Amostra

For the current study, we restricted our analysis sample to youth with deaf-blindness as their primary disability. NLTS2’s primary disability categories relied on school dis trict disability classifications, with the exception of deaf blindness. School districts routinely assigned some students with deaf-blindness to other primary disability categories, namely, hearing impairment, visual impairment, and multi ple disabilities. Strictly adhering to district-assigned cate gories would have resulted in only 20 youth being assigned to the NLTS2 deaf-blind category (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Levine, & Marder, 2007); thus, NLTS2’s deaf blind category also included about 150 additional youth who had both visual and hearing impairments per school district or parent report. We further restricted our analysis sample to youth with available data from (a) at least one post–high school Parent/Youth Survey and (b) the two post school employment variables used as dependent variables in our analyses. Although the NLTS2 dataset includes approximately 170 youth with deaf-blindness, applying the inclusion criteria reduced our final analysis sample to approximately 100 (weighted N = 2,820). Because the Institute of Education Sciences manages the NLTS2 data set, we rounded all weighted and unweighted sample sizes to the nearest 10 to comply with their restricted-use data reporting requirements.