16
Risk Factors, Protective Factors,
Vulnerability, and Resilience
A Framework for Understanding and Supporting the Adult
Transitions of Youth with High-Incidence Disabilities
CHRISTOPHER MURRAY
ABSTRACT
Findingsfrom numerous investigations of youth with
high-incidence disabilities have indicated that these youth have
poorer adult outcomes than do their peers without disabilities.
Despite the consistency with which these findings have been
observed, little is known about the specific factors that contribute
to these poor outcomes, and even less is known about factors and
processes that might improve them. Part of this limitation may be
related to the lack of an organizing model or framework for thinking
about the many factors and processes that can influence the
outcomes of youth with disabilities. The purpose of this article is to
examine how the related concepts of risk factors, protective
factors, and resilience might inform our understanding of the
postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities. These constructs are
reviewed and their application to research focused on understanding
and supporting the adult transitions of youth with highincidence
disabilities is explored. Based on this review, several
recommendations are offered for future research and practice
efforts aimed at understanding and supporting the life transitions
of youth with high-incidence disabilities.
TIS NOW CLEAR THAT MANY YOUTH WITH HIGHincidence
disabilities experience poor outcomes following
high school. These findings have been demonstrated in numerous
longitudinal investigations, which have been based in
different geographical locations and focused on a variety of
indicators related to postschool outcome status (Affleck, Edgar,
Levine, & Kortering, 1990; Blackorby & Wagner, 1996;
Frank, Sitlington, & Carson, 1995; Hasazi, Gordon, & Roe,
1985). However, although youth with disabilities are more
likely than their nondisabled peers to experience poor outcomes,
little is known about the causes for these findings
(Kohler, 1993). Although the research conducted to date has
made an invaluable contribution because it has increased
awareness of the need for transition-related services, there
remains a need for focused efforts devoted to understanding
the complex web of factors and processes that contribute to
postschool outcome status among these youth. Such efforts
must be grounded in theoretical and conceptual models that
account for the complexities of life course development and
adjustment.
The purpose of this article is to examine how a risk and
resilience framework can assist in this process. In the first
section, several investigations of postschool status are reviewed
to illustrate the complex nature of the concept of risk.
Second, the concepts of protective factors and resilience are
briefly discussed and defined. Third, several investigations
that have used these concepts in studies of students with disabilities
are reviewed to provide an overview of how this
model might be applied to transition-related research. Last,
several recommendations are offered for those interested in
applying this framework to efforts aimed at understanding
and supporting the adult transitions of youth with highincidence
disabilities.
at Masarykova Univerzita on March 2, 2015rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from
17
LITERATURE REVIEW
Postschool Outcomes and Risk Factors
The findings from numerous longitudinal investigations have
indicated that students with learning disabilities (LD) have
lower rates of employment, lower earnings, lower rates of
postsecondary school attendance (and graduation), and lower
rates of independent living status than do young adults without
disabilities (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996; Goldstein, Murray,
& Edgar, 1998; Murray, Goldstein, & Edgar, 1997;
Murray, Goldstein, Nourse, & Edgar, 2000). Students with
emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) have high rates of
school dropout, high incarceration rates, low rates of employment,
and low rates of postsecondary school attendance following
high school (Carson, Sitlington, & Frank, 1995; Frank
et al., 1995; Leone, 1990; Malmgren, Edgar, & Neel, 1998;
Wagner, 1995). Students with mild mental retardation (MMR)
experience many similar problems following high school, although
the findings from a number of investigations suggest
that these youth are even more likely than youth with LD
and EBD to experience poor outcomes (Affleck et al., 1990;
Blackorby & Wagner, 1996).
A number of social and demographic variables influence
interpretation of these findings. Among schoolchildren in
the United States, gender is a predictor of receiving a highincidence
disability label, with males being placed into these
categories at higher rates than females (U.S. Department of
Education, 1999, 2000). Because males are more likely than
females to be placed into these categories, a greater number
of males with high-incidence disabilities experience poor
postschool outcomes. However, a number of investigations
have shown that females with high-incidence disabilities have
poorer postschool outcomes than do males with high-incidence
disabilities (Benz, Yovanoff, & Doren, 1997; Murray et al.,
1997; Wagner, 1992). This interaction between gender and
disability status leads to an increased likelihood of negative
outcomes for these females. At least three investigations have
demonstrated this effect (Benz et al., 1997; Murray et al.,
1997; Wagner, 1992), suggesting that there are unique factors
or circumstances that place females with disabilities at a
heightened risk of experiencing poor outcomes. Although the
specific nature of this finding is unclear, some researchers
have suggested that females with high-incidence disabilities
have more significant intellectual, academic, and emotional
problems than do males who receive these labels (Vogel,
1990; Wagner, 1992).
Race is also associated with disability status, with students
of color being more likely to be placed in highincidence
disability categories than White students (U.S.
Department of Education, 2000). Findings from numerous
investigations have documented this overrepresentation, and
African Americans are placed into these categories at particularly
high rates (Harry, 1992). Race is also a predictor of
postschool outcome status in its own right, with African
Americans, Native Americans, and Latin Americans having
poorer postschool outcomes than White Americans (Feagin &
Feagin, 1996). Given this information, one would expect
African American youth with high-incidence disabilities to
be more likely to experience poor postschool outcomes than
(a) African American students without disabilities, (b) White
students with disabilities, and (c) White students without disabilities.
Blackorby and Wagner (1996) partially confirmed
this hypothesis by showing that African American youth with
disabilities had poorer outcomes on indicators of employment
and independent living status than did White youth with
disabilities. Although it is unclear if these outcomes are
caused by these two factors’ interacting in some unique way
or if they are caused by an accumulation of risks (i.e., being
African American and having a disability), it is clear that
some combination of these characteristics increases the likelihood
that a poor postschool outcome will occur.
Socioeconomic status (SES) is also related to disability
status. A greater proportion of students from low-SES backgrounds
receive special education labels than students from
middle- and upper-SES backgrounds (Sherman, 1994). However,
SES is related to race as well, with a greater proportion
of children of color, particularly African Americans, Latin
Americans, and Native Americans, living in low-SES households
(McLoyd, 1998). In addition, children and youth from
low-SES backgrounds are more likely than youth from
middle- and upper-SES backgrounds to have poor postschool
outcomes (Jimerson, Egeland, & Teo, 1999; Sherman, 1994).
Thus, disability status, racial status, and SES independently
increase the likelihood of a negative postschool outcome, and
the accumulation of these risk factors may increase this likelihood
even more. Furthermore, the relationships among
these and other factors can operate indirectly, adding complexity
to explanations of outcome status (e.g., race influences
SES, SES influences special education status, special
education status influences educational opportunities, educational
opportunities influence achievement, achievement
influences school dropout status, and school dropout status
influences postschool outcomes). In this way, indirect relationships
in chains of variables, as well as chains in their
entirety, are important for understanding later outcome status.
This brief description illustrates the complex nature of
risk. There are many other factors and processes that can also
directly and indirectly influence outcome status among youth
with high-incidence disabilities. Growing up in an abusive
home environment is a risk factor for emotional and behavioral
problems across one’s life span (Cicchetti & Carlson,
1989). Peer rejection and victimization can directly affect
outcomes by causing delinquency (Parker & Asher, 1987)
and can indirectly affect outcomes by influencing school
adjustment and achievement (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996).
Poverty directly influences outcome status, but many of these
effects operate indirectly through neighborhoods (BrooksGunn,
Duncan, Klebanov, & Sealand, 1993), reduced access
to health care (McLoyd, 1998), family discord (Garmezy,
at Masarykova Univerzita on March 2, 2015rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from
18
1991 ), and limited opportunities for involvement in prosocial
activities (Murray-Nettles & Pleck, 1996). Moreover, poverty
itself may be the result of racial biases and other forms of discrimination
that take place within the broader society (Feagin
& Feagin, 1996). The fact that human development and postschool
outcomes are shaped by indirect, interactive processes
makes it important to use research models that account for
these complexities. Although strategies designed to control
the effects that one variable has on another in the presence of
a third may help isolate specific direct effects, these statistical
methods can mask the interactive nature of developmental
processes and experiences (Rutter, 1990).
Vulnerability and risk represent multifaceted, complex
processes. Vulnerability denotes an individual’s susceptibility
to a negative outcome, and risk factors are biological, environmental,
and psychosocial hazards that increase the likelihood
that a maladaptive outcome will occur (Wemer, 1990).
Students with high-incidence disabilities are susceptible to
experiencing poor postschool outcomes, and specific risk factors,
processes, and experiences can increase this likelihood
even more. Thinking about development in this way, one can
begin to view variations in outcome status as the result of
interrelated factors and processes that directly and indirectly
influence one’s life course.
Protective Factors and Resilience
Although exposure to risk can increase the likelihood that a
negative outcome will occur, it does not guarantee it. Many
youth with high-incidence disabilities have positive postschool
outcomes. And, although it is true that a greater proportion
of females with LD from low-SES backgrounds will
have poorer postschool outcomes than will the proportion of
middle-class males with LD, some of these females will beat
the odds and will have even better outcomes than some of the
males who were exposed to fewer risks. Children and youth
who have positive outcomes despite vulnerability and heightened
risk have been called resilient (Wemer & Smith, 1989).
Although the concept of resilience has received increased
attention from educators in recent years, studies of
resilient children and youth have a relatively long history
among psychologists and psychiatrists (Garmezy, 1994). The
concept of resilience suggests that some children, even those
exposed to the most extreme and harsh conditions, can overcome
adversity and have healthy adult outcomes (Moskovitz,
1983). The question one must ask, then, is, Why? Why is one
child negatively affected by exposure to risk when another
who is exposed to similar or greater obstacles adapts positively
to life’s challenges?
One reason that it is difficult to accurately predict outcome
status by looking at risk factors alone is that other factors
and processes may be working to counteract these risks.
According to Rutter (1985), &dquo;Protective factors refer to influences
that modify, ameliorate, or alter a person’s response to
some environmental hazard that predisposes to a maladaptive
outcome&dquo; (p. 600). Researchers representing a broad number
of academic disciplines and focused on a wide range of outcomes,
including those related to social status, psychological
state, behavior, education, and economic status, have identified
a surprisingly similar group of protective factors and
processes. These factors include (a) characteristics of individuals
(e.g., positive temperament, internal locus of control,
high self-esteem, positive outlook on the future, moderate to
high intelligence); (b) family factors (e.g., emotionally supportive
and warm relationships with at least one parent, effective
parenting styles); (c) school factors (e.g., access to
quality schools, feeling a sense of school belonging, good
peer relationships); and (d) community factors (e.g., social
support from adults, involvement in other prosocial organizations
; Elder, 1974; Famworth, Schweinhart, & BerruetaClement,
1985; Garmezy, 1991; Hawkins, Catalano, &
Miller, 1992; Jessor, 1993; Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, &
Ouston, 1979; Sroufe, 1983; Svetaz, Ireland, & Blum, 2000;
Wang & Gordon, 1994; Wemer & Smith, 1989).
Protective factors are resources. These factors can modify
the impact of risk exposure and can alter outcome status.
As with risk factors, the relationships between protective factors
and outcomes can be indirect. Children and youth with
positive temperaments, for example, may elicit caring and
support from adults, and receiving social support from adults
can influence children’s long-term adjustment (Wemer &
Smith, 1989). Thus, positive temperamental characteristics
help explain outcome status through social support.
Risk Factors, Protective Factors, and
Postschool Outcomes
Figure 1 summarizes the relationship between risk factors,
protective factors, the vulnerable student, and postschool outcomes.
In this model, individual characteristics (i.e., demographic
and personality traits) as well as experiences within
the contexts of families, schools, peer groups, and broader
communities shape development and outcomes. In the box on
the left, features of these contexts are conceptualized as risk
factors, which can negatively affect development and can
heighten the likelihood of poor outcome status. In the box on
the right, features of these same contexts are conceptualized
as protective and can promote healthy development and positive
long-term adjustment. The four-way arrows within the
risk and protective factor boxes depict the dynamic, interactive
relationships among these spheres of influence. These
arrows are meant to show that these contexts interact and can
influence development indirectly. The two-way arrows
between risk factors and the vulnerable student on the left and
between protective factors and the vulnerable student on the
right reflect the transactional nature of this relationship. The
two-way arrows show that although risk and protective factors
affect the student and influence his or her outcomes, the
student also influences these contexts.
at Masarykova Univerzita on March 2, 2015rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from
19
¡zj
11)
r-.
0
ü
0
’b
11)
B11)
&dquo;i~
i
Q)
s
C)
41
O
0ü
18
iu
i
it
19
14
C4
.r.
8
i.0.
5
.~
s
s
gm
0
uw
at Masarykova Univerzita on March 2, 2015rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from
20
Several researchers have used aspects of this model to
understand how risk and protective factors operate and influence
the outcomes of adolescents and adults with disabilities.
Wemer (1993), using data from the Kauai longitudinal study,
examined protective factors associated with positive adult
outcomes among individuals who were classified as LD
during childhood. These youth were considered high risk
because they came from impoverished backgrounds and because
of their disability status. Adults were classified as resilient
according to their adult employment status, enrollment
in postsecondary school, satisfaction with spousal relationship,
satisfaction with parenting roles, quality of relationships
with peers, and general life satisfaction. Adults who reported
positive ratings on a combination of these indicators were
considered well adjusted and resilient.
After resilient adults were identified, data collected from
these adults during childhood and adolescence were analyzed
to explore factors that contributed to their positive outcome
status. Resilient adults were more likely to have had as children
positive temperaments, a belief that obstacles and challenges
could be overcome, parents who fostered self-esteem
and who implemented rules and structure within home environments,
caring and supportive relationships with adults in
their lives (i.e., other than or in addition to parents), and
opportunities for employment and other positive experiences
during the transition between adolescence and adulthood
(Wemer, 1993). This investigation highlights the complex
nature of developmental experiences and shows how individual
child characteristics as well as experiences in multiple
contexts can promote long-term adjustment among high-risk
youth.
Blum, Kelly, and Ireland (2001) examined risk and
protective factors associated with involvement in healthcompromising
behaviors among adolescents with LD, EBD,
and mobility impairments and youth without disabilities.
Initial findings from this investigation indicated that youth
with disabilities were more likely to be engaged in healthcompromising
behaviors than were youth without disabilities.
The researchers then examined how risk and protective
factors influenced involvement in these behaviors. Risk factors
at the individual level (i.e., sexually experienced, appears
old for age, belief in early death, victim of violence, somatic
complaints); family level (i.e., suicide in family, gun available
in home); and school level (i.e., repeated a grade) increased
the likelihood of involvement in health-compromising behaviors.
Protective factors that reduced the likelihood of
involvement in health-compromising behaviors included
(a) individual student characteristics (i.e., religiosity, appears
young for age, high self-esteem); (b) experiences within families
(i.e., family connectedness, parental presence, parental
expectations, activities with parents, lives with both parents);
and (c) experiences within schools (i.e., school connectedness,
high grade point averages; see Svetaz et al. (2000) for a
similar analysis of emotional well-being among adolescents
with LD).
In a qualitative investigation of highly successful adults
with LD, Gerber, Ginsberg, and Reiff (1992) interviewed
adults with LD and used a combination of data related to outcome
status to classify them as high, moderate, or low in success.
In this investigation, the majority of adults (n =
46) were
classified as &dquo;highly successful,&dquo; 25 were considered &dquo;moderately
successful,&dquo; and none were classified as low in success.
Interviews were then conducted with participants to
determine factors associated with these levels of success.
Results revealed a number of themes that distinguished the
two groups. The first theme, control, represented the participants’
ability to set and accomplish goals in ways that
provided them with an intrinsic sense of accomplishment.
Whereas adults in the high-success group reported high levels
of control, participants in the moderately successful group
had greater concern for extrinsic influences in their lives.
Adults in the highly successful group also indicated acceptance,
understanding, and action regarding their disabilities.
This understanding appeared to strengthen their identities and
acceptance of self. Highly successful individuals were also
characterized as persistent, hard working, and committed to
finding the &dquo;right fit&dquo; for their abilities. Last, individuals in
the high-success group reported receiving significant amounts
of social support from mentors, spouses, and friends (Gerber
et al., 1992).
Halpern, Yovanoff, Doren, and Benz (1995) and Benz
et al. (1997) have conducted one of the only prospective investigations
of how experiences during high school influence
later outcomes among youth with high-incidence disabilities.
These researchers collected data from students, parents,
teachers, and school records during students’ final year of
high school. These youth were then followed into adulthood,
and prior experiences were used to predict postsecondary
educational involvement (Halpern et al., 1995) and employment
status (Benz et al., 1997). Findings from the first investigation
indicated that individual student characteristics (i.e.,
achievement levels) and school experiences (i.e., the provision
and completion of needed instruction, transition planning,
student and parent satisfaction with instruction) were
stronger predictors of participation in postsecondary education
than were gender, ethnicity, family income level, dropout
status, the prevalence of integrated instruction, or congruence
of student-parent expectations (Halpern et al., 1995). In the
second investigation, Benz et al. (1997) prospectively examined
variables that influenced employment-related outcomes
among youth with and without disabilities. They found that
individual student characteristics (i.e., achievement levels,
social skills, job search skills) and community-related variables
(i.e., having previous work experience) were positively
associated with employment-related outcomes.
Although diverse in focus, these investigations demonstrate
the application of models that focus on risk and protective
factors. Such models help clarify the relationship
between individual student characteristics, experiences within
multiple contexts, and consequent outcomes. This brief reat
Masarykova Univerzita on March 2, 2015rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from
21
view also illustrates how a variety of methods can be employed
to assist in the understanding of factors that influence
outcome status.
DISCUSSION
As stated earlier, although it is clear that many young adults
with high-incidence disabilities experience poor postschool
outcomes, the factors that contribute to these poor outcomes
are not well documented or understood. Longitudinal investigations
that have followed students with disabilities into
adulthood usually begin at some point following high school
(Blackorby & Wagner, 1996; Murray et al., 1997), and thus
any data that have been gathered regarding experiences in
childhood and adolescence have usually been collected through
retrospective accounts (Gerber et al., 1992; Hasazi et al.,
1985). These limitations severely hamper our understanding
of how early experiences contribute to later outcomes, making
the implementation of well-grounded interventions a
challenging proposition. In the following sections, issues related
to research and practice are discussed. Because practitioners
are often engaged in research efforts, and because
researchers are often engaged in practice, these sections are
not meant to be exclusive. Instead, they are organized to
address a broad number of issues that fall within each of these
categories.
Issues Related to Research
In this article, risk factors are conceptualized as characteristics,
traits, and experiences that can negatively affect development
and outcomes. Currently, very little information
relating risk factors to the outcome status of youth with highincidence
disabilities exists. Therefore, future efforts must
clarify the relationship between specific risk factors/
processes and postschool outcome status. Based on previous
work in special education as well as work in other social
science areas, important risk variables for inclusion in prospective
studies should focus on student characteristics, experiences
within the contexts of families, experiences in school,
and experiences in neighborhoods and communities (Benz
et al., 1997; Garmezy, 1987, 1991; Halpern et al., 1995;
Hawkins et al., 1992; Jimerson, Carlson, Rotert, Egeland, &
Sroufe, 1997; Patterson, Forgatch, Yoerger, & Stoolmiller,
1998; Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch, 1994; Sroufe, 1983; Wehmeyer
& Schwartz, 1997). Specific features of these contexts that
have been associated with development and outcomes are
summarized in Table 1 in the column labeled &dquo;Risk Factors.&dquo;
This list is by no means exhaustive; however, because there is
some empirical support for each of these variables, future
research efforts should focus on collecting information in
each of these areas.
In addition to these risk factors, a number of factors and
processes have been shown to distinguish between resilient
high-risk youth and high-risk youth who do not experience
positive outcomes (see Table 1, Protective Factors). Support
for these protective factors also comes from a broad research
base (Famworth et al., 1985; Fisher, Kotes, Cole, Perkins, &
Wynne, 1987; Gerber et al., 1992; Garmezy, 1991; Halpern
et al., 1995; Hawkins et al., 1992; Jessor, 1993; Rutter et al.,
1979; Sroufe, 1983; Svetaz et al., 2000; Wang & Gordon,
1994; Wemer, 1993) focused on different indicators of vulnerability
(i.e., poverty, family history of mental illness, disability
status) as well as different outcomes (e.g., mental
health, educational outcomes, economic outcomes). Many of
these factors appear to represent the opposite poles of risk
factors. For example, in the row containing individual child
characteristics, poor academic achievement is a risk factor
and strong academic achievement is a protective factor. However,
protective factors represent more than the linear opposite
of risk. Instead, these factors are interactive and can best
be conceptualized as processes that change or modify one’s
experience of risk (Hawkins et al., 1992; Rutter, 1985).
Because there is empirical support for the importance of
these protective factors, researchers and practitioners in special
education should make efforts to document the relationship
between these factors/processes and the postschool
outcome status of youth with high-incidence disabilities.
Ideally, such data would be collected over time and
across developmental periods. In this review, I have not
devoted enough attention to the importance of development,
although a focus on development is one of the hallmarks of
research on resilience (Egeland, Carlson, & Sroufe, 1993;
Matsen, Best, & Garmezy, 1991). The fact that individuals
respond differently to various challenges and opportunities
during different developmental periods should come as no
surprise to researchers and practitioners involved in transitionrelated
issues. Transition implies change, and reactions and
responses to various stressors and challenges, as well as reactions
to support and protection, are influenced, modified,
and interpreted according to cognitive, emotional, and behavioral
maturational levels (Rutter, 1985). Because of the importance
of developmental periods, researchers interested in
understanding the postschool outcomes of youth with highincidence
disabilities should consider collecting information
at multiple time points, during different developmental periods
(i.e., early childhood, childhood, adolescence, adulthood)
and important transitional periods (e.g., preschool to kindergarten,
elementary to middle school, middle school to high
school, high school to adulthood). Such data are likely to
yield richer insights than data collected at single points in
time or during only one developmental stage.
Data related to risk and protective processes could then
be used to predict outcome status or could be analyzed by
creating groups of &dquo;successful&dquo; and &dquo;unsuccessful&dquo; adults
and then examining how data collected at earlier time points
helps differentiate groups. Such analyses would incorporate
sensitivity to the importance of developmental stages and
transitions and would also focus on understanding the interactive
and indirect relationships between influential factors.
at Masarykova Univerzita on March 2, 2015rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from
22 .
TABLE 1. Summary of Risk Factors, Protective Factors, and Preliminary Implications for Practice
at Masarykova Univerzita on March 2, 2015rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from
23
Issues Related to Practice
Once risk and protective factors related to postschool adjustment
have been clearly identified and the relationship between
these indicators and outcome status has been demonstrated, it
may be possible to eliminate or significantly alter risk exposure
while promoting protective experiences. At the first
level, this would involve the prevention of known risk factors.
For example, the effects of poverty and the many constructs
it encompasses on a host of wide-ranging outcomes are undeniably
real (McLoyd, 1998; Sherman, 1994). Therefore, efforts
designed to reduce children’s exposure to poverty are of
primary importance. Such efforts may be particularly important
when examining resilient youth because, as Garmezy
(1987) has observed, examining resilient high-risk youth can
have social and political consequences if not carefully framed:
The concept of protective factors is potentially
a political weapon. Resilient children and the
countless numbers of successful adults who
demonstrate their escape from poverty and disadvantage,
can be used by political advocates of
an ideological viewpoint that holds the resiliency
of some to be proof of its possession by all: that
anyone can emulate such achievements if they
only try harder. (p. 171)
The concept of resilience implies escape from vulnerability
and risk, and the fact that some children and youth do escape
does not mean that all, or even most, can escape. Risk factors
are, by their very nature, reliable in predicting negative outcomes.
Therefore, primary prevention efforts to reduce exposure
to known risks should always be at the forefront of social
service efforts. In addition, as our understanding of the risks
associated with the negative outcomes of youth with highincidence
disabilities expands, it may become apparent that
some risk factors are more susceptible to change than others.
Once these factors are identified, efforts should be made to
reduce exposure to them.
At the same time, other efforts designed to build the
capacity for resilience should also be of concern. Based
on research in various fields of study, such efforts should
focus on at least four levels: (a) the individual, (b) schools,
(c) families, and (d) communities (Matsen, 1994). Efforts to
combine interventions in ways that target these contexts concurrently
should also be considered because multicomponent,
multilevel intervention may have stronger effects than efforts
focused on only one factor or context (Hawkins & Catalano,
1992). A preliminary list of strategies that might promote
resilience is presented in Table 1.
Individual Factors. At the individual level, there
appear to be a number of abilities or competencies that can
affect the outcomes of youth with high-incidence disabilities.
One of the most promising areas of work is related to the concept
of self-determination (Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1997).
Self-determination generally refers to an individual’s ability
to make autonomous decisions, set goals, independently
attempt to accomplish goals, independently attain goals, independently
evaluate his or her performance, and make adjustments
based on goal progress (Field, Hoffman, & Posch,
1997; Wehmeyer, Palmer, Agran, Mithaug, & Martin, 2000).
This concept is closely aligned with research related to internal
locus of control and self-esteem, both of which have
been shown to influence outcome status (Blum et al., 2001;
Wemer, 1993). A second important individual capacity is
related to social skills and social cognitive problem-solving
abilities (Kohler, 1993; Shure & Spivack, 1980, 1988). Students
who are socially competent and who are able to develop
and sustain prosocial relationships with others are more
likely than individuals who do not possess these skills to have
positive postschool outcomes (Kohler, 1993). Last, strong
academic and cognitive skills have consistently been associated
with long-term adjustment, and youth who possess these
skills are more likely to experience better outcomes following
high school than are youth who do not (Benz et al., 1997;
Halpern et al., 1995; Matsen, 1994).
Because each of these individual capacities has been
associated with outcome status, efforts should be made to
build these skills among individuals with high-incidence disabilities.
Finding ways to build self-determination, social
cognitive problem-solving skills, and academic and cognitive
abilities among youth with high-incidence disabilities is
appealing for several reasons. First, these skills appear to
affect the long-term outcomes of youth with disabilities. In
addition, these skills can have an immediate impact on the
social, emotional, and academic functioning of youth in school
environments. Further, these skills are important for functioning
in settings other than school and may help students
develop and sustain relationships, and promote involvement,
within other contexts.
Family Context. One of the most consistent findings in
research focused on resilience has been that parents and families
are an essential component to promoting positive adjustment.
This finding has been demonstrated with children and
youth at risk because of economic hardship and poverty
(Elder, 1974; Wemer & Smith, 1989) and maternal mental illness
(Fisher et al., 1987) and among adolescents at risk of
delinquency and drug use (Hawkins & Catalano, 1992;
Hawkins et al., 1992). Parents who provide students with
emotionally supportive, responsive relationships that are also
characterized by structure and the modeling of appropriate
behaviors appear to have the most powerful influence over
student outcome status (Hawkins et al., 1992; Matsen, 1994;
Wemer & Smith, 1989). Effective parents can promote a variety
of academic, social, behavioral, and emotional skills and
competencies in children and youth (Matsen et al., 1990).
Although teachers and other school personnel do not have
direct control over parenting practices, finding ways to
at Masarykova Univerzita on March 2, 2015rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from
24
develop and sustain meaningful school-home connections
may provide practitioners with opportunities to work with
parents in ways that promote the consistency of support in
home environments (Epstein, 1990, 1995).
School Context. A considerable body of research has
investigated the effects of successful schools in high-risk
environments (Comer, 1988, 1993; Freiberg, Prokosch, Treister,
& Stein, 1990; Rutter et al., 1979). Among the schoollevel
variables thought to exert the most powerful influence
on children and youth are close and caring teacherstudent
relationships, the promotion of self-esteem and selfdetermination,
a consistent focus on academic skills, the
active teaching and modeling of appropriate social and
behavioral skills, and school-home involvement. Children
and youth spend approximately 15,000 hours of their lives in
schools, which are one of the primary means through which
individuals develop the skills and capacities for later success
(Rutter et al., 1979). Teachers can have powerful and lasting
effects on the lives of children and youth with disabilities
both through the provision of important learning experiences
and, perhaps more important, through the quality of the relationships
they develop with students.
Research focused specifically on students with highincidence
disabilities also suggests at least two other important
school-level variables: high school graduation and
transition planning. First, high school graduation has repeatedly
been shown to influence the postschool outcome status
of youth with high-incidence disabilities; thus, developing
strategies to help these students complete this experience is a
critical educational objective (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996;
Sitlington & Frank, 1993). Second, researchers in special
education have also found that quality transition planning
during high school can promote positive postschool outcomes
(Halpern et al., 1995). Therefore, schools should carefully
plan and implement transition-related experiences in high
school environments.
Community Context. A number of community-related
variables can influence student outcomes, and teachers and
schools can influence many of these variables directly (Reynolds,
1994). Work experience during high school has been
shown to have a positive impact on postschool employment
status, so schools should find ways to promote these experiences
(Benz et al., 1997). However, employment-related
experiences should be designed with care because these experiences
should not come at the expense of academic and other
school-related competencies (Halpern, Doren, & Benz, 1993).
In addition, although not systematically studied among
populations of students with high-incidence disabilities,
involvement with sports teams, church groups, and other community
organizations appears to influence outcomes among
high-risk populations (Murray-Nettles, 1991). In one of the
few investigations that has considered such experiences,
Wagner (1995) reported that youth with EBD who were involved
in such activities had better school-related adjustment
than did students with EBD who did not engage in such activities.
Therefore, promoting involvement in community groups
and organizations may serve an important developmental
function for children and youth with high-incidence disabili-
ties.
Conclusions
It is now clear that many youth with high-incidence disabilities
experience poor outcomes in adulthood. Less clear, however,
is an understanding of why these outcomes occur. A risk
and resilience model provides a framework for exploring the
impact of individual, social, and contextual experiences on
the long-term outcomes of youth with high-incidence disabilities.
Developing further understanding about how specific
risk and protective factors and processes operate in the lives
of youth with high-incidence disabilities will provide researchers
and practitioners with greater insight into the lives
of these youth. This understanding will provide greater
opportunities for the implementation of well-grounded prevention
and intervention efforts. Such efforts will likely focus
on the multiple contexts of individuals, families, schools, and
communities because it appears that these interrelated contexts
influence development and outcome status. Although
such efforts will require substantial commitments on the part
of researchers, practitioners, and policymakers, such commitments
are necessary if we are truly interested in understanding
and supporting youth with high-incidence disabilities
during their transition to adulthood.
CHRISTOPHER MURRAY, PhD, is an assistant professor of special education
in the School of Education at DePaul University. His research interests
focus on understanding how social and contextual experiences influence
the adjustment and outcomes of students with disabilities in urban environments.
Address: Christopher Murray, DePaul University, School of Education,
2320 N. Kenmore Ave., Chicago, IL 60614-3250; e-mail: cmurray@
depaul.edu
REFERENCES
Affleck, J. Q., Edgar, E., Levine, P., & Kortering, L. (1990). Postschool status
of students classified as mildly mentally retarded, learning disabled,
or nonhandicapped: Does it get better with time? Education and Training
in Mental Retardation, 25, 315-324.
Benz, M. R., Yovanoff, P., & Doren, B. (1997). School-to-work components
that predict postschool success for students with and without disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 63, 151-165.
Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes of
youth with disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition
Study. Exceptional Children, 62, 399-413.
Blum, R. W., Kelly, A., & Ireland, M. (2001). Health risk behaviors and protective
factors among adolescents with mobility impairments and learning
and emotional disabilities. Journal of Adolescent Health, 28, 481-
490.
Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., Klebanov, P. K., & Sealand, N. (1993). Do
neighborhoods influence child and adolescent development? American
Journal ofSociology, 99, 353-395.
Carson, R. R., Sitlington, P. L., & Frank, A. R. (1995). Young adulthood for
individuals with behavioral disorders: What does it hold? Behavioral
Disorders, 20, 127-135.
at Masarykova Univerzita on March 2, 2015rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from
25
Cicchetti, D., & Carlson, V. (Eds.). (1989). Child maltreatment: Theory and
research on the causes and consequences of child abuse and neglect.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Comer, J. P. (1988). Educating poor minority children. Scientific American,
259(5), 42-48.
Comer, J. P. (1993). School power: Implications of an intervention project.
New York: Free Press.
Egeland, B., Carlson, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1993). Resilience as a process.
Development and Psychopathology, 5, 517-528.
Elder, G. H. (1974). Children of the Great Depression: Social change in life
experiences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Epstein, J. L. (1990). School and family connections: Theory, research, and
implications for integrating sociologies of education and family. Marriage
and Family Review, 15, 99-126.
Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the
children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701-712.
Farnworth, M., Schweinhart, L. J., & Berrueta-Clement, J. R. (1985).
Preschool intervention, school success and delinquency in a high risk
sample of youth. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 445-464.
Feagin, J. R., & Feagin, C. B. (1996). Racial and ethnic relations. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Field, S., Hoffman, A., & Posch, M. (1997). Self-determination during adolescence:
A developmental perspective. Remedial and Special Education,
18, 285-293.
Fisher, L., Kotes, R. F., Cole, R. E., Perkins, P. M., & Wynne, L. C. (1987).
Competent children at risk: A study of well-functioning offspring of disturbed
parents. In E. J. Anthony & B. J. Cohler (Eds.), The invulnerable
child (pp. 211-227). New York: Guilford.
Frank, A. R., Sitlington, P. L., & Carson, R. R. (1995). Young adults with
behavioral disorders: A comparison with peers with mild disabilities.
Journal ofEmotional and Behavioral Disorders, 3, 156-164.
Freiberg, H. J., Prokosch, N., Treister, E. S., & Stein, T. (1990). A study of
five at risk inner city elementary schools. Journal of School Effectiveness
and School Improvement, 1, 5-25.
Garmezy, N. (1987). Stress, competence, and development: Continuities in
the study of schizophrenic adults, children vulnerable to psychopathology,
and the search for stress-resistant children. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 57, 159-174.
Garmezy, N. (1991). Resiliency and vulnerability to adverse developmental
outcomes associated with poverty. American Behavioral Scientist, 34,
416-430.
Garmezy, N. (1994). Reflections and commentary on risk, resilience, and
development. In R. J. Haggerty, L. R. Sherrod, N. Garmezy, & M. Rutter
(Eds.), Stress, risk, and resilience in children and adolescents:
Processes, mechanisms, and interventions (pp. 1-18). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Gerber, P. J., Ginsberg, R., & Reiff, H. B. (1992). Identifying alterable patterns
in employment success for highly successful adults with learning
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 475-487.
Goldstein, D. E., Murray, C., & Edgar, E. (1998). Employment earnings and
hours of high school graduates with learning disabilities through the first
decade after graduation. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13,
53-64.
Halpern, A. S., Doren, B., & Benz, M. R. (1993). Job experiences of students
with disabilities during their last two years in school. Career Development
for Exceptional Individuals, 16, 63-73.
Halpern, A. S., Yovanoff, P., Doren, B., & Benz, M. R. (1995). Predicting
participation in postsecondary education for school leavers with disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 62, 151-164.
Harry, B. (1992). Cultural diversity, families, and the special education system:
Communication and empowerment. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Hasazi, S. B., Gordon, L. R., & Roe, C. A. (1985). Factors associated with
the employment status of handicapped youth exiting high school from
1979 to 1983. Exceptional Children, 51, 455-469.
Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F. (1992). Communities that care: Actions for
drug abuse prevention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Miller, J. Y. (1992). Risk and protective
factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early
adulthood: Implications for substance abuse and prevention. Psychological
Bulletin, 112, 64-105.
Jessor, R. (1993). Successful adolescent development among youth in highrisk
settings. American Psychologist, 48, 117-126.
Jimerson, S., Carlson, E., Rotert, M., Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L. A. (1997). A
prospective, longitudinal study of the correlates and consequences of
early grade retention. Journal ofSchool Psychology, 35, 3-25.
Jimerson, S., Egeland, B., & Teo, A. (1999). A longitudinal study of achievement
trajectories: Factors associated with change. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 91, 116-126.
Kochenderfer, B. J., & Ladd, G. W. (1996). Peer victimization: Cause or consequence
of school maladjustment? Child Development, 67, 1305-1317.
Kohler, P. (1993). Best practices in transition: Substantiated or implied?
Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 16, 107-121.
Leone, P. E. (Ed.). (1990). Understanding troubled and troubling youth. London:
Sage.
Malmgren, K., Edgar, E., & Neel, R. S. (1998). Postschool status of youths
with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 23, 257-263.
Matsen, A. S. (1994). Resilience in individual development: Successful
adaptation despite risk and adversity. In M. C. Wang & E. W. Gordon
(Eds.), Educational resilience in inner-city America (pp. 3-25). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Matsen, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development:
Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity.
Development and Psychopathology, 2, 425-444.
McLoyd, V. (1998). Socioecomomic disadvantage and child development.
American Psychologist, 53, 185-204.
Moskovitz, S. (1983). Love despite hate. New York: Schocken Books.
Murray, C., Goldstein, D. E., & Edgar, E. (1997). The employment and
engagement status of high school graduates with learning disabilities
through the first decade after graduation. Learning Disabilities Research
& Practice, 12, 151-160.
Murray, C., Goldstein, D. E., Nourse, S., & Edgar, E. (2000). The postsecondary
school attendance and completion rates of high school graduates
with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
15, 119-127.
Murray-Nettles, S. (1991). Community contributions to school outcomes of
African American students. Education and Urban Society, 24, 132-147.
Murray-Nettles, S., & Pleck, J. H. (1996). Risk, resilience, and development:
The multiple ecologies of black adolescents in the United States. In R.
Haggerty, L. Sherrod, N. Garmezy, & M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, risk, and
resilience in children and adolescents: Processes, mechanisms, and
interventions (pp. 147-181). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment:
Are low accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102,
357-389.
Patterson, G. R., Forgatch, M. S., Yoerger, K. L., & Stoolmiller, M. (1998).
Variables that initiate and maintain an early-onset trajectory for juvenile
offending. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 531-547.
Reynolds, M. C. (1994). Special education as a resilience-related venture. In
M. C. Wang & E. W. Gordon (Eds.), Educational resilience in inner-city
America (pp. 131-137). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity: Protective factors and
resistance to psychiatric disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 147,
598-611.
Rutter, M. (1990). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. In
J. Rolf, A. S. Matsen, D. Cicchetti, K. H. Nuecterlein, & S. Weintraub
(Eds.), Risk and protective factors in the development ofpsychopathology
(pp. 181-214). New York: Cambridge University Press.
at Masarykova Univerzita on March 2, 2015rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from
26
Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., & Ouston, J. (1979). Fifteen thousand
hours: Secondary schools and their effects on children. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Ryan, R. M., Stiller, J. D., & Lynch, J. H. (1994). Representations of relationships
to teachers, parents, and friends as predictors of academic
motivation and self-esteem. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 226-249.
Sherman, A. (1994). Wasting America’s future: The children’s defense fund
report on the costs of child poverty. Boston: Beacon Press.
Shure, M. B., & Spivack, G. (1980). Interpersonal problem solving as a
mediator of behavioral adjustment in preschool and kindergarten children.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 1, 29-44.
Shure, M. B., & Spivack, G. (1988). Interpersonal cognitive problem solving.
In R. H. Price, E. L. Cowen, R. P. Lorion, & J. Ramos-Mckay
(Eds.), 14 ounces of prevention (pp. 69-82). Hyattsville, MD: American
Psychological Association.
Sitlington, P. L., & Frank, A. R. (1993). Dropouts with learning disabilities:
What happens to them as young adults? Learning Disabilities Research
& Practice, 8, 244-252.
Sroufe, L. A. (1983). Infant-caregiver attachment and patterns of adaptation
in preschool: The roots of maladaption and competence. In M. Perlmutter
(Ed.), Development and policy concerning children with special
needs, The Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol. 16, pp.
41-83). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Svetaz, M. V., Ireland, M., & Blum, R. (2000). Adolescents with learning
disabilities: Risk and protective factors associated with emotional wellbeing:
Findings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent
Health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27, 340-348.
U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Twenty-first annual report to Congress
on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Twenty-second annual report to Congress
on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act. Washington, DC: Author.
Vogel, S. A. (1990). Gender differences in intelligence, language, visualmotor
abilities, and academic achievement in students with learning disabilities:
A review of the literature. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23,
44-52.
Wagner, M. (1992). Being female—A secondary disability? Gender differences
in the transition experience of young people with disabilities.
Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Wagner, M. (1995). Outcomes for youths with serious emotional disturbance
in secondary school and early adulthood. The Future of Children, 5,
90-112.
Wang, M. C., & Gordon, E. W. (Eds.). (1994). Educational resilience in
inner-city America. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Agran, M., Mithaug, D. E., & Martin, J. E.
(2000). Promoting causal agency: The self-determined learning model
of instruction. Exceptional Children, 66, 439-453.
Wehmeyer, M., & Schwartz, M. (1997). Self-determination and positive
adult outcomes: A follow-up study of youth with mental retardation or
learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63, 245-255.
Werner, E. E. (1990). Protective factors and individual resilience. In S. J.
Meisels & J. D. Shonkoff (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood intervention
(pp. 97-116). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Werner, E. E. (1993). Risk and resilience in individuals with learning disabilities:
Lessons learned from the Kauai longitudinal study. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 8, 28-34.
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1989). Vulnerable but invincible: A longitudinal
study of resilient children and youth. New York: Adams, Bannister &
Cox.
Received July 26, 2001
Revision received November 12, 2001
Initial acceptance February 25, 2002
Final acceptance April 4, 2002
at Masarykova Univerzita on March 2, 2015rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from