TRANSITION COUNSELOR EFFICACY: ESSENTIAL KNOWLEDGE DOMAINS FOR
BEST PRACTICE
By
Katherine Kierpiec

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education
2012

ABSTRACT
TRANSITION COUNSELOR EFFICACY: ESSENTIAL KNOWLEDGE DOMAINS FOR
BEST PRACTICE
By
Katherine Kierpiec
Youth with disabilities receiving transition from services from State/Federal vocational
rehabilitation agencies accounted for more than one quarter of closed cases within in FY 2010
(RSA, 2010). This unique population of clients, however, has received little attention in
empirical studies, scholarly journals, and as a focus within training programs. By investing in
youth as they enter the world of work and embark in their formative years of career development,
professionals can seek to eliminate the “revolving door” of services that many clients pursue
throughout their vocational lifetime. An effective way to invest in youth with disabilities is to
educate rehabilitation counseling professionals in the unique needs of this population. As studies
have shown, transition services are an important and relevant area of rehabilitation practice
(Leahy et al, 1993; Leahy et al 2003, Shaw et al, 2006; Leahy et al 2009), however counselors
feel as if they have received limited preparation for these tasks (Chan et al, 2003; Leahy, et al,
2009).
A sample of 353 rehabilitation professionals working in a public vocational rehabilitation
agency was obtained for this study. Participants were located in Ohio, Illinois, Michigan,
Pennsylvania, Iowa, Minnesota or Wisconsin. The sample included 240 general rehabilitation
counselors who provided services primarily to adults with disabilities, and 110 transition
counselors who identified at least 50 percent of their caseloads to consist of transition aged youth.
This sample allowed for comparisons between general and transition counselors regarding
demographics characteristics and training profiles. This specific demographic information

regarding transition counselors has previously been unknown to the field of rehabilitation
counseling. Furthermore, this sample also allows for comparisons between the two groups of
counselors on their perception of importance and preparedness regarding transition and general
rehabilitation counseling knowledge domains.
The results of this study yield several implications for practice, training and policy. First,
the knowledge domain that was identified to be the most important was that of transition
knowledge. Despite this finding, however, vocational rehabilitation counselors found themselves
to be the least prepared in this knowledge domain area. Second, less than one quarter of
transition counselors stated that they receive transition trainings either often or very often. This
shows an obvious limitation in the availability of skill development and attainment for this group
of rehabilitation professionals. Additionally, some transition counselors stated that they have
received no training at all relevant to transition services. Finally, results showed that staff
development units would be well served to provide more in-service training specific to:
vocational consultation and services for employers, group and family counseling, mental health
counseling, and psychosocial and cultural issues in counseling, as these knowledge subdomains
were rated lowest for preparedness by counselors.

Copyright by
KATHERINE KIERPIEC
2012

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I owe my gratitude to all those people who have made this dissertation possible and
because of whom my graduate experience has been one that I will cherish forever. I would never
have been able to finish my dissertation without the guidance of my committee members,
companionship from friends, and support from my loved ones.
I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my advisor, Dr. Michael Leahy, for his
excellent guidance, patience, and faith in me, as I navigated through graduate school. Being that
I started my graduate studies within the Rehabilitation Counseling program at Michigan State
University when I was 22, I have in many ways matured through the tutelage and mentorship of
Dr. Leahy. I struggle to imagine a more diligent, intelligent and overall impressive person to
have had as a mentor. I am also thankful for my committee members: John Kosciulek, Virginia
Thielsen, Mark Reckase and Troy Mariage. Their time and effort was much appreciated, and my
dissertation has been greatly benefitted because of their efforts. I would also like to thank my
peers in the doctoral program. Their friendship and camaraderie is something that I will hold
forever close to me, and has helped make this time in my life unforgettable.
I am also grateful for the states that participated in the current study, and the staff that has
been working with me so diligently to disseminate surveys. Dedication to invest in research is
fundamental to the longevity of our field, and a necessary contribution to our profession. Without
the consent to participate in research, this study would not have been possible. Thus, thank you
to Jaye Porter (Michigan Rehabilitation Services), David Mitchell (Iowa Vocational
Rehabilitation Services), Kris Smith (Illinois Department of Human Services, Division of
Rehabilitation), Stephen Suroviec (Pennsylvania Office of Vocational Rehabilitation), Kevin
Miller (Ohio Rehabilitation Service Commission), Kim Peck (Minnesota Vocational
v

Rehabilitation Services), and Charlene Dwyer (Wisconsin Department of Workforce
Development). Furthermore, a special thank you to all of the vocational rehabilitation counselors
that took the time out of their busy caseloads and schedules to provide their insight into these
very important matters. Without you, none of this is possible.
Finally, I’d like to thank my fiancé, Leigh, for his unwavering support throughout the
past 6 and one-half years. You have been an anchor in my life, and someone that I am forever
thankful for.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................................ix
LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................................xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................xii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
Statement of Problem .................................................................................................................. 2
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................... 5
Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 5
Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................... 6
Overview of the Current Study ................................................................................................... 7
Definition of Terms..................................................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW..............................................................................................................10
Historical Context of Transition Services ................................................................................. 11
Preservice Transition Training .................................................................................................. 15
Role and Function of Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors ................................................... 19
Required Knowledge for Transition Services Personnel .......................................................... 24
Transition as a Sub-Specialty in Rehabilitation Counseling..................................................... 29
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................................33
Instrumentation ......................................................................................................................... 33
Content Review...................................................................................................................35
Pilot Testing........................................................................................................................36
Final Version of the Transition Knowledge Validation Assessment (TKVA) ......................... 37
Data Collection Procedures....................................................................................................... 38
Knowledge Subdomains ........................................................................................................... 39
Data Analysis Procedures ......................................................................................................... 41
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS......................................................................................................................................43
Participants ................................................................................................................................ 47
Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 49
Research Question 1: What are the demographic characteristics and professional
experiences of those who provide transition services in the VR setting? ............................. 49
vii

Research Question 2: How did transition counselors in the current study receive their
training specific to transition services? ................................................................................. 52
Factor Analysis...........................................................................................................................54
Student Focused Planning (Transition Knowledge Subdomain 1)................................57
Student Development (Transition Knowledge Subdomain 2).......................................57
Interagency Collaboration (Transition Knowledge Subdomain 3)................................58
Family Involvement (Transition Knowledge Subdomain 4).........................................58
Program Structure and Policies (Transition Knowledge Subdomain 5)........................59
IEP Development (Transition Knowledge Subdomain 6).............................................59
Research Question 3: How important are the various knowledge domains for transition
counselors in relation to optimizing outcomes for their transition-aged youth clients? ....... 65
Research Question 4: In what various knowledge domains do transition counselors perceive
themselves to be the most and least prepared? ..................................................................... 72
Research Question 5: Do perceptions of importance and preparedness of knowledge domain
areas differ according to demographic, educational and professional characteristics? ........ 84
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................99
Overview of the Study .............................................................................................................. 99
Summary of Findings .............................................................................................................. 100
Demographics....................................................................................................................97
Training Profiles................................................................................................................99
Knowledge Domain and Subdomain Importance..............................................................99
Knowledge Domain and Subdomain Preparedness.........................................................101
Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 105
Implications............................................................................................................................. 106
Implications for Practice..................................................................................................103
Implications for Training.................................................................................................105
Implications for Policy.....................................................................................................108
Implications for Future Research.....................................................................................108
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 112
APPENDIX A: Content Review and Pilot Study Contact Letter................................................115
APPENDIX B: Contact Letter for State VR Director.................................................................117
APPENDIX C: Transition Knowledge Validation Assessment (TKVA) ...................................119
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................129

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Historical Context of Transition Services in Rehabilitation Counseling.........................12
Table 2: Role and Function Studies: Importance Ranking of Major Job Functions......................24
Table 3: Consumer Age by State...................................................................................................44
Table 4: Transition Age Youth Primary Disability by State..........................................................45
Table 5: Transition Age Youth Closure Status by State................................................................46
Table 6: Participant Caseload Characteristics................................................................................49
Table 7: Participant Caseload Characteristics by State..................................................................49
Table 8: Participant General Characteristics by Caseload Characteristics....................................50
Table 9: Transition Training by Caseload Characteristics.............................................................53
Table 10: Factor Analysis –Total Variance Explained..................................................................55
Table 11: Rotated Factor Matrix....................................................................................................56
Table 12: Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients for General Rehabilitation Counseling Knowledge
Subdomains....................................................................................................................................61
Table 13: Importance and Preparedness Rating for Knowledge Domains by Caseload
Characteristics ................................................................................................................................63
Table 14: Transition Knowledge Subdomains by Caseload
Characteristics................................................................................................................................69
Table 15: General Rehabilitation Counseling Knowledge Subdomains by Caseload
Characteristics ................................................................................................................................75
Table 16: MANOVA Results for Omnibus F Test for Effect of Counselor Type on Perceived
Importance of Knowledge Domain Factors...................................................................................85
Table 17: MANOVA Results for Omnibus F Test for Effect of Counselor Type on Perceived
Preparedness of Knowledge Domain Factors ................................................................................86
Table 18: MANOVA Results for Omnibus F Test for Effect of Counselor Type on Perceived
Importance of Transition Knowledge Subdomain Factors............................................................87
Table 19: MANOVA Results for Omnibus F Test for Effect of Counselor Type on Perceived
Preparedness of Transition Knowledge Subdomain Factors.........................................................87
ix

Table 20: MANOVA Results for Omnibus F Test for Effect of Counselor Type on Perceived
Importance of General Rehabilitation Counseling Knowledge Subdomain Factors.....................88
Table 21: MANOVA Results for Omnibus F Test for Effect of Counselor Type on Perceived
Preparedness of General Rehabilitation Counseling Knowledge Subdomain Factors..................88
Table 22: Chi-Square Results for Effect of Counselor Type on Demographics Characteristics...89
Table 23: Chi-Square Results for Effect of Counselor Type on Training Characteristics............90
Table 24: Correlations among Knowledge Domains for Importance............................................91
Table 25: Correlations among Knowledge Domains for Preparedness.........................................91
Table 26: Correlations among Transition Knowledge Subdomains for Importance.....................92
Table 27: Correlations among Transition Knowledge Subdomains for Preparedness..................93
Table 28: Correlations among General Rehabilitation Counseling Knowledge Subdomains for
Importance.....................................................................................................................................95
Table 29: Correlations among General Rehabilitation Counseling Knowledge Subdomains for
Preparedness..................................................................................................................................97

x

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Scree Plot for Transition Knowledge Subdomains........................................................55

xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ASCA……………………………………………………American School Counselor Association
AYP……………………………………………………………………..Adequate Yearly Progress
CEC………………………………………………………..……Council for Exceptional Children
CORE……………………………………………….……….Council on Rehabilitation Education
CRCC………………………...…………..Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification
CRCE………………………………………...….Certified Rehabilitation Counselor Examination
IEP…………………………………………………………………Individualized Education Plans
IDEA…………………………………………………Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
LEA………………………………………………………………………Local Education Agency
MANOVA…………………………………………………...…Multivariate Analysis of Variance
NCLB……………………………………………………………...……No Child Left Behind Act
OSERS……………………………..……Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services
RSA………………………………………...……………..Rehabilitation Services Administration
SEA………………………………………………………………………State Education Agency
VR…………………………………………………………………...…..Vocational Rehabilitation

xii

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In less than a century, we have witnesses the labor movement, the civil rights movement,
the women’s movement, the disability rights movement, and the gay rights movement, to name a
few. Each of these social reform initiatives has shared the same overarching goal: to
revolutionize outdated systems for the benefit of disadvantages populations. One could argue
that the underlying theme within each of these reforms is to ultimately make our society more
accepting by providing opportunities to previously disenfranchised groups. Utilizing research to
aid reform with objective facts, social scientists aim to make the future a fairer place with a more
equal distribution of power and resources. The current study aims to collect subjective data
informing knowledge requirements for effective transition practices, towards the objective goal
of creating a better environment and service delivery system for today and tomorrows youth.
Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) 911 data shows that there were 174,033
transition aged youth who closed their cases in FY 2010. With a total of 611,932 closed cases
among all customers, transition youth account for 28.43%. Of those transition-age youth cases,
60.8% were male and 39.2% were female. With regard to race/ethnicity, the largest ethnic group
was White (58.9%) followed by African American (23.4%), Hispanic/Latino (12.6%),
Multiracial (2.8%), Asian (1%), Native American (.9%), and finally, Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander (.3%). With regard to primary disability category related to transition-age youth,
learning disability had the highest prevalence rate at 33.2%, followed by mental illness (13.8%),
mental retardation (13.3%), attention deficit hyper activity disorder (8.8%), other physical
impairments (4.7%), physical impairments - orthopedic/neurological (4.5%), autism (3.3%),
deafness or hard of hearing (2.9%), blindness or visual impairment (2%), substance abuse (1.7%)
1

and finally, traumatic brain injury (1.1%). With regard to primary source of support at
application for transition-age youth, friends and family had the highest prevalence rate at 78.3%,
followed by public support (14.1%), personal income (4.7%) and finally, all other sources of
support (2.8%).
Focusing attention, research and training efforts on youth with disabilities in a vocational
rehabilitation (VR) system yields many conceivable benefits. With specialized training for
rehabilitation professionals to serve this population, services may be more effective than a
generally trained professional working with transitioning youth. This could impact temporal
facets of services, which may directly impact cost of case services, length of time from opening
to closing a case, the number of successful rehabilitation outcomes for this population, the
number of post-secondary training completion and ultimately, customer satisfaction. Perhaps
most significant in regard to fiscal considerations and client change is the theory that with the
provision of specialized training in providing vocational rehabilitation counseling services to
youth with disabilities, the “revolving door” of VR services may be minimized.
Statement of Problem
While conducting a review of literature published within professional rehabilitation
counseling journals within the past 10 years, it becomes readily apparent that transitioning youth,
transition counselors, services for youth, and best practices for this population has not been given
the attention one would expect. Searching within six prevalent journals within the field of
rehabilitation counseling yields 2,889 journal articles published within the past 10 years (Journal
of Disability Policy Studies, Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, Journal of Vocational
Rehabilitation, Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin and
Rehabilitation Education). When searching the same journals using the key words ‘transition’
2

school-to-work’ ‘youth’ and ‘special education’, one finds a return of 86 articles (or 3.35% of the
original set of articles). These findings are indicative of a dearth of literature, underlying
knowledge, process and structure of evidence-based transition practices.
Over the past several decades, researchers in the field of rehabilitation counseling have
been studying critical areas of importance for training qualified professionals (Leahy, Szymanski,
& Linkowski, 1993; Leahy, Chan, & Saunders, 2003; Shaw, Leahy, Chan & Catalano, 2006;
Leahy, Muenzen, Saunders, &Strauser, 2009; Leahy, Chan, Sung, & Kim, 2011). It has been
through these studies that the Council on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification (CRCC) has
informed and designed the certifying examination in the field of rehabilitation counseling. As the
field progresses with an increasing complexity of case loads and more diverse practice settings,
the essential knowledge domains for rehabilitation professionals continue to evolve. Educators
have an obligation to ensure that students attain necessary knowledge for competent and
effective practice.
Previous studies have shown transition to be an important and relevant area in
rehabilitation practices (Leahy et al, 1993; Leahy et al 2003, Shaw et al, 2006; Leahy et al 2009).
Recent role and function studies within the field of rehabilitation counseling show knowledge
related to school-to-work transition services for students with disabilities to be critical (Leahy et
al, 2003; Chan et al, 2003), and for practicing rehabilitation counselors to feel as if they received
limited preparation for these tasks (Chan et al, 2003). These findings were updated in 2009
(Leahy, et al), however included other rehabilitation services with school-to-work transition (i.e.
supported employment, assistive technology, special populations, etc.). Furthermore, while these
services were reported moderately important, only 42 percent of certified counselors developed
this kowledge through their formal gradaute education and training. This finding is not surprising,
3

given that rehabilitation counselor educators ranked the job function of rehabilitation counselors
using commuity-based services sixth out of seven major functions (Ebener, 2007).
School-to-work transition services are reflected in the requirements for certification,
established by the CRCC, and the accreditation standards, established by the Council on
Rehabilitation Education (CORE). The CRCC certification exam is comprised of questions
across twelve knowledge domains. Those specifically relevant to transition services are: theories
of career development, job readiness, theories of family counseling, practices and interventions
within family counseling, community referral resources (i.e. schools). CORE provides ten
curriculum standards for program accreditation. Those specifically relevant to transition services
include: legislation related to people with disabilities, human growth and development across the
lifespan, individual and family response to disability, and family dynamics. The CORE standards
makes reference to school-to-work transition services specifically in section C.10.4, stating that
programs should have a curriculum that trains master’s level rehabilitation professionals to
develop knowledge of transition services that facilitate an individual’s movement from school to
work.
The aforementioned research and subsequent professional developments are juxtaposed
with regard to the reality of time allocated to training and research of transition services for
youth with disabilities. More information is needed to highlight the essential knowledge domains
required for effective services to this population. By doing so, empirical evidence can aid in the
development of more in-depth courses, units within courses or in-service training modules for
transition counselors. By gaining a deeper understanding of transition knowledge, professionals
are equipped with tools for improved service delivery, and ideally would be more effective in
achieving post-school outcomes for youth with disabilities. The implications of this ultimate goal
4

are vast, and directly include increasing quality of life for the youth involved, while indirectly
aid in decreasing recidivism within the public VR system which could potentially have limitless
financial implications.
Purpose of the Study
Despite our knowledge base, the long history of transition services, and strong research
supporting the essential knowledge domains necessary for rehabilitation professionals, current
research indicate that outcomes for youth are less than satisfactory (Blackborby & Wagner, 1996;
Bullis, Davis, Bull, & Johnson, 1997; "Keeping the Promises", 2003). Studies show that
transition services are timely, costly and lave a lower success rate than general cases. The field of
rehabilitation counseling still has work to do in discovering more detail on transition processes
and structure, beginning with essential knowledge required for effective practice. Specifically,
the results of the proposed study will contribute to the larger body of rehabilitation counseling
literature in that it focuses on rehabilitation professionals’ experiences concerning transition
services and knowledge necessary to perform essential functions of a transition counselor as they
relate to the overall transition process, which is unique from other rehabilitation caseloads. This
distinctive difference is an important, but not well-understood perspective. The results of the
current study can help inform pre-service and in-service training curriculum to increase the
efficacy of transition services.
Research Questions
The specific research questions for the current study are as follows:
1. What are the demographic characteristics and professional experiences of those who
provide transition services in the VR setting?

5

2. How did transition counselors in the current study receive their training specific to
transition services?
3. How important are the various knowledge domains for transition counselors in relation to
optimizing outcomes for their transition-aged youth clients?
4. In what various knowledge domains do transition counselors perceive themselves to be
the most and least prepared?
5. Do perceptions of importance and preparedness of knowledge domain areas differ
according to demographic, educational and professional characteristics?
Theoretical Framework
A considerable amount of research regarding competencies related to transition outcomes
exists in the special education and school counseling literature (DeFur & Taymans, 1995;
Blackorby et al, 1996; Landmark, Ju, & Zhang, 2010). The framework for the current study is a
critical piece within in the special education field and is one of few empirically-based structures
for working witih transitioning youth with disabilities. Kohler’s (1996) Taxonomy for Transition
Planning is a comprehensive conceptual framework of transition practices. This model was
developed due to a void and desperate need in sepecial education to guide services for youth with
disabilities. Kohler identifies best pratices of transition service personnel and thereby established
a reference of critical features that could then be disseminated to administrators and service
providers (Kohler, 1996). Based on past and present school-to-work research, the taxonomy for
transition planning is empirically validated by a national pool of 296 individuals associated with
transition research, programs and or service delivery settings.
The following five categories of practice represent the final cluster solutions that make up
the taxonomy of transition planning: (1) student focused planning (student participation, IEP
6

development, accommodationals and planning strategies); (2) student development (structured
work experiences, life skills instruction, accommodations and support, employment skills
instruction, vocational assessment, career and vocational curricula); (3) intragency and
interdisciplinary collaboration (individual-level planning; collaborative service delivery,
interorganization framework, organizational level planning, and human resource development),
(4) family invomvement (family training, family empowerment, and family involvement); and (5)
program structure and attributes (program philosophy, program policy, resource allocation,
program evaluation, human resource development, and strategic planning).
Overview of the Current Study
Throughout the course of the current study, data regarding the perceived essential
knowledge domains for effective service delivery for youth with disabilities has been collected.
As such, counselors located within various states (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Minnesota,
Michigan, Wisconsin and Illinois) having fifty percent or more of their caseload consisting of
transition-age youth were surveyed using Qualtrics (www.qualtrics.com). This study has focused
on VR transition counselor perception of knowledge domains required for effective practice.
Specifically, this study sought to determine the level of importance of specific knowledge
domains presented from the Knowledge Validation Inventory-Revised (KVI-R) (Leahy et al,
2011) as well as those from transition-specific items guided by the taxonomy for transition
planning. Additionally, this study determined how and when these counselors within this sample
acquired the knowledge domains essential for transition practice and determined if transition
counselor reports of importance varied from other certified rehabilitation counselors. Finally, the
results of the current study may help researchers consider if it would be beneficial for vocational

7

rehabilitation professionals to be educated in relation to specific transition practices that yield
positive post-school outcomes within the pre-service setting.
Definition of Terms
General Counselor: A vocational rehabilitation counselor managing a caseload in which
more than half of their customers are adults with disabilities.
Knowledge Domain: An area of knowledge that is required in order to perform the
essential job functions associated with the role of rehabilitation professionals (Leahy et al, 2009).
Knowledge Validation Inventory-Revised (KVI-R): Assesses the importance of
knowledge areas to respondents’ in their role as a rehabilitation counselor and the degree of
preparedness they feel they have in this area or standard as a result of their education and
training (Leahy et al, 2011).
Kohler’s Taxonomy of Transition Planning: A comprehensive, empirically-based model
for planning, organizing, evaluating and predicting post-secondary transition outcomes
consisting of student focused planning, student development, interagency and interdisciplinary
collaborations, family involvement and program structure and attributes (Kohler, 1996).
Transition-age Youth: Youth and young adults between 14-25.99 years of age that are
planning to or are currently transitioning from secondary to post-secondary activities (i.e. postsecondary education and/or employment).
Transition Counselor: A vocational rehabilitation counselor managing a caseload in
which at least half of their customers are transitioning youth or young adults with disabilities.
Transition Services: A coordinated set of activities for a student, designed within an
outcome-oriented process, that promotes movement from school to post school activities,
including postsecondary education, vocational training, integrated employment (including
8

supported employment), continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, or
community participation (Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998, PL 105-220).
Vocational Rehabilitation: The continuous and coordinated process of service provision
that involves vocational guidance, vocational training and selective placement, designed to
enable a disabled person to secure and retain suitable employment. Vocational rehabilitation is
the provision of any rehabilitative service (mental, physical, educational, social, etc.) to a
vocationally disadvantaged person for the purpose of occupational (re)adjustment (Wright, 1980).

9

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this study was to analyze data to identify essential knowledge domains in
regard to rehabilitation counselors providing transition services to youth with disabilities. While
there is limited information available about necessary knowledge for transition counselors found
in the rehabilitation counseling literature, there are a great deal of works focused on required
knowledge in relation to the broader field of rehabilitation counseling (Leahy et al, 1993;
Leahyet al, 2003; Shaw et al, 2006; Leahy et al, 2009; Leahy et al, 2011). Furthermore, the
Taxonomy for Transition Programming (Kohler, 1996) offers literature supporting a framework
for transition practices that have been associated with improving post-school outcomes for
transition-aged youth.
To provide a comprehensive review of transition and rehabilitation counseling, this
literature review will address five main areas. First, the historical context of transition services
will be discussed. Second, preservice training for transition services personnel will be presented.
Third, an overview of various role and function studies offered in the rehabilitation counseling
field. Fourth, required knowledge for transition services personnel are explored, and finally,
transition as a sub-specialty of vocational rehabilitation counseling will be discussed.
The current need within the field of rehabilitation is to structure programming and services to
what is known about effective transition practices. Be identifying knowledge relevant to these
needs, both pre-service and in-service training for rehabilitation professional will be enhanced.
Ultimately, this is expected to yield more positive outcomes for transition-aged youth.

10

Historical Context of Transition Services
The foundation of school-to-work transition services for youth with disabilities began in
the 1960s, and is rooted in the field of special education. The first structure of this system is seen
with the creation of cooperative agreements between state VR agencies and local education
agencies, allocating a portion of each teacher’s class time to job placement coordination. This in
turn helped facilitate efficient referral of youth with disabilities to become clients of
rehabilitation agencies, thereby easing the transition from school to the adult community
(Halpern, 1991). This initial step towards transition services was inadvertently thwarted as a
consequence of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1973, which stated that VR agencies
cannot pay for services that are the responsibility of some other agency (in this case, the local
education agency (LEA)).
The 1970’s brought about the career education movement, which expanded vocational
instruction to primary and secondary education, as well as to both disabled and non-disabled
students. This movement focused on the totality of life experience, with the primary focus on
creating a meaningful and satisfying work life (Halpern, 1991). Despite being initially supported,
this federal initiative was eventually disowned at the end of the decade, citing intent to funnel
monies to develop a movement (Hoyt, 1982).
Following an Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) position
paper identifying specific transition models(Will, 1984), the 1980’s marked the beginning of the
special education transition movement. This model describes three services that vary according
to degree of support needed. They range from connecting students with community resources
available to all students (i.e. community college), to connecting students to specialized services

11

(i.e. vocational rehabilitation), and connecting students with more substantive long-term services
(i.e. supported employment).
The preceding two decades yield evidence of significant legislative initiatives that have
advocated for increased inclusion, accountability and outcomes concerning youth with
disabilities in vocational rehabilitation systems. This segment reviews several pieces of
legislation that influence transition policies and practices: Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) Amendments, Rehabilitation Act Amendments, and No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
Table 1: Historical Context of Transition Services in Rehabilitation Counseling
1973
Rehabilitation Act Amendments
Mandated that VR agencies cannot pay for services that are the responsibility of
some other agency (e.g. school); required transition teams to include a statement
regarding students’ long-range rehabilitation goals.
1975

Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA)
Free and appropriate public education for all students; advocated for youth with
disabilities.

1990

IDEA
First time public education focused on equal rights for students with disabilities;
created Individualized Education Program (IEP) team to identify vocational and
career training opportunities.

1992

Rehabilitation Act Amendments
Mandated a state plan requirement of VR services within school systems;
requires collaboration between educational and vocational rehabilitation systems
to serve youth with disabilities.

1997

IDEA Amendments
Greater focus on attaining better post-school outcomes (post-secondary
education/training, employment, and community living).

2001

No Child Left Behind
State education agencies and local education agencies are made accountable for
ensuring that all students, including disadvantaged students, meet high academic
standards.

12

Table 1 (cont’d)
2004
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
Schools are required to include post-secondary transition goals and measureable
goals in IEPs based on age-appropriate transition assessments.
Prior to 1975, children with disabilities were denied education solely on the basis of their
disabilities. In response to this prejudice, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, PL
94-142 (EHA) (1975) was created to apply equal protection and provided a free and appropriate
public education for all students. While it didn’t specifically focus on transition, it advocated for
youth with disabilities and paved the way for future legislation. In 1990, amendments were made
to EHA, changing the name to Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), PL 101-476. This
document was the first to formally recognize transition in the law by including specific language,
including a definition for transition services for youth with disabilities. While EHA originally
required five components to the Individualized Education Plan (IEP), the IDEA added a sixth
component specific to transition: the IEP team was to now look ahead to post-secondary needs
and identify vocational and career training opportunities, continuing education, adult services
and independent living supports within the students community (Twenty-Eight Institute on
Rehabilitation Issues, 2002).
Successive amendments to the IDEA have continued to strengthen and support the vision
for youth with disabilities to transition from education to employment. In 1997, IDEA
amendments (PL 105-17) extended services to youth with disabilities from 16 to 14 years of age.
The IEP process is now focused on student participation in the general education curriculum also
known as the “least restrictive environment”. There is also an importance placed on accurate
measuring and reporting of student’s progress towards achieving annual goals. This may be done

13

by including students with disabilities in state-wide assessments, similar to those taken by their
non-disabled peers or through alternative assessments (Yell & Shriner, 1997).
A further reauthorization in 2004 lead to a subsequent name change to the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) (PL 108-446). As the title indicates, this act
emphasized services designed within a results oriented process that focuses on improving
academic and functional achievement. As such, IDEIA, included requirements to design and
obtain measurable transition goals that articulate the intended post-graduation achievements of
the student, stressing the ability to concretely gauge improvement of post-secondary outcomes
(Yell, Katsiyannis, Ryan, & McDuffie, 2008). Additionally, the age of transition planning was
again altered to require that planning be initiated at age 16. This was due to a consensus that 14
and 15-year-old students are too young to plan for transitioning out of secondary systems
(McGuire, 2010).
Another key piece of legislation for people with disabilities was the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (PL 93-112). This article promoted consumer involvement in writing the Individual Written
Rehabilitation Plan (IWRP), established funding for disability research, mandated equal
opportunity and nondiscrimination in hiring and established employment opportunities for
people with disabilities (Peterson & Aguiar, 2004). Most significant for transition was the
establishment of the IWRP and the requirement of the transition team to state the student’s longrange rehabilitation goals, type and date of rehabilitation services to be provided and evaluation
procedures. This act was the foundation for future rehabilitation legislation that would inform
services for people with disabilities as well as transitioning youth.
In 1992, the rehabilitation act was amended (PL 102-569) to include a definition of
transition services consistent with the definition provided by the 1990 IDEA. This alignment
14

provided unification for professionals serving youth with disabilities by providing a clear and
consistent characterization of transition services. The amendments also address the requirements
of state VR agencies to coordinate with state education agencies (SEAs) and LEAs to ensure a
smooth transitioning process from secondary education to either post-secondary schooling or to
the world of work (National Transition Network, 1993). Due to this collaborative initiative, VR
counselors are now required to become involved with students while they are still in school. The
role of rehabilitative services in transition planning is principally one of preparing the students
for services upon exiting secondary education and subsequent LEA’s.
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (PL 107-110) was implemented to
improve performance of America’s school systems, by placing rigid accountability standards on
each SEA and LEA (Twenty-Eight Institute on Rehabilitation Issues, 2002). Title I of NCLB
states an expectation of achieving adequate yearly progress (AYP) for all students, including
those that are disadvantaged. While the technical definition of AYP varies state to state, the
general principles are: (a) the same high standards of academic achievement for all students in
the State; (b) statistically valid and reliable measures; (c) continuous and substantial academic
improvement for all students; and are (d) measured via academic assessments. LEAs that fail to
make AYP are sanctioned by the SEA and must implement a corrective action plan for the
following year. Students that are unable to meet the rigid academic standards that are set in place
due to the implementation of NCLB are no longer eligible for the high school diploma, and
instead earn a certificate of completion.
Preservice Transition Training
Professionals serving youth with disabilities in educational settings primarily consist of
school counselors, special educators and rehabilitation counselors. Each field adheres to their
15

own unique set of certification and licensure criteria, which varies in core curriculum and depth
of content between each discipline. To obtain certification as a school counselor, most states
require students to have taken a course in career development (American School Counselor
Association, 2004) [ASCA]. To create consistency between programs and enhance quality of
graduates, the ASCA created a set of standards for educators. The National Standards for
students in school counseling programs are divided into three areas: academic, career and
personal/social knowledge domains (Pérusse, Goodnough, & Noel, 2001). Despite career
development being one of three overarching domains, the implementation of these domains
varies greatly between programs.
In 2001, 195 program directors of master’s level school counseling programs were asked
to what extent the ASCA National Standards were implemented into their teaching, and how this
was done (Pérusse et al, 2001). Results indicated that five percent of programs did not use the
standards at all, citing that they instead focused on state licensure requirements to guide teaching
imperatives, 12.5 percent of programs implemented the standards only minimally, 53.8 percent
implemented the standards moderately, and 14.4 percent reported teaching the standards
extensively throughout the program. Furthermore, only one in seven programs reported using the
national standards as key elements in their programs.
This lack of consistency could be explained by the variety of settings and roles that
school counselors identify with. School counselors working in assorted settings (elementary,
middle, high and K-12 schools) were asked to rate their perceived level of importance of six
different key school counseling program elements that are affirmed by the ASCA National
Model (Dahir, Burnham, & Stone, 2009). Overall results showed career and postsecondary
development to be less important than school counseling priorities and personal-social
16

development, respectively. Furthermore, career and postsecondary development was reported to
be more important than academic development, school setting perceptions and program
management. When taking employment setting into account, these results are greatly skewed.
School counselors working in high schools and K-12 schools rate career and postsecondary
development as the most important element of school counseling programs. Alternatively, school
counselors working in elementary school rated career and postsecondary development to least
important, while those working in middle schools found this domain to be similar to the overall
importance rating (third). This variance in perceived importance of national standards could
explain the inconsistency with which these domains are implemented within master’s level
school counseling programs.
Special educators are also required to obtain certification and licensure that is statespecific. Some states require special education teachers receive a general education credential to
teach kindergarten through grade 12, then earn an additional certification in a specialty area, such
as learning disabilities or behavioral disorders, on their license. Many states offer general special
education licenses across a variety of disability categories, while others license several different
specialties within special education (Council for Exceptional Children, 2011) [CEC].
Professional content standards for special education programs, as outlined by the CEC include 10
knowledge and skill sets: (1) foundations, (2) development and characteristics of learners, (3)
individual learning differences, (4) instructional strategies, (5) learning environments and social
interactions, (6) language, (7) instructional planning, (8) assessment, (9) professional and ethical
practice, and (10) collaboration.
Without a focus on transition planning, special educators must rely on agency
collaboration to provide this much needed service for youth with disabilities. Not surprisingly,
17

knowledge and involvement with transition services were found to be low to moderate among
secondary special educators (Knott & Asselin, 1999). This same study found special educators to
have little knowledge and understanding of necessary eligibility requirements of adult service
agencies. This finding makes the need for interagency collaboration more crucial for the
successful transition from school to work, as those school-based professionals lack specific
knowledge and training regarding this process.
Rehabilitation counselors are certified by the Commission on Rehabilitation Certification
(CRCC). The field of rehabilitation counseling acknowledges necessary competency in 12
specific domains for certification. Those include: (1) career counseling and assessment, (2) job
development and placement services, (3) vocational consultation and services for employees, (4)
case and caseload management, (5) individual counseling, (6) group and family counseling, (7)
mental health counseling, (8) psychosocial and cultural issues in counseling, (9) medical,
functional, and environmental aspects of disabilities, (10) foundations, ethics, and professional
issues, (11) rehabilitation services and resources, and (12) healthcare and disability systems
(Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification, 2011).
The Council on Rehabilitation Education (CORE) was established in 1972 as the
accreditation body for rehabilitation counseling programs (CORE, 2011). Section three of the
CORE standards for rehabilitation counselor education programs focuses on human growth and
development, and contains the solitary reference to transition services. Specifically, section
C.10.4.a refers to the development of an understanding of transition services that facilitate an
individual’s movement from school to work (CORE, 2011).
As rehabilitation professionals are employed in a variety of settings and may work with
many different disability populations, there is little pre-service focus on any one caseload-type
18

that a counselor may have in practice (i.e. transition, deaf and hard of hearing, HIV/AIDS, etc.).
Despite this, the current rehabilitation act requires VR agencies to be actively involved in the
transition planning process with LEAs. As such, transition caseload carrying counselors
employed in a VR setting are responsible for an understanding of school-specific special
education legislation, family functioning models, developmental considerations, in addition to
the traditional career planning activities. Many of these skills are learned on-the-job for VR
transition counselors.
Role and Function of Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors
A great deal of research in the field of rehabilitation counseling, dating back to 1979, has
been devoted to role and function studies. Researchers have sought to validate the various job
functions and tasks that counselors deem to be important in their daily roles as rehabilitation
professionals (Berven, 1979). Other studies have focused on knowledge validation of or various
domains associated with identified roles that rehabilitation professionals adhere to (Leahy et al,
2003). These researchers have also asked for counselors to indicate which knowledge domains
are most to least important, and which tasks they perform most to least frequently (Leahy et al.
2003; Leahy et al, 2009; Chan et al, 2003). Yet another theme in the role and function studies has
been to survey practicing counselors to determine which skills they acquired during their preservice training (Szymanski, Leahy, & Linkowski, 1993; Chan et al, 2003).
These studies have been crucial in that they keep the field of rehabilitation counseling
updated with relevant issues and guide educators and certification bodies towards central areas of
study. CRCC has sponsored several national studies that have helped inform the revision of the
Certified Rehabilitation Counselor Examination (CRCE), and CORE has also used the findings

19

to update potential curriculum revisions to the national curriculum content standards (Leahy et al,
2003). In 2009, Leahy et al. conducted the most recent of these studies.
In 2003, CRCC sponsored a study to determine job functions as reported by certified
rehabilitation counselors. (Leahy et al, 2003). Results yielded 7 major job factors: (1) vocational
counseling and guidance; (2) counseling intervention; (3) community-based rehabilitation
services; (4) case management; (5) applied research; (6) assessment; and (7) professional
advocacy. Findings showed that certified rehabilitation counselors viewed case management to
be the most important job task, followed by professional advocacy, counseling interventions,
vocational counseling and guidance, assessments, community-based rehabilitation services, and
applied research, respectively. This same study also sought to identify knowledge domains
important to rehabilitation counseling practice. Results yielded 6 major knowledge domains: (1)
career counseling, assessment and consultation services; (2) counseling theories, techniques and
applications; (3) rehabilitation services and resources; (4) case and caseload management; (5)
health care and disability systems; and (6) medical, functional and environmental implications of
disability. Findings showed that certified rehabilitation counselors viewed medical, functional
and environmental implications of disability to be the most important knowledge domain
important for rehabilitation counseling practice, followed by case and caseload management;
career counseling assessment, and consultation services; rehabilitation services and resources;
counseling theories, techniques and applications; and health care and disability systems;
respectively. School-to-work transition services for students with disabilities were rated with a
mean importance of 2.29 on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = not important, 1 = somewhat important, 2
= important, 3 = very important, and 4 = extremely important).

20

Published within the same journal issue as Leahy et al (2003), Chan et al (2003) utilized
the same instrument (Knowledge Validation Inventory-Revised [KVI-R]) to determine training
needs for certified rehabilitation counselors. These training needs were identified by assessing
counselors perceived level of preparation in the aforementioned knowedge areas. Results
indicated that counselors found medical/functional implications of disability to have no critical
training needs. This was the only area in which there was not a large enough discrepancy
between relative importance and level of preparedness. The remaining five categories yielded:
nine training needs in career counseling, assessment and consultation; four training needs in
counseling theories, teachniques and application; five training needs in rehabilitation services
and resources; three training needs in case and caseload management; and one training need in
health care and disability systems. School-to-work transition services for students with
disabilities was noted as a specific training need for counselors in the public VR setting,
indicating it to be of high importance, but offering little pre-service preparation (Chan et al,
2003).
A more recent follow up study in 2009 (Leahy, et al) sought again to determine essential
knowledge domains for effective rehabilitation counseling practice. In addition to determining
essential knowledge, this study also addressed the frequency of using each domain within the last
year, as well as asking at what point in a rehabilitation professionals career they should acquire
this knowledge. Updated for this study were the relevant knowledge domains, as derived from
Leahy et al (2003). The 2009 study acknowledged 12 knowledge domains (as expounded upon
from the previous 6). Group and family counseling was the only knowledge domain that was not
rated as moderately important, or higher. Furthermore, respondents indicated that they utilized
this construct least frequently, as either yearly or never. The remaining domains indicating
21

respective importance are: medical, functional and environmental aspects of disabilities (3.8);
case and caseload management (3.8); rehabilitation services and resources (3.7); individual
counseling (3.7); career counseling and assessment (3.7); job development and placement
services (3.7); foundations, ethics, and professional issues (3.6); mental health counseling (3.4);
psychosocial and cultural issues in counseling (3.4); health care and disability systems (3.4); and,
vocational consultation and services for employers (3.3) (Leahy et al, 2009).
Frequency was assessed with a 5-point Likert sale (1 = never, 2 = yearly or almost yearly,
3 = monthly or almost monthly, 4 = weekly or almost weekly, and 5 = daily or almost daily).
Results of frequency of utilizing knowledge domains were similar in ranking to those of
importance, yielding: case and caseload management as the most frequently used (4.6); medical,
functional and environmental aspects of disabilities (4.4); individual counseling (4.2);
rehabilitation services and resources (4.2); career counseling and assessment (4.1); foundations,
ethics, and professional issues (4.1); job development and placement services (3.8); health case
and disability systems (3.6); psychosocial and cultural issues in counseling (3.5); mental health
counseling (3.4); vocational consultation and services for employers (3.0); and, group and family
counseling (2.5) (Leahy et al, 2009).
The most recent knowledge validation study also sought to determine which essential
knowledge domains were acquired during preservice training. School-to-work transition services
have been identified in knowledge domain 3, rehabilitation services and resources, previously
(Chan et al, 2003; Leahy et al, 2003). Rehabilitaiton services and resources was rated as
moderately important (3.7) and used weekly or almost weekly (4.2). In previous studies, schoolto-work transition services were mentioned specifically, and individually however in the 2009
study, school-to-work transtion is included with other rehabilitaiton services (i.e. supported
22

employment, assistive technology, special populations, etc.). Despite this, an average for
acquisition during education for rehabiltiaiton service subdomains yields a response of 42
percent. This substantively means that rehabilitaiton services and resources are viewed as highly
important and used weekly or almost weekly, yet only 42 percent of respondants acquired the
essential knowedge to preform these tasks during their preservice training. With transition
services being subsumed within this category, these findings are significant to the rationale for
the current study.
A further study surveyed rehabilitation counselor educators to determine the emphasis or
importance placed within their curricula on the skills related to the seven major job factors
identified for rehabilitation counselors (Ebener, 2007). Results yielded the following rank order
of emphasis: (1) professional advocacy; (2) managing cases; (3) counseling interventions; (4)
assessments; (5) vocational counseling; (6) use of community-based services; and (7) applying
research to practice. This finding indicates that school-to-work transition services, which are
commonly included within community-based services or specialized services, are emphasized
sixth out of seven job factors in training curricula. This result is consistent with the
aforementioned finding in which only 42 percent of certified rehabilitation counselors indicated
their acquisition of rehabilitation service knowledge during preservice training (Leahy et al,
2009).
The result of reviewing recent role and function studies within the field of rehabilitation
counseling indicate knowledge related to school-to-work transition services for students with
disabilities to be important (Leahy et al, 2003; Chan et al, 2003), and for practicing rehabilitation
counselors to feel as if they received limited preparation for these tasks (Chan et al, 2003). These
findings were updated in 2009 (Leahy et al), however included other rehabilitation services with
23

school-to-work transition (i.e. supported employment, assistive technology, special populations,
etc.). Furthermore, this study found that while these services were moderately important, only 42
percent of certified counselors acquired this kowledge during their preservice training. This
finding is not surprising, given that rehabilitation counselor educators ranked the job function of
rehabilitation counselors using commuity-based services sixth out of seven major functions
(Ebener, 2007).
Table 2: Role and Function Studies: Importance Ranking of Major Job Functions
Leahy et al,
Ebener,
2003
2007*
Factor 1: Vocational Counseling and Consultation
4
5
Factor 2: Conducting Counseling Interventions
3
3
Factor 3: Community-Based Rehabilitation Services
6
6
Factor 4: Managing Cases
1
2
Factor 5: Applying Research to Practice
7
7
Factor 6: Conducting Assessments
5
4
Factor 7: Practicing Professional Advocacy
2
1
*Ebener, 2007 provides rehabilitation counselor educator importance ranking of major job
functions
Required Knowledge for Transition Services Personnel
Transition planning is essential for successful post-school outcomes for students with
disabilities.The comprehension of this concept is vital to professionals having the knowledge and
frameworks to support and facilitate students through school-to-work transition.
The Taxonomy for Transition Planning, a comprehensive conceptual framework of transition
practices, was developed by Paula Kohler (1996) and colleagues. The rationale for the
development of this model was to fill the gap in education in which research was not linked with
practice. By identifying the best pratices of transition service personnel, a direct communication
of critical features can then by disseminated to administrators and service providers (Kohler,
1996). This taxonomy was based on past and present school-to-work research and empirically
24

validated by a national pool of 296 individuals associated with transition research, programs and
or service delivery settings.
The following five categories of practice represent the final cluster solutions that are the
make up of the Taxonomy of Transition Planning: (1) student focused planning (student
participation, IEP development, accommodationals and planning strategies); (2) student
development (structured work experiences, life skills instruction, accommodations and support,
employment skills instruction, vocational assessment, career and vocational curricula); (3)
intragency and interdisciplinary collaboration (individual-level planning; collaborative service
delivery, interorganization framework, organizational level planning, and human resource
development), (4) family invomvement (family training, family empowerment, and family
involvement); and (5) program structure and attributes (program philosophy, program policy,
resource allocation, program evaluation, human resource development, and strategic planning).
Other studies that also reviewed transition research further validated Kohler’s (1996)
findings by identifying ten best practices in transition, that mirror those previously outlined
(Greene, 2003). They include: (1) interagency collaboration; (2) interdisciplinary collaboration;
(3) integrated schools, classrooms, and employment; (4) functional life-skills curriculum and
community-based instruction; (5) social and personal skills development and training; (6) career
and vocational assessment and education; (7) business and industry linkages with schools; (8)
development of effective IEPs; (9) student self-determination, advocacy, and input in transition
planning; and (10) parent or family involvement in transition planning.
In a comprehensive literature review of transition research published between 1990 and
1997, Kohler & Chapman (1999) identified 106 documents that contained one or more key
words related to school-to-work transition services. These documents were then screened to meet
25

the following critera: (1) did the study focus or include students with disabilites, (2) was the
topic of the study related to transition services, and (3) was the document research oriented
(independent and dependent variable defined, clearly stated outcomes of an intervention,
implications, etc.). This process resulted in 20 studies adequate for inclusion into the current
review, and applied to the taxonomy of transition planning (Kohler, 1996).
The first taxonomy category is student-focused planning. The aim of this cluster is to
assist the student in identifying their personal goals using relevant assessment information for
planning, student participation in decision making, as well as student evaluation of their progress
in meeting their goals (Kohler & Field, 2003). Four out of 20 empirical research studies
highlighted student involvement in IEP planning while three out of 20 studies analyzed
mentioned student goal attainment as a result of the students choice (Kohler et al, 1999). These
findings are in support of the 1990 and 1997 IDEA mandates that require student involvement in
transition planning. Other research studies cited best practices regarding planning strategies
include involving the student, family, school personnel and outside agencies to the IEP meetings,
and using assesments to inform the direction of planning activities (Kohler et al, 1999; Test,
Mazzotti, Mustian, Fowler, Kortering & Kohler, 2009). All of these activities support the
overarching theme of this cluster, which is to identify and support decisions based on the
students’ goals, visions and interests.
The second taxonomy category is student development. The aim of this cluster is to
emphasize life, employment and occupational skill development through school-based and workbased learning experience (Kohler et al, 2003; Test et al, 2009; Landmark et al, 2010). Kohler et
al (1999) identified 11 studies that addressed student development, all of which incorporated
some facet of like skills instruction for students (i.e. social skills training, indentification of
26

personal and interpersonal problems). Self-awareness, self-determination and self-advocacy
training was prevalent in six different studies, and highlighted the skill of students having an
understanding of their disability, strengths, weaknesses, how to identify services and request
services. Independent living skills training such as budgeting, public transportation, shopping,
and laundry were referenced in six different studies as best practices to assist in post-secondary
educational and vocational goal attainment. Support services were focused on in six different
studies, highlighting interventions such as post-secondary counseling and/or academic support,
use of adult mentors, emotional counseling, independent living skills counselors, vocational
counseling, “real world” seminars, how to identify and obtain community resources, and youth
re-entry specialists. Finally, 7 different studies out of 20 identified career pathways and
contextual learning as a necessary and best practice (applied work experienes, employment skils
instruction, etc) (Kohler et al, 1999).
The third taxonomy category is intragency and interdisciplinary collaboration. This
grouping focuses on the utilization and collaboration with community partners, businesses and
organizations (Kohler et al, 2003; Landmark et al, 2010). Through these symbiotic relationships,
community organizations can provide standards and necessary competencies. The degree of
collaboration varies drasticly from program to program. Only three studies that were included in
the transition literature review provided interventions for collaboration between schools, service
agencies, employers and other stakeholders (Kohler et al, 1999). Despite this, interagency
collaboration with regard to school-to-work transition is thought to be a key determining factor
in students achieving or not achieving their transition goals (Oertle & Trach, 2007; Test et al,
2009).

27

Next, the family involvement taxonomy category is discussed. This cluster highlights the
relevance of parental and family involvement within the transition planning, education
dissemination and provision of services (Kohler et al, 2003; Test et al, 2009; Landmark et al,
2010). Transition from school-to-work is also a time of transition for family members of students
with a disabilities, in that the role of the support system may be shifting as well. During this time,
family members may take on the role of advocate, service developer, nurturer, teacher and
learner (Timmons, Whitney-Thomas, McIntyre, Butterworth, & Allen, 2004). Five studies
included in the national transition literature review addressed family involvement. Only two of
these studies included interventions, while the remaining three referenced the qualitative impact
of family on the transition of youth with disabilities (Kohler et al, 1999). The influence of family
variables is indirectly linked to outcomes through the positive impact on school attendance,
higher education attendance, assessment scores, self-esteem, confidence, drop-out rates,
autonomy and self-determination (Kohler et al, 2003).
The final taxonomy category is in regard to program structure and attributes. The
organization of a school laregely dictates its framework for transition services and processes. For
instance, practices that promote outcome-based education, community integration, cultural
sensitivity, increased expectations of skills and values, as well as inclusion of students with
disabilities into the social life of the school are all positive practices for a successful transition
structure (Kohler et al, 2003). In a comprehensive literature review of transition literature, four
studies indicated a promising practice of interagency collaboration, citing a school-familycommunity partnership that focuses on team building with employers and the community in
general. Five studies reflected the importance of having outcomes-based program planning, three
studies reflected the importance of a community-referenced curricula, and one other study
28

referenced the importance of a longitudinal school-to-work transition (Kohler et al, 1999). By
having a clear mission and program policy, these values can be transparent for community
partners, students and families.
Transition as a Sub-Specialty in Rehabilitation Counseling
During pre-service training, rehabilitation counselors are prepared to work with a myriad
of disabilities that could become apparent within any given caseload (e.g. HIV/AIDS, mental
illness, physical impairment, cognitive impairment, developmental disabilities, sensory
impairment, etc.). Beyond this vertical expansion of the possible caseload dimensions, horizontal
implications must also be considered. Working with any person with a disability has special
considerations when being applied to a child, which is also a minor with a necessary support
system, and likely involved in a public school setting.
The training of any group of professionals requires a standard set of competencies with
which formal training is founded on. Rehabilitation professionals, as evidenced above, have an
abundance of literature supporting the professional certification and accreditation bodies. Those
professionals that either choose or inherit a transition caseload however, have little pre-service
training or knowledge in relation to school-to-work transition. If a professional has broad
training in a field, with little training on a specific sub-specialty with which they work closely,
are they adequately prepared? DeFur & Taymans (1995), sought to alleviate the issue of a lack of
transition foundation by identifying and categorizing transition competencies, polling a panel of
transition experts and collecting data to rank the importance of each category. Utilizing a 5-point
Likert scale to rank twelve knowledge domains, their findings yield the following order of
transition competency importance: (1) knowledge of agency and systems change, (2)
development and management of individual plans, (3) working with others in the transition
29

process, (4) vocational assessment and job development, (5) professionalism, advocacy and legal
issues in transition, (6) job training and support, (7) assessment (general), (8) transition
administrative functions, (9) philosophical and historical considerations, (10) career counseling
and vocational theory and transition, (11) program evaluation and research, and (12) curriculum,
instruction and learning theory (general). It would be logical to further examine the top ranked
domains towards the objective of developing either a pre-service or in-service training program
for vocational rehabilitation transition specialists.
In a literature review of substantiated best practices in transition (Landmark et al, 2010),
4 activities stand out in efficacy: (1) paid or unpaid work experience, (2) employment
preparation program participation, (3) general education/inclusion, and (4) parent/family
involvement. These findings support the taxonomy for transition planning, as defined by Kohler
(1996). The National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center (2010) conducted a
literature review of evidence-based practices identifying quality experimental studies that
correlated with improved post-school outcomes in education, employment and/or independent
living. Those findings yield the following predictors/outcomes that correlate with moderate
(defined as 2 a priori studeies with consistent significant correlations between predictor and
outcomes) evidence for employment: inclusion in general education, paid employment/work
experience, vocational education and a work study program. Furthermore, findings from the
National Longitudinal Transition Study show that vocational education, work experience,
tutoring, extracurricular group activities, and parental support positively contribute to school
performance and post school outcomes (Blackorby, et al, 1996).
The attainment of post-school outcomes for youth and with disabilities lay with
rehabilitation professional’s likelihood to develop and apply the interdisciplinary skills
30

referenced heretofore. Without doing so, we risk adding to the revolving door phenomenon often
referenced in VR agencies; allow youth with disabilities to needlessly struggle to meet their postschool outcomes, and allow for further encroachment on our profession by special educators and
school counselors. Trach (1998) suggests special educator’s complete coursework that provides
information on the vocational rehabilitation system, in addition to completing practicum and
internships at state/federal vocational rehabilitation agencies, as a way to demonstrate
competencies in vocational rehabilitation to aid in seamless collaboration. If these
recommendations were acted upon, special educators may exhibit a higher degree of
understanding regarding the vocational rehabilitation process, however the risk for further
encroachment is much more threatening to our profession (as is seen with social work, case
managers, nurse practitioners, school and general counselors, etc.). Instead, the aim of the
current study is to demonstrate data in support of the counter-argument – vocational
rehabilitation professionals should be educated with the well established transition practices that
yield positive post-school outcomes. In doing so, the body of knowledge that supports
certification and accreditation bodies is further enlightened to evidence supporting the
advancement of rehabilitation professionals, and perhaps a sub-specialty of rehabilitation
transition professionals.
Successful transition of youth with disabilities from secondary education to postsecondary education and/or employment requires competent professionals skilled in working
with this specific population. As evidenced, there is a dearth of literature and evidence of defined
competencies for transition professionals, specifically in vocational rehabilitation. Legislation
has made transition a priority in the special education and vocational rehabilitation fields, and the
role of the transition professional has increased demands with new academic standards
31

legislation (e.g. NCLB). Rehabilitation counseling has a history of empirically validating the
roles and functions as well as the knowledge and skills required for effective practice for
certified vocational counselors. This study presents an additional and logical step to expound
upon these findings, with application to transition professionals serving youth with disabilities.

32

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to begin the inductive process of identifying knowledge
domains that are required for effective transition service delivery by rehabilitation counselors,
and the perceived preparedness of these counselors to provide transition services. A survey
instrument was developed and disseminated across various states (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa,
Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin and Illinois) to those counselors employed in the public
rehabilitation program who provide transition services to youth with disabilities. This chapter
describes the instrument development process, research procedures, sample, and data analysis
techniques that were utilized. The five research questions that guided the current study follow:
1. What are the demographic characteristics and professional experiences of those who
provide transition services in the VR setting?
2. How did transition counselors in the current study receive their training specific to
transition services?
3. How important are the various knowledge domains for transition counselors in relation to
optimizing outcomes for their transition-aged youth clients?
4. In what various knowledge domains do transition counselors perceive themselves to be
the most and least prepared?
5. Do perceptions of importance and preparedness of knowledge domain areas differ
according to demographic, educational and professional characteristics?
Instrumentation
The survey research design for this exploratory project called for the development of a
new survey instrument that was constructed in five phases: (1) a review of the literature, (2)
33

review of the Knowledge Validation Inventory-Revised (KVI-R) (Leahy et al, 2011), (3) initial
survey development utilizing the pre-existing KVI-R and taxonomy for transition planning for
the development of transition-specific items, (4) content review by subject matter experts and
pilot testing, and (5) survey instrument revision. Survey construction required generation of an
item pool to represent transition-specific knowledge domains. A literature review was conducted
to derive the original pool of items from evidence-based transition practices. Various sources
included literature within school counseling, special education and rehabilitation counseling
fields.
No research has been conducted to investigate the specific knowledge requirements for
effective service delivery to transition-age youth with disabilities by rehabilitation counselors.
When looking more broadly at the field of rehabilitation counseling (e.g. CRCs with varying
caseloads), role and function studies show knowledge related to school-to-work transition
services to be critical (Leahy et al, 2003), and that practicing rehabilitation counselors believe
they received limited preparation for these tasks (Chan et al, 2003). As the research design called
for the development of a new instrument, a self-report questionnaire was constructed consisting
of a demographic section, a general rehabilitation counseling knowledge validation section, and a
transition-specific knowledge validation section.
Following a literature review and a review of the pre-existing KVI-R (Leahy et al, 2011),
the taxonomy for transition planning (Kohler, 1996) was then reviewed and used to create the
transition-specific portion of the current instrument, based on the five branches of the transition
taxonomy: student focused planning, student development, interagency and interdisciplinary
collaboration, family involvement, and program structures and attributes. Using a comprehensive
literature review of evidence-based practices within each transition branch (Kohler et al, 1999),
34

four to five items were generated to represent each transition branch. This yielded a transitionspecific portion of the instrument that was 24 items in length.
Content Review
For content validity purposes, five transition specialists were contacted to provide
feedback on the instrument. Each content reviewer had served transition-age youth while
working in a State VR agency within the last five years, or was currently a specialist overseeing
transition counselor’s within a State VR agency. Additionally, each content reviewer held a
master’s degree in rehabilitation counseling. Each content reviewer received a phone call,
followed by an email (see Appendix A) explaining the nature, purpose of the study, and a copy
of the instrument. Content reviewers were asked to respond with feedback on the instrument via
email to the researcher. The purpose of this content review by subject matter experts was to
assess the instrument on the following areas: (a) adequacy of overall coverage, (b) clarity of each
item, (c) redundancy, and (d) if any items needed to be added or deleted. Knowledge items were
deleted from the KVI-R if the area would be included within the transition-specific portion of the
inventory. Each item was reviewed for appropriate grammatical form and modified as necessary
on the basis of the input from the subject matter experts. Suggestions were taken into account
and the instrument was revised.
Four of the five content reviewers contracted for feedback responded to the assessment
with comments. While additional questions were not created following the content review,
suggestions for wording and statement relevance were offered. The definable age for transitionage youth was adjusted from 14-24 years of age to 14-25.99 years of age. Under “student
focused planning”, social skills now includes reference to “soft skills” as well, which is a more
VR-centric term. Additionally, the suggestion to change “limitation” to “barriers to employment”
35

was implemented to reflect a strength-based model versus a deficit model. In the “student
development” section, “work based learning” was amended to reflect a continuum of work based
learning activities, not just one isolated incidence. “Mentors to facilitate learning” was added to
and now reads, “Mentors to facilitate socialization, inclusion and learning”. The “family
involvement” section has been amended to include reference to a guardian anywhere that a
family is referenced. Finally, within the “program structure” section, “cash match agreements”
has been changed to resource sharing agreements.
Pilot Testing
After the subject matter experts and dissertation committee chair reviewed the instrument
and changes were made, the instrument was piloted with 5 VR professionals and 5 doctoral
students actively engaged in school-to-work transition research for the purpose of obtaining an
additional level of clarity of the revised instrument. The purpose of the pilot study was to solicit
feedback and opinions regarding the content, structure, and wording of the instrument.
Pilot participants received an email explaining the nature and purpose of the study, and a copy of
the instrument. Pilot participants were asked to respond with feedback to the instrument via
email to the researcher. Feedback on the survey was collected on the following areas: (a)
appropriateness of the competencies, (b) if items needed to be added to the survey to fill in
missing content, (c) directions for the survey, (d) ease of understanding the concepts in the
survey, and (e) length of time required to complete the survey. Participants in the pilot study
were asked to indicate if all the words were understood, if the questionnaire created a positive
impression, one that motivated people to answer it, and if any aspect of the questionnaire
suggested bias on the part of the researcher.

36

Final Version of the Transition Knowledge Validation Assessment (TKVA)
The final version of the TKVA consists of 9 pages (including a welcome page) and 119
items, divided into two sections (see Appendix C). Section one consists of items designed to
obtain demographic data, such as state of residence, training, education, years of experience,
primary responsibility, and percentage of their caseload consisting of transition age youth. This
section is 15 items in length. In section two of the survey, VR transition professional’s ratings of
individual perceptions of importance and preparedness for 24 transition-specific items and 80
general rehabilitation counseling knowledge domains are posed. All of the items in section two
were generated from the literature review and were adjusted through a three-step process:
researcher level, content reviewer level, and pilot study level.
Participants will respond to a series of Likert-scale questions relating to (a) perceived
importance of a knowledge domain (either specific to transition services or general to
rehabilitation counseling); and (b) perceived preparedness in regard to each knowledge domain.
It is estimated that the survey will take approximately 30-45 minutes to complete. The Likertscales are as follows: Importance Scale: 1 = Not Important, 2 = Somewhat Important, 3 =
Important, 4 = Very Important, 5 = Extremely Important; Preparedness Scale: 1 = No
Preparation, 2 = Little Preparation, 3 = Moderate Preparation, 4 = High Degree of Preparation, 5
= Very High Degree of Preparation.
This study will utilize a self-report format. Self-report measures are commonly used to
obtain information that cannot be readily made available from other sources. Furthermore, this
study is seeking the subjective opinion of practicing VR transition professionals to begin the
inductive process of identifying essential knowledge domains for effective transition service
provision. Many of the items included in this instrument are knowledge domains that cannot be
37

observed or empirically measured. The participants were therefore in the best position to
evaluate the importance of specific knowledge, and their level of preparedness for each
knowledge domain.
Data Collection Procedures
For each state that participated in the current study (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Minnesota,
Michigan, Wisconsin and Illinois), a letter was sent to the VR director to discuss participation in
this study (see Appendix B). After approval, the transition coordinator or specialist from each
state was sought out to assist in recruiting participants for the current study. Each of these
individual’s were also asked to participate in the content review for the development of the
instrument, as outlined previously. An email outlining the background information for the study,
a consent form, and a link to the survey was sent to VR transition professionals located within
each state that participated in the current study. Surveys were sent to participants with the
assistance of Qualtrics (http://www.qualtrics.com).Participants self-selected to participate by
choosing to fill out the survey and clicking the submit button. Therefore, participation in this
study was entirely voluntary. Information regarding informed consent was presented on-line
prior to viewing the survey. Participants were shown a button to click indicating their agreement
with the consent letter allowing them to view and complete the survey. State VR professionals
who received the survey had four weeks to complete and submit the survey. Two weeks
following the first electronic mailing, a reminder email was sent to all participants with the
assistance of each state’s transition coordinator. The email reminded participants about the study
for those who had not completed the survey, and thanked those that had already completed the
survey. A third and final reminder was sent two weeks after the second reminder, creating a total
of four weeks for data collection.
38

All of the survey responses were protected via password protection on the Qualtrics
website, and any hard copies will be stored in a locked filing cabinet. All of the responses to the
questions will be converted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences20 for Macintosh
(SPSS, 2011).
Knowledge Subdomains
A factor analysis was conducted on the 24transition-specific items that were created from
the theoretical framework prior to any further analyses concerning the specific research questions
for this study. Factor analysis is an item reduction technique that begins with a large number of
variables and then tries to reproduce the interrelationships among the variables using a smaller
number of latent variables based on clusters of items. After this process has been completed,
often a pattern appears among the relationships between the variables that captures the essence of
the relationships. This statistical method was determined to be the most useful data reduction
method for this study because it explains the most variance by taking into consideration not only
the unique item variation, but error variance as well.
Multiple steps of dimension reduction were tested in an attempt to identify the factors
that explained the most variance, while also capturing the foundation of the theoretical
framework chosen for this study. The final decision of analysis for item reduction on the 24
transition-specific items was a factor analysis using an eigenvalue greater than 1. This yielded 6
factors, which were well supported by theory, and explained 61.72% of variance. When trying to
extract 5 factors (as theory states), less variance was explained (57.6%) and when trying to
extract fixed factors of 7 or 8 factors, more variance was explained (64.8% and 67.6%,
respectively). This is not unexpected for more variance to be explained when fixing for more

39

factors, however the identified factors do not align with the theoretical framework clearly, and
were therefore difficult to make inferences upon.
The six factors transition knowledge subdomain factors that were identified after running
the factors analysis are as follows: (1) student focused planning, (2) student development, (3)
interagency collaboration, (4) family involvement, (5) program structure and policies, and (6)
IEP development. These factors will be explain in detail, along with means, standard deviations
and Cronbach Alpha’s in chapter 4. The sixth factor that was identified beyond the theory, when
running the data with an eigenvalue greater than 1 refers to a cluster of items that relate to
Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), a very important construct in transition counseling.
Principal component analysis and varimax rotation were both used for the analysis of
these 24 transition-specific items, identical to the decisions made by Leahy et al, 2011, when
conducting analysis on general rehabilitation counseling items. When attempting to run other
types of rotations (e.g. Oblimin), it was challenging to interpret the break down of items into
factors that made logical sense, given the conceptual framework. Items showed weaker
correlation to factors than they did within the varimax rotation, and there were more occurrences
of strong negative correlations reported.
The remaining 80 general rehabilitation counseling items remained in the factor
reductions that had been previously set forth by Leahy et al, 2011. They consisted of 11 factors
after one had been removed because it was unrelated to transition counseling and youth in
general (Health Care and Disability Systems: workers compensation, social security benefits,
health care benefits, etc). These knowledge subdomains include: (1) Individual Counseling, (2)
Group and Family Counseling, (3) Mental Health Counseling, (4) Psychosocial and Cultural
Issues in Counseling, (5) Career Counseling and Assessment, (6) Job Development and
40

Placement Services, (7) Vocational Consultation and Services for Employers, (8) Case and
Caseload Management, (9) Medical, Functional and Environmental Aspects of Disabilities, (10)
Foundations, Ethics, and Professional Issues, and (11) Rehabilitation Services and Resources.
Data Analysis Procedures
Descriptive statistics were computed on sample characteristics from the demographic
questionnaire. Specific demographic characteristic variables which define selected characteristics
of the sample include the following categorical variables: (1) gender; (2) age; (3) race/ethnicity;
(4) State of residence; (5) highest degree earned, (6) major area of study; (7) certification status
as a rehabilitation counselor; (8) current job title; (9) current work setting; (10) percentage of
caseload consisting of transition-age youth; (11) types of transition training received; (12)
frequency of transition training; (13) time per week spent on transition-related responsibilities;
(14) years of experience working with transition-age youth with disabilities; and (15) primary
responsibility of transition services.
To address the first research question, descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation and
frequency) will be computed for each item within the demographic portion of the assessment. A
mean score for each factor will be computed.
To address the second research question, descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation
and frequency) will be computed for each item on the assessment according to subject’s response
to the two demographic questions relevant to transition training. A mean score for each factor
will be computed.
To address the third research question, descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation
and frequency) will be computed for each item on the assessment according to subjects’ response

41

to the five point Likert-scale for importance. The items will then be ranked in order with the
factors identified by the factor analysis. A mean score for each factor will be computed.
To address the fourth research question, descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation
and frequency) will be computed for each item on the assessment according to subject’s response
to the five point Likert-scale for preparedness. The items will then be ranked in order with the
factors identified by the factor analysis. A mean score for each factor will be computed.
To address the fifth and final research question and determine whether perceptions of
importance and preparedness of knowledge domains differ according to demographic,
educational and professional characteristics, a series of multivariate analyses of variance
(MANOVA) will be conducted. The dependent variables for these analyses will be the mean
scores on the factors identified from the subject’s response to the five point Likert-scale for
importance and preparedness. The independent variables used in each MANOVA will be type of
counselor (transition versus general counselor). The purpose of the MANOVA is to test between
group differences in the independent variables on the linear combinations of the factors that are
identified via the factor analysis technique. Additionally, a chi-squared test will be run on
categorical variables to test for group differences, with the dependent variables consisting of
demographic information (age, race, gender, certification status, job title, educational
achievement, area of study, years employed as a vocational rehabilitation counselor, etc.) and
training profile information (frequency of attending training, type of training received, opinions
regarding transition training options).

42

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
The goal of this study was to identify essential knowledge domains in regard to
rehabilitation counselors providing transition services to youth with disabilities. Before
addressing research questions, the response rate of the sample is provided. Variables of primary
interest include those derived from VR counselors with 50% or more of their caseload consisting
of transition aged youth. However a comparison between this group (referred to as transition
counselors from this point forward) and those with 50% or less of their caseload consisting of
transition age youth (referred to as general counselors from this point forward) will be discussed.
All analysis was conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences20 for Macintosh
(SPSS, 2011).
Seven states participated in the current study. RSA 911 data for FY 2010 has been
utilized to report consumer demographics within those states (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa,
Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin and Illinois). States within the current study ranged from
having 25,061 to 7,192 consumers in FY 2010. As shown in table 3, Illinois has the highest
proportion of transition age youth, with 46.5% of consumers being under 25.99 years of age.
Ohio has the lowest proportion of transition age youth, with 28.8% of consumers being between
14-25.99 years of age.

43

Table 3: Consumer Age by State

Ohio
Pennsylvania
Iowa
Minnesota
Michigan
Wisconsin
Illinois

Transition Age Youth
Age 14.00 to 25.99
N
%
6438
28.8
9505
37.9
3325
46.2
3955
40.2
7039
32.3
4600
31.4
7314
46.5

Adults
Age 26.00 or older
N
%
15939
71.2
15556
62.1
3867
53.8
5889
59.8
14760
67.7
10048
68.6
8418
53.5

Total
N
22377
25061
7192
9844
21799
14648
15732

Table 4 represents the primary disability reported by transition age youth, by state. In
every state, excluding Wisconsin, learning disabilities accounted for the highest proportion of
primary disability. This finding is not surprising, and is found to be consistent across national
data. The second most commonly reported primary disability is mental illness. Again, this
finding is consistent across all states, excluding Wisconsin.
Table 5 represents closure status by state for transition age youth. Wisconsin reports a
comparably higher incidence of closure before eligibility status is determined. This can likely be
linked to the finding in table 4, which shows that 21.2% of transition age youth that apply for VR
services in Wisconsin have no impairment. Pennsylvania has the highest rate of successful
employment outcomes for transition age youth (36.7%), followed by Iowa (33.8%) and Illinois
(31.0%). Ohio and Illinois report the lowest rate of successful employment outcomes for
transition age youth in their states (21.0% and 21.1%, respectively).

44

Table 4: Transition Age Youth Primary Disability by State
Ohio
N
No
2
Impairment
Blindness/
Visual
234
Impairment
Deafness/H
earing
Impairment
318
including
Deaf/Blind
ness
Physical
Impairment
354
Orthopedic/
Neurologic
Other
398
Physical
Impairment
LD
1429
ADHD
534
MR
1028
Autism
272
Mental
1338
Illness

Pennsylvania

Iowa

Minnesota

Michigan

Wisconsin

Illinois

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

0

1

0

249

7.5

1

0

49

0.7

977

21.2

0

0

3.6

184

1.9

13

0.4

3

0.1

35

0.5

65

1.4

136

1.9

4.9

322

3.4

66

2

129

3.3

255

3.6

134

2.9

260

3.6

5.5

525

5.5

144

4.3

176

4.5

178

2.5

248

5.4

278

3.8

6.2

663

7

182

5.5

120

3

477

6.8

159

3.5

239

3.3

22.2
8.3
16
4.2

2845
917
1034
272

29.9
9.6
10.9
2.9

976
442
439
62

29.4
13.3
13.2
1.9

956
554
484
322

24.2
14
12.2
8.1

3140
546
580
290

44.6
7.8
8.2
4.1

875
344
472
181

19
7.5
10.3
3.9

2861
563
988
300

39.1
7.7
13.5
4.1

20.8

1611

16.9

623

18.7

848

21.4

967

13.7

699

15.2

1064

14.5

45

Table 4 (cont’d)
Substance
44
Abuse
TBI
99
Communic
ative/All
Other
388
Mental
Impairment
Total
6438

0.7

558

5.9

35

1.1

49

1.2

150

2.1

25

0.5

35

0.5

1.5

142

1.5

28

0.8

86

2.2

70

1

60

1.3

82

1.1

6

431

4.5

66

2

227

5.7

302

4.3

361

7.8

508

6.9

100

9505

100

3325

100

3955

100

7039

100

4600

100

7314

100

Table 5: Transition Age Youth Closure Status by State
Ohio

Pennsylvania

Iowa

Minnesota

Michigan

Wisconsin

Illinois

N
Closed
before
determined
eligible
Determined
eligible, No
IPE
Services
initiated, not
employed
Employment
outcome
Total

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1526

23.7

1507

15.9

253

7.6

277

7

817

11.6

1026

22.3

992

13.6

1692

26.3

1468

15.4

1081

32.5

1903

48.1

1317

18.7

1793

39

2366

32.3

1866

29

3044

32

867

26.1

896

22.7

3037

43.1

809

17.6

1689

23.1

1354

21

3486

36.7

1124

33.8

879

22.2

1868

26.5

972

21.1

2267

31

6438

100

9505

100

3325

100

3955

100

7039

100

4600

100

7314

100

46

Participants
As stated in chapter three, the target populations for this study were VR counselors
located within Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin and Illinois. In the
initial State VR contact letter (see Appendix B), directors were asked to provide the researcher
with a contact person with which to disseminate the survey to counselors within each state.
Furthermore, the transition consultant for each state worked with the researcher on a content
analysis, and was also utilized as a resource for survey dissemination. States were asked to
disseminate the instrument via email through a transition listserv. If one did not exist, states were
asked to disseminate the instrument via email to all VR counselors within their state. It was
assumed that the title of the email, survey and demographic questionnaires would aid in
attracting the desired subject pool of transition counselors. Additional states were contacted for
participation in the current study, however for various reasons were unable to participate and
thus are not represented in this sample.
Six of the seven states assisted in the data collection process by providing a transition
consultant to serve as the liaison to disseminate the Qualtrics survey to counselors via an email
listerv. One state, Wisconsin, gave consent to participate in the study, but for various interagency
reasons was unable to provide a liaison for survey dissemination. Despite this limitation, the
director encouraged the researcher to utilize the agency’s public website to obtain email
addresses for their counselors. As a representative from the agency was not visible through the
data collection process, this was thought to negatively impact the response from this state. A
second contrast to standard data collection procedures occurred in Illinois. While the other six
states had email addresses and listervs to utilize for survey dissemination, Illinois required
dissemination to occur via the agency intranet website. With this procedure, the survey
47

introduction, consent statement, and link to the Qualtrics survey was posted on the main page of
the intranet site. This procedure required counselors to access the intranet site, see the survey
posted, and click on the link for participation. Because the survey was not sent to counselors
directly via email in this state, this was thought to negatively impact the response rate from
Illinois.
From the 1,251 professionals who received the survey via email invitation, a total of 421
surveys were returned. Unfinished surveys, and surveys missing more than 10% of data were
removed before running analysis; resulting in a final sample of 353 participants. Response rate
for this study was 28.22%. Overall response rate was negatively impacted by the aforementioned
data collection discrepancies described above for Wisconsin and Illinois. When removing these
two states from the overall participant pool to determine the response rate, there is a 7.5%
increase in response rate to 35.67%. Iowa had the largest response rate (N=85, response rate of
58.8%) followed by Ohio (N=237, response rate of 41.7%) and Pennsylvania (N=285, response
rate of 34.0%). This can likely be attributed to the nature of survey dissemination in these states,
as transition listservs were utilized in Ohio and Iowa. The transition consultant in Pennsylvania,
who also served as the liaison between the researcher and staff, was highly collaborative and
supportive and may be a contributing factor to the higher response rate in this State.
As noted in table 6, 68.6% of participants identified themselves as general counselors,
while 31.4% of participants identified as being transition counselors. Table 7 represents sample
participants by State, and demonstrates Ohio (28.0%) and Pennsylvania (27.5%) as having the
largest representation of responses, followed by Iowa (14.2%) and Minnesota (12.2%).

48

Table 6: Participant Caseload Characteristics
N

%

Transition Counselor
110
31.4
General Counselor
240
68.6
Total
350
100
Note: Transition Counselor refers to those participants that identified with having >50% of their
caseload consisting of transition aged youth.

Table 7: Participant Caseload Characteristics by State
Transition
General
Total
Counselor
Counselor
n
%
n
%
N
%
Ohio
34
30.9
65
26.7
99.0
28.0
Pennsylvania
23
20.9
74
30.5
97
27.5
Iowa
12
10.9
38
15.6
50
14.2
Minnesota
17
15.5
26
10.7
43
12.2
Michigan
16
14.5
15
6.2
31
8.8
Wisconsin
0
0.0
18
7.4
18
5.1
Illinois
8
7.3
7
2.9
15
4.2
110
Total
100.0
243
100.0
353
100.0
Research Questions
Research Question 1: What are the demographic characteristics and professional
experiences of those who provide transition services in the VR setting?
Table 8 shows basic demographic characteristics of transition counselors, as compared to
general counselors. For both groups, the majority of participants were female (72.4%) and White
(93.6%). When considering the entire sample, the greatest number of participants were between
50-59 years of age (28.2%). However, when considering age by caseload characteristics, the
greatest number of transition counselors were between 30-39 years of age (34.6%), whereas the
greatest number of general counselors were between 50-59 years of age (30.1%). With regard to
education, the majority of participants reported a Master’s degree as the highest degree earned
49

(89.1%). However, more transition counselors reported having a Bachelor degree, when
compared to the entire sample. When analyzing degree majors, most reported their degree to be
in Rehabilitation Counseling (60.7%). More transition counselors reported a degree in
Psychology (6.4%), Social Work (9.1%) and Other (12.7%), when compared to the entire sample.
Reports for certification status were similar across groups, with the majority of participants
indicating that they are not certified (53.9%). The majority of participants reported a current job
title of vocational rehabilitation counselor (84.5%). Not surprisingly given the nature of the
current study, nearly 8 times more transition specialists were reported as transition counselors,
when compared to general counselors. Furthermore, nearly twice as many transition counselors
reported “other” as a current job title, when compared to general counselors. The greatest
number of participants worked as a rehabilitation counselor for 10+ years (40.8%). Additionally,
the greatest number of participants worked in their State’s VR agency for 10+ years (35.4%), as
opposed to private or non-profit rehabilitation settings. The majority of participants also reported
being Civil Servants (81.8%). While the majority of the sample reported their work setting as
being within a public VR office (83.9%), more transition counselors reported being located
within a high school (3.7%) or “other” (21.3%) setting, when compared to the entire sample.
Table 8: Participant General Characteristics by Caseload Characteristics
Transition
General
Counselor
Counselor
n
%
n
%
Gender
Female
87
81.3
165
72.4
Male
20
18.7
63
27.6
Total
107
100.0
228
100.0

n

%

165
83
228

72.4
36.4
100.0

Age
20-29
30-39

44
83

13.2
24.9

11
37

10.3
34.6
50

33
46

14.6
20.4

Total

Table 8 (cont’d)
40-49
50-59
60+
Total

25
26
8
107

23.4
24.3
7.5
100.0

54
68
25
226

23.9
30.1
11.1
100.0

79
94
33
333

23.7
28.2
9.9
100.0

Race
White
Black
Asian
Hispanic
American Indian
Other
Total

99
3
0
1
1
0
104

95.2
2.9
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
100.0

208
10
1
2
1
2
224

92.9
4.5
0.4
0.9
0.4
0.9
100.0

307
13
1
3
2
2
328

93.6
4.0
0.3
0.9
0.6
0.6
100.0

Education (Highest Degree Earned)
Associates Degree
Bachelors Degree
Masters Degree
Doctorate
Total

1
16
90
2
109

0.9
14.7
82.6
1.8
100.0

2
16
221
1
240

0.8
6.7
92.1
0.4
100.0

3
32
311
3
349

0.9
9.2
89.1
0.9
100.0

59
1
7
10

53.6
0.9
6.4
9.1

153
2
11
14

64.0
0.8
4.6
5.9

212
3
18
24

60.7
0.9
5.2
6.9

14

12.7

39

16.3

53

15.2

Major of Highest Degree
Rehabilitation Counseling
Rehabilitation Psychology
Psychology
Social Work
Other Counseling Specialty (e.g.
Substance Abuse, Mental Health, etc.)
Other Rehabilitation Specialty (e.g.
Vocational Evaluation, Job
Placement, etc.)
Other
Total

5

4.5

8

3.3

13

3.7

14
110

12.7
100.0

12
239

5.0
100.0

26
349

7.4
100.0

Certified Rehabilitation Counselor
Yes
No
Total

46
61
107

43.0
57.0
100.0

112
124
236

47.5
52.5
100.0

158
185
343

46.1
53.9
100.0

79

72.5

215

90.0

294

84.5

9
1

8.3
0.9

1
0

0.4
0.0

10
1

2.9
0.3

Current Job Title
Vocational Rehabilitation
Counselor
Transition Specialist
Transition Consultant

51

Table 8 (cont’d)
Other
Total

20
109

18.3
100.0

23
239

9.6
100.0

43
348

12.4
100.0

Years worked as a Rehabilitation
Counselor
0-3 Years
4-6 Years
7-10 Years
10+ Years
Total

32
24
13
40
109

29.4
22.0
11.9
36.7
100.0

49
46
42
102
239

20.5
19.2
17.6
42.7
100.0

81
70
55
142
348

23.3
20.1
15.8
40.8
100.0

Years worked in your State VR
Agency
0-3 Years
4-6 Years
7-10 Years
10+ Years
Total

32
27
12
38
109

29.4
24.8
11.0
34.9
100.0

51
57
45
85
238

21.4
23.9
18.9
35.7
100.0

83
84
57
123
347

23.9
24.2
16.4
35.4
100.0

Employee Status
Civil Servant
Contractual Employee
Total

78
31
109

71.6
28.4
100.0

206
32
238

86.6
13.4
100.0

284
63
347

81.8
18.2
100.0

76

70.4

215

90.0

291

83.9

5
4
23
108

4.6
3.7
21.3
100.0

12
1
11
239

5.0
0.4
4.6
100.0

17
5
34
347

4.9
1.4
9.8
100.0

Current Work Setting
State-Federal Vocational
Rehabilitation Office
Community Rehabilitation Provider
High School
Other
Total

Research Question 2: How did transition counselors in the current study receive their
training specific to transition services?
Table 9 demonstrates the nature, frequency and opinion of specific training in transition
services for both transition and general counselors. The majority of the sample has received their
training in related to transition services via seminars and workshops (67.2%). Surprisingly, 10%
of transition counselors (and 18.9% of general counselors) report having never received formal
52

training in relation to transition services. The largest number of the sample reports the frequency
with which they receive transition training as occasional (48.9%), followed by very rarely
(31.3%). When asked if they believe there should be specific training for transition counselors,
83.5% of the sample responded with a yes, that there should be training for these caseloads.
Furthermore, when asked if Master’s programs and VR agencies should provide more training
specific to transition services, 87.1% agreed that master’s programs should provide more training,
while 85.3% agreed that VR agencies should offer more training specific to transition services.
Table 9: Transition Training by Caseload Characteristics
Transition
General
Counselor
Counselor
n
%
n
%
Nature of Previous Transition
Training
Workshops
79
71.8
155
65.1
On-line Courses
1
0.9
5
2.1
University or college training
19
17.3
33
13.9
No training
11
10.0
45
18.9
Total
110
100.0
238
100.0

n

%

234
6
52
56
348

67.2
1.7
14.9
16.1
100.0

Frequency of Transition Training
Never
Very Rarely
Occasionally
Often
Very Often
Total

4
18
61
18
9
110

3.6
16.4
55.5
16.4
8.2
100.0

22
91
109
15
1
238

9.2
38.2
45.8
6.3
0.4
100.0

26
109
170
33
10
348

7.5
31.3
48.9
9.5
2.9
100.0

Do you believe there should be
specific training for transition
counselors?
Yes
No
Total

95
12
107

88.8
11.2
100.0

188
44
232

81.0
19.0
100.0

283
56
339

83.5
16.5
100.0

In your opinion, should master's level
educational programs provide more
training specific to transition services?
53

Total

Table 9 (cont’d)
Yes
No
Total
In your opinion, should VR agencies
offer or require more training specific
to transition services?
Yes
No
Total

96
13
109

88.1
11.9
100.0

202
31
233

86.7
13.3
100.0

298
44
342

87.1
12.9
100.0

95
15
110

86.4
13.6
100.0

202
36
238

84.9
15.1
100.0

297
51
348

85.3
14.7
100.0

Factor Analysis
Figure 1, shown below, is the scree plot for the six transition knowledge subdomain
factors that were identified after running the factor analysis. As mentioned in chapter 3, six
factors account for 61.72% of variance. The first factor explains a great deal of variance
(35.72%). This factor is represented as the transition knowledge subdomain entitled program
structure and policies. Using .40 as the factor loading criteria, 22 of 24 items loaded on one of
the six factors; however, decisions were made to remove or retain various items based on
relevancy to individual factors and the researchers consideration of items to be key in defining a
particular underlying construct.

54

Figure 1: Scree Plot for Transition Knowledge Subdomains
Table 10: Factor Analysis –Total Variance Explained
Factor
Eigenvalue % Variance
1: Program Structure and Policies
10.36
35.72
2: Family Involvement
1.91
6.58
3: Student Development
1.69
5.77
4: Interagency Collaboration
1.51
5.20
5: Student Focused Planning
1.25
4.32
6: IEP Development
1.20
4.12
Two items did not load higher than .40, however both of these items were retained and
placed in the domains that were identified by the factor analysis. These items were retained
despite being below the .40 cutoff, based on researcher knowledge and the items centrality to the
underlying construct. Item 9 (mentors to facilitate socialization, inclusion and learning) was kept
55

in factor 3 (Student Development), despite having a factor loading of .363. Additionally, item 24
(individualized services to meet student needs) was kept in factor 1 (Program Structure and
Policies), despite having a factor loading of .338. Finally, one factor was removed from the
analysis because it was not considered critical or relevant in defining the underlying construct in
which it was placed. This was item 5 (leisure skills training), and it was initially placed in the
sixth factor (IEP Development), with a factor loading of .436. The item distributions resulting
from the factor analysis can be found in table 11.
Table 11: Rotated Factor Matrix
Factor
3
4

1

5

6

.041

-.018

.553

.218

.134

.210

.582

.122

.039

.110

.187

.436

.196

.125

.180

.458

.014

.488

.208

.162

.223

.121

.592

.199

.021

.102

.157

.221

.608

.200

.219

.062

.230

.001

.469

.426

.224

.199

.202

.627

.194

.096

School system, programs, and personnel.

.364

.132

.169

.631

.097

.176

Assessment of community resources and needs.

.271

.289

.124

.461

.270

.090

.085

.168

.328

.435

.120

.385

.165

.053

.606

.219

.315

.105

.154

.112

.588

.150

.137

.162

.199

.226

.639

.164

.107

.241

.172

.167

.363

.221

.204

.295

Pre-Individual Education Plan (IEP) activities for
parents/guardians.
Facilitation of student involvement in the Individual
Education Program (IEP) development.
Leisure skills training.
Individual Education Plan (IEP) development.
Principles of self-awareness to aid in identification
of barriers to employment and realistic job goals.
Social skills (soft skills) training.
Principles of self-determination to facilitate
vocational planning.
Collaboration with general and special education
teachers.

Providing classroom resources for students and
teachers relevant to the world of work.
Employment skills instruction.
Continuum of work-based learning experiences.
Career and vocational curriculum to facilitate career
exploration.
Mentors to facilitate socialization, inclusion and
learning.
56

2

.221

.390

.163

.086

.107

.253

Table 11 (cont’d)
Skill instruction in the context of real life
experiences.
Inclusion of parents and family members/guardians
in vocational planning and decision-making.
Encouragement of parent/guardian attendance at
vocational planning meetings.
Providing school-to-work and transition
information to parents/guardians and families.
Federal legislation relevant to educational systems
(No Child Left Behind, Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, etc)
Resource sharing agreements.
Awareness of ways to facilitate shared delivery of
school-to-work transition services between partners.
Outcome-based programming.

.245

.486

.128

.285

.146

.042

.797

.101

.074

.113

.154

.128

.718

.235

.125

.000

.229

.218

.550

.184

.271

.173

.110

.622

.051

.016

.283

.183

.211

.609

.002

.239

.147

-.041

.283

.683

.180

.219

.136

.188

.037

.612

.170

.247

.131

.129

.098

.338

Individualized services to meet student needs.

.164

.331

.202

.328

.275

.001

Student Focused Planning (Transition Knowledge Subdomain 1)
The aim of this cluster is to assist the student in identifying their personal goals using
relevant assessment information for planning, student participation in decision making, as well as
student evaluation of their progress in meeting their goals (Kohler & Field, 2003). Principles of
self-awareness to identify realistic employment options, self-determination to facilitate
vocational planning and soft skills training are inherent in this knowledge domain cluster.
The average score for this transition knowledge subdomain, as reported by transition
counselors was 4.0 (SD=.78) for importance and 3.2 (SD=.93) for preparedness. General
rehabilitation counselors reported an average score of 4.0 (SD=.85) for importance and 3.2
(SD=.97) for preparedness. A Cronbach’s alpha yielded a coefficient of .77 and is considered
acceptable to indicate internal consistency.

57

Student Development (Transition Knowledge Subdomain 2)
The aim of this cluster is to emphasize life, employment and occupational skill
development through school-based and work-based learning experience (Kohler et al, 2003; Test
et al, 2009; Landmark et al, 2010). Employment skill instruction, work-based learning
experiences, vocational curriculum, mentoring and skill instruction in the context of real life
experienes are central to this knowledge domain cluster.
The average score for this transition knowledge subdomain, as reported by transition
counselors was 3.9 (SD=.82) for importance and 3.0 (SD=1.03) for preparedness. General
rehabilitation counselors reported an average score of 3.9 (SD=.88) for importance and 2.9
(SD=.99) for preparedness. A Cronbach’s alpha yielded a coefficient of .82 and is considered
acceptable to indicate internal consistency.
Interagency Collaboration (Transition Knowledge Subdomain 3)
This grouping focuses on the utilization and collaboration with community partners,
businesses and organizations (Kohler et al, 2003; Landmark et al, 2010). Through these
symbiotic relationships, community organizations can provide standards and necessary
competencies. The degree of collaboration varies drasticly from program to program. Themes of
collaboration between general and special eduation teachers, school systems, and school
personnel are important in this subdoamin. Additionally, assessment of community resources and
needs and the provision of classroom resources for students and teachers relevant to the world of
work are inherent in this cluster.
The average score for this transition knowledge subdomain, as reported by transition
counselors was 4.1 (SD=.82) for importance and 3.1 (SD=1.19) for preparedness. General
rehabilitation counselors reported an average score of 3.9 (SD=.93) for importance and 2.8
58

(SD=1.07) for preparedness. A Cronbach’s alpha yielded a coefficient of .82 and is considered
acceptable to indicate internal consistency.
Family Involvement (Transition Knowledge Subdomain 4)
This domain highlights the relevance of parental and family involvement within
transition planning, education dissemination and provision of services (Kohler et al, 2003; Test
et al, 2009; Landmark et al, 2010). Items concerning the inclusion of guardians in vocational
planning and decision making, encouraging the guardian to attend vocational planning meetings
and providing information to guradians regarding school-to-work transition are central in this
knowledge subdomain.
The average score for this transition knowledge subdomain, as reported by transition
counselors was 4.2 (SD=.86) for importance and 3.3 (SD=1.06) for preparedness. General
rehabilitation counselors reported an average score of 4.0 (SD=.86) for importance and 3.1
(SD=1.06) for preparedness. A Cronbach’s alpha yielded a coefficient of .83 and is considered
acceptable to indicate internal consistency.
Program Structure and Policies (Transition Knowledge Subdomain 5)
The organization of a school largely dictates its framework for transition services and
processes. With this in mind, concepts regarding federal legislation, resource sharing agreements,
awareness of ways to share school-to-work transition services between partners, outcomes-based
programming and individualized services to meet student needs are essential in this cluster.
The average score for this transition knowledge subdomain, as reported by transition
counselors was 3.8 (SD=.89) for importance and 2.9 (SD=1.05) for preparedness. General
rehabilitation counselors reported an average score of 3.6 (SD=.92) for importance and 2.8

59

(SD=1.04) for preparedness. A Cronbach’s alpha yielded a coefficient of .84 and is considered
acceptable to indicate internal consistency.
IEP Development (Transition Knowledge Subdomain 6)
Individual Education Plans are integral to any transition planning services provided
within a school system, and federally mandated. As such, it is not surprising that a separate
subdomain was identified with the factor analysis. Within the theme, concepts of the facilitation
of student involvement in their IPE, IEP development, and pre-IEP activities for guardians are
seen within the cluster.
The average score for this transition knowledge subdomain, as reported by transition
counselors was 3.6 (SD=1.03) for importance and 2.7 (SD=1.18) for preparedness. General
rehabilitation counselors reported an average score of 3.5 (SD=1.03) for importance and 2.4
(SD=1.09) for preparedness. A Cronbach’s alpha yielded a coefficient of .69. This alpha is
considered to be below the acceptable level of internal consistency (by.01 units), however the
research decided to incoporate this transition knowledge subdomain for further analysis. The
rationale of the inclusion of this item is twofold: (1) This item was identified as a sixth factor
when running an unrestricted factor analysis with eigenvalues greater than 1, (2) this item is
considered important when considering the central roles and functions of transition counselors,
and was this included for further analysis.
The remaining 11 general rehabilitation counseling knowledge subdomains, as identified
by Leahy et al, 2011, yielded Cronbach alphas between .73 and .90 to indicate high internal
consistency of the items making up each factor. A minimum reliability coefficient of .70 for
subscales in considered acceptable (Nunnally, 1978).

60

Table 12: Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients for General Rehabilitation
Counseling Knowledge Subdomains
Subdomain
α
Individual Counseling
.83
Group and Family Counseling
.90
Mental Health Counseling
.86
Psychosocial and Cultural Issues in Counseling
.87
Career Counseling and Assessment
.82
Job Development and Placement Services
.81
Vocational Consultation and Services for Employers
.83
Case and Caseload Management
.73
Medical, Functional, and Environmental Aspects of Disabilities
.82
Foundations, Ethics, and Professional Issues
.86
Rehabilitation Services and Resources
.74
Table 13 shows the importance and preparedness average ratings for knowledge domains
by caseload characteristics. The transition knowledge domain was established by the conceptual
framework for the current study, and expounded upon after conducting the factor analysis, which
added the 6th subdomain of IEP development. The remaining three knowledge domains
(counseling knowledge, vocational knowledge and core rehabilitation counseling knowledge)
were established by Leahy, et al (2009) after performing a factor analysis and grouping
subdomains by content area. As demonstrated in table 13, both transition counselors and general
counselors reported transition knowledge as the most important knowledge domain. While
transition counselors rated the transition knowledge domain slightly higher than general
rehabilitation counselors (M=3.9 SD=.87) and M=3.8 SD=.91, respectively), the groups reported
the same domain averages for the remaining three knowledge domains. Furthermore, both groups
of professionals also reported themselves to be most prepared in core rehabilitation counseling
knowledge. There were, however, marginal differences in domain rankings for preparedness
from both groups of professionals with regard to the remaining three knowledge domains. For
example, transition counselors reported themselves to be least prepared in vocational knowledge,
61

while general rehabilitation counselors reported themselves to be least prepared in transition
knowledge. These findings will be reviewed in more detail in the discussion portion of chapter 5.

62

Table 13: Importance and Preparedness Rating for Knowledge Domains by Caseload Characteristics
Transition Counselors
General Counselors
IMPORTANCE
PREPAREDNESS
IMPORTANCE
PREPAREDNESS
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Transition Knowledge
3.9
0.87
3.0
1.07
3.8
0.91
2.9
1.04
Student Focused Planning
4.0
0.78
3.2
0.93
4.0
0.85
3.2
0.97
Student Development
3.9
0.82
3.0
1.03
3.9
0.88
2.9
0.99
Interagency Collaboration
4.1
0.82
3.1
1.19
3.9
0.93
2.8
1.07
Family Involvement
4.2
0.86
3.3
1.06
4.0
0.86
3.1
1.06
Program Structure and Policies
3.8
0.89
2.9
1.05
3.6
0.92
2.8
1.04
IEP Development
3.6
1.03
2.7
1.18
3.5
1.03
2.4
1.09
Counseling Knowledge
Individual Counseling
Group and Family Counseling
Mental Health Counseling
Psychosocial and Cultural Issues
in Counseling

3.4
3.6
2.8
3.6

0.95
0.95
0.98
0.91

3.1
3.6
3.1
2.9

1.05
1.03
1.20
1.01

3.4
3.7
2.7
3.6

0.94
0.92
1.02
0.92

3.2
3.7
3.0
3.1

0.92
0.80
0.97
0.97

3.6

0.98

3.0

0.97

3.6

0.92

3.1

0.92

Vocational Knowledge
Career Counseling and
Assessment
Job Development and Placement
Services
Vocational Consultation and
Services for Employers

3.7

0.90

2.9

1.01

3.7

0.88

3.1

0.99

3.6

0.92

3.0

0.99

3.6

0.88

3.2

0.96

3.9

0.85

3.0

1.02

3.9

0.84

3.3

0.99

3.6

0.94

2.7

1.01

3.6

0.93

2.8

1.02

3.7

0.92

3.2

1.02

3.7

0.91

3.3

1.01

3.9

0.88

3.3

1.11

4.0

0.88

3.5

1.10

Core Rehabilitation Counseling
Knowledge
Case and Caseload Management

63

Table 13 (cont’d)
Medical, Functional, and
Environmental Aspects of
Disabilities
Foundations, Ethics, and
Professional Issues
Rehabilitation Services and
Resources

3.9

0.89

3.4

0.94

3.9

0.85

3.5

0.92

3.4

0.97

3.1

1.00

3.2

0.96

3.1

0.98

3.6

0.93

3.1

1.03

3.6

0.93

3.2

1.04

64

Research Question 3: How important are the various knowledge domains for transition
counselors in relation to optimizing outcomes for their transition-aged youth clients?
Table 14 shows the six transition knowledge domains that were identified after
performing the factor analysis, and compares transition counselor ratings of importance on these
domains to general counselor ratings. The scale used when asking counselors to ranking their
perceived level of importance on various items was a 5-point Likert-scale. They were scored as
follows: Importance Scale: 1 = Not Important, 2 = Somewhat Important, 3 = Important, 4 = Very
Important, 5 = Extremely Important.
Of these six subdomains for transition knowledge, transition counselors rated family
involvement as most important, with a subdomain average of 4.2. Notably, this is the highest
ranking given to any of the 17 subdomains for either group of counselors. Interagency
collaboration was given a subdomain average of 4.1 followed by student focused planning with
an average of 4.0. Transition counselors identified these three knowledge subdomains of
transition counseling to be, at least, very important. The lowest ranked subdomain average by
transition counselors for importance was IEP development, which yielded an average of 3.6. As
mentioned previously in chapter 3, this 6th factor was identified after conducting a factor analysis
that produced one factor beyond the conceptual framework. Each item within the cluster focuses
on IEP development and planning with students and their guardians. Program structure and
policies had a subdomain average of 3.8, while student development had a subdomain average of
3.9. Transition counselors found these three knowledge subdomains of transition counseling to
be, at least, important.

65

General counselors rated family involvement and student focused planning equally high,
with a subdomain average of 4.0. As such, general counselors identified these two knowledge
subdomains of transition counseling to be very important. Student development and interagency
collaboration were both given a subdomain average of 3.9. The lowest ranked subdomain
average for importance, as ranked by general counselors, was IEP development, which yielded
an average of 3.5. Program structure and policies had a subdomain average of 3.6,General
rehabilitation counselors found these four knowledge subdomain of transition counseling to be,
at least, important.
Both groups of counselors had similarities in importance rating for transition knowledge
subdomains. IEP development was ranked as the least important knowledge subdomain (3.6 for
transition counselors and 3.5 for general rehabilitation counselors), and family involvement was
ranked highest (4.2 for transition counselors and 4.0 for general rehabilitation counselors). The
range in subdomain averages varied slightly, with transition counselors ranking subdomain
averages from 3.6 to 4.2 and general rehabilitation counselors ranking subdomain averages from
4.0 to 3.5. However, transition counselors ranked transition knowledge subdomains as more
important than general rehabilitation counselors for four knowledge areas (Interagency
collaboration, family involvement, program structure and policies and IEP development). Finally,
transition counselors ranked transition knowledge subdomains as equally important to general
rehabilitation counselors ranking for two knowledge areas (student focused planning and student
development).
Table 15 demonstrates the 11 general rehabilitation counseling knowledge domains that
were identified by Leahy et all (2011), and compares transition counselor ratings of importance

66

and preparedness on these domains to general counselor ratings. The same scale for transition
knowledge subdomains regarding importance and preparedness was used on these items as well.
Of the 11 subdomains for general rehabilitation counseling knowledge, transition
counselors rated job development and placement, case and caseload management, and medical,
functional and environmental aspects of disabilities as most important, with an average in each
subdomain of 3.9. Individual counseling, mental health counseling, psychosocial and cultural
issues in counseling, career counseling and assessment, vocational consultation and services for
employers and, finally, rehabilitation services and resources were all given a subdomain average
of 3.6 by transition counselors. The knowledge subdomain of foundations, ethics and
professional issues was given an average of 3.4 by transition counselors. Ten of the 11
knowledge subdomains for general rehabilitation counseling knowledge were rated as, at least,
“important” by transition counselors. The least important general counseling knowledge
subdomain as ranked by transition counselors was group and family counseling, which yielded a
subdomain average of 2.8, indicating that this group of counselors felt this knowledge
subdomain was “somewhat important.
General rehabilitation counselors ranked case and caseload management as the most
important general knowledge subdomain, given an average of 4.0, or indicating that it is “very
important”. Following are nine other general counseling knowledge subdomains that general
counselors rank as “important”. Those are job development and placement (3.9), medical,
functional and environmental aspects of disabilities (3.9), individual counseling (3.7), mental
health counseling (3.6), psychosocial and cultural issues in counseling (3.6), career counseling
and assessment (3.6), vocational consultation and services for employers (3.6), rehabilitation
services and resources (3.6), and finally, foundations, ethics and professional issues (3.2). The
67

least important general counseling knowledge subdomain as ranked by general rehabilitation
counselors was group and family counseling, which yielded a subdomain average of 2.7,
indicating that this group of counselors felt this knowledge subdomain was “somewhat important.
When comparing importance rankings of each group of counselors, there was a great deal
of consistency and agreement with regard to general rehabilitation counseling knowledge
subdomains. Both groups of professional’s felt that case and caseload management, job
development and placement and medical, functional and environmental aspects of disabilities are
most important. Additionally, both groups of professionals felt as if group and family counseling
was least important.

68

Table 14: Transition Knowledge Subdomains by Caseload Characteristics
Transition Counselors
IMPORTANCE
PREPAREDNESS
M
SD
M
SD
Student Focused Planning
Principles of self-awareness to aid
in identification of barriers to
4.0
0.79
3.2
0.96
employment and realistic job goals
Principles of self-determination to
3.9
0.80
3.2
0.95
facilitate vocational planning
Social Skills (soft skills) training
4.1
0.75
3.3
0.90
Subdomain Average:
4.0
3.2
Student Development
Employment skills instruction
Continuum of work-based learning
experiences
Career and vocational curriculum to
facilitate career exploration
Mentors to facilitate socialization,
inclusion and learning
Skill instruction in the context of
real life experiences
Subdomain Average:
Interagency Collaboration
Collaboration with general and
special education teachers
School system, programs, and
personnel

General Counselors
IMPORTANCE
PREPAREDNESS
M
SD
M
SD

4.0

0.83

3.2

0.96

3.8

0.85

3.2

1.00

4.1
4.0

0.87

3.2
3.2

0.97

4.1

0.83

3.3

0.98

4.0

0.89

3.2

0.95

3.9

0.85

3.0

1.01

4.0

0.82

3.0

0.94

4.0

0.81

3.2

1.04

4.0

0.87

3.2

1.01

3.5

0.84

2.5

0.99

3.6

0.97

2.5

1.02

4.1

0.80

2.9

1.12

4.0

0.86

2.7

1.01

3.9

3.0

3.9

2.9

4.3

0.75

3.3

1.23

4.1

0.90

3.0

1.10

4.0

0.87

3.0

1.23

3.6

0.93

2.6

1.05

69

Table 14 (cont’d)
Assessment of community resources
and needs
Providing classroom resources for
students and teachers relevant to the
world of work
Subdomain Average:
Family Involvement
Inclusion of parents and family
members/guardians in vocational
planning and decision-making
Encouragement of parent/guardian
attendance at vocational planning
meetings
Providing school-to-work and
transition information to
parents/guardians and families
Subdomain Average:
Program Structure and Policies
Federal legislation relevant to
educational systems (No Child Left
Behind, Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, etc.)
Resource sharing agreements
Awareness of ways to facilitate
shared delivery of school- to-work
transition services between partners
Outcome-based programming

4.3

0.73

3.2

1.06

4.0

0.84

3.2

1.3

3.8

0.92

2.9

1.24

3.7

1.05

2.6

1.10

4.1

3.1

3.9

2.8

4.2

0.87

3.3

0.97

4.1

0.85

3.2

1.00

4.1

0.91

3.1

1.08

4.0

0.87

3.0

1.09

4.4

0.80

3.4

1.14

4.0

0.85

3.1

1.08

4.2

3.3

4.0

3.1

3.4

1.08

2.8

1.02

3.3

1.02

2.7

1.03

3.5

0.92

2.6

0.99

3.3

0.96

2.5

1.06

4.0

0.85

2.8

1.11

3.7

0.88

2.7

1.05

3.8

0.90

2.9

1.07

3.4

0.96

2.8

1.08

70

Table 14 (cont’d)
Individualized services to meet
student needs
Subdomain Average:
IEP Development
Facilitation of student involvement
in the Individual Education Program
(IEP) development
Individual Education Plan (IEP)
development
Pre-Individual Education Plan (IEP)
activities for parents/guardians
Subdomain Average:

4.4

0.69

3.8

3.5

1.06

2.9

4.3

0.79

3.6

3.4

0.99

2.8

3.8

1.02

2.8

1.24

3.7

0.98

2.6

1.10

3.7

1.03

2.9

1.22

3.6

1.05

2.5

1.14

3.3

1.03

2.3

1.08

3.1

1.05

2.1

1.03

3.6

2.7

71

3.5

2.4

Research Question 4: In what various knowledge domains do transition counselors
perceive themselves to be the most and least prepared?
The scale used when asking counselors to rank their perceived level of preparedness on
various items was a 5-point Likert-scale. They were scored as follows: 1 = No Preparation, 2 =
Little Preparation, 3 = Moderate Preparation, 4 = High Degree of Preparation, 5 = Very High
Degree of Preparation. Of the six subdomains for transition knowledge displayed in Table 14,
transition counselors rated themselves as being most prepared with regard to the family
involvement knowledge subdomain, yielding an average of 3.3. Student focused planning was
given a subdomain average of 3.2 followed by interagency collaboration and student
development, with subdomain averages of 3.1 and 3.0, respectively. Transition counselors
identified themselves in these three knowledge subdomains of transition counseling to be, at least,
moderately prepared. The lowest ranked subdomain average by transition counselors for
preparation was IEP development, which yielded an average of 2.7. Program structure and
policies had a subdomain average of 2.9 for preparation. Transition counselors reported
themselves to have, at least, “little preparation”, in these two transition knowledge subdomain of
transition counseling.
General counselors rated themselves as being most prepared with regard to the student
focused planning knowledge subdomain, yielding an average of 3.2. Family involvement was
given a subdomain average of 3.1 for preparation. General counselors regard themselves to be, at
least, “moderately prepared” in these two transition knowledge subdomains. General counselors
reported themselves to have, at least, “little preparation” with regard to student development,
interagency collaboration and program structure and policies, yielding subdomain averages of
72

2.9, 2.8 and 2.8, respectively. Finally, general rehabilitation counselors reported themselves to be
the least prepared in IEP development, yielding a subdomain average of 2.4.
Both groups of counselors had similarities in preparedness ratings for transition
knowledge subdomains. IEP development was ranked as the knowledge area with the least
amount of preparation (2.7 for transition counselors and 2.8 for general rehabilitation counselors).
While family involvement was ranked highest for preparation among the transition counselors
(3.3), general rehabilitation counselors ranked student focused planning the highest for
preparation (3.2). The range in subdomain averages for preparation is similar between groups,
with transition counselors ranking subdomain averages from 3.3 to 2.7 and general rehabilitation
counselors ranking subdomain averages from 3.1 to 2.4. However, transition counselors ranked
themselves as more prepared in transition knowledge subdomains than did general rehabilitation
counselors for five knowledge areas (student development, interagency collaboration, family
involvement, program structure and policies and IEP development). Finally, transition
counselors reported themselves as equally prepared to general rehabilitation counselors for one
knowledge subdomain (student focused planning).
Of the 11 general rehabilitation counseling knowledge domains displayed in Table 15,
transition counselors reported themselves to be the most prepared in individual counseling
knowledge (3.6). Additionally transition counselors reported themselves to be, at least,
“moderately prepared” in eight other general rehabilitation counseling knowledge subdomains:
medical, functional and environmental aspects of disabilities (3.4), case and caseload
management (3.3), group and family counseling (3.1), foundations, ethics and professional issues
(3.1), rehabilitation services and resources (3.1), job development and placement (3.0), career
counseling and assessment (3.0), and, psychosocial and cultural issues in counseling (3.0).The
73

area of least preparation in general counseling knowledge, as reported by transition counselors,
was vocational consultation and services for employers (2.7), followed by mental health
counseling (2.9). Transition counselors reported themselves to have had, at least, “little
preparation”, in these two general rehabilitation counseling knowledge subdomains.
General rehabilitation counselors also reported themselves to be the most prepared in
individual counseling knowledge (3.7). Additionally general rehabilitation counselors reported
themselves to be, at least, “moderately prepared” in nine other general rehabilitation counseling
knowledge subdomains: case and caseload management (3.5), medical, functional and
environmental aspects of disabilities (3.5), job development and placement (3.3), career
counseling and assessment (3.2), rehabilitation services and resources (3.2), mental health
counseling (3.1), psychosocial and cultural issues in counseling (3.1), foundations, ethics and
professional issues (3.1), and group and family counseling (3.0). The area of least preparation in
general counseling knowledge, as reported by general rehabilitation counselors, was vocational
consultation and services for employers (2.8). General rehabilitation counselors reported
themselves to have had, at least, “little preparation”, in this general rehabilitation counseling
knowledge subdomain.
When comparing preparedness rankings of each group of counselors, there was some
consistency with regard to general rehabilitation counseling knowledge subdomains. Both groups
of professionals felt most prepared in individual counseling knowledge and least prepared in
vocational consultation and services for employer. The remaining nine general counseling
knowledge subdomains were clustered equally between the highest and lowest rankings for
preparedness within each group of professionals.

74

Table 15: General Rehabilitation Counseling Knowledge Subdomains by Caseload Characteristics
Transition Counselors
General Counselors
IMPORTANCE
PREPAREDNESS
IMPORTANCE
PREPAREDNESS
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Individual Counseling
Individual counseling
3.6
1.05
3.7
1.09
3.7
1.00
3.9
0.71
theories
Individual counseling
3.8
1.01
3.7
1.06
3.9
0.88
3.9
0.75
practices and interventions
Behavior and personality
3.6
0.91
3.7
0.94
3.6
0.91
3.6
0.86
theory
Human growth and
3.5
0.86
3.5
0.96
3.5
0.89
3.4
0.82
development
Diversity and multicultural
3.7
0.91
3.5
1.10
3.8
0.91
3.6
0.84
counseling issues.
Subdomain Average:
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.7
Group and Family Counseling
Group counseling theories
Group counseling practices
and interventions
Family counseling theories
Family counseling practices
and interventions
Subdomain Average:
Mental Health Counseling
Substance abuse and
treatment

2.5

1.06

3.2

1.21

2.5

1.03

3.2

0.99

2.6

1.01

3.2

1.19

2.6

1.04

3.1

1.00

3.0

0.92

3.0

1.20

2.9

1.00

2.8

0.98

3.0

0.92

2.9

1.21

2.9

1.00

2.8

0.93

2.8

3.5

3.1

0.87

2.7

2.9

1.01
75

3.7

3.0

0.90

3.2

0.96

Table 15 (cont’d)
Rehabilitation techniques
for individuals with
psychological disabilities
Health promotion and
wellness concepts and
strategies for people with
chronic illness and disability
Treatment planning for
clinical problems (e.g.
depression and anxiety)
Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders
IV-TR
Implications of medications
as they apply to people with
disabilities
Subdomain Average:
Psychosocial and Cultural
Issues in Counseling
Societal issues, trends, and
developments as they relate
to rehabilitation
Environmental and
attitudinal barriers for
individuals with disabilities
The psychosocial and
cultural impact of disability
on the individual

4.1

0.81

3.2

0.90

4.2

0.73

3.4

0.93

3.3

0.94

2.6

1.05

3.4

0.93

2.6

0.89

3.5

0.97

2.8

1.08

3.4

1.05

3.0

1.08

3.5

0.99

3.4

1.12

3.4

1.03

3.5

0.97

3.7

0.89

2.8

0.89

3.6

0.86

2.9

0.98

3.6

2.9

3.6

3.1

3.5

0.91

3.0

0.86

3.5

0.87

3.2

0.80

4.0

0.89

3.5

1.02

4.1

0.86

3.6

0.86

4.0

1.00

3.5

1.01

4.1

0.79

3.7

0.90

76

Table 15 (cont’d)
The psychosocial and
cultural impact of disability
on the family
Techniques for working
with individuals with
limited English proficiency
Human disability and
sexuality issues
Individual and family
adjustment to disability
Subdomain Average:
Career Counseling and
Assessment
Theories of career
development and work
adjustment
The tests and evaluation
techniques available for
assessing clients needs
Interpretation of assessment
results for rehabilitation
planning purposes
Ergonomics, job
accommodations, and
assistive technology
Transferable skills analysis
Computer-based and on-line
assessment tools

3.7

0.99

3.2

1.04

3.8

0.92

3.3

0.95

3.0

1.00

2.1

0.91

3.2

1.03

2.2

1.02

3.1

1.07

2.6

1.03

2.8

1.04

2.6

1.04

3.8

0.98

2.9

0.95

3.8

0.93

3.1

0.89

3.6

3.0

3.6

3.1

3.5

1.10

3.1

1.10

3.4

0.91

3.3

0.92

3.9

0.90

3.3

0.97

3.9

0.82

3.5

0.94

4.0

0.83

3.2

0.93

4.2

0.77

3.5

0.96

3.9

0.82

2.9

0.94

4.0

0.78

3.1

0.95

3.8

0.85

3.0

1.04

3.7

0.91

3.2

0.99

3.2

0.97

2.5

1.04

3.1

0.91

2.7

1.02

77

Table 15 (cont’d)
Psychometric concepts
related to measurement
(reliability, validity,
standard error of
measurement)
Subdomain Average:
Job Development and
Placement Services
Vocational implications of
functional limitations
associated with disabilities
Occupational and labor
market information
Job placement and job
development strategies
Supported employment
strategies and services
Job readiness including
seeking and retention skills
development
Methods and techniques
used to conduct labor
market surveys
Subdomain Average:
Vocational Consultation and
Services for Employers
Job modification and
restructuring techniques

2.7

0.98

3.6

2.9

0.93

3.0

2.6

1.10

3.6

3.0

0.93

3.2

4.3

0.78

3.6

0.96

4.5

0.70

3.9

0.91

3.9

0.89

3.0

1.00

4.0

0.84

3.5

0.97

4.4

0.81

3.2

1.05

4.3

0.80

3.4

0.99

3.9

0.90

2.9

1.00

3.8

0.87

3.1

1.01

4.2

0.78

3.1

1.02

4.2

0.81

3.3

0.98

2.7

0.96

2.4

1.10

2.7

1.02

2.6

1.10

3.9

3.8

3.0

0.84

3.9

3.0

0.99
78

3.8

3.3

0.85

2.9

0.99

Table 15 (cont’d)
Consultation process with
employers related to
management of disability
issues in the workplace
Employer development for
job placement
Marketing strategies and
techniques for rehabilitation
services
Job analysis and/or job
description development
Work conditioning or work
hardening resources and
strategies
Educating employers on
disability-related issues
(e.g., ADA, job
accommodation,
compliance/disability law)
Subdomain Average:

3.8

0.92

2.6

1.06

3.8

0.89

2.8

1.08

4.1

0.88

2.8

1.05

3.9

0.97

2.8

1.10

3.0

1.06

2.3

0.95

3.2

1.04

2.5

1.01

3.7

0.88

3.1

1.08

3.6

0.87

3.2

1.02

3.4

1.02

2.5

0.94

3.4

0.91

2.8

1.00

3.7

0.98

2.9

0.99

3.8

0.98

3.0

0.96

3.6

2.7

3.6

79

2.8

Table 15 (cont’d)
Case and Caseload
Management
The case management
process, including case
finding, planning, service
coordination, referral to and
utilization of other
disciplines, and client
advocacy
Principles of caseload
management
Professional roles,
functions, and relationships
with other human service
providers
Subdomain Average:
Medical, Functional, and
Environmental Aspects of
Disabilities
Rehabilitation terminology
and concepts
Environmental and
attitudinal barriers for
individuals with disabilities
Medical terminology
Medical aspects and
implications of various
disabilities
The functional capacities of
individuals with disabilities

4.2

0.85

3.5

1.07

4.3

0.79

3.6

1.00

3.9

0.89

3.2

1.17

4.0

0.91

3.4

1.17

3.7

0.89

3.3

1.09

3.7

0.95

3.4

1.13

3.9

3.3

4.0

3.5

3.8

0.85

3.7

0.85

3.7

0.97

3.9

0.88

4.0

0.88

3.5

1.02

4.1

0.86

3.6

0.86

3.6

0.94

3.4

0.95

3.6

0.89

3.5

0.96

4.0

0.91

3.5

0.98

4.1

0.82

3.7

0.91

4.2

0.88

3.5

0.99

4.4

0.72

3.7

0.93

80

Table 15 (cont’d)
Implications of medications
as they apply to people with
disabilities
Subdomain Average:
Foundations, Ethics, and
Professional Issues
Historical and philosophical
foundations of rehabilitation
counseling
Laws and pubic policy
affecting individuals with
disabilities
Risk management and
professional ethical standard
for rehabilitation counselors
Ethical decision making
models and processes
Clinical problem-solving
and critical-thinking skills
Advocacy processes needed
to address institutional and
social barriers that impede
access, equity, and success
for clients
Rehabilitation research
literature related to
evidence-based practice
Rehabilitation research
methods and statistics

3.7

0.89

3.9

2.8

0.86

3.4

3.6

0.86

3.9

2.9

0.98

3.5

2.9

1.00

3.3

1.03

2.8

0.98

3.5

0.91

3.9

0.89

3.5

0.88

3.9

0.89

3.5

0.84

4.1

0.95

3.7

0.98

4.1

0.97

3.8

1.01

3.8

1.04

3.6

1.13

3.8

1.01

3.7

0.89

4.1

0.98

3.5

0.98

4.3

0.82

3.8

0.99

3.7

0.97

3.0

1.06

3.5

0.98

2.8

1.01

3.0

0.96

2.9

0.97

2.7

0.93

2.7

0.99

2.7

0.93

2.8

0.98

2.5

0.99

2.8

1.01

81

Table 15 (cont’d)
Evidence-based practice and
research utilization
Research databases (e.g.
Cochrane Collaboration,
PsyINFO, and MEDLINE)
for locating empirically
validated interventions
Subdomain Average:
Rehabilitation Services and
Resources
Organizational structure of
rehabilitation counseling
practice settings (e.g. public,
private-for-profit, and not
for profit service delivery
systems)
Community resources and
services for rehabilitation
planning
Financial resources for
rehabilitation services
Services available from onestop career centers
Services available through
client advocacy programs
(e.g., Client Assistant
Programs [CAP], legal aid)

3.0

1.05

2.9

0.90

2.7

1.07

2.6

0.97

2.4

0.97

2.0

1.07

2.2

1.00

2.1

1.18

3.4

3.1

3.2

3.1

3.0

0.99

3.1

0.96

2.9

1.04

3.2

1.02

4.2

0.81

3.4

1.03

4.3

0.72

3.5

0.98

3.9

0.93

3.0

0.98

3.8

0.90

3.1

1.03

3.3

1.07

3.0

1.06

3.4

1.05

3.2

1.15

3.4

0.92

2.9

1.08

3.3

1.00

3.0

1.10

Table 15 (cont’d)
82

Programs and services for
specialty populations (e.g.,
school-to-work transition,
spinal cord injury, traumatic
brain injury, mental health,
developmental disability,
substance abuse,
correctional)
Subdomain Average:

4.1

3.6

0.84

3.1

1.03

3.1

4.0

3.6

83

0.86

3.2

3.2

0.98

Research Question 5: Do perceptions of importance and preparedness of knowledge
domain areas differ according to demographic, educational and professional characteristics?
In order to determine the effect of the independent variables on the perceptions of
importance and preparedness of knowledge domain areas separately, six Multivariate Analysis of
Variance (MANOVA) tests were run. One MANOVA was run with the independent variables
“Transition Counselor” and “General Counselor”, and with the dependent variables of factor
scores regarding importance for the four knowledge domain areas (transition knowledge,
counseling knowledge, vocational knowledge and core rehabilitation knowledge). The second
MANOVA was run with the independent variables “Transition Counselor” and “General
Counselor”, and with the dependent variables of factor scores regarding perceived level of
preparation for these four knowledge domain areas. A third MANOVA was run with the same
independent variables for type of counselor, with the dependent variables of factor scores
regarding importance for the six transition knowledge subdomain factor areas (student focused
planning, student development, interagency collaboration, family involvement, program structure
and policies, and IEP development). The fourth MANOVA was run with the same independent
variables for type of counselor, and with the dependent variables of factor scores regarding
perceived level of preparation for these six transition knowledge subdomain areas. A fifth
MANOVA was run with the same independent variables for type of counselor, with the
dependent variables of factor scores regarding importance for the 11 general rehabilitation
counseling knowledge subdomain factor areas (individual counseling, group and family
counseling, mental health counseling, psychosocial and cultural issues in counseling, career
counseling and assessment, job development and placement services, vocational consultation and
84

services for employers, case and caseload management, medical, functional and environmental
aspects of disabilities, foundations, ethics, and professional issues, and rehabilitation services
and resources.). The sixth MANOVA was run with the same independent variables for type of
counselor, and with the dependent variables of factor scores regarding perceived level of
preparation for these eleven general rehabilitation knowledge subdomain areas.
The results from the first MANOVA, shown in Table 16, indicate that only one main
effect was found. Specifically, a significant difference was found for the importance of transition
knowledge on type of counselor, F(1,264) = 6.917, p< .01. Transition counselors had a higher
average score for importance on transition knowledge domain items (M=3.95, SD=.50) than did
general rehabilitation counselors (M=3.77, SD=.54).The omnibus F test indicated significant
differences in importance of knowledge domain factor ratings by counselor type, Wilks’ Lambda
= .948, F(4, 259) = 3.574, p < .01. As demonstrated in Table 17, no main effect was found in
relation to counselor type on perceived level of preparedness for the four main knowledge
domain areas. Despite this, however, when run as an entire MANOVA, the omnibus F test
indicated significant differences in perceived preparedness of knowledge domain factor ratings
by counselor type, Wilks’ Lambda = .941, F(4, 254) = 3.968, p < .01.
Table 16: MANOVA Results for Omnibus F Test for Effect of Counselor Type on
Perceived Importance of Knowledge Domain Factors
Factor
F
Significance
Transition Knowledge
6.917
0.009
Counseling Knowledge
0.089
0.766
Vocational Knowledge
0.004
0.951
Core Rehabilitation Knowledge
0.008
0.93

85

Table 17: MANOVA Results for Omnibus F Test for Effect of Counselor Type on
Perceived Preparedness of Knowledge Domain Factors
Factor
F
Significance
Transition Knowledge
1.87
0.173
Counseling Knowledge
0.732
0.393
Vocational Knowledge
3.878
0.05
Core Rehabilitation Knowledge
1.596
0.208
The results from the third MANOVA, shown in Table 18, show three main effects in
relation to type of counselor and perceived importance of the six transition knowledge
subdomain factors. Specifically, a significant difference was found for the importance of
interagency collaboration on type of counselor, F(1,297) = 8.402, p< .01. Transition counselors
had a higher average score for importance on the interagency collaboration domain items
(M=4.14, SD=.60) than did general rehabilitation counselors (M=3.91, SD=.70).A significant
difference was also found between type of counselor and perceived importance for family
involvement, F(1,297) = 4.14, p< .05, with transition counselors having a higher average score
for importance on family involvement (M=4.27, SD=.68) than did general rehabilitation
counselors (4.10, SD=.68). Additionally, a third significant difference was found between type of
counselor and perceived importance of program structure and policies, F(1,297) = 5.895, p< .05,
with transition counselors having a higher average score for importance on program structure
and policies (M=3.79, SD=.65) than did general counselors (M=3.59, SD=.69). The omnibus F
test indicated significant differences in importance of transition knowledge subdomain factor
ratings by counselor type, Wilks’ Lambda = .942, F(6, 290) = 2.953, p < .01.

86

Table 18: MANOVA Results for Omnibus F Test for Effect of Counselor Type on
Perceived Importance of Transition Knowledge Subdomain Factors
Factor
F
Significance
Student Focused Planning
2.95
0.087
Student Development
0.055
0.815
Interagency Collaboration
8.402
0.004
Family Involvement
4.14
0.043
Program Structure and Policies
5.895
0.016
IEP Development
0.865
0.353
The omnibus F test did not indicate significant differences in preparedness of transition
knowledge subdomain factor ratings by counselor type, Wilks’ Lambda = .971, F(6, 287) =
1.416, p = .208. The results for this MANOVA can be found in Table 19. Additionally, the
omnibus F test did not indicate significant differences in importance of general rehabilitation
counseling knowledge subdomain factor ratings by counselor type, Wilks’ Lambda = .975, F(11,
243) = 1.001, p = .446. The results for this MANOVA can be found in Table 20. Finally, the
omnibus F test did not indicate significant differences in preparedness of general rehabilitation
counseling knowledge subdomain factor ratings by counselor type, Wilks’ Lambda = .935, F(11,
239) = 1.499, p = .132. The results for this MANOVA can be found in Table 21.
Table 19: MANOVA Results for Omnibus F Test for Effect of Counselor Type on
Perceived Preparedness of Transition Knowledge Subdomain Factors
Factor
F
Significance
Student Focused Planning
2.314
0.129
Student Development
0.534
0.465
Interagency Collaboration
4.034
0.046
Family Involvement
1.614
0.205
Program Structure and Policies
0.988
0.321
IEP Development
4.839
0.029

87

Table 20: MANOVA Results for Omnibus F Test for Effect of Counselor Type on
Perceived Importance of General Rehabilitation Counseling Knowledge Subdomain
Factors
Factor
F
Significance
Individual Counseling
0.677
0.411
Group and Family Counseling
0.394
0.531
Mental Health Counseling
0.298
0.586
Psychosocial and Cultural Issues in Counseling
0.32
0.572
Career Counseling and Assessment
0.028
0.867
Job Development and Placement Services
0.014
0.905
Vocational Consultation and Services for
0.017
0.897
Employers
Case and Caseload Management
0.344
0.558
Medical, Functional, and Environmental Aspects
0.337
0.562
of Disabilities
Foundations, Ethics and Professional Issues
1.526
0.218
Rehabilitation Services and Resources
0.069
0.793
Table 21: MANOVA Results for Omnibus F Test for Effect of Counselor Type on
Perceived Preparedness of General Rehabilitation Counseling Knowledge Subdomain
Factors
Factor
F
Significance
Individual Counseling
0.394
0.531
Group and Family Counseling
0.519
0.472
Mental Health Counseling
2.999
0.085
Psychosocial and Cultural Issues in Counseling
1.947
0.164
Career Counseling and Assessment
5.081
0.025
Job Development and Placement Services
4.381
0.037
Vocational Consultation and Services for
1.279
0.259
Employers
Case and Caseload Management
0.889
0.347
Medical, Functional, and Environmental Aspects
2.641
0.105
of Disabilities
Foundations, Ethics and Professional Issues
0.113
0.737
Rehabilitation Services and Resources
1.389
0.24
A chi-squared test was conducted on the demographic and training characteristics of this
sample, to determine if there were any differences between these categorical variables. Two
significant effects were found in relation to basic demographic characteristics by type of
counselor, as shown in Table 22. There was a significant difference in employment status (civil
88

servant or contractual employee) by counselor type (df=1, p<.01), and current work setting (df=3,
p<.001). These between group differences will be reviewed in detail within the discussion
section of chapter 5.
Table 22: Chi-Square Results for Effect of Counselor Type on Demographics
Characteristics
Factor
df
Significance
Gender
1
.077
Age
4
.068
Race/Ethnicity
5
.822
Education (highest degree earned)
3
.051
Area of Study
6
.130
Certification Status
1
.442
Current job title
3
.000
Years you have worked as a rehabilitation
3
.174
counselor
How many years have you worked in your state's
3
.184
vocational rehabilitation agency
Are you a civil servant, or a contractual employee
1
.001
Current work setting
3
.000
One significant difference was found in relation to training of transition services on type
of counselor, as shown in Table 23. Specifically, the frequency of attending trainings was
significantly different between groups of counselors (df=4, p<.001). The consistency of opinions
between types of counselors regarding transition training will be reviewed in detail within the
discussion section of chapter 5.

89

Table 23: Chi-Square Results for Effect of Counselor Type on Training Characteristics
Factor
df
F
Do you believe there should be specific training
1
.074
for transition counselors?
What training for transition services have you
3
.144
received?
How often do you attend training in transition
4
.000
services?
Should master's level educational programs
provide more training specific to transition
1
.723
services?
Should VR agencies offer or require more training
1
.715
specific to transition services?
Correlation matrices are presented below in Tables 24-29 for each domain and
subdomain regarding both importance and preparedness in relation to the current study. These
tables show that there are multiple statistically significant correlations that are all positive.
Within the knowledge domain matrices, the most significant relationship is noted between
vocational knowledge and core rehabilitation knowledge for preparedness (r=.838) followed
closely by the importance scale for these same domains (r=.818). This finding suggests that the
importance of vocational knowledge factors (career counseling and assessment, job development
and placement services, and vocational consultation and services for employers) are very
strongly and positively correlated with the importance of core rehabilitation knowledge factors
(case and caseload management, medical, functional and environmental aspects of disabilities,
foundations, ethics and professional issues, and rehabilitation services and resources). The lowest
correlation between knowledge domains was found between that of the preparedness in transition
knowledge and counseling knowledge (r=.482). This finding suggests that for the current sample,
there is a strong positive (but to a lesser degree) correlation between the knowledge domains of
student focused planning, student development, interagency collaboration, family involvement,
90

program structure and policies, IEP development and individual counseling, group and family
counseling, mental health counseling and psychosocial and cultural issues in counseling.
Table 24: Correlations among Knowledge Domains for Importance
Transition
Knowledge

Counseling
Knowledge

Transition
Knowledge

.608**

-

Vocational
Knowledge

.622**

.761**

Core
Rehabilitation
Knowledge

-

Counseling
Knowledge

Vocational
Knowledge

-

Core
Rehabilitation
.643**
.765**
Knowledge
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

.818**

-

Table 25: Correlations among Knowledge Domains for Preparedness
Transition
Knowledge

Counseling
Knowledge

Vocational
Knowledge

Transition
Knowledge

-

Counseling
Knowledge

.482**

-

Vocational
Knowledge

.626**

.645**

-

Core
Rehabilitation
Knowledge

.631**

.699**

.838**

Core
Rehabilitation
Knowledge

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

91

-

Within the transition knowledge subdomain matrices, the most significant relationship is
noted between student focused planning and student development for preparedness (r=.751).
This finding suggests that the importance of student focused planning factors are very strongly
and positively correlated with the preparedness of student development knowledge factors. The
lowest correlation between transition knowledge subdomains was found between that of the
importance in family involvement and program structure and policies knowledge (r=.423). This
finding suggests that for the current sample, there is a strong positive (but to a lesser degree)
correlation between these two importance factors for transition knowledge.
Table 26: Correlations among Transition Knowledge Subdomains for Importance
Program
Student
Student
Interagency
Family
Structure
IEP
Focused
Development Collaboration Involvement
and
Development
Planning
Policies
Student
Focused
Planning

-

Student
Development

.616**

-

Interagency
Collaboration

.578**

.644**

-

Family
Involvement

.428**

.517**

.548**

-

Program
Structure and
Policies

.512**

.566**

.617**

.423**

-

IEP
Development

.502**

.504**

.528**

.487**

.467**

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

92

-

Table 27: Correlations among Transition Knowledge Subdomains for Preparedness
Program
Student
Student
Interagency
Family
Structure
Focused
Development Collaboration Involvement
and
Planning
Policies
Student
Focused
Planning

-

Student
Development

.751**

-

Interagency
Collaboration

.644**

.731**

-

Family
Involvement

.632**

.711**

.731**

-

Program
Structure and
Policies

.580**

.671**

.734**

.688**

-

IEP
Development

.659**

.702**

.740**

.649**

IEP
Developm
ent

.654**

-

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Within the general rehabilitation counseling knowledge subdomain matrices, the most
significant relationship is noted between job development and placement services and vocational
consultation and services for employers in relation to preparedness (r=.867). This finding
suggests that the preparedness of job development and placement service factors are very
strongly and positively correlated with the preparedness of vocational consultation and services
for employer factors. The lowest correlation between general rehabilitation counseling
knowledge subdomains was found between that of the preparedness in group and family
counseling and case and caseload management knowledge (r=.251). This finding suggests that

93

for the current sample, there is a weak positive correlation between these two preparedness
factors for general rehabilitation counseling knowledge.

94

Individual
Counseling

.530**

-

Mental Health
Counseling

.572** .490**

-

Psychosocial
and Cultural
Issues in
Counseling

.589** .503**

.712**

-

Career
Counseling
and
Assessment

.584** .465**

.698**

.638**

-

Job
Development .465** .397**
and Placement
Services

.650**

.642**

.702**

-

Vocational
Consultation
and Services
for Employers

.751**

.719**

.740**

.751**

.470** .462**

95

-

Medical,
Functional and
Environmental
Aspects of
Disabilities
Foundations,
Ethics, and
Professional
Issues
Rehabilitation
Services and
Resources

Case and
Caseload
Management

Vocational
Consultation
and Services
for Employers

Job
Development
and Placement
Services

Career
Counseling
and
Assessment

Psychosocial
and Cultural
Issues in
Counseling

Mental Health
Counseling

-

Group and
Family
Counseling

Group and
Family
Counseling

Individual
Counseling

Table 28: Correlations among General Rehabilitation Counseling Knowledge Subdomains for Importance

Table 28 (cont’d)
Case and
Caseload
Management

.433** .252**

.582**

.624**

.583**

.638**

.584**

-

Medical,
Functional
and
Environmental .587** .364**
Aspects of
Disabilities

.705**

.724**

.724**

.637**

.644**

.651**

-

Foundations,
Ethics, and
Professional
Issues

.574** .540**

.722**

.705**

.657**

.614**

.677**

.601**

.660**

-

Rehabilitation
Services and
Resources

.416** .377**

.618**

.636**

.645**

.651**

.668**

.660**

.658**

.632**

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

96

-

Individual
Counseling

-

Group and
Family
Counseling

.675**

-

Mental Health
Counseling

.599**

.533**

Psychosocial
and Cultural
Issues in
Counseling

.594**

.513** .688**

-

Career
Counseling
and
Assessment

.535**

.426** .625**

.689**

-

Job
Development .437**
and Placement
Services

.305** .599**

.689**

.809**

-

Vocational
Consultation
and Services
for Employers

.333** .569**

.686**

.763**

.867**

.378**

-

97

-

Medical,
Functional and
Environmental
Aspects of
Disabilities
Foundations,
Ethics, and
Professional
Issues
Rehabilitation
Services and
Resources

Case and
Caseload
Management

Psychosocial
and Cultural
Issues in
Counseling
Career
Counseling
and
Assessment
Job
Development
and Placement
Services
Vocational
Consultation
and Services
for Employers

Mental Health
Counseling

Group and
Family
Counseling

Individual
Counseling

Table 29: Correlations among General Rehabilitation Counseling Knowledge Subdomains for Preparedness

Table 29 (cont’d)
Case and
Caseload
Management

.376**

.251** .546**

.617**

.618**

.693**

.646**

-

Medical,
Functional
and
Environmental .563**
Aspects of
Disabilities

.359** .594**

.774**

.737**

.677**

.635**

.662**

-

Foundations,
Ethics, and
Professional
Issues

.560**

.454** .630**

.745**

.675**

.633**

.620**

.533**

.705**

-

Rehabilitation
Services and
Resources

.411**

.300** .564**

.657**

.688**

.763**

.721**

.711**

.704**

.586**

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

98

-

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Following the analysis of results in Chapter 4, the purpose of this chapter is to summarize
results and provide implications based on the findings. Before discussing the results, here is a
brief review of the study and its intended purposes.
Overview of the Study
Youth with disabilities receiving transition from services from State/Federal VR agencies
accounted for more than one quarter of closed cases within in FY 2010 (RSA, 2010). This unique
population of clients, however, has received little attention in empirical studies, scholarly
journals, and as a focus within training programs. By investing in youth as they enter the world
of work and embark in their formative years of career development, professionals can seek to
eliminate the “revolving door” of services that many clients pursue throughout their vocational
lifetime. An effective way to invest in youth with disabilities is to educate rehabilitation
counseling professionals in the unique needs of this population. As studies have shown,
transition services are an important and relevant area of rehabilitation practice (Leahy et al, 1993;
Leahy et al 2003, Shaw et al, 2006; Leahy et al 2009), however counselors feel as if they have
received limited preparation for these tasks (Chan et al, 2003; Leahy, et al, 2009).
Empirical studies within special education literature give insight into evidence based
practices for serving transition aged youth with disabilities. The taxonomy for transition planning
is a conceptual framework most commonly associated with transition service planning (Kohler,
1996). The primary emphasis in using this taxonomy for transition knowledge domain and
subdomain research has been to due to the empirical foundation behind each construct within the
taxonomy leading to evidence based practices. Because there has been no research, to date,
99

regarding the training of rehabilitation counseling transition counselors, the results of the current
study can help inform pre-service and in-service training curriculum to increase the efficacy of
transition services.
A sample of 353 rehabilitation professionals working in a public vocational rehabilitation
agency was obtained for this study. The sample included 240 general rehabilitation counselors
who provided services primarily to adults with disabilities, and 110 transition counselors who
identified at least 50 percent of their caseloads to consist of transition aged youth (3 participants
did not respond to the caseload characteristic question). This sample allowed for comparisons
between general and transition counselors regarding demographics characteristics and training
profiles. This specific demographic information regarding transition counselors has previously
been unknown to the field of rehabilitation counseling. Furthermore, this sample also allows for
comparisons between the two groups of counselors on their perception of importance and
preparedness regarding transition and general rehabilitation counseling knowledge domains.
With an overview of the study provided, the results from Chapter 4 are summarized, limitations
of the study noted, and then implications of the results provided.
Summary of Findings
Demographics. The primary focus of this study was on the perception of importance and
preparedness on multiple transition and general rehabilitation counseling items. Beyond this aim,
the comparison of sample demographics was central to make group comparisons to determine if
there were any substantial differences between transition and general counselors. As shown in
table 5, there were several homogeneous factors reported with regard to demographic
characteristics. The majority of the sample were White (93.6%), female (72.4%), non-certified
(53.9%), having worked as a rehabilitation counselor for 10+ years (40.8%), and having worked
100

in their State VR agency for 10+ years (35.4%). Between group differences were evident when
comparing categorical age groupings, educational attainment, area of study, current job title, and
current work setting. With regard to age, the largest number of the sample reported being
between 50-59 years of age (28.2%), however the greatest number of transition counselors
reported being between 20-39 years of age (34.6%). While the majority of the sample held
master’s degrees (89.1%) in rehabilitation counseling (60.7%), transition counselors were more
likely to hold a bachelor’s degree when compared to the sample (14.7%), and more likely to have
studied in an area other than rehabilitation counseling (psychology (6.4%), social work (9.1%),
other (12.7%) when compared to the sample. None of these between group differences are
statistically significant, however, as shown in table 16.
Statistically significant between group demographic characteristics were exhibited for
current job title (p<.000), employee status (p<.001), and current work setting (p<.000). While the
majority of the current sample indicated their current job title as a vocational rehabilitation
counselor (84.5%), transition counselors were eight times more likely to report their current job
title as a transition specialist (8.3%) than were general counselors (0.4%), and twice as likely to
report “other” as their current job title (18.3%) than were general counselors (9.6%). Some
examples of “other” include: supervisor, intern, site manager, and coordinator. With regard to
employee status, while the majority of the current sample indicated their status to be as a civil
servant (81.8%), transition counselors were twice as likely to report their employee status to be
as a contractual employee (28.4%) than did general counselors (13.4%). Finally, with regard to
current work setting, while the majority of the current sample indicated their current work setting
to be within a State-Federal vocational rehabilitation office (83.9%), transition counselors were
nine times as likely to report their work setting to be within a high school (3.7%) than did
101

general counselors (0.4%). Additionally, transition counselors were four times as likely to report
their work setting to be “other” (21.3%) than did general counselors (4.6%). Some examples of
“other” include: a hybrid setting of State/Federal VR office and high school office setting,
intermediate school district office setting, an office within the county board for the
developmentally disabled, career tech centers, and college settings.
Training Profiles. As shown in table 6, there were several homogeneous factors reported
with regard to training profiles. The majority of the sample received their transition service
training at workshops (67.2%), attend transition trainings occasionally (48.9%), and believe that
there should be more pre-service (87.1%) and in-service (85.3%) transition training options for
rehabilitation professionals. One statistically significant between group difference was exhibited
with regard to training profiles. This was with regard to the frequency of receiving transition
training (p<.000). Transition counselors were more likely to attend trainings occasionally
(55.5%), often (16.4%) and very often (8.2%) than were general counselors (45.8%, 6.3%
and .4%, respectively).
Knowledge Domain and Subdomain Importance. Table 7 shows the importance
rankings for knowledge domains, as compared between the two groups of counselors. The
average rankings for the four knowledge domains were similar between the two groups of
counselors. Both groups of counselors ranked counseling knowledge as the least important
knowledge domain (3.4) and ranked vocational knowledge and core rehabilitation knowledge as
3.7. Both groups of counselors ranked the transition knowledge domain as the most important
knowledge domain, with transition counselors ranking this domain slightly higher in importance
(3.9) than general counselors (3.8). This between group difference on the transition knowledge
domain for importance was found to be statistically significant (p<.01).
102

Table 8 shows the importance rankings for transition knowledge subdomains, as
compared between the two groups of counselors. Transition counselors ranked family
involvement (4.2) and interagency collaboration (4.1) higher than any ranking for importance
that was given by general rehabilitation counselors on transition knowledge subdomains. General
counselors ranked family involvement (4.0) and student focused planning (4.0) as equally most
important transition knowledge subdomains. Both groups of counselors ranked IEP development
as least important, with general rehabilitation counselors ranking it as slightly less important (3.5)
than did transition counselors (3.6). Statistically significant between group differences were
exhibited for three transition knowledge subdomains regarding importance. These differences
were evident in interagency collaboration (p<.01), family involvement (p<.05) and program
structure and policies (p< .05). For each of these subdomains, transition counselors ranked the
average importance .2 units higher than did general rehabilitation counselors.
Table 9 shows the importance rankings for general rehabilitation counseling knowledge
subdomains, as compared between the two groups of counselors. General rehabilitation
counselors ranked case and caseload management as more important (4.0) than any ranking for
importance that was given by transition counselors on general rehabilitation counseling
knowledge subdomains. Transition counselors ranked job development and placement services
(3.9), case and caseload management (3.9) and, medical, functional and environmental aspects of
disabilities (3.9) as most important general rehabilitation counseling knowledge subdomains.
Foundations, ethics, and professional issues was ranked as the least important general
rehabilitation counseling knowledge subdomain by both transition counselors (3.4) and general
rehabilitation counselors (3.2). There were no statistically significant between group differences
for importance rankings for general rehabilitation counseling knowledge subdomains.
103

Knowledge Domain and Subdomain Preparedness. Table 7 shows the preparedness
rankings for knowledge domains, as compared between the two groups of counselors. The
average rankings for the four knowledge domains were similar between the two groups of
counselors. Transition counselors (3.2) and general rehabilitation counselors (3.3) ranked core
rehabilitation knowledge as the knowledge domain area in which they perceived themselves to
be the most prepared. Transition counselors reported the least perceived preparation in
vocational knowledge (2.9) while general rehabilitation counselors reported the least perceived
preparation in transition knowledge (2.9).There were no statistically significant between group
differences for preparedness rankings found for knowledge domains.
Table 8 shows the preparedness rankings for transition knowledge subdomains, as
compared between the two groups of counselors. Transition counselors reported themselves to be
the most prepared in family involvement (3.3) while general rehabilitation counselors reported
themselves to be most prepared in student focused planning (3.2). Transition counselors (2.7)
and general rehabilitation counselors (2.4) reported the least amount of perceived preparation in
IEP development. Statistically significant between group findings were exhibited for two
transition knowledge subdomains regarding preparedness. These differences were evident in
interagency collaboration (p<.05) and IEP development (p<.05). For each of these subdomains,
transition counselors ranked average preparedness .3 units higher than did general rehabilitation
counselors.
Table 9 shows the preparedness rankings for general rehabilitation counseling knowledge
subdomains, as compared between the two groups of counselors. Transition counselors (3.6) and
general rehabilitation counselors (3.7) perceived themselves to be most prepared in individual
counseling knowledge. Additionally, transition counselors (2.7) and general rehabilitation
104

counselors (2.8) perceived themselves to be the least prepared in vocational consultation and
services for employers. Statistically significant between group findings were exhibited for two
general rehabilitation counseling knowledge subdomains regarding preparedness. These
differences were evident in career counseling and assessment (p<.05) and job development and
placement services (p<.05). For both of these subdomains, general counselors ranked average
preparedness higher than did transition counselors.
Limitations
Interpretation of the results and conclusions in this study should be considered in the
context of several limitations. Limitation in the extent to which results might be generalized is an
anticipated outcome from the sample selected for this study. The seven states that participated in
the current study cannot be generalized to all State/Federal VR agencies given the complexities
within each system (e.g. general or combined agencies, order of selection status, location within
or outside of the continental United States). An attempt was made to contact each state that
participated in the current study to gain information related to counselor demographics, for
means of comparison and generalizability. Three states responded to the request. One state
indicated that they were unable to locate the information that was requested, and the remaining
two states did their best to summarize demographics, but stated that the information they had on
record was only voluntarily self-reported, and perhaps not representative. Furthermore, it is
important to note that the demographic profiles that were obtained from these two states only
included those counselors that were civil servants, and did not capture the demographic profiles
of those staff that are contractual employees. This preliminary study, despite the sampling
limitations, does benefit the profession in that it seeks to understand basic demographic
characteristics and training profiles of transition counselors.
105

The response rate of 28.22% creates another limitation for the generalization of findings.
This rate is less than ideal given that two reminder notifications were sent and the majority of
states that participated in the current study provided a liaison within the agency to help distribute
surveys. There was some variation between states in their dissemination methods, which likely
contributed to the varying response rates. Agencies that personally sent out the survey via a
listserv (Pennsylvania, Iowa, Ohio and Minnesota) had higher response rates than did states that
posted the survey on the State Intranet system for users to access themselves.
The reliance on self-report is an additional limitation of the current study. The survey
information was collected using online data collection software (Qualtrics), with no attainable
way to verify the responses made by participants. This limitation is further compounded by the
fact participants were asked questions regarding their perceived level of preparation, which some
may see as a reflection on their level of competence as a rehabilitation professional and therefore
be potentially influenced by socially acceptable norms.
Finally, when comparing two or more variables in research, there is also the potential for
multicollinearity to exist between variables. This may have also have acted as a limitation in this
study by influencing the significance of demographics, training profiles, importance and
preparedness ratings on various knowledge domains.
Implications
Implications for Practice. The results of this study have some potentially important
implications for rehabilitation education and VR transition, practice, policy and training. This is
one of a few studies that examine the perceptions of transition competencies from both the
transition counselor and general counselor perspective. The overall results were that VR
106

counselors identified transition knowledge to be the most important knowledge domain,
specifically citing family involvement as the most important transition knowledge subdomain.
Despite this finding, VR counselors feel least prepared in these tasks (M=2.91, SD=.74). While
caseload distribution and management practices vary from state to state there were no significant
differences found in the importance or perceived preparedness of counselors between different
states. This finding speaks to the consistency of agreement of the relative importance and level of
perceived preparedness of each knowledge domain.
One of the more interesting findings from the current study is the rating of importance of
IEP development activities, as ranked by counselors. Within the transition knowledge domain,
this subdomain was ranked as the least important. This finding is valuable and important to delve
into, given that the IEP process is a central piece in disability legislation, and a federally
mandated requirement for all students with disabilities to engage in during their formative
training years. It would seem that the rehabilitation professionals in the current study fail to
realize the importance of this critical piece of structured program planning for transitioning
youth with disabilities. Rehabilitation educators might consider including the IEP process that is
central to special education into course content related to environmental aspects of disabilities
and rehabilitation services and resources. While the IEP is a school responsibility, it is also a
phenomenal opportunity for the rehabilitation counselor to learn about the strengths and
limitations of a student, hear about their goals and aspirations, as well as meet their support
system. By recognizing and understanding the significance of the IEP process, transition
counselors can be in a position to better serve their clients.
Regarding application, the results of this study can be used by both educators and training
staff to evaluate, update, and revise the curriculum and training provided. These findings are
107

similar to previous studies of knowledge domain importance (Leahy et al, 2009), and therefore
considerable modifications to the curriculum and training are not necessary. However, the
findings could be used to determine the importance of domain areas that should be covered in
both pre-service and professional development training. The information related to the
importance and preparedness can be used as a guided parameter for the amount of depth and
training time devoted to each domain and subdomain.
Implications for Training. Previous studies have shown the importance of school-towork transition services (Leahy et al, 2003; Chan et al, 2003; Leahy et al, 2009) and the
accrediting body for our profession includes these as a competency standard. Despite this,
rehabilitation professionals report that they receive little preparation for these tasks (Chan et al,
2003). This finding is further supported by the current study. Both transition counselors and
general rehabilitation counselors identified transition knowledge to be very important and yet
they receive moderate preparation. Furthermore, an overwhelming majority of participants in the
current study believe that there should be more specific training for transition services, both via
pre-service and in-service trainings.
With less than one quarter of transition counselors receiving transition trainings either
often or very often, there is an obvious limitation in the availability of skill development and
attainment for this group of rehabilitation professionals. Additionally, most obtain what little
transition training they do have at workshops, which can vary in quality and are often short in
length and infrequent in occurrence. This information shows that there is a stated need for these
services to rehabilitation professionals, and a lack of availability to receive these services.

108

The overall results of the current study show that both types of counselors find family
involvement and student focused planning to be the most important transition knowledge
subdomains. These findings may be contributed to the fact that family counseling is a central
piece to the individual and group counseling course present in most master level training
programs. Additionally, student focused planning is closely associated with person centered
planning, which is a critical component to disability rights and individual counseling theories.
There were several instances in the current study in which both transition and general
rehabilitation counselors ranked the importance of a knowledge subdomain item 1 or more units
higher than they did for their perceived preparation. These differences indicate areas which
rehabilitation educators could allocate more time within their pre-service training activities.
Within the transition subdomain of student focused planning, the following areas were ranked by
counselors one unit (or more) less prepared when compared to relative importance: continuum of
work-based learning experiences, mentors to facilitate socialization, inclusion and learning, and
skill instruction in the context of real life experiences. Within the transition subdomain of
interagency collaboration, the following areas were ranked by counselors one unit (or more)as
less prepared when compared to relative importance: collaboration with general and special
education teachers, assessment of community resources, and providing classroom resources for
students and teachers relevant to the world of work. Within the transition subdomain of family
involvement, the following area was ranked by transition counselors one unit less prepared when
compared to relative importance: providing school-to-work and transition information to
parents/guardians and families. Within the transition subdomain of IEP development, the
following areas were ranked by counselors one unit (or more) as less prepared when compared to

109

relative importance: Individual Education Plan (IEP) development, pre-IEP activities for
parents/guardians.
Within the general rehabilitation counseling subdomain of job development or placement
services, the following areas were ranked by counselors one unit (or more) less prepared when
compared to relative importance: job placement or job development strategies, supported
employment strategies and services, and job readiness including seeking and retention skills
development. Finally, within the general rehabilitation counseling subdomain of vocational
consultation and services for employers, the following areas were ranked by counselors one unit
(or more) less prepared when compared to relative importance: Consultation process with
employers related to management of disability issues in the workplace, and employer
development for job placement. Each of these areas listed above shows a discrepancy in applied
importance and pre-service preparation. Rehabilitation educators can utilize this information to
structure curriculum to better prepare master’s level rehabilitation counselors for entering the
workforce.
Knowledge domain studies continue to inform the accrediting body for rehabilitation
counseling, and standards are frequently updated based on these findings. With this, educators
are often altering curriculum to meet these demands. Additionally, the shift from 60 to 48 credit
hour programs is another limitation on the curriculum standards that educators must face.
Additionally, not all graduates of master level rehabilitation counseling programs go on to
practice transition counseling. It would therefore be difficult to expect master’s level programs to
include a specific course for transition counseling. However, these knowledge areas can be
infused within areas of the current curriculum. Perhaps a better solution would be to join with
special education programs, and offer an elective for students interested to learn about special
110

education legislation, transition training and services. Another option would be to incorporate inservice trainings, which will be discussed next.
Implications for policy. The current study also shows that some transition counselors
have received no training at all relevant to transition services, and that these professionals very
rarely or never attend trainings on this topic. It would appear to be somewhat unethical for VR
agencies to employ rehabilitation professionals as transition counselors, without providing the
necessary knowledge base and skill set proven to be effective in serving this unique population.
While availability of staff cannot always align expertise areas with caseloads, VR agencies
should implement policies regarding the requirement of necessary transition training. This could
be either at conference workshops, college or university courses, or even through the creation of
transition training programs by the staff development unit within all VR agencies.
Given the sometime different structure of pre-service master’s level training programs,
VR agencies should coordinate their staff development units to train counselor’s specific to their
caseload needs. Despite these training programs already being in place, the results of the current
study offer insight into areas in which more focus could be given. For instance, staff
development units would be well served to provide more in-service training on: vocational
consultation and services for employers (M=2.80, SD=.77), group and family counseling
(M=3.01, SD=.96), mental health counseling (M=3.02, SD=.73) and psychosocial and cultural
issues in counseling (M=3.06 and SD=.67). These knowledge subdomains were rated lowest for
preparedness when combining both transition and general rehabilitation counselors.
Implications for Future Research. The current study is relevant and important, given
that few similar studies have been conducted, to date. The specific focus on counselors by
caseload type in relation to knowledge importance and preparedness and transition counselors
111

makes this study unique. Future studies that expound upon the current one, by including more
states that differ in size, order of selection status, and overall demographics would be beneficial
to understand these ratings more thoroughly.
The 11 general rehabilitation counselor knowledge subdomains used in the current study
were borrowed from Leahy, et al (2011). A comparison between the findings in the current study,
and those found by Leahy, et al (2011) would be interesting for multiple reasons. First, the
sample used by Leahy and his colleagues includes only those that are current CRCs, as sampling
takes place via the CRCC listserv. The majority of participants from the current study report not
being a CRC (53.9%), which would indicate a fundamental difference in participants within each
sample. Furthermore, the 2011 study does not extrapolate by counselor type, and thus
comparisons could be made between transition counselors in the current study and VR
counselors in the Leahy, et al study.
It is critical to examine how these knowledge areas are applied in practice and what
specific methods are evidence-based in relation to successful outcomes for persons with
disabilities. Few standards of practice are in place within public VR agencies to guide transition
services. This can be an area of focus in future research, with consideration of the importance of
each domain and subdomain to begin to shape a guideline of serving youth with disabilities.
Conclusion
The findings of this research assist to fill the gap of information regarding transition and
school-to-work services. Results show that transition counseling is important to both transition
counselors and general rehabilitation counselors, alike. Also, perceived level of preparation for
these services is below that of perceived importance, and more attention to pre-service and inservice trainings devoted to this population would be warranted. In contrast, while counseling
112

knowledge is found to be moderately important, both groups of counselors reported a relatively
high level of preparation for these tasks.
The results of this study can also be used by the rehabilitation counseling credentialing
body (CRCC) to develop a transition specialty designation. Credentials such as these can aid in
professional advancement for promotion as a transition specialist, coordinator, or consultant.
With these opportunities, rehabilitation counselors can have greater potential to obtain positions
in which they are more integrated into other settings (e.g. High Schools, Intermediate School
District offices, higher administration within schools). This can serve two purposes: 1) Meeting
the needs of students with disabilities in a greater capacity with more access to student services,
and 2) Creating more visibility for the rehabilitation counseling profession, by integrating with
other professionals in different capacities.

113

APPENDICES

114

APPENDIX A
Content Review and Pilot Study Contact Letter
From: Katherine Marjorie Kierpiec [kierpie1@msu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 2:58 PM
Subject: Instrumentation Feedback - Essential Knowledge Domains for Transition Counselor
Efficacy
Greetings:
My name is Katherine Kierpiec and I am a doctoral candidate in Rehabilitation Counselor
Education at Michigan State University. Currently, I am in the process of dissertating, and as
such, I am developing an instrument relevant to vocational rehabilitation services, with a specific
focus on transition. I am writing to seek your assistance in reviewing the attached instrument,
and relaying any thoughts that you might have as transition specialists. The first 80 items are
directly from the Knowledge Validation Inventory-Revised (KVI-R) and have been used in
research numerous times to understand and validate knowledge domains to guide rehabilitation
counselor certification. The last 24 items (items 81-104) are those that I am seeking the most
feedback for. They are transition-specific items, guided by the Taxonomy for Transition
Planning. Do you find the instrument valid, confusing, or redundant? In your opinion, is there
any critical information missing?
Below is an overview of the study. In summary, I am seeking to conduct an empirical research
study that provides an overview of essential knowledge domains for effective transition practice,
as reported by transition counselors located within Region V (Michigan, Ohio, Indiana,
Minnesota, Illinois and Wisconsin). I will utilize the Knowledge Validation Inventory-Revised
(KVI-R) (Leahy, Chan, Sung& Kim, 2011) and a transition-specific addendum as guided by
Paula Kohler’s Taxonomy for Transition Planning (Kohler, 1996). A comparison of these
findings with those of previous knowledge domain studies of CRCs (Leahy, Chan, & Saunders,
2003; Leahy, Muenzen, Saunders, &Strauser, 2009; Leahy, Szymanski, &Linkowski, 1993) will
also take place, including a report of any similarities and differences. Additionally, implications
for curriculum development and implementation as well as in-service trainings will be noted.
______________________________________________________________________________
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to obtain data from practicing rehabilitation counselors
regarding their impressions of essential knowledge domains relevant to rehabilitation counselors
providing effective transition services to youth with disabilities. While there is limited
information available about necessary knowledge for transition counselors found in the
rehabilitation counseling literature, there are a great deal of publications focused on required
knowledge in regards to the broader field of rehabilitation counseling.
Methods: The Knowledge Validation Inventory-Revised (KVI-R) will be utilized for this study,
with an addendum for transition-specific knowledge domain questions. Paula Kohler’s
Taxonomy for Transition Planning framework will guide the addendum. This 5-point Likert
115

scale survey will be disseminated via Qualtrics to all transition counselors located within Region
V. Data collection is schedule to take place between December and February.
Conclusions: The attainment of post-school outcomes for youth and with disabilities lay with
rehabilitation professional’s likelihood to develop and apply interdisciplinary skills of the
transition specialist, special educator and school counselor. Without doing so, we risk adding to
the revolving door phenomenon often referenced in VR agencies; allow youth with disabilities to
needlessly struggle to meet their post-school outcomes, and allow for further encroachment on
our profession by special educators and school counselors. The aim of the current study is to
demonstrate data in support of vocational rehabilitation professionals becoming educated in preservice (as well as in-service) settings with the well-established transition practices that yield
positive post-school outcomes. In doing so, the body of knowledge that supports certification and
accreditation bodies is further enlightened to evidence supporting the advancement of
rehabilitation professionals, and perhaps a sub-specialty of rehabilitation transition professionals.
Implications for Research and Practice: Some educators suggests special education students
should complete coursework that provides information on the vocational rehabilitation system, in
addition to completing practicum and internships at state/federal vocational rehabilitation
agencies, as a way to demonstrate competencies in vocational rehabilitation to aid in seamless
collaboration. If these recommendations were acted upon, special educators may exhibit a higher
degree of understanding regarding the vocational rehabilitation process, however the risk for
further encroachment is much more threatening to our profession (as is seen with social work,
case managers, nurse practitioners, school and general counselors, etc.). Instead, the aim of the
current study is to demonstrate data in support of the counter-argument -- vocational
rehabilitation professionals should be educated with the well-established transition practices that
yield positive post-school outcomes. Finally, implications for curriculum development and
implementation and in-service trainings will be noted.
If you have any questions of concerns, please do not hesitate to ask. Thank you for your time,
and also for your commitment to school-to-work transition research.
Sincerely,
Katherine Marjorie Kierpiec, M.A., L.P.C., C.R.C.
Doctoral Candidate, Rehabilitation Counselor Education
Graduate Assistant/Teaching Assistant Coordinator
401A Erickson Hall
Michigan State University
Rehabilitation Counseling M.A.
Psychology B.A.

116

APPENDIX B
Contact Letter for State VR Director
Dear State VR Director:
I am contacting you in regard to the “Essential Knowledge Domains for Effective Transition
Service Provision” study. As the State VR director for your representative state agency, I would
greatly appreciate your assistance, since you are in the position to approve participation for state
vocational rehabilitation professionals.
The purpose of this study is to begin the inductive process of identifying knowledge domains
that are necessary for effective transition service provision by rehabilitation counselors, and the
perceived preparedness of these counselors to provide transition services.
This study focuses on 5 main research questions:
How important are the various knowledge domains for transition counselors in relation to
optimizing outcomes for their transition-aged youth clients?
In what various knowledge domains do transition counselors perceive themselves to be the most
and least prepared?
How did transition counselors in the current study receive their training specific to transition
services?
Do perceptions of importance and preparedness of knowledge domain areas differ according to
demographic, educational and professional characteristics?
What are the demographic characteristics and professional experiences of those who provide
transition services in the VR setting?
This study will be disseminated via email to VR professionals using an online survey format
(e.g. Surveymonkey, Qualtrics). I assure you that there are no risks associated with you or your
staff‘s participation in the research study. Your perspectives and insight will contribute in
valuable ways to our work. Participation in this study is voluntary. Please do indicate if your
permission is granted to disseminate this online survey to your staff, and a contact person
with which I could connect with to disseminate this survey.
If you have any questions or concerns about this research, please feel free to contact me at 517256-4920 or kierpie1@msu.edu. I hope you will be willing to participate!
Thank you for your time!
Katherine Marjorie Kierpiec, M.A., L.P.C., C.R.C.
Doctoral Candidate, Rehabilitation Counselor Education
Graduate Assistant/Teaching Assistant Coordinator
401A Erickson Hall
Michigan State University
117

Rehabilitation Counseling M.A.
Psychology B.A.

118

APPENDIX C
Transition Knowledge Validation Assessment (TKVA)
Welcome to Participants:
Greetings!
Welcome to the VR Transition Counselor Knowledge Study. Your help is needed in studying
transition professionals’ perceived level of importance and preparedness in various vocational
rehabilitation and transition competencies. Katherine Kierpiec, a doctoral candidate at Michigan
State University, is conducting this study.
The purpose of this study is to learn more about what explicit knowledge VR transition
professionals feel as most important for effective provision of transition services. Your
anonymous responses to the questions and instruments you complete will be critical to this
process. Your participation in this study is voluntary, and poses no risk to you. At any time while
participating in this study, you are free to skip any question that you do not wish to answer or
withdraw from the research study altogether.
Over the course of this survey, you will be asked to complete a portion of the Knowledge
Validation Inventory-Revised (KVI-R), which consists of 80 items, in addition to 24 transitionspecific items as organized by the Taxonomy for Transition Planning. You are encouraged to
complete the questionnaire in one session. However, if necessary, you can complete your survey
in several sessions as long as you are using the same computer.
Thank you for agreeing to be part of this investigation for the field of rehabilitation counseling
and transition professionals, specifically. Your contribution to this research project is greatly
appreciated.
By continuing on to the next page, you are voluntarily consenting to take part in this survey. It
should take no longer than 30 minutes of your time.
If you have any other questions about this study, please contact Michael Leahy (517-432-0605;
leahym@msu.edu;463 Erickson Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824) or
Katherine Kierpiec (517-256-4920;kierpie1@msu.edu; 401A Erickson Hall, Michigan State
University, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI48824). Thank you!!
Katherine Kierpiec
517-256-4920
kierpie1@msu.edu

119

Demographic Information:
State where you reside:
 Michigan
 Ohio
Pennsylvania
 Wisconsin
 Minnesota
 Illinois
 Iowa
Education (highest degree earned):
 Associates
 Bachelors
 Masters
 Doctorate
Please indicate your major area of study for your highest degree earned
 Rehabilitation Counseling
 Rehabilitation Psychology
 Psychology
 Social Work
 Other Counseling Specialty (e.g. Substance Abuse, Mental Health, etc)
 Other Rehabilitation Specialty (e.g. Vocational Evaluation, Job Placement, etc)
Other (please specify) _____________________________
Are you a Certified Rehabilitation Counselor?
 Yes
 No
What is your current job title?
 Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor
 Transition Specialist
 Transition Consultant
Other (please specify) _____________________________
What is your current work setting?
 State-Federal Vocational Rehabilitation Office
 Community Rehabilitation Provider
 High School
 Center for Independent Living
Other (please specify) _____________________________
What percentage of your caseload consists of transition-age youth (14-25.99 years of age)?
120

 0-25%
 25-50%
 50-75%
 75-100%
What training for transition services have you received?
 Workshops
 Online Courses
 University or college training
 No training
How often do you attend training in transition services?
 Never
 Very Rarely
 Occasionally
 Often
 Very Often
Approximately how much time to you spend per work week on transition-related responsibilities?
 None
 Less than 10 hours
 10-20 hours
 20-30 hours
 30-40 hours
 More than 40 hours
How many years of experience do you have working with transition-age youth with disabilities?
 Less than 1 year
 1-3 years
 4-7 years
 8-12 years
 13-16 years
 More than 16 years
Is it your primary responsibility to provide transition services?
 Yes
 No
Gender
 Male
 Female
 Prefer not to answer
Age (leave it blank if you prefer not to answer)
 20-29
121

 30-39
 40-49
 50-59
 60+
Race/Ethnicity:
Caucasian-non Hispanic
 African American
 Asian American
 Hispanic/Latino American
 American Indian/Native American
 Prefer not to answer
Other (please specify) _____________________________

122

General Directions:
Listed below on the following pages are knowledge areas related to rehabilitation counseling.
Please review these areas to determine their importance for your role as a rehabilitation
counseling transition professional.
Rate each statement on a 1-5 scale for both of the following:
Use the IMPORTANCE scale to indicate the degree of the importance of the knowledge area
described in the statement to your role as a rehabilitation transition counselor.
1 = NOT IMPORTANT
2 = SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT
3 = IMPORTANT
4 = VERY IMPORTANT
5 = EXTREMELY IMPORTANT
Use the PREPAREDNESS scale to indicate your current level of proficiency in the knowledge
area described in the statement to your role as a rehabilitation transition counselor.
1 = NO PREPARATION
2 = LITTLE PREPARATION
3 = MODERATE PREPARATION
4 = HIGH DEGREE OF PREPARATION
5 = VERY HIGH DEGREE OF PREPARATION
Transition Knowledge Validation Assessment (TKVA)
Rehabilitation Counseling Knowledge Domains
Transition-Specific Items
Social skills (soft skills) training.
Principles of self-awareness to aid in identification of
barriers to employment and realistic job goals.
Principles of self-determination to facilitate vocational
planning.
Facilitation of student involvement in the Individual
Education Program (IEP) development.
Leisure skills training.
Employment skills instruction.
Continuum of work-based learning experiences.
Career and vocational curriculum to facilitate career
exploration.
Mentors to facilitate socialization, inclusion and learning.
Skill instruction in the context of real life experiences.
123

SCALE FOR
IMPORTANCE
1 2 3 4 5

SCALE FOR
PREPAREDNESS
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

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
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
1 2 3 4 5

Individual Education Plan (IEP) development.
Collaboration with general and special education
teachers.
School system, programs, and personnel.
Assessment of community resources and needs.
Providing classroom resources for students and teachers
relevant to the world of work.
Inclusion of parents and family members/guardians in
vocational planning and decision-making.
Pre-Individual Education Plan (IEP) activities for
parents/guardians.
Encouragement of parent/guardian attendance at
vocational planning meetings.
Providing school-to-work and transition information to
parents/guardians and families.
Federal legislation relevant to educational systems (No
Child Left Behind, Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, etc)
Resource sharing agreements.
Awareness of ways to facilitate shared delivery of
school-to-work transition services between partners.
Outcome-based programming.
Individualized services to meet student needs.

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

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

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

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

1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5

Rate each statement on a 1-5 scale for both of the following:
Use the IMPORTANCE scale to indicate the degree of the importance of the
knowledge area described in the statement to your role as a rehabilitation transition
counselor.
1 = NOT IMPORTANT
2 = SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT
3 = IMPORTANT
4 = VERY IMPORTANT
5 = EXTREMELY IMPORTANT
Use the PREPAREDNESS scale to indicate your current level of proficiency in the
knowledge area described in the statement to your role as a rehabilitation transition
counselor.
1 = NO PREPARATION
2 = LITTLE PREPARATION
3 = MODERATE PREPARATION
4 = HIGH DEGREE OF PREPARATION
124

5 = VERY HIGH DEGREE OF PREPARATION
Rehabilitation Counseling Knowledge Domains
General Rehabilitation Counseling Items
Historical and philosophical foundations of rehabilitation
counseling.
Laws and pubic policy affecting individuals with
disabilities.
Rehabilitation terminology and concepts.
Organizational structure of rehabilitation counseling
practice settings (e.g. public, private-for-profit, and not
for profit service delivery systems).
Risk management and professional ethical standard for
rehabilitation counselors.
Societal issues, trends, and developments as they relate
to rehabilitation.
Group counseling theories.
Group counseling practices and interventions.
Family counseling theories.
Family counseling practices and interventions.
Individual counseling theories.
Individual counseling practices and interventions.
Behavior and personality theory.
Human growth and development.
Diversity and multicultural counseling issues.
Environmental and attitudinal barriers for individuals
with disabilities.
The services available for a variety of rehabilitation
populations, including persons with multiple disabilities.
The case management process, including case finding,
planning, service coordination, referral to and utilization
of other disciplines, and client advocacy.
Community resources and services for rehabilitation
planning.
Internet based counseling tools and resources.
Theories of career development and work adjustment.
Vocational implications of functional limitations
associated with disabilities.
Occupational and labor market information.
Medical terminology.
Medical aspects and implications of various disabilities.
The psychosocial and cultural impact of disability on the
individual.
125

SCALE FOR
IMPORTANCE

SCALE FOR
PREPAREDNESS

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

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

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
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

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

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
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

The psychosocial and cultural impact of disability on the
family.
The tests and evaluation techniques available for
assessing clients’ needs.
Interpretation of assessment results for rehabilitation
planning purposes.
Financial resources for rehabilitation services.
Program evaluation procedures for assessing the
effectiveness of rehabilitation services and outcomes.
The functional capacities of individuals with disabilities.
Appropriate medical intervention resources.
Job analysis.
Job modification and restructuring techniques.
Ergonomics, job accommodations, and assistive
technology.
Job placement and job development strategies.
Supported employment strategies and services.
Consultation process with employers related to
management of disability issues in the workplace.
Employer development for job placement.
Job readiness including seeking and retention skills
development.
Rehabilitation research literature related to evidencebased practice.
Rehabilitation research methods and statistics.
Substance abuse and treatment.
Social security programs, benefits, work incentives, and
disincentives.
Rehabilitation techniques for individuals with
psychological disabilities.
Transferable skills analysis.
Marketing strategies and techniques for rehabilitation
services.
The workplace culture, environment, and business
terminology.
Ethical decision making models and processes.
Techniques for working effectively in teams and across
disciplines.
Techniques for working with individuals with limited
English proficiency.
Case recording and documentation.
Clinical problem-solving and critical-thinking skills.
Negotiation, mediation, and conflict resolution strategies.
Health promotion and wellness concepts and strategies
126

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

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5

2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4

5
5
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

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

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

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

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

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5

2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5

for people with chronic illness and disability.
Evidence-based psychiatric rehabilitation practices.
Work conditioning or work hardening resources and
strategies.
Principles of caseload management.
Methods and techniques used to conduct labor market
surveys.
Professional roles, functions, and relationships with other
human service providers.
Advocacy processes needed to address institutional and
social barriers that impede access, equity, and success for
clients.
Human disability and sexuality issues.
Treatment planning for clinical problems (e.g. depression
and anxiety).
Computer-based and on-line assessment tools.
Computer-based job-matching systems.
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
IV-TR.
Implications of medications as they apply to people with
disabilities.
Individual and family adjustment to disability.
Psychometric concepts related to measurement
(reliability, validity, standard error of measurement).
Educating employers on disability-related issues (e.g.,
ADA, job accommodation, compliance/disability law).
Evidence-based practice and research utilization.
Services available from one-stop career centers.
Services available through client advocacy programs
(e.g., Client Assistant Programs [CAP], legal aid).
Programs and services for specialty populations (e.g.,
school-to-work transition, spinal cord injury, traumatic
brain injury, mental health, developmental disability,
substance abuse, correctional).
Human resource practices, diversity in the workplace,
and workplace supports for people with disabilities.
Establishing and maintaining effective working alliances
with the clients we serve.
Systematic review/meta-analysis.
Research databases (e.g. Cochrane Collaboration,
PsyINFO, and MEDLINE) for locating empirically
validated interventions.
Social media (e.g. Twitter and Facebook) as a
networking tool to increase social participation of people
127

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

with disabilities.

128

REFERENCES

129

REFERENCES
American School Counselor Association. (2004). ASCA National Standards for Students.
Alexandria, VA: Author.
Berven, N. L. (1979). The roles and functions of the rehabilitation counselor revisited.
Rehabilitation Counselor Bulletin, 23(2), 84-88.
Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes of youth with
disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study. Exceptional
Children, 62, 399–413.
Bullis, M., Davis, C., Bull, B., & Johnson, B. (1997). Expectations versus realities: Examination
of the transition plans and experiences of adolescents who are deaf and adolescents
who are hearing. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin. 40, 251-265.
Chan, F. Leahy, M. L., Saunders, J. L., Tarvydas, V. M., Ferrin, J. M., & Lee, G. (2003).
Training needs of certified rehabilitation counselors for contemporary practice.
Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 46(2), 82-91.
Council for Exceptional Chlidren. (2011). Educational Requirements, Licensure, and
Accreditation. Retrieved June 21, 2011, from Council for Exeptional Children:
http://www.cec.sped.org/Content/NavigationMenu/SpecialEdCareers/Educational_Req
uirem.htm
Commissionon Rehabilitation Counselor Certification. (2011). CRC Exam Overview. Retrieved
June 21, 2011, from
http://www.crccertification.com/pages/crc_exam_overview/120.php
Council on Rehabilitation Education (2011). Standards for rehabilitation couselor education
programs. Retrieved June 21, 2011, from http://www.corerehab.org/CORE%20Standards.html
DeFur, S. H. & Taymans, J. M. (1995). Competencies needed for transition specialists in
vicational rehabilitation, vocational education, and special education. Exceptional
Children, 62(1), 38-51.
Dahir, C. A., Burnham, J. J., & Stone, C. (2009). Listen to the voices: School counselors and
comprehensive school counseling programs. Professional School Counselin, 12(3),
182-192.
Ebner, D. F. (2007). Skill Emphasis in Rehabilitation Cousnelor Education Curricula.
Rehabilitation Education, 21(3), 195-204.

130

Greene, G. &Kochhar-Bryant, C. A. (2003).Pathways to successful transition for youth with
disabilities.
Halpern, A. S. (1991). Transition: Old wine in new bottles. Exceptional Children, 58(3), 202-211.
Hoyt, K. (1982). Career education: Beginning of the end, or a new beginning. Career
Development of Exceptional Children, 5, 3-12.
Keeping the promises: National goals, state of knowledge and research agenda for persons with
intellectual and developmental disabilities (2003). Findings & Recommendations:
Invitational Conference. The Arc of the United States.
Knott, L., & Asselin, S. B. (1999). Transition competencies: Perceptions of secondary special
educattion teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22, 55-65.
Kohler, P. D. (1996). Taxonomy for Transition Programming: Linking Research with Practice.
Washington, D.C.
Kohler, P. D. & Chapman, S. C. (1999). Literature review on school-to-work transition.
Transition Research Institute. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Kohler, P. D. & Field, S. (2003). Transition-focused education: Foundation for the future. The
Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 174-183.
Landmark, L. J., Ju, S., & Zhang, D. (2010). Substantiated best practices in transition: Fifteen
plus years later. Career Development for Exceptional Children, 33(3), 165-176.
Leahy, M. J., Chan, F., Sung, C. & Kim, M. (2011). An analysis of job functions and knowledge
requirements of certified rehabilitation counselors [Monograph]. Commission on
Rehabilitation Counselor Certification, Schaumburg, IL.
Leahy, M. J., Chan, F., & Saunders, J. L. (2003). Job functions and knowledge requirements of
certified rehabilitation counselors in the 21st century. Rehabilitation Counseling
Bulletin, 46, 66-81.
Leahy, M. J., Muenzen, P., Saunders, J. L., & Strauser, D. (2009). Essential knowledge domains
underlying effective rehabilitation counseling practice. Rehabilitation Counseling
Bulletin, 52(2), 95-106.
Leahy, M. J., Szymanski, E. M., & Linkowski, D. (1993). Knowledge importance in
rehabilitation counseling. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 37, 130-145.
McGuire, J. M. (2010). Considerations for the Transition to College. In S. F. Shaw, J. W.
Madaus, & I. L. Dukes, Preparing Students with Disabilities for College Success (pp.
7-36). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
131

National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center (2010). Evidence-based practices
and predictors in secondary transition: What we know and what we still need to know.
Charlotte, NC: NSTTAC.
National Transition Network. (1993). Policy Update, 1992 Rehabilitation Act Amendments.
Minneapolis: Institute for Community Inclusion.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2002). Retrieved June 21, 2011, from U.S. Department of
Education: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oertle, K. M. & Trach, J. S. (2007). Interagency collaboration: The importance of rehabilitation
professionals involvement in transition. Journal of Rehabilitation, 73(3), 36-44.
Pérusse, R., Goodnough, G. E., & Noel, C. J. (2001). Use of the national standards for school
counseling programs in preparing school counselors. Professional School Counseling,
5(1), 49-55.
Peterson, D. B., & Aguiar, L. J. (2004). History and Systems: United States. In T. F. Riggar, & D.
R. Maki, Handbook of Rehabilitation Counseling (pp. 50-75). New York: Springer
Publishing Company, Inc.
Rehabilitation Services Administration (2010). Rehabilitation Services Administration 911
database.
Shaw, L. R., Leahy, M. L., Chan, F., & Catalano, D. (2006). Contemporary issues facing
rehabilitation counseling: A delphi study of prospective leaders of the discipline.
Rehabilitation Education, 20, 163-178.
SPSS Inc. (2011). SPSS Statistics 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM.
Szymanski, E. M., Leahy, M. J., & Linkowski, D. L. (1993). Reported preparedness of certified
rehabilitation counselors in rehabilitation counseling knowledge areas. Rehabilitation
Counseling Bulletin, 37, 146–162.
Test, D. W., Mazzotti, V. L., Mustian, A. L., Fowler, C. H., Kortering, L. & Kohler, P. D. (2009).
Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving postschool outcomes for
students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Children, 32(3), 160181.
Timmons, J. C., Whitney-Thomas, J., McIntyre, J. P., Butterworth, J. & Allen, D. (2004).
Managing service delivery systems and the role of parents during their children's
transitions. Journal of Rehabilitation, 70(2), 19-26.
132

Trach, J. S. (1998). Research in Rehabilitation Counselor Training on Supported Employment
and Transition.Transition Research Institute at Illinois. Washington, DC: Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education.
Twenty-Eight Institute on Rehabilitation Issues. (2002). Investing in the transition of youth with
disabilities to productive careers.University of Arkansas, Department of Rehabilitation.
Hot Springs, AR: Region VI Rehabilitation Continuing Education Program.
Will, M. (1984). OSERS programming for the transition of youth with disabilities: Bridges from
school to working life. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Servces, U.S. Department of Education.
Wright, G. N. (1980). Total rehabilitation. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Yell, M. L., & Shriner, J. G. (1997). The IDEA amendments of 1997: Implications for special
and general education teachers, administrators, and teacher trainers. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 30(1), 1-19.
Yell, M., Katsiyannas, A., & Shiner, J. (2006). The No Child Left Behind Act, Adequate Yearly
Progress, and Students With Disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(4), 32-41.
Yell, M., Katsiyannis, A., Ryan, J., & McDuffie, K. (2008). Ensure Compliance With the
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 44(1), 45-51.

133