Examining the Post-School Decision-Making and Self-Determination of Disabled Young Adults in Ireland
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Although this paper has a number of strengths (e.g. based on large, nationally representative dataset, high standard of English, use of Bronfenbrenner's ecological framework), it is quite difficult to follow at present and requires significant rewriting/restructuring before it can be considered for publication.
The introduction is missing key information on self-determination as a concept and jumps instead to self-determination skills development. Some contextual info on the UNCRPD, ADMA etc. would be helpful. The information on the Irish schools system could be better integrated into the introduction rather than being in a standalone section. This section should set out the aims and objectives of your study.
The method section is quite long and a lot of its content (e.g. description of theoretical framework and statement of research questions) would fit better in the introduction. The description of variables could be shortened down and/or tabulated. The analytical approach needs to be described in more detail e.g. explaining what descriptive statistics were examined, outlining the four models examined in the logistic regression.
The results section is quite difficult to follow and contains a lot of superfluous information that would fit better in other sections. The focus of this section should be limited to describing your findings clearly and succinctly. Please make sure to use the same terminology throughout the manuscript when describing your outcome variable, indicating that it assesses perceptions of school-based support in developing self-determinations skills rather than self-determination/agency in decision-making itself.
In the discussion section, be careful not to extrapolate too much from your findings, as your outcome variable does not assess self-determination itself.
Please see the annotated PDF attached for more detailed comments.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comment 1: Although this paper has a number of strengths (e.g., based on a large, nationally representative dataset, high standard of English, use of Bronfenbrenner's ecological framework), it is quite difficult to follow at present and requires significant rewriting/restructuring before it can be considered for publication.
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable feedback on the paper, which we really appreciate. We have restructured and clarified the paper throughout, with further details provided below.
Comment 2: The introduction is missing key information on self-determination as a concept and jumps instead to self-determination skills development. Some contextual info on the UNCRPD, ADMA etc. would be helpful. The information on the Irish schools system could be better integrated into the introduction rather than being in a standalone section. This section should set out the aims and objectives of your study.
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestions. We have restructured the introduction section to include the definition of self-determination, contextual information on the UNCRPD and ADMA, and integrated the details about the Irish school system. Additionally, we have set out the aims and objectives of the study at the end of the introduction.
Comment 3: The method section is quite long and a lot of its content (e.g., description of the theoretical framework and statement of research questions) would fit better in the introduction. The description of variables could be shortened down and/or tabulated. The analytical approach needs to be described in more detail e.g., explaining what descriptive statistics were examined, outlining the four models examined in the logistic regression.
Response 3: Thank you for your feedback. We have moved the description of the theoretical framework and the statement of research questions to the end of the introduction. A table describing the variables used in the study has been added to the appendix (see Appendix Table A2). We have also expanded the section on the analytical approach, particularly the descriptive statistics, and added details of the four models examined in the logistic regression.
Comment 4: The results section is quite difficult to follow and contains a lot of superfluous information that would fit better in other sections. The focus of this section should be limited to describing your findings clearly and succinctly. Please make sure to use the same terminology throughout the manuscript when describing your outcome variable, indicating that it assesses perceptions of school-based support in developing self-determinations skills rather than self-determination/agency in decision-making itself. In the discussion section, be careful not to extrapolate too much from your findings, as your outcome variable does not assess self-determination itself.
Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion. We have restricted the results section to our descriptive and model results. Consistent terminology is now used throughout the manuscript to describe the outcome variable (i.e., students’ positivity in school's role in their self-determination skills development) instead of ‘self-determination or agency in decision-making’. This change has been made in the introduction, results, and discussion sections, along with a discussion on the study's limitations and future research directions.
Comment 5: Please see the annotated PDF attached for more detailed comments.
Response 5: Thank you for the detailed comments. We have addressed each of them in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This paper addresses an important topic, given the marked disability employment and pay gaps in all countries for which there are data. Educational attainment is a major driver of employment chances, and internationally, there are wide inequities between the attainment and qualifications of disabled children and young people and their non-disabled peers. The paper is theoretically underpinned and based on a large, longitudinal study with 4 waves of data, allowing follow-up.
The paper is well written but would be strengthened by addressing the following:
Page 1. A definition of ‘self-determination’ would be helpful here (it is given on page 3). Likewise, a definition of ‘self-determination skills development’ is needed. Page 2 refers to school interventions, but it should be clearer on page 1 to aid the reader.
Pages 1-2. Although this is likely a universal problem, understanding the country context of the cited literature would be helpful, particularly as educational and government interventions and support for disabled young people and outcomes differ between countries.
Page 2, line 56. Above, the authors were referring to gaps in the literature but here does ‘reducing these gaps’ refer to inequities in educational outcomes for young people?
Page 2 presents findings, which should be moved to the results section.
Page 4, line 189. Multiple impairments/health conditions have a greater impact on educational and other outcomes, so it isn’t clear why ‘children are categorised according to the type of disability most likely to impact their academic performance’ and are only classified as having a single impairment type. Who decided on this categorisation – the data providers or the authors of the paper – and why and how? The impact of a given impairment/health condition will very much depend on the reasonable adjustments and other support put in place. Were decisions regarding ‘the type of disability most likely to impact their academic performance’ based on assumptions or evidence? Given the size of the sample, it would have been possible to compare young people with single and multiple impairments.
How does this categorisation affect the proportions in each category reported on page 6, line 277-280 and subsequent findings? i.e. if physical disabilities are given less prominence than other types for participants with multiple impairments (i.e. the example given on page 4) how does this affect findings which compare outcomes between disabled young people? Categorising the sample as having a single impairment does seem odd, particularly given the findings that ‘Disparities are also evident among disabled young adults with different types of disabilities, emphasising the unequal impact of various disabilities on self-determination skills development’ (page 11, line 442).
Page 4, line 196. Third-level degree needs explaining as I assume it is specific to the Irish context.
General comment: Social model of disability language is preferable (‘disabled young people’ rather than ‘young people with disabilities’) in recognition of the societal/structural barriers which affect disabled people’s life chances.
Author Response
Comment 1: This paper addresses an important topic, given the marked disability employment and pay gaps in all countries for which there are data. Educational attainment is a major driver of employment chances, and internationally, there are wide inequities between the attainment and qualifications of disabled children and young people and their non-disabled peers. The paper is theoretically underpinned and based on a large, longitudinal study with 4 waves of data, allowing follow-up.
Response 1: Thank you for your positive assessment of the paper and your detailed suggestions to enhance the paper, which we have addressed – details are provided below.
Comment 2: Page 1. A definition of ‘self-determination’ would be helpful here (it is given on page 3). Likewise, a definition of ‘self-determination skills development’ is needed. Page 2 refers to school interventions, but it should be clearer on page 1 to aid the reader.
Response 2: Definitions of ‘self-determination’ and ‘self-determination skills’ have been added to the introduction on page 1.
Comment 3: Pages 1-2. Although this is likely a universal problem, understanding the country context of the cited literature would be helpful, particularly as educational and government interventions and support for disabled young people and outcomes differ between countries.
Response 3: Thank you. We have added the country context of the cited literature where relevant. However, much of the literature was selected to highlight the universal nature of experiences and policies in this area, making country context less relevant in those cases.
Comment 4: Page 2, line 56. Above, the authors were referring to gaps in the literature but here does ‘reducing these gaps’ refer to inequities in educational outcomes for young people?
Response 4: Thank you for pointing that out. The gaps referred to inequities in educational outcomes for young people.
Comment 5: Page 2 presents findings, which should be moved to the results section.
Response 5: Thank you. This content has been moved to the results section.
Comment 6: Page 4, line 189. Multiple impairments/health conditions have a greater impact on educational and other outcomes, so it isn’t clear why ‘children are categorised according to the type of disability most likely to impact their academic performance’ and are only classified as having a single impairment type. Who decided on this categorisation – the data providers or the authors of the paper – and why and how? The impact of a given impairment/health condition will very much depend on the reasonable adjustments and other support put in place. Were decisions regarding ‘the type of disability most likely to impact their academic performance’ based on assumptions or evidence? Given the size of the sample, it would have been possible to compare young people with single and multiple impairments. How does this categorisation affect the proportions in each category reported on page 6, line 277-280 and subsequent findings? i.e. if physical disabilities are given less prominence than other types for participants with multiple impairments (i.e. the example given on page 4) how does this affect findings which compare outcomes between disabled young people? Categorising the sample as having a single impairment does seem odd, particularly given the findings that ‘Disparities are also evident among disabled young adults with different types of disabilities, emphasising the unequal impact of various disabilities on self-determination skills development’ (page 11, line 442).
Response 6: Thank you for your feedback. This approach has proved useful in earlier research, prioritising additional needs which are likely to impact more directly on educational engagement and achievement. Given this study is focused on skills development, and needs to ensure groups comprise sufficient numbers for multilevel analysis, the categorisation is a way to ensure both feasibility and relevance.
Example of earlier study:
McCoy, S.; Maître, B.; Watson, D.; Banks, J. The Role of Parental Expectations in Understanding Social and Academic Well-Being among Children with Disabilities in Ireland. European Journal of Special Needs Education 2016, 31, 535–552, doi:10.1080/08856257.2016.1199607.
Comment 7: Page 4, line 196. Third-level degree needs explaining as I assume it is specific to the Irish context.
Response 7: Thank you. In Ireland, those with a third-level degree include individuals with a professional qualification, a university degree, a postgraduate diploma/degree, or a Ph.D. This information has been added as a footnote where ‘third-level’ degree is first mentioned.
Comment 8: General comment: Social model of disability language is preferable (‘disabled young people’ rather than ‘young people with disabilities’) in recognition of the societal/structural barriers which affect disabled people’s life chances.
Response 8: Thank you. We have consistently used the term ‘disabled young people/students’ throughout the paper.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thank you for your careful consideration of my previous comments, you have done excellent work in improving the comprehensiveness and coherence of the manuscript.
