Journal on Postsecondary Education and Disability

Volume 15, Number 2Spring 2002

EditorSally S. Scott, The University of Connecticut

Associate EditorsManju Banerjee, Recording for the Blind and DyslexicElizabeth Getzel, Virginia Commonwealth University

Elaine Manglitz, University of Georgia

Editorial Review Board

Betty Aune, College of St. ScholasticaRon Blosser, Recording for the Blind and DyslexicLoring Brinkerhoff, Educational Testing Service and Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic Donna Hardy Cox, Memorial University of Newfoundland Catherine S. Fichten, Dawson College, MontrealAnna Gajar, The Pennsylvania State UniversitySam Goodin, University of Michigan Richard Harris, Ball State UniversityCheri Hoy, University of GeorgiaCharles A. Hughes, The Pennsylvania State University Cyndi Jordan, University of Tennessee, Memphis and Hutchison School Joseph Madaus, University of ConnecticutJames K. McAfee, The Pennsylvania State

University Joan M. McGuire, University of ConnecticutDavid McNaughton,The Pennsylvania State UniversityDaryl Mellard, University of KansasWard Newmeyer, University of California, BerkeleyNicole Ofiesh, University of ArizonaLynda Price, Temple UniversityFrank R. Rusch, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDaniel J. Ryan, University of BuffaloStan Shaw, University of ConnecticutPatricia Silver, University of MassachusettsJudith Smith, Purdue University Calumet Judy SmithsonSharon Suritsky, Upper St. Clair School DistrictRuth Warick, University of British Columbia

Marc Wilchesky, York University

AHEAD Board of Directors

Sam Goodin, President University of Michigan

J. Trey Duffy, Immediate Past PresidentUniversity of Wisconsin - Madison

Randy Borst, President-ElectUniversity at Buffalo, SUNY

Carol Funckes, TreasurerUniversity of Arizona

Kent Jackson, SecretaryIndiana University of Pennsylvania

Stephan Smith, Executive DirectorAHEAD

Joanie Friend, Director of CommunicationMetropolitan Community Colleges

Jim Kessler, Director of Membership/Constituent RelationsUniversity of North Carolina - Chapel Hill

Richard Allegra, Director of Professional DevelopmentUniversity of Illinois at Chicago

David Sweeney, Director of MarketingTexas A&M University

Eunice Lund-Lucas, International Director-at-LargeTrent University

Margaret Ottinger, United States Director-at-LargeUniversity of Vermont

Journal on Postsecondary Education and Disability

Volume 15, Number 2Spring 2002

Assessing the Academic Competence of College Students:Validation of a Self-Report Measure of Skills and Enablers...........................................87 - 100

Stephen N. Elliott & James C. DiPerna

Opinions of Disability Service Directors on Faculty Training:The Need, Content, Issues, Formats, Media, and Activities.........................................101 - 114

Charles L. SalzbergLlyod PetersonChristopher C. Debrand

Rebecca J. BlairAnna C. CarseyAlexis S. Johnson

Multidimensional Disability Attitudes and Equitable Evaluation of Educational Accommodations by CollegeStudents Without Disabilities........................................................................................115 - 130

Thomas D. Upton & Dennis C. Harper

Book Review - The New Disability History: American Perspectives.............................131 - 132

Elaine Manglitz

Copyright C 2002, The Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD), Boston, MA

The Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability is published two times per year, nonprofit bulk rate postage paid at Boston, Massachusetts. Any article is the personal expression of the authors and does not necessarily carry AHEAD endorsement unless specifically set forth by adopted resolution.

The Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability seeks manuscripts relevant to postsecondary access and support for students with disabilities, including theory, practice and innovative research. For information on submitting a manuscript, see“Author Guidelines” on the inside back cover of this issue. Send materials to: Dr. Sally Scott, University of Connecticut, Department of Educational Psychology/Hall 110, Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability/ Unit 2064, Storrs, CT, 06269-2064

Assessing the Academic Competence of College Students:

Validation of a Self-Report Measure of Skills and Enablers

Stephen N. ElliottWisconsin Center for Education Research

University of Wisconsin-Madison

James C. DiPernaLehigh University

Abstract

This study investigated the criterion-related validity of the Academic Competence Evaluation Scales-College (ACES-College), a self-report measure of academic competence. A nationally representative sample of 250 students attending two- and four-year colleges completed the ACES-College and provided GPA information and their ACT or SAT scores. A subsample of 31 of the students were self-identified as having been formally classified with a learning disability. Students’ scores on the ACES provided evidence to partially support the prediction that the ACES was moderately correlated with their GPAs and college admission test scores. In addition, strong evidence was found in the form of a significant MANOVA and classification analyses for the prediction that ACES scores may be used to reliably differentiate a large percentage of students with learning disabilities from students without a disability. These findings provide good evidence for the criterion-related validity of scores from the ACES-College. The results are discussed in terms of previous research on the ACES and the potential for the ACES to be used to facilitate assessment and intervention services for college students experiencing learning difficulties.

This study examined the validity of a self-report instrument designed to facilitate a meaningful assessment of college students’ academic competence and the strategies they use to improve academic functioning. The research reported here is part of a program of research on the assessment of behaviors that contribute to the academic competence of students from kindergarten through college (DiPerna, 1997, 1999; DiPerna & Elliott, 1999). Besides advancing a clearer understanding of the construct of academic competence, the research has resulted in the publication of the Academic Competence Evaluation Scales-College or ACES-College (DiPerna & Elliott, 2001). This article reports the criterion-related validity of the ACES-College for a sample of students representative of the college population and including students with learning disabilities. Definition and Model of Academic Competence

Academic competence, as measured by the ACES-College, is defined as a multidimensional construct composed of the skills, attitudes, and behaviors of a learner that contribute to academic success.

INSERT FIGURE ONE HERE FROM SEPARATE MICROSOFT WORD FILE.

As such, academic competence includes many of the critical skills — reading, writing, calculating, solving problems, attending, questioning, and studying — needed for academic success (DiPerna, 1997; DiPerna & Elliott, 1999). An examination of the empirical literature indicates that researchers have defined this construct somewhat inconsistently. For example, several researchers have not explicitly defined the construct or have used “academic competence” interchangeably with terms such as “academic performance” and “academic ability” (e.g., Henggeler, Cohen, Edwards, Summerville, & Ray, 1991; Rotheram, 1987).

The results of our research have indicated that the skills, attitudes, and behaviors contributing to academic competence fall into one of two domains: academic skills or academic enablers (DiPerna & Elliott, 2000). Academic skills are the basic and complex skills that are a central part of academic curricula at the elementary and secondary levels of education, and they play a critical role in allowing students to learn content specific knowledge at the post-secondary level. Academic enablers are attitudes and behaviors that allow a student to benefit from instruction. Figure 1 provides a simplified picture of the potentially complex relationships among instruction, academic enablers, academic skills, and academic competence. Academic Competence and College Students with Learning Disabilities

Although we were unable to identify previous studies that explicitly measured the academic competence of college students with learning disabilities, researchers have explored specific academic, cognitive, or enabling behaviors in the college learning disability population. Hughes and Osgood Smith (1990) reviewed more than 100 articles related to students with disabilities in college. Fewer than one third of the articles reported actual data regarding the cognitive or academic performance of college students with disabilities. Although many of the data-based articles had methodological limitations (e.g., small sample sizes, outcome measures with limited validity evidence for the college population), the authors were able to make some inferences regarding the skills and abilities of college students with learning disabilities. Specifically, college students with learning disabilities appeared to demonstrate similar levels of overall intellectual functioning (as measured by standardized intelligence tests) to their peers without disabilities. In addition, the students with disabilities frequently demonstrated meaningful differences from their peers

without disabilities in academic skills, especially in the areas of reading, writing, mathematics, and foreign language.

Wilcenzenski and Gillespie-Silver (1992) reviewed the academic performance of students with learning disabilities and students without disabilities at a large public university in the Northeast. As expected, students with learning disabilities exhibited lower scholastic aptitude and achievement (SAT, high school rank) than their peers without disabilities. In addition, they demonstrated lower achievement (overall grade point average) than their peers without disabilities during the first year of college.

More recently, Dunn (1995) explored the skills and abilities of three groups of college students: students with low achievement, students with documented learning disabilities, and students with self-identified learning disabilities. Dunn used a direct assessment (Scholastic Abilities Test for Adults) to assess student participants’ cognitive and academic skills. In addition, Dunn used a questionnaire to measure students’ self-perceptions of their academic (e.g., reading, writing), cognitive (e.g., memory, attention), and enabling skills (e.g., study and social behaviors). Results indicated that students in the low achievement group generally demonstrated a higher level of skills than the other two student groups. Although few significant differences were found between the students with self-identified disabilities and students with documented disabilities, the latter demonstrated significantly lower performance in written language skills. Interestingly, Dunn also found that observed differences among the three groups of students were consistent across the direct and the self-report assessments. This finding suggests that student self-ratings can provide useful information for differentiating students with low achievement from students with disabilities. Rationale

Many practitioners working with college students experiencing academic difficulty have not had a systematic method for assessing a student’s academic competence and, when necessary, conceptualizing interventions to improve it. Currently, there are a limited number of diagnostic achievement tests have normative data for a college population (e.g., Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001; Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-2; Psychological Corporation; 2001). Although evidence is available to support the reliability and validity of these achievement batteries for measuring college students’ academic skills, they do not provide information about nonacademic behaviors that facilitate academic success. In addition, these assessments require a significant amount of time for administration and interpretation because they are primarily intended for diagnostic rather than screening purposes.

Conversely, a limited number of rating scales have been developed that assess specific types of academic enablers, such as motivation or study skills. Two such scales are the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI; Weinstein, Schulte, & Palmer, 1987) and the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MLSQ; Pintrich, McKeachie, & Smith, 1989). Both of these self-report instruments assess a variety of study and learning strategies that have been shown to impact academic performance; however, neither explicitly assesses the respondent’s academic skills. The ACES-College was designed to complement the limitations of existing measures by providing practitioners with an efficient screening tool to assess a student’s academic skills and academic enablers. In addition, the ACES-College was developed to facilitate identification of possible intervention strategies by directly engaging the student who is experiencing the learning difficulty.

In the remainder of this article, we examine the initial criterion-related validity evidence for the self-ratings of college students’ academic skills and academic enablers via the ACES-College. Specifically, we present data that address questions about (a) the relation of scores on the ACES to students’ GPA and SAT or ACT scores and (b) the ability of ACES scores to differentiate students with learning disabilities from those without such disabilities.

Method

ParticipantsThe sample consisted of 140 females and 110 males who had been in college for one or more years.

For the students in the standardization sample, the proportion approximates the number of Caucasians, African-Americans, Hispanics and other race/ethnic groups based on the race/ethnic-group proportions of college students, as reported in the October 1998 Census data (see Table 1). The students represented 39 colleges in four geographic regions of the country (as specified in the U.S. Census data) where advising staff volunteered to serve as data collection site coordinators. Site coordinators were paid for their services and solicited volunteer participants. A random subsample of participants was selected from each pool of

volunteers at an institution. While the sample only approximated the U.S. Census, it is important to remember that many college students attend colleges or universities outside their region. The sample was divided into two-year and four-year colleges or universities, both private and public.

Table 1

Demographic Characteristic of the ACES-College Sample

ACES-College Sample(N=250)

1998 U. S. Census Projections

Gender Female 56% 56% Male 44% 44%

Race/Ethnicity Caucasian 68% 71% African American 15% 13% Hispanic 9% 9% Other 7% 7%

Region Northeast 16% 23% North Central 25% 20% South 44% 31% West 15% 25%

College Type 2-year 32% 29% 4-year 68% 71%

Disability Status No Disability 88% -- Learning Disability 12% --

Of the 250 students who participated, 31 indicated they had been identified in high school or earlier with a learning disability. In the majority of cases, the self-identified disability was confirmed against student records by the site coordinator. However, it was not possible to determine how many participants may have failed to identify themselves as having a disability given the confidentiality of this information. Overall, 12% of the sample consisted of students with diagnosed learning disabilities. We oversampled students with disabilities to ensure adequate numbers for statistical power. In typical random samples of college students, approximately 6% of students report having a disability; 29% of them specify that they have a learning disability (Horn & Berktold, 1999). In sum, our sample of colleges in many ways approximates the college student population in the United States.Materials

ACES-College. The ACES-College is a 108-item questionnaire which includes three separate scales (Academic Skills - 30 items, Academic Enablers - 36 items, and Learning Strategies - 48 items). In addition, each scale consists of multiple subscales.

Specifically, the Academic Skills scale includes three subscales: Reading/Writing, Mathematics/Science, and Critical Thinking. The Reading/Writing subscale which consists of skills necessary for generating and understanding written language, includes items ranging from reading comprehension to written communication. The Mathematics/Science subscale primarily reflects skills related to the use and application of numbers and scientific concepts. Thus it includes items reflecting measurement, computation, and problem solving. Finally, the Critical Thinking subscale assesses higher-order thinking skills, and includes items reflecting analysis, synthesis, and investigation.

Items on the Academic Skills Scale require criterion-referenced ratings based on students’ perception of grade-level expectations at their institution. Students provide ratings on a 5-point scale ranging from Far Below to Far Above grade-level expectations. Each skill also is rated on how important the skill is for functioning in classes. These ratings use a 3-point scale ranging from Not Important to Critical. (The importance ratings are used to prioritize target skills for intervention.)

The Academic Enablers scale consists of four subscales: Interpersonal Skills, Motivation, Study Skills, and Engagement. The Interpersonal Skills subscale measures communication and cooperation behaviors necessary to interact successfully with other students. It consists of items in three domains: social interaction, work interaction, and responsive behavior. The Motivation subscale assesses a student’s initiative and persistence regarding academic subjects, and includes items that reflect responsibility, preference for challenging tasks, and goal-directed behavior. The Study Skills subscale reflects behaviors and skills that facilitate learning new information. The items on this subscale primarily fall within three domains: work preparation, work completion, and work review. Finally, the Engagement subscale assesses a student’s level of active participation during class; items on this subscale reflect asking questions, volunteering answers, or assuming leadership in groups.

The Academic Enablers Scale uses frequency ratings based on students’ perception of how often they exhibit a given enabling behavior. Students provide ratings on a 5-point scale ranging from Never to Almost Always. Similar to the Academic Skills Scale, each enabler also is rated on how important the skill is for functioning in classes.

Finally, the Learning Strategies Scale on the ACES-College is used to facilitate intervention planning. Therefore, items on this scale are based on a summary of effective teaching and learning research (Christenson, Rounds, & Gorney, 1992; Elliott, Kratochwill, Littlefield Cook, & Travers, 2000) and reflect seven categories of learning strategies: expectations for learning and achievement, time management and organization, maximizing learning during instruction, learning resources, homework and assignments, self-monitoring and evaluation, and rewards and consequences. These items are not scored; instead, they require the respondent to select from three alternatives (Not Helpful, Somewhat Helpful, or Very Helpful) to indicate if a strategy would be helpful for improving their own learning. Because these items are for intervention planning purposes only and are not scored, they were not included in the analyses for this article.

Grade point averages (GPA). Two measures of GPA were collected as part of the study. The first required students to report their GPA from the most recently completed academic semester. The second GPA measure required students to report their cumulative GPA throughout their post-secondary education.

Standardized tests of aptitude and achievement. Students were asked to provide their scores on any standardized college admissions tests (i.e., SAT or ACT assessment) that they had taken prior to enrolling in their postsecondary institution. Procedure

Student participants were recruited through site coordinators at postsecondary institutions throughout the United States. After consenting to participate, each student completed a questionnaire requesting demographic information (race, gender, age, disability status, etc.) as well as current and previous grades and standardized test scores. Each student then completed the standardization version of the ACES Academic Skills and Academic Enablers Scales.Predictions and Data Analyses

As noted, this study was designed to examine the criterion-related validity of the ACES-College and specifically addressed questions about (a) the relation of ACES scores to students’ GPA and SAT or ACT scores and (b) the ability of ACES scores to differentiate students with learning disabilities from those without such disabilities. Dependent variables were students’ grade-level expectation ratings of Academic Skills and frequency ratings of Academic Enablers.

Prediction #1. We predicted the ACES-College would correlate moderately (.30 < r < .60) with both students’ GPAs and SAT or ACT scores. These predicted relationships were tested using correlation

analyses. The relationship between test scores and other observable variables is an important source of validity evidence. Frequently, these observable variables are measured by other tests that have been established to measure similar or different, but related, constructs. In the development of the ACES, we were interested in understanding the relationship among academic competence and constructs such as academic achievement (as measured by grades and standardized tests) and aptitude. This type of evidence addresses questions about the degree to which relationships are consistent with the theory underlying the proposed test interpretations.

Prediction #2. We also predicted that ACES scores for students with learning disabilities would be significantly lower (p < .05) than the scores for students not identified as having a disability. This predicted difference in ACES scores between groups of students was tested using a MANOVA and followed up with a discriminant-function analysis to determine the classification accuracy of the ACES. Mathematically, a MANOVA and a discriminant-function analysis are the same, but the emphases often differ. The major question in the multivariate analysis of variance was whether group membership (i.e., students with learning disabilities and students without a disability) was associated with reliable mean differences in combined dependent variable scores, whereas in the discriminant-function analysis, the question was whether predictors (i.e., ACES scores) can be combined to predict group membership reliably. The end goal of the discriminant-function analysis was to classify participants into one of the two groups of students.

Given the goal of group classification, one can ask What proportion of cases was correctly classified? When classification errors occur, how were cases misclassified? Before looking at the results of classification analyses based on discriminant functions with ACES subscale scores, it is important to remember that the ACES was not developed for disability classification purposes. Instead, it was designed to be a reliable measure of many of the skills and behaviors indicative of academically competent students. Yet the ACES-College should be reasonably good at differentiating students with an academic difficulty from students without such difficulties.

Results

Prediction #1: Relationships Between ACES and Academic IndicatorsThe prediction concerning the relationship between ACES-College scores and students’ GPAs and

SAT or ACT scores was partially supported. The correlational evidence that supports this first prediction follows.

Grade point average (GPA). Correlations between ACES-College scores, last semester GPA, and overall GPA are displayed in Table 2. As shown, correlations between the Academic Skills scores (total and subscales) with last semester GPA were relatively low in magnitude, ranging from .16 to .21. Correlations between Academic Skills scores and overall GPA were slightly higher in magnitude, ranging from .23 to .27. With the exception of the Interpersonal Skills subscale, the Academic Enablers scores (total and subscales) generally demonstrated stronger relationships with both GPA indices than the Academic Skills scores. Correlations between last semester GPA and Academic Enablers scores ranged from .02 to .38 and were consistently higher than the correlations between Academic Enablers scores and overall GPA, which ranged from .02 to .31.

SAT and ACT scores. Correlations between ACES scales and subscales and students’ scores on the SAT or ACT are displayed in Table 3. As illustrated, the Academic Skills Scale and most of the subscales demonstrated low to moderate correlations with SAT scores, ranging from .08 to .42. As expected, the Reading/Writing subscale demonstrated the largest correlation (.42) with SAT Verbal scores and the Math/Science Subscale demonstrated the largest correlation (.38) with the SAT Math Score. The Academic Skills Scale and all its subscales demonstrated significant low to moderate relationships with the ACT Composite score. The higher correlations between the ACES Academic Skills scores and the ACT Composite score are possibly due to the fact that the ACT Composite, like the ACES, samples a broad range of academic skills (English, Reading, Mathematics, and Science Reasoning) whereas the SAT measures Verbal and Mathematics skills only. The pattern of correlations across these measures indicates that the ACES Academic Skills subscales measure distinct but related skills in reading and writing, mathematics and science, and critical thinking.

Table 2

Correlations Between the ACES-College, Semester GPA, and Overall GPA

GPALast Semester Overall

Academic Skills Total .16a .23 Reading/Writing .17a .26 Math/Science .18a .25 Critical Thinking .21 .27

Academic Enablers Total .38 .31 Interpersonal Skills .02b .02b

Motivation .37 .28 Study Skills .36 .30 Engagement .17a .10b

Note. Grade level was partialled out of the correlations. All correlations significant at the

p < .01 level unless indicated otherwise. N’s ranged from 174-205.

ap< .05. b nonsignificant

Correlations between the ACES Academic Enablers scale and subscales with SAT (Verbal, Math, and Combined) and ACT Composite consistently were not statistically significant. As such, these correlations cannot reliably be distinguished from a value of 0 (i.e., no relationship). The one significant correlation occurred between the Motivation Subscale and SAT Verbal Scale, and was low in magnitude (.31). This overall pattern of correlations indicates that the ACES Academic Enablers measure something different than academic aptitude as measured by these standardized tests. Prediction #2. Differences in ACES Scores for Known Groups of Students

Statistical evidence supported the prediction that the ACES-College can effectively identify and differentiate students with learning disabilities from students without a disability. Table 4 provides the mean raw score ratings for students with and without disabilities on each of the ACES-College scales and subscales. An examination of the data suggests that the students with a learning disability exhibited mean academic skills significantly below those of their peers without disabilities.

Table 3

Correlations Between the ACES-College, SAT scores, and ACT Composite Score

SATa ACTb

Verbal Math Combined Composite

Academic Skills Total .27* .23* .22* .45*** Reading/Writing .42*** .23* .28*** .47*** Math/Science .16 .38*** .25* .41*** Critical Thinking .24* .08 .14 .28*

Academic Enablers Total .09 -.07 .16 .14 Interpersonal Skills -.02 -.13 -.02 -.01 Motivation .31*** .08 .18 .18 Study Skills .19 -.10 .14 .14 Engagement .11 -.06 .16 .01

aN’s ranged from 77-97. bN’s ranged from 59-63.

p < .05. ***p < .001

In contrast, these two groups of students exhibited similar mean levels of academic enabling behaviors. The observed means were tested using a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). The multivariate F-ratio resulting from this analysis was statistically significant [F (7, 142) = 9.00, p < .001]. Subsequent univariate analyses for each of the ACES Academic Skills subscales [Reading/Writing: F (1, 148) = 54.40; Math/Science: F (1, 148) = 15.85; Critical Thinking: F (1, 148) = 18.36] also were statistically significant at the p < .001 level. This statistical evidence supports the observation that the ACES-College is sensitive to many of the skills and behaviors that differentiate students with and without academic skill difficulties.

Table 4

Means and Standard Deviations for Scores on the ACES-College by Disability Status

Disability Status

No Disability a

Learning Disabilityb

Academic Skills Scale Total 109.46(16.90)

90.22(19.20)

Reading/Writing (10 items)

36.82(6.74)

27.56(6.02)

Math/Science (10 items)

34.97(6.56)

29.91(7.18)

Critical Thinking (10 items)

37.35(6.31)

32.07(7.81)

Academic Enablers Scale Total 148.33(17.82)

143.05(18.21)

Interpersonal Skills (8 Items)

33.00(4.21)

32.16(4.07)

Motivation (10 items)

41.93(5.88)

40.52(5.67)

Study Skills (10 items)

42.10(6.34)

41.94(6.49)

Engagement (8 items)

30.54(6.19)

28.86(6.00)

aN’s ranged from 275-302. bN’s ranged from 36-50.

In addition to conducting a MANOVA for educational status, we conducted a MANOVA with ACES subscales as dependent variables and College Level (2-year vs. 4-year school), Gender, and Minority Status as independent variables. The effects for College Level, F(7, 169) = 1.32, p = .243, Minority Status, F(7, 169) = 1.22, p = .296, and a three-way interaction, F(28, 688) = 0.97, p = .517, all were nonsignificant; however, the effect due to gender was significant, F(7, 169) = 3.82, p = .0007, with female students on average scoring higher than their male peers. Followup univariate ANOVAs of the gender effect indicated that most of the differences occurred between the Academic Enablers subscales. Although these differences were statistically significant, they were not large enough from a practical perspective to warrant identification of different norms by gender for the Academic Enablers subscales.

A discriminant-function analysis represents the final evidence concerning test-criterion relationships for the ACES-College. Classification analysis resulting from the combination of subscale scores on the ACES-College are summarized in Table 5. The results indicate that the ACES-College, on average across grades 13-16, classified nearly 76% of the students assessed accurately into one of two groups: (a) students without disabilities or (b) students identified as having a learning disability.

Discussion

The research reported in this article focused on the validity of a recently developed self-report measure of academic competence. This new measure, the ACES-College, was designed to measure academic competence. Previous research has demonstrated that academic competence as measured by the ACES is a multidimensional construct comprised of a skills domain and an enabler domain (DiPerna & Elliott, 2000). The present study used a representative sample of college students’ ratings on the ACES to explore the instrument’s relationship with commonly used indicators (i.e., GPA) and predictors (i.e., SAT and ACT scores) of academic functioning. In addition, to further advance an understanding of the ACES-College, we tested its ability to meaningfully differentiate between students known to have a learning disability and students who had not been identified with any disability.

Table 5

Classification Analysis for Educational Status Groups using ACES-College

Predicted Group Membership Overall Percentage of Correctly Classified Cases

General Education

Learning Disability

n n % n %

Actual Group Membership General Education 119 92 77.31 27 22.69 75.75 Learning Disability 31 8 25.81 23 74.19

The research is part of a program of research conducted to establish validity evidence for the resulting test scores as required for any new assessment tool (American Educational Research Association, 1999). Test developers and users historically have referred to the type of evidence we collected as concurrent validity, convergent and discriminant validity, predictive validity, or criterion-related validity. Regardless of what it is called, this type of evidence is important for understanding what a test measures and whether it relates to other variables as expected based on the theoretical model that guided its development and use.

The pattern of convergent correlations between ACES scales and subscales and GPA provided evidence that the ACES-College measures skill and behavior domains that are related with students’ actual performance in their courses, although the correlations are somewhat lower than those obtained in previous research using a K-12 version of the teacher ACES (DiPerna & Elliott, 1999, 2000). There are several plausible explanations for these findings. One explanation is the restricted range of the sample. College students, even those who are struggling, demonstrated a level of academic proficiency prior to entering college. Thus, the college population generally represents a smaller and higher-achieving sample than the general population. Although every effort was made during ACES standardization to collect a diverse college sample with regard to demographic variables as well as academic achievement, the college population is a unique (and restricted) sample by definition. A second explanation is that GPA data were self-reported and, although students had no incentive to misreport GPA, inaccuracies inevitably occurred as a result of having to report these values from memory. Third, given the target population for ACES use (i.e., students experiencing academic difficulty), the instrument emphasizes fundamental skills and behaviors that allow students to learn and demonstrate knowledge (e.g., reading, writing, math, thinking) rather than assessing content knowledge, which is arguably the primary attribute assessed in many college courses. Although future research is necessary to identify which (or what combination) of these hypotheses is accurate, the obtained correlations provide evidence that the ACES measures skills and behaviors relate to current and overall academic achievement at the collegiate level.

In contrast, the Academic Enablers are clearly measuring different constructs than aptitude or previous achievement, but they are measuring behaviors and skills related to current academic achievement. The Interpersonal Skills subscale did not demonstrate significant relationships with any of the external validity measures. Although interpersonal skills or prosocial behavior has been demonstrated to be a significant predictor of current academic achievement for students in grades K-12 (DiPerna 1999; Malecki & Elliott 2002; Wentzel, 1993), this relationship has not been adequately explored in postsecondary education. At a practical level, interpersonal skills are necessary to function successfully in a college environment (both academically and socially); however, relative to elementary and secondary classrooms, these skills are de-emphasized in many courses at the college level. We decided to retain the Interpersonal Skills subscale on the ACES-College given the empirical evidence based on the internal structure of the measure as well as the critical role these skills play in functioning within a college environment (DiPerna, 2001).

The inclusion of a sample of students with learning disabilities in this study was central to questions about the criterion-related validity and the utility of the ACES-College. Although our sampling approach was not entirely random and it was not possible to verify the disability status of all participants, the resulting self-identified sample appeared to be representative of the U.S. population of college students with learning disabilities. As expected, we found that students with learning disabilities self-reported levels of academic skills that were on average significantly lower than those of peers without disabilities. The academic skill differences across the two known groups are consistent with expectations based on the definition of a learning disability as well as previous findings with the teacher and student versions of the ACES (DiPerna & Elliott, 2000). Although the academic enablers findings are inconsistent with previous research using the ACES-Teacher and Student versions at the secondary level (DiPerna & Elliott, 2000), the results make conceptual sense. That is, students with disabilities who have well-developed enablers (similar to those of other students who pursue postsecondary education) appear to be most likely to enter and stay in college. To be successful at the college level, students with disabilities need academically enabling behaviors that are similar to those of their college-bound peers.

Although the ACES-College was not designed to be used primarily as an assessment instrument for classification purposes, it was found to do a reasonably good job of correctly classifying a high percentage of students into their known groups. Practitioners and researchers should never use a single assessment instrument to make important educational decisions, such as a disability classification. Yet, the ACES-College has the potential to be an efficient supplement to more direct measures of academic skills. In addition, it has the added benefit of actively involving the student in analyzing his or her own academic skills, enabling behaviors, and learning strategies.

Collectively, there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion that scores from the ACES-College have moderate relationships with external criteria commonly used to measure students’ academic functioning. Specifically, this evidence suggests that scores on the ACES-College (a) share statistically significant variance with scores from individual standardized tests of achievement, and (b) differentiate between students who have learning disabilities and students who have no identified academic difficulties. Continued research efforts are needed to document the validity of assessments to make important educational decisions. Future research with the ACES-College will examine the self-reported use of learning strategies by students experiencing academic difficulty and interventions that have been found effective for increasing skills, enablers, and strategies of all students. The goal of all this work is to better understand what it takes for students to achieve a high level of academic competence throughout their formal educational experiences.

ReferencesAmerican Educational Research Association. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing.

Washington, DC: Author.Christenson, S.L., Rounds, T., & Gorney, D. (1992). Family factors and student achievement: An avenue

to increase students’ success. School Psychology Quarterly, 7, 178-206.DiPerna, J.C. (1997). Academic competence: The construct and its measurement via teacher ratings.

Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin.DiPerna, J.C. (1999). Testing student models of academic achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Wisconsin.DiPerna, J.C. (2001). Validity evidence for the content and structure of the Academic Competence

Evaluation Scales – College Edition. Manuscript submitted for publication. DiPerna, J.C., & Elliott, S.N. (1999). The development and validation of the Academic Competence

Evaluation Scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 17, 207-225. DiPerna, J.C., & Elliott, S.N. (2000). The Academic Competence Evaluation Scales (ACES K-12). San

Antonio, TX: The Psychological Association.DiPerna, J.C., & Elliott, S.N. (2001). The Academic Competence Evaluation Scales (ACES College). San

Antonio, TX: The Psychological Association.Dunn, C. (1995). A comparison of three groups of academically at-risk college students. Journal of College

Student Development, 36, 270-279.

Elliott, S.N., Kratochwill, T.R., Littlefield Cook, J., & Travers, J. (2000). Educational psychology: Effective teaching, effective learning (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Henggeler, S.W., Cohen, R., Edwards, J.J., Summerville, M.B., & Ray, G.E. (1991). Family stress as a link in the association between television viewing and achievement. Child Study Journal, 21, 1-10.

Horn, L., & Berktold, J. (1999). Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: A profile of preparation, participation, and outcomes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Hughes, C. A., & Osgood Smith, J. (1990). Cognitive and academic performance of college students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 66-79.

Malecki, C.K. & Elliott S.N. (2002). Children’s social behaviors as predictors of academic achievement: A longitudinal analysis. School Psychology Quarterly, 17(1), 1-23.

Pintrich, P. R., McKeachie, W. J., & Smith, D. (1989). The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Post-Secondary Teaching and Learning.

Psychological Corporation. (2001) Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Author.

Rotheram, M.J. (1987). Children’s social and academic competence. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 206-211.

Weinstein, C. E., Schulte, C., & Palmer, D. H. (1987). Learning and Study Strategies Inventory. Clearwater, FL: Hemisphere.

Wentzel, K.R. (1993). Does being good make the grade? Social behavior and academic competence in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 357-364.

Wilcenzenski, F. L., & Gillespie-Silver, P. (1992). Challenging the norm: Academic performance of university students with learning disabilities. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 197-202.

Woodcock, R. J., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

About the AuthorsStephen N. Elliott received his doctorate at Arizona State University in 1980 and is currently a

professor of Educational Psychology and Associate Director of the Wisconsin Center for Education Research at UW-Madison. He is a faculty member in the School Psychology Program and currently directs four federal grants concerning testing accommodations and services for students with disabilities and their teachers.

James C. DiPerna received his doctorate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and is currently an assistant professor in the School Psychology Program at Lehigh University. His research interests focus on the assessment of academic skills and enablers for students K-college and providing intervention services for at-risk learners.

Opinions of Disability Service Directors on Faculty Training:

The Need, Content, Issues, Formats, Media, and Activities

Charles L. SalzbergLloyd Peterson

Christopher C. DebrandRebecca J. BlairAnna C. Carsey

Alexis S. JohnsonUtah State University

Abstract

There is a growing need for colleges and universities to provide training for faculty members about students with disabilities. In this study, a representative sample of 214 directors of disability service offices (DSOs) responded to a survey that called for their opinions about various aspects of faculty training programs. Specifically, they responded to questions about the need for training, about the factors which they believe lead to a successful training program, problems in getting faculty to participate, concerns of faculty, the content for a training program, the duration or length of training sessions, the types of activities which should be included in training and the best formats with which to deliver training. A detailed summary of their responses is presented in the results along with some discussion of key issues.

Generally, DSO directors are not satisfied with their institutions’ current faculty training programs and believe a far more substantial effort would be in order. They note the difficulty in getting many faculty members to attend training sessions, and the overwhelming majority recommended that, as a practical matter, sessions need to be limited to one or two hours. Participants had many consistent opinions about preferred content, faculty concerns, and formats for training.

Young people with disabilities in the United States aspire to higher education. According to Gardner (1999), 86% of eighth-grade students with disabilities who responded to a National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) survey planned to go on to some form of postsecondary education. That same study noted a dramatic increase in the number of individuals with disabilities actually enrolled in postsecondary education. For example, 63% of the eighth-grade students who aspired to postsecondary education were pursuing postsecondary education within two years of their high school graduation. Further, in 1978, an NCES survey of full-time, first-year freshman in colleges and universities throughout the United States indicated that 2.6% of full-time freshman reported having at least one disability. By 1998, that figure had risen to more than 9% (Gardner, 1999).

It appears that postsecondary education graduates with disabilities do about as well as their nondisabled counterparts with regard to the probability of employment in their chosen fields and in the compensation they receive (Horn & Berktold, 1999). However, students with disabilities are less likely to graduate from college (Gardner, 1999; Horn & Berktold, 1999). One factor that is important to the success of students with disabilities in postsecondary institutions is the knowledge and attitudes of the faculty about students with disabilities.

By and large, faculty members are seen by students with disabilities as sensitive and willing to cooperate with accommodations, although there are exceptions (Hill, 1996). Importantly, a study of faculty attitudes by Leyser, Vogel, Wyland, and Brulle (1998) indicated that faculty members who had more information about students with disabilities were more positive toward them and that faculty members who had more personal contact with individuals with disabilities were more positive toward students with disabilities in their classes. Moreover, 88% of the faculty members indicated a willingness to accommodate students with disabilities and a belief that they should integrate students with disabilities. Unfortunately, Leyser et al. (1998) also found that 83.5% of these faculty members reported limited contact with students with disabilities, 40% had limited knowledge and skills to make accommodations, and 55% reported being unfamiliar with campus resources and services that might help students with disabilities. Perhaps, most to the point for current purposes, 82% of these faculty members reported that they had limited or no training about the needs of students with disabilities.

Further substantiating these findings, West et al. (1993) stated that a frequent barrier to students with disabilities in higher education is a lack of understanding regarding accommodations. Similarly, Lundeberg

and Svien (1988) and Tomlan, Farrell, and Geis (1989) suggest that training be provided to faculty members to increase their understanding of students with disabilities.

These studies clearly point to a need for institutions of higher education (IHEs) to provide training about students with disabilities for faculty members as well as for teaching assistants and administrators; indeed, many IHEs have begun to do that (Lewis & Farris, 1999). However, designing a successful training program requires some critical information. For example, what should be included in a training program about students with disabilities for postsecondary faculty? What are the best ways for such training to be delivered? How lengthy should a training program be? As a practical matter, how much time can faculty members reasonably be expected to devote to training? What other factors affect the likely success of a faculty training program?

While the literature states that training for faculty is sorely needed, it does not provide empirical data on what a faculty training program should contain. This study attempted to gather knowledgeable opinions about these and other questions. While many individuals might provide intelligent commentary on these questions, we decided that perhaps the professionals who direct the disabilities services offices (DSOs) at colleges and universities are in the best position to do so. This study, then, surveyed DSO directors throughout the United States about issues related to developing a training program for higher education faculty.

Method

ParticipantsThe population from which the study sample was drawn were members of the Association on Higher

Education and Disability (AHEAD) who were listed as the director/coordinator of their institution’s disability service office (DSO) in the 1999 AHEAD directory. One director/coordinator was selected from each IHE for a total population of 613. If an IHE listing included both a director and a coordinator, the director was selected to be included in the population. Of that population, the Canadian (26) directors were excluded because different laws pertaining to students with disabilities in the United States and Canada might lead to confounding results if the populations were combined. Further, Utah directors (13) were excluded because they had been exposed to an earlier draft of the survey instrument in a pilot study. Thus, their inclusion in the final study might have compromised the integrity of the results. In addition, 66 individuals who were identified in the directory could not be found at their listed numbers. Thus, the total population was reduced to 508 respondents who were distributed across the 10 federal rehabilitation regions. After one month, a follow-up e-mail was sent to participants who did not respond to the initial survey.

In order to better describe the population of participating institutions, we present the distribution of the sample across the 10 federal rehabilitation regions (in Table 1). The distribution of participating institutions across Carnegie classifications (National Center for Education Statistics, 1998) are presented in Table 2. The Carnegie Foundation created a system of classifications for institutions of higher education so that these characteristics could be described and compared to similar institutions. The classifications range from two-year community colleges to large public and private research institutions. The present study used the 1994 Carnegie classification system to create a representative sample.

Of the 508 surveys that were sent out, 214 were returned, for a return rate of 42.1%. The response rates by region ranged from 18.2% to 47.9%. The rate of return by the Carnegie class of the institutions ranged from 17.9% to 50%, and the average student enrollment for the responding institutions (10,237) was similar to that of the nonresponding institutions (9,562).

Table 1

Geographic Distribution of Participating Institutions by Federal Rehabilitation Region

Region States in region Surveys Responses Response

sent rate I CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT 36 12 33.3% II NJ, NY, PR 56 25 44.6% III DE, DC, MD, PA, VA,

WV57 24 42.1%

IV AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN

73 32 43.8%

V IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI 94 45 47.9% VI AR, LA, NM, OK, TX 41 17 41.5% VII IA, KS, MO, NE 32 11 34.4% VIII CO, MT, ND, SD, WY 22 4 18.2% IX AZ, CA, HI, NV 64 26 40.6% X AK, ID, OR, WA 33 15 45.5% Unknown

3 NA

Totals 508 214 Average return rate

42.1%

Note. States in region are represented by postal abbreviation.

Table 2

Summary of Carnegie Classifications for Participating Institutions

Carnegie classification Total sent

Percentage of sent

Percentage of returned

Percentage returned

AA 144 28.3% 25.2% 37.5% BACH/MAST 183 36.0% 29.0% 33.9% DOC/RES 129 25.4% 23.4% 38.8%

OTHER 6 1.2% 0.9% 33.3% Not listed 46 9.1% 7.5% 34.8% Unknown 0 0.0% 14.0% NA Total 508 100.0% 100.0% 42.1%

Average return rate (total)

Note. BACH/MAST includes bachelor’s and master’s classifications I and II. DOC/RES includes doctoral and research classifications I and II. OTHER includes all other Carnegie classifications that did not fall under the previously listed categories.Survey Instrument

The survey instrument consisted of 11 questions asking participants to report on their opinions on accommodations for students with disabilities and on what should be included in a curriculum for training faculty at their IHE (see Table 3). Survey questions called for three types of responses. One type (e.g., No. 1, “Are you satisfied with your institution’s current efforts to teach faculty to accommodate students with disabilities?”) required respondents to check “Yes,” “No,” or “Other.” If they checked “Other,” they were expected to write an explanation. A second type of question (e.g., No. 2, “What attributes do you believe make faculty training effective/successful?”) called for open-ended, constructed responses. A final question (No. 12) simply asked for any other suggestions that the respondents might care to offer about faculty training.Pilot Study

The survey instrument was reviewed for content validity by members of the project staff and by a group of attendees at the 1999 Utah AHEAD conference. Following analysis of comments regarding content validity and prior to use of the survey instrument, the survey was piloted with all 13 of the DSO directors in public and private colleges and universities in Utah. The survey draft was sent to these directors with a cover letter from the DSO director at Utah State University that provided an introduction to and a description of the purpose of the study. It also invited the directors to provide feedback on the clarity and wording of the survey, as well as the content. These directors also responded to questions on the survey.

Table 3

Summary of Disability Service Directors Responses

Question Answer Number

Percentage

1. Are you satisfied with your institution’s current efforts to teach faculty to accommodate students with disabilities?

YesNoOther

Total respondents

53 128

29 210

25 61 14

100

2. What attributes do you believe make faculty training

Faculty and administrator supportHands-on active training

39 36 34

19 18 17

effective/successful? Make the training relevantMake it mandatorySmall departmental training with question-and- answer sessionBrief, applicable to faculty situation(s)

Total respondents

26

24 24

204

13

12 12

100

3. Is getting faculty to participate in training a problem at your institution?

YesNoOther

Total respondents

153 35 21

209

73 17 10

100 4. How can administrators be encouraged to support faculty training?

Educate administrators regarding legal obligations under ADA and 504Present case law reviewsArrange direct contact for administrators with students with disabilitiesOther

Total respondents

161 123

106 28

206

78 60

51 14

100

5. What do you believe faculty are concerned about?

Maintaining academic standardsRights and responsibilities of facultyCourse modificationsRights and responsibilities of studentsStudents disclosing disabilities to professorsEligibilityConfidentialityClassroom aides (interpreters, etc.)Other

Total respondents

199 171 158

96 77 71 36 34 20

214

93 80 74 45 36 33 17 16 9

100

6. Should faculty training include examples of both correct and incorrect methods of handling a situation?

YesNoOther

Total respondents

180 19 11

210

86 9 5

100

(table continues)

7. What media are faculty comfortable using in training?

Live presentationVideotapeWeb-based informationPhone assistanceCD-ROMDVDOther

Total respondents

176 113

98 86 58 23 25

206

85 55 48 42 28 11 12

100 8. What length is practical for a faculty training workshop?

1-2 hours1 hourLonger than 2 hoursOther

Total respondents

95 86 7

23 213

45 40 3

11 100

9. What types of activities should be included in a faculty training workshop?

Question-and-answer sessionsPresentation by expertsCase studiesInvolvement of students with disabilitiesStudent and faculty success storiesUse of videosWeb-based activitiesOther

Total respondents

194 153 148 127 118

96 37 22

214

91 71 69 59 55 45 17 10

100

10. What topics should be covered in the curriculum?

Institution’s campus disability servicesWho to contact for information and assistanceLegal foundations (ADA, 504, etc.)Ethical considerations (e.g., privacy)Information regarding specific disabilities (e.g., LD, sensory impairment) and implications for learningDesigning accommodations for studentsOther

Total respondents

209 205 202 194

190 156

16 214

98 96 94 91

89 73 7

100

11. Do you have other suggestions for us?

Teach faculty the process a student goes through in order to receive

6 4

12 8

accommodationsUse faculty as mentors for other facultyGet support from campus administrationDevelop a guide for faculty use

Total respondents

3 3

51

6 6

100

Note. The number of responses and percentages for several items do not equal the numbers indicated by “total respondents” because disability service directors sometimes provided more than one answer for each questions.

Finally, these respondents were contacted afterward by telephone and asked to provide their general opinion of the survey and to make suggestions that they thought would improve its clarity and relevance. All 13 directors responded. The final survey instrument incorporated this feedback.

Results

Table 3 presents the results of the survey summarized for each question. Many questions called for comments as well as quantitative responses. In some cases, a large number of respondents offered the same or very similar comments. In many cases, however, a particular comment was only offered by one or two respondents. To save space, only comments made by three or more respondents are included in Table 3.

Question 1. “Are you satisfied with your institution’s current efforts to teach faculty to accommodate students with disabilities?” Twenty-five percent of respondents said “yes” while 61% said “no” and 14% said “other.” It is clear from these findings that the large majority of DSO directors are not currently satisfied with the faculty training efforts at their own institutions. Of those who checked “other,” some indicated that they were somewhat satisfied while others noted that they have a hard time getting large numbers of faculty to attend training sessions and that they believe they need a way to make faculty training mandatory at their institutions.

Question 2. “What attributes do you believe make faculty training effective and successful?” This question elicited a large number of suggestions and comments. Nineteen percent of the respondents indicated their belief that the training program needs faculty and administrative support and that training should include some experiential activities that include students with disabilities giving testimonies and real-life examples. Further, a large number indicated that training should be hands-on and active (18%), relevant to faculty members (17%), mandatory for faculty (13%), organized in small departmental groups (12%), and applicable to faculty situations (12%). It was also suggested that training include question-and-answer sessions and expert speakers and DSO professional staff. Multiple respondents also suggested incentives for faculty to participate, a handbook or other written material that faculty can refer to when training is completed, practical techniques for the classroom, information about the law, that training be informal and fun, and that professors be involved in providing the training.

Many additional comments were offered by four or fewer people. Some noted that training not dwell overly long on legal obligations; that training include responsibilities of faculty, staff, students, and the DSO; and that training address a balance of faculty and student concerns. It was further suggested that training employ faculty who themselves have a disability, that the importance or rationale for accommodations be emphasized, that time be reserved for open discussions during training sessions, that knowledge of participants be assessed before and after training, that adjunct professors be included in training, that disability-related training be considered part of training in diversity issues, that administrators be included in training, and that training on disability issues somehow be connected to tenure and promotion decisions.

Question 3. “Is getting faculty to participate in training a problem at your institution?” The overwhelming majority of respondents (73%) said yes. Those who checked “other” offered a number of

suggestions including make training mandatory, target new faculty and teaching assistants as well as regular faculty, provide on-line training, include training in disabilities as part of a full-day training along with other events, conduct training at regular department meetings, keep sessions short, compensate faculty for attending training, and get central administration to publicly support and participate in training.

Question 4. “How can administrators be encouraged to support faculty training?” Seventy-eight percent responded that the best vehicle was to educate administrators about the legal obligations of their institution under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act. Sixty percent suggested that administrators be presented with case law reviews and over 50% recommended that administrators be put in direct contact with students with disabilities. Comments included “help the administration view this training as important to the institution,” “make them understand the risk to the institution if training is not provided,” “bring in a speaker from outside the institution to get their attention and their support,” “educate administrators on how cost-effective most accommodations are if done properly,” “give administrators a clear plan for training that describes what will be covered and how it will improve services at their IHE,” and “help them understand how accommodations level the playing field so that students with disabilities can be successful.”

Question 5. “What do you believe faculty are most concerned about?” A large degree of consistency was noted in DSO directors’ responses to this question. Ninety-three percent indicated that faculty are concerned with maintaining academic standards, 80% suggested that faculty are concerned about their rights and responsibilities, and 74% noted that they are concerned about course modifications. At lower percentages, DSO directors reported that faculty are concerned about the rights and responsibilities of students, the problem of students disclosing their disabilities to professors, the process by which students become eligible for accommodations, the issue of confidentiality, and about having other people in their classrooms, such as interpreters. Nine percent reported other concerns, including work and time commitments, possible liability for the faculty member, fairness to other students (i.e., students without disabilities), academic freedom, and where to get support in their efforts to accommodate students with disabilities. Some DSO directors also reported that they believe there is a frequent concern among faculty about issues surrounding accommodated testing and, at least in some cases, about the possibility of students cheating on examinations.

Question 6. “Should faculty training include examples of both correct and incorrect methods of handling a situation?” The overwhelming majority (86%) said yes. Nine percent answered no and 5% checked the “other” box. Some respondents suggested that only correct examples be used, and several indicated that confidentiality is often misunderstood and inadvertently violated by faculty and, thus, should be a target of some examples. Additional comments were that, “since time for training is limited, examples should be brief” and “student responsibility needs to be emphasized in some examples.” Finally, one respondent suggested, “It is important to include lots of time for discussion with examples.”

Question 7. “What media are faculty comfortable with?” There was a strong consensus that live presentations would be well received by faculty. In addition, a number of DSO directors indicated that videotape, web-based information, and phone assistance would also be useful. Twenty-eight percent indicated that CD-ROM would be acceptable to faculty and 11% suggested the same for DVD. Suggestions within the “other” category included using printed literature in the form of handbooks, newsletters, fact sheets, and so forth. Some DSO directors also suggested e-mail, PowerPoint presentations, role-playing, one-on-one assistance for individual faculty members, and multimedia approaches to training. Some comments emphasized that it is not the media that makes training successful; it is the people. Finally, several respondents suggested that live interaction is preferable when it is possible.

Question 8. “What length is practical for a faculty training workshop?” Forty-five percent indicated that a 1- to 2-hour workshop would be practical; 40% indicated that 1 hour would be practical. Only 3% believed that a workshop longer than 2 hours would be practical. Comments included suggestions that training be individualized and that a series of short workshops would be preferable. A substantial number of respondents commented that adequate training requires more then a couple of hours but, given faculty commitments and general preferences, long training sessions are not feasible.

Question 9. “What types of activities should be included in a faculty training workshop?” Over 90% of the respondents believed that question-and-answer sessions are critical. This was followed by suggestions for presentations by experts (71%), case studies (69%), the involvement of students with disabilities in training (59%), the use of student and faculty success stories (55%), and the presentation of videos (45%). Seventeen percent suggested the use of web-based activities. Other suggestions were to include simulations and role-playing, involve faculty members in presentations, use faculty members with

disabilities as trainers, use PowerPoint presentations, involve central administrators in training, review legal issues and case law, and provide materials to faculty that they can keep for future reference. Some respondents also said that it is important to use a variety of formats since faculty members have different learning styles. Many respondents also noted that it is important to include food or refreshments in training sessions.

Question 10. “What topics should be covered in the curriculum for faculty training?” Ninety-eight percent indicated that information about the institution’s campus disability services should be included in training along with who to contact for information and assistance. Ninety-six percent also believed that it is important to cover the legal foundations that govern higher education for students with disabilities. Over 90% of the respondents further noted that ethical considerations should be included as well as information about specific disabilities (89%) and their implications for learning. Seventy-three percent responded that faculty ought to receive training in designing accommodations for students. Other suggestions were to include approaches to teaching (e.g., Universal Design); implementation of accommodations in the classroom; “dos and don’ts” on policies and procedures; use of appropriate disability language; information about accommodated testing procedures and policies and about course waivers and substitutions; information about available resources, assistive technology, and emergency evacuation plans; the concept of student and faculty as a team; issues surrounding curriculum modifications; and information about faculty members’ responsibility in the decision-making process.

Question 11. “Do you have other suggestions?” Indeed, DSO directors had many suggestions. The most common was the need for faculty to know the process a student goes through in order to receive accommodations. Other frequent comments were that faculty should serve as mentors for other faculty, that it is imperative to get support from central administration for faculty training, and that there should be a written guide that faculty can get information from. Additional individual suggestions included creating an ongoing faculty advisory committee to address disability needs, teaching the reasons why testing for learning disabilities is useful and why accommodations are credible, delivering faculty training department by department, addressing distance learning issues, using new faculty orientations to provide training, allowing faculty to voice their concerns so that these concerns can be addressed in training, including issues of dormitory living for students with disabilities in training, rewarding outstanding faculty with public recognition and certificates, and remembering that trainers should know that 1-2% of faculty do not (and will not) support accommodations for students with disabilities (especially those with invisible disabilities).

DSO directors also suggested that the institution’s risk-management office be solicited to support faculty training, that successful students and graduates who have disabilities be used in training, that training sessions be followed with peer coaching by faculty members in the same departments as those receiving training, that instruction on reasonable versus unreasonable accommodation be included in training, that training sessions be used to build trust between the DSO and the faculty, that training directly address faculty who refuse to accommodate, that faculty be given assistance in determining the essential elements in their courses, and that instruction on the concept of essential skills be included in training. Finally, DSO directors suggested that faculty receive assistance handling students who make unreasonable requests or who are otherwise difficult; be provided with written description of the process for determining accommodations; that a statement appear on all syllabi include a statement that students with physical, learning, or psychological disabilities are to see someone in the DSO; that all types of disabilities be included in training; that training address cultural issues within disability; and that academic departments be taught to be proactive rather than reactive to disability issues.

Discussion

One point of first importance reflected in the results of this study is that a large majority of DSO directors at colleges and universities throughout the United States are not satisfied with their institution’s efforts to teach faculty to accommodate students with disabilities. Faculty training sessions are one of the interventions that a college or university can undertake to further faculty development (Tomlan et al., 1989). However, DSO directors consistently report that it is difficult to get faculty to participate in training, a point that is supported in the literature (Scott & Gregg, 2000). Indeed, one respondent commented, “It is always the same group of individuals who show up for these sorts of training . . . and they are not the ones who most need it.” A critical question then is how can all or most faculty be encouraged to participate in training programs directed at accommodating students with disabilities? The most direct method would be to require participation; and, in fact, a large number of DSO directors advocated exactly that. Further,

some of the respondents who noted that faculty participation was not a problem also commented that it was not a problem because it was mandatory at their institutions.

Why then is faculty participation in training not required at most institutions? The answer to that question must come from central administrators at colleges and universities. DSO directors did suggest that educating central administrators about the institution’s legal obligations under the laws and supplementing such education with case law reviews and with direct contact with students with disabilities might help persuade administrators to more strongly support or even mandate training for faculty members.

DSO directors provided many important recommendations about desirable content, formats, and methods of delivery they believe would lead to a successful faculty training program. A large majority indicated that it is critical that faculty training address: on-campus disability services, where assistance can be obtained, legal foundations, ethical considerations, information about specific disabilities, and how to design accommodations. Two topics, among others, that were only mentioned by a few respondents but seem likely to gain salience in the future are disability issues related to distance education and to Universal Design of Instruction (Scott, McGuire, & Foley, in press).

It would be interesting to know how similar the opinions of the DSO directors are to those of faculty or students. Such a comparison would be an interesting topic for a future study. Leyser et al. (1998) found that faculty identified areas in which they would like to receive training. Classroom accommodations headed the list at 42.6%, followed by programs and services on campus (34.3%), testing accommodations (31.7%), and legal issues (20%).

DSO directors made numerous suggestions about what they believed would make a faculty training program effective. Most common were recommendations that it be made directly relevant and applicable to faculty members’ situations and as interactive as possible with many opportunities for questions and answers and for discussion. They were also very clear about their perceptions of issues that greatly concern faculty: maintaining academic standards, faculty rights and responsibilities, and course modifications.

While DSO directors indicated that it is desirable to use a variety of methods for delivering training, live presentations were far and away the most popular recommendation. However, using a variety of methods and, in particular, providing a written handbook for faculty were also commonly recommended. The research also supports the use of multiple presentation methods because of the time constraints faculty members work under (Scott & Gregg, 2000). DSO directors also suggested that a wide variety of presenters be included such as disability experts, DSO staff members, students with disabilities, faculty members, and administrators.

One of the most challenging aspects of developing a successful faculty training program derives from the fact that almost all of the DSO directors indicated that, as a practical matter, a faculty training program cannot be more than 2 hours long. In fact, 40% of the responders indicted that 1 hour is the maximum practical time faculty can or will devote to this type of training. This is congruent with research showing that college faculty have heavy time constraints (Bess, 1997). The dilemma, then, is how to reconcile the amount of content that DSO directors recommend with their observation that the time allotted for training must be limited to two hours or less, especially considering their almost universal assertion that training be very interactive and that a lot of time be devoted to questions and discussions. Perhaps the dilemma is best summed up by a comment made by one respondent that “adequate training really requires more than a couple of hours but... longer training sessions simply are not feasible.” One approach might be to first provide condensed group or web-based individual training sessions that focus on only the most essential content, include some question-and-answers, and when possible interaction with students with disabilities. These initial sessions could be supplemented with written material, supplementary training sessions, and/or additional web-based information along with individual assistance on an as-needed basis. Another approach would be for colleges and universities to consider supporting or compensating faculty for attending training so it can be expanded beyond the 1-2 hour minimum and perhaps presented in a series of group sessions or web-based units.

It is clear that substantial numbers of individuals with disabilities will continue to enroll in postsecondary institutions. Thus, college and university instructors may expect to have students with disabilities regularly attending their classes, labs, and field sites. The success of these students will depend to a large degree on the willingness and ability of their instructors to accept them in good faith, to provide good, accessible instruction, and to help provide the accommodations they need to participate more equitably. Substantial training for faculty, staff, and administrators will be essential to accomplish this outcome and, for the most part, it is not occurring with sufficient consistency. This study has provided

information that can usefully be factored into the design and delivery of an effective training program. However, further study and increased administrative support for this endeavor is required.Limitations

At least four limitations to this study bear mention. First, the study did not account for the nonresponders who may have had different opinions than the responders. Second, the way people respond to questions depends on how they were asked. Thus, if we had posed the questions differently, we might have received different answers to some unknown extent. Third, the study looked at the opinions of DSO directors; faculty and students might have had different opinions. Finally, a lot of variation occurred in the responses to some questions. For example, with regard to how long a training session should be, the large majority indicated that faculty training sessions should be less than 2 hours. However, there were exceptions. Moreover, some responders might have envisioned multiple 1- to 2-hour sessions, while others might have been thinking of one 2-hour session. Analogous interpretations of questions exist for other categories of responding such as preferred content, delivery media, and so on. In summary, it is important to keep in mind the variability across institutions rather than just considering mean or modal responses. The appropriate conclusion is that design of a faculty training program needs to be tailored to the individual needs, preferences, and available resources of each institution and these vary widely.Suggestions for Future Research

This study provided a look at what elements DSO directors think should be incorporated into an effective training program. Future studies might beneficially examine faculty opinions on what would constitute an effective training program, as it would be important to know how faculty opinions differ from those of DSO directors. Likewise, it would be worth investigating what students with disabilities think faculty members need to know. The same should be said of higher education administrators and staff members.

The best mix of training forums to reach the most faculty members is also an area that calls for further study. This survey focused on group training formats, since live interaction was the format recommended most by DSO directors. However, workshops are not the only or necessarily the best approach to faculty training. For example, Scott and Gregg (2000) recommended a mixture of group and individual training forums to first provide general (foundation) knowledge and later to provide information tailored to the specific, immediate needs of individual faculty members. Web-based instruction might beneficially replace group training for some faculty, although that would eliminate the live, face-to-face interaction with DSO staff and students with disabilities that many DSO directors in this study strongly recommend. It will require considerable research to settle the question of which combination of training formats will best satisfy the needs of various groups of faculty in our highly diverse higher educational institutions.

References

Bess, J. (Ed.). (1997). Teaching well and liking it: Motivating faculty to teach effectively. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Gardner, D. (1999). Recent study focuses on preparation and outcomes of students with disabilities. Information from HEATH, National Clearinghouse on Postsecondary Education for Individuals with Disabilities. Retrieved (11/22/99) from http://www.acenet.edu/about/programs/Access&Equity/HEATH/newsletter/1999/10 october/recent_study.html

Hill, J. (1996). Speaking out: Perceptions of students with disabilities regarding adequacy of services and willingness of faculty to make accommodations. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 12(1), 22-43.

Horn, L., & Berktold, J. (1999). Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: A profile of preparation, participation, and outcomes (National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Statistical Analysis Report No. 1999-187). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Lewis, L., & Farris, E. (1999). An institutional perspective on students with disabilities in postsecondary education (National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Statistical Analysis Report No. 1999-046). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

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 Postsecondary Education and Disability, 13(3), 5-19.

Lundeberg, M., & Svien, K. (1988). Developing faculty understanding of college students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 299-300, 306.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1998). 1997 directory of postsecondary institutions, volume I, Degree-granting institutions. NCES 98-299-I. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Scott, S., & Gregg, G. (2000). Meeting the evolving educational needs of faculty in providing access for college students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(2), 158-167.

Scott, S., McGuire, J., & Foley, T. (in press).  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.

Tomlan, P., Farrell, M., & Geis, J. (1989). The 3 S’s of staff development: Scope, sequence, and structure. In J. Vander Putten (Ed.), Researching new heights (pp. 23-32). Columbus, OH: Association on Handicapped Student Service Programs in Postsecondary Education.

West, M., Kregel, J., Getzel, E., Zhu, M., Ipsen, S., & Martin, E. (1993). Beyond Section 504: Satisfaction and empowerment of students with disabilities in higher education. Exceptional Children, 59, 456-467.

About the AuthorsCharles L. Salzberg is a Professor of Special Education and the Head of the Special Education and

Rehabilitation Department at Utah State University, Logan, Utah.

Lloyd Peterson is an Assistant Professor of Special Education at Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Christopher C. Debrand is a doctoral student in the Business Information Systems Department at Utah State University, Logan, Utah.

Rebecca J. Blair is a graduate student in the Masters of Business Administration program at Utah State University, Logan, Utah.

Anna C. Carsey holds a bachelor’s degree from the Family and Human Development Department at Utah State University, Logan, Utah.

Alexis S. Johnson is a former undergraduate student from Utah State University, Logan, Utah.

Multidimensional Disability Attitudes and Equitable Evaluation of Educational

Accommodations by College Students Without Disabilities

Thomas D. Upton

Southern Illinois University-CarbondaleDennis C. Harper

The University of Iowa

Abstract

Disability attitudes can impact how people with disabilities are perceived and responded to by college peers both within and outside the classroom setting. This study investigated specific and multidimensional disability attitudes of college students without disabilities at a large midwestern university. We assessed general attitudes toward college educational accommodations, student perceptions of selected types of educational accommodation for selected disabilities, and the relationship of these variables to gender and level of college study. Survey data gathered from 852 university students were analyzed to determine their reported general disability attitudes and their view of the provision of educational accommodations to their peers with selected disabilities. Results indicated that college students’ general attitudes toward college educational accommodations varied significantly across gender; more females than males reported favorable attitudes toward providing classroom accommodations to students with disabilities. Also, participants perceived selected disabilities on a relatively stable continuum of “accommodation deservedness.” Frequency of need for educational accommodation and number of required accommodations quantified relative “accommodation deservedness” across presented disabilities. Additionally, student evaluation of selected types of classroom accommodations varied significantly across both gender and year of college study. Plausible explanations for differences based on gender, level of college study, and accommodation deservedness are discussed. Data-based implications for disability support professionals and postsecondary institutions are suggested.

Inclusion of “otherwise qualified” college students with disabilities, as mandated by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, continues to be a controversial topic in educational research and collegiate administrative practice. Traditionally, postsecondary collegiate institutions have attempted to promote inclusion of students with all types of disabilities by providing of disability-specific educational accommodations (Richard, Finkel & Cohen, 1998; Scott, 1990). While it has been recognized and accepted that timely and appropriate educational accommodations (i.e., alternative learning materials, extended time on exams, etc.) are important to academic success, accommodations within the college classroom often encompass a variety of implications, both positive and negative, to the student recipients as well as their classmates.

Since attitudes are relevant links to behavior (Antonak & Livneh, 1989; Chubon, 1992; Fazio, Towles-Schwen, 1999), it is important to evaluate and to define existing disability attitudes in our colleges across the United States. Historically, disability attitude inquiry has reported varying disability attitudes among differing groups of people (largely college students) based on age, gender, level of education, professional choice/affiliation, and amount of previous disability contact (Yuker & Block, 1986; Yuker & Hurley, 1987). For example, college students with more previous and direct disability contact through personal or work experience have reported more favorable attitudes toward persons with disabilities (Anderson & Antonak, 1992; Barrett & Pullo, 1993; Yuker, 1992). These scholars examined and reported largely negative disability attitudes of general undergraduates, rehabilitation undergraduates, and collective data from undergraduates and graduates, respectively. Gender, age, higher level of education, and type of disability contact have also been linked to disability attitudes (Jones, Farina, Markus, Miller, & French, 1984).

Since 1960, volumes of disability attitude data have been generated using Yuker’s Attitude Toward Disabled Persons (ATDP) scale, which unidimensionally quantifieds how respondents viewed persons with disabilities as a group (Yuker & Block, 1986). Contemporary researchers (Antonak & Livneh, 1989; Linkowski, 1994; Livneh & Antonak, 1994) have debated the accuracy of this unidimensional disability attitude measure in quantifying more contemporary disability attitudes. Specifically they postulate that

disability attitudes are multidimensional (have multiple components and interactions in varying contexts) and should be accurately quantified as such.

The Scale of Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons (SADP) was created as a relatively brief contemporary assessment of multidimensional disability attitudes (Antonak, 1982, 1992). Respondent disability attitude data have been generated on this instrument from many groups, including high school students (Fiedler & Simpson, 1987); college students (Antonak & Livneh, 1989; Beattie, Anderson, & Antonak, 1997); parents of children with disabilities (Gilbride, 1993), and human services professionals (Benham, 1988). These studies quantified the existence of negative disability attitudes and in some instances tried to enhance study participants’ disability attitudes.

College-level disability attitudes need to be examined for several reasons. First, postsecondary institutions and educators would benefit by understanding how this growing group of students are viewed and responded to by their peers without disabilities. Such information has multiple implications for collegiate administrators, disability support professionals, faculty, and students. Such an investigation may also heighten awareness of key disability attitude components and their impact in the college classroom. Lastly, a better understanding of disability attitudes of peers may serve to focus educators’ attention on these emerging issues and provide relevant data to inform comprehensive institutional disability educational policies on student rights and responsibilities. In addition, such data may provide an empirical basis for sound decision making and practice.

We hypothesized that understanding and responding to students with disabilities receiving educational accommodation was likely related to several areas: (a) general attitudes toward disability, (b) specific attitudes toward particular classroom accommodations for students with disabilities, and (c) preferences, both positive and negative, toward particular disabilities as well.

We selected the SAPD (Antonak, 1982) as a multidimensional measure of disability attitude. In addition, we designed and piloted measures of specific attitude and preference toward college students’ particular classroom accommodations. Educational accommodations presented were determined by existing collegiate policy and available classroom accommodations on the authors’ college campus. Scenarios of the most frequently observed students with disabilities (cerebral palsy, visual impairment, brain injury, hearing impairment, learning disability, arthritis, diabetes, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, spinal cord injury, manic-depression, depression, and spina bifida), as confirmed by data reported by the Office of Student Disability Services in 1999-2000, were used to construct educational accommodation scenarios.

General disability attitudes and three distinct dimensions of these attitudes among college students were examined with regard to gender and year of college study. General attitudes toward college educational accommodations and the evaluation of 10 comprehensive types of educational accommodation were examined with regard to the variables of gender and year of college study. Participant responses to 12 specific disability scenarios (based on existing disabilities) suggested how deserving of educational accommodation participants might view particular students with specific disabilities. The purpose of the investigation was to examine what college students report as their general and specific disability attitudes and how they view the provision of educational accommodations to their peers with disability.

Method

The study used a multidimensional disability attitude measure, the SAPD Form R (Antonak, 1992), to quantify current postsecondary general disability attitudes of college students toward peers with selected disabilities. A specific measure of attitudes toward accommodation was designed to provide more detailed and specific disability attitude information as well. In addition, disability-specific attitudes were examined with regard to the relative accommodation deservedness of existing disabilities.Participants

The sample consisted of 937 students enrolled at a large midwestern university in the fall of 1999 and the spring of 2000. Participant volunteers were 76.8% female and 23.2% male. For level (year) of college study, participants were reported as freshman (5.5%), sophomore (19.3%), junior (23.7%), senior (44.1%), and graduate student (7%). Participants’ culture of origin was mostly Caucasian (approximately 94% White, not of Hispanic/Latino origin). The total sample was recruited from classes in the following colleges: Education, n = 214; Liberal Arts, n = 361; Nursing, n = 243; and Engineering, n = 34. Only data from those not reporting a disability were included (N = 852). (Information about the 71 students with disabilities who completed the evaluations will be reported in a future study.)Materials

Initially, participants completed a demographic information form, which provided age, gender, level of college study, and previous disability knowledge (see Table 1). The Scale of Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons (SAPD Form R; Antonak, 1992) quantified multidimensional disability attitudes. Specifically, general attitudes toward college educational accommodation were measured with a 7-item Likert type measure assessing how favorably participants responded to students with disabilities accessing postsecondary educational accommodations (see Table 2). Also, 10 specific types of educational accommodation were evaluated with regard to students’ perceptions of how equitably (with regard to all students) these types of accommodation could be provided to students with disabilities (see Table 3). Lastly, participants responded to 12 disability-specific college classroom scenarios.

Table 1Personal Information Form______________________________________________________________________________________

Form A Subject No.___

(1) Today’s date: __ / __ / __ (2) Age last birthday __ (3) __ Male __Female

(4) Check one:__Alaskan Native or American Indian (tribal/nation affiliation) _______________African American/Black __Hispanic/Latino(a) ___Asian or Pacific Islander__White, not of Hispanic/Latino origin __Other(please list)________________

(5) College level classification (check only one)__Freshman __Sophomore __Junior __Senior __Other (specify)__________

(6)Undergraduate Major __________________________________

Definition of disability:

This study defines disability as “having a mental or physical impairment (difference) that substantially limits one or more major life activities, having a record of such an impairment or being regarded as having such an impairment”(this includes physical, psychiatric, psychological, and emotional disabilities).

(7) Do you have a disability?_______ If yes, have you reported this to university officials? _____

(8) Do you know a person or persons with a disability? _______ If yes, what type of relationship do you have with this person or persons? (check all that apply)__Spouse __Child __Sibling __Relative (explain)_____________Client __Patient __Student __Employee __Neighbor__Friend __Acquaintance (explain)_____________________________________________Other (explain)__________________________________________________

(9) Please rate your general knowledge of the conditions and life circumstances of persons with a disability (as defined above) by circling the appropriate number.

No Knowledge Extensive Knowledge

1 2 3 4 5 6(10) Please estimate the frequency of your contact with persons with a disability (as defined above) by circling the appropriate number.

Less than once per month Once per month Weekly Daily

1 2 3 4(11) Please rate the intensity (closeness of personal relationship) with persons with disability (as defined above), regardless of the frequency of that contact by circling the appropriate number.

Not At All Intense Very Intense

1 2 3 4 5 6

These scenarios reflected the most frequent disabilities present on the college campus. Each scenario included a disability type, described three functional limitations, and asked participants to make two choices. First, participants were asked if the college student in the scenario deserved educational accommodation. If the answer was affirmative, participants were to select the necessary types of accommodation. If negative, participants were to continue completing the survey materials. A representative scenario for a college student with a learning disability is presented in Table 4.

The 12 disability scenarios consisted of two forms, each presenting of six scenarios (four physical-body and two brain-based; cognitive or emotional. Each student completed rankings of six scenarios. Forms were counterbalanced by disability type and the order of scenarios was randomized within forms in the administration to students. Also, survey material forms were alternated during data collection.

Table 2

General Attitudes toward College Educational Accommodation

______________________________________________________________________________________

Responding to these items about college educational accommodation and the following scenarios requires that respondents clearly understand what disability and educational accommodation mean. This study defines disability as “having a mental or physical impairment (difference) that substantially limits one or more major life activities, having a record of such an impairment or being regarded as having such an impairment” (this includes physical, psychiatric, psychological, and emotional disabilities). Educational accommodation is defined as “the provision of any educational support that is needed for the person with a disability to access, learn, and benefit from educational services alongside peers without disability.”

Directions: Please read the following items and circle the number you view as the best answer. For these items use the following key: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = slightly disagree, 3 = slightly agree; and 4 = strongly agree.

1. Educational accommodations should be provided to college students with disabilities.1 2 3 4

2. Providing college educational accommodations to students with disabilities is fair to all students.1 2 3 4

3. Persons with disabilities should attend college if they want to.1 2 3 4

4. College students whose disability negatively impacts their lives should be provided with educational accommodations.1 2 3 4

5. College students with a personal history of disability should have access to educational accommodations.

1 2 3 4

6. College students diagnosed with a disability who have physical limitations should be provided with educational accommodations. 1 2 3 4

7. College students diagnosed with a disability who have cognitive limitations (mental and/or learning deficiencies) should be provided with educational accommodations.

1 2 3 4

Table 3Equitable Evaluation of Selected Types of Accommodations______________________________________________________________________________________

Please assume that the following types of educational accommodation are available at The University of Iowa. Rate how fair you view the provision of the following types of educational accommodation to college students with disabilities with regard to all students at the University of Iowa by circling the number that best corresponds with your view. For this item use the following key:

1 = unfair, 2 = somewhat unfair, 3 = somewhat fair, 4 = fair.

Testing Alternatives (for example, extended time for tests or alternative test formats)1 2 3 4

Assistive Technology (for example, closed captioning or voice-activated computer) 1 2 3 4

Alternative Instructional Materials (for example, read text for student or books on tape)

1 2 3 4

Classroom Flexibility (for example, flexible test schedule or flexible due dates for assignments)1 2 3 4

Learning Aids (for example, note takers or additional faculty assistance)1 2 3 4

Special Administrative Privileges (for example, priority registration or late withdrawal--after deadlines)1 2 3 4

Course Substitution (for example, course substitution for foreign language requirement or course

substitution for math requirement)

1 2 3 4

Disability-Specific Needs (for example, eat during class to control glucose level or alternate seating and standing to manage pain)1 2 3 4

Referral to University Support Services (for example, referral to university counseling services or referral to university tutoring service)

1 2 3 4

Different Grading Criteria (oral reports in place of written reports or take home exams instead of in-class exams)1 2 3 4__________________________________________________________________________________

ProcedureStudents were recruited and participated as follows. After Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval

of the study, interested faculty were identified by multiple solicitations to obtain their permission to recruit study participants in their classes. This process required presenting an overview of the study, recruitment of interested participants, as well as completion and collection of the survey data. Those interested in participating completed the materials during class time under supervision. Participants were requested to respond to all survey items, which took approximately 25 minutes. Subjects were debriefed regarding the study’s purposes following completion of all instruments.Instruments

Data measuring multidimensional disability attitudes were gathered using the 24-item Scale of Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons,

Table 4Disability-Specific Scenario ______________________________________________________________________________________

A fellow college student in a large general education class complains that he did poorly on his first exam and may withdraw from the class. This person tells you that he has a diagnosed learning disability. This condition prevents him from fully comprehending written information. Consequently, he does not complete course reading prior to lectures. This in turn hinders his prelearning of the material and from staying focused during the lectures. This student visits the professor and asks for educational accommodation due to his learning disability. Please indicate if this student, in your opinion, deserves educational accommodations.

___In my view this student does not deserve educational accommodation

___In my view this student deserves educational accommodation. More specifically, which of the following potential types of educational accommodation does he deserve? [Note: Place an “X” next to the deserved types of educational accommodation. If more than three types of accommodation are deserved, place an “X” next to each deserved type of educational accommodation and circle the Xs of the three most important types of educational accommodation.]

___1. Testing Alternatives (for example, extended time for tests or alternative test formats)___2. Assistive Technology (for example, closed captioning or voice-activated computer)

___3. Alternative Instructional Materials (for example, Braille texts or books on tape)

___4. Classroom Flexibility (for example, flexible due dates for assignments or flexible class attendance policy)

___5. Learning Aids (for example, additional faculty assistance or copy of faculty notes)___6. Special Administrative Privileges (for example, priority registration, late withdrawal--after

deadlines)

___7. Course Substitution (for example, course substitution for foreign language requirement or

course substitution for math requirement)

___8. Disability-Specific Needs (for example, unannounced classroom exits due to limited bladder control or alternate sitting and standing to manage pain)

___9. Referral to University Support Services (for example, referral to university counseling services or university tutoring services)

___10. Different Grading Criteria (for example, oral reports instead of written reports or take-home exams instead of in-class exams)

Form R (SADP Form R; Antonak, 1992). This instrument, developed in 1982 (updated in 1992) to assess multidimensional disability attitudes, is a reliable instrument (Spearman-Brown reliability of .81) with internally consistent (alpha of .88) test items. Factor analysis identified three distinct components, Pessimism-Hopelessness, Behavioral Misconceptions, and Optimism-Human Rights, which contributed 67%, 18%, and 15%, respectively, of the common variance (Antonak, 1982). Four scores were used from this measure. The total SAPD score reflected respondents’ view of persons with disabilities as a group, whereas the subscales provided quantifiable data on the three components of disability attitudes. Higher scores on all these data points indicated more favorable disability attitudes according to standard test interpretation.

General attitudes toward college educational accommodation were measured using a seven item, 4-point Likert-type scale developed for the study (see Table 2). This internally consistent measure (alpha of .942) was constructed to quantify respondents’ general attitudes regarding providing of educational accommodations to college students with disabilities. Samples items include: Educational accommodations should be provided to college students with disabilities, Providing college educational accommodations to students with disabilities is fair to all students, and Persons with disabilities should go to college if they want to. Participants rated items from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree. Items were designed to define participants’ general views of the provision of educational accommodations to their peers with selected disabilities. The data were developed and piloted with the aid of collegiate faculty (multiple departments) familiar with accommodations, students with disabilities, and graduate-level rehabilitation counseling students. Twenty-five graduate counseling students completed the materials as a pilot study, providing constructive feedback. Changes in the directions and measures were made reflecting this feedback. Total scores on the measure ranged from 7 to 28, with higher scores reflecting more favorable attitudes toward the provision of postsecondary educational accommodations.

Students’ perceptions of equitable evaluations of 10 types of accommodation were quantified using measure (alpha internal consistency of .841) that was constructed to quantify how equitable the provision of 10 comprehensive types of educational accommodation was viewed with regard to all students with disabilities (see Figure 3 for representative items and format). These data were developed and piloted with the aid of collegiate faculty familiar with accommodations, students with disabilities, and graduate-level rehabilitation counseling students. These 10 types of accommodation represented a comprehensive list of potential educational accommodations (e.g., testing alternatives, assistive technology, and referral to university support services) based on existing institutional policy. These items were rated from 1 = unfair to 4 = fair. Potential scores ranged from 10 to 40, with higher scores indicating more equitable evaluation of the types of educational accommodation.

Disability-specific scenarios provided a way to assess how student participants viewed specific disabilities and accommodations within a classroom context. Two specific areas were assessed. Initially, we were interested in how deserving of accommodations participants viewed all the presented disabilities. Affirmative scenario responses, indicating the college student with a particular disability in a scenario deserved a particular accommodation, provided relative ranks for the disability scenarios. Those with higher affirmative percentages were viewed operationally as more deserving. Additionally, the sum of “yes, deserves accommodation” and total number of selected necessary accommodations provided another means for defining what participants viewed as more deserving disability scenarios. This total number of selected accommodations, Total Accommodation Index (TAI), was computed across all disability scenarios. Mean number of selected accommodations, compared across disabilities, provided another way to ascertain how deserving participants viewed the specific disabilities in relation to all disabilities. Data Analyses

Descriptive analyses, independent t-test procedures, and one-way ANOVAs were completed to analyze all test measures and subject variables. Specifically, we examined general disability attitudes, three particular dimensions of disability attitudes, general attitudes toward college educational accommodation,

and how equitable evaluation of types of accommodation varied among gender and level of college study. Lastly, descriptive analyses on the disability specific scenarios were completed. Percentages of “yes, deserves accommodation” and the Total Accommodation Indexes (TAIs) across disability type were tabulated as well.

Results

College Students’ General Disability AttitudesGender and general attitude. Total SAPD scores were examined to obtain an indication of the

participants’ general attitudes toward persons with disabilities as a group. Gender total means of the SAPD were 113.48 and 109.38 for females and males, respectively. This difference was significant (t (845) = -3.93, p £ .001). Gender differences from the Pessimism-Hopelessness subscale of the SAPD were 29.96 and 29.26 for females and males, respectively, and were not significant (t (845) = -1.76, p £ .079). Gender data from the Behavioral Misconceptions subscale were 31.33 and 29.64 for females and males, respectively, and this difference was significant (t (845 ) = -3.42, p £ .001). Finally, gender differences on the Optimism-Human Rights subscale were 52.20 and 49.48 for the females and males, respectively; this difference was also significant (t (845) = -3.97, p £ .001). In sum, two of the three identified components of a student’s multidimensional disability attitude scale varied between genders.

Year of college and general attitude toward disability. Mean general attitudes toward disability varied as follows: freshman = 109.63, sophomore = 105.87, junior = 114.01, senior = 113.06, and graduate student = 121.07. Relationships between level of college study and general attitudes were examined using one-way ANOVA procedures. Total SAPD scores analyzed by level of college study was found to be statistically significant, (F(4,844) = 13.03, p £ .001). Scheffe post-hoc analysis revealed that graduate student total SAPD means were significantly higher than all other groups; seniors were higher than sophomores; and juniors were higher than sophomores.

Year of college and specific attitude toward disability. Pessimism-Hopelessness means varied across level of college study as follows: freshman = 28.79, sophomore = 28.16, junior = 30.27, senior = 30.09, and graduate student = 31.19. These differences were significant, (F(4,844) = 7.64, p £ .001). Scheffe post-hoc analysis indicated that all groups significantly differed from each other except freshmen and sophomores.

Behavioral Misconceptions means varied across level of college study as follows: freshman = 29.71, sophomore = 28.67, junior = 31.14, senior = 31.41, and graduate student = 34.23 (see Table 2). Statistical differences among level of college study also differed significantly (F(4,844) = 11.84, p £ .001). Scheffe post-hoc analysis revealed that graduate students reported significant differences on the Behavioral Misconception subscale than all other groups. In addition, senior and junior responses were significantly different than sophomores.

Similarly, the Optimism-Human Rights mean data varied across levels: freshman = 51.13, sophomore = 49.04, junior = 52.61, senior = 51.56, and graduate student = 55.66. Again, these differences were statistically different across levels of college study (F(4,844) = 8.33, p £ .001). Scheffe post-hoc analysis documented significant differences. Specifically, significant differences were found between graduate students and both seniors and sophomores; between seniors and sophomores; and between juniors and sophomores. In sum, data on each of the subscales of the SAPD varied significantly when analyzed with respect to level of college study.Attitude Toward Provision of Educational Accommodations

Data addressing the attitude of college students toward educational classroom accommodations were quantified from two sources developed for this study. General attitude toward college educational accommodation and students’ perception of equitable evaluation of accommodation assessed general attitude regarding postsecondary accommodations and how equitable provision of types of accommodation were viewed by all students. Data were analyzed using these measures with respect to gender and level of college study.

Gender and provision of accommodation. Gender means for general attitudes toward college educational accommodation were 25.74 and 24.91 for females and males, respectively. This difference was statistically significant (t (845) = -2.40, p = .017). Gender means for equitable evaluation of types of accommodation were 33.50 and 32.04 for females and males, respectively; also statistically significant (t (845) = -3.90, p £ .001). Both measures examining students’ general attitude toward college educational accommodation and equitable evaluation of types of accommodation significantly varied with regard to gender.

Year of college study and accommodation equity. Participant level of college study was examined with regard to general attitudes toward college educational accommodation. Means were as follows: freshman 25.37; sophomore 25.25; junior 25.66; senior 25.63, and graduate student 25.61. These differences were not statistically significant (F(4,844) = .305, p = .88). Hence further analysis was warranted.

An examination of students’ perceptions of equitable evaluation of accommodations for level of college study resulted in the following calculated means: freshman 31.53; sophomore 31.49; junior 33.94; senior 33.32; and graduate student 35.49. These mean differences were statistically different, (F(4,844) = 12.73, p £ .001). Scheffe post-hoc analysis documented statistical differences among graduate students and seniors, sophomores, and freshmen; between seniors and sophomores; and between juniors, and both sophomores and freshmen. These analyses indicated that level of college study was related to students’ equitable evaluation of accommodations, but did not impact their general attitudes toward college educational accommodation.Disability-Specific Findings

Relative deservedness of accommodations across disabilities. Relative percentages of “yes, deserves accommodation” were calculated across all students (Form A and Form B, 423 and 429 participants, respectively). Relative disability ratings were summed and reported together in Table 5. These data revealed that students with blindness (98.4%), cerebral palsy (97.4%), brain injury (96.9%), and hearing impairment (95.1%) were most frequently selected as deserving educational accommodations in the college classroom.

Mean number of accommodations across disabilities. Participants who endorsed a need for accommodation for a given type of disability were asked to select which of the 10 types of educational accommodations were needed for each student with a particular disability. Collective total of “yes, deserves accommodation” and selected types of accommodation were then computed across scenarios and quantified as the Total Accommodation Indexes (TAIs) for each disability scenario. The mean TAIs across disabilities were calculated as another method and as a rank of the “most deserving” disabilities by the students. An examination of mean TAI scores showed that students with cerebral palsy (4.871), blindness (4.497), brain injury (4.185), and hearing impairment (3.872) were reported as being the most deserving of receiving more educational accommodation compared to other disabilities (see Table 6).

Discussion

This study explored attitudes of college students toward students with selected disabilities and related educational accommodations. Findings indicate that females consistently reported more positive general and specific disability attitudes than males, and were more in favor of providing educational accommodations to students with disabilities than were their male counterparts. Specifically, females rated educational options more favorably and recommended they be offered more frequently. This finding concurs with previous disability attitude studies (Antonak & Livneh, 1989; Yuker & Block, 1986; Yuker & Hurley, 1987) supporting the contention that females generally respond more favorably and positively than males to persons with all types of disabilities. Similarly, more positive female disability attitudes were reported on the SAPD subscales of Pessimism-Hopelessness, Behavioral Misconceptions, and Optimism-Human Rights.

Table 5Accommodation Deservedness of College Educational Accommodations______________________________________________________________________________________Disability Form n % yes Disability Form n % yes______________________________________________________________________________________Blindness B 423 98.4 Diabetes A 366 86.9Cerebral palsy A 410 97.4 ADHD B 358 83.4Brain injury B 412 96.0 Spinal cord injury B 357 83.4Hearing impairment A 402 95.1 Manic depression A 326 77.6Arthritis B 406 94.4 Depression B 328 76.5Learning disability A 367 87.6 Spina bifida A 186 44.3______________________________________________________________________________________

Table 6Mean Total Accommodation Index (TAI) Across Disabilities

______________________________________________________________________________________Disability Total Accommodation Index (TAI)

M______________________________________________________________________________________

Most deserving Cerebral palsy 4.871Blindness 4.497Brain injury 4.185Hearing impairment 3.827Learning disability 3.717Arthritis 3.464Diabetes 3.217ADHD 3.089Spinal cord injury 2.948Manic depression 2.607Depression 2.363

Least deserving Spina bifida 1.135______________________________________________________________________________________

Gender findings may be related to traditional female gender role socialization, whereby females tend to be nurturers and more concerned for the welfare of others compared to males (Lamanna & Riedmann, 1994). Also, the larger number of nursing, education, and liberal arts students who participated in this study may have presented positive preference toward individuals with disabilities due to their educational affiliation.

Additionally, data outcomes from the total SAPD score, SAPD subscales (Pessimism-Hopelessness, Behavioral Misconceptions, and Optimism-Human Rights), and evaluation of types of educational accommodation are new contributions to the disability attitude literature. Generally results suggest that those enrolled in higher levels of college study responded more favorably with regard to persons with disabilities. Significant differences on these five measures with regard to level of college study present interesting data to consider. For example, it is uncertain whether enhanced attitudes are a result of specific training, life experience, personal maturation, specific contact with students with disabilities, or are due to some other unknown factor or combination.

It appears that attitudes toward postsecondary educational accommodation were impacted by how equitable or fair differing accommodations were considered to be with regard to all college students. Trends whereby females and those in higher levels of college study evaluated the types of accommodation more favorably were identified. Three random participant interviews following data collection supported the contention that offering accommodations was based on the visibility of the disability, explicit connection with need for educational accommodations, and relative fairness of providing selected classroom accommodations. Participant responses seem to have resulted in support for the provision of educational accommodation to those with more severe and obtrusive physical disabilities.

Related findings regarding “accommodation deservedness” of students with presented disabilities are noteworthy. Data from Tables 5 and 6 highlight how students with blindness, cerebral palsy, head injury, and hearing impairment were found to be most deserving of classroom accommodations. Alternately, students with spinal cord injury, manic depression, depression, and spina bifida were consistently reported as least deserving of accommodations. These rankings can be understood in a number of ways. Participants were expected to attribute a need/no need for educational accommodations after reading disability scenarios that included a disability label and three respective functional limitations. The scenarios provided minimal information upon which participants attributed the relative accommodation deservedness. Initially, it appeared that the college students deemed most deserving of accommodation were described as having disabilities with physical implications (blindness, cerebral palsy, and hearing impairment). The more dissimilar a student with a disability was viewed (from one’s self—usually more severely disabled) the more likely an accommodation was affirmed. Also, each of the disabilities selected were very obvious and potentially debilitating. The spina bifida scenario was an exception and may be explained by the fact that

participants did not attribute orthopedic and social limitations as educationally impairing. Cognitive impairment sometimes associated with spina bifida was not presented as a functional limitation in this scenario and this may account for the relatively low percentage (44.3%) of participants attributing the need for educational accommodation. Across scenarios nearly 75% of the college disability scenarios were attributed as deserving accommodation. This was surprisingly high and may be explained by the attitude literature (Jones et al., 1984) on disability preference, which has suggested that individuals without disabilities are more “giving” and positive toward those with disabilities that are more severe and most visibly obvious.

The four disability scenarios converged as most deserving using two quantification methods; however, the reasoning behind this ordering is uncertain. It is possible that participants used the attribution process of “spread” (Dembo, Levinton, & Wright, 1956; Wright,1983), whereby the power of a single characteristic, in this case disability label and its attendant image, can lead to other directed inferences about the persons. If participants were most aware of the four most deserving disabilities, then “spread” is likely to markedly diminish the functional abilities of students with such a disability influencing participants to attribute a strong need for accommodation deservedness. Alternatively, it is probable that participants had minimal knowledge of the selected disabilities and responded to these scenarios based upon their individually held beliefs and, in some cases, stereotypes. Recent researchers (Fichten, Robillard, Judd, & Ansel, 1989; Kelly, Sedlacek, & Scales, 1994) presented data showing that students without disabilities stereotypically perceived the personality traits of their peers with disabilities which may have extended to the attributed need for educational accommodations. Thus, previously developed disability stereotypes or beliefs may have guided participant responses. Clearly, ambiguity about an individual can have both positive and negative consequences.

Further research may consider individual responsibility (origin and causation) for disability and investigate the perception that educational accommodations unfairly favor their recipients over peers. Weiner (1993) showed how perceived personal responsibility for disability decreased others’ desire to assist these people. Perhaps participants responded unfavorably to disabilities for which they perceived the onset as being potentially related to personal behaviors. Also, it seems reasonable that increased life experiences may eliminate, or at least reduce, the perceived threat of unfair educational advantage with the provision of specific accommodations. Perhaps this may explain why accommodations were reported as more equitable by students at higher levels of college study.Limitations

Several limitations of this study are noted. First, voluntary, convenience sampling may have limited the generalizability of our findings. Also, a disproportionate number of females in the sample may have provided a more positive view of disability attitudes. Study participants were 76% female, whereas females comprised 53 % of the student body (University Registrar, 1999). The lack of cultural/racial diversity is another limitation. The sample included about 6% of subjects from a single postsecondary campus, who were not from the majority Caucasian culture. Non-White study participation was 6.1% whereas non-White enrollment described 9.1% of the student body (University Registrar, 1999). Finally, we need to know more about the life history of students relating to their views and contacts with particular disabilities.

A related concern is that persons may have reported socially desirable answers to the survey questions. Future studies may want to include a social desirability measure to control for such type of responses. Attempts to limit these responses based solely on social desirability were undertaken. Specifically, no participant names or other identifying information were included on data collection materials, data were to only be reported in a group format, and participants were assured that no attempts to identify individual participants and responses would be made.

Replication of this study including more comprehensive disability contact data from students, faculty, and administrators would be beneficial. Increasing our understanding of collegiate disability attitudes and their relationship to educational accommodation is necessary so that educators can better educate all students, including those with disabilities. Although postsecondary institutions have a history of providing educational accommodations for students with particular disabilities, we need to understand the context of these provisions and their impact on the education of all students. Implications

Study data confirm the following. First, female participants and those in more advanced levels of college study responded more favorably to persons with disabilities. Additionally, participants indicated they perceived students with visible disabilities (e.g, students with blindness, deafness, and cerebral palsy)

as most deserving of educational accommodation, whereas students with invisible disabilities (e.g., students with ADHD, depression, and manic depression) were designated as least deserving of accommodation. These disability-specific findings are perplexing and prompt the question, “What did these postsecondary students consider a ‘real’ disability?” As attitudes guide other behavior, variations in general and disability-specific attitudes among students without disabilities must be addressed to ensure acceptable peer interactions among postsecondary students without disabilities and their peers with disabilities.

To this end, comprehensive disability education throughout the postsecondary educational environment is needed. Several constituents may be involved in such education. First, administrators must play a key role in supporting student and faculty orientation (including legal rights and responsibilities of students with disabilities), sponsoring universitywide disability education, offering a general education disability course, and training faculty to reasonably accommodate “qualified” students with disabilities. As institutional representatives, administrators have a legal responsibility to make educational services accessible to all “qualified” students at their institutions.

Additionally, disability support professionals serving students with disabilities will likely be called upon to facilitate more favorable institutional (faculty, staff, and students) disability attitudes. These professionals have comprehensive knowledge of medical, psychological, social, and educational intricacies related to contemporary disabilities. This knowledge can benefit the institution in a number of ways. First and foremost, these professionals can continue providing appropriate educational accommodation to ensure that college students with disabilities are able to access and benefit from postsecondary education alongside their peers without disabilities. Maintaining such a focus can positively model disability-sensitive behavior. In addition, a more active role in educating the college community about specific disabilities, the legal rights and responsibilities of students with disabilities, and postsecondary responsibilities to educating all “qualified” students will be useful. Comprehensive institutional education may take several forms. For example, disability support professionals may promote ongoing universitywide disability awareness training, sponsor disability scholars to speak on contemporary disability issues, or develop experientially based disability training provided by college students with disabilities.

Furthermore, faculty are a potential source of student disability education, as they have a responsibility to best serve all students. For example, it may be sound policy to address the rights and responsibilities of students with disabilities at the beginning of and throughout a course. Faculty can also integrate accurate disability information throughout their course that accentuates the similarities of persons with disabilities without unduly emphasizing their differences. Modeling respectful, nonpatronizing treatment of students with disabilities is a potent way to vicariously elevate college students’ disability attitudes.

Comprehensive postsecondary disability knowledge must include accurate disability information but also student interactions with people with various disabilities. Personal interactions are closely linked with more accurate understanding of persons with disabilities (Anderson & Antonak, 1992; Barrett & Pullo, 1993; Yuker, 1992; Yuker & Block, 1986; Yuker & Hurley, 1987) and must be utilized to enhance disability attitudes. Comprehensive efforts in postsecondary disability education may enhance students’ understanding of their peers with disabilities and promote a more inclusive student acceptance of peers with varying disabilities.

ReferencesAnderson, R., & Antonak, R. (1992). The influence of attitudes and contact on reactions to persons with

physical and speech disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 34, 240-247.Antonak, R. (1982). Factor analysis of the Attitude Toward Disabled Persons scale-Form A. Rehabilitation

Psychology, 27, 235-243. Antonak, R. (1992). Scale of Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons (SAPD) Form R. Durham, NH:

University of New Hampshire.Antonak, R., & Livneh, H. (1989). The measurement of attitudes toward people with disabilities: Methods,

psychometrics, and scales. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Barrett, K., & Pullo, R. (1993). Attitudinal changes in undergraduate rehabilitation students as measured by

the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons scale. Rehabilitation Education, 7, 119-126.Beattie, J., Anderson, R., & Antonak, R. (1997). Modifying the attitudes of prospective educators toward

students with disabilities and their integration into regular classrooms. The Journal of Psychology, 131, 245-259.

Benham, P. K. (1988). Attitudes of occupational therapy personnel toward persons with disabilities. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 42, 305-311.

Chubon, R. (1992). Attitudes toward disability: Addressing fundamentals of attitude theory and research in rehabilitation education. Rehabilitation Education, 6, 301-412.

Dembo, T., Levinton, G.L., & Wright, B. (1956). Adjustment to misfortune: A problem of social-psychological rehabilitation. Artificial Limbs. (Reprinted in Rehabilitation Psychology¸ 22, 1-100.)

Fazio, R., & Towles-Schwen, T. (1999). The MODE model of attitude-behavior processes. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 171-186). New York: Guilford Press.

Fichten, C., Robillard, K., Judd, D., & Ansel, R. (1989). College students with physical disabilities: Myths and realities. Rehabilitation Psychology, 34, 243-257.

Fiedler, C. R., & Simpson, R. L. (1987). Modifying attitudes of nonhandicapped high school students toward handicapped peers. Exceptional Children, 53, 342-349.

Gilbride, D. (1993). Parental attitudes toward their child with a disability: Implications for rehabilitation counselors. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 36(3), 139-150.

Jones, E., Farina, A., Markus, H., Miller, D., & French, R. (1984). Social stigma: The psychology of marked relationships. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Kelly, A., Sedlacek, W., & Scales, W. (1994). How college students with and without disabilities perceive themselves and each other. Journal of Counseling & Development, 73, 178-182.

Lamanna, M., & Riedmann, A. (1994). Marriages and families: Making choices and facing changes (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Linkowski, D., (1994). A reaction to “Indirect methods to measure attitudes toward persons with disability.” Rehabilitation Education, 8, 141-142.

Livneh, H., & Antonak, R. (1994). Indirect methods to measure attitudes toward persons with disabilities. Rehabilitation Education, 8, 144-148.

Richard, M., Finkel, M. & Cohen, M. (1998). Preparing reports documenting attention deficit hyperactivity disorder for students in post-secondary education: What neurologists need to know. The Neurologist, 4, 277-283.

Scott, S. (1990). Coming to terms with the “otherwise qualified” student with a learning disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 403-412.

University Registrar. (1999). A profile of students enrolled at the University of Iowa: First semester 1999-2000. Iowa City, IA: Author.

Wright, B. (1983). Physical disability: A psychosocial approach (2 ed.). New York: Harper & Row.Weiner, B. (1993). On sin or sickness: A theory of perceived responsibility and social motivation.

American Psychologist, 48(9), 957-965.Yuker, H. (1992). Attitudes toward persons with disabilities: Conclusions from the data. Rehabilitation

Psychology News, 19(2), 17-18.Yuker, H., & Block, J. (1986). Research with the Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale (ATDP) 1960-

1985. Hempstead, NY: Hofstra University, Center for the Study of Attitudes Toward Persons with Disabilities.

Yuker, H., & Hurley, M. (1987). Contact with and attitudes toward persons with disabilities: The measurement of intergroup contact. Rehabilitation Psychology, 32, 145-154.

About the AuthorsThomas D. Upton, Ph.D., CRC is an assistant professor in Rehabilitation Counselor Training

Program at Southern Illinois University-Carbondale. Additionally, he has worked in comprehensive rehabilitation centers, as a Senior Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) counselor, a private VR consultant, and a brain injury consultant. Research interests include functioning post brain injury, rehabilitation counselor preparation, disability attitudes, educational accommodations, and social reactions to disability.

Dennis C. Harper, Ph.D., ABPP is a Professor of Pediatrics and Rehabilitation at The University of Iowa. Dr. Harper has over 25 years in working with children with disabilities, has published over 100

refereed journal articles, presented research around the world, and has extensive knowledge and research interest in understanding the social intricacies of disabilities.

This study was supported in part by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (NICHD), #F31 HDO8631-01, but the opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the funding agency. Part of this study was submitted by the first author in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Rehabilitation Counseling (Counseling, Rehabilitation, and Student Development) in the graduate college of the University of Iowa.

Journal of Postsecondary Education (JPED)Book Review Column

Welcome to the book review column! I look forward to working with you to develop and extend the column and to initiate a process and dialogue for sharing perspectives on books relevant to our field. One of the goals of this column is to bring new publications to the attention of service providers, administrators, researchers, and others within the field of disabilities services in higher education. In addition, we look to shape and extend the field by locating books within the field’s current perspectives and challenging conventions or extending our thinking as appropriate. The column can also provide a vehicle for those who are interested in writing for a scholarly publication.

A book review in a professional journal is a service to the readers. Therefore, the review should simultaneously convey the content of the book, evaluate the publication as to its relevance to the field, and assess its particular quality and usefulness for various audiences within our field.

My contact information is listed below. Please do not hesitate to contact me to suggest possible books for review. Let’s make this column a place where we can share promising publications with our colleagues, as well as a place to begin an ongoing, professional exchange of ideas!

Elaine Manglitz, Ed.S.Learning Disabilities CenterUniversity of Georgia(706) 542-4596elaine@arches.uga.edu

Longmore, P. K., & Umansky, L. (Eds.). (2001). The new disability history: American perspectives. New York: New York University Press.

This edited volume provides a look at experiences of disabilities during the last two centuries and begins to fill the historical gap that has existed on the subject. In the editors’ words, the book “seeks to open up a history that has largely been hidden” (p. 23). The essays describe the frequency, the everyday occurrences, and the social aspects of disability, at the same time emphasizing the variety of disability experiences that have always existed. In their introduction, the editors give a thorough overview of the various phases of disabilities history over the last two centuries and provide new ways to think about and understand the American experience of disability.

The book is organized chronologically and thematically, with fourteen essays covering the period between the mid-nineteenth century and the present; a majority of pieces discuss events that occurred during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a period the editors assert encompassed a major

redefinition of disability. The thematic organization of the book consists of three areas: “Uses and Contests,” “Redefinitions and Resistance,” and “Images and Identities.” The essays under the “Uses and Contests” generally discuss how embedded the concept of disability is within American history, identifying linkages with the three great citizenship debates of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries – women’s suffrage, African American freedom and civil rights, and the restriction of immigration. The authors describe how disability was used as much to define and justify the norm as to create an identity used to exclude those with the identity from full citizenship and justify inequalities. Other essays discuss deaf culture, the struggle that resulted within the deaf culture related to those who wanted to continue the use of signs and those who emphasized oralism, and the close connection between the work ethic and disability status in an industrialized society, compounded by gender, race, and class. The “Redefinition and Resistance” section include chapters that review the time period between 1890 and 1920 where disability was reconstructed as primarily a medical problem, with medical experts, social service personnel, and objective and scientific methods proclaimed as the best way to approach and educate people with disabilities. The essays outline and describe the perspectives of reformers who considered social approaches to disability and primarily attempted to reform cultural attitudes and individual or medical approaches used to correct flaws in people with disabilities themselves. They also portray the conflict between people with disabilities and the experts as they battled over who would have control over the various mechanisms created for people with disabilities. Finally, the essays in the section “Images and Identities” describe how disability has been viewed during the twentieth century. It includes several pieces that describe how an analysis of disability is interconnected with the analysis of gender, race, and class in America, as well as how the visual representation of people with disabilities belies the social construction of disability itself.

The editors’ goals to open up and portray a history that has been hidden are achieved well. The book has several major strengths, which also contribute to its importance for those who are concerned with the full inclusion of persons with disabilities within our society. The authors of many of the essays highlight how connected the history of disability is to many aspects of our American experience. For example, aspects of the Protestant work ethic, our ideology of the self-made person and individual achievement emphasize the beginnings of the development of disability as not just personal and private but also political, and highlight the reciprocal nature between a person’s sense of self and the social environment. Although many of the themes may be similar in Western European nations, the book does foreground the emergence and social construction of disability within the particulars of our American context – capitalism, industrialization, and the racial, gender, and ethnic struggles occurring during the same historical periods.

The chronological presentation is extremely valuable in providing a sense of history related to the construction of disability in this country and in emphasizing how many different ways of viewing disability have been present throughout the time period the book covers. For example, there have always been struggles within disability groups who have contested the meanings of disability and the methods for dealing with it. Even though thematic trends within the various historical periods can be identified, there have always been multiple ways to describe, and therefore multiple ways to deal with, disability. Applying this insight to the present day allows us to interpret the current cases, legal decisions, and struggles over the meaning of disability in a broader and perhaps more knowledgeable manner, leading to better decision making with regard to policy development, services, and research.

I would have liked a concluding chapter in which the editors commented on and summarized the chapters, along with giving a critical analysis of the content and recommendations for future historical pieces. This would have added greatly to the volume and also to my own knowledge. However, I would highly recommend this book to service providers, researchers, and administrators within the field of postsecondary disabilities services, as it provides an important analysis of disability within the American historical context that can enable us to proceed more knowledgeably to work for the full inclusion of people with disabilities into our society. It prompted me to think more carefully about the social construction of disability, to consider how disability is being defined and redefined today, and to look at the struggles that are occurring with a deeper and finer-honed critical analysis. Elaine Manglitz

Journal of Postsecondary Education and DisabilityAuthor 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:

ContentManuscripts 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.

FormatAll 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).· 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 http://www.apastyle.org/fifthchanges.html.For responses to frequently asked questions about APA style , consult the APA web site at http://www.apastyle.org/faqs.html.

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 editor at the following address:

Dr. Sally ScottUniversity of ConnecticutDepartment of Educational PsychologyCenter on Postsecondary Education and Disability/Hall Bldg.362 Fairfield Road, Unit 2064Storrs, CT 06269-2064

Upon acceptance for publicationFor 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· A 40-50 word bibliographic description for each author

9/01__________________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.