A Systematic Review of Transition Interventions Affecting the Employability of Youths with Visual Impairments

Abstract

Introduction The purpose of the study presented here was to identify and synthesize studies of transition interventions to improve the employability and employment outcomes for youths with visual impairments. Methods An a priori protocol was followed in conducting a systematic review of the literature, including criteria for selecting studies, search strategies, and a synthesis of findings. Results Fifteen studies of interventions to improve the employability of youths with visual impairments were identified. Four studies used two-group designs with control or comparison groups, four used single-subject, multiple-baseline designs, and seven used single-group designs (no control or comparison groups). Of the four two-group designs, two reported statistically significant relationships between the transition intervention and factors related to employment. A meta-synthesis indicated the efficacy of several interventions to improve the career-awareness, job-seeking, independent-living, and social skills of the participants. Discussion Interventions that were found to enhance employability skills and self-constructs were also identified in correlational research as predictors of the successful employment of youths with visual impairments. There were no studies of interventions that directly resulted in employment. Only 3 of the 15 studies used designs with random assignment to groups—the most rigorous in evaluating the effectiveness of interventions. Implications for practitioners There is a critical need for information on evidenced-based practices that affect the successful transition of young adults with visual impairments. Practitioners are encouraged to implement rigorous evaluation methods to evaluate transition practices and to publish findings as a basis for public policy and the development of high-quality programs.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 27 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.