Research Highlights

AHEAD’s National Survey of Disability Resource Office Structures and Programs
Citation: Scott, S.  (2019, March). The AHEAD Biennial Survey of Disability Resource Office Structures and Programs.  Huntersville, NC: The Association on Higher Education and Disability. Available at https://www.ahead.org/professional-resources/information-services-portal/benchmark-data  

Why is this Study Important?
Disability resource offices (DROs) across the country vary widely and typically grow and evolve in response to local needs as well as national trends.  With the many changes that are taking place in the field—from emerging disability populations, to findings in case law, to growing awareness of the role of social justice in campus inclusion, how are disability resource office structures and programs changing?
​
AHEAD conducts a biennial survey of the membership to collect national data about disability resource offices and professionals. For the 2018 survey, AHEAD wanted to learn more about the current administration and activities of disability resource offices. The survey focused on administrative structures, office staff, budgeting, and the constituents served by the disability resource office.

Research Methods
AHEAD has been conducting biennial surveys since 2008, with slight modifications to the survey instrument and methods over time to reflect updates and current areas of focus.  The survey was distributed to one campus representative at each institution reflected in the AHEAD membership.  Respondents were typically the director or head of disability services on campus.  An e-mail invitation with an embedded link to the online survey was sent to 1,534 distinct institutions of higher education. There was a total of 457 hits on the survey or a 30% response rate.

Some Key Findings
The report contains descriptive data summarizing the survey responses in a variety of areas important to managing a disability resource office. The following “key findings” are just a few of the many data points and trends contained in the report.

• Office administration: The majority (52%) of disability resource offices report to the Student Affairs division; 25% report to Academic Affairs.
• Office titles: In the past, the Office of Disability Services was a common office name. In 2018 titles vary widely. The words access, accessibility, or accessible (e.g., Student Access Services or Office for Accessibility Resources) have increased greatly since the 2012 AHEAD survey.
• Number of staff: Staffing patterns are clearly different at institutions of different types and sizes. For example, the average number of full-time staff in the disability resource office on campuses with less the 1,500 total student enrollment is one full-time professional; on campuses with total student enrollment of 30,000 or higher the average is 13 full-time staff. (See the report for more information on campuses of other sizes as well as information on the average number of staff at different types of campuses.)​ The report also includes average numbers of staff in four additional categories: part-time, contract, student, and volunteers.
• Annual budget: Office budgets vary extensively. Even when responses are sorted by institutional size and type there is a wide range of budgetary support. Twenty-three percent (23%) of disability resource offices receive funds from the campus Foundation Office, including private donations.
• Student numbers: The number of students registered with the disability resource office varies by both institutional size and institutional type. For example, on campuses with less than 1,500 total student enrollment, disability resource offices report an average of 94 students with disabilities registered with the office; for campuses with 10,001-19,000 total student enrollment, the average number is 752 registered students. (See the report for more information on campuses of other sizes as well as information on the average number of students at different types of campuses.)
• Student-staff ratios: With information now on the average number of full-time staff in the disability resource office and the average number of registered students, the report includes average student-staff ratios. They range from 94:1 on small campuses of less than 1,500 students to 159:1 on large campuses of 30,000 students or more. (See the report for more!)

Limitations
As with all research, there are limitations to the study. Participation in this survey was voluntary and it could be that participants who elected to complete the survey differ from those who chose not to participate.  There was a 30% response rate to the survey. While this is an acceptable rate it isn’t known to what extent this subgroup reflects the broader population of AHEAD members and their campuses. It is also not clear whether or to what extent this group differs from the general population of non-AHEAD members across the country.  As noted throughout the Key Findings above, there were some questions, such as those related to office budget for example, where responses varied widely. This makes numerical averages less meaningful and it is important to use averages in tandem with other descriptive data or information.

Actionable Steps
The report is organized into four sections:  About the Campus, About the Disability Resource Office, Staff, Budget, and Campus Constituents. Each section has a one-two page narrative summary called Section Highlights. The highlights include references to the tables of descriptive data that follow to help you dig deeper into the areas you want to know more about.
You may have specific questions already in mind related to your disability resource office.  For example, is your campus discussing restructuring and possibly moving the disability resource office over to a new administrative reporting line?  It may be useful to know how common that reporting line is for disability resource offices on other campuses across the country.
 Or you may be a one-person office and are curious about the staffing levels at campuses like yours. How many part-time staff or student employees do other small campuses typically have? The data in this report will give you a benchmark to compare. If you are planning to advocate for additional staff, these national benchmarks are typically an important starting point for helping your supervisor understand that campus practices may be out of line with national practices.

It may be that in some areas your office exceeds the average practices reported in this survey. For example, if you are working at a Baccalaureate College (a college that provides mostly bachelor’s degrees) and you and/or your staff provided more than 10 training or outreach events last year, you performed better than 84% of your institutional peers in this area. If this is a priority area for your office and campus, this would be helpful data to include in an annual report about your office performance.
Want to know more about the findings of the AHEAD Biennial Survey? Log into the AHEAD website, and you will find this report and other benchmark data in the Information Service Portal:  https://www.ahead.org/professional-resources/information-services-portal/benchmark-data.
 
Have you published a research article or read a research study that informed your work?  E-mail Sally Scott (sally@ahead.org ) with suggestions for future research summaries in the Hub!

Accommodations and Support Services for Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD): A National Survey of Disability Resource Providers
Citation: Brown, K. (2017). Accommodations and support services for students with autism spectrum disorders (ASD): A national survey of disability resource providers.  Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 30(2), 141-156.
Why is this Study Important?
Providing needed accommodations and supports has been shown to positively affect the persistence and success of college students with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Yet campus disability resource offices vary widely, and there are some unique barriers experienced by students with ASD in a college setting. With a growing number of college students on the spectrum, what are typical services and supports being provided on college campuses?
Kirsten Brown, from the University of Wisconsin, Madison conducted a national survey of disability resources offices. She wanted to learn more about the types of accommodations and services being offered to students on the autism spectrum. She was curious about types of general support services (defined as services for students with and without disclosed disabilities) as well as ASD-specific supports.
Research Methods
Brown developed a survey instrument and distributed it to directors of disability resource offices at colleges across the country. She used a random sample of two-year and four-year non-profit colleges and universities in the U.S. She e-mailed recruitment letters to 1,245  individuals and had a 41% return rate.  To analyze the data, she used both descriptive and inferential statistics.
Some Key Findings

• Student numbers: 94% of the respondents reported they had one or more students with ASD on campus. Higher numbers were reported at two-year institutions than four-year colleges. Four-year public colleges reported more students with ASD than four-year private institutions.
• Reasonable accommodations: Academic accommodations (e.g., notetakers, extended test time) were reported at a high percentage of campuses, and appear to be offered to students with ASD at rates similar to other students with disabilities.
• Campuses report providing sensory and social accommodations less frequently. For example, 45% of institutions provide sensory accommodations, and 39% offer a single residence hall room as an accommodation. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of campuses have a disability-focused student organization and 27% provide peer mentoring programs administered by the disability resource office. 
• General support services such as tutoring and counseling are widely offered, but are typically provided by an office other than the disability resource office. Transition programs and peer mentoring that provide all students social supports are offered less frequently than other general support services.
• ASD specific services: 28% of respondents indicated they provide specific services for students with ASD free of charge; 2% report offering ASD services on a fee basis.
• The strongest predictor of institutional support for students with ASD was the presence of peer mentoring.  Campuses with peer mentoring administered by the disability resource office or other offices were three times more likely to also have ASD-specific services than campuses without peer mentoring.

Limitations
The author discusses some limitations to the study. Since participation was voluntary, respondents who have students with ASD on their campus may have been more likely to respond.  There is wide variation in the disability documentation and accommodation practice across campuses. Co-occurring diagnoses are common, and this study focused solely on ASD.
Actionable Steps
Brown suggests several implications of these findings for disability resource offices.

• Campuses need to evaluate the types and range of accommodations they provide.  In addition to traditional academic accommodations, are sensory and social barriers for students with ASD being addressed? Do additional forms of accommodations or supports need to be provided on campus in response to the growing presence of students with ASD?
• There are greater numbers of students with ASD at two-year campuses, but these campuses do not report a greater level of staff or support than four-year campuses. This finding may be useful for professionals on these campuses in advocating for additional staff or funding for programming.
•  Having a peer mentoring program on campus, even one that is designed as a general service to benefit all students, may contribute to an institutional culture of support. Brown suggests that establishing a general peer mentoring program can be an effective first step to building a program for students with ASD.

 
Want to know more about the methods, outcomes, and limitations of this research? You can access the article at https://www.ahead.org/professional-resources/publications/jped/archived-jped/jped-volume-30.  Scroll to issue 2 and select your format of choice (pdf, Word, mp3, or DAISY).

Doggone Good? Potential Benefits of Assistance Animals for Students on College Campuses
Citation: Polking, A., Cornelius-White, J., & Stout, T.  (2017). Doggone Good? Potential Benefits of Assistance Animals for Students on College Campuses. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 30(3), 237-250.

Why Is This Study Important?
The legal requirements and terminology around service animals and emotional support animals are frequent topics of conversation in our disability resource offices and on our listservs.  This research study looks at the topic of animals on campus from a different angle.  The authors, Amanda Polking, Jeffrey Cornelius-White, and Tracy Stout from the University of Missouri, wanted to know more about animal assisted therapy and its educational benefits on college campuses. They defined Animal Assisted Therapy (AAT) as “a goal oriented, planned, and structured therapeutic intervention directed and/or adopted by health, education, and human services professionals” (International Association of Human-Animal Interaction Organizations, 2014). They were particularly interested in whether there are benefits to having an assistance animal present for students who access the campus disability resource office. And if so, what those benefits might be.

Research Methods in a Nutshell
The research consisted of an extensive review of the literature using several broad key words (e.g., “therapy animal,” “animal assisted,” “counseling”) and across multiple databases (e.g, Ebscohost, PsychINFO). The researchers also conducted grandfather searches, or searches of the citations in the literature they located to find additional resources.

Some Key Findings
There were no research studies that were specifically set within a disability resource office. The authors, however, gave an overview of a variety of descriptive and research study articles from related areas. For the purpose of focusing on research to practice, the following high lights draw on selected empirical research studies identified by the authors.

Effectiveness of Animal Assisted Therapy. Nimar and Lundahl (2007) conducted a meta-analysis of research on AAT. Meta-analysis is a scientific method for reviewing multiple research studies on a single topic and conducting a statistical analysis of the aggregate findings.  Nimar and Lundahl focused on research participants with medical, mental health, and behavioral reasons for participating in AAT. They also analyzed the research to learn more about the type of animal involved (e.g., dogs, horses), the location of the therapy (e.g., offices, camps, hospitals), and the length of treatment. Across the varied studies, they found that dogs were the most frequently used therapy animal and AAT had a positive effect on participant wellbeing, behavior, and medical symptoms. In office settings the “effect size,” or impact of the therapy was larger than other settings.

Animal Assisted Therapy and Animal Assisted Activities with College Students. Several studies have looked at the use of AAT to help reduce anxiety, stress, and depression with college students. Folse, Minder, Aycock, and Santana (1994) identified 44 college students with depression, and put them in three groups: those who received AAT, those who received AAT and psychotherapy, and a control group.  Using the Beck Depression Inventory before and after the intervention, students who received AAT alone showed the most improved scores. 

In another study, Stewart, Dispenza, Parker, Chang, and Cunnien (2014) examined the effectiveness of AAT on student loneliness and anxiety. Fifty college students voluntarily participated in a AAT program that took place in a residence hall lobby.  Students were permitted to “drop in” any time during a two-hour period to interact with the dogs. Activity with the animals ranged from petting and brushing to playing and taking pictures. On measures given before and after the session, students self-reported significantly less loneliness and anxiety. Other authors have noted that rather than “therapy” this type of program is better described as animal assisted activities or visitation programs.
Daltry and Mehr (2015) examined the use of animal assisted activities by a campus counseling center. The center’s goals in using the activities were to reduce student stress and to increase student awareness and access of the counseling center.  A therapy dog was made available at the center on a monthly basis and students were asked for feedback. Ninety-two percent (92%) of students reported a reduction in stress after interacting with the dog, and 94% of students reported they would not have visited the center if the therapy dogs had not been present.

Camaioni (2013) explored the impact of a Campus Canines Program on social connection and communication. In this program, resident students were provided the opportunity to interact with therapy dogs with a general goal of stress and anxiety reduction. Camaioni observed a recurring interaction pattern of communication between students, volunteers and the dogs. While dogs were the initial attraction, interaction with the dog consistently resulted in increased human conversation including student to student, and student to volunteer exchanges. On an online survey, 71% of the student participants reported it was easier to communicate with others in the presence of a dog. Students also reported having conversations with other family and friends about the CCP experience.

Limitations
The authors discuss a number of limitations to the research on this topic including the frequent use of small numbers of participants, short term data collection, and lack of control groups in intervention studies. The most challenging aspect of interpreting the findings in this literature however are the many different uses of the term AAT, and the frequent interchanging of terms with the more loosely structured animal assisted activities or visitation programs.

Actionable Steps
While research is not conclusive, it does suggest possible findings that are interesting for a disability resource office.  The structure of the animal assisted therapy or activity described in the research varies widely, but there remains a pattern of positive feedback from student participants. The broad appeal of interacting with therapy dogs may help to overcome some of the stigma of visiting “service” related offices such as disability resources. And the potential benefits in reducing student stress and anxiety are appealing given the wide spread presence of anxiety and depression among college students.

Is providing AAT or a therapy dog the role of a disability resource office?  The authors provide a number of logistical considerations for offices that are interested in exploring possibilities for including a therapy dog in their work including some preliminary thoughts about safety, insurance, and the role of staff.

Considering the benefits of a therapy dog within a disability resource office raises some questions: Would an on-site therapy dog in a disability resource office help address the growing number of requests from students for personal emotional support animals in the residence halls?  Would a therapy dog in the disability resource office improve student attendance for appointments? Would communication patterns with students and disability resource staff change as the result of having a therapy dog present? These and other questions would be intriguing to explore and document through office data collection.

Want to Know More?
Read the full report of findings at: https://www.ahead.org/publications/jped/vol_30
Scroll to issue 3 and select your format of choice (Word, PDF, MP3, Daisy).

Double Time? Examining Extended Testing Time Accommodations in Postsecondary Settings
Citation: Sokal, L. & Vermette, L.  (2017). Double time? Examining extended testing time accommodations in postsecondary settings. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 30(2), 185-200.

Why Is This Study Important?
Extended test time is one of the most frequently requested and used accommodations on college campuses. How much time is enough? This is a long standing question for disability resource professionals charged with discussing and approving accommodations with students with disabilities. When extended time is needed, it is common practice to approve 50% more time or, less frequently, 100% more time than students without disabilities taking the same test. And while the authors review a number of articles discussing the fairness and effectiveness of this accommodation, they conclude that there is no empirical evidence that supports these specific levels of additional time.
Laura Sokal, from the University of Winnipeg, and Laurie Anne Vermette, from the University of Manitoba, conducted a study to explore this accommodation further. They were interested in whether students used their full extended time during tests.  They were also curious whether the amount of extended time used varied in lower level compared to higher level courses.

Research Methods in a Nutshell
The authors worked with the disability resource offices on two campuses. One campus had a population of approximately 10,000 students and served undergraduate students. The other campus was larger, with roughly 30,000 students and provided undergraduate, graduate, and professional programs. The researchers did a post hoc analysis of the data collected about student eligibility and use of extended time on tests over a two-year period. They reviewed data from a total of 8,857 exams. The data they reviewed included (1) year in the program to which the test applied; (2) the standard exam time provided to all students; (3) the amount of extended time the test taker was eligible to receive; and (4) the actual time used on the test. From these data they also calculated some additional factors in order to allow comparisons across the two universities.

Some Key Findings
Many students do not use the full extended time they are eligible to receive. Looking at descriptive statistics across the two university settings, the authors found some interesting patterns.  Consider these outcomes:

• For 35% of the tests, the test taker didn’t use any extended time.
• In 55% of the tests, the test taker completed the test within 25% more time than the standard test time provided all students.
• Eighty-five percent (85%) of the tests were completed within the time frame of 50% more time than the standard test time allowed to all students. Yet 42% of students at the smaller university and 30% at the larger university had been approved for 100% more time.

Students used more extended test time in higher level courses. The researchers compared test completion times for exams in different course levels across five broad categories (first year courses, second year courses, third year courses, fourth year courses, and fifth-ninth year courses that included the graduate and professional course work at the larger university). They found that average time for test completion was higher in second year level courses than in first year; and higher test completion times in third year level courses than in second year courses. There were no differences between test completion time in third year and any of the higher level courses.

Comparisons across the two university settings. There were no significant differences between the two university settings on the average standard test time provided to all students. Students at the smaller university were approved for slightly more extended time as an accommodation on average than students at the larger university. When the researchers compared the amount of time actually used on tests, however, they found students in both settings use similar amounts of time.

Limitations
The datasets provided to the researchers had been cleaned of information about individual student disabilities or other demographic details. While appropriate for preserving student privacy, the authors noted that this limited some aspects of their analysis and possible recommendations. 

Actionable Steps
So if most students are actually completing their tests with 25% additional time or less, what does this mean for appropriate recommendations for extended time from the disability resource professional? The authors provide a helpful discussion of this issue.  Abruptly reducing amounts of approved extended time is not recommended. Remember that accommodations should be the result of a conversation with the student about barriers to testing. For some students extended test time is provided to address slower speeds of information processing or reading fluency for example; for others extended time is provided in order to alleviate anxiety and worry about having sufficient time to demonstrate knowledge.  As always, the mantra of our field is that accommodations are determined on a case-by-case basis.
 The authors pose an important question however. How do we honor individual differences and at the same time foster student growth? As part of supporting student self-determination consider giving students information about their own trends in using extended test time.  Is the current level of extended time working? Is it more than needed? Is the student interested in enhancing  her test-taking strategies or stress reduction approaches to support her performance in a test setting? These are conversations that can support students in being active agents in their college learning and education.
 
Want to Know More?
Read the full report of findings at: https://www.ahead.org/publications/jped/vol_30
Scroll to issue 2 and select your format of choice (Word, PDF, MP3, Daisy).

Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Student Veterans
Citation: Gonzalez, C., & Elliott, M. (2016). Faculty attitudes and behaviors toward student veterans. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 29(1), 35-46.

Why Is This Study Important?
    There is a growing presence of student veterans on college campuses. Many veterans who return from active duty in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other recent areas of conflict are enrolling in postsecondary education. Physical and/or psychological injuries including such diagnoses as PTSD, TBI, and depression are requiring disability based accommodations in college settings.
Student veterans with disabilities face unique challenges in the college environment. Research on the experience of student veterans in college has identified barriers such as being uncomfortable in crowded auditoriums and having a feeling of not fitting in on campus. Some student veterans have expressed discomfort with interactions with faculty who voice liberal views on military issues. To date, research has focused on student perspective and experience, but what do we know about other factors? How do faculty experiences and attitudes influence this interaction?
    Carlene Gonzalez from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and Marta Elliott from the University of Nevada, Reno conducted a study to explore this topic.  They wanted to know more about what predicts how military -related issues are treated and supported in college classrooms.

Research Methods in a Nutshell
    The authors surveyed college faculty from two campuses, one a community college and one a four-year university. They sought out faculty who taught courses that met general education requirements (e.g., English 101) since that would increase the likelihood of getting input from faculty who were teaching student veterans.
    The researchers developed a survey instrument with questions for faculty related to three broad areas: (1) how much contact they had had with the military throughout their lives, and including close friends and family in the military; (2) information about on the job contact with student veterans including how they viewed student veterans in comparison to other students; and (3) the manner in which the military came up in class.

Some Key Findings
    Contact with the military.  Not surprisingly, the more contact with the military a faculty member had experienced throughout his/her life the more often military issues came up in class. These faculty were also more likely to be supportive and willing to help student veterans if needed.
    Faculty perceptions of veterans. Faculty who indicated they thought highly of veterans (e.g., they were more deserving of a college education given their military service) were more likely to bring up military issues in class and be willing to provide support.
    Institutional differences. Faculty respondents from the community college reported being more willing to help student veterans and support their success.
    Unrelated faculty characteristics. Equally important in the findings of this study was the fact that gender, age, job rank, years teaching, political party affiliation, fiscal conservatism, and social conservatism were not related to the manner in which military came up in class or the faculty member’s willingness to help student veterans in their classes.

Limitations
The authors identified some possible weaknesses of the study.  They noted the sample size was small (n=160) and they considered the response rate to be low (51%). There was a possibility they had overrepresented faculty who had served in the military or worked in a community college setting. They also observed in retrospect that the survey questions had perhaps not been subtle enough to distinguish between positive and negative student experiences in the classroom. They merely asked faculty about the frequency in which military issues came up in class.

Actionable Steps
The authors recommend some approaches to addressing the issues identified by the study.  Provide training for faculty and staff on topics related to military service. Greater awareness of topics such as mental health and transitions from military to civilian life can serve to enhance campus sensitivity to these issues. Identifying individuals as campus liaisons for student veterans helps students navigate the postsecondary environment by having an informed and supportive network. Increase faculty awareness and sensitivity of non-visible disabilities that may be experienced by student veterans. One strategy the authors recommend is to include a statement in class syllabi encouraging student veterans to privately self-identify to instructors.  The authors caution that the goal of training should be to increase faculty sensitivity and awareness of these particular student issues, and not an attempt to change faculty members’ opinions regarding the military.

Want to Know More?
Read the full report of findings as well as additional suggestions for enhancing the college environment at:  https://www.ahead.org/publications/jped/vol_29
Scroll to issue 1 and select your format of choice (Word, PDF, MP3, Daisy).

What Keeps Students with Disabilities from Using Accommodations in Postsecondary Education?: A Qualitative Review
Citation: Lyman, M., Beecher, M., Griner, D., Brooks, M., Call, J., & Jackson, A. (2016). What keeps students with disabilities from using accommodations in postsecondary education? A qualitative review.  Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 29(2), 123-140.

Why is This Study Important?
Accommodations at the college level are designed to provide equal access and “level the playing field” for students with disabilities.  Previous studies have documented that use of accommodations can promote student success and enhance graduation rates. But there are a number of barriers that students face in requesting and using accommodations. Some of the challenges include new roles and responsibilities placed on the student to disclose, provide sufficient documentation of the disability, and navigate institutional requirements. Yet some students who have successfully navigated the system and have been “approved” for campus accommodations choose not to use those accommodations.  Is this because they don’t need the accommodations or are there other factors that are influencing students in this decision to not use these services?

A team of researchers from Brigham Young University and San Juan Counseling Center in Utah conducted a study to explore this question.  They wanted to know more about the experiences of students with disabilities who had chosen not to use their accommodations.

Research Methods in a Nutshell
The research team conducted individual interviews with students to get a more in depth understanding of students’ experiences. They developed a semi-structure interview protocol to guide their conversations in a consistent way, and spoke with 16 students at a large private university. Each of the students had been approved for accommodations by the campus disability resource office, but had chosen not to use one or more of those accommodations during the academic year. The students reported a range of mental health, cognitive, physical, neurological, and sensory disabilities. The interviews were audio taped and transcribed.  The transcribed interviews were then analyzed using a systematic process of identifying and confirming recurrent themes that came up in the conversations.  The researchers also gave student participants the opportunity to review the themes and give additional feedback.

Some Key Findings
    Six main themes.  The overarching themes that came out of the student interviews included the following: (1) Desire for self-sufficiency, (2) Desire to avoid negative social reactions, (3) Insufficient knowledge, (4) Quality and usefulness of DSS and accommodations, (5) Negative experiences with professors, and (6) Fear of future ramifications. In response to the original research questions, the researchers found that sometimes students don’t need the accommodation or don’t find the specific accommodation useful. Other times however, there are factors internal to the student or in the surrounding environment that are creating challenges and warrant more investigation. A few of these factors are highlighted.
    Self-accommodating. Some students shared that it was important to them to be independent and only use accommodations as a backup. Other students explained they had developed their own strategies for “leveling the playing field” such as going directly to professors for help or working with classmates.
    Not wanting to be treated differently.  Students did not want to be singled out or perceived as taking advantage of the system. Some expressed concern that providing accommodations placed a burden on disability resource professionals, faculty, and administrators.
   “Not disabled enough.” Some students questioned whether they had a “real” disability that warranted accommodation.  Students who expressed this concern were more likely to be students with emotional or learning disabilities.  
    Burdensome procedures. Some students described excessive requirements for attaining accommodation letters or making logistical arrangements for accommodations. Others mentioned occasional pushback from faculty, either to forgo accommodations or to use a different accommodation.
    Fear of future ramifications. Many students felt that using accommodations in college might have some negative long-term impact.  They were afraid that asking for accommodations could strain their relationships with faculty and impact future job opportunities. Some students expressed concern that they might be using accommodations as a crutch and missing the opportunity to build needed skills.

Limitations
The researchers identified some possible limitations of the study. In particular, they noted that the participants were all White/Caucasian and all attended the same large, private, religious university.  With an average age of 25, the student participants in the study were older than the average age of many undergraduates.  These factors should be taken into account as you consider how well the findings may generalize to your own campus setting.

Actionable Steps
In campus disability resource offices, we often say it’s the students’ choice if they want to use the accommodations they are eligible to receive. This study helps us dig a little deeper in thinking about the reasons behind that choice. As you work with students, there are many opportunities to have conversations around legal requirements, learning strategies, and how accommodations are or are not working.  The findings of this study suggest providing this kind of sounding board for students is important.

Many of the factors leading to decisions about whether or not to use accommodations could be viewed as related to student identity development. Does your campus have a student group for students with disabilities?  The opportunity for conversation and advocacy with peers increases students’ awareness about the role of campuses in providing accessible environments for all students. Working with a variety of fellow students provides legitimacy to diverse forms of disability.  Hosting campus speakers with disabilities, showcasing inclusive technology, or promoting disability in campus diversity initiatives for example, promote disability awareness as a positive contribution to a diverse campus community. This is an important backdrop in assuring students their disability is “legitimate,” their accommodations are not an inconvenience, and using accommodations does not preclude future job opportunities.

This study provides one more reminder of the importance of examining our own internal work in disability resources offices.  Are any of our procedures burdensome for students?  How can we refine them to make the process more seamless? What faculty members or departments continue to need “refresher training” about accommodation procedures and universal design?

Want to Know More?
Want to read more about the six themes identified in this research and what the students had to say? You can access the article at: https://www.ahead.org/publications/jped/vol_29. Scroll to issue 2 and select your format of choice (pdf, Word, mp3, or Daisy).

Supporting Students with Psychiatric Disabilities in Postsecondary Education: Important Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes
Citation: Kupferman, S., & Schultz, J. (2015). Supporting students with psychiatric disabilities in postsecondary education: Important knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 28(1), 25-40.

​Why Is This Study Important?
Students with psychiatric disabilities are one of the largest sub groups of college students with disabilities. Yet they withdraw from college prior to degree completion at much higher rates than students with other types of disabilities and students without disclosed disabilities. Under the broad label of “psychiatric” disabilities, students’ needs vary widely. While some disability resource offices have staff with specialized caseloads and expertise in working with students with psychiatric disabilities, the majority of disability resource offices do not. Most disability service professionals (DSPs) are part of professional teams who offer coordinated services.  What are the competencies DSPs and their team partners need to provide adequate services and supports for students with psychiatric disabilities?

​Scott Kupferman, from the University of Colorado, and Jared Shultz, from Utah State University, conducted a study to explore this question. They wanted to identify the knowledge, skills, and attitudes DSPs need to provide beneficial services. 

Research Methods in a Nutshell
Because there was no prior research on the knowledge, skills, and attitudes required of DSPs, Kupferman and Shultz had to first develop a survey instrument. They used a method called a Delphi survey. Using this approach, they worked with two panels of experts -- one comprised of experienced DSPs, the other comprised of students with psychiatric disabilities.  Based on the feedback from the two panels, they systematically identified and organized 54 competencies. The researchers then clustered the competencies into five broad areas: (1) ethical and legal considerations, (2) accommodations and supports, (3) disability aspects, (4) community resources, and (5) campus considerations.  After piloting and refining the survey instrument, the authors distributed the survey to a national sample of DSPs and asked them to rate the importance of each competency on a scale of 0 (lowest) to 5 (highest).

Some Key Findings
               Important competencies. One of the most important outcomes of this study was a list of competencies professionals need to support students with psychiatric disabilities. Each of the 54 competencies that made the final list received a mean rating of 3 or higher from both the expert panels and the national survey respondents. While the complete list is too long to include in this research brief, some examples include the following.

• Knowledge of disability disclosure hesitations/difficulties related to psychiatric disabilities
• Ability to assist students in determining when to disclose their psychiatric disability to faculty, staff, peers, and others
• Knowledge of natural supports for students with psychiatric disabilities
• Knowledge of universal design strategies related to students with psychiatric disabilities
• Desire to accommodate the cyclical nature of psychiatric disabilities
• Knowledge of psychiatric medication types and side effects
• Knowledge of community health resources
• Ability to conduct campus needs assessments related to improving the success of students with psychiatric disabilities

Campus differences. When the researchers looked at the demographic information of the national survey respondents, they found that respondents from community colleges gave professional competencies in the Community Resources area (e.g., knowledge of community mental health resources) higher ratings of importance than DSPs from other types of campuses.
               Student perceptions. It was notable that the researchers included a panel of students with psychiatric disabilities as part of the expert Delphi survey. When they compared students’ ratings of competencies with professionals’ ratings, they found differences on four competencies.

• The ability to assist students with psychiatric disabilities develop natural supports

• The ability to assist students with psychiatric disabilities prepare for employment
• The ability to assist students with psychiatric disabilities transition into independent living settings
• The ability to implement supported education strategies for students with psychiatric disabilities

Students rated each of these competencies with a 3 or higher; professionals gave these items lower scores. These items did not meet the researchers’ criteria for inclusion on the final list of competencies.

Limitations
The researchers identified some possible limitations of the study including the observation that the professional competencies that were identified may not be an exhaustive list. They also noted that the student panelists may have selected competencies they desired based on their individual needs and experiences.

Actionable Steps
The outcomes of this study provide an empirically based list of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes professionals need to support college students with psychiatric disabilities. The list could be used in a number of ways depending on the scope of the individual disability resource office and the mission and structure of the campus. The competencies could be used to identify professional development and training needs for staff. They could serve as content for in-service training for large disability resource offices or provide direction in identifying available workshops at state, regional, or national conferences.   The competencies could also be used by cross-campus committees charged with supporting students with mental health issues to consider broader training and awareness needs in departments and divisions across campus. State affiliate groups of DSPs could use the list of competencies to discuss campus differences and opportunities for resource sharing.

Want to Know More?
Want to access the full list of 54 competencies identified in this research? You can access the article at: https://www.ahead.org/publications/jped/vol_28/.  Scroll to issue 1 and select your format of choice (pdf, Word, mp3, or Daisy).
 

Research Highlights for the Disability Resource Office
​
Self-Disclosure Decisions of University Students with Learning Disabilities
Citation: Cole, E., & Cawthon, S. (2015). Self-disclosure decisions of university students with learning disabilities, Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 28(2), 163-179.
 
Why Is This Study Important?
College students with learning disabilities (LD) don’t always choose to disclose their disability.  Because LD is a “non-visible” disability, students are able to make a conscious decision to self-disclose to the institution, faculty, or disability resource professionals in order to receive accommodations, or they can choose to remain hidden and forgo accommodations.  Previous research provides some possible factors that contribute to student decision-making about disclosure. These include individual levels of self-determination, psychological factors associated with the experience of having a disability, and attitudes about accommodations. But how do these factors work together to explain student decisions about disclosure?
Emma Cole and Stephanie Cawthon, from the University of Texas at Austin, conducted a study to learn more about this. They looked at the attitudes and perceptions of students with LD who disclose and those who don’t. They also wondered what factors students consider important when deciding if and how they should disclose.

​Some Key Findings
There are some important differences between students who disclose their LD and those who don’t.

No disclosure group. 
Students in the No Disclosure group

• reported lower levels of self-determination and worse attitudes about accommodations;
• had inaccurate information about accommodations at the college level (e.g., my disability isn’t serious when compared to students who are deaf or blind, so I wouldn’t qualify for accommodations);
• had an overwhelmingly negative view of disability and described it as “a stigma,” “excuse,” “problem,” and “handicapping;”
• felt that they did not need accommodations or that they would not be helpful (e.g., I think I would use extended time as a crutch and get even farther behind than I am now);
• chose not to disclose so they could avoid negative reactions and comments from peers.

Students who disclosed. Among students who chose to disclose their LD, Cole and Cawthon looked for differences between students who disclosed to professors using only their official DS registration letter (the Letter Only group) and students who disclosed to professors using their official DS registration letter and speaking with the professor about their individual learning needs (Letter and Conversation group).  What affected the depth of disclosure for students?  Students identified these factors as important to more disclosure:

• the demeanor of professors (e.g., they were willing to help or perceived as kind);
• past experience and interactions with professors (e.g., had conversations with instructors about successful learning); and
• their own view of disability (e.g., I’m not any different; I am reaching my full potential).

Actionable Steps: Suggestions from Students
Cole and Cawthon asked students about their recommendations for disability resource offices and faculty. Here is some of their advice.

• Make sure disability resource office and accommodation information is provided to all incoming students early in the process (e.g., in new student orientation and campus tours).
• Provide testimonials from students (preferably online) so incoming students can better gauge the helpfulness of accommodations based on other students’ experiences.
• Give explicit instructions on how to utilize and access accommodations. Consider a step-by-step manual or outline.
• Provide more information and training for faculty. Students do not want to be placed in the position of educating faculty about disability resource office procedures and protocols (e.g., how testing accommodation procedures work).

Want to Know More?
Think your disability resource office already does these things? Check out the Implications for Intervention section of the Cole and Cawthon article to read more recommendations from students and learn how the campus that was the site of this research has enhanced their services even further.
Want to know more about the methods, outcomes, and limitations of this research? You can access the article at: https://www.ahead.org/publications/jped/vol_28/.  Scroll to issue 2 and select your format of choice (pdf, Word, mp3, or Daisy).