The Development of the “Checklist for Life Skills Educational Assessment” (CLSEA)

Abstract

Students with developmental disabilities constitute a heterogeneous group with significant difficulties in adaptive behavior. It is expected that educational programs are equipped with the appropriate resources to support students and promote their skills related to adaptive behavior, such as life skills. A critical issue for the development and implementation of appropriate educational interventions in the domain of life skills is the availability and use of reliable yet inclusive assessment procedures. The present study focused on the development of a new instrument (Checklist for Life Skills Educational Assessment—CLSEA), which aims at a systematic assessment of the life skills of a student with a developmental disability and the determination of individual life skill profiles. The checklist was completed by the teachers of 339 students with developmental disabilities aged 7 to 18 years. The procedure and the main steps of the instrument’s construction are presented along with the results of validation analyses. The checklist includes three sections corresponding to main fields of functioning: a. daily living skills; b. personal–social skills; and c. prevocational–vocational skills. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted for each section separately, and the results indicated a number of interpretable factors with satisfactory reliability. Current perspectives on the characteristics and purposes of quality assessment procedures in the context of designing appropriate inclusive interventions for enhancing students’ skills are discussed.

1. Introduction

Inclusive legislation sets out that, as one of the main rights of SWDs (students with disabilities), they are to be educated in the ‘least restrictive environment’, and this offers them the opportunity to learn and spend their school life in mainstream settings so as to be considered, valued and appreciated as equal members of the school community (Garrote et al., 2017). The above notion implies that regular education should be restructured and reformed in order to meet the needs and strengths of all students enrolled irrespectively of their learning status, needs and impairments (Bossaert et al., 2013). A growing body of literature suggests that the effectiveness and appropriacy of education offered to SWDs, especially students with developmental disabilities, should be appraised on the basis of preparing them to deal with the demands of adult life in an independent and efficient way (Chiang et al., 2017; Vicary et al., 2006). Many researchers in the field (Kim & Dymond, 2020; Kottorp et al., 2003; Yazici & Stancer, 2020) have suggested that the development of life skills which are associated with the respective roles the person would play in her/his life in the community is of significant importance in enabling them to participate in their community as independent and full citizens.

Transition to adult living is a demanding task for young people because it comes with a huge number of changes, modifications, adjustments and expectations (Mech et al., 1994). Especially for students with developmental disabilities, research has shown (Bouck, 2010; Hong et al., 2012) that there is an increasing need for instruction on life skills due to the fact that a significant number of them find adult life quite challenging. For young students with developmental disabilities to reach their full potential as adults, critical life skills must be acquired and various learning opportunities should be offered even early on in their lives (Kingsnorth et al., 2007). According to Bouck (2010), instructions on life skills performed during school years were effective in securing for students a smooth transition to full-time employment, increased graduation rates, higher salaries and job satisfaction. However, the structure of education systems worldwide focuses mainly on the academic needs of SWDs by preparing them for tests and state assessments rather than assisting them with the life skills they would need after school (Meyers, 2011).

Life skills, according to Brolin (1920/1997), are the skills necessary to be an autonomous and independent adult, like self-sufficient living, social and occupational skills, which should be taught in the least restrictive environment possible. Rahmati et al. (2010) described life skills as all the skills needed for social adjustment and independent living, such as self-awareness, communication and social skills, decision-making and managing emotions. Lock et al. (2007) suggested another dimension of life skills, namely organizational skills. According to these authors, a lack of organizational skills, especially among students with developmental disabilities, may affect their career potential along with their self-esteem. Furthermore, in a study by Schoenfeld (2006), the parents of students with developmental disabilities stated meal preparation, shopping, grooming, budgeting, using public transportation and street safety as necessary life skills for their children. Similarly, Yazici and Stancer (2020) described life skills as the necessary expertise to fulfill everyday tasks, such as washing, dressing, cooking, etc. In general, according to Clark et al. (1994), life skills are usually grouped into five categories: self-care and domestic living, leisure, social skills and other skills necessary for community participation.

A clear connection between life skills and life quality has set instruction on life skills at the center of research in the field over the last few years (Kim & Dymond, 2020; Mazzotti et al., 2016). According to Kim and Dymond (2020), research has shown that people with developmental disabilities who possess high levels of self-care and independent living skills have a high quality of life, feel more independent and need less support during their adult life. Similarly, Subasree et al. (2014) added that in order for a person to feel satisfied with her/his life, a job is not enough. She/he should feel happy and satisfied with their life outside of work.

Various intervention programs have tried to fill the above-mentioned gap in life skills in schools’ curricula. A quite popular instructional strategy for students with developmental disabilities is the Life-Centered Career Education (LCCE) proposed by Brolin (1920/1997), which focused on daily living skills, personal–social skills and occupational guidance. Similarly, Clark et al. (1994) highlighted the necessity of an early instructional approach to life skills for all SWDs in order for them to successfully meet the demands and expectations of adult life. Their approach includes instruction on various areas of personal development and adult life, such as personal responsibility, social competence and relationships, mental and physical health, home living, employability, recreation and leisure skills, consumer skills and community participation. A systematic review of programs on life skills conducted by Kingsnorth et al. (2007) for students with physical disabilities concluded that all interventions implemented, except one, were effective in developing people’s life skills. They further attributed the success of these interventions to the fact that they adopted a multi-component approach, offering various methods and strategies for the development of life skills. On the contrary, a study by Vicary et al. (2006) concluded that two different types of instructional approaches failed to deliver positive results in participants’ development of life skills, raising concerns about the appropriate age at which people should become acquainted with this type of training. However, a systematic review conducted by Alwell and Cobb (2009) found that curricular interventions on life skills were effective in fostering life skills in youth with disabilities irrespectively of age, type of impairment and gender. Along the same lines, in a study by Yazici and Stancer (2020), educators reported that interventions on life skills can positively affect SWDs’ self-esteem, perception, and capability to be the key agents in their lives. Consequently, there is a need to incorporate instructional programs on life skills into the curriculum, especially in secondary education, as they have the potential to secure a successful transition to adulthood for SWDs in general and students with developmental disabilities in particular (Bouck, 2010; Chiang et al., 2017).

In turn, it is of great significance for a teacher or other professionals to be able to assess the development or acquisition of students’ critical life skills in order to identify their individual support needs, to design and implement effective interventions and to monitor the development of these skills over time. Traditional psychometric tests have been found to be restricted in measuring student competency in academic areas. Thus, in order to be able to effectively assess life skills, like daily living, social and vocational skills, new tools should be developed (Brolin, 1920/1997). Over the last few years, a substantial body of research focusing on and testing various measures of different life skills in the field has been developed. For example, the Competency Rating Scale (CRS; Brolin, 1920/1997) has been used to assess the 22 competencies and 97 sub-competencies of the LCCE approach. In the same study, the LCCE Knowledge Battery, a criterion-referenced instrument, was also utilized to assess participants’ knowledge in areas such as daily living, social and occupational skills. Both instruments are usually completed by teachers to inform their educational plans. Nonetheless, it would be particularly useful in this specific context if other professionals working with the student could complete these scales. As a result, the CLSEA can be answered by teachers or any other professional in a school, or even by the student’s parents. It should also be mentioned at this point that criterion-referenced instruments are mostly used in academic contexts (Sitlington, 2008). Another tool used to assess life skills is the one developed by Rosen et al. (1989), which consists of 39 items concerning the communication, social contact, non-turbulence, self-care and responsibility of people with severe mental health problems. However, it is quite a long instrument, and, as a result, in 2001, the authors proposed a shorter version with 20 items, which includes the previously omitted subscale of communication. The new version seeks to manage the limitations spotted in the previous one, such as making it more suitable for use in routine services and the evaluation of a person’s progress (Rosen et al., 2001). The need for time-efficient scales which can rigorously spot the domains that need improvement was one of the goals we aimed to achieve during the development of the CLSEA. Another quite popular tool used to assess SWDs’ ability to independently perform certain tasks, such as feeding, washing hands, dress and toileting, along with communication, social and academic skills, is the Disability Assessment Scale (DAS; Holmes et al., 1982). This was one of the first instruments developed with a good retest and interrater reliability, and it can easily detect progress in skills (Chadwick et al., 2005; Tsakanikos et al., 2011). As in the case of the CLSEA, it is an instrument that can easily detect the progress over time of students’ skills, specifically after the implementation of an intervention. However, there is always an element of risk, as in any relevant instrument, when using standard scores to quantify skills in children with an ID (Chadwick et al., 2005). Thus, in the CLSEA, the item scores indicate not the possession of a specific skill but the degree of improvement the skill needs. In their study, Mech et al. (1994) utilized the Life Skills Inventory, a 50-item multiple choice tool, which assesses knowledge on life skills, like practical finances, shopping, meal preparation and vocational skills. In general, it assesses the readiness the person possesses for independent living and is characterized by statistically significant internal reliability and an acceptable error estimate (Mech et al., 1994). As mentioned by Powers et al. (2018), there is an increasing need for tools that help the voice of youth to be heard in regard to their readiness and possession of relevant skills for transition planning. The most accurate profiling of students’ life skills possible in the school context was also one of the objectives of the development of the CLSEA in order to implement functional curricula, which will foster students’ transition to adult life.

Although there are a variety of tools trying to assess people’s level of proficiency in life skills, the significance that training on life skills has gained over the last few years for SWDs calls for new tools that will be able to identify and measure certain dimensions, which, in turn, help ascertain the level of development of a person’s life skills based, for example, on his/her personal daily needs. As Subasree et al. (2014) have noted, there is still a need for a multidimensional scale that can evaluate a wide array of life skills in order to identify the precise level of peoples’ life skills prior to and after the implementation of an intervention program on life skills. It is of great significance for practitioners to have a clear idea of students’ abilities or difficulties in the area of life skill development prior to the intervention, and, at the same time, it is crucial for the students themselves to know and be aware of why they need to further develop a certain life skill.

Considering the need for sound assessment instruments to formulate personalized/individualized life skill profiles of strengths and difficulties for SWDs, the main objective of this paper is to propose a specific checklist to empirically assess the profile of life skills in students with developmental disabilities within educational settings. Additionally, this study aims to present evidence of the adequate reliability and validity of the checklist entitled “Checklist for Life Skills Educational Assessment—CLSEA”.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Development of the Checklist

A panel of experts (five members of academic staff, teachers, and psychologists) was engaged in the development of the checklist. The process for developing the checklist involved (a) a systematic study of the literature concerning curricula, research studies and theoretical approaches to the acquisition of life skills among youth with disabilities; (b) a synthesis of the key evidence and the development of respective key factors/sections; (c) the formulation of items in relation to each one factor/section identified; (d) the formulation of the possible answering range and the administration instructions; (e) pilot testing of the draft checklist with ten (10) professionals (teachers, school psychologists, social workers); (f) an evaluation procedure, which resulted in the modification, adaptation or deletion of items and/or sections based on the outcomes of the pilot testing and the comments of the professionals concerning the content, possible ambiguities, overlaps or cultural and linguistic issues; and (g) the formulation of the final checklist.

A strengths-based approach was followed in the formulation of the checklist items. Regarding wording, the items did not contain a negation or question; they were affirmative. For each item, five possible answers were available, three of which concerned the degree of skill improvement required, ranging from 1 to 3, and the last two concerned the case where the suggestion was not applicable due to the child’s age, or the respondent chose the option “don’t know”. The checklist was designed to be administered face-to-face through a structured individual interview conducted by a teacher or other professional in the school setting with a person who knows the student well, i.e., parent, teacher, psychologist, other professional. Completing the questionnaire allows for the profiling of the student’s life skills and the monitoring of any changes over time in the context of interventions. This was the main objective of developing this checklist.

2.2. An Overview/Description of the Final Version of the Original “Checklist for Life Skills Educational Assessment” (CLSEA)

Following the steps described in the Methods section, the checklist we originally developed consisted of 113 items in total and contained 3 sections corresponding to three main fields of functioning: daily living skills (41 items), personal–social skills (54 items) and prevocational–vocational skills (18 items). Each section included a number of subsections into which the 113 items were allocated (see

Table 1. Example of items and subsections per section (interviewer form) of the original 113-item “Checklist for Life Skills Educational Assessment” (CLSEA).

Section	Subsection	Items
A. Daily living skills	A1. Money management (description/paradigm: to use money in teaching and everyday life situations)	1. Recognizes coins (description/paradigm: distinguishes coins)
B. Personal–social skills	B1. Acquisition of personal identity (description/paradigm: to have developed his/her personal identity)	42. Recognizes emotions (e.g., joy–fear–sadness–anger) (description/paradigm: tells and shows basic emotions (joy, sadness, anger, fear))
C. Prevocational–vocational skills	C1. Work awareness (description/paradigm: being aware of issues related to work/the concept of work)	96. He/she knows what work means (description/paradigm: he/she knows that work is paid, has working hours, involves adults)

for an example of subsections and items).

The final version of the 113-item checklist consisted of the following forms: (a) an interviewee form including the set of items in a sequence and demographic information, (b) an interviewer form including the set of items assigned in the corresponding subsections and sections and a matching description/paradigm for each subsection and each item, an administration sheet, and a profiling sheet.

A three-point scale for responding to each item was available. Specifically, three of the answer categories were related to the degree of improvement that is considered significant for the child/student in relation to the individual skill (needs significant improvement—1; needs minor improvement—2; no improvement needed—3), while in the case that the content of the item did not correspond to the age of the child/student according to the respondent’s view or the respondent had not formed an opinion on the issue, the 4th and 5th response categories could be selected (don’t know and not applicable, respectively).

2.3. Participants

In the context of this study, the final version of the original 113-item “Checklist for Life Skills Educational Assessment” (CLSEA) was completed by the teachers of 339 students with developmental disabilities aged 7 to 18 years (M = 13.04 years, SD = 3.02). Students with sensory and/or motor disabilities were not included since the checklist items were not adapted to their needs. The participants were in-service special and general education teachers serving in either primary or secondary education schools (Table 1). Their age range was 24 to 58 years (M = 37.59 years, SD = 9.01). The main sociodemographic characteristics of the participating teachers and the students for whom the checklist was completed are presented in

Table 2. Sociodemographic characteristics.

Characteristic
Teachers
Age in years, mean (SD)	37.59 (9.01)
Gender, n (%)
Female	175 (51.6)
Male	37 (10.9)
Current employment status, n (%)
Special school teacher	158 (46.6)
General school teacher	61 (18)
Secondary school teacher	120 (35.4)
Post-graduate degree, n (%)
Master’s in special education	83 (24.5)
Master’s in other discipline	19 (5.6)
No master degree	98 (28.9)
Their students
Age in years, mean (SD)	13.04 (3.02)
Gender, n (%)
Girl	95 (28)
Boy	155 (45.7)
Level of education, n (%)
Primary Education	204 (39.5)
Secondary Education	134 (60.2)
Type of school class they attend, n (%)
General class	24 (7.1)
Pull-out program/resource room unit	24 (7.1)
Shadow teaching	12 (3.5)
Primary special education class	178 (52.5)
Secondary special education class	96 (28.4)

Note. N may differ due to missing data.

.

2.4. Procedure

Trained interviewers administered the original 113-item version of the checklist to special and general education teachers by conducting face-to-face individual structured interviews. The participating teachers worked in primary and secondary schools located in different geographical regions in Greece. After informed consent was obtained, teachers completed the checklist individually in interview format with a student with a developmental disability in mind. Specifically, the interviewer read aloud each item and the teacher indicated one of the available answers that best reflected—in his/her view—the skill/s of the student. For each item, the interviewer also read a specific corresponding description/paradigm. At the beginning of the interview session, the teacher was handed a sheet of paper containing a series of questions about demographics, as well as the items and the possible answers in the same order as they were read by the interviewer.

3. Results

Validation Analyses and Internal Consistency Reliability

Exploratory factor analysis was conducted for each of the three checklist sections separately, given that these three sections were distinct at a conceptual level. Specifically, Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) was employed to assess the underlying structure for the 41 items of Section A (daily living skills), the 54 items of Section B (personal–social skills), and the 18 items of Section C (prevocational–vocational skills) of the original 113-item checklist. The analyses were conducted with the IBM SPSS (version 29.0.1.0) statistical package. The optional response categories “don’t know” and “not applicable” were treated as missing data. The factor extraction method used was PAF, and the Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization rotation method was selected as the items were likely to be related conceptually. The pairwise deletion of cases with missing data was carried out. To determine the number of factors to retain, the “eigenvalues greater than 1” criterion was employed (eigenvalue > 1). Variables with loadings less than 0.40 were excluded from the analysis. Further, factor adequacy was determined and justified on the basis of conceptual and theoretical criteria. The reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) for each factor was also computed. Along with Cronbach’s alpha, the properties and characteristics of the items comprising each section of the Checklist for Life Skills Educational Assessment (CLSEA) were examined in terms of the means and standard deviations of individual items and corrected item–total correlations. Correlations among the three sections of the instrument were also explored.

The factor loadings (≥0.40) reported in the Pattern matrix of the final model, along with information on data suitability and the proportion of variance explained, are presented in the following

Table 3. Factor analysis for Section A of the original 113-item “Checklist for Life Skills Educational Assessment” (CLSEA).

CLSEA Section A—Daily Living Skills
Items	Factor Loadings
	1	2	3	4	5	6
Factor 1: Personal safety
18a—Takes care of his/her physical safety at home	0.567
19a—Protects himself/herself in his/her contacts with strangers	0.549
20a—Takes care of his/her physical safety in the community	0.534
10a—Takes care of the safety of the accommodation	0.440
16a—Apply first aid to himself/herself (e.g., care for minor injuries)	0.437
Factor 2: Money use and management
3a—Recognizes the value of money (large, small value)		−0.861
7a—Calculates in advance the money to be spent		−0.817
4a—Makes calculations with money		−0.800
2a—Recognizes paper money		−0.770
1a—Recognizes coins		−0.714
5a—Makes purchases		−0.672
6a—Uses vending machines (e.g., tickets, soft drinks)		−0.634
Factor 3: Food and cleaning up skills
26a—Serves food			−0.890
25a—Sets the table			−0.813
28a—Clears the table after the meal and puts things in their place			−0.761
24a—Prepares snacks			−0.655
8a—Takes care of his/her personal space in the accommodation			−0.536
27a—Demonstrates appropriate behavior at mealtime			−0.459
Factor 4: Leisure
33a—Chooses recreational activities in his/her free time				−0.978
32a—Has personal interests and hobbies				−0.793
35a—Performs individual recreational activities in his/her free time				−0.763
34a—Plans recreational activities in his/her free time				−0.669
31a—Knows about recreational activities available in the community for his/her free time				−0.639
36a—Participates in group recreational activities in his/her free time				−0.564
Factor 5: Community navigation
38a—Knows how to get to different places in the community (e.g., to the neighborhood square)					−0.591
41a—Recognizes signs to move around the community					−0.574
39a—Moves independently within short distances from the place of residence (e.g., to the neighborhood square)					−0.559
37a—Follows road rules & road safety procedures					−0.485
40a—Knows how to use transportation					−0.459
29a—Orders food in a restaurant in an appropriate manner					−0.403
Factor 6: Personal care
13a—Recognizes the appropriate clothes to wear according to the season						−0.605
14a—Recognizes the appropriate clothes to wear according to the occasion						−0.507
15a—Asks for help in case of illness						−0.417
12a—Dressing himself/herself						−0.407
Variance explained: the six factors account for 65.43% of the total variance

Note. In the Pattern matrix, the following items are displayed with no loadings on any of the six factors: 9a, 11a, 17a, 21a, 22a, 23a, and 30a (factor loading cut-off value was set at 0.40).

,

Table 4. Factor analysis for Section B of the original 113-item “Checklist for Life Skills Educational Assessment” (CLSEA).

CLSEA Section B—Personal–Social Skills
Items	Factor Loadings
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Factor 1: Interpersonal and friendship skills
64b—Recognizes characteristics of friendly relationships	0.770
63b—Knows that friendship is important	0.737
65b—Develops friendships	0.686
66b—Recognizes which behaviors can keep friends or drive them away	0.585
62b—Provides help and support to others when needed	0.543
53b—Praises others in an appropriate manner	0.524
54b—Criticizes others in an appropriate manner	0.501
Factor 2: Socially responsible behavior
57b—Respects authority figures (e.g., teacher)		0.817
56b—Respects the property of others		0.767
68b—Avoids teasing and making fun of others		0.678
55b—Respects the rights of others in everyday life		0.617
59b—Follows instructions		0.587
58b—Knows that there are consequences when disrespecting others		0.555
61b—Takes responsibility for his/her actions		0.493
Factor 3: Problem solving skills
79b—Develops alternative solutions to solve a problem			−0.837
81b—Selects one of the alternative solutions to solve a problem			−0.808
80b—Predicts consequences for each of the alternative solutions to solve a problem			−0.777
83b—Evaluates the effectiveness of the chosen solution to a problem			−0.767
82b—Applies the chosen solution to a problem			−0.679
78b—Uses appropriate resources to solve a problem			−0.678
77b—Recognizes who he/she is the problem in a given situation			−0.472
69b—Sets goals			−0.466
Factor 4: Dealing with praise and criticism
52b—Accepts constructive criticism from others in an appropriate manner				0.782
51b—Accepts praise from others in an appropriate manner				0.670
50b—Knows phrases that indicate constructive criticism				0.607
49b—Knows phrases that indicate praise				0.567
Factor 5: Communication skills
88b—Demonstrates appropriate body posture when communicating with others					0.782
89b—Demonstrates appropriate facial expressions when communicating with others					0.688
87b—Maintains eye contact with the interlocutor					0.682
91b—Speaks with a voice volume appropriate for the occasion					0.567
92b—Effectively communicates the message he/she wants to convey to others					0.480
90b—Interprets verbal and non-verbal information in an appropriate manner					0.425
Factor 6: Developing personal identity
48b—Believes in his/her worth as an individual						0.722
47b—Has self-confidence						0.704
45b—Is aware of his/her personal strengths						0.487
46b—Is aware of his/her personal weaknesses						0.453
Factor 7: Self-advocacy skills
75b—Defends what belongs to him/her							−0.510
74b—Defends himself/herself and his/her opinions							−0.417
Variance explained: the seven factors account for 63.45% of the total variance

Note. In the Pattern matrix, the following items were displayed with no loadings on any of the seven factors: 42b, 43b, 60b, 67b, 70b, 71b, 72b, 73b, 76b, 85b, 86b, 84b, 93b, 94b, and 95b (factor loading cut-off value was set at 0.40). Item 44b was removed (one-item factor).

and

Table 5. Factor analysis for Section C of the original 113-item “Checklist for Life Skills Educational Assessment” (CLSEA).

CLSEA Section C—Prevocational–Vocational Skills
Items
	1	2	3
Factor 1: Appropriate work behaviors
108c—Is disciplined in work regulations (e.g., classroom, school, prevocational workshop)	0.843
112c—Acts in a way that does not disturb others	0.839
110c—Maintains his/her work space in good condition	0.809
109c—Maintains his/her work tools in good condition	0.787
107c—Arrives on time for school activities	0.652
111c—Cooperates with others within the group	0.591
113c—Shares things with others	0.575
101c—Adapts to changes	0.543
Factor 2: Vocational awareness
98c—Knows the necessity of work		0.943
96c—Knows what work means		0.787
97c—Recognizes different professions		0.739
99c—Wants to learn new things		0.697
102c—Is interested in the future		0.621
Factor 3: Task completion skills
105c—Completes assigned work on time (without supervision)			0.974
106c—Focuses on his/her work until it is completed (without supervision)			0.934
104c—Focuses on his/her work until it is completed (with supervision)			0.757
103c—Completes assigned work on time (with supervision)			0.586
100c—Makes the most of his/her potential in his/her work			0.498
Variance explained: the three factors account for 62.86% of the total variance

Note. Factor loading cut-off value was set at 0.40.

. Each of these tables summarizes the results of the factor analysis conducted for each section of the checklist.

Regarding Section A (daily living skills) of the Checklist for Life Skills Educational Assessment (CLSEA), the factor analysis (PAF) revealed six factors (Table 3). The data were suitable for factor analysis according to Bartlett’s test of sphericity (χ2(820) = 5884.029, p < 0.001) and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure (0.932). All six factors were conceptually meaningful and interpretable and were labeled on the basis of the items’ underlying concept. Internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) was also assessed for the six factors comprising Section A—daily living skills of the Checklist for Life Skills Educational Assessment (CLSEA): personal safety (five items, α = 0.888), money use and management (seven items, α = 0.952), food and cleaning up skills (six items, α = 0.922), leisure (six items, α = 0.914), community navigation (six items, α = 0.915) and personal care (four items, α = 0.878).

The means and standard deviations, alongside the corrected item–total correlations for the items for the six factors of the Checklist for Life Skills Educational Assessment (CLSEA), Section A, were calculated. Considering the factor “Personal safety”, the mean of the individual items ranged from 1.56 (SD = 0.676) to 1.93 (SD = 0.793). As for the corrected item–total correlation, the coefficients ranged from 0.680 to 0.785. For the factor “Money use and management”, the mean for the individual items ranged from 1.36 (SD = 0.650) to 1.79 (SD = 0.843), while the item–total correlation coefficients ranged from 0.774 to 0.889. Regarding the items for the “Food and cleaning up skills” factor, item–total correlation ranged between 0.674 and 0.856, and the mean for the individual items ranged between 1.88 (SD = 0.786) and 2.34 (SD = 0.743). For the fourth factor “Leisure”, the mean of the individual items ranged between 1.78 (SD = 0.804) and 2.22 (SD = 0.774) and the item–total correlation ranged between 0.645 and 0.851. The range of the individual items’ mean scores for the factor “Community navigation” was from 1.60 (SD = 0.759) to 1.96 (SD = 0.822) and the item–total correlation range was from 0.695 to 0.820. Finally, for the individual items for the factor “Personal care”, the item–total correlation coefficients ranged between 0.666 and 0.812, and the mean scores ranged between 1.94 (SD = 0.804) and 2.39 (SD = 0.710). According to these results, all the items of all six factors in Section A (daily living skills) had an item–total correlation greater than 0.3.

For Section B (personal–social skills) of the Checklist for Life Skills Educational Assessment (CLSEA), a one-item factor was among the initial seven factors that emerged. After removing the relevant item, the final solution included seven factors, one of which comprised two items. It was decided to retain this two-item factor because it reflects an important concept related to self-advocacy skills, which in turn are considered a critical aspect of life skills. All seven factors were interpretable and conceptually meaningful, and they were labeled according to the underlying idea the items represented (Table 4). Bartlett’s test of sphericity (χ2(1378) = 12,840.582, p < 0.001) and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure (0.956) indicated that the data were suitable for factor analysis. Internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) was also examined for each factor: interpersonal and friendship skills (seven items, α = 0.933), socially responsible behavior (seven items, α = 0.911), problem-solving skills (eight items, α = 0.936), dealing with praise and criticism (four items, α = 0.850), communication skills (six items, α = 0.902), developing personal identity (four items, α = 0.854), and self-advocacy skills (two items, α = 0.797).

All coefficients of the item–total correlation for the items of the seven factors in section B (personal–social skills) were higher than 0.3. Specifically, for the items for the factor “Interpersonal and friendship skills”, the corrected item–total correlation coefficients ranged between 0.734 and 0.823, and the individual items’ mean scores ranged between 1.55 (SD = 0.689) and 1.97 (SD = 0.820). For each item of the second factor “Socially responsible behavior”, the corrected item–total correlation varied between 0.636 and 0.806, and the mean varied between 1.73 (SD = 0.752) and 2.34 (SD = 0.758). Regarding the items for the factor “Problem solving skills”, the mean of the individual items ranged from 1.29 (SD = 0.528) to 1.61 (SD = 0.702), and the corrected item–total correlation coefficients ranged from 0.706 to 0.823. For the items for the fourth factor “Dealing with praise and criticism”, the individual items’ mean scores ranged between 1.99 (SD = 0.770) and 2.55 (SD = 0.634), and the item–total correlation ranged between 0.677 and 0.708. The item–total correlation coefficients for the items for the “Communication skills” factor ranged from 0.646 to 0.808, and the mean for the individual items ranged from 1.79 (SD = 0.722) to 2.19 (SD = 0.782). Finally, the item–total correlations ranged between 0.653 and 0.726 for the “Developing personal identity” factor, and the coefficient for the “Self-advocacy skills” factor was 0.663 for both items. Respectively, the mean for the individual items ranged between 1.65 (SD = 0.706) and 1.69 (SD = 0.721) for the “Developing personal identity” factor and between 1.77 (SD = 0.756) and 2.20 (SD = 0.779) for the “Self-advocacy skills” factor.

Three distinct factors were evident for the third section (prevocational–vocational skills) of the Checklist for Life Skills Educational Assessment (CLSEA). All three factors were conceptually interpretable, and the assigned labels were related to the underlying topic that each factor’s items reflected (Table 5). In terms of data suitability, Bartlett’s test of sphericity (χ2(153) = 3774.634, p < 0.001) and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure (.912) supported the performance of the factor analysis. Internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) was calculated for each of the three factors: appropriate work behaviors (eight items, α = 0.907), vocational awareness (five items, α = 0.894), and task completion skills (five items, α = 0.915).

With regard to Section C (prevocational–vocational skills), all items had an item–total correlation higher than 0.3. Specifically, the item–total correlation coefficients ranged from 0.582 to 0.794 for the “Appropriate work behaviors” factor, from 0.680 to 0.813 for the “Vocational awareness” factor and from 0.640 to 0.841 for the “Task completion skills” factor. Furthermore, considering individual items, the mean ranged from 1.89 (SD = 0.726) to 2.45 (SD = 0.726) for the “Appropriate work behaviors” factor, from 1.67 (SD = 0.788) to 2.22 (SD = 0.777) for the “Vocational awareness” factor and from 1.69 (SD = 0.750) to 2.15 (SD = 0.781) for the factor titled “Task completion skills”.

Overall, considering the Cronbach’s α and item–total correlation coefficients, the internal consistency for each section of the Checklist for Life Skills Educational Assessment (CLSEA) was good. As for the correlations among the three sections of the Checklist for Life Skills Educational Assessment (CLSEA), the “Daily living skills” section was positively correlated with both the “Personal–social skills” (r = 0.806, p < 0.001) and “Prevocational–vocational skills” sections (r = 0.787, p < 0.001), while between the latter two, a positive correlation was also found (r = 0.854, p < 0.001).

In conclusion, based on the results of the exploratory factor analyses, a solution of six factors with 34 items in total was obtained for the “Daily living skills” section, eliciting information on personal safety, money use and management, food and cleaning up skills, leisure, community navigation and personal care. Likewise, 38 items in total and seven factors formed the “Personal–social skills” section, with content that focuses on interpersonal and friendship skills, socially responsible behavior, problem-solving skills, dealing with praise and criticism, communication skills, personal identity development and self-advocacy skills. Finally, the “Prevocational–vocational skills” section included 18 items in total and three factors, eliciting information on appropriate work behaviors, vocational awareness and task completion skills. These results contribute to the existing body of knowledge regarding the promotion of life skills in students with disabilities (e.g., Loyd & Brolin, 1997) by providing a means of assessing students’ strengths and weaknesses in this multidimensional domain. However, the generalizability of the results could be improved by replicating the factorial structure of the checklist using larger representative samples while implementing alternative and more rigorous procedures for handling missing data.

4. Discussion

Early identification and appropriate interventions for SWDs are well known to be effective in promoting the development of life skills in both educational and non-educational settings (Bouck, 2010; Chiang et al., 2017; Wehman, 2001). As life skills are closely connected to social competence, which dictates how well students are integrated and accepted into social environments, the need for life skill instruction is even more paramount for students with developmental disabilities, as they are at a greater risk for mental health problems, having fewer supportive relationships that can positively affect quality of life, and poorer post-schooling outcomes overall (Murray, 2002).

In addition, students with developmental disabilities seem to be excluded from regular education more often than other disabled students, facing more difficulties in acquiring life skills (Uria-Olaizola et al., 2025). Assessing the life skills of children and adolescents with developmental disabilities effectively in the school context is a critical aspect for identifying the core area of a functional curriculum which will promote students’ transition from school to successful adult life (Bouck & Satsangi, 2014; Davis & Rehfeldt, 2007).

The aim of this research was to develop an instrument for the determination of the life skill profiles of students with a developmental disability. The checklist’s items are not adapted for students with sensory and/or motor disabilities. A new checklist (The Checklist for Life Skills Educational Assessment—CLSEA) was developed for this purpose for use in charting determinant life skills of pupils with developmental disabilities aged 7 to 18 years. The original checklist was developed on the basis of the existing literature and consisted of 113 items allocated into three sections (daily living skills, personal–social skills, prevocational–vocational skills). Exploratory factor analysis (PAF) with an Oblimin rotation was conducted for each of the three sections of the 113-item CLSEA separately. Overall, the analyses indicated six distinct factors for the first section (daily living skills), seven factors for the second section (personal–social skills) and three factors for the third section of the CLSEA (prevocational–vocational skills). The final CLSEA included 90 items in total (Section A comprised 34 items out of the original 41, Section B comprised 38 items out of the original 54, and Section C consisted of 18 items as in the original checklist). It is worth noting that most of the subsection labels included in the original CLSEA were retained in the final CLSEA as factor labels.

Factors from the final checklist were found to be highly reliable and readily interpretable, allowing for clear descriptions of life skills. Therefore, the CLSEA can be integrated into existing assessment frameworks and used as an instrument for program planning at both the school/class and individual level, after training modules for teachers, which would be very helpful for effectively implementing the checklist in schools. It can provide valuable information about the support that the students require, aid in organizing different types of activities within the group and preparing an individual program for a particular pupil, as well as determining progress within a huge range of skills during a certain period of time (e.g., during a school year).

Moreover, the use of the CLSEA can help teachers prioritize tasks, allocate their time more efficiently and check progress in a systematic manner by breaking down larger goals into smaller, manageable steps. By understanding the key components of life skills and their significance in students’ academic and personal development, educators and policymakers can work towards fostering the holistic growth and well-being of SWDs. The factors identified describe specific life skills in the main domains of functioning in everyday life with the purpose of enhancing educational outcomes and preparing individuals for future challenges. Specific life skill instruction will result in more successful adult outcomes for individuals with developmental disabilities (i.e., independent living, employment, daily living skills) and, in the future, will contribute to their successful transition into post-secondary education and the community.

A quite interesting finding regarding the structure of the final CLSEA is that none of the original items on behaviors and knowledge related to sex education were loaded on any factor of the final instrument. This fact is possibly related to the small number of relevant original items; however, the possibility that the age range of the students is related to this result cannot be excluded. The critical role of sexuality education and self-advocacy skills in the lives of people with developmental disabilities (i.e., intellectual disability) is undisputed and merits further investigation as to why the relevant original checklist items did not appear (e.g., skills/behaviors related to sexuality education) or did not appear sufficiently (e.g., two-item factor for self-advocacy) in the final instrument (Michielsen & Brockschmidt, 2021; Mumbardó-Adam et al., 2020). Further research could be conducted to explore the reasons for this and develop more effective ways to assess these or other missing critical skills (e.g., adding questions about recognizing personal boundaries or expressing opinions) with the aim of enriching the tool.

The assessment of the main fields of functioning by the CLSEA is efficient and convenient and can provide useful information for the formation of a curriculum on functional or life skills (Bouck, 2010; Bouck & Satsangi, 2014) in both primary and secondary education. This curriculum is focused on teaching skills that prepare individuals for the requirements of current and future environments in the domain of domestic, community living, vocational, leisure, and social skills rather than strictly academic skills (Davis & Rehfeldt, 2007). By assessing the main fields of functioning (daily living skills, personal–social skills and prevocational–vocational skills), teachers can identify several skill areas where students are in need of instruction and focus their efforts in the classroom toward their students’ successful transition into adulthood. Based on the assessment and reassessment of skill mastery, they can carefully plan lessons on life skills to ensure the promotion of skill acquisition, generalization and maintenance through modeling and practice.

Furthermore, the CLSEA can provide a clear and structured framework for effective interventions because it helps to break down complex tasks into smaller ones, making it easier for students with developmental disabilities to understand and follow the learning process. By using a checklist, teachers get acquainted with their students’ strengths and weaknesses and realize what they have achieved and what they need to do next; thus, they are prompted to pay attention to specific details and important elements of a subject or task. This helps them stay focused on relevant information, reduces the chances of overlooking key points and provides a visual representation of progress, allowing them to see how far they have come with life skill instruction and how much more they have to do.

The assessment by the CLSEA or other checklists is likely to identify several skill areas in which students are in need of instruction. A number of factors should be considered when selecting which skills to target for teaching. These include an individual’s independence, social integration, the types of settings requiring the skill, an individual’s needs and preference, the frequency with which the skill will be used, etc. (Davis & Rehfeldt, 2007; Walker & Barry, 2018). In order to carefully plan teaching, we need easy-to-complete non-time-consuming instruments that would serve as a useful assessment framework for identifying skills and important activities for understanding relationships between different levels of disability and for identifying environmental barriers and facilitators for the performance of activities and acquisition of new life skills.

However, it could be argued that checklists generally provide a global assessment of skill requirement on a variety of tasks, but they do not necessarily reflect the expectations of the individual’s environment or fully capture complex skills that may be required to function effectively with varying levels of supervision or assistance (Davis & Rehfeldt, 2007). In addition, they can result in missing important information if observations are limited to only the items on the checklist. For this reason, it is necessary for the CLSEA to be combined with careful observations of individuals’ opportunities to perform particular skills in their daily life to determine which skills they have and which they can only perform with assistance or support. Longitudinal studies could also examine the predictive validity of the CLSEA by following students over time and assessing the relationship between their life skills and their outcomes in adulthood.

Moreover, this study could be expanded to include a larger population of SWDs. The development of the CLSEA was based solely on teachers’ assessments of Greek students with developmental disabilities. In order to be further utilized, certain adaptations are needed to include students with hearing, visual and/or physical impairments/disabilities, as well as immigrant and refugee students. For example, the use of alternative response formats that do not rely on specific sensory or motor skills could enhance the inclusivity of the CLSEA. To enhance the generalizability of the CLSEA, future studies could also include a more diverse sample of participants, such as teachers from different countries and other stakeholders like parents and psychologists.

Finally, taking into consideration that the assessment and teaching of life skills are highly influenced by both cultural views and the availability of resources (Yazici & Stancer, 2020), in order to be used in different cultural contexts, careful cross-cultural adaptations could be made in future studies to maintain the content validity of the instrument at a conceptual level across different countries and cultures.