View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Involvement in Determining Transition Services for Youth with Disabilities: A Systematic Literature Review

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Involvement in Determining Transition Services for Youth with Disabilities: A Systematic Literature Review
Language: English
Authors: Megan Best (ORCID 0000-0003-4069-4134), Meghan Burke
Source: Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities. 2025 37(6):907-926.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 20
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Information Analyses
Descriptors: Individualized Transition Plans, Intellectual Disability, Developmental Disabilities, Students with Disabilities, Parent Participation, Student Participation, Special Education Teachers, Teacher Participation
DOI: 10.1007/s10882-024-09997-x
ISSN: 1056-263X
1573-3580
Abstract: Transition planning is a critical component of preparing transition-aged youth with disabilities to plan for and attain their postsecondary goals. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (2004)), a key component of transition planning is identifying and implementing transition services. Knowing how transition services are identified and selected by transition-aged youth with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities (IDD), their parents, and their special educators is essential for a holistic understanding of transition planning. To this end, we systematically reviewed the literature about the involvement of transition-aged youth with IDD, parents of youth with IDD, and special educators in transition planning. We identified 16 studies which varied in methodology and types of participants. Across the studies, there was an absence of parent and youth involvement in identifying and selecting transition services. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1495512
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwF7MlmBQYcLejMaVdD0T4uPAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDA7eTHkwkoCqY7H_PQIBEICBm0jfdCsDwdeLc9VWINPtu32tvklEx8yxOlf4UXumI1N1KrJFKrmgoVVklvwmDo4bsBitIahYESusVsgSpFi3ZJAMhTclDb24bVBW-542baXrSIDkk7y444nbYf3b3s1rhEonAPNsTeubqKxaN3kotLGIc2mnrJR_krBvDFqsUB_8rDtPxKbuEsSkNxphcrOcw_2Q9GIUTB2w5Lgs
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0189290417;jdp01dec.25;2025Nov17.04:32;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0189290417-1">Involvement in Determining Transition Services for Youth with Disabilities: A Systematic Literature Review </title> <p>Transition planning is a critical component of preparing transition-aged youth with disabilities to plan for and attain their postsecondary goals. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (2004)), a key component of transition planning is identifying and implementing transition services. Knowing how transition services are identified and selected by transition-aged youth with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities (IDD), their parents, and their special educators is essential for a holistic understanding of transition planning. To this end, we systematically reviewed the literature about the involvement of transition-aged youth with IDD, parents of youth with IDD, and special educators in transition planning. We identified 16 studies which varied in methodology and types of participants. Across the studies, there was an absence of parent and youth involvement in identifying and selecting transition services. Implications for research and practice are discussed.</p> <p>Keywords: Transition; Transition services; Intellectual and developmental disabilities; Involvement in transition planning; Secondary education; Education Specialist Studies In Education</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <p>The journey to adulthood is filled with aspirations for the future. High school youth begin to develop their identities and values from their experiences in and out of school, which set the trajectory for decisions related to education, employment, and relationships. Unfortunately, compared to their peers without disabilities, transition-aged youth with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities (IDD) often face poor postsecondary outcomes. Such outcomes include lower rates of postsecondary education (Grigal et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref1">17</reflink>]), and limited opportunities for independent living (Winsor et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref2">58</reflink>]). There are even greater rates of disproportion when it comes to employment and these outcomes have remained stagnant for more than 40 years (Almalky, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref3">1</reflink>]; Bouck & Park, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref4">6</reflink>]). Winsor and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref5">58</reflink>]) determined that only 21.1% of 18–64 year old service recipients (e.g., state intellectual and developmental disability agencies, vocational rehabilitation) with IDD were employed in community settings and nearly 80% were participating in facility-based work or non-work activities.</p> <p>To improve educational and employment outcomes for youth with disabilities, there are multiple federal laws in place. First, to ensure all students with disabilities have access to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref6">21</reflink>]) requires all youth with disabilities to have an individualized education program (IEP). Once a youth with a disability turns 16 years of age, the IEP must include a transition plan to support meaningful academic and functional goals to improve postsecondary outcomes (IDEA, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref7">21</reflink>]). In many states (e.g., CA, MA, NM), this plan must be in place once a student turns 14 years of age. The transition plan should be based on the youth's strengths, preferences, and interests, while being collaboratively developed by the IEP team including the youth and parent. The transition plan includes components such as postsecondary goals, course of study, and transition services. In addition to IDEA, to improve employment outcomes of youth with disabilities, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref8">59</reflink>]) mandates the implementation of pre-employment transition services (Pre-ETS) to transition-age students. The mandate requires that vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies allocate 15% of federal funding to provide Pre-ETS and includes five areas to address with youth: job exploration, work-based learning experiences, counseling on postsecondary enrollment, workplace readiness training, and instruction in self-advocacy. Ideally, Pre-ETS can be provided as part of IEP transition services, but these may or may not be documented within the IEP transition plan or include a focus on school-based services.</p> <p>In addition to the legal expectation for parent and youth engagement in transition planning (IDEA, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref9">21</reflink>]), research documents the importance of parent and youth involvement (Mazzotti et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref10">31</reflink>]). Indeed, a predictor of postsecondary success for transition-aged youth with disabilities is collaboration between the school, family, and student (Mazzotti et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref11">30</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref12">31</reflink>]). When parents have high expectations for their child's future, their children are more likely to demonstrate positive postsecondary outcomes (Mazzotti et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref13">31</reflink>]). When youth with IDD are involved in their own transition planning, there is an increased likelihood of competitive employment (Mazzotti et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref14">31</reflink>]; Southward & Kyzar, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref15">48</reflink>]) and participation in postsecondary education (Shogren et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref16">44</reflink>]). Special educators often fulfill leadership roles in transition planning including engaging with youth and parents, having ongoing conversations with families, and facilitating IEP team meetings (Wehman et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref17">52</reflink>]).</p> <p>To date, transition-aged youth and parents are often passively involved in transition planning (Johnson et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref18">22</reflink>]; Sanderson & Goldman, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref19">40</reflink>]). In a sample of 130 youth, Martin and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref20">28</reflink>]) examined engagement of team members in IEP meetings. Special educators spoke for over 50% of the 10-second intervals in IEP meetings, while family members spoke for 15% and youth spoke for 3%. Despite being conducted over 10 years later, in a qualitative analysis of nine IEP meetings, Doronkin and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref21">13</reflink>]) found that even though students attended their IEP meetings, the decision-making occurred as if they were absent. For example, students were referred to as "he" or "she" while attending the meeting and in instances where special educators began to directly talk to a student, they often reverted to using he/she references within a few sentences (in some cases the same sentence). By characterizing the literature to understand the extent of parent and youth representation in transition planning, we can identify their involvement and have a baseline for interventions to improve parent and youth involvement in transition planning.</p> <p>Transition services are a key aspect of the transition plan as they establish the transition-related activities and experiences students with disabilities will participate in throughout the school year to support their growth and development in adulthood. Additionally, these services provide opportunities for special educators to facilitate students' engagement in activities that have been demonstrated by research to predict postsecondary success (e.g., work-based learning experiences [WBLEs], person-centered planning). With appropriate transition services, students are more likely to reach their transition goals (Westbrook et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref22">54</reflink>]). Unfortunately, in an examination of 201 IEPs, only 27.25% of IEPs reflected all the required transition services, aligned transition services with postsecondary goals, and provided evidence that transition services were based on the youth's needs, strengths, preferences, and interests (Landmark & Zhang, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref23">26</reflink>]). In a more recent study, 189 parents of students with disabilities were surveyed regarding their child's transition services; only 54% of children received transition services, and students with less extensive support needs were less likely to receive transition services (Mello et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref24">32</reflink>]). By understanding the extent to which transition-aged youth, parents, and teachers choose transition services, we may better understand how and why transition services are selected to support postsecondary outcomes.</p> <p>In addition to aligning transition services to postsecondary goals, it is important to understand the extent to which extant research examines transition goals and services. In comparison to transition-aged youth with other types of disabilities, transition-aged youth with IDD often require more supports and services (Shogren & Plotner, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref25">43</reflink>]). Specific transition services such as paid employment/work experiences (Carter et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref26">10</reflink>]; Mazzotti et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref27">31</reflink>]; Wehman et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref28">53</reflink>]), community experiences (Mazzotti et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref29">31</reflink>]; Rowe et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref30">39</reflink>]; White & Weiner, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref31">55</reflink>]), and self-care and independent living skills are predictors of positive postsecondary outcomes (Carter et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref32">10</reflink>]; Mazzotti et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref33">31</reflink>]; Rowe et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref34">39</reflink>]). By determining the extent to which certain transition goals and services are explored in the literature, we can identify gaps that require additional research.</p> <p>Given that the purpose of a transition plan is to support positive postsecondary outcomes for transition-aged youth with disabilities, it is critical to determine the extent to which research has shown whether transition services improve youth outcomes. To date, there have been multiple literature reviews focused on WIOA and Pre-ETS (Frentzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref35">15</reflink>]; Rooney-Kron et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref36">36</reflink>]; Wittenberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref37">56</reflink>]). There have also been literature reviews conducted that are specific to evidence-based practices in transition planning (Rowe et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref38">39</reflink>]) and predictors of postsecondary success (Mazzotti et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref39">31</reflink>]). While there are rich findings and implications for research, few studies have investigated how transition services (including IEP transition services) can impact postsecondary outcomes for transition-aged youth with disabilities.</p> <p>While extant literature has focused on transition planning, there has been less research about transition services. Examining special educator, parent, and youth involvement may allow us to gain unique insights from each stakeholder. The purpose of this review was to examine literature about the involvement of transition-aged youth with IDD, their parents, and special educators in selecting transition services. This literature review was guided by four questions: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref40">1</reflink>) Who were the participants (i.e., teachers, parents, or youth) in the research studies?; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref41">2</reflink>) What was the involvement of participants in determining transition services?; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref42">3</reflink>) Which transition goals and transition services have been researched?; and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref43">4</reflink>) Which transition services were most beneficial to improving postsecondary outcomes?</p> <hd id="AN0189290417-2">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189290417-3">Search Parameters</hd> <p>Articles that were included in this review had to meet the following inclusionary criteria: (a) focus on at least one of the four transition goal areas (employment, postsecondary education and/or training, independent living), (b) focus on at least one of the five IEP transition services areas, (c) reflect participants comprised of a youth, parent, and/or special educators of a youth aged 16 years or older with IDD, (d) include findings which reflect disaggregated data for transition-aged youth with IDD and/or their parents and/or their special educators, (e) be published in a peer-reviewed journal, (f) be empirical, (g) be conducted in the United States, (h) written in English, and (i) be published after 2004. One of the inclusion criteria required participants to reflect youth aged 16 or older, their parents, and/or special educators; this criterion was chosen as federal requirements state that youth, parents, and special educators are key to transition planning. While many states begin transition planning earlier, some states have historically not required implementation of transition services until youth reaches the age of 16 (e.g., TN). Given the nature of this review, there were also exclusionary criteria. Articles were excluded if youth participants did not have IDD or were not related or connected to a transition-aged youth with IDD. Given that youth with IDD often experience disparate postsecondary outcomes from their peers without disabilities (Mazzotti et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref44">30</reflink>]; Wehman et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref45">53</reflink>]), it is important to understand how transition services are identified and who supports decisions for transition-aged youth with IDD. All articles published prior to 2004 were excluded due to the most recent reauthorization of IDEA.</p> <hd id="AN0189290417-4">Search Procedures and Screening</hd> <p>We carried out a comprehensive search from July 2022 to July 2023 to identify all documents meeting the inclusion criteria and published at any time prior to July 2023. To complete this review, a set of guidelines was used (i.e., Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [PRISMA]; Page et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref46">33</reflink>]). To find articles that met the inclusion criteria, an electronic keyword search was conducted using the eight databases: <emph>Academic Search Complete</emph>,<emph>Academic Search Ultimate</emph>,<emph>Education Full Text</emph>,<emph>ERIC</emph>,<emph>Professional Development Collection</emph>,<emph>Psycinfo</emph>,<emph>SocINDEX with Full Text</emph>, <emph>and SPORTDiscus.</emph> The search consisted of combinations of keywords from the following clusters: (a) IDD, intellectual disability, developmental disability, severe disability, significant support need, complex support need; (b) high school, secondary education; (c) transition planning, transition services, instruction, community-based instruction (CBI), employment, adult living; and (d) perspectives, views, perceptions, attitudes, opinions, understanding, and experience. After the electronic search, forward and backward searches were conducted to locate potential articles.</p> <p>The initial electronic search yielded 647 results, and 483 duplicate articles were excluded.</p> <p>In the first round of screening, we read the titles and abstracts of the 164 remaining articles using inclusion criteria to eliminate 119 articles. Articles were removed if they included a focus outside of the scope of this review such as specific disabilities outside of IDD or focused on postsecondary experiences. In the second round of screening, we read the full text of documents retained from the first round (<emph>n</emph> = 45) and kept articles that met inclusion criteria (<emph>n</emph> = 12). Articles were removed because they were not conducted in the United States, did not allow for data to be disaggregated for IDD, and/or centered the perspective of someone other than the youth, parent, and/or special educator. An additional electronic search was conducted in transition-related research journals (e.g., <emph>Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Children</emph>,<emph>Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation</emph>) which yielded 12 articles, but eight were removed due to inclusion criteria listed above. The remaining 16 articles met the inclusionary criteria. See Fig. 1.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Prisma figure. Note This figure is adapted from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis [PRISMA] (Page et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref47">33</reflink>])</p> <hd id="AN0189290417-5">Coding</hd> <p>The 16 articles were reviewed; relevant data were collected from each of the studies. The extracted data were used to develop a matrix to summarize each article including the method, description of participants, and key findings. See Table 1. A codebook was developed in relation to the guiding questions and a review of the literature (Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services [OSERS], [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref48">51</reflink>]). Seven variables were coded for each article: (a) sample size, (b) method, (c) transition goal, (d) transition service, (e) participant type, (f) format of involvement, and (g) disability type. For each variable, operational definitions were developed. For example, participant type was defined as: (a) youth aged 16 and older with IDD; (b) the parent of a youth aged 16 or older with an IDD; (c) the special educator of students aged 16 or older with an IDD.</p> <p>Table 1 Matrix: participant involvement in decisions related to Transition services</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Authors, Publication Year</p></th><th align="left"><p>Study Purpose</p></th><th align="left"><p>Method</p></th><th align="left"><p>Participants</p></th><th align="left"><p>Key Findings</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Awsumb et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr2">2022</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>To examine barriers that hinder youth from accessing paid employment</p></td><td align="left"><p>Interviews and focus groups</p></td><td align="left"><p>24 parents; 15 educators</p></td><td align="left"><p>A total of 47 barriers were identified across 8 categories including school, students, families.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Bouck & Joshi, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr5">2016</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>To examine in-school and post-school transition services, transition planning, and post-school goals for students with mild intellectual disability.</p></td><td align="left"><p>Secondary Analysis of NLTS-2</p></td><td align="left"><p>32,239 students</p></td><td align="left"><p>Most students with received transition services. Few reported post-school agencies participating in transition planning. Inconsistent alignment between transition goals and achievement.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Carter et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">2014</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>To examine teacher and parent assessments of transition-related strengths and needs of youth with severe IDD.</p></td><td align="left"><p>Survey</p></td><td align="left"><p>61 special education teachers.</p><p>90 parents</p></td><td align="left"><p>Students with severe disabilities have strengths that can be drawn during the planning process. It is important to assess transition-related strengths and needs of students from multiple perspectives.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Dubberly, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr14">2012</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>To understand how high school students with ID participate in CBI as part of transition planning</p></td><td align="left"><p>Survey</p></td><td align="left"><p>36 students</p></td><td align="left"><p>All responses were favorable toward CBI across five areas.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Hetherington et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr19">2010</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>To describe the experiences of adolescents with disabilities and their parents during transition from school.</p></td><td align="left"><p>Interviews; Focus Groups</p></td><td align="left"><p>13 youth; 9 parents</p></td><td align="left"><p>Participants described dissatisfaction in with the school team across multiple domains. Youth and parents reported inadequate transition planning.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Kim & Morningstar, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr25">2020</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>To investigate the post-school outcomes of Korean American young adults with IDD, and their parents' perceptions of transition planning.</p></td><td align="left"><p>Survey</p></td><td align="left"><p>41 parents</p></td><td align="left"><p>Postsecondary employment outcomes of Korean American young adults with IDD were poorer than those of other groups of young adults with IDD. Many parents were dissatisfied with the transition planning for their children.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Lo & Bui, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr27">2020</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>To examine the experiences of Chinese and Vietnamese families of youth with ASD and IDD toward transition planning</p></td><td align="left"><p>Survey and Interviews</p></td><td align="left"><p>25 parents</p></td><td align="left"><p>Parents were eager to engage in transition planning and valued transition planning activities, yet schools provide little to no information. This impacted parent involvement.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Rodriguez et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr34">2017</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>To examine the planning process for students with developmental disabilities as they transition in school</p></td><td align="left"><p>Survey</p></td><td align="left"><p>67 teachers</p></td><td align="left"><p>Teachers reported needing more access to general education curriculum, in addition to functional skills. Collaboration between home and school needs to be strengthened.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Roux et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr37">2020</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>To improve our understanding of how often students with autism experience different types of work during high school compared to their peers with and without disabilities</p></td><td align="left"><p>Secondary Analysis of NLTS-2</p></td><td align="left"><p>630 students</p></td><td align="left"><p>Less than half of students with autism experience any type of work within a given year, which is significantly fewer than peers with and without disabilities. Rates of paid work among students with autism were comparable to students with ID, but half the rate of non-special education peers.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Schutz et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr41">2022</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>To examine the perspectives of parents of transition-age youth with disabilities on pre-employment transition services</p></td><td align="left"><p>Survey</p></td><td align="left"><p>191 parents</p></td><td align="left"><p>Parents reported their child would benefit from a large array of Pre-ETS yet many parents reported they were unfamiliar with transition-related resources available in their communities; In some areas, parents' views differed based on the type of community they lived in or child's disability.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Schutz et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr42">2023</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>To identify the range of facilitators that promote paid employment for youth with severe disabilities</p></td><td align="left"><p>Focus Groups; Interviews</p></td><td align="left"><p>39 participants (24 parents; 15 educators)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Participants discussed 36 facilitators spanning nine major categories including collaboration, supports, and knowledge and skill instruction.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Shogren & Plotner, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr43">2012</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>To compare the status of transition planning of students with intellectual disability, autism, or other disabilities using the NLTS-2 data set</p></td><td align="left"><p>NLTS-2 Analysis</p></td><td align="left"><p>7,640 students:</p><p>ID (<italic>n</italic> = 730), Autism (<italic>n</italic> = 830), Other Disabilities (<italic>n</italic> = 6080)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Few students took a leadership role in transition planning. School personnel were the most active participants in transition planning. Limited participation from outside agencies.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Skillern & Carter, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr46">2021</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>To examine the transition expectations and experiences of six first-generation, Latino parents and their transition-aged (14–22) children with ID, autism, and/or multiple disabilities</p></td><td align="left"><p>Interviews</p></td><td align="left"><p>6 parents</p></td><td align="left"><p>Factors identified as inhibiting successful transitions included persistent language barriers, views of some professionals and community members, and exclusion from typical school experiences.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Snell-Rood et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr47">2020</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>To better understand the interdependent impacts of policy, organization, provider, and individual factors that shape the transition planning process in school.</p></td><td align="left"><p>Focus Groups</p></td><td align="left"><p>20 participants</p><p>(Youth, parents, and special educators)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Participants described how tenets of the IEP process were not implemented: planning was characterized by inappropriate goal setting, ineffective communication, and inadequate involvement of all decision-makers.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Taylor et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr49">2023</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>To understand barriers experienced by Black youth and their parents related to self-determination and transition services in the transition to adulthood.</p></td><td align="left"><p>Interviews</p></td><td align="left"><p>10 participants (5 youth; 5 parents)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Participants experienced specific, multiple, and interlocking barriers to self-determination in the transition process. Systematic and structured biases impacted accessing transition services.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Williams-Diehm & Lynch, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr57">2007</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>To examine student knowledge and perceptions on the current transition planning process</p></td><td align="left"><p>Survey</p></td><td align="left"><p>11 students</p></td><td align="left"><p>Youth had little understanding of the purpose of their transition plan. Youth felt their input on the transition plan was valued, yet just over half spoke at IEP meetings, while less than 2.0% led IEP meetings.</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0189290417-6">Interrater Reliability</hd> <p>The first and second author served as coders. To assess interrater reliability for screening and coding of articles, the second author served as a second coder. We adopted search conventions used in other published reviews (e.g., Gilson et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref49">16</reflink>]), which involved conducting interrater reliability on a randomly selected subset of articles throughout the screening and coding process. We calculated interrater reliability by dividing the number of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100%. Interrater reliability was calculated at 31.25% of the articles (<emph>n</emph> = 5). Overall, interrater reliability was 95% for the articles. For disagreements, the researchers discussed their codes and came to an agreement. For example, if the first research identified four transition services within an article and the second author identified three transition services within the same article, discussion led to consensus on the correct number of transition services identified within the article.</p> <hd id="AN0189290417-7">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189290417-8">Preliminary Results</hd> <p>Across the 16 articles, there were a total of 41,167 transition-aged youth, parent, and special educator participants. The sample sizes ranged from 6 participants to 32,239 participants. Altogether, of the participant samples, only 10 articles reported participant gender. Of 33,202 participants, 56.74% (<emph>n</emph> = 18,838) were male and 43.26% (<emph>n</emph> = 14,364) were female. In total, 10 studies provided information about race. Of 34,193 participants, 76.17% (<emph>n</emph> = 26,036) were White, 19.20% (<emph>n</emph> = 6,565) were African American or Black, 0.26% (<emph>n</emph> = 90) were Hispanic or Latino, 0.17% (<emph>n</emph> = 61) were Asian American, and 1.50% (<emph>n</emph> = 513) were listed as "other race." For under 3% of the total participants, the race was not specified. For example, Bouck and Joshi ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref50">5</reflink>]) had a large sample size of 32,239 from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS-2), but only reported race for 97% of their participants.</p> <p>While the term "IDD" was used broadly in the inclusion criteria, some articles provided more specific information related to the participants. See Table 1 for a summary of study characteristics. Seven articles focused or included youth with IDD, while three articles specified autism (Lo & Bui, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref51">27</reflink>]; Roux et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref52">37</reflink>]; Shogren & Plotner, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref53">43</reflink>]). Two articles (Schutz et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref54">42</reflink>]; Skillern & Carter, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref55">46</reflink>]) identified youth participants with ID, autism, and/or multiple disabilities. One article specified participants with ID (Dubberly, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref56">14</reflink>]), or even more specific criteria such as a mild ID (Bouck & Joshi, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref57">5</reflink>]) or severe IDD (Carter et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref58">10</reflink>]). One article specified only developmental disability (DD) (Rodriguez et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref59">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>Across the 16 studies, research methods reflected quantitative (<emph>n</emph> = 9) and qualitative (<emph>n</emph> = 6) methods. Only one study included both qualitative and quantitative methods (Lo & Bui, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref60">27</reflink>]). Within the quantitative studies, six conducted surveys (Carter et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref61">10</reflink>]; Dubberly, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref62">14</reflink>]; Kim & Morningstar, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref63">25</reflink>]; Rodriguez et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref64">34</reflink>]; Schutz et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref65">41</reflink>]; Williams-Diehm & Lynch, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref66">57</reflink>]) and three conducted a secondary analysis of the NLTS-2 (Bouck & Joshi, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref67">5</reflink>]; Roux et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref68">37</reflink>]; Shogren & Plotner, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref69">43</reflink>]). Within the qualitative studies, five conducted interviews (Awsumb et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref70">2</reflink>]; Hetherington et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref71">19</reflink>]; Schutz et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref72">42</reflink>]; Skilleren & Carter, 2021; Taylor et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref73">49</reflink>]) and four conducted focus groups (Awsumb et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref74">2</reflink>]; Hetherington et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref75">19</reflink>]; Schutz et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref76">42</reflink>]; Snell-Rood et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref77">47</reflink>]). Within the quantitative and qualitative study, surveys and interviews were conducted (Lo & Bui, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref78">27</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189290417-9">Roles and Formats of the Participants</hd> <p>Parents represented the most common participant type across youth, parents, and special educators. Parents were participants in 81.25% (<emph>n</emph> = 13) of studies, while transition-aged youth were participants in 50.00% (<emph>n</emph> = 8) of the studies. Special educators were participants in 43.75% (<emph>n</emph> = 7) of the studies. Across the articles, about half of the studies (43.75%, <emph>n</emph> = 7) only included one participant type; most of these studies were solely focused on parents. To a lesser extent, only 37.50% (<emph>n</emph> = 6) of studies were conducted with or included two participant types (Awsumb et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref79">2</reflink>]; Carter et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref80">10</reflink>]; Hetherington et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref81">19</reflink>]; Roux et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref82">37</reflink>]; Schutz et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref83">42</reflink>]; Taylor et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref84">49</reflink>]). Four of the six articles had specific dyads. The remaining three studies (18.75%, <emph>n</emph> = 3) were conducted with or included all three participant types. Two studies were conducted using the NLTS-2 data set (Bouck & Joshi, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref85">5</reflink>]; Shogren & Plotner, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref86">43</reflink>]). The final study was conducted with individuals with autism, their parents, special educators, and other stakeholders (e.g., related service providers,) (Snell-Rood et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref87">47</reflink>]). While these studies had all three participant types, data were not analyzed in triads.</p> <hd id="AN0189290417-10">Participant Involvement in Selecting Transition Services</hd> <p>Just over half of the studies (<emph>n</emph> = 10) reported on participant involvement in selecting transition services. While transition planning or specific services were frequently mentioned in each study (per the inclusion criteria), there was often little to no mention in most studies of <emph>who</emph> was involved in the decision-making and implementation of transition services. For example, one study examined student knowledge and perceptions of transition planning by asking youth about the purpose of a transition plan, what their personal transition goals were, and if they felt comfortable with adult service providers; no questions were asked about their involvement in selecting transition services (Williams-Diehm & Lynch, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref88">57</reflink>]). Of the few studies that examined involvement in selecting transition services, youth had limited involvement. In comparison, special educators typically held the most autonomy in selecting and making decisions pertaining to transition services (Awsumb et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref89">2</reflink>]; Rodriguez et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref90">34</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189290417-11">Youth Involvement</hd> <p>Four articles reported about transition-aged youth involvement in selecting transition services (Hetherington et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref91">19</reflink>]; Snell-Rood et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref92">47</reflink>]; Taylor et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref93">49</reflink>]; Williams-Diehm & Lynch, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref94">57</reflink>]). Overall, transition-aged youth had little to no involvement in selecting transition services. If transition-aged youth were involved, it was often devoid of leadership opportunities. For example, Williams-Diehm and Lynch ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref95">57</reflink>]) found that while 61.1% of youth reported they spoke during transition planning, only 1.9% of youth led their meetings. Taylor and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref96">49</reflink>]) identified historical undertones, proxies for racial bias, spacialization of racialization, and interest convergence as barriers to youth selection of transition services.</p> <hd id="AN0189290417-12">Parent Involvement</hd> <p>Five articles reported on parent involvement in selecting transition services (Hetherington et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref97">19</reflink>]; Lo & Bui, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref98">27</reflink>]; Schutz et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref99">41</reflink>]; Snell-Rood et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref100">47</reflink>]; Taylor et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref101">49</reflink>]). Each of the studies reported challenges to parent involvement. Unfortunately, little data were reported on <emph>how</emph> parents were involved in transition service decisions. Of the few studies that reported about parent involvement in selecting transition services, it seems that parents had little to no involvement. For example, Lo and Bui ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref102">27</reflink>]) asked 25 Chinese and Vietnamese parents about their involvement in discussing youth's functional independent living skills and functional skills. No parents reported being asked or involved in conversations about these topics.</p> <hd id="AN0189290417-13">Special Educator Involvement</hd> <p>Two articles detailed the extent to which teachers were involved in selecting transition services (Awsumb et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref103">2</reflink>]; Rodriguez et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref104">34</reflink>]). In one study, special educators highlighted transition services they selected, or thought should be prioritized for students (Rodriguez et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref105">34</reflink>]). Instructional transition services were the highest priority by many special educators with an emphasis on academic preparation including functional skills to support independence across postsecondary outcomes (Rodriguez et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref106">34</reflink>]). Special educators also discussed community experiences as an essential part of programming. CBI was highlighted as critical in skill development allowing for youth to learn transit systems and the opportunity to see adults working for in various settings (Rodriguez et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref107">34</reflink>]). Special educators also referenced employment and post-school adult living transition services (Rodriguez et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref108">34</reflink>]). Special educators commented on daily living transition services they provided youth such as money skills and cooking activities (Rodriguez et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref109">34</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189290417-14">Transition Goals and Transition Services</hd> <p>The majority of articles included an emphasis on employment as a transition goal (93.75%, <emph>n</emph> = 15), followed by independent living (75.00%, <emph>n</emph> = 12), training (68.75%, <emph>n</emph> = 11), and postsecondary education (62.50%, <emph>n</emph> = 10). While some articles focused on one type of transition goal, most articles emphasized multiple transition goals. Specifically, 11 studies focused on all four transition goals (Bouck & Joshi, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref110">5</reflink>]; Carter et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref111">10</reflink>]; Hetherington et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref112">19</reflink>]; Kim & Morningstar, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref113">25</reflink>]; Lo & Bui, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref114">27</reflink>]; Rodriguez et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref115">34</reflink>]; Schutz et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref116">42</reflink>]; Shogren & Plotner, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref117">43</reflink>]; Snell-Rood et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref118">47</reflink>]; Taylor et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref119">49</reflink>]; Williams-Diehm & Lynch, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref120">57</reflink>]) and one article focused on three transition goals (Skillern & Carter, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref121">46</reflink>]). Four studies solely focused on one type of transition goal. Of these four articles, three focused on employment (Awsumb et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref122">2</reflink>]; Roux et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref123">37</reflink>]; Schutz et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref124">41</reflink>]) and one focused on independent living (Dubberly, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref125">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>Fourteen articles included an emphasis on employment and post-school adult living objectives as a transition service, while the remaining four transition services were present in 11 articles. While some articles focused solely on one transition service, many articles reflected multiple transition services. See Table 2. For example, 10 articles focused on all five transition services, while five articles focused on one transition service. Specifically, three articles focused on employment and post-school living objectives (Awsumb et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref126">2</reflink>]; Roux et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref127">37</reflink>]; Schutz et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref128">41</reflink>]), one article focused on community experiences (Dubberly, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref129">14</reflink>]), and one article focused on the acquisition of daily living skills and a functional evaluation (Carter et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref130">10</reflink>]). Only one article included three transition services (i.e., instruction, related services, and employment and post-school adult living objectives, Williams-Diehm & Lynch, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref131">57</reflink>]). No articles focused on four transition services.</p> <p>Table 2 Transition Service(s) identified in Research Articles</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Authors,</p><p>Publication Year</p></th><th align="left"><p>Instruction</p></th><th align="left"><p>Related Services</p></th><th align="left"><p>Community Experiences</p></th><th align="left"><p>Employment & Post-School Adult Living Objectives</p></th><th align="left"><p>Acquisition of Daily Living Skills and Functional Vocational Evaluation</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Awsumb et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr2">2022</xref></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Bouck & Joshi, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr5">2016</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Carter et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">2014</xref></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>X</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Dubberly, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr14">2012</xref></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Hetherington et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr19">2010</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Kim & Morningstar, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr25">2020</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Lo & Bui, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr27">2020</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Rodriguez et al., 2107</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Roux et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr37">2020</xref></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Schutz et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr41">2022</xref></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Schutz et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr42">2023</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Shogren & Plotner, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr43">2012</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Skillern & Carter, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr46">2021</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Snell-Rood et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr47">2020</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Taylor et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr49">2023</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Williams-Diehm & Lynch, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr57">2007</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Total</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>68.75%</bold></p><p><bold>(</bold><bold><italic>n</italic></bold><bold>= 11)</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>68.75%</bold></p><p><bold>(</bold><bold><italic>n</italic></bold><bold>= 11)</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>68.75%</bold></p><p><bold>(</bold><bold><italic>n</italic></bold><bold>= 11)</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>68.75%</bold></p><p><bold>(</bold><bold><italic>n</italic></bold><bold>= 14)</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>68.75%</bold></p><p><bold>(</bold><bold><italic>n</italic></bold><bold>= 11)</bold></p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0189290417-15">Transition Services and Postsecondary Outcomes</hd> <p>Two studies connected transition services to postsecondary outcomes (Schutz et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref132">41</reflink>]; Shogren & Plotner, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref133">43</reflink>]). Specifically, the articles focused on parent perceptions of factors that influenced or were perceived to influence postsecondary outcomes. Shogren and Plotner ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref134">43</reflink>]) reported on parents' perceptions of the overall usefulness of transition planning on their child's life after school. Parents of transition-aged youth with ID ranked transition planning as very useful, which included activities such as identifying if vocational training, placement, or support was a need for students and being contacted about postschool programs and employment. Schutz and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref135">41</reflink>]) investigated parent perspectives on what would be of most benefit to transition-aged youth when preparing for employment. Parents reported that, Pre-ETS since previously introduced such as workplace readiness training, job exploration counseling, work-based learning experiences and self-advocacy would be of most benefit. When asked, most parents agreed that their child would benefit from practices related to Pre-ETS. The practices that were most agreed on to be beneficial were developing independent living skills (84.58%), receiving job training (82.61%), and meeting with mentors who had a similar interest or career goal to the youth (81.82%). Notably, while families reported what would be of use, their children were still receiving educational services and had not yet graduated or completed high school.</p> <hd id="AN0189290417-16">Discussion</hd> <p>To understand the involvement of transition-aged youth with IDD, parents, and special educators in selecting transition services, we explored the literature about transition services for youth ages 16 or older with IDD. We had four main findings. First, parents (versus youth with IDD and special educators) represented the greatest number and type of participants across studies. This finding suggests that more research is needed to examine the perspectives and involvement of youth with IDD. Student centered planning, self-determination, and involvement in transition planning broadly are predictors of postsecondary success (Mazzotti et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref136">31</reflink>]), yet most youth continue to hold limited involvement in transition planning (Johnson et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref137">22</reflink>]; Sanderson & Goldman, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref138">40</reflink>]). Given the importance of involving youth with IDD in transition planning (Chandroo et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref139">11</reflink>]; Johnson et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref140">22</reflink>]), it is essential that we include and learn from youth experiences related to transition services. This is especially critical for youth from historically marginalized populations (Lo & Bui, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref141">27</reflink>]; Taylor et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref142">49</reflink>]) who may be seeking culturally relevant adult services during transition planning (Kim & Dababnah, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref143">23</reflink>]). In a study exploring the relationship between student and proxy respondent scores on the <emph>Self-Determination Inventory</emph>, low correlations between self- and proxy-scores were identified, indicating transition-aged youth rated themselves more self-determined than the special educator proxy scores (Shogren et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref144">45</reflink>]). Findings also indicated that disability and race/ethnicity significantly influenced the differences between self-and proxy-scores with greatest divergence in score between those with ID from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds. It is important to learn how transition-aged youth with IDD perceive and are involved in developing and implementing transition services to ensure services are aligned with student strengths, values, and desires.</p> <p>Second, while transition planning is discussed at large in the literature, specific IEP transition services (e.g., related service) have been minimally investigated. Despite IDEA requirements to implement transition services across five areas in a results-oriented process, many transition-aged youth, especially those with IDD, continue to face disparate postsecondary outcomes across all domains compared to same age peers without disabilities (Almalky, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref145">1</reflink>]; Grigal et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref146">17</reflink>]). Many parents of children with IDD have reported the transition from school to adulthood for their child similar to "falling off a cliff", or the "second shock" of parenting a child with a disability (Hanley-Maxwell et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref147">18</reflink>]). In addition, accessing services in adulthood such as Medicaid Home and Community-Based Service (HCBS), Social Security Income (SSI), and Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) can prove challenging for families amidst complex application processes, lengthy waiting lists, and a shortage of direct care providers (Burke & Heller, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref148">7</reflink>]). While more research has been conducted specific to Pre-ETS (Frentzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref149">15</reflink>]; Rooney-Kron et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref150">36</reflink>]; Wittenberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref151">56</reflink>]) and there can be an overlap with IEP transition services, more research is needed that explores IEP transition services, especially across the areas of instruction, related services, and daily living skills. These IEP transition service areas may include skills that are not covered under WIOA ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref152">59</reflink>]). It is critical to investigate the perspectives of transition-aged youth with IDD, their parents, and their special educators in identifying IEP transition services as these are meant to facilitate the transition to adulthood.</p> <p>Similar to the lack of investigation into specific transition services, more articles reported on if there was involvement in transition planning and selecting transition services rather than <emph>how</emph> participants were involved. For example, Schutz and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref153">41</reflink>]) investigated parent perspectives on Pre-ETS for their child with a disability. Parents reported which pre-ETS would be of benefit to their child, what barriers hindered employment, and their overall knowledge of transition resources. While their investigation provided information on Pre-ETS, it did not report about how parents were involved in the selection of transition services. Parents and families from CLD backgrounds have a desire to be involved in transition planning, yet there continues to be systemic barriers to their involvement, despite special educator responsibility to facilitate this involvement (Hirano et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref154">20</reflink>]; Kim & Morningstar, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref155">24</reflink>]; Lo & Bui, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref156">27</reflink>]). Despite a reliance on special educators to connect students and parents to postsecondary services and supports aligned with their goals, parents often report limited guidance and information from special educators as they begin to navigate the complex adult service system (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref157">12</reflink>]; Lo & Bui, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref158">27</reflink>]). Across the studies, transition-aged youth and parents had limited involvement in selecting transition services, while special educators typically fulfilled leadership roles in selecting transition services. The findings suggest that more research is needed to examine <emph>how</emph> each participant is involved in the process, especially transition-aged youth with IDD and their parents.</p> <p>Third, some transition goals and services have been researched more than others. Across both goals and services, employment has been researched most frequently, while daily living skills and the provision of a functional vocational evaluation was researched least frequently. While consistent with the extant literature regarding predictors of postsecondary outcomes, there is a wealth of research to support independent skill acquisition for individuals with IDD, such as improving skills to empower community access (Ayres et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref159">3</reflink>]). IEP transition services are designed to be a "coordinated set of activities" across five domains to help facilitate postsecondary success and outcomes (IDEA, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref160">21</reflink>]). All five domains are meant to be individualized, then harnessed collectively to create the best instructional experience to support transition-aged youth with IDD attain their goals, including the domain of related daily living skills and/or a functional vocational evaluation. Additional research is needed that investigates transition service domains. By gaining a deeper understanding of each transition service, we may better understand how transition services can support and impact youth postsecondary outcomes.</p> <p>Fourth, there was little to no evidence about which transition service(s) were most beneficial to improving postsecondary outcomes for transition-aged youth with IDD. While there are many predictors of postsecondary outcomes for transition-aged youth with IDD, no articles reported on whether transition services predicted postsecondary outcomes. For example, inclusive academic instruction is a predictor of postsecondary education for students with IDD (Taylor et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref161">49</reflink>]) and opportunities for paid employment while in secondary school and high parent expectations are predictors for postsecondary employment (Mazzotti et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref162">31</reflink>]). While there is a wealth of research about predictors for postsecondary success for students with IDD, there has been minimal research conducted that identifies if these are reflected within the transition services of the IEP plan. Despite research suggesting that transition services contribute to postsecondary success (Carter et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref163">9</reflink>]; Test & Cook, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref164">50</reflink>]), no specific connection or correlation was made within the articles of this review. Research is needed that investigates the impact of transition services on postsecondary outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0189290417-17">Limitations</hd> <p>Findings from this review should be considered in relation to limitations. The search process may have inadvertently excluded articles meeting the study criteria as backward and forward searches were not conducted. Accordingly, if articles were missed, the findings may not fully capture the range of literature about transition planning. This literature review focused on transition services for transition-aged youth ages 16 or older receiving special education services under IDEA. Therefore, articles may have been excluded that included youth under 16 years of age. Some states begin transition planning earlier than the age of 16 (e.g., Illinois, New Mexico, Wisconsin). Accordingly, these articles may not have been included in this review.</p> <hd id="AN0189290417-18">Implications for Research</hd> <p>Research is needed which reflects multiple viewpoints. Few studies included multiple participant types (Awsumb et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref165">2</reflink>]; Carter et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref166">10</reflink>]; Hetherington et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref167">19</reflink>]; Roux et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref168">37</reflink>]; Snell-Rood et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref169">47</reflink>]; Taylor et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref170">49</reflink>]). Despite involving more than one participant type, only three articles included participants that reflected shared experiences (Carter et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref171">10</reflink>]; Hetherington et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref172">19</reflink>]; Taylor et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref173">49</reflink>]). The limited research that examines the perspectives of multiple participants regarding a shared experience leaves gaps as to how transition-aged youth with IDD, their parents, and their special educators are involved, collaborate, and make decisions regarding transition services. It is essential that all three perspectives are explored given that these participants are the most frequent IEP members in transition planning. Further, future studies should be conducted that includes transition-aged youth, their parents, and their special educators with IDD ages 14 and older (vs. 16 and older) given that many states do begin transition planning at age 14. In addition, the lack of triadic research creates a limited understanding of the nuances of how transition-related decisions are made, specifically for a population of students that often is not included in research or within the transition process themselves (Awsumb et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref174">2</reflink>]; Shogren & Plotner, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref175">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>Longitudinal research is also needed that explores the effect of specific transition services on postsecondary outcomes for transition-aged youth with IDD. Without longitudinal research, it is challenging to identify if specific evidence or research-based practices related to transition services or planning are impactful (Mazzotti et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref176">29</reflink>]; Rowe et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref177">38</reflink>]). Given the mandate by IDEA and the intent of transition services as part of the transition plan, it is essential to understand how transition services are identified, implemented, and correspond to postsecondary outcomes. Therefore, it is essential to conduct research within and across all five transition-service areas longitudinally so that targeted interventions can be developed to facilitate decision-making for specific services.</p> <hd id="AN0189290417-19">Implications for Practice and Policy</hd> <p>Pre-service teaching programs and school districts should take active steps to ensure special educators have knowledge and training about how to involve youth with IDD and their parents when developing and implementing transition services. Parents and transition-aged youth with IDD should be involved in identifying and selecting transition services that align with postsecondary transition goals based on transition-aged youth's strengths, preferences, and interests. In addition, special educators should be prepared to support youth and families from CLD backgrounds to ensure safe and trusting relationships are established to ensure culturally relevant transition services and adult services are identified (Kim & Dababnah, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref178">23</reflink>]; Lo & Bui, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref179">27</reflink>]; Romano et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref180">35</reflink>]). By educating special educators on transition services and empowering collaboration, transition services may serve as a mechanism to facilitate and foster transition of transition-aged youth into robust and meaningful postsecondary experiences.</p> <p>Parent Training and Information Centers (PTIs) should consider providing training and support regarding transition services as part of the IEP. PTIs are federally funded to educate and support parents of youth with disabilities and often include opportunities for youth to engage in learning related to self-advocacy (Best et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref181">4</reflink>]). There is at least one PTI in each state. PTIs may educate families and youth with disabilities about how decisions are made, how transition services are implemented, and how they are monitored annually (Burke et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref182">8</reflink>]). In coordination with Pre-ETS provided by state vocational rehabilitation agencies, further training by educational teams and parents on individualized and meaningful transition services linked to transition goals could support stronger postsecondary outcomes for adults with IDD.</p> <hd id="AN0189290417-20">Compliance with Ethical Standards</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189290417-21">Conflict of Interest</hd> <p>There were no potential conflicts of interest in this study.</p> <hd id="AN0189290417-22">Ethical Approval</hd> <p>All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.</p> <hd id="AN0189290417-23">Informed Consent</hd> <p>Informed Consent his was a systemic literature review so there was no need for Institutional Review Board approval or informed consent.</p> <hd id="AN0189290417-24">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0189290417-25"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref3" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Almalky HA. Employment outcomes for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A literature review. Children and Youth Services Review. 2020; 109: 104656. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104656</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref41" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Awsumb J, Schutz M, Carter E, Schwartzman B, Burgess L, Taylor JL. Pursuing paid employment for youth with severe disabilities: Multiple perspectives on pressing challenges. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities. 2022; 47; 1: 22-39. 10.1177/15407969221075629</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref42" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ayres, K. M, Tyson, K. M, White, E. N, & Herrod, J. L. (2021). Improving skills to empower community access and increase independence. In R. Lang & P. Sturmey (Eds.), Adaptive behavior strategies for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities: Evidence-based practices across the life span (pp. 137–162). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66441-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref43" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Best, M, Johnston, A, Demissie, S, Kim, J, Mendiratta Khanna, R, Fulton, K, Hardy, A, Cheung, C, Kunzier, T, Hughes, O, Burke, M. M, & Rossetti, Z. (2024). Conducting a pilot evaluation of a civic-engagement program for youth with disabilities. Developmental Disabilities Network Journal, 4(2), 3. https://doi.org/10.59620/2694-1104.1086</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref50" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bouck EC, Joshi GS. Transition and students with mild intellectual disability: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals. 2016; 39; 3: 154-163. 10.1177/2165143414551408</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref4" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bouck, E. C, & Park, J. (2018). Exploring post-school outcomes across time out of school for students with autism spectrum disorder. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 53(3), 253–263.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref148" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Burke MM, Heller T. Disparities in unmet service needs among adults with intellectual and other developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities. 2017; 30; 5: 898-910. 10.1111/jar.12282. 27496083</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref182" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Burke, M, Rossetti, Z, & Li, C. (2022). The efficacy and impact of a special education legislative advocacy program among parents of children with disabilities. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 52(7), 3271–3279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-05258-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref163" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Carter EW, Austin D, Trainor AA. Predictors of postschool employment outcomes for young adults with severe disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies. 2012; 23; 1: 50-63. 10.1177/1044207311414680</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carter EW, Brock ME, Trainor AA. Transition assessment and planning for youth with severe intellectual and developmental disabilities. The Journal of Special Education. 2014; 47; 4: 245-255. 10.1177/0022466912456241</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chandroo R, Strnadová I, Cumming TM. A systematic review of the involvement of students with autism spectrum disorder in the transition planning process: Need for voice and empowerment. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2018; 83: 8-17. 10.1016/j.ridd.2018.07.011. 30086472</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen J, Cohn ES, Orsmond GI. Parents' future visions for their autistic transition-age youth: Hopes and expectations. Autism. 2019; 23; 6: 1363-1372. 10.1177/1362361318812141. 30445828</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doronkin JL, Martin JE, Greene BA, Choiseul-Praslin B, Autry-Schreffler F. Opening Oz's curtain: Who's really running the annual IEP meeting to discuss secondary transition issues?. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs. 2020; 20; 3: 206-216. 10.1111/1471-3802.12473</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dubberly R. Community-based instruction (CBI) as a component of a successful transition plan for students with intellectual disabilities. Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals. 2012; 35: 46</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frentzel E, Geyman Z, Rasmussen J, Nye C, Murphy KM. Pre-employment transition services for students with disabilities: A scoping review. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation. 2021; 54; 2: 103-116. 10.3233/JVE-201123. 33994763. 8081404</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilson CB, Carter EW, Biggs EE. Systematic review of instructional methods to teach employment skills to secondary students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities. 2017; 42; 2: 89-107. 10.1177/1540796917698831</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grigal M, Dukes LL, Walker Z. Advancing access to higher education for students with intellectual disability in the United States. Disabilities. 2021; 1; 4: 438-449. 10.3390/disabilities1040030</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanley-Maxwell C, Whitney-Thomas J, Pogoloff SM. The second shock: A qualitative study of parents' perspectives and needs during their child's transition from school to adult life. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps. 1995; 20; 1: 3-15. 10.1177/154079699502000102</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hetherington SA, Durant-Jones L, Johnson K, Nolan K, Smith E, Taylor-Brown S, Tuttle J. The lived experiences of adolescents with disabilities and their parents in transition planning. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities. 2010; 25; 3: 163-172. 10.1177/1088357610373760</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hirano KA, Rowe D, Lindstrom L, Chan P. Systemic barriers to family involvement in transition planning for youth with disabilities: A qualitative metasynthesis. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2018; 27: 3440-3456. 10.1007/s10826-018-1189-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (2004). 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statute-chapter-33/subchapter-i/1400</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson ES, Crawford A, Moylan LA, Zheng Y. Validity of a special education teacher observation system. Educational Assessment. 2020; 25; 1: 31-46. 10.1080/10627197.2019.1702461</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim I, Dababnah S. Transition to adulthood: Perspectives of Korean immigrant parents of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals. 2022; 45; 3: 120-130. 10.1177/2165143211043440</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim KH, Morningstar ME. Enhancing secondary special education teachers' knowledge and competencies in working with culturally and linguistically diverse families through online training. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals. 2007; 30: 116-128. 10.1177/08857288070300020201</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim KH, Morningstar ME. Postschool outcomes for Korean American young adults with intellectual/developmental disabilities, and parental perceptions of transition planning. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal. 2020; 48; 12: 1-13. 10.2224/sbp.9421</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Landmark LJ, Zhang D. Compliance and practices in transition planning: A review of individualized education program documents. Remedial and Special Education. 2013; 34; 2: 113-125. 10.1177/0741932511431831</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lo L, Bui O. Transition planning: Voices of Chinese and Vietnamese parents of youth with autism and intellectual disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals. 2020; 43; 2: 89-100. 10.1177/2165143419899938</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin JE, Van Dycke JL, Greene BA, Gardner JE, Christensen WR, Woods LL, Lovett DL. Direct observation of teacher-directed IEP meetings: Establishing the need for student IEP meeting instruction. Exceptional Children. 2006; 72: 187-200. 10.1177/001440290607200204</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mazzotti VL, Rowe DA, Cameto R, Test DW, Morningstar ME. Identifying and promoting transition evidence-based practices and predictors of success: A position paper of the Division on Career Development and Transition. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals. 2013; 36; 3: 140-151. 10.1177/2165143413503365</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mazzotti VL, Rowe DA, Sinclair J, Poppen M, Woods WE, Shearer ML. Predictors of post-school success: A systematic review of NLTS2 secondary analyses. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals. 2016; 39; 4: 196-215. 10.1177/2165143415588047</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mazzotti VL, Rowe DA, Kwiatek S, Voggt A, Chang WH, Fowler CH, Poppen M, Sinclair J, Test DW. Secondary transition predictors of postschool success: An update to the research base. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals. 2021; 44; 1: 47-64. 10.1177/2165143420959793</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mello MP, Burke MM, Taylor JL, Urbano R, Hodapp RM. Characteristics of students with disabilities who do and do not receive transition services. The Journal of Special Education. 2021; 54; 4: 251-259. 10.1177/0022466920925437</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff J, Akl E, Moher D. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International Journal of Surgery. 2021; 88: 105906. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906. 33789826</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rodriguez CD, Cumming TM, Strnadova I. Current practices in schooling transitions of students with developmental disabilities. International Journal of Educational Research. 2017; 83: 1-19. 10.1016/j.ijer.2017.02.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Romano LE, Trainor AA, Newman LA. Triad transition planning for students receiving special education and English learner services, families, and teachers. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals. 2023; 46; 4: 211-222. 10.1177/21651434221143514</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rooney-Kron, M, Malouf, E. T, Brenner, H. R, Taylor, J, Whittenburg, H, Carlson, S, & Avellone, L. (2024). A scoping review of Pre-employment Transition Services for transition aged youth with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, (Preprint), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-240003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roux AM, Rast JE, Garfield T, Anderson KA, Shattuck PT. Prevalence and correlates of work experiences among high school students on the autism spectrum. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. 2020; 58; 4: 273-287. 10.1352/1934-9556-58.4.273. 32750712</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowe, D. A, Carter, E, Gajjar, S, Maves, E. A, & Wall, J. C. (2020). Supporting strong transitions remotely: Considerations and complexities for rural communities during COVID-19. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 39(4), 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870520958199</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowe DA, Mazzotti VL, Fowler CH, Test DW, Mitchell VJ, Clark KA, Dean C. Updating the secondary transition research base: Evidence-and research-based practices in functional skills. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals. 2021; 44; 1: 28-46. 10.1177/2165143420958674</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanderson KA, Goldman SE. A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions used to increase adolescent IEP meeting participation. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals. 2020; 43; 3: 157-168. 10.1177/2165143420922552</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schutz MA, Awsumb JM, Carter EW, McMillan ED. Parent perspectives on pre-employment transition services for youth with disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin. 2022; 65; 4: 266-278. 10.1177/003455221993542</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schutz MA, Schwartzman B, Burgess L, Awsumb JM, Carter EW, Taylor JL. Pathways to paid work for youth with severe disabilities: Perspectives on strategies for success. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation. 2023; 58; 1: 11-26. 10.3233/JVR-221221</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shogren KA, Plotner AJ. Transition planning for students with intellectual disability, autism, or other disabilities: Data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. 2012; 50; 1: 16-30. 10.1352/1934-9556-50.1.16. 22316223</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shogren KA, Villarreal G, Lang M, Seo H. Mediating role of self-determination constructs in explaining the relationship between school factors and postschool outcomes. Exceptional Children. 2017; 83; 2: 165-180. 10.1177/0014402916660089</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shogren KA, Anderson MH, Raley SK, Hagiwara M. Exploring the relationship between student and teacher/proxy-respondent scores on the self-determination inventory. Exceptionality. 2021; 29; 1: 47-60. 10.1080/09362835.2020.1729764</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skillern S, Carter EW. La Transición: Parent perspectives on transition for latino youth with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs. 2021; 21; 4: 323-333. 10.1111/1471-3802.12530</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snell-Rood C, Ruble L, Kleinert H, McGrew JH, Adams M, Rodgers A, Odom J, Wong WH, Yu Y. Stakeholder perspectives on transition planning, implementation, and outcomes for students with autism spectrum disorder. Autism. 2020; 24; 5: 1164-1176. 10.1177/1362361319894827. 31957461. 7311242</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Southward JD, Kyzar K. Predictors of competitive employment for students with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities. 2017; 52; 1: 26-37. 10.1177/215416471705200104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, J. P, Scott, L. A, Bruno, L. P, Frazier, R, Thoma, C. A, & Dayton, M. (2023). We have to stand up for ourselves: Barriers to self-determination experienced by black youth in the transition to adulthood. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 17446295231180660.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Test, D. W, & Cease-Cook, J. (2012). Evidence-based secondary transition practices for Rehabilitation counselors. Journal of Rehabilitation, 78(2).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Education (Department), Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, A Transition Guide to Postsecondary Education and Employment for Students and Youth with Disabilities, Washington, D.C, 2020.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wehman, P, McLaughlin, P. J, & Wehman, T. (2005). Intellectual and developmental disabilities: Towards full community inclusion. In P. Wehman (Ed.), Essentials of transition planning (2nd ed, pp. 138–140). Brookes.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wehman P, Sima AP, Ketchum J, West MD, Chan F, Luecking R. Predictors of successful transition from school to employment for youth with disabilities. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation. 2015; 25; 2: 323-334. 10.1007/s10926-014-9514-6. 25240394</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Westbrook JD, Fong CJ, Nye C, Williams A, Wendt O, Cortopassi T. Transition services for youth with autism: A systematic review. Research on Social Work Practice. 2015; 25; 1: 10-20. 10.1177/1049731514524836</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White J, Weiner JS. Influence of least restrictive environment and community based training on integrated employment outcomes for transitioning students with severe disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitations. 2004; 21; 3: 149-156. 10.3233/JVR-2004-00263</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whittenburg HN, Rooney-Kron M, Carlson SR, Malouf ET, Taylor JP. Use of research-based transition recommendations for youth with disabilities in Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act plans. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin. 2024; 67; 4: 283-294. 10.1177/00343552231155218</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams-Diehm KL, Lynch PS. Student knowledge and perceptions of individual transition planning and its process. Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education. 2007; 29; 3: 13-21</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winsor, J, Timmons, J. C, Butterworth, J, Migliore, A, Domin, D, Zalewska, A, & Shepard, J. (2021). StateData: The national report on employment services and outcomes through 2018.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, 29 U.S.C. 3101et seq. (2014).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Megan Best and Meghan Burke</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref143"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref147"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref157"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref164"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref176"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref177"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref180"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1495512
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Involvement in Determining Transition Services for Youth with Disabilities: A Systematic Literature Review
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Megan+Best%22">Megan Best</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4069-4134">0000-0003-4069-4134</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Meghan+Burke%22">Meghan Burke</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Developmental+and+Physical+Disabilities%22"><i>Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities</i></searchLink>. 2025 37(6):907-926.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 20
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Individualized+Transition+Plans%22">Individualized Transition Plans</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intellectual+Disability%22">Intellectual Disability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Developmental+Disabilities%22">Developmental Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Students+with+Disabilities%22">Students with Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Participation%22">Parent Participation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Participation%22">Student Participation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Education+Teachers%22">Special Education Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Participation%22">Teacher Participation</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10882-024-09997-x
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1056-263X<br />1573-3580
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Transition planning is a critical component of preparing transition-aged youth with disabilities to plan for and attain their postsecondary goals. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (2004)), a key component of transition planning is identifying and implementing transition services. Knowing how transition services are identified and selected by transition-aged youth with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities (IDD), their parents, and their special educators is essential for a holistic understanding of transition planning. To this end, we systematically reviewed the literature about the involvement of transition-aged youth with IDD, parents of youth with IDD, and special educators in transition planning. We identified 16 studies which varied in methodology and types of participants. Across the studies, there was an absence of parent and youth involvement in identifying and selecting transition services. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1495512
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1495512
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10882-024-09997-x
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 20
        StartPage: 907
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Individualized Transition Plans
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intellectual Disability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Developmental Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Students with Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Participation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Participation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Special Education Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Participation
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Involvement in Determining Transition Services for Youth with Disabilities: A Systematic Literature Review
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Megan Best
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Meghan Burke
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1056-263X
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-3580
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 37
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities
              Type: main
ResultId 1