WAIS-R subtest regroupings as predictors of employment success and failure among adults with learning disabilities - Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale

Journal of Rehabilitation, Oct-Dec, 1992 by Larry A. Faas

Forty to over fifty percent of the learning disabled (LD) young adults who exit today's high schools fail to make a successful transition to employment (Will, 1984 and Sitlington, Frank & Carson, 1990). Their failure to move from school to successful employment and community living has become a critical concern of parents and policy makers (Johnson, Bruniniks & Turlow, 1987). Failure of the schools to prepare students with handicaps for work or post-secondary education was listed as a major area of dissatisfaction among parents in a recent evaluation of Special Education programs by Louis Harris and Associates, 1989.

Many LD adults experience difficulties in achieving their vocational goals (McCue, Shelly, & Goldstein, 1986). They manifest problems in making vocational choices, acquiring jobs, maintaining jobs, receiving promotions, and are more likely to be underemployed or unemployed than their peers who are not LD (Humes, 1986). Each year these jobless individuals join the 67 percent of all handicapped Americans who are unemployed (Rusch & Phelps, 1987). They become consumers of national resources rather than contributors to society. As Rusch & Phelps (1987) put it:

"The significant societal and personal costs associated with the underemployment and unemployment of these youth have raised the issue to the level of national priority. In all likelihood, employment will remain a national priority until considerably higher levels of employment, educational attainment, and successful community adjustments are realized." (p. 487)

The current research was designed to determine the value of Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (Wechsler, 1981) subtest regroupings in the identification of LD young adults who are likely to have difficulty making the transition from school to employment. The predictive value of WAIS-R subtest regroupings was examined because of the frequent inclusion of this instrument in the battery of tests used by rehabilitation agencies that provide services for adults with handicaps. This observation was confirmed by examining fifty referrals received from state vocational rehabilitation agencies by the Life Development Institute in Phoenix, Arizona. The Life Development Institute is a non-profit, post-secondary rehabilitation program for learning disabled adults. Nearly 900 clients referred by parents and rehabilitation agencies have been prepared by the Life Development Institute for independent living and employment in competitive settings during the last ten years.

Numerous attempts have been made to determine if various regroupings of WISC-R (Wechsler, 1974) subtest scaled scores can be used to identify learning disabled children (Bannatyne, 1974; Rugel, 1974; Kaufman, 1975; Smith, Coleman, Dokecki & Davis, 1974, and Vance & Singer, 1979). Cardoni, O'Donnel, Ramaniah, Kuntz & Rosenshein (1981) examined the WAIS profiles of learning disabled young adults. Their findings indicated that Bannatyne (1974) factor group differences observed in children and adolescents persist into early adulthood. Salvia, Gajar, Gajria & Salvia reported in 1988 that WAIS-R profiles of non-disabled and learning disabled college freshmen were largely indistinguishable.

The WAIS-R subtest regroupings examined in this study were selected from the WAIS-R Computer Report (Nicholson, 1982), a computerized WAIS-R data analysis and report preparation program and the research of Bannatyne (1968, 1971, 1974; Cohen, 1959; Kaufman, 1975, 1976, 1981; Lutey, 1977; Nicholson & Alcorn, 1980, 1985; Nicholson, 1990; Rugel, 1973; Smith, Coleman, Dokecki & Davis, 1977; Schiff, Kaufman and Kaufman, 1981, and Zimmerman & Woo-Sam, 1973). A listing of the subtests included in each of the regroupings examined is shown in Table 1.

Methods

Subjects

The subjects examined in this study were LD adults who had exited the school system and were age 18 or older. Among the 18 to 30-year-olds, 37% were not diagnosed until they left high school. The population was drawn from three main sources: (1) clients enrolled in programs at the Life Development Institute in Phoenix, Arizona, (2) Arizona State University students with LD who were receiving services from the Office of Disabled Students, and (3) members of a Phoenix area support group for LD adults affiliated with the Learning Disabilities Association of Arizona. A small number of the adults with disabilities were referred by parents, other community members or by themselves for inclusion in this study.

The nature of the LD population made it impossible to select subjects randomly for inclusion in this study. This limitation should be considered when reading the results. Care should be taken to ensure that discussions of these findings are not overgeneralized when describing the LD adult population.

The subjects were adults (55 males and 31 females) identified or validated as being LD by one certified school psychologist. Criteria used to identify the subjects as LD were consistent with those defined by the National Joint Committee for Learning Disabilities (Hammill, Leigh, Mc Nutt, & Larsen, 1981), and the U.S. Office of Education (1977).