etadd_46(4) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities
etadd_46(4) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities
etadd_46(4) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
mined pers<strong>on</strong>. The diss<strong>on</strong>ance created by the<br />
goal-state/actual-state discrepancy will hopefully<br />
cause the pers<strong>on</strong> to engage in reducing<br />
the discrepancy. The effort to reduce this discrepancy<br />
results in a means-ends chain that<br />
allows a pers<strong>on</strong> to seek soluti<strong>on</strong>s using a selfregulated,<br />
problem-solving strategy that allow<br />
him or her to reach a goal. C<strong>on</strong>sequently, the<br />
“soluti<strong>on</strong> searching <strong>and</strong> soluti<strong>on</strong> testing lead<br />
to c<strong>on</strong>sequences that feed back <strong>and</strong> alter subsequent<br />
discrepancies, expectati<strong>on</strong>s, searches,<br />
<strong>and</strong> selecti<strong>on</strong>s” (p. 12). It is a loop of choosing,<br />
acting, evaluating, <strong>and</strong> adjusting. C<strong>on</strong>sequently,<br />
although choice making <strong>and</strong> problem<br />
solving are typically not associated, it is<br />
clear that the latter operati<strong>on</strong> (problem solving)<br />
can be achieved <strong>on</strong>ly after the former<br />
operati<strong>on</strong> (choice making) has been fully experienced<br />
by c<strong>on</strong>sumers.<br />
Agran <strong>and</strong> Hughes (1997) described problem<br />
solving as a process of “determining the<br />
most appropriate <strong>and</strong> efficient resp<strong>on</strong>se to a<br />
given problem” (p. 172). People experience a<br />
discrepancy (the problem), c<strong>on</strong>sider <strong>and</strong> implement<br />
their soluti<strong>on</strong>, evaluate, <strong>and</strong> adjust as<br />
much as necessary to reach the goal state.<br />
Unfortunately, as c<strong>on</strong>sumers have historically<br />
received little exposure to making meaningful<br />
choices, <strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sequently little practice at<br />
solving problems, they are not able to regulate<br />
their lives as independently as they could. One<br />
cannot select an efficient resp<strong>on</strong>se to a problem<br />
(or achieve a goal) unless <strong>on</strong>e has familiarity<br />
with the various c<strong>on</strong>sequences that may<br />
be experienced (e.g., greater productivity<br />
leads to more financial compensati<strong>on</strong>, which<br />
provides more goods <strong>and</strong> services). The first<br />
step in problem solving is identifying the<br />
problem or stating a goal (achieving an outcome).<br />
This is similar to choice making—what<br />
choice should be made. The next step that<br />
follows is determining the relative weight or<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sequences of choices—if I opt for Choice<br />
A, this will happen; if I opt for Choice B, this<br />
will happen. With this underst<strong>and</strong>ing individuals<br />
can determine which acti<strong>on</strong>s are in their<br />
best interests—in effect, problem solve. It is<br />
str<strong>on</strong>gly recommended that c<strong>on</strong>sumers are<br />
not <strong>on</strong>ly taught to choose <strong>on</strong>e stimulus over<br />
another but to also learn to evaluate the relative<br />
benefits <strong>and</strong> disadvantages of their<br />
choices. For example, if an employee asks to<br />
work at a fast-food restaurant, he or she may<br />
find him- or herself in a work envir<strong>on</strong>ment,<br />
which has characteristics he or she doesn’t<br />
prefer (e.g., many people, work st<strong>and</strong>ing up).<br />
By underst<strong>and</strong>ing the need for c<strong>on</strong>sumers to<br />
practice choice making <strong>and</strong> problem solving,<br />
support staff can provide opportunities to improve<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sumers’ capacity to successfully perform<br />
self-regulated problem solving <strong>and</strong> begin<br />
to take more ownership <strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>trol over their<br />
lives. Self-determined individuals are aware of<br />
their needs <strong>and</strong> make decisi<strong>on</strong>s to meet those<br />
needs by setting goals, taking acti<strong>on</strong>, <strong>and</strong> adjusting<br />
through <strong>on</strong>going self-evaluati<strong>on</strong> in order<br />
to meet those goals. Without opportunities<br />
to make meaningful choices <strong>and</strong> practice<br />
the problem-solving process, c<strong>on</strong>sumers will<br />
c<strong>on</strong>tinue to be dependent <strong>on</strong> others, living in<br />
an other-determined state.<br />
Barriers to Choice Making<br />
Although well acknowledged as both a best<br />
practice <strong>and</strong> service requirement, choice making<br />
represents a potentially disquieting event<br />
to service delivery <strong>and</strong> traditi<strong>on</strong>al practice,<br />
<strong>and</strong> may be difficult to provide to c<strong>on</strong>sumers<br />
in a meaningful way. As discussed previously,<br />
the impetus for choice making is to drive <strong>and</strong><br />
plan vocati<strong>on</strong>al <strong>and</strong> habilitati<strong>on</strong> programs<br />
based <strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sumer input, but there are several<br />
barriers that challenge both its purpose<br />
<strong>and</strong> impact <strong>on</strong> an individual’s lifestyle.<br />
No choice making. Agran et al. (2010) investigated<br />
the extent to which c<strong>on</strong>sumers with<br />
intellectual <strong>and</strong> severe intellectual disabilities<br />
were provided choice-making opportunities<br />
<strong>and</strong> the types of choices they were asked to<br />
make. For the participants at <strong>on</strong>e agency that<br />
provided sheltered employment, they were<br />
asked <strong>on</strong>ce a year at their Individual Program<br />
Plan meetings if they wanted to work elsewhere<br />
such as a supported employment placement.<br />
However, this agency did not offer supported<br />
employment, so, although the<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sumers were asked to make a choice, in<br />
effect there was no “real” choice involved.<br />
Also, as Storey (2005) suggested, even though<br />
an adult service agency is committed to providing<br />
a full c<strong>on</strong>tinuum of work placements, it<br />
is unlikely that c<strong>on</strong>sumers will be able to<br />
choose any placement opti<strong>on</strong> since there may<br />
be limitati<strong>on</strong>s in the resources available; the<br />
agency may not have the capacity (i.e., staff,<br />
Choice Making / 571