Personal, Social and Vocational Outcomes of Inclusive University for People With Intellectual Disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Though people with intellectual disability have historically been excluded from university education, over the past three decades programmes facilitating the inclusion of people with intellectual disability in higher education, including university, have been developed in some jurisdictions such as the United States, Canada, Ireland, Europe and Australia. There is limited examination of the full range of potential outcomes for students with intellectual disability participating in such programmes. Such research rarely explores barriers and facilitators in relation to particular programme models and the achievement of the potential outcomes. The current study set out to examine the range of outcomes associated with inclusive university programmes, with a particular focus on autonomy, self-confidence, inclusion and employment. METHOD: For this scoping review, six academic databases were searched using broad search terms. Forty-five studies meeting our inclusion criteria were subjected to quality assessment to ensure only high-quality evidence informed data analysis. Twenty-two studies were included in the final review, from which data were extracted to answer our research question. RESULTS: Students were reported to achieve outcomes related to employment, confidence, autonomy and social skills. Factors reported as either facilitating or impeding positive personal, vocational and/or socio-emotional outcomes for students with intellectual disability participating in inclusive university programmes included accessibility, expectations, supports, attitudes and acceptance, pedagogy and programme design. CONCLUSIONS: Programmes that provide individualised support for the inclusion of people with intellectual disability in university life led to primarily positive outcomes for people with intellectual disability. We argue that a whole-of-university approach to supporting full and genuine inclusion of students with intellectual disability is needed and we provide recommendations for research and practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".