Primary Image

RMD

Arc’s Self-Determination Scale

Last Updated

Purpose

The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale measures four unique characteristics of self-determination: autonomy, self-regulation, psychological empowerment, and self-realization. This measure is designed to identify students’ strengths and limitations related to self-determination and determine what factors either contribute to or inhibit self-determination outcomes.

Link to Instrument

Instrument Details

Acronym SDS

Area of Assessment

Activities of Daily Living
Behavior
Assertiveness
Life Participation
Motivation
Quality of Life
Reasoning/Problem Solving
Self-efficacy
Social Support
Social Relationships

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Free

Actual Cost

$0.00

Key Descriptions

  • A self-report assessment with 72 questions with four sections that correspond to the domains measured: autonomy, self-regulation, psychological empowerment and self-realization
  • Questions include case-based open-ended questions and questions with Likert scale (0=I do not even if I have a chance; 3=I do every time I have a chance) and binary choices (agree/don’t agree)
  • Total self-determination score and four sub-domain scores yield standard scores ranging from 1 to 100.

Number of Items

72

Equipment Required

  • Paper assessment form
  • Writing utensil

Time to Administer

30-60 minutes

Required Training

No Training

Age Ranges

Child

6 - 12

years

Adolescent

13 - 17

years

Adult

18 - 64

years

Instrument Reviewers

Natalie Bayer, Caitlin Burnite, Larissa Grieves, and Mackenzie Koehler

(Master of Occupational Therapy Students)

Faculty mentor: Danbi Lee, PhD, OTD, OTR/L

Division of Occupational Therapy, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle

ICF Domain

Activity
Participation

Measurement Domain

Activities of Daily Living
Cognition
Emotion

Considerations

As the Arc’s Self-Determination scale is a self-reported measure, it is not appropriate to proxy this assessment with parents or others close to the individual (Peny-Dahlstrand et al., 2012).

Mixed Populations

back to Populations

Normative Data

Mixed Disabilities: (Wehmeyer, 1995; n = 500; Mean Age = 17.08 (1.99) years; no disability n=50; learning disability n=160; emotional disorder n=15; intellectual disability n=128; orthopedic n=1; other impairment n=6; autism n=2; speech Impairment n=2 )

  • No Disability: mean score = 106.58 (SD = 15.67)
  • Learning Disability: mean score = 101.87 (SD = 16.04)
  • Intellectual Disability: mean score = 89.02 (SD = 21.92)

Internal Consistency

Mixed Disabilities: (Almqvist & Granlund, 2005; n = 472, Children Group Mean Age =10.04 (1.56); Youth Group Mean Age = 14.99 (1.51); Swedish sample)

  • Excellent: Cronbach's alpha range from 0.82- 0.93 for children and adolescents age 7-17 in autonomy indexes*
  • Poor: Cronbach’s alpha range from 0.57- 0.69 for children and adolescents age 7-17 in locus of control indexes.

Mixed Disabilities: (Wehmeyer, 1995)

  • Excellent: Cronbach's alpha is 0.90 for the entire scale and 0.90 for the autonomy domain*
  • Adequate: Cronbach’s alpha range is 0.73 for the psychological empowerment domain.
  • Poor: Cronbach’s alpha is 0.62 for the self-realization domain.

 

*Scores higher than .9 may indicate redundancy in the scale questions. 

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Concurrent validity:

Mixed Disabilities: (Wehmeyer, 1995)

  • Adequate concurrent validity of the Self-Regulation domain using  Adult version of the Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Scale (ANS-IE) (r = -0.32); Psychological Empowerment domain using ANS-IE,  Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Scale (IARQ), and Self-Efficacy for Social Interactions Scale (SES) (r = -0.35, 0.36, 0.47 respectively); and Self-Realization domain using SES (r = 0.37), and Total Self-Determination Scale using SES (r = 0.39).
  • Poor concurrent validity for Autonomy domain using the ANS-IE, IARQ, and SES (r== -0.16, 0.20 respectively); Self-Regulation domain using the IARQ and SES (r= 0.28, 0.29, respectively); Self-Realization domain using the ANS-IE and IARQ (r=-0.27, 0.27, respectively), and Total Self-Determination score using the ANS-IE and IARQ (r=-0.26, 029, respectively).

Construct Validity

Mixed Disabilities: (Wehmeyer, 1995)

  • Use of regression analysis showed expected differentiation due to differences in age - older students did better than younger students.
  • Use of regression analysis showed adequate differentiation between students with learning disabilities, students with intellectual disabilities, and students without disabilities.
  • Factor analysis identified 5 factors in the autonomy domain, 3 factors within the psychological empowerment domain, and 2 factors in the self-realization domain.

Content Validity

Most of the items in the item pool were drawn from validated measures including the Autonomous Functioning Checklist, Means End Problem-Solving process, and Short Index of Self-Actualization. (Wehmeyer, 1995)

Intellectual Disability

back to Populations

Normative Data

Mild Intellectual Disability: (Lachapelle et al., 2005; n = 182 ; adults Canada, United States, France, and Belgium sample)

 

Mean (SD)

Autonomy

88.86 (19.57)

Self-regulation

58.62 (15.14)

Psychological empowerment

11.52 (2.71)

Self-realization

8.00 (4.12)

Total score

10.76 (2.07)

 

 

Intellectual Disability: (Seo et al., 2013; n = 604; Mean Age=16.12(2.74))

 

Students with emotional and behavioral disorders

Students with learning disabilities:

 

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Autonomy

58.49 (13.37)

63.40 (14.89)

Self-regulation

11.47 (4.21)

10.82 (4.10)

Psychological empowerment

12.83 (3.18)

12.95 (3.01)

Self-realization

10.68 (3.20)

10.61 (3.26)

Total score

93.28 (18.14)

97.52 (18.86)

Internal Consistency

Autism Spectrum Disorder: (Chou et al., 2017; n=95, Female Mean Age=17.44 (2.72); Male Mean Age=16.60(1.97))

  • Excellent: Cronbach’s alpha subset ranges from 0.69 to 0.90 with an overall Cronbach’s alpha of 0.90.

Construct Validity

Convergent Validity:

Mild Intellectual Disability: (Lachapelle et al., 2005)

  • Adequate convergent validity of the ARC’s Self-Determination Scale at using the Quality of Life Questionnaire (r=0.49)

 

Discriminative Validity:

Autism Spectrum Disorder: (Chou et al., 2017) 

  • Adequate discriminant validity. Factor correlations of four factors of SDS (autonomy, self-regulation, psychological empowerment, and self-realization) were less than 0.85. Likelihood-ratio test between the ARC’s Self-Determination Scale and the American Institutes for 嫩B研究院 Self-Determination Scale (AIR) was significant (p<0.01) suggesting that the two tests measure distinct domains of self-determination in students with ASD.

Mild Intellectual Disability: (Lachapelle et al., 2005)

  • Discriminant analysis showed that the ARC’s Self-Determination Scale distinguished the high quality of life group from the low quality of life group.

 

Factor Analysis:

Autism Spectrum Disorder: (Chou et al., 2017)

  • Confirmatory factor analysis of the ARC’s Self-Determination Scale supported the hypothesized structure for the Autonomy and Self-Regulation subscales, and generally for the Psychological Empowerment and Self-Realization subscales, with some problematic areas that warrants future research. 

Intellectual Disability: (Wehmeyer & Bolding, 1999)

  • Factor analysis identified 9 factors: 4 domains of autonomy, 3 domains of psychological empowerment, and 2 domains of self-realization (self-regulation was not included in the test) suggesting the domains.

Intellectual Disability: (Seo et al., 2013)

  • Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the four subdomains (i.e., autonomy, self-regulation, psychological empowerment, and self-realization) were invariant across students with emotional/behavioral disorders and students with learning disabilities.

Bibliography

Almqvist, L., & Granlund, M. (2005). Participation in school environment of children and youth with disabilities: A person-oriented approach. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46(3), 305–314.

Chou, Y. C., Wehmeyer, M. L., Shogren, K. A., Palmer, S. B., & Lee, J. (2017). Autism and self-determination: Factor analysis of two measures of self-determination. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 32(3), 163-175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357615611391

Falkmer, M., Granlund, M., Nilholm, C., & Falkmer, T. (2012). From my perspective–Perceived participation in mainstream schools in students with autism spectrum conditions. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 15(3), 191-201.  https://doi.org/10.3109/17518423.2012.671382

Lachapelle, Y., Wehmeyer, M. L., Haelewyck, M. C., Courbois, Y., Keith, K. D., Schalock, R., & Walsh, P. N. (2005). The relationship between quality of life and self‐determination: An international study. Journal of Intellectual Disability 嫩B研究院, 49(10), 740-744.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2005.00743.x

Peny-Dahlstrand, M., Krumlinde-Sundholm, L., & Gosman-Hedstr?m, G. (2012). Is autonomy related to the quality of performance of everyday activities in children with spina bifida? Disability & Rehabilitation, 34(6), 514–521.

Seo, H., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., & Little, T. D. (2015). A two-group confirmatory factor analysis of The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale with students with emotional/behavioral disorders or learning disabilities. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 23(1), 17-27.

Wehmeyer, M. (1995, August). The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale: Procedural Guidelines. Zarrow Center for Learning Enrichment: The University of Oklahoma.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Bolding, N. (1999). Self-determination across living and working environments: A matched-samples study of adults with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 37(5), 353-363. https://doi.org/10.1352/0047-6765(1999)037<0353:SALAWE>2.0.CO;2