Adolescent Autonomy Questionnaire Modified Version

1. Abstract

The Adolescent Autonomy Questionnaire Modified Version (AAQ-M; Maxey et al., 2024) is a psychometrically adapted self-report instrument engineered to measure behavioral and emotional dimensions of autonomy among adolescents with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) as well as neurotypical peers. Adapted from the foundational Adolescent Autonomy Questionnaire developed by Noom, Deković, and Meeus (2001), this modified 7-item instrument addresses a long-standing psychometric disparity: the historical exclusion of youth with cognitive and developmental impairments from validated assessments of adolescent psychosocial development. Administered via an accessible 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Not at all descriptive of me) to 5 (Completely descriptive of me), the instrument evaluates an adolescent’s capacity for independent decision-making, resistance to undue social or parental pressure, self-assertion, and the subjective valuing of personal agency. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supports a bifurcated conceptual model distinguishing behavioral autonomy from emotional autonomy following systematic item reduction to optimize cognitive accessibility. Specifically, the behavioral autonomy dimension demonstrated exceptional fit indices within the IDD cohort (χ²[2] = 0.685, p = .7099; RMSEA = 0.000, 90% CI [0.000, 0.114]; CFI = 1.000; TLI = 1.000; SRMR = 0.011), while the emotional autonomy model exhibited strong comparative information criteria (AIC = 1465.717; BIC = 1493.449). Across both neurotypical adolescents and youth with intellectual disabilities, internal consistency reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s α) ranged from .62 to .71, which is psychometrically robust given the brevity of the shortened subscales and the clinical heterogeneity of the target population. The scale provides clinicians, developmental psychologists, and special education professionals with a reliable, theoretically grounded, and developmentally sensitive metric for tracking transition readiness, self-determination milestones, and individualized intervention outcomes.

2. Keywords

Adolescent Autonomy, Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Behavioral Autonomy, Emotional Autonomy, Psychosocial Development, Self-Determination, Transition Assessment, Psychometrics, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Adolescent Autonomy Questionnaire

3. Authors

The Adolescent Autonomy Questionnaire Modified Version was developed and psychometrically evaluated by a multidisciplinary team of developmental scientists and rehabilitation specialists:

• Myles Maxey, Ph.D. — Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Utah State University.
• Troy E. Beckert, Ph.D. — Professor of Adolescent Development, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, United States (Corresponding Author: [email protected]).
• Diana Meter, Ph.D. — Associate Professor of Human Development, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Utah State University.
• Trenton Landon, Ph.D., CRC — Associate Professor of Rehabilitation Counseling, Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation Counseling, Utah State University.

4. Purpose

During the developmental transition of adolescence, the acquisition of autonomy represents a primary psychosocial developmental task. Achieving autonomy involves establishing oneself as an independent, self-governing individual capable of formulating goals, making self-concordant decisions, and regulating behavior while maintaining emotional connectedness with primary caregivers and peers. For decades, developmental researchers have utilized self-report questionnaires to quantify this milestone in neurotypical populations. However, adolescents with intellectual and developmental disabilities have systematically faced psychometric marginalization. Standard assessment batteries often employ complex syntactic structures, high linguistic abstraction, and lengthy response matrices that introduce substantial cognitive load, resulting in construct-irrelevant variance when administered to individuals with cognitive impairments.

The clinical and research necessity of the AAQ-M stems directly from this gap. In educational and clinical settings, adolescents with IDD are frequently characterized through proxy reports completed by parents, teachers, or case managers. Although third-party assessments provide valuable functional observations, they systematically underrepresent or distort the internal psychological reality of the adolescent, particularly regarding internal feelings of agency, self-advocacy, and emotional self-definition. By developing and validating a modified self-report measure with accessible sentence structures and reduced reading demands, Maxey et al. (2024) established a direct channel for youth with IDD to express their own perceived autonomy.

From an applied perspective, the AAQ-M fulfills critical functions across multiple domains:

• Transition Planning in Special Education: Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), schools are mandated to develop transition services focused on improving post-secondary academic, vocational, and independent living outcomes. The AAQ-M provides a measurable metric of perceived behavioral and emotional self-governance to guide transition-focused Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).
• Rehabilitation and Clinical Interventions: Clinicians and rehabilitation counselors can use the instrument to identify discrepancies between an adolescent’s desire for self-direction and their actual behavioral opportunities, allowing for targeted self-determination training.
• Empirical Research: The scale enables developmental researchers to conduct comparative studies examining whether the structural trajectory of autonomy in neurotypical development mirrors that of individuals with diverse intellectual profiles.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct measured by the Adolescent Autonomy Questionnaire Modified Version is multidimensional adolescent autonomy, specifically delineated into two distinct yet interrelated functional domains: Behavioral Autonomy and Emotional Autonomy. Originally conceptualized in adolescent developmental theory as an integrated tripartite construct (incorporating attitudinal, emotional, and functional/behavioral facets; Noom et al., 1999, 2001), the modified version focuses on the observable, operationalized behaviors and foundational self-perceptions that underpin autonomous functioning.

Behavioral Autonomy

Behavioral autonomy refers to an adolescent’s actual capacity and freedom to make independent choices, act upon personal judgments, and regulate actions without excessive dependence on or submission to external figures. In the context of the AAQ-M, behavioral autonomy reflects the ability to navigate social divergence — specifically standing firm in personal convictions when confronted with conflicting opinions from peer networks or parental figures. For individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, behavioral autonomy is often heavily constrained by overprotective caregiving environments, systemic paternalism, and learned helplessness. Consequently, behavioral autonomy in this instrument measures:

• Resistance to Peer Pressure: The capacity to pursue a chosen course of action even when peers express active disagreement (e.g., executing personal decisions irrespective of peer consensus).
• Resistance to Parental Overrule: The assertion of personal choice when parental preferences diverge from the adolescent’s wishes, reflecting an essential shift toward secondary individuation.
• Independent Decision Execution: The process of gathering external input, taking the perspectives of significant others into account, and subsequently synthesizing that information to finalize one’s own decision.

Emotional Autonomy

Emotional autonomy encompasses the internal, psychological aspects of individuation, characterized by the subjective perception that one’s personal desires, volitions, and perspectives possess inherent value and legitimacy. Rather than detachment or alienation from caregivers, contemporary developmental psychometrics defines emotional autonomy as the establishment of an internal locus of volition and emotional self-reliance. Within the AAQ-M, emotional autonomy captures:

• Subjective Valuation of Personal Will: The cognitive and affective appraisal that one’s own goals, preferences, and desires are meaningful and worthy of expression.
• Intrinsically Motivated Action: The felt experience that one’s actions originate from personal volition rather than compliance with external demands.
• Internal Cognitive Governance: Confidence in formulating one’s own thoughts and mental assessments regarding daily experiences and future aspirations.

6. Theoretical Framework

The structural design of the AAQ-M is anchored in two foundational developmental frameworks: the Developmental-Contextual Model of Adolescent Individuation (Blos, 1967; Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986) and the Functional Model of Self-Determination (Wehmeyer, 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Individuation and the Tripartite Autonomy Model

Classical psychodynamic and developmental theories conceptualize adolescence as a “second individuation process” (Blos, 1967), wherein youth de-idealize parental figures, relinquish childlike dependencies, and construct an autonomous ego identity. Steinberg and Silverberg (1986) operationalized this transition by isolating emotional autonomy from parental figures. Building upon this, Noom, Deković, and Meeus (1999, 2001) argued that healthy autonomy is not merely separation or detachment, but a healthy balance between relatedness and self-governance. They introduced a tripartite model comprising:

1. Attitudinal Autonomy: The cognitive specification of personal desires, values, and goals.
2. Emotional Autonomy: A feeling of self-reliance, confidence in one’s capacity, and perceived freedom from emotional dependence.
3. Functional (Behavioral) Autonomy: The behavioral execution of strategies that lead to goal attainment and autonomous problem-solving.

Maxey et al. (2024) recognized that while the tripartite conceptualization is theoretically comprehensive, the attitudinal and functional items of the original AAQ frequently conflated cognitive complexity with psychological independence. By refining the scale into accessible behavioral and emotional indicators, the AAQ-M preserves the theoretical core of the individuation process while removing linguistic barriers that historically precluded its use with neurodivergent youth.

The Functional Model of Self-Determination in Special Education

Within disability studies, Michael Wehmeyer (2005) redefined autonomy as a primary component of self-determination. Under Wehmeyer’s functional model, an individual acts autonomously when their behavior is governed by personal preferences, interests, and abilities, free from external influence or interference. Complementary to Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), which posits autonomy as an innate psychological need essential for psychological well-being, the AAQ-M assesses the degree to which adolescents with developmental disabilities perceive themselves as the causal agents in their own lives. Autonomy in this framework is not synonymous with complete physical independence; rather, it reflects volitional self-direction — an adolescent may require physical support to complete a task, yet remains entirely autonomous if they orchestrate and direct the activity according to their own choices.

7. Validity

The psychometric evaluation of the Adolescent Autonomy Questionnaire Modified Version centered on establishing content validity, structural/construct validity, and cross-population adequacy across neurotypical adolescents and adolescents with IDD.

Content and Face Validity Adaptations

The original AAQ was subjected to careful structural scrutiny to optimize cognitive accessibility for respondents with IDD. Maxey and colleagues adapted item phrasing to ensure readability without diminishing theoretical depth. Complex, compound-clause sentences were reduced to direct, single-clause declarations. Cognitive load was minimized by focusing on explicit behavioral scenarios (e.g., interactions with friends and parents) and unambiguous affective states (e.g., “I feel that what I want is important”). The response format was standardized to a 5-point descriptive Likert continuum (Not at all descriptive of me to Completely descriptive of me), which aligns with best practices in intellectual disability research by anchoring ratings to personal self-concept rather than abstract probability or agreement metrics.

Construct Validity

Construct validity was evaluated through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), examining whether the hypothesized latent structures accurately represented the observed responses of adolescents with IDD. As detailed in the factor-analytic findings, empirical fit statistics demonstrated that the modified behavioral autonomy items formed a coherent, unidimensional latent factor after trimming psychometrically redundant items. The empirical convergence of items reflecting resistance to peer pressure (Items 1 and 3) and resistance to parental disagreement (Item 7) with items capturing self-directed choice (Items 4 and 5) validates the theoretical definition of behavioral autonomy as resilient, socially negotiated self-governance.

Methodological and Criterion Validity Considerations

Maxey et al. (2024) specifically noted that traditional external criterion validity testing was constrained by the near-total absence of pre-existing, validated gold-standard self-report psychosocial instruments calibrated for this clinical population. However, the instrument showed meaningful patterns of variance across both neurotypical and IDD cohorts, demonstrating that adolescents with intellectual impairments can reliably conceptualize and rate their own autonomy when offered structurally accessible measurement tools.

8. Reliability

The internal consistency of the Adolescent Autonomy Questionnaire Modified Version was investigated across independent samples of neurotypical adolescents and adolescents diagnosed with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Internal Consistency

Reliability estimates, quantified via Cronbach’s alpha (α), ranged between .62 and .71 across both subscales and sample cohorts:

• Behavioral Autonomy Subscale: Demonstrated Cronbach’s α coefficients hovering within the acceptable .65 to .71 range across groups following final item selection.
• Emotional Autonomy Subscale: Yielded α coefficients between .62 and .68 across clinical and non-clinical participants.

In psychometrics, alpha values between .60 and .70 are considered acceptable and satisfactory when evaluating brief assessment inventories (scales containing fewer than 5 items per dimension) administered to specialized clinical populations with cognitive impairments. Shortened scales deliberately sacrifice slight internal consistency to prevent participant fatigue, attention decay, and response stereotypy — common threats to measurement integrity in populations with developmental disabilities.

Measurement Error and Reliability Considerations

The standard error of measurement (SEM) associated with the AAQ-M reflects the heterogeneous nature of the IDD spectrum, which includes individuals with mild-to-moderate intellectual disability, autism spectrum disorder, and related developmental conditions. The stability of Cronbach’s alpha across both neurotypical and IDD samples demonstrates that the modifications succeeded in reducing random measurement error driven by comprehension failures.

9. Factor Analysis

Maxey et al. (2024) conducted extensive Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to assess the latent dimensionality of the adapted scale and verify whether the subscales preserved structural integrity when administered to individuals with IDD.

Behavioral Autonomy Structural Model

Initial specifications of the behavioral autonomy item pool revealed minor structural strains caused by items with cross-loadings or ambiguous interpretations. To achieve an optimal parsimonious model, one problematic item was removed from the initial behavioral pool. Following this modification, the CFA for the behavioral autonomy dimension within the adolescent IDD cohort showed excellent model fit:

• Chi-Square Goodness-of-Fit: χ²(2) = 0.685, p = .7099 (non-significant, indicating no significant divergence between observed and implied covariance matrices)
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): 0.000 (90% Confidence Interval: [0.000, 0.114])
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): 1.000
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): 1.000
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): 0.011

These fit indices significantly exceed standard psychometric thresholds (CFI/TLI ≥ .95; RMSEA ≤ .06; SRMR ≤ .08), demonstrating that the retained items form an exceptionally cohesive behavioral autonomy factor.

Emotional Autonomy Structural Model

For the emotional autonomy dimension, iterative factor-analytic testing indicated that two original candidate items exhibited poor factor determinacy or high residual covariance, primarily due to linguistic abstractions regarding emotional dependence. Following the removal of these two items, the final emotional autonomy model for adolescents with IDD showed strong statistical parsimony and model fit, evidenced by favorable comparative information criteria:

• Akaike Information Criterion (AIC): 1465.717
• Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC): 1493.449

The reduction in AIC and BIC across competing specifications confirmed that the streamlined set of emotional autonomy items optimized variance explanation while avoiding overparameterization.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The final verified version of the Adolescent Autonomy Questionnaire Modified Version comprises 7 items configured across two subscales.

Subscale Classifications

• Behavioral Autonomy: Items 1, 3, 4, 5, 7
• Emotional Autonomy: Items 2, 6

Administrative Characteristics

• Test Type: Standardized self-report rating scale / Psychosocial inventory.
• Target Population: Adolescents and transition-aged youth (ages 12–22) presenting with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), as well as neurotypical adolescents.
• Administration Format: Electronic survey administration (compatible with tablet, computer, or assisted read-aloud formats) or traditional pencil-and-paper.
• Estimated Completion Time: 5 to 10 minutes.
• Assistance Guidelines: If required, a trained proctor or educator may read the items aloud verbatim without paraphrasing or interpreting the statements, allowing the youth to select their own rating.

Response Scale

All items are evaluated using an authentic 5-point Likert response format:

• 1 = Not at all descriptive of me
• 2 = Slightly descriptive of me
• 3 = Moderately descriptive of me
• 4 = Very descriptive of me
• 5 = Completely descriptive of me

Scoring Instructions

• Item Recoding: None. All items are positively keyed; there are no reverse-scored items.
• Subscale Scoring:
  • Behavioral Autonomy Score: Calculate the mean of Items 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7 (Sum of scores divided by 5). Alternatively, a raw summation score ranging from 5 to 25 may be used.
  • Emotional Autonomy Score: Calculate the mean of Items 2 and 6 (Sum of scores divided by 2). Alternatively, a raw summation score ranging from 2 to 10 may be used.
• Composite Autonomy Score: An overall autonomy index can be derived by computing the grand mean across all 7 items (or summing all items for a total score ranging from 7 to 35). Higher scores reflect greater self-perceived autonomy and personal agency.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Test Publication Year: 2024.
• Commercial Status: Non-commercial instrument. The scale is freely accessible for scholarly, educational, and clinical research purposes.
• Licensing and Fee Structure: There are no fees or royalties required for non-profit academic or clinical administration.
• Permissions Protocol: Researchers, psychologists, and school districts wishing to utilize, adapt, or digitize the instrument should contact the corresponding author:
  
  Troy E. Beckert, Ph.D.
  Department of Human Development and Family Studies
  Utah State University, Logan, UT, United States
  Email: [email protected]

12. References

• Blos, P. (1967). The second individuation process of adolescence. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 22(1), 162–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/00797308.1967.11822595
• Maxey, M., Beckert, T. E., Meter, D., & Landon, T. (2024). Psychosocial development measures modification for adolescents with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Journal of Adolescence, 96(1), 136–151. https://doi.org/10.1002/jad.12262
• Noom, M. J., Deković, M., & Meeus, W. (1999). Autonomy, attachment and psychosocial adjustment during adolescence: A double portrait. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28(6), 771–785. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021601602759
• Noom, M. J., Deković, M., & Meeus, W. H. (2001). Conceptual and measurement issues in adolescent autonomy: An exploratory study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30(5), 577–595. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010400700976
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
• Steinberg, L., & Silverberg, S. B. (1986). The vicissitudes of autonomy in early adolescence. Child Development, 57(4), 841–851. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130361
• Wehmeyer, M. L. (2005). Self-determination and individuals with severe disabilities: Re-examining meanings and misinterpretations. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30(3), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.30.3.113

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)