Shifting Perspectives: Enhancing Healthcare Professionals' Awareness Through a Disability Studies Undergraduate Curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disability Studies has experienced steady growth in the humanities, the social sciences, and education departments of a growing number of United States colleges and universities. One area of study that has remained static is undergraduate health science, where the number of schools offering a degree in disability studies has grown slightly from two in 2009 (Cushing & Smith, 2009b; Taylor & Zubal-Ruggieri, 2013) to four in 2015 (Zubal-Ruggieri, 2015). Some disability scholars believe that health science students are missing out on an opportunity to incorporate this perspective into their outlook and approach to disability. Longmore (1991) believes that "students interested in healthcare . . . need to have the opportunity to study this [disability] in the same way that they have the opportunity to study women's history or African American history or Asian history" (Stanford University News Service, Silent Screen Villains section, para.12). This opportunity can shape a group of healthcare professionals who view disability from a unique individual perspective. The purpose of this survey research study was to examine alumni self-perception of the impact of completing a one-semester (16 credit) disability studies concentration in an undergraduate health science major. Fifty-one alumni from a New York area public research 1 level university who graduated between 2006 and 2012 with a Bachelor of Science in Health Science and a concentration in Disability Studies were surveyed to examine their perception of the helpfulness of the curriculum in four areas: practice and/or post-graduate study, comfort level interacting with people with disability, confidence level in ability to work with people with disability, and sensitivity and awareness of disability issues. This survey research study used descriptive statistics to analyze the responses to 10 Likert questions. The paper also includes comments from one open-ended question that allowed respondents to add additional thoughts and comments. The results strongly indicated that the health science alumni perceived a positive increase in the four focus areas as a result of completing the disability studies concentration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".