Date of Award

Spring 2026

Document Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Department

STEM and Professional Studies

Program/Concentration

Instructional Design and Technology

Committee Director

Dr. John Baaki

Committee Member

Dr. Tian Luo

Committee Member

Dr. Jonna Bobzien

Abstract

Individualized education program (IEP) transition plans are required to be based on student interests and strengths, and use age-appropriate transition assessments, yet limited guidance exists on how to prioritize these elements. Despite decades of transition planning research and policy development, students with disabilities continue to experience poor postsecondary transition outcomes, special education teachers report limited readiness to support transition planning, university special education programs lack transition focused coursework, and transition plans are created for compliance and lack transition assessment information. Considering these concerns, this study used a modified Delphi method, informed by Human Performance Technology (HPT) and Ecological Systems Theory (EST), to build expert consensus on the key interests, strengths, and assessments that should guide transition planning for students with disabilities. An expert panel of professionally licensed special education teachers with various roles and responsibilities participated in two survey rounds to rate and provide feedback on proposed interests, strengths, and transition assessment items. Consensus of importance (≥70% agreement) was reached for all 24 interest items and all 42 strength items, as well as for most transition assessment tools. Specifically, 48 of 61 assessments met the agreement threshold, including formal assessments, informal and authentic measures, and existing high-stakes academic assessments, particularly those addressing self-determination, independent living, and employability. Several assessments, including college entrance exams, iii state standards of learning assessments, and select vocational and career interest assessments, did not reach consensus, with stable response patterns supporting the conclusion after two rounds. Although this Delphi panel was small and the findings should be interpreted cautiously as part of an exploratory study, the results provide detailed, actionable guidance to strengthen transition planning through enhanced teacher professional development, high-quality transition assessment tools, and structured job aids. Educators may need training to identify and translate student interests and strengths, and assessment data into high quality transition plans with narratives and to explicitly teach self-advocacy skills. Districts and states should provide clearer operational guidance on IDEA’s requirements and develop resources such as recommended evidence-based transition assessments, structured response templates, embedded system guidance, and exemplar transition plan and goal-writing examples. Further research is needed to examine how teachers implement these practices, the accessibility and impact of various assessment formats, and the effects of linking assessments to self-determination instruction. Longitudinal and systems-level studies are warranted to determine whether these investments improve IEP quality and postsecondary outcomes. A key finding from this study is that transition assessments should be authentic, relevant, and reflective of student voice to meaningfully inform IEP transition plans. The Delphi panel emphasized that students’ interests and strengths across school, home, and community settings should be considered collectively, and that direct instruction in self advocacy is essential for promoting self-awareness and feasible goal setting. These findings suggest that structured transition instruction and curriculum may serve as effective vehicles for addressing these priorities by providing intentional opportunities for assessment, reflection, and direct instruction in self-advocacy skills throughout the transition planning process.

Rights

In Copyright. URI: http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s).

DOI

https://doi.org/10.25777/s1km-2346

ISBN

9798197810281

ORCID

0009-0005-8451-9786

Download

Share

COinS