The Arc's Self-Determination Scale: Procedural Guidelines

alternative ways in which self-determination could be
conceptualized.
There is a temptation to define self-determination in terms of
specific behaviors like problem-solving, assertiveness or decisionmaking.
This temptation is strong because the image of a selfdetermined
person conjured up by most people is that of a
successful person using such behaviors. However, after further
reflection it becomes evident that self-determination cannot be
defined as a set of behaviors for two reasons: (1) any behavior can
be self-determined; and (2) both the occurrence and non-occurence
of a behavior can be self-determined.
In the first instance, although there are behaviors that are
typically viewed as self-determined (making choices, problemsolving,
self-advocacy, etc), when one attempts to compile a list of
behaviors that could “define” self-determination, that list will grow
exponentially to encompass virtually any behavior in a person’s
repertoire. For example, speaking up for yourself is generally
identified as a self-determined action, and in most cases it is.
However, if “speaking up for yourself” is a defining variable of
self-determination, then people who cannot speak are, a priori,
eliminated from being self-determined. One might then point out
that it is not the act of “speaking” itself that is self-determined, but
the intention of that act. As such, we can expand the list to include
“speaking up for yourself”, “using sign language to communicate
your wants”, “using [a specific augmentative communication
device] to communicate”, and so forth. The list quickly expands to
the point of being unwieldy and cumbersome.
One solution to this problem is to broaden the behavior(s)
identified as defining self-determination. So, for example, instead
of “speaking up for oneself” as the defining variable, this could be
rewritten as “communicating for oneself” as the behavior of note.
However, this is an unsatisfactory solution for several reasons.
First, while some behaviors might be amenable to such summation,
others that could clearly be interpreted as self-determined are not.
Consider a situation where two consenting adults with disabilities
decide to get married. In the aftermath of this decision, they meet
heavy resistance from friends, family members and professionals
who predict disaster and threaten to prohibit the marriage. In
response to this, the couple elopes to Nevada and they are married
the next week. Is, then, “getting married” a behavior we should
add to our definition? Obviously not, as many people choose to
remain single or live together without getting married. What then
is the broader behavior to be identified? In essence the couple was
acting on a decision, exerting control over their lives and acting on
preferences and dreams. None of these adequately describe why
the act was self-determined, and several (e.g., exert control, act on
20