Mapping frameworks and approaches to measuring the quality of transition support services for young people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
Julie Beadle-Brown, Jan Šiška, Šárka Káňová
PMID 36896251WHAT IT FOUND
Twenty disability service quality frameworks mapped to eight quality-of-life domains, and 47 subjective and 68 objective indicators were proposed.
It offers OTs a way to judge transition support beyond jobs or college.
Key findings
01Twenty frameworks were mapped to eight quality-of-life domains, but only two used the domains directly.
02The proposed framework included 47 subjective and 68 objective outcome indicators, including self-reported choice and observed staff support.
03Transition success indicators such as employment, independent living, education, relationships, community, and health were mapped to quality-of-life domains.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
This is a review and framework mapping paper, not a test of whether transition support services improve outcomes. The Service Quality Framework was only consulted for content and face validity, and the authors state that feasibility, reliability and other validity still need empirical testing. The review included only English publications, so frameworks or local measures published in other languages were not covered. The authors did not assess the quality of the sources included, because they wanted to capture any frameworks or tools being used. Only 8 countries had relatively complete templates, and information for some countries was less detailed or came from written sources rather than templates.
Declared interests
The work was supported by the Czech Science Foundation under project PEDAL, project ID 22-26896S.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the mapped framework as proof that transition support services work or that the indicators are valid measures. The paper maps existing frameworks and proposes indicators, and the authors state that the framework still needs empirical testing for feasibility, reliability and validity.