Perceptions of the importance of service components offered through the office for students with disabilities at postsecondary institutions in North America.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of students with disabilities choosing to pursue education beyond the secondary level has increased considerably during the past twenty years. The increase in students has triggered a corresponding increase in the number of services and programs available to students with disabilities at college and university campuses across North America. Legal mandates have played a significant role in the increase in service availability. However, these mandates do not specify what service components should be available to students. So, while programs and services have proliferated their growth has not been systematic. Therefore, services vary dramatically from institution to institution. To date, the present study is the only research designed to empirically determine what service components professionals who administrate Offices for Students with Disabilities (OSD) consider essential for students with disabilities. The present study should help programs already in existence, aid in the development of new programs, serve as a tool for program evaluation and training, and, last, provide potential students with the information necessary to make a suitable postsecondary selection. A 62-item survey was used to verify the importance of service components offered through OSD’s. The resultant data were determined using means and standard deviations (research question 1) as well as the chi-square statistic (research questions 2, 3, and 4). A sample of 563 practicing administrators answered the questionnaire (70% response rate). These practitioners represented both U.S. and Canadian postsecondary institutions. Approximately 80% of respondents were affiliated with the Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD), the professional organization for OSD professionals. Demographic data regarding these practitioners was generated. The results of the study were noteworthy. Thirty-four of the 62 items were rated as essential (research question 1). Of the almost one thousand statistical calculations performed only 2% reached statistical significance. Thus, survey respondents, regardless of institutional location, size, or level of competitiveness showed overwhelming agreement regarding what service components are essential for students with disabilities. Limitations of the study and suggestions for future research are also included. Since its completion, the data from the present study has been used to determine the AHEAD Program Standards for Offices for Students with Disabilities in North America.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".