Linguistic and Cultural Adaptation of a Self-Determination Scale for People with Intellectual Disabilities

Abstract

The main objectives of this study were to adapt the AUTODDIS scale to the cultural and social dimensions of Chile and to analyze its reliability and validity. The reliability and validity were assessed through a pilot study conducted with a population of students with intellectual disabilities (ID). The linguistic adaptation was executed according to expert judgments of each indicator: adequacy, coherence, relevance, and clarity. After the scale adaptation, a scale pilot was conducted to explore its technical properties. It was performed in a public school for students with ID. The validity coefficient result was 0.998, while the complete reliability result was α = 0.978. For the reliability subscales, the results were the following: autonomy α = 0.941, self-initiation α = 0.925, self-direction α = 0.970, self-regulation α = 0.804, and self-concept α = 0.935. The results confirm the AUTODDIS scale as a valid and reliable instrument to evaluate self-determination. However, it is necessary to apply this scale to a larger number of students with ID to generalize these results.

1. Introduction

Different countries have ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenants that promote the freedom and rights of all people. Furthermore, these countries are committed to the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [1], which considers the basic rights of this group and the core principles, for instance, “the individual autonomy, including the freedom to take own decisions, and the self-independence of the people” [1] (p. 5). Likewise, in article N° 12, this convention establishes the legal capacity of the person, as well as their capacity to have rights and exercise those rights [2]. The International Convention also indicates that countries may provide the necessary support to people with disabilities to exercise their legal capacity. Consequently, the different nations are committed to recognizing and proclaiming the rights, will, and individual preferences of each person. Meanwhile, it is the government’s duty to promote the necessary actions to guarantee this commitment.

Advances in the field of Intellectual Disability (ID) due to the recognition of the multidimensionality of human functioning [3,4,5] and the functional approach to disability first appeared in 1992 [6]. The findings demonstrate that support systems are essential, and they must be built around values that increase self-determination, inclusion, people’s rights, individual development, relationships, and physical, emotional, and material well-being. These support systems include elements such as choice and personal autonomy, promoting development and individual well-being; in addition, they reduce the disability impact [7]. With the right support, any individual can acquire the skills and abilities that allow them to take control, make decisions, and take responsibility for their actions. Two fundamental elements come into play: individual characteristics and the environment [7]. Therefore, international organizations and the advances in theory in the disability field suggest that governments should guarantee strategies and measures to ensure equal opportunities for people with ID in each dimension of their lives. A crucial aspect of the human rights of persons with disabilities is access to justice. The Ibero-American Protocol on Judicial Action addresses this need, proposing measures to improve access to justice not only for people with a disability but also for migrants, children, adolescents, and Indigenous communities [8]. In the educational field, equal opportunity is the timely access to inclusive, comprehensive, and quality education—education with all the essential supports allowing those with a disability to become agents responsible for their lives and exercise their self-determination.

Self-determination is a basic principle referring to the person and an effective element of the support systems [4] in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Self-determination development is essential for individual well-being. Van Loon indicates [6] that this development is an essential feature that provides a fundamental principle for people with and without disability to improve their life quality. This feature enables them to become the causal agent of their actions, using autonomy, making choices, resolving problems, and making their own decisions.

Several authors have directed their research toward building a concept of self-determination [9,10,11,12], and one referent in this field is Wehmeyer [13]. This author proposes a theoretical framework that supports self-determination [14], explaining it in a functional model. He describes how self-determination allows the “act as the main agent in a person’s life and makes decisions regarding the life quality of a free person without influences or undue external interferences” [15] (p. 20). Consequently, each person is the central agent of their life, responsible for maintaining or improving their life quality; therefore, how to act or how to decide will depend on them. Wehmeyer presents self-determination as a mix of four principal features: autonomy, self-regulation, empowerment, and self-realization; these characteristics together allow an integral construct comprehension. This model has made it possible to create a theoretical foundation and provide assessment tools for people with disabilities [16,17].

Recently, some authors [18,19] have reconceptualized this functional model with the principles of human agents [13]. They proposed the Causal Agency Theory: this theory expresses a deep understanding of self-determination [19], arguing that all people can be causal agents in their own lives regardless of disabilities or associated conditions. The theory has three fundamental principles: volitional action (deciding), agency action (acting), and control-action beliefs (believing) [17]. These principles are based on five essential features: autonomy, self-initiation, self-direction, self-regulation, and self-concept. Acting in a volitional way implies autonomy, choosing main objectives based on preferences [20]. The choices are conscious and involve initiation and the ability to carry out the objectives [13]. Agency action self-regulates a person’s own action and allows progress toward the proposed objective with perseverance [21]. Finally, the control-action beliefs determine beliefs and actions. They are the foundations for beliefs about expectations of control, beliefs in capabilities, and beliefs in causality [13]. The Causal Agency Theory emphasizes the active role that each person plays in their own life [17]. Likewise, it is an opportunity to create assessments aligned with emerging studies, to include best practices, to design and validate tools, and to assess people’s self-determination [22].

Wehmeyer [13] points out that it is indisputable that anyone can develop self-determined actions if they have the support and opportunities to do so. As people mature, they can acquire self-determined skills, such as setting goals, making decisions, and solving problems, among others. This implies the need for an internal sense of control, persistence, and the ability to adapt to challenges in different situations [23]. Personal and contextual factors such as family structure and socioeconomic level have a powerful influence [24]; similarly [25], they show the influence of contextual factors on people with ID.

There are several factors influencing the promotion of self-determination, and its development will depend on the context. Different investigations have found a lack of opportunities for people with ID to make decisions in all life areas [26]. On the rare occasions that people with ID have been assessed, they have expressed the high importance of the self-determination dimension [27] because of the influence it has in their lives. Lachapelle [28] states that self-determination can predict belonging to a group with a high or low life quality. Other studies that evaluate life quality in people with ID present the lowest score in self-determination with respect to the other dimensions [29,30,31]. In Chile, studies show that in the self-determination dimension, there are less-developed abilities because of their low promotion [24,32]. These worrying findings are an invitation to reflect on the legal and regulatory provisions available in each country to support the development of self-determination, especially for people with ID. Resources and strategies are required to evaluate the progress of self-determination in identifying the individual supports and necessities for each person. Self-determination is a crucial factor in detecting the needs of people with ID and offering them support. It is necessary to have a reliable and validated assessment focusing on one’s life activities. An assessment tool with indicators created on the basis of evidence and updated theories is crucial, one that considers observable milestones in self-determination theory.

As new theories and definitions of self-determination are developed, theoretical models have also been created in this area [33,34] with emerging standardized evaluation tools. A prominent example is the ARC-INICO Scale [35]. This scale is a valuable instrument to assess self-determination in people with ID and allows significant conclusions for its promotion [36,37]. This scale was based on the Wehmeyer functional model [13] and introduced a reference in this area. It considers the school population between 11 and 19 years of age with a self-reported evaluation; therefore, an impression is derived from the person themselves. This and other instruments have helped significantly to promote self-determination [16,38,39]. However, in Chile, these tools remain scarce, and they are not adapted to the local reality, so it is necessary to expand this area of research.

A recent tool for self-determination assessment supported by the Causal Agency Theory, with the aggregate to report adequate psychometric properties, is the AUTODDIS scale: the Assessment of Self-Determination in Youth and Adults with Intellectual Disabilities [40]. This scale evaluates people with ID from an objective perspective (i.e., a professional perspective). Furthermore, this scale includes indicators connected with three dimensions from the causal agency: volitional action, agential action, and beliefs about control and action. They are divided into five subscales: autonomy, self-initiation, self-direction, self-regulation, and self-concept. The instrument has been demonstrated to be theoretically and scientifically effective [19,36,40,41,42].

Preliminary evidence on the reliability and validity of the AUTODDIS scale obtained from the pilot study [39] shows good internal consistency (greater than 0.90) for all subscales, and there was no item negatively affecting the measurement, which allowed keeping all the proposed items in the final scale version [39,43]. The results from the application of the scale in the population with ID show that self-determination is affected by the severity of ID, occupational and psychoeducational support, and the support for autonomy and independent living. Therefore, contextual variables influence the development of self-determination in people with ID. On the other hand, individual characteristics such as sex or age do not affect the capacity for self-determination [42].

The AUTODDIS scale has also been used in clinical mental health contexts, where it has proven to be effective, obtaining positive results. These results support the use of the scale as an appropriate tool to assess self-determination in this field. In addition, the study highlights the importance of developing more research and evaluation tools to improve decision-making in both clinical settings and organizations that promote self-determination [25].

Verdugo et al. [39] note the need for further research to ensure the effectiveness of the scale and to assess the impact of practices addressed at promoting self-determination. Although there is consensus on the importance of the construct of self-determination, there are still barriers to its promotion, which highlights the need to continue developing research in this field. In addition, specific studies are required to assess and promote self-determination in people with other disabilities or neurodevelopmental disorders [44].

Based on the arguments about the relevance of self-determination in people with ID, we must ensure the existence of valid and reliable evaluations of instruments supported by scientific evidence. For this reason, the main objective of this pilot study was to adapt linguistically and culturally the AUTODDIS self-determination scale and to subsequently analyze its reliability and validity by applying it to a group of Chilean students with ID.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

A cross-sectional descriptive study was used to explore a self-determination test for people with ID via the AUTODDIS scale. This instrument was created in Spain, so authorization was obtained from one of the authors to conduct the cultural and linguistic adaptation and to analyze its reliability and validity.

Five experts in the field of linguistics and self-determination were consulted. The five expert judges were identified by their experiences in standardization tests. In addition, all of them were professors in higher education; three were experts in Spanish and linguistics, and two were experts in special education with experience in self-determination. The expert participation was conditional on their informed consent. A protocol was delivered to them that contained the following: an identification section, the presentation of the instrument to be evaluated, and the scale with its respective evaluation guideline for each section with its respective dimensions. The judges scored each of the items on the scale. Finally, a few modifications suggested by the experts were made to some of the words on the scale adapted to the Chilean context.

Once the scale adaptation was completed, the researchers contacted the educational leaders of a public school that serves students with ID. This is a unique school because it is the only special school for this population in the district. In addition, in this school, students with ID have the support of a teacher who is an expert in the development of self-determination skills. The team authorized and signed the informed consent for the school’s participation in the research.

The school population consisted of 50 students who presented different diagnoses, such as autism spectrum disorders and cerebral palsy. Some of the diagnoses included two pathologies at the same time, such as autism spectrum disorder and ID. There were 43 students with ID, but 8 of them were younger than the age required by the AUTODDIS scale (11 years). Of the 35 students with ID, 2 did not bring the informed consent of their parents, and 5 were not evaluated because the specialist teacher was on medical leave (there was a substitute professional who knew the students for only a month). Thus, the final sample consisted of 28 students with ID (n = 28).

2.2. Procedure

This was a collaboration between the educational institution and the research team. The approval of the university’s Ethics, Bioethics, and Biosafe Committee was previously obtained.

The school principal selected teachers who knew their students very well and who had knowledge of the self-determination construct. The research team trained these teachers in the application of the AUTODDIS scales. The scale was applied individually in a physical format (i.e., paper). Each teacher evaluated their student in each of the subdimensions of the scale. To ensure student anonymity, identification codes were used to replace the names and surnames of all participants.

The parents and/or caregivers, principals, and teachers at the school were informed about the nature of the study with a document that was read and signed by all collaborators. All instruments were applied under confidentiality protocols and duly endorsed by the Ethics, Bioethics, and Biosafety Committee of the University of Concepción, Chile (CEBB 1282-2022, October 2022). All procedures complied with the Declaration of Helsinki and Singapore for research involving human subjects.

2.3. Assessment Instrument

For Linguistic and Cultural Adaptation, the Content Validity Coefficient Was Used

The content validity coefficient (CVC) was used by expert judges to confirm the degree to which the instrument measures the variable to be studied. To obtain the CVC of the AUTODDIS scale, first, an evaluation guideline scored from 1 to 4 was applied [45]. The judges scored each of the items on the scale using a Likert format considering these criteria: not compliant (1 point); low level (2 points); moderate level (3 points); and highest level (4 points). These scores were established to rate the following: (a) sufficiency (i.e., the item belongs to the dimension and is sufficient to obtain its measurement), (b) coherence (i.e., the logical relationship between the item and the dimension and/or indicator measured), (c) relevance (i.e., it is an essential item that must be included), and (d) clarity (i.e., the item is easily understood, meaning that its syntactics and semantics are adequate).

The AUTODDIS scale [39] was used to pilot and assess self-determination. It assessed the components of self-determined behavior and the global level of self-determination of youth and adults between 11 and 40 years with ID and developmental disability. The scale uses a Likert format, ranging from strongly agree (4 points), agree (3 points), disagree (2 points), to strongly disagree (1 point). It was organized around six essential components that operationalized the construct of self-determination, consisting of six subscales:

• Autonomy, 7 items
• Self-initiation, 6 items
• Self-direction, 12 items
• Self-regulation, 3 items
• Self-realization, 6 items
• Empowerment, 12 items.

The six subscales are grouped into three dimensions or essential characteristics: (a) autonomous and volitional actions; (b) agency actions of personal control; and (c) attitudes and beliefs of control-action [41].

This scale was judged by an external observer who must have known the person for at least four months and who must have observed them in different scenarios. It is suggested that it be applied by professionals and complemented by family members or people who provide support. In addition, they must be familiar with the construct of self-determination and understand the importance of this element in the life of the person with ID. The instrument was designed to be answered in 25 min by the evaluator and consists of scales that allow the direct scores obtained to be converted, typified, and interpreted to better evaluate and understand the results.

2.4. Sociodemographic Data

With the application of the AUTODDIS scale, teachers also provided sociodemographic information such as sex, age, diagnosis, level of ID, and place of residence. They used the psychological reports provided by the educational unit as a reference to complete the information required.

Regarding the students with ID: A total of 82.1% of students with ID were male and 17.9% were female. The diagnosis included mild ID (39.3%), moderate ID (42%), and severe ID (17.9%). According to the previously established requirements, the sampling fluctuated between 11 and 25 years of age, concentrating mostly on adults between 20 and 22 years.

Regarding the evaluators: The evaluators were special education teachers with a specialty in ID; 100% of them were women, and all of them resided in the same community as the students’ school.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The analysis conducted by expert judges examined the content validity coefficients to establish agreement among them for each section of the scale and its 46 items. Sufficiency, clarity, coherence, and relevance were confirmed [36,46].

In the same way, the reliability of the instrument was analyzed considering the dependent variable of self-determination, defined as “a dispositional characteristic that becomes manifest when the person acts as a causal agent of his or her own life” [17] (p. 258). It is composed of the following dimensions: autonomy, understood as the ability to act without undue influence of others; self-initiation, the ability to act when the person decides to; self-direction, the ability to act by addressing one’s own actions toward the achievement of personal goals; self-regulation/adjustment, the ability to create alternatives and adjust the action to overcome any obstacles; self-concept, the knowledge that each person has of their abilities and limitations, as well as the personal value that it has by itself; and empowerment, the ability to express self-defense and self-representation behaviors.

In the reliability process, an internal consistency analysis of the total scale and its subscales was conducted using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and the SPSS statistical program. Data distribution was established using the Shapiro–Wilk normality test. Since the sample did not present a normal distribution among the responses of its subscales, a non-parametric test was applied, and descriptive and inferential analyses were performed.

3. Results

3.1. Results of the Linguistic and Cultural Adaptation of the AUTODDIS Scale

The summary of the evaluation by the expert judges in each section, according to the categories, is presented in

Table 1. Experts’ observations and modifications of the scale to the Chilean context.

Word of AUTODDIS Scale	Word Adapted to Chilean Context
Section: Informant Data Speech Therapist	Section: Informant Data Speech Pathologist
Health Services	Healthcare Services
Section: Data of the person evaluated	Section: Data of the person evaluated
Autonomous community	Region
Locality	Commune
Autism Spectrum Disorder	Autism Spectrum Disorder
Supervised apartment	Apartment
Occupational center	Labor Center
Level of dependency	Municipal dependency was eliminated
Concerted	Subsidized
Transition to adulthood	This option was eliminated (it does not exist in Chile)
Special classroom in regular school	Special education center
Ordinary classroom in regular education center	Common classroom in a regular education center (with School Integration Program).
Special employment center	This option was eliminated (it does not exist in Chile)
Primary and secondary education	Elementary education and high school
Section: Organization data	Section: Organization data
Day center and night center	This option was eliminated (it does not exist in Chile)
Section: Autonomy subscale	Section: Autonomy subscale
Word Snack	Light Meal

. This includes their observations and suggested changes, which were limited to specific modifications in indicators for the scale. In the identification section, vocabulary adjustments are evident, which translated into a low percentage of reading and comprehension errors for the items.

Content Validity Coefficient

The assessment of the content validity coefficients considered the categories necessary to examine criteria fulfillment and item precision.

Table 2. Categories for the expert evaluation of content validity.

Category	Qualification	Indicator	Observations
Sufficiency Items that belong to one dimension are sufficient to measure it.	1. It does not meet the criterion	Items are not enough to measure the dimension.
	2. Low level	Items measure few aspects of the dimension, but they do not correspond to the total dimension.
	3. Moderate level	Some items must be aggregated to measure the dimension completely.
	4. High level	Items are enough.
Coherence The item has a logical relationship with the dimension or indicator it is measuring.	1. It does not meet the criterion	The item has no logical relationship with the dimension.
	2. Low level	The item has a tangential relationship with the dimension.
	3. Moderate level	The item has a moderate relationship with the dimension that it is measuring.
	4. High Level	The item is completely related to the dimension it measures.
Relevance The item is essential or fundamental, that is, it must be included.	1. It does not meet the criterion	The item can be eliminated without affecting the dimension measurement.
	2. Low level	The item has some relevance, but another item is needed to measure.
	3. Moderate level	The item is important.
	4. High Level	It is a relevant item, and it should be included.
Clarity The item can be easily understood. Its syntactic and semantic qualities are adequate.	1. It does not meet the criterion	The item is not clear at all.
	2. Low level	The item requires quite a few modifications or a large modification according to the meaning or the order of the words.
	3. Moderate level	Modification of a specific item or some of the item’s terms is necessary.
	4. High Level	The item is clear in semantics and syntax.

Note: Reprinted with permission from Ref. [45]. Copyright 2008 Avances en Medición.

provides evidence of the assessment conducted on each of the 46 items on the scale.

An Excel database was created to record each of the expert scores and observations. These data calculated the content validity coefficient based on Hernández-Nieto [46]. who indicates that to validate the instrument, calculations are made in Excel with the following formula, present in the Equation (1) (taken from [46]):

$${Cvc}_i={\displaystyle \frac{\mathsf{\Sigma }{Cvc}_i}{/N}}=\mathsf{\Sigma }\left[\left[{\displaystyle \frac{{\mathsf{\Sigma }}^{x_i}/J}{Vmx}}\right]-{pe}_i\right] \left(1/N\right)$$

(1)

According to Hernández-Nieto, each of the formula components is interpreted as follows: N = total number of items in the data collection instrument; Sx_i = sum of the scores assigned by each judge J to each item i; Vmx = maximum value of the scale used by the judges; pe_i = probability of error for each item (probability of random agreement among the judges); J = number of judges assigning scores to each item [46] (p. 72).

The formula presented allowed the content validity coefficient (CVC) granted by expert judges to be measured in Excel, with a result of 0.998. According to [46] and the

Table 3. Assessment scale of the content validity coefficient.

CVC	Assessment
<0.60	Unacceptable
≥0.60 and<0.70	Deficient
≥0.70 and <0.80	Acceptable
≥0.80 and <0.90	Good
≥0.90	Excellent

Note: adapted from [46].

, these results are excellent. Further, the formula presents a high validity and agreement among expert judges regarding each of the items. Each of the items had a score higher than 0.80, so according to the author, no items were eliminated.

3.2. Reliability, Internal Consistency Analysis

Teachers assessed the students with ID using the self-determination scale with scores on each of the scale items. Figure 1 shows the evidence of each teacher assessing the different dimensions of self-determination, marking their perception with options ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

Table 4. Cronbach’s alpha results.

Cronbach’s Alpha	N° Elements
0.978	46

presents the analysis of internal consistency and the reliability results obtained from the general analysis of the total scale, and its subscales show an α = 0.978. This indicates that the scale is a reliable measure of self-determination in each of the dimensions and on the general level. Consequently, the scale demonstrates adequate internal consistency.

Table 5. Statistical coefficients of the scale AUTODDIS.

Mean	Variance	Standard Deviation	N° of Elements
92.64	988.683	31.443	46

presents the analysis of statistical coefficients with a mean of 92.64 and 95% confidence.

Table 6. Reliability results of subscales in AUTODDIS.

Subscale	Cronbach’s Alpha	N° of Elements
Autonomy	0.941	7
Self-initiation	0.925	6
Self-direction	0.970	12
Auto-regulation/Adjustment	0.804	3
Self-concept	0.935	6
Empowerment	0.958	12

shows the reliability results for the full sample (n = 28) using the assessment provided by the teachers. The reliability results are excellent as a whole [39]. They meet the requirements set to ensure the accuracy of the information obtained with the scale [36]. All subscales showed reliability indices higher than 0.800, with the self-direction subscales presenting a greater internal consistency (value α = 0.970) and the self-regulation/adjustment subscale showing lesser internal consistency (value α = 0.804). These results are similar to those of [39] (n = 541), which indicates the coincidence in the evaluation between families and professionals with n = 106.

Similarly, the subscales of autonomy, self-initiation, and self-concept showed reliability indices superior to α = 0.900; therefore, they present excellent reliability. One of the subscales (i.e., self-regulation) showed a lower result. According to Frias-Navarro [47], this result can be attributed to the lower number of items presented by the subscales because, when calculating the alpha, a greater number of items increases reliability. In this case, the subscale of self-regulation had a reduced number of items (3).

The results from the evaluation conducted by the teachers of the students with ID show that the teachers’ perceptions regarding the self-determination of their students were low. This was evident with a mean of 49.07 and a standard deviation of 17.8 points. The mean in percentile ranges had a value of 24, which indicates that students with ID were below the mean in self-determination when compared with others their age. Furthermore, all the student participants had a low level of self-determination.

Table 7. Descriptive analysis of the general scale.

Descriptive
			Statistical	Standard error
Standard score total scale	Mean		49.07	3.367
	95% confidence interval for the mean	Lower limit	42.16
		Upper limit	55.98
	Mean cut to 5%		48.77
	Median		49.50
	Variance		317.402
	Standard deviation		17.816
	Range		82 − 23 = 59

illustrates this point.

3.3. Descriptive Statistical Results for Each Subscale

According to the results in

Table 8. Descriptive statistics for each subscale.

	Direct score Autonomy Subscale	Direct Score Self-Initiation Subscale	Direct Score Self-Direction Subscale	Direct Score Self-Regulation Subscale	Direct Score Self-Concept Subscale	Direct Score Empowerment Subscale
n Valid	28	28	28	28	28	28
Lost	0	0	0	0	0	0
Mean	17.18	14.75	17.82	5.00	13.54	24.36
Median	18.50	15.00	12.00	5.00	13.50	23.50
Modal	20	15	12	3	6	12
Standard dev.	6.360	5.434	7.444	2.055	5.594	10.275
Variance	40.448	29.528	55.411	4.222	31.295	105.571
Minimum	7	6	12	3	6	12
Maximum	28	24	35	10	24	46

, the assessment conducted by the teachers of their students with ID demonstrates that the autonomy, self-initiation, and self-concept dimensions had similar mean scores (17.18, 14.75, and 13.54, respectively). It placed them in the 40th percentile in the statistical data of the scale. This result was below the mean, although the sample showed a higher level of achievement in the items on this subscale.

In the results for the empowerment dimension, the mean was 24.36 with a standard deviation of 10.2. Observing the percentile ranges, they showed a value of 28. This value confirms that the sample (n = 28) presents a low level of empowerment. It was followed by the self-direction dimension with a mean of 17.82 and a standard deviation of 7.4, and finally, the self-regulation dimension with a mean of 5 and a standard deviation of 4.2. The last two subscales yielded a percentile of 18, placing the sample (n = 28) below the mean in self-direction and self-regulation skills. Thus, it indicates that the results for self-direction and self-regulation dimensions are at an insufficient level.

3.4. Results Coefficient of Each Subscale

Table 9. Coefficient of each subscale.

	Autonomy Subscale Coefficient	Self-Initiation Subscale Coefficient	Self-Direction Subscale Coefficient	Self-Regulation Subscale Coefficient	Self-Concept Subscale Coefficient	Empowerment Subscale Coefficient
N Valid	28	28	28	28	28	28
Lost	0	0	0	0	0	0
Mean	0.61	0.61	0.37	0.42	0.56	0.51
Median	0.66	0.63	0.25	0.42	0.56	0.51
Modal	0.71	0.63	0.25	0.25	0.25	0.25
Standard dev.	0.23	0.23	0.16	0.17	0.23	0.21
Minimum	0.25	0.25	0.25	0.25	0.25	0.25
Maximum	1.00	1.00	0.73	0.83	1.00	0.96

presents the general statistical results for the subscales regarding the coefficient connected with the direct score and the items in each of them. In the table, the subscale that demonstrated the most favorable results was autonomy, which had a mean of 0.61; self-initiation had 0.61. Some assessments presented ideal scores for students with ID in these two dimensions of self-determination. The mean results for the dimensions of empowerment and self-concept were 0.51 and 0.56, respectively, which are neither low nor high but at a moderate or acceptable level.

The lowest results in the level of achievement were in self-direction with a mean of 0.37 and self-regulation with a mean of 0.42. In addition, based on the analysis, the lowest achievement levels per item were within these subscales. Moreover, no participant obtained an ideal score in either of these two dimensions of self-determination.

Moderate levels were observed in the empowerment superscale, which coincides with other studies on people with ID [48]. Although they were moderate, they could influence the capacity for self-direction. In addition, the moderate level of empowerment in people with ID may be a result of their educational establishment modality (special/segregated school). Therefore, there are several contextual factors that influence self-determination, such as the family structure, the student’s educational environment, their peer group during their years of schooling [37,49], their socioeconomic level, and the type of educational establishment they attend [49]. Consequently, it is important to consider supportive and inclusive environments to promote self-determination. Studies indicate that inclusive environments promote self-determination [42,50].

4. Discussion

The goal of this study was to linguistically and culturally adapt the AUTODDIS self-determination scale and to analyze its reliability and validity through a pilot study with ID students.

The findings of the study indicate that the AUTODDIS self-determination scale fully meets the criteria of sufficiency, coherence, and clarity. Obtaining a validity of 0.998, supporting the findings of Hernández-Nieto [46], places it in the excellent category and implies that the scale measures the variable of interest [47,51]. The items are developed to obtain precise information from the six subscales of self-determination, and these dimensions and their items can measure the dimensions that compose it; they are easily understood by the participants; the indicators are coherent; and they are relevant to the results [19,36,40,41,42,45,52].

From a practical perspective, if this instrument is applied again in a sample of people with ID, it would deliver reliable data on the levels of self-determination. However, to validate this instrument at a national level, it will be necessary to use a larger sample of people with ID to cover the different contexts of the country.

Regarding the instrument, is it possible to conclude that the AUTODDIS scale has a high level of reliability The pilot study showed excellent internal consistency, with values above 0.90 for all subscales [53]. Subsequently, the scale was applied to a sample of 541 people with ID from 11 autonomous communities of Spain. To evaluate the internal consistency of the total scale and its subscales, Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega coefficients were used. The results obtained for both the subscales and the AUTODDIS scale as a whole showed excellent reliability [36]. This implies that the scale can be applied to other studies exploring self-determination in people with ID in the Chilean context since it provides reliable results for data analysis. In the general results of the teachers’ evaluation, this pilot showed a low level of self-determination. This result is consistent with the study conducted in Chile in 2020 using the ARC-INICO Scale. Its results indicated that Chilean students with ID have a low level of self-determination [37]. Its results are also similar to the results of previous studies investigating the quality of life [30].

A few of the subscale results present high levels of achievement: autonomy, self-initiation, and self-concept. However, it is necessary to clarify that they are above the other subscales but below the arithmetic mean. In the first place, autonomy is present as the best-developed component. So, it is inferred that supporting self-determination in activities of personal care helps satisfy basic needs such as clothing, food, and hygiene. Secondly, it can be concluded that self-initiation is at the second level of achievement and is linked to performing voluntary actions based on personal interests and preferences [39]. Third is the self-concept, which Verdugo defines [39] as beliefs about the individual’s abilities to achieve an objective. From the data obtained, it is reasonable to conclude that there is a low level of development in this area, which includes a lack of knowledge about one’s own strengths and difficulties. This confirms the international studies concluding that people with ID have few opportunities to generate positive and realistic self-awareness [54].

The subscales with the lowest level of achievement are as follows: empowerment, self-regulation, and self-direction. These dimensions depend on the agency characteristics, which are related to the capacity for restraint in decisions. So, acting in a personally determined way is limited. Something similar happens with the development of attitudes and skills connected to empowerment. There are few possibilities for the population with ID; these findings are consistent with the literature. Tamarit [55] points out that these barriers are linked to the historical oppression of people with disabilities. They have the right to be the protagonists of their lives, make decisions freely, express their opinions, and defend their proposals. Their rights have been violated on diverse levels, such as the political, cultural, and practical, throughout history. In addition, studies show how the family members of people with ID tend to limit their opportunities to act to reinforce their beliefs of control-action [25,35]. As a manifestation of overprotection, families can thwart their desires to fulfill themselves in everyday tasks [30], such as making decisions related to the home and addressing challenging goals that support self-knowledge [56].

For the self-regulation scale, the pilot study coincides with studies that place self-regulation among the dimensions with lesser development [37]. Likewise, Mithaug [57] indicates that many people with ID have limitations in defining personal goals, supervising their behavior, and choosing and evaluating an action plan, which are central elements of self-regulated people. In addition, Zimmerman [58] describes how the lack of social learning experiences is one of the factors that negatively affect self-regulation, so active participation in different social contexts is key to improving these skills. Active participation has become an inclusive context and a way to promote the full inclusion of this group.

Finally, the pilot study shows that the subscale with the lowest score was self-direction. This subscale is related to actions that involve setting goals, identifying the changes needed to achieve these goals, and planning and focusing actions on an objective [39]. The scores can be explained by the connection between these subscales and executive functions and the construct of intellectual functioning, which includes characteristics such as reasoning, planning, and problem-solving [7]. Thus, significant limitations in intellectual functioning are a part of the diagnosis of ID. These results can be explained by the diagnosis of each participant. However, there is a consensus about the influence on the intellectual functioning of other dimensions such as human performance and support systems, which play key roles in it.

Limitations, Strengths, and Future Research

This study is not without limitations. The sample did not cover 100% of the students with ID in this special school. Likewise, we show only the results at the special school level, which limits the generalization of the study findings. Students with ID can be supported by teachers who are specialists in ID (segregated school) or by general teachers in the common classroom and specialists (integrated school). It is necessary to validate this instrument in both modalities by establishing comparisons between the two. Therefore, it is necessary to consider inclusive schools in subsequent studies. In addition, we must include all the contextual factors that influence the levels of self-determination.

The main focus of future research that emerges from this study is the application of the AUTODDIS scale to a larger sample to ensure that the evaluation is adapted for the entire country. This will allow more significant results to be obtained concerning the level of self-determination of those with ID in Chile. It is possible to develop a complete profile of the most developed indicators and those that should be enhanced. Likewise, application to a significant population will allow us to standardize the instrument in Chile, which does not have adapted instruments to assess self-determination.

Two relevant lines emerged to advance in this area: exploring the impact of self-determination in segregated schools and common classrooms, and designing and validating educational strategies that promote self-determinate behaviors in students with ID.

Among the implications of the application of this scale are the identification of support needs and the creation of improvement programs in educational organizations. The creation of support plans will allow people with ID to improve their cognitive and social skills, identify interests, express their needs, resolve conflicts of daily life, and, as a consequence, improve the quality of individual life [36].

5. Conclusions

Self-determination is key in every person and a matter of social justice for people with ID, who have often had limited participation in society. They have been segregated and disregarded in Chile. This country wrongly views this group as a charity object, infantilizing and overprotecting them, limiting their actions without respecting their rights. Their preferences and desires are not deemed important because they are under the protection of others.

One etiological perspective of ID arises from the integrated approach [7]; it emphasizes the perspective of justice with an emphasis on human and legal rights. In this field, a fundamental risk factor is the denial of rights and “the way in which societies are structured: that is the way that resources are focused and distributed” [59].

A change in support systems is needed, which effectively begins by identifying the needs of people with ID. Self-determination is a key element in the inclusion process, and to promote it, the support systems must be effective, person-centered, and holistic, strengthening choices for people with ID. To recognize rights, moral and political criteria must be met [9] to identify strategies that will develop the abilities that this group needs to be treated as full citizens [60].

Education enhances the skills that promote self-determination in people with ID: decision-making, autonomy, self-regulation, and empowerment. They can then create their goals and act to achieve their objectives. Achieving full self-determination requires adapted assessment tools to identify support needs, from which individual improvement plans and programs can be created to improve the quality of life.

Therefore, the AUTODDIS scale can be used in Chile in a special school context; however, it is advisable to expand the validation sample of the pilot. There are descending dimensions in self-determination: empowerment, self-regulation, and self-direction. For further advancement, it is recommended to design and validate educational strategies that aim at their development.