MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410218961 · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000006086

Perceptions of the Learning Environment Among Medical Students With Disabilities and the Impact of Program Access

2025· article· en· W4410218961 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Christopher J. Moreland, Melissa Plegue, Zoie C. Sheets, Karina Pereira‐Lima, Neera R. Jain, Erene Stergiopoulos, Benjamin Case, Amy Addams, Lisa M. Meeks

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Education and Employment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDell Medical School, University of Texas at AustinMedical School, University of MichiganUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonPritzker School of MedicineUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Auckland
KeywordsMedical educationPerceptionLearning environmentPairwise comparisonPsychologyAccommodationLearning disabilityMedicineMathematics educationDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Negative learning environment experiences may contribute to burnout for medical students with disabilities (MSWD). This study explores MSWD's perceptions of the learning environment and the effects of program access (having received or not needing accommodations). METHOD: The authors analyzed the Association of American Medical Colleges Year Two Questionnaire data from 2019 and 2020, comparing nondisabled students, MSWD with program access, and MSWD without program access (having not received or requested an accommodation, despite a need). Three learning environment measures were examined: how schools fostered students' personal and professional development; a shortened Medical School Learning Environment Scale (MSLES); and subscales on emotional climate, student-faculty interactions, and student-student interactions. Responses were compared across the 3 groups using chi-square and ANOVA tests with post-hoc pairwise comparisons. RESULTS: Of the 23,898 respondents, 10.2% (2,438) self-reported a disability. Among those, 83.6% (2,039) reported program access, and 13.9% (340) reported lack of program access. Students without disabilities (21,008) reported higher agreement that their school fostered their development as a person (72.2%, 15,172) and physician (90.9%, 19,089) compared with MSWD with access (65.6%, 1,312 and 89.0%, 1,778, P < .001). MSWD without access reported lower agreement than both groups (43.7%, 149 and 80.1%, 273, P < .001). There were no differences regarding the MSLES statement about high-performance standards ( F (2, 23742) = 2.35, P = .095). For the 8 remaining MSLES statements and for all 3 subscales, nondisabled students reported significantly higher agreement than MSWD with and without access, and MSWD with access had higher agreement than those without. CONCLUSIONS: This nationally representative study demonstrates that MSWD perceive the learning environment less favorably than their nondisabled peers. Program access partially mitigates these differences, underscoring the critical role of accommodations and the need to address structural barriers to access.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.422 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic MedicineSame topicDisability Education and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207