Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability
Volume 18, Number 1
Winter 2005

Editors
Nicole S. Ofiesh, The University of Arizona and James K. McAfee, The Pennsylvania State University
Associate Editors
    Manju Banerjee, Acton, Massachusetts
    Elizabeth Getzel, Virginia Commonwealth University
    Elaine Manglitz, Clayton College & State University
Editorial Assistants
    Anne Dudley, The University of Arizona
    Devender Banda, The Pennsylvania State University

Editorial Review Board

Ron Blosser, Green River Community College
Loring Brinckerhoff, Educational Testing Service
Constance Chiba, University of California, Berkeley
Aaron Cohen, University of California, Berkeley
Lyman Dukes III, University of South Florida
Catherine Fichten, Dawson College
Elizabeth Getzel, Virginia Commonwealth 
University
Sam Goodin, University of Michigan
K. Noel Gregg, University of Georgia
Richard Harris, Ball State University
Cheri Hoy, University of Georgia
Charles A. Hughes, The Pennsylvania State University
Kristina Krampe, University of Kentucky
Scott Lissner, The Ohio State University
Joseph Madaus, University of Connecticut
Les McAllan, The University of Arizona
Joan M. McGuire, University of Connecticut
David McNaughton, The Pennsylvania State University
Daryl Mellard, University of Kansas
Ward Newmeyer, Richmond, California
David Parker, University of Connecticut
Betty Preus, College of St. Scholastica
Frank R. Rusch, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Charles Salzberg, Utah State University
Stuart Segal, University of Michigan
Judy Smithson, Illinois State University, Emeritus
Sharon K. Suritsky, Upper St. Clair School District
Daniel Ryan, University of Buffalo
Mary Catherine Scheeler, The Pennsylvania State University, Great Valley
Sally S. Scott, University of Connecticut
Stan Shaw, University of Connecticut
Marc Wilchesky, York University

AHEAD Board of Directors

Jim Kessler, President
    University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill
Carol Funckes, President-Elect
    The University of Arizona
Vinson Ballard, Secretary
    Jackson State University
Jim Marks, Treasurer
    University of Montana
Stephan Smith, Executive Director
    AHEAD
Caroline Forsberg, Director of Communication
    The State University of New York System
Mike Shuttic, Director of Membership
    Oklahoma State University
Virginia Grubaugh, Director of Professional Development
    University of Michigan
Nancy Hart, Director of Marketing
    Lane Community College
Ruth Warick, Director of Constituent Relations - International
    University of British Columbia
Jean Ashmore, Director of Constituent Relations - US
    Rice University

     The Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability is available in accessible formats.  Please contact AHEAD to discuss accommodation requests.  All members of the Association on Higher Education And Disability receive the Journal.
     
© 2005, The Association on Higher Education And Disability, P.O. Box 540666, Waltham, Massachusetts, 02454  USA

Table of Contents

Letter from the Editors    3

The Importance of Direct Communication During Continuing Education 
Workshops for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Professionals    5 – 11
Gary L. Long, Donald H. Beil

A Comparison of Accuracy and Rate of Transcription by Adults with 
Learning Disabilities Using a Continuous Speech Recognition System 
and a Traditional Computer Keyboard    12 – 22
Diane C. Millar, David B. McNaughton, Janice C. Light

Development and Validation of the Accessibility of Campus Computing for 
Students with Disabilities Scale: Service Providers’ Perspective    23 – 33
Myrtis E. Fossey, Jennison V. Asuncion, Catherine Fichten, Chantal Robillard,
Maria Barile, Rhonda Amsel, Fran Prezant, Stephen Morabito

Postsecondary Disability Service Providers’ Perceptions About Implementing 
Universal Design for Instruction (UDI)    34 – 48
Pricilla B. Embry, David R. Parker, Joan M. McGuire, Sally S. Scott

A Validated Curriculum to Provide Training to Faculty Regarding Students 
with Disabilities in Higher Education    49 – 62
Christopher C. Debrand, Charles L. Salzberg

Eligibility Assessment Requirements at the Postsecondary Level for Students 
with Learning Disabilities:  A Disconnect with Secondary Schools?    63 – 70
Shannon Gormley, Charles Hughes, Lydia Block, Christy Lendman

Perceived Usefulness of Recommendations Given to College Students 
Evaluated for Learning Disability    71 – 79
Frances Prevatt, Laura E. Johnson, Katie Allison, Briley E. Proctor

The Impact of Visibility of Disability and Gender on the Self-Concept of 
University Students with Disabilities    80 – 91
Marjorie F. Olney, Karin F. Brockelman

Book Review Column    92 – 93
Loring Brinckerhoff

About the Authors    94 – 96

Submission Guidelines    Inside Back Cover

Letter from the Editors

Nicole Ofiesh & James McAfee
    
    We are pleased to bring you articles on a range of topics for this Winter, 2005 issue of the JPED.  In this issue you will find discussions that address the kinds of challenges disability service providers face on a daily basis, as well as theoretical research that provides the basis for continued work in disability studies.  In the first article, Long and Beil present the findings of a study funded by the National Science Foundation on the effectiveness of traditionally delivered trainings for deaf and hard-of-hearing professionals. The results of this study provide important recommendations for the delivery of material in continuing education courses and professional trainings, and insight into the impact delivery mode has on the professional’s self perception.
    The next two articles focus on technology in terms of the effectiveness of speech recognition for adults with learning disabilities for transcribing and the accessibility of campus computing for students with disabilities. Millar, McNaughton, and Light provide interesting results in the comparison of a continuous speech recognition system to a traditional computer keyboard. Fossey and colleagues examine service providers’ perspective of the accessibility of campus computing for students with disabilities through a validated measurement scale. The authors’ aim is to assist disability service providers in improving the accessibility of campus computing through empirical data.
    Continuing on the theme of the disability service providers’ perspective, Embry, Parker, McGuire, and Scott investigate perspectives on the implementation of Universal Design for Instruction (UDI). Their findings capture valuable viewpoints on the perceived supports and needs in bringing UDI into postsecondary settings. Debrand and Salzberg also consider the needs of campuswide training through a validated curriculum about students with disabilities. Their study explores the information faculty need to become knowledgeable about students with disabilities in higher education. 
    Fostered by discussions within the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, Gormley, Hughes, Block, and Lendman provide timely information on a topic that most disability service providers face on a daily basis: the connection between the required documentation needed for services at the postsecondary level, and that needed at the secondary level.  The postsecondary population of students with learning disabilities are again researched in an article by Prevatt, Johnson, Allison, & Proctor. In this article, researchers study the use and perceived usefulness of recommendations given to college students evaluated for learning disability. This issue of the JPED closes with an explorative investigation driven by gender theory and disability studies on the self-concept of university students with disabilities. The findings provide interesting groundwork for continued investigation on this topic.

The Importance of Direct Communication During Continuing Education Workshops for Deaf and 
Hard-of-Hearing Professionals
    
   Gary L. Long, Ph.D.
   Donald H. Beil, M.S.
   National Technical Institute for the Deaf
   Rochester Institute of Technology
    
    Abstract
    
     The Deaf Initiative in Information Technology (DIIT) was developed at the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID) at the Rochester Institute of Technology through a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant with goals including the provision of continuing education for deaf and hard-of-hearing professionals. Instructors skilled in sign language delivered 21 technology-focused workshops to 145 professionals over the initial 3-year grant period. (The project has been funded by the NSF for an additional 3-year period.) Qualitative and quantitative measures were used to evaluate the workshops and obtain participants’ perceptions. Findings indicate that deaf and hard-of-hearing professionals often experience frustration and report difficulties comprehending content material when attending traditional, lecture-focused workshops supported by sign language interpreters. These findings are contrasted to successful DIIT workshops where participants were able to communicate easily with the instructor and other attendees without the use of interpreters.
    
    A primary goal of the Deaf Initiative in Information Technology (DIIT) project was to provide continuing education opportunities for deaf and hard-of-hearing professionals. In the course of evaluating the DIIT program, participants consistently compared this workshop experience to prior training they received through their employers. These participants indicated that the pace of instruction and communication barriers in company-provided training often precluded their active participation and impacted negatively on their ability to comprehend and master the content material. Often they felt isolated from the instructor and their hearing peers, which in turn had a negative impact on their active engagement with the material and its mastery.  This report examines the extent to which challenges faced by the deaf and hard-of-hearing learners in secondary and post-secondary mainstream settings continue into postgraduate and continuing education settings.
    In a small qualitative study of deaf and hard-of-hearing students new to a mainstream college setting, Kersting (1997) found that these students often felt lonely and isolated due to rejection from deaf peers and discrimination from hearing peers. Alienation from their deaf peers was related to a lack of sign skills, while the discrimination from hearing peers tended to be a result of physical factors on campus and stereotyping of deaf students. This social prejudice was seen by the deaf students as limiting the social interaction between deaf and hearing students in this educational setting.
    In another study, deaf, hard-of-hearing, and hearing college students were found to have similar perceptions of communication ease and academic engagement (Foster, Long, & Snell, 1999).  Both groups felt that participation in class and understanding of class material was central to their feeling a part of the class. Both said that the instructor’s pace influenced their understanding of the material and their ease of communication in the classroom. While both groups agreed on what was important for learning, they differed on how these variables played out in the classroom. Both said the pace of instruction was important for learning, but deaf and hard-of-hearing students reported that teacher’s pace was optimal for learning less frequently than hearing students did. Similarly, while both agreed that participation was important for feeling a part of the class, deaf and hard-of-hearing students expressed this sentiment less frequently than did hearing students. We believe that this constraint was imposed because the deaf and hard-of-hearing students utilized indirect communication (i.e., communicating through an interpreter), while the hearing students were able to communicate directly with the instructor and their hearing peers.  
    A series of studies conducted at the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID) focused on the cognitive and affective dimensions of classroom communication and engagement. In this vein, we found that as deaf and hard-of-hearing students feel more at ease with their communication with teachers and peers, they see themselves as having control in the educational setting and are more likely to become engaged, active learners (Braeges, Stinson & Long, 1993; Garrison, Long & Stinson, 1993; Long, Stinson & Braeges, 1991). When the communication breaks down, students were less likely to become engaged, active learners.
    With this study, we sought to determine whether parallels exist between our findings related to college students and the experiences of deaf and hard-of-hearing adults in the workplace who obtain additional training. We also examine the differences between two types of training obtained by deaf and hard-of-hearing adults in the workplace: (a) training obtained through traditional instruction offered in hearing environments with an interpreter, and (b) training offered by the DIIT project with workshop leaders skilled in sign language and in teaching deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals.
    
Deaf Initiative in Information Technology program description
    The Deaf Initiative in Information Technology is a technical workforce development project funded continuously by the National Science Foundation (NSF) since 2000. The project is housed in the Applied Computer Technology Department (ACT) of the National Technical Institute for the Deaf, one of the eight colleges of Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT). A major goal of the national DIIT project is technical workforce development of deaf and hard-of-hearing professionals currently in the workforce or preparing to enter the workforce. Other project goals include curriculum revision and faculty development. Weeklong workshops are offered on a variety of technical topics to meet these goals. 
    When deaf and hard-of-hearing adults attend a traditional computer workshop offered to the general population, they usually do so with the assistance of sign language interpreters. However, the transfer of information from hearing workshop leaders (i.e., those who do not know sign language) through interpreters is a major concern to deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals who attend professional workshops or seminars. For even with skilled interpreters, problems remain:
    1.    There is always lag time between what is spoken and what is interpreted to a deaf or hard-of-hearing individual. If the deaf or hard-of-hearing person has a question about the message, he or she must stop the interpreter, who continues to receive and interpret additional information, ask his or her question, have the interpreter stop the lecturer to ask the question, and then watch as the answer goes back through the same route. This can be disruptive and can frequently leave all parties frustrated.
    2.    Learning at workshops takes place not only during the formal lecture, but also during breaks, as well as in social activities, small group activities, etc. Individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing may be without interpreting support for these times, or if interpreting support is available it may be awkward, and thus deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals may be effectively shut out of these activities. 
    
    In contrast, in the DIIT project, since all workshop leaders and attendees know sign language, there is direct communication between all participants and the workshop leader, as well as between all participants.
    Since all of our workshops are designed and taught by experienced teachers of deaf and hard-of-hearing people and only attended by deaf and hard-of-hearing people, there are significant enhanced learning opportunities for participants. 
    
    Method
    
Evaluation components
    A 3-part evaluation procedure was developed for the workshops and conducted on the last day of each 5-day-long workshop. Each evaluation was conducted by the first author (i.e., the project evaluation consultant), and took between 2 and 3 hours depending on the number of participants. Each procedure is described below:
    
     1.    The NTID Student Rating Survey (SRS). The NTID SRS computerized worksheet is the formal evaluation system in use by all faculty at NTID to obtain classroom perceptions from our full-time undergraduate students (McKee & Dowaliby, 1981; 1985).  It has two sections, a “Summative Questions” section containing 4 standardized statements (e.g., “I am satisfied with this instructor’s teaching skill,” and “I am satisfied with this instructor’s communication skill”) asked of all students for all classes. Students are asked to rate their agreement with the statements on a 5-point Likert scale.
    This instrument provides a strong baseline for assessment, since a workshop can be compared to an extremely large number of similar courses taught at NTID/RIT. Similar courses are those in which at least 75% of the students are motivated to learn the course materials, and the course focuses on content acquisition. The summative questions report section produces a one-page graphical analysis showing the means, standard deviations, and proportions of students responding to each of the 4 summative questions. That analysis provides a single graphical comparison of the feedback from a workshop compared with student feedback recorded from more than 7,000 NTID students in the daytime courses offered.
    The second section of the SRS contains teacher-selected questions—formative items—with items chosen from a large bank of available questions. Authors selected 20 questions to evaluate DIIT workshops (e.g., “There was a good feeling in the classroom between the instructor and the students,” and “I would tell my friends to take this course”), and have been used consistently for all workshops offered.
     
     2.    Open-ended questionnaire. The second instrument consists of a word processing file with approximately 20 open-ended questions developed by the authors. This instrument obtains attendee responses in their own words on items that are specific to the workshop. Examples of questions are, “How could the workshop be improved?” and “Did you come to the workshop with the right technical skills to be successful in this workshop?”
    During the evaluation, we provide each attendee with a disk containing the word processing file with these questions. Each attendee, working at a computer, is asked to open the file and take as much time as needed to type answers to the questions. Their responses are used along with other data in preparing the formal written summary evaluation of each workshop. In addition, the complete survey with all anonymous responses is included in each evaluation report.
     
     3.    Group interview. The third evaluation procedure is a group interview conducted with attendees by the project evaluation consultant. The interview elicits additional information that might not have been provided by the other two evaluation instruments. Multiple issues are raised by the consultant researcher, ranging from “How difficult was it for you to receive support to participate in this workshop?” to “Does taking this workshop with other deaf participants provide an advantage to you?”
    As participants signed their responses, one of two interpreters present voiced the comments into an audio recorder. The taped interview is later transcribed and then used in preparing the written evaluation of the workshop. It is included in the evaluation document.
    
Participants
    A total of 145 deaf and hard-of-hearing professionals participated in the 21 workshops offered during the first 3 years of the DIIT project. Seventy-one percent of the attendees were male and 29% were female. The participants were from 21 states with 46 from New York, Virginia (18), New Jersey (13), and Maryland (12) having the greatest representation. Thirty-three percent of the attendees were employed in the government, 27% were in education, and 23% had business careers. The remaining 17% of the participants were either unemployed, self-employed, working in not-for-profits, retired, or had unknown employment.
    
    Results
    
Ratings
    Two of the DIIT workshops were presented as part of a biannual technology symposium and were not rated by participants. The resulting participant ratings (n=130) for the remaining 19 workshops on the summative items for the Student Rating Survey are presented in Table 1. It presents mean ratings by item for a comparison group of over 7,000 students who were enrolled in similar courses at NTID plus the grand means for the 19 DIIT workshops that were evaluated using the SRS instrument.  Our goal was to examine the level of satisfaction of the adult participants with the DIIT workshops and determine if their satisfaction was comparable to that of students enrolled in NTID classes.
    The mean ratings given by the DIIT workshop participants were consistently higher for each item than the ratings given by NTID students. Since all the DIIT average ratings were in the “Strongly Agree/Agree” range, overall, workshop participants were very satisfied with the teaching and communication skills of their instructors.
    What is of even more interest is what participants said about the DIIT continuing education experience when compared to more traditional workshops they attended. The next section presents the results of the interview and open-ended questions that bear on the communication process.
    
Table 1. Summary of Instructor Ratings
by DIIT Workshop Participants and
By Students in NTID Courses
	I am satisfied with this instructor’s teaching skill.*	I am satisfied with this instructor’s communication skill.*	I learned a lot from this instructor.*	I would recommend this instructor to other students.*	
Comparison Group of NTID Students (n = 7,000+)	4.35	4.36	4.30	4.24	
Grand Means for DIIT/NSF workshop attendees (n = 130)	4.74	4.73	4.67	4.62	
*NOTE: Likert scale: 5 = Strongly Agree; 4 = Agree; 3 = No opinion; 2 = Disagree; 1 = Strongly Disagree 	

Qualitative findings
    In an effort to clearly describe their perceptions of the DIIT direct instruction workshop experience, participants often described their prior experiences with indirect instruction. Indirect instruction occurs when a hearing instructor uses an interpreter to communicate the course information to deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. Because the interpreter needs to translate the information, this creates a processing lag between the time the information is presented by the instructor and the time it is received by the participant. This lag and the need for the information to pass through a third party can have an impact on the communication and learning process. Most of the 130 participants interviewed had prior continuing education experiences through industry or government employers who provided indirect instruction.
    The indirect instruction format often left deaf and hard-of-hearing participants feeling out of the loop or lagging so far behind the presentation that they did not feel comfortable asking questions, whereas in the direct instruction DIIT workshops, participants felt comfortable asking questions. Quotes from RIT workshop attendees illustrate these findings:
    
“Sometimes in a hearing class you are afraid to ask questions because you may feel stupid. But here I can ask any question without any kind of apprehension because I am myself. I am comfortable here.”
     
“Sometimes when you are working with an interpreter, the interpreter doesn’t quite understand what is going on and can’t quite keep up with the instructor. There can be some mishaps in the communication process. And, that is only natural because you are bringing this third person into what should be a one-to-one communication process. You’re bringing in a third person, making a triangle. So, this one-to-one direct access (in the DIIT workshop) is wonderful. Very wonderful.”

“With the deaf (DIIT) workshop I don’t have any fear about asking a question at anytime. I feel free to interrupt. I feel free to just ask what I need to. But, with a hearing class, if I have a question, I don’t know if somebody else has asked about it. I feel stupid if I have asked the same question. Hey, we already asked that! I feel like I am going to just kind of look stupid or a little bit embarrassed. But, in this situation I had none of these problems and I was able to ask questions without any fear.”

“[In the DIIT workshop] it was easier to understand, and I could communicate directly with the teacher instead of having to go through an interpreter and hope the interpreter could relay the message accurately both ways.”
    
    A number of the participants mentioned that with indirect instruction, the attention that is required when constantly obtaining all the information through the eyes leads to feelings of stress and fatigue. Constantly needing to shift attention between the instructor, the interpreter, a PowerPoint presentation, the attendee’s computer screen, and other media, also contributed to increased feelings of stress and fatigue. Participants felt that the flow of communication was better handled in the DIIT workshops, with the instructor taking an active role in directing the attention of attendees.
    
“It was great sitting and watching a professor sign compared to going to a hearing workshop that I have been to twice a year. And I have to watch the interpreter all day. I get home, and my eyes hurt. There is so much information. It is so much to take in. It was great to be able to sit here and relax and take everything in and talk about the workshop instead of being all by myself with a bunch of hearing people, I felt isolated. This is great—a real deaf classroom. It was great.”

“With an interpreter you have to decide if you are going to look at the interpreter or the computer screen, and you can’t watch the media and the examples and the interpreter all at the same time. But, the DIIT instructor can keep everything within the same peripheral field of vision so you can see what they are signing. You can see what is happening on the screen. You can see when they move the mouse, all at the same time. And, they can coordinate all that.”

“I didn’t have to strain myself to watch an interpreter or do whatever. It was our natural language happening in its natural pace and with all of its cultural comfort, and I think it was really good to be able to socialize with people at the same time.”

“…if you have an interpreter you look at the screen and you miss what the interpreter says. You see the interpreter but you can’t see what the screen says. So, it gets very confusing. [Here] you don’t have to stare at the interpreter all day. We get natural breaks and we can talk and we can look.”
    
    Many participants discussed their reluctance to join indirect instructional settings because the information they received was lagging behind the instructor and because they were not confident they would be understood correctly by the interpreter or correctly represented to the teacher and the class by the interpreter. This reluctance to participate in indirect instructional settings is often associated with feelings of isolation and loneliness. Because participants were not free to interact with instructors and peers in a related manner, they got less out of the instruction and the informal interactions that occurred with peers.
    
“In other workshops I go to, everybody is hearing. You know I can talk with the interpreter, but I don’t have any interaction with the other professionals or the teacher.”

“In hearing workshops, I have a partner and they are afraid to communicate with me, so I feel really alone and you only have an interpreter and can’t depend on the interpreter for technical information. And so here (in the DIIT workshop) there was interaction among us that was wonderful.”

“I think with hearing groups you are intimidated . . . no offense to the interpreters but, sometimes I can’t get my point across. They don’t understand. So, I think this interaction with us is really helpful because we have questions and we can bounce information off of each other. You can ask me questions and then we can learn more from each other.”

“The communication mode, ASL,(American Sign Language) simply makes a difference. In other training that I had it was somewhat difficult since the interpreter was required. I usually was the only deaf person in the group of hearing. I felt I was alone in the crowd. Not able to exchange the work experience along with the colleagues.”

“It was great to be able to sit here and relax and take everything in and talk about the workshop instead of being all by myself with a bunch of hearing people, I feel isolated. This (DIIT) is great. A real deaf classroom.”
    
    The added benefit of being able to interact and share content and informal information with deaf peers was one of the greatest benefits of the DIIT direct instruction format. It appears that these adult learners were more actively engaged in learning with this direct instruction format. The following comments relate to the ease of communication that was experienced in the direct instructional setting of DIIT.
“This workshop was good to bring people together because each of us had strengths and weaknesses and we could support one another. So that was a really good experience. I learned a lot from the other people in the group and I was able to teach them some of my stuff. So it was really good.”

“I attended many workshops in my lifetime, but this technical workshop was much different, obviously we can communicate with each other, share our knowledge or experience and express what we know instantly.”

“It’s great to have an information technology workshop for hearing impaired and deaf professionals. The social environment is also great since you have your peers to communicate with.”

“I was able to fully participate in the class through questions and discussions and interact with other deaf and hard-of-hearing students. This doesn’t often happen in a class with a hearing instructor. Communicating in sign language permitted me to fully participate in the class.”
    
    The most compelling aspect of comparing the direct and indirect instructional formats for these deaf or hard-of-hearing professionals was the extent to which prior indirect instructional experiences had led them to question their own competence and their ability to learn information technology content. As one participant said:
    
“It felt a lot easier here (at the DIIT Workshop). And, often when you are in deaf/hearing group you know the deaf people end up feeling somewhat less than the other participants.”
    
    Prior research with students who are deaf and hard-of-hearing in secondary and postsecondary settings suggests the importance of access to communication for active participation in classroom learning. When deaf and hard-of-hearing students are denied equal access to communication with teachers and peers, they ask fewer questions, do not feel confident about their understanding of the material, and do not feel a part of the class setting. The communication barrier that exists with indirect instruction can lead to feelings of isolation and loneliness on the part of these students.
    This study found parallels in continuing education settings where adult participants who are deaf or hard-of-hearing participate in training provided by their employers.  These individuals reported difficulty with the pace of instruction and the ease of communication in these indirect communication settings.  
    These reports of isolation and feeling like “second-class citizens” in indirect instruction settings were contrasted with the ease of interaction and communication with the instructor and peers in the DIIT direct instruction workshops. With a teacher who signs and is sensitive to the pace of instruction required, participants felt free to ask questions and were engaged, active learners. Since their fellow participants also signed, they learned from each other and took pride in their abilities to explain concepts to their peers. This ease of communication led to sharing of information at lunch, during breaks, and in the evening. Instead of being isolated and on their own, as occurred when all communication required an interpreter, the DIIT workshop attendees shared work experiences as well as stories about what it is like to work at their place of employment and how they have learned to be successful in the “hearing world.” 
    The DIIT program was successful in providing technical, continuing education training to adult professionals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. The most important accomplishment of this program may be its ability to reaffirm to these adults that they can master technical information given a learning environment that provides direct access to the instructor and fellow participants.
  References
    
Braeges, J., Stinson, M., & Long, G. (1993).  Teachers and deaf students’ perceptions of communication ease and engagement.  Rehabilitation Psychology, 38, 235–247.
Kersting, S. (1997).  Balancing between deaf and hearing worlds:  Reflections of mainstreamed college students on relationships and social interaction. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2(4), 252–263.
Foster, S., Long, G., & Snell, K. (1999).  Inclusive instruction and learning for deaf students in postsecondary education.  Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 4(3) 225–235.
Garrison, W., Long, G., & Stinson, M. (1993).  The classroom communication ease scale.  American Annals of the Deaf, 138, 132–140.
Long, G., Stinson, M., & Braeges, J. (1991).  Students’ perceptions of communication ease and engagement:  How they relate to academic success. American Annals of the Deaf, 136, 414–421.
McKee, B. G., & Dowaliby, F. J. (1981). The dimensions used by hearing-impaired students to make judgments of instructors and courses: A factor analytic study. Journal of Rehabilitation of the Deaf, 14, 16–23.
McKee, B. G., & Dowaliby, F. J. (1985). The relationship between student, course, and instructor characteristics and hearing-impaired students’ ratings of instruction. The Volta Review, 87, 77–86.

A Comparison of Accuracy and Rate of Transcription by Adults With Learning Disabilities Using a Continuous Speech Recognition System and a Traditional Computer Keyboard

Diane C. Millar
University of North Texas

David B. McNaughton and Janice C. Light
The Pennsylvania State University
    
Abstract
     A single-subject, alternating-treatments design was implemented for three adults with learning disabilities to compare the transcription of college-level texts using a speech recognition system and a traditional keyboard. The accuracy and rate of transcribing after editing was calculated for each transcribed passage. The results provide evidence that the accuracy of transcription using the speech recognition system was slightly lower than the accuracy of transcription using the traditional keyboard for all of the participants. The rate of transcription using the speech recognition system was very similar to the keyboard for two of the participants. For the third participant, the transcription rate using the keyboard exceeded the rate using the speech recognition system for all four sessions. Following the fourth and final session, 1 participant indicated that she preferred the speech recognition system, and the others participants stated that they had no preference between the speech recognition system and the keyboard. Educational implications and directions for future research are discussed. 
    
    For many individuals frustrated by the mechanics of typing, speech recognition systems may be an attractive alternative to using the traditional computer keyboard for word processing. Speech recognition systems allow individuals to “write” using a word processing program by speaking into a microphone attached to a computer, bypassing the need for a traditional keyboard. The average adult can write with a pen at a rate of approximately 20–29 words per minute with a standard deviation of 3.3 (Birren & Botwinick, 1951), and can type at a slightly higher rate; the average speaking rate for an adult without disabilities is approximately 125–160 words per minute (De La Paz, 1999). Some have suggested (e.g., De La Paz, 1999) that speech recognition systems may allow individuals to compose at rates between their typing and speaking rates. 
    Speech recognition systems might be especially useful for individuals with learning disabilities. The written compositions of individuals with learning disabilities are typically shorter, less coherent, less organized, and contain more errors in spelling, capitalization, and punctuation compared to the written compositions of individuals without learning disabilities (MacArthur, 2000; Wetzel, 1996). Difficulties with the lower-level skills of transcribing language on to paper may negatively affect higher-order writing skills (e.g., planning and generating content), as college-level students with learning disabilities face significant challenges in spelling and proofreading activities (McNaughton, Hughes, & Clark, 1997). If lower-level skills require significant cognitive effort, working memory required for higher-order writing skills may be depleted (De La Paz, 1999; MacArthur, 2000). Individuals who have difficulty with the lower-level skills of transcribing often become frustrated with the overall process of writing and tend to avoid writing as much as possible (MacArthur, 2000).
    One method of alleviating problems associated with transcribing language to paper for individuals with learning disabilities is the use of dictation (i.e., students dictate their compositions to a teacher or to a tape recorder). MacArthur and Graham (1987) demonstrated that students with learning disabilities in the 5th and 6th grades composed longer stories with vocabulary that is more sophisticated and fewer grammatical errors by using dictation compared with handwriting or word processing. Dictation may alleviate some of the mechanical problems that interfere with transcribing ideas to text (MacArthur & Graham, 1987). With the use of dictation, students with learning disabilities also may be less likely to restrict their vocabulary to words that are simple to spell, in an attempt to reduce spelling errors (Hughes, Clark, & McNaughton, 1993).  
    One alternative to dictation is speech recognition technology. Similar to dictation, speech recognition systems may allow individuals with learning disabilities to bypass problems associated with the mechanics of writing, including the need to spell each word letter-by-letter. Speech recognition systems may offer individuals with learning disabilities potential advantages over dictation, by allowing students to dictate compositions independently, thereby eliminating the need for a teacher or aide to transcribe for the students. Furthermore, speech recognition systems enable students to view and edit the text as it is composed (MacArthur, 2000). 
    The benefits of speech recognition systems will not be realized unless they are accurate in recognizing the user’s speech and efficient in inputting and editing text. Speech recognition technology has improved significantly in the last few years; however, there have been very few research studies investigating the benefits of recent technological changes (MacArthur, 2000). Higgins and Raskind (1995) examined the impact of a speech recognition system on writing with 26 college students with learning disabilities. Each student wrote essays under three conditions: writing without assistance, using dictation with a transcriber, and using a speech recognition system that recognized discrete speech (i.e., single words separated by a slight pause). Papers were scored holistically on a scale of 1–6. The results were mixed: 13 students had higher scores using the speech recognition system compared to writing without assistance, 5 students had higher scores writing without assistance compared to the speech recognition system, and 8 students had the same score for both conditions. 
    Wetzel (1996) conducted a case study of a 6th-grade student with a learning disability. After fourteen 30-minute sessions over a 10-week period, the student reached an accuracy level of 74% in the composition of short personal narratives with a speech recognition system that recognized discrete speech. Wetzel (1996) concluded that although the promotional literature suggested adults could attain an accuracy of over 90% using discrete speech recognition, Wetzel observed the student experiencing frustration with errors by the system in recognizing his voice and in producing editing mistakes. The low accuracy rate combined with the additional time required for editing text far outweighed the benefits of using the technology for the student in his study. Wetzel (1996) recommended that research into the potential benefits of speech recognition systems continue with students with learning disabilities once improvements were made in the technology. 
    More recently developed speech recognition systems such as Dragon NaturallySpeaking recognize continuous speech.1 The recognition of continuous speech allows individuals to dictate full sentences using natural pauses and intonation. The systems are designed to recognize not only the phonemes spoken by the individual at the word level, but also the syntax of the sentence in order to improve the accuracy of the output.  
    Hux, Rankin-Erickson, Manasse, and Lauritzen (2000) investigated the accuracy of 3 speech recognition systems, including Dragon NaturallySpeaking, with 1 adult with dysarthria and a second adult without a disability. The participants were asked to read preselected sentences and compose novel sentences using the systems in 5 sessions. The 2 adults were more accurate with Dragon NaturallySpeaking than the other 2 systems. The adult with dysarthria achieved levels of accuracy in the range of 64% to 70% for the preselected passages and 54% to 69% for novel sentences. The speaker without dysarthria achieved accuracy levels in the range of 88% to 97% for preselected passages and 84% to 94% for novel passages.  
    To date, there is a lack of research available to guide teachers in their decisions about introducing speech recognition systems for students with learning disabilities. The current research study was designed to compare the accuracy and rate of transcription of 3 college-aged individuals with learning disabilities using a speech recognition system that recognized continuous speech and a traditional computer keyboard. The 2 methods of transcription were compared across four sessions by measuring the rate of transcription and the accuracy of transcribing passages of college-level texts after editing. 
    
Method

Research Design
    A single-subject, alternating-treatments design was used to compare rate and accuracy of transcription across 2 systems: a continuous speech recognition system and a traditional computer keyboard. The treatments were counterbalanced across sessions (e.g., AB in session 1, BA in session 2) to control for possible order effects (Barlow & Hersen, 1984). 
    A single-subject, alternating-treatments design was selected for several reasons. First, single-subject designs are ideal for evaluating new interventions because data are collected for individual participants across time (Barlow & Hersen, 1984); this allows for observation of learning curves for each participant. Second, an alternating-treatments design enables researchers to study the relative effectiveness of two or more treatments or conditions without constructing a large between-groups comparison with potential difficulties with intersubject variability (Barlow & Hersen, 1984). Finally, unlike other single-subject designs, participants begin the two interventions immediately, without needing to establish a baseline or consistency in one treatment before introducing the second.     
        
Participants
    Participants were recruited by contacting the Office for Disability Services at a large northeastern university and by posting a general announcement about the study via e-mail to undergraduates who had registered to receive services because of a learning disability. Three adults volunteered to participate in the research study. Each met the following criteria: (a) were between 19 and 25 years of age; (b) had been enrolled in a post-secondary class within the past 24 months; (c) had hearing and vision, with or without correction, within normal limits; (d) had a documented learning disability, specifically in writing; (e) was a native speaker of English; and, (f) had no previous experience with speech recognition systems.  
    Maddie was a 24-year-old senior undergraduate student pursuing a degree in communication disorders. She reported that she had normal hearing and vision with correction. Maddie was first diagnosed with a learning disability (i.e., specifically in written expression) and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in her sophomore year of college, two years before the study. She had reading comprehension scores within normal limits and written expression scores at an 8th-grade level. She had special accommodations for taking tests in her undergraduate classes (i.e., she was given tests outside of the classroom with additional time).  
    Josie was a 22-year-old woman and was not attending college at the time of the study.  She reported that she had normal hearing and vision. She had previously completed one year of college toward a degree in leisure studies at the age of 20. She was first diagnosed with a learning disability in the 6th grade. At that time, she was reported to have reading comprehension scores within normal limits and written expression scores below a 3rd-grade level. She reported having special accommodations in high school for taking tests (i.e., she was given additional time) and was provided with access to learning support services. Josie had not been tested since her original diagnosis at the age of 12.    
    Jane was the identical twin sister of Josie. Jane was pursuing an undergraduate degree in information technology. She reported that her hearing and vision were within normal limits. She was diagnosed with a learning disability in the 6th grade, at the same time as her sister. At the time of testing, she had reading comprehension scores within normal limits and written expression scores below a 3rd-grade level. She reported having special accommodations in school for taking tests (i.e., she was provided with additional time). She also was given access to learning support services in school. Jane had not been tested after her original diagnosis.  
    
Materials
    The continuous speech recognition system used in the study was Dragon NaturallySpeaking, Version 5.0, by Dragon Systems, Inc. When using this software, individuals speak sentences with natural intonation. A traditional computer keyboard with a QWERTY layout was used for the transcription of the passages via the keyboard. The word processing program used for the transcription of the passages was Dragon Pad, a standard word processing program that was part of the Dragon NaturallySpeaking software package. This software was used in both treatment conditions.
    The stimuli used in each session were selected based on the recommendations of a learning disability specialist from the university. She identified two general education classes (i.e., introduction to psychology and elementary astronomy) that were typically identified as challenging for students with learning disabilities. The passages used as stimuli were from textbooks used in the identified classes. These college-level texts were representative of the type of material used by the participants in school. Ten passages were randomly selected from each of the textbooks: 10 psychology and 10 astronomy passages. Each of the passages was 100–115 words in length, had a reading level of grades 10–11, and was randomly assigned to a treatment condition, use of a keyboard or speech recognition, within a session. None of the passages was used more than once for each participant. The passages were randomized so that the participants did not have the same passages in the same order. During each session, the participants completed 4 passages (2 novel passages for each treatment condition): 1 astronomy passage and 1 psychology passage for the keyboard condition and 1 astronomy passage and 1 psychology passage for the speech recognition condition.  
    
Measures
    The two dependent measures were: (a) accuracy of transcription after editing and (b) rate of transcription in words per minute (i.e., the number of passage words correct/total minutes of transcription).). The accuracy of transcription after editing was calculated by comparing the textbook passage to the transcribed passage. The number of correctly transcribed words and the number of transcribed words that were incorrect or omitted were totaled. The accuracy of transcription was calculated as the percentage of the number of words correct/number of passage words correct omitted.  
    A stopwatch was used in the calculation of the rate of transcription. Timing began at the first keystroke or spoken word and ended when the subject said “done” for the keyboard condition, “microphone off” for the speech recognition condition, or when 10 minutes had elapsed. The rate of transcription was calculated in words per minute. 
    As a social validation measure, participants were asked to provide feedback regarding the two methods of transcription during a structured interview, with the first author, following each session. See Figure 1 for the social validation form used as a guide for the interview. The feedback was used to determine which method of transcription the participants preferred and whether their opinions changed over time; preferences for each participant across sessions were analyzed to determine any patterns.
     Reliability of the measures. Inter-rater reliability was calculated for 25% of the data.  Four passages were randomly selected from the 16 total passages for each participant. A second researcher viewed videotapes and calculated the accuracy and rate of transcription for each passage. The rates were calculated by watching the videotapes and timing the transcriptions. For each measure, the inter-rater reliability was calculated as a percentage of the number of agreements divided by the total number of agreements and disagreements. The mean reliability was 99.6%, with a range of 98%–100%.    
    
Procedures
    Participants followed the instructions for using the speech recognition system that accompanied the Dragon NaturallySpeaking software. According to the manual, minimal time is required to learn to use the system and have accurate recognition of individuals’ voices. The instructions describe how to connect the microphone to the computer, position the headset microphone, and train the system to recognize individuals’ speech patterns. The manual states that the system requires 3 to 5 minutes to learn speakers’ voices, and it suggests that individuals complete a short tutorial at the start of their first experience using the speech recognition system. The manual suggests that if individuals have difficulty with dictation, they periodically update their speech files by reading short passages; no additional instructional procedures were provided. The goal of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of transcribing text using the speech recognition system in comparison to the keyboard, according to the instructions provided with the system; therefore, participants received no additional instruction, and their performance was followed across  4 sessions (2 sessions each week for two weeks). The order of treatments was counterbalanced across sessions to avoid order effects. The time for transcribing each passage was limited to 10 minutes in the event that the participants became frustrated and were unable to finish the passages in a reasonable time. Each session was videotaped to allow for accuracy in the collection of data and reliability.     
     Keyboard. During each session, participants were instructed to copy the passages into a word processing document using the keyboard and to edit mistakes after completing each sentence. 
     Speech recognition system. At the first session, participants completed a training task, provided by the speech recognition system to allow the system to “learn” their speech patterns, and a tutorial so participants could learn the editing commands. Participants completed the task in approximately 20 minutes. During each subsequent session, participants were instructed to first complete a shortened training to improve the system’s recognition of the participants’ speech patterns as they read. Participants were asked to dictate astronomy and psychology passages using the speech recognition system and to edit their mistakes after each sentence. The speech profiles for the participants were saved at the end of each session.  
    
Figure 1.  Feedback form for interviewing participants following each session. 
Feedback
Subject Number: _________      
Date: ___________________      Session: _________________
1.	I found the accuracy of the speech recognition system in recognizing my speech:
Better than the last session ________
The same as the last session ________
Worse than the last session ________
Comments: 

2.	I found the editing process with the speech recognition system:
Easier than the last session ________
As difficult as the last session ________
More difficult than the last session ________
Comments: 

3.	Comparing writing using the keyboard and the speech recognition system:
I prefer to use the keyboard ________
I prefer to use the speech recognition system ________
I would choose either the keyboard or the speech recognition system ________
Comments: 
Figure 2.  Accuracy of transcription after editing for the three participants using the speech recognition system and the traditional keyboard.  

Accuracy of Transcription After Editing

Jane

Josie

Session Number

Percent Correct

Maddie

     
     Procedural reliability. Procedural reliability was determined for 25% of the data to ensure the integrity of the procedures. A trained researcher then viewed videotapes of the sessions and indicated whether the instructor had correctly followed each of the instructional steps for each condition. Reliability was calculated as a percentage of the number of correct instructional steps divided by the total number of correct, incorrect, or omitted sentences. The mean procedural reliability was 100%.
    
Data Analysis
     Data on rate and accuracy were presented separately in graphic form to facilitate visual inspection of divergence of treatments and changes in level and slope across the two systems, as recommended for alternating treatment designs (Barlow & Hersen, 1984).  
    
Results
    
Accuracy
    Accuracy of transcription was used as a measure of effectiveness. Figure 2 presents the accuracy of transcription after editing for Maddie, Josie, and Jane. In all 4 sessions, Maddie had a higher mean accuracy of transcription using the traditional keyboard of  98.9%, with a range of 97.2%–100% compared to the speech recognition system, 93.8%, with a range of 91.2%–96.4%. Josie had a higher mean accuracy of transcription using the traditional keyboard (90.1%, with a range of 84.1%–93.4%) compared to the speech recognition system (83.4%, with a range of 76.5% - 89.9%). There was a slight overlap in levels of accuracy using the keyboard and speech recognition system in the second session.  The mean levels of accuracy were 81.2% for the keyboard and 85.5% for the speech recognition system). In all 4 sessions, Jane had a higher mean accuracy of transcription using the traditional keyboard (95.8%, with a range of 93.7%–97.3%) compared to the speech recognition system (89.2%, with a range of 86.2%–90.7%).  
    Maddie achieved high levels of accuracy of transcription using the speech recognition system from the start.  The mean accuracy was 96.4% for session 1; there was no learning curve across the 4 sessions. Josie demonstrated an increase in the mean accuracy of transcription using the speech recognition system from the first session to the second session (76.5%–85.5%). She had very little change in the levels of accuracy of transcription for the remaining sessions. Jane achieved similar levels of accuracy of transcription using the speech recognition system across all 4 sessions. For sessions 1 –4, the means were 90.7%, 86.2%, 89.6%, and 90.4%. Therefore, similar to Maddie, there was no learning curve evident for Jane.  
    Overall, the participants had a higher level of accuracy of transcription using the traditional keyboard compared to the speech recognition system across the 4 sessions; however differences between the conditions were very small, a mean gain of five percentage points in accuracy for Maddie, seven percentage points for Josie, and six percentage points for Jane.  
         
Rate of transcription
    Figure 3 presents the data for the rate of transcription (wpm) for Maddie, Josie, and Jane using the speech recognition system and the traditional keyboard. In general, Maddie had a faster rate of transcription using the traditional keyboard— a mean of 20.4 wpm, with a range of 17.3–22.5 wpm compared to the speech recognition system (a mean of 15.9 wpm, with a range of 8.2 – 21.7 wpm). By the fourth session, Maddie had a rate of transcription of 20.7 wpm using the traditional keyboard and a rate of transcription of 21.7 wpm using the speech recognition system.  
    In the first 3 sessions, Josie had a higher rate of transcription using the traditional keyboard, a mean of 15.6 wpm, with a range of 14.4–17.6 wpm, compared to the speech recognition system, which had mean of 10.2 wpm, with a range of 5.4 – 15.1 wpm. By the fourth session, however, Josie demonstrated an overlap in the rates of transcription in the fourth session (14.2 wpm using the keyboard and 15.8 wpm using the speech recognition system). She demonstrated a learning curve in the rate of transcription using the speech recognition system. The rate consistently increased across the 4 sessions using the speech recognition system.  
    Jane had a higher rate of transcription using the traditional keyboard compared to the speech recognition system for all 4 sessions. She had a mean rate of transcription of 17.0 wpm using the traditional keyboard, with a range of 16.218.7 wpm, and a mean rate of transcription of 9.7 wpm using the speech recognition system, with a range of 8.9–10.7 wpm. There was very little change in the rate of transcription using the speech recognition system across the 4 sessions for Jane. The mean rate of transcription using the speech recognition system for the first session was 8.9 wpm and 10.7 for the last session.
    
Figure 3. Rate of transcription using the speech recognition system and the traditional keyboard for Maddie, Josie, and Jane.

Words Per Minute

Josie

Maddie

Rate of Transcription

Jane

Session Number

    
Social validation
    Table 1 presents the results of the participants’ feedback following each of the 4 sessions. The participants were asked whether they preferred to use the traditional keyboard, the speech recognition system, or to choose either method for writing. Maddie indicated that she had no preference between the speech recognition system and the traditional keyboard for the first 3 sessions. Following the 4th session, she stated, “I find it easier to use the speech system over the keyboard. It is less time consuming and I have noticed that I am less anxious.” Both Josie and Jane initially preferred the keyboard to the speech recognition system. However, by the end of the 4th session, both Josie and Jane indicated that they viewed the traditional keyboard and the speech recognition system as equivalent. Josie stated, “After getting used to the speech recognition system, it became easier to use, about the same as the keyboard.” Discussing the speech recognition system, Jane said, “If you worked with it every day, it would be very helpful. The commands are difficult.”
    
Table 1.  Maddie’s, Josie’s, and Jane’s preferences following each session for the traditional keyboard, the speech recognition system, or either. 

	Session 1	Session 2	Session 3	Session 4	
Maddie	Either	Either	Either	Speech recognition 	
Josie	Keyboard	Keyboard	Keyboard	Either	
Jane	Keyboard	Keyboard	Either	Either	

Discussion
    
    Like any assistive technology, speech recognition can be evaluated with respect to its effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability (McNaughton, Hughes, & Clark, 1997; Wetzel, 1996). In this study, effectiveness of the method of transcription was calculated by determining the accuracy of the system in transcribing the passage. Efficiency of transcription was measured using the rate (words per minute) information for each technique. Finally, acceptability was measured by asking participants to identify system preferences (i.e., traditional keyboard and/or a speech recognition system) following each session.
    
Effectiveness
    The results of the present study indicate that the accuracy of transcription using the traditional keyboard was slightly higher for all 3 participants (Maddie [5%], Josie [7%], and Jane [6%]) compared to the speech recognition system for the final session. The accuracy levels may have been slightly better for the traditional keyboard compared to the speech recognition system for several reasons. One possible explanation is that the participants were more familiar with the processes required for transcribing and editing using the keyboard than the speech recognition system, and none had any experience with a speech recognition system before the study. Participants had to learn spoken commands to edit their passages using the speech recognition system.  
    A second possible explanation for the higher accuracy levels with the keyboard compared to the speech recognition system may be related to differences in the transcription methods using the systems. Using the speech recognition system, participants read entire sentences without pausing. At the end of each dictated sentence, participants were required to go back through the passage and check for incorrect, additional, or omitted words. Although the speech recognition system did not misspell words, the system might not have recognized the words correctly. This may have resulted in the transcription of incorrect words that sound similar to the target words (e.g., computer/comforter). The errors produced using speech recognition systems may be especially difficult to detect because they are correctly spelled words. Participants tended to overlook incorrect words that were visually similar to the target words (e.g., performance/permanence) and words that were omitted. The failure to correct mistakes during editing with the speech recognition system negatively affected accuracy levels.  
    Overall, participants experienced problems in producing texts with low levels of spelling errors. Error rates for Maddie, Josie, and Jane for speech recognition (6.2%, 16.6%, and 10.8%) and for keyboarding (1.1%, 9.9%, and 4.2%) were, except for Maddie in the keyboard condition, far above those of college students without disabilities. Students without learning disabilities typically have an error rate of 1.1% (McNaughton et al., 1997); ideally, error rates should be within two standard deviations of the performance of students without learning disabilities, that is, lower than 2.9% error rate (McNaughton et al., 1997).
        
Efficiency
    Another important factor to consider in the comparison of the speech recognition system and the traditional keyboard was the rate of transcription. Wetzel (1996) suggested that low accuracy rate combined with the time required for editing text outweighed the benefits of using the speech recognition system at the time of his study. The results of the present study indicated that by the 4th session, two participants transcribed passages from college-level texts at only a slightly higher rate using the speech recognition system compared to the traditional keyboard. Maddie’s and Josie’s rates of transcription using the speech recognition system during the final session were 21.7 and 15.8 wpm, respectively, and 20.7 and 14.2 wpm using the keyboard. In the 4th session, Jane transcribed at a rate of 8.9 wpm using the speech recognition system and 18.7 wpm using the keyboard.
    One of the suggested advantages of speech recognition systems is that individuals can “write” at rates between their typing and speaking rates, however such high rates of text entry were not seen in this study. There are several possible explanations why participants’ rates of transcription using the speech recognition system were not significantly higher compared to the keyboard. Participants’ familiarity with a traditional keyboard may be one explanation for its comparative advantage over the speech recognition system. All participants were observed to use appropriate keyboarding skills (i.e., they all used 10 fingers to type) but they were not especially rapid typists (Birren & Botwinick, 1951). A second possible explanation is that the time spent rereading and editing mistakes using the speech recognition system may have resulted in a slower rate of transcription than was expected. Participants may have had difficulty recognizing correctly spelled words that were inappropriate in context as errors. Also, participants had to learn spoken commands for editing that were unique to the speech recognition system. The lack of familiarity with the editing commands may have resulted in an increase in the time required for transcription of the passages. Finally, participants were involved in only 4 sessions. For some individuals, increasing the number of sessions may improve familiarity with the editing commands and increase the rate of transcription. A clear increase in rate over time was observed for Josie, a small increase was observed for Maddie, and no change was observed for Jane.
    
Acceptability
    The speech recognition system was not more accurate or significantly faster to use compared to the traditional keyboard; however, 1 participant indicated that she would rather use the speech recognition system rather than the keyboard. The other 2 participants indicated that they viewed the two methods as equivalent for writing by the end of the 4th session. Although the rate of transcription using the speech recognition system was not significantly higher than the rate of transcription using the keyboard, the speech recognition system may be less frustrating than using the traditional keyboard for some individuals with learning disabilities. In this study, Maddie commented that she was “less anxious” when using the speech recognition system. Some individuals with learning disabilities may choose to use a speech recognition system for writing because it reduces the need to spell individual words and allows them to give more attention to the content of their writing.  
    In the present study, participants transcribed college-level texts and were not required to compose novel passages. It is not clear if their preferences would change when adding higher-order writing demands (e.g., planning, generating content). MacArthur and Graham (1987) proposed that individuals with learning disabilities may write longer compositions using a speech recognition system if they find the task of writing less burdensome. 
       
Clinical Implications and Directions for Future Research
    
    This study was an initial investigation of factors associated with the use of speech recognition systems as a writing method for postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Given the small number of subjects and the nature of the writing tasks, caution must be exercised in the interpretation of the findings. The participation of students with a different type of disability, the use of a different writing task, and the provision of a longer period for training might lead to different results. However, this preliminary investigation does provide some initial information for individuals interested in the use of speech recognition technology by individuals with learning disabilities.
    First, based on the results of this study, the effectiveness and efficiency of speech recognition technology will vary by individual. Josie clearly showed improvement in rate over the 4 sessions, however Jane did not. While it is unclear if additional training sessions would have improved the performance of Jane, it is important not to underestimate the amount of time needed to gain competence in a speech recognition system before making a decision about its personal usefulness. Based on this study, it is recommended that individuals considering the use of speech recognition technology participate in at least 4 training sessions before making a decision about its potential usefulness. Also, the small number of subjects and the limited documentation of their disability in writing restrict discussion of the generalizability of the results of the study. Future research is needed with a wider range of individuals with learning disabilities.
    Second, current speech recognition technology may not be enough to close the gap with the performance of individuals without disabilities. Even with speech recognition technology, the participants in this study produced text with error rates far above those of students without disabilities. Additional training in proofreading strategies may be needed to support effective use of this technology (McNaughton, Hughes, & Ofiesh, 1997). Also, it is important to note that the results of this study of transcription may not generalize to tasks requiring the composition of novel texts by individuals with learning disabilities. However, the objective of this study was to provide preliminary data on the accuracy and speed using the speech recognition system with adults with learning disabilities, without the interference of the additional demands required in composing text. Future studies should investigate the use of the speech recognition system in novel writing. 
    Third, factors other than accuracy and speed appear to affect the decision about system use. For example, although Jane was never faster with speech recognition technology, she identified speech recognition as comparable in acceptability to the standard keyboard following sessions 3 and 4. While it is unclear what other factors may affect this decision (e.g., ease of use, reduced spelling demands), the decision about the technology to be used should be based both on an individual’s observed performance and their stated preferences.
    Finally, this is a rapidly changing field. As speech recognition technology becomes more sophisticated, clinicians and individuals with disabilities should revisit this technology to see if software and hardware improvements make the technology more effective, efficient, and more acceptable to the individual with a disability.
    Based on the limitations of the present study, future studies should include individuals with a wider range of learning disabilities to enhance the generalizability of the results to a wider population. Future research should also investigate the use of authentic writing tasks to determine the effects of using the speech recognition system in tasks that require higher-level writing skills (e.g., planning, developing ideas). Finally, studies should investigate learning over a larger number of sessions to investigate possible learning curves in the accuracy and rate of transcription or writing. While this technology continues to show promise, additional research is needed to determine how speech recognition technology can best assist individuals with learning disabilities.  
References
    
Barlow, D., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change. Allyn and Bacon: Boston, MA.
Birren, J., & Botwinick, J. (1951). The relation of writing speed to age and to the senile psychoses. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 15, 243–249.
De La Paz, S. (1999). Composing via dictation and speech recognition systems: Compensatory technology for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 173–182.
Higgins, E., & Raskind, M. (1995). Compensatory effectiveness of speech recognition on the written composition performance of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 159–174. 
Hughes, C., Clark, K., & McNaughton, D. (1993). An analysis of the spelling errors produced by college students with learning disabilities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Learning Disabilities Association, San Francisco.  
Hux, K., Rankin-Erickson, J., Manasse, N., & Lauritzen, E. (2000). Accuracy of three speech recognition systems: Case study of dysarthric speech. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16, 186–196.
MacArthur, C. A. (2000). New tools for writing: Assistive technology for students with writing difficulties. Topics in Language Disorders, 20, 85–100. 
MacArthur, C. A., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning disabled students composing under three methods of text production: Handwriting, word processing, and dictation. Journal of Special Education, 21, 22–42.
McNaughton, D., Hughes, C., & Clark, K. (1997). The effect of five proofreading conditions on the spelling performance of college students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 643–651.
McNaughton, D., Hughes, C., & Ofiesh, N. (1997). Proofreading for students with learning disabilities: Integrating computer and strategy use. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice. 12, 16–28.
Wetzel, K. (1996). Speech-recognizing computers: A written-communication tool for students with learning disabilities? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 371–380.

Author Note
    
    The authors express their sincere appreciation to the adults who generously volunteered their time to participate in the study. The authors would also like to thank Kathryn Drager and Carol Hammer for their contributions.

Development and Validation of the Accessibility of Campus Computing for Students With Disabilities Scale: Service Providers’ Perspective

Myrtis E. Fossey
Jennison V. Asuncion
Catherine Fichten
Chantal Robillard
Maria Barile
Rhonda Amsel
Fran Prezant
Stephen Morabito

Dawson College, Concordia University, McGill University, Université de Montréal,  National Center for Disability Services

Abstract
    
     Responses by 156 Canadian college and university professionals who provide disability-related services to students were used to construct, develop, and validate the Accessibility of Campus Computing for Students With Disabilities Scale (ACCSDS): Service Provider Version. This is a 19-item, self-administered tool that evaluates institutional computing accessibility for students with disabilities from the perspective of disability service providers. The measure contains 4 empirically derived subscales: Access to Adaptive Computers, Infrastructure and Collaboration, Academic Inclusion, and Adaptive Technology Competence. Results indicate that these 4 factors account for 54% of the variability in total scores. The data also show good internal consistency for the subscales and the full scale. Data concerning validity show strong relationships between scores and a key criterion variable. The ACCSDS can be used to evaluate disability service providers’ views about an institution’s technology accessibility, to provide empirical data to influence information and instructional technology policy, and to pinpoint areas of strength as well as areas needing improvement.

    The integration of educational technologies with campus computing infrastructure is an ongoing activity on North American campuses (e.g., Educause, 2002; Green, 2003; Harler, 2000; Kiernan, 2002). Ongoing evaluation of the ability of these technologies to meet the needs of students, faculty, and other institutional constituencies is an important aspect of this integration (e.g., Educause, 2004). Evaluation is necessary for a variety of reasons that include ensuring a return on investment, measuring penetration and acceptance, and pinpointing areas for improvement (Bullock & Ory, 2000). Institutions’ computer technologies for students with disabilities has been a neglected topic in such evaluations. The scale developed and validated from this investigation, the Accessibility of Campus Computing for Students With Disabilities Scale (ACCSDS): Service Provider Version, was designed to partially fill this gap.
Accessibility of Campus Computing to Students With Disabilities
    Between 5% and 11% of students attending North American postsecondary education institutions have a disability (cf. Fichten, et al. 2003; National Center for Education Statistics, 2002). Both government legislation (e.g., Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990; Australia’s Disability Discrimination Act, 1992), as well as the promotion of best practices (e.g., High Tech Center Training Unit, 1999; Quality and Standards in Higher Education, 1999), speak to the need for equal access to education for individuals with disabilities. This emphasizes the utility and timeliness of a tool to assess the campus-based disability service providers’ perceptions about how the computer-related needs of students with disabilities are being met . 
    Undertaking an institutional assessment of perceptions about how well the computing needs of students with disabilities are being met requires the vantage points of many constituencies. Of course, the students’ viewpoints lead to an understanding of whether campus computing is accessible or not. The perspective of campus-based disability service providers is also essential because these individuals are ideally positioned to evaluate aspects of access to campus computing that students may not be aware of. For example, the perspective of students is that of the end-users. Moreover, students are usually unaware of disabilities that are different from theirs (Fichten, Robillard, Tagalakis, & Amsel, 1991). Campus-based disability service providers often have an informed institutional view of what administrative, policy, and other factors are at play when it comes to disability-related issues. Therefore, as a starting point, we focused on developing a tool that can be used by the campus-based professionals who are accountable for delivering disability-related support to students.
    The Association on Higher Education And Disability (AHEAD), the professional organization to which many of these individuals belong, estimates that approximately half of the approximately 5,000 higher education institutions in the United States have at least one individual designated to support students with disabilities (Michaels et al., 2001). In many cases, addressing the computer technology needs of these students on campus has become part of the disability service provider’s job description. For example, our data indicate that these individuals recognize computer-related services as one of the priority services they deliver to students with disabilities (Fichten, et al., 2004). Thus, the viewpoint of the professionals who provide disability-related services is very important, in part because they are best suited to lead, not necessarily in isolation, any efforts around this type of assessment.
Institutional Assessment of Accessibility
    One difficulty in conducting institutional evaluation of the accessibility of campus computing to students with disabilities has been a lack of suitable assessment instruments. There have been several studies that evaluate the campus computing needs of postsecondary students with disabilities in the U.S. (e.g., Burgstahler, 1992, 1993; Burris, 1998; Coomber, 1996; Horn & Shell, 1990; Jackson et al., 2001; Lance, 1996) and Canada (Epp, 1996; Killean & Hubka, 1999) that dealt, in part, with the views of professionals who provide on-campus disability-related supports in higher education around access to campus computing. However, none of these studies have developed a valid, easy-to-administer, self-evaluation tool specifically geared toward examining the accessibility of campus computing.
    It was only when we turned to the non-disability literature that we found work with a specific focus on assessing the current state of campus computing (for the U.S., see Green, 2000; 2001; 2003; for Canada, see Campbell, 2001). Such measures, however, do not include indicators that measure aspects of access to campus computing by individuals with disabilities. 

Present Investigation
    The goal of this investigation was to provide a valid tool for the professionals who provide disability-related supports on campus. The measure had to meet the following criteria: easy for campus-based disability service providers to answer questions; adaptable to the changing landscape of campus computing; meaningful to administration in assisting them in making new educational technologies accessible; and helpful as a tool to advocate with college bodies to sensitize them to the importance of making information and instructional technologies accessible to all students, including those with disabilities. Accessibility, in this context, refers to a range of situations such as whether there are computers with adaptive technologies (e.g., software that speaks what is written on the screen, adaptive mouse) in general-use computer labs; whether personnel who provide services to students with disabilities on campus are consulted when computer infrastructure decisions are made; and whether computer-based learning materials used by faculty (e.g., course Web pages) meet accessibility guidelines. In exploring institutional accessibility and developing a measure to evaluate it, one question dominated the process: What makes educational institutions technologically accessible to students with disabilities? To answer this question when developing the measure, we focused on aspects of accessibility that predict how well the computer-related needs of students with disabilities are seen to be met by campus-based disability service providers.
    
Method
    
Participants
    The participants were 156 postsecondary personnel responsible for providing services to students with disabilities (110 females and 46 males). All were enrolled in a larger investigation of the computing and technological needs of students with disabilities (cf. Fichten, et al., 2003; 2004). Ninety-six participants worked at a college, 58 worked at a university, and 2 were at a postsecondary distance-education institution (1 college and 1 university). Overall, participants had worked an average of 9 years providing services to students with disabilities (range <1 to 26). Canada is a bilingual country, and 116 (74%) of respondents represented English-speaking institutions; 39 (25%) represented French-speaking institutions; and 1(1%) represented a bilingual institution. Participants represented 91 of the 115 colleges and 55 of the 68 universities that were listed on the Web pages of the Association of Community Colleges of Canada (ACCC) or the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) on April 22, 2000. Whenever an institution was a member of both ACCC and AUCC, the institution was counted as a college rather than a university. The overall participation rate was 80%—79% participation from the colleges, 81% from universities, and 67% from postsecondary distance education institutions. Additional details about the sample are available in Fichten et al. (2001, 2004). 
    
Procedure
    To recruit participants, we attempted to contact by telephone, members of the AUCC and the ACCC (i.e., those institutions listed on these organizations’ Web sites as of April 22, 2000). We asked to speak to the person responsible for providing services to students with disabilities. Potential participants at the 183 eligible institutions were asked to volunteer.  An English-speaking researcher contacted Anglophone institutions , and a French-speaking researcher contacted Francophone institutions. Bilingual institutions were contacted in either language. A time was scheduled for those who agreed to be interviewed. All interviews were conducted by telephone during spring 2000.
     Ethical considerations. An informed consent form was sent by email or fax to potential respondents, which indicated the goals of the project, the risks envisaged, the right to withdraw at any time without penalty, and the precautions taken to ensure confidentiality. To encourage honest responses among those answers that might not reflect well on respondents’ educational institutions, participants were assured that the information that they provided would never be linked either to themselves or to their educational institution. 
     Structured interview questions. For the purposes of the larger study, 60 items, including demographic questions, were administered (questions available in Fichten, et al., 2001). Of interest to the present investigation are the 23, 6-point Likert-scaled items (range: strongly agree to strongly disagree), which inquired about the actual situation at a respondent’s institution, campus, or sector. Items were generally positively worded, described a set of conditions at the institution (e.g., computer equipment is up to date), and stated that the characteristic met the needs of students with disabilities (e.g., “At my institution, computer and/or adaptive computer technologies are sufficiently up to date to meet the needs of students with disabilities”). These items were designed to assess the perceptions of participants regarding the adequacy of campus-based computer technologies, resources, training, policies, personnel, services, and the adequacy of rehabilitation-sector support to meet the needs of students with disabilities. A key criterion inquired, using a 6-point Likert scale, about the participant’s evaluation of how well, overall, the computer and/or adaptive computer and technology needs of students with disabilities were being met at the respondent’s institution.
    Of the 23 items originally included in the development of the scale, only 19 were retained. Two items were dropped because the number of respondents who answered these two questions was too low for inclusion in the factor analysis. Those items dealt with equipment loan programs and with Internet-based distance education. Two other items were dropped because they dealt with off-campus issues related to community-based rehabilitation agencies. While important, these latter two items are not, strictly speaking, campus computing issues. All four of these items, however, were found to correlate well with the criterion variable. Therefore, we included them at the end of the measure as extra items that would in the future allow for a more comprehensive evaluation of the elements important in ensuring good access to computers for students with disabilities (see measure in Appendix). 

Table 1
ACCSDS: :Service Provider Version - Factor Loadings Of Each Item Following Varimax Rotation
Items	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Factor 4	
1. At my institution, computer and/or adaptive computer technologies are sufficiently up‑to‑date to meet the needs of students with disabilities	0.727	-0.137	0.127	0.265	
2. At my institution, the hours of access to adaptive computer technologies meet the needs of students with disabilities		0.629	0.230	0.099	-0.042	
3. At my institution, there are enough computers with internet access that also have adaptive hardware/software on them to meet the needs of students with disabilities		0.782	0.090	0.268	0.066	
4. The technical support at my institution for students using adaptive computer technologies meets the needs of students with disabilities		0.556	0.491	0.014	0.337	
5. The availability of adaptive computer technologies in specialized labs/centres for students with  disabilities at my institution meets their needs		0.761	0.085	0.176	0.073	
6. The training provided by my institution on adaptive computer technologies for students with disabilities meets their needs		0.550	0.347	0.076	0.275	
7. The physical space available for adaptive computer technologies at my institution meets the needs of students with disabilities		0.544	0.583	-0.014	-0.100	
8. I am (my office/service is) consulted when major campus‑wide computer infrastructure decisions are  made (e.g., purchasing institution‑wide software, web design, adding or improving computer labs)		0.033	0.595	0.299	0.082	
9. My institution has an advisory/steering committee which deals with the accessibility of computer  technologies for students with disabilities		0.090	0.399	0.018	0.187	
10. The administration reacts positively when I approach them with problems related to the  accessibility of computers on campus for students with disabilities		0.113	0.677	0.222	0.091	
11. Personnel who take care of mainstream computers on campus have the expertise to deal with adaptive computer technologies		0.113	0.609	0.039	0.001	
12. Accessibility issues are covered when faculty are trained in how to use computer technologies in their courses		-0.136	0.450	0.435	0.257	
13. The funding for my institution's computer and/or adaptive computer technologies (from my institution, government, programs, agencies, foundations, companies) meets the needs of students with disabilities		0.470	0.038	0.616	0.002	
14. The availability of adaptive computer technologies in mainstream computer labs at my institution meets the needs of students with disabilities		0.202	0.345	0.595	-0.069	
15. The accessibility of computer‑based teaching materials used by professors (e.g., math software, CD‑ROMs, web pages) meets the needs of students with disabilities		0.151	0.334	0.600	0.101	
16. The accessibility of the library's computers (e.g., computerized catalogues, databases, CD-ROMs) meets the needs of students with disabilities		0.135	-0.040	0.711	-0.065	
17. There are opportunities for employees of my institution to learn about adaptive computer  technologies		0.112	0.246	0.069	0.741	
18. There is a person at my institution who has expertise in adaptive computer technologies (i.e.,  someone who is knowledgeable, keeps up‑to‑date with new products, and fixes hardware and software  problems)		0.226	0.282	-0.144	0.620	
19. I am knowledgeable about adaptive computer  technologies (e.g., software that enlarges what is on the screen, adapted mouse)	0.037	-0.098	0.035	0.790	

Table 2

ACCSDS:  Service Provider Version - Means, Standard Deviations, and Cronbach Alpha Reliability Scores

Subscales	Mean	Standard Deviation	Cronbach’s Alpha	
				
 1. Access to Adaptive Computers	3.77	1.22	.85	
 2. Infrastructure and Collaboration	3.02	1.13	.71	
 3. Academic Inclusion	2.96	1.13	.73	
 4. Adaptive Technology Competence	3.33	1.32	.66	
Total Scale 	3.31	0.83	.89	

Results
    
    A 4-factor solution shows that principal components analysis, with varimax rotation, explained a cumulative 54% of the variability in scores. Factor 1, which measures access to adaptive computers, explained 28.9% of the variability. Factor 2, which measures infrastructure and collaboration, explained an additional 9.6%. Factor 3, which measures academic inclusion explained a further 9.2%; and Factor 4, which assesses adaptive technology competence, explained the remaining 6.1%. Table 1 presents the rotated factors with the factor loading for each item. Items were assigned to the factor corresponding to the highest factor loading.
    Despite some of the factor loadings being rather low (e.g., see item 12), it can be seen in Table 2 that the alpha coefficients for the four factors as well as for the full scale were satisfactory, and the removal of any item would not greatly affect alpha. These, as well as means and standard deviations, are presented in Table 2.
     Access to adaptive computers. This subscale evaluates service providers’ perceptions about the extent to which computers with adaptive hardware and software are available on campus as well as aspects of technical support and training on these technologies within the institution.
     Infrastructure and collaboration. This subscale evaluates service providers’ perceptions about the extent to which the institution’s information technology infrastructure is accessible as well as aspects of the overall cooperativeness of other departments within the institution with respect to issues of access to campus computing.
     Academic inclusion. This subscale evaluates service providers’ perceptions about the extent to which an institution is academically inclusive of students with disabilities in terms of funding, mainstreaming of adaptive equipment, and awareness and training of faculty members with respect to accessibility of computer-based teaching materials.
     Adaptive technology competence. This subscale evaluates service providers’ perceptions about the extent to which an institution has access to technical support and whether it fosters knowledge about adaptive computer technologies on campus.
    
Scoring, Norms, Validation, and Standardization 
    The four factors were moderately correlated with one another (range r = 0.15 to r = 0.58). Coefficients are available in Table 3.  These internal-validity correlation coefficients show strong relationships between subscale scores and the full-scale score (range from r =. 58 to r =. 86). The coefficients in Table 3 indicate that the subscales are measuring different concepts, all of which are important components of the concept measured by the full scale.
    Because all items use a 6-point scale, both subscale and total scores were computed by taking the mean of the items that comprise the subscale. This is also true for full scale scores. Thus all scores vary between 1 and 6, with higher scores representing a perception of better access to campus computer technologies. 
    Correlations with the criterion variable, “Overall, the computer and/or adaptive computer technology needs of students with disabilities at my institution are adequately met,” are presented in Table 4. Results show moderate correlations between the subscales and the criterion variable (range from r =.20 to r =.64) as well as a moderate correlation between the full scale score and the criterion variable (r =.55). Subscales 1, 3, and 4 as well as the full scale score are likely the best indicators of how well students’ computer-related needs are met on campus.
    
Table 3

ACCSDS:  Service Provider Version - Correlations of Subscale Scores to Each Other and to Full Scale Score

	1. Access to Adaptive Computers	2. Infrastructure and Collaboration	3. Academic Inclusion	4. Adaptive Technology Competence	
1. Access to Adaptive Computers			 		
2. Infrastructure and Collaboration	.50				
3. Academic  Inclusion	.58	.43			
4. Adaptive Technology Competence	.46	.36	.15		
Total Scale 	.86	.77	.74	.58	

Table 4

ACCSDS:  Service Provider Version - Correlations of Subscales and Full Scale Score to Criterion 

	Criterion	
Subscales		
 1. Access to Adaptive Computers	.64	
 2. Infrastructure and Collaboration	.20	
 3. Academic Inclusion	.47	
 4. Adaptive Technology Competence	.35	
Total Scale 	.55	

    
Discussion
    
    The findings (a) provide a scale that has demonstrated reliability and validity for the evaluation of campus-based disability service providers’ views about the accessibility of campus computing for students with disabilities; and (b) underscore the concept that good access to campus computing is a matter of having good support systems in place to help computer users, a firm commitment to accommodating special needs of students, and a desire to keep up to date with advances in technology.
    
Meeting the Computer-Related Needs of Students With Disabilities
    The answer to our initial research question, “What are the predictors of how well the computer-related needs of students with disabilities are being met on campus, as perceived by campus-based disability service providers?” is undoubtedly a combination of many variables that have yet to be touched on in this paper or in the literature to date. Nevertheless, the present investigation suggests that the 19 items of the ACCSDS: Service Provider Version measure developed here as well as the four additional items (see Appendix) provide an important part of the answer to this question. Correlations between subscale scores and scores on the criterion variable, “Overall, the computer and/or adaptive computer technology needs of students with disabilities at my institution are adequately met,” suggest that the best predictors of how well the computer-related needs of students with disabilities are met from the vantage point of disability service providers are the concepts embodied in the four subscales: (a) access to adaptive computers, (b) good institutional infrastructure and departmental collaboration, (c) academic inclusion, and (d) competence in adaptive technologies. Indeed, the findings show that institutions scoring in the higher range of meeting computer-related needs of students with disabilities had the following: the best availability of cutting-edge, adaptive computer technologies for students with disabilities; excellent technical support and available expertise regarding adaptive computer technologies; the best available training for student faculty and staff in adaptive computer technologies; inclusive infrastructures; a cooperative administration; accessible teaching and library computer-based teaching materials; and adequate funding for adaptive computer technologies and training.
Uses of the Accessibility of Campus Computing for Students With Disabilities Scale (ACCSDS): Service Provider Version 
    The ACCSDS: Service Provider Version is meant to be completed by campus-based disability service providers. It has been normed on 80% of the Canadian population of campus-based disability service providers. Thus, our sample is truly representative of the geographic, linguistic, and institutional characteristics of the Canadian postsecondary education system. The scale has also been shown to have demonstrated validity and reliability. However, it should be noted that test-retest reliability was not assessed and the sensitivity of the measure has not been evaluated. Also, this measure was developed on a Canadian sample, and it has not been administered to a second sample to provide additional validation. Furthermore, the validity of this measure for other populations has not been assessed. Additional validation of the scale is necessary.
    Nevertheless, the scale has a variety of attractive features. It is one page in length, designed for self-administration by campus-based disability service providers, and available in French and English. Scoring is simple, and requires only the straightforward calculation of five averages. This measure also has the advantage of flexibility due to its “face validity.” Thus, the scale permits item-by-item analysis, if needed, to identify individual areas of perceived strength and weakness. It can both assess modifiable aspects of access to campus computing as well as monitor and evaluate the effects of various efforts to improve access. For example, the measure could be administered at various times while major modifications are made to campus computing infrastructure. Potential uses of the scale include: (a) evaluation of one’s own institution, (b) measuring progress, (c) item-by-item evaluation, (d) comparison with similar institutions, (e) targeting 
areas for improvement, (f) formative evaluation, 
(g) basis for policy documents, (h) basis for institutional changes, and (i) basis for budget allocation.
    As the first step in addressing the evaluation of computer accessibility to students with disabilities in postsecondary education, the ACCSDS: Service Provider Version fills an important void. This measure would, however, benefit from additional validation and norming. Possible research directions include: (a) continued validation by correlating scores from personnel responsible for providing services to students with disabilities with students’ views, (b) additional reliability testing by conducting test-retest assessment, (c) additions to the normative data by providing separate norms by language, size, nature (junior or community college vs. university) and location of institution, (d) new samples, including some from outside of Canada such as the U.S., Great Britain, or Australia, (e) modifications to enable individuals who provide disability-related services to students with disabilities to respond to questions based on accessibility for students with varying types of disabilities (e.g., students who are blind, students with hearing impairments) and, perhaps most important, (f) modifications to enable students with different disabilities to complete the scale. Research in our laboratory is ongoing to address some of these issues.
    
Conclusion
    
    The trend toward increased integration of computer, information, and instructional technologies into the postsecondary curriculum shows no sign of abating in the near future as colleges and universities continue to experiment and to implement different forms of campus computing into their programs (e.g., Green, 2003; Twigg, 2001). Students with disabilities continue to enroll in higher education in record numbers (cf. Fichten, et al., 2003; National Center for Education Statistics, 2001; 2002). In addition, government and other agencies with influence over education are taking a proactive role in terms of informing schools of their obligation to provide education that is accessible to all learners (e.g., Grossman, 2004; Simon & Grossman, 2004). These trends make it vital that the accessibility of campus computing be evaluated and monitored to ensure that students with disabilities are not left behind. 
    The evaluation tool we propose here is a part, but not the whole, solution to the assessment of the accessibility of campus computing. Until a more comprehensive tool is developed, we propose that our measure be used by schools to gain a better understanding as to how they are doing when it comes to one component of ensuring education equity: campus computing accessible to all students. Indeed, the data gathered with the Accessibility of Campus Computing for Students With Disabilities Scale (ACCSDS): Service Provider Version can be used not only to highlight successes but also as a factual basis for improvement plans. 

References

Americans With Disabilities Act, Public Law 101-336. 42 U.S.C. §§12132 & 1282(a). (1990).
Bullock, C. & Ory, J. (2000). Evaluating instructional technology implementation in a higher education environment. American Journal of Evaluation, 21(3), 315–28. 
Burgstahler, S. (1992). Computing services for physically disabled students in post-secondary institutions: Results of a survey in Washington state. Unpublished manuscript. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 
Burgstahler, S. (1993). Computing services for disabled students in institutions of higher education. Dissertation Abstracts International: The Human and Social Sciences, 54 (1), 102-A.
Burris, G. L. (1998). Assistive technology support and strategies – A summary. Unpublished manuscript. Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri, 65804. 
CADSPPE/ACCSEHP. (1999). Towards developing professional standards of service: A report on support for students with disabilities in postsecondary education in Canada. Retrieved October 9, 1999, from http://www.cadsppe.cacuss.ca/english/CADSPPE-Standards/CADSPPE-Standards.html
Coomber, S. (1996). Inclusion: Strategies for accommodating students with disabilities who use adaptive technology in the classroom. Vancouver: Human Resources Development Canada, Disabled Persons Participation Program.
Disability Discrimination Act. (1992). Canberra: Government of Australia.
Disabled students in postsecondary education. (1997). Digest of Education Statistics. Table 211. 
Educause. (2002). Online guide to evaluating information technology on campus. Retrieved November 20, 2002, from http://www.educause.edu/consumerguide/academic.asp# 
Educause. (2004). Student guide to evaluating information technology on campus. (2004). Retrieved September 20, 2004, from http://www.educause.edu/elements/attachments/studentguide/StudentGuide.pdf
Epp, M. A. (1996, Winter). A study of the use of Braille and electronic texts in B.C. colleges and institutes. Braille survey. Unpublished manuscript. Langara College, British Columbia.
Fichten, C. S., Asuncion, J. V., Barile, M., Robillard, C., Fossey, M. E., & Lamb, D. (2003). Canadian postsecondary students with disabilities: Where are they? Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 33(3), 71–114.
Fichten, C. S., Asuncion, J. V., Barile, M. (with the collaboration of Robillard, C., Fossey, M. E., Judd, D., Guimont, J. P., Tam, R., & Lamb, D. and artner epresentatives Généreux, C., Juhel, J. C., Senécal, J., & Wolforth, J.) (2001). Computer and information technologies: Resources for the postsecondary education of students with disabilities - Final report to the Office of Learning Technologies. Hull, Québec, Canada: Office of Learning Technologies. Resources in Education and ERIC Document Reproduction Service (ED 458 733 and EC 308 679). 
Fichten, C. S., Asuncion, J. V., Barile, M., Fossey, M. E., Robillard, C., Judd, D., et al. (2004). Access to information and instructional technologies in higher education I: Disability service providers’ perspective. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 17(2), 114–133.
Fichten, C. S., Robillard, K., Tagalakis, V., & Amsel, R. (1991). Casual interaction between college students with various disabilities and their nondisabled peers: The internal dialogue. Rehabilitation Psychology, 36(1), 3–20.
Green, K. C. (2000). Campus computing, 2000: The 11th national survey of computing and information technology in American higher education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED451744). 
Green, K. C. (2001). Campus computing, 2001: The 12th national survey of computing and information technology in American higher education.  (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED459679).
Green, K.C. (2003). The 2003 campus computing survey. Encino, CA: Kenneth Green/Campus Computing, PO Box 261242, Encino, CA 91426.
Grossman, P. (2004, July). OCR year in review. Presentation at the annual Association on Higher Education And Disability (AHEAD) conference, Miami, FL.
Harler, K. (2000). Supporting the technology-enabled classroom. Journal of Telecommunications in Higher Education, 4(4) 8–11.
High Tech Center Training Unit of the Chancellor’s Office of California Community Colleges. (1999, August). Distance education: Access guidelines for students with disabilities. Retrieved January 2, 2005, from http://www.htctu.net/publications/guidelines/distance_ed/disted.htm
Horn, C. A. & Shell, D. F. (1990). Availability of computer services in postsecondary institutions: Results of a survey of AHSSPPE members. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 8(1), 115–124.
Jackson, K., Morabito, S. M., Prezant, F. P., & Michaels, C. A. (2001, July). The current status of technology on campus for students with disabilities: The DSS perspective. Presentation at the annual Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) conference, Portland, OR.
Kiernan, V. (2002). Technology will reshape research universities dramatically, science-academy report predicts. The Chronicle of Higher Education,  Retrieved November 20, 2002, from http://chronicle.com/free/2002/11/2002110801t.htm
Killean, E. & Hubka, D. (1999, July). Working towards a coordinated national approach to services, accommodations and policies for post-secondary students with disabilities: Ensuring access to higher education and career training. Report to the National Educational Association of Disabled Students. Available from NEADS,  426 Unicentre, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1S 5B6. 
Lance, G. D. (1996). Computer access in higher education: A national survey of service providers for students with disabilities. Journal of College Student Development, 37(3), 279–288.
Michaels, C., Prezant, F., Morabito, S., & Jackson, K. (2001). Assistive and instructional technology for college students with disabilities: A national snapshot of disabled student providers. Journal of Special Ed Technology, 17(1), 5–14. 
National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Disabled students in postsecondary education (1995–96). Digest of Education Statistics, Facts and Figures 2001. Table 212. Retrieved September 21, 2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d01/dt212.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Number and percent of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions, by level, disability status and selected student characteristics: 1999–2000. Digest of Education Statistics. (chap. 3, postsecondary education, Table 211). Retrieved September 20, 2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/tables/dt211.asp
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (1999, October). Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education section 3: Students with disabilities. Retrieved November 5, 2002, from http://www.qaa.ac.uk/public/COP/COPswd/COP_disab.pdf
Simon, J. & Grossman, P. (2004, July). Federal courts year in review. Presentation at the annual Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) conference, Miami, FL.
Twigg, C. A. (2001). Innovations in online learning: Moving beyond no significant difference. New York: Center for Academic Transformation. Retrieved January 23, 2003, from http://www.center.rpi.edu/PewSym/Mono4.pdf

Appendix
Accessibility of Campus Computing For Students With Disabilities Scale (ACCSDS): Service Provider Version

For all questions, rate your level of agreement using the following scale: 

1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Moderately Disagree, 3 = Slightly Disagree, 4 = Slightly Agree, 5 = Moderately Agree, 6 = Strongly Agree

Do not spend too much time on any one statement. Simply give the answer which best describes the general situation. If an item is not applicable to your institution, respond with “N/A”, not applicable.

1. ____  At my institution, computer and/or adaptive computer technologies are sufficiently up‑to‑date to meet the needs of students with disabilities	
2. ____	At my institution, the hours of access to adaptive computer technologies meet the needs of students with disabilities	
3. ____	At my institution, there are enough computers with internet access that also have adaptive hardware/software on them to meet the needs of students with disabilities	
4. ____	The technical support at my institution for students using adaptive computer technologies meets the needs of students with disabilities	
5. ____	The availability of adaptive computer technologies in specialized labs/centres for students with  disabilities at my institution meets their needs	
6. ____	The training provided by my institution on adaptive computer technologies for students with disabilities meets their needs	

7. ____	The physical space available for adaptive computer technologies at my institution meets the needs of students with disabilities	
8. ____	I am (my office/service is) consulted when major campus‑wide computer infrastructure decisions are  made (e.g., purchasing institution‑wide software, web design, adding or improving computer labs)	
9. ____	My institution has an advisory/steering committee which deals with the accessibility of computer  technologies for students with disabilities	
10. ___	The administration reacts positively when I approach them with problems related to the  accessibility of computers on campus for students with disabilities	
11. ___	Personnel who take care of mainstream computers on campus have the expertise to deal with adaptive computer technologies	

12. ___	Accessibility issues are covered when faculty are trained in how to use computer technologies in their courses	
13. ___	The funding for my institution's computer and/or adaptive computer technologies (from my institution, government, programs, agencies, foundations, companies) meets the needs of students with disabilities	
14. ___	The availability of adaptive computer technologies in mainstream computer labs at my institution meets the needs of students with disabilities	
15. ___	The accessibility of computer‑based teaching materials used by professors (e.g., math software, CD‑ROMs, web pages) meets the needs of students with disabilities	
16. ___	The accessibility of the library's computers (e.g., computerized catalogues, databases, CD-ROMs) meets the needs of students with disabilities	

17. ___	There are opportunities for employees of my institution to learn about adaptive computer  technologies	
18. ___	There is a person at my institution who has expertise in adaptive computer technologies (i.e.,  someone who is knowledgeable, keeps up‑to‑date with new products, and fixes hardware and software  problems)	
19. ___	I am knowledgeable about adaptive computer  technologies (e.g., software that enlarges what is on the screen, adapted mouse)	

______	TOTAL SCALE SCORE Average all scores for items 1 through 19

		SUBSCALES

______	Access To Adaptive Computers Subscale Scoring Average scores from items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and, 6
______	Infrastructure And Collaboration Subscale Scoring Average scores from items 7, 8, 9, 10 and, 11
______	Academic Inclusion Subscale Scoring Average scores from items 12, 13, 14, 15 and, 16
______	Adaptive Technology Competence Subscale Scoring Average scores from items 17, 18 and, 19

EXTRA ITEMS

20. ___	My school’s loan program of computer and/or adaptive computer technologies for off-campus use meets the needs of students with disabilities
21. ___	The accessibility of my institution’s internet-based distance education courses meets the needs of students with disabilities	
22. ___	I have the sense that rehabilitation centres, programs, agencies, or companies that supply computer and/or adaptive computer technologies to students with disabilities provide appropriate software/hardware	
23. ___	I have the sense that students with disabilities have received adequate training in using computer and/or adaptive computer technologies from rehabilitation centres, programs, agencies, companies, etc.

 
Postsecondary Disability Service Providers’ Perceptions About Implementing Universal Design for Instruction (UDI) 

Priscilla B. Embry
David R. Parker
Joan M. McGuire
Sally S. Scott

University of Connecticut
    
Abstract
    
     Sixteen disability service providers from 2-year and 4-year public and private postsecondary institutions were divided into 2 focus groups, each with 8 participants. When asked to share their perspectives on the implementation of Universal Design for Instruction (UDI) on their campus, service providers described strengths and weaknesses of UDI, potential changes to their current roles and responsibilities, and support structures they would need to promote the adoption of UDI on their campuses. Participants’ comments reflected detailed knowledge about successful change agentry at the institutional level.
    
    Postsecondary disability service providers are directly involved in promoting equal access to educational opportunities for students with disabilities. To achieve this goal, service providers perform multiple roles including the administration of disability programs, the provision of accommodations and services to students, and consultation and collaboration with campus personnel such as faculty members and administrators (Shaw, McGuire, & Madaus, 1997). Due to these interactions with multiple members of the campus community, disability service providers occupy a unique ecological niche in the complex environment of postsecondary educational institutions. Consequently, they can offer important insights regarding innovative approaches to inclusive instructional practices in postsecondary education.
    This study was designed to gather information about the perceptions of disability service providers regarding Universal Design for Instruction (UDI), as a faculty-based approach to enhanced access to learning through the use of inclusive teaching practices (Scott, McGuire, & Foley, 2003). UDI offers an innovative way of thinking about inclusion in the postsecondary educational environment. Traditional approaches to accommodation involve removing barriers embedded in instructional spaces or removing practices after a student with a disability formally identifies a need to do so. Conversely, UDI offers a set of flexible principles that instructors can use to anticipate diverse learning needs. UDI differs from traditional thinking about accommodating diversity in the college classroom because it “consists of the proactive design and use of inclusive instructional strategies that benefit a broad range of learners including students with disabilities” (Scott, McGuire, & Embry, 2002).  
    In this exploratory study two focus groups, each with eight participants, were conducted with a total of sixteen disability service providers. The goal of the study was to develop a better understanding of service providers’ perceptions about factors associated with the implementation of UDI on their particular campuses. A qualitative research method was chosen in order to study the beliefs of the sixteen participants. Qualitative research methods that produce in-depth data, including focus group interviews, assist in the exploration of perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs. Focus groups allow participants to contribute information in a group discussion, which produces richer and more comprehensive data than could be developed in an individual interview or through a quantitative method such as a survey (Brodigan, 1992).
      
Background of the study
    
    The growing diversity of the college student population has influenced thinking about the importance of teaching in higher education (Boyer, 1990; Lazerson, Wagener, & Shumanis, 2000). The college student population has become more diverse as students from traditionally underrepresented groups, including students with disabilities, have enrolled in increasing numbers. The largest growth category among college students with disabilities is comprised of students with cognitive disabilities, including LD (Henderson, 2001) and ADHD (Byron & Parker, 2002; Quinn & McCormick, 1998; Wolf, 2001). An increasingly diverse student population challenges faculty who embrace the scholarship of teaching to seek ways to broaden access to learning within their discipline.  In a cross-disciplinary pollination of ideas, UDI is grounded in theory and experiential knowledge from an innovative and inclusive approach to providing access to the physical environment in the fields of architecture and product design.
     
Universal Design:  Designing for diversity in the physical environment
    The primary theoretical foundation of UDI is Universal Design (UD), a concept that includes seven principles that can expand physical access for people with a broad range of needs (The Center for Universal Design, 1997; see Appendix A).  Architects and designers were challenged to solve design problems by removing barriers that prevented access by users with physical or sensory disabilities. Prior to the advent of UD, typical solutions involved adaptations that were “retrofitted” to an existing design or structure.  A common example involved adding a ramp to an entrance previously accessible only by stairs.
    The use of the word “universal” in the term “UD” refers to proactive design that maximizes the number of people who can use the product or environment. UD anticipates diversity in the population that interacts with products and environments. Although UD was a response to the needs of individuals with physical disabilities, architects and designers realized that inclusive design features benefited many diverse users (The Center for Universal Design, 1997). An example is a curb cut in a sidewalk, which benefits a parent pushing a stroller, an employee with a hand truck, and a shopper using a wheelchair. Environments and products that are created by applying the Principles of UD © can be used by a broad range of people (Follette Story, Mueller, & Mace, 1998).
    
UDI: Designing for diversity in the postsecondary instructional environment 
    Access to postsecondary educational programs for qualified students with disabilities is often provided through individual adjustments to regular class procedures. Silver, Bourke and Strehorn (1998) introduced the idea of providing access to higher education for diverse learners through applying the concept of Universal Design (UD) to instruction, noting that some faculty already consider diverse learning needs when planning instruction. Application of the principles of UD to college instruction has been further explored through the research base and construct validation process for UDI, an emerging construct that is grounded in the literature on UD, effective instruction in higher education, and effective instruction in both secondary and postsecondary settings with students who have cognitive disabilities (Scott, McGuire, & Foley, 2003). A brief summary of the literature base and construct validation process for the emerging construct of UDI is included here to provide a context for the current study pertaining to the perceptions of disability service providers regarding UDI. A comprehensive description of the research base and construct validation process for UDI is available elsewhere (see Scott, McGuire, and Foley, 2003). 
    In an exploration of the comparison between accessible architectural design and accessible instruction, a review of the literature was conducted involving the areas of UD, effective instruction in higher education, and effective instruction in both secondary and postsecondary settings with students who have learning and other cognitive disabilities. The area of learning disabilities was included because the term represents a broad range of learning and cognitive disabilities with implications for learning and teaching. The method of review incorporated comprehensive searches of ERIC and PsychINFO data bases as well as the ancestral examination of reference lists. Faculty with national reputations of expertise in the following areas were consulted to identify additional resources or gaps in the search: instruction at the postsecondary and K-12 levels; learning disabilities; instruction of diverse learners including college students with learning disabilities; and provision of postsecondary disability services. 
    As a result of the extensive search process, select references emerged as seminal resources in each of the related topics. (See Scott, McGuire, & Foley, 2003 for a discussion of this process.) In the area of effective instruction in higher education, Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education is widely cited as an authoritative source. In the area of effective instruction for students with cognitive disabilities in secondary settings, a substantial volume of research was reviewed. Of particular significance to the development of UDI is the extensive research on instructional strategies conducted by Kameenui and Carnine and colleagues of the National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators (NCITE), leading to the development of six universal access principles for designing curriculum (Kameenui & Carnine, 1998).  The work of The Center on Applied Special Technology (CAST) reflects a relatively long history focused on making the curriculum accessible to all students at the K-12 level (Orkwis & McLane, 1998). The work of CAST, with recent expansion to applications in the postsecondary environment, is structured by three essential qualities of Universal Design for Learning, (Center for Applied Special Technology, 2002). 
    These seminal sources related to effective and inclusive instruction and Universal Design were examined simultaneously. With the goal of building on the existing knowledge base of research in diverse disciplines, areas of overlap were identified, as well as areas where gaps existed. The diverse literature sources were found to be remarkably compatible.   Universal Design was identified as a fundamental construct providing the theoretical foundation for the development of UDI  The work of Chickering and Gamson (1987), Kameenui and Carnine (1998) and CAST (2002) were each examined to inform and broaden the application of UD to instructional practices (see Appendix B).  As a result of this process, nine principles of UDI © were delineated. Seven of the principles are intentionally designed to closely correspond with the original principles of UD, reflecting this theoretical grounding. Two additional principles, “A Community of Learners” and “Instructional Climate,” were incorporated to reflect design considerations that are unique to the literature on effective instruction (McGuire, Scott, & Shaw, 2003). Further review of the principles for content and wording was conducted by a range of experts and practitioners in higher education. When their feedback was incorporated, the principles underwent further review by the Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State University, for feedback on “goodness of fit” with the original seven principles of UD . The resulting Principles of UDI  may be found in Appendix C.   
    As an emerging theoretical model, UDI is designed to promote inclusive instruction in postsecondary education. The extent to which it can be observed to do so will provide necessary construct validation (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996). The ongoing construct validation process has also incorporated research on the perceptions of postsecondary students with LD and university faculty members who have been honored for effective teaching (Madaus, Scott, & McGuire, 2002a, 2002b).  The current study of service providers’ perceptions about UDI will contribute to this critical review and growing validation process. The expertise of service providers in understanding disability in the postsecondary environment through their collaboration with students, faculty members, and administrators is relevant to understanding UDI and its implications for these constituent groups. In a survey of 214 disability service directors drawn from varied regions of the U.S. across a range of institutional types, respondents indicated their concern about the need for faculty training in responding to students with disabilities and their belief that administrative support would be important in carrying out the training (Salzberg, Peterson, Debrand, Blair, Carsey, & Johnson, 2002). These findings highlight the need to understand the potential barriers that service providers may encounter and the supports they may need in their campus-wide efforts to implement new practices such as UDI. Consequently, the research questions for the study were:
    1.    What are the perceptions of postsecondary disability service providers about the strengths and weaknesses of UDI as an approach to faculty development that will enhance inclusive teaching?  
    2.    What are the perceptions of postsecondary disability service providers about their role in promoting UDI as a campus initiative? 
    3.    What are the perceptions of postsecondary disability service providers about the supports that would be needed by Offices for Students with Disabilities (OSD) to implement UDI as a means of faculty development? 
    
Method
    
Participants
    Sixteen disability service providers participated. Two focus groups were formed, each involving eight participants. Demographic data were obtained from all participants. There were 3 males and 13 females.  Their years of experience in the field of disability services ranged from 2.5 years to 31 years. Four participants worked in public 4-year institutions of higher education, 5 worked in private 4-year institutions, and 7 worked in public 2-year institutions. Fifteen of the campuses were in the U.S., and one was in Canada. 
    
Procedure
    The focus group method of research was chosen because it allows researchers to collect data on participants’ perceptions and beliefs about complex experiences and issues (Carey, 1994). Members of the UDI project team of researchers from the Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability at the University of Connecticut developed a protocol to elicit answers to the research questions (see Appendix D). As a starting point for generating discussion, protocol questions focused on participants’ experiences with students with LD/ADHD. The open-ended question format allowed for wider discussion, however, of students with a wide range of disabilities. Establishing trust is an important element in the implementation of focus group research (Carey, 1994). This goal was addressed by the initial protocol question, which prompted participants to identify questions faculty members frequently ask about teaching students with LD and/or ADHD.  Subsequent protocol items were designed to collect data about the research questions.  
    UDI project team members recruited participants from disability service providers who attended a major professional development institute held in New England in 2002.  Interest in participating may have been enhanced by the conference’s keynote presentation about UDI.  All 16 participants attended the keynote presentation and thus were exposed to the construct of UDI before the focus group sessions began. The keynote presenters described the process of literature searches regarding postsecondary instruction as well as effective instructional strategies for students with LD at the postsecondary and secondary levels.  They then elaborated on the process used to develop the “Nine Principles of UDI .” The keynote address also suggested ways that instructors might use the Principles to design more inclusive instruction, the ongoing process of construct validation, and the major activities of the Universal Design for Instruction Project. 
    In addition to eight participants, each of the focus groups included a UDI project team member who served as the facilitator. Participants gave permission for the focus group discussion to be audio taped. Two other project team members were present in order to keep written and audio taped records of the discussion, but they did not participate in the dialogue. 
    Audiotapes of the focus group sessions were transcribed for analysis, producing a rich data stream that is associated with a verifiable analysis (Krueger & Casey, 2000). Transcripts of the focus group sessions were analyzed and coded separately by two of the project team members who were present at both sessions. Results of their analysis were compared to identify coding decisions that were incongruent. Code definitions then were refined in a multi-step process until 100% congruence was reached. The process used in reaching coding decisions was documented in a research log as the data were analyzed. A codebook was developed containing the codes used for transcript analysis, the definition for each code, and all focus group comments that exemplified each code.
    In order to enhance the reliability of the analysis of focus group data, the research team then applied a multistep interrater reliability process to the coding procedure. Analysis procedures that are systematic and sequential help ensure that the findings are an accurate reflection of what participants said in the group (Krueger & Casey, 2000). A third member of the UDI project team coded the transcript of one focus group session to identify any remaining ambiguities in the codebook. Based upon this process the codebook was further refined. The inter-rater reliability process was completed when the third member’s coding of the remaining focus group session transcript resulted in an inter-rater reliability rate of 91%.    
    
Results
    
    An overview of disability service providers’ responses to focus group protocol questions follows with illustrative responses from participants included for each question. 
    
Strengths and weaknesses of UDI
     Strengths. Service providers believed that UDI offered benefits congruent with existing goals and interests of their institutions, faculty, students, and the disability service provider’s role. Several described UDI’s ability to assist the institution in attracting and retaining a diverse student body. One participant stated:
    I like the idea of, especially with campuses that talk about cultural diversity, the way to approach UDI as a kind of cultural phenomenon, in that if you want to reach students in the classroom right now, all students are not the same. Especially now, there are growing differences everyday, so many cultures. And disability is one of those cultures. 
    Another participant described UDI as a useful approach for faculty at an institution experiencing increased enrollment of students from a non-Western culture, noting that, “guided notes, using Power Point, all of those things, not going off on tangents all of the time, are really something that all students could benefit from, not just our English-as-a-second-language (ESL) students or our students with various disabilities.”  Several service providers described faculty members’ desires to provide effective instruction as a strong reason for adopting UDI. As one focus group member commented, “I think if professors were able to reach out to their entire class, they may get more satisfaction out of their teaching.” Another noted that faculty would be interested in UDI’s empirical foundation, adding that, “with the UDI coming in, it’s coming from faculty and they’re going to respect that a little more than they are from me.”  
    Service providers also identified students’ needs that could be met by UDI. Several discussed the normalizing effect of UDI. As one said, “I think the obvious [strength of UDI] is certainly the breakdown of the stigmas associated with the disabilities.” Another participant linked diverse instructional methods to diverse learning styles, adding, “students are unhappy with a one-model approach.  Straight lecture is not cutting it and they become savvy consumers.”  In addition to these benefits relevant to students, one participant associated the “intuitive” nature of UDI with her own approach to working with students in her role as a disability service provider.
     
     Weaknesses.  Participants described six categories of weaknesses related to UDI.  Many of these perceived limitations centered upon the need to make changes to current knowledge, behaviors, or resources. Identified weaknesses included faculty resistance, training issues, technology, students, service providers’ lack of expertise, and the lack of a legal mandate.  Several participants described faculty members’ reluctance to replace current, accepted practice with a new instructional approach that is still being grounded in empirical support. One service provider imagined the following exchange with professors: “What’s the evidence that you can show me that says this is going to work?’ Right now, they don’t have that. Hopefully, in the future, they will.” Several service providers identified the difficulty in training non-tenure-track instructors, including adjunct faculty, part time instructors and graduate teaching assistants, due to the transient nature of these positions. One participant commented:
    
“We have a large number of adjunct faculty. We have twice as many adjunct faculty as we do regular faculty. It is very hard for me even to get testing back and forth sometimes. So they are not being paid to spend any extra time here. A lot of them have other jobs and getting them trained is a difficulty I see.”
    
    In describing the issue of providing training for adjunct faculty, another participant stated, “There is no time in their involvement with the college to do any kind of training. They’re here, they teach, they leave.” One service provider identified the lack of classroom technology as another weakness, noting, “There are classrooms that have everything right there, but the university doesn’t have the money to have the laptop and the projector, so that takes away the PowerPoint presentation.” Two service providers commented that UDI could adversely affect students by limiting their need to develop self-advocacy skills and by exposing them to some instructors who embrace UDI and some who do not. As one participant from a community college stated:
    
“I know when I have students, I put them through an exercise, how to become proactive, how to talk about their learning style.  And I don’t think that they would have as much of an opportunity to be as proactive in their own education at this point.”
    
    One service provider identified lack of expertise in college teaching as another weakness. As she noted, “The other issue, too, is the whole issue of staff versus faculty politics of an institution. Me as the staff person, I don’t necessarily feel I could talk to a whole group of faculty about this.” Finally, several service providers identified the legal mandate to provide accommodations as an important source of decision-making authority. Conversely, they identified the lack of a legal mandate for UDI as a weakness when considering its implementation. As one service provider stated, “I think with disability, even though my main mantra is to educate faculty, I always have in my back pocket, ‘This is the law.’”    
     Hypothetical situations. Several participants described hypothetical situations, employing “if…then” grammatical constructions in their statements, to identify variables that could influence the adoption of UDI on their campuses. As one service provider, discussing the importance of engaging a faculty audience with an effective presentation about UDI, phrased it, “If you could get them [faculty] to buy in to it, they would realize that they’re not teaching to a classroom of the same students. Whether they have a disability or not, they’re individual learners.” These hypothetical situation statements included the need to build collaborative relationships with faculty, presenting UDI in a convincing manner, addressing faculty’s concerns about workload and class size, the role of campus type in determining the amount of time service providers had to help student develop self-advocacy skills, and the manner in which faculty create curriculum. Most comments in this category underscored the central importance of a collaborative relationship between service providers and faculty in the acceptance of UDI. As one service provider stated, “I think, again, how it’s [UDI] presented makes a huge difference to the faculty…it’s a great deal in the presentation and the relationship that is developed.  
      
Service providers’ role in promoting UDI
    Participants were asked to describe roles that they could undertake to promote UDI.  Their responses clustered into three categories, including the need for administrative support in promoting UDI, the service provider’s role in promoting UDI, and changes in the service provider’s role in a campus environment characterized by UDI.
     Need for support. In many cases, participants expressed the belief that strong administrative leadership would be essential to their efforts to promote UDI. One participant stated: 
    
“It could not come from my office. I think all credibility would be lost if it came from my office…because then it would be seen as an accommodation, again, for students with disabilities. It would not be seen as the Universal Design that it truly is.”
    
     Service providers’ roles. Several service providers described providing information to influential campus leaders as a way to promote the acceptance of UDI. As one participant noted, “I would take this back to the retention committee, and they could take that to the faculty, the faculty council in our case.” Several service providers also described providing data collection services and support to faculty. One participant stated, “Because in our job we are putting together strategies…and we can help professors apply their information to those strategies. We may not be the content experts, but we have that expertise that they might not have.” Another stated, “We could be the source of research or the source of data collection and how that would be beneficial.” Service providers also identified experiences that would be relevant to their role in promoting UDI on their campus. One service provider described the relevance of UDI to an interaction she had shared with a professor:

“[UDI would entail] less work for him, because his whole thing to me was, “I have 250 students in x number of classes, in each of my classes, and I can’t do this and such for this one particular student.” So it would be not having to make individual accommodations.”
    
    Another service provider described working in an environment of increasing diversity at her institution and how this change in student demographics could be used to promote UDI: 
    
“Our population of our institution is increasing…we will get more nontraditional students…I think this is going to be a research question.  What are you projecting, what do you see your school doing in 5 or 10 years, a curriculum change, to include or incorporate everybody into your classroom?”
    
     Changes in service providers’ roles. The focus group participants also described changes to their role as disability service providers if UDI were implemented on their campus. Service providers predicted positive changes in their daily responsibilities, positive changes in their status within the campus community, or no major changes at all.  
    Many participants predicted that the implementation of UDI on their campus would lead to positive changes in their day-to-day responsibilities. Responses about positive change were grouped into four categories including accommodations, proactive practices, record keeping, and strategies instruction. Most of the comments depicted UDI as an effective method for accommodating students while affording service providers additional time to pursue non-mandated responsibilities such as strategies instruction. One service provider immediately identified a fiscal benefit related to accommodations, noting that UDI would “lessen my budget…We pay notetakers $50 an hour…That wouldn’t be necessary. That would be quite a savings.” Another participant identified a proactive practice, anticipating that UDI would provide “more time for data collection on things that do work and look at ways to improve programs. We don’t always get time to do that because we are always sticking our fingers in holes of a dike…” One participant reflected on changes in record keeping if more students were accommodated in the UDI classroom, commenting, “I think it would change my job to be more of just a paper pusher. Documentation; maintaining the records possibly.” Another service provider envisioned changes in the effectiveness of the strategies instruction she currently provides:  
    So when you are actually sitting down with that student to provide the support, the information is there and because it is coming from possibly just the professor directly or it was verbatim the lecture, you’re able to help that student instead of trying to find what they are getting at in their notes or following the notetaker’s notes.
    In addition to changes in daily responsibilities, service providers also predicted that UDI would change their status on campus. Comments were categorized as changes in how others would view service providers or changes in how service providers would view themselves. Several service providers thought UDI would change how campus colleagues regard them. As one participant said:
    
“It depends on the stance we take.  If we take an active stance, then I think you will see professors coming to you in a new role that’s more proactive, rather than dike-filling. So they’ll be looking for that type of leadership.”
     
    Another participant predicted that UDI would lead to greater acceptance of the work done by disability service providers, commenting:
    
“I also think that perhaps my services would be more accepted, because one thing that I have seen about universal design is that this design not only helps disabled students but also helps students with non-disabilities, because they need to access the same stuff…People wouldn’t look at me like I am advocating more for something as totally way out of the realm than what you would do for any other student.”
    
    Several service providers also predicted that UDI would change how they view their status. Comments focused on a newly collaborative partnership with campus colleagues. As one participant said, “We are all on the same team rather than the disability office saying, ‘You have to do this, you have to do this’ and the other folks resisting.” 
    Participants predicted that minimal changes to the operation of their offices would result from the implementation of UDI on their campus. Several participants commented that disability service providers would still need to keep track of documentation and provide some accommodations even after faculty members adopted UDI. A participant stated:
    
“I don’t see any major changes. You are still going to have to identify where the problems are and how people address those problems and still doing the documentation process and all. I think there might be a little less accommodating that needs to be done because issues will be addressed in the classroom.”
    
    Another participant predicted the continuing need to provide accommodations and offer study strategies even after the widespread implementation of UDI, stating:
“UDI is not the, like, the panacea for everything. I think it would go a long way in reducing the need for accommodations if time was not an issue to faculty and every student had as much time as they needed, or some parameter of time.  But, still, there is always going to be the need for strategies because the faculty member is still trained not to teach, but to know his content areas.”
    
    With administrative support for the implementation of UDI, service providers believed they could work more collaboratively with faculty to help all students learn, while continuing to provide strategies instruction and accommodations for students with disabilities.
    
Supports needed by Service providers to Promote UDI
    Service providers’ statements about the need for support in promoting UDI clustered into three categories, including the need for more information about UDI, the need for support from campus leaders and influential campus groups, and the ability to influence mechanisms that promote institutional change. 
     Need for more information about UDI. Several service providers expressed a need for additional information, including research about UDI.  One service provider stated, “I would have to find out a lot more about UDI because I don’t know that much about it.” Several service providers mentioned needing data about the efficacy of UDI, using statements such as “empirical evidence that it works,” “You can’t argue with numbers,” and “Here is proof positive that under implementation this is successful.” One participant described the kind of data that she believed would be most helpful in implementing UDI, using the statement, “Retention is improved, grades go up.” Another participant stated that it would be helpful to know “where it is being used now.”  Participants also expressed the need for more information about the role of technology in implementing UDI. One participant questioned another focus group member’s belief about the necessity of expensive technology as a precursor to UDI, commenting, “I didn’t know, I didn’t assume that at all.  I am thinking of making sure there is a diversity of approach in the way that the material is presented.”  
     Need for support from campus leaders. A majority of service providers identified strong endorsements from influential campus leaders as the primary form of support they would need.  As one participant stated, “I would have to find out who has the ear of the faculty, who are the people the faculty really listen to on the campus.” Participants identified individuals and groups that could provide this type of leadership. The individuals included campus administrators such as the president or chancellor and academic leaders such as a vice president for academic affairs, provost, division coordinators, deans, and particular professors. Describing the efficacy of promoting UDI to the provost on her campus, one participant stated, “He is very supportive of our services, but also of diversity on campus. I think he would be pretty powerful.” Participants also identified groups that could promote UDI, including a Center for Teaching and Learning, the faculty union, the faculty senate, the ADA committee, and the retention committee. In a statement about needing support from division coordinators in order to promote UDI on her campus, a participant said they “would need to be really sold on it” in order to persuade the faculty to implement UDI.
     Need for ability to influence institutional change. Participants also described campus-wide mechanisms that could be utilized to promote UDI, including a “chain of command” sequence. One service provider described a top-down process that could begin if the institution’s president: “If he were to say, ‘This is a great idea,’ and go to the vice president of academic affairs and say, ‘Get the deans together, get the department chair people together, and this is what we would like to try to go towards.’” Another service provider stated, “I may be able to build a relationship one-on-one with a lot of individual faculty and then those faculty will go on to their departments and kind of spread the word.” One participant described the need to obtain support for UDI from the faculty senate on her campus, stating, “It would have to be the group, the faculty senate, that would think it was important. They would pressure the dean and the president to implement it.” Incentives were also mentioned as a means of promoting UDI. One participant pointed out, “I think maybe some sort of endorsement is needed, I don’t know what that may be, maybe some sort of, I don’t know if it would be honor or monetary, whatever to make it a positive thing.”

Discussion
    
    UDI entails a significant change in institutional efforts to provide equal access to education. Sixteen postsecondary disability service providers who participated in two focus groups provided their perspectives about the implementation of UDI, described their roles and responsibilities within campuses that embraced UDI, and described the institutional supports they would need to advocate for the adoption of UDI. 
    This study’s first research question asked what the perceptions of postsecondary disability service providers were concerning the strengths and weakness of UDI. Among the strengths of UDI identified by the participants were enhanced recruitment and retention of a diverse student body, provision of effective instruction to all students, empirical support for the scholarship of university teaching, and the reduction of stigmas associated with disabilities. Participants believed that these strengths were congruent with institutional, faculty, and student priorities, which is an important consideration when disability access policies are considered. Brinckerhoff et al. (2002) noted that institutional priorities must be taken into account if a service provider is to be an effective advocate for change. Participants also described potential weaknesses of UDI, including faculty resistance, training issues, technology requirements, limited student self-advocacy opportunities, service providers’ lack of expertise in instruction, and lack of a legal mandate to implement UDI. A source of faculty resistance at research institutions may be found in a faculty reward system that values research over teaching. As Lazerson et al. (2000, p. 19) stated, “The efforts to change teaching and improve learning are essentially battles over institutional values, rewards and behavior”. 
    The second research question focused on the perceptions of postsecondary disability service providers about their role in promoting UDI as a campus initiative and whether UDI would alter their current responsibilities. Participants identified a variety of roles they could assume to promote UDI, including disseminating information to influential campus leaders, offering data collection services and support to faculty members who utilized UDI, and inviting faculty grappling with less time to consider UDI’s ability to efficiently accommodate increasingly diverse learners. Focus group participants recognized that faculty instructional skills are valued differently, depending on campus culture and academic discipline. This finding is in keeping with research on faculty attitudes towards instruction in higher education (Gaff & Wilson, 1975; Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Finkelstein, Seal & Shuster, 1998; Shulman, 2002). In describing how they could manage the process of using UDI to enhance institutional access to students with disabilities, participants reflected the professional role of change agentry espoused by Shaw (1997). If UDI did result in a reduction of the need for individual accommodations on their campuses, participants envisioned having more time to provide nonmandated services such as data collection, and changes in their time spent documenting the accommodations received by students. 
    The third research question concerned participants’ perceptions about the supports service providers would need to influence the wider adoption of UDI on their campuses.  Salzberg, et al. (2002) found that disability service directors identified administrative support as critical to their efforts to train faculty about accommodations issues. Similarly, participants in this study stated that they would need support from campus leaders and influential campus groups to implement UDI. At the same time, service providers identified a need for more knowledge about UDI, including the extent to which instructional technology is a required component and what the emerging research suggests about the efficacy of UDI. 
    Interviewing participants within focus groups produces a particular type of data, emphasizing depth rather than breadth. An in-depth record of the perceptions of focus group participants is useful in describing new areas of inquiry such as UDI and provides insights into issues and perceptions that may be present for the general population of disability service providers. This study offers a specific set of observations expressed in the participants’ own words. However, in keeping with qualitative methodology, the use of a purposive sample and a focus on rich descriptive information fomr a small number of participants precludes the ability to generalize results beyond this group of participants.
    These disability service providers offer important insights into current and future needs for successfully implementing the principles of UDI in higher education. A direction for future research might include studies of disability service providers’ perceived needs in assuming a more collaborative role with faculty in a UDI campus environment. If disability service providers are to be able to work more collaboratively with faculty, learning centers, and academic deans to enhance instructional access, opportunities for professional development will be important. Novice disability service providers might especially value training opportunities emphasizing the development of these skills. Focus group members described data collection as a potential role they could assume to promote UDI. Another important direction for future research is to identify the skills that disability service providers would find essential to this new or expanded role. Focus group members also identified learning strategies as one of their areas of expertise and described faculty as the content experts. What technological supports would assist disability service providers in their role of sharing knowledge about learning strategies with interested faculty?
    As an emerging approach to providing more inclusive instruction, UDI is being built through implementation and research in postsecondary settings. In the cyclical process of developing, researching, and refining inclusive instructional practices; the perceptions and expertise of key stakeholders, including students with disabilities, administrators, postsecondary disability service providers, and exemplary faculty play an important role. Research that focuses on student learning outcomes will be particularly useful to developing this understanding. As this approach to inclusive instruction continues to take root among college faculty interested in improving instruction for diverse learners, disability service providers will play an essential leadership role in enabling and nurturing the systemic change that is the vision of a truly inclusive instructional environment. 
    
References
    
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brinckerhoff, L. C., McGuire, J. M., & Shaw, S. F. (2002). Postsecondary education and transition for students with learning disabilities (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Brodigan, D. L. (1992). Focus group interviews: Applications for institutional research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED342 325).
Byron, J., & Parker, D. R. (2002). College students with ADHD:  New challenges and directions. In L. C. Brinckerhoff, J. M. McGuire, & S. F. Shaw (Eds.), Postsecondary education and transition for students with learning disabilities (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Carey, M. A. (1994). The group effect in focus groups: Planning, implementing, and interpreting focus group research. In J. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Center for Applied Special Technology. (1999). Universal Design for learning. Retrieved June 24, 2004, from http://www.cast.org/udl/
Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987, March). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 3–7.
Finkelstein, M. J., Seal, R. K., & Schuster, J. H. (1998). The new academic generation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 
Follette Story, M., Mueller, J. L., & Mace, R. L. (1998). The Universal Design file: Designing for people of all ages and abilities. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University, The Center for Universal Design. Retrieved May 16, 2004, from http://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/pubs/center/books/ud_file/toc3b14.htm
Gaff, J. G., & Wilson, R. C. (1975). Faculty impact on students. In College professors and their impact on students, by R. C. Wilson, J. G. Gaff, E. R. Dienst, L. Wood, and J. L. Bavry. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman. 
Henderson, C. (2001). College freshmen with disabilities: A biennial statistical profile. Washington, DC:  American Council on Education. 
Kameenui, E., & Carnine, D. (1998). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.  
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lazerson, M., Wagener, U., & Shumanis, N. (2000, May/June). Teaching and learning in higher education, 1980–2000. Change, 13–19.
Madaus, J. W., Scott, S. S., & McGuire, J. M. (2002a). Addressing student diversity in the classroom: The approaches of outstanding university professors (Tech. Rep. No. 02). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability.
Madaus, J. W., Scott, S. S., & McGuire, J. M. (2002b). Barriers and bridges to learning as perceived by postsecondary students with learning disabilities (Tech. Rep. No. 01).  Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability.
McGuire, J. M., & Scott, S. S. (2002). Universal Design for instruction: A promising new paradigm for higher education. Perspectives, 28(2), 27–29. 
McGuire, J. M., Scott, S. S., & Shaw, S. F. (2003) Universal Design for instruction: The paradigm, its principles, and products for enhancing instructional access. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 17,(1), 10–20.
Orkwis, R., & McLane, K. (1998). A curriculum every student can use: Design principles for student access. ERIC/OSEP Topical Brief. Reston, VA: Office of Special Education Programs, U. S. Department of Education. 
Quinn, P., & McCormick, A. (1998). Re-thinking AD/HD: A guide to fostering successin students with AD/HD at the college level. Bethesda, MD: Advantage Books.
Salzberg, C. L., Peterson, L., Debrand, C. C., Blair, R. J., Carsey, A. C., and Johnson, A. S. (2002). Opinions of disability service directors on faculty training: The need, content, issues, formats, media, and activities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 15,(2), 101–114. 
Scott, S. S., McGuire, J. M., & Embry, P. (2002). Universal Design for instruction fact sheet. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability. 
Scott, S. S., McGuire, J. M., & Foley, T. E. (2003). Universal Design for instruction: A     framework for anticipating and responding to disability and other diverse learning     needs in the college classroom. Equity and Excellence in Education, 36, 40–49.
Scott, S. S., McGuire, J. M., & Shaw, S. F. (2001). Principles of Universal Design for instruction. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability.
Shaw, S. F. (1997). The role of postsecondary disability personnel: Not advocate or institutional gatekeeper but professional. Postsecondary Disability Network News, 31, 1–2, 9.
Shaw, S. F., McGuire, J. M., & Madaus, J. W. (1997). Standards of professional practice. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 12(3), 26–35.
Shulman, L. S. (2002). Making differences: A table of learning. Change, 34(6), p. 36–44.
Silver, P., Bourke, A., & Strehorn, K. (1998). Universal instructional design in higher education: An approach for inclusion. Equity and Excellence in Higher Education, 31(2), 47–51.
The Center for Universal Design. (1997). Principles of Universal Design version 2.0. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University, The Center for Universal Design. Retrieved June 24, 2004, from http://www.design.ncsu.edu:8120/cud/univ_design/princ_overview.htm
The Center for Universal Design, (1997). Environments and products for all people. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University, The Center for Universal Design. Retrieved June 24, 2004, from http://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/index.html
Wolf, L. E. (2001). College students with ADHD and other hidden disabilities: Outcomes and interventions. Annals of The New York Academy of Sciences, 931, 385–395.
Yost, D. S., Shaw, S. F., Cullen, J. P., & Bigaj, S. J. (1994). Practices and attitudes of postsecondary LD service providers in North America. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 631–640.

Appendix A
The Principles of Universal Design
Copyright 1997 NC State University, The Center for Universal Design 
UNIVERSAL DESIGN:  The design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design.

Compiled by advocates of Universal Design, listed in alphabetical order: Bettye Rose Connell, Mike Jones, Ron Mace, Jim Mueller, Abir Mullick, Elaine Ostroff, Jon Sanford, Ed Steinfeld, Molly Story, and Greg Vanderheiden. The authors, a working group of architects, product designers, engineers and environmental design researchers, collaborated to establish the following Principles of Universal Design to guide a wide range of design disciplines including environments, products, and communications. These seven principles may be applied to evaluate existing designs, guide the design process and educate both designers and consumers about the characteristics of more usable products and environments. 

PRINCIPLE ONE: Equitable Use
The design is useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities.

 PRINCIPLE TWO: Flexibility in Use
The design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities.

 PRINCIPLE THREE: Simple and Intuitive Use
Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of the user's experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level.

 PRINCIPLE FOUR: Perceptible Information
The design communicates necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user's sensory abilities.

 PRINCIPLE FIVE: Tolerance for Error
The design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental or unintended actions.

PRINCIPLE SIX: Low Physical Effort
The design can be used efficiently and comfortably and with a minimum of fatigue.

PRINCIPLE SEVEN: Size and Space for Approach and Use
Appropriate size and space is provided for approach, reach, manipulation, and use regardless of user's body size, posture, or mobility.

Appendix B
Three Additional Resources Referenced in the Development of the Principles of UDI

Resource 1 	Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education (Chickering & Gamson, 1987)

1. Encourages contacts between students and faculty.
2. Develops reciprocity and cooperation among students.
3. Uses active learning techniques.
4. Gives prompt feedback.
5. Emphasizes time on task.
6. Communicates high expectations.
7. Respects diverse talents and ways of learning.

Resource 2 	Universal Access Principles for Designing Curriculum (Kameenui & Carnine, 1998)

1. Big Ideas – Concepts, principles or heuristics that facilitate the most efficient and broad acquisitions of knowledge
2. Conspicuous Strategies – Useful steps for accomplishing a goal or task
3. .Mediated Scaffolding – Instructional guidance provided by teachers, peers, materials, or tasks
4. Strategies Intervention – Integrating knowledge as a means of promoting higher-level cognition
5.Judicious Review – Structured opportunities to recall or apply previously taught information
6. Primed Background Knowledge – Preexisting information that affects new learning

Resource 3 	Three Essential Qualities of Universal Design for Learning (CAST, 2002)

1. Curriculum provides multiple means of representation
2. Curriculum provides multiple means of expression
3. Curriculum provides multiple means of engagement

Appendix C

The Principles of UDI © (Scott, McGuire & Foley, 2003)
Principle of UDI ©	Definition	
Principle 1. Equitable Use. 	Instruction is designed to be useful to and accessible by people with diverse abilities. Provide the same means of use for all students; identical whenever possible, equivalent when not.	
Principle 2. Flexibility in Use. 	Instruction is designed to accommodate a wide range of individual abilities. Provide choice in methods of use.	
Principle 3. Simple and Intuitive. 	Instruction is designed in a straightforward and predictable manner, regardless of the student’s experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level. Eliminate unnecessary complexity.	
Principle 4. Perceptible Information	Instruction is designed so that necessary information is communicated effectively to the students, regardless of ambient conditions or the student’s sensory abilities.	
Principle 5. Tolerance for error. 	Instruction anticipates variation in individual student learning pace and prerequisite skills.	
Principle 6. Low Physical Effort.  	Instruction is designed to minimize nonessential physical effort in order to allow maximum attention to learning. NOTE: This principle does not apply when physical effort is integral to essential requirements of a course.	
Principle 7: Size and Space for Approach and Use. 	Instruction is designed with consideration for appropriate size and space for approach, reach, manipulations, and use regardless of a student’s body size, posture mobility, and communication needs.	
Principle 8. A Community of Learners. 	The instructional environment promotes interaction and communication among students and faculty.	
Principle 9. Instructional Climate. 	Instruction is designed to be welcoming and inclusive. High expectations are espoused for all students.	
Note. Adapted from “Universal Design for Instruction: A framework for anticipating and responding to disability and other diverse learning needs in the college classroom,” by S. S. Scott, J. M. McGuire, and T. E. Foley, 2003, Equity and Excellence in Education, 36, 40-49.

Appendix D 

Protocol
1)  Icebreaker:  (brief, round robin to get everyone talking)
-	Think of experiences or interactions you have had with faculty who are teaching students with LD or ADHD.  What were some of the questions that faculty posed related to teaching these students?
2)  UDI has been proposed as an approach to faculty development that will enhance inclusive teaching.
-	What do you see as the strengths/advantages of a UDI approach?
-	What do you see as the weaknesses or possible pitfalls of UDI?
3)  If UDI is to become a prominent means of faculty development, it will need proponents and leadership on campus.  Think about your own campus for a minute.  
-	Who would need to be involved in a leadership role to make this happen on your campus?
-	What are some of the different roles that OSD may need to play in promoting UDI as a campus initiative?
o	What kinds of information, support, resources do OSD need to fulfill these roles?
o	“My office needs _____ to support/encourage faculty to implement UDI.”
4)  What impact do you think UDI will have on the operations of your OSD office?

A Validated Curriculum to Provide Training to Faculty Regarding Students With Disabilities in Higher Education
    
Christopher C. Debrand and Charles L. Salzberg
Utah State University
    
Abstract
    
The dramatic increase in students with disabilities enrolling at institutions of higher education in recent years (9% of incoming freshmen) has created a need to see that college and university faculty are provided with the knowledge required to enable the success of these students and to comply with federal statutes, such as ADA and Sections 504 and 505 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and with the policies established by their institutions. Exactly what information do faculty need? This study examined the importance and comprehensiveness of the content of a training curriculum for faculty developed at Utah State University as evaluated by a national sample of professionals employed in the disability services offices of colleges and universities throughout the United States. The results indicate that the respondents perceived the curriculum taken as a whole and each of the components as important (mean of 6 on a 7-point scale) and as providing a reasonably comprehensive representation of the essential information (91.8% taken as a whole).

    Students with disabilities are becoming more prevalent in colleges. Incoming freshmen reporting disabilities accounted for 9% of the student population, according to the 1998 Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) survey (Henderson, 1999). Horn and Berktold (1999) found that college graduates with disabilities do as well as their nondisabled counterparts in regard to employment in their fields and in the compensation that they earn. However, students with disabilities are less likely to graduate from college (Gardner, 1999; Horn & Berktold, 1999). One factor critical for students’ success in college is the behavior of the faculty and the climate they provide for their students with disabilities (Beilke & Yssel, 1999).
    The literature suggests that faculty are generally well-intentioned toward students with disabilities and are willing to provide accommodations (Houck, Asselin, Troutman, & Arrington, 1992; Matthews, Anderson, & Skolnick, 1987; Nelson, Dodd, & Smith 1990), but they are not well-informed about what that entails (Greenbaum, Graham, & Scales, 1995). Thompson, Bethea, and Turner (1997) reported that less than 18% of the faculty they surveyed were familiar with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and only 50% were familiar with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) or its implications for higher education. Additionally, according to the opinions of disability support services (DSS) directors in colleges and universities, 80% of faculty are concerned about knowing their rights and responsibilities regarding their interactions with students with disabilities (Salzberg et al., 2002).
    
Content and Time Considerations
    
    Our previous research (Salzberg et al., 2002) suggested that DSS directors were not satisfied with their institution’s efforts to train faculty. Further, the study suggested the dimensions of a faculty training program that DSS directors thought would be likely to be effective and functional. Regarding the length of a training program, 40% of respondents indicated that a 1-hour workshop would be practical and 45% indicated a workshop between 1–2 hours would be practical. Workshop lengths over 2 hours were thought to be practical by only 3% of the respondents. Therefore, the Accommodating Students With Disabilities (ASD) training program evaluated in this study was designed to fit within a 90-minute period.
    There is a lot of information that might be useful and of interest to faculty in regard to students with disabilities in higher education. However, given the time constraints for faculty training described above, the information needs to be prioritized. In the Salzberg et al. (2002) study, DSS directors stated that the content for training needed to be clearly applicable to faculty situations; that training sessions needed to include question and answer opportunities, use of expert speakers, opportunity to meet with or hear from students with disabilities; and need to include DSS professional staff members. These respondents thought that faculty members also would benefit by being given a reference book or manual, learning practical techniques for the classroom, and having information about the laws that apply to students with disabilities in higher education. DSS directors reported that faculty members were very concerned about maintaining academic standards, their rights and responsibilities, and making course modifications. To a slightly lesser degree, DSS directors reported that faculty members were concerned about the rights and responsibilities of students, the process by which students become eligible for accommodations, confidentiality issues, and knowing where faculty can get support to properly accommodate students with disabilities. Other research (Leyser, Vogel, Wyland, & Brulle, 1998) identified areas in which faculty reported they would like to receive training. These included classroom accommodations (42.6%), programs and services on campus (34.3%), testing accommodations (31.7%), and legal issues (20%). Based on our research and existing literature, the ASD Project created a curriculum to help college and university faculty acquire learn about students with disabilities in higher education.
    
Workshop Presentation Media
    Another factor that emerged from the Salzberg et al. (2002) study was the diverse nature of the needs, logistics, and characteristics among institutions of higher education as well as the different views of DSS directors on how they prioritize various content choices and their preferred delivery methods for faculty training. The critical implication for faculty training programs is that programs have to be as flexible as possible so that local DSS directors can tailor the content and delivery for their own institutions of higher education and for specific groups of faculty. This customizability is a hallmark of the ASD curriculum. Workshops can last between 30 minutes and several days. Specific content can be selected for inclusion; other content can be excluded. All content can be modified as per the preferences of the DSS directors. There are scripts and explanations for new DSS directors and loose templates for more experienced. Student panels can be conducted as live interactive sessions, or a video student panel can be used when a live panel is not practical.
    When DSS directors were asked how faculty would prefer to have workshops delivered, the majority stated that live presentations would be well received. But many DSS directors also indicated that Web-based information and printed material would be useful, as would individual assistance for faculty members. To this end, the ASD Project designed a customizable, face-to-face workshop to provide essential information with written supplementary units on additional important topics (e.g., universal design, testing accommodations) that could be used for self-study or presented in workshops by DSS staff. As an alternative for faculty who cannot attend a workshop, a Web-based training program was also created. However, only the face-to-face workshop was evaluated in this study.
    
Method
    
    The methods are presented in two sections. The first section describes the method used to acquire the sample of respondents and to distribute the survey. The second section describes the method used to construct the questionnaire.
    
Sampling and Survey-Distribution Procedures
    The Association on Higher Education And Disability (AHEAD) was contacted for their mailing list, which was used as the population for this study. AHEAD members outside the United States were excluded because the ASD training program was designed according to U.S. law.. The survey was sent to 1960 AHEAD members and 21.4%, or 420 were completed and returned. The returns were distributed over 10 federal rehabilitation regions and 13 Carnegie Classification groups (see Tables 3 and 4). Various procedures were used to ensure that the data provided by individual respondents was anonymous.

Survey Design
    The purpose of the survey was to obtain opinions from potential users about the comprehensiveness and importance of the content provided in the ASD faculty-training curriculum. The respondents received a description of the training program content and were asked to judge the comprehensiveness and the importance of the content for faculty members at their higher education institutions. Demographic information was collected so that the respondents could be described. 
    
Demographic Information
    The demographic information collected included the following: respondents’ positions at their current institutions, gender, age, years in their current position, and years working in higher education. Respondents were also asked to name the institution at which they were employed. Once the survey instrument was coded by Carnegie Classification, the name of the institution was separated so that specific responses could not be attributed to a particular institution. The Carnegie Classification groups were created by the Carnegie Foundation (2002) so that institutions of higher education could be described and compared to each other within a relevant framework.
    
Questionnaire
    Respondents were asked to comment on the five sections of the ASD foundation training program, the five supplementary units, and the curriculum as a whole (see Appendix). They were told that the workshop was designed to be delivered in 90 minutes because research had suggested this as the maximum amount of time that faculty would likely attend this type of workshop. Respondents were given information about the design and intention of the training program that might be pertinent to their evaluation. For example, they were told that the curriculum was to be used with faculty in higher education institutions. Next, respondents were provided with a description of each of the five sections of the foundation workshop and asked to respond to two questions: “How comprehensive is the information considering the 90-minute constraint” (on a scale of 1–100), and, “How important is this information for your faculty?” (on a scale of 1–7). For each supplementary unit, a description was included and respondents were asked to rate the importance of the content of this supplementary unit for faculty on a scale of 1–7. Finally, respondents were asked to rate the comprehensiveness of the entire curriculum taken as a whole on a scale of 1–100. Qualitative information was also collected via questions asking respondents to list any essential areas not included and if any areas should be deleted.
    
Questionnaire Development
    The questionnaire went through a rigorous development process. The primary concern was whether descriptions of each of the five sections of the workshop accurately represented its content. To address this concern, the section descriptions were drafted using the actual workshop materials and index as an outline. The resulting draft was reviewed by the ASD staff and revised as per their feedback. Then the outline was examined by the project director and the disability office director for Utah State University. After several revisions, the staff and disability office director were satisfied that the information in the descriptions accurately represented the workshop curriculum. Finally, the survey instrument was formatted by project staff for readability and ease of completion.
    
Results
    
    The results are presented below in three sections. Data in the first section describe characteristics of the respondents; the second section shows characteristics of the higher education institutions that participated; and the third section presents opinions of the respondents about the ASD curriculum.
    
Characteristics of the Respondents
    Table 1 shows that 72.8% of respondents were either directors of DSS offices or staff members in those offices. In addition, some respondents were faculty members and student service staff members, and 16 % of the respondents were in various other positions. Of the 420 respondents, 330 (78.6%) were female and 80 respondents (19.0%) were male. Ten participants did not report their gender.
    Respondents were asked to place their age into one of five categories. Of the respondents, 22 (5.2%) reported being between 18 and 30 years; 73 (17.4%) said they were between 31 and 40; 140 (33.3%) reported their age as between 41 and 50; 152 (36.2%) said they were between 51 and 60; and 25 (6%) reported themselves as over age 61. Eight (1.9%) did not report their age. A majority (69.5%) of respondents were between 41 and 60 years old. Most of the remaining respondents were 31–40 years old (17.4%).
    Respondents’ number of years of experience in their current positions and those spent working in higher education is presented in Table 2. Years of experience ranged from more than 27 years to 1 year or 2 years. More than 22% of the respondents were in their first two years in their current position, 59.7% were in their current positions from 3–14 years, and 16.5% were in their current positions for 15 years or more.

Table 1
Position and Gender of Respondents Information

Position	
No. of Respondents	
Percentage of Respondents	

DSS Director	
234	
55.7	

DSS Staff	
72	
17.1	

Faculty	
16	
3.8	

Student Services	
27	
6.4	

Other	
67	
16.0	

Unreported	
4	
1.0	

Gender	
No. of Respondents	
Percentage of Respondents	

Male	
80	
19.0	

Female	
330	
78.6	

Unreported	
10	
2.4	

Table 2
Years of Experience in Position Information
	Years of Experience in Position	Years in Higher Education	

Years	
No. of Respondents	
Percentage of Respondents	
No. of Respondents	
Percentage of Respondents	

1-2	
94	
22.4	
29	
6.9	

3-8	
185	
44.0	
111	
26.4	

9-14	
66	
15.7	
112	
26.7	

15-20	
42	
10.0	
79	
18.8	

21-26	
23	
5.5	
59	
14.0	

27 or more	
4	
1.0	
21	
5.0	

Unreported	
6	
1.4	
9	
2.1	

Table 3
Types of Responding Institutions
 Institution Type	No. of Respondents	
Percentage of Respondents	

Public	
273	
65.0	

Private, not for profit	
118	
28.1	

Private, for profit	
4	
1.0	

Unreported	
25	
6.0	

Geographic Distribution of Participating Institutions by Federal Rehabilitation Region

Region	

States in region	

No. of Responses	

Percentage of Respondents	

I	
CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT	
29        	
6.9%     	

II	
NJ, NY, PR	
36        	
8.6%     	

III	
DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV	
50        	
11.9%     	

IV	
AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN	
59        	
14.0%     	

V	
IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI	
95        	
22.6%     	

VI	
AR, LA, NM, OK, TX	
32        	
7.6%     	

VII	
IA, KS, MO, NE	
31        	
7.4%     	

VIII	
CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY	
22        	
5.2%     	

IX	
AZ, CA, HI, NV	
41        	
9.8%     	

X	
AK, ID, OR, WA	
16        	
3.8%     	

Unknown	
	
9        	
2.1%       	

Total	
	
420        	

Note. States in region are represented by postal abbreviation

    Generally, respondents were in positions in higher education longer than they were in their current positions. Thus, it seems likely that in many cases these respondents started off as staff members in disability service offices or other college/university offices and subsequently changed jobs or moved up to become directors of DSS offices.
    
Characteristics of the Participating Universities and Colleges 
    Table 3 presents information about the types of institutions that participated in this study. The majority (65.0%) were publicly funded institutions, while the next largest category, private not-for-profit colleges and universities, constituted 28.1% of the sample. Only four private, for-profit institutions were included in the study. Twenty-five respondents did not answer this question.
    Table 4 provides a Carnegie Classification profile of the participating higher education institutions. The largest percentage of participating institutions (26.2%) was extensive or intensive doctoral/research universities. Masters colleges and universities constituted another 22.1% of the sample. Four-year colleges, including Liberal Arts, General, and Bachelor/Associate’s colleges made up another 13.5% of the sample and Associate’s colleges (two-year colleges) constituted 30% of the sample. A smaller portion of participants came from specialized institutions (2.1%) (e.g., theological seminaries, medical schools, etc.). Twenty-five respondents did not answer this question.

Table 4
Carnegie 2000 Classifications of Responding Institutions
 Carnegie Classification	
No. of Respondents	Percentage of Respondents	

Doctoral/Research Universities—Extensive	
78	
18.6	

Doctoral/Research Universities—Intensive	
32	
7.6	

Master's Colleges and Universities I	
84	
20.0	

Master's Colleges and Universities II	
9	
2.1	

Baccalaureate Colleges—Liberal Arts	
24	
5.7	

Baccalaureate Colleges—General	
30	
7.1	

Baccalaureate/Associate's Colleges	
3	
0.7	

Associate's Colleges	
126	
30.0	

Specialized Institutions—Theological seminaries and other	

1	

0.2	

Specialized Institutions—Medical schools and centers	

2	

0.5	

Specialized Institutions—Other separate health profession	

3	

0.7	

Specialized Institutions—Schools of business	

1	

0.2	

Specialized Institutions—Schools of art, music, and design	

2	

0.5	

Unreported	
25	
6.0	

Table 5
Importance and Comprehensiveness Results

 Question Category	No. of Respondents	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	
Std. Deviation	

Introduction Comprehensiveness	

395	

10	

100	

89.2	

16.43	

Introduction Importance	

409	

1	

7	

5.7	

1.25	

Law Comprehensiveness	

400	

2	

100	

84.1	

22.14	

Law Importance	
414	
2	
7	
6.3	
1.00	

Accommodation Comprehensiveness	

402	

10	

100	

88.3	

17.38	

Accommodation Importance	

417	

2	

7	

6.4	

1.00	

Case Story Comprehensiveness	

396	

5	

100	

88.4	

17.42	

Case Story Importance	

413	

1	

7	

6.0	

1.24	

Student Panel Comprehensiveness	

396	

5	

100	

82.7	

22.16	

Student Panel Importance	

410	

1	

7	

5.6	

1.48	

Universal Design Importance	

415	

1	

7	

5.7	

1.36	

Web Accessibility Importance	

417	

1	

7	

5.6	

1.37	

Testing Accommodations Importance	

417	

1	

7	

6.3	

0.99	

Common Accommodation Importance	

417	

1	

7	

6.1	

1.11	

Faculty Related Problems Importance	

416	

2	

7	

6.4	

0.97	

Total Comprehensiveness	

402	

10	

100	

91.8	

10.06	

Respondents Opinions About the ASD Curriculum
    Table 5 presents the data on respondents’ opinions about the ASD curriculum. There are three sections in this table. The first presents respondents’ opinions about the ASD Foundation Faculty Training Curriculum, the second presents opinions about the ASD Supplementary Units, and the third presents opinions about the ASD curriculum as a whole.
    The ASD Foundation Faculty Training Curriculum. The five sections of the foundation curriculum include: (1) the introduction; (2) the section on the law; (3) the section on the accommodation process; (4) the case story section; and (5) the student panel. For each section of the ASD curriculum, respondents indicated the extent to which they thought that the information presented was comprehensive in relation to what they believe faculty members need to know. Those ratings were expressed as percentages of comprehensiveness on a scale of 1% to 100%. In addition, respondents indicated how important they believe the content is for faculty members. Those ratings were expressed on a Likert scale (Likert, 1932) from 1 to 7, in which 1 was least important and 7 was most important.
     This section of Table 5 indicates that these respondents, mostly DSS directors and staff members, believe that each section of the ASD Foundation Faculty Training Curriculum provides information for faculty that is reasonably comprehensive. The range in the mean percentage across sections was 82.7% at the low end to 89.2% at the high end. The introduction, the accommodation process and the case story sections were rated 88% or 89% in regard to comprehensiveness. The sections on the law and the student panel were rated 84% and 82%, respectively.
    The perceived importance of the information in each section ranged from a mean of 5.6 at the low end to a mean of 6.4 at the high end across the sections of the foundation curriculum. In sum, all of the sections were viewed as presenting important information for the faculty, and that information was perceived to be reasonably comprehensive.
    The ASD Supplementary Units. The second section of Table 5 presents respondents’ opinions about the supplementary units of the ASD curriculum. These units include universal design, Web accessibility, testing accommodations, common accommodations, and common faculty-related problems. For each supplementary unit, respondents rated the importance of the information relative to what they believe faculty should know on a scale of 1 to 7. The mean importance rating of the information in these supplementary units ranged from 5.6 at the low end to 6.4 at the high end. Thus, each supplementary unit presented information that was viewed as quite important for faculty members. Information in the Faculty-Related Problems Supplementary Unit was the highest rated (6.4) and information on Web Accessibility had the lowest rating (5.6).
        
    The ASD Curriculum as a Whole. Respondents indicated the extent to which they thought the ASD Faculty Training Curriculum as a whole presented a comprehensive array of information for faculty members concerning students with disabilities in higher education. The mean score was 91.8% on a scale that spanned 1 to 100, indicating that most respondents believe the ASD curriculum includes most of the information they believe faculty members should have.
Discussion
    
Similar Findings
    An extensive array of materials has been developed at various universities that can be used to provide pertinent information for faculty about students with disabilities (e.g., University of Kentucky, 2000; Ohio State University, 2003; University of Washington, 2003; Utah State University, 2003; etc.). One challenge, given the limited time available for faculty training, was deciding which information to include in a faculty-training program. The content in the ASD curriculum was initially selected based on a study (Salzberg et al., 2002) in which DSS directors and staff members identified the content (e.g., the law, the accommodation process) and activities (e.g., interacting with students who have disabilities and with DSS staff) that they viewed as important in a faculty-training program. In the present study, another large sample of DSS directors and staff members, most of who were quite experienced and who represented a broad array of higher education institutions, examined descriptions of the content of the ASD curriculum and evaluated those for comprehensiveness and for importance for faculty members.
    The results of the survey indicate that respondents are generally pleased with the content of the ASD curriculum. The overall content of the ASD curriculum was perceived to be 91.8% comprehensive and, when the content was also examined by section, each section was reported to be highly comprehensive (82.7%–89.2%) and highly important (5.6–6.4 on a 7-point scale). The outcome of this study affirms previous research (Salzberg et al., 2002) in which DSS directors reported what they believed to be important content in a faculty-training workshop. While the ASD workshop may not contain all the information a group of faculty members might need or want, it is designed so that DSS staff can easily provide additional information to faculty as they deem appropriate and as time permits. Moreover, the ASD workshop is flexibly designed so that DSS staff can customize training sessions as they see fit to address the specific needs of changing audiences.
    Respondents in this study reported that the accommodation process and the law sections contained the most important content (6.4 and 6.3 respectively). The case story section, which provided a working example of the accommodation process, was the next most highly rated in importance (6.0). This is consistent with previous research, which determined that faculty were not well informed about the accommodation process (Greenbaum, Graham, & Scales, 1995) and not familiar with the law concerning students with disabilities (Thompson, Bethea, & Turner, 1997). Of the supplementary units, faculty-related problems (6.4), testing accommodations (6.3), and common accommodations (6.1) were rated the most important. From this data it seems that, according to DSS directors, issues pertaining to the law and to the accommodation process are the two most important types of information that need to be conveyed to faculty, although the other topics were also deemed to be quite important.
    The sections that were rated as least but still important were the introduction (5.7) and the student panel (5.6). The introduction provided statistical information about students with disabilities in higher education, while the student panel provided a live or recorded panel of students with disabilities discussing the issues they face in the classroom. These data suggest that while these sections are still viewed as highly important, they are not seen to be as critical to the audience as the procedural and legal information contained in the law and accommodation process sections. This trend is also seen in the supplementary units where topics like universal design (5.7) and Web accessibility (5.6) were seen as highly important but not quite as important as faculty-related problems (6.4) and testing accommodations (6.3).
    
Limitations
    While the respondents in this study were mostly experienced DSS directors and staff members who should be in a good position to make judgments regarding content for faculty training, there was an important limitation. The data in this study was based on opinions. Even opinions of knowledgeable people may be amiss on some occasions.
    Many DSS directors responded to the survey; however, so did other AHEAD members, who might not be directly involved in delivering faculty training. We had no way to separate these respondents for independent analysis or to know if the results would be different across the two groups. In a similar vein, we do not know how the results of a survey of faculty members or a survey of students with disabilities rather than AHEAD members might differ from these.
    
Suggestions for Future Research
    One line of potentially useful future research would be to replicate this study with faculty respondents. It would be of particular interest to do this with a group of faculty members who have had experience working with students with disabilities. It would also be interesting to replicate this study with novice faculty to see how their perceptions differ from those of experienced faculty. Similarly, a replication of this study with respondents who are students with disabilities would be of great interest.
    A more direct question, but harder to scientifically investigate, is whether the behavior and attitudes of faculty members toward students with disabilities actually changes in a positive way after receiving training. Would these faculty members now be more comfortable with and more welcoming to students with disabilities? Would they use more universal design principles in their courses? Would they be more knowledgeable of disability issues and laws when they interact with students with disabilities and with DSS staff members? Would they be more constructive in their interactions with students with disabilities? A final, even more difficult, but perhaps most important, question for future research is whether training for faculty members in a higher education institution improves the success (i.e., retention and graduation rate) of students with disabilities. These challenging but important questions await further research.
    
A Final Note
    
    The development of training programs is challenging, especially in areas that have had little previous work. Professionals in curriculum development (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 2002) recommend that training programs should be developed using a systematic research and development process and should be empirically validated to the extent that it is practical to do so. The ASD curriculum emerged via a systematic, empirical, development process and is one of the few training programs that present content subjected to a partial validation process. While many challenging research questions about the impact of faculty training on the success of students with disabilities remain, as well as the specific impact of this curriculum, it does appear that at least the content of the ASD program is valid in the eyes of DSS directors and staff members.
References
    
Beilke, J., & Yssel, N. (1999). The chilly climate for students with disabilities in higher education. College Student Journal, 33(3), 364–372.
The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. (2002). Frequently asked questions - Carnegie classifications. Retrieved February 7, 2002, from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classification/faq.htm
Gall, M., Borg, W., & Gall, J. (2002). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gardner, D. (1999). Recent study focuses on preparation and outcomes of students with disabilities. HEALTH, National Clearinghouse on Postsecondary Education for Individuals With Disabilities. Retrieved November 22, 1999, from
http://www.acenet.edu/about/programs/Access&Equity/HEATH/newsletter/1999/10 october/recent_study.html.
Greenbaum, B., Graham, S., & Scales, W. (1995). Adults with learning disabilities: Educational and social experiences during college. Exceptional Children, 61(5), 460–472.
Henderson, C. (1999, October). Update on college freshmen with disabilities. Information from Heath. Retrieved November 22, 1999, from http://www.acenet.edu/about/programs/ Access&Equity/HEATH/newsletter/1999/10october/
Horn, L., & Berktold, J., (1999). Students with disabilities in post-secondary education: A profile of preparation, participation, and outcomes. National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, (Statistical Analysis Report No. 1999-187). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Houck, C., Asselin, S., Troutman, G., & Arrington, J. (1992). Students with learning disabilities in the university environment: A study of faculty and student perceptions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(10), 678–684.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 5–53.
Leyser, Y., Vogel, S., Wyland, S., & Brulle, A. (1998).  Faculty attitudes and practices regarding students with disabilities: Two decades after implementation of Section 504. Journal of Post-Secondary Education and Disability 13(3), 5–19.
Matthews, P., Anderson, D., & Skolnick, B. (1987). Faculty attitude toward accommodations for college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Focus, 3(1), 46–52.
Nelson, J., Dodd, J., & Smith, D. (1990). Faculty willingness to accommodate students with learning disabilities: A comparison among academic divisions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(3), 185–189.
Ohio State University. (2003). The Ohio State University Partnership Grant. Retrieved 
December 2, 2003, from http://www.acs.ohio-state.edu/grants/dpg/
Salzberg, C., Peterson, L., Debrand, C., Blair, R., Carsey, A., & Johnson, A. (2002). Opinions of disability service directors on faculty training: The need, content, issues, formats, media, and activities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 15(2), 101–114.
Thompson, A., Bethea, L., & Turner, J. (1997). Faculty knowledge of disability laws in higher education: A survey. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 40(3), 166–180.
University of Kentucky. (2000). UK-ED: entry page. Retrieved December 2, 2003, from http://www.uky.edu/TLC/grants/uk_ed/
University of Washington. (2003). DO-IT. Retrieved December 2, 2003, from http://www.washington.edu/doit/
Utah State University. (2003). Accommodating students with disabilities project home page. Retrieved December 2, 2003, from http://asd.usu.edu/

Appendix
Outline of the ASD workshop questionnaire
Demographic Information
The Foundation Workshop
I	Introduction

[allocated presentation time: 5 min.]
This section provides background information to faculty on students with disabilities. It introduces participants to the different types of disabilities and summarizes what students with disabilities have to say about working with faculty.

Section Outline: 
•	Number of incoming freshmen in college with disabilities
•	Types and frequency of various disabilities
•	Outcome data on college graduates with disabilities
o	Equally likely to be employed, earn comparable salaries, equally likely to attend graduate school
•	What students with disabilities think about faculty (generally positive)
•	Implications for faculty
o	Students with disabilities will be in classes and labs, will develop the same array of careers as others, and need to meet the same standards as others

II	The Law

[allocated presentation time: 5 min.] This section educates participants about the implications of the ADA and Section 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Section Outline:
•	Laws that apply to higher education
•	Four implications of the laws:
o	Right to be in higher education if otherwise qualified
o	Right to access academic and nonacademic programs
o	Eligibility for reasonable accommodations
o	Right to confidentiality
•	Accommodation defined:
o	Adjustments to mitigate the impact of a disability
o	Accommodations are designed on an individual basis
•	Disability Support Services:
o	Colleges/universities have DSS offices which support students, faculty, and the institution of higher education
o	Disability services and accommodations should be coordinated by the DSS

III	The Accommodation Process

[allocated presentation time: 10 min.]
This section teaches participants a 5-step process that students go through to receive disability-related services and accommodations and for those accommodations to be designed, implemented, and adjusted.

Section Outline:
•	Step 1:  Getting to the DSS
o	Variety of ways
o	Syllabus statements
o	Talking about disability-related accommodations in class
•	Step 2:  Meeting Eligibility Requirements
o	DSS counselor evaluates professionally credible documentation
•	Step 3:  Deciding on Specific Accommodations
o	Based on disability-related limitations resulting in individual recommendations for each course
•	Step 4:  Implementing Accommodations
o	Faculty/student/DSS roles
o	All disability-related accommodations must be coordinated through the DSS 
•	Step 5:  Revising the Accommodation Plan
o	Often revisions are not needed
o	While revisions are being worked out, continue to provide the recommended accommodations
o	Communicate to the DSS office any changes you and the student make

IV	The Case Story

[allocated presentation time: 25-30 min.]
This section uses real case stories to illustrate many of the specific problems and issues that arise in the steps of the accommodation process as described in Section 3. Discussion fosters interaction and addresses common faculty concerns. Several case stories are available to choose from, each presenting a student with a different disability. These cases are the heart of the workshop.

V	The Student Panel

[allocated presentation time: 20-25 min.]
The student panel gives participants the chance to interact with at least three students with disabilities who are using accommodations. This is set up as a Q&A session with the DSS director or workshop facilitator as a mediator. It personalizes the information presented in the previous sections of the workshop and gives faculty an opportunity to meet and hear directly from students with disabilities.

Section Outline:
•	Choosing the live panel or alternate video panel (if live panel is not feasible)
•	Preparing your panelists

Supplementary Units

I	Universal Design

This unit provides the audience with information on universal design and its implications for college/university instruction. General tips to make instruction more accessible for all students are provided.

II	Web Accessibility

This unit explains why web access is so important, what the common issues of web accessibility are, and their solutions. It also provides faculty with resources and general tips on web design.

III	Testing Accommodations

This unit addresses issues and problems in testing accommodations for students with disabilities. It explains the rationale for each type of testing accommodation, the implementation procedures, and provides a detailed analysis of common problems and their possible solutions. Some testing accommodations that are discussed include extended time, the use of a calculator or formulas, and quiet testing areas.

IV	Common Accommodations

This unit addresses common accommodations for students with disabilities. It explains the rationale for each type of accommodation, the implementation procedures, and a detailed analysis of common problems and their possible solutions. Some common accommodations include note taking, accessibility, and providing lectures on tape.

V	Faculty Related Problems and How to Avoid Them

This unit addresses various problems that faculty encounter. It provides examples of each and shows faculty how to avoid or properly address these problems when they arise. Some common problems include: 

•	What to do when a student (without a accommodation letter) approaches you and asks for disability-related accommodations
•	Privacy concerns
•	Issues concerning technical standards

Other Questions

Total Program (Overall)

•	What percent best reflects your opinion of the overall content for a 90-minute workshop?

What other areas are essential that are not included in the supplemental units?

What areas (if any) should be deleted?

Eligibility Assessment Requirements at the Postsecondary Level for Students With Learning Disabilities: A Disconnect With Secondary Schools?

Shannon Gormley and Charles Hughes
The Pennsylvania State University

Lydia Block and Christy Lendmann
Association on Higher Education And Disability
    
Abstract
    
In order to gain access to services at universities and colleges, students with learning disabilities must provide documentation of their disability. However, secondary schools are not required by law to provide the documentation often requisite at the postsecondary level. Also, it appears that secondary schools may collect even less psychometric data if proposed changes to the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act 1997 are adopted during the current reauthorization process. This disconnect between what is provided and what is needed in terms of eligibility requirements has become a hot topic in the field.  Recently, the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities held a discussion on this issue, and it was decided that an initial piece of information needed for examining this issue was data about postsecondary institutions’ of higher education eligibility requirements.  This study presents findings about the eligibility requirements of 104 colleges and universities in 36 states. Results show several variables highlighting the discontinuity between evaluation data collected in high school and what is required at the university level, which include evaluation currency, examiner qualifications, areas of diagnosis, use of adult-normed tests, use of discrepancy, and establishment of functional impact. 
    
    In recent years, assessment practices for students with learning disabilities (LDs) in American schools have evolved due to legislative reauthorizations. Beginning with the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act 1997 (IDEA, 1997) and its newest proposed reauthorizations (2004), psychoeducational assessment requirements have been minimized for a variety of reasons (e.g., paper reduction act,response to treatment models). For many students with LD, these changes do not impinge on transition from high school; however, for a group of college-bound students with learning disabilities, these changes appear to have created a mismatch between available assessment data and required assessment data used in making eligibility and accommodation decisions at postsecondary institutions. 
    The mismatch between documentation availability and documentation requirements stems from differences in the laws that drive policy and practice for the two educational settings (i.e., public schools vs. postsecondary schools). Based on comparisons of IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), many differences are discernable ranging from mission, scope, definition, identification procedures, to service delivery (Rothstein, 2002). While IDEA focuses its mission and scope to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to individuals in elementary or secondary public school settings, Section 504 and ADA are more focused on opportunity, equal access, integration, and antidiscrimination. 
    The ADA and Section 504 protect the civil rights of individuals with disabilities and ensure equal access through the use of appropriate accommodations. In contrast, IDEA promotes success for students with disabilities by providing educational assistance.  Therefore, the intent of the law (i.e., success vs. access), influences assessment practices and requirements occurring in secondary and postsecondary institutions. Shaw (2004) outlines the most recently proposed reauthorization documentation requirements, which show secondary schools drifting away from psychoeducational assessment batteries and formal testing for transition purposes. In many instances, high school IEP Teams will only need to provide a “summary of performance” regarding a student’s academic achievement, functional performance, and accommodation needs as they enter postsecondary education (Shaw, 2004). This is of concern because postsecondary institutions make eligibility and accommodation determinations based primarily on information gleaned from formal psychoeducational evaluations (Ofiesh & McAfee, 2000). 
    A  disconnect appears to exist between the assessment information that high schools provide and what colleges and universities need. As Shaw (2004) points out, students with LD are the ones left to figure out how to provide (and pay for) the documentation needed to justify and support their disability and subsequent accommodations in postsecondary education settings. 
    In 2003, the National Joint Council for Learning Disabilities (NJCLD) convened a summit of postsecondary disability service providers to identify and discuss issues related to students with LD and postsecondary education. One major issue identified by this group was the documentation disconnect outlined above. It was also decided that an initial step in exploring this issue should be to identify what colleges and universities currently require in the way of eligibility documentation.  Hopefully, this information could be used as a starting point for a dialogue about how to deal with this issue. Thus, the purpose of this study was to survey colleges’ and universities’ eligibility requirements needed for students with LD to obtain services and academic accommodations in order to begin to identify the areas of disconnection.
    
Method
     
    Two members of the NJCLD who participated in the summit agreed to help with this survey.  The Association on Higher Education And Disability (AHEAD) contacted their membership (via letter and through an electronic listserv) and asked them to send their written documentation criteria for analysis. Additionally, the Learning Disabilities Association (LDA) included the request for this information via their newsletter. The present study employed an open-ended evaluation of current policies and practices to alleviate the reliance on self-reporting. The primary investigators determined that a direct investigation of original documentation facilitates a truer picture of existing policies and criteria utilized by offices of disability services across the United States: perhaps more so than individual survey questions. 
    Before analyzing these provided documents, a panel of experts in the area of postsecondary disability services developed a checklist targeting topics related to eligibility determination, diagnostic information, and accommodation provision. These topics are reflected as items in Tables 1–3.  The checklist acted as a guide for extracting target information from participant responses. Responses were collated, coded, tallied, and frequencies and percentages were computed using SPSS statistical software package. 
    
Results
    
    A total of 110 professionals from offices for students with disabilities at postsecondary institutions (2-year schools: n =17; 4-year schools: n =93) responded to calls requesting documentation. Professional schools (e.g., medical, law) and schools outside the United States were not included for review, lowering the number of 4-year-school participants to 87. Institutions from 36 states including the District of Columbia responded to requests. Participants responsed by letter, e-mail, and by deferring [questioners? interviewers? to their institutions’ Web sites. Additional information was obtained by perusing office of disability services Web sites when letter and e-mail responses provided limited details. Based on information provided by participants, at least four states (California, Colorado, New Jersey, and Wyoming) offer statewide guidelines for all colleges and universities to follow, thereby increasing the generality of the data collected. Results for 2- and 4-year schools were combined for analysis after it was found there was only one statistical difference between responses to items (see discussion section).

Table 1

Diagnostic Information Required by Postsecondary Institutions	
Diagnostic Information	Valid percentage 	

Currency:                                          3 years
5 years
Recent
Adult exceptions	
45
3
17
1 
           		
Examiner Qualifications:              Qualified
                                          Adult experience
License/certification
other	68
39
48
12		
Required Diagnostic Areas:
  Aptitude, achievement, processing
Aptitude, achievement	
62
22	

Required/Suggested Tests:             Aptitude
WAIS-R;WAIS-III
WJ-R Cognitive
Standford-Binet-4
Kaufman
Olsson-R

Achievement
WJ-R-Achievement
WIAT 
WRMT
Nelson-Denny Reading
TOWL-3
SATA
SDMT
TASK
Other

Information Processing
WAIS-III
DTLA
WJ-R Cognitive
Bender	

67
56
43
25
2

62
42
28
25
24
34
20
27
5

34
26
40
1

	
Unaccepted Tests:                            Slosson
KBIT
Nelson Denny
WRAT	20
22
5
40	              	

Table 1 (continued)

Diagnostic Information Required by Postsecondary Institutions	
Diagnostic Information	Valid percentage	
Required Scores:
“Scores” not specified
Standard Score
Standard score, percentile
Standard score, percentile, grade equivalent	
29
11
21
11	

Adult Normed Assessments Required	
42	

Table 2

Eligibility Determination Guidelines Used  by Postsecondary Institutions	
Eligibility Determination	Valid percentage 	

LD Eligibility:			
Discrepancy Model	25		
Processing Deficit	14		
DSM-IV Code	20		
NJCLD Definition	8		
Other	3		
			
Guidelines Used:			
ADA/504	70		
AHEAD	30		
ETS	6		
State	14		
Other	12		
			
Functional Impact:			
Major life activity only	26		
Accommodation linked to disability only	0		
Major life activity & linked to disability	52		

Table 3
Accommodation Provision Guidelines Used by Two and Four-year Institutions
Accommodation Provision	Valid percentage 	

Influencing Factors:
			
Professional judgment disability services office
Report writer recommendations
Reasonableness of accommodation
History of use/success
Test scores
Rationale
Considers program/course studied
Faculty Input
Student input
Not for remedial purposes
IEP considered, not sufficient
Accommodation grace period
	53
75
67
36
24
38
19
3
19
8
39
8

	

Diagnostic information
    The checklist targeted five areas related to diagnostic information: assessment currency, examiner qualifications, required diagnostic areas, recommended or accepted tests, and score reporting. A majority of respondents have currency requirements for assessment data. Many require assessments to be conducted within the past 3- (47%) to 5-years (3%) or “recently” (18%). 
    Many colleges and universities specified examiner qualifications. A majority of institutions (68%) expressed the need for testing to be conducted by a “qualified” individual. Some institutions specified that “qualified” meant the examiner must be a licensed or certified professional (48%) with adult experience (39%). (See Table 1 for complete diagnostic and test requirement details.) 
    Tests of aptitude, achievement, and information processing are required by 61% of schools. Fewer schools require only aptitude and achievement tests (22%). Most colleges and universities (67%) listed specific cognitive and achievement tests accepted (or suggested) as part of a complete psychoeducational battery. In some cases (41%), they also listed tests that are not accepted for LD documentation. Adult-normed tests are required by 42% of all schools. 
    A majority of the participating colleges and universities (72%) require students to furnish assessment scores when applying for disability-related services. Some require only standard scores (11%), while others request standard scores along with percentiles (21%). Still others request 3 types of scores (11%): standard scores, percentiles, and grade equivalent scores. Some did not specify the type of scores required (29%). Table 1 summarizes diagnostic information required by postsecondary institutions.
    
Eligibility determination
    Colleges and universities report a variety of methods for determining LD eligibility. Discrepancy models such as aptitude-achievement or intracognitive discrepancies are used by approximately 25% of schools for eligibility determination, and even fewer (14%) require that a processing deficit exist. A DSM-IV code is required by 20% of all institutions. A small number (8%) of schools defer to LD definitions for decision-making (i.e., NJCLD definition). 
    Many schools report that they rely on federal definitions of LD or other professional standards when making eligibility decisions. Organizational or governmental guidelines are used in decision-making such as ADA and Section 504 (70%), AHEAD (30%), ETS (6%), state guidelines (14%). Less than 1% of schools report relying on other organizational guidelines such as ACT, Board of Regents, and university standards. Approximately half of the institutions surveyed require evidence of a functional impact of the disability on a major life activity as well as evidence to link disability to the need for specific accommodations. Table 2 summarizes eligibility determination guidelines data.
Accommodation provision
    Most participating colleges and universities report using guidelines for granting accommodations to students with LD.  For most respondents (96%), the office of disability services makes the final decision regarding eligibility. They also use their professional judgment (53%) combined with a variety of other information to make accommodation decisions. Accommodation decisions are based on information provided by students including report writers’ recommendations (75%) and reasonableness of the accommodation request (67%). To a lesser degree, colleges and universities use additional information such as history of use or success with accommodation (36%), test scores (24%), rationale for request (38%), and program or construct consideration (19%). In some cases, faculty (3%) or students (19%) are involved in the accommodation-determination process. 
    Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) or 504 Plans are considered by some colleges and universities (39%) but are not deemed sufficient in making eligibility and accommodation decisions. A larger number of 2-year (24%) versus 4-year (3%) institutions accept IEPS and 504 Plans. This was the only statistically significant difference between 2- and 4-year schools in all areas analyzed.  Finally, grace periods are rarely offered to students applying for accommodations. Only 8% of schools report granting accommodations during a grace period. Table 3 summarizes accommodation provision guideline data.
    
Discussion 
    
    The survey results reveal several relative consistencies among postsecondary institutions’ policies and practices for determining LD eligibility and accommodation provision. In most cases, evaluation data must be recent (e.g., 3–5 years), administered by a qualified examiner often with adult experience and typically must include standardized, norm-referenced (with adults) measures of aptitude, achievement, and information processing. These scores must be reported as standard scores or percentiles. Additionally, eligibility decisions are based on ADA,Section 504 guidelines with an emphasis on establishing functional limitations in a major life activity.  In terms of providing accommodations, postsecondary service providers are requiring a clear rationale and history of use along with data from psychoeducational evaluations (Ofiesh & McAfee, 2000) to make their decisions.  And finally, there appears to be little use of a grace period that would allow access to accommodations while the student attempts to obtain the needed evaluation data and documentation.
    When the above generalities about evaluation criteria required at the postsecondary level are contrasted with legal mandates within IDEA and recommended revisions to this law, the discontinuities between secondary and postsecondary are apparent and several. The lack of a legal mandate to reevaluate in high school is in contrast to the need for a recent evaluation at the college level.  For example, students’ whose last evaluation occurred during their 8th grade would likely have needed to update their documentation when they went to university. The requirement for assessing aptitude and for processing and using some form of discrepancy between ability and achievement conflicts with a trend in public schools of not requiring IQ tests and downplaying discrepancy.  In addition, requiring adult-norm-referenced tests starkly contrasts with the proposed use of curriculum-based measures and the use of a response-to-intervention model for determining eligibility in public schools (Office of Special Education Programs, 2002). Other areas of disconnect that may come into play are providing evidence of functional limitations/life impact as well as the lack of obtained data on the effectiveness of provided accommodations.
    Due to inconsistencies between the requirements of postsecondary institutions and information provided by high schools, students with LD may become trapped between regulations of one agency versus the requirements of another. These students and their families are forced to find alternative methods of assessment such as private psychoeducational evaluations, which are often expensive and, for some, an unreasonable alternative. This can lead to inequity in accessing postsecondary educational opportunities for students who may not be able to pay for expensive evaluations. 
    Professionals at the secondary and postsecondary levels need to find ways to deal with this issue. It is beyond the scope of this study to specify the types of action that need to take place, but it seems crucial that some action must be taken.  Postsecondary providers need appropriate information that will allow them to make defensible, legal decisions about the presence of a disability, the impact of the disability, and the need for specific accommodations. At the same time, secondary personnel are not likely to provide this information in the manner currently required at many colleges and universities. 
    A starting point might be to look at the opportunities for gathering data at the secondary level (e.g., 504 plans, IEPs, performance state assessment tests using specific accommodations etc.) and framing them in ways that will be acceptable and useful to postsecondary service providers. To meet this goal, continued collaboration between secondary and postsecondary institutions is key. Schools, as well as students and their families, should be educated about the differences between accommodations and eligibility criteria in K–12th grades versus higher education settings. To help alleviate divisions among both groups, professional organizations should continue to problem solve on ways to ease the transition and decision-making process between high school and college. Currently, stakeholders at the secondary and postsecondary levels (e.g., NJCLD; Transition Documentation Task Force) are working together to provide recommendations for more consistent policies and practices among agencies. 
    Based on the results of the survey, postsecondary personnel will need to examine how they can adjust current practices in ways that still adhere to the law and are defensible to professors and administrators at their institutions. Basically, both sets of stakeholders need to explore what is possible and acceptable and to negotiate a middle ground.  Otherwise, the problem will remain, and the student will be caught in the middle. 
    
Special Note:  The authors express their thanks to  the Association on Higher Education And Disability and the Learning Disabilities Association for assisting in the data collection process.

References

Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101-336. 42 U.S.C. §§12132 & 1282(a). (1990).
Educational Testing Service (2004). ETS documentation criteria, Retrieved June 19, 2004, from http://ets.org/disability/criteria.html
Guckenberger v. Boston University, 974 F. Supp. 106 (D. Mass. 1997).    
Association on Higher Education and Disability (1997). Guidelines for Documentation of a Learning Disability in Adolescents and Adults, Columbus, OH: Author. 
Jordan, C. (2000). Using documentation guidelines: Applications to clinical service. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10, 37–41.
Keenan, W. R. (2004). Documentation of LD and ADHD in postsecondary education programs under Section 504 and the ADA. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.
Mellard, D. F. (1990). The eligibility process: Identifying students with learning disabilities in California’s community colleges. Learning Disabilities Focus, 5, 75–90.
Mull, C., Sitlington, P. L., Alper, S. (2001). Postsecondary education for student with learning disabilities: A synthesis of the literature. Exceptional Children, 68, 97–118.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Public Law 107-110. 107th Cong., Retrieved September 1, 2004, from www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/107-110.pdf (2001).
Ofiesh, N. S. & McAfee, J. K. (2000). Evaluation practices for college students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 14–25.
Rothstein, L. F. (2002). Judicial intent and legal precedents. In L.C. Brinckerhoff, J.M. McGuire, S.F. Shaw, (Eds.), Postsecondary education and transition for students with learning disabilities (pp.71–106). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law 93-112 as amended, 29 U.S.C. §794 (1973).
Shaw, S. F. (2004, July). Documentation and collaboration: Addressing challenges in transition assessment. Keynote presentation at National Capacity Building Institute, Collaboration between secondary and postsecondary education: Promoting success for students with disabilities, Miami, FL.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Postsecondary students with disabilities: Enrollment, services, and persistence, (NCES 2000-092). Washington, D.C. 

Perceived Usefulness of Recommendations Given to
College Students Evaluated for Learning Disability

Frances Prevatt
Laura E. Johnson
Katie Allison
Briley E. Proctor
Adult Learning Evaluation Center
Florida State University
    
Abstract
    
The present study evaluated the utilization and perceived usefulness of recommendations made to college students as the result of an evaluation and subsequent diagnosis of a specific learning disability.  Participants were 47 college students who had received a diagnosis of learning disability within the previous two semesters at a university assessment clinic. Students rated 31 different recommendations in terns of past usage (prior to their evaluation), usage subsequent to their evaluation, perceived usefulness, and barriers to utilization of recommendations. While all recommendations were rated as useful, higher ratings tended to occur for recommendations including program modifications (e.g. course waivers) and training strategies (e.g. study aids).  Least utilized recommendations were those with a significant time or monetary commitment. 
    
    Legislation and educational initiatives over the past 30 years have led to increased services for college students with learning disabilities (LD) (Pitoniak & Royer, 2001).  Many colleges and universities now provide testing accommodations, course substitutions, and academic support services to students with LD. One framework for describing the services offered by most post-secondary institutions is to group them into two categories: environment changing and student changing (Rath & Royer, 2002).    The former type includes assistive technologies, program modification, and direct assistance in the form of tutoring. The latter includes a variety of counseling options, strategy training, and programs to strengthen weak academic skills. More specifically, students are provided audio-taped books, readers, note-takers, and proofreading programs. Testing accommodations might involve extended time on tests, solitary rooms, changes in the test format, oral or taped examinations, and orally taped response options. Other services might include personal therapy to address psycho-social issues, career counseling, peer support groups, study skills groups, or self-advocacy training.  
    A second framework is to consider services in terms of what they imply about the interrelationship between the student and his/her environment (Dunn, Brown, & McGuigan, 1994; Rempfer, Hildenbrand, Parker, & Brown, 2003). For example, from the perspective of the medical model, the purpose of the evaluation would be to determine what is wrong with the student, and the goal of the intervention or service would be to set a plan to correct that problem. This perspective places little to no emphasis on the context of the student’s difficulty. Other approaches to intervention, however, might examine ways in which the person-environment fit could be maximized (without modifying either), or how the task demands or context could be adapted to support the student’s performance. These latter approaches recognize that an individual’s performance can only be addressed within the context of their unique environment, and thus the environment is considered when devising interventions or treatment plans.
    These accommodations and special services have been justified based on traditionally poorer academic performance of students with LD.  Beginning in high school, students with LD have lower graduation rates and are more likely to aspire to lower prestige jobs (Rojewski , 1999). Graduation rates from college are also lower. Rath and Royer (2002) cite a 24% graduation rate for college students with LD, compared to 43% for the general student body. There is a direct link between the likelihood that a student with LD will graduate from college and the availability of support services (Cowles & Keim, 1995). These authors found a  relationship between number of semesters spent participating in support services and graduation rates.  Regarding the employment outlook for individuals with LD, Dickinson and Verbeek (2002) indicated that individuals with LD earn lower wages in the workplace than their non-LD colleagues, primarily due to differences in productivity.  According to Witte , Philips, and Kakela, (1998), college graduates with LD diagnoses reported significantly less overall job satisfaction, and less satisfaction regarding pay and promotion opportunities than non-LD college graduates.  
      There is clearly a need for academic services for college students with LD. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of research on the utilization and effectiveness of interventions (Rath & Royer, 2002).  In particular, very little research has focused on LD evaluation reports.  McGuire, Madaus, Litt, and Ramirez (1996) stress that individualized academic adjustments provide the student with the opportunity to experience college on an equitable level with classmates; however, 48% of evaluation reports do not include any recommendations! Alternately, some evaluators tend to make routine recommendations, regardless of the individual needs of the student.  Ofiesh and Hughes (2002) cite this as a common occurrence for testing accommodations: many diagnosticians routinely recommend time accommodations, without documenting the individual’s need for this.  They reinforce that best practice dictates recommendations specifically tailored to the needs of the individual student. This is further supported by Gordon and Keiser (2000) and Madaus and Madaus (2001), who stress that accommodations and aids that may have been acceptable in a secondary school setting may no longer be appropriate in a college setting.  Hatzes, Reiff, and Bramel (2002) confirm this, suggesting that recommendations based on secondary school findings might compromise academic standards or pose threats to the credibility of the office of disability services.
    Standards for documentation of LD, including suggestions for recommendations, were published by the Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) in 1997. A survey of disability service providers representing colleges and universities across the United States queried for conformity with the AHEAD guidelines (Hatzes et al., 2002). Regarding use of recommendations, the majority of respondents utilized recommendations in the documentation to decide upon accommodations. However, many respondents also use professional judgment, discussions with students, or the mere fact of an LD diagnosis to determine accommodations. Almost 95 % of respondents reported that they might deny suggested recommendations, while also reporting that they would add accommodations not recommended if there was a determination of need.  It is apparent that the lack of guidelines in Section 504 or ADA relating to minimally acceptable documentation results in wide variation in the quality and scope of information given to post secondary institutions (Madaus & Madaus, 2001; McGuire, Fresco, Foley, Madaus, & Owen, 1999, Siegel, 1999). 
    Ofiesh and McAfee (2000) conducted one of the few studies evaluating service providers’ perceptions of intervention recommendations for college students with LD. They surveyed college service providers to determine which sections of the reports were most useful in making service delivery decisions. More than half of the respondents in the survey reported a genuine concern about using the information from the evaluation to make service delivery decisions.   Specifically, respondents were concerned about the validity of the assessments, and whether recommendations were appropriately linked to test results.  Kruse, Elacqua, and Rapaport (1998) conducted telephone interviews with 37 college students with disabilities to assess the students’ perceptions of classroom accommodation requests (e.g., did students feel that professors had an understanding of students with disabilities), the perceived usefulness of classroom accommodations in helping the students to achieve their goals, the students’ awareness of available services, and overall satisfaction with accommodations. They found that students did not feel that professors had adequate understanding of disabilities, that students felt that they did benefit both emotionally (e.g., reduced stress) and academically from receiving accommodations, that most students surveyed were aware of the services that were available to them, and that the majority of respondents were satisfied with the accommodations that they received. A limitation noted by the authors, however, is that 79% of the invited respondents declined the invitation to participate in the study, thus introducing the possibility of bias in terms of who elected to participate. 
    Finn (1998) conducted a qualitative study including focus groups at five different institutions to determine students’ perceptions of LD accommodations and services. The five most beneficial services and accommodations nominated by the students were: coursework and testing accommodations, LD staff support, peer support groups, and tutors.  While these results give us important information about student’s perceptions of accommodations and services, the methodology makes the results difficult to quantify. Responses may be biased based on the group dynamics, and whether some participants were more vocal than others. However, the Finn study clearly documents the need to further explore students’ perceptions of recommendations, and possible barriers to implementing those recommendations.
    It is well documented that students with LD have a more difficult time in college and in subsequent employment. It is also clear that there is a great deal of variability in the nature of  services and accommodations available to help these students.  It is therefore important to investigate the usefulness of services and accommodations.  One method of evaluation is to query the recipients themselves. What is their self-perception of the services and accommodations recommended to them? This information is important in that it can impact both the nature of the recommendations made, as well as the actual services provided. 
    The present study evaluated the utilization and perceived usefulness of recommendations made to college students as the result of an evaluation and subsequent diagnosis of a specific learning disability.  Participants were surveyed one to two semesters after receiving a diagnosis and recommendations for a learning disability.  Goals of the study were (a) to determine which recommendations were more likely to be followed, (b) to evaluate whether recommendations were perceived as useful, and (c) to identify possible barriers to following recommendations. 
Method
    
Participants
    Participants were 47 college students who had been clients at a university based assessment clinic in the previous two semesters (summer and spring). This time limit was imposed in order to ensure that sufficient time had elapsed for students to implement the recommendations, yet not so much time that students had difficulty remembering their actions.  Only students diagnosed with a learning disability were considered for the study. The clinic is a not for profit center located on the campus of a large state university. The clinic provides assessment for students encountering academic difficulties, most frequently those with a learning disability or ADHD. The clinic also provides services such as study skills, ADHD Coaching, and anxiety reduction training. The clinic is staffed by two faculty members with doctoral degrees in clinical psychology and school psychology, who serve as co-directors. Additionally, the center is staffed by a full time director of clinical services (PhD from a combined program in counseling psychology and school psychology), and approximately 10 paid staff who are students in graduate programs in school psychology and counseling psychology.  The university clinic employs a simple discrepancy method of diagnosing LD. The client must show a 15-point discrepancy between the overall score of intelligence (e.g., FSIQ) and one area of academic achievement and one area of cognitive processing. The batteries used in the evaluation are the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Third Edition (WAIS-III; Wechsler, 1997), the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (Woodock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001a) and the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Ability (Woodock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001b). All graduate student testers had successfully completed at least two semesters of supervised graduate instruction on psycho-educational assessment, as well as training provided by the assessment center. All evaluations were independently supervised by two of the doctoral level supervisors.
    The initial subject pool of 146 students were all contacted by phone and e-mail; 98 (67%) of these students had moved and new contact information was unavailable. Of the 48 remaining students who were located, all except one agreed to participate in the study.  In return for their participation, students were offered a chance in a lottery to receive a gift certificate at the university bookstore. 
    Demographics of the total sample were as follows: Females = 59%; age range = 18-47, (M = 23.63, SD = 5.94). Ethnicity data were not available.

Procedure
    
    A research assistant contacted potential participants by telephone, explained the study, and made an appointment to conduct the telephone survey the following week. After a student had agreed to participate, his or her evaluation report was examined to determine which recommendations would be queried.  Reports contained an average of 16 recommendations (range = 8 –31). For each respondent, 12 recommendations were selected for inquiry (in cases where the subject had fewer than 12 recommendations in his or her report, all recommendations were selected). Twelve recommendations were chosen because pre-testing of 5 subjects indicated that the time to survey a participant became lengthy after 12 questions, and participants began evidencing signs of fatigue.  Length of time and associated numbers of recommendations were varied, and testing conditions were discussed with pretest subjects, until the research team concurred that a length of 20 minutes, which coincided with 12 recommendations, was well below the threshold for fatigue (noted in pretesting after 30 minutes).  No signs of fatigue were evidenced with 12 questions, and this issue was not believed to affect the validity of the study. The responses of the 5 pretest subjects were not used in the study.  
    In order to determine which 12 questions would be queried for each subject, a grid was established, with the purpose of obtaining a minimum of 10 responses for each of the 31 possible recommendations. The 12 recommendations selected for each participant were determined by filling the grid until each of the 31 possible recommendations had been selected at least 10 times.  For example, subject #1 was identified and 12 recommendations were randomly selected and entered into the grid.  This procedure was followed with each subject, randomly selecting 12 recommendations each time. If a new subject caused the grid to become complete for a given recommendation (e.g., 10 responses), then an additional recommendation was randomly selected from that subject in order to complete unfilled spots on the grid (e.g., a recommendation that had been responded to by fewer than 10 previous subjects). At the point that a subject had no additional recommendations that would fill empty spots, more than 10 responses per recommendation were allowed.   This procedure was continued until enough subjects had been contacted to result in a minimum of 10 responses for each of the 31 recommendation.  This procedure resulted in some recommendations being responded to by more than 10 subjects; while ensuring adequate power with a minimum of 10 responses per subject.  This procedure also resulted in a system whereby the most commonly made recommendations were responded to more frequently. 
    When the subject was contacted again by telephone to complete the survey, the researcher had pre-selected the 12 recommendations that were to be queried.  The researcher followed a script so that all interviews would be conducted uniformly. The script is included in the Appendix. Random order of recommendations was used to control for order effects. The researcher read aloud a recommendation, and asked the subject (a) whether they had used that strategy prior to being evaluated, and (b) whether they had used that strategy as a result of the evaluation.  If the strategy had been tried as a result of the evaluation, the subject was asked to rate the helpfulness of the recommendation on a 5-point scale (1=not at all helpful to 5=very helpful). In order to avoid possible response bias, subjects were assured that their responses were confidential, that many students reported not following recommendations, and that no one would ever know if they did or did not follow the recommendations. After all 12 recommendations had been queried, subjects were told that there are common reasons why recommendations are not followed, and asked if, in general, any of the following applied to them: “just weren’t interested in the recommendations”, “thought it would be a waste of time”, “found the recommendations too difficult to follow”, “felt overwhelmed by the total number of recommendations given”, or “other”. These “leading questions”, as well as the specific response set format, were both utilized to reduce the probability that students would deny failure to follow recommendations.  After working with over a thousand students, the researchers believed that failing to follow recommendations was a common occurrence, and further believed that the use of a leading question was warranted.  Finally, subjects were asked to rate on a 5-point scale the overall helpfulness of the report.  Modal length of time for interviews was 20 minutes, with approximately 5 minutes variation above and below. 
    
Table 1
Utilization and Perceived Helpfulness of Recommendations
______________________________________________________________________________
Item                                                            N of              % used rec.        % used rec.         Mean
                                                                  ratings                prior to                after                help- 
                                                                                          evaluation          evaluation1       fullness2
______________________________________________________________________________
Course substitution or exam waiver	20	0	60	5.0	
Relaxation training	12	8	9	5.0	
Extended time on entrance tests (e.g. 
     GRE, LSAT)	27	11	22	4.66	
Create study aids	21	47	62	4.53	
Load balancing	23	30	40	4.31	
Increase study time	14	29	64	4.27	
Contact student disability support office 	27	19	63	4.25	
Contact specialty center (Math, Reading)	10	20	40	4.25	
Develop homework examples	10	80	80	4.25	
Sit in front of class	16	50	81	4.24	
Inform professor of disability	18	44	88	4.13	
Reason through an answer	13	38	61	4.12	
Use all three modalities	14	36	93	4.11	
Keep a planner	14	100	100	4.07	
Recopy notes	20	35	70	4.0	
Get a tutor	17	23	23	3.87	
Stress reduction	12	33	67	3.87	
Over-learn material	12	17	58	3.85	
Make to-do lists	15	67	73	3.83	
Make a schedule	10	50	60	3.83	
Use outlines, summarize main ideas	15	30	55	3.81	
Career advising	15	27	67	3.80	
Test taking strategies	18	28	56	3.80	
Self-reward for obtaining goals	12	25	42	3.70	
Read followed by study breaks	13	54	77	3.60	
Audio-tape lectures	12	25	42	3.60	
Create analogies when studying	10	50	60	3.50	
Counseling for emotional issues	22	14	27	3.50	
Test preparation strategies	15	60	73	3.45	
Test study strategies	13	38	84	3.41	
Attend 8-week study skills class	14	0	0	N/A	
______________________________________________________________________________
1If a student endorsed using a recommendation both before and after their evaluation, they are counted in both categories 
2Mean helpfulness rating: 1 = not helpful at all, 2 = a little helpful, 3 = somewhat or moderately helpful, 4 = pretty helpful, 5 = very helpful
Results
    
    The overall mean rating for the usefulness of the evaluation report was 4.7 out of 5.0, indicating that students generally viewed their reports as very helpful.  Table 1 lists the percentage of students who used each recommendation, both prior to and subsequent to their evaluation.  The table also lists, in descending order, the mean helpfulness rating for each of the recommendations used (from most helpful to least helpful). Only recommendations used after the evaluation were given a helpfulness rating. 
    The top ten recommendations, in terms of perceived helpfulness, that also had utilization of at least 50%, were as follows:
1.    Applied for a course waiver or course substitution
2.    Created study aids
3.    Increased the time spent studying or preparing for class
4.    When studying, created examples of the applicable material
5.    Sat in the front of the class
6.    Registered with the University Student Disability Resource Center (a necessary step in order to receive any accommodations)
7.    Informed professor of disability
8.    Investigated how to reason through an answer
9.    Used all three modalities (audio/visual/kinesthetic)
10.    Kept a planner
    All of the above recommendations received mean ratings of helpfulness that ranged from “pretty helpful” to “very helpful”. There was not a direct relationship between perceived helpfulness and frequency of use. Several strategies received very high usefulness ratings, but were utilized by fewer than 50% of the students who received that recommendation. Examples of this were relaxation training, load balancing, and contacting a Math or Reading help center. 
    None of the recommendations received a mean helpfulness rating of less than 3.4 (“somewhat helpful” to “pretty helpful”) on the 5-point scale. The least frequently used recommendations were: attend a study-skills class (0%), obtain relaxation training (9%), seek extended time on placement tests, such as the GRE or LSAT (22%), get a tutor (23%), and receive counseling for emotional issues (27%). Due to the length of the survey, it was not possible to inquire about lack of compliance with each specific recommendation. When queried as to the general reasons for failing to use recommendations, the following responses were given (students could endorse more than one reason):
1    Not interested in the recommendations (endorsed by 40% of respondents)
2    Thought the recommendations would be a waste of time (endorsed by 17%)
3    Had tried the recommendation before and it didn’t work (endorsed by 45%)
4    Overwhelmed by the number of recommendations (endorsed by 44%)
    Several of the recommendations had been tried prior to obtaining the current evaluation.  The recommendations most likely to have been used previously were: kept a planner (100%), developed examples when studying (80%), kept to-do lists (66%), and learned how to prepare for different types of tests (66%). 
    
Discussion
        
    In general, recommendations can be grouped into the following categories, as identified by Rath and Royer (2002): Assistive technologies, program modifications, direct assistance, theory and counseling, strategy training, and disability attacking. Additionally, they can be considered in terms of what they imply about the relationship between the student and the environment, or more specifically, how much the context is considered when devising an intervention plan. In the present study, the recommendations that were most frequently used and had highest ratings of helpfulness included program modifications (e.g. course waivers or substitutions, register for accommodations), followed by a wide variety of training strategies. The high helpfulness rating for waivers and course substitutions was not surprising. In the state of Florida, where the study took place, all college students must pass a minimum competency exam prior to graduation.  State legislation allows for students with a documented learning disability to waive this exam, as well as receive substitutions for specific courses. It is common for college students to seek an evaluation at a point in time when their continued progress is in jeopardy due to course failures or inability to pass the competency exam. Their stated referral often included a desire to qualify for a course substitution or exam waiver.  Although it might be speculated that many students were looking for an “easy out”, this is contraindicated by the high ratings and utilization of numerous study strategies.  While it is true that many students sought exam waivers or course substitutions, they also engaged in strategies designed to improve their academic strategies. Unfortunately, the current survey did not differentiate between course substitutions and exam waivers, so we cannot make a distinction between these two.
    The recommendations least frequently used spanned several categories, including direct assistance, counseling, and program modifications. The common element across the least used recommendations appeared to be the energy and investment required to accomplish these tasks (e.g., study skills class, tutoring, counseling, relaxation training). Additionally, several of these recommendations required a monetary commitment. 
    One of the incentives for conducting the study involved a concern that evaluation reports often included numerous recommendations (up to 31 in this investigation). It was speculated that many of these recommendations were not utilized, and that reports might be more efficient if the number of recommendations were reduced. It was speculated that many of the strategy training recommendations would receive low ratings, as they required a sustained effort over a long period of time. Surprisingly, all recommendations were rated as at least moderately helpful. Even those recommendations with low usage received acceptable to high usefulness ratings. The fact that 44% of the respondents reported being overwhelmed by the overall number of recommendations suggests that evaluators should carefully prioritize the recommendations given, perhaps reducing the overall number.  However, other than Study Skills classes, the results of the present study do not indicate that any specific recommendations be excised.  However, this result should be interpreted cautiously without a fuller evaluation of the actual benefit to students who engage in study skills classes, as well as more definitive information on why students endorsed this item as being infrequently used.  
    
Limitations
        
    There are some limitations in the current study. One, due to the inability to contact a large number of potential subjects, it is unknown whether the sample differed significantly from non subjects in terms of graduation rates or dropout status. Future studies with larger sample sizes would be useful to replicate the current findings. Specifically, it would be interesting to evaluate the relationship between specific state or university requirements and utilization of particular recommendations.  Another limitation is that a distinction was not made between course substitutions and exam waivers when querying the participants.  This is unfortunate, as these are very different procedures, and clarification of this distinction would be valuable in further understanding the importance of recommendations. Finally, a valuable addition to the research would be to include objective measures of the relationship between recommendations and educational outcomes. What is the impact of course waivers or other accommodations versus strategies such as study skills that actually affect the student’s performance? Which recommendations might result in better educational outcomes? Additional investigations are critical in furthering the literature on postsecondary students with learning disabilities. 
References
Cowles, J.R., & Keim, M.C. (1995). The graduation rate, intellectual functioning level, and matriculation time of university students with learning disabilities. College Student     Journal, 29, 145-149.
Dickinson, D. L., & Verbeek, R. L. (2002).  Wages differentials between college graduates with and without learning disabilities.  Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 175-184.
Dunn, W., Brown, C., & McGuigan, A. (1994). The ecology of human performance: A 
    framework for considering the effect of context. The American Journal of Occupational 
    Therapy, 48, 595-607.
Finn, L. F. (1998).  Students’ perceptions of beneficial LD accommodations and services at the postsecondary level. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 13, 46-67.
Gordon, M., & Keiser, S. (2000).  Underpinnings. In M. Gordon & S. Keiser (Eds.)
    Accomodations in higher education under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 
     (pp.130-155). Dewitt, NY: GSI Publications.
Hatzes, N. M., Reiff, H. B., & Bramel, M. H. (2002).  The documentation dilemma: Access
            and accommodations for postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Assessment
    for Effective Intervention, 27, 37-52.
Kruse, B.G., Elacqua, T.C., & Rapaport, R.J. (1998). Classroom accommodations for students 
    with disabilities. A needs assessment. Journal of College Student Development, 39, 296-
    298.
Madaus, J. W. & Madaus, M. R. (2001).  Effective practices for the documentation of learning disabilities at the postsecondary level. Learning Disabilities, 11, 31-35.
McGuire, J. M., Fresco, K. M., Foley, T. E., Madaus, J. W., & Owen, S. V. (1999). Documentation of learning disabilities at the postsecondary level: Good news…but not enough! Storrs, CT. Unpublished material.
McGuire, J. M., Madaus, J. W, Litt, A. V., & Ramirez, M. O. (1996).  An investigation of 
    documentation submitted by university students to verify their learning disabilities.  
    Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, p. 297-304.
Ofiesh, N., & Hughes, C.A. (2002). How much time?: A review of the literature on extended test time for postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 16, 2-16. 
Ofiesh, N. S., & McAfee, J. K. (2000) Evaluation practices for college students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 14-25.
Pitoniak, M.J., & Royer, J.N. (2001). Testing accommodations for examinees with disabilities: A review of psychometric, legal, and social policy issues. Review of Educational Research, 71, 53-104.
Rath, K.A., & Royer, J.M.  (2002).  The nature and effectiveness of learning disability services for college students.  Educational Psychology Review, 14, 353-381.
Rempher, M., Hildenbrand, W., Parker, K., & Brown, C. (2003). An interdisciplinary approach 
    to environmental intervention: Ecology of human performance. In L. Letts, P. Rigby, & 
    D. Stewart (Eds.), Using environments to enable occupational performance. Thorofare, 
    NJ: Slack Inc.
Rojewski, J. (1999).  Occupational and educational aspirations and attainment of young adults     with and without LD 2 years after high school completion.  Journal of Learning     Disabilities, 32(6), p.533-552.
Siegel, L. (1999). Issues in the definition and diagnosis of learning disabilities: A perspective on Guckenberger v. Boston University. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 304-319.
Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.
Witte, R. H., Philips, L., & Kakela, M. (1998).  Job satisfaction of college graduates with 
    learning disabilities.  Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 259-265.
Woodcock, R.W., McGrew, K.S., & Mather, N. (2001a). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Woodcock, R.W., McGrew, K.S., & Mather, N. (2001b). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Ability. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing
    
Appendix
    
Script for Surveying Participants
    
    Hello, my name is (name).  I am a research assistant from the Adult Learning and Evaluation Center. You were tested here back in (date of testing) and at that time you singed a consent form agreeing to participate in research projects. We are conducting a quick study to determine which of our suggestions were most helpful.  Would you be willing to answer a few questions? I won’t take more than 20 minutes of your time. And to thank you, when we finish I’ll enter your name into a drawing for a $100 gift certificate at the University bookstore.  Is now a good time for me to ask you a few questions?  If “YES” proceed. If “NO” schedule a call back time or ascertain their dissent. I am going to ask you about 12 specific recommendations that we provided to you. First, I will ask if you were already doing this – before we recommended it to you. Or, if the recommendation was new to you, if you followed that recommendation. For any recommendations that you followed – or were doing previously – I’ll have you rate its overall helpfulness on a 1-5 scale.  For example, 1 - not helpful at all, 2 – a little helpful, 3 – somewhat or moderately helpful, 4 – pretty helpful, and 5 – very helpful.  Do you have any questions?  OK, Let’s get started!
    (If registering at the Student Disability Resource Center (SDRC) was one of the recommendations – ask them which accommodations they received – also have them rate the accommodations usefulness)
    (Tester will refer to prearranged list of 12 recommendations to query) 
    The first recommendation was (insert recommendation number here) 
    Were you doing that previously?  OR - If not doing this previously, did you follow that recommendation? If yes to either of the above – “Please rate that recommendation on the 1-5 scale”. The second (through the tenth) recommendation was (follow same procedure as above for all 12 recommendations)
    We have found that a lot of students did not comply with the recommendations given – and I am going to read out 4 of the most common reasons they gave.  Please answer yes if that reason fits for you, or no, if that reason doesn’t fit for any of the recommendations that you did not use.  
    Just weren’t interested in the recommendation given  (yes or no)
    Thought it would be a waste of time  (yes or no)
    Found the recommendations too difficult to follow  (yes or no)
    You felt overwhelmed by the number of recommendations given  (yes or no)
    Do you have a different reason that I did not list?  (Please write in response)
    Ok, we’re done with that.  Now will you please use the 1-5 scale to rate the overall helpfulness of the report you received? Last question, have you done anything other than what we recommended that you have found helpful?  (Don’t rate this one, just write out verbatim response) Do you have any questions? That’s all – thank you for your time.  I will enter your name into the drawing – this is a good phone number for you, right? If you win we will contact you by telephone. Thanks again for your time and your help!

The Impact of Visibility of Disability and Gender on the Self-Concept of University Students with Disabilities
    
Marjorie F. Olney, Ph.D.
San Diego State University/Interwork Institute

Karin F. Brockelman, M.S.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Abstract
    
This study is the result of a series of group and individual interviews in which 25 university students with a variety of disabilities discussed their experience of disability. Transcripts of the interviews were analyzed qualitatively using an inductive procedure. Data were then sorted by gender and by hidden versus visible disability. Here we present themes related to self-concept; specifically how the students (1) thought of themselves, (2) presented themselves to others, (3) imagined others’ views of them, and (4) perceived the supports they received. Results of these analyses provide indications of differences, both predictable and unexpected, between the perceptions and experiences of men and women and between persons with visible versus hidden disabilities. Implications of the study for the delivery of services to students with disabilities are explored. 
    
    In a philosophical analysis of gender and disability, Wendell (1992) claimed that women are viewed in relation to the dominant group (i.e., men). Likewise she examined the status of people with disabilities, noting that they are compared to people without disabilities. In each case the non-dominant group is viewed as “other” in relation to the dominant group. She described this relationship as asymmetrical, with the majority group establishing the norms. However, Wendell questioned the notion that full integration into male-identified norms should be the goal of women or people with disabilities.
    She suggests that, instead, women and individuals with disabilities should create social structures that espouse the unique gifts and attributes inherent in each person. Such a shift in social structures would likely impact the ways in which people from non-dominant groups view themselves. Sprague and Hayes (2000) specifically conceptualized the improvement of self-concept in women, and in people with disabilities, as a developmental process in which the self is developed in relation to others. The current research qualitatively explores the impacts of gender and visibility of disability on self-concept in relation to others. Specifically, it examines how students think about themselves, how they present themselves, how they view others’ perceptions of themselves, and how they perceive the supports they receive. Better understanding of the experiences and perceptions of students with disabilities could lead to enhanced academic and support services, greater rapport between students and disability service providers, and greater awareness of how concepts of visibility of disability and gender play a role in students’ lives.
    
Gender and Disability 
    The sense of “otherness” described by Wendell (1992) is experienced in unique ways depending on gender, disability, or the combination of these traits. Special circumstances surround the experience of being a woman with a disability. Moreover, the experiences of women with disabilities are different from those of men with disabilities (Danek, 1992; Hanna & Rogovsky, 1991; Jans & Stoddard, 1999; Olney & Kuper, 1998). A woman may experience dual discrimination, both as a female and as a person with a disability (Hanna & Rogovsky, 1991). Women with and without disabilities are often viewed as inferior to men and pejorative treatment for people with disabilities is in many ways similar to that experienced by women (Fowler, O’Rourke, Wadsworth, & Harper, 1992). 
    There is disagreement concerning whether gender or disability is more salient to an individual’s self-concept. In a review of the literature, Fowler and her colleagues (1992) noted that while some authors claim that disability has a greater impact on self-concept than other attributes, other authors suggest that the relationship between gender and self-concept is stronger. They propose, and we agree, that disability and gender both have an impact on the development of self-concept.  
    
Visibility of Disability
    Research and writing about disability and self-concept have focused primarily on physical disability (Frank, 1988; Gill, 1997; Hahn, 1993; Haller, 2000; Zola, 1993), and center on the management of stigma and discrimination and the development of positive self-concept. Gill (1997) describes the process of incorporating disability into one’s self-concept as having sequential layers: sense of belonging in the world, sense of community with others who have disabilities, sense of self-esteem, and integration between self-knowledge and presentation of the self. 
    For individuals with hidden disabilities, the process leading to self-acceptance as a person with a disability appears to be complicated by uncertainty about the legitimacy of one’s needs (Olney & Brockelman, 2003; Olney & Kim, 2001). Matthews and Harrington (2000) note that people with hidden disabilities work to keep their disabling conditions private due to factors such as stigma, shame, impression management, impact on relationships, and so forth. In their view, hiding one’s disabilities can have tangible as well as psychological effects on the individual. These can be both positive and negative.
    Management of information about one’s disability includes when, how, why and to whom one discloses disability-related information. Zola (1993) discusses how people with disabilities can and do use language to present themselves and influence others. Strategies of self-presentation are similar, regardless of the type or severity of disability. Such strategies might include avoidance of the use of a disability label and instead providing a description of the functional impact of a disability, or demonstration of specific competencies. The use of these strategies suggests that some individuals believe there is a “cost” in being identified as a person with a disability, and that they, therefore, employ strategies to control this information.
    People may choose not to self-disclose out of fear and avoidance. According to Lynch and Gussel (1996), negative responses upon disclosure of one’s disability can inhibit future self-disclosure.  There are several examples of this in the literature. In their study of anxiety support group members, Segee and her colleagues found that individuals were acutely aware of the stigma of being labeled (Segee, et al., 1999). Participants were reluctant to seek treatment for fear of being tagged as mentally ill. Rapley and his colleagues (1998) found that people with mental retardation used strategies such as describing their disability functionally in order to avoid stigmatizing perceptions and assumptions based on their label.  Barga (1996) discovered that college students with learning disabilities adopted a variety of strategies to pass as nondisabled. 
    
Definitions
    Are disabilities hidden or invisible? Matthews (1994) defined invisible disability as: “One that is hidden so as not to be immediately noticed by an observer except under unusual circumstances or by disclosure from the disabled person or other outside source” (p. 7). Matthews and Harrington (2000) stated that the term ‘invisible disability’ is more accurate than ‘hidden disability’.  We disagree with Matthews and Harrington. The term invisible disability indicates that the individual with a disability fully controls his or her identity. Conversely, hidden disability connotes a state that is less permanent. Indeed, a hidden disability may become visible, depending on situation, task, or environment. Similarly, visible disabilities are not always apparent. Telephone, e-mail, or written communication may effectively hide an otherwise visible disability. It would appear that people with hidden disabilities control disability information. However, those with more visible disabilities also actively control disability-related information (Braithwaite, 1991). As was noted by Gilson and his colleagues, the differences between hidden and visible disabilities are ambiguous (Gilson, Tussler & Gill, 1997).
    How an individual understands the ways others perceive her or him appears to be a core component of self-concept. We use the term meta-perception to describe this process. Meta-perception has a major impact on both cognition and behavior. For example, Rapley and his colleagues found that people with mental retardation were well aware of the negative perceptions others have of them, and of the stigma of their label (Rapley, Kiernan & Antaki, 1998). As a result they hid their disability label from others. Sheldon (1996) calls this “public self-consciousness.”  
    
Research Questions
    Two critical research questions guided the study: Do male students with disabilities view themselves, present themselves, and perceive treatment by others differently than do female students with disabilities? Do students with readily visible disabilities perceive these same factors differently than those with hidden disabilities? The purpose of this research is to provide new insights which may elucidate new areas of inquiry and lead to new directions for service delivery. 
    
Method
    
Participants 
    The participants were self-selected from the pool of students with psychiatric and cognitive disabilities who were registered for academic support services at a large public university. Individuals with multiple disabilities such as learning disability and cerebral palsy, or brain injury resulting in both cognitive disability and wheelchair use were included. Flyers were posted at the disability services center, and electronic mail postings were made to students who received services.  Additional recruitment efforts for group interviews included posting fliers at the residence halls, and placing an advertisement in the university newspaper. 
    Students ranged in age from 19 to 50, and the median age was 25 years. Of the 25 students who participated in the study, 15 were women. The 8 graduate students ranged in age from mid-20s to early 50s while the undergraduates were aged from their late teens to early 40s. Participants had a variety of primary disability labels that we categorized into four groupings. Nine students had either a learning disability or an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; 10 had neurological impairments such as brain injury, tardive dyskinesia, or cerebral palsy; 4 had psychiatric labels; and 2 had a chronic illness. Several had more than one disability diagnosis. Seven participants had visible disabilities that were apparent to the casual observer including use of a wheelchair, mobility aid, or medical equipment such as a breathing device. These 7 participants also had hidden and visible disabilities such as learning disability plus cerebral palsy or brain injury resulting in mobility impairment (Table 1).
    Data were collected in two timeframes over a 30-month period. In the first wave, 18 individuals were interviewed in 5 groups. Two to 5 participants were interviewed in each group. In the second timeframe, 8 individual interviews were conducted. Each individual in this second group was interviewed only once with the exception of one individual who engaged in both the group and the individual interview. All interviews were open-ended and lasted from 40 minutes to 2 hours. For all interviews, steps were taken to create an informal, comfortable atmosphere, and to prevent interruptions.
    
Procedures
    Students were contacted via e-mail and telephone, and were given general information about the study. Group interview participants were provided an honorarium of $25. The first author facilitated all interviews while the second author served as the observer for all individual interviews, recording the verbal and nonverbal exchanges. A graduate assistant fulfilled the role of observer for all group interviews. All sessions were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. 
    Efforts were made to assure that participants were fully informed and that they had choices in the research process. At the start of each interview, students received information describing their rights as participants in both written and verbal formats. The informed consent form specified that participation in the study was strictly voluntary and that participants were free to withdraw at any time without penalty. For each interview, the facilitator generated some topics for discussion, whereas students introduced others. Discussions were left flexible in order to get a thorough understanding of the perspectives of all participants; however, the following specific topics were addressed in each of the interviews:    
1)    What disability meant to participants (including specific difficulties and challenges);
2)    How they assessed the views of others toward them;
3)    How, when, why, and to whom individuals revealed disability information;
4)    Any abilities or gifts they had, and the possible relationship of these to the disability.
    
    There is a strong relationship (but not a one-to-one correspondence) between these topics and the research questions explored in this paper. The findings presented here combine the topics posed to participants with materials generated by participants.

Table 1
Participants by gender, visibility of disability, and disability category
Hidden Disability	
	Female Participants	Male Participants	Total	
ADHD/LD	5	4	9	
Neurological	1	4	5	
Psychiatric	3	1	4	
Chronic Illness	0	0	0	
Total	9	9	18	
Visible Disability	
ADHD/LD	0	0	0	
Neurological	4	1	5	
Psychiatric	0	0	0	
Chronic Illness	2	0	2	
Total	6	1	7	

    
Data Analysis
    Data constituted over 300 single-spaced pages of text comprised of transcripts and analytic memos, as well as observations and reactions of the researchers recorded during data collection and early analysis (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). We adopted and modified data analysis procedures as described by Charmaz (1995) and Denzin (1988), adhering to the following steps:
1)    Examined early transcripts for specific statements about self-perception and beliefs about the perceptions of others;
2)    Developed themes around topics for use in subsequent interviews; and,
3)    Identified and refined analytic categories from the themes. 
    
    Development of grounded theory requires the use of the constant comparative method in which discovery of core categories is achieved as data are collected and interpreted in an evolving process of analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).  For the present paper, the first and second author independently read and analyzed all interview transcripts, identifying emergent categories, and writing analytic memos. These memos provided a longitudinal record of our developing perceptions and theories about specific interviews, as well as the study as a whole. 
    Transcripts were reproduced, and all passages were coded. These coded quotes were then separated and displayed on a large poster by emergent categories. This visual display allowed us to refine categories and assure accurate placement of transcript passages. Analyses yielded 7 categories related to how participants perceived themselves and their disabilities, presented themselves, and thought about how others perceived them. These were then distilled to four major categories: self-perception, self-presentation, meta-perception, and perception of supports and accommodations.
Results
    
    Difference between women and men, and between students with visible versus hidden disabilities were subtle but provocative. Our findings are described in detail below, and a synopsis is provided in Table 2. It should be noted that only one male with a visible disability participated in the study. Because women are the primary respondents in the visible disability group, it is likely the results of visibility of disability may tainted by gender. This aspect of the analysis was evaluated.
    Analyses yielded four categories related to how participants perceived and presented themselves: self-perception, self-presentation, meta-perception, and perception of supports and accommodations. For each of the four categories, analysis by gender is presented first, and second by hidden versus visible disability. 
    
Self-Perception
    Men and women talked about themselves somewhat differently in both style and content. Women often revealed information about themselves in a personal way, whereas men were more likely to talk about their philosophies or worldviews. Women consistently used “I” statements while men tended to switch from “I” to “you,” especially when discussing areas that made them appear anxious, for example: “You keep your distance out of self protection.” A woman who had excelled as a student discussed her feelings of uncertainty about her abilities: “It’s easier to believe that those were flukes—achievements were flukes, than it is that it’s a natural ability that I can use, because I can’t trust it.”  
    While both men and women acknowledged that the disability added an important dimension to their identities, women tended to describe these strengths in terms of their relationships with others.  A woman with a hidden disability described this as follows: “I think for me it’s [the disability] opened my mind to people more. It’s made me understand that you never know what is going on below the surface when people behave a certain way. So I’m a lot more lenient with people because I can’t know what they are going through.”  
    Many of the men talked in more performance-oriented terms. They discussed what they were good at and, on the surface, came across as more confident. These men put a positive spin on their failures and weaknesses: “Well, I worked at [a major corporation] for one year. And they kind of said,  ‘Well, you know, we really don’t want you to come back.’ Um, and I actually realized that they were probably right because the corporate environment was not the best—it was not what I liked.”  Some of the men also minimized the impact of their disabilities on their daily functioning: “It’s just a learning disability.” 
    People with visible disabilities seemed to have a more stable self-concept as persons with disabilities than did those with hidden disabilities. Those who had obvious disabilities seemed to have worked though many of their concerns about the judgments of others. As a woman with a serious chronic illness put it, “It’s who I am.” Conversely, those with hidden disabilities expressed ambivalence about claiming disability as part of their identities. One woman with a hidden disability described how difficult it was for her to claim her disability as a core part of herself: “Like I don’t really want to think of myself as a person with a disability. I don’t want to believe that I’m—I can take the medication in the morning and it’s just sort of automatic but if I think of myself as a person on medication it makes me very upset.” 
    Some people with hidden disabilities talked about how they were different from those who had visible disabilities, while those with visible disabilities did not distinguish themselves. A comment by a man with a learning disability and a debilitating back injury illustrates this: “But, you know, there are people that can’t walk or anything, all these other things. I just feel sorry for them. So, I’m real, you know, ‘What have I got to complain about?’”  

Self-Presentation
    The most striking similarity between the two genders was a shared view of the world which acknowledged some of the harsh realities they had experienced. Most of the participants presented with great determination: “The world doesn’t owe me anything.” However, there were notable contrasts between how men and women presented themselves in terms of language use and confidence. Men gave many positive, self-affirming statements, down-playing the possible negative outcomes of having a disability. Paradoxically, many of the men also seemed much more concerned than the women about being “found out”, as one participant stated. One man discussed how he might present himself to a professor or employer: “I think disability carries a sense of diminishment with it, and you, if you can just get across that, ‘invest a little time with me and you’ll come out the better for it’.”
    
Table 2
Themes by visibility of disability and gender
	Gender	Visible/Hidden	
How I see myself	Women 
•	Discussed this more directly
•	Discussed strengths in relation to others
Men
•	More performance-oriented
•	Appeared more confident	Visible disability
•	Did not distinguish themselves from others
•	More stable identification with disability
Hidden disability
•	Differentiated themselves from those with visible disabilities 
	
How I present myself	Women
•	Used “I” statements
•	Did not express a “worldview” (more personal self-presentation)
•	Less self-affirming, confident than men
Men
•	Talked in global, theoretical terms
•	Used “I” to convey confidence, “you” when expressing self-doubt
•	Expressed more optimism
Both
•	Expressed determination	Visible
•	More confident
•	Private about some aspects of disability
Hidden
•	Didn’t want others to know
Both
•	Expressed need to control information about themselves by compensating, minimizing, timing telling
	
How others see me	Women
•	Perceived more positive evaluation by others
Men
•	Perceived more negative evaluation by others	Visible
•	Perceived that others saw them as unintelligent (globally incompetent)
Hidden
•	Felt they were seen as intelligent
•	Perceived that others saw them as impostors/nondisabled
•	Distinguished themselves from those with visible disabilities
•	Felt blamed for disability
•	Believed disability to be hidden only temporarily	
How others support me	Women
•	Those with visible disabilities felt particularly unsupported
Men
•	Felt more supported overall
Both
•	Identified women as supporters
•	Received more support in a coupled relationship
•	Identified male associates who were unsupportive	Visible
•	Felt less supported overall
•	Few named a specific support person
•	Few identified specific formal supports
Hidden
•	Most identified formal and informal supports	

    
     Several women pondered how to present themselves. However, their remarks tended to be more self-revealing. A woman with a hidden disability discussed her struggle to establish an identity that integrated all parts of herself and her disability: “It’s still me struggling with ‘who am I? What do I want to present myself as? And I know that, at the core, way down deep in there someplace, whether sane or not sane, is a survivor.”
    For many participants revealing a disability was a matter of time. For several people who had impairments that required accommodations or that became readily visible (i.e., in the form of tics or other unusual behaviors), disclosing one’s disability early was essential. Those whose disabilities were more easily hidden or who required less assistance could control the timing of disability-related revelations. This contrast was encapsulated in the exchange between two participants with hidden disabilities. A woman who has a learning disability remarked: “I don’t like to tell people that I have dyslexia.” A man with Tourette’s syndrome, responded, “I am the opposite. I like to tell them [about my disability], so they know beforehand.” 
    There were similarities between people with hidden and visible disabilities in terms of how they presented themselves. Key among these similarities was the desire of participants, regardless of gender or disability status, to control information about their disability. A woman with a severe physical impairment described how she managed information about her disability in a job she held before returning to graduate school:
    I’m pretty open about talking about my disability. When I first began at [the company] my goal was not to tell anybody everything I had to go through to get there in the morning, just because of the nature of things. Um, and the transportation situation, you know, sometimes the bus was late and so I would get to work late or an attendant didn’t show up. And so through things like that I had to be upfront with my employer if I wanted to keep my job and be in good standing. There was no hiding.
    For all the participants, regardless of how visible the disability was to others, deciding what to reveal, when, and how much was problematic. 
    
Meta-perception
    Meta-perception, or the perception of how others see one, is a critical aspect of a person’s self-concept. More men than women appeared to believe that others would make a more negative assessment of them if they knew about the disability, although the gender differences were slight. Several men expressed the concern that others would not see them as simultaneously capable and in need of support. A male participant with a hidden disability articulated his concern as follows: 
    I think there’s—uh, in my working world or in school there’s always been a sense of betrayal because whenever we took all these achievement tests in elementary school. And so, the teacher would give these tests and, all of a sudden—I kind of dreaded this because once a year this teacher would drag me in the office and go, “you are holding out on me. You tricked me all this time. Blah, blah, blah. You must be incredibly lazy . . . because you get these good test scores” and they just don’t understand I’m performing at a certain level—probably less than the average in the class. 
    There was one striking difference between those with hidden and visible disabilities in terms of meta-perception: almost to a person, participants with visible disabilities felt that others saw them as less capable than they were, while those with hidden disabilities thought that others saw them as minimally disabled or nondisabled. A participant with visible disabilities put it this way: “And, you know, [with cerebral palsy they] always assume that you do have cognitive deficiencies just because of your wiggles. And your—speech is very important. If you can’t talk, you’re not right.” Participants with visible disabilities reported that they compensated by projecting an image of competence. For instance, they asked intelligent questions, and were consistently well-prepared for class. Conversely, those with hidden disabilities expressed concern that others didn’t believe them to have a disability. They said that they felt blamed for their disabling conditions, and that people had trouble seeing them as simultaneously disabled and capable. One participant described this dilemma as follows: “It’s not hard for me to understand that [I have capacities as well as deficits], but it’s hard for others to understand. Like my mother says: ‘How can you go to Europe and travel around all by yourself and learn all of these languages without knowing anybody and be depressed?’” Finally, several participants who had hidden disabilities mentioned that others saw them as intelligent, a claim that was never made by those with visible disabilities. 
    
Perceived Supports
    Support can mean listening, assistance with an activity, or an accommodation. Female participants identified far fewer people from whom they received support than did men. Twice as many men than women named a key support person. Many of the men and some of the women identified a specific woman—a mother, sister, aunt, wife, or girlfriend—who provided support to them. Males were identified as key support figures infrequently, and their participation was often implied (i.e., my parents) rather than direct. Several participants, both men and women, volunteered that men in their lives did not play key support roles. When asked who in her family provided support, a participant responded, “Um, probably my mom. My dad, a lot less likely.”  When asked the same question, another female participant said, “[boyfriend’s name], but we won’t go there,” indicating that the support he provided was not what she wanted or needed. No one volunteered that a significant woman in his or her life was unsupportive. 
    
Discussion
    
    We posed several research questions concerning the impacts of gender and visibility of disability on self-perception, self-presentation, meta-perception, and perception of support. Here we attempt to answer the research questions posed earlier. We also give voice to three participants who reviewed the manuscript.
    
Self-Perception Based on Gender and Visibility 
    Overall, women discussed their own self-perceptions more directly than did men. They talked about their strengths in terms of their relationships with others, whereas men tended to describe their strengths in terms of their accomplishments. Regardless of gender, as people came to integrate the disability into their overall sense of self, they became more self-accepting. They valued themselves because of their differences rather than in spite of them.  Students with visible disabilities appeared to have integrated disability into their identities to a greater degree than those who had hidden disabilities. This process of integration appeared to be related to a more positive self-appraisal, thus easing the process of self-presentation. Similar to Gill’s (1997) observation, we discovered that individuals with visible physical disabilities were able to project self-acceptance, thus eliciting accepting responses from others.
    
Self-Presentation based on Gender and Visibility
    Women tended to talk about their disabilities in personal ways, whereas men often described their worldview. Although women presented themselves with less apparent confidence than did men, they seemed less concerned that others would discover the disability. The apparent confidence of men did not extend to the hypothetical need to disclose. The ability of women to confront disability issues directly with less fear of discovery suggests a significant difference in how men and women present themselves to others. For both genders, context and relationship characteristics influenced how individuals presented themselves. For example, if a participant felt as though a professor or coworker viewed them as competent, they would me more likely to disclose the disability. 
    For all students, regardless of how obvious the disability was to others, deciding what to reveal, when, and to who was problematic.  It was not only the students with hidden disabilities who needed to negotiate these issues. Students with visible disabilities also needed to negotiate relationships as well as assistance and accommodations. The participants indicated a need for privacy and viewed some supports as embarrassing

Meta-perception Based on Gender and Visibility
    Overall, women perceived that others evaluated them more positively than did men. The responses of students of both genders suggested that many students internalized the type of societal ideals discussed by Wendell (1992) and lent support to the theory that individuals with disabilities are influenced by the able-bodied dominant group in society. Specifically, their messages appeared to devalue their differences and demanded that disability be overcome rather than embraced. They struggled to reconcile meta-perceptions with their self-perceptions.  Regardless of gender, participants with hidden disabilities believed that others viewed them as nondisabled. Those with visible disabilities believed that they were considered by others to be disabled in every way.  For people with hidden disabilities, revealing one’s disability status meant movement from a non-stigmatized identity to a stigmatized one.  For those with visible disabilities, it meant movement from a more stigmatized to a less stigmatized identity. Regardless of the type of disability, people perceived that others were not able to see them as having both strengths and weaknesses. Changing the perceptions of others to more accurately reflect their real abilities and needs appeared to be an important achievement in both formal and informal relationships.  
    For participants with visible disabilities, the impairment was part of the negotiation of most relationships from the beginning. These participants overcompensated to appear more competent by making intelligent remarks in class or minimizing the impact of the disability on others. Participants with hidden disabilities walked a tightrope, hoping to time revelation about the disability so that they could maintain control of this information and put the best possible face on it. This strategy was difficult and created feelings of anxiety due to the impending possibility of discovery.  
Perception of Supports by Gender and Visibility
    Barga (1996) found that the most commonly cited support person for students with learning disabilities was the student’s biological mother. Like Barga, we found that participants most frequently identified women as key supports. These support people had various roles in relation to the students such as friend, partner, girlfriend, wife, mother, and sister.  These women provided feedback, specific assistance (e.g., reading to the student), and emotional support. Nearly all of the men identified someone, always female, who provided emotional and tangible support to them on a regular basis. Far fewer women identified a key support person. It is possible that women do get less support than do men. It is equally possible that women think differently about support and, therefore, underreport such assistance. The fact that men reported being well-supported, and that the support came from women, reinforces the stereotypical view that women should and do take supportive roles in relation to men, and that those roles are not reciprocal.
    Like the women with disabilities in the study, students with visible disabilities were far less likely to identify supports of any kind, although we are aware that they do receive various types of formal assistance from the university’s disabled students office. Perhaps this is because people with visible disabilities see personal assistance as a means to accomplish daily tasks, and support as having more of a social or personal component. Equally likely is the possibility that individuals with visible disabilities are lacking in needed supports.
    An important aspect of support is a sense of community. During the group interviews, people with hidden disabilities appeared to support one another. However, most did not have ongoing support of this kind. Similarly, participants used the safety of the interview situation to be self-revealing as well as to seek support. As was true in the study by Gilson and his colleagues (1997), many questions concerning membership in the disability community emerged from this study. It seems amply clear that individuals who have hidden disabilities do not identify with others with disabilities or with the disability rights community.
    
Observations of Participant-Reviewers
    In keeping with the formulation of grounded theory and qualitative research, our analyses were reviewed by a group of study participants. Three participants reviewed this manuscript individually and made several observations that are relevant to this discussion. All three agreed that the analyses appeared to be accurate, and to fit with their own experiences of gender and disability. One reviewer, a man with a visible disability, was concerned about our findings being interpreted as empirical evidence regarding the primacy of gender-identity over disability-identity. However, he also asserted that disability is closer to the surface and that gender-identity is closer to the inner core of a person. A second reviewer noted that some people with hidden disabilities do indeed participate in disability culture; specifically individuals who are deaf. This reviewer, a woman with a hidden disability, agreed with the assertion that men may think differently about support than do women. She also agreed that regardless of type of disability, others found it difficult to see people with disabilities as possessing both strengths and weaknesses.
    A third reviewer noted that gender differences seemed to fall into stereotypical roles. She noted that, in keeping with our findings, women are typically the guardians of relationships and the caregivers in society. This same reviewer, a woman with a visible disability, concurred with the authors’ hunch that people with obvious disabilities might not talk about formal and informal support because they have a different idea of what support is.  Assistance with daily activities is so much a routine part of life, that it may not be seen as support.  This reviewer made a distinction between formal supports that facilitate various life activities, and emotional and social support needs. 
    
Conclusions
    
    The research presented here provides insights into the strategies and thought processes of some students with disabilities. Throughout the paper, we gave voice to participants, allowing them to describe their perceptions and their life events. We sought to verify these findings by comparing the experiences of the participants, and carefully analyzing their statements. The result contributes unique information to the literature through a study by which differences in the disability experience are examined by gender as well as by visibility of disability. 
    Men and women with disabilities appear to have different needs. It is interesting to note that men and women talked differently in terms of self-perception, meta-perception, self-presentation, and perception of support. Women appeared to feel less adequately supported than men. Women seemed less concerned about revealing their disabilities than did men, and they tended to explore issues of disability with greater candor.  The adequacy of formal and informal supports in the lives of men and women may be a fruitful area of inquiry by counselors and researchers. Future research may focus attention on the finding that men appear to be more reticent about revealing their disability than women, especially when such information may be critical to their academic success, through the need to access support services.
    The critical roles of support and of community in the lives of students with hidden and visible disabilities are clear findings of this study.  Students who participated in this study expressed a strong need to be affirmed and to identify with others who share a core experience. Persons with hidden disabilities did not identify a “community” to which they belonged. Indeed, they might not readily integrate into the existing disability rights movement because of unintentional barriers such as language (i.e., able bodied), and specific stigmas attached to hidden disabilities (i.e., psychiatric disability, cognitive impairment, and chronic illness). Service providers might facilitate a sense of community through development of support groups and organizations, especially those that include students with hidden disabilities such as learning and psychiatric disabilities. By embracing one’s identity as a capable person with a disability, fear and shame can be minimized.
    
Limitations
    A volunteer sample was used which had an uneven number of men and women. It appears that gender did make a difference for these participants in terms of how they viewed themselves, presented themselves, thought others viewed them, and perceived supports. However, there was only one male in the visible disability category, and in light of the findings regarding gender, it is likely this may have affected comparisons between those with visible and hidden disabilities. A greater number of males with visible disabilities may have shifted the weight of the data to convey a more “masculine” perspective in this comparison. Moreover, the research is the result of single interviews with 25 individuals. Follow-up interviews may have yielded data that was richer and more consistent. Replication of this study should include a larger sample with roughly equivalent number of participants by gender and by visibility of disability, and possibly incorporate follow-up interviews of participants.  

References

Barga, N. (1996). Students with learning disabilities in education: Managing a disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 413-421.
Bogan, R., & Biklen, S. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Braithwaite, D. O. (1991). “Just how much did that wheelchair cost?” Management of privacy boundaries by people with disabilities. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 253-273. 
Charmaz, K. (1995) The body, identity, and self: Adapting to impairment, The Sociological Quarterly, 36, pp. 657-680.
Danek, M. (1992). The status of women with disabilities revisited. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 23, 7-13.
Denzin, N. K. (1988) Interpretive interactionism (Newberry, CA: Sage).
Fowler, C., O’Rourke, B., Wadsworth, J., & Harper, D. (1992). Disability and feminism: Models for counselor exploration of personal values and beliefs. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 23, 14-19.
Frank, G. (1988). Beyond stigma: visibility and self-empowerment of persons with congenital limb deficiencies. Journal of Social Issues, 44(1), 95-115.
Gill, C. J. (1997). Four types of integration in disability identity development. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 9, 39-46.
Gilson, S. F., Tussler, A., Gill, C. (1997). Ethnographic research in disability identity: Self-determination and community. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 9, 7-17.
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research (Chicago: Aldine).
Hahn, H. (1993). The politics of physical differences: Disability and discrimination. In M. Nagler (Ed.), Perspectives on disability, second edition (pp. 37-42), Palo Alto, CA: Health Markets Research.
Haller, B. (2000). If they limp, they lead? News representation and the hierarchy of disability images. In D. O. Braithwaite, T. L. Thompson, et al. (Eds.). Handbook of communication and people with disabilities: Research and application  (pp. 273-288). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hanna, W.J. & Rogovsky, E. (1991). Women and disabilities: Two handicaps plus. Disability, Handicap & Society, 6, 49-63.
Jans, L. & Stoddard, S. (1999). Chartbook on women and disabilities in the United States: An Infouse report. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. Retrieved from http://www.infouse.com/disability/data/
Lynch, R. T., & Gussel, L. (1996). Disclosure and self-advocacy regarding disability related needs: Strategies to maximize integration in post-secondary education. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74, 352-357.
Matthews, C. K. (1994). To tell or not to tell: The management of privacy boundaries by the invisibly disabled. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western States Communication Association, San Jose, CA.
Matthews, C. K., and Harrington, N. G. (2000). Invisible disability. In D. O. Braithwaite, T. L. Thompson, et al. (Eds). Handbook of communication and people with disabilities: Research and application (pp. 405-421). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Olney, M. F. & Brockelman, K. F. (2003). Out of the disability closet: Strategic use of perception management by select university students with disabilities. Disability & Society, 18(1), 35-50..
Olney, M. F., & Kim, A. (2001). Beyond adjustment: Integration of cognitive disability into identity. Disability & Society (in press).
Olney, M. F., & Kuper, E.V. (1998). The situation of women with developmental disabilities: Implications for practitioners in supported employment. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 29, 3-8.
Rapley, M., Kiernan, P., & Antaki, C. (1998). Invisible to themselves or negotiating identity? The interactional management of ‘being intellectually disabled.’ Disability & Society, 13, 807-827.
Segee, P., Maguire, L., Ross, J., Malik, M., Colket, J., & Davidson, J. (1999). Demographics, treatment seeking, and diagnoses of anxiety support group participants. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 13, 315-334.
Sheldon, K. (1996). The social awareness inventory: Development and applications. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 620-634.
Sprague, J., & Hayes, J. (2000). Self-determination and empowerment: A feminist standpoint analysis of talk about disability. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 671-695.
Strauss, A., Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp. 273-285, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wendell, S. (1992). Toward a feminist theory of disability. In H.B. Holmes and L.M. Purdy (Eds.), Feminist Perspectives in Medical Ethics (pp. 63-81). Bloomington, Indiana University Press.
Zola, I.K. (1993). Self, identity and the naming question: Reflections on the language of disability. In M. Nagler (Ed.), Perspectives on disability, second edition (pp. 15-23), Palo Alto, CA: Health Markets Research.

Book Review Column
    
Shaywitz, S. E. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia: a new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. New York: A. A. Knopf. 

    Dr. Sally Shaywitz in her recent book, Overcoming Dyslexia, examines both the scientific and the human side of this often misunderstood disorder that affects nearly 10 million adults and children. She draws on her long career as a doctor, researcher, scientist, and as a mother, as she paints the dyslexic landscape. Dr. Shaywitz writes with power, compassion, and clarity about how the brain works, how this complex language disorder is diagnosed, and how it can be remediated with a variety of research validated interventions. Her goal is to “lift the barrier of ignorance surrounding dyslexia and replace it with the wonderful comfort of knowledge (p. 6).” Given her diverse audience of parents, as well as professionals, this is no small task. Dr. Shaywitz manages to speak with scientific authority without losing the lay reader in the process. 
    This text is divided into four sections. Part I, entitled, “The Nature of Reading and Dyslexia,” discusses the historical roots of dyslexia, how it was originally conceived by scientists in the 1600’s as “word blindness,” and later, how it evolved into its present form as a specific language-based disability. Shaywitz introduces the reader to a number of her former patients who are very intelligent, yet are poor readers. Through a variety of case studies, she personifies dyslexia and effectively emphasizes strengths of dyslexic individuals, as well as the weaknesses. In subsequent chapters, Dr. Shaywitz takes the reader on a virtual tour of the brain and describes the neurological basis of dyslexia. The book is replete with drawings of the brain based on autopsies and functional magnetic resonance spectroscopy that further illustrate the neurological underpinnings of this disorder. Shaywitz notes that, thanks to functional imaging, we now have “concrete evidence of the physical reality” of this hidden disability. 
    Part II, “Diagnosing Dyslexia,” gives parents new hope about how it may be possible to diagnose dyslexia early in the child’s development, rather than waiting for school failure. Shaywitz stresses the importance of parents being on the look-out for delays in their child’s early language development and noticing any difficulties with sound blending and sound segmentation. Once the foundations of reading are in place, it is important that the child expands his/her vocabulary, develops reading fluency and builds comprehension. Reading materials must also be intrinsically interesting so that the novice reader is drawn into the text and can experience some of the joys of reading firsthand. Parents and educators will find a listing of reading milestones, “Guide to the Development of Reading Related Skills,” from early pre-school to fourth grade a welcome road map as they monitor their child’s development. Shaywitz provides readers with additional clues about how dyslexia can be identified in children and adolescents. Perhaps, her best advice to parents is reflected in these words, “The worst thing you can do if you suspect a reading problem is to do nothing.” (p. 129). 
    Shaywitz is known for not shying away from controversy, and, in so doing, she directly addresses some of the “hot button” issues in the field regarding the assessment and identification of learning disabilities. She points to the field’s over-reliance on IQ achievement/discrepancy formulas.  In lieu of the omnipotent standard scores, Shaywitz stresses the importance of looking at a broad array of measures of cognitive and academic functioning, such as informal observations and clinical judgment.  In this chapter, she does a superb job of translating scientific findings into practical applications based on her everyday clinical practice. The diagnosis of dyslexia needs to build on the “thoughtful synthesis of information—from the child (or adult’s) personal and family history; from observations of her speaking and reading; and from tests of reading and language” (p. 132).  Shaywitz sagely reminds us that “there is no single test score that ensures the diagnosis of dyslexia. It is the overall picture that matters” (p. 139). 
    Part III of the book, “Helping Your Child Become a Reader,” discusses how the reading process naturally unfolds. She discusses phonics, sound patterns, whole language fluency, and reading comprehension. Her observations are well-grounded in scientific research and sound instructional pedagogy. Research cited from the National Reading Panel underscores the importance of systematic phonics instruction. Shaywitz works to arm parents with some insights about the reading process so that they can reinforce reading skills at home. An extensive listing of picture books, as well as poetry and chapter books, is included for parents to use to promote the love of reading in their children.
    
    In Part IV of the book, “Overcoming Dyslexia: Turning Struggling Readers into Proficient Readers,” the author points out that teaching reading is a complex process that should not be left up to novice teachers or classroom aides.  In order for students to flourish in the classroom, educators need to know their craft and know how to select curriculum materials that are tailored to the individual needs of their students. She discusses several of the most popular reading programs that are supported in the research for children, as well as adults. An unexpected find in this book is a chapter devoted to choosing the right school for a child who has a significant reading disability. Shaywitz notes that “typical public school special education programs” do little to move the dyslexic child forward, and, for this reason, she provides parents with a variety of useful suggestions about how to find a private school and with questions to ask about the school, the faculty, and curriculum. According to Shaywitz, private schools can be particularly helpful in building a child’s self-image and in helping them to understand their disability as they learn, or relearn, essential reading skills. 
    A chapter on accommodations is filled with examples of how students with dyslexia can be more successful by embracing technological aids, like the Kurzweil 3000, WYNN software, the Quicktionary Reading pen, or speech recognition software. Shaywitz does a good job at pointing out the benefits of having students use digitalized audio books from Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic (RFB&D) to support their reading. Other popular accommodations, such as taking exams with extended time, more rest breaks, or a separate room are commonly provided by schools and testing agencies for individuals with dyslexia. Shaywitz reminds readers that they should, “Never feel guilty about requesting extra time on examinations.” Additionally, Shaywitz does not miss an opportunity to point out the limitations of standardized tests in accurately predicting student performance. She views testing agencies as the gate keepers who may be particularly harmful to students who are dyslexic. She makes a plea for throwing out standardized scores entirely in favor of relying more on course grades and other holistic measures. She concludes, “Creativity is too large and too far-reaching to be fit into the narrow confines of a bubble response to a multiple-choice question” (p. 334).
    Dr. Shaywitz is an icon in the field, and this book is a useful resource for parents, professionals, and adult consumers. It is a compendium of scientific research and is replete with pages of practical applications that do much to promote a layperson’s understanding of this hidden disability. However, this book does have different implications for different audiences. Dr. Shaywitz’s exuberance for the field, while admirable, may be interpreted too literally by some audiences. In fact, the naïve reader might assume that Dr. Shaywitz is the last word on dyslexia. For instance, after reading this book, parents may believe that they can diagnose dyslexia in their child right at home in their living rooms and if this “glitch” is discovered early enough, it can be cured. For professionals in the field, the book is both informative and controversial. At times, Dr. Shaywitz makes the complexities of this complicated disorder appear too simplistic for the veterans in the field. When she proposes that, “a dyslexic needs extra time the same way a diabetic needs insulin” one can only assume that without more time on the SAT a high school student with dyslexia will collapse into a diabetic coma. While it is true that some students with dyslexia need additional time on standardized tests, not every dyslexic student needs additional testing time. Dr. Shaywitz does make her point with this analogy, and that is something that Sally Shaywitz does best. 

Loring Brinckerhoff, Ph.D.;
Educational Testing Service (ETS)
Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic (RFB&D)

    

About the Authors
    
    Katie Allison, B.A. is a graduate student in School Psychology at Florida State University. She is currently working on her internship at the Florida State University Multidisciplinary Center where she serves as a School Psychology Intern for the Taylor County School District.
    
    Jennison V. Asuncion co-directs the Adaptech Research Network. He holds an M.A. in Educational Technology and has been researching the accessibility of IT in higher education for the last seven years.
    
    Maria Barile holds a Master’s in Social Work and has been a community-based activist in disability issues for many years. She co-directs the Adaptech Research Network. 
    
    Donald H. Beil is a professor in the Applied Computer Technology Department of the National Technical Institute for the Deaf at the Rochester Institute of Technology. He is Co-Principal Investigator on the Deaf Initiative in Information Technology which, among other goals, provides computer workshops for workforce development for deaf/hard-of-hearing adults. He is the author of 11 books on a variety of computing topics.
    
    Dr. Lydia Block is the disability consultant at the Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching at Capital University in Columbus, OH and an independent educational consultant in the area of postsecondary disabilities.
    
    Loring C. Brinckerhoff, Ph.D. is Director of the Office of Disability Policy at Educational Testing Service (ETS). He also serves as a higher education and disability consultant to Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic (RFB&D) and Harvard Medical School. He is past-president of the Association on Higher Education And Disability (AHEAD) and former secretary of the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities.
    
    Ms. Karin F. Brockelman is currently a doctoral student in the Department of Special Education at the University of Illinois. Her graduate assistantships have included coaching, neuropsychological evaluation, teaching, and research. She recently completed a research project investigating faculty perceptions of postsecondary students with psychiatric disabilities. She plans to build on this area of research to facilitate communication between students and faculty about accommodation needs. 
    
    Christopher C. Debrand, Ph.D. is a research specialist at Utah State University for the Accommodating Students with Disabilities in Higher Education Project funded by the Office of Postsecondary Education in the U.S. Department of Education.
    
    Priscilla B. Embry, M.A., is a doctoral candidate in Special Education at the University of Connecticut. A graduate assistant for the Universal Design for Instruction Project, she is a former learning specialist, college instructor, and school psychologist. Her research interests include inclusive college teaching and faculty development.
    
    Catherine Fichten holds a Ph.D. in Psychology and has been researching disability-related issues for over twenty years. She is a professor in the Department of Psychology at Dawson College and in the Department of Psychiatry at McGill University. She co-directs the Adaptech Research Network.  
    
    Myrtis Fossey holds a Masters in Psychology, works as a psychologist at the Douglas Hospital, and is a member of the Adaptech Research Network team. 
    
    Shannon Gormley is a doctoral candidate in the special education program at The Pennsylvania State University in University Park, PA.
    
    Dr. Charles Hughes is a professor of special education at The Pennsylvania State University in University Park, PA and the executive director of the Council for Exceptional Children’s Division for Learning Disabilities.
    
    Laura E. Johnson, M.S., M.S.A., is a third year doctoral student in the Counseling Psychology and School Psychology doctoral program at Florida State University, and currently teaches General Psychology at Midlands Technical College in Columbia, SC.
    
    Dr. Christy Lendman is an associate professor of special education at Rockford College in Rockford, Illinois and an educational consultant for Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic.
    
    Janice Light is a professor in the Department of Communication Disorders at the Pennsylvania State University. Her research interests include improving communication outcomes and enhancing quality of life for individuals who have significant speech and language impairments and require augmentative and alternative communication.
    
    Gary Long is a research psychologist at the National Technical Institute for the Deaf at Rochester Institute of Technology.  Gary has more than 25 years of experience teaching and conducting research on the teaching/learning process with deaf and hard-of-hearing students.  He has received two national awards in recognition of his research on classroom communication, academic engagement, and concept mapping. He is currently co-investigator with Susan Foster on two Department of Education grants focused on helping deaf and hard-of-hearing students obtain equal access to information in college classes.
    
    Joan M. McGuire, Ph.D., is a professor of Special Education in the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Connecticut, Co-Director of the Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability, and former director of the University’s Program for College Students with Learning Disabilities. She specializes in postsecondary disability program development, administration, and evaluation; Universal Design for instruction (UDI); professional development and training for postsecondary personnel; and assessment and documentation of learning disabilities in adults. Dr. McGuire was previously the Co-editor of the Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability. 
    
    David McNaughton is an associate professor in the Department of Educational & School Psychology & Special Education at the Pennsylvania State University. His research interests include the teaching of writing skills for individuals with disabilities, the meaningful use of assistive technology, and the use of the World Wide Web to provide effective professional development activities for teachers.
    
    Diane Millar is an assistant professor at the University of North Texas in Denton, Texas. Her primary areas of research interest include the literacy instruction for children and adults who use augmentative and alternative communication and the use of augmentative and alternative communication to enhance the language abilities of children with developmental disabilities. 
    
    Stephen Morabito holds an M.A. in General/Experimental Psychology and serves as a Senior Research and Statistics Analyst for the Vermont Department of Health.
    
    Dr. Marjorie F. Olney is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Administration, Rehabilitation, & Postsecondary Education at San Diego State University where she teaches in the graduate program in Rehabilitation Counseling. Dr. Olney conducts research on issues in disability including barriers to employment and identity and disability. She has published nearly 30 articles, chapters and reports, presented papers at numerous state and national conferences and serves the community and profession at national and local levels.
    
    David R. Parker, Ph.D. is Director of the University Program for College Students with Learning Disabilities at the University of Connecticut. He received his doctorate from the University of Connecticut, Department of Educational Psychology.
    
    Frances Prevatt, Ph.D. is chair of the Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems at Florida State University. She co-directs the Adult Learning Evaluation Center, a training and research center at Florida State University that provides assessment and interventions for adults with learning difficulties.
    
    Fran Prezant is currently the Director of Research and Training at the National Center for Disability Services in Albertson, NY. Over the past 30 years, she has been a teaching faculty, clinician and supervisor, author, researcher, parent trainer, program developer and director, and advocate in the disability arena.  She holds a Master’s degree and national certification in speech-language pathology.
    
    Dr. Briley Proctor is an Assistant Professor at Florida State University, and is also the Co-Director of the Adult Learning Evaluation Center. Her research interests include the diagnosis of learning disabilities and attention disorders, academic interventions, and public policy.
    
    Chantal Robillard is a Ph.D. candidate in Anthropology and is a member of the Adaptech Research Network team. She is also a lecturer in the Department of Sexology at the Université du Québec à Montréal.
    
    Charles L. Salzberg, Ph.D. is a Professor of Special Education and Psychology at Utah State University and the Director of the Accommodating Students with Disabilities Project funded by the Office of Postsecondary Education in the U.S. Department of Education. Dr. Salzberg is a member of the editorial review board for the Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability.
    
    Sally S. Scott, Ph.D., is Associate Professor in the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Connecticut. She is the Co-Director of the Universal Design for Instruction Project, a federally funded, three-year grant from the U. S. DOE Office of Postsecondary Education. Current research interests include: college programming, services and accommodations for individuals with learning disabilities, Universal Design for Instruction, and disability studies. 

Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability
Author Guidelines
The Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability welcomes manuscript submissions that are of an innovative nature and relevant to the theory and practice of providing postsecondary support services to students with disabilities. Guidelines for authors are as follows:
Content
Manuscripts should demonstrate scholarly excellence in at least one of the following categories:
•	Research: Reports original quantitative or qualitative research; 
•	Integration: Integrates research of others in a meaningful way; compares or contrasts theories; critiques results; and/or provides context for future exploration. 
•	Innovation: Proposes innovation of theory, approach, or process of service delivery based on reviews of the literature and research.
•	Policy Analysis:  Provides analysis, critique and implications of public policy, statutes, regulation, and litigation.

Format
All manuscripts must be prepared according to APA format as described in The Publication Manual (5th ed.), American Psychological Association, 2001. *
•	Manuscripts should not exceed 20-25 typewritten pages. 
•	Authors should use terminology that emphasizes the individual first and the disability second (see pages 63-65 of APA Manual). Authors should also avoid the use of sexist language and the generic masculine pronoun. 
•	Manuscripts should have a title page that provides the names and affiliations of all authors and the address of the principal author. (Authors should refrain from entering their names on pages of the manuscript.) 
•	An abstract of 100-150 words should accompany all manuscripts. Abstracts must be typed and double-spaced on a separate sheet of paper. 
•	An original and four (4) hard copies of the manuscript should be furnished. 
•	An electronic copy of the manuscript should be provided on disk with platform and software clearly labeled. (PC, Microsoft Word preferred) 
•	Authors should request upon submission of manuscript if editorial communication will be needed in accessible format (e.g. electronic copy).
•	A cover letter should indicate whether or not the manuscript has been published or submitted elsewhere for consideration of publication.
*For information on changes in the fifth edition, see www.apastyle.org/fifthchanges.html. For responses to frequently asked questions about APA style , consult the APA web site at www.apastyle.org/faqs.html.

Special Issue Guidelines
Guidelines for authors who want to propose special issues can be found on the AHEAD website at www.ahead.org

Please note:
•	Do not send original artwork during the manuscript review process; it will be requested upon article acceptance. 
•	Authors will be notified by mail upon receipt of their manuscript.

Mailing address
Manuscripts should be submitted directly to the editors at either of the following addresses:
Nicole Ofiesh, Ph.D.
University of Arizona
College of Education
Department of Special Education, Rehabilitation, and School Psychology
Room 435b
Tucson, AZ 85721
James K. McAfee, Ph.D.
The Pennsylvania State University
College of Education
Educational Psychology, School Psychology, and Special Education
227 CEDAR
University Park, PA 16802
Upon acceptance for publication
For manuscripts that are accepted for publication, the following items must be provided to the editor:
•	An electronic copy of the final manuscript on a 3.5" disk (PC, Microsoft Word preferred) with word processing software and level of computer system clearly defined,
•	a hard copy of the final manuscript,
•	a signed and completed Copyright Transfer form, and
•	a 40-50 word bibliographic description for each author.

Manuscript submissions by AHEAD members are especially welcome. The Journal reserves the right to edit all material for space and style. Authors will be notified of changes.