HISTORY OF ENDERLE-SEVERSON TRANSITION RATING SCALES

The Enderle-Severson Transition Rating Scale originated from a need perceived by Jon Enderle in his work as a secondary teacher of students with disabilities in Moorhead, Minnesota. With passage of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (PL 101-476), state and federal regulators identified specific domains for transition programming. For example, in Minnesota, transition plans must be developed in the following categories: Jobs and Job Training, Recreation and Leisure, Home Living, Community Participation, and Post-Secondary Training and Learning (Minnesota, 1989). If programming for secondary students with disabilities is to be considered in each of these domains, effective and efficient assessment practices must also be identified.

Enderle observed that no instrumentation existed to specifically address the domains set forth in Minnesota regulations. A thorough review of literature conducted by Agran and Morgan (1991) revealed the veracity of Enderle's perception that transition assessment practices were poorly evolved. Thus, he and Severson set about developing both instrumentation and a process to aid secondary special education teachers; this effort culminated in publication of the Enderle-Severson Transition Rating Scale (ESTR Scale) in 1991.

In 1995, the ESTR scale was revised based on additional research data. The primary change was a format change. Based on research studies completed between 1991 and 1995, the items were rearranged to reflect difficulty level. In this new version (ESTR-R), the items within each subscale were reordered according to their level of difficulty. Also included in the ESTR-R was an additional subscale (identified through factor analysis of the original ESTR items). This subscale, titled Social/Vocation Behavior, is comprised of items from three of the five subscales. This subscale assesses transition skills specific to social/compliance issues.

Since the initial publication of the ESTR Scale, the authors have consistently solicited feedback from a variety of professionals, primarily in Minnesota, regarding the usefulness of the scale. The ESTR scale was originally designed to be used with all students across disability categories and ages. In 1995, the aforementioned professionals suggested that, while the scale is comprehensive, some items might not be appropriate for students with mild disabilities (particularly students with learning disabilities and students with emotional/behavior disorders). Recognizing this concern, an adapted version of the scale (ESTR-J) was developed. Teachers of students with mild disabilities find this scale more practical. A Minnesota Interagency office of Transition task force (comprised of teachers, parents, and advocates) provided key input into the development of this scale. Although the ESTR-J is similar to the original ESTR, it has reduced number of items and item wording has been changed to better reflect skills and environments of students with mild disabilities.

In developing the ESTR Scales, Enderle and Severson examined many types of assessment to look for formats that would be useful. Originally, eight skills areas were identified. In additional to the aforementioned, functional academics, motor skills, socialization, and communication were considered (Enderle, 1991; Severson, 1993). Ultimately, functional academic, socialization, motor, and communication skills were infused into the more functional domains of employment, home living, community, recreation, and post-secondary education.

Since the initial publication of the ESTR Scale, the authors have consistently solicited feedback from a variety of professionals regarding the usefulness of the scale. The ESTR Scale was originally designed to be used with all students across disability categories and ages. In 1995, a group organized by the MN Department of Education suggested that, while the scale was comprehensive, some items were not appropriate for students with mild disabilities (such as students with learning disabilities, emotional/behavior disorders, hearing impairments, vision impairments, physical and health disabilities). For example, it is redundant to rate students with mild disabilities on skills related to toileting and eating. Recognizing this concern, an adapted version of the scale (ESTR-J) was developed where many lower level items were eliminated and some items were combined. Teachers of students with mild disabilities found this scale more practical. A Minnesota Interagency Office of Transition task force (comprised of teachers, parents, and advocates) provided key input into the development of this scale. Although the ESTR-J was similar to the original ESTR, it contained a reduced number of items and, item wording was changed to better reflect skills and environments for students with mild disabilities.

ESTR-J-REVISED AND ESTR III

The ESTR Scales were revised again in 2003 to reflect the more specific needs of teachers and professionals. ESTR III contains all of the original items with minor language updates. ESTR-J-Revised involves a major change in number of items and format of items.

ESTR-J-REVISED

In 2003, ESTR-J was revised based on professional feedback from people using the scale. The revised scale contains fewer items (84 items were reduced to 47). The reduction in items however, does not affect the scale’s ability to provide comprehensive assessment. Items were not deleted from the instrument but rather moved to act as indicators to similar items. These indicators, identified with bullets, clarify items, facilitating raters’ responses. ESTR-J Revised continues to be a useful tool for assessing students with mild disabilities as well as for students who may only need accommodations (as described in Section 504).

ESTR-III

ESTR III is an updated and improved revision of the ESTR-R. It continues to be the ESTR of choice for those students with mental retardation and moderate to severe disabilities. The most significant changes to ESTR III are in the scoring format. Feedback from professionals was used to create an improved means of scoring that allows assessors to more accurately describe learners’ present levels of performance in each transition area. “Scores” have never been the most important information obtained from transition assessment. Rather, an anecdotal description of strengths as well as possible areas of concern (present level of performance) leads teams to address student needs. Raters’ responses on the ESTR III fall into one of three categories that indicate degree of participation. This rating system provides teams with the opportunity to look at long range planning for possible supports the learner may require. ESTR-III respondents are asked whether a student performs the described behaviors: “independently and consistently”, “with assistance”, or “does not participate at this time” (see administration of the ESTR Scales).

The transition assessment process must generate answers to four questions. The first question is, “What are the student’s desired future outcomes/goals?” It is impossible to develop relevant educational plans if teams are unaware of students’ dreams and aspirations. IDEA 1990 defined transition as an “outcome oriented process” and indicated that services be based on student “needs, preferences, and interests”. Looking beyond the high school diploma is necessary when planning because a high school diploma does not necessarily translate into post-school success (Wagner, 1994). The educational plan developed by the team should target the personal goals that students have identified for all facets of adult life (each transition area). This manual includes worksheets for assessing future outcomes/goals in the transition areas (Appendix A). Students should complete this form allowing teams to use the individual’s goals as the targeted outcomes for planning. We have also included a parent version allowing parents to provide input as appropriate. Information gathered via these worksheets can easily be translated into future outcome/goal statements to be included in the student’s education plan. Chapter Four provides detailed information about using these forms for future outcomes/goals determination.

The second and third questions our assessment must answer are, “What skills does the student possess and, what skills must the student acquire to achieve their goals?” In some cases, assessment results may indicate that the student’s current repertoire of skills is adequate for reaching their future goals, eliminating the need for life skill-oriented IEP goals and objectives and/or planned activities for that specific area. In other cases, assessment will identify that the student has skill needs that must be addressed in the planning process.

The fourth question our assessment must answer is, “What planning issues need to be addressed to enhance the student’s opportunities to experience success in vocational, residential and community environments?” If a student desires to continue their education after high school graduation, they will need to make plans to visit, apply and finance this education. Also, housing plans must be addressed. If a student wants to access post-school support services such as rehabilitation services or social services, they must secure information about qualifying and applying. Smooth transitions will not occur if planning is incomplete. Assessment must identify not only what planning needs exist, but also the planning issues that have already been addressed.