A team of researchers from the University of Northern Alabama wanted to know more about how campuses structure this important and common review process. They also gathered information about participants’ perceptions of the review process including the advantages and disadvantages of the review method used
Research Methods
Miller and her colleagues focused on disability resource office professionals in U.S. institutions of higher education for the study. They recruited participants at the annual AHEAD conference and through listservs focused on higher education and disability. They had a total of 98 individual respondents reflecting a variety of personal and institutional demographics.
The participants responded to survey questions developed by the researchers including items related to demographics, professional experience, and the campus accommodation review process. The team of researchers used a collaborative process for analysis and reaching consensus on qualitative open-ended responses. See the link to the article below for more information about participant demographics and how the researchers analyzed the data.
Some Key Findings
- The large majority of respondents reported that accommodation decisions are made by an individual office member. Over half of respondents (54%) reported that this was the role of the Director/Coordinator of disability resources; an additional nineteen percent (19%) identified the role as an individual office member. Only 8% of respondents reported using a committee to make accommodation decisions.
- The accommodation decision-making process differed depending on the number of students with disabilities served by the disability resource office. Offices that served less than 250 students were more likely to charge directors/coordinators with this role; institutions with more than 250 students were more likely to use office staff members.
- The majority of offices reported collaborating with other departments on campus for decision-making as needed. Collaborative partners included residence life, academic affairs, counseling services, health services, and outside medical or psychological consultants.
- Nearly one-third (31%) of respondents reported that their office does not use any form of consultation for accommodation decision-making.
- The majority of respondents (84%) were satisfied with their current review process. They cited advantages as being a timely review of student requests, decisions made by qualified professionals, and access to consultants as needed.
- Common disadvantages of review processes identified by professionals included employee burnout, responsibility as a sole reviewer, and possible inconsistencies across reviewers.
Limitations
The authors noted that there are limitations to how their findings can be generalized to other campuses. They pointed out that there was a limited sample size and responses may be skewed towards smaller campus sizes. A larger and more representative sample in the future would allow greater comparisons across types of campuses.
Actionable Steps
There are several possible implications for disability resource offices using the findings of this study.
- Consider the accommodation decision-making process used on your own campus. Is it working effectively or are there ways it could be improved?
- Consider the workload and possible stress level created by relying on a single reviewer for accommodation decision-making. If possible, within office resources, are there ways to support staff or perhaps yourself in this role? For example, having two staff members review accommodation requests may create an opportunity for discussing complexities, sharing expertise, or mentoring newer staff members.
- Recognize the importance of this work by supporting ongoing professional development for staff charged with accommodation reviews. Related professional conferences and webinars are important sources for helping staff to stay abreast of emerging research and recommended practices.
- Consider possible advantages of identifying an advisory committee that can be used as needed for more complex accommodation requests. Most campuses in this study who reported this structure called on the committee for less than 10% of their accommodation reviews.
Want to know more about the methods, outcomes, and limitations of this research? AHEAD members can access the article online now by logging in and going directly to JPED, 32, issue 3.
This issue of the JPED will be publicly available next month at ahead.org/professional-resources/publications/jped/archived-jped/jped-volume-32
Scroll to issue 3 and select your format of choice.
Have you published a research article or read a research study that informed your work? Email Sally Scott (sally@ahead.org ) with suggestions for future research summaries in the HUB!