process for persons entering rehabilitation services,
tools and techniques are often used to measure the presence of self-determined
behaviors and the ability to engage in services planning activities. Self-determined
behaviors are seen as an indicator that the person with a disability will identify the
desired outcomes of the rehabilitation process. The final construct, Life Planning,
refers to the engagement of the person with a disability in the processes of
completing life directing planning activities (such as wills, durable powers of
attorney) that extend their self-determination practices and quality of life desires
beyond their ability to effectively communicate these concerns directly. It is the
ability to create such documents that allows individuals to appoint proxies to carry
out detailed plans for their lives in the absence of their ability to engage in the
process. Measurement of presence and engagement of the constructs of selfdetermination and life planning is at the core of this study.
Self-Determination
Self-determination is a behavioral construct that attempts to measure the
level of self-direction in an individual’s life. Since people are often inaccurate
reporters of intricate concepts like self-determination, measures are often gleaned

12

or inferred from observations of complex and interacting factors in human life
(Kosciulek, 2004). To study these complex ideas, researchers often develop and rely
on theoretical models to allow for comparison across complex systems (Kosciulek,
2004). For this study, the Self-determination Theory (SDT) first postulated by Deci
and Ryan in 2000 will guide the research.
Self-determination Theory (SDT) looks to the interaction between person and
environment, and how this interaction impacts the level of motivation for the
individual (Deci & Ryan, 2000). SDT postulates that environmental factors serve to
either facilitate or undermine intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The theory
is built on the idea that intrinsic motivation, which occurs naturally in people, will
be encouraged when individuals are in the presence of conditions that nurture
expression of motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Autonomy, Competence, and
Relatedness are identified in SDT as the three psychological needs that combine to
create a theory of optimal functioning (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Motivation is at the core of Self-determination theory. Traditional research
models have conceptualized motivation by measuring the amount of motivation
presented, rather than motivation as a prime source or entity. The strength of
autonomous versus controlled motivation is the focus in SDT, and is viewed as more
important than the overall levels of motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Volition and choice are seen as measures of autonomous motivation, and
higher autonomous motivation is viewed as being more self-determined (Gagne &
Deci, 2005). Actions that occur due to imposition of external variables (requests,

13

pressure, rewards) are considered to be controlled, and are viewed as being less selfdetermined (Gagne & Deci, 2005). SDT also looks to determine the intentionality of
decision making, recognizing actions that are intentional to be more reflective of
self-determination (Gagne & Deci, 2005).
SDT terms motivation from within as intrinsic motivation, while motivation
that comes from other stimuli as being extrinsic (Gagne & Deci, 2005). While both
have roles, researchers have noted intrinsic motivation works well for some
activities, but activities requiring discipline or determination may yield better
performance with autonomous extrinsic motivation (Koestner & Losier, 2002).
Autonomous extrinsic motivation differs from controlled motivation in that the
locus of control remains with the individual (Gagne & Deci, 2005). For activities
that require the deep processing of information, creativity, or cognitive flexibility,
concern exists that controlled motivation could possibly detract from the outcomes
(Gagne & Deci, 2005).
Within SDT, overall motivation is strongly allied with the satisfaction of
individual needs. SDT differs from other theories in that it defines needs as
universal necessities, while other organizational theories treat them as simple
differences and look to measure their strength (Bekemeier, 2009). Psychological
health is improved by the meeting of needs, and negatively impacted by factors that
impede the meeting of the identified needs. SDT identifies three primary
psychological needs as competence, autonomy and relatedness (Gagne & Deci,
2005).

14

SDT focuses on the ability of individuals to meet these critical needs within
the social context. The theory further recognizes causality orientation, which
reflects the degree to which individuals are autonomy oriented, control oriented,
and interpersonally oriented (Gagne & Deci, 2005). Autonomy orientation refers to
an experiential tendency for social contexts to be autonomy supportive and to be
self-determined. The positive attributes of self-actualization, self-esteem, ego
development, integration in personality, and satisfying interpersonal relationships
are strongly positively related to having an autonomy orientation (Bekemeier,
2009). A general tendency to experience social contexts as controlling or being
controlled is congruent with Control Orientation. Individuals with control
orientations may exhibit behaviors such as defensive functioning, type A behaviors,
and place a strong value on pay or other extrinsic motivators (Bekemeier, 2009). In
contrast, persons with an Interpersonal Orientation tend to have externalized locus
of control and are likely to experience social contexts as being amotivational
(Bekemeier, 2009).
The range of self-determination (from highly self-determined to completely
amotivated), degrees of extrinsic motivation (external regulation – integrated
regulation) present in levels of self-determination, and levels of intrinsic motivation
(being completely self-determined), are reflected in the Self-Determination
continuum in figure 1.

15

Figure 1.

Gagne, Deci (2005) SDT: Self –Determination Theory

Amotivation

Absence of
Intentional
Regulation

Lack of
Motivation

Extrinsic
Motivation

External
Integrated
Regulation
Regulation

Introjected
Regulation

Contingencies self-worth
of
Coherence
of reward and contingent on
among goals
punishment
performance
regulations values and
and egoregulations
involvement
Controlled
Autonomous
Motivation
Motivation

Moderately
Controlled

Intrinsic
Motivation

Identified
Regulation
Importance

Interest and
Enjoyment
of the task

goals, values,
and

Inherently
Autonomous
Motivation

Moderately
Autonomous

Motivation
Motivation
For interpretation of the references to color in this and all other figures, the
reader is referred to the electronic version of this dissertation.
The study of motivation in this context has been reframed to provide insight
into motivation at an individual level. Motivation study was first ascribed as an
attribute of study within the realms of social and clinical psychology, but was
typically only applied to work settings. By including aspects of cognitive evolution
therapy, SDT applies organizational techniques to provide us with a platform for
understanding the implications at an individual level. Focusing on the interaction
16

of the individual and environment, SDT allows us to explore the impact of
motivation in decision making activities.
In the SDT model, Gagne and Deci (2005) proposed a model that recognizes
the interactions with the environment that prove important to the levels of
motivation for an individual. Identifying innate motivation as “Autonomous
Motivation” and motivation inspired by reward or consequence as “Controlled
Motivation”, SDT allows for study of the interaction between the types of motivation
and the individual’s perception of the outcomes (Gagne & Deci, 2005). Moreover, it
provides the structure for understanding how some experiences are socially
constructed and perceived in ways that either increase or decrease motivation.
At the core of SDT is the belief that inherently autonomous motivation is a
reflection of intrinsic motivation, and that extrinsic motivation can vary widely
based upon the level of controlled behaviors involved. It is the perception of the
contingency between the behavior and a desired consequence that can be observed
across an extrinsic continuum (Bekemeier, 2009). SDT identifies the continuum of
extrinsic behaviors with four, progressive markers. External Regulation refers to
behaviors that are initiated by contingencies external to the person. Actions at this
level occur obtain a reward or avoid a consequence, with the sole motivation
instrumental to meeting that need. Behavior that occurs due to external stimuli
that has been accepted but not fully integrated to the person is referred to as
Introjected Regulation. As we move closer to acceptance, we begin to develop
volition and desire to complete an activity, even if not of our desire, because the

17

behavior meets our needs and satisfies our locus of control. Gagne and Deci label
such behaviors as occurring due to Identified Regulation. Finally reaching a level of
behavior that is fully congruent with values and identity, the individual begins to be
truly self-determined by engaging Integrated Regulation.
Using the index of behavioral integration allows SDT to develop measures of
self-determined behaviors. SDT allows for behaviors to be measured individually,
meaning that people can utilize different types of regulation simultaneously,
depending on the level of integration (Gagne & Deci, 2005). Also present on this
continuum is the SDT range from intrinsic motivation (completely self-determined)
to amotivation (totally lacking the ability to engage in self-determined behaviors).
As one progresses from amotivation to intrinsic motivation, the four levels of
regulation serve as a guide to the overall level of self-determined behavior (Gagne &
Deci, 2005).
SDT postulates the increases in self-determined behavior and intrinsic goal
pursuits will have a positive effect on the individual (Bekemeier, 2009). These
positive effects are directly related to the satisfying of the psychological needs for
autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and that this supports the individual’s
natural growth processes (Vansteenkiste, etal, 2004). Success with autonomous
actions feeds the individual in their locus of control and increasingly fosters a sense
of social competence (Vansteenkiste etal, 2004). Lack of success with autonomous
behaviors fosters a sense of learned helplessness and may decrease the presence of
self-determined behaviors.

18

Within the field of rehabilitation, the majority of research regarding selfdetermination has been aimed at engagement of transition aged students in the
development of individual education plans (Bekemeier, 2009). In these contexts,
self-determination is typically measured by examining three criteria:
a) Choice: That the individual has the capacity to choose;
b) Reflection: That the choices made by the individual are fully reflected in
the developed service plan;
c) Full Power: That the individual has full power over their own lives.
Self-determined behavior is recognized to occur when individuals are “free to
exercise control and experience the outcomes of their choices with coercion,
obligation, or artificial constraints” (O’Brien, Revell, & West, 2003). In review of
the research, the criteria of choice is most commonly measured, with the
assumption being that if choice is communicated in any manner, the later criteria
applies.
It is this ability to make and communicate choices that serves as the
hallmark of the definition of self-determination within the field of disability.
Researchers identify the steps of self-determination as 1) knowing how to make
choices; 2) understanding what the outcomes the individual desires; and 3) the
individual knowing how to accomplish their goals (Wehmeyer & Kelchner, 1996). In
other writings with other co-authors Wehmeyer is more expansive, identifying five
steps to the demonstration of self-determined behavior:
1) Asserting the individual’s presence

19

2) Making his or her needs known
3) Evaluating process toward meeting goals
4) Adjusting performance
5) Creating unique approaches to solve problems
(Wehmeyer, Sands, Doll & Palmer, 1996)
Building on earlier works regarding self-determination and transition aged
youth, Field (1996) focused her study of development for an individual of the
attitudes, abilities and skills that guide one to develop and strive to meet goals.
The capacity to choose and have those choices be the determinant of an individual’s
actions is the core definition of self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Within this
definitional framework, actions are self-determined if they meet four criteria: 1)
Autonomous Action; 2) Self-regulation; 3) Psychological Empowerment; and 4) Selfrealization. The collection of a multitude of individual self-determined acts is seen
as a reflection of living in a self-determined manner (Field, 1996).
A variety of definitions of self-determined behavior have been proffered by
researchers in recent decades, sharing common characteristics. Prominent
researchers in the field have reached consensus that self-determination is
engagement in goal-directed, self-regulated, autonomous behaviors as the result of a
combination of skills, knowledge and beliefs that underpin the activity (Field,
Martin, Ward, & Wehmeyer, 1998). Accurate self-assessment of both personal
strengths and challenges, coupled with a strong sense of self-efficacy are essential to
act in a self-determined manner (Bekemeier, 2009). Individuals who are able to act

20

upon this knowledge, skills, and attitudes have a greater ability to assume the role
of successful adults in control of their lives (Field, Sharver, & Shaw, 2003).
As part of the continued effort to determine factors that contribute to the
presence of self-determined functioning, researchers have attributed four realms of
activity (freedom, authority, support, and responsibility) that appear to be
consistently present (Pennell, 2001). Freedom identifies the individual’s ability to
freely choose relationships and activities without having to select from a preplanned
menu. Authority speaks to the degree an individual handles interactions with
others and the environment, as well as their fulfillment of obligations. Support
refers to one’s ability to utilize and benefit from an array of services and supports
that assist them in meeting their goals. Responsibility involves the fulfillment of a
role in society inclusive of employment, affiliations, and participation in economic
affairs.
Self-determined behaviors are best characterized as the acquisition of a
number of interrelated elements that must be developed by an individual to act in a
self-determined manner (Wehmeyer, et al, 1996). As an overarching developmental
process, self-determined behaviors interact with the experiences in one’s life, and
therefore are subject to influence by the environment (Bekemeier, 2009). The list of
interrelated components of self-determination is lengthy and includes:
choicemaking, decision making, problem-solving, goal setting, self-management, self
–advocacy, an internalized locus of control, positive self-efficacy, and self-knowledge
(Wehmeyer, et al, 1996).

21

Choice making refers to one’s ability to develop an enhanced ability to engage
in informed choice, which involves far greater skills than simple decision making.
Choice making in the context of self-determination refers to having the skills and
self-knowledge to elect an option that meets with one’s goals, values, and desires
(Storey, 2005). Traditional informed choice requires only that the individual be
informed of a choice option, and communicate an election, not that the individual
demonstrate the skills necessary for electing a choice that is in their best interests
(Storey, 2005).
Conversely, Decision making refers to the practice of gathering information
sufficient to the formation of plans and goals. This often includes intermediary
steps that include learning and practicing techniques to assist with potentially
stressful situations (Wehmeyer, etal, 1996). Within the field of rehabilitation and
education, decision making skills are often taught as multi-step processes that
include the identification of alternatives, identification of potential consequences
(for action or inaction); assessing the likelihood of each consequence, determining
the utility of each consequence, and integrating that information into the
determination of the outcome (Beyth-Marom, Fischoff, Jacobs-Quadrel, & Furby,
1991).
Problem-solving within the context of self-determination looks to the
integration of both choice-making and problem-solving skills to resolve concerns
that are where the action path is unclear (Bekemeier, 2009). These are the
circumstances in which the interplay between elements is so complex and

22

interwoven, that it is challenging to determine the core of the issue, and thus
multiple factors must be considered.
In SDT, the outcome is less important that the ability of the individual to
direct the process. Despite a strongly recognized impact of the setting upon both the
structure and outcome of the goals, the role of the client in identification and
prioritization of the goals for their lives takes priority. This portion of SDT is
commonly referred to as Self-management.
The component of Self-management refers to the development and use of
skills of self-observation, instruction, and reinforcement skills and allowing them to
appropriately replace the perceptions of others of what is best with factual
information (Bekemeier, 2009). This skill set often intermingles with selfknowledge and self-efficacy to support the individual in their rejection of the
subjective perceptions of those around them (Bekemeier, 2009).
Equally important for self-determined behaviors to occur is the development
of self-advocacy skills. Self-determined individuals have the ability to advocate for
themselves and others, and may use these skills to assume leadership in the
advocacy for causes they determine to be important (Bekemeier, 2009). Treated
differently between service systems, self-advocacy skills have been given priority in
legislation involving persons with disabilities in the past three decades (Wehmeyer
& Fields, 2003).
For self-determined behaviors to occur consistently, the individual must have
an internalized locus of control. This has been described as having control over the

23

outcomes that are important to an individual (Wehmeyer etal, 1996). Positive
outcomes linked to higher levels of internalized control have been demonstrated
within the rehabilitation context (Strauser, Ketz, & Keim, 2002). Internalized locus
of control is believed to be built through reinforcement created as the consequence
of one’s actions, whereas consequences controlled by others create a more
externalized locus of control (Wehmeyer, etal, 1996).
Strauser, Ketz and Kein (2002), found that the ability to act competently and
effectively in a self-determined manner was directly related to the positive
attributions of efficacy and expectancy. Other researchers concluded that the belief
that a behavior is goal-directed and self-determined may be sufficient for selfdetermination (Wehmeyer, etal, 1996). Moreover, it is the confidence that not only
is the individual able to complete the task, but that task completion will result in
the desired outcome (Wehmeyer, etal, 1996). This belief by the individual in having
personal control of self-efficacy has been attributed with allowing them to control
events and have positive outcomes, whereas lacking in this attribute can lead to
learned helplessness (Roessler, 2004).
The final component of self-determination skills comes from a strong sense of
self-awareness and self-knowledge (Bekemeier, 2009). Wehmeyer, et al (1996)
indicated that a basic understanding of one strengths, weaknesses, abilities,
limitations, and knowledge of how to use these attributes is essential to act in a
self-realizing manner. Through the process of discovery of capacity along these

24

lines, individuals begin the determination process of the outcomes they desire, and
can begin to move in the direction of their desired outcomes (Bekemeier, 2009).
Emerging from the fields of rehabilitation counseling, special education, and
disabilities studies, self-determination represents a strength based approach to
service provision to persons with disabilities focused on attaining their optimal
functioning (Bekemeier, 2009). The conceptualization of self-determination as
‘multidimensional’ was confirmed by researchers Field and Hoffman (1994), who
concluded the concept of self-determination includes:


Attitudes, Abilities, and skills that lead people with disabilities to define
goals for themselves and to take the initiative to reach these goals.



The capacity to choose and to have those choices be the determinant’s of
one’s actions,



Determination of one’s own fate or course of action without compulsion,
and



The ability to define and achieve goals based on a foundation of knowing
and valuing oneself.

The difference between autonomous and controlled motivation has been reported as
a reflection between the willful pursuits of a goal of one’s choosing contrasted with
feeling compelled to act in a specific manner (Bekemeier, 2009). Within the field of
rehabilitation, much focus has been placed on enhancing individual, autonomous
decision making and striving to support those decisions. A strong link has been
established between the provision of assistance in the development of knowledge,

25

skills, and beliefs and the fostering of greater control during the counseling process
(Bekemeier, 2009). It has also been found that these skills can be enhanced during
service provision by the teaching of decision-making, goal setting, and negotiation
skills which assist in the development of greater self-awareness (Kosciulek, 2004).
Therefore it can be argued that the process of acting in a self-determined manner is
a self-actualization process, one which allows the client to integrate their values
and experiences in the planning processes.
Life Planning
Life planning is a term that has been used in a variety of contexts that often
overlap, but have markedly different meanings and measures to the individual. For
the purposes of this study, the focus is on the life planning activities involving legal
activities that are often considered to be related to end of life. Specifically, this
study will address the creation of wills, living wills, and durable powers of attorney
for healthcare. Since the study will occur within the state of Michigan, the study
will rely on the practices allowed by law in that jurisdiction. Regulations regarding
the creation of wills and durable powers of attorney for healthcare have undergone
a continuous revision process, and this study will review the important changes and
interpretations as they apply to persons with disabilities. Wills and durable powers
of attorney documents will be studies across three domains: business, medicine, and
social justice. Finally, exploration in this section will conclude with a convergence
of interpretation among these concepts and their linkage to other social
phenomenon.

26

Planning and Disability. The extension of life planning activities to PWD is a
relatively newly applied concept that has not occurred without some controversy. In
this section, I will explore the various psycho-social barriers that play a role in the
acceptance of autonomy for this segment of the population. To complete this task, I
will split the review into four areas of exploration: important intersections; core
concepts; approaches; and application to PWD. Important intersections will explore
research findings regarding correlates of autonomy and quality of life. In the core
concepts section, we will review the literature regarding advanced planning,
application of guardianship practices and review both the language and impacts of
three key pieces of healthcare reform legislation. Looking to approaches, we will
explore the literature regarding current practices and beliefs, best practices, and
impact on life outcomes. In the final section, we will tackle research that has looked
to the usage of the legislation and prior learning to the application of life planning
activities with PWD.
Important Intersections. Subjective well-being has been at the forefront of
rehabilitation research for much of the last century. The overriding goal of the
rehabilitation profession has been the support of PWD in their pursuit of a full and
meaningful life. While many factors have been identified as important in the
facilitation of these goals, two of these principles provide important intersections for
the present study. Among the indicators of subjective well-being identified by
researchers include issues of autonomy (which is also often attributed as
empowerment and self-determination) and quality of life (Plagnol, 2010). To fully
27

explore their contributions to the argument at hand, we will look first to establish
the foundation of autonomy, and follow with an exploration of the intersection
between quality of life and pre-planning.
Role of Autonomy. Autonomy in the rehabilitation research has a varied history,
having been studied using a multitude of methodologies and for a myriad of
purposes. It is often used as a measure of service outcome, a view of well-being, a
reflection of assertion of culture, from a standpoint of competence, a clarification of
culture, and a measure of impact of personal values. The paragraphs that follow
will explore these presentations and attempt to forge an argument regarding the
importance of this variable.
Researchers Frain, Bishop & Tschopp (2009) established clearly the positive
relationship between issues of autonomy and service outcomes. Providing a metaanalysis of the research literature regarding empowerment, these authors
established the link between rehabilitation service outcomes and work status,
adjustment to disability, functional ability, and quality of life (Frain, et al, 2009).
Concluding their works with a recommendation for practitioners to work in the
direction of development of empowerment skills, the authors identify the role of
autonomy in the overall well-being of PWD.
Extending the thoughts regarding subjective well-being, Plagnol (2010)
studied the levels of subjective well-being across the lifespan. Recognizing the
fluctuating nature of subjective well-being, the author explores many life events

28

deemed to have impact on this construct (Plagnol, 2010). Health was found to have
a significant impact on one’s subjective well-being, with unexpected health changes
having the strongest and most long-lasting impact (Plagnol, 2010). Despite these
initial reactions, the adaptation process is seen as resilient, with persons
incorporating their altered health status into their subjective well-being.
The concept of subjective well-being has been linked in the research not only
to issues of autonomy, but also to the construct of competence. Researchers at
Rochester University utilized a diary study of 60 college students reporting daily
measures of well-being, activity, and feelings of competence to establish the linkage
between these constructs and autonomy (Sheldon, Ryan, & Reiss, 1996). Using a
hierarchical linear model, the researcher identified the psychological needs for
autonomy and competence improved functioning both globally and on a daily basis
(Sheldon, etal, 1996).
The relationship between competency and quality of life has also come under
scrutiny in relationship to appointment of guardians for persons with disabling
conditions adjudicated as unable to act on their own behalf. Using a focus group
model including both elder law attorneys and public guardians, the respondents
consistently identified choice as central to the experience of subjective well-being
(Svare & Anngela-Cole, 2010). Focused on issues of faith and religion, the authors
point strongly to expression of one’s desires and beliefs as being a critical factor in
their happiness (Svare & Anngela-Cole, 2010). Furthermore, these researched
pointed to the engagement of the individual in relationships and activities they
29

chose as a method of increasing hope, purpose, and meaning in life (Svare &
Anngela-Cole, 2010).
It is the inclusion not only of choice, but the reflection of one’s values and
history that has demonstrated a strong tie with issues of autonomy. In looking
specifically to the development of advanced directives for healthcare, researchers
Peters & Chiverton (2003) recommend the use of an approach that utilizes a ‘values
history’, in which lifelong patterns are used to guide development of medical
advanced directives.
The intersection of concepts of quality of life and the development of
advanced directives is often framed in a context of competing forces. Studied from a
variety of perspectives, many practitioners are hesitant to engage their clients in
conversations that approach this intersection (Cagle & Kovacs, 2009). For those
willing to engage, such conversations typically focus on information gathering, and
offer little to the client in the manner of information or guidance in decision making
(Carr & Khodyakov, 2007). This intersection is also approached from a descriptive
perspective, attempting to learn common definitions and activities (Bowling, etal,
2003). Finally, attempts to measure this intersection are commonly framed in the
context of faith and spirituality, where we typically see increased divergence (Idler,
McLaughlin, & Kasl, 2009).
Researchers Cagle and Kovacs (2009) advocate strongly for the provision of
educational services regarding quality of life and advanced directives to persons

30

approaching the end of life. Coming from the perspective of social work, these
practitioners argue that provision of such services allows for the clients to be
empowered and supported in making increasingly complex decisions (Cagle &
Kovacs, 2009). Supporting their premise with contributions from a number of
theoretical perspectives (Ego psychology, Cognitive Behavioral, Empowerment, and
Crisis), the authors establish a clear mandate for the extension of human service
interventions into this domain (Cagle & Kovacs, 2009). Putting the discussion of
advanced directives into the context of empowerment substantiates the importance
across populations.
Looking to the planning practices of the general population, information
appears to support the idea that despite receipt of education, the majority of
persons do not engage in planning processes. Researchers Carr and Khodyakov
(2007) found that less than 50% of adults over the age of 50 have completed
advanced directives for healthcare. Using data from two waves of the Wisconsin
Longitudinal Study (WLS), the authors attempted to discern reasons for the
planning activity practices, specifically targeting three criteria: 1) recent hospital
admissions; 2) the presence of two beliefs: death avoidance and control over
healthcare decisions; and 3) one’s prior experiences with end of life issues (Carr &
Khodyakov, 2007). The findings were significant in that they highlighted
familiarity with both the concept and practices of planning, but reflected that
slightly over 50% actually completed the documents for their lives (Carr &
Khodyakov, 2007). Moreover, approximately 75% of all respondents reported
31

informal discussions with family members, demonstrating that planning events
were on their mind (Carr & Khodyakov, 2007).
The results of the above study would largely appear to mirror the experiences
of researchers in other developed nations. In a study of nearly 1000 recipients over
the age of 65 years in Britain, researchers found that worries about declining health
and decision making were at the forefront for this group (Bowling, etal, 2003).
Moreover, their perspectives on quality of life were greatly influenced by their
continued ‘functionality’. The loss of functionality and worry regarding issues of
care were paramount, raised by 38% of respondents (Bowling, et al, 2003). Many
tied decision making and worry to issues of faith, specifically wanting decision
making to be made in concordance with their expression of faith (Bowling, etal,
2003).
The impact of faith on decision making at the end of life has also been an
area of study. Focusing on reports of quality of life, researchers found that patterns
of faith tend to be resilient – tracking with those practices developed over a lifetime
(Idler, et al, 2009). Observances of faith based practices were shown to have a
positive relationship with subjective quality of life, and anchored the perception
respondents that retaining control of activity was pivotal (Idler etal, 2009). In an
interesting note, those individuals participating in this study via proxy (designated
responder) were found to report comparable levels of quality of life as those selfreporting (Idler, etal 2009).

32

Importance of Planning. The act of planning, or ‘getting one’s affairs in order’, has
been present in the media in various forms for generations. Much of the literature
focuses on the financial aspects of planning, including the creation of wills
(Pozzuolo, Lassoff, & Valentine, 2005). However, in recent decade both legislation
and research has branched into the exploration of creation of advanced directives
for healthcare (Slamond & David, 2005). While the availability of these tools has
soared, usage and development has stagnated, a factor attributed by some to their
complexity (Vogel, 2011). Despite this apparent complexity concern, other
researchers continue to advocate for extending the practice of planning in alternate
directions to eliminate the need for substituted judgment (Kemp & Kopp, 2010).
Guardianship. Among the most common of substituted judgment, especially among
persons with disabilities, is the imposition of guardianship. Guardianship involves
the appointment of a proxy by a court of law to make decisions regarding virtually
all aspects of an individual’s life (Hommel, 1996). Although some jurisdictions
make allowances for limited proxy appointment, the appointment requires a finding
of incapacity, essentially stripping an individual of the rights of self-advocacy.
Furthermore, few courts impose any restrictions on guardianship requiring the
proxy to act in congruence with the values and desires of the ward (Teaster, 2002).
Although this process has been incorporated into civil law in virtually every
jurisdiction in the United States, it is often viewed as wholly inadequate and a ‘last
resort’ for many of the people for whom it is imposed (Hommel, 1996). Courts have
traditionally had great latitude in the appointment of guardians, with options to
33

appoint family members or ‘public’ guardians to fulfill these roles. Public guardians
are members of the community who receive compensation for serving in this
capacity, and although few laws require a legal education, most of these roles are
held by attorneys.
The global reasoning behind the appointment of a guardian as proxy for
decision making is the theory that the individual lacks the capacity to act on their
own behalf (Wright, 2010). Tradition has called for the appointment of guardians
when the question is raised – that is, someone has questioned an individual’s
capacity in court. Beginning with the immediate appointment of a “Guardian Ad
Litem”, the court process begins the activities of gathering evidence to support the
need for substitute judgment (Geller, 2000). It what ratio of petitions result in
appointment, and the criteria for such appointment appears rife with vagaries
(Geller, 2000). Moreover, it is clear that the criteria for appointment has variance
across geographic areas, and often, across judges within those districts.
Researchers studying the phenomenon of guardianship have voiced concerns
regarding the impingement on the rights of individuals created by the practice.
Specifically, some authors have noted that the appointment of public guardians
should occur only as a last resort – that should proxy appointment be necessary,
every effort should be made to locate a familiar person who would be willing to
serve (Hommel, 1996). Additionally, those represented by proxy should have
regular access to their representatives, as should the persons close to them (Wright,
2010). For those with public guardians, scholars advocate for the cooperative
34

development of life planning that involves as many advocates for the individual as
possible (Teaster, 2002). Despite this wealth of knowledge and recommendations,
researchers have continued to find major inadequacies in the current system, often
calling for sweeping changes to requirement of need guardianship (Moye, Wood,
Edelstein, Amesto, Harrison & Wood, 2007).
Dore (2008) identifies “Ten reasons people get railroaded into guardianship”
as a method of educating persons regarding the imposition and impact of
guardianship on the person. The first observation offered is that guardianship is
often misconceived, a seemingly benign action to protect individuals instead of the
stripping of all of their rights (Dore, 2008). She points to changes in statute in
many states substituting the word “incapacity” for “incompetency”, and therefore
lowering the subjective burden of proof required for appointment (Dore, 2008).
Acknowledging petitions for guardianship are often filed capriciously in response to
financial concerns, Dore goes on to raise concerns of professional ethics regarding
the activities of potential public guardians (Dore, 2008). Citing ageism (although
offering proofs involving younger persons and persons with potential disabilities),
Dore paints a clear picture of incidences of inappropriate guardian appointment
(Dore, 2008). The balance of concerns raised reflects consideration of the mutual
roles and relationships within the legal community that may challenge the
impartiality required under the law (Dore, 2008). In the end, proposals for reform
are offered that include the separation of roles and conflicts of interests amongst the

35

participants, and a call for insistence on the presentation of ‘clear and convincing’
evidence (Dore, 2008).
When looking at the use of guardianship for younger persons in the State of
Michigan, researchers Millar and Renzaglia (2002) found that 100% of all petitions
for guardianship from 1995 examined in her study were granted for either partial or
plenary status. Moreover, findings conveyed that guardianship was most commonly
granted over both the person and estate, essentially stripping the individual of the
capacity to make major decisions regarding their activities or assets (Millar &
Renzaglia, 2002). Moreover, of the 221 cases reviewed, none represented
appointment solely over assets – all involved control of the person (Millar &
Renzaglia, 2002). While the majority of the petitioners were granted the powers
sought in their petitions, evidence of deviance from the request was found in nearly
25% of all cases, with 3% being appointed with powers greater than requested in
the petition (Millar & Renzaglia, 2002).
In part due to the abuses of the guardianship system as a whole, and in part
due to an increasing call for self-determination, many advocates have begun laying
the groundwork for exploration of alternatives to the appointment of guardians
(Gellar, 2000; Wilber & Reynolds, 1995). Citing the ready availability of power of
attorney arrangements, authors look to the answer of prior planning to resolve some
of the potentialities (Wilber & Reynolds, 1995). Applying reasoning solely to
Michigan Law, the Michigan Long Term Care Ombudsman Program prepares
pamphlets discussing the advantages of Durable Power of Attorney for Healthcare
36

implementation, urging citizenry to plan ahead by appointing proxies of their
choosing (Geller, 2000). The issue of fair representation to persons lacking capacity
to act in their best interests garnered attention in the U.S. by the early 1990’s,
sparking a series of legislative attempts to resolve concerns of abuse (Alston, 1997).
Healthcare Reform. Although healthcare reform remains a major subject of
political interest within the U.S., it has been a subject of constant scrutiny for
decades. By the early 1990’s many Americans were calling for reforms to
healthcare laws that were viewed as paternalistic and controlling (Alston, 1997).
With cases like the Cruzan decision filling the news, many voiced opposition that
decisions regarding end of life activities would be made by persons not invested in
the event (McCloskey, 1991). Advocacy spread quickly, and legislation providing
some structure to decision making and appointment of proxy decision makers was
addressed with the passage of the Patient Self-Determination (PSDA) act in late
1990 (McCloskey, 1991). The PSDA, known officially as part of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA, 1990), federalizes what many state
statutes had already codified: that Americans must be free to determine for
themselves when to artificially extend life or treatment (McCloskey, 1991).
Furthermore, the bill codifies at the federal level the ability of individuals to
appoint proxies to carry out instructions regarding such care when necessary
(McCloskey, 1991). With the passage of the PSDA, medical facilities were charged
with gathering information secondary to the patient’s desires (Mezey & Latimer,
1993). Quickly three themes emerged representing the actions by providers:
37

advocacy, assignment of duties, and centrality (Mezey & Latimer, 1993). Advocacy
occurred in the form of encouragement of execution of advanced directives among
patients (Mezey & Latimer, 1993). Other providers focused on creating a line of
responsibility for discussion of advanced directives through the assignment of these
duties to specific staff (Mezey & Latimer, 1993). Finally, energy turned to the
recording and storage of advanced directive materials, to insure that documents
would be readily available and known to providers in the time of need (Mezey &
Latimer, 1993).
Designed to unify and standardize provisions throughout the U.S., the PSDA
was met with minor resistance, but significant fragmentation in implementation
across the country (Galambos, 1998). The Uniform Health-Care Decision Act
(UHCDA) was proposed and accepted by the National Conference of Commissioners
on Uniform State Law during their annual conference in 1993 (UHCDA 2006).
Having much in common with the PSDA, the UHCDA was built around six
precepts:
1) Acknowledgement of the right of individuals to decide all aspects of his or her
healthcare in all circumstances, including the right to decline health care to
direct that health care be discontinued.
2) The act was considered comprehensive, replacing existing legislation and
allows for health-care decisions to be made by an agent who is designated to
decide when an individual cannot or does not wish to make the decisions.

38

3) The act is designed to simplify and facilitate the making of advance healthcare directives, allowing for either oral or written instructions.
4) The act seeks to insure to the extent possible that decisions about an
individual’s health care will be governed by the individual’s own desires
concerning the issues to be resolved.
5) The act addressed compliance by health-care providers and institutions by
mandating complains with the instructions of the patient or designee and
provision of sanctions for failure to comply.
6) The act provides a procedure for the resolution of disputes. (UHCDA, 2006).
Many scholars of health care and end-of-life decision making heralded the
passage of UHCDA, and advocated for universal acceptance (Galambos, 1998).
Noting the strong measures of the UHCDA towards the preservation of autonomy,
author Colleen Galambos (1998) offered the view that “…the UHCDA advances
autonomous decision making thought its specific attempts to preserve an
individual’s known values, desires, and directives…” However, some in the legal
community expressed concerns regarding universal enactment of this act, citing
concerns that the act may actually impede the experience of autonomy (Stith, 2006).
Moreover, Stith (2006) builds a case in which persons with disabilities may be
marginalized under the provisions of the act, and that any evolutionary thoughts on
their part regarding quality of life might be overlooked. Critics also raise concerns
that the act allows for appointment of surrogates that may not share values or may

39

have adverse interests (Stith, 2006). The struggle to define capacity in the context
of making end-of-life decisions has international considerations.
In Britain, the issue of has reached increased clarity with the passage of the
Mental Capacity Act of 2005. This act provides for five basic principles to guide the
discussion of capacity:
1) Every adult is presumed to have capacity unless is proved otherwise;
2) People must be supported in making their own decisions, before anyone can
decide they are unable to make a decision;
3) People have a right to make eccentric or unwise decisions;
4) Anything done on behalf of someone must be done in their best interests;
5) Any intervention should be the least restrictive (Brammer, 2005).
The original doctrine provides for the determination of incapacity, as well as
provision for sanctions for the failure to comply (Irons, 2007). While viewed as
imperfect legislation, the act was widely heralded by advocates of personal liberty in
the U.K. (Chapman & Hayes, 2007). The principles of this decision have been
widely adopted, especially in the United States. By 2007, with 23 states having
modified their guardianship statutes, all had accepted the need for a
‘comprehensive’ evaluation prior to the ruling of incapacity by any of their courts
(Moye, Butz, Marson, and Wood, 2007). Adoption of language requiring assessment
across six domains of functioning actuated the principles of the Mental Capacity Act
in the United States. The six domains requiring assessment include:

40

1) Medical Condition
2) Cognition
3) Functional Abilities
4) Values
5) Risk of harm and level of supervision needed
6) Means to enhance capacity.
While each of these aspects receives considerable treatment in the press regarding
applicability, the essence is very similar. Of particular importance is the ‘means to
enhance capacity’ domain, as it is the first to include language of supported decision
making via the use of proxy designation (Moye, etal, 2007).
Approaches to Planning. In contemporary medicine patient autonomy is often
construed as the right to self-determination as measured in the ability to give or
withhold consent (Struhkamp, 2005). Advancing beyond issues of consent is often
identified as engaging advanced directives, which may on a stand-alone basis be
inadequate (Teno, Nelson, & Lynn, 2004). Moreover, a Living Will or such
document may be overruled unless accompanied by the creation of a Durable Power
of Attorney for Healthcare (DPOAH) (Teno, etal, 2004). In reviewing the criteria for
the state of Michigan, although both a Living Will and Durable Power of Attorney
for Healthcare are considered reliable expressions of a patient’s values, only the
DPOAH actually appoints a proxy with legal decision making capacity (Slocum,
Cheever, & Geller, 2006).

41

Critics of the current DPOAH laws and regulations note many concerns
regarding the implementation. First and foremost, while the law allows for any
competent person to create a DPOAH, the actual laws is mute on the issue of
competency – allowing for the potential of conflict (Kuczewski, 2004). In furthering
the murkiness of substituted judgment, the critics often point to inconsistencies in
the actual documents themselves – or to situations unseen by the authors
(Kuczewski, 2004).
Regardless of the critics, DPOAH remains the law in many states, and
continues to allow for proxy appointment. To address many of the concerns of
critics, advocates quickly point to the easiness with which changes can be
accomplished, as well as the ability to establish multiple, sequential proxies to
insure plans are followed (Slocum, etal, 2006). Even the advocates, however,
recommend engagement in a serious planning process for the development of these
documents (Slocum, et al, 2006).
Call for Planning. Since the advent of advanced planning activities such as the
creation of DPOAH’s, society has taken a mixed view regarding their
implementation at the end-of-life (O’Neill, 2001). Researchers have repeatedly
found the role of proxy to be rife with stress, and decisions made to be more
reflective of the proxy than the patient (O’Neill, 2001). Advocates quickly remind
critics that the creation of a proxy healthcare arrangement is not intended to be a
one-time conversation, but a “process of communication among patients, their
health-care providers, and their families…” (Martin, Emanuel, and Singer, 2000).
42

Martin, et al (2006) detailed a process in which all parties explore the factors and
options for the patient. In recognition that many lack the ability and language to
discuss matters such as artificial life sustainment directly, authors Simon, Murray
and Ruffin (2008) advocate for the use of ‘facilitated advance care planning’. Noting
that facilitated advanced care planning (ACP) has been present since the mid1990’s, the concept embraces a series of conversations that occur while the
individual has the capacity to effectively express their desires (Simon, etal, 2008).
To that end, researchers have advocated for the creation of planning documents
that provide a thorough review of the issues at hand and have been reviewed by all
interested parties (Hickman, Hammes, Moss, & Tolle, 2005). Acknowledging the
need for thoroughness, researchers Giger, Davidhizar, & Forham (2006) articulate a
strong need for advanced directives that are culturally relevant, and reflect the
values of the patient. In the case of facilitated ACP, other researchers point not
only to cultural relevance, but to issues of professional disclosure (Carlisle &
Neurlicht, 2010).
Planning and the Elderly. Much of the research regarding the development and
usage of DPOAH documents and advanced healthcare planning in general has been
focused on the elderly or persons in frail health. In a study of the use of ACP’s
among residents of long term care facilities, researchers Joeng, Higgins, &
McMillan (2010) found that although virtually all residents had created such
documents, few were actually used. This contrasts starkly with reports that show
completion of ACP’s among the general population to range from 13 – 51% of the
43

population (Castle & Mor, 1998). Studies of community-dwelling elders found that
although the discussion of ACP’s was recommended when the patient was healthy,
they often did not get created until a major health concern was identified
(McCarthy, Pencina, Kelly-Hayes, Evans, Oberacker, D’Agostino, Byrns and
Murabito, 2007). Because of the lateness of planning, the potential for abuse to the
patient was noted McCarthy etal 2008). Black (2008) identifies such abuse as
common, finding that many elders are failed by the laws designed to protect them.
To that end, many question the process of directive development, particularly where
issues of capacity may already be present (Johns, 2004).
Application to Persons with Disability. Much of literature regarding issues of
advanced planning and persons with disabilities focuses on four areas: Social
Justice, Planning and cognition, planning and mental illness, and planning at the
end-of-life for persons with acquired disabilities. Opinions range wildly in
sentiment, but few studies offer information about frequency of use, nor the
questioning of capacity.
Planning Practices for Persons with Disability.

Advocacy and ideas of self-

determination have been present in the rehabilitation literature since the beginning
of the profession (Blanck, 2008). Although focused frequently on issues of ability
and capacity, the goal of the rehabilitation process became dubbed
‘integrationalism’ – ensuring the rights of persons with disabilities to ‘live in the
world’ (Blanck, 2008). While specifically focusing on the demands of life and the

44

receipt of care, the works were the first demand for self-determination that would
take years to enter public policy and practice (Blanck, 2008).
Despite years of advocacy and demands for autonomy, persons with
disabilities were often last to the table for autonomy regarding healthcare decisions
at the end of life (Bellard, 2001). Issues of capacity were frequently raised, looking
for obstacles to place as a barricade to the wishes of persons with disabilities –
despite the individual having lived their lives in a largely autonomous manner.
Tying this activity to issues of paternalism, Bellard (2001) makes a strong case for
engagement in planning process, regardless of level of impairment. Even persons
with significant dementia have been found capable of engaging in the planning
process, and research has demonstrated outcomes consistent with long-held beliefs
and values, when the planning occurs in conference with concerned others (Allen &
Hilgeman, 2009). Using change models, participants are able to effectively manage
their stress and provide input into the decision making process, including the
appointment of proxies (Rizzo, Engelhard, Tobin, Penna, Feigenbaum, Sisselman,
Nicholson, Niemeyer, Albert and Lombardo, 2010).
Planning and Cognition. The advance care planning experiences of persons with
impaired cognition has received some attention in the literature. Researchers have
looked to measure the impact of other avenues of training (person centered
planning, self-determination training), as well as the impact of communication
strategies for persons with severe disabilities. Others have focused their research
to looking at the intersection of cognition and planning, while others have looked to
45

measure the presence of advanced directive planning activities among persons with
impaired cognition.
In studying the impact of person centered planning activities for older adults,
researchers were able to substantiate that individuals with cognitive impairments
were able to engage both in the training process, but also in the decision making
that followed (Hellar, Factor, Sterns, & Sutton, 1996). This result was surprising in
that prior to the training, family members voiced hesitancy in that discussions of
life planning activities (living arrangements, healthcare, etc.) would create too
much anxiety on the parts of the patient with the cognitive impairment (Hellar,
etal, 1996). Furthermore, with the implementation of a structured training activity,
participants not only engaged in decision making process with greater frequency,
they also engaged in the decided upon activity with more frequency (Hellar, etal,
1996). Olney (2001) opines that even the most severely impaired have the capacity
to voice preferences and become involved in decision making activities.
A British study found that although the level of cognitive impairment was
significantly related to the capacity to create advance directives, the majority of the
population studied was able to engage in a planning process with support of family
and friends (Gregory, et al, 2007). Furthermore, when looking at a national survey
of 325 persons diagnosed with cognitive impairments, 60.8% of respondents were
able to complete advanced directives (McGuire, Rao, Anderson & Ford (2007). This
is congruent with related research that demonstrated a DPOAH completion rate of

46

65% for persons with cognitive impairments (Lingler, Kirschman, Garand, Dew,
Becker, Schultz, and DeKosky, 2007).
Planning and Mental Illness. When we alter our scope to reflect the use of
advanced directives among persons with severe and persistent mental illness, we
see some very similar correlates. For use with this population, ACP activities have
been studied in the context of a service model, as well as from the impact on service
providers. In addition, ACP has been reflected in relation to recovery oriented care,
as well as a reflection of quality of life. Finally, the use of ACP to address specific
symptoms across the lifespan has been measured in the presence of severe and
persistent mental illness.
In a study of 228 individuals with severe and persistent mental illness
regarding the engagement in effective decision making and planning, researchers in
MA were able to demonstrate marked improvement in quality of life ratings and
locus of control ratings for participants (Shen, Smyer, Mahoney, Simon-Russinwitz,
Shinogle, et al, 2007). Building upon this research, the issue of preparation of
Psychiatric Advanced Directives (PAD’s) was studied from the perspective of the
service providers. Findings of that study support not only did the use of PAD’s
assist the clients in feeling empowered regarding their options for care during
psychiatric emergencies, but that the empowerment carried over and enhanced
overall feelings of control and life satisfaction, increasing compliance with
treatment regimens (Van Dorn, Scheyett, Swanson & Swartz, 2010). Furthermore,
secondary studies have established that when available, over two-thirds of
47

treatment decisions were consistent with the instructions provided (Swartz &
Swanson, 2007). Using a qualitative method including 28 open-ended questions,
researchers confirmed the utility of PAD’s with the identification of three themes: 1)
PAD’s were seen as tools of empowerment; 2) Concern existed regarding the
knowledge of PAD’s among clinical staff; and 3) PAD’s were not easily
communicated to inpatient staff during crises (Kim, Van Dorn, Scheyett, Elbogen,
Swanson et al, 2007). Perhaps on the most interesting findings was that PAD’s
were well understood and accepted by persons with severe and persistent mental
illness (Kim, etal, 2007).
Planning at the End-Of-Life. Having affirmed the required knowledge, policies, and
laws to support persons with disability in planning activities throughout their life,
the next reasonable step would appear to support their decision making near the
end-of-life. Several authors have tackled the subject from both practical and
philosophical perspectives. The philosophical side, authors discuss the issue of life
affirmation in the time of death, while the pragmatists talk of specific decision
making practices and herald the practices of self-determination as preparation for
such important decision making.
In looking to the intersection of disability and cessation of life supports,
author Asch (2005) looks to contemporary film for insight into the American psyche
regarding life with disability. Engaging the argument further by presenting views
from the disability rights organization ADAPT, the author points to the constant

48

tension that fuels this debate in our society. Asch argues for thoughtful
consideration, not only of what is, but what might be by society.
In looking to measure the end-of-life preferences for persons with severe
mental illness, researchers Foti, Bartels, Van Citters, Merriman and Flecther
(2005) studied 150 community-residing persons using the Health Care Preferences
Questionnaire. The results of this study indicate that even in the presence of
disabling mental illness, individuals are able to indicate preferences for treatment
at the end-of-life. Furthermore, the authors identify a core belief that creation of
proxies will enhance communication with family and healthcare providers (Foti,
etal, 2005). At a minimum, the findings support creation of the documents as
written guidance should their designated proxy not be upheld (Foti, etal, 2005).
This view is supported by updated works of researchers Baez and Avery (2010), who
found that persons with terminal illness and Schizophrenia tended to be ignored in
their communications.
Despite the tendency to be ignored, the creation of the documents involved in
advanced planning at the end-of-life demonstrates a level of self-determination to
make preferences known. With changes to the Rehabilitation Act, IDEA, and ADA,
persons with disabilities are being encouraged throughout life to engage in selfdetermined behavior (Havranek, 1999). If we look to the plenitude of selfdetermination and Person-centered Planning opportunities and training provided to
persons with disabilities in our society, the engagement in self-determined behavior
at the end-of-life appears reasonable.
49

CHAPTER 3
METHODS

Participants
The population of interest in this study was persons with disabilities. The
sample for this study was drawn from two sources: the Lansing, Michigan based
Capital Area Center for Independent Living (CACIL) and the Lubbock, Texas based
LIFE/RUN Center for Independent Living. These providers were selected because
they expressed ongoing interest in issues of self-determination, quality of life and
planning for persons served in their myriad of programs. CACIL is a large Center
for Independent Living serving primarily a four county area in central Michigan.
Encompassing multiple service programs and domains, CACIL services extend to
persons with a wide array of disabling conditions. Services include information &
referral; peer support; independent living; assistive technology; rehabilitation
nursing; nursing facility transitions; and community awareness & advocacy.
LIFE/RUN is also a large, Center for Independent Living serving multiple counties
in northwestern Texas. Serving a slightly larger geographic area than CACIL,
LIFE/RUN offers the same array of core services as CACIL, but supplements unmet
community needs with eight additional specialty services including: job readiness
training; payee services; dignity U wear; ASL interpreting; energy assistance, youth
transition, and social & recreational Services.
For this study, inclusion criteria required that the participants be involved in
active services with one of the sponsor agencies during the data collection period in
50

the fall of 2012. Active service involvement would be self-reported by the
participants, and would not be verified by any means. Since data collection
occurred at sponsor agency locations during program service and activity hours, it is
likely that the majority of respondents are currently enrolled for services.
Participants of all of the service programs of the selected agencies were provided
with the opportunity to participate in the study process.
The potential pool of participants fluctuates daily. During the two day data
collection period at CACIL, 28 persons were available for survey. Of these, 19
completed the survey for a completion rate of 67.9%. Of the non-responders, 2
identified a desire to report but could not consent due to guardianship issues. The
remaining 7 non-responders offered no reason but declined to participate. During
the days of data collection at the sites, a total of 94 program participants attended
services at LIFE/RUN generating 72 completed surveys for a completion ratio of
76.6%. Of 22 non-responders in this setting, only one identified language as a
barrier for completion. Joining the two settings, an overall response rate of 74.6%
was attained of available participants. The Participant Demographic

Questionnaire, which can be found in Appendix A, was used to collect demographic
information from participants. The Participant Demographic Questionnaire poses
twelve demographic questions seeking information on legal status, age, gender,
educational level, racial/ethnic status, marital status, habitation status,
employment status and primary source of income. Information was collected via

51

circling the correct answer or range on the checklist, or collected verbally from
individuals unable to communicate graphically.
Between the two sites on the days of data collection, a total of 92 individuals
were present and expressed an interest in participating in the survey activity. One
person was excluded from data collection following disclosure that he believed he
had an appointed guardian (but was unsure). He received the stipend but did not
complete the survey.
Data was collected at CACIL in Lansing, Michigan on Wednesday, September
19, 2012 and Thursday, September 20, 2012 during regularly scheduled program
activities at the center. Data was collected at LIFE/RUN in Lubbock, Texas on
Wednesday, September 12, 2012 and Thursday, September 13, 2012 during
regularly scheduled program activities at the center. This setting was a little more
challenging for data collection in that many programs were occurring
simultaneously and it was difficult to divide attention. In total, 92 individuals
completed the survey process and provided responses to some or all of the questions
of the Participant Demographic Questionnaire. For reporting purposes, the results
from the Participant Demographic Questionnaire was divided into five sections: 1)
Basic demographic information of age, gender, and race/ethnicity identification; 2)
Educational experience reporting including special education service and global
attainment; 3) Disability Information including disability status, identification of
disabling conditions, and presence of disability over the lifespan; 4) Social status

52

questions inclusive of marital status, living arrangement, and duration of U.S.
living; and 5) Economic factors including work status and income source.
Basic demographic information netted the most comprehensive results, with
virtually all respondents providing information regarding gender and race/ethnicity.
In reporting age, 9 individuals elected to not disclose their age, with the remaining
82 respondents reporting an age range of 23 to 79 years of age, with the mean being
50.8 years. The identified gender of survey respondents was positively skewed
towards female, with 62 (68.1%) indicating female, 28 (30.8%) identifying as male,
and 1 (1.1%) electing not to disclose. Racial/ethnic identity responses found just
over half (n=48; 52.8%) of respondents identifying as ‘white’, followed by ‘Latino’
with 22 (24.2%) and ‘black’ with 20 (22.0%). Native American was the identity
selected by 6 (6.6%) of individuals, with 2 (2.2%) identifying as ‘Asian’. No
individuals identified as being ‘pacific islanders’ and 1 individual (1.1%) declined to
identify any racial or ethnic labels.
Looking to education components, the majority of respondents (n=56, 61.5%)
denied receipt of special education services, while 26 (28.6%) individuals reported
having received such services and 9 (9.9%) elected not to answer. With regards to
educational attainment, only 6 (6.7%) reported attaining less than high school
equivalency. High school graduates (n=30, 33.7%) and those completing the G.E.D.
(n=14; 15.7%) comprised the next largest groups. College attendance included 10
(11.2%) with some coursework, 10 (11.2%) completing two years of study, and 10

53

(11.1%) completing a four year degree. Six (6.6%) individuals elected not to report
educational attainment.
Disability information provided perhaps the most puzzling information in the
survey. Although receipt of services from a disability-centric agency was a required
part of the informed consent, only 75 (82.4%) identify their status as having a
disability. Another 10 (11.0%) denied status as a person with a disability, and 6
(6.6%) indicated no answer. However, when queried regarding the nature of their
disability, 11 (12.1%) individuals elected not to disclose by reporting no answer, and
another 34 (37.4%) indicated that their disabling conditions did not fall within the
list of provided. Among the individuals electing to disclose the nature of their
disability, 18 (19.8%) reported joint or bone disorders; 12 (13.2%) reporting hearing
loss; 10 (11.0%) indicated psychiatric disorders; 8 (8.8%) each reported cognitive
impairments and epilepsy; 6 (6.6%) each reported visual impairments and
heart/cardiac impairments. The smallest subset of individuals reporting their
disabling conditions was for cerebral palsy, where 4 (4.4%) identified this as their
primary disorder.
Reporting on social factors was also robust, with only three respondents
electing not to answer some of the questions. Looking to marital status, over onethird (n=38; 41.8%) reported their status as single; trailed by 22 (24.2%) of
individuals reporting being currently married. Those previously married included
groups of 10 (11.0%) each who identified as divorced or widowed. Those identifying
as being partnered (n = 8, 8.8%) came next, no persons (0.0%) reported being legally
54

separated, and 3 (3.3%) declined to report their marital status. As individuals were
able to select more than one answer, some category percentages exceed 100%.
Living arrangement reporting showed that 34 (37.4%) of individuals
reporting living alone, while 30 (33.0%) reported living with family members. Of
those living with non-relatives, 18 (19.8%) reported living with a partner; 4 (4.4%)
reported living with roommates; and 2 (2.2%) reported living in some form of group
home. Three (3.3) individuals elected not to provide information regarding their
living status. When queried regarding length of time living in the United States,
the majority (n=78, 85.7%) reporting living here their entire lifetimes, 10 (11.0%)
reported longer than 10 years; 2 (2.2%) reported less than ten years. Only one
(1.1%) elected no answer to this question.
Moving to economic status questions, half (n=46; 50.6%) of respondents
indicated that they were not currently in the labor force. However, nearly half
reported some type of employment: 14 (15.4%) reported part-time employment and
30 (33.0%) reported full time employment. Only one (1.1%) respondent elected no
answer for this question. Disability was identified as the primary source of income
for 50 (55.0%) of individuals reporting, followed by 26 (28.6%) who identified wages.
Family provided the most support for 6 (6.6%) individuals, while 4 (4.4%) identified
either pensions or welfare as the primary source of income. One (1.1%) individual
elected no answer in response to this question. As individuals were able to select
more than one answer, some category percentages exceed 100%. In sum, 91

Participant Demographic Questionnaires were collected during the data collection
55

period, although one individual recorded no answers. Not all participants responded
to each question, and therefore the number of responses varies by question.
Table 1

Overall Demographic Characteristics

Variables

Frequency

AGE REPORTING
Non-reported
Youngest
Eldest
Mean

%

n=9
23 years
79 years
50.8 years

GENDER IDENTIFIED
Female
Male
No Answer

n = 62
n = 28
n=1

68.1

RACE/ETHNICITY IDENTIFIED*
White
Black
Asian
Latino
Native American
Pacific Islander
Other

n = 48
n = 20
n=2
n = 22
n=6
n=0
n=1

52.8
22
2.2
24.2
6.6
0
1.1

SPECIAL EDUCATION ATTENDANCE
Yes
No
No Answer

n = 26
n = 56
n=9

28.6
61.5
9.9

EDUCATION LEVEL ATTAINED*
Less than High School Graduate
High School Graduate
General Equivalency Degree
Some College
2 yr. Degree Completed
4 yr. Degree Completed
No Answer

n=6
n = 30
n = 14
n = 10
n = 10
n = 10
n = 17

6.7
33.7
15.7
11.2
11.2
11.2
19.1

56

30.8
1.1

Table 1 (cont’d)
DISABILITY STATUS REPORTED
Yes
No
No Answer

n = 75
n = 10
n=6

82.4
11
6.6

NATURE OF DISABILITY IDENTIFIED*
Cognitive Impairment
Psychiatric Impairment
Epilepsy
Visual Impairment
Joint/Bone Disorder
Hearing Impairment
Cerebral Palsy
Heart/Cardiac Impairment
Other Disabling Condition
No Answer

n=8
n = 10
n=8
n=6
n = 18
n = 12
n=4
n=6
n = 34
n = 11

8.8
11
8.8
6.6
19.8
13.2
4.4
6.6
37.4
12.1

DISABILITY OVER LIFETIME
Yes
No
No Answer

n = 44
n = 36
n = 11

48.4
39.6
12.1

MARITAL STATUS
Single
Married
Separated
Divorced
Widowed
Partnered
No Answer

n = 38
n = 22
n=0
n = 10
n = 10
n=8
n=3

41.8
24.2
0
11
11
8.8
3.3

57

Table 1 (cont’d)
CURRENT LIVING ARRANGEMENT
Alone
Roommates
Partner
Family
Group Home
No Answer

n = 34
n=4
n = 18
n = 30
n=2
n=3

37.4
4.4
19.8
33
2.2
3.3

HOW LONG IN UNITED STATES
Lifetime
Greater than 10 years
Less than 10 years
No Answer

n = 78
n = 10
n=2
n=1

85.7
11
2.2
1.1

WORK STATUS
Full Time
Part Time
Not in Labor Force
No Answer

n = 30
n = 14
n = 46
n=2

33
15.4
50.6
2.2

INCOME SOURCES
Wages
Disability
Pension
Welfare
Family
No Answer

n = 26
28.6
n = 50
55
n=4
4.4
n=4
4.4
n=6
6.6
n=5
5.5
*numbers and percentages may vary due to multiple responses

Variables and Measures
Self-Determination. Present within the literature for rehabilitation for over 30
years, Self Determination Theory builds from a foundation of intrinsic motivation
(Deci & Ryan, 1985). Motivation, however, does not fully explain self-determined
behaviors. Self-determined behaviors come about via the interaction of motivation
with knowledge, supports and environmental factors that allow such characteristics

58

to develop (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In this study, Self Determination will be measured
by the Self Determination Scale (Sheldon & Deci, 1995).
The Self Determination Scale (Deci & Ryan, 1995, Sheldon, Ryan & Reiss, 1996,
Ryan & Deci, 2000, Thrash & Elliott, 2002) is a 10-item self-report scale that
provides measures for two domains: awareness of self and perceived choice. These
subscales can be used separately or together to provide an overall measure of selfdetermined behavior. As a research tool, the Self Determination Checklist provides
a brief measure of core characteristics identified with self-determination. The Self-

Determination Scale is presented in Appendix B.
The Self Determination Scale provides ten pairs of contrasting statements, labeled
A & B, with the respondent requested to identify which statement they feel to be
the ‘most true’ at this point in their lives. Responses are measured on a five-point
likert type scale, with 1 = only “A” feels true and 5 = only “B” feels true. If both
statements feel equally true, the appropriate response would be “3”. For scoring,
odd numbered items have their scores reversed (the author suggests subtracting
item score from 6 to obtain reversed score). Scores are then added, with a higher
score reflecting the presence of more self-determined behaviors. If desired, the
global score can be divided to obtain two sub-scores, with even number questions
(2,4,6,8,10) reflecting awareness of self and odd number responses (1,3,5,7,9)
reflecting the perceived choice.

59

The Self Determination Scale was developed at the University of Rochester by Deci
and Ryan and is in the public domain for private research. Used extensively in
private research, the measure has reported good internal consistency (ratings .85 .93 in multiple studies) and adequate reliability (r = .77).

Participant Planning The primary focus of the current study was to explore the
levels of knowledge and engagement in pre-planning activities by the population of
interest. Having completed an extensive review of the literature, no formalized
data collection instruments were readily available to assess current practice. In the
absence of a published instrument, the Participant Planning Questionnaire was
created for use in this study. The Participant Planning Questionnaire is presented
in Appendix D.
The Participant Planning Questionnaire was developed for use in this study and
provides information on participant’s current status affecting advance planning and
participant’s desires/interests in engaging in advanced planning activities.
Formatted with 14 YES/NO response questions, participants will have the option to
omit responses or indicate no preference for each question. Questions 1 – 4; 6 – 8;
and 10 - 13 focus on their current level of activity and status, while questions 5, 9 &
14 focus on their desire to engage in the process. Of the 91 persons engaging the
study, 89 (97.8%) completed the Participant Planning Questionnaire, although 2
(2.2%) omitted answers for question eight. All other responses were complete for
this measure. Scoring for the Participant Planning Questionnaire was
accomplished by coding all responses of Yes = 1; No, No Answer = 0. An
60

individually summed score was then used in the correlational analysis with the

Self-Determination Scale. Data collected in response to questions 5, 9, & 14 was
summarized and provided to the sponsor agencies (CACIL and LIFE/RUN) for
program planning services.

Procedure
Following receipt of the approval letter from the MSU Human Subjects
Review Board (Appendix E), an official request for participation was forwarded to
the Executive Directors of each of the sponsor agencies. Upon receipt of a signed
affiliation agreement (Appendix E), the agencies were supplied with recruitment
posters (Appendix F). The recruitment posters were placed in public break areas of
each of the sites where data was collected. The researcher and representatives of
the sponsor agency worked together to determine appropriate dates for data
collection and to arrange for appropriate facilities.
All data collection occurred at locations operated by the sponsor agencies in
their service to individuals with disabilities. Data was collected using a detailed
script (Appendix G), and following instructions, participants were offered the option
to complete the questionnaire on their own or to have assistance completing the
questionnaire. The primary investigator was available to assist individuals in
instrument completion at their request.
During the data collection process, participants were gathered into small
groups and provided a verbal overview of the study. The informed consent
61

document (Appendix H) was read verbatim as part of this overview, and
participants completing the survey were deemed to have given implied consent by
their actions. The researcher was present throughout the data collection activity
and provided interpretation or assistance as requested. The researcher collecting
data reviewed the questionnaire upon submission to insure that the survey has
been fully completed. If multiple questions or pages were left unanswered, the
researcher queried the respondent to determine if the void was intentional. If the
questions/pages were overlooked, the respondent was given the opportunity to
complete the missing data. Individuals requesting personal assistance during the
data collection period were offered the following options: a) a scribe to record data
for individuals unable to physically record their responses, b) a reader to read the
survey documents verbatim to allow the individual to record their own answers; or
c) a combination reader/scribe. All requests for interpretation of the survey
instruments were provided using the scripted interpretations of terms found in
Appendix I.
Upon completion, all survey instruments were sealed in manila envelopes
recording the date, location, time, and surveyor collecting the data. All
demographic and questionnaire responses were entered into the Statistical Package

for Social Sciences 20.0 for Windows (SPSS, 2011) for data analysis.

62

Data Analysis
At the close of data collection, a total of 91 responses had been obtained. A
cursory review of the data revealed that a total of five of the responses had
significant gaps in the data for the measures Self-Determination Scale and

Participant Planning Questionnaire. In this review, it was determined that five
(5.5%) of the responses had sufficient missing data to damage the potential outcome
analysis. These responses were discarded from the calculations used for data
analysis, leaving us a clean data response of 86 participants.
For the 86 clean data responses, the total scores recorded for the Self-

Determination Scale and Participant Planning Questionnaire were compared for
correlation using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences 20.0 for Windows
(SPSS, 2011). Using both the clean data set for the entire Self-Determination

Checklist and Participant Planning Questionnaire found that no significant
relationship (.139) existed between the two variables using a two-tailed test.
Dividing the Self-Determination Checklist into the two proscribed subsets and
running a correlation between these variables netted a relationship significant
(.249) at the .05 level using a two-tailed test. Based on these findings, it was
decided to run each of the subscales of the Self-Determination Checklist against the
entire Participant Planning Questionnaire.
Subscale A of the Self-Determination Checklist has been established as a
measure of an individual’s awareness of self (Deci & Ryan, 1995). This subscale is

63

composed of all even numbered questions (2,4,6,8,10) summed. No significant
correlation (.047) was found between subscale awareness of self and the Participant

Planning Questionnaire.
Subscale B of the Self-Determination Checklist has been established in prior
works as a measure of an individual’s perceived choice (Deci & Ryan, 1995).
Subscale B is comprised of all odd numbered (1,3,5,7,9) questions, reverse scored
and then summed. On correlation, a statistically significant relationship (.222) at
the .05 level was established between subset perceived choice and the Participant

Planning Questionnaire using a two-tailed measure.

64

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the relationship between
self-determination and quality of life among persons with disabilities. Prior to
conducting the primary analysis related to the research questions, descriptive
statistics and a correlation analysis was completed to yield data to describe the
variables in this study and their inter-relationships. Using the Statistical Package

for Social Sciences 20.0 for Windows (SPSS, 2012), the first research question (i.e.
the relationship between the presence of SD Behaviors and the creation of Durable
Powers of Attorney for Healthcare) was addressed using a simple correlation.

Results Related to Research Question 1
Research Question One poses the following: “What is the relationship
between the presence of SD behaviors and the creation of Durable Powers of
Attorney for Healthcare?” The relationship between the presence of SD behaviors
and the creation of Durable Powers of Attorney for Healthcare was measured by
correlation between the outcomes of the Self-Determination Scale and the sum of
the Participant Planning Questionnaire.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis
Means, standard deviations, and ranges for all study variables utilizing raw
data are presented in Table 2 and correlations among the variables are shown in
Table 3.

65

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics for study variables

(RAW)

Variables

n

M

SD

Range (min-max)

Self Determination

91

29.40

9.74

0 – 46.00

Participant Planning

91

7.23

3.63

0 – 14.00

Table 3

Correlations among Study Variables

(RAW)

Correlations

PPQ All
SDS All

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2 tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2 tailed)
N

SDS All
1
91
.131
.215
91

PPQ All
.131
.215
91
1
91

As noted in the correlation boxes above, no statistical significance was found
using the raw data results for the entire population. Since a number of responses
appeared questionable (either one or both data sheets were not completed or were
missing), it was suggested that the data be cleaned by removing these responses
from the sample. In all, five responses were deemed to provide inadequate
information for inclusion in the analysis and were discarded. Once discarded, the
samples were analyzed a second time and the descriptive statistics (mean, standard
deviations, and ranges) were generated for the clean data and are presented in
Table 4, while the correlations measured are reported in Table 5.

66

Table 4

Descriptive Statistics for study variables

(CLEAN)

Variables

n

M

SD

Range (min-max)

Self Determination

86

29.40

9.32

10 – 46.00

Participant Planning

86

7.65

3.27

1 – 14.00

Correlations among Study Variables

(CLEAN)

Table 5

Correlations

PPQ All Clean
SDS All Clean

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2 tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2 tailed)
N

SDS All
1
86
.140
.198
86

PPQ All
.140
.198
86
1
86

Although no previous studies have been accomplished using the Participant
Planning Questionnaire (PPQ), the Self-Determination Scale (SDS) has been used
in a myriad of other study situations against other constructs. Scoring for the SDS
is often divided into two subscales, odd numbered questions deemed reflective of
Perceived Choice; while even numbered questions are deemed reflective of
Awareness of Self. As both are seen as key indicators of self-determination, the
scale allows for them to be scored as one or separated and used independently.
Since no clear statistical relationships were established using the entire scale, each
subscale analyzed separately. The descriptive statistics (means, standard

67

deviations, and range) for Subscale Perceived Choice in correlation with Subscale
Awareness of Self are presented in Table 6, and the correlation measures follow in
Table 7. It should be noted that these statistics were run using the clean data set.
Table 6

Descriptive Statistics SDS Subsets

(CLEAN)

Variables

n

M

SD

Range (min-max)

Perceived Choice

86

13.05

5.30

5 – 23.00

Awareness of Self

86

16.36

6.50

5 – 25.00

Table 7

Correlations among SDS Subsets

(CLEAN)

Correlations
SDS All
1

Awareness of Self

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2 tailed)
N
86
Perceived Choice
Pearson Correlation
.241*
Sig. (2 tailed)
.025
N
86
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

PPQ All
.241*
.025
.86
1
86

Having achieved a statistically significant correlation between the SDS
subscales, it was decided to study each of the SDS subscales individually with the
PPQ total (there are no PPQ Subscales). Table 8 provides the descriptive statistics
(mean, standard deviation, and range) for the Perceived Choice and the Participant
Planning Questionnaire (total). Table 9 examines the statistical relationship
between these two constructs as measured in this survey.
68

Table 8

Descriptive Statistics Perceived Choice and PPQ

Variables

M

SD

Range (min-max)

Perceived Choice

13.05

5.30

5 – 23.00

PPQ Total

7.65

3.27

(CLEAN)

1 – 14.00

Table 9

Correlations among Perceived Choice and PPQ

(CLEAN)

Correlations
SDS-A
1

Perceived Choice
PPQ Total

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2 tailed)
N
86
Pearson Correlation
.221*
Sig. (2 tailed)
.041
N
86
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

PPQ All
.221*
.041
86
1
.86

Finding a statistically significant positive relationship between the variable
subscale of perceived choice and the PPQ Total, it was decided to examine
independently the relationship between the subscale Awareness of Self and the
PPQ Total. Table 10 presents the descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation,
and range) for this measure, and Table 11 presents the correlations between these
subsets.

69

Table 10

Descriptive Statistics Awareness of Self and PPQ

(CLEAN)

Variables

n

M

SD

Range (min-max)

Awareness of Self

86

16.36

6.50

5 – 25.00

PPQ Total

86

7.65

3.27

1 – 14.00

Table 11

Correlations among Awareness of Self and PPQ

(CLEAN)

Correlations

Awareness of Self
PPQ Total

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2 tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2 tailed)
N

SDS-B
1
86
.047
.665
86

PPQ All
.047
.665
86
1
.86

In examining the data for this relationship, it becomes clear that no
statistically significant relationship exists between the SDS Awareness of Self and
the Participant Planning Questionnaire.
Having confirmed this statistical relationship, the data demonstrates a
variation in pattern that was not anticipated. While the overall data renders
research hypothesis #1 to be null, test instrument and subsets of the population
reflect a positive statistical relationship. Analysis of the relationship between the
subsets Perceived Choice and Awareness of Self, the SDS demonstrated a
statistically significant positive relationship (.241 two-tailed) where measured
70

against each other. Only the subset SDS Perceived Choice demonstrated a positive
statistical relationship (.221 two-tailed) measured against cleaned population PPQ
scores. Overall it should be noted that all relationships reported within this data
analyses were positive, but that the majority lacked statistical significance.

Results Related to Research Question 2
Research Question Two poses the following: “What is the frequency of
creation of Durable Powers of Attorney for Healthcare documents for persons with
disabilities?” It was agreed in the proposal that this would be measured
descriptively by counting the positive responses to questions 4, 8 and 13 from the

Participant Planning Questionnaire. Question 4 is the most pertinent, asking:
“Have you ever talked with a lawyer to make legal plans for your health decisions?”
Question 8 asks: “Have you ever talked with a lawyer to make legal plans for your
estate decisions?” Finally, question 13 asks: “Have you ever talked with a lawyer to
make legal plans for your funeral decisions?” Descriptive data for these measures is
reported below in Table 12.
Table 12

Descriptive Statistics Participant Planning Questionnaire

Variables

n

Yes

No

No Answer

Question #4

86

18(20.1%)

68(79.1%)

0(0.0%)

Question #8

84

22(26.2%)

60(71.4%)

6(7.1%)

Question #13

86

12(13.9%)

74(86.0%)

0(0.0%)

71

No statistical analysis was completed with Research Question Two. In looking at
response numbers, it is clear that the majority of respondents have not engaged in
creation of Durable Powers of Attorney for Healthcare.
However, perhaps the most significant outcome is can be reflected by the
reporting of outcomes for the entire Participant Planning Questionnaire. Table 13
reports outcomes for each of the questions.
Table 13

Descriptive Statistics for Participant Planning Questionnaire

Questions

n

Yes

No

No Answer

Question 1

89

32(35.96%)

54(60.67%)

3(3.37%)

Question 2

89

62(69.66%)

16(17.98%)

11(12.36%)

Question 3

89

46(51.69%)

40(44.94%)

3(3.37%)

Question 4

89

18(20.22%)

70(78.65%)

1(1.12%)

Question 5

89

50(56.18%)

30(33.71%)

9(10.11%)

Question 6

89

62(69.66%)

20(22.47%)

7(7.87%)

Question 7

89

46(51.69%)

36(40.45%)

5(5.62%)

Question 8

87

22(25.29%)

62(71.26%)

7(8.05%)

Question 9

89

70(78.65%)

10(11.24%)

9(10.11%)

Question 10

89

66(74.16%)

18(20.22%)

5(5.62%)

Question 11

89

64(71.91%)

22(24.82%)

3(3.37%)

Question 12

89

46(51.69%)

42(47.19%)

1(1.12%)

Question 13

89

12(13.48%)

76(85.39%)

1(1.12%)

Question 14

89

62(69.66%)

22(24.72%)

5(5.62%)

72

While questions 4, 8, & 13 answer research question 2 the most clearly,
questions 5,9, & 14 posed questions regarding the interest of the respondent in
learning more about the details of planning activities. For question #5, which posed
‘If a lawyer were available to you ….would you want to create a DPOA, over half of
all respondent indicated an interest. For question #9, which queried interest in
creating a will, nearly 80% of respondents indicated a desire to meet with an
attorney. Finally, for question #14 addressing creation of funeral or memorial plan,
nearly 2/3 of respondents indicated a desire to learn more.
In a similar vein, while most participants were readily able to identify the
persons who they believed would make decisions on their behalf (as reflected in
questions 2 & 11), consistently low numbers of individuals had engaged in
discussions with these individuals regarding the decisions that might be made (as
reflected in questions 3, 7 & 12).
While not tied specifically to research questions of this study, this
information reflects two interesting dynamics: 1) individuals with disabilities desire
an opportunity to learn about the options available to them for planning; and 2)
individuals with disabilities do not often engage in discussions with significant
others regarding their desires for end of life care.

73

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) places focus on the
psychological motivations involving concepts of awareness of self and perceived
control as avenues of measure in determining an overall sense of one’s level of selfdetermination. Prior research has established a relationship between levels of selfdetermination and autonomy, choice-making, community living or employment and
higher levels of life satisfaction (Wehmeyer & Bolding, 1999). The SelfDetermination Scale (Deci & Ryan, 1995) was developed to provide a brief measure
of the global level of self-determination, but provided for independent measures of
key concepts of awareness of self and perceived control.
The present study sought to develop an understanding of the frequency of use
of documents such as Durable Power of Attorney for Healthcare or Living Wills by
persons with disabilities. This was accomplished using a global measure of selfdetermination against a fourteen question survey of engagement in planning
activities for the end of life. The survey document, ‘Participant Planning
Questionnaire’ sought information regarding engagement in a series of planning
activities projected to measure autonomy in the planning for end of life. This
document was developed by the researcher, and was piloted with a composite
grouping of five individuals from the survey population group before being
implemented. It was anticipated that the results from the administration of the

74

standardized Self-Determination Scale would correlate positively with total scores
from the non-standardized Participant Planning Questionnaire.
The importance of this relationship is that it relates to the planning of
services for persons with disabilities in the development of aspects of control over
their lives. To that end, the first research question of interest in this study was:
What is the relationship between self-determination and end of life planning? The
second research question of interests was: How many people with disabilities have
completed Durable Powers of Attorney for Healthcare? These planning activities
are increasing in frequency among the general population and in the future can be
expected to be of increasing importance to persons with disabilities.
The potential for value of this study is four-fold. First, it provides a measure
of the numbers of persons with disabilities currently engaging in planning activities
for the end of life, as well as the depth of those activities. Secondly, the results
provided a measure of the interest of the participants in learning about their
options for using these planning tools to impact decisions made at the end of their
lives. A third benefit of this study is reflections of a significant lack of engagement
by PWD and their significant others in discussions regarding end of life planning.
Finally, the study will provide a snapshot of the relationship between selfdetermination and engagement in planning activities. This chapter examines five
aspects of the study: (a) the limitations of the study; (b) a narrative summary of the
results; (c) the relation of the findings to previous research; (d) the theoretical and
practice implications; and (e) suggestions for future research.
75

Limitations of the Study
Prior to any discussion of the results and implications of this study, a review
of a few of the limitations should be noted. The limitations include the nature of the
participant group, sample convenience, and relationships established between the
constructs of interest.
A wide variety of participant information was collected via the Participant

Demographic Questionnaire. Although issues of age and race appeared congruent
with census data (U.S.C.B., 2012a; U.S.C.B., 2012b) gender was heavily skewed
towards female participants. . Neither program site collects data regarding
program attendance that offers an explanation for this skew. Reporting regarding
disability status also reflects inconsistency, with 16 individuals denying or opting
not to disclose disability status, and 11 failing to identify a disabling condition. The
remainder of the data collected on this form reflected comparable data to annual
reporting for both agencies.
The sample was drawn from persons accessing services at independent living
centers in both Texas and Michigan. The information collected regarding living
arrangements appeared to be congruent with data supplied in annual reporting for
the agencies. It is possible that due to the timing of data collection some
participants who receive services who were not present during the collection period.
Factors such as employment, transportation and involvement in other social
activities would likely affect any generalizations that might be made. As such, the

76

study sample may not be representative of the overall populations of the two
agencies at which data were collected.
The study populations resulted from a sample of convenience. Data was
collected from participants during a visit to the independent living center during
the data collection period. Therefore, the outcomes of this study cannot be
generalized to all persons with disabilities.
Finally, while pre-analysis statistical power was found to be adequate for the
correlational measure used, the results failed to demonstrate the relationship
established in similar studies. However, splitting the groups into geographic subsets revealed a statistically significant relationship between one of the sub-sets and
sub-scores of the Self-Determination Scale. With this variation in the scoring,
results cannot be generalized to other sample or populations. It should be noted
that while limited statistical relationships were established between some
constructs, the strength of these relationships may not rise to a practical level.

Narrative Summary of the Results
The purposes of this study were two-fold: (1) to study the relationship
between self-determination and end-of-life planning and (2) to evaluate the extent
of engagement in end-of-life planning activity. Research question one was explored
using a correlational measure, while research question two was measured by simple
descriptive statistics.

77

Research question one asked “What is the relationship between SelfDetermination and End-of-life Planning activities?” Studied by correlation, the
measure failed to establish a statistically significant relationship when using a twotailed test. Using data cleaned of incomplete answers, a total of 86 responses
demonstrated a statistically insignificant positive relationship of .140. Descriptive
statistics for this relationship were based on 86 responses on the Self-

Determination Scale netting a mean response of 29.40 with a standard deviation of
9.32 and a range of 10-46. For the Participant Planning Questionnaire descriptive
statistics confirmed 86 responses with a mean of 7.65, a standard deviation of 3.27,
and a range of 1-14.
Research question two asked: “What is the occurrence of completion of
Durable Powers of Attorney for Healthcare?” This question was answered via
descriptive statistics, with responses to questions 4, 8, and 13 representing the
measure of this activity. Question 4 asked “Have you ever talked with a lawyer to
make legal plans for your health decisions?” This question was deemed most
significant to the question at hand, and all 86 respondents in the clean data set
answered, with 18 (20.1%) indicating that they had spoken with a lawyer; 68
(79.1%) indicating they had not. Question 8 asked: “Have you ever talked with a
lawyer to make legal plans of your estate decisions?” Question 8 was answered the
least, with only 84 respondents supplying an answer. Of those responding, 22
(26.2%) indicated they had conferred, with 60 (71.4%) indicated they had not
conferred, and 6 (7.1%) indicated no answer. The final related question, #13, asked:
78

“Have you ever talked with a lawyer to make legal plans for your funeral decisions?”
The full 86 individuals represented in the clean data set provided answers, with 12
(13.9%) indicating they had conferred, 74 (86.0%) indicating they had not conferred.
While no statistical analyses were conducted on the responses to the three questions
related to research question #2, it is clear that the majority of respondents had not
completed Durable Powers of Attorney for Healthcare documents.
Despite the original goals of this study, the perhaps most significant outcome
is in the form of demonstration that PWD wish to be involved in decision making
activities and that they wish to have factual information upon which to base their
decisions. Their willingness to engage in learning upon which to base decisions
implies an active engagement, and is congruent with central constructs of autonomy
and sense of self.

Relation of Findings to Prior Research
The findings of the current study add to previous research and theory. No
prior research had posed a question regarding relationship between selfdetermination and planning for end-of-life, although substantial work had
established a positive relationship between choice-making and self-determination;
perceived control and self-determination; end-of-life planning and satisfaction; and
engagement in planning and retention of life control.
The relationship between choice-making and self-determination has been
established in multiple settings with varied groups of individuals (Havranek, 1998).
79

Fields, etal.(1998) identified the process of both having choice and learning how to
make choices as a key ingredient in the development of self-determination. Training
in choice-making skills was established as critical for older adults (Heller, etal,
1996); those with dementia (Allen and Hilgeman, 2009), as well as for those with
severe disabilities (Olney, 2001). Validated several times in research, the role of
choice was established as a predictor of empowerment in rehabilitation (Frain, etal,
2009).
Perceived control or locus of control has been long established as an area of
research within the field of rehabilitation, as well as a primary indicator of selfdetermination (Field, etal, 2003). Wehmeyer and Shalock (2001) solidify the
linkage between locus of control and self-determination, and extend the relationship
to provide a reflection of quality of life. Other researchers in the field (Wehman,
etal, 2003; Wappett, 2002; Plagnol, 2010; Palmer, 2010; Mcclimans, 2010) have
established positive relationships between the exercise of control in a multitude of
settings across the lifespan as being essential component of both self-determination
and quality of life measures.
The relationship between end-of-life planning and self-determination has
received less examination in the research, especially focused on persons with
disabilities. End-of-life planning is studied commonly among aged persons
(Bowling, et al, 2003; Carr, et al, 2007; Castle & Mor, 1998; Martin, et al, 2000;
Pozzoulo, et al, 2005; Teno, et al, 1994), especially among persons receiving medical
care for potentially life threatening illnesses. Planning has also been studied in the
80

context of specific disability populations, especially those with mental illness (Cook
& Jonikas, 2002; Geller, 2000; Peters & Chiverton, 2003; Ryerson, 2007; Sheldon, et
al, 1996; Sith, 2006; Swartz & Swanson, 2007).
Locus of control over one’s life has been at the core of much research
regarding end of life planning. From a global perspective, research has focused on
establishing the outcomes of a myriad of legislation created to establish the ability
to designate plans for end-of-life (Alston, 1997; Black, 2008; Brammer, 2005; Dore,
2008; Hickman, et al, 2005; Irons, 2007; Kemp & Kopp, 2010; Kim, et al, 2007;
O’Neill, 2001; Sith, 2006). Lesser research has explored perceptions and completion
rates (Black, 2008; Blanck, 2008; Carr & Khodyakov, 2007; Galambos, 1998;
Salmond & David, 2005). The concept has been studied in the context of
guardianship and avoidance of guardianship (Bellard, 2001; Black, 2008; Dore,
2008; Hommel, 1996; Moye, et al, 2007; O’Neill, 2001; Teaster, 2002; Wright, 2010).
As a subset of the guardianship consideration, the question of substituted judgment
and proxy decision making has also been studied numerous times (Allen &
Hilgeman, 2009; Asch, 2005; Gregory, et al, 2007; Giger, et al, 2006; McGuire, et al,
2007; Slocum, et al, 2011).

Theoretical Implications
From a theoretical perspective, this works supports prior research findings
across three domains: the importance of decision making skills; the fundamental
value of autonomy; and the interest in attaining relevant knowledge by persons

81

with disabilities.

Decision-making skills have been the subject of trainings for

persons with disabilities since the introduction of the concepts of self-determination
and person-centered planning (Wehmeyer and Schwartz, 1998). Identified as a
basic building tool towards controlling one’s future, training in decision-making has
been in the forefront of curricula since the mid-1990’s (Wehmeyer, etal, 1999).
Beginning with adolescents, researchers have established that training in decisionmaking skills can enhance nearly all aspects of one’s lives (Field & Hoffman, 1994).
The ability to make decisions that control one’s lives is also tied heavily to the
concept of autonomy (Havranek, 1999). The results from questions 5, 9 & 14 would
appear to support the idea that PWD want information upon which to base these
decisions.
Autonomy is one of the essential components of rehabilitation counseling
philosophy, and has been codified into policy for nearly 40 years (Parker, etal,
2005). Within research, autonomy is identified as a frequent contributor to concepts
of quality of life (Pain, etal, 1998) as well as psycho-social adaptation to chronic
illness (Bishop, etal, 2008). Using the adaptation model, autonomy is often
addressed in the context of understanding complexity of the options (Gregory, et al,
2007).
A wealth of literature is available that suggests that individuals with
disabilities seek information upon which to base decision making (Allen &
Hilgeman, 2009; Bishop, et al, 2008; Bowling, et al, 2003; Carr & Khodyakov, 2007;
Geller, 2000; Kuczewski, 2004; McCarthy, et al, 2007; Paillaud, et al, 2007; Peters &
82

Chiverton, 2003; Sheldon, et al, 1996; Sith, 2006; Swartz & Swanson, 2007). The
findings of this study clarify that individuals with disabilities would like
information from professional sources regarding creation of Durable Powers of
Attorney for Healthcare, as well as creation of wills and funeral or memorial
planning.

Practice Implications
Perhaps one of the greatest findings of this study is that individuals with
disabilities desire information regarding planning activities as well as options to
maintain their autonomy. These findings are consistent with prior research that
identifies locus of control as a primary player in measures of quality of life (Bishop,
etal, 2008). Buttressing the arguments for autonomy, research has concluded
training may be necessary to facilitate independent decision making for persons
with disabilities (Allen & Hilgeman, 2009; Fields & Hoffman, 1994; Fields, et al,
1998; Fields, et al, 2003; Havranek, 1998; Wehmeyer, et al, 1999). Applying this
research, it becomes a mandate for ethical practice to engage in techniques that
enhance individual empowerment for persons with disabilities across rehabilitation
settings (Aldridge, 2010; Alston, 1997; Betcher, 2008; Bowling, et al, 2003;
Breeding, 2008; Dempsey & Foreman, 1997; Geller, 2000; Hein, et al, 2005; Leff, et
al, 2003; Smart, 2009; Swartz & Swanson, 2007).

83

Considerations for Future Research
Research on the relationship between self-determination and end-of-life
planning has been scarce in the rehabilitation literature, despite seemingly similar
goals: increased autonomy and improved locus of control. Centers for independent
living have a primary goal advocacy on behalf of persons with disabilities. Taking
an advocacy perspective, this study establishes clearly with the results related to
research question two that many individuals in this sample are not currently
creating durable powers of attorney for healthcare. Moreover, the responses to
question #5, 9 and 14 on the Participant Planning Questionnaire establish a desire
for information on planning activities by these individuals. Question 5 asked about
interest in creating a Durable Power of Attorney for Healthcare, were 62
individuals (72.1%) indicated a desire to consult with an attorney. Question 9 asked
about creating a will, and 70 persons (81.4%) responded affirmatively. Offered the
opportunity to learn about creating a memorial plan, 62 (72.1%) of respondents
reported an interest in this activity. As such, additional research is needed to
explore the relationship between self-determination and various aspects of end of
life planning. The finding that PWD seek information and desire to be involved in
decision making tasks may be the strongest outcome from this study.
Each of the programs involved in the current study have received information
regarding their respondents answers to the study questions, increasing the
potential for the development of education and training processes to occur in each
setting.
84

The results of this study lend support to previously established constructs
regarding the need to train individuals in choice-making skills and self-advocacy
(Field et al, 1998), setting the stage for research into application among a variety of
rehabilitation settings. Since application of these planning activities has been held
evidence of competence (Galambos, 1998), research focusing on substitution of
Durable Powers of Attorney for Healthcare in place of guardianship should be
conducted.
Research into the myriad of cultural considerations that impact issues of endof-life planning, such as prohibitions of faith and hierarchy of personal preferences
is largely missing the research literature Development of cultural competency in
the discussion of directives should be explored more thoroughly (Giger, etal, 2006).
Moreover, a shift from contextualizing culture and social values from a group level
to an individual level would support an individualization of all attempts to discuss
end of life issues (Cartwright, et al, 2009; Nadal, 2011; Sue, etal, 2008; Sue, etal,
2007).
Finally, methods utilizing more active participation by the subjects of the
study should be considered in future research. Utilizing peer group members for the
collection of data has been shown to increase response rates in survey research
(Smith & O’Flynn, 2000). While no respondents reported discomfort at discussing
these topics with persons outside of their peer groups, it is possible that different
results would be obtained in discussion with peers; or with the use of other methods
of data collection.
85

APPENDICES

86

APPENDIX A
PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE

87

Table 14

Participant Demographic Questionnaire

Self-Determination and End of Life Planning for Persons with Disabilities
PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE

QUESTIONS
1. What is your age?
2. How do you identify your gender?
3. How do you identify your race or ethnicity?
(Please circle all that apply)
4. Did you attend Special Education?
5. What is your highest level of education?

6. Do you have a disability?
7. If yes, what is the nature of your disability?
(Please circle all that apply)
8. Has your disability been present for your whole
life?
9. What best describes you marital status today?

RESPONSES
Female
White
Latino
Other:
YES
Less than
HS Grad
College
YES
Cognitive
Visual
C.P.
YES
Single
Divorced
Alone
Family
Entire
Life
Full Time
(everyday)
Wages
Welfare

10. Which best describes your living arrangement?
11. How long have you lived in the U.S.?
12. Which best describes how much you work?
13. Which of the following best describes your
primary (largest) source of income?
88

Male
Black
Native Amer

Other/ No
Answer
Asian
Pac. Islndr.

NO
High School
Grad
2 yr Degree
NO
Psychiatric
Bone/Joint
Heart
NO

No Answer
GED

Married
Widowed
Roommates
Group
10 or more years

Separated
Partnered
Partner
No Answer
Less than 10 years

Part Time
(Some days)
Disability
Family

Do Not Work

4 yr Degree
No Answer
Epilepsy
Hearing
Other
No Answer

Pension
No Answer

APPENDIX B:
SELF-DETERMINATION SCALE

89

Table 15: Self-Determination Scale
Self-Determination Scale
Instructions: Please read the pairs of statements, one pair at a time, and think about which statement within the
pair seems more true to you at this point in your life. Indicate the degree to which Statement A feels true, relative to
the degree that Statement B feels true, on the 5-point scale shown after each pair of statements. If statement A feels
completely true and statement B feels completely untrue, the appropriate response would be 1. If the two
statements are equally true, the appropriate response would be a 3. If only statement B feels true and so on.
STATEMENT “A”
1. I always feel like I choose
the things I do.
2. My emotions sometimes
feel alien to me.
3. I choose what I have to do.
4. I feel that I am rarely
myself.
5. I do what I do because it
interests me.
6. When I accomplish
something, I often feel it
wasn’t really me who did it.
7. I am free to do whatever I
decide to do.
8. My body sometimes feels
like a stranger to me.
9. I feel pretty free to do
whatever I choose to.
10. Sometimes I look in the
mirror and see a stranger.

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1
1

2
2

3
3

4
4

5
5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

90

STATEMENT “B”
1. I sometimes feel like it isn’t
really me choosing the
things I do.
2. My emotions always seem
to belong to me.
3. I do what I have to, but I
don’t feel like it is really my
choice.
4. I feel like I am always
completely myself.
5. I do what I do because I
have to.
6. When I accomplish
something I always feel it’s
me who did it.
7. What I do is often not what
I’d choose to do.
8. My body always feels like
me.
9. I often do things I don’t
choose to do.
10. When I look in the mirror I
see myself.

APPENDIX C:
PARTICIPANT PLANNING QUESTIONNAIRE

91

Table 17:

Participant Planning Questionnaire
PARTICIPANT PLANNING QUESTIONNAIRE
QUESTIONS
RESPONSES
1. Have you ever completed any life planning activities (like a person centered plan, YES NO UNSURE
created a will, or power of attorney)?
2. Do you know who would make medical or legal decisions for you if you could not? YES NO UNSURE
3. Have you talked with that person about what decisions they should make?
YES NO UNSURE
4. Have you ever talked with a lawyer to make legal plans for your health decisions? YES NO UNSURE
A ‘Durable Power of Attorney for Healthcare” allows another person to make medical decision for you
IF YOU BECOME UNABLE.
5. If a lawyer were available to you (for free or at a very low cost) would you want to YES NO UNSURE
create a Durable Power of Attorney for Healthcare?
6. Do you know who would inherit your things (clothes, furniture, car, home) if you
YES NO UNSURE
were to die?
7. Have you talked with that person about what decisions they should make?
YES NO UNSURE
8. Have you ever talked with a lawyer to make legal plans for your estate decisions? YES NO UNSURE
A “WILL” allows you to legally specify what will happen with everything you own should you die.
9. If a lawyer were available to you (for free or at a very low cost) would you want to YES NO UNSURE
create a WILL?
10. Do you have strong beliefs or feelings about the type of funeral / Cremation /
YES NO UNSURE
Memorial you would want held if you died?
11. Do you know who would make funeral or memorial service arrangements if you
YES NO UNSURE
were to die?
12. Have you talked with that person about what decisions they should make?
YES NO UNSURE
13. Have you ever talked with a lawyer to make legal plans for you funeral
YES NO UNSURE
decisions?
A “FUNERAL PLAN” allows you to tell others what activities you would like to occur when you die.
14. If assistance were available to you (for free or at a very low cost) would you want YES NO UNSURE
to create a plan for your funeral decisions?

92

APPENDIX D:
REQUESTS TO CONDUCT RESEARCH

93

94

95

96

97

APPENDIX E:
ANNOUNCEMENT/INVITATION POSTER

98

You Are Invited!
To
Participate in a Research Study!
What:

CACIL, Inc. & LIFE/RUN, Inc., along with researchers from Michigan
State University, would like to request your involvement in a research
study which will be taking place at CACIL, Inc. & LIFE/RUN, Inc.
This study will involve a survey questionnaires designed to evaluate
an individual’s self-determination and advance planning practices. As
an individual who participates in services with either CACIL, Inc. &
LIFE/RUN, Inc., your input would assist towards investigating
potential benefits and area of growth for the field of rehabilitation as
well as the services provided through either CACIL, Inc. & LIFE/RUN,
Inc.

Where:

CACIL, Inc. & LIFE/RUN, Inc. locations including sites in Lansing,
Michigan and Lubbock, Texas.

When:

September, 2012. Various dates – watch this location for specific
dates!

Who:

Participation is limited to ADULT program participants.

If you are interested in participating in this research activity, researchers will be
visiting CACIL, Inc. & LIFE/RUN, Inc. service locations during the month of
September, 2012. Watch this location for posting of exact dates!

Dave Schroeder

∞

99

Michigan State University

APPENDIX F:
LETTER OF INFORMED CONSENT

100

Table 18: Letter of Informed Consent

Self-Determination and End of Life Planning for Persons with Disabilities
You are being asked to participate in a research study. Researchers are required to provide a consent form to
inform you about the study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to explain risks and benefits of participation,
and to empower you to make an informed decision. You should feel free to ask the researchers any questions you
may have.
Consent to Participate
This research study is being conducted by researchers at Michigan State University as part of the Doctorate
program in Rehabilitation Counseling and Education. The research study is entitled “Self-Determination and End of
Life Planning for Persons with Disabilities”.
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between self-determination, and end of life planning
issues for persons with disabilities. Further study of the relationship between self-determination and end of life
planning activities may yield information useful to organizations providing services in planning to improve
outcomes for the individuals served. This study seeks information about two things: Self-determination and End of
Life Planning Practices. Self-determination can best be described as a pattern of acting in one’s best interest,
according to their wishes, and for the purposes they desire. End of Life Planning looks long into the future and your
involvement in activities to help you plan for future care decisions including medical care and funeral planning.
You are being asked to participate in this survey due to your relationship with a sponsor agency. Your
participation in this survey will be greatly appreciated, however, it is completely voluntary. You must be at least 18
years of age and have no legally appointed guardian to participate. You may refuse to participate, refuse to answer
certain questions, or stop participation at any time without penalty.
If you are willing to participate in this study, you will answer a brief demographic (descriptive) questionnaire
that will take about 5 minutes to complete. You will then be asked to complete two study questionnaires that will
take less than 10 minutes each. If at any time during participation you decide to stop, you may stop and not
continue with no penalty.
101

Table 18 (cont’d)
Although you may not benefit directly from participating in this study, your assistance may contribute to
greater understanding of the relationships involved, which may allow agencies to develop programs to improve the
outcomes for the people they serve. There are no foreseeable risks associated with participation in this study. As
consideration for your time, you will receive $5.00. If you agree to participate, please turn the page and begin the
questionnaires. When you are finished, please teach off the front page and give the remainder to the person giving
you this survey.
If you have any concerns or questions about this survey, including the survey outcomes, please contact:
Investigator: Dave Schroeder
Telephone: 517.897.2736 or 806.416.2738
E-mail: schro111@msu.edu
Faculty Sponsor: John Kosciulek
Telephone: 517.353.9443 E-mail: jkosciul@msu.edu
Written Correspondence: 455 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824

102

APPENDIX G:
SCRIPTED DEFINITIONS

103

GUARDIAN:

A court appointed individual who makes decisions for you. No
one is your guardian unless a judge has appointed them.

WILL:

A will is a document created by you (usually with a lawyer) to
determine who gets your belongings when you die.

DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR HEALTHCARE:
Sometimes called at DPOA, this person is appointed by YOU to
make MEDICAL decisions if you are unable (You must be
unable to communicate). This person has access to ALL of your
medical records if ENACTED.
PRE-PLANNING:
Planning for something before you need it – an example would
be to plan your funeral.
PERSON CENTERED PLANNING ACTIVITY:
A meeting, usually with you present, in which you discuss what
you want in your life and how it can be arranged.
END OF LIFE CARE:
Arrangements for meeting your needs towards the end of your
life if you are not able to meet these needs yourself.
FUNERAL PLANNING:
Planning, in advance, your desires for services (or none) that
should occur after you die.
ATTORNEY:

An individual trained in law to assist you in writing your legal
documents.

HEALTH CARE ADVOCATE:
Someone who knows your desires, values, and wishes and will
assist you in getting your way.

104

REFERENCES

105

REFERENCES

Aldridge, J. (2010). Relationship of Perceived Adequacy of Services, FamilyProfessional Partnerships, and Family Quality of Life in Early Childhood
Service Programs. Childhood Education, 87(2), 136.
Allen, R. & Hilgeman, M. (2009). Helping People with Dementia Approach End
of Life: Issues for Families. Generations, 33 (1), 74–77.
Alston, R. (1997). Disability and health care reform: Principles, practices, and
politics. Journal of Rehabilitation, 63(3), 5-9.
Antshel, K., Faraone, S., Maglione, K., Doyle, A., Fried, R., Seidman, L., &
Biederman, J. (2009). Is adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder a valid
diagnosis in the presence of high IQ? Psychological Medicine, 39(8), 13251335.
Arinez, I. (2009). The development of a quality of life index at a county level:
Quality of life index for Arkansas counties (QLAC)(Doctoral Dissertation).
Retrieved from ProQuest UMI Dissertations Publishing.
Arnesen, T. M., & Norheim, O. F. (2003). Quantifying quality of life for
economic analysis: Time out for time trade off. Journal of Medical Ethics,
29(2), 81.
Asch, A. (2005). Recognizing Death while Affirming Life: Can End of Life
Reform Uphold a Disabled Person's Interest in Continued Life? The Hastings
Center Report: IMPROVING End of Life Care, S, 31-36.
Bekemeier, K. (2009). The Relationship Between Self-determination and
Quality of Life Among Individuals with Disabilities Involved with a Center
for Independent Living (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
UMI Dissertations Publishing.
Bellard, L. (2001). Restraining the Paternalism of Attorneys and Families in
End-of-Life Decision-Making While Recognizing that Patients Want More
Than Just Autonomy. The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 14(3),
803.

106

Betcher, J.. (2008). Quality of Life and Human Difference. Ethics &
Medicine, 24(2), 126-127.
Bishop, M. (2005a). Quality of life and psychosocial adaptation to chronic
illness and acquired disability: A conceptual and theoretical synthesis.
Journal of Rehabilitation, 71(2), 5-13.
Bishop, M. (2005b). Quality of Life and Psychosocial Adaptation to Chronic
Illness and Disability: Preliminary Analysis of a Conceptual and Theoretical
Synthesis. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 48(4), 219-231.
Bishop, M., Frain, M., & Tschopp, M. (2008). Self-Management, Perceived
Control, and Subjective Quality of Life in Multiple Sclerosis: An Exploratory
Study. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 52(1), 45-56.
Bishop, M., Stenhoff, D. & Shepard, L.(2007). Psychosocial Adaptation and
Quality of Life in Multiple Sclerosis: Assessment of the Disability Centrality
Model. Journal of Rehabilitation, 73(1), 3-12.
Bishop, M., Chapin, M., & Miller, S. (2008). Quality of Life Assessment in the
Measurement of Rehabilitation Outcome. Journal of Rehabilitation, 74(2), 4555.
Black, J. (2008). The Not-So-Golden Years: Power of Attorney, Elder Abuse,
and Why Our Laws are Failing a Vulnerable Population. St. John’s Law
Review. Brooklyn, Winter 2008: Vol 81, 1, 2898-314.
Blanck, P. (2008). “The Right to Live in the World”: Disability Yesterday, Today,
and Tomorrow. Texas Journal on Civil Liberties & Civil Rights, 13(2), 367
-401.
Bowling, A., Gabriel, Z., Dykes, J., Dowding, L. M., Evans, O., Fleissig, A.,
Banister, D., & Sutton, S. (2003). Let's ask them: A national survey of
definitions of quality of life and its enhancement among people aged 65
and over. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 56(4),
269-306.
Brammer, A. (2005). The Mental Capacity Act 2005. The Journal of Adult
Protection, 7(2), 44-48.
Bramston, P., Pretty, G., & Chipuer, H. (2002). Unravelling subjective quality of
life: An investigation of individuals and community determinants. Social
Indicators Research, 59(3), 261.

107

Breeding, R. (2008). Empowerment as a Function of Contextual SelfUnderstanding: The Effect of Work Interest Profiling on Career Decision
Self-Efficacy and Work Locus of Control. Rehabilitation Counseling
Bulletin, 51(2), 96-106.
Brock, D. 1993. Quality of life measures in health care and medical ethics. In
M.Nussbaum, & A.( Sen Eds). The quality of life (pp. 95–132). Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Brock, D. 2005. Preventing genetically transmitted disabilities while respecting
persons with disabilities. In D. Wasserman etal (Eds). Quality of life and
human difference genetic testing, health care, and disability. (pp. 67–
100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cagle, J., & Kovacs, P. (2009). Education: A Complex and Empowering Social
Work Intervention at the End of Life. Health & Social Work, 34(1), 17-27.
Carlisle, J., & Neulicht, A. (2010). The Necessity of Professional Disclosure and
Informed Consent for Rehabilitation Counselors. Journal of Applied
Rehabilitation Counseling, 41(2), 25-31.
Carr, D. & Khodyakov, D. (2007). End-of-Life Health Care Planning Among
Young-Old Adults: An Assessment of Psychosocial Influences. The

Journals of Gerontology: Series B Psychological sciences and social
sciences, 62B(2), S135-41.

Castle, N. & Mor, V. (1998). Advance care planning in nursing homes: Pre- and
post-patient Self-Determination Act. Health Services Research, 33.1.
Cartwright, B., Washington, R. & McConnell, R. (2009). Preview: Examining
Racial Microaggressions in Rehabilitation Counselor Education.
Rehabilitation Education, 23 (3/4), 171-181.
Cater, J., & Koch, L. (2010). Women Veterans with Polytrauma: Rehabilitation
Planning Implications. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation
Counseling, 41(3), 9-17.
Chapman, S. & Hayes, N. (2007). Palliative care and the Mental Capacity
Act. Working With Older People, 11(1), 21-24.
Cook , J. & Jonikas, J. (2002). Self-determination among mental health
consumers/survivors: Using lessons from the past to guide the future. Journal
of Disability Policy Studies, 13(2), 87-95.

108

Danquah, F., Wasserman, J., Meininger, J., & Bergstrom, N. (2010). Quality of
Life Measures for Patients On Hemodialysis: A Review of Psychometric
Properties. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 37(3), 255-69.
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (1995). Self Determination Scale. Downloaded
011182009 @ 5:58 pm from:
http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures/sds_description.php.
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (2000). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in
Human Behavior. New York: Plenum.
Degeneffe, C. E., & Lee, G. K. (2010). Quality of life after traumatic brain
injury: Perspectives of adult siblings. Journal of Rehabilitation, 76(4), 27.
Dempsey, I. & Foreman, P. (1997). Toward a Clarification of Empowerment as
Outcome of Disability Service Provision. International Journal of Health &
Development, 44, 287-303.
Donnell, C. Mizelle, N. & Zheng, Y.(2009). Journal of Rehabilitation, 75,(3), 4150.
Dore, M.K. (2008). Ten Reasons People Get Railroaded into Guardianship.
American Journal of Family Law, 21(4), 148–152.
Dunning, H., Williams, A., Abonyi, S., & Crooks, V.. (2008). A Mixed Method
Approach to Quality of Life Research: A Case Study Approach. Social
Indicators Research, 85(1), 145.
Eckersley, R. (2009). Population Measures of Subjective Wellbeing: How Useful
are they? Social Indicators Research, 94(1), 1-12.
Epley, D., & Menon, M.. (2008). A Method of Assembling Cross-sectional
Indicators into a Community Quality of Life. Social Indicators
Research, 88(2), 281-296.
Epstein, R., Heinemann, A., & McFarland, L. (2010). Quality of life for veterans
and service members with major traumatic limb loss from Vietnam and
OIF/OEF conflicts. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and
Development, 47(4), 373-85.
Felce, D., & Perry, J (1996). Quality of life: Its definition and measurement.
Research in Developmental Disabilities, 16(1), 51-74.

109

Felce, D., & Perry, J. (1996). Exploring current conceptions of quality of life: A
model for people with and without disabilities. In R. Renwick, I Brown,
and M. Nagler (eds.), Quality of life in health promotion and rehabilitation
(pp. 51-62). Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage.
Field S., & Hoffman, A., (1994). Development of a model for selfdetermination. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 17, 15919.
Field, S., Martin, J., Miller, R., Ward, M., & Wehmeyer M. (1998). A practical
guide to teaching self-determination. Reston VA: Council for Exceptional
Children.
Field S., Sharver M., & Shaw, S., (2003). Self-determination, A key to success
in postsecondary education for students with learning disabilities.
Remedial and Special Education, 24 (6), 339-349.
Fleming-Castaldy, R. (2008). Consumer-directed personal care assistance and
quality of life for persons with physical disabilities. (Doctoral
Dissertation) Downloaded from: ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing.
Foti, M.E., Bartels, S.J., Van Citters, A.D., Merriman, M.P., & Fletcher,
K.E. (2005). End-of-Life Treatment Preferences of Persons With Serious
Mental Illness. Psychiatric Services, 56(5), 585-91.
Frain, M., Bishop, M., & Tschopp, M.. (2009). Empowerment Variables as
Predictors of Outcomes in Rehabilitation. Journal of
Rehabilitation, 75(1), 27-35.
Gagne’, M., & Deci, E. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331-362.
Galambos , C.M. (1998). Preserving end-of-life autonomy: The Patient SelfDetermination Act and the Uniform Health Care Decisions Act. Health &
Social Work, 23(4), 275-81.
Geller, B. (2000). Alternatives to Full Guardianship for Adults: Michigan Long
Term Care Ombudsman. Pamphlet. Michigan Long Term Care
Ombudsman Program.
Geller , J.L.. (2000). The Use of Advance Directives by Persons with Serious
Mental Illness for Psychiatric Treatment. Psychiatric Quarterly, 71(1), 113.
110

Giger , J.N., Davidhizar, R.E. & Fordham, P. (2006). Multi-cultural and multiethnic considerations and advanced directives: Developing Cultural
Competency. Journal of Cultural Diversity, 13(1), 3-9.
Gregory, R.; Roked, F.; Jones, L.; & Patel, A. Is the Degree of Cognitive
Impairment in Patients with Alzheimer’s Disease related to Their Capacity to
Appoint an Enduring Power of Attorney? Age and Aging: Oxford: Sept. 2007,
36 (5), 527-531.
Grigal, M., Neubert, D.A., Moon, M.S. & Graham , S. (2003). Self-determination
for students with disabilities: Views of parents and teachers. Exceptional
Children, 70(1), 97-112.
Haas, B.K. (1999). A multidisciplinary concept analysis of quality of life.
Western Journal of Nursing Research, 21(6), 728.
Haybron, D. (2007). Life satisfaction, ethical reflection, and the science of
happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8(1), 99-138.
Hardy, S. (2008). Integrating Models for Care in Mental Illness. Practice Nurse,
36(3), 38-40.
Havranek, J.E. (1998). Teaching Self-determination to Students with
Disabilities: Basic Skills for Successful Transition. Journal of Applied
Rehabilitation Counseling, 29(4), 56.
Havranek, J.E. (1999). Self-determination across the life span: Independence
and choices for people with disabilities. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation
Counseling, 30(1), 46.
Hein, S., Lustig, D.C., & Uruk, A. (2005). Consumers' Recommendations to
Improve Satisfaction With Rehabilitation Services: A Qualitative
Study. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 49(1), 29-39.
Heller, T., Factor, A., Sterns, H. & Sutton, E. (1996). Impact of PersonCentered Later Life Planning Training Program for Older Adults with
Mental Retardation. Journal of Rehabilitation, 62(1), 77–84.
Hickman, S.E., Hammes, B.J., Moss, A.H & Tolle, S.W. (2005). Hope for the
Future: Achieving the Original Intent of Advance Directives. The Hastings
Center Report: IMPROVING End of Life Care, S26-30.
Hommel, P.A. (1996). Guardianship: The Court of Last Resort for the Elderly
and Disabled. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 8(2), 81–84.
111

Idler, E.L., McLaughlin, J., & Kasl, S. (2009). Religion and the quality of life in
the last year of life. The Journals of Gerontology, 64 (4), 528.
Inoguchi, T., & Fujii, S.. (2009). The Quality of Life in Japan. Social Indicators
Research, 92(2), 227-262.
Irons, Ashley. (2007). Impact of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The Mental
Health Review, 12(1), 37-40.
Janssens, L., Gorter, J., Ketelaar, M., Kramer, W., & Holtslag, H. (2009). LongTerm Health-Related Quality of Life in Major Pediatric Trauma: A Pilot
Study. European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, 35(4), 371-377.
Johns, A.F. (2004). Older Clients with Diminishing Capacity and Their
Advanced Directives. Real Property, Probate and Trust Journal, 39(1),
107-134.
Kane, R.A. (2003). Definition, measurement, and correlates of quality of life in
nursing homes: Toward a reasonable practice, research, and policy agenda.
The Gerontologist, 43, 28.
Kemp, E., & Kopp, S. (2010). Have You Made Plans for That Big Day?
Predicting Intentions to Engage in Funeral Planning. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 18(1), 81-90.
Kosciulek, J. (2005). Structural equation model of the consumer-directed
theory of empowerment in a vocational rehabilitation context. Rehabilitation
Counseling Bulletin, 49, 1, 40-49.
Kuczewski, Mark (2004). From Informed Consent to Substituted Judgment:
Decision-Making at the End-of-Life. HEC Forum, 16(1), 27-37.
Lingler, J.H., Hirschman, K.B., Garand, L., Dew, M.A.; Becker, J.T.,
Schultz, R. & DeKosky, S. (2008). Frequency and Correlates of Advance
Planning Among Cognitively Impaired Older Adults. The American Journal
of Geriatric Psychiatry, 16, 8.
Kim, M.M., Van Dorn, R.A., Scheyett, A.M., Elbogen, E.E. etal. (2007).
Understanding the Personal and Clinical Utility of Psychiatric Advance
Directives: A Qualitative Perspective. Psychiatry, 70(1), 19-29.
Lee, J. (2010). Review of Health Disparities for Older People with Disabilities.
Journal of Rehabilitation, 76(2), 17-26.
112

Leff, S., Conley, J., Phil, B., Campbell-Orde, T., & Bradley, V. (2003). Getting to
systems that promote self-determination through research and evaluation.
Paper presented at Self-Determination & Psychiatric Disability Conference,
Washington, DC.
Martin, D.K,, Emanuel, L.L. & Singer, P.A. (2000). Planning for the end of
life. The Lancet, 356(9242), 1672-6.
Markland, D., Ryan, R.M., Tobin, V.J. & Rollnick, S. (2005). Motivational
Interviewing and Self-determination Theory. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 24(6), 811-831.
Marks, S. (2008). Self-Determination For Students with Intellectual Disabilities
and Why I Want to Know What it Means. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(1), 5558.
McCarthy, E.P., Pencina, M.J., Kelly-Hayes, M., Evans, J.C., Oberacker, E.J.,
D’Agostino, R.B. Sr., Burns, R.B. & Murabito, J.M. (2007). Advance Care
Planning and Health Care Preferences of Community-Dwelling Elders:
The Framingham Heart Study. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A:
Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 63A(9), 95109.
Mcclimans, L. (2010). Towards self-determination in quality of life research: a
dialogic approach. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 13(1), 67-76.
Mcdonald, K. & Keys, C. (2008). How the Powerful Decide: Access to Research
Participation by those at the Margins. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 42(1-2), 79-93.
McGregor, S.L.T., & Goldsmith, E.B. (1998). Expanding our understanding of
quality of life, standard of living, and well-being. Journal of Family and
Consumer Sciences, 90(2), 2.
McGuire, L.C., Rao, J.K., Anderson, L.A., & Ford, E.S. (2007). Completion of a
Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care: What Does Cognition Have to
Do With It? The Gerontologist, 47 (4), 457–67.
Mezey, M. & Latimer, B. (1993). The Patient Self-Determination Act: An early
look at implementation. The Hastings Center Report, 23(1), 16.
Miller-Smedema, S., Catalano, D., & Ebener, D. (2010). The Relationship of
Coping, Self-Worth, and Subjective Well-Being: A Structural Equation
Model. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 53(3), 131-142.
113

Squatrito-Millar, D. & Renzaglia, A. (2002). Factors affecting guardianship
practices for young adults with disabilities. Exceptional
Children, 68(4), 465-484.
Moliner, C., Durand, M., Desrosiers, J., & Coutu, M. (2007). Subjective Quality
of Life According to Work Status Following Interdisciplinary Work
Rehabilitation Consequent to Musculoskeletal Disability. Journal of
Occupational Rehabilitation, 17(4), 667-82.
Moye, J., Wood, S., Edelstein, B., Amesto, J.C., Harrison, J.A., and Wood, E.
(2007). Clinical Evidence in Guardianship of Older Adults Is Inadequate
Findings From a Tri-State Study. The Gerontologist. Washington: 47(5),
604 – 612.
Nadal, K. (2011). The Racial and Ethnic Microagressions Scale (REMS):
Construction, Reliability, and Validity. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
58(4), 470-480.
Olney, M.F. (2001). Communication strategies of adults with severe
disabilities: Supporting self-determination. Rehabilitation Counseling
Bulletin, 44(2), 87.
O'Neill, D. (2001). Present, rather than, advance directives. The
Lancet, 358(9297), 1921-2.
Osman, H. & Perlin, T.M. (1994). Patient self-determination and the artificial
prolongation of life. Health & Social Work, 19(4), 245-52.
Owen, C.L. (2009). Consumer-Driven Health Care: Answer to Global
Competition or Threat to Social Justice? Social Work, 54(4), 307 = 315.
Paillaud, E., Ferrand, E., Lejonc, J., Henry, O., Bouillanne, O. & Montagne, O.
(2007). Medical Information and Surrogate Designation: Results of
A Prospective Study in Elderly Hospitalised Patients. Age and Ageing,
36(3), 274 – 9.
Pain, K., Dunn, M., Anderson, G., Darrah, J. & Kratochvil, M. (1998). Quality
of Life: What Does it Mean in Rehabilitation? Journal of Rehabilitation,
64(2), 5-11.
Palmer, S. (2010). Self-Determination: A Life-Span Perspective. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 42(6), 1-16.

114

Pape, T.L., Jaffe, N.O., Savage, T., Collins, E. & Warden, D. (2004). Unresolved
Legal and Ethical Issues in Research of Adults with Severe Traumatic
Brain Injury: Analysis of an Ongoing Protocol. Journal of Rehabilitation
Research and Development, 41(2), 155 – 174.
Parker, R.M., Szymanski, E.M., & Patterson, J.B. (Eds.). (2005). Rehabilitation
counseling: Basics and beyond, 4th edition. Austin, TX: PRO-ED, pp. x &
436.
Perrin, J., & Hicks, P. (2008). The Future of Disability in America: Review of the
Institute of Medicine Report. Ambulatory Pediatrics, 8(2), 71-2.
Peters, C. & Chiverton, P. (2003). Use of a values history in approaching
medical advance directives with psychiatric patients. Journal of
Psychosocial Nursing & Mental Health Services, 41(8), 28-36.
Plagnol, A. (2010). Subjective Well-Being over the Life Course:
Conceptualizations and Evaluations. Social Research, 77(2). 749 – 770.
Powers, L.E.; Ward, N.; Ferris, L.; Nelis, T. etal. (2002). Leadership by people
with disabilities in self-determination systems change. Journal of
Disability Policy Studies, 13(2), 125-133.
Powers, L.E., Turner, A., Ellison, R., Matuszewski, J. etal. (2001). A multicomponent intervention to promote adolescent selfdetermination. Journal of Rehabilitation, 67(4), 13-19.
Pozzuolo, J.R., Lassoff, L.M. & Valentine, J. (2005). Why Living Wills/Advance
Directives Are an Essential Part of Estate Planning. Journal of Financial
Service Professionals, 59, 5, 75 – 84.
Racing, J.A. (2000). Personnel Preparation in Disability and Community Life:
Toward Universal Approaches to Support. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C.
Thomas Publisher.
Rakestraw, V.(2011). The impact of the state-federal vocational rehabilitation
program on the quality of life. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved January
30, 2011, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT
3403065).
Rubin, S., Chan, F., & Thomas, D. (2003). Assessing changes in life skills and
quality of life resulting from rehabilitation services. Journal of
Rehabilitation 69(3), 4-9.

115

Ryerson, D.(2010). Quality of life and perceived social support of SPMI
individuals enrolled in day treatment: Five case studies. (Doctoral
Dissertation).
Salmond, S.W. & David, E. (2005). Attitudes Toward Advance Directives and
Advance Directive Completion Rates. Orthopaedic Nursing, 24(2), 117-27.
Sands, D.J., & Wehmeyer, M.L. (Eds.) (1996). Self-determination across the life
span: Independence and choices for people with disabilities. Baltimore:
Paul H. Brookes, pp. xxi & 353
Shaw, L.R., & Tarvydas, V.M. (2001). The use of professional disclosure in
rehabilitation counseling. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 45(1), 40-47.
Sheldon, K.M & Deci, E.L. (1996). The Self Determination Scale. Unpublished
manuscript, University of Rochester.
Sheldon, K.M., Ryan, R.M, & Reiss, H (1996). What makes for a good day?
Competence in the day and in the person. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1270–1279.
Shen, C., Smyer, M., Mahoney, K., SimonRusinowitz, L., Shinogle, J.,
Norstrad, J., Mahoney, E., Schauer, C., & del Vecchio, P.. (2008).
Consumer- Directed Care for Beneficiaries With Mental Illness: Lessons
From New Jersey's Cash and Counseling Program. Psychiatric
Services, 59(11), 1299-306.
Shogren, K.A., Wehmeyer, M., Palmer, S.B., Soukup, J.H. etal. (2007).
Examining Individual and Ecological Predictors of the SelfDetermination of Students With Disabilities. Exceptional
Children, 73(4), 488-509.
Sith, M. (2006). The Semblance of Autonomy: Treatment of Persons with
Disabilities Under the Uniform Health-Care Decisions Act. Issues in Law
& Medicine, 22(1), 39–80.
Slocum, S., Cheever, P. & Geller, B.(1994) Advance Directives Planning for
Medical Care in the Event of Loss of Decision-Making Ability. Michigan

State Long Term Care Ombudsman Program.

Skinner, A.L. (2003). Using locus of control to improve self-determination and
outcomes for consumers with learning disabilities. Journal of Applied
Rehabilitation Counseling, 34(2), 27.

116

Smart, J. (2009). Disability, society, and the individual (2nd Ed). Austin, Tx:
Pro-Ed. Pp. 623.
Smith, B. & O’Flynn, D. (2000). The Use of Qualitative Strategies in Participant
and Emancipatory Research to Evaluate Disability Service Organizations.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(4), 515—526.
Sprague, J. & Hayes, J. (2000). Self-determination and empowerment: A
feminist standpoint analysis of talk about disability. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 28(5), 671-95.
Stringfellow, J.W. & Muscari, K.D. Journal of Disability Studies. 14(3), 143.
Struhkamp, Rita M. (2005). Patient autonomy: A view from the kitchen.
Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 8(1), 105-14.
Sue, D., Capodilupo, C; Nadal, K; Torino, G. (2008). Racial Microaggressions
and the Power to Define Reality. American Psychologist, 63(4), 277-279.
Sue, D., Capodilupo, C., Torino, G., Bucceri, J. & Holder, A. (2007). Racial
Microagressions in Everyday Life: Implications for Clinical Practice.
American Psychologist, 62(4), 271-286.
Svare, G.M. & Anngela-Cole, A. (2010). Conceptualizing quality of life among
older adults in guardianship: Guardians and elder law attorneys talk
about qol and spirituality. Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social
Work: Social Thought, 29(3), 237-255.
Swartz, M., & Swanson, J. (2007). Commentary: Psychiatric Advance Directives
and Recovery-Oriented Care. Psychiatric Services, 58(9), 1164.
Teaster, P.B. (2002). The wards of public guardians: Voices of the
unbefriended. Family Relations, 51(4), 344–350.
Teno, J.M, Nelson, H.L., & Lynn, J.. (1994). Advance care planning. The
Hastings Center Report, 24(5), S32.
Thrash, T.M. & Elliott, A.J. (2002). Implicit and self-attributed achievement
motives: Concordance and predictive validity. Journal of Personality, 70,
729-755.
Tovar-Murray, D. (2010). Social Health and Environmental Quality of Life:
Their Relationship to Positive Physical Health and Subjective Weil-Being
in a Population of Urban African Americans. Western Journal of Black
Studies, 34(3), 358-366.
117

Trainor, A.A. (2005). Self-Determination Perceptions and Behaviors of Diverse
Students with LD During the Transition Planning Process. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 38(3), 233-49.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012a. Quick Facts for Lubbock County, Texas. Web
Resource: downloaded 11/08/2012 from:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/state.48/48303.html.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012b. Quick Facts for Lansing (city), Michigan. Web
Resource: downloaded 11/08/2012 from:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/2646000.html
Van Dorn, R., Scheyett, A., Swanson, J., & Swartz, M. (2010). Psychiatric
Advance Directives and Social Workers: An Integrative Review. Social
Work, 55(2), 157-67.
Vogel, L. (2011). End-of-life planning framework calls for fewer
checklists. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 183(1), 33.
Vonsteinbüchel, N., Wilson, L., Gibbons, H., Hawthorne, G., Höfer, S., Schmidt,
S., Bullinger, M., Maas, A., Neugebauer, E., Powell, J., vonWild, K.,
Zitnay, G., Bakx, W., Christensen, A., Koskinen, S., Formisano, R., Saarajuri,
J., Sasse, N., & Truelle, J.. (2010). Quality of Life after Brain Injury
(QOLIBRI): Scale Validity and Correlates of Quality of Life. Journal of
Neurotrauma, 27(7), 1157-65.
Wahl, H., Fänge, A., Oswald, F., Gitlin, L., & Iwarsson, S.. (2009). The Home
Environment and Disability-Related Outcomes in Aging Individuals: What Is
the Empirical Evidence? The Gerontologist, 49(3), 355-367.
Walling, A.M. (2010). Measuring the quality of care at end of life in the hospital.
(Doctoral Dissertation). ProQuest: UMI Dissertations Publishing).
Wappett, M.T. (2002). Self-determination and disability rights: Lessons from
the women's movement. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 13(2), 119-124.
Wehman, P., Revell, W.G. & Brooke, V. (2003). Has It Become the "First
Choice" Yet? Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 14(3), 163-173.
Wehmeyer, M.L. (1999). A functional model of self-determination: Describing
development and implementing instruction. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 14, 53-61.
118

Wehmeyer, M.L., Agran, M, & Hughes, Carolyn (Eds.), 2004. Teaching self-

determination to students with disabilities: Basic skills for successful
transition. Baltimore: Paul M. Brookes, pp. xix & 354.

Wehmeyer, M.L. & Schalock, R.L. (2001). Self-determination and quality of life:
Implications for special education services and supports. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 33(8), 1-16.
Wehmeyer, M.L., & Schwartz, M. (1998). The relationship between selfdetermination and quality of life for adults with mental retardation.

Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental
Disabilities, 33(1), 3-12.

Wilber, K.H. & Reynolds, S.L. (1995). Rethinking alternatives to guardianship.
The Gerontologist, 35(2), 248–257.
Wright, J.L.(2010). Guardianship for your own good: Improving the well-being
of respondents and wards in the USA. International Journal of Law and
Psychiatry, 33(5-6), 350-368.
Zanskas, S. (2010). Disability, society, and the individual. Journal of Applied
Rehabilitation Counseling, 41(4), 42.

119