1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Self-Determination Inventory: Student Report American Sign Language Translation

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Research literature and community narratives both emphasize the importance of self-determination in the lives of deaf youth. This paper describes the development, initial validation, and potential applications of a translated measure of self-determination for deaf youth, the SDI:SR ASL Translation (SDI:SR ASL). A sample of 3,309 young people who completed the SDI:SR, of whom 392 were deaf, was used in this validation study. Results provide preliminary support for the use of SDI:SR ASL with deaf youth. Findings also indicate that deaf youth who take the SDI:SR ASL score more similarly to youth without disabilities taking the SDI:SR than youth with disabilities. The SDI:SR ASL can be an important tool for researchers and practitioners to better understand self-determination among deaf youth and facilitate continued development of self-determination skills.

          Related collections

          Most cited references56

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Missing data: our view of the state of the art.

            Statistical procedures for missing data have vastly improved, yet misconception and unsound practice still abound. The authors frame the missing-data problem, review methods, offer advice, and raise issues that remain unresolved. They clear up common misunderstandings regarding the missing at random (MAR) concept. They summarize the evidence against older procedures and, with few exceptions, discourage their use. They present, in both technical and practical language, 2 general approaches that come highly recommended: maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian multiple imputation (MI). Newer developments are discussed, including some for dealing with missing data that are not MAR. Although not yet in the mainstream, these procedures may eventually extend the ML and MI methods that currently represent the state of the art.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Thanks Coefficient Alpha, We’ll Take It From Here.

              Empirical studies in psychology commonly report Cronbach's alpha as a measure of internal consistency reliability despite the fact that many methodological studies have shown that Cronbach's alpha is riddled with problems stemming from unrealistic assumptions. In many circumstances, violating these assumptions yields estimates of reliability that are too small, making measures look less reliable than they actually are. Although methodological critiques of Cronbach's alpha are being cited with increasing frequency in empirical studies, in this tutorial we discuss how the trend is not necessarily improving methodology used in the literature. That is, many studies continue to use Cronbach's alpha without regard for its assumptions or merely cite methodological articles advising against its use to rationalize unfavorable Cronbach's alpha estimates. This tutorial first provides evidence that recommendations against Cronbach's alpha have not appreciably changed how empirical studies report reliability. Then, we summarize the drawbacks of Cronbach's alpha conceptually without relying on mathematical or simulation-based arguments so that these arguments are accessible to a broad audience. We continue by discussing several alternative measures that make less rigid assumptions which provide justifiably higher estimates of reliability compared to Cronbach's alpha. We conclude with empirical examples to illustrate advantages of alternative measures of reliability including omega total, Revelle's omega total, the greatest lower bound, and Coefficient H. A detailed software appendix is also provided to help researchers implement alternative methods. (PsycINFO Database Record
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ
                J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ
                deafed
                The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education
                Oxford University Press
                1081-4159
                1465-7325
                July 2022
                06 July 2022
                06 July 2022
                : 27
                : 3
                : 245-261
                Affiliations
                University of Texas at Austin
                University of Kansas at Lawrence
                University of Kansas at Lawrence
                University of Texas at Austin
                University of Texas at Austin
                University of Texas at Austin
                University of Kansas at Lawrence
                University of Kansas at Lawrence
                University of Kansas at Lawrence
                University of Texas at Austin
                University of Texas at Austin
                Author notes
                Correspondence should be addressed to Carrie Lou Garberoglio, College of Education, SZB 5.110, 1912 Speedway, D4900, Austin, TX 78712. E-mail: carrielou@ 123456utexas.edu
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0045-9666
                Article
                enac010
                10.1093/deafed/enac010
                9364814
                35791669
                086d1c46-0621-48b8-bc56-0dc9ed2eccc8
                © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

                History
                : 2 December 2021
                : 11 March 2022
                : 15 March 2022
                Page count
                Pages: 17
                Funding
                Funded by: Rehabilitation Services Administration;
                Award ID: H326D160001
                Funded by: U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs;
                Categories
                Empirical Manuscript
                AcademicSubjects/SOC02080

                Education
                Education

                Comments

                Comment on this article