Paths 2 the Future: Evidence for the Efficacy of a Career Development Intervention for Young Women with Disabilities
Lindstrom, Lauren; DeGarmo, David; Khurana, Atika; Hirano, Kara; Leve, Leslie (2020). Exceptional Children v87 n1 p54-73. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED608897
-
examining328Students, grades9-12
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2025
- Single Study Review (findings for Paths 2 the Future)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Self-advocacy subscale |
Paths 2 the Future vs. Business as usual |
6 Months |
Full sample;
|
3.55 |
3.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Self-advocacy subscale |
Paths 2 the Future vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.52 |
3.51 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Career development skills composite |
Paths 2 the Future vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.62 |
3.44 |
Yes |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Self-efficacy related to vocational skills subscale |
Paths 2 the Future vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.69 |
3.36 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Self-efficacy related to vocational skills subscale |
Paths 2 the Future vs. Business as usual |
6 Months |
Full sample;
|
3.70 |
3.39 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Career development skills composite |
Paths 2 the Future vs. Business as usual |
6 Months |
Full sample;
|
3.59 |
3.43 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Expectations about achieving vocational outcomes subscale |
Paths 2 the Future vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.29 |
3.14 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Expectations about achieving vocational outcomes subscale |
Paths 2 the Future vs. Business as usual |
6 Months |
Full sample;
|
3.23 |
3.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Autonomy in independent skills related to adult life subscale |
Paths 2 the Future vs. Business as usual |
6 Months |
Full sample;
|
2.78 |
2.72 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Autonomy in independent skills related to adult life subscale |
Paths 2 the Future vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.78 |
2.73 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Self-realization subscale |
Paths 2 the Future vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.79 |
2.72 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Self-realization subscale |
Paths 2 the Future vs. Business as usual |
6 Months |
Full sample;
|
2.76 |
2.74 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Perceptions of peer support subscale |
Paths 2 the Future vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.97 |
2.97 |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 100% -
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
West
-
Race Black 4% Native American 4% Other or unknown 16% Two or more races 13% White 62% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 19% Other or unknown 81% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 26 public high schools in the northwestern United States.
Study sample
The sample included female high school students eligible for special education services because of a disability. The researchers randomly assigned 13 public schools each to the intervention and comparison groups. From those schools, about 328 students took part in the study in grades 9–12. All students had reading, writing, and language skills equivalent to a fourth or fifth grade level.
Intervention Group
The Paths 2 the Future intervention was a 75-lesson career development curriculum taught as a daily or alternating-day high school class over the course of an academic year. Each lesson lasted one class period. The curriculum included group discussions, role-plays, guest speakers, and field trips. The curriculum had four modules, each with 12-30 lessons: (1) self-awareness and communication; (2) disability knowledge, including understanding education rights and responsibilities; (3) information on barriers and opportunities for women in the workplace; and (4) career and college readiness, including information on post-school options and skills needed for employment.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received business-as-usual career and transition services provided by their high schools.
Support for implementation
The research team and program developers provided teachers implementing Paths 2 the Future a full day of training before the intervention began. Training covered the curriculum's logic model, content, and lesson delivery procedures. The research team also monitored delivery of the intervention via classroom observations and a fidelity form.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Katherine W. Bromley; Kara Hirano; Atika Khurana; Leslie D. Leve; Lauren Lindstrom. (2022). Paths 2 the Future and the Development of Perceived Peer Support: A Mixed Methods Study.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).