The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale

1. Abstract

The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale (SDS) is a seminal psychometric assessment instrument developed in 1995 by Dr. Michael L. Wehmeyer and colleagues at The Arc of the United States. Specifically engineered for adolescents with intellectual, developmental, cognitive, and learning disabilities, the scale operationalizes Wehmeyer’s functional model of self-determination. The assessment comprises 72 items organized across four essential behavioral characteristics: (a) Autonomy (encompassing independence and acting on the basis of personal preferences, beliefs, interests, and abilities across routine personal care, leisure, community involvement, post-school directions, and personal expression); (b) Self-Regulation (evaluating interpersonal cognitive problem-solving and social goal-setting through open-ended story completion and life-planning vignettes); (c) Psychological Empowerment (measuring perceived control, locus of control, and self-efficacy via a forced-choice format); and (d) Self-Realization (assessing self-awareness, self-knowledge, and self-acceptance). The instrument utilizes a multi-method response architecture combining four-point Likert ratings, structured open-ended scoring rubrics (0 to 2 points per scenario), and dichotomous forced-choice selections. Psychometric evaluation across a nationwide norming sample of 440 secondary students with disabilities demonstrated exemplary internal consistency (full-scale Cronbach’s α = .90; subscale alphas ranging from .62 to .90), strong inter-rater reliability for rubric-scored constructs (percentage agreement > 90%), robust construct and discriminant validity, and confirmed predictive utility for post-secondary employment, community integration, and independent living outcomes.

2. Keywords

Self-Determination, The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale, Michael Wehmeyer, Functional Model of Self-Determination, Special Education, Transition Assessment, Behavioral Autonomy, Self-Regulation, Psychological Empowerment, Self-Realization

3. Authors

Primary Author: Michael L. Wehmeyer, Ph.D.
Affiliation at Time of Instrument Development: Assistant Director, Department of Research and Program Services, The Arc of the United States (Arlington, Texas). Currently, Dr. Wehmeyer serves as the Ross and Mariana Beach Distinguished Professor of Special Education, Chair of the Department of Special Education, and Director of the Beach Center on Disability at the University of Kansas.
Co-Developer: Kathy Kelchner, M.Ed., The Arc of the United States.
Institutional Sponsor: The Arc of the United States National Headquarters, with funding support provided by the United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), under Cooperative Agreement H158K20042.

4. Purpose

The primary clinical and pedagogical purpose of The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale is to provide secondary educators, school psychologists, transition specialists, and researchers with a reliable, ecologically valid, and theoretically grounded measurement tool capable of evaluating the self-determination status of adolescents with cognitive, developmental, and emotional disabilities. Prior to the development of the SDS in the mid-1990s, the assessment of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities relied predominantly on deficit-oriented psychological batteries measuring intelligence quotients (IQ), adaptive behavior deficits, or clinical symptomatology. These legacy instruments routinely failed to capture the individual’s personal agency, self-directed goal formulation, decision-making capabilities, or autonomous interactions with their environment.

Enacted under the legislative imperatives of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which mandates that transition services for youth with disabilities be designed within a results-oriented process based on the individual student’s needs, taking into account strengths, preferences, and interests, the SDS serves three distinct systemic purposes:

• Student-Directed Transition Assessment: It functions as a direct-report transition planning instrument that empowers students to actively identify their baseline self-determination capacities, examine their self-advocacy skills, and articulate post-school aspirations regarding employment, living arrangements, and community integration.
• Individualized Education Program (IEP) Goal Formulation: Clinicians and educators utilize the scale’s subdomain profiles to isolate distinct deficits in self-management, interpersonal problem-solving, or internal locus of control, translating empirical deficits into targeted, measurable instructional objectives for transition curricula.
• Applied Research and Longitudinal Program Evaluation: The scale provides researchers with a standardized metric to evaluate the efficacy of self-determination intervention packages (such as the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction; SDLMI) and to track the developmental trajectories of autonomous functioning across longitudinal cohorts transitioning into adulthood.

By prioritizing self-report over proxy reporting (e.g., teacher or parent checklists), the SDS asserts that the internal psychological states, perceptions of empowerment, and personal values of youth with disabilities cannot be adequately inferred solely from external observation, making the student’s direct subjective voice paramount.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct assessed by the instrument is Self-Determination, defined within functional psychometrics not merely as an absolute state of independence or complete self-sufficiency, but as acting as the primary causal agent in one’s life and making choices and decisions regarding one’s quality of life free from undue external influence or interference (Wehmeyer, 1996). Rather than defining self-determination by the specific behaviors executed, the construct is defined by the function those behaviors serve for the individual. The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale operationalizes this macro-construct into four essential characteristics, subdivided into distinct behavioral subdomains:

1. Autonomy (Items 1–32; Maximum Score = 96 points)

Behavioral autonomy implies that an individual acts according to their own preferences, interests, and abilities, independent of external direction or coercion. This construct is structured into two main subdomains:

• Independence: Evaluates the degree to which an individual executes basic life maintenance activities without prompting or physical assistance. It includes Routine Personal Care and Family-Oriented Functions (e.g., preparing meals, laundering clothes, performing household chores, managing personal possessions, and applying first aid) and Interaction with the Environment (e.g., negotiating retail transactions, scheduling appointments, utilizing municipal postal services, and forming peer relationships).
• Acting on the Basis of Preferences, Beliefs, Interests, and Abilities: Focuses on whether the individual exercises personal volition within four lifestyle domains: Recreational and Leisure Time (selecting hobby pursuits, weekend agendas, and creative activities); Community Involvement and Interaction (patronizing cultural venues, civic engagement, dining, and voluntary associations); Post-School Directions (engaging in vocational preparation, career planning, and financial labor); and Personal Expressions (selecting clothing, physical hairstyle, bedroom décor, and consumer expenditures).

2. Self-Regulation (Items 33–41; Maximum Score = 21 points)

Self-regulation encompasses the metacognitive and behavioral mechanisms that allow individuals to analyze their environment, formulate actionable plans, monitor their progression toward objectives, and dynamically alter behavior when encountering barriers. In the SDS, this construct is split into:

• Interpersonal Cognitive Problem-Solving (Items 33–38; 0–12 points): Assesses social problem-solving through an open-ended story-completion paradigm. Students are presented with ecological conflict scenarios containing a defined beginning (an interpersonal or academic problem) and a defined ending (successful resolution). The respondent must supply the intermediate solution steps, which are objectively coded on a 0 to 2 rubric based on whether the generated response is logical, non-violent, and effectively links the beginning conflict to the resolved goal.
• Goal-Setting and Task Performance (Items 39–41; 0–9 points): Evaluates prospective, forward-looking intentionality across post-secondary life domains: residential goals (where to live), vocational goals (where to work), and transportation options. Responses are scored on a 0 to 3 scale reflecting the specificity, realism, and actionable planning demonstrated in the articulation of the plan.

3. Psychological Empowerment (Items 42–57; Maximum Score = 16 points)

Psychological empowerment reflects the cognitive, motivational, and affective dimensions of perceived control. Drawing from the psychological frameworks of Julian Rotter (locus of control), Albert Bandura (self-efficacy), and Martin Seligman (learned helplessness), this construct measures whether the respondent believes they possess the capability to perform tasks (efficacy expectations), that their efforts will lead to desired outcomes (outcome expectations), and that life events are dictated by personal agency rather than external forces, chance, or luck. It is assessed via forced-choice paired statements where the student must select between an empowering agency belief and an externalizing/fatalistic belief.

4. Self-Realization (Items 58–72; Maximum Score = 15 points)

Self-realization refers to comprehensive self-awareness, accurate self-knowledge, and self-acceptance. Self-realized individuals have a realistic understanding of their distinctive strengths and limitations, possess positive feelings of self-worth and self-esteem, and understand how to capitalize on personal assets while compensating for cognitive or physical boundaries. This construct is measured through 15 self-referential statements scored dichotomously (Agree vs. Disagree), tapping affective self-acceptance, emotional honesty, and self-efficacy.

6. Theoretical Framework

The foundational bedrock of The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale is Wehmeyer’s Functional Model of Self-Determination (Wehmeyer, 1996, 2001; Wehmeyer, Kelchner, & Richards, 1996), which was subsequently expanded into Causal Agency Theory (Shogren et al., 2015). Historically, psychometric measures of self-determination originated within macro-motivational psychological theories, most notably Edward Deci and Richard Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory (SDT). While Ryan and Deci formulated self-determination as an organismic psychological process driven by the fulfillment of three basic psychological needs (competence, relatedness, and autonomy), Wehmeyer adapted the construct to address the developmental, structural, and educational realities of individuals with cognitive and developmental impairments.

Under Wehmeyer’s functional framework, self-determination is characterized not as a static personality trait, a measure of complete physical or financial independence, or an absolute cognitive capacity, but as a dispositional characteristic operationalized through four core behavioral dimensions. The theory posits three foundational assumptions:

• Causal Agency: An individual acts as a causal agent when their actions are purposefully directed toward causing specific effects in their own life. Causal agents initiate action, overcome environmental barriers, and determine their own life path rather than merely responding to external directives or passive institutionalization.
• Functional Characteristics: An action is defined as self-determined not by whether it produces complete independence (an individual with quadriplegia may instruct a personal assistant to cook meals, which remains fully autonomous), but by whether the action functions to establish autonomy, self-regulation, psychological empowerment, and self-realization.
• Developmental Acquisition: Self-determination develops across the lifespan through the acquisition of essential component elements: choice-making, decision-making, problem-solving, goal-setting, self-observation, self-evaluation, self-reinforcement, internal locus of control, positive attributions of efficacy, self-awareness, and self-advocacy.

The SDS psychometrically operationalizes this functional model, measuring how these four interacting characteristics converge into a unified profile of causal agency in the adolescent’s life.

7. Validity

Extensive psychometric investigations have established the validity of The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale across multiple evaluative dimensions, relying primarily on data gathered from the original nationwide validation study of 440 secondary school students with disabilities (learning disabilities, mild to moderate intellectual disability, emotional/behavioral disorders, and sensory/orthopedic impairments) across five US states.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was confirmed by demonstrating statistically significant group differences across populations with varying levels of cognitive independence and experiential opportunity. As hypothesized by the functional model, students with mild intellectual disabilities and learning disabilities scored significantly higher on behavioral autonomy, self-regulation, and psychological empowerment than individuals residing in heavily restrictive environments with severe communication challenges (Wehmeyer, 1996). Furthermore, older adolescents exhibited statistically higher scores in post-school planning and career exploration than younger students, reflecting the developmental sensitivity of the construct.

Convergent and Concurrent Validity

Convergent validity was evaluated by correlating SDS domain scores with well-established psychometric batteries measuring conceptually related constructs:

• Locus of Control: The Psychological Empowerment subscale demonstrated significant negative correlations with the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale ($r = -.43, p < .0001$), indicating that higher empowerment scores on the SDS correspond directly with an internal locus of control (as higher scores on the Nowicki-Strickland denote external locus of control).
• Self-Efficacy and Self-Esteem: SDS Self-Realization scores correlated positively and significantly with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale ($r = .49, p < .001$), confirming that the self-realization domain accurately reflects self-worth and accurate self-appraisal.
• Anxiety and Helplessness: Psychological Empowerment correlated negatively with measures of state-trait anxiety on the Adult Manifest Anxiety Scale ($r = -.38, p < .001$), documenting that self-determined individuals experience lower learned helplessness and generalized anxiety regarding decision-making.

Predictive and Ecological Validity

Longitudinal outcome studies have firmly substantiated the predictive validity of the SDS. Wehmeyer and Schwartz (1997) tracked students with learning disabilities and intellectual disabilities one year post-high school graduation, finding that total self-determination scores on the SDS significantly predicted positive adult transition outcomes: individuals scoring in the upper tercile of the SDS were more than twice as likely to be employed ($p = .01$) and earned statistically significantly higher hourly wages than peers in the lower tercile. Subsequent multi-year longitudinal studies (Shogren et al., 2012) reaffirmed that SDS scores at exit predict independent community living, integrated employment, and personal banking independence up to three years post-graduation.

8. Reliability

The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale demonstrates strong psychometric reliability across internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and stability metrics.

Internal Consistency

In the primary standardization sample of 440 adolescents with disabilities, internal consistency reliability for the full-scale instrument yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .90, establishing exceptional overall item homogeneity. Subscale reliability coefficients yielded the following parameters:

• Autonomy Subscale (32 items): Cronbach’s α = .90. Subdomain reliabilities within Autonomy include: Routine Personal Care (α = .78), Environment Interaction (α = .68), Recreational/Leisure (α = .74), Community Involvement (α = .76), Post-School Directions (α = .81), and Personal Expression (α = .64).
• Self-Regulation Subscale (9 items/vignettes): Cronbach’s α = .73. Considering the heterogeneous nature of combining complex social problem-solving with concrete vocational/residential goal-setting, this coefficient exceeds standard psychometric thresholds for open-ended assessment scales.
• Psychological Empowerment Subscale (16 items): Cronbach’s α = .73, reflecting robust coherence across diverse forced-choice locus of control and efficacy items.
• Self-Realization Subscale (15 items): Cronbach’s α = .62. This slightly lower alpha is characteristic of brief dichotomous scales measuring broad, multidimensional personal constructs (self-awareness, pride, limitation compensation, and social emotionality).

Inter-Rater Reliability

Because the Self-Regulation subscale involves subjective scoring of open-ended written or dictated answers (Items 33–38 for problem-solving solutions scored 0–2 points; Items 39–41 for goal specificity scored 0–3 points), inter-rater reliability is a vital psychometric consideration. Using the standardized scoring guidelines developed by Wehmeyer (1995), independent trained raters evaluated protocols across secondary samples. Percentage agreement across scoring dyads ranged from 91.4% to 98.2%, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) exceeded .88 across all problem-solving items, confirming that the rubric provides objective, highly replicable evaluations.

9. Factor Analysis

During the structural validation of The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to verify the alignment between the underlying empirical latent traits and Wehmeyer’s four-part theoretical taxonomy.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Principal components analysis with orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations was conducted on the subscales. Within the Autonomy domain, factor solutions confirmed that items cleanly loaded across two higher-order dimensions: Personal Independence (eigenvalue = 7.12, accounting for 22.3% of the variance) and Volitional Action based on Preferences and Interests (eigenvalue = 3.45, accounting for 10.8% of the variance). All 32 autonomy items exhibited factor loadings exceeding .40 on their designated primary factor, with minimal cross-loadings.

Factor analysis of the Psychological Empowerment domain revealed three primary underlying factors: Internal Locus of Control (loadings from .42 to .68), Self-Efficacy (loadings from .45 to .72), and Outcome Expectancy (loadings from .39 to .61), which together accounted for 41.6% of the variance within that subscale.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent structural equation modeling (SEM) and CFA studies (Wehmeyer et al., 2004; Shogren et al., 2008) tested competing structural models to evaluate the goodness of fit of the theoretical four-characteristic model. A second-order factor model—in which the overarching latent construct of Self-Determination directly predicts the four first-order latent constructs (Autonomy, Self-Regulation, Psychological Empowerment, and Self-Realization)—demonstrated good model fit across diverse disability cohorts:

• Chi-Square to Degrees of Freedom Ratio: $\chi^2/df = 1.84$ ($p < .001$), indicating an acceptable fit below the conservative threshold of 2.0.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .92, indicating strong representation of data variance.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .048 (90% CI: .041–.055), confirming low approximation error.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .052.

These structural findings provide firm empirical justification for calculating both four distinct subscale scores and an integrated composite Total Self-Determination score.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale is structured into the following operational components:

• Instrument Type: Standardized self-report assessment battery (with provision for educator/clinician transcription or oral administration for students with severe writing, motor, or visual limitations).
• Target Population: Adolescents and young adults with mild-to-moderate cognitive impairments, intellectual disabilities, learning disabilities, autism spectrum disorders, and related developmental disabilities in secondary educational environments (ages 14 to 21).
• Total Number of Items: 72 items, divided into four clinical subscales and seven subdomains.
• Maximum Cumulative Score: 148 total points (Autonomy = 96; Self-Regulation = 21; Psychological Empowerment = 16; Self-Realization = 15).
• Administration Time: Approximately 30 to 45 minutes for typical administration. Can be administered individually or in small-group settings.
• Response Formats and Scoring Procedures:
  • Subscale 1: Autonomy (Items 1–32): Employs a 4-point Likert-type scale measuring frequency of performance:
    • I do not even if I have the chance = 0 points
    • I do sometimes when I have the chance = 1 point
    • I do most of the time I have the chance = 2 points
    • I do every time I have the chance = 3 points
  • Subscale 2: Self-Regulation (Items 33–41): Employs an open-ended narrative format:
    • Items 33–38 (Interpersonal Cognitive Problem-Solving): The student is presented with a scenario’s Beginning and Ending. The student writes or dictates the middle action steps. Scored 0, 1, or 2 points using objective scoring criteria based on whether the solution is logical, non-punitive, and provides a direct causal bridge from the problem to the ending.
    • Items 39–41 (Goal-Setting): Three open-ended prompts concerning future living, working, and transportation plans. Scored 0 to 3 points based on the presence of a stated goal, realism, and articulation of specific action steps.
  • Subscale 3: Psychological Empowerment (Items 42–57): Employs a forced-choice paired-statement format. Students select which of two statements best reflects their personal belief. Endorsement of the psychologically empowered (internal locus of control, high self-efficacy) option yields 1 point; the fatalistic/externalizing option yields 0 points.
  • Subscale 4: Self-Realization (Items 58–72): Employs a dichotomous self-referential format (Agree vs. Disagree). Items are keyed so that answers reflecting self-awareness, positive self-regard, and realistic limitation acceptance receive 1 point, whereas responses reflecting self-deprecation or lack of awareness receive 0 points. (Note: Specific negative items are reverse-scored).

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Publication Year: The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale: Procedural Guidelines and assessment protocols were formally published in August 1995 by The Arc of the United States.

Copyright and Ownership: Copyright © 1995 by The Arc of the United States and Michael L. Wehmeyer, Ph.D. Nonexclusive rights are held jointly by the authors and the sponsoring agency.

Accessibility and Fee Structure: The scale was developed under federal grant funding from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). In alignment with federal public access mandates, the assessment instrument, procedural manual, and scoring protocols are in the public domain and are accessible free of charge for non-commercial educational, clinical, and scientific research purposes. Educators and researchers are permitted to reproduce and administer the scale without paying licensing royalties, provided appropriate author and institutional attribution is preserved.

12. References

Field, S., & Hoffman, A. (1994). Development of a model for self-determination. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 17(2), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840649401700205

Nowicki, S., & Strickland, B. R. (1973). A locus of control scale for children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40(1), 148–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033978

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400876136

Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Forber-Pratt, A. J., Little, T. D., & Lopez, S. (2015). Causal agency theory: Reconceptualizing a functional approach to self-determination. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 50(3), 251–263. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24827566

Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Rifenbark, G. G., & Little, T. D. (2012). Relationships between self-determination and postsecondary outcomes for youth with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 48(4), 256–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466913482329

Wehmeyer, M. L. (1995). The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale: Procedural guidelines. The Arc of the United States. Arlington, Texas.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (1996). Self-determination as an educational outcome: Why is it important to children, youth and adults with disabilities? In D. J. Sands & M. L. Wehmeyer (Eds.), Self-determination across the life span: Independence and choice for people with disabilities (pp. 15–34). Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Kelchner, K., & Richards, S. (1996). Essential characteristics of self-determined behavior of individuals with mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 100(6), 632–642. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8735576/

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Schwartz, M. (1997). Self-determination and positive adult outcomes: A follow-up study of youth with mental retardation or learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63(2), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299706300207

13. Items of the Scale