The discovery fidelity scale (DFS) is a 15-item instrument used to determine fidelity to systems and services level discovery best practices. Fidelity scale development is typically guided by an iterative, three-part process that includes identifying and specifying the fidelity structure and content, measuring and confirming the content, and assessing the internal consistency and reliability of the scale. This study is the initiation of the third step of the fidelity process to determine if items on the DFS accurately and reliably measure the discovery construct (internal consistency). The study also examined outcomes for individuals engaged in the discovery process. The results of the study suggest that both the systems and services components appear to measure their respective constructs and the overall discovery construct appears to have acceptable internal consistency.

BACKGROUND: There is clear federal priority to develop effective strategies to mitigate the continued disparity in employment opportunities and outcomes for people with significant disabilities. At the same time, ongoing, there are calls for rehabilitation practitioners to understand, utilize, and implement evidence-based practices (EBP) with fidelity to improve rehabilitation outcomes, such as competitive integrated employment. Customized employment (CE) emerged as a promising practice that promotes improved employment outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this manuscript is to examine published literature on CE and to make recommendations on the best methods for establishing CE as an evidence-based practice. METHOD: We included 10 articles classified as “data-based” articles from a review of the literature on CE conducted by Riesen et al. We also conducted an electronic search of articles on CE published between 2015 and 2021. RESULTS: Existing CE research literature consists predominately of descriptive studies and consists primarily of three types including model description and project evaluation, perceptions of CE, and essential structure and competency. These studies suggest that CE produces quality employment outcomes for people with disabilities. CONCLUSION: While research on CE has expanded, future research on CE should use more robust indicators including (a) quality descriptions of the participants, (b) quality descriptions of settings and conditions, (c) descriptions of the independent variables, (d) descriptions of fidelity to procedures, and (e) quality descriptions of social validity measures. Researchers should also focus on using correlational research to establish Customized employment as an evidence-based practice.

Employment agencies and funding systems commonly use distal outcome measures such as employed or not employed, full-time or part-time, and continuous measures such as wage, hours worked, and type of job to document the employment status of individuals with disabilities. These measures continue to demonstrate that individuals with disabilities fall behind individuals without disabilities in all employment outcomes. While there is utility in distal outcome measures, it is difficult to determine what intervention or program variables were responsible for a specific outcome. Moreover, outcome measures do not provide sufficient information about the quality of employment supports and services an individual with disabilities receives. One way to improve accountability in employment support programs is to link outcomes to specific processes for obtaining and maintaining employment. The purpose of this manuscript is to describe how employment programs can link short-term (proximal) and long term (distal) outcomes measures to specific processes for employment. A customized employment framework is used to illustrate how systematically linking outcomes and processes improves accountability in programs that support job seekers with most significant disabilities.

BACKGROUND: The Rehabilitation Act references self-employment in its definition of competitive integrated employment (CIE) and description of vocational outcomes. The Act also references self-employment within its scope of services and stipulates that rehabilitation services include “technical assistance and other consultation services to conduct market analyses, develop business plans, and otherwise provide resources, to the extent those resources are authorized to be provided through the statewide workforce development system, to eligible individuals who are pursuing self-employment or telecommuting or establishing a small business operation as an employment outcome” 34 CFR 361.48(b)(19). OBJECTIVE: This policy review identifies and highlights specific SVRA policy regarding TA and consultation for self-employment. METHODS: Policies from all 50 states and the District of Columbia’s combined or general SVRAs and policies from 18 blind SVRAs were reviewed and coded into categories (no reference, generic, internal, and external references) to determine the types of TA and consultation for self-employment that are outlined in state policy. RESULTS: The majority of general or combined SVRAs (n = 38) have policies for self-employment technical assistance and consultation that are generic and the majority of blind SVRAs (n = 16) have generic policies for self-employment technical assistance and consultation. These rehabilitation agencies’ policies only referenced generic services and do not identify dedicated resources designed to meet the intent and scope of rehabilitation services. CONCLUSION: SVRAs must make a concerted effort to ensure that self-employment policy is adequately aligned to account for necessary supports, activities, and interventions that lead to positive self-employment outcomes.

BACKGROUND: While self-employment is a viable and beneficial employment strategy for people with disabilities, there seems to be considerable variation in how state rehabilitation agencies support self-employment. Because of this variation, research is needed to identify the critical elements for facilitating self-employment. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to gather information from vocational rehabilitation counselors about what they believe are the knowledge and skills essential to facilitating self-employment and the barriers to business ownership throughout key phases of the vocational rehabilitation process, including (a) application and intake, (b) plan development and service delivery, and (c) employment and closure. METHODS: A Delphi method with three iterations was used to identify information from VRCs and managers about what they believe are the knowledge, skills, and barriers when facilitating self-employment and business ownership during the vocational rehabilitation process. RESULTS: Respondents rated 15 knowledge and skills for the application and intake domain, 19 knowledge and skill items in the plan development and service delivery domain, and 12 knowledge and skills items in the employment and closure domain. Respondents also rated three barriers for application and intake, six plan development and service delivery barriers, and three barriers were rated in employment and closure CONCLUSION: The VRCs identified a wide range of knowledge and skills and barriers across each area of the rehabilitation process. More research should be conducted to further operationalize the skills and proficiencies for self-employment.