ABSTRACT This study analyses the experiences of graduates with disabilities in Italy and Spain concerning university disability offices, as well as their recommendations for improvement. Based on semi-structured interviews with 62 graduates (31 Italian and 31 Spanish), three main themes are identified: reasons for engaging in offices, contributions of the supports offered to university success, and recommendations for improvement. The thematic data analysis reveals that most attended disability offices for guidance, emotional support and mediation with faculty members. The study underlines the importance of these offices for both university success and emotional well-being. Recommendations include the need for better staff training and greater visibility of the disability offices. The findings also suggest that universities should tailor their support programmes to the individual needs of students with disabilities while adopting a universal design approach. This involves incorporating their voices in designing policies and practices and fostering closer collaboration with other initiatives for the general student population, both on campus and in the wider community, to create a more inclusive and equitable university environment.

Visually impaired students in higher education face significant academic, social, and psychological barriers that are often overlooked by faculty. This phenomenological study explored these challenges at Hail University, Saudi Arabia, by purposively sampling six faculty members from the Colleges of Law and Education to capture diverse disciplinary perspectives and ranks. Semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and subjected to inductive thematic analysis with member checking and inter-rater reliability to ensure rigor. Three interrelated themes emerged: Academic Challenges—including inaccessible textbooks (lack of Braille and poorly tagged digital formats), rigid visual-based teaching methods, and absence of clear accommodation policies; Social Challenges—marked by peer ignorance, campus isolation, and exclusion from collaborative learning; and Psychological Challenges—manifested in faculty feelings of helplessness and student anxiety and low self-confidence stemming from repeated accessibility failures. Contrasting with Western models that centralize disability services, Hail University’s decentralized approach places the accommodation burden on individual faculty, underscoring the need for systemic reforms. We recommend establishing dedicated disability offices, mandating the concept of education training, launching campus-wide awareness campaigns, and integrating targeted mental-health support to foster equitable and sustainable learning environments.

This study investigated the availability of accommodation request procedures for medical school admissions interviews and the accessibility of Technical Standards (TS) for candidates with disabilities (CWD) across Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME)-accredited institutions in the United States and Canada. Utilizing a cross-sectional study methodology, surveys were distributed to Deans of Admissions and Disabilities Resource Professionals (DRP) at all LCME-accredited US and Canadian MD programs. Surveys gathered data about interview formats, interview accommodation procedures, and TS accessibility during the 2018-2019 academic year. We received responses from 71 institutions (41.3%), with 56.3% survey completion rate (n = 40). Among respondents, interview formats varied: 26.8% (n = 19) Multiple Mini Interview, 32.4% (n = 23) Traditional Interviews, and 16.9% (n = 12) hybrid. 38% (n = 27) of respondents informed CWD of accommodation procedures before interviews. Ten institutions (14.1%) indicated they had updated their procedure since the 2018-2019 academic year, which demonstrated better overall outcomes. Statistical analyses showed significant differences between institutions with/without updated procedures in the total number of applicants who requested accommodations, were granted interviews, provided interview day accommodation, offered admission, and matriculated (p = 0.005). In 66.7% (n = 18) of respondent institutions, admissions staff were aware of initial interview accommodation requests and 44.4% (n = 12) involved admissions staff when communicating accommodation plans. Among 27 schools, 55.6% (n = 15) required no documentation to support the CWD's need for accommodation; the rest required a form, clinician's letter, past proof, or other methods. 56.3% (n = 40) responded questions about TS and confirmed posting them on their website, with 77.5% (n = 31) on their admissions webpage. 77.5% (n = 31) also reported including language in the TS that direct CWD to the institution's disability office. This study reveals communication deficiencies about accommodations and TS requirements during the admissions process. Recommendations to enhance accessibility include informing candidates early about accommodation procedures and TS, and utilizing DRPs as CWD's primary accommodation contact.

This study investigated the availability of accommodation request procedures for medical school admissions interviews and the accessibility of Technical Standards (TS) for candidates with disabilities (CWD) across Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME)-accredited institutions in the United States and Canada. Utilizing a cross-sectional study methodology, surveys were distributed to Deans of Admissions and Disabilities Resource Professionals (DRP) at all LCME-accredited US and Canadian MD programs. Surveys gathered data about interview formats, interview accommodation procedures, and TS accessibility during the 2018–2019 academic year. We received responses from 71 institutions (41.3%), with 56.3% survey completion rate (n = 40). Among respondents, interview formats varied: 26.8% (n = 19) Multiple Mini Interview, 32.4% (n = 23) Traditional Interviews, and 16.9% (n = 12) hybrid. 38% (n = 27) of respondents informed CWD of accommodation procedures before interviews. Ten institutions (14.1%) indicated they had updated their procedure since the 2018–2019 academic year, which demonstrated better overall outcomes. Statistical analyses showed significant differences between institutions with/without updated procedures in the total number of applicants who requested accommodations, were granted interviews, provided interview day accommodation, offered admission, and matriculated (p = 0.005). In 66.7% (n = 18) of respondent institutions, admissions staff were aware of initial interview accommodation requests and 44.4% (n = 12) involved admissions staff when communicating accommodation plans. Among 27 schools, 55.6% (n = 15) required no documentation to support the CWD’s need for accommodation; the rest required a form, clinician’s letter, past proof, or other methods. 56.3% (n = 40) responded questions about TS and confirmed posting them on their website, with 77.5% (n = 31) on their admissions webpage. 77.5% (n = 31) also reported including language in the TS that direct CWD to the institution’s disability office. This study reveals communication deficiencies about accommodations and TS requirements during the admissions process. Recommendations to enhance accessibility include informing candidates early about accommodation procedures and TS, and utilizing DRPs as CWD’s primary accommodation contact.

Students with disabilities in higher education continue to face significant challenges, including infrastructural barriers and stigma, which hinder their full participation. Although disability and student counselling units have been established, their effectiveness may be questionable. Our study explored the perceptions of students with disabilities (SWDs) at selected higher education institutions (HEIs) in Raymond Mhlaba, Eastern Cape, regarding the effectiveness of institutional support systems in shaping their academic experiences. A qualitative approach was employed, using semi-structured interviews to gather data from 15 SWDs at selected institutions. Data were thematically analysed. Findings revealed that institutional support systems played a crucial role in assisting students by providing counselling, wheelchair-accessible residences, food parcels and motorised wheelchairs. However, some participants noted that some services, such as assistive technology and academic accommodations, were not well advertised to students by Disability Offices. Consequently, only students who disclosed their disabilities accessed these services, while those who did not disclose remained unaware and unsupported. Despite the crucial role of institutional support systems, there is a significant gap between students' awareness of and ability to access or use the services. Strengthening communication and encouraging students to disclose their disabilities through efforts by administrators, disability services and faculty staff could improve access to support. Our study contributes to the understanding of how HEIs can create inclusive environments that promote academic and social integration for SWDs.

Abstract: This survey study investigated understanding and use of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), self-advocacy, self-determination, and campus resources by college students with disabilities. Thirty-one students registered with a student disability office at a Midwestern state university completed an anonymous survey. Thirty-two percent of participants reported that they knew how to advocate for their own education before beginning college. A majority of participants displayed strong understanding of self-determination, self-advocacy, and campus resources, but reported a weak understanding about the ADA. Participants reported stronger agreement on their use of self-determination and self-advocacy skills than on campus resources. Their lowest score was for their use of self-advocacy skill when their legal rights had to be voiced. These students’ lack of understanding of their legal rights and limited self-advocacy skills in protecting their legal rights suggest implications for both transition services in high school and support services at the college level.

Abstract Teachers want their students to learn, and they want that learning to be equitable, with opportunities for all students. But not all students have the same needs for success. Therefore, classroom accommodations are provided through Disability Offices within universities. These accommodations are intended to be implemented in each course the student takes. Yet the actual enactment of accommodations relies on facilitation and implementation by each instructor in collaboration with the student, which may lead to variance in the level of accommodations. This project examined student interviews and student and faculty survey data to construct a narrative analysis of students’ experiences when they discuss their accommodations with their instructors. This manuscript reports a characterization of these interactions and how these interactions shape students’ success in the classroom, with recommendations for both students and instructors.

The article presents the issue of participation of adult students’ parents in their academic life. There are many examples in the literature of how important is the support of students’ with disabilities parents at the universites. This determines academic success. Disability (its depth, type, cause, limitations resulting from it) is a determining factor for independence, and consequently for the parent’s participation in the student’s academic life. The parent’s attitude towards their own child’s disability is also related to the parent’s participation in the study. The main questions of presented research is: how do students, parents and university staff see the participation of parents in their adult chilredn higher education? This study was qualitative in nature and the individual in-depth interviews were conducted in the course of the study. Two female students with disabilities and their mothers, as well as a member of staff from the one of Polish university’s disability office, were invited to participate in the study. The results show that students, parents and university’s staff can present different opinions about parental suport. The fact is that parental participation cannot be permanent. Each time this type of support should be considered on an individual basis, with particular regard to the welfare of the the student. The results of the survey are relevant to the university’s process of planning support for students with disabilities so as to work with parents with the students’ consent.

Preparing the next generation of scientists, particularly those from minority groups who are underrepresented in the nation’s scientific workforce, is part of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences’ (NIGMS) mission (NIGMS 5‐Year Strategic Plan Progress and Outcomes, 2020). The Research Initiative for Scientific Enhancement (RISE) Scientists‐in Training Program for Deaf and Hard‐of‐Hearing Undergraduates at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) is an effort to enhance the diversity of the biomedical sciences workforce by providing research‐intensive training for PhD‐bound deaf and hard of hearing (D/HH) undergraduates. RIT‐RISE is designed to support D/HH undergraduate students (known as RIT‐RISE scholars), who navigate academic and science communities differently from hearing students due to various systemic barriers. The D/HH population is unique and diverse in terms of communication and language preferences and identities. Unlike hearing peers, D/HH students often have to request accommodations through the university’s disability office so they can have access to scientific discourse that spontaneously occurs in the research lab. The RIT‐RISE team conducted a qualitative study to better understand D/HH STEM students’ experiences related to communication challenges in undergraduate research environments and to identify best practices to optimize communication access in research environments with mixed D/HH and hearing scientists and STEM students. Based on qualitative data gathered from interviews, focus groups, and lab observations, four main themes emerged from our study: (a) Communication and Environmental Barriers in Research Laboratories; (b) Creating Accessible and Inclusive Lab Environments; (c) Communication Strategies; and (d)Self‐Advocating for Effective Communication. Our findings contribute to the possible strategies to customize and optimize communication experiences and mentoring experiences for all D/HH students.

This paper explores the experiences of 14 inclusive STEM faculty members from five Spanish universities who taught students with disabilities. Their students with disabilities nominated them for having contributed to their success in their degrees. The article presents part of a larger qualitative study comprising individual interviews with faculty members. Data were analysed through an inductive system of categories and codes. The results show what the faculty did when they knew they had students with disabilities studying their subjects, how they valued their experiences with disability and what recommendations they would make to other colleagues regarding how to be more inclusive. The conclusions suggest that, in order to respond to diversity, faculty must be well-informed and well-trained, contact the disability office and plan the lectures in a proactive and accessible way, making reasonable adjustments. The experiences of these inclusive professionals can help other members of the university community to perceive disability as an opportunity to improve teaching practices, learn how to help their students with disabilities and design educational practices for all.

Globally, it is estimated that close to 140 million learners are out of school and among them are those with disabilities as a result of physical, mental and sensory impairments. Out of that number, it is further estimated that 70% of learners with disabilities can attend and benefit from regular education programs as long as effective institutional changes that are guided by sound inclusive policies are done. So, this study examined institutional inclusive policies on curriculum adaptation, and how the policies affect the way Students with Disabilities participate academically. The study was guided by the social model theory of disability. A descriptive research design and a comparative approach were used to scientifically compare curriculum adaptation in Kenyatta and Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology Universities which were purposively chosen as the sample owing to their longer establishment. Lecturers teaching and Students with Disabilities enrolled in different programs were targeted. The two registrar academics in charge of admission and the two coordinators of the disability offices from both universities were purposively selected. Data collection instruments were interviews, questionnaires, observation guide, focus group discussions and document analysis. The findings showed that the appropriate adaptation of the University curriculum has not been fully made to respond to the diverse academic needs of all learners with various disabilities.

The purpose of this article is to present a step-by-step process for using self-monitoring to support college students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to achieve a variety of goals. Self-monitoring can be used with no technology (e.g., pencil and paper, tangible object placement) or technology-based applications (e.g., interval timers, mobile applications) in non-obtrusive and socially valid ways. College instructors, inclusive postsecondary education (IPSE) program staff, disability office support staff, and other service providers may use this article to guide in the design and implementation of a self-monitoring intervention for college students with ASD. As increasing numbers of transition-age youth with ASD are pursuing higher education, it is important to identify and disseminate a variety of interventions to enhance their college experiences, and self-monitoring is a viable intervention to consider.

Institutions of higher education and their respective disability offices have been challenged with determining how to apply the 2008 Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) in our present-day work settings. Prior to the amendments, third-party documentation was considered essential almost to the point of being non-negotiable in need for most disability offices to facilitate accommodations for disabled students (The authors have made an intentional choice to utilize identity-first language to challenge negative connotations associated with the term disability and highlight the role that inaccessible systems and environments play in disabling people). The ADAAA questioned this mindset. Students with disabilities often found (and still find) themselves burdened financially and procedurally by disability offices requiring documentation to the point where students may not receive the access they truly need. Furthermore, college campuses are increasingly focusing on the limitations of the environment and not the person. As a result of this evolution, the Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) offered a new framework in 2012 describing how to define documentation. For professionals in the higher education disability field and for those invested in this work, it is critical to grasp the evolving understanding of what constitutes documentation and necessary information to make disability accommodation decisions. Otherwise, disabiled students may be further excluded from higher education access.

Moments before I presented my first seminar as a postdoc to my lab group, my eyelids grew heavy and my sense of alertness dissolved into a dreamlike state. It was a sleep attack—a result of narcolepsy, which I was diagnosed with 2 years earlier. I apologized for my incessant yawning and continued with my talk despite an overwhelming urge to sleep. It’s one of many moments when my narcolepsy made my career difficult. But ever since I learned of a renowned scientist who has narcolepsy, I’ve known I can succeed in science, too. > “I … feared my career in science had reached a dead end.” I’ve fought the urge to sleep for much of my life. At a young age, I fell asleep in bizarre places—on the front lawn, in a pile of stuffed animals—and in school I was frequently reprimanded for yawning. Fearing others would think I was lazy, I got in the habit of working harder on my schoolwork than everyone else. As an undergraduate, I relied on energy drinks to keep me awake through long hours studying. But when exams were over, I’d stay in bed for days to recuperate. Graduate school was more difficult because my work was never “done.” There was always a new paper to read or an experiment to plan. Shortly after passing my Ph.D. qualifying exam, I worked in the lab every day for more than 30 days straight. That sapped what little energy I had in the first place. The stress and exhaustion exacerbated my sleep issues. On more than one occasion, I had to postpone planned experiments and rush home to take a nap. During conversations with my mentor, my stream of thought would sometimes run dry midsentence and I would have to ask him what I was talking about. I thought depression caused my brain fog and fatigue, so I started seeing a psychiatrist. After 2 years, and multiple medications, I was no better. So she had me complete a sleep questionnaire, which led to a referral to a sleep clinic and a series of sleep tests. Shortly thereafter I received my diagnosis: narcolepsy. The news was a relief because it meant I might finally receive appropriate treatment and learn how to manage my symptoms. But I also feared my career in science had reached a dead end. As a neuroscientist, how could I uncover the inner workings of the brain with one that is “broken”? How could I succeed if I had to put sleep hygiene ahead of science? Then I stumbled on an article about George Church, a prominent Harvard University geneticist who has narcolepsy. Calling his condition “a feature, not a bug,” he said his daytime bouts of sleep are opportunities for creative, quasi-conscious thought, when he’s hatched some of his best ideas. Reading about his condition was empowering. It gave me a sense of belonging, one that went beyond “sure, you can enter our circle” to “you’re in our circle and we’re better for it.” I wrote Dr. Church an email, telling him how much his perspective meant to me. To my surprise, he sent a detailed reply. “Lecture classes were very hard for me,” he wrote. “I even flunked out of my first attempt at Ph.D.” His words helped me cultivate a fierce sense of self-compassion. I began to accept that my best can look different from day to day and that I might struggle with some aspects of academia more than others. I also implemented many of the strategies he recommended for dealing with narcolepsy, including waiting until evening to eat a large meal and breaking up the day physically with a mixture of standing, pacing, and sitting. I registered with my university’s disability office and made requests for workplace accommodations. The university bought me a standing desk, which helped me feel more alert, and I received permission to take naps at work. I made similar requests when I started a postdoc last year. I still harbor fears of seeming lazy, and I worry that the brain fog I suffer from will one day settle and never lift. But these fears do not stop me from continuing to pursue my goal of managing my own lab one day. Thanks to Dr. Church, I know it’s possible—as long as I take care of myself.

ABSTRACT This study provides a systematic review of the literature on what factors university students with disabilities recognise as necessary for their academic success. This systematic review was conducted in ERIC, Scopus and Web of Science. The opinions of 3854 students in a total of 31 qualitative and quantitative studies were analysed through a system of categories and codes. The results were organised according to the description of the studies (type of methodology, country and type of disability) and personal and external factors favouring success. Among the personal factors of students with disabilities who progress and remain at university, self-advocacy, self-awareness, self-determination, self-esteem and executive functioning stood out. Regarding external factors, the following were identified: family, disability offices, staff and faculty members, and peers that influence their academic success. This paper includes significant findings that universities can use to develop actions that promote the development of some of the factors identified in this study, thus favouring the learning and academic success of students with disabilities.

Using panel data from a relatively volatile time period 1988–95, we have identified factors that account for over 80% of the longitudinal variation in the processing time of disability applications. Pending claims, workloads, percentage of SSI applications (children and adults), and the proportion of cases considered at different stages of the disability determination process explain a significant part of the variation. We found strong evidence that observed gains in organizational productivity were attained at the cost of timeliness in case dispositions. The dynamic panel data model estimated in this paper is used to compare the productive efficiency of different disability offices in a general econometric framework in which claim forecasts, staff allocations, and the number of adjudications are treated as endogenous. Our analysis suggests that there are persistent differences in the average processing time between states that can be attributed to organizational inefficiency. The importance of good forecasts of disability applications at sub-national levels is emphasized.

Students with disabilities face many challenges in their pursuit of higher education. Academic accommodations and other educational supports can allow these students to learn, and to demonstrate their learning, in a manner similar to their classmates without disabilities. The purpose of this study was (1) to determine the percent of students classified with disabilities and receiving accommodations in college and (2) to see if students’ access to accommodations varies as a function of their college’s type, selectivity, and cost. Overall 4.6% of undergraduate students are formally registered with their school’s disability office. Contrary to expectations, the highest percentage of students with disabilities receiving accommodations are found in America’s most selective and expensive private colleges and universities. The prevalence of students with disabilities at private, liberal arts colleges in particular is almost three times higher than the prevalence at two-year public (i.e., community) colleges. These findings suggest that public colleges should be more proactive in identifying and accommodating students with disabilities and private colleges should be more judicious in their accommodation granting. Colleges should also use principles of universal design to promote the academic success of all students, regardless of their disability status.

The pre-survey process showed that the report on performance was not optimal and human resources in the Department of Population and Civil Registry were inadequate and Minister of Administrative Reform and Bureaucratic Reform No. 38 of 2017 concerning the Competency Standards of the Position of the State Civil Apparatus which requires the State Civil Apparatus that has the competence, discipline, participatory, motivative and commitment in carrying out the performance of public services, then this study takes focus on the influence of competence, motivation and commitment to the performance of the State Civil Apparatus in the Population and Civil Registry Office of Situbondo Regency. This study aims to find out and analyze the competence, motivation, and commitment of employees to the performance of the Government of Situbondo Regency. This type of study is a quantitative study using a saturated sample of 29 State Civil Apparatuses in the Situbondo Regency Population and Civil Registry Office. Data collection techniques used in the study through surveys using questionnaires, interviews and documentation. Data from the subsequent studies were analyzed using multiple linear regression. Based on the results of the study it can be concluded that: 1). Partially, competence and commitment have a positive and significant effect on the performance of the State Civil Apparatus in the Population and Disability Service Office of Situbondo Regency. While motivation has a positive effect, but it is not significant on the performance of the State Civil Apparatus in the Population and Civil Disability Office of Situbondo Regency, and 2). Simultaneously the variable X together on the performance of the State Civil Apparatus has different results. Where the competency and commitment variables have a positive and significant effect, whereas motivation only has a positive effect.
 Keywords: Performance, Competence, Motivation and Commitment

Through the voice of faculty members, this article analyses the barriers and aids that students with disabilities encounter at university. As part of the study, we conducted interviews with 119 faculty members from 10 Spanish universities. We then analysed the data using an inductive system of categories and codes. The results are presented in relation to two topics: barriers and aids to learning and participation. Some of the barriers identified included physical obstacles, faculty, peers, and a lack of resources and information; and some of the sources of aid and support were disability offices, peers, human and external resources, faculty and the university itself. The study shows how each faculty member’s unique experience determines their view regarding potential barriers and aids for university students with disabilities. Indeed, throughout the article, it becomes clear that what are perceived by some as barriers are regarded by others as supports. Points of Interest Higher education represents an opportunity for students with disabilities. Few studies have sought to analyse the barriers and aids from the perspective of faculty members. This study explores, through the narratives of 119 faculty members, the barriers and aids that students encounter at Spanish universities. What is needed is the application of Universal Design for Learning in Higher Education. The UDL proposes that the curriculum should be designed so that everyone is able to access and participate in it.

Abstract Date Presented 04/05/19 College students with disabilities who have average or above-average intellectual abilities do not have the same rate of graduation as their peers. OT has a unique skill set to support students with disabilities in higher education, however, few OTs are employed by universities. The GOALS2 program studied the effect of expanding the offerings of the disability office with OT services on the academic successes of students with disabilities. Primary Author and Speaker: Marie-Christine Potvin Additional Authors and Speakers: Monique Chabot, Janette Boney