Since the late 20th century, the views of Western countries on civic education have changed from a perspective of duty to a perspective that combines both obligations and rights (Hope Gonzales et al., 2001). Influenced by this trend, the government in Taiwan has actively promoted educational reforms over the past two decades. The unprecedented magnitude of higher education reform has had a profound impact on the right of students to receive an education. Specifically, as a result of the policy for establishing new universities, the number of universities has increased from 67 in the 1990s to the current 177 (Chen, 2008). Consequently, high school graduates in Taiwan now have more opportunities to attend college.

Research has shown that the number of students with disabilities attending universities in Taiwan has grown by 150% in the past decade (Chao, 2018). As the concept of professional services in special education has not yet been specifically implemented in practice in Taiwan’s universities, whether students with disabilities can adapt to the environment, study effectively, and set career goals during their years of university study is worthy of attention (Zeedyk et al., 2019). Because of the differences between university and high school in terms of learning environment, instructional methods, and teacher–student interaction mode, college students with disabilities who do not possess autonomy and basic capabilities of self-knowledge, self-management, and problem solving can find it difficult to adapt to university life (Schuck et al., 2019). For example, they may have difficulty understanding their strengths and weaknesses regarding learning. From the perspective of developmental psychology, these abilities can be regarded as an individual’s self-determination skills (Deci & Ryan, 2012). Studies indicate that individuals with self-determination skills can understand themselves and their environment and can face challenges with positive thinking. More important, they can make their own choices and decisions and have the ability to live independently and solve problems (Stancliffe et al., 2020).

Cognitive and/or physical impairments mean that students with disabilities usually experience more difficulties in the process of exercising self-determination than their peers do (Vlachou & Stavroussi, 2016). Studies have shown that college students with disabilities often have insufficient self-determination skills to complete tasks that are required for academic success, such as completing school assignments independently, choosing and applying effective learning strategies, and solving academic problems (Evans Getzel & Thoma, 2008). In Taiwan, a lack of relevant research means that the academic community has limited knowledge about the characteristics of self-determination among this group of students. Given that the academic achievement of college students relates closely to their degree of self-determination (Zheng et al., 2014), and that the acquisition of self-determination skills is a lifelong development process (Madson Ankeny & Lehmann, 2011), extending the scope of self-determination research in Taiwan to the stage of higher education will increase understanding of the current status of self-determination of college students with disabilities. This, in turn, will be beneficial in providing students with the academic support and resources they require.

The primary necessity for objectively judging an individual’s self-determination capability is appropriate assessment tools. The AIR Self-Determination Scale (Wolman et al., 1994), Arc’s Self-Determination Scale (Wehmeyer & Kelchner, 1995), the Self-Determination Assessment Battery (Hoffman et al., 1996), the Perceived Choice and Awareness of Self Scale (Thrash & Elliot, 2002), and the Minnesota Self-Determination Scales-Revised (Abery et al., 2007) are all regarded as appropriate measures for assessing college students’ self-determination. Although these scales have good psychometric properties, the cultural context and characteristics of the samples used in their testing are quite different from those that apply in Taiwan. Indeed, cultural factors are regarded as mediating variables in relation to individuals’ self-determination (Frankland et al., 2004).

Currently, there is a single measure specifically designed for assessing the self-determination of college students with disabilities in Taiwan: the Self-Determination Scale for College Students (SDSCS; Chao, 2016). Nevertheless, because the validity of the SDSCS has not yet been assessed, its rigor and objectivity remain unproven. In a pilot study conducted with 82 college students with disabilities, Cronbach’s alpha values for the subscales of the SDSCS ranged from .73 to .89, and the test–retest reliability coefficients ranged from .70 to .83 (Chao, 2016), showing that the scale has good reliability. However, the validity of the scale has not been evaluated. Therefore, in this study my aim was to develop a revised version of the SDSCS to serve as an effective tool to evaluate the self-determination of Taiwanese college students with disabilities.

Method

Participants and Procedure

I contacted the Special Education Resource Centers of 15 universities in northern Taiwan to explain the purpose of this study and ask for help with conveying the research-related information to undergraduates with disabilities. The staff in each center helped students who were willing to participate in the research to fill out the survey, and respondents signed a consent form where they were told that they would not be identified individually and that the data would be used for research purposes only. Staff sent all collected data back to me, and staff and participating students were each provided with a gift voucher (valued at NTD 300/USD 9.50).

Overall, 265 college students with disabilities participated in this study. Of the participants, 161 (60.8%) were men and 104 (39.2%) were women, and they were in their freshman (n = 86; 32.4%), sophomore (n = 61; 23.0%), junior (n = 41; 15.5%), and senior (n = 77; 29.1%) years of study. Ages ranged from 17 to 23 years (M = 20.30, SD = 1.58). The students’ disabilities included intellectual disabilities (n = 20; 7.5%), visual impairment (n = 20; 7.5%), hearing impairment (n = 27; 10.2%), speech or language impairment (n = 5; 1.9%), physical disability (n = 38; 14.3%), cerebral palsy (n = 5; 1.9%), health impairment, (e.g., chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, cancer, chronic heart disease; n = 18; 6.8%), emotional and behavioral disorders (n = 25; 9.4%), learning disabilities (n = 40; 15.1%), multiple disabilities (n = 8; 3.0%), autism (n = 43; 16.2%), and other disabilities (n = 16; 6.0%).

Measure

After referring to the results of the pilot study conducted by Chao (2016), eight items with a Cronbach’s alpha lower than .80 were deleted, including those that failed to reflect Taiwanese college students’ actual learning circumstances (e.g., “I am able to complete tasks assigned by my university professors”; this is not applicable because university professors in Taiwan rarely assign in-class or homework tasks for students), or culturally inappropriate (e.g., “I will plan my future goals without considering my parents’ expectations”). The remaining 40 items formed the content of the Self-Determination Scale for College Students-Revised (SDSCS-R).

Additionally, two subscales were renamed to better reflect the concept of their evaluation. The SDSCS-R consists of four subscales: self-awareness (formerly labeled as self-realization), psychological empowerment, self-regulation, and autonomous functioning (formerly labeled as autonomy). Items in the self-awareness subscale are designed to evaluate college students’ understanding of their physical traits, strengths, interests, and mutual awareness with their families (e.g., caring/concern for each other, understanding each other’s needs or interests). The items are divided into two reflective indicators: personal understanding (Items 1–3) and family interaction (Items 4–7). Psychological empowerment items are designed to assess students’ self-advocacy, internal locus of control, and positive outcome expectation. Items are classified into two indicators: academic empowerment (Items 8–10) and family empowerment (Items 11–16). Self-regulation items are designed to evaluate college students’ ability to set goals and adjust behaviors according to the situation. Items are divided into two indicators: self-management (Items 17–21) and goal setting (Items 22–28). Autonomous functioning items are designed to assess the students’ ability to live independently and solve problems. Items are classified into three indicators: social skills (Items 29–33, 37, 40), school autonomy (Items 34–36), and home autonomy (Items 38 and 39).

All items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). Total scores range from 40 to 200, with higher scores representing greater self-determination.

Data Analysis

The missing data in this study were replaced by item means. The number of missing values for each item ranged from 6 (0.02%) to 25 (0.09%) which, because the number was small, could reasonably be attributed to random and nonsystematic omissions. Item analysis was first performed to evaluate the appropriateness of each item of the SDSCS-R. Cronbach’s alphas and test–retest reliability coefficients were then calculated to assess the internal consistency reliability of the SDSCS-R. Finally, the construct validity of the scale was evaluated using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Specifically, the dimensionality of the SDSCS-R was analyzed using EFA with the maximum likelihood estimation method. On the basis of the scree plot and the a priori hypothesis, the number of interpretable factors yielded was rotated using the principle axis rotation method. A CFA was conducted to further support the validity of the SDSCS-R construct.

Results

Item Analysis

The corrected item–total correlation coefficients were between .52 and .76, indicating that each item was markedly correlated with the total score on its corresponding subscale (see Table 1). Because the deletion of each item did not result in an increase in the Cronbach’s alpha of the corresponding subscale, all items in the SDSCS-R was retained.

Reliability Analysis

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the SDSCS-R subscales ranged from .86 to .90 and that for the full scale was .95 (see Table 1), with each reaching the ideal standard of > .80 (Creswell & Guetterman, 2018). The test–retest reliability was calculated with 68 participants (36 men and 32 women) from the original group of 265 students, selected using a purposive sampling method after an interval of 6 weeks. These students included freshmen (n = 15), sophomores (n = 17), juniors (n = 15), and seniors (n = 21). The test–retest coefficients were .70 for the self-awareness subscale, .81 for the psychological empowerment subscale, .80 for the self-regulation subscale, .82 for the autonomous functioning subscale, and .85 for the full scale. As all correlation coefficients were ≥ .70, the SDSCS-R has good stability.

Validity Analysis

In Tables 2 and 3 the correlation results within the SDSCS-R are presented. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin value was .92 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant, χ²(780) = 6187.91, p < .001, indicating that the sample data fulfilled the requirements for conducting EFA. Using the scree test as the technique to determine the number of factors to retain, four factors were extracted that accounted for 47.91% of the total item variance. The results of EFA using the principle axis factoring method and varimax rotation show that each item had the highest factor loading with its corresponding subscale, ranging between .41 and .80 (see Table 1).

The results of the CFA show that the second-order, four-factor measurement model had a good fit with the sample data. Results for the absolute fit indices were as follows: goodness-of-fit = .96, adjusted goodness-of-fit = .93, standardized root mean square residual = .03, root mean square error of approximation = .06. With respect to comparative fit indices the results were as follows: normed fit index = .96, relative fit index = .94, incremental fit index = .98, Tucker–Lewis index = .97, comparative fit index = .98. Factor loadings and residuals following the CFA are presented in Table 4.

The results of item analysis show that the corrected item–total correlation coefficients of each item and its subscale were above .50, indicating a high correlation. In addition, deleting any item reduced the Cronbach’s alpha of the subscale to which the item belonged. The item–total statistics show that every item in the SDSCS-R met the item analysis requirements, so all items were retained.

In addition, construct validity can be assessed in terms of correlations between variables in the scale and factor analysis. First, the results show a high degree of correlation between the participants’ scores on each subscale (> .58). The correlation coefficients for the reflective indicators ranged from .38 to .70, showing a moderate to high correlation. Both results show the consistency and integrity of the internal structure of the SDSCS-R.

The results of the EFA show that the factor loadings for each item were higher than the critical value of .32. This finding further supports the fit of the data to the design of the four subscales of the SDSCS-R, and the items measured self-determination characteristics. The CFA results also show that the settings of the variables in the SDSCS-R and the construction of causal relationships among them are reasonable. Both the overall model fit and the fit of the internal structure of the model scenarios were good. In particular, all factor loadings in the model met the standard of λ ≥ .55 for social science research (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). In addition, the explanatory power of the concept of self-determination for each of the subscales was, in descending order: psychological empowerment, self-regulation, self-awareness, and autonomous functioning.

Discussion

With an increasing number of young people with disabilities enrolled at universities in Taiwan, whether these students can achieve salutary life adaptation and academic success on campus is a matter for public concern (Huang, 2014). Because the performance of these students relates closely to their self-determination skills, it is necessary to investigate the degree and characteristics of their self-determination. As there is currently not a well-developed, established self-determination assessment tool suited for use in the context of Taiwanese culture and conditions, in this study I developed a culturally contextualized scale and examined its psychometric properties. The SDSCS-R is a modified version of the SDSCS I originally developed in 2016. The item–total statistics show that every item in the SDSCS-R met the item analysis requirements, so all items could be retained. The reduced number of items in the SDSCS-R compared with the SDSCR did not affect the suitability of each item.

In terms of reliability analysis, the results indicate that our participants’ scores on the four SDSCS-R subscales had a high degree of internal consistency. Although the alpha coefficient for self-awareness was relatively low, this might be attributed to the fact that the self-awareness subscale has a relatively small number of items. Generally, under the same test conditions, more items will produce greater reliability (Creswell & Guetterman, 2018). In addition, the test–retest results support the stability of the scale, in that the time sampling error of the retest scores after 6 weeks was small. Self-determination is a skill that is acquired gradually through learning and life experience. Thus, the test–retest result is reasonable, as this ability is unlikely to change significantly within such a short time period.

Since the validity of the SDSCS had not been evaluated previously, the validity analysis of the SDSCS-R in this study is of particular importance and can help support the comprehensiveness and relevance of items in the scale. First, in terms of content validity, as the SDSCS-R items are based on the learning and living situation of Taiwanese college students with disabilities in the environment of their home, school, and community, the content of the items reflects how they make their decisions in real life. In addition, the content and structure of the scale were also based on causal agent theory and the function model of self-determination proposed by Wehmeyer (1999). Therefore, the practical and theoretical aspects of self-determination are integrated in the SDSCS-R and the scale has appropriate content validity.

Autonomous functioning is the subscale that was least affected by the concept of self-determination. I speculate that this may be related to there being broader connotations/concepts in the items. These concepts were categorized into three indicator variables: social skills, school autonomy, and home autonomy. Although these three variables involve the autonomous function of individuals, there is considerable variation as regards the actions and the ability and knowledge required for these different functions. For example, there is a significant difference between being able to go shopping independently (Item 33) and being able to take notes during class independently (Item 36). The former involves physiological needs and general life skills, whereas the latter is mainly concerned with cognitive needs and specialized knowledge, such as reasoning ability, logical thinking, or accurate note taking.

In summary, the SDSCS-R developed in this study underwent a rigorous compilation process, and the psychometric properties of the scale were assessed using data obtained from a large sample. The results show that the scale has good reliability and validity. Professionals, such as researchers or college professors, can use this scale as an effective assessment tool to assess the degree and characteristics of self-determination among students with disabilities at universities in Taiwan. The results of the assessment can then be used as a reference for counselors at colleges when providing learning and life counseling for students with disabilities.

Although the results show that the SDSCS-R has good psychometric properties, this study has two main limitations. First, because of the lack of a suitable criterion, the concurrent validity of the SDSCS-R has not been assessed and should be interpreted with caution. In addition, as it is a self-reported scale, the SDSCS-R assesses the self-determination capability of college students with disabilities based on the students’ subjective judgments and perceptions. Therefore, a gap may exist between their self-assessments and actual ability levels. To address these limitations I recommend that prospective researchers use other similar scales, such as the AIR Self-Determination Scale (Wolman et al., 1994), as a criterion to evaluate the concurrent validity of the SDSCS-R. Furthermore, to assess the degree and characteristics of self-determination of college students with disabilities more objectively, I suggest that teacher and parent versions be developed based on the SDSCS-R, to facilitate interrater consistency.

Abery, B. H., Smith, J., Elkin, S., Springborg, H., & Stancliffe, R. (2007). The Minnesota Self-Determination Scales-Revised: Skills, Attitudes, and Knowledge Scale. University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration.

Chao, P.-C. (2016, July). Investigation of the self-determination skills and learning adjustment of Taiwanese college students with disabilities [Paper presentation]. International Conference on Social Science, Hokkaido, Japan.

Chao, P.-C. (2018). Using self-determination of senior college students with disabilities to predict their quality of life one year after graduation. European Journal of Educational Research, 7(1), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.7.1.1

Chen, L.-J. (2008). A study on the life and transition behaviors of college students with disabilities [In Chinese]. Journal of Special Education, 28, 57–95.
https://doi.org/10.6768/JSE.200812.0057

Creswell, J. W., & Guetterman, T. C. (2018). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (6th ed.). Pearson Education.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-determination theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 416–436). Sage.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n21

Evans Getzel, E., & Thoma, C. A. (2008). Experiences of college students with disabilities and the importance of self-determination in higher education settings. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31(2), 77–84.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728808317658

Frankland, H. C., Turnbull, A. P., Wehmeyer, M. L., & Blackmountain, L. (2004). An exploration of the self-determination construct and disability as it related to the Diné (Navajo) culture. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39(3), 191–205.

Hoffman, A., Field, S., & Sawilowsky, S. (1996). Self-determination assessment battery user’s guide. Wayne State University.

Hope Gonzales, M., Riedel, E., Avery, P. G., & Sullivan, J. L. (2001). Rights and obligations in civic education: A content analysis of the National Standards for Civics and Government. Theory & Research in Social Education, 29(1), 109–128.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2001.10505931

Huang, Y.-R. (2014). Reviewing university entrance exams policy for senior high school students with disabilities based on the perspectives of equality of educational opportunity [In Chinese]. Special Education Forum, 16, 46–61.
https://doi.org/10.6502/SEF.2014.16.46-61

Madson Ankeny, E., & Lehmann, J. P. (2011). Journey toward self-determination: Voices of students with disabilities who participated in a secondary transition program on a community college campus. Remedial and Special Education, 32(4), 279–289.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510362215

Schuck, L., Wall-Emerson, R., Kim, D. S., & Nelson, N. (2019). Predictors associated with college attendance and persistence among students with visual impairments. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 32(4), 339–358. https://bit.ly/2LSj6dd

Stancliffe, R. J., Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., & Abery, B. H. (2020). Policies and practices to support preference, choice, and self-determination: An ecological understanding. In R. J. Stancliffe, M. L. Wehmeyer, K. A. Shogren, & B. H. Abery (Eds.), Choice, preference, and disability: Promoting self-determination across the lifespan (pp. 339–354). Springer Nature.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35683-5_18

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.

Thrash, T. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Implicit and self-attributed achievement motives: Concordance and predictive validity. Journal of Personality, 70(5), 729–755.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.05022

Vlachou, A., & Stavroussi, P. (2016). Promoting social inclusion: A structured intervention for enhancing interpersonal problem-solving skills in children with mild intellectual disabilities. Support for Learning, 31(1), 27–45.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12112

Wehmeyer, M. L. (1999). A functional model of self-determination: Describing development and implementing instruction. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 14(1), 53–61.
https://doi.org/10.1177/108835769901400107

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Kelchner, K. (1995). The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale. The Arc of the United States National Headquarters.

Wolman, J. M., Campeau, P. L., DuBois, P. A., Mithaug, D. E., & Stolarski, V. S. (1994). AIR Self-Determination Scale and user guide. American Institutes for Research and Columbia University.

Zeedyk, S., Bolourian, Y., & Blacher, J. (2019). University life with ASD: Faculty knowledge and student needs. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 23, 726–736.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361318774148

Zheng, C., Gaumer Erickson, A., Kingston, N. M., & Noonan, P. M. (2014). The relationships among self-determination, self-concept, and academic achievement for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(5), 462–474.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412469688

Pen-Chiang Chao, Department of Special Education, Chung Yuan Christian University, 200 Chung Pei Road, Chung Li District, Taoyuan City, Taiwan 320. Email: [email protected]