UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A survey of moderately retarded adults in the lower mainland of British Columbia : their community adjustment… Enkin, Marvin I. 1983

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1983_A8 E64.pdf [ 9.67MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095704.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095704-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095704-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095704-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095704-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095704-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095704-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095704-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095704.ris

Full Text

A SURVEY OF MODERATELY RETARDED ADULTS IN THE LOWER MAINLAND OF BRITISH COLUMBIA: THEIR COMMUNITY ADJUSTMENT ONE AND THREE YEARS AFTER GRADUATING FROM SCHOOL by MARVIN I. ENKIN B.A., Sir George Williams University, 1970 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1983 © Marvin I. Enkin, 1983 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of E D U C A T I O N A L P S Y O H O T . o a v flNn s P f f O T A T . EDUCATION. The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date A p r i l 27. 1983. i i ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to describe the community adjustment of moderately retarded adults l i v i n g in the Lower Mainland of B r i t i s h Columbia, one and three years after they graduated from school. Community adjustment was considered in terms of the moderately retarded adults' mobility independence, s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y , interaction l e v e l , vocational a b i l i t y , and educational status. Based on the research conducted by Lambert (1976) an interview-prompt recording sheet was developed, p i l o t tested, refined, and then used to gather data on the community adjustment of an accessible sample of moderately retarded adults in the Lower Mainland of B r i t i s h Columbia. Twenty-three adults (13 males and ten females) who graduated from school in 1978 and 20 adults (nine males and 11 females) who graduated from school in 1980 were interviewed. A 2x2 (year-by-gender) chi-square analysis was used to examine the frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s for males and females from each of 1978 and 1980. The results revealed that for each component of community adjustment the d i s t r i b u t i o n s for males and females within and between 1978 and 1980 were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (p_<.05). Implications for personnel who work with the moderately retarded while they attend school and after they graduate from school have been outlined; as well, suggestions for future research have been made. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ix Chapter 1 1 THE PROBLEM 1 Background Of The Problem 1 Purpose Of The Study 10 Description Of Components Of Community Adjustment ... 10 Other Terms And Issues 12 Research Questions And Hypotheses 14 Organization Of The Thesis 15 Chapter 2 16 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 16 Studies On I n s t i t u t i o n a l Populations 16 Studies On Non-Institutional Populations 23 Summary And Implications For The Present Study 36 Chapter 3 38 INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT 38 Draft I 39 P i l o t Study 44 Chapter 4 47 METHODOLOGY 47 Population 47 Id e n t i f i c a t i o n And Selection Of Subjects 48 Data C o l l e c t i o n Procedures 50 iv Data Analysis Procedures 52 Chapter 5 54 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 54 Demographic Description 55 Mobility Independence 70 Self - S u f f i c i e n c y 77 Interaction Level 101 Vocational A b i l i t y 120 Educational Status 135 Chapter 6 142 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 142 Summary Of The Study 142 Conclusions Of The Study 143 Implications Of The Study 153 Limitations Of The Study 155 Recommendations For Future Research 156 REFERENCES 157 APPENDIX A Questionnaire Used By Lambert 164 APPENDIX B Introductory Remarks And Explanation Of Interview Interview-Prompt Recording Sheet Used In P i l o t Study ...186 APPENDIX C Interview-Prompt Recording Sheet Used In Main Study ....211 APPENDIX D Letters And Supporting Documents Sent To School D i s t r i c t s And Associations For The V Mentally Handicapped 236 APPENDIX E Letters And Consent Forms Sent To Subjects 244 APPENDIX F Coding Of Responses 250 v i LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Response Rate, 1978 55 Table 2 Response Rate, 1980 56 Table 3 Dominant Source Of Information, Gender By Year 57 Table 4 Frequencies And Percentages, Gender By Year 58 Table 5 Age D i s t r i b u t i o n , Gender By Year 59 Table 6 Age At Graduation, Gender By Year 60 Table 7 School Of Graduation, Gender By Year 61 Table 8 Number Of Years In School Of Graduation, Gender By Year 62 Table 9 Number Of Years In Other Schools, Gender By Year 63 Table 10 Location Of Residence, Gender By Year 64 Table 11 Frequency And Percentage Of Living Arrangements, 1978 .. 66 Table 12 Frequency And Percentage Of Living Arrangements, 1980 .. 67 Table 13 Years In Li v i n g Arrangement, Gender By Year 68 Table 14 Mean Years In Living Arrangement, Gender By Year 69 Table 15 Form Of Transportation And Frequency Of Use, 1978 71 Table 16 Form Of Transportation And Frequency Of Use, 1980 71 Table 17 Levels Of Supervision On Transportation, Gender By Year 75 Table 18 Frequencies And Percentages Of Subjects Cooking Meals, Gender By Year 78 Table 19 S k i l l Level Used In Preparation Of Meals, 1978 . . . i 80 Table 20 S k i l l Level Used In Preparation Of Meals, 1980 81 Table 21 Persons Who Cooked For Subjects, Gender By Year 83 Table 22 Type Of Subjects' Help In Making Meals, Gender By Year . 84 Table 23 Frequencies And Percentages Of Subjects Doing Home Management Tasks, Gender By Year 85 Table 24 Types Of Home Management Tasks And Frequency Of Being Done, 1978 86 Table 25 v i i Types Of Home Management Tasks And Frequency Of Being Done, 1980 86 . Table 26 Subjects Knowing How To Do Home Management Tasks, Gender By Year 89 Table 27 Persons Who Did Home Management Tasks For Subjects, Gender By Year 90 Table 28 Frequency And Percentage Of Source Of Income, Gender By Year 91 Table 29 What Money Was Saved For, Gender By Year 93 Table 30 Expenses Paid For, 1978 95 Table 31 Expenses Paid For, 1980 95 Table 32 Control Of Spending Money, Gender By Year 97 Table 33 A c t i v i t i e s Participated In 102 Table 34 Reasons For Subjects L i v i n g With Their Parents, Gender By Year 105 Table 35 Type Of Help Needed For Subjects Living With Parents, Gender By Year 1 06 Table 36 Reasons For Not Living With Parents, Gender By Year ....108 Table 37 Interactions Of Subjects And Parents For Subjects Not Living With Parents, Gender By Year 109 Table 38 Type And Source Of Help For Subjects Not Living With Parents, Gender By Year 111 Table 39 Interactions Of Subjects With Other Relatives, Gender By Year 113 Table 40 Subjects Having Boy/Girl Friends And Where They Met, Gender By Year 114 Table 41 Subjects Having Good Friends And Where They Met, Gender By Year 117 Table 42 Present Vocational A b i l i t y Of Students, 1978 122 Table 43 Present Vocational A b i l i t y Of Students, 1980 123 Table 44 Type, Place And S k i l l Level Of Present Employment, 1978 127 Table 45 Type, Place And S k i l l Level Of Present Employment, 1980 128 Table 46 Previous Vocational A b i l i t y Of Students, 1978 1 29 v i i i Table 47 Previous Vocational A b i l i t y Of Students, 1980 1 30 Table 48 Type, Place And . S k i l l Level Of Previous Employment, Gender By Year 1 32 Table 49 Frequencies And Percentages Of Subjects Enrolled In Adult School Programmes, Gender By Year 136 Table 50 Type Of Courses Enrolled In, Gender By Year 136 Table 51 Type Of Courses Presently Enrolled In, Gender By Year ..138 Table 52 Type Of Courses Previously Enrolled In For Subjects Not Enrolled In Courses, Gender By Year 139 ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A Master's Thesis l i k e the one presented here was not e a s i l y or quickly produced. Its completion depended on support from a large number of people and agencies. I would l i k e to express my appreciation to my advisor Dr. Peggy Roopman for her years of support in seeing this project completed. I would also l i k e to thank the other members of my committee, Dr. Todd Rogers and Dr. David Kendall, for their advice and guidance throughout the project. This project was completed with the f i n a n c i a l assistance of a research grant from the Educational Research Institute of B r i t i s h Columbia. A word of thanks must also go to the large number of personnel in school d i s t r i c t o f f i c e s , schools, workshops, group homes, and MR associations who helped to establish contact with potential subjects and arrange interviews. A special thanks to the subjects in the study who welcomed me into their homes and helped me learn a l i t t l e b i t about their l i v e s . Thank you to the colleagues and friends who provided moral support and helpful c r i t i c i s m . And especially Sharon who typed. And f i n a l l y to Rachelle, who came into my l i f e when thi s project was being done and made sure i t was completed. 1 Chapter 1 THE PROBLEM Background of the Problem "From the time of the f i r s t treatment center for the mentally retarded in the mid-nineteenth century, the major goal of interested d i s c i p l i n e s and services has been to help the mentally retarded individual achieve s o c i a l and occupational adequacy" (Goldstein, 1964, p. 214). However, once a student or resident leaves a school or an i n s t i t u t i o n i t i s d i f f i c u l t to know whether that individual has achieved s o c i a l and occupational adequacy. One method of determining the so c i a l and occupational adequacy of mentally retarded individuals after they leave a school or an i n s t i t u t i o n i s the follow-up study. Fernald (1919) i s credited with reporting the f i r s t follow-up study of a mentally retarded population. The study was important because i t determined the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of both males and females who did and did not make a successful adjustment to l i v i n g in the community (Cobb, 1972). The c r i t e r i o n for successful adjustment was not returning to the institution'(Cobb, 1972; Goldstein, 1964; and McCarver & Craig, 1974). Reviews of the l i t e r a t u r e (Cobb, 1972; Eagle, 1967; Goldstein, 1964; Kokaska, 1968; McCarver & Craig, 1974; Rosen, Clark, & K i v i t z , 1977; and Windle, 1962) show that a large body of research has developed since Fernald's f i r s t study. From 2 t h i s large body of l i t e r a t u r e four major issues have been i d e n t i f i e d as important to the way follow-up research i s conducted and the results reported. These issues are: a) I n s t i t u t i o n a l and Non-Institutional Populations The influence of the eugenics movement in the early part of the twentieth century brought about a rapid growth of i n s t i t u t i o n s designed to keep the mentally retarded away from society. These large custodial i n s t i t u t i o n s provided the f i r s t subjects for follow-up studies. Fernald (1919) interviewed 646 former patients from Waverly State School l i v i n g in the community. As mentioned previously, one of the most important findings was that the mentally retarded could, in f a c t , successfully adjust to l i v i n g in the community. Succeeding studies conducted by Matthews (1922); Storrs (1924); L i t t l e and Johnson (1932); Hegge (1944); Coakley (1945); Wolfson (1956); and Rosen et a l . (1977), using the follow-up methodology developed by Fernald, also found that former i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d adults could adjust to l i v i n g in the community. The c r i t e r i a of adjustment in the studies varied widely and w i l l be discussed as a separate issue. There are a number of l i m i t a t i o n s in t h i s research. One of the l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s type of research, "based on i n s t i t u t i o n a l populations, l i e s in the high degree of s e l e c t i v i t y of those populations. It may well be . that i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n i t s e l f contributes a s i g n i f i c a n t variable in determining behavior to the extent that generalization across 3 i n s t i t u t i o n a l and non - i n s t i t u t i o n a l populations is highly tenuous at best" (Cobb, 1972, p. 21). Other studies have . been conducted using non-i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d subjects i d e n t i f i e d as retarded by community agencies or the public school system. Goldstein (1964) notes that "while these persons are of comparable mental status with the higher grade person in public i n s t i t u t i o n s , their behavior or the relationship between their behavior and the l e v e l of community tolerance for certain behaviors has been such as to permit their continuance in the community" (p. 233). Well known examples of research on community-based populations are Kolstoe (1961); Kolstoe & Shafter (1961); Stephens & Peck (1968); Cobb (1972); Peterson & Smith (1960); Kennedy (1948, 1966); Richardson (1978); Saenger (1957); St a n f i e l d (1973); and Lambert (1976). These few studies have used a wide variety of research methodologies and c r i t e r i a of adjustment to obtain a wide variety of findings. There are two l i m i t a t i o n s in research using a community based population. The f i r s t l i m i t a t i o n i s the d i f f i c u l t y encountered in obtaining a s u f f i c i e n t l y large sample of subjects to p a r t i c i p a t e in the study. The second l i m i t a t i o n i s the a t t r i t i o n of a sample over time. Rosen et a l . (1977) noted that "the reasons for subject loss include geographical l i m i t a t i o n s , change of address, refusal to cooperate, and death" (p. 147). 4 b) Defi n i t i o n s of Mental Retardation C r i t i c i s m can probably be leveled with some j u s t i f i c a t i o n at most follow-up studies in which IQ has been used as the sole c r i t e r i o n for defining the subject groups, whether the subjects were previously in special public school classes or were i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d , they were usually i d e n t i f i e d from past records without benefit of comprehensive diagnostic procedures. In some cases, an i m p l i c i t assumption was made that enrollment in a special class or confinement to an i n s t i t u t i o n constituted an operational d e f i n i t i o n of retardation. In other cases, IQ estimates may have been lacking in s t a b i l i t y between the time of i n i t i a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the sample and subsequent follow-up. Ranges of IQs of retarded subjects have d i f f e r e d widely from study to study, with few attempts to d i f f e r e n t i a t e borderline or near normal subjects from those with more severe d e f i c i t s . (Rosen et a l . , 1977, p. 144). The d i f f i c u l t i e s with defining mental retardation would seem to be almost universal. Research conducted on any type of population and using any type of methodology would have to deal with t h i s issue. And in a l l cases th i s i s an issue that would not be ea s i l y resolved. c) C r i t e r i a of Adjustment One of the main d i f f i c u l t i e s in follow-up research has been the lack of consistency in the c r i t e r i a on which judgment of success or f a i l u r e of subjects' community adjustment has been based (McCarver & Craig, 1974). In extensive reviews of the l i t e r a t u r e on i n s t i t u t i o n a l populations Goldstein (1964) and McCarver & Craig (1974) reported that not returning to an i n s t i t u t i o n a l environment was the major c r i t e r i a for successful community adjustment. Research on community-based populations (Delp & Lorenz, 5 1952; Kennedy, 1948, 1966; Lambert, 1976; Saenger, 1957; and Sta n f i e l d , 1973) has attempted to consider many other c r i t e r i a . These c r i t e r i a are l i v i n g environment, type of employment, job changes, savings and money management, sexual problems, a n t i s o c i a l behaviour, marriage and children, and use of lei s u r e time. In fact, these c r i t e r i a were also considered by McCarver & Craig (1974) for present i n s t i t u t i o n a l populations. d) Research Methodology McCarver & Craig (1974) suggested that there were three categories of follow-up research methodology: prognostic, simple follow-up (descriptive), and comparative. McCarver & Craig distinguished the types of methodology on the basis of the experimenter's purpose. Cobb (1972) suggested four categories of research methodology for follow-up studies: descriptive, prognostic, a n a l y t i c a l , and case study. Cobb in his categorization of follow-up methodology did not distinguish between comparative and descriptive research although he did give examples of both. And although the case study method was mentioned no examples were given. Hence, for the purposes of t h i s study the four categories of methodology discussed are prognostic, comparative, a n a l y t i c a l , and desc r i p t i v e . 1) Prognostic Prognostic studies try to find variables which w i l l predict the adjustment of mentally retarded adults after leaving the: school system or an i n s t i t u t i o n (McCarver & Craig, 1974). Cobb 6 (1972), Goldstein (1964), and Wolfensberger (1967) note that the prognosis of successful community adjustment i s complicated by the ambiguities in the c r i t e r i a of success. 2) A n a l y t i c a l A n a l y t i c a l studies, often using multivariate techniques, try to ident i f y the multiple predictors and multiple c r i t e r i a of adjustment (Cobb, 1972), and hence, are often considered to be a more sophisticated form of prognostic study. There are some weaknesses in t h i s methodology. "Studies attempting to combine factors in order to obtain the most discriminating prognostic index possible have not been cross-validated, or have not maintained comparability of conditions, hence have f a i l e d to y i e l d r e l i a b l e indices" (Cobb, 1972, p. 57). A comparison of these two types of studies emphasizes the d i f f e r e n t aspects of follow-up research and how the desired outcomes are determined by the methodologies employed. 3) Comparative The comparative study " i s distinguished by some attempt to compare the retardate's environment in the community to some other relevant group" (McCarver & Craig, 1974, p. 149). Studies done by Kennedy (1948, 1966), Peterson & Smith (1960), Richardson (1978) showed that the retarded usually did not do as well as their matched normal peers on p a r t i c u l a r indices of adjustment. Goldstein (1964) and McCarver & Craig (1974) also note that what constitutes a relevant control group for 7 comparison i s not at a l l c l e a r . A comparison between prognostic and comparative studies indicates that the information desired by a researcher i s quite d i f f e r e n t from each other. 4) Descriptive In descriptive studies no attempt i s made to isolate predictor variables (McCarver & Craig, 1974). These studies look at the status of a group of people after a s p e c i f i e d time period. The results in t h i s type of study are reported in a descriptive matter d e t a i l i n g the status of the group of subjects (Gay, 1976). Some examples of this research are Delp & Lorenz (1952), Dinger (1961), Edgerton (1967), Rosen et a l . (1977), Saenger (1957), Stan f i e l d (1973), and T i s d a l l (1960). A l l seven of these studies described the community adjustment of mentally retarded adults in terms of one or more of the following variables: i) l i v i n g environment i i ) type of employment i i i ) job changes iv) savings and money management v) a n t i s o c i a l behaviour vi) marriage and children v i i ) use of l e i s u r e time 8 Canadian Research Cobb (1972) in his review of the l i t e r a t u r e found that follow-up research in other countries was similar to that in the United States. Cobb c i t e d examples of research on i n s t i t u t i o n a l population in Canada and Great B r i t a i n , as well as research on community populations in Great B r i t a i n and A u s t r a l i a . The research c i t e d used examples of prognostic, comparative, and descriptive methodologies. The findings, l i k e those in the United States, re f l e c t e d the varying c r i t e r i a for success and the d i f f e r e n t types of mentally retarded populations used. The focus of interest in t h i s study i s the follow-up research conducted in Canada. The two studies on i n s t i t u t i o n a l populations c i t e d by Cobb were Grant (1956) and Lambert & Racine (1959). Grant (1956) considered subjects successful " i f the trainee maintained his or her position in society without c o n f l i c t leading to o f f i c i a l interference" (p. 918). Lambert & Racine (1959) found that 56.7% of the males released from the i n s t i t u t i o n adapted well to l i v i n g in a community environment. Two Canadian follow-up studies on community populations have been reported. The highlights of these two studies are presented' here because of the interest in community-based populations. The two studies are examples of descriptive follow-up research. Lambert (1976) looked at the community adjustment of mentally retarded adults l i v i n g in Ontario. The adults' adjustment was measured in terms of their personal appearance, mobility independence, s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y , integration 9 in the home, interaction l e v e l , and vocational a b i l i t y . Lusthaus, Hanrahan, & Lusthaus (1979) looked at the adults' community adjustment in terms of their economic conditions, s o c i a l integration, and l e v e l of self-determination to l i v e on their own. The findings here were not inconsistent with the large body of research in the United States. In both these studies most of the subjects were not very successful in their adjustment to the communities. The majority of subjects were found to be unemployed, uninvolved in their communities and, p a r t i c u l a r l y in Lambert's study, quite dependent. Research in the province of B r i t i s h Columbia has concerned i t s e l f with how the community looks at the mentally retarded. Willms (1978), for example, found that neighbours' primary concern about a group home for retarded adults was the way i t was operated. Other research has looked at the employment for the handicapped; a study that was done by the Social Planning and Review Council of B r i t i s h Columbia (1980) showed only a small number of handicapped people employed in the public or private sector. While the research being done in B.C. i s important, i t has not addressed i t s e l f to how the mentally retarded are adjusting to l i v i n g in the community. The present research project was designed to give a description of the community adjustment of mentally retarded adults l i v i n g in the Lower Mainland of B r i t i s h Columbia. 10 Purpose of the Study The purpose of t h i s study was, therefore, to provide a portrayal of how moderately retarded adults were adjusting to l i v i n g in their communities in the Lower Mainland of B r i t i s h Columbia', one and three years after they have graduated from school. Adjustment was defined in terms of four of the six components considered by Lambert (1976). The four components were mobility independence, s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y , interaction l e v e l , and vocational a b i l i t y . Description of Components of Community Adjustment The four components of community adjustment were defined in the following manner: 1) Mobility Independence The extent to which a moderately retarded adult t r a v e l l e d in his/her community as indicated by: a) the forms of transportation used b) the frequency of use of the transportation c) the destinations t r a v e l l e d to d) the supervision required when using the transportation e) the frequency and reasons for getting l o s t 2) S e l f - S u f f i c i e n c y The extent to which a moderately retarded adult displayed competence i n : a) preparation of meals (frequency and degree of d i f f i c u l t y ) b) carrying out home management tasks (making beds, dusting, washing dishes, etc.) c) handling money (degree of control and kinds of things 11 bought) 3) Interaction Level The extent to which a moderately retarded adult interacted s o c i a l l y , inside and outside his/her house, as indicated by: a) the number of d i f f e r e n t l e i s u r e and s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s p articipated in b) the frequency of that p a r t i c i p a t i o n c) whom he/she participated with Also considered were: d) the l i v i n g arrangements of the moderately retarded adult, and e) the frequency and kinds of interactions with various types of people. 4) Vocational A b i l i t y An indication of a moderately retarded adult's a) employment status-present and past employment history, including whether or not the person had ever worked; duration of job; f u l l or part-time status; and place of work b) occupational status-highest s k i l l l e v e l ever obtained in any job The four variables were retained because of their importance as both components of adaptive behaviour (Foster, Nihira, & Leland, 1966; Nihira, 1969a & 1969b; and Marlett, 1973) and indices of the post school community adjustment of mentally retarded adults (Peterson & Smith, 1960; Richardson, 1978; Rosen et a l . , 1977; Saenger, 1957; and S t a n f i e l d , 1973). Personal appearance was the only variable of the six considered by Lambert (1976) not included in t h i s study. The basis for Lambert's measurement of personal appearance was the subjective observations of each of the interviewers. There was 12 an attempt to keep data in t h i s study as objective as possible, and because of t h i s personal appearance was not considered. Integration in the home was not considered a variable by i t s e l f . Instead i t was combined with the section on interaction l e v e l . This was done to make the data more compact and manageable. A f i f t h variable, educational status, was added to the four components already defined. The idea of post school educational programmes for mentally retarded adults i s not one that has received much consideration. Saenger (1957) reported that 20% of the subjects' parents wanted some form of education programme beyond the formal time of school attendance. Katz (1968) reported on the lack of appropriate programmes for mentally handicapped adults. Educational status was an important indicator of the mentally retarded adults' p a r t i c i p a t i o n in their community. Other Terms and Issues For the purposes of t h i s study the term moderately retarded denotes those adults who spent the l a s t three years of their formal education in schools or programmes (segregated or integrated) designated for the moderately retarded and have graduated from such schools or programmes. Graduation i s t r a d i t i o n a l l y thought of when a person completes a course of study at a school, college, or university 13 and receives a diploma or degree. Normal students go to elementary school (5-12 years of age) and high school (13—18 years of age). Students in schools for the moderately retarded usually range in age from f i v e to 19 years. In e f f e c t these schools provide 14 years of education. At the end of the 14 years of school, they are considered to have graduated. With their formal education finished many of the graduates look for work. Usually these graduates find work in sheltered workshops. It i s the time period aft e r graduation that i s the concern of t h i s research. Using June, 1981 as a point of reference, the adults who graduated in June, 1980 (one year before) and June, 1978 (three years before) were interviewed to obtain information on their adjustment to l i v i n g in the community. Reviews of the l i t e r a t u r e (Cobb, 1972; Goldstein, 1964; Kokaska, 1968; and McCarver & Craig, 1974) reveal that there i s no consistent pattern or rationale as to why any time periods (after graduation from an i n s t i t u t i o n or school programme) were chosen for follow-up studies. In t h i s study one year aft e r graduation was chosen because i t would show some of the d i f f i c u l t i e s ( i f any) i n i t i a l l y encountered by the graduates in establishing themselves in the community. And three years was chosen because at t h i s point i t might be assumed that the i n i t i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s would be over and a l i f e s t y l e would begin to emerge. Reviews of the l i t e r a t u r e on gender differences (Eagle, 14 1967; Goldstein, 1964; and McCarver & Craig, 1974) reported a wide variety of findings; none of the differences found were consistent or very strong. McCarver & Craig (1974), in p a r t i c u l a r , reported that out of 20 studies comparing males and females on o v e r a l l success rates of community placement, ten reported a higher success rate for males, seven reported a higher success rate for females, and three reported no difference. In l i g h t of these inconsistent findings i t was considered important to investigate gender differences in this study. Research Questions and Hypotheses The purposes of t h i s study lead to the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of three research questions. The research questions were: (1) Are there differences between males and females on mobility independence, s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y , interaction l e v e l , vocational a b i l i t y , and educational status? (2) Are there differences between groups who graduated in 1978 and 1980 on mobility independence, s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y , interaction l e v e l , vocational a b i l i t y , and educational status? (3) Are there differences between males and females who graduated in 1978 and 1980 on mobility independence, s e l f -s u f f i c i e n c y , interaction l e v e l , vocational a b i l i t y , and educational status? The corresponding hypotheses, stated in the n u l l form, 15 were: (1) There are no differences between males and females on mobility independence, s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y , interaction l e v e l , vocational a b i l i t y , and educational status. (2) There are no differences one and three years after graduation on mobility independence, s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y , interaction l e v e l , vocational a b i l i t y , and educational status. (3) There are no differences between gender and years since graduation on mobility independence, s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y , interaction l e v e l , vocational a b i l i t y , and educational status. Organization of the Thesis The f i r s t chapter includes a general background of the problem, the purpose of the study, d e f i n i t i o n of the components of community adjustment, and the research questions and hypotheses. Chapter 2 consists of the review of the l i t e r a t u r e . In Chapter 3 the procedures used to develop and test the interview-prompt recording sheet are presented. Chapter 4 provides a description of the procedures used in conducting the study and analyzing the data. In Chapter 5 the re s u l t s of the analysis and discussion of the results are provided. F i n a l l y , Chapter 6 comprises a summary of the findings, l i m i t a t i o n s , conclusions and implications of the study, as well as suggestions for further research. 16 Chapter 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE "Interest i s longitudinal and follow-up studies of the mentally d e f i c i e n t derives from several sources. Parents, medical s t a t i s t i c i a n s , and physicians are interested in the expectation of l i f e of persons suffering from d i f f e r e n t diseases or handicaps. Teachers want to know how much of the s k i l l s taught at school i s retained, and what use i s made of them. The eff e c t on s o c i a l competence of education and tr a i n i n g i s of obvious importance to those responsible for planning t r a i n i n g programmes . . . " (Tizard, 1965, p. 482). Studies on I n s t i t u t i o n a l Populations The f i r s t s i g n i f i c a n t follow-up study was conducted by Walter Fernald (1919) on the graduates of Waverly State School (a r e s i d e n t i a l i n s t i t u t i o n for the mentally retarded) in Massachusetts during a twenty-five year period 1890-1914, to see how successfully they adjusted to l i v i n g in the community. In Fernald's study information on 646 subjects (470 males and 176 females) was obtained from interviews with their f a m i l i i e s and l o c a l o f f i c i a l s l i k e church ministers and p o l i c e . Fernald found that 305 males and 52 females were leading what Fernald c a l l e d 'useful and blameless l i v e s ' . Some of the 17 subjects referred to in t h i s matter were self-supporting and l i v e d independently, while others were working at jobs in their communities or in their homes and others just stayed at home. Fernald also found 55 males and 38 females who had d i f f i c u l t i e s in adjusting to l i v i n g in the community. These subjects had records of sexual offences, alcoholism, and t h e f t . In comparing the well-adjusted with the poorly adjusted subjects Fernald found that the "distinguishing differences appeared to be the amount of acceptance each required. The successful were counseled and aided by friends and r e l a t i v e s who supervised their a c t i v i t i e s and channeled them in s o c i a l l y acceptable d i r e c t i o n s . " (Goldstein, 1964, p. 221-222). The work done by Fernald (1919) i s considered important for two reasons. The f i r s t i s that Fernald's research established a methodology to conduct follow-up studies. The second i s a p o l i t i c a l reason. Fernald's data showed that the retarded could in fact improve and successfully adjust to l i v i n g in the community. This was p a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t at a time when the retarded were locked away for the protection of society (Cobb, 1972; Goldstein, 1964; and Rosen et a l . , 1977). Fernald's (1919) contributions were followed by other research studies on i n s t i t u t i o n a l populations. McCarver and Craig (1974) reported that there have been at least 175 published reports concerning the p o s t - i n s t i t u t i o n a l adjustment of the mentally retarded. From reviews of the l i t e r a t u r e (Cobb, 1972; Goldstein, 1964; McCarver & Craig, 1974; and Rosen et a l . , 18 1977) a small number of these studies are presented to give a better understanding of follow-up research on i n s t i t u t i o n a l populations. Studies conducted by Matthews (1922), Storrs (1924), L i t t l e &" Johnson (1932) ( a l l c i t e d in Goldstein, 1964 and Cobb, 1972), Hegge (1944), Coakley (1945), and Wolfson (1956) a l l looked at the c r i t e r i a of success or f a i l u r e in community adjustment in terms of employment, lack of criminal record, and a b i l i t y to stay out of an i n s t i t u t i o n . The rates of success have varied widely in these studies. Matthews (1922) who based her study on Fernald's recommendations for the planned release of i n s t i t u t i o n a l residents found that 97% of her subjects ( a l l male) made a s a t i s f a c t o r y adjustment to l i v i n g in the community. The largest number of subjects in this study were c l a s s i f i e d as mildly retarded. And L i t t l e & Johnson (1932) using the same c r i t e r i a as Storrs (1924) found that 84% of the males and 82.5% of the females were successful. However, "there was l i t t l e basis for comparing these groups because of the marked differences that existed between them" (Goldstein, 1964, p. 227). Two studies conducted during the Second World War by Hegge (1944) and Coakley (1945) found that formerly i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d retarded persons were successfully working in defense plants and other war related jobs. Hegge (1944) found that 85% of the subjects in his study were working. The studies done by Hegge (1944) and Coakley (1945) also showed that these former 19 residents were able to work at jobs above the unskilled l e v e l . A large amount of research in the post-war period continued to produce a wide variety of r e s u l t s . Wolfson (1956) found that 62% of the mildly retarded males and 73% of the mildly retarded females made satisfactory community adjustments. In their research Windle, Stewart & Brown (1961) found that former residents in vocational placement, home placement, and family care placement had only a 50% success rate. The previous findings may be further contrasted to a series of studies reported by Rosen, Clark & K i v i t z (1977) on the former residents of Elwyn I n s t i t u t e . The studies looked at the community functioning of the former residents in terms of their vocational adjustment, economic adjustment, and personal-social adjustment. The studies showed that 90% of the subjects were employed in u n s k i l l e d or semi-skilled jobs. Economically 50% of the subjects subscribed to t h e i r own telephone, 20% were paying for purchases on c r e d i t , and over 60% had bought some form of l i f e insurance. In terms of their personal-social adjustment 30% of the subjects were married and 90% were able to make new friends although most did not p a r t i c i p a t e in formal s o c i a l groups. To r e i t e r a t e , the studies presented here are only a very small example of a rather extensive body of research l i t e r a t u r e . The few examples, however, do show three of the important issues which must be addressed when considering t h i s type of research. 20 C r i t e r i a of Adjustment One of the most important issues i s the lack of uniform and consistent c r i t e r i a of success and f a i l u r e in community adjustment across studies. Windle (1962) and Eagle (1967) in two extensive reviews of the l i t e r a t u r e " on i n s t u t i o n a l i z e d populations present this as their major c r i t i c i s m of the research. Windle (1962) also found that there were serious methodological problems which limited the r e l i a b i l i t y of findings and the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of the r e s u l t s . More recent reviews of the l i t e r a t u r e (McCarver & Craig, 1974; and Rosen et a l . , 1977) have suggested more consistent c r i t e r i a . These c r i t e r i a are l i v i n g environment, type of employment, job changes, savings and money management, sexual problems, a n t i s o c i a l behaviour, marriage and children, and use of le i s u r e time. McCarver & Craig (1974) also point out the need for consistency in defining these c r i t e r i a . In terms of the consistency of the c r i t e r i a of adjustment, the examples of research presented in t h i s section are a c t u a l l y quite stable. An evaluation of the research shows there are more serious differences in the types of samples used. Cobb (1972) pointed out that there was already a high degree of s e l e c t i v i t y in i n s t i t u t i o n a l populations. He also pointed out that t h i s " s e l e c t i v i t y tends to vary from one i n s t i t u t i o n to another and within an i n s t i t u t i o n over time" (p. 21). 21 D e f i n i t i o n of Mental Retardation Another influence on the differences in samples comes from the way the subjects are defined as mentally retarded. In the e a r l i e s t studies (Fernald, 1919; and Matthews, 1922) terms l i k e i d i o t , imbecile and moron were used to describe the subjects. Terms l i k e severely, moderately, and mildly retarded are referred to in the studies done by Storrs (1924) and L i t t l e & Johnson (1932) but there i s no data reported on what i s meant by these categories and hence how comparable the samples are. IQ has always been considered an important c r i t e r i o n in the d e f i n i t i o n of retardation. Hegge (1944) reported a mean IQ of 71.8 for the subjects in his study. If this kind of information was reported today the subjects in the study would not even be considered retarded. Using the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system developed by Grossman (1973), subjects scoring above 69 on a standardized i n t e l l i g e n c e test would be above the category of mildly retarded. The study conducted by Rosen et a l . (1977) presents another very d i f f e r e n t sample. Rosen et a l . found that at discharge from the i n s t i t u t i o n the average IQ was 75.6. " A l l had severe educational d e f i c i t s ; the majority were functioning below a fourth grade reading l e v e l " (p. 155). From the data presented i t would be quite d i f f i c u l t to make an accurate comparison between t h i s sample and any of the previous ones. The l a s t issue to be considered i s that of the economic and 22 s o c i a l conditions during the years studied (Rosen et a l . , 1977). McCarver & Craig (1974) divided the research into four time periods. These were 1918-1935; 1935-1954; 1954-1960; and 1960-1970. They found that the period 1935-1945 had the highest rate of success. The reasons suggested are f i r s t because of the manpower shortage during the war and as a result the retarded had an easier time finding jobs. The results of the studies done by Hegge (1944) and Coakley (1945) are consistent with the above explanation. The second suggestion i s that in comparison to the 1918-1935 period there was less concern about eugenics. This, of course, was one of the major concerns of Fernald (1919) in even suggesting that the mentally retarded be allowed to l i v e and work in the community. Follow-up research as we know i t was almost t o t a l l y dependent upon i n s t i t u t i o n a l populations. The studies done were descriptive in nature and reflected c r i t e r i a of adjustment that could vary quite widely. Rosen et a l . (1977) have suggested that interpretation of success or f a i l u r e also depended on the investigator's "individual value or moral judgements about what to accept as a high or low success r a t i o " (p. 134). Other considerations in t h i s research are the types of samples used and the period of time in which the research was done. Despite these weaknesses the research has played an important role in providing information about the adjustment of formerly i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d retarded persons. 23 In the next section of the l i t e r a t u r e review the research on non-institutional populations w i l l be examined. Studies on Non-Institutional Populations The early follow-up studies of community-based populations were descriptive accounts of what former students were doing in the community after they l e f t school.' These studies often looked at the same c r i t e r i a of adjustment as the i n s t i t u t i o n a l studies; police record, marriage, and employment (Goldstein, 1964; and Cobb, 1972). Research Methodologies As indicated in Chapter 1, descriptive research was only one of four methods of conducting follow-up studies. The research conducted on n o n - i n s t i t u t i o n a l populations i s presented in the context of the four methodologies: prognostic, a n a l y t i c a l , comparative, and d e s c r i p t i v e . Prognostic As mentioned previously, one of the most important findings in Fernald's (1919) study was that the mentally retarded could successfully l i v e in the community. Since that time a large part of follow-up research has been done to predict the probable outcomes of the l i v e s of mentally retarded adults once they leave an i n s t i t u t i o n or a school. 24 Wolfensberger (1967), in an extensive review of the l i t e r a t u r e on predictive studies l i s t s f i v e weaknesses in t h i s type of research. These are: poor design and c o n t r o l , lack of cross-validation, lack of confirmation across studies, emphasis on variables associated with the retardate, and weaknesses of some predictors. Cobb (1972), in his review of the l i t e r a t u r e on predictive studies, suggests three weaknesses that are consistent with those of Wolfensberger (1967). Cobb (1972) looks at the lack of heterogeneity in c r i t e r i o n variables, the lack of organization of predictor variables, and the problem of temporality. There are a large number of studies that could be examined to show examples of any of the weaknesses l i s t e d above. For the purposes of practicality.two studies, Kolstoe (1961) and Kolstoe & Shatter (1961) w i l l be discussed to indicate the nature of t h i s type of research. The two studies focus on employment, a variable that has always been considered important in the community adjustment of mentally retarded adults. Kolstoe (1961) conducted a study to determine the importance of s p e c i f i c factors on the employability of mentally retarded adults. Two groups of mentally retarded adults (41 in each group) who were former c l i e n t s in a work tra i n i n g project were selected for study. One group consisted of 41 males who were employed and the other group 41 males who were unemployed. The subjects in the two groups were compared on 91 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a background, i n t e l l e c t u a l personality, 25 s o c i a l and vocational nature. The subjects who. were employed were superior in physical, personality, s o c i a l , and work c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . While one part of the research shows that better physical, personality, s o c i a l , and work c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were important for employment, another part of the research suggests that there are " c o n f l i c t i n g results as to the relationship between these variables and vocational success . . . " (Kolstoe & Shafter, 1961, p. 287). This i s es p e c i a l l y so because success and f a i l u r e for the mentally retarded should not be defined in the same way as for the normal population. "What i s needed i s a clear statement of what i s to be predicted" (p. 289). In t h i s way there would be some relationship between the subjects' work potential and actual performance. This would also help show that "those variables that make for success in one s i t u a t i o n may make for f a i l u r e in another" (Wolfensberger, 1967, p. 242). There i s no doubt that predictive studies have played a major role in the development of follow-up research. The research conducted by Kolstoe (1961) and Kolstoe & Shafter (1961) support the c r i t i c i s m s of predictive studies by Wolfensberger (1967) and Cobb (1972). There i s indeed a weakness of some predictors, there is an emphasis on variables associated with the retarded, and there i s a lack of heterogeneity in c r i t e r i o n variables. It i s because of these flaws and d i f f i c u l t i e s that predictive research w i l l not be considered for the purposes of t h i s study. 26 A n a l y t i c a l A n a l y t i c a l studies try to ident i f y the multiple predictors and multiple c r i t e r i a of adjustment that the prognostic studies cannot i d e n t i f y . Stephens & Peck (1968) conducted a study that looked at developing measures of success and "determining the probable rel a t i o n s h i p between predictor-personality and cognitive-variables and the criterion-success" (p. 1). In his review of the l i t e r a t u r e Cobb (1972) c i t e s several other multivariate studies. Among these are Shulman (1967) and Bower & Switzer (1962). An evaluation of multivariate studies was not pursued because the design in t h i s study did not require i t . Comparative The comparative study " i s distinguished by some attempt to compare the retardate in the community to some other relevant group" (McCarver & Craig, 1974, p. 149). Presented here are four studies as examples of t h i s type of methodology and i t s role in follow-up research. Peterson & Smith (1960) in an e f f o r t to f i n d out what kind of c i t i z e n s the adult educable mentally retarded become after they leave school did a comparative study between the EMR adults and normal adults of low economic status. The 45 subjects (15 females and 30 males) in each group were matched by gender and age. The two groups were compared on educational, work, home, 27 family, s o c i a l , and c i v i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The results showed that normal adults did better in a l l aspects of adjustment. From these re s u l t s , the researchers conclude that "a well-planned educational program at the senior high school l e v e l i s needed to complete the t r a i n i n g and preparation of mentally retarded pupils for community membership" (Peterson & Smith, 1960, p. 408). Peterson & Smith (1960) i s an example of a study that raises more questions that i t answers. Perhaps one of the most basic questions i s why the EMR adults are compared with normal adults at low economic status. However, i t seems that Goldstein (1964) and McCarver & Craig (1974) are quite correct in stating that what does constitute, a relevant control group for comparison i s not at a l l c l e a r . Two studies by Kennedy (1966) in 1948 and 1960 looked at the s o c i a l adjustment of mildly retarded adults compared to normal adults in a Connecticut c i t y . In the study 256 mildly retarded adults were matched with 129 normal controls. Controls were matched for age, sex, race, country of b i r t h , n a t i o n a l i t y , and father's occupation. The only difference between the groups was in t h e i r i n t e l l i g e n c e l e v e l s ; the retarded group had scores ranging from 50 to 75, while the controls had scores of 70 and above. The c r i t e r i a of adjustment in the 1948 study were parental and family background, marital adjustment, economic adjustment, a n t i - s o c i a l behaviour, and s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n and l e i s u r e time a c t i v i t i e s . The 1960 study looked at the same basic c r i t e r i a 28 but also included the i n t e l l e c t u a l state of the children of both groups. It should be noted that 70% of the o r i g i n a l sample participated in the 1960 study. The results of the two studies showed that most of the subjects in both groups married. In terms of employment the handicapped subjects worked mostly in unskilled jobs while the normal subjects worked in higher-level occupations. No s i g n i f i c a n t differences were reported for both groups in terms of any d i f f i c u l t i e s with the p o l i c e . The results of the Kennedy studies showed that mildly retarded adults do in fact make a very positive adjustment in the community afte r they leave school. The main c r i t i c i s m of the Kennedy studies " i s in the f a i l u r e to review the i n t e l l e c t u a l status of her subjects at the two follow-up stages. Kennedy assumes that any recorded IQ score between 45 and 75 s u f f i c i e n t l y and permanently i d e n t i f i e s an individual as a 'moron' or a member of the population of the mildly retarded" (Cobb, 1972, p. 30). In contrast to Kennedy's (1966) research, Richardson (1978) did a comparative study between subjects "who were administratively c l a s s i f i e d as mentally retarded and placed in special education f a c i l i t i e s or r e s i d e n t i a l care at any time during their school years" (p. 351) and normal subjects., But, since they had l e f t school and were no longer receiving mental retardation services, the mentally retarded persons were no longer considered retarded. 29 Seventy-six subjects ( l i v i n g in Aberdeen, Scotland) in each of two groups were matched for age, sex, occupation of father, where the c h i l d l i v e d at age eight to ten, and the type of housing l i v e d in at the time of the interviews. The subjects interviewed were a l l 22 years of age. The only difference between the two groups was their IQ and that was not reported. The c r i t e r i a of adjustment in th i s study were employment, interpersonal relationships, and lei s u r e time a c t i v i t i e s . There were both objective and subjective measures of these c r i t e r i a . The findings in t h i s study were consistent with the previous studies. The former mentally retarded students had a higher rate of unemployment and those working made less money than the normal subjects. S o c i a l l y , the mentally retarded students were less successful than their normal counterparts. A summary comment on comparative research, based on the four studies discussed in t h i s section, can be made with reference to two important issues. The f i r s t issue i s that in the four studies c i t e d the c r i t e r i a for adjustment were similar and were re f l e c t e d in consistent r e s u l t s . This i s important because the lack of consistent c r i t e r i a of adjustment has been one of the major flaws in follow-up research (Wolfensberger, 1967; and Cobb, 1972). The second issue is that while comparative research appears to be r e l i a b l e i t also seems to be somewhat limited in the amount of information i t can provide. In a l l four studies c i t e d 30 the non-retarded group of adults made a better o v e r a l l community adjustment than the retarded group of adults. This data adds support to the contention that what constitutes a relevant control group for comparison is not at a l l clear (Goldstein, 1964; and McCarver & Craig, 1974). This would seem to substantially l i m i t the usefulness of t h i s type of follow-up research. A comparison of the three types of research presented thus far shows that there are some differences and s i m i l a r i t i e s in their purposes. Prognostic and a n a l y t i c a l studies are similar in their desire to predict the probable outcomes of the l i v e s of mentally retarded adults once they leave an i n s t i t u t i o n or school. The prognostic study does th i s using a univariate analysis while the analytic study employs a multivariate analysis. In contrast to prognostic and a n a l y t i c a l research, comparative research has as i t s main goal comparisons between the adjustment of mentally retarded adults and a designated control group. Descriptive The fourth and l a s t methodology of follow-up research to be considered i s descriptive. Presented here are three studies as examples of t h i s type of methodology and i t s role in follow-up research. Saenger (1957) in a comprehensive study looked at the 31 community adjustment of 520 former pupils in the New York City special classes for the severely retarded from 1929 to 1955. The basis for data c o l l e c t i o n was a Depth Interview Schedule and check l i s t which provided information on c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the severely retarded and their families, i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n , home adjustment, community adjustment, vocational adjustment, use of community resources, and planning for the future. Saenger's results showed both posi t i v e and negative aspects of his subjects' community adjustment. The p o s i t i v e aspect of their l i v e s in the community was evident by the fact that the subjects found jobs, made necessary s o c i a l adjustments, and moved about the community with some l e v e l of independence (Cobb, 1972). It should be noted that t h i s was accomplished with v i r t u a l l y no community resources. Indeed, the f i r s t workshop and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n f a c i l i t y was opened by the Association for Help of Retarded Children in New York City in 1953 (Cobb, 1972; and Wolfensberger, 1967). The negative aspects of the subjects' community adjustment were in the loneliness and idleness that many of them experienced (Cobb, 1972). "Much of the time spent outside the home was spent just hanging around the street by themselves, doing nothing. About one-half of those s t i l l l i v i n g in the community occupied themselves in t h i s manner, lounged around neighbourhood stores and, more rarely, v i s i t e d pool rooms or drug stores" (Saenger, 1957, p. 103). Saenger's (1957) study i s an example of comprehensive 32 descriptive research. There are, however, two issues that should be examined. The f i r s t issue is the usage of the term 'severely retarded'. Changes in the d e f i n i t i o n and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of mental retardation (Grossman, 1973) would have the subjects in Saenger's study c l a s s i f i e d as moderately retarded. The second issue i s that of gender differences. Saenger (1957) did not dis t i n g u i s h between the adjustments of males and females in t h i s study. His only interest in gender differences was in re l a t i o n to employment. Saenger found that more men than women were able to find work and men earned more money than women. The explanation offered for t h i s i s in the types of jobs found by the subjects. "Much of the factory work performed by our men was heavy work, unsuited for women. Only in jobs l i k e cutting and folding, l i g h t assembly work, did we find retarded women" (Saenger, 1957, p. 131). The second descriptive study to be considered was conducted by S t a n f i e l d (1973) on 120 graduates (65 boys and 55 g i r l s ) of classes for the moderately retarded in a large southern C a l i f o r n i a metropolitan school d i s t r i c t during the years 1968, 1969, and 1970. A modified version of Saenger's (1957) depth interview, schedule was used to gather the data. The interviews were conducted with the parents or guardians of each subject and looked at fi v e aspects of community adjustment. These were v i t a l s t a t i s t i c s , school history, work and post school r e h a b i l i t a t i o n programmes, l i f e at home, and l i f e in the 33 community. The results of the study showed the subjects' p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the community to be quite limited. Most subjects were dependent on t h e i r families for transportation and p a r t i c i p a t i o n in s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s . Almost half of the subjects in the study were not involved in' any form of employment. The most p o s i t i v e aspect of their community adjustment was t h e i r a b i l i t y to do home management tasks l i k e making a bed and taking out the garbage. As a result of the findings S t a n f i e l d suggests the need for comprehensive postschool h a b i l i t a t i v e programmes. An evaluation of Stanfield's (1973) study shows that i t i s similar to Saenger's (1957) study in three ways. F i r s t , i t i s similar in the type of population to be studied. Second, the studies are similar in the method of gathering data. As mentioned above, S t a n f i e l d (1973) used a modified form of Saenger's (1957) depth interview schedule. And in both studies parents and guardians were interviewed. The t h i r d s i m i l a r i t y i s that there i s not much d i s t i n c t i o n made between the adjustments of males and females. In fact, S t a n f i e l d (1973) reports no comparisons between males and females on any aspects of community adjustment. The only difference between the two studies i s in the number of years considered after graduation from school. This would seem to reinforce the idea that there i s no consistent pattern as to why time periods are chosen (Cobb, 1972; Goldstein, 1964; Kokaska, 1968; and McCarver & Craig, 1974). The l a s t descriptive study to be discussed was done by 34 Lambert (1976). In his study Lambert looked at the community adjustment of 454 mentally retarded adults l i v i n g in the province of Ontario. The sample of adults was drawn from the l i s t of mentally retarded persons receiving family benefits allowance from the p r o v i n c i a l government. The interviews were conducted with the retarded adults. During the interviews a Social Knowledge Scale, a Health Knowledge Scale, and a Beta IQ examination were given to measure each subject's capacity. Subjects were also interviewed to fin d out the type of environment (family c o n s t e l l a t i o n , housing, r e s i d e n t i a l s t a b i l i t y , and s o c i a l distance) they l i v e d in and f i n a l l y the six attributes of adaptive behaviour (personal appearance, mobility independence, s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y , integration in the home, interaction l e v e l , and vocational a b i l i t y ) they possessed. Then in a rather lengthy series of procedures the data were analyzed in terms of the three domains: capacity, environment, and adaptive behaviour. The results of the study showed the subjects to be lonely, isolated, and dependent. More s p e c i f i c a l l y Lambert reported that "almost three-fourths of these adults were t o t a l l y dependent on others to transport them beyond their home. One-quarter to one-third were dependent on others for their shopping and a c t i v i t i e s of d a i l y l i v i n g " (p. 3). The study conducted by Lambert (1976) i s quite d i f f e r e n t from the previous two studies in several respects. F i r s t Lambert used the mentally retarded adults as his primary source 35 of information, while Saenger (1957) and S t a n f i e l d (1973) interviewed the subjects' parents and guardians. Lambert does not take any steps to make sure the information he received was accurate. He also considered t h i s in his study when he wrote, "i n view of the fact that one-half of the group which responded to the f u l l questionnaire was moderately or severely retarded, questions can be raised about the r e l i a b i l i t y of the data" (p. 26). In the same l i g h t i t should also be noted that, of the 454 subjects interviewed, 81 persons were unable to answer a l l the questions and had to be dropped from the study. This l e f t a f i n a l sample of 373 subjects. The sample used in Lambert's study was quite d i f f e r e n t from the previous studies. Lambert's sample seems to be more heterogeneous as indicated by the fact that about one-half of the sample were considered to be mildly retarded and capable of achieving a grade six education. In other descriptive studies the data were used so that they could be measured using a nominal scale. Lambert used the same kind of data and measured them on an i n t e r v a l and/or ordinal scale. This would appear to make his analysis quite suspect. The paradox i s that the findings in many respects are similar to those of the previous research. Like the other methodologies, descriptive research i s not without i t s weaknesses. One of the most frequently mentioned weaknesses i s that i t i s not as rigorous in design or analysis as other methods (Cobb, 1972; McCarver & Craig, 1974; and Rosen 36 et a l . , 1977), but i t i s not meant to be. Of the four follow-up methodologies presented in th i s section, the descriptive method w i l l be used in t h i s research project. The c r i t e r i a of community adjustment discussed in the analysis of descriptive research w i l l also be used. In th i s way the research project w i l l attempt to present the most clear and concise picture of the community adjustment of moderately retarded adults l i v i n g in the Lower Mainland of B r i t i s h Columbia. Summary and Implications For The Present Study A summary of the review of the l i t e r a t u r e in follow-up research shows that the f i r s t studies were conducted almost exclusively on i n s t i t u t i o n a l populations. The studies done tended to build on one another but the results of the research varied. This was because of the d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a of adjustment considered, the d i f f e r e n t samples used, and the d i f f e r e n t time periods in which the research was done. A large body of research has also been done on non-i n s t i t u t i o n a l populations. Research on non - i n s t i t u t i o n a l populations has been divided into four methodologies. These are prognostic, a n a l y t i c a l , comparative, and de s c r i p t i v e . Results of the research vary with the methodology used. Results also r e f l e c t the same factors mentioned above for research on i n s t i t u t i o n a l populations. 37 The review of the l i t e r a t u r e on follow-up research has led to the selection of descriptive methodology as used by Saenger (1957), Stanf i e l d (1973), and Lambert (1976). The c r i t e r i a of adjustment to be examined (mobility independence, s e l f -s u f f i c i e n c y , interaction l e v e l , and vocational a b i l i t y ) are those found in the same research. The basis for the c o l l e c t i o n of data w i l l be a revised questionnaire appropriate to the needs of the study. This w i l l be used to examine the community adjustment of moderately retarded adults l i v i n g in the Lower Mainland of B r i t i s h Columbia one and three years after graduating from school. 38 CHAPTER 3 Instrument Development In order to gather the necessary information on the moderately retarded adults' mobility independence, s e l f -s u f f i c i e n c y , interaction l e v e l , vocational a b i l i t y , and educational status a semi-formal structured personal interview was used. In t h i s kind of interview the same questions are asked in the same order, but not necessarily in the same way. Appropriate probes and/or prompts are used to insure that each subject understands and interprets the questions as intended. This approach i s especially suited for a moderately retarded-type of population because many moderately retarded adults experience some d i f f i c u l t y with either receptive or expressive language or, sometimes, both. The personal aspect of the interview i s another important and necessary part of the data c o l l e c t i o n process. Face-to-face interviews f u l f i l l two important needs. These are: 1) keep the subject concentrating on the task during the interview; and 2) compensate for the subject's limited reading s k i l l s . A review of the l i t e r a t u r e (Saenger, 1957; St a n f i e l d , 1973; Lambert, 1976; Rosen, et a l . , 1977; and Richardson, 1978) revealed that there was no questionnaire presently available that was completely suitable for the needs of this study. 39 Consequently, i t became necessary to develop an interview and recording schedule. Described in t h i s chapter are the procedures followed to develop and p i l o t test the interview-recording form used. Draft I Since t h i s study was c l o s e l y modelled after the study completed by Lambert (1976), the questionnaire used in that study served as the i n i t i a l basis for the present study. Lambert's questionnaire contained 77 questions separated into the following six components: personal appearance, mobility independence, s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y , integration in the home, interaction l e v e l , and vocational a b i l i t y . As previously explained in Chapter 1, four of the six components considered by Lambert were considered in the present study. The four components were mobility independence, s e l f -s u f f i c i e n c y , interaction l e v e l , and vocational a b i l i t y , to which a f i f t h , educational status, was added. A copy of the questions used by Lambert to measure the f i r s t four components i s presented in Appendix A. The f i r s t part of the revision entailed the elimination of questions within each of the components that were of no interest, inappropriate, or too d i f f i c u l t for a moderately retarded-type population. The questions that were retained were arranged in a preliminary order; and some of the items were reworded to eliminate possible ambiguities. 40 Described next are examples of these changes. For each change an example of the question used by Lambert i s provided, followed by an explanation of why changes were made, and then the f i n a l wording of the altered question. 1) Questions of No Interest a) In the morning, are you able to use the bathroom whenever you want? b) Who i s your boss? These questions were eliminated because the information they would have provided was not germane to the variables i d e n t i f i e d and hence to the purposes of t h i s study. 2) Inappropriate Questions a) Have you ever had trouble with the police or been arrested? b) About how much money do you get each week, month? The information requested in questions of t h i s type i s of a p a r t i c u l a r l y sensitive nature. It was f e l t that such information was unnecessary for the present study. 3) D i f f i c u l t Questions a) Do you think you have enough tr a i n i n g for a job you would l i k e to do? b) How do you think the t r a i n i n g programme should change? The words and concepts in these two questions were considered to be beyond the a b i l i t y of a moderately retarded adult; and hence 41 would not be understood. Therefore, these questions were also omitted. 4) Ambiguous Wording in Questions a) Do you usually cook breakfast or does someone make i t for you? b) Do you take care of your own money or does someone take care of i t for you? Although grammatically correct, i t was f e l t that the form of these questions would tend to confuse the moderately retarded adults. Instead, a simple, more straightforward Yes-No format followed by probing was f e l t to be more understandable. Therefore, questions such as these were reworded as follows: a) Do you make/cook any of your own meals? Yes No If Yes - Which meals do you make? If No - Who makes the meals for you? b) Do you have your own bank account? Yes No If Yes - Do you save any money? If No - Who takes care of your money for you? 5) C l a r i f i c a t i o n of Probes for Questioning a) Where do you get your money from? (multiple check; probe) b) How often did you see them? (Probe - How many times l a s t month?) In the questionnaire used by Lambert not a l l probes were as vague as the f i r s t example (a). The second example (b) of a 42 probe i s similar to what was used in the present study. It should be noted that the differences shown below are not only in the probes used, but also in the wording of the questions. a) Where does the money you l i v e on each month come from? (Probe - How did you get it?) b) How often did you see/spend time with your good friends l a s t week? (Probe - How many times?) 6) Immediacy of Questions-a) When you go out, do you take a bus/streetcar/subway? b) Do you have any spending money for yourself each week? These questions were altered (see below) so that the subject was asked to r e c a l l the a c t i v i t i e s of the l a s t week rather than an unspecified time period. It was f e l t that working in more concrete terms, i . e . , events of the l a s t week, would be more ea s i l y and accurately remembered. a) When you went out t h i s past week, how did you travel?) (Probe - What are some of the ways you went di f f e r e n t places?) b) Did you have any spending money t h i s last week? (Probe - Did you have some money to buy things th i s l a s t week?) 43 7) C l a r i t y of Branching a) Do you have any spending money for yourself each week? (If No) b) Why not? (If Yes) c) About how much? Questions l i k e these require branching; the interviewer must be clear about what i s to be asked next, given a pa r t i c u l a r answer. To f a c i l i t a t e t h i s occurring, the branching instructions were made more s p e c i f i c , as i l l u s t r a t e d in the following example: 17. Did you have any spending money t h i s week? (Probe - Did you have some money to buy things t h i s l a s t week?) 1 Yes 2 No Yes (Go to question 18) No (Go to question 19) 18. If Yes-a) Who decided how much money you could have for the week? 19. If No-Why didn't you have any spending money t h i s l a s t week? 44 8) Length of Questionnaire During the development of the questionnaire there was a concern that, due to the length of the questionnaire, subjects would either become fatigued, distracted, or otherwise less co-operative. The best estimate of time over which such behaviour would not occur was one hour. Thus, the t o t a l number of questions was set so that an interview, including the introduction and completion, could be completed in one hour. A copy of the questionnaire, including the introductory statements, used in the p i l o t study i s provided in Appendix B. P i l o t Study The p i l o t study was conducted with four subjects to determine i f the interview could be completed within the one hour time period and to i d e n t i f y d i f f i c u l t i e s with the questions. Two moderately retarded adults, known to the p r i n c i p a l investigator, were interviewed. One adult had graduated from a school for the moderately retarded in 1977, while the other had graduated in 1979. Given the limited number of one and three year graduates, the subjects for the p i l o t study were taken from preceeding years' graduates (two and four years ago). The two interviews with the subject and their respective parents/guardians took place at the subjects' residences. The t h i r d and fourth interviews were done with role playing 45 models. The two role players, who volunteered their help, were graduate students in Special Education at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. Both had extensive previous experience working with mentally handicapped persons. The four interviews were conducted by the p r i n c i p a l investigator. Audio tapes of each were made to provide a cross check of responses recorded in written form by the p r i n c i p a l investigator during the interview. This was important to ensure accuracy and completeness of information c o l l e c t e d . These data were used to examine each item in terms of the eight categories for change i d e n t i f i e d above. No changes were made due to no interest, inappropriateness, d i f f i c u l t y , ambiguity, or immediacy. There was also no change required in the length of the interview-prompt recording sheet. The interview-prompt recording sheet could be completed in 40 minutes, well within the desired 60 minute time l i m i t . The data showed the need for some changes in the interview-prompt recording sheet. Described below are examples of changes made. 1) Additional Probes a) How long did you go to school? (Probe Added - How old were you when you started school? How old were you when you finished school?) b) Which city/town do you l i v e in now? 46 (Probe Added - What i s your address? Where do you l i v e in B r i t i s h Columbia?) 2) Instructions Instructions were added to c l a r i f y that i t was not always necessary to ask a certain question. a) If subject does not t r a v e l independently, Question 9 should not be asked. Following the procedures outlined above, the f i n a l form of the interview-prompt recording sheet (a copy of which i s presented in Appendix C), consisted of 47 questions organized into the following six sections: I Demographic Information Questions 1-7 II Mobility Independence Questions 8-9 III S e l f - S u f f i c i e n c y Questions 10-19 IV Interaction Level Questions 20-40 V Vocational A b i l i t y Questions 41-44 VI Educational Status Questions 45-47 47 CHAPTER 4 Methodology Described in t h i s chapter are the s p e c i f i c procedures used to examine the community adjustment of the moderately retarded adults interviewed for this study. F i r s t , the procedures used to i d e n t i f y potential subjects are described. This i s followed by a description of the data c o l l e c t i o n procedures. Lastly, the data analysis procedures are presented and discussed. Population The population of interest in th i s study consisted of the males and females l i v i n g in the Lower Mainland of B r i t i s h Columbia who graduated in June, 1978 and June, 1980 from schools designated for the trainable mentally retarded. Using the 1976 Vancouver Census Metropolitan ( S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1978) the lower mainland refers to an area consisting of the D i s t r i c t of Burnaby, D i s t r i c t of Coquitlam, D i s t r i c t of Delta, V i l l a g e of Lions Bay, City of New Westminster, City of North Vancouver, D i s t r i c t of North Vancouver, City of Port Coquitlam, City of Port Moody, Township of Richmond, D i s t r i c t of Surrey, City of Vancouver, D i s t r i c t of West Vancouver, City of White Rock, E l e c t o r a l Areas A (University Endowment Lands), B (Ioco-Buntzen), C (Bowen Island), City of Langley, D i s t r i c t of Langley, D i s t r i c t of Maple Ridge and D i s t r i c t of P i t t Meadows. 48 The subjects graduated from one of eleven d i f f e r e n t schools for the trainable mentally retarded in nine school d i s t r i c t s . These schools and school d i s t r i c t s were: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 An n i e v i l l e - School D i s t r i c t No. 37 (Delta) Arthur Peake - School D i s t r i c t No. 42 (Maple Ridge) Crestwood - School D i s t r i c t No. 38 (Richmond) Donald Paterson - School D i s t r i c t No. 41 (Burnaby) George Greenaway - School D i s t r i c t No. 36 (Surrey) Simon Cunningham - School D i s t r i c t No. 36 (Surrey) Prince Charles - School D i s t r i c t No. 44 (North Vancouver) Sunny Cedars - School D i s t r i c t No. 43 (Coquitlam) Sunny Park - School D i s t r i c t No. 43 (Coquitlam) Oakridge - School D i s t r i c t No. 39 (Vancouver) T i l l i c u m - School D i s t r i c t No. 35 (Langley) I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and Selection of Subjects The process of i d e n t i f y i n g potential subjects for the study was begun in September, 1981. At that time a l e t t e r explaining the research project and supporting documents (see Appendix D) was mailed to each of two schools, four school d i s t r i c t s , f i v e associations for the mentally retarded, one sheltered workshop, and a vocational placement agency for the mentally handicapped. Names of potential subjects were obtained from two of the eleven schools - Arthur Peake and Crestwood; four of the nine school d i s t r i c t s - Langley, Delta, Coquitlam, and North 49 Vancouver; three associations for the mentally retarded Burnaby, Vancouver-Richmond, and Surrey; one sheltered workshop Surrey Rehabilitation Workshop; and a vocational placement agency for the mentally handicapped - P o l a r i s . Nine of the eleven cooperating agencies sent the names of potential subjects d i r e c t l y to the p r i n c i p a l investigator, who in turn contacted the subjects. Two of the school d i s t r i c t s made their own contacts with potential subjects. One sent only the names of people who agreed to take part in the study. The other contacted t h e i r former students and allowed them to decide i f they wanted to contact the p r i n c i p a l investigator (this was done for reasons of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y ) . The f i n a l l i s t of potential subjects contained 29 male and 19 female graduates in 1978 and 15 male and 21 female graduates in 1980. Because of the r e l a t i v e l y small number of people i d e n t i f i e d , i t was apparent that a random sampling of t h i s population was not reasonable. The decision was made to interview as many of the i d e n t i f i e d subjects as possible during the data c o l l e c t i o n period of November, 1981 to March, 1982. It was determined that there would be 20 subjects for 1978 and 1980 respectively. It was also determined that the d i s t r i b u t i o n would be 10 male and 10 female subjects in each of the years. If t h i s number of subjects was not reached during the interview period, interviews would continue u n t i l the minimum number was reached. 50 Data Col l e c t i o n Procedures Preparation for Data C o l l e c t i o n A l e t t e r (see Appendix E)in which the research project was described and a request for p a r t i c i p a t i o n was made, was mailed to each potential subject and his/her parent guardian. Because most of the potential subjects could not read, the l e t t e r asked the parent/guardian to further explain the research project to the potential subject. Two consent forms were included with each l e t t e r , one for the potential subject, and one for the parent/guardian (see Appendix E). A stamped self-addressed envelope was also provided. If the consent forms were not returned within a three week period, a follow-up l e t t e r (see Appendix E) was sent to ask the potential subject and his/her parent/guardian to par t i c i p a t e in the study. I n i t i a l experience revealed that t h i s procedure was i n e f f e c t i v e . Consequently, the mail follow-up was replaced by a telephone follow-up. Telephone c a l l s were made to those persons who had not returned their consent forms within the three week period. During the phone c a l l an appointment for an interview was made i f the potential subject and/or his/her parent/guardian agreed to p a r t i c i p a t e . Phone c a l l s were also made to set up interviews with those people who had already returned their consent forms and agreed to p a r t i c i p a t e . Follow-up was done by three of the cooperating agencies 51 when there was l i t t l e or no response to the i n i t i a l l e t t e r . This proved to be most helpful in increasing the response rate. Interview Procedure The interviews were conducted by the p r i n c i p a l investigator following the same format as in the p i l o t study and using the interview-prompt recording sheet (see Appendix C). Forty of the 44 interviews took place at the residences of each of the subjects. Of the four remaining interviews, two took place in a l o c a l MR Association o f f i c e , one in a sheltered workshop and one in a parent's house. It was f e l t that i t was important to have a parent, r e l a t i v e , or other appropriate individual present or nearby during the interview. This was to insure both accuracy of information and the security of the subject. A l l interviews, but one, were conducted in this way. In one case the subject was interviewed in the presence of another resident of the group home. The parent was la t e r contacted to provide information that was not obtained from the subject during the interview. With the exception of four interviews, a l l were audio taped to provide a check of responses recorded in written form by the p r i n c i p a l investigator during the interview. In thi s way accuracy was ensured. The reasons for not recording the four interviews were: 1) Permission for two of the interviews was given only i f there 52 was no tape recorder being used; 2) Two subjects were upset with the presence of the tape recorder. Data Analysis Procedures  Coding of Data The procedures used to code the data from the three types of questions found in the interview-prompt recording sheet are reported in this section. The numerical codes and their meanings are presented in Appendix F. The f i r s t type of question asked required a forced-choice response. In th i s type of question the responses were exhaustive and mutually exclusive. A numerical code was assigned to each response category (Orlich, 1978). The second type of question involved a multiple-choice format, with more than one response permitted. The l a s t type of question asked was the open-ended response. Unlike either forced-choice or multiple-choice questions, categories for open-ended response questions are developed aft e r the data i s gathered and completed. As mentioned above, the development of the categories used i s described in Appendix F. The coding of the data on occupational status (highest s k i l l l e v e l ever obtained in any job) was done using the 53 Vocational Check L i s t of the Adaptive Functioning Index (Marlett, 1973). The information was c l a s s i f i e d and coded according to the f i v e s k i l l l evels defined in the Vocational Check L i s t (see Appendix F). Data Preparation The coded data were keypunched with 100% v e r i f i c a t i o n . The l i s t i n g of the computer f i l e was then compared against the o r i g i n a l coding and interview-prompt recording sheet for each subject to ensure accuracy. No keypunching errors were found; 29 coding errors were found. This represents an error rate of .26%, well within the l i m i t s of the one percent normally associated with large surveys employing similar types of questionnaires. A l l errors were corrected. S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis For each variable, the frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n for male and female graduates from each of 1978 and 1980 were prepared and compared using the 2 X 2 (year-by-gender) chi-square s t a t i s t i c . Only those chi-squares with s u f f i c i e n t c e l l size were examined for differences. Given the exploratory nature of the investigation, the .05 l e v e l of significance was used. A l l analyses were completed using the Crosstabs option of the S t a t i s t i c a l Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (Nie, H u l l , Jenkins, Steinbrenner, & Bent, 1975) and the Amdahl 470 maintained by the Computing Centre at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. 54 Chapter 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS The purpose of the present study was to describe the current status of moderately retarded adults l i v i n g in the Lower Mainland of B r i t i s h Columbia, one and three years after they have graduated from school, in terms of their mobility indpendence, s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y , interaction l e v e l , vocational a b i l i t y , and educational status. The results of the frequency analyses conducted to meet this purpose are reported in t h i s chapter. These results are reported in six major sections: a section for the demographic data, and a section for each of the fiv e components of community adjustment. The results of the chi-square analysis revealed that for each component of community adjustment, the d i s t r i b u t i o n for males and females within and between 1978 and 1980 were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (p<.05). Therefore, the results are reported in a descriptive manner and in terms of the c e l l and marginal frequencies and percentages for gender and year. The chi-square values are not reported. 55 Demographic Description Response Rate Table 1 Response Rate 1 978 Male Female Total Potential Subjects 24 1 5 39 No Answer 2 — 2 Contacted but did not Pa r t i c i p a t e 8 5 13 Interviewed 14 10 24 Excluded 1 — 1 Number of Subjects in 1978 Group 1 3 10 23 As shown in Table 1, 24 males and 15 females were i d e n t i f i e d as potential subjects in the 1978 group. Of the 24 potential male subjects, two did not respond to the i n i t i a l l e t t e r s . In these two cases i t was assumed contact was made because the post o f f i c e did not return any of the i n i t i a l l e t t e r s . Another eight males and five females were contacted or they contacted the p r i n c i p a l investigator to say they did not want to p a r t i c i p a t e in the study. F i n a l l y , one male was excluded after being interviewed when i t was found out he graduated from a school in 1977 and not 1978. As a result 13 males and 10 females were interviewed. The 1978 group had a response rate of 63.9% (61.9% for males, and 66.7% for females). 56 Table 2 Response Rate 1980 Male Female Total Potential Subjects 14 20 34 No Answer 2 2 2 Contacted but did not Participate 3 7 10 Interviewed 9 1 1 20 Excluded — Number of Subjects in 1980 Group 9 1 1 20 Table 2 shows that 14 males and 20 females were i d e n t i f i e d as potential subjects in the 1980 group. Using the same procedures described above nine males and 11 females were interviewed in the 1980 group. The 1980 group had a response rate of 62.5% (75% for males, and 61.1% for females). Dominant Source of Information Forty-two of the 43 interviews were conducted with the mentally handicapped subject and his/her parent/guardian present or nearby. Table 3 shows that more than half (seven) of the 1978 males were able to provide most of the information in the interview themselves. Two males and their parents/guardians provided the information together, and four males had their parents/guardians provide most of the information; t h i s included two non-verbal subjects. Four of the 1978 females provided the requested information themselves. Of the remaining six females, two subjects and their parents/guardians provided the 57 information together and four parents/guardians provided the information for the remaining four females. Table 3 Dominant Source of Information Gender- by Year Source Year/Gender Subject & Subject Parent/Guardian Parent/Guardian Total 1 978 Male 7 2 4 13 Female 4 2 4 10 1980 Male 3 3 3 9 Female 5 • 3 3 1 1 Table 3 also shows that the 1980 males were evenly divided with three of the interviews f a l l i n g into each of the three sources of information. The parent/guardian category included information from two non-verbal males. Five 1980 females provided most of the information themselves. Of the remaining six females in t h i s group, three subjects and their parents/guardians provided the information together and three parents/guardians provided the information in the rest. Gender The 1978 group consisted of 13 males (56.5%) and 10 females (43.5%) (see Table 4). For 1980, the corresponding d i s t r i b u t i o n 58 was nine males (45.0%) and 11 females (55.0%). Table 4 Frequencies and Percentages Gender by Year Male Female Group Total N % N % N 1978 13 56.5 10 43.5 23 1980 9 45.0 H_ 55.0 2JD Total 22 51.2 21 48.8 43 Age The age d i s t r i b u t i o n and mean ages are shown in Table 5 for each year and gender group. The age range for 1978 males was 21 to 24, with a mean of 22.8 years; for the 1978 females, the age range was 18 to 23 with a mean of 21.3 years. The mean age of the 1978 group was 22.1 years. The 1980 males range in age from 21 to 23 years, with a mean of 21.7 years. The age range for the 1980 females was 19 to 22, with a mean of 20.8 years. The mean age of the 1980 group was 21.2 years. 59 Table 5 Age D i s t r i b u t i o n Gender by Year 1978 1980 Age/Gender Male Female Total Male Female Total 18 - 1 1 - - -19 - ! ! 20 - 2 2 2 2 21 1 2 3 4 6 10 22 3 2 5 4 2 6 23 7 3 10 1 - 1 24 2 - 2 -Mean Age 22.8 21.3 22.1 21.7 20.8 21.2 An examination of the mean age of the 1978 and 1980 groups reveals that the difference between them i s .9 years rather than the 2 years that would be expected. An explanation can be found in Table 6. It shows that the 1978 group l e f t school at an e a r l i e r age than the 1980 group, i . e . , 11 (47.8%) subjects in the 1978 group l e f t school at age 19 or younger; t h i s includes a 1978 female who l e f t school at the age of 15. Only three (15%) subjects in the 1980 group l e f t school at the age of 1 9 or younger. 60 Table 6 Age at Graduation Gender by Year 1978 1980 Age/Gender Male Female Total Male Female Total 15 1 1 16 - - - - — _ 17 - 2 2 - - — 18 1 2 3 - 1 1 19 3 2 5 - 2 2 20 7 3 10 4 6 10 21 2 - 2 4 2 6 22 1 1 Education As indicated in Chapter 4, the subjects could have graduated from one of 11 d i f f e r e n t schools in the Lower Mainland area. Table 7 shows, for each year and gender group, the names of the schools and the number of males and females that graduated from each school in t h i s study. The largest number of graduates in 1978 (six - f i v e males and one female) were from Oakridge School. Donald Paterson was next with four graduates, a l l female. Prince Charles and T i l l i c u m had three graduates each (one male and two females). Table 7 also shows the same type of information for the 1980 graduates. The largest number (seven - f i v e males and two females) came from Prince Charles; while Oakridge was next with six graduates (three males and three females). A n n i e v i l l e , 61 Arthur Peake, and George Greenaway had one female graduate each. Sunny Park was the only school from which no graduates were interviewed. Table 7 School of Graduation Gender by Year 1 978 1980 School/Gender Male Female Total Male Female Total A n n i e v i l l e _ 1 1 ' Arthur Peake 1 - 1 - 1 1 Crestwood 1 1 2 -Donald Paterson - 4 4 - - -George Greenaway - - - - 1 1 Oakridge 5 1 6 3 3 6 Prince Charles 1 2 3 5 2 7 Simon Cunningham 2 0 2 1 1 2 Sunny Cedars 2 0 2 1 1 2 Sunny Park - - - - - — T i l l i c u m 1 - 1 - - _ Total 13 10 23 9 11 20 Table 8 shows the number of years subjects attended the school from which they graduated. The 1978 group attended their schools of graduation for a period of two to f i f t e e n years. The mean time at these schools was 9.0 years. The 1980 group were at their schools of graduation for a period of seven to sixteen years. The 1980 group spent a mean time of 12.6 years at these schools. 62 Table 8 Number of Years in School of Graduation Gender by Year 1978 1980 Years/Gender Male Female Total Male Female Total 3 _ 2 2 _ 4 1 - 1 - - -5 2 - 2 - - -6 4 - 4 - - -7 1 - 1 - 1 1 9 - 2 2 1 - 1 10 1 1 2 1 - 1 1 1 - - - 1 1 2 12 - 1 1 1 - 1 13 - 2 2 2 4 6 1 4 1 1 2 - 4 4 15 3 1 4 2 - 2 16 " — 1 1 Mean Years 8.2 10.1 9.0 12.7 12.6* 12.6 *Data for one subject was missing, therefore the mean was calculated with an n=l0. Thirteen subjects attended more than one school. As shown in Table 9, 12 were 1978 graduates, while only one 1980 graduate (a female) attended a school other than the one from which she graduated. Table 8 also shows the 1978 group attended other schools for a period of two to ten years. The mean time was 6.7 years. The one 1980 subject attended another school for eight years. 63 Table 9 Number of Years in Other Schools Gender by Year 1978 1980 Years/Gender Male Female Total Male* Female** Total 2 1 1 3 - - - -4 - 1 1 — • _ 5 1 1 - - - -6 1 2 3 -7 - 1 1 - -8 2 - 2 1 1 9 1 1 — — 10 2 2 — — Number of Subjects 8 4 12 0 1 1 Mean Years 7. 3 5 .7 6.7 8.0 8.0 *No males in the 1980 group attended other school programmes. **Data for one subject was missing. Although not shown in Table 9, the data reveal that twelve 1978 subjects attended a wide variety of schools in the Lower Mainland area and other provinces in Canada. The 1980 subjects attended a school in the Lower Mainland area • Location of Residence Table 10 shows the ten c i t i e s and d i s t r i c t s the 1978 group l i v e d i n . The largest number of subjects ( f i v e - four males and one female) l i v e d in Vancouver. There were three subjects each in Burnaby, Langley, and North Vancouver. There was one subject 64 each in Richmond, White Rock, and Maple Ridge. The 1980 group l i v e d in eight c i t i e s and d i s t r i c t s in the Lower Mainland area (see Table 10). The largest number of subjects l i v e d in Vancouver (six - five males and one female) and North Vancouver (six - three males and three females). There was one subject each in Delta, West Vancouver, and Maple Ridge. Table 10 Location of Residence Gender by Year 1978 1980 City/Gender Male Female Total Male Female Total Burnaby 3 3 Coquitlam 2 - 2 1 1 2 Delta 1 1 2 — 1 1 Langley 1 2 3 -Maple Ridge 1 - 1 - 1 1 New Westminster - - - — — _ North Vancouver 1 2 3 5 1 6 Port Coquitlam - - - -Port Moody - - - - - — Richmond 1 - 1 - — _ Surrey 1 1 2 - 3 3 Vancouver 4 2 6 3 3 6 West Vancouver - - - — 1 1 White Rock 1 — — — Total 13 10 23 9 1 1 20 65 Marital Status A l l subjects in the study were single. Living Arrangements Table 11 shows that seven (53.8%) of the 1978 males l i v e d with their parents. Of the six 1978 males not l i v i n g with their parents, one was l i v i n g with his brothers, three were l i v i n g in group homes, one was l i v i n g in a r e s i d e n t i a l i n s t i t u t i o n , and one was l i v i n g on a farm. Six (60%) of the 1978 females l i v e d with their parents. Of the four 1978 females not l i v i n g with the i r parents, one was l i v i n g with her friends, one was l i v i n g in a group home, one was l i v i n g in a foster home, and one was l i v i n g on a farm. Thirteen (56.5%) subjects in the 1978 group l i v e d with t h e i r parents, ten (43.5%) did not l i v e with their parents. 66 Table 11 Frequency and Percentage of Living Arrangements, 1978 Living with Parents Not Living with Parents Other Group Relatives Friends Home Other* N % N % N % N % N % Male 7 53.8 1 7.7 — — 3 23. 1 2 15.4 Female 6 60.0 - 1 10.0 1 10.0 2 20.0 Total 13 56.5 1 4.3 1 4.3 1 17.4 4 17.4 *Includes a farm, r e s i d e n t i a l i n s t i t u t i o n i and foster home. Table 12 shows that fi v e (55. 6%) of the 1980 males l i v e d with their parents. The four 1980 males not l i v i n g with their parents were l i v i n g in group homes. Eight (72.7%) of the 1980 females l i v e d with their parents. Of the three 1980 females not l i v i n g with their parents, two were l i v i n g in group homes and one was l i v i n g on a farm. Thirteen (65%) of the subjects in the 1980 group l i v e d with their parents; seven (35%) did not l i v e with their parents. 67 Table 12 Frequency and Percentage of Living Arrangements, 1980 Living with Parents Not Living with Parents Other Relatives Friends Group Home Other* N % N % N % N % N % Male Female Total 5 8 1 3 55.6 72.7 65.0 -4 2 6 44.4 18.2 30.0 1 9.1 1 5.0 *Includes a farm. Table 13 shows the number of years that the subjects spent in their l i v i n g arrangements. The 1978 and 1980 groups spent a mean time of 13.7 and 14.8 years, respectively, in their l i v i n g arrangements. 68 Table 13 Years in Living Arrangement Gender by Year 1 978 1980 Years/Gender Male Female Total Male Female Total .25 1 1 .50 1 1 1 1 1 .00 _ 1 2 3 1 .50 1 2 3 - - — 2.00 1 1 - — _ 2.50 - 1 1 3.00 2 2 - - — 5.00 - 1 1 7.00 1 1 — — — 9.00 1 1 — — — 10.00 - 1 1 12.00 1 1 - - — 19.00 - 1 1 20.00 - 1 1 21.00 1 1 2 3 5 22.00 1 2 3 3 3 6 23.00 4 2 6 - - -24.00 2 2 — — — Mean Years 14.3 12.8 13.7 13.8 15.7 14.9 A further analysis was done on the data presented in Tables 11, 12, and 13. This was done to look at the s t a b i l i t y of the subjects' l i v i n g arrangements. The mean number of years for the subjects, in the 1978 and 1980 groups, l i v i n g and I not l i v i n g with their parents, is shown in Table 14. The subjects in the 1978 group l i v e d with their parents a mean of 21.9 years. Those who did not l i v e with their parents did so for a mean of 2.9 years. The subjects in the 1980 group l i v e d with their parents a mean of 21.1 years. The 1980 subjects who did not l i v e with the i r parents did so for a mean of 3 years. 69 Table 14 Mean Years In Living Arrangement Gender by Year Living with Parents Not Living with Parents 1978 1980 21 .9 21.1 2.9 3.0 In terms of the s t a b i l i t y of their l i v i n g arrangements the subjects were well se t t l e d . In both the 1978 and 1980 groups more than half the subjects (13 in each) s t i l l l i v e d with their parents after leaving school. It should also be noted that the results here were consistent with Lambert's (1976) findings in that those subjects l i v i n g with their parents were in their l i v i n g arrangements a long time; while those subjects not l i v i n g with their parents were in their l i v i n g arrangements a short time. In the next part of Chapter 5 a description of the 1978 and 1980 subjects' community adjustment in terms of their mobility independence, s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y , interaction l e v e l , vocational a b i l i t y , and educational status i s presented. Within each of the f i v e sections there i s also a discussion of the findings. 70 Mobility Independence Educational programmes for the moderately retarded have put an increasing emphasis on the a c q u i s i t i o n of a wide variety of functional s k i l l s . Examples include being able to t r a v e l in the community, preparing meals, carrying out home management tasks (cleaning, making beds, doing laundry), handling money, interacting with people in an appropriate manner, and having work s k i l l s . The development of these s k i l l s to the f u l l e s t extent possible of each of these students i s essential for a useful and independent l i f e in the community. The data in t h i s section provide information on the extent to which the mentally retarded adults t r a v e l l e d in their community. This was indicated by the forms and frequency of transportation used, the destinations t r a v e l l e d to, the supervision required when using the transportation, and the frequency and reasons for getting l o s t . a) Form of Transportation and Frequency of Use Tables 15 and 16 summarize the forms of transportation and the frequency of use of that transportation by the 1978 and 1980 groups. Table 15 Form of Transportation and Frequency of Use, 1978 Car (family, B.C. Easter Seal friends, Hydro Bus, Van, Other staff drive Bus Handidart M F M F M F M F Once 4 2 1 1 _ _ 1* Twice 1 3 - 1 - 1 - — Three times 2 1 - - - — 1 ** _ three times 3 1 3 2 4 3 — -Everyday — 1 5 1 - - -Total 10 8 9 5 4 5 2 *One 1978 male took a taxi **One 1978 male walked Table 16 Form of Transportation and Frequency of Use, 1980 Car (family, B.C. Easter Seal friends, Hydro Bus, Van, Other staff drive Bus Handidart M F M F M F M F Once 2 2 1 1 _ _ 1* 1* Twice 2 1 - - - - — — Three times 1 - - 1 - 1 - — three times 1 3 2 2 3 3 - — Everyday 2 4 2 1 - - - -Total 8 10 5 5 3 4 1 1 *One 1980 male and female walked 72 The main form of transportation used by both groups was a car driven by family members, friends, or group home s t a f f . Eighteen subjects in both the 1978 groups and 1980 groups used t h i s form of transportation. Within the 1 8 subjects in both groups, six 1978 subjects (four males and two females) t r a v e l l e d in a car once a week while six 1980 subjects (two males and four females) t r a v e l l e d in a car every day. The difference in the frequency of use of a car driven by others indicates that the subjects participated in a c t i v i t i e s with their families or other residents of group homes, and as such t r a v e l l e d together. Those subjects l i v i n g in rural areas l i k e Langley where there was less accessible public transportation, would be d r i v i n in the family car more often. The second most frequently used form of transportation was the B.C. Hydro bus. Those subjects that used the Hydro bus tended to do so often. Five 1978 subjects (three males and two females) used the Hydro bus more than three times a week and six 1978 subjects (fiv e males and one female) used the bus every day. Four 1980 subjects (two males and two females) used the Hydro bus more than three times a week and three 1980 subjects (two males and one female) used the bus every day. The data on the 1978 group show that more males than females used the bus. In the 1980 group only one more male than female used the bus. The t h i r d most frequent form of transportation used was the Easter Seal bus, HandiDart, or group home van/bus. Seven 1978 subjects (four males and three females) and six 1980 subjects 73 (three males and three females) used t h i s form of transportation more than three times a week. The majority of subjects using t h i s form of transportation were not able to t r a v e l independently. Under the category of other forms of transportation, one 1978 male took a taxi home, while one 1978 male walked to work (three times). In the 1980 group, one male walked to a recreation/social a c t i v i t y and one female walked to the hairdresser near their respective homes. No subjects reported they rode a bicycle or drove a car by themselves. b) Destinations The destinations to which subjects t r a v e l l e d are reported as they relate to the forms of transportation described above. Because of the small number of subjects and the large number of destinations, i t was not p r a c t i c a l to report these data for gender and year. The data are, therefore, reported in terms of a l l 43 subjects in the study. Subjects who t r a v e l l e d in cars driven by family members, friends or group home sta f f primarily went to the following: 1) Recreation/Social A c t i v i t i e s , e.g., v i s i t e d friends and r e l a t i v e s , went bowling, swimming, ice skating, saw movies, played bingo, and went to p a r t i e s . 2) Shopping, e.g., bought groceries, clothes, presents, and a Christmas tree 74 3) Work, e.g., workshop, restaurant, factory, farm Other destinations included restaurants, church, and barber or hairdresser. The l i s t of p l a c e s / a c t i v i t i e s were very suitable for a subject in a family or a resident of a group home to parti c i p a t e in together. These were also reasons why the subjects in the 1980 group drove in a car every day. Subjects using the B.C. Hydro bus primarily went to the following: 1) Work 2) Recreation/Social A c t i v i t i e s 3) Shopping Other destinations included restaurants, church, and barber or hairdresser. Subjects using the Easter Seal bus, HandiDart, or group home van/bus most often went to the following: 1) Work 2) Recreation/Social A c t i v i t i e s 3) Shopping Other destinations included school and home. 75 Table 17 Levels of Supervision on Transportation Gender by Year 1978 1980 Group Group Male Female Total Male Female Total Supervised 4 5 9 4 6 10 Supervised -Unsupervised 6 3 9 4 5 9 Unsupervised 3 2 5 1 - 1 Total 13 10 23 9 11 20 c) Supervision Table 17 shows the number of subjects in each group that t r a v e l l e d only in supervised transportation (car, Easter Seal bus, HandiDart, et c . ) , a combination of supervised and unsupervised transportation, or only in unsupervised transportation. The data show that the subjects in both groups were quite evenly divided between the use of supervised transportation only and a combination of supervised and unsupervised transportation. The number of subjects in the second category reflected the fact that subjects used the B.C. Hydro bus Monday to Friday to go to work and on the weekend tr a v e l l e d with t h e i r parents to go v i s t i n g , shopping, or to church. A further analysis of the data showed that eight subjects (five males and three females) needed no help in using the bus 76 in their communities. The data showed the same for six 1980 subjects (three males and three females). Another five subjects (four males and two females) in the 1978 group and three subjects (one male and two females) in the 1980 group could travel independently but t r a v e l l e d with friends on the bus. One subject in each group needed some supervision to travel on the bus. Subjects who needed a lot of supervision did not travel on the public transportation system. d) Getting Lost The 14 subjects in the 1978 group and the ten subjects in the 1980 group who used public transportation system did so with considerable success, in that none reported getting l o s t . A summary of the findings on mobility, independence show that the males and females in the 1978 and 1980 groups were able to t r a v e l quite extensively in their communities. The 1978 subjects t r a v e l l e d in cars driven by family, friends, or group home sta f f less often than the 1980 subjects. Also more 1978 subjects used the public transportation system more often than the 1980 subjects. Subjects from both groups who t r a v e l l e d in the Easter Seal bus, HandiDart, or group home van/bus tended to be more dependent than the other subjects. The findings here cannot provide d e f i n i t i v e answers but do lead to speculation on the differences between the 1978 and 1980 groups. One might speculate that the differences may be due to the s k i l l l e v e l of the subjects or that mobility independence 77 improves over a period of time. The differences between males and females are also worthy of consideration. One may speculate that there i s a s k i l l l e v e l difference in favor of males or that males are not as protected as females and thus have less mobility independence. Se l f - S u f f i c i e n c y The a b i l i t y to tr a v e l independently in the community i s just one of the many s k i l l s needed by the moderately retarded adults to l i v e useful and independent l i v e s . Ideally these moderately retarded adults w i l l also be competent in looking after themselves by making meals, cleaning t h e i r houses, washing the i r clothes and handling their money to buy the things they want. The data presented in t h i s section provide information about the a b i l i t y of subjects in the 1978 and 1980 groups to look after themselves in terms of preparation of meals (frequency and degree of d i f f i c u l t y ) , carrying out home management tasks (cleaning, making beds, doing laundry), and handling money (degree of control and kinds of things bought). 78 a) Preparation of Meals Table 18 Frequencies and Percentages of Subjects Cooking Meals Gender by Year Male Female Group Total N % N % N 1 9 7 8 9 6 9 . 2 9 9 0 . 0 18 7 8 . 3 1 9 8 0 8 8 8 . 9 1P_ 9 0 . 9 J_8 9 0 . 0 Total 17 7 7 . 3 19 9 0 . 5 3 6 8 3 . 7 Table 18 shows that 18 subjects ( 7 8 . 3 % ) in the 1 9 7 8 group and 18 subjects ( 9 0 % ) in the 1 9 8 0 group cooked at least one of their own meals a minimum of once a week. A more s p e c i f i c indicator of s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y in preparation of meals i s the frequency with which the subjects cooked their own meals. In the 1 9 7 8 group six (four males and two females) out of 14 subjects cooked breakfast every day; six (two males and four females) out of 12 subjects cooked their lunch every day; four (two males and two females) out of four subjects cooked their supper every day; and seven (three males and four females) out of ten subjects made the i r snack every day. In the 1 9 8 0 group, 11 (six males and f i v e females) out of 15 subjects cooked their breakfast every day; four (three males and one female) out of ten subjects cooked their lunch every day; three (one male and two females) out of eight cooked their 79 supper every day; and six (three males and three females) out of 11 subjects made their snack every day. Overall, the meal most often cooked was breakfast and the meal least often cooked was supper. The data show t h i s was the same for both males and females as well as those l i v i n g with and not l i v i n g with their parents. With some understanding of how often meals were prepared i t was also necessary to find out the level of s k i l l s used in the preparation of these meals. The type of food made for each meal was put into one of three s k i l l l e v e l categories. The three categories were arranged so as to show tasks that went from least to most complex (see Appendix F). Tables 19 and 20 summarize the meals made and the category of s k i l l used in their preparation for each group. Fourteen subjects in both the 1978 and 1980 groups made breakfast. Within the 14 subjects, nine (six males and three females) in the 1978 group and seven (four males and three females) in the 1980 group were in category 2 for the preparation of breakfast indicating that the subjects were able to use pots/pans and a stove to make things l i k e eggs, pancakes, french toast, coffee and tea. Seven (two males and fi v e females) out of 12 subjects in the 1978 group and five (three males and two females) out of ten subjects in the 1980 group were in category 1 for the preparation of lunch, indicating that these subjects did not use pots/pans and a stove. Subjects in category 1 made things l i k e sandwiches, or ate raw vegetables 80 and f r u i t s , cottage cheese, and cookies. Two (one male and one female) out of four subjects in the 1978 group were in each of categories 2 and 3 and fiv e (four females and one male) out of eight subjects were in category 3 for the preparation of supper, indicating these subjects cooked things l i k e weiners and beans, hamburgers, soup, macaroni, and vegetables or combinations of these kinds of foods. Eight (four males and four females) out of ten subjects in the 1978 group were in category 1 and seven (one male and six females) out of 11 subjects in the 1980 group were in category 2 for the preparation of snacks. The 1978 subjects ate things l i k e cookies but also had tea, coffee, or hot chocolate. Table 19 S k i l l Level Used in Preparation of Meals 1978 Breakfast Lunch Supper Snack Category 1 Male 1 2 _ 4 Female 3 5 - 4 Category 2 Male 6 2 1 1 Female 3 2 1 1 Category 3 Male — 1 1 Female 1 1 — Total 14 12 4 , 10 81 Table 20 S k i l l Level Used in Preparation of Meals 1980 Breakfast Lunch Supper Snack Category 1 Male 3 3 — 3 Female 2 2 - 1 Category 2 Male 4 2 1 1 Female 3 2 2 6 Category 3 Male - — 1 — Female 2 1 4 Total 14 10 8 1 1 Tables 19 and 20 also show that four subjects (two males and two females) in the 1978 group and eight subjects (one male and 7 females) in the 1980 group were in category 3. The data on frequency and s k i l l l e v e l of meal preparation together show that the subjects in both groups who cook tended to cook meals every day and cook these meals at a category 2 le v e l indicating they used pots/pans and a stove. The frequency and s k i l l l e v e l of meal preparation was the same for those l i v i n g with their parents as those not l i v i n g with th e i r parents. There were six subjects (five males 1 and one female) in the 82 1978 group and two subjects (one male and one female) in the 1980 group who did not cook. The reasons given were: do not know how, do not want to, not allowed, and a l l cooking done by a "kitchen s t a f f . One 1978 female and two 1980 males were able to do a l l their own cooking. There were also 16 subjects in each group who did not cook a l l their own meals every day. The subjects' sources of help in t h i s area were considered as indicators of their s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y . The persons who cooked meals depended on where the subjects l i v e d . Table 21 shows the who cooked for the subjects in both groups. The largest number of subjects, 14 (seven males and seven females) in the 1978 group and 13 ( f i v e males and eight females) in the 1980 group had t h e i r meals cooked by the i r mothers and fathers. Seven subjects in the 1978 group and the one subject in the 1980 group had their meals made by the group home s t a f f . In a few of the larger group homes supper, during the week, was made by a person who was hired as a cook. The category 'Other' included a wide variety of people (e.g., brothers, other residents, and paid s t a f f ) who helped cook in group homes. 1In question 10, four 1978 males indicated that they did not cook their own meals. In question 11, when asked i f they knew how to cook, one male who did not cook any meals indicated he knew how and two other males who were able to make snacks occasionally were in fact not able to cook, hence the change from four to fi v e males in the 1978 group. 83 Table 21 Persons Who Cooked for Subjects Gender by Year 1978 1980 Group • Group Male Female Total Male Female Total Mother/Father 7 7* 14 5 8 13 Paid Staff (Cook) 6 2 7 1 - 1 Other** 1 1 1 3 4 Total 13 9 22 7 1 1 18 •Includes a female l i v i n g in a foster home. •Includes help from brother, other residents, and paid s t a f f Subjects were also asked i f they helped to make any meals. The data showed that three males in the 1978 group and one female in the 1980 group who did not cook meals also did not help to prepare any meals. 84 Table 22 Type of Subjects' Help in Making Meals Gender by Year 1978 1980 Group Group Male Female Total Male Female Total Table Preparation 5 2 7 1 4 5 Food Preparation 4 2 6 3 - 3 Food & Table Preparation - 2 2 2 3 5 Other 1 2 3 - 2 2 Total 10 8 18 6 9 15 Table 22 shows the number of subjects in each group that did help make meals and the types of things they did to help. The largest number of subjects, seven (five males and two females) in the 1978 group and fi v e (one male and four females) in the 1980 group helped with table preparation, i . e . , setting the table and serving food. Six subjects in 1978 and three subjects in 1980 helped with food preparation, i . e . , cut, mixed, peeled and s t i r r e d a wide variety of foods. This was followed by two 1978 subjects who did a combination of both table and food preparation. And f i n a l l y three 1978 subjects and two 1980 subjects helped by clearing the table and doing some of the a c t i v i t i e s mentioned above. In terms of helping to prepare meals the data show that 78.3% of the subjects in the 1978 group and 75% of the subjects in the 1980 group a c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p ated in some aspect of the 85 cooking process. This was especially noticeable for subjects who li v e d in group homes, where jobs l i k e cutting up meat and vegetables or cle a r i n g the table were done on a rotation basis. There was also no noticeable difference between males and females in helping a c t i v i t i e s as there was for cooking. b) Home Management Tasks The reporting of the results in thi s section w i l l follow the same format as preparation of meals. Table 23 Frequencies and Percentages of Subjects Doing Home Management Tasks Gender by Year Male Female Group Total N % N % N 1978 12 92.3 10 100.0 22 95.6 1980 8 88.9 1 1 100.0 j_9 95.0 Total 20 90.9 21 1 00.0 42 95.3 Table 23 shows that 22 subjects (95.6%) in the 1978 group and 19 subjects (95%) in the 1980 group did at least one home management task a minimum of once a week. The frequency of doing home management tasks was used to help indicate the s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y of the subjects in this area. Reported here are the f i v e home management tasks done by the largest number of subjects in each group. 86 Table 24 Types of Home Management Tasks and Frequency of Being Done, 1978 Vacuum/ Wash/Dry Dust/ Take out Wash Make beds Dishes Sweep Garbage Clothes M F M F M F M F M F Once - 2 2 7 4 5 - 4 3 Twice - 1 2 1 1 1 - 1 1 -Three times - - 1 - 1 1 - -three times - - - - - 1 _ _ _ _ Everyday 1 0 8 6 5 - 2 2 3 - -Total 1 0 9 1 0 9 8 8 8 5 5 3 Table 25 Types, of Home Management Tasks and Frequency of Being Done, 1980 Vacuum/ Wash/Dry Dust/ Take out Wash Make beds Dishes Sweep Garbage Clothes M F M F M F M F M F Once - 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 3 2 Twice - 1 1 2 - 1 1 - - 1 Three times - 2 - 2 - 1 - - — — three times - - - 1 - - - - — — Everyday 8 7 3 5 - 3 2 1 3 -Total 8 1 1 5 1 1 3 8 4 2 3 3 Tables 24 and 25 show that 19 subjects in each group made their beds. Within the 19 subjects in each group, eighteen 1978 subjects (ten males and eight females) and f i f t e e n 1980 subjects 87 made their beds every day. Washing/drying dishes was another task done by a large number of subjects. In the 1978 group 11 (out of 19) subjects and in the 1980 group eight (out of 16) subjects washed dishes every day. Sixteen subjects in the 1978 group and 11 subjects in the 1980 group vacuumed or swept f l o o r s and dusted furniture. The largest number of subjects, 11 (seven males and four females) in the 1978 group and six (three males and three females) did these a c t i v i t i e s once a week. The frequency of taking out garbage varied more than the tasks mentioned above. In the 1978 group f i v e subjects ( a l l males) took out garbage once a week and f i v e others took i t out every day. Three subjects in the 1980 group took out garbage every day. Eight subjects in the 1978 group and six subjects in the 1980 group washed their clothes. Seven subjects (four males and three females) in the 1978 group and five subjects (three males and two females) washed their clothes once a week. The subjects that did t h i s a c t i v i t y were responsible for putting laundry in or taking laundry out of the washing machine and/or dryer. Other home management tasks done were: look after pets, clean the bathroom, and work in the garden. Individual subjects also helped carry wood or groceries, went to the store and brought in the paper. 88 The f i v e home management tasks done by the subjects in each group are basic to keep any home clean and t i d y . An interesting aspect of doing home management tasks was the frequency with which they were done. The majority of subjects in both groups made their beds, washed dishes and took out garbage every day; vacuumed or dusted, and washed clothes once a week. The data show that females in the 1978 and 1980 groups did not do more than the males in the two groups on home management tasks. The s k i l l l e v e l the subjects worked at in these a c t i v i t i e s was not determined. This was because taking out the garbage and washing the dishes were ' a l l or none' types of a c t i v i t i e s . Subjects were asked, however, i f they knew how to do the f i v e home management tasks. Table 26 shows the number of subjects in each group that knew how to do the fiv e home management tasks. A comparison between the data in Tables 24 and 25 and Table 26 shows that the subjects who knew how to do the fiv e home management tasks did do them. 89 Table 26 Subjects Knowing How to Do Home Management Tasks Gender by Year 1978 1980 Group Male Female Total Male Group Female Total Make bed 1 1 9 20 8 1 1 •19 Wash/Dry Dishes 1 1 10 21 8 1 1 19 Vacuum/ Dust/Sweep 10 9 19 7 1 1 18 Take out Garbage 10 8 18 8 10 18 Wash Clothes 5 6 1 1 6 5 1 1 One male in each group did not do any home management tasks. The 1978 male knew how to make a bed and wash dishes but was not expected to do any of them. The 1980 male reported that he did not know how to do any of the tasks. A l l of the subjects in both groups, even the eight subjects (five males and three females) in the 1978 group and the three subjects ( a l l female) in the 1980 group who did a l l f i v e home management tasks, had other people in the i r homes help or do some tasks. Table 27 shows who d i d the home management tasks. The largest number of subjects, 13 (six males and seven females) in the 1978 group and 13 (five males and eight females) in the 1980 group had home management tasks done by the i r mothers and fathers. For the subjects l i v i n g in group homes there was a number of people who did the work. Five subjects in the 1978 group and six subjects in the 1980 group had work done by the 90 group home staff and other residents. Table 27 Persons Who Did Home Management Tasks For Subjects Gender by Year 1978 1980 Group Group Male Female Total Male Female Total Mother/Father 6 7 13 5 8 13 Paid Staff 1 - 1 - - -Other Residents 1 9 2 1 - 1 Paid Staff & Other Residents 3 2 5 3 3 6 Other* 2 - 2 - -Total 13 10 23 9 1 1 20 •Includes brothers, and mother and s i s t e r The subjects were asked i f they helped to do any home management tasks. The one male in each group did not do any tasks and also did not help. One other male in each group also did not help. A l l of the females in each group did help. The subjects who l i v e d with their parents helped whenever they were needed to clean up, unload the dishwasher, and fo l d clothes. The subjects l i v i n g in group situations did their home management tasks on a rotation basis. Jobs l i k e vacuuming, washing dishes, and taking out garbage were each done by individuals for one week. The other residents in a group home were expected to help each other on a regular basis. Overall the subjects in each group were quite p r o f i c i e n t at 91 doing the f i v e home management tasks. Five males and three females in the 1978 group were p a r t i c u l a r l y p r o f i c i e n t , in that they did a l l fiv e tasks. c) Handling Money The data on t h i s aspect of s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y provide information about the a b i l i t y of subjects in the 1978 and 1980 groups to control their own money in terms of source of income; presence of a bank account; payment of rent, groceries and clothes; decision on having spending money; and the kinds of things bought with money. 1) Source of Income Table 28 Frequency and Percentage of Source of Income Gender by Year 1978 1980 Group Group Source Male Female Total Male Female Total N % N % N % N % N % N % Government & Work 10 76.9 9 9.0 19 82.6 8 88.9 9 81.8 17 85 Other* 6 23.1 1 10.0 4 17.4 1 11.1 2 18.2 3 15 Total 13 100 10 100 23 100 9 100 1 1 100 20 100 *This category includes a l l other sources of income. Table 28 shows that 19 (82.6%) of subjects in the 1978 group and 17 (85%) of subjects in the 1980 group received money 92 from the p r o v i n c i a l government in the form of Guaranteed Available Income for Need (GAIN) and their place of employment. Other sources of income were from the government alone; parents and work; government, parents and work; and an inheritance. No subject could l i v e on the income from his/her job alone, and because of t h i s the GAIN cheque each month was essential to the f i n a n c i a l well-being of the majority of subjects. 2) Bank Account Fifteen subjects (eight males and seven females) in the 1978 group and 13 subjects ( f i v e males and eight females) in the 1980 group had bank accounts. The reasons for more subjects not having bank accounts are two-fold. The f i r s t was that four subjects in the 1978 group and one subject in the 1980 group could not handle money. The second reason, mentioned by parents in four interviews, was that i f subjects had above a c e r t a i n sum of money the government would reduce the amount of the GAIN cheque each month. In order to avoid t h i s parents looked after t h e i r childrens' money. This issue was not raised for subjects in either group l i v i n g in group homes. Those who indicated they had a bank account were asked i f they saved money. Fifteen subjects (seven males and eight females) 2 in the 1978 group and 13 subjects ( f i v e males and 93 eight females) in the 1980 group indicated they saved money. Table 29 What Money Was Saved For Gender by Year 1978 1980 Male Female Group Total Male Female Group Total T r i p 3 4 7 1 3 4 A r t i c l e s for Personal Use 2 - 2 3 1 4 Clothes 1 3 4 - 2 2 Nothing in Partic u l a r - 1 1 1 1 2 Other* 1 - 1 - 1 1 Total 8 7 15 5 8 13 *This category includes presents and moving to an apartment. Table 29 shows what the subjects saved their money for. The largest number of subjects, seven (three males and four females) in the 1978 group and four (one male and three females) in the 1980 group were saving for a t r i p or vacation. Two (out of seven) subjects in the 1978 group and three (out of four) subjects in the 1980 group saving for a t r i p s p e c i f i c a l l y indicated they wanted to go to Disneyland. Other subjects saved for a r t i c l e s for personal use, nothing in p a r t i c u l a r , presents, and moving to an apartment. One 1978 male, one 1980 male, and 2The change in the number of males and females in the 1978 group was because one 1978 male was not saving money and one 1978 female who did not have a bank account was looking after her own money. 94 one 1980 female who had bank accounts were not saving money. The subjects who did not have bank accounts were asked, "Who takes care of your money?" The largest number of subjects, six (four males and two females) in the 1978 group and five (two males and three females) in the 1980 group had their parents take care of their money. In some of these cases bank accounts were held in trust for the subjects. The reasons for thi s were,, as already explained, because subjects could not handle money or regulations on the amount of money that could be saved. The two subjects who l i v e d in group homes (one 1978 male and one 1980 male) had their money taken care of by group home s t a f f members and/or MR associations. And as indicated previously (see Footnote 2), there was one female who did not have a bank account but took care of her own money. 3) Rent, Groceries, and Clothes The a b i l i t y to handle money was further explored by a series of questions to fi n d out whether the subjects in the 1978 and 1980 groups paid for their rent, groceries, and clothes. Table 30 and Table 31 summarize t h i s data. 95 Table 30 Expenses Paid For, 1978 Rent Groceries Clothes Male Female Male Female Male Female Self-No Supervision 5 2 4 2 4 6 Self Supervision 1 1 ' - 3 1 Parents 3 6 5 6 5 3 Staff and/or Association/Group Home 3 2 3 2 1 Total 12 10 1 3 10 13 10 Table 31 Expenses Paid For, 1980 Rent Groceries Clothes Male Female Male Female Male Female Self-No Supervision 4 4 4 4 3 6 Self Supervision 1 1 1 1 3 2 Parents 3 2 3 4 2 3 Staff and/or Association/Group Home 1 1 1 1 1 Total 9 8 9 10 9 1 1 The data in Tables 30 and 31 show that under the category of rent, the largest number of subjects 14 (out of 22) in the 1978 group had their rent paid by their parents or group home s t a f f , while the subjects in the 1980 group were almost evenly divided between those who paid rent by themselves (eight) and those whose rent was paid by parents and group home s t a f f 96 (seven). Again, under the category of groceries, the largest number of subjects, 16 (out of 23) in the 1978 group had their groceries paid for by their parents and group home s t a f f , while the subjects in the 1980 group were again almost evenly divided between those who paid for groceries by themselves (eight) and those whose groceries were paid for by parents or group home sta f f (nine). Under the category of clothes the subjects in the 1978 group were more evenly divided between clothes paid for by parents or group home staff (nine) and clothes paid for by themselves (ten). More subjects in the 1980 group (nine) paid for t h e i r clothes than did parents and group home st a f f ( s i x ) . A summary of the data in t h i s sub-section shows that_ the 1978 subjects, whether they l i v e with their parents or not, are more dependent on others to pay for their rent and groceries. It should be noted that in these situations the parents did not use their own money, but the money that their children received from the government and their salary from the workshops. About half the subjects who l i v e d at home contributed to these expenses in the form of a room and board payment each month. With reference to buying clothes, i t was not always clear i f the subject who paid for the clothes was the one who chose them. The major issue was that subjects in both groups were better able to pay for their clothes than for groceries and rent. The difference may be due to the fact that groceries and rent are paid on a more regular basis and as such need to be 97 looked after from a large, c e n t r a l i z e d sum of money. Clothes, on the other hand, are not bought on the same regular basis, so the subjects could take a sum of money whenever they wanted to go shopping. It i s also of interest to note that more females than males in both groups paid for their clothes. This may suggest greater s k i l l or perhaps more interest in clothes. 4) Spending Money Finding out whether the subjects in the 1978 and 1980 groups had spending money for the week, who decided how much they could have, and what they did with that money were a l l indications of the subjects' s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y . v Table 32 Control of Spending Money Gender by Year 1978 1980 Male Female Group Total Male Group Female Total Self - No Supervision 2 4 6 5 7 Sel f -Supervision 1 - 1 - - -Parents 4 3 7 2 4 6 Staff and/or Association Group Home 2 2 4 1 - 1 Total 9 9 18 8 1 1 Table 32 shows the number of subjects in each group that had spending money and who decided how much they could have. 98 Eighteen subjects (nine males and nine females) in the 1978 group had spending money. Of thi s group the parents and group home staff of 11 subjects decided how much they could have. Another six subjects decided how much money they could have themselves. Nineteen subjects (eight males and eleven females) in the 1980 group had spending money. Of t h i s group 12 subjects (five males and seven females) decided how much money they could have themselves. Parents and group home s t a f f of another seven subjects decided how much money they could have. The r e s u l t s . i n this sub-section were consistent with the results on paying for rent, groceries and clothes. The subjects in the 1978 group were more dependent on others to handle money than the subjects in the 1980 group. The subjects in the 1978 and 1980 groups spent t h e i r money on a wide variety of things. The four major categories in terms of number of subjects spending money were as follows: i) Active Recreation Fourteen subjects (nine males and f i v e females) in the 1978 group and eight subjects (four males and four females) in the 1980 group spent t h e i r money on bowling, swimming, skating, and exercise classes. i i ) Food Six subjects (three males and three females) in the 1978 group and six subjects (two males and four females) in the 1980 99 group spent their money on candy, coke, chips, coffee, submarine sandwiches, and yogurt. i i i ) A r t i c l e s for Personal Use Five subjects (one male and four females) in the 1978 group and six subjects (three males and three females) in the 1980 group spent their money on a hockey puck, stamp album, pipe tobacco, cassette tapes, and a doodle poster. iv) Restaurant Four subjects (three males and one female) in the 1978 group and six subjects (two males and four females) in the 1980 group spent their money eating at MacDonald's, White Spot, and Wendy's. v) Other Categories A much smaller number of subjects in each of the groups also spent money on clothes, transportation, health and beauty, g i f t s , books and magazines, and movies/theatre/sports events. Five subjects (four males and one female) in the 1978 group and one subject (a male) in the 1980 group did not have any spending money. The reasons given were: cannot handle money, spent money during Christmas, and not allowed to have money. The data show that there was not much difference between what the subjects in each group used their spending money for. The most important difference was in the amount of control they had over that money. A summary of the findings on s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y shows that in terms of meal preparation the majority of subjects in both 100 groups made a basic meal using pots/pans and a stove on a d a i l y basis. The a b i l i t y of the subjects l i v i n g with their parents was the same as the subjects not l i v i n g with their parents. The data show that the females in the 1980 group were the most s k i l l f u l at cooking. A l i t t l e more than 75% of a l l the subjects were also involved with helping in the preparation of meals. In terms of home management tasks, 95% of the subjects in each group did jobs around the house. The subjects made their beds; washed and dried dishes; vacuumed and swept floors/rugs, dusted furniture; took out the garbage; and washed their clothes. Males and females in both groups were able to handle home management tasks equally. The income for 83% of the subjects was from two sources, government and work. The data show that the subjects in both groups were not as s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t in the handling of their money as they were in preparing meals or carrying out home management tasks. Although 65% of the subjects in both groups had bank accounts, very few subjects had real control over their money. One subject (a female) in the 1978 group, and fiv e subjects (two males and three females) in the 1980 group had their own bank accounts; paid for their own rent, food and clothes; and decided themselves how much spending money they could have. As described above, more subjects in the 1980 group were able to handle their money and of t h i s group was done by more females than males. Being a s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t person i s also being able to get 101 around one's community as independently as possible. By combining the data on mobility independence and s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y a much larger picture began to emerge. The information from the picture shows that subjects who are s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t in their homes tend to be s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t out of their homes. Interaction Level The data presented thus far have given an indication of the a b i l i t y of the former students in the 1978 and 1980 groups to tra v e l in the i r communities and look aft e r themselves. Ideally these students w i l l also be p a r t i c i p a t i n g in a wide variety of recreational and s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s in their communities with their friends and/or family. The data presented in t h i s section provide information about how the subjects in the 1978 and 1980 groups interacted s o c i a l l y inside and outside their homes in terms of the i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n in recreational and s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s and the frequency of that p a r t i c i p a t i o n , who they participated with, the i r l i v i n g arrangements, and the frequency and kinds of interactions with various types of people. a) P a r t i c i p a t i o n in Recreational and Social A c t i v i t i e s and Frequency of Pa r t i c i p a t i o n There was only one subject, a 1978 male, who did not partic i p a t e in recreational or s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s outside of his 1 02 home. A l l other subjects in the 1978 and 1980 groups participated in a large number of recreational and s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s in the community. Table 33 shows the six categories of a c t i v i t i e s that the majority of the subjects in both groups participated i n . Table 33 A c t i v i t i e s Participated In Number of Subjects Number Who With A c t i v i t y of 1978 1980 Times 1978 1979 Male Female Male Female Shopping 5 5 5 9 1 to 5 times/ week 6/10 Staff & Mother/ Father 7/14 Mother/ Father 3/14 Alone. Bowling 7 3 4 6 1 time/ week 5/10 Workshop 8/10 Workshop V i s i t i n g 7 5 3 4 1 to 2 times/ week 5/12 Alone 5/12 Family 4/7 Mother/ Father Eating in a Restaurant 6 3 2 6 1 to 5 times/ week 4/10 Friends 4/8 Parents & Family Other 5 4 3 3 1 to 4 times/ week 3/9 Alone 3/9 Workshop 3/6 Alone Church 4 4 3 3 1 to 2 times/ week 4/8 Family 3/6 Mother/ Father 103 1) Shopping This a c t i v i t y was done by the largest number of subjects in the study, ten (five males and fi v e females) in the 1978 group and 14 (f i v e males and nine females) in the 1980 group. Most subjects went shopping once a week with group home staff members or their mothers/fathers. One subject in the 1978 group (a female) went shopping every day, but t h i s was rather exceptional. It should be noted that part of the interviews were conducted during December, 1981 and as such r e f l e c t the increased shopping a c t i v i t y for the Christmas season. 2) Bowling Twenty subjects, ten from each group, pa r t i c i p a t e d in bowling. This a c t i v i t y was done once a week and was organized by workshops. 3) V i s i t i n g Subjects either v i s i t e d or were v i s i t e d by re l a t i v e s and/or friends once or twice a week. Subjects in the 1978 group went v i s i t i n g by themselves or with various members of their families. Four (out of seven) 1980 subjects went with their mothers/fathers. 4) Eating in a Restaurant Nine subjects (six males and three females) in the 1978 group and eight subjects (two males and six females) in the 1980 group ate in restaurants. Only one subject ate in a restaurant 104 more than once a week. The subjects in the 1978 group ate in restaurants with friends. The subjects in the 1980 group ate in restaurants with their parents and family. 5) Other A c t i v i t i e s This category was developed to keep track of those a c t i v i t i e s that did not f i t into any of the other categories. The a c t i v i t i e s included here were playing bingo, doing arts and c r a f t s , going to the l i b r a r y , taking a drive, going to a s o c i a l club, and attending a music lesson. These a c t i v i t i e s were done one to four times a week. In the 1978 group, three subjects did these a c t i v i t i e s alone and three did these a c t i v i t i e s through their workshops. Three subjects in the 1980 group went to these types of a c t i v i t i e s alone. 6) Church Eight subjects (four males and four females) in the 1978 group and six subjects (three males and three females) in the 1980 group went to church or attended Bible study class once or twice a week. Four subjects in the 1978 group went to church with their mothers/fathers, sisters/brothers or entire family. The data show that the types of a c t i v i t i e s participated in by the subjects in both groups are similar to those done by non-handicapped persons. The data also show that the a c t i v i t i e s were participated in equally by males and females in both groups. 105 Living Arrangements 1 ) Subjects Living With Parents As indicated previously in the demographic data description (see Tables 11 & 12), 13 subjects (seven males and six females) in the 1978 group and 13 subjects (five males and eight females) in the 1980 group l i v e d with their parents. Table 34 Reasons for Subjects Living With Their Parents Gender by Year 1978 1980 Group Group Male Female Total Male Female Total Like l i v i n g at home 1 1 2 4 6 1 0 Important member of the family 4 3 7 - 1 1 Dependent on parent 1 1 2 1 - 1 No appropriate group home 1 - 1 - 1 1 Medical problem - 1 1 - - -Total 7 6 13 5 8 13 Table 34 shows the reasons why subjects in the 1978 and 1980 groups l i v e d with their parents. The reasons given by most subjects, seven (four males and three females), in the 1978 group, was they were important members of their families. While ten subjects (four males and six females) in the 1980 group reported they l i k e d l i v i n g at home. Less often c i t e d reasons were dependent on parents, no appropriate group home available, and a medical problem. 106 One of the concerns' under the category of interaction l e v e l was the frequency and kinds of interaction the subjects had with their parents. The data show that a l l of the subjects, in both groups, who l i v e d with their parents spent time with them. In t h e i r homes subjects ate meals, watched t e l e v i s i o n , played parlour games, did c r a f t s , worked in the backyard, played music, and put up a Christmas tree. Outside of their homes subjects went shopping, v i s i t e d friends and r e l a t i v e s , ate in restaurants and went to church. Table 35 Type of Help Needed For Subjects Living With Parents Gender by Year 1 978 1980 Group Group Male Female Total Male Female Total Reasonable assistance 2 2 4 1 4 5 Grooming 3 1 4 2 3 5 Medication/diet - 2 2 - - -Total 5 5 10 3 7 10 Table 35 shows the type of help that was needed by the subjects in the 1978 and 1980 group who l i v e d with their parents. Four subjects (two males and two females) in the 1978 group and f i v e subjects (one male and four females) in the 1980 group needed reasonable assistance, e.g. help to use the vacuum cleaner, knit, take down a Christmas tree, and clean a f i s h tank. Four subjects (three males and one female) in the 1978 group and fiv e subjects (two males and three females) in the 1980 group needed help with grooming, e.g., brush and/or wash 107 hair, help brush teeth, and t i e shoes. And f i n a l l y , two subjects (both females) in the 1978 group needed help with their medication and d i e t , e.g. put in eye drops and control what a subject ate. Not shown in Table 35 was that three subjects (two males and one female) in each group indicated they did not need any help from their parents. The subjects who l i v e d with their parents were asked i f they wanted to change with whom or where they were l i v i n g . The data show that three subjects (two males and one female) in the 1978 group and one subject (a female) in the 1980 group wanted to l i v e somewhere else. The two 1978 males wanted to move to group homes, the 1978 female wanted to l i v e on her own, and the 1980 female wanted to l i v e with friends. The data in t h i s sub-section portray two groups of adults who were active and well integrated members of their families. The data from Table 35 show that a r e l a t i v e l y small number of subjects, four in 1978 and fiv e in 1980 were with their parents because they were quite dependent. The subjects in both groups were also quite happy to be with their parents as indicated by the fact that only three subjects in the 1978 group and one in the 1980 group wanted to l i v e somewhere else. It was of interest to see that there were no differences between males and females as well as no differences over time. This suggests that the l i v e s of the subjects in both groups were stable and very comfortable. 108 2) Subjects Not Living with Their Parents The demographic description in Chapter 1 also showed that ten subjects (six males and four females) in the 1978 group and seven subjects (four males and three females) in the 1980 group did not l i v e with their parents. Table 36 Reasons for Not Living With Parents Gender by Year 1 978 1980 Male Female Group Total Male Female Group Total D i f f i c u l t y in family 3 Wants to l i v e 3 6 1 1 2 more independently 1 Has not l i v e d with 1 2 1 1 2 family for a while 1 No f a c i l i t i e s -1 2 1 2 1 Total 5 4 9 4 3 7 Only one subject (a 1978 male) was i not l i v i n g with his parents because they had died. The rest of the subjects in both groups had at least one parent l i v i n g . Table 36 shows the reasons why these subjects in both groups were not l i v i n g with their parents. Six subjects (three males and three females) in the 1978 group and two subjects (one male and one female) in the 1980 group were not l i v i n g with their parents because there were d i f f i c u l t i e s in their families, i . e . , not getting along. Another two subjects in each group wanted to l i v e more independently. Other subjects, one in 1978 and two in 1980, had not l i v e d with their parents for a while. And one 1980 female 109 had to l i v e away from her parent because there were no opportunities to work where they l i v e d . There was interest in the kinds of interactions these subjects had with their parents. The data on these are summarized in Table 37. Table 37 Interactions of Subjects and Parents For Subjects Not Living With Parents Gender by Year 1978 1980 Group Group Male Female Total Male Female Total V i s i t 1 1 2 — Telephone 2 1 3 1 1 2 V i s i t & telephone 1 2 3 1 1 2 • No contact 1 - 1 2 1 3 Total 5 4 9 4 3 7 The interactions between subjects and their parents were either v i s i t i n g or speaking on the phone , and for three subjects in the 1978 group and two subjects in the 1980 group both a c t i v i t i e s were done. Subjects who v i s i t e d t h e i r parents participated in family a c t i v i t i e s l i k e eating meals together, watching TV, eating in a restaurant, or shopping. In one case a subject's mother v i s i t e d her and in one case there were reciprocal v i s i t s between subject and mother. There were subjects in both groups, one (a male) in 1978 and three (two males and one female) in 1980, who had no contact with th e i r parents. The reasons for t h i s were parents l i v e d too far away, parents/subject were/was 110 busy, a parent was sick, and parents and subject only saw one another at certain times of the year, e.g., Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving. The subjects and parents who interacted on the telephone did so once a week most often (three subjects in each group). Two subjects in the 1978 group spoke to their parents every day and one subject in the 1980 group spoke twice a week. The reasons for not phoning were the same as those mentioned above for not v i s i t i n g . A summary of these data indicates that the subjects and parents who interacted tended to do so on a regular basis. And as might be expected those subjects who were not with their parents for posit i v e reasons l i k e wanting to l i v e more independently had more contact with them than those who were not with their parents for negative reasons l i k e not getting along. 111 Table 38 Type and Source of Help For Subjects Not Living With Parents Gender by Year 1978 1980 Staff & Staff & Res./ Res./ Res./ Staff Brothers Friends Staff Friends Friends M F M F M F M F M F M F Reasonable assistance 2 3 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 1 1 -Grooming 1 - - -Total 3 4 1 1 - 2 - 1 1 1 -Table 38 shows the type and source of help for subjects in the 1978 and 1980 groups who did not l i v e with i their parents. Seven (out of seven) subjects in the 1978 group and four (out of five) subjects in the 1980 group needed reasonable assistance, which as previously explained, was help doing d a i l y chores and a c t i v i t i e s around the house. Only one subject (a male) in the 1980 group needed help with grooming. The source of help 50% of the time was group home st a f f members. The other 50% was provided by brothers, residents/friends, and s t a f f and residents/friends. Not shown in Table 38 was that two subjects (both males) in the 1978 group and two subjects (one male and one female) in the 1980 group did not need help. Also not shown was a 1978 subject (a female) who wanted help to do things around the house but was not getting any from the people she l i v e d with. The subjects who did not l i v e with t h e i r parents were also asked i f they wanted to change with whom or where they were 1 12 l i v i n g . The data show that these subjects (two males and one female) in the 1978 group and one subject (a male) in the 1980 group wanted to l i v e somewhere else. The three subjects in the 1978 group wanted to move to smaller group-type l i v i n g arrangements with less supervision. The 1980 male wanted to l i v e with friends. The data in t h i s sub-section portray two groups of adults who were not, for a variety of reasons, l i v i n g with their parents. However, 75% of these subjects interacted with their parents on a regular basis by v i s i t i n g or speaking on the telephone and sometimes both. In terms of the help needed the subjects not l i v i n g with their parents were not as dependent on the others they l i v e d with. This was in contrast to the four subjects in the 1978 group and f i v e subjects in the 1980 group who were dependent on their parents for help in basic grooming s k i l l s . The subjects in both groups not l i v i n g with their parents were happy to l i v e where they were. 3) Interactions With Other Relatives 1 13 Table 39 Interactions of Subjects With Other Relatives Gender by Year 1978 1980 Group Group Male Female Total Male Female Total V i s i t • 4 5 9 1 1 2 Telephone - - - 3 1 4 V i s i t & telephone 2 5 7 3 4 7 No contact 7 - 7 2 5 7 Total 13 10 23 9 1 1 20 Table 39 shows the interactions between subjects, in both groups, and r e l a t i v e s other than their parents. The r e l a t i v e s most often seen or spoken to by the subjects in both groups, 12 in 1978 and eight in 1980, were their brothers and s i s t e r s . Other r e l a t i v e s l i k e aunts and uncles, grandparents, cousins, and nieces and nephews were seen or spoken to by two or three subjects in each group once or twice a week. Because there were so few other r e l a t i v e s seen or spoken, to the data in Table 39 were collapsed from f i v e categories into one for each gender in each group. The subjects who v i s i t e d their r e l a t i v e s participated in a c t i v i t i e s l i k e eating meals together, t a l k i n g , eating in restaurants, shopping, or going to movies. In the case of brothers and s i s t e r s , they usually saw the subjects when they saw their parents. Nearly a t h i r d of the subjects in the two groups did not have any contact with their r e l a t i v e s . The reasons for t h i s were r e l a t i v e s l i v e d too far away, weather was bad, r e l a t i v e s were busy, no r e l a t i v e s in Canada, and no contact 1 1 4 with r e l a t i v e s . A summary of the data indicates that the subjects in both groups did have some contact with other r e l a t i v e s . In no case was the interaction so s i g n i f i c a n t that i t made a difference to what the subjects in both groups did or did not do. 4) Girl/Boy Friends The topic of having a g i r l or boy friend i s a rather sensitive one for both handicapped and non-handicapped persons. The issue i s sensitive because how a person perceives another person as a g i r l or boy friend i s very subjective. The question used in thi s study to e l i c i t t h i s information was q u a l i f i e d to find out i f the subject knew a person special to them that they l i k e d and that special person was perceived to l i k e the subject in the same way. Table 40 Subjects Having Boy/Girl Friends and Where They Met Gender by Year 1978 1980 Group Group Male Female Total Male Female Total Workshop 4 1 5 2 1 3 School 1 - 1 1 2 3 School & workshop - 1 1 1 1 2 Recreation/social - 1 1 - 1 1 Work & recreation/social - 1 1 - - -Total 5 4 9 4 5 9 Table 40 shows the number of subjects in each group that 1 1 5 had girl/boy friends and where they met. The largest number of subjects, f i v e (four males and one female) in the 1978 group and three (two males and one female) in the 1980 group, met their girl/boy friends at the workshop where they were employed. Other subjects met t h e i r girl/boy friends at school, workshop and school, recreation/social a c t i v i t i e s , or work and recreation/social a c t i v i t i e s . A l l but one of the p l a c e s / a c t i v i t i e s mentioned above were organized for mentally handicapped adults. One subject (a 1978 female) met her boyfriend at a recreation/social a c t i v i t y organized for non-handicapped persons. The data show that the majority of subjects who had girl/boy friends saw them between one and f i v e times a week. Two subjects in the 1978 group saw t h e i r girl/boy friends every day. The subjects in both groups saw their girl/boy friends at work and at recreation/social a c t i v i t i e s or a combination of both. A girl/boy friend who worked in the same workshop also went bowling or went to a dance once a week. These data are consistent with and support what was reported on p a r t i c i p a t i o n in recreation/social a c t i v i t i e s in the section on interaction l e v e l . They also support what was reported on what spending money was used for in the section on s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y , and what was reported on the use of transportation in the section on mobility independence. 1 16 Four subjects (two males and two females) in the 1978 group and five subjects (three males and two females) in the 1980 group spoke to their girl/boy friends on the telephone about three times a week. A summary of the data in t h i s sub-section show that the relationships these mentally handicapped adults had were with other mentally handicapped adults. The interactions these adults have tended to be at work and recreation/social a c t i v i t i e s organized by workshops and associations or a combination of both. About half of the subjects in each group communicated with their girl/boy friends on the telephone. The data suggest that the adults function better s o c i a l l y in a structured environment. 5) Other Friendships 1 17 Table 41 Subjects Having Good Friends and Where They Met Gender by Year 1978 1980 Group Group Male Female Total Male Female Total School 3 - 3 2 1 3 Workshop - 3 3 - 3 3 Group home - - - 1 - 1 School & workshop 3 5 8 3 5 8 School & group home - - - 1 - 1 Workshop & group home 3 1 4 1 1 2 School & workshop & group home 1 - 1 1 - 1 Farm 1 1 2 - 1 1 Total 1 1 10 21 9 1 1 20 Table 41 shows the number of subjects in each group that had friends and where they met. The largest number of subjects, eight (three males and five females) in both groups, met their friends at the school they graduated from and the workshop they were employed i n . Other subjects met their friends just at school, workshop, and group home or various combinations of these places. A l l but two 1978 subjects (both males) had friends that they did things with. The subjects who l i v e d in the same group homes saw each other every day. The subjects who worked in the same workshop saw each other f i v e days a week. And i f they participated in, the same recreation/social a c t i v i t i e s they usually saw each ; other six days a week. Five subjects (one male and four females) in the 1978 group! 118 and six subjects (one male and fiv e females) in the 1980 group spoke to their friends on the telephone about twice a week. The data also show that three subjects (one male and two females) in the 1978 group and one subject (a female) in the 1980 group had friends who they knew away from school and workshop. These friends were seen once or twice a week. The subjects v i s i t e d , went swimming, shopping, and ate in a restaurant with their non-handicapped friends. They also spoke to these friends once or twice a week. A summary of the data in t h i s sub-section were the same as the results in the previous sub-section in terms of who the subjects interact with and the kinds of a c t i v i t i e s they par t i c i p a t e d i n . A few subjects also had friendships with non-handicapped people. Most important of a l l was the fact that subjects in both groups were busy in a wide variety of a c t i v i t i e s in their communities. A summary of the findings on interaction l e v e l shows that the subjects, in both groups were participants in a l l types of a c t i v i t i e s in t h e i r communities. Who they participated with in these a c t i v i t i e s r e f l e c t e d where they l i v e d and/or worked with as well as their a b i l i t y to travel independently in the community. The subjects, in both groups, who l i v e d with their parents were important participants in the families' a c t i v i t i e s . Those who l i v e d with their parents were quite content to stay with 119 them. The subjects who did not l i v e with their parents were also content to stay where they l i v e d . The only difference found between the subjects in the two l i v i n g arrangements was in the kind of help they needed. Nine subjects who l i v e d with the i r parents needed help in basic s k i l l s l i k e grooming, while only one subject who l i v e d in a group home needed the same kind of help. Interactions with r e l a t i v e s outside their immediate families was somewhat limited, especially those who did not l i v e with their parents. The r e l a t i v e s most frequently seen were their older brothers and s i s t e r s . Girl/boy friends or any other friendships were with other mentally handicapped adults. The subjects and their friends often worked in the same workshops or l i v e d in the same group homes. Interactions between friends were almost exclusively limited to a c t i v i t i e s organized by workshops and associations. The data in t h i s section helped to give a better understanding of mobility independence by focusing more on the types of a c t i v i t i e s done and who the subjects did the a c t i v i t i e s with. It was suggested that one of the reasons the subjects in the 1980 group were being driven in cars so much was that the subjects were p a r t i c i p a t i n g in a c t i v i t i e s with their families or other residents of group homes. The data in t h i s section substantiate the explanation presented above for p a r t i c i p a t i o n with f a m i l i e s . 1 20 The data presented in the section on s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y showed that there was not a great deal of difference in the a b i l i t i e s of the subjects who l i v e d with and did not l i v e with their parents. In the data on interaction l e v e l i t was found that nine subjects who l i v e d with their parents needed help in basic s k i l l s l i k e grooming while only one subject who l i v e d in a group home needed the same kind of help. The findings here seem somewhat incongruous with the findings in s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y . A possible explanation of this may be that parents with children who have d i f f i c u l t y with basic s k i l l s tend to want to keep them under close supervision at home. Or perhaps s k i l l s l i k e grooming should have been included in the data on s e l f -s u f f i c i e n c y . The r e l a t i v e l y small numbers of subjects in thi s study make i t especially d i f f i c u l t to attempt any d e f i n i t i v e answer. Vocational A b i l i t y There i s now a picture of the former students' community adjustment in terms of the i r mobility independence, s e l f -s u f f i c i e n c y , and interaction l e v e l . These are a l l important components of community adjustment, but there i s another component that i s probably the most important. The component i s one of the most important expectations society has afte r a person graduates from school. The expectation i s that of obtaining a job and becoming a productive, useful, and independent member of society. The expectation i s also held for mentally handicapped adults within the l i m i t s of their 121 c a p a b i l i t i e s . The data presented in t h i s section are used to describe the vocational a b i l i t y of the subjects in the 1978 and 1980 groups in terms of their employment status and occupational status. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e i r employment status are summarized in Table 42 for 1978 and Table 43 for 1980. 122 Table 42 Present Vocational A b i l i t y of Students, 1978 Characte r i s t i c s Gender Male Female Employment Status N % N % a) Present Employment Subjects 1 3 100.0 9 90.0 F u l l time 1 1 84.6 9 100.0 Part-time 2 15.4 - -b) Length of Time Less than 1 year 1 7.7 1 11.1 1-3 years 1 1 84.6 8 88.9 More than 3 years 1 7.7 — -c) Places of Employment Workshop 10 79.9 7 77.8 Factory 1 7.7 1 11.1 Restaurant 1 7.7 - -Farm 1 7.7 1 11.1 d) Type of Employment Competitive 2 15.4 - -Sheltered 1 1 84.6 9 100.0 e) Occupational Status S k i l l l e v e l 1 3 23. 1 3 33.3 S k i l l l e v e l 2 8 61 .5 4 44.4 S k i l l l e v e l 3 2 15.4 2 22.2 i 123 Table 43 . Present Vocational A b i l i t y of Students, 1980 Char a c t e r i s t i c s Gender Male Female Employment Status N % N % a) Present Employment Subjects 8 88.9 10 90.9 F u l l time 7 87.5 10 100.0 Part-time 1 12.5 - -b) Length of Time Less than 1 year 2 25.0 - -1-2 years 6 75.0 10 100.0 More than 2 years — — — -c) Places of Employment Workshop 6 75.0 9 90.0 Restaurant 2 25.0 - -Farm - - 1 10.0 d) Type of Employment Competitive 2 25.0 - -Sheltered 6 75.0 10 100.0 e) Occupational Status S k i l l l e v e l 1 4 50.0 - -S k i l l l e v e l 2 2 25.0 8 80.0 S k i l l l e v e l 3 2 25.0 2 20.0 a) Present Employment Thirteen 1978 males (100%) were working and nine 1978 females (90%) were working. Of those 1978 subjects employed, 11 males and a l l the females were working f u l l time. Two males were working part-time. Eight males (88.9%) and ten females (90.9%) in the 1980 group were working. Seven 1980 males and a l l of the females 124 were working f u l l time. One 1980 male was working part-time. From the large number of subjects in both groups employed, i t would seem that there were appropriate jobs for these people to go to once they l e f t school. And there were no differences between groups or between males and females. b) Length of Time Eleven males (84.6%) and eight females (88.9%) in the 1978 group worked at their present jobs between one and three years. One 1978 male and female worked for less than a year; while one 1978 male worked at a job for more than three years. Although not shown in Table 42, the mean length of time at a job for the 1978 group was 2.7 years. Six males (75%) and ten females (100%) in the 1980 group worked at their present jobs between one and two years. Two 1980 males worked at their jobs for less than a year. And although not shown in Table 43, the 1980 group's mean length of time of work was 1.2 years The mean of 1.2 years re f l e c t e d the fact that seven 1980 subjects reported working for 1.5 years and one 1980 male reported working two years at the time of the interviews. The amount of time at their jobs r e f l e c t s the s t a b i l i t y of the subjects, the majority of subjects were employed since they graduated from school. 125 c) Places of Employment Most of the 1978 subjects, ten males and seven females, worked in workshops. One male and one female worked in fac t o r i e s , one male worked at a restaurant, while one male and female worked on a farm. Like the 1978 subjects, most of the 1980 subjects (six males and nine females) worked in workshops. Two males worked in restaurants and one female worked on a farm. d) Type of Employment Two 1978 males (15.4%) and no females worked in competitive employment. Eleven 1978 males (84.6%) and a l l of the females worked in sheltered employment. In the 1980 group two males (25%) and no females worked in competitive employment. Six 1980 males (75%) and a l l of the females worked in sheltered employment. The data in th i s sub-section present an important issue, why there are no females in competitive employment. No d e f i n i t i v e answers may be given, but one of the most important may be s k i l l . Another important explanation may be s o c i e t a l expectations; males are expected to be able to do more demanding work. Work in a competitive environment i s seen as too hard physically for females. 126 e) Occupational Status As mentioned previously, in Chapter 4, the coding of the data on occupational status (highest s k i l l l e v e l ever obtained in any job) was done using the Vocational Check L i s t of the Adaptive Functioning Index (Marlett, 1973). And as shown in Appendix F, the job description of each subject was related to one of the five s k i l l l evels defined in the Vocational Check L i s t . The largest number of 1978 subjects, eight males (61.5%) and four females (44.4%) worked at S k i l l Level 2. t h i s was followed by three males (23.1%) and three females (33.3%) at S k i l l Level 1; and two males (15.4%) and two females (22.2%) at S k i l l Level 3. The largest number of subjects in the 1980 group also worked at S k i l l Level 2, two males (25%) and eight females (80%). Four 1980 males (50%) and no females worked at S k i l l Level 1. Two 1980 males (25%) and two females (20%) worked at S k i l l Level 3. Overall, the data in th i s section show that there were no differences in terms of s k i l l l e v e l between males and females and no differences between groups. This would suggest that the types of jobs in a l l workshops are quite similar and the tr a i n i n g the males and females received was quite similar as well. A more complete picture of place, type, and s k i l l l e v e l 127 (occupational status) of employment i s presented in Table 44 for 1978 and Table 45 for 1980. Table 44 Type, Place and S k i l l Level of Present Employment, 1978 Competitive Sheltered Factory Restaurant Workshop Factory Farm S k i l l Male — — 3 _ Level 1 Female - - 2 1 -S k i l l Male 1 1 6 _ Level 2 Female — - 4 - -S k i l l Male — _ 1 _ 1 Level 3 Female — - 1 - 1 Total 1 1 17 1 2 Table 44 highlights some of the most important aspects of the vocational a b i l i t y of the 1980 subjects. Twenty (out of 22) subjects who worked were in sheltered employment. Seventeen (out of 19) subjects in sheltered employment worked in workshops. Twelve (out of 22) subjects worked at S k i l l Level 2. This included the two males working in competitive employment. 1 28 Table 45 Type, Place and S k i l l Level of Present Employment, 1980 Competitive Sheltered Restaurant Workshop Farm S k i l l Male 4 _ Level 1 Female - -S k i l l Male 1 _ Level 2 Female 8 -S k i l l Male 2 1 _ Level 3 Female 1 1 Total 2 15 1 Table 45 does the same thing for the 1980 subjects. Sixteen (out of 18) subjects who worked were in sheltered employment. Fifteen (out of 16) subjects in sheltered employment worked in workshops. Nine (out of 18) subjects worked at S k i l l Level 2. Five (out of 18) subjects worked at S k i l l Level 3; thi s included the two males working in competitive employment. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the subjects' previous employment are summarized in Table 46 for 1978 and Table 47 for 1980. 129 Table 46 Previous Vocational A b i l i t y of Students, 1978 Characteristics Gender Male Female Employment Status N % N % a) Present Employment Subjects 3 23. 1 1 10.0 F u l l time 2 66.7 1 100.0 Part-time 1 33.3 - -b) Length of Time Less than 1 year - - - -1-3 years 3 10.0 1 100.0 More than 3 years — — — -c) Places of Employment Workshop 2 66.7 1 100.0 Store 1 33.3 - -d) Type of Employment Competitive r 33.3 - -Sheltered 2 66.7 1 100.0 e) Occupational Status S k i l l l e v e l 1 1 33.3 - -S k i l l l e v e l 2 1 33.3 1 100.0 S k i l l l e v e l 3 1 33.3 - -130 Table 47 Previous Vocational A b i l i t y of Students, 1980 Characte r i s t i c s Gender Male Female Employment Status N % N % a) Present Employment Subjects F u l l time Part-t ime 2 2 22.2 100.0 2 2 18.2 100.0 b) Length of Time Less than 1 year 1-2 years More than 2 years 1 1 50.0 50.0 2 100.0 c) Places of Employment Workshop 2 100.0 2 100.0 d) Type of Employment Competitive Sheltered 2 100.0 2 100.0 e) Occupational Status S k i l l l e v e l 1 S k i l l l e v e l 2 S k i l l l e v e l 3 1 1 50.0 50.0 2 100.0 a) Previous Employment Three 1978 males (23.1%) and one 1978 female (10%) were previously employed. Two males (66.7%) and the one female were employed f u l l time. One male (33.3%) was employed f u l l time. Two 1980 males (22.2%) and two 1980 females (18.2%) were previously employed. A l l the males and females previously employed worked f u l l time. 131 b) Length of Time The three 1978 males and the 1978 female worked between one and three years. One 1980 male worked less than a year as did the two 1980 females. The other 1980 male worked between one and two years. c) Places of Employment Three (out of the four) 1980 subjects previously employed worked in workshops. One 1978 male worked in a store. A l l four subjects in the 1980 group worked in workshops. d) Type of Employment One male and the one female in the 1978 group worked in sheltered environments. The other 1978 male worked in a competitive environment. A l l four subjects in the 1980 group worked in sheltered environments. e) Occupational Status One of the three 1978 males worked at S k i l l Level 1, another worked at S k i l l Level 2, and the l a s t worked at S k i l l Level 3. The 1978 female worked at S k i l l Level 2. One 1980 male worked at S k i l l Level 1 and another 1980 male worked at S k i l l Level 3. The two 1980 females worked at S k i l l Level 3. 132 Table 48 Type, Place and S k i l l Level of Previous Employment Gender by Year 1 978 1980 Sheltered Competitive Sheltered Store Workshop Workshop S k i l l Level 1 Male Female 2 S k i l l Level 2 Male Female S k i l l Level 3 Male Female Total 3 4 Table 48 shows some of the highlights of the previous employment of the 1978 and 1980 subjects. Three (out of four) 1978 subjects who worked were in sheltered employment. Three (out of three) 1978 subjects in sheltered employment worked in workshops. Two (out of three) subjects in workshops worked at S k i l l Level 2. The 1978 male who was working in competitive employment worked at S k i l l Level 3. A l l four of the 1980 subjects who worked previously were in sheltered employment. A l l four of the 1980 subjects in sheltered employment worked in workshops. Three (out of four) 1980 subjects worked at S k i l l Level 1. One 1980 male worked at S k i l l Level 3. A review of the findings shows that occupational status did not change very much from previous to present jobs. For a 1978 133 male and- female there was a change from l e v e l 3 to l e v e l 2, and l e v e l 2 to level 1, respectively. One 1978 male was at l e v e l 1 in both jobs. Two 1980 males stayed at the same level s in both jobs, l e v e l 1 and l e v e l 3 respectively. Two 1980 females went from l e v e l 1 at their previous jobs to l e v e l 2 at the present jobs. Any change for either group may be attributed to a change in the type of work done by the subject. The data showed that three male subjects worked part-time. The two 1978 males in competitive employment worked two or three days a week. The 1980 male worked part-time in both competitive and sheltered employment. There were three subjects that were not working; one 1978 female, one 1980 male and one 1980 female. The 1978 female had worked at two jobs in sheltered employment at S k i l l Levels 1 and 2. The 1978 male was not working because he was enrolled in an adult educational programme on a f u l l time basis. The 1980 female had worked for three months in a factory at S k i l l Level 3. The subject was at home helping her mother at the time of the interview. A summary of the findings in t h i s section show that a large number of subjects, 22 in 1978 and ten in 1980 were employed. Seventeen subjects in the 1978 group and 15 subjects in the 1980 group were working in sheltered workshops. Two males in each group worked in competitive employment. More than half the 134 subjects, 12 in 1978 and ten in 1980, worked at S k i l l Level 2. In terms of the length of employment, the subjects showed a great deal of s t a b i l i t y . The subjects in the 1978 group worked for a mean of 2.7 years, while the subjects in the 1980 group worked for a mean of 1.2 years. Work for non-handicapped persons in society i s an important part of their l i v e s . Work for mentally handicapped persons i s perhaps the most important part of their adjustment to l i v i n g in the community. Indeed, their recreational a b i l i t y as well as their presence in the work environment are cl o s e l y related to the three other aspects of their community adjustment discussed so f a r . In r e l a t i o n to mobility independence, going to work ref l e c t e d the subjects' a b i l i t y to t r a v e l independently in the community. Subjects who used the B.C. Hydro bus to go to work were more l i k e l y to have greater mobility than those subjects driven to work on an Easter Seal or HandiDart bus. The B.C. Hydro bus was not necessarily used by subjects who had the most s k i l l e d jobs; subjects who worked at S k i l l Level 1 jobs also took the B.C. Hydro bus to work. Whether a subject had a few or many s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y s k i l l s he/she s t i l l had a job at a workshop. (And that job, regardless of s k i l l l e v e l , was one of the sources of income for about 85% of the subjects in both groups.) Despite t h i s seeming lack of correspondence between s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y and vocational a b i l i t y the general tendency i s for subjects with higher s e l f -135 s u f f i c i e n c y s k i l l s to have higher vocational s k i l l s . In terms of interaction l e v e l , the workshop i s the most important source of relationships outside the subjects' home. Not only is the workshop the basis for friendships but i t i s also the basis for a wide variety of s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s l i k e bowling and parties organized by the workshops and associations. Educational Status There i s now a picture of the former students' community adjustment in terms of t h e i r mobility independence, s e l f -s u f f i c i e n c y , interaction l e v e l , and vocational a b i l i t y . Even though they graduated from school i t i s important for the former students to improve and increase a wide variety of s k i l l s to become independent members of the community. A large number of former students have participated in an increasing number of courses sponsored by MR associations, workshops, community recreation departments, and community colleges. The data presented in t h i s section provide information about the type of educational programmes in which subjects were enrolled subsequent to their leaving the formal school system. Table 49 shows that six (26.1%) 1978 subjects and six (35%) 1980 subjects were enrolled in educational programmes. The types of courses taken by the subjects in both groups are summarized in Table 50. 1 36 Table 49 Frequencies and Percentages of Subjects Enrolled in Adult School Programmes Gender by Year Male Female Group Total N N N 1978 1980 4 2 30.8 22.2 2 4 20.0 36.4 6 6 26. 1 30.0 Total 27.3 28.6 1 2 27.9 Table 50 Type of Courses Enrolled In Gender by Year 1978 1980 Male Group Group Female Total Male Female Total Functional 3 1 4 1 2 3 Academic 1 1 2 — 1 1 Functional & academic - - - 1 1 2 Total 4 2 6 2 4 6 Four subjects (three males and one females) in the 1978 group and three subjects (one male and two females) in the 1980 group were enrolled in courses which, for the purposes of th i s study, were c l a s s i f i e d as functional, i . e . courses r e l a t i n g to the ac q u i s i t i o n of s k i l l s such as handling money, t e l l i n g time, cooking and conversing with people. Two subjects (one male and one female) in the 1978 group and one subject (a female) in the 1980 group were enrolled in academic courses related to the 137 acquis i t i o n of reading, writing and arithmetic s k i l l s . And one 1980 male and 1980 female took a combination of functional and academic courses. Courses were held at a number of high schools, workshops, community centers, and community colleges. Courses were attended by the same number of subjects in both groups. It i s of interest to see that there were as many subjects in the 1980 group taking courses as in in the 1978 group even though they had just graduated from school one year before. It would seem reasonable to suggest that with the variety of post school educational programmes available the recent graduates were encouraged to continue learning and expanding th e i r s k i l l s and hence enrolled in courses when they l e f t school. The r e l a t i v e l y small number of subjects in both groups who took courses re f l e c t e d the fact that interviews were conducted immediately before and after Christmas. Subjects did not attend courses from the second week in December, 1981 u n t i l the t h i r d week of January, 1982. 1 38 Table 51 Type of Courses Presently Enrolled In Gender by Year 1978 1980 Group Group Male Female Total Male Female Total Functional 2 1 3 Academic 1 1 1 1 Recreation/leisure - - 1 1 Functional & academic - - 2 2 Functional & recreation/leisure 1 - 1 — _ — Total 3 2 5 1 3 4 Table 51 shows that f i ve subjects (three males and two females) in the 1978 group and four subjects (one male and three females) in the 1980 group who were taking courses had taken courses previously and what courses they took. The only course not previously defined i s that of recreation/leisure which was c l a s s i f i e d as r e l a t i n g to the a c q u i s i t i o n of s k i l l s in a variety of sports, f i t n e s s , arts and c r a f t s , camping and f i s h i n g . One 1978 male, one 1980 male, and one 1980 female were taking their f i r s t adult education courses. The reasons provided by these three subjects for not taking adult education courses previously were working at night, and no courses of interest a vailable. The subjects who indicated that they were not presently taking a course were asked i f they would l i k e to e n r o l l in an adult education course. Thirteen (of the 17) 1978 subjects responded a f f i r m a t i v e l y ; 12 (of the 14) 1980 subjects responded 139 likewise. Six subjects (two 1978 males, two 1978 females, and two 1980 females) indicated that they did ' not want to take any courses. Reasons given for not wanting to take a course were not interested, not enough s k i l l s , and not allowed to go out at night. The same 17 subjects in the 1978 group and 14 subjects in the 1980 group were asked i f they were ever enrolled in an adult education course. Table 52 shows what courses were previously taken by the ten subjects (five males and fi v e females) in the 1978 group and the 13 subjects (six males and seven females) in the 1980 group. Table 52 Type of Courses Previously Enrolled In For Subjects Not Enrolled In Courses Gender by Year 1978 1980 Group Group Male Female Total Male Female Total Functional 4 2 6 3 4 7 Academic - 1 1 - - -Recreation/leisure - - - 1 1 2 Functional & academic 1 1 2 1 - 1 Functional & recreation/leisure - 1 1 1 1 2 Vocational - - - . - 1 1 Total 5 5 10 6 7 13 A l l of the courses, except one, were the same as those mentioned previously. One 1980 female took a course c l a s s i f i e d 1 40 as vocational, i . e . , a course r e l a t i n g to the acqui s i t i o n of working s k i l l s such as using equipment properly, working at an appropriate speed, and following instructions. Of interest i s the fact that a large number of 1980 subjects (12) were enrolled in adult education courses. The data here further support the importance of continuing education for the 1980 graduates. Seven subjects (four males and three females) in the 1978 group and one subject (a male) in the 1980 group had never taken any adult education courses. The reasons given were appropriate courses not avai l a b l e , volunteers were needed, not enough s k i l l s , and not allowed to go out at night. A summary of the findings on educational status shows that because of the Christmas-New Year period, a r e l a t i v e l y small number of subjects in both groups were taking courses. This was not an accurate indication of the subjects' p a r t i c i p a t i o n in adult education courses. If the subjects who were taking courses and the subjects who had taken courses previously were considered together for each group, the data would show that 16 subjects (69.6%) in the 1978 group and 19 subjects (95%) in the 1980 group were involved in some form of adult education programmes. As mentioned previously, the recent graduates were encouraged to continue learning and expanding their s k i l l s and hence enrolled in adult education courses. The courses taken most often were functional, academic, and a combination of functional and academic. 141 In terms of i t s relationship to the former students' community adjustment, educational status does not seem to be as important as the four previous aspects. This i s because the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of mentally handicapped adults in post school educational programmes i s a r e l a t i v e l y new concept. Educational status i s probably most clos e l y related to vocational a b i l i t y as many of the courses are offered by MR associations through their workshops. The courses offered are quite varied and related to the needs of the students. This would seem to indicate that the role of the workshop is no longer that of just keeping their c l i e n t s busy but teaching them new s k i l l s . The involvement of various community f a c i l i t i e s l i k e community centers and community colleges is a positive indication of how mentally retarded adults are becoming more involved in the community. 142 Chapter 6 • Summary and Conclusions Summary of the Study Since Fernald's f i r s t study in 1919 a large body of information has developed in the area of follow-up research. The research has looked at both "formerly i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d individuals and graduates of special schools or special classes in the public schools" (Rosen et a l . , 1977, p. 131). The majority of follow-up research has been done in the United States. There has also been a small amount of thi s research in Canada. Two follow-up studies have been reported, Lambert (1976) who looked at the community adjustment of mentally retarded adults l i v i n g in the province of Ontario and Lusthaus et a l . , (1979) who looked at the community adjustment of a group of mentally retarded adults l i v i n g in Montreal. No research of t h i s type has been done in the province of B r i t i s h Columbia. The present research project was designed to describe the current status of moderately retarded adults l i v i n g in the Lower Mainland of B r i t i s h Columbia, one and three years after they have graduated from school, in terms of their mobility independence, s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y , interaction l e v e l , vocational a b i l i t y , and educational status. 143 Based on the research conducted by Lambert (1976) an interview-prompt recording sheet was f i r s t p i l o t tested and then used to gather data on the community adjustment of an accessible sample of moderately retarded adults in the Lower Mainland area of B r i t i s h Columbia. Twenty-three adults (13 males and ten females) who graduated from school in 1978 and 20 adults (nine males and 11 females) who graduated from school in 1980 were interviewed. The data were analyzed by comparing the frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n for males and females from each of 1978 and 1980 by using the 2x2 (year-by-gender) chi-square s t a t i s t i c . The results of the chi-square analysis revealed that for each component of community adjustment the d i s t r i b u t i o n for males and females within and between 1978 and 1980 were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (p<.05). The results were reported in a descriptive manner and in terms of the c e l l and marginal frequencies and percentage for gender and year. Conclusions of the Study While describing the current status of mentally retarded adults in terms of each of the fiv e variables, the following conclusions were made. Mobility Independence Males and females, in the 1978 and 1980 groups, were able 144 to travel in their communities quite extensively. Five subjects (21.7%) in the 1978 group and one subject (5%) in the 1980 group used only the public transportation system. Another nine subjects in each group (39.1% in 1978 and 45% in 1980) took the bus and rode in cars with their parents, friends, or group home s t a f f . And f i n a l l y , nine subjects (39.1%) in the 1978 group and ten subjects (50%) in the 1980 group rode only on supervised forms of transport (Easter Seal bus, family car, group home van). In terms of the previous research, the findings in thi s study show that the subjects in both groups have a high rate of mobility independence. Saenger (1957), in his study of mentally handicapped adults in New York City, found that 20% of the subjects were not allowed to leave their homes without being accompanied by a si g n i f i c a n t other, while another 14% could take a bus or subway in a familiar area and 21% could take a bus or subway anywhere. The findings in Saenger's study suggest that his subjects were more dependent or more overprotected than the subjects in the present study. S t a n f i e l d (1973) found subjects who were far less mobile. St a n f i e l d reported that 40% of the subjects could not leave their homes unescorted. Another 60% of the subjects were mobile within t h e i r own neighbourhood but only 10% l e f t the immediate neighbourhood to tra v e l in the larger community. The findings in Stanfield's study suggest that the subjects were not mobile 1 45 because of a b i l i t y , lack of tr a i n i n g to use the public transportation system, and overprotection of parents. It i s also important to consider that Stanfield's study was conducted in the Los Angeles area, where i t i s d i f f i c u l t to get around without having a car or knowing someone who does. Lambert (1976) found that 78.3% of the subjects were dependent on someone to get them to work and another 56.6% did not use public transportation to t r a v e l in the community. The low mobility independence of Lambert's subjects would again suggest that the a b i l i t y of the subjects, lack of training to use the public transportation system, and overprotection of parents gave r i s e to lesser mobility. The data in this study show that the ove r a l l mobility of the subjects in both groups i s high. S e l f - S u f f i c i e n c y There were three aspects of interest in considering s e l f -s u f f i c i e n c y . In the f i r s t aspect, meal preparation, 18 subjects (78.3%) in the 1978 group and 18 subjects (90%) in the 1980 group made a basic meal using pots/pans and a stove on a d a i l y basis. A l i t t l e more than 75% of a l l the subjects were also involved with helping in the preparation of meals. The second aspect of s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y was the a b i l i t y to carry out home management tasks. Twenty-two subjects (95.6%) in the 1978 groups and 19 subjects (95%) in the 1980 group did at least one of five basic home management tasks (make bed, 146 wash/dry dishes, vacuum/sweep/dust, take out garbage, and wash clothes). The t h i r d aspect was handling money. Although 65% of the subjects in both groups had bank accounts, very few had control over their money. In terms of previous research, the findings here are similar to those of S t a n f i e l d (1973). In his study S t a n f i e l d found that nearly 90% of the subjects made their beds and took out the garbage. St a n f i e l d , however, did not report any information on the subjects cooking meals or handling money. Saenger (1957) found that 19% of the subjects in his study were reponsible for looking after where they l i v e d , while another 36% helped regularly in various chores. Saenger reported that 36% of the subjects also helped prepare food. There i s no information on what the subjects did i t h t h e i r money. It would seem that the a b i l i t y to handle money was not considered as an i n d i c i e of s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y or mentally handicapped adults were not considered capable of handling money. Lambert (1976) found that less than one-third of the subjects were able to prepare meals without the assistance of others. In terms of home management tasks Lambert found that "the retarded persons surveyed in t h i s study helped out in the home in those areas where they were confronted with the least danger. For example, a majority of the respondents reported 1 47 they made beds (78.3 percent), took out garbage, prepared meals, swept, dusted, mopped, and used the telephone (67.6 percent)" (p. 58). Lambert was not able to report a clear indication of whether the subjects could handle their own money. He did note, however, that the subjects had a very limited awareness of the meaning and purpose of money. Rosen et a l . , (1977) found, in their study of the community adjustment of former Elwyn Inst i t u t e residents, that the subjects had a high degree of control over th e i r money. Over 50% of the subjects subscribed to their own telephone, 20% were paying for purchases on c r e d i t , and over 60% had bought some form of l i f e insurance. . The subjects in t h i s study were functioning at a l e v e l far beyond the c a p a b i l i t i e s of the subjects in any study c i t e d so f a r . The data in thi s study show a group of adults who can look af t e r t h e i r basic needs quite adequately in terms of both cooking and looking after their homes. In terms of handling money there i s very l i t t l e data to compare these a b i l i t i e s . The majority of subjects needed some form of supervision to look afte r their money. Interaction Level In terms of interaction l e v e l the subjects, in both groups, par t i c i p a t e d in a wide variety of a c t i v i t i e s a l l over their communities. Who they did the a c t i v i t i e s with was dependent on where they l i v e d and/or worked as well as the i r a b i l i t y to 148 travel independently in their community. Except for interactions with their parents or supervisors the subjects associated with other mentally handicapped adults. The findings in t h i s study were quite consistent with previous research, especially with respect to with whom the mentally handicapped adults s o c i a l i z e d . Lusthaus et a l . , (1979) found that although the subjects were l i v i n g in the community they "were v i r t u a l l y l i v i n g in a world of i s o l a t i o n from non-retarded people around them" (p. 25). Almost a l l friends were a f f i l i a t e d with other services for mentally handicapped persons. St a n f i e l d (1973) found that the majority of subjects had friends who they met at a workshop, a c t i v i t y centre, or s o c i a l recreational programmes l i k e bowling or dances. In contrast to the present study Stanf i e l d reported 62% of the subjects participated in no a c t i v i t i e s apart from those with their immediate f a m i l i e s . Saenger (1957) found that about 50% of the subjects had friends of their own. There was a wide variety of functioning within the category of friendship ranging from p a r a l l e l play to going out to movies. In terms of relationships with members of the opposite sex, Saenger found that "only one out of four had friends of the opposite sex" (p. 110). It would appear that in the late 1950's heterosexual relationships for the mentally retarded were not common. Lambert's (1976) findings were somewhat unclear in this 1 49 area because of the way variables were correlated. The findings that were reported showed that the subjects were quite limited in their interactions wherever they l i v e d . A possible explanation of the differences in the findings in t h i s study are as a result of a combination of the a v a i l a b i l i t y of services and programmes with the expectation society has of mentally handicapped adults. It would seem that the subjects in the Lower Mainland area are becoming quite "normalized" (Wolfensberger, 1972) in that they do the same things as non-handicapped people do except they do the a c t i v i t i e s with other handicapped people. Vocational A b i l i t y Twenty-two subjects (95.6%) in the 1978 group and 18 subjects (90%) in the 1980 group were working. Of the subjects working, 17 (77.3%) in the 1978 group and 15 (83.3%) in the 1980 group were working in sheltered workshops. The majority of subjects in both groups worked at jobs where simple routines with few decisions and/or gross dexterity was required. In terms of the previous research the findings here are similar to Rosen et a l . , (1977) who also reported 90% of the subjects employed. None of the subjects, however, worked in sheltered workshops. Most were employed as kitchen workers, janitors and o r d e r l i e s . It would seem the former Elwyn residents were quite capable and l i v e d in an area where appropriate jobs were ava i l a b l e . 150 The findings of the present study are also quite d i f f e r e n t from what has been reported in other descriptive follow-up studies. This i s especially so when considering the rate of employment and the a v a i l a b i l i t y of jobs. Lusthaus et a l . , (1979) found that two-thirds of the subjects were unemployed. From a l l indications this group was functioning above the s k i l l l e v e l for sheltered workshop, but were not able to get jobs in competitive employment. Lusthaus et a l . go on to suggest that, "prohibiting discrimination on the basis of handicapping condition; subsidizing retarded people in integrated employment, guaranteeing a respectable wage in sheltered employment; a l l move in the d i r e c t i o n of guaranteeing retarded adults reasonable economic conditions" (p. 25). Saenger (1957) found that a l l together there had been an ov e r a l l rate of employment of 36%. The most inter e s t i n g aspect of Saenger's findings were the kinds of jobs the subjects had. Most of the subjects worked as delivery boys, j a n i t o r s , on assembly l i n e s , and loading and unloading trucks. Saenger also reported that many more men than women were able to find work. From the types of jobs ava i l a b l e , t h i s finding does not seem too surprising. The differences between what was found by Saenger (1957) and what was found in the present study can be accounted for by the a v a i l a b i l i t y of services for the mentally retarded s k i l l l e v e l of jobs, s k i l l l e v e l of adults, and economic conditions. There were fewer sheltered workshops in New York City in the 151 early 1950's, hence the o v e r a l l high rate of unemployment. There were more jobs l i k e being a store delivery boy or working on a loading dock and adults who could do these jobs. Almost 20 years later the employment picture has changed quite dramatically and at the present time the sheltered workshop for most graduates i s the only real a l t e r n a t i v e . Lambert (1976) found that about 25% of the subjects were working and the majority of these were in sheltered workshops. Some of the subjects not working were enrolled in special programmes, school, work tra i n i n g , occupational therapy, adult education and another type of t r a i n i n g . The data in the study are very positive in terms of vocational a b i l i t y . There i s a high rate of employment and most subjects seem content with what they are doing. The high rate of employment i s due to the existence of sheltered workshops. It i s also important to r e a l i z e that at the present time there are very few alternatives to sheltered employment for these adults. Educational Status On an o v e r a l l basis when the subjects who were taking courses and had taken courses were considered, 16 (69.6%) in 1978 and 19 (95%) in 1980, there was considerable involvement in some form of adult education programmes. The courses taken most often were functional, academic, and a combination of functional and academic. 152 Saenger (1957) concluded his study by looking at the use of resources and planning for the future. Saenger found that the greatest demands for help were for a l l aspects of vocational t r a i n i n g and special employment services. About 20% of the parents also wanted their children to be able to go to school beyond the age of 17. This data would seem to accurately r e f l e c t the needs of the 1950's. Sta n f i e l d (1973) noted the lack of past school programmes. He goes on to suggest that "either the objectives of public education of the moderately retarded must be changed from their present terminal nature or a system of p u b l i c l y supported post school f a c i l i t i e s must be established to assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s for such graduates" (p. 552). Katz (1968) found that adult education should be available for mentally handicapped adults. However, the types of courses offered were usually based on s k i l l s that the mentally handicapped adults did not have. The data in this study show that post school educational programmes are an important part of the services now offered to mentally handicapped adults. From the large number of former students involved in the courses, the s k i l l l e v e l and content appear appropriate to t h e i r needs. The development of post school education programmes, by involving agencies l i k e community colleges and community centres, has increased offerings, where formerly l i t t l e for mentally handicapped persons was a v a i l a b l e . . 1 53 In summary, the study has shown that in terms of mobility independence, s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y , interaction l e v e l , vocational a b i l i t y , and educational status the community adjustment of the mentally retarded adults, who graduated from school in 1978 and 1980 and are l i v i n g in the Lower Mainland of B r i t i s h Columbia, i s an o v e r a l l positive experience for them. Implications of the Study The findings in th i s study have implications for teachers working with students in school programmes for the moderately retarded and s o c i a l workers, workshop and/or group home supervisors and s t a f f working with these same people once they leave school. Teaching Practices The findings in th i s study strongly suggest the need to continue emphasizing functional s k i l l s l i k e using the public transportation system, cooking their food, cleaning their houses, looking after their money, behaving in a s o c i a l l y appropriate manner, and working at a job. A more e f f e c t i v e method of integrating mentally handicapped students into the school setting must also be found; settings in which there are age appropriate role models and meaningful interactions. This would be the basis for mentally handicapped 1 54 persons integrating with non-handicapped persons as adults. It is important to qua l i f y these types of statements with the r e a l i z a t i o n that integration must be done to meet the individual 'needs and a b i l i t i e s of the mentally handicapped students and those non-handicapped peers with whom they w i l l be integrated. Exist i n g Programmes and Services Personnel working with mentally handicapped adults must also continue to provide situations where the adults can strengthen old s k i l l s and learn new ones. These opportunities are being provided in workshops, educational and social/recreation programmes, and group residences. The data in t h i s study showed that 13 subjects (56.5%) in the 1978 group and 13 subjects (65%) in the 1980 group s t i l l l i v e d with their parents. The implications for MR associations i s that many of the parents w i l l not be able to look after their children forever and some form of alternative care w i l l have to be found. Given present trends t h i s w i l l probably be some form of group residence b u i l t and supervised by the l o c a l MR associations. There are also implications for the vocational development of the mentally retarded adults. S p e c i f i c a l l y there are implications for alternatives to sheltered employment. Subjects who can benefit and handle work in a competitive environment should be encouraged to do so, leaving more room for those who 155 r e a l l y needed the sheltered environment. Working in competitive employment would also help to increase the contact a mentally retarded adult had with his/her non-handicapped peers. This i s not a new issue or one that can be changed overnight especially in the l i g h t of recent economic conditions. Limitations of the Study Geographic Area The study was limited to examining a group of moderately retarded adults who l i v e d in the Lower Mainland of B r i t i s h Columbia. The reasons for t h i s were the exploratory nature of the study and the l i m i t a t i o n s of time and money. The results of the study may contain bias p a r t i c u l a r to the Lower Mainland area and hence l i m i t the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of the findings. Sample Size The population of interest were the males and females who graduated in June, 1978 and June, 1980 from schools designated for the trainable mentally retarded. The choice of t h i s population limited the number of potential subjects in an already limited population. It was, therefore, not reasonable to obtain a random sample from this population. The limited number of subjects and their non-random selection again had some effect on the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of the study. The small number 156 of subjects also made s t a t i s t i c a l analysis more d i f f i c u l t to complete, i . e . many of the chi-squares could not be considered because of empty c e l l s or c e l l s with frequencies that were too small. Recommendations for Future Research This type of study could be done on a p r o v i n c i a l basis much l i k e the one done by Lambert (1976). A study conducted at a pro v i n c i a l l e v e l would provide an opportunity to randomly sample or indeed interview a population of moderately retarded adults. A large scale study would have results that would be generalizable and would be of interest to the government and other agencies working with the mentally retarded. Another suggestion for research using follow-up methodology would be to conduct a longitudinal study. The subjects in thi s study could be interviewed in another five years. "Only by observing the individual over a period of time can we derive insights about his progress in making the adjustment to community l i v i n g " (Rosen et a l . , 1977, p. 144). 157 REFERENCES Brol i n , D.E. Vocational preparation of retarded c i t i z e n s . Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M e r r i l l Publishing Company, 1 9 7 6 . B r o l i n , D., Durand, R., Kromer, K., & Muller, P. Post-School adjustment of educable retarded students. Education and  Training of the Mentally Retarded, 1 9 7 5 , J_0 ( 3 ) , 1 4 4 - 1 4 8 . Butler, A.J., & Browning, P.L. Methodological issues in the prediction of r e h a b i l i t a t i o n outcome with the mentally retarded. In H.J. Prehm (Ed.), Rehabilitation research in  mental retardation. Eugene: Rehabilitation Research and Training Centre in Mental Retardation, 1 9 7 0 . Census t r a c t s , population and housing c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Vancouver  (Vol. 6 ) . Ottawa: The Queen's Printer, 1 9 7 8 . Chaff in, J.D., Spellman, C.R., Regan, C.E., & Davison, R. Two follow-up studies of former mentally retarded students from the Kansas work-study project. Exceptional Children, 1 9 7 1 , 3 7 , 7 3 3 - 7 3 8 . Charney, L. The trainable mentally retarded. In S.A. Kirk & B.B. Weiner (Eds.), Behavioral research on exceptional  children. Washington, D.C.: The Council for Exceptional Children, 1 9 6 3 . Coakley, F. Study of feebleminded wards employed in war industries. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1 9 4 5 , 5 0 , 3 0 1 - 3 0 6 . Cobb, H.V. The forecast of f u l f i l l m e n t . New York: Teachers College Press, 1 9 7 2 . Conley, R.W. The economics of mental retardation. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1 9 7 3 . Crain, E.J. Socioeconomic status of educable mentally retarded graduates of special education. Education and Training of  the Mentally Retarded, 1 9 8 0 , J_5 ( 2 ) , 9 0 - 9 4 . Delp, H.A., & Lorenz, M. Follow-up study of 8 4 public school special class pupils with IQs below 5 0 . American Journal  of Mental Deficiency, 1 9 5 3 , 5 8 , 1 7 5 - 1 8 2 . Dinger, J.C. Post-school adjustment of former educable retarded pupils. Exceptional Children, 1 9 6 1 , 2 7 , 3 5 3 - 3 6 0 . Eagle, E. Prognosis and outcome of community placement of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d retardates. American Journal of Mental  Deficiency, 1 9 6 7 , 7 2 , 2 3 2 - 2 4 3 . 158 Edgerton, R.B. The cloak of competence. Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1967. Edgerton, R.B. Issues r e l a t i n g to the quality of l i f e among mentally retarded persons. In M.J. Begab & S.A. Richardson (Eds.), The mentally retarded and society: A s o c i a l science  perspective. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1975. Edgerton, R.B., & Bercovici, S.M. The cloak of competence, years l a t e r . American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1976, 80 (5), 485-597. Farber, B. Mental retardation: Its s o c i a l context and s o c i a l  consequences. Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n Co., 1968. F a r r e l l , E.E. A preliminary report on the careers of three hundred f i f t y children who have l e f t ungraded classes. In M. Rosen, G.R. Clark, & M.S. K i v i t z (Eds.), The history of  mental retardation (Vol. 2). Baltimore: University Park Press, 1976. Fernald, W. After-care study of the patients discharged from Waverley for a period of twenty-five years. In M.S. Rosen, G. R. Clark, & M.S. K i v i t z (Eds.), The history of mental  retardation (Vol. 2). Baltimore: University Park Press, 1 976. Gay, L.R. Educational research: Competencies for analysis and  app l i c a t i o n . Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M e r r i l l Publishing Company, 1976. Goldberg, I. Elwyn Morey memorial lecture: Adult adjustment of the mentally retarded. Australian Journal of Mental  Retardation, 1972, 2 (3), 61-68. Goldstein, H. Social and occupational adjustment. In H. A. Steven & R. Heber (Eds.)., Mental retardation: A  review of research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964. Gollay, E., Freedman, R., Wyngaarden, M., & Kurtz, N.R. Coming  back, the community experience of d e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d  mentally retarded people. Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Books, 1978. Grant, J.R. Results of i n s t i t u t i o n a l treatment of juvenile mental defectives over a 30 year period. Canadian Medical  Association Journal, 1956, 75, 918-921. Grossman, H. Manual on terminology and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n in mental  retardation, 1973 version. Washington, D.C.: American Association on Mental Deficiency, 1973. 159 Gruenberg, E.M. Epidemiology. In H.A. Stevens & R. Heber (Eds.), Mental retardation; A review of research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964. Gunzburg, H.C. Social competence and mental handicap. London: B a l l i e r e , T i n d a l l & Cassell Ltd., 1968. Hegge, T.G. The occupational status of higher-grade mental defectives in the present emergency. A study of parolees from the Wayne County Training School of N o r t h v i l l e , Michigan. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1944, 49, 86-98. Henrysson, S. Gathering, analyzing, and using data on test items. In R.L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1971. Ir v i n , L.K., Halpern, A.S., & Reynolds, W.M. Assessing s o c i a l and prevocational awareness in mildly and moderately retarded individuals. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1977, 82 (3), 266-272. Jacobs, T.O. Developing questionnaire items: How to do i t well. Alexandria, Va.: Human Resources Research Organization, 1974. Jewell, A.A. A follow-up study of 190 mentally d e f i c i e n t children excluded because of low mentality from the public schools of the D i s t r i c t of Columbia, d i v i s i o n s I-IX, September 1929 to February 1, 1940. American Journal of  Mental Deficiency, 1941, 45, 234-241. Katz, E. The retarded adult in the community. S p r i n g f i e l d , 111.: Charles C. Thomas, 1968. Kennedy, R.J.A. A Connecticut community r e v i s i t e d ; A study of  the s o c i a l adjustment of a group of mentally d e f i c i e n t  adults in 1948 and 1960. Hartford, Conn.: Connecticut State Department of Health, O f f i c e of Mental Retardation, 1966. Kerlinger, F.N. Foundation of behavioral research (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973. Kokaska, C.J. The occupational status of the educable mentally retarded: A review of follow-up studies. Journal of  Special Education, 1968, 2 (4), 369-377. Kokaska, O.J., & Kalwara, S. Preparing the retarded for semiskilled and s k i l l e d occupations. Education and  Training of the Mentally Retarded, 1969, 4 (2), 71-74. 160 Kolstoe, P. An examination of some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which discriminate between employed and not employed mentally retarded males. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1961, 66 (3), 472-482. Kolstoe, O.P., & Shafter, A.J. Employability prediction for mentally retarded adults: A methodological note", American  Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1961, 66 (2), 287-289. Lambert, C , J r . Retarded adults, their adjustment and community milieu. Toronto: Ministry of Community and Social Services, 1976. Lambert, C , J r . , & Bowman, K. Program planning for retarded  adults. Toronto: The Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded, 1977. Lambert, J . , & Racine, H. Considerations on the placement and employment of the mentally d e f i c i e n t . Canadian Psychiatric  Association Journal, 4 (1), 107-119. Lambert, N., Windmiller, M., Cole, L., & Figueroa, R. AAMD  adaptive behavior scale, public school version (Rev. ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Association on Mental Deficiency, 1975. Lippman, L. Indications of s o c i e t a l concern for mentally retarded persons. Social Indicators Research, 1976, 3_, 181-215. Lusthaus, E., Hanrahan, J., & Lusthaus, C. Issues in improving quality of l i f e . Mental Retardation, 1979, 29 (3), 24-27. Maccoby, E.E., & Maccoby, N. The interview: A tool of s o c i a l science. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of s o c i a l psychology (Vol. 1). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1954. Marlett, N.J. Adaptive functioning index. Calgary: The Vocational and Rehabilitation Research I n s t i t u t e , 1973. McCarver, R.B., & Craig, E.M. Placement of the retarded in the community: Prognosis and outcome. In N.R. E l l i s (Ed.), International review of research in mental retardation (Vol. 7). New York: Academic Press, 1974. Meyer, E.L. (Ed.), Planning community services for the mentally  retarded. Scranton: International Textbook Co., 1967. Morgenstern, M., & Michal-Smith, H. Psychology in the  vocational r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of the mentally retarded. S p r i n g f i e l d , 111. Charles C. Thomas, 1973. 161 Nie, N.H., H u l l , C.H., Jenkins, J.G., Steinbrenner, K., & Bent, D.H. S t a t i s t i c a l package for the s o c i a l sciences. (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. Nihira, K. F a c t o r i a l dimensions of adaptive behavior in adult retardates. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1969, 73 (6), 868-878. Nihi r a , K. F a c t o r i a l dimensions of adaptive behavior in mentally retarded children and adolescents. American  Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1969, JA ( 1K 130-141. O'Connor, G. Home i s a good place: A national perspective of community r e s i d e n t i a l f a c i l i t i e s for developmentally disabled persons. Monograph of the American Association of  Mental Deficiency, 1976, (No. 2). Olshansky, S., & Beach, D. A five-year follow-up of mentally retarded c l i e n t s . Rehabilitation Literature, 1974, 3J5 (2), 48-49. O r l i c h , D.C. Designing sensible surveys. P l e a s a n t v i l l e , N.Y.: Docent Corporation, 1978. Peterson, L., & Smith, L.L. The post-school adjustment of educable mentally retarded adults with that of adults of normal i n t e l l i g e n c e , Exceptional Children, 1960, 26, 404-408. Richardson, S.A. Reaction to mental subnormality. In M.J. Begab & S.A. Richardson (Eds.), The mentally retarded  and society: A s o c i a l science perspective. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1975. Richardson, S.A. Careers of mentally retarded young persons: Services jobs, and interpersonal r e l a t i o n s , American  Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1978, 82 (4), 349-358. Robinson, N.M., & Robinson, H.B. The mentally retarded c h i l d (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976. Rosen, M., Clark, G.R., & K i v i t z , M.S. Rehabilitation of the  handicapped, new dimensions in programs for the  developmentally disabled. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1977. Saenger, G. The adjustment of severely retarded adults in the  community. Albany: New York State Interdepartmental Health Resources Board, 1957. 162 Saenger, G. Social and occupational adjustment of the mentally retarded. In J. Zubin & G.A. Jervis (Eds.), Psycho- pathology of mental development. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1967. Schalock, R.L., Harper, R.S., & Genung, T. Community integration of mentally retarded adults: Community placement and program success. American Journal of Mental  Deficiency, 1981, 85 (5), 478-488. Scheer, R.M., Hawke, S., & Rice, N.G. Community preparedness  for retardates. Washington, D.C.: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1969. Sigelman, C.K., Schoenrock, C.J., Spanhel, C.L., Hromas, S.G., Winer, J.L., Budd, E.C., & Martin, P.W. Surveying mentally retarded persons: Responsiveness and response v a l i d i t y in three samples. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1980, 84 (5), 479-486. Social and Community Planning Research. Questionnaire design  manual (Technical Manual No. 5). London: Author, 1972. Social Planning and Review Council of B r i t i s h Columbia. Manpower development services project, phase I, project  report, A p r i l 1978-August 1979. Vancouver: Author, 1979. Sparks, H.L., & Younie, W.J. Adult adjustment of the mentally retarded: Implications for teacher education. Exceptional  Children, 1969, 36 (1), 13-18. Stanfield, J.S. Graduation: What happens to the retarded c h i l d when he grows up? Exceptional Children, 1973, 39 (7), 548-552. Stephens, W.B., & Peck, J.R. Success of young adult male  retardates. Washington, D.C.: The Council for Exceptional Children, 1968. Survey Research Center. Interviewer's manual (Rev. ed.) Ann Arbor, Mich.: Institute for Social Research, 1976. T i s d a l l , W.J. A follow-up study of trainable mentally handicapped, children in I l l i n o i s . American Journal of  Mental Deficiency, 1960, 65, 11-16. Tizard, J . Longitudinal studies: Problems and findings. In A.M. Clarke & A.D.B. Clarke (Eds.), Mental deficiency, the  changing outlook (3rd ed.). London: Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1974. 163 Tobias, J . Vocational adjustment of young retarded adults. Mental Retardation, 1970, 8 (3), 13-16. Tudor, W., Tudor, J., & Gove, W.R. The ef f e c t of sex role differences on the s o c i e t a l reaction to mental retardation. Social Forces, 1979, 57 (3), 871-876. Warwick, D.P., & Lininger, C.A. The sample survey: Theory and  practice. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1975. Willms, J.D. Retarded adults in the community, an investigation  of neighbourhood attitudes and concerns. Unpublished masters thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1978. Wilson, W. Social psychology and mental retardation. In N.R. E l l i s (Ed.), International review of research in  mental retardation (Vol. 4). New York: Academic Press, 1970. Windle, CP., Stewart, E., & Brown, S.J. Reasons for community f a i l u r e of released patients. American Journal of Mental  Deficiency, 1961, 66, 213-217. Windle, C P . Prognosis of mental subnormals. Monograph  Supplement to American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1962, 66 (5), 1-180. Wolfensberger, W. Vocational preparation and occupation. In A.A. Baumeister (Ed.), Mental Retardation: Appraisal,  education, and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n . Chicago: Aldine, 1967, 232-273. Wolfensberger, W. The p r i n c i p l e of normalization in human services. Toronto: National Ins t i t u t e On Mental Retardation, 1972. Wolfson, I.N. Follow-up studies of 92 male and 131 female patients who were discharged from the Newark State School in 1946. In M. Rosen, G.R. Clark, & M.S. Kurtz (Eds.), The  history of mental retardation (Vol. 2). Baltimore: University Park Press, 1976. APPENDIX A Questionnaire Used by Lambert 165 I MOBILITY INDEPENDENCE 1. a) When you go downtown or somewhere else shopping or v i s i t i n g friends do you ever have trouble getting home? 1 yes 2 no (IF YES) b) Did you get help from the police? 1 yes . 2 no (IF NO) c) Why not? (IF YES) d) What happened? 2. b) Do you go to work yourself or does someone take you? 1 self 2 with someone (IF WITH SOMEONE) b) Who? c) Have you ever been late for work? 1 yes 2 no (IF YES) d) When were you late for work last? 166 II SELF-SUFFICIENCY 3. a) Do you eat breakfast here in t h i s house? 1 yes 2 no sometimes (IF NO OR SOMETIMES) b) Where do you eat breakfast? c) Do you usually cook breakfast yourself or does someone cook i t for you? 1 self 2 someone (IF SOMEONE) d) Who cooks i t for you? e) Do you help? 1 yes 2 no WHAT ABOUT LUNCH. 4. a) Do you each lunch in t h i s house? yes 2 no 3 sometimes (IF NO OR SOMETIMES) b) Where do you eat? c) Do you make your own lunch or does someone make i t for you? 1 self 2 someone (IF SOMEONE) d) Who? e) Do you help? 1 yes 2 no WHAT ABOUT SUPPER. 5. a) Do you cook your own supper or does someone cook i t for you? 1 se l f 2 someone 167 (IF SOMEONE) • b) Who? c) Do you help? '1 yes 2 no d) Do you ever set the table before supper? 1 yes 2 no (IF NO) e) Why not? f) Do you ever wash the dishes after supper? 1 yes 2 no (IF NO) g) Why not? 6. a) Do you eat something before you go to bed? 1 yes 2 no (IF NO) b) Why not? (IF YES) c) What do you usually eat before you go to bed? LET US TALK ABOUT THE KINDS OF THINGS YOU DO AROUND THE HOUSE. IN HOUSEWORK, DO YOU EVER, YES IF NO a) Who does this? b) Do you help? 1) Sweep, dust, mop 2) Wash the floor 3) Wax the floor 4) Wash linen , bed sheets and towels 168 5) Make beds 6) Wash clothes 7) Iron clothes 8) Fix appliances 9) Gardening 10) Take the garbage out 11) Meal preparation tasks, (SPECIFY) 12) Other (SPECIFY) SO FAR, YOU HAVE TOLD ME A LOT OF THINGS THAT I DID NOT KNOW BEFORE. NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT MONEY. FIRST OF ALL, 8. a) Where do you get your money from? (MULTIPLE CHECK, PROBE) 1. Salary 5. Friends 2. Parents 6. Government 3. Husband/wife 6. Other (Specify) 4. Other r e l a t i v e s 9. Do not know FOR ALL RESPONDENTS, IF MONEY COMES FROM GOVERNMENT b) What do you c a l l t h i s money? 1. Salary 5. Friends 2. Parents 6. Government 3. Husband/wife 6. Other (Specify) 4. Other r e l a t i v e s 9. Do not know 9. a) About how much money do you get each week, month? 1. Salary 5. Friends 2. Parents 6. Government 3. Husband/wife 7. Other 4. Other Relatives 9. Do not know 1 69 WHAT DO YOU DO WITH YOUR MONEY? FOR EXAMPLE, 10. a) Do you pay your rent/room and board? 1 yes 2 no (IF NO) b) Why not? (IF YES) c) Which do you pay; rent, room and board? 1 rent 2 room and board d) How much do you pay each week? 11. a) Do you have any spending money for yourself each week? 1 yes 2 no (IF NO) b) Why not? (IF YES) c) About how much? d) Do you ever run out of money before your next pay? 1 yes 2 no (IF YES) e) Do you ever borrow money from someone? 1 yes 2 no (IF NO) f) What do you do when you have no money? (IF YES) g) From whom did you borrow the money h) Do you own money to him/her now? 170 1 yes 2 no 12. a) Do you take care of your own money or does someone take care of i t for you? 1 s e l f 2 someone (IF SOMEONE) b) Who? c) Why? 13. a) Did you ever borrow money from a (special place)? 1 yes 2 no (IF BORROWED) b) What i s the name of the (special place) that you borrowed the money from? c) How long ago was that? d) How did you learn about that (special place)? e) What did you need the money for? f) Do you now owe any money to that (special place)? 1 yes 2 no (IF NEVER BORROWED) g) Did you ever try to borrow money from a (special place)? 1 yes 2 no (IF YES) h) What i s the name of the (special place)? i) How long ago was that? j) How did you learn about that (special place)? k) What did you need the money for? 1) What happened? •  171 FOR ALL RESPONDENTS 14. a) Have you saved any money? 1 yes 2 no (IF YES) b) What do you save money for? (IF NO) c) Why not? WITH THE MONEY YOU HAVE YOU CAN DO A LOT OF THINGS YOU LIKE TO DO. FOR EXAMPLE; YOU CAN GO SHOPPING FOR FOOD, CLOTHING, ETC. FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT SHOPPING FOR FOOD. 15. a) Do you ever buy your own food? 1 yes 2 no (IF YES) b) What do you usually buy? c) How do you know what to buy? (IF NO) d) Who buys most of the food in t h i s house? e) Do you usually t e l l him/her what you l i k e to buy? 1 yes 2 no (IF YES) f) Do he/she buy i t for you? 1 yes _____ 2 no 16. a) Do you buy things l i k e cigarettes, candies, pop, beer, etc. 172 1 yes 2 no (IF NO)• b) Why not? (IF YES) c) About how much do you spend on these things each week? THE NEXT THINGS WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT IS SHOPPING FOR CLOTHING. 17. a) Do you ever buy your own clothing? 1 yes 2 no Does someone take you to buy your clothes? 1 yes 2 no (IF YES) c) Who? (IF NO) d) Why not? e) Does someone buy clothing for you? 1 yes 2 no (IF YES) f) Who i s i t ? 18. a) Did you ever get any clothing which somebody had used before? 1 yes 2 no (IF YES) b) From whom did you get that clothing? c) Do you l i k e the clothing that you got from him/her? ; 1 yes 2 no 173 19. a) What size of shirt/dress do you take? b) Do you try i t on before you take the clothing? 1 yes 2 no c) Why? COULD YOU TELL ME THE KINDS OF THINGS YOU HAVE? 20. a) Which of the following things do you have? FOR EXAMPLE, 1. TV 4. Newspapers, books & magazines 2. Record Player 5. Telephone 3. Radio 6. Musical Instruments b) How did you get these things? 1 . TV 2. Record Player 3. Radio 4. Newspapers, books and magazines 5. Telephone 6. Musical Instruments 174 III INTERACTION LEVEL WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE AROUND HERE. 21. a) Are they nice to you? 1 yes 2 no b) Why i s that? c) What around here do you l i k e best? d) What do you l i k e about him/her/them? e) Does/do he/she/they help you when you are having d i f f i c u l t i e s ? 1 yes 2 no How? f) Do you help them? 1 yes 2 no How? g) Who around here do you not like ? h) Why i s that? 22. a) Do you have any close friends? 1 yes 2 no (IF YES) b) Where are they l i v i n g now? c) How did you get to know them? (PROBE: Hospital/School/Workshop) d) Do you see them sometimes? 1 yes 2 no (IF NO) 175 e) Why not? •  (IF YES) f) How often do you see them? (PROBE: How many times l a s t month) g) Do you usually go to see them or do they come to see you? 1"respondent see friends 2 friends see respondent both FOR RESPONDENT WHO IS NOT LIVING WITH PARENTS WHAT ABOUT YOUR PARENTS. 23. a) Are your parents l i v i n g ? 1 yes, both 2 father l i v i n g only • 3 mother l i v i n g only 4 no (IF NO), SKIP TO QUESTION #41. (IF YES) b) Where are they l i v i n g now? c) Do you see them sometimes 1 yes 2 no (IF NO) d) Why not? (IF YES) e) How often do you see them? (PROBE: How many times l a s t month) f) Do you usually go to see them or do they come to see you? 1 respondent sees parent(s) 2 parent(s) sees respondent both 176 FOR RESPONDENT WHO IS LIVING WITH PARENTS WHAT ABOUT YOUR PARENTS. 24. a) Are they nice to you? 1 yes 2 no (IF YES) b) What kinds of things do they do for you which you l i k e a lot? (IF NO) c) Why i s that? What kinds of things do they do to you which you do not like ? d) Do you ever do anything that your parent(s) do not li k e ? 1 yes 2 no (IF YES) e) What kinds of things? f) What did you parent(s) say or do to you< g) How did you fe e l about i t ? What did you do? h) What are some of th things you do that make your parent(s) happy? ALL RESPONDENTS 25. a) Are you married? 1 yes 2 no (IF NO) b) Were you ever married? 1 yes 2 no (IF YES) c) When was i t ? 177 d) What happened? (PROBE: Why i s your husband/wife not l i v i n g here with you?) IF RESPONDENT IS NOT MARRIED, SKIP TO QUESTION 28 FOR RESPONDENT WHO IS LIVING WITH HUSBAND/WIFE/AND CHILDREN 26. a) How long have you been married? b) How did you get to know your husband/wife? c) Is he/she a friend of yours from the Hospital School/Workshop? 1 yes 2 no (IF NO) d) Where did you meet him/her? e) Does you husband/wife have a job? 1 yes 2 no (IF YES) f) What kind of work i s he/she doing on the job? (IF NO) g) Why not? 27. a) Do you have any children? 1 yes 2 no (IF YES) b) How many children do you have? c) How old is/are he/she/they? d) Is/are he/she/they l i v i n g here with you in t h i s house? 1 yes 2 no 3 some yes, some no FOR RESPONDENTS WHO ARE NOT MARRIED 178 WHAT ABOUT BOY/GIRL FRIEND. 28. a) Do you have a boy/girl friend? 1 yes, boyfriend 2 yes, g i r l f r i e n d 3 no (IF YES) b) How did you get know your boy/girl friend? (PROBE: Hospital School/Workshop) c) How often do you see each other (PROBE:.How many times l a s t week?) d) What kinds of places do you go to together? e) Do you plan to get married? 1 yes 2 no f) When do you plan this? WE ARE ALMOST FINISHED NOW AND YOU HAVE BEEN VERY (CO-OPERATIVE), (HELPFUL), (PATIENT). BEFORE WE FINISH, I WOULD LIKE TO TALK WITH YOU ABOUT WHAT YOU DO WHEN YOU GO OUT. 29. a) Do you ever go out to have fun? 1 yes 2 no (IF NO) b) Why not? c) YES IF YES IF NO d) When did e) Do you go g) Why you l a s t go? with someone? not? f) Who do you usually go with? 1) Take a t r i p 2) V i s i t a museum 3) V i s i t park, zoo 4) Go shopping 179 5) Bowling 6) Movies 7) Swimming 8) Dancing 9) Other (PROBE) h) When you go out, do you take a bus/street car/subway? 1 yes 2 no (IF NO) i) Why not? j) Do you have a car or bic y c l e to get around? 1 yes 2 no (IF YES) k) Which do you have? 1. Bicycle 3. Car 2. Motor bike 4. Other (specify) 30. a) Do these things keep you from going out? YES NO Do not have enough friends to go out with. Do not have enough money. Do not have enough things to do. People are not nice to you. The place you want to go are too far from home. Other (specify) 180 IV VOCATIONAL ABILITY COMMEND RESPONDENT ON ANSWERING QUESTIONS, ON SPENDING TIME WITH YOU. WHAT ABOUT A JOB FOR PAY. 31. a) Do you have a job for pay? 1 yes 2 no IF NOT WORKING, SKIP TO QUESTION #28 (IF WORKING) b) What i s the name of the place where you are working now? c) How long have you been working there? Year Months d) Do you go to work everyday? (How many days a week do you work?) 1 yes 2 no 32. a) What do you do on your job at work? b) What other things do you do at work? c) What are some of the things you l i k e best about your job? d) What are some of the things that you do not l i k e about your job? 33. a) What things about your work are most d i f f i c u l t for you to do? b) Do you think your t r a i n i n g programme could have helped make your work easier for you to do? 1 yes 2 no (IF YES) c) How? 181 (IF NO) d) Why not? 34. a) Who i s your boss at work? (DO NOT WRITE NAME OF THE BOSS) 1 Miss, Mrs., Mr. 2 F i r s t Name 3 Do not know b) Does he/she help you when you have d i f f i c u l t i e s at work? 1 yes 2 no (IF NO) c) Why not? d) What do you do about the d i f f i c u l t i e s you have at work? (IF YES) e) How? T e l l me something about he/she helps you when you have d i f f i c u l t i e s at work? • f) Does your, boss ever get angry at you? 1 yes 2 no (IF YES) g) What was the matter? h) How did you fe e l about i t ? 35. a) Did you work somewhere else before th i s job? 1 yes 2 no (IF YES) b) What i s the name of the place you worked before? c) Did you go to work everyday? (How many days in a week did you work?) 1 yes 2 no d) What did you do on your job there? 182 e) How long did you work there? Year Months f) Which job i s best; the one you are now working at, or the one you worked at before? 1 the present one 2 the previous one g) Why? 36. a) Would you rather be doing some other kind of work than what you do now? 1 yes 2 no (IF NO), SKIP TO QUESTION #40. (IF YES) b) What kind of work would you rather do? c) Why would you rather be doing that? d) Are you doing anything about i t ? 1 yes 2 no (IF NO) e) Why not? (IF YES) f) What are you doing about i t ? g) Have you applied for a job l i k e the one you like ? 1 yes 2 no (IF NO) h) Why not? (IF YES) i) How did you hear about th i s job? j) Were you interviewed? 1 yes 2 no 183 k) What happened? IF WORKING, SKIP TO QUESTION #40. 37. Are you enrolled in any special programmes? NAME AND LOCATION 1 . School 2. Work Training 3. Occupational Therapy 4. Adult Education 5. Other (Specify) 38. a) Did you ever work at a job before. 1 yes 2 no (IF NO) b) Why not? (IF YES) c) What i s the name of the place where you worked before? d) Did you go to work everyday (How many days in a week did you work?) 1 yes 2 no e) What did you do on your job there? f) How long did you work there? Year Months g) How long has i t been since you last worked? Year Months h) Why are you not working now? 184 39. a) Did you ever apply for a job? 1 yes 2 no (IF NO): CAUTION: DO NOT ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTION IF  RESPONDENT IS NOT IN A POSITION TO WORK, (SPECIFY, WHY). b) Why not? (IF YES) c) What kind of job did you apply for? d) How did you hear about t h i s job? e) Were you interviewed? 1 yes 2 no f) What happened? ASK ALL RESPONDENTS 40. a) Are jobs hard to get? 1 yes 2 no b) Why i s that? c) Do you think you have enough tra i n i n g for a job you would l i k e to do? 1 yes 2 no (IF YES) d) What kinds of things did you learn in the tr a i n i n g programme which would help you get a job? (IF NO) e) Do you think you could get a job you l i k e to do i f the tra i n i n g programme had been better? 1 yes 2 no (IF YES) f) How do you think the training programme should change? (IF NO) 185 g) Why hot? 41. a) Did anyone ever try to help you fin d a job? 1 yes 2 no (IF YES) b) Who i s i t ? c) How did he/she help? d) What happened? 41. a) Did you ever go to any special o f f i c e s where you might be helped to find a job? 1 yes 2 no (IF NO) b) Why not? (IF YES) c) What i s the name of the o f f i c e , or where i s i t ? d) When did you l a s t go? e) What did they say to you? f) What happened? g) Where the people in the special o f f i c e nice to you? 1 yes 2 no h) Why do you think t h i s so? APPENDIX B INTRODUCTORY REMARKS AND EXPLANATION OF INTERVIEW INTERVIEW-PROMPT RECORDING SHEET USED IN PILOT STUDY 187 The following is the format of the interviews conducted in the p i l o t study and main study of t h i s research project. The p r i n c i p a l investigator i d e n t i f i e d himself at the door and indicated that he was from the University of B r i t i s h Columbia where he was conducting a study on people who went to School. (The interviewer mentioned the appropriate school). Good afternoon/evening, my name i s Marvin Enkin. I am a student at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia where I am conducting a study on people who graduated from School to see what kinds of things they do everyday. I would l i k e to come in and talk with you about t h i s . The p r i n c i p a l investigator established further rapport and put the subject and parent/guardian at ease by answering any questions that they may have had, or by making appropriate 'small t a l k ' . The p r i n c i p a l investigator next indicated that he wanted to talk to the subject and parent/guardian in a room where i t was quiet. The p r i n c i p a l investigator then began to explain what the interview was going to be l i k e . I would l i k e to talk to you and your parent(s)/supervisor in a room where i t i s quiet. I would l i k e to take about an hour of your time to ask you some questions about the kinds of things you do at home and work everyday. There are no right or wrong answers. I want you to answer the questions as best you can. You do not even have to put your name on t h i s paper (subject was shown questionnaire). Before beginning the questionnaire the p r i n c i p a l investigator reminded the subject that he/she did not have to 188 partic i p a t e in the study i f he/she did not want to. Before we st a r t , I want you to know that you do not have to answer these questions. Your help i s important in finding out some useful information. Other people who went to School are also answering these questions. Would you l i k e to answer these questions for me? Thank you very much. After a subject agreed to p a r t i c i p a t e , he/she was told that breaks were allowed. Also, i f i t was apparent the subject was having a hard time concentrating there was a fi v e to ten minute break as necessary. If you get t i r e d or need to go to the washroom, please l e t me know and we w i l l stop for a few minutes. At the conclusion of the interview, the interviewer thanked the subject and parent/guardian for the i r time and cooperation. Thank you for taking t h i s time to answer a l l the questions. You have given me a l o t of important information. Thank you for your cooperation. When leaving, the interviewer shook hands with the subject and parent/guardian. Goodbye/good night. Thank you again. It was nice meeting you. 189 Code No. CONFIDENTIAL: A l l information which would permit i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of any individual w i l l be held s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l and w i l l be used only by the p r i n c i p a l investigator. The data w i l l not be disclosed to others for any purpose. I GENERAL INFORMATION This section to be answered by a l l Ss. Most items can be answered by placing a check ( ) in the appropriate blank at the right of each l i n e . Please f i l l in necessary information where requested for other questions. 1. Gender: Male Female 2. Age: How old are you? 3. Schooling: a) What school did you attend? b) How long did you go to (Check a l l that apply) each school? ( F i l l in number of years) A n n i e v i l l e Arthur Peake Crestwood Donald Paterson George Greenaway Oakridge Prince George Simon Cunningham Sunny Cedars Sunny Park T i 1 1 i c um Other (specify) Refused/ Cannot respond 190 4. City or town where S l i v e s now: Burnaby Coquitlam Delta Langley New Westminster North Vancouver Port Coquitlam Port Moody Richmond Surrey Vancouver West Vancouver White Rock Other (specify) 5. Marital Status: Are you? Single Married Living with someone Separated Divorced Refused/Cannot respond 6. Does S l i v e -(Interviewer observation - i f not clear ask S) In extended care f a c i l i t y (hospital) With parents Other r e l a t i v e s (specify) In a boarding/group home With friends With spouse (and children) Alone Other (specify) 7. How long have you been l i v i n g with/in Less than 6 months 6 months-1 year 1- 2 years 2- 3 years 4-5 years 6-10 years More than 10 years Refused/Cannot respond (Go to question 8(a)) 191 II MOBILITY INDEPENDENCE This section to be answered by a l l Ss. 8. a) When you went out t h i s l a s t week, how did you tr a v e l around? (Check a l l that apply) b) How often - how many times per week? Bus (Easter Seal) Car (family/friends drive) Taxi question 8(c) See Bicycle Car (drive yourself) (See 8(d)) Bus (B.C. Hydro) (See 8(e)) Other (specify) c) For those checked above, where did you go (what places)? Bus (Easter Seal) Car (family/friends drive) Taxi Bicycle d) Car (drive yourself) Do you know how to drive? Yes No Do you have a drivers' licence? Yes __ No • Where do you go when your drive a car by yourself t h i s last week? 3) Bus (B.C. Hydro) Did you t r a v e l by yourself on the bus t h i s l a s t week? Yes No Did you use a transfer to change from one bus to another bus th i s last week? Yes No Where did you go on a B.C. Hydro bus t h i s l a s t week? 1 92 9.a) When you went downtown or somewhere else shopping or v i s i t i n g your friends t h i s l a s t week, did you have trouble finding your way around (Probe - Did you get lost?) Yes (Go to question 9(b)) No (Go to question 10(a)) b) If Yes, what kind of trouble? (Check a l l that apply) Took the wrong bus Walked in the wrong d i r e c t i o n Other (specify) c) How did you solve your problem of being lost? 193 III SELF-SUFFICIENCY Questions in t h i s section are for a l l Ss. 10. a) Did you make/cook any of your own meals th i s last week? Yes (Go to question 10(b)) No _______ (Go to question 11(a)) Refused/cannot respond (Go to question 12(a)) b) If yes, c) How often? Which meals did you make (Probe-How many (Check a l l that apply) times per week?) Breakfast Lunch Supper Snack d) What kinds of things did you make to cook for-(Probe-What did you make to eat for-) Breakfast Lunch Supper "  Snack S did not cook any meals t h i s l a s t week -Do you know how to cook? Yes No Why not? Who made/cooked the meals for you th i s l a s t week? Mother/father Sister/brother Other (specify) Did you help make any meals th i s last week? Yes In what way did you help? (Probe-what kinds of things did you do to help? 11. If a) b) No Why didn't you help? (Probe-Can you give me some reasons for not helping? 194 12. a) Did you do any work/jobs around the house t h i s last week? (Probe - Do you help with cleaning/taking care of the house?) Yes (Go to question 12(b)) No (Go to question 13(a)) Refused/Cannot respond (Go to question 14) b) If yes, did you- c) How often? (Probe-(Check a l l that apply) How many times per week?) Vacuum/sweep floors/carpets Wash/iron clothes Wash dishes Make beds Gardening (cut the lawn) Take out garbage Other (specify) 13. If S did not do any jobs/work around the house th i s l a s t week-YES NO WHY NOT? a) Do you know how to: Vacuum/sweep floors/carpets Wash/iron clothes Wash dishes Make beds Gardening (cut the lawn) Take out garbage Other (specify) b) Who did these jobs for you l a s t week? Mother/father Sister/brother Other (specify) 195 c) Did you help with any of the jobs t h i s l a s t week? Yes In what way did you help? (Probe-What kinds of things did you do to help?) No Why didn't you help? (Probe-Can you give me some reasons for not helping?) 14. Where does the money you l i v e on each month come from? (Probe - How did you get it?) (Check a l l that apply) Government (GAIN) Parents Work . Other (specify) Refused/Cannot respond _______ (Go to question 1~5(a)) 15. a) Do you have your own bank account? (Probe-Do you keep money in the bank?) Yes (Go to question 15(b)) No (Go to question 15(c)) b) If Yes-Do you save any money? Yes What are you saving for? No Why not? c) If no, who takes care of your money for you? 196 16. Who pays for-SELF SOMEONE ELSE Rent Groceries (food) Clothes 17. Did you have any spending money thi s week? (Probe-Did you have some money to buy things t h i s week?) Yes (Go to question 18) No (Go to question 19) 18. If Yes, a) Who decided how much money you could have for the week? b) What did you do with your money t h i s week? (Probe-What did you buy with your money?) (Check a l l that apply) Candy, cigarettes, beer :  Use Swimming as Bowling probes Restaurant (MacDonald's, White Spot, etc.) Other (specify) Refused/cannot respond (Go to question 20(a)) 19. If no, Why didn't you have any spending money thi s l a s t week? 197 IV INTERACTION LEVEL This section to be answered by a l l Ss. 20. Did you go out anywhere th i s l a s t week, besides work? (Probe-Did you go out to do d i f f e r e n t kinds of things last week?) Yes (Go to question 20(b)) No (Go to question 20(e)) Refused/Cannot respond (Go to questions 21-24 or 25-29) b) If Yes,- c) How often: Where did you go/What did you (Probe-How do? (Check a l l that apply) many times per week?) Bowling Swimming Dancing Parties Movies Restaurants (MacDonald's, White Spot, etc.) _ Parks (Stanley Park, or any park near home) _ Other (specify) d) When you went out, who did you go with? (Check a l l that apply) Parents Brother/sister Boy/girl friend Other friends Alone Other (specify) e) If No, why didn't you go? (Probe-Can you t e l l me some reasons? Did not have enough friends to go out with Did not have enough money D i f f i c u l t y with transportation A c t i v i t i e s / p l a c e s too far from home Other (specify) 198 The questions in t h i s box are only for Ss who are l i v i n g with their parent(s): 21. Why are you l i v i n g with "your parents? (Probe-Can you give me some reasons?) 22. a) Did you spend time with your parents(s)? Yes (Go to question 22(b)) No (Go to question 22(c)) b) If Yes, what kinds of t h i n g s / a c t i v i t i e s did you do with your parent(s)? (Check a l l that apply) In House: Use Eat meals together as Play games (cards, etc.) Probes Watch TV Other (specify) Out of House: Eat in restaurant Use Go swimming as Go bowling Probes See a movie Go shopping Other (specify) c) If No, who did you spend time with? Boy/girl f r i e n d Other friends Other (specify) 23. a) Did your parents help you to do things this l a s t week? Yes How did they help? No What kind of help would you lik e ? 24. a) Would you l i k e to change with whom/where you are now l i v i n g ? b) If Yes, would you l i k e to l i v e -(If S names a person/place, ask relat i o n s h i p or what place i s and check off appropriate category) In extended care f a c i l i t y (hospital) With parents Other r e l a t i v e s (specify) In a boarding/group home With friends . With spouse (and children) Alone Other (specify) Yes No (Go to question 24(b)) (Go to question 30(a)) 200 The questions in th i s box are only for Ss who are not l i v i n g with their parents: 25. a) Are your parents l i v i n g ? Yes - both Yes - father (Go to question 25(b)) Yes - mother No (Go to question 28(a)) Refused/Cannot respond (Go to question 28(a)) If Yes-Why are you not l i v i n g with your parents? 26. a) If parent(s) is/are l i v i n g , did you see your parent(s) t h i s l a s t week? Yes (Go to question 26(b)) No • (Go to question 26(c)) b) If Yes -What kinds of t h i n g s / a c t i v i t i e s did you do with your parent(s)? (Probe-in parents' house/out of parents' house) . c) If No, why did you not see your parent(s) t h i s l a s t week? (Probe-Can you give me some reasons?) D i f f i c u l t y with transportation Live too far away Other (specify) 27. a) Did you speak to your parent(s) on the telephone? Yes (Go to question 27(b)) No _____ (Go to question 27(c)) Refused/Cannot respond (Go to question 28(a)) 201 b) If Yes, how often did you speak to your parent(s) thi s l a s t week? (Probe-How many times?) Once Twice Three times More than three times Every day c) If No, why did you nbt speak to your parent(s) on the telephone l a s t week? (Probe - Can you give me some reasons?) No telephone Don't know how to use telephone Other (specify) 28. a) Did someone where you l i v e help you to do things t h i s l a s t week? Yes No Refused/Cannot respond If Yes -Who helped? ; . How did they help? c) If No -What kind of help would you l i k e ? 29. a) Would you l i k e to change with whom/where you are now l i v i n g ? Yes (Go to question 29(b)) No (Go to question 30) b) If Yes, would you l i k e to l i v e -(If S names a person/place, aske rela t i o n s h i p or what place i s and check off appropriate category) In extended care f a c i l i t y (hospital) With parents Other r e l a t i v e s (specify) In a boarding/group home With friends With spouse (and children) Alone Other (specify) Questions 30 to 33 for a l l Ss. 30. a) Did you see your brothers/sisters, aunts/uncles, cousins or grandmother/grandfather this l a s t week? Yes (Go to question 31(a)) No _______ (Go to question 32) Refused/Cannot respond (Go to question 33(a)) 31. a) If Yes, who did you see? b) How often? (Probe (Check a l l that apply) How many times per week?) Use Brothers/sisters as Aunts/uncles Probes Cousins Grandmother/father c) What kinds of t h i n g s / a c t i v i t i e s did you do with your brothers/sisters, (etc.)? 32. 33. If No, why did you not see your brother/sisters (etc.) t h i s l a s t week? -(Probe-Can you give me some reasons?) D i f f i c u l t y with transportation Live too far away Other (specify) a) Did you speak to your brothers/sisters (etc.) on the telephone t h i s l a s t week? Yes No Refused/Cannot respond (Go to question 33(b)) (Go to question 33(d)) b) If Yes, who did you speak to? (Check a l l that apply) Brothers/sisters Aunts/uncles Cousins Grandmother/father c) How often?" (Probe How many times per week?) d) If No, why did you not speak to your brothers/sisters (etc.) on the telephone th i s l a s t week? (Probe - Can you give me some reasons?) No telephone Don't know how to use telephone Other (specify) The questions in thi s box are only for Ss who are not married. 34. a) Do you have a boy/girl friend? (Probe - a special person that you l i k e very much and that person l i k e s you in the same way) Yes - boy friend (Go to question 34(b)) Yes - g i r l friend (Go to question 34(b)) No - boy/girl friend (Go to question 37(a)) Refused/Cannot respond (Go to question 37(a)) b) If Yes -Do you l i v e and/or work in the same place as your boy/girl friend? Yes (See everyday) No c) If No -Do you have a boy/girl friend that you see away from where you l i v e and/or work? Yes No 35. a) If Yes -How often did you see your boy/girl friend t h i s l a s t week? (Probe-How many times?) b) What did you and your boy/girl friend do/Where did you go thi s l a s t week? (Probe - sporting a c t i v i t i e s , parties, dancing, etc.) 204 The questions in th i s box are only for Ss who are married or l i v i n g with someone. 36. a) How long have you been married/living with someone? Less than 6 months 6 months - 1 year 2 - 3 years More than 2 years Refused/Cannot respond b) How did you get to know your husband/wife-boy/girl friend? c) Do you have any children? Yes No d) If Yes, Number Gender Ages 205 This section to be answered by a l l Ss. 37. a) Do you have any (other) good friends? (Probe-friends other than your boy/girl friend?) Yes (Go to question 37(b)) No (Go to question 37(c)) Refused/Cannot respond (Go to question 39(a)) If Yes-Do you l i v e and/or work in the same place as most of your good friends? Yes (See every day) No c) If No-Do you have good friends that you see away from where you l i v e and/or work? Yes No 38. a) If Yes-How often did you see your good friends t h i s l a s t week? (Probe - How many times?) b) What did you and your good friends do/Where did you go th i s l a s t week? (Probe - Sporting a c t i v i t i e s , p a r t i e s , dancing, etc.) 206 V VOCATIONAL ABILITY This section to be answered by a l l Ss. 39. a) Do you have a job now? (Probe - What do you do to earn money?) Yes (Go to question 39(b)) No (Go to question 41(a)) Refused/Cannot respond (Go to question 41(a)) b) If Yes, i s th i s job: (Probe - Do you work every day/all day?) Full-time Part-time c) How long have you had t h i s job? Less than 6 months 6 months - 1 year 2 - 3 years More than 3 years Refused/Cannot respond d) Where do you work? (Probe - i f name given, ask what kind of place?) Workshop Factory Office Store Hospital Other (specify) e) Name of the place you work at: (From information determine whether t h i s is-) Competitive Sheltered f) What did you do at work today? (Probes.- What was your job?/What did you do when you were working?) (Get brief description of job) 207 40. a) Did you work somewhere else before t h i s job? Yes (Go to question 40(b)) No _____ (Go to question 40(g)) Refused/Cannot respond . (Go to question 43) If Yes, was t h i s job: (Probe - Did you work every day/all day?) Full-time Part-time c) How long did you have t h i s job? Less than 6 months • 6 months - 1 year 2 - 3 years More than 3 years Refused/Cannot respond d) Where did you work? (Probe - i f name given, ask what kind of place?) Workshop Factory O f f i c e Store Hospital Other (specify) e) Name of place you worked at: (From information determine whether th i s i s -Competitive Sheltered f) What did you do at work? (Probe - What was your job?) (Get brief description of job) g) If No, what were you doing instead of working? School Unemployed Other (specify) 208 The questions in this box are only for Sjs who are not presently working. 41. a) Have you every worked before? (Probe - Did you ever have a job to earn money?) Yes (Go to question 41(b)) N o _ _ _ _ ( G o t o question 41(g) Refused/Cannot respond (Go to question 43(a)) b) If Yes, was this job: (Probe - Did you work every da y / a l l day?) Full-time Part-time c) How long did you have this job? Less than 6 months 6 months - 1 year 2 - 3 years More than 3 years Refused/Cannot respond d) Where did you work? (Probe - If name given, ask what kind of place?) Workshop Factory Of f i c e Store Hospital Other (specify) e) Name of place you worked at: (From information determine whether t h i s was:) Competitive Sheltered f) What did you do at work (Probe - What was your job?) (Get brief description of job) g) If No, what were you doing instead of working?) School Unemployed • Other (specify) 209 42. a) Are you looking for work now? Yes (Go to question 42(b)) No ______ (Go to question 42(c)) Refused/Cannot respond b) If Yes, how long have you been looking for work? Less than 6 months 6 months - 1 year 2 - 3 years More than 3 years c) If No, what are you doing instead of looking for work? 210 VI EDUCATIONAL STATUS Questions 43 to 45 are for a l l Ss. 43. a) Are you now enrolled in/attending any adult night school programmes? (Probe - Are you going to school after work/during the day?) Yes (Go to question 44(a)) No (Go to question 45(a)) Refused/Cannot respond (Finish) 44. a) If Yes, where are you going to school? b) What kinds of things are you learning? c) Have you gone to this type of programme before? Yes No 45. a) If No, would you l i k e to go to an adult school programme? Yes No b) Have you ever gone to an adult school programme? Yes Which one? No To be f i l l e d out by the interviewer at the end of the interview, Date of Interview Duration of Interview Interviewer APPENDIX C INTERVIEW-PROMPT RECORDING SHEET USED IN MAIN STUDY 212 Code No. Confidential; A l l information which would permit i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of any individual w i l l be held s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l and w i l l be used only by the p r i n c i p a l investigator. The data w i l l not be disclosed to others for any purpose. I GENERAL INFORMATION This section to be answered by a l l Ss . Most items can be answered by placing a check ( ) in the appropriate blank at the right of each l i n e . Please f i l l in necessary information where requested for other questions. 1. Gender: Male Female 2. Age: How old are you? 3. Schooling: a) What school did you go to? b) How long did you go to (Check a l l that apply) each school? ( F i l l in number of years) A n n i e v i l l e Arthur Peake Crestwood Donald Paterson George Greenaway Oakridge Prince Charles Simon Cunningham Sunny Cedars Sunny Park T i l l i c u m Other (specify) Refused/Cannot respond (3(b) Probes - How old were you when you started school? How old were you when you finished school?) 213 4. Which city/town do you l i v e in now? (Probe - What i s your address? Where do you l i v e in B r i t i s h Columbia?) Burnaby Coquitlam Delta Langley New Westminster North Vancouver Port Coquitlam Port Moody Richmond Surrey Vancouver West Vancouver White Rock Other (specify) 5. Marital Status: Are you: (Probe - Have you ever been married?) Single Married Living with someone Separated Divorced Refused/Cannot respond 6. Where do you live/Who do you l i v e with? In extended care f a c i l i t y (hospital) With parents Other r e l a t i v e s (specify) In a boarding house/group home With friends With spouse (and children) Alone Other (specify) 7. How long have you been l i v i n g with/in (Go to question 8(a)) 214 II MOBILITY INDEPENDENCE THIS SECTION TO BE ANSWERED BY ALL SS . I have some questions that I want to ask you about how you tra v e l when you go out. 8. a) When you went out t h i s past b) How often - how week, how did you travel? many times (Probe - What are some of the ' per week? ways you went d i f f e r e n t places? (Check a l l that apply) Bus (Easter Seal) See Car (family/friends drive) quest ion Taxi 8(c) Bicycle Car (drive yourself) See 8(d) Bus (B.C. Hydro) See 8(e) Other (Specify) c) For those checked above, where did you go (what places)? Bus (Easter Seal) '  Car (family/friends drive) Taxi Bicycle d) Car (drive yourself) Do you know how to drive? Yes No Do you have a drivers' license? Yes No Where did you go when you drove a car by yourself t h i s l a s t week? e) Bus (B.C. Hydro) Did you tr a v e l by yourself on the bus this l a s t week? Yes No Who did you travel with? Did you use a transfer to change from one bus to another bus thi s l a s t week? Yes No Where did you go on a B.C.Hydro bus t h i s l a s t week? 215 If S does not travel independently, Question 9 should not be asked. 9. a) When you went downtown or somewhere else shopping or v i s i t i n g friends l a s t week, did you have trouble finding your way around (Probe - Did you get lost?) Yes (Go to question 9(b)) No (Go to question 10(a)) b) If Yes, what kind of trouble? (Check a l l that apply) Took the wrong bus Walked in the wrong d i r e c t i o n Other (specify) c) How did you solve your problem of being lost? (Probe -How did you find the right way to go?) 216 III SELF-SUFFICIENCY Questions in this section are for a l l Ss. In t h i s section, I am going to ask you some questions about the kinds of things you do around the house where you l i v e . 10. a) Did you make/cook any of your own meals t h i s l a s t week. Yes (Go to question 10(b)) No (Go to question 11(a)) Refused/cannot respond (Go to question 12(a)) b) If Yes, which meals c) How often? did you make? (Probe - How many (Check a l l that apply) times per week?) Use ( Breakfast as ( Lunch Probes ( Supper ( Snack d) What kinds of things did you cook for: (Probe - What did you make to eat for:) Use ( Breakfast as ( Lunch Probes ( Supper ( Snack 11. If S did not cook any meals th i s l a s t week-a) Do you know how to cook? Yes No Why not? b) Who made/cooked the meals for you t h i s l a s t week? Mother/father Sister/brother Other (specify) c) Did you help make any meals this l a s t week? Yes In what way did you help? (Probe - What kinds of things did you do to help?) No Why didn't you help? (Probe - Can you give me some reasons for not helping?) 217 12. a) Did you do any work/jobs around the house where you l i v e t h i s l a s t week? (Probe - Do you help with cleaning/taking care of the house where you live?) Yes (Go to question 12(b)) No _______ (Go to question 13(a)) Refused/cannot respond (Go to question 14) b) If yes, did you-(Check a l l that apply) d) How often? (Probe - How many times per week?) Use as Probes Vacuum/sweep floors/carpets Wash/iron clothes Wash dishes Make beds Gardening (Cut the lawn) Take out garbage Other (specify) 13. If S did not do any jobs/work around the house this l a s t week -YES NO WHY NOT? a) Do you know how to: (Use following as probes) Vacuum/sweep floors/carpets Wash/iron clothes Wash dishes Make beds Gardening (Cut the lawn) Take out garbage Other (specify) b) Who did these jobs for you la s t week? Mother/father Sister/brother Other (specify) c) Did you help with any of the jobs this l a s t week? Yes In what way did you help? (Probe - What kinds of things did you do to help?) No Why didn't you help? (Probe - Can you give me some reasons for not helping?) 218 Now I am going to ask you some questions about money. 14. Where does the money you l i v e on each month come from? (Probe - How did you get i t ? ) (Check a l l that apply) Government (GAIN) Parents Work Other (specify) ^ Refused/cannot respond (Go to question 15(a)) 15. a) Do you have your own bank account? (Probe - Do you keep money in the bank? Yes (Go to question 15(b)) No _______ (Go to question 15(c)) Refused/cannot respond (Go to question 16) b) If Yes, do you save any money? Yes What are you saving for? No Why not? c) If No, who takes care of your money for you? With your money you can do a l o t of things. 16. Who pays for: SELF SOMEONE ELSE (WHO?) Rent Groceries Clothes 17. Did you have any spending money t h i s week? (Probe - Did you have some money to buy things t h i s l a s t week? Yes (Go to question 18) No (Go to question 19) 219 18. If Yes, a) Who decided how much money you could have for the week? b) What did you do with your money this week? (Probe - What did you buy with your money?) (Check a l l that apply) Use ( Candy, cigarettes, beer as ( Swimming Probes ( Bowling ( Restaurant (MacDonald's, White Spot, etc.) Other (Specify) Refused/cannot respond (Go to question 20(a)) 19. If No, why didn't you have any spending money thi s l a s t week? 220 IV INTERACTION LEVEL This section to be answered by a l l Ss. 20. a) Did you go out anywhere t h i s l a s t week besides work? (Probe - Did you go out to do d i f f e r e n t kinds of things t h i s l a s t week? Yes (Go to question 20 (b)) No ______ (Go to question 20 (e)) Refused/cannot respond (Go to questions 21-24 or 25-29) b) If Yes, c) How often: d) Who did you Where did you go/ (Probe-How go out with? What did you do? many times (Check a l l that apply) per week? ( Bowling ' ( Swimming Use ( Dancing as ( Parties Probes ( Movies ( Restaurants (MacDonald's, White Spot, etc.) ( Parks (Stanley Park, or any park near home) ( Other (Specify) e) If No, why didn't you go? (Probe - Can you t e l l me some reasons?) Did not have enough friends to go out with _ Did not have enough money _ D i f f i c u l t y with transportation _ A c t i v i t i e s / p l a c e s too far from home _ Other (Specify) '  221 The questions in this box are only for Ss who are l i v i n g with their parents: 21. Why are you l i v i n g with your parents? (Probe - Can you give me some reasons?) 22. a) Did you spend time with your parent(s) th i s l a s t week? Yes (Go to question 22(b)) No (Go to question 22(c)) b) If Yes, What kinds of t h i n g s / a c t i v i t i e s did you do with your parent(s)? (Check a l l that apply) In the house: Use ( Eat meals together as ( Play games (cards, etc.) Probes( Watch TV Other (Specify) Out of the house: ( Eat in restaurant Use ( Go swimming as ( Go bowling Probes( See a movie ( Go shopping Other (Specify) c) If No, who did you spend time with? Boy/girl friend Other friends Other (Specify) 23. a) Did your parents help you to do things t h i s l a s t week? Yes How did they help? No What kind of help would you l i k e ? 222 Continuation of questions only for Ss who are l i v i n g with their parent(s) 24. a) Would you l i k e to change with whom/where you are now l i v i n g ? Yes (Go to question 24(b)) No (Go to question 30(a)) b) If Yes, would you l i k e to l i v e -(If S names a person/place, ask rel a t i o n s h i p or what place i s and check off appropriate category) In extended care f a c i l i t y (hospital) With parents Other r e l a t i v e s (Specify) '  In a boarding/group home With friends With spouse (and children) Alone Other (Specify) 223 The questions in this box are only for Ss who are not l i v i n g with their parent(s): 25. a) Are your parents l i v i n g ? Yes - both Yes - father (Go to question 25(b)) Yes - mother No (Go to question 30(a)) Refused/cannot respond (Go to question 30(a)) b) If Yes, why are you not l i v i n g with your parents? 26. a) If parent(s) is/are l i v i n g , did you see your parent(s) t h i s l a s t week? Yes (Go to question 27(b)) No (Go to question 27(c)) b) If Yes, what kinds of t h i n g s / a c t i v i t i e s did you do with your parents? (Probe - In parents' house/out of parents' house) c) If No, why did you not see your parent(s) t h i s l a s t week? (Probe - Can you give me some reasons?) D i f f i c u l t y with transportation Live too far away Other (Specify) 27. a) Did you speak to your parent(s) on the telephone t h i s l a s t week? Yes (Go to question 27(b)) No _______ (Go to question 27(c)) Refused/cannot respond (Go to question 28(a)) b) If Yes, how often did you speak to your parent(s) t h i s l a s t week? (Probe - How many times?) Once Twice Three times More than three times Every day 224 Continuation of questions only for Ss who are not l i v i n g with their parents: c) If No, why did you not speak to your parent(s) on the telephone last week? (Probe - Can you give me some reasons?) No telephone Don't know how to use telephone Other (Specify) 28. a) Did someone where you l i v e help you to do things t h i s l a s t week? Yes (Go to question 28(b)) No _____ (Go to question 28(c)) Refused/cannot respond (Go to question 29 (a)) b) If Yes, Who helped? How did they help? c) If No, What kind of help would you like ? 29. a) Would you l i k e to change with whom/where you are now li v i n g ? Yes (Go to question 29(b)) No (Go to question 30(a)) b) If Yes, would you l i k e to l i v e -(If S names a person/place, ask relat i o n s h i p or what place i s and check off appropriate category) In extended care f a c i l i t y (hospital) With parents Other r e l a t i v e s (Specify) In a boarding/group home With friends With spouse (and children) Alone Other (Specify) 225 Questions 30 to 33 for a l l Ss. 30. a) Did you see your brothers/sisters, aunts/uncles, cousins or grandmother/grandfather t h i s l a s t week? Yes (Go to question 31(a)) No ________ (Go to question 32) Refused/cannot respond (Go to question 33(a)) 31. a) If Yes, who did you see b) How often? (Probe (Check a l l that apply) - How many times per week? Use ( Brothers/sisters as ( Aunts/uncles ' Probes ( Cousins ( Grandmother/father c) What kinds of t h i n g s / a c t i v i t i e s did you do with your brothers/sisters (etc.)? 32. a) If No, why did you not see your brother/sister (etc). t h i s l a s t week? (Probe - Can you give me some reasons?) D i f f i c u l t y with transportation Live too far away Other (Specify) 33. a) Did you speak to your brother/sister (etc.) on the telephone t h i s l a s t week? Yes (Go to question 33(b)) No ___^_ (Go to question 33(d)) Refused/cannot respond b) If Yes, who did you speak to? c) How often? (Check a l l that apply) (Probe - How many times per week?) Brothers/sisters Aunts/uncles Cousins Grandmother/father d) If No, why did you not speak to your brothers/sisters (etc.) on the telephone th i s last week? (Probe - Can you give me some reasons?) No telephone Don't know how to use telephone Other (Specify) 2 2 6 The questions in t h i s box are only for Ss who are not married. 34. a) Do you have a boy/girl friend? (Probe - a special person that you l i k e very much and that person l i k e s you in the same way) Yes-boy/girl friend (Go to question 34(b)) No -boy/girl f r i e n d (Go to question 38(a)) Refused/cannot respond (Go to question 38(a)) b) If Yes, how did you get to know your boy/girl friend? (Probe - School; l i v e and/or work in the same place?) 35. a) Did you see/spend any time with your boy/girl friend t h i s l a s t week? Yes (Go to question 35(b)) No (Go to question 35(d)) b) If Yes, how often did you see/spend time with your boy/girl friend t h i s l a s t week? (Probe - How many times?) c) What did you and your boy/girl friend do/Where did you go t h i s l a s t week? (Probe - sporting a c t i v i t i e s , p arties, danc ing, etc .) d) If No, why did you not see/spend any time with your boy/girl friend t h i s l a s t week? (Probe - Can you give me some reasons?) D i f f i c u l t y with transportation Live too far away Other (Specify) 227 Continuation of questions only for Ss who are not married. 36. a) Did you speak to your girl/boy friend on the telephone t h i s last week? Yes (Go to question 36(b)) No _______ (Go to question 36(c)) Refused/cannot respond (Go to'question 38(a)) b) If Yes, how often did you speak to your boy/girl friend t h i s l a s t week? (Probe - How many times?) c) If No, why did you not speak to your boy/girl friend on the telephone t h i s l a s t week? (Probe - Can you give me some reasons?) No telephone Don't know how to use telephone Other (Specify) 228 The questions in this box are only for Ss who are married or l i v i n g with someone. 37. a) How long have you been married/living with someone? Less than 6 months 6 months to 1 year 2 to 3 years More than 3 years Refused/cannot respond b) How did you get to know your husband/wife-boy/girl friend? c) Do you have any children? Yes No d) If Yes, Number Gender Ages 229 This section to be answered by a l l Ss. 38. a) Do you have any (other) good friends? (Probe -friends other than your boy/girl friend?) Yes (Go to question 38(b)) No (Go to question 41(a)) Refused/cannot respond (Go to question 42(a)) b) If Yes, where did you get to know them? (Probe - School, l i v e and/or work in the same place) 39. a) Did you see/spend any time with any of your good friends t h i s last week? Yes (Go to question 39(b)) No (Go to question 39(d)) b) If Yes,- how often did you see/spend time with your good friends this l a s t week? (Probe - How many times?) t h i s c) What did you and your good friends do/where did you go las t week? (Probe - sporting a c t i v i t i e s , p arties, dancing, etc.) d) If No, why did you not see/spend any time with your good friends t h i s last week? (Probe - Can you give me some reasons?) D i f f i c u l t y with transportation Live too far away Other (Specify) 230 40. a) Did you speak to your good friends on the telephone thi s last week? Yes (Go to question 40(b)) No ________ (Go to question 40(c)) Refused/cannot respond (Go to question 41(a)) b) If Yes, how often did you speak to your good friends on the telephone th i s l a s t week? (Probe - How many times?) c) If No, why did you not speak to your good friends on the telephone th i s l a s t week? (Probe - Can you give me some reasons?) No telephone Don't know how to use telephone Other (Specify) 231 V VOCATIONAL ABILITY This section to be answered by a l l Ss. This section i s about your job and the kinds of things you do each day at work. 41. a) Do you have a job now? (Probe - What do you do to earn money?) Yes (Go to question 41(b)) No (Go to question 43(a)) Refused/cannot respond (Go to question 43(a)) b) If Yes, i s this job: (Probe - Do you work every day/all day? Full-time Part-t ime c) How long have you had this job? d) Where do you work? (Probe - i f name given, ask what kind of place?) Workshop Factory O f f i c e Store Hospital Other (Specify) __ e) Name of the place you work at: (From the information determine whether t h i s i s-) Competitive Sheltered f) What did you do at work yesterday? (Probe - What was your job? What did you do when you were working?) (Get brief description of job) 232 42. a) Did you work somewhere else before th i s job? Yes (Go to question 42(b)) • No _____ (Go to question 42(g)) Refused/cannot respond (Go to question 45(a)) b) If Yes, was th i s job: (Probe - Did you work every day/all day?) Full-time Part-time c) How long did you have th i s job? d) Where did you work? (Probe - i f name given, ask what kind of place? Workshop Factory O f f i c e Store — Hospital Other (Specify) e) Name of place you worked at: (From information determine whether t h i s i s-) Competitive Sheltered f) What did you do at work? (Probe - What was your job?) (Get brief description of job) g) If No, what were you doing instead of working? School Unemployed Other (Specify) ' 233 The questions in th i s box are only for Ss who are not presently working. 43. a) Have you every worked before? (Probe - Did you ever have a job to earn money?) Yes (Go to question 43(b)) No _______ (Go to question 43(g)) Refused/cannot respond (Go to question 44(a)) b) If Yes, was t h i s job: (Probe - Did you work every day/all day?) Full-time Part-time c) How long did you have th i s job? d) Where did you work? (Probe - i f name given, ask what kind of place?) Workshop . Factory O f f i c e . Store Hospital Other (Specify) — e) Name of place you worked at: (From information determine whether t h i s was:) Competitive Sheltered f) What did you do at work? (Probe - What was your job?) (Get brief description of job) 234 Continuation of questions only for Ss who are not presently working. g) If No, what were you doing instead of working? School Unemployed Other (Specify) 44. a) Are you looking for work now? Yes (Go to question 44(b)) No (Go to question 44(c)) Refused/cannot respond b) If Yes, how long have you been looking for work? c) If No, what are you doing instead of looking for work? 235 VI Educational Status This section to be answered by a l l Ss. 45. a) Are you now enrolled in/attending any adult school programmes? (Probe - Are you going to school after work/during the day?) Yes (Go to question 46(a)) No ______ (Go to question 47(a)) Refused/cannot respond (Finish) 46. a) If Yes, where are you_going to school? b) What kinds of things are you learning? c) Have you attended an adult school programme before? Yes Where? What kinds of things did you learn? No Why not? 47. a) If No, would you l i k e to go to an adult school programme? Yes No Why not? b) Have you ever attended an adult school programme? Yes Where? What kinds of things did you learn? NO why not? ZZZZZZZZ^ZZZZZ^ZZZHL To be f i l l e d out by the interviewer at the end of the interview. Date of Interview Duration of Interview Interviewer APPENDIX D LETTERS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS SENT TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND ASSOCIATIONS FOR THE MENTALLY HANDICAPPED 239 THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA FACULTY OF EDUCATION 2125 MAIN MALL UNIVERSITY CAMPUS VANCOUVER, B.C., CANADA V6T 1Z5 THESIS OUTLINE I T i t l e : A Survey of Moderately Retarded Adults in the Lower Mainland of B r i t i s h Columbia: Their Community Adjustment One and Three Years After Graduating From School. II Purposes: 1. To describe the current status of moderately retarded adults l i v i n g in the Lower Mainland of B r i t i s h Columbia one and three years after leaving school in terms of their mobility independence, s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y , interaction l e v e l , and vocational and educational status. As part of the object the research w i l l more s p e c i f i c a l l y dtermine: a) If differences exist between the adjustment of males and females on each of the four variables. b) If differences exist among the four variables with regard to length of time after leaving school. c) If differences exist between the adjustment of males and females on each of the four variables with regard to the length of time after leaving school. I l l Subjects: There w i l l be approximately 40 subjects in t h i s study. The subjects w i l l be male and female graduates of schools and programmes designated for the moderately retarded l i v i n g in the Lower Mainland of B r i t i s h Columbia. They w i l l have graduated from school in June, 1980 and 1978. IV Methodology: In preparation for the c o l l e c t i o n of the data, a l l subjects in the study w i l l be contacted with the appropriate agency's (school boards and associations for the mentall retarded) approval. Before the actual interview takes place, informed consent w i l l also be obtained (see sheets attached). The basis for data c o l l e c t i o n with be a semi-formal structured personal interview (see interview-prompt recording sheet attached) with each of the adults. The interviewing w i l l be done by the p r i n c i p a l investigator. The interview w i l l be approximately 1 hour and w i l l take place in one session at the residence of each adult. A 240 parent, r e l a t i v e , or other appropriate individual w i l l be present at the time of the interview. This i s to ensure both accuracy of information and security of the handicapped adult. The interviews w i l l be taped to make sure a l l data i s recorded accurately. A l l tapes w i l l be erased once the information has been transferred to coding sheets. A l l information w i l l be kept s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l and no information on any individual w i l l be released." To this end a l l subjects w i l l be i d e n t i f i e d only by a code number. 241 THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 312 - 6344 MEMORIAL ROAD VANCOUVER, B.C., CANADA V6T 1W5 OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT Our F i l e : RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION Your F i l e : Telephone [604]228-3652 80-11-03 Dr. P. Koopman Faculty of Education, Scarfe. RE: Your proposed study: A survey of moderately retarded adults in the Lower Mainland of B.C.: Their community adjustment one, three and five years after leaving school. Dear Dr. Koopman: The Behavioural Sciences Screening Committee for Research & Other Studies Involving Human Subjects has reviewed the protocol for your proposed study. The Committee has approved the e t h i c a l a c c e p t a b i l i t y of the experimental procedures to be followed. Upon receipt of written approval from each of the cooperating agencies in your study, your C e r t i f i c a t e of Approval w i l l be released to you after which Mr. Enkin may begin his data c o l l e c t i o n . If you wish additional information concerning the Committee's requirements, you may reach me at l o c a l 4985 or 5351. Sincerely, W. Todd Rogers, Acting Chairman, UBC Screening Committee for Research & Other Studies Involving Human Subjects -- Behavioural Sciences. WTR:lpc c. Dr. RD. Spratley Dr. L. Walters 242 THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 2125 MAIN MALL VANCOUVER, B.C., CANADA V6T 1Z5 FACULTY OF EDUCATION Dear School Graduate and Parents/Guardians: School has agreed to pa r t i c i p a t e in a research project looking at what former students are doing in the community after they leave school. The research i s being undertaken to f u l f i l l the requirements for a master's degree in the Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. The project requires the co-operation of graduates from the school in 1978 and 1980 to be interviewed for about one hour in their homes. During the interview each graduate w i l l be asked questions about his/her mobility independence, s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y s k i l l s , interaction l e v e l , and vocational and educational status. The interview w i l l be tape recorded but a l l tapes w i l l be erased at the university once the information has been transferred to computer coding sheets at the university. The main benefit from the project w i l l be a better understanding of what former students are doing in the community after they leave shcool. This kind of information i s of interest to a l l those concerned with the progress and development of these former students. In order to carry out thi s project, the consent of the school graduate and his/her parents i s required. Please find enclosed two consent forms to be f i l l e d out by the school graduate and his/her parent or guardian. Please return the consent forms to the university as soon as possible in the enclosed stamped, self-addressed envelope. We wish to emphasize that a l l names and answers w i l l be kept s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l . Only group data w i l l be reported. It i s also important to re a l i z e that p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h i s project i s voluntary and that withdrawal from the project i s possible at anytime. We would, however, greatly appreciate your consent to take part in thi s research. APPENDIX E LETTERS AND CONSENT FORMS SENT TO SUBJECTS 245 THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 2125 MAIN MALL VANCOUVER, B.C., CANADA V6T 1Z5 FACULTY OF EDUCATION Dear School Graduate and Parents/Guardians: School has agreed to pa r t i c i p a t e in a research project looking at what former students are doing in the community after they leave school. The research i s being undertaken to f u l f i l l the requirements for a master's degree in the Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. The project requires the co-operation of graduates from the school in 1978 and 1980 to be interviewed for about one hour in thei r homes. During the interview each graduate w i l l be asked questions about his/her mobility independence, s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y s k i l l s , interaction l e v e l , and vocational and educational status. The interview w i l l be tape recorded but a l l tapes w i l l be erased at the university once the information has been transferred to computer coding sheets at the uni v e r s i t y . The main benefit from the project w i l l be a better understanding of what former students are doing in the community after they leave shcool. This kind of information i s of interest to a l l those concerned with the progress and development of these former students. In order to carry out thi s project, the consent of the school graduate and his/her parents i s required. Please f i n d enclosed two consent forms to be f i l l e d out by the school graduate and his/her parent or guardian. Please return the consent forms to the university as soon as possible in the enclosed stamped, self-addressed envelope. We wish to emphasize that a l l names and answers w i l l be kept s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l . Only group data w i l l be reported. It i s also important to re a l i z e that p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h i s project i s voluntary and that withdrawal from the project i s possible at anytime. We would, however, greatly appreciate your consent to take part in t h i s research. 247 PARENT/GUARDIAN CONSENT FORM I consent to 's p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the study of graduates of School. I understand that this w i l l involve one interview of approximately one hour. I also understand the interview w i l l be taped and the tape w i l l be erased once the data has been transferred to computer coding sheets at the University. This information w i l l be kept s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l and no information on individuals w i l l be released. I also understand that p a r t i c i p a t i o n in thi s project i s voluntary and may be terminated at any time. Signature of Parent/Guardian I am unwilling to have pa r t i c i p a t e in th i s study. Signature of Parent/Guardian 248 SUBJECT CONSENT FORM I agree to take part in the study of people who l e f t School. I know the interview w i l l l a s t about one hour and w i l l be tape recorded. I also know the tape w i l l be erased at the University. I understand I can stop answering questions anytime I want to. Your Name I do not want to answer any questions. Your Name APPENDIX F CODING OF RESPONSES 251 Coding of Responses The following i s a description of the procedures used to code the data from the interview-prompt recording sheet for the three types of questions. Forced-Choice Response The responses for the forced-choice response questions were coded as follows: 1 = Yes 2 = No In questions where there were more than the two choices available, the possible responses were numbered sequentially, e.g.: a) Where do you live/Who do you l i v e with? 1 = In extended care f a c i l i t y (hospital) 2 = With parents 3 = Other r e l a t i v e s (specify) 4 = In a boarding/group home 5 = With friends 6 = With spouse (and children) 7 = Alone 8 = Other (specify) b) Which city/town do you l i v e in now? 01 = Burnaby 02 = Coquitlam 03 = Delta 04 = Langley 05 = New Westminster 06 = North Vancouver 07 = Port Coquitlam 08 = Port Moody 09 = Richmond 10 = Surrey 11 = Vancouver 12 = West Vancouver 13 = White Rock 14 = Other (specify) 252 Multiple Choice (More than One Response) In t h i s type of question there was more than one response permitted and often required in these questions. The responses were coded with reference to the number of times per week a subject did something, e.g.: a) If Yes, Which meals did you make? How Often? The name of the meal was coded with the frequency. Code 1 = Once per week 2 = Twice per week 3 = Three times per week 4 = More than three times per week 5 = Every day Open-End Response The d i f f e r e n t responses to open-ended questions were t a l l i e d . Using t h i s method similar responses were grouped to form a category. A category number was then assigned to each of the responses contained therein, e.g.: 8 e) Where did you go on a B.C. Hydro bus t h i s last week? Code Category Responses 1 = Work - workshop, work 2 = Recreation/Social - bowling, swimming, bingo, v i s i t i n g friends, movie, hockey game, party, ice skating 3 = Religion - church, Sunday School, Bible study 4 = Shopping - clothes, food, presents, Christmas tree 5 = Health & Beauty - haircut, hairdresser 6 = Restaurant - eating out, MacDonald's, White Spot 7 = Education - school 8 = Home - home (place where subject lived) The categories and th e i r codes as well as a sample of the response in each of the categories for Questions 10(d) and 41(f) are presented here to a s s i s t the reader in understanding the 253 analysis of the data for these s p e c i f i c questions. 10 d) What kinds of things did you cook for? Breakfast Lunch Supper Snack Code 1 2 = 3 = Category No Cooking - no use of pots, knife, fork, spoon. Basic Cooking - use of pots and stove; baking, fry i n g . Elaborate Cooking - use of stove to make more than one thing; 2-3 course meal. Response Make a sandwick, mix chocolate milk, corn flakes, f r u i t , cheese and crackers. Make soup, tea, macaroni, e99S, pancakes, bacon Salad; meat - chicken, hamburger, pork chops, c h i l i ; vegetables -potatoes, brussel sprouts, corn; dessert - cake, cookies, pudding. 41 f) What did you do at work yesterday? This question was used to ide n t i f y the s k i l l l e v e l the subjects were working out. Their job description was categorized into one out of five s k i l l l e v e l s defined in the Vocational Check L i s t of the Adaptive Functioning Index (Marlett, 1973). 254 Code Category 1 = S k i l l Level 1 One step task, with few decisions and/or gross dexterity (e.g., one task on assembly l i n e , wiping tables, peeling potatoes). 2 = S k i l l Level 2 Simple routines, with few decisions and/or gross dexterity (e.g., two or more step packaging, basic j a n i t o r i a l s k i l l s ) . 3 = S k i l l Level 3 Tasks requiring judgment or exacting precision (e.g., spot welding, set-up work, precision assembly). 4 = S k i l l Level 4 Complex routines requiring judgment and high s k i l l , within an established routine (e.g., quality control, stock control, lead hand). 5 = S k i l l Level 5 Complex routines requiring judgment, high s k i l l , f l e x i b i l i t y , and an a b i l i t y to make decisions on his/her own (e.g., pay clerk, work foreman). Responses packages, n a i l s , f o l d napkins, sort B.C. Tel parts, stuff l e t t e r s . clean up shop, make pompoms, count n a i l s / screws/buttons and put in bag. hammer f l a t s together, operate dishwasher, assemble TV converters, transplant or water seedlings, put lamps together. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095704/manifest

Comment

Related Items