Skip Navigation

[ Detailed Abstract ] [ ProjectStaff ] [ Followup Project Feedback Page ]

 PROBLEM AND NEED FOR THIS STUDY.

Presently, two-thirds of all college freshmen with disabilities fail to obtain their degree within six years of enrollment (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2000). Neither national OERI studies nor other research address this problem. Lacking empirical data, key stakeholders cannot properly identify either the causes or possible solutions for this high attrition rate. The attrition itself, coupled with the lack of empirically validated strategies to address this problem contribute to a vicious cycle of intellectual and financial loss. For example, persons with disabilities who have not obtained a Bachelors degree are three times as likely to be unemployed as those who have at earned least a Bachelors degree (Stodden and Dowrick, 2000). Sadly, both society and students with disabilities lose under today’s system.

Don’t Current National Postsecondary Studies Address This Issue?  No. Although several national surveys have included individuals with disabilities in their analysis, none  determined whether or not any of these postsecondary students disclosed his/her disability to higher education faculty, staff, and/or Disabled Student Services (DSS) staff. Nor did these studies ascertain what, if any, support services were provided to those individuals with disabilities who responded to their surveys. In addition, these studies failed to determine the degree, if any, to which support services received by students with disabilities during college influenced these individuals’ post-college employment and earning levels. Prior national studies which did not address these issues include Baccalaureate and Beyond (Greene, Veldman, Pedlow & Myers, 1999), Students with Disabilities in Postsecondary Education: A Profile of Preparation, Participation and Outcomes (Horn, Berktold & Bobbitt, 1999), An Institutional Perspective on Students with Disabilities in Postsecondary Education, NCES 1999-046 (Lewis et al, 1999), Life after college... (McCormick et al., 1999), College Freshmen with Disabilities (Henderson, 1999), and Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study First Follow-up 1996-98 Methodology Report (Wine et al. 2000). In addition, like the previous Baccalaureate and Beyond (Greene et al., 1999), the statement of work accompanying the RFP Notice for the Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study–Third Follow-up (B&B: 93/2003) [U.S. Department of Education, 2001], still does not address the key issues that this proposal will address. Lastly, none of the recommended revisions in the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) made by the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) Taskforce for IPEDS Redesign (1999) addressed the need for a borad-based analysis of students with disabilities who also received support services from DSS program staff. The latest data submitted by the University of Wisconsin to the IPEDS included no information on this group of students. As of August, 2000, none had been collected (Jonathan Keller, University of Wisconsin System, Office of Policy Analysis and Research, personal communication, 8/17/00).

Why Is This a Problem? It is a problem because the attrition rate of postsecondary students with disabilities is even higher than that of the general student body. Nationally, 67% of entering college students with disabilities fail to graduate over a six-year period (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2000). This contrasts with the 52.4% attrition rate of the overall college student population (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2000). Both of these percentages have remained stable for several years.  Even so, there remains a paucity of empirical data that could pinpoint factors that influence students with disabilities’ degree completion and  post-college employment status.

      In 1951, William Deming identified the single greatest threat to quality in industrial production: a willingness to accept waste as inevitable. Deming found that when resources were plentiful, manufacturers accepted high attrition as the price of doing business.  Japanese automakers, however, systematically applied Deming’s views on waste to their manufacturing process–methods that U.S. automakers would copy two decades later. Rather than accept losses resulting from high throw-away rates, the Japanese reduced waste by methodically improving the total product, one piece at a time. Their goal: perfect both process and product. This method created the world’s most reliable cars. As throw-away and return rates plummeted, profits and productivity rose dramatically. Both consumer and producer benefitted.

      Presently, higher education’s societal and academic environment exemplifies the classic Deming culture of attrition tolerance—a willingness to accept high levels of student attrition as “inevitable.” The current system, especially for those with disabilities, is inefficient, expensive, and costs both society and individuals far more money and resources than necessary. Students who pursue higher education for one or more years without attaining their degrees waste money and resources on four levels.  First, the impact of government subsidies (e.g. student loans, Pell Grants, support provided by state/federal rehabilitation services agencies, and resources supporting DSS program operations)  is diminished when students fail to complete their degrees. Second, state and federal treasuries never realize the potential tax revenues that non-graduates would have paid had they earned their degrees, thus opening the door to a wider range of more remunerative employment. The third level of waste is incurred by students themselves. The ex-student without a “value-added” degree misses out on better career choices and income, as well as the potential for greater productivity contributions in the workplace (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, 1998). Fourth, there is the “opportunity cost” for those who spend time in college but do not attain a degree. This waste–opportunity cost–consists of lost time, wages and productivity that nongraduates and society experience because these individuals did not enter the work force immediately following their high school graduation.  We CAN and MUST ensure that people with disabilities have access to the meaningful postsecondary instruction, effective support services, and academic preparation that enables them to thrive in challenging careers. This must be the heart of America's disability agenda as the new century begins.

RATIONALE AND POTENTIAL NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE

Educational attainment has a profound influence on both the employment and earnings levels of adult Americans. For persons 16–64 years old, people with disabilities who have completed fewer than 12 years of education are only 20% as likely to hold a full-time job as are people without disabilities with the same educational levels (National Organization on Disability, 1999; National Organization on Disability, 2000). In contrast, individuals with disabilities who have attained a Bachelors degree are employed at triple the rate of persons with disabilities who have not done so (Stodden and Dowrick, 2000). A similar picture emerges for earnings. Among people with disabilities 16–64 years old and employed full-time, the average annual earnings for those with fewer than 12 years of schooling are $19,200, compared to $45,500 for individuals with 16 or more years of schooling (National Organization on Disability, 1999;  National Organization on Disability, 2000; McNeil, 2000). Full-time employment itself has the most impact on the earnings gap between people with and without disabilities. People with disabilities who are either working or looking for work earn only 60% to 70% of what demographically similar non-disabled people earn. However, people with disabilities who have full-time jobs earn about 80% of what demographically similar nondisabled people do (National Organization on Disability, 1999;  National Organization on Disability, 2000; U.S Bureau of the Census, 2001). Thus, the chain of cause and effect for economic well-being among people with disabilities is much the same as for the rest of the population. Education increases the probability of employment. Employment increases earnings. Education, tlineemployment, and adequate earnings comprise the first step—the fundamental economic prerequisite—for full participation by people with disabilities in American life. From this we can see that successful college completion almost always guarantees significantly higher wages and better professional opportunities for students who earn degrees.

Current Per-Student Costs. According to the U. S. Department of Education (1998), the 1995-96 school year’s annual current-fund expenditure rate in the nation’s public four-year colleges/universities was $16,839 dollars per student. (“Current-fund expenditures” refers to money spent to meet current operating costs. It excludes loans, capital expenditures, and investments.) This data indicates the institutional cost of one year of college education. If this year’s entering class of freshmen with disabilities fail to graduate within six years at a rate similar to their predecessors (67% attrition), they will perpetuate a cycle of multi-billion dollar loss borne by society, government, their families, and themselves.

Summary. College students with disabilities experience an unacceptably high attrition rate. The lack of empirical data, current or in development, that examines the factors that may significantly influence their success or failure in academic performance, degree attainment, and post-college employment and earnings hinders efforts to lower this attrition. This project will: a) collect empirical data that documents factors influencing students with disabilities’ academic performance, degree completion, post-college employment, and earnings; b) describe the implications of these findings for higher education policy and support service design/delivery; and c) communicate these findings and implications to policy makers, administrators, faculty, and support services staff using a multi-step dissemination initiative; and (d) provide key stakeholders with skills to act on this data and to carry out their own policy and program modifications. Data resulting from this research will enable federal, state, and local stakeholders to allocate and use their resources more effectively. This data will also help the nation’s 1,400 colleges and universities strengthen DSS program performance, improve the graduation rates of future students with disabilities, and increase the likelihood that these graduates will enter challenging and more remunerative employment.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1.  What is the postschool status of former students with disabilities who received services from Disabled Student Services providers at three public universities?

2.  What services provided by DSS program staff at these universities are associated with the recipients’ level of academic performance, postschool employment, and wages earned?

3.  What, if any, other academic, social, or personal factors are associated with students with disabilities’ academic performance, postschool employment, job satisfaction, and wages earned?

HYPOTHESES

H¹. Individuals with disabilities who have attained postsecondary degrees will report a significantly higher (.05 level) employment rate than the employment rate reported by individuals with disabilities who ended their postsecondary experience but did not earn postsecondary degrees. H². Individuals with disabilities who have attained postsecondary degrees will report significantly higher (.05 level) annual earnings than earnings reported by persons with disabilities who ended their postsecondary experience but did not earn postsecondary degrees. Project staff will also test two null hypotheses, bearing in mind issues discussed in Nickerson (2000). Ho¹.There will be no significant difference (.05 level) in the number of academic and nonacademic support services received by postsecondary students with disabilities who attained degrees and the number of services received by postsecondary students with disabilities who did not obtain degrees. Ho².There will be no significant difference (.05 level) in the types of academic and nonacademic support services received by postsecondary students with disabilities who attained degrees and the types of services received by postsecondary students with disabilities who did not obtain degrees.

METHODOLOGY. In order to give the study a national perspective, five public universities from across the U.S. will participate. These are the Universities of Wisconsin, Iowa, Arizona, Georgia, and Texas A&M. The project will use an ex post facto design in which the individual with a disability is the primary unit of analysis.

Instrumentation. Key independent variables include academic accommodations (e.g. early syllabus, priority registration, taped lectures, note takers, lab or library assistants, readers, interpreters, alternative testing formats, assistive/adaptive technology, course requirement modifications, course substitutions, and testing modifications), academic major, courses taken, academic performance, career counseling/advising available/utilized, case management procedures, and financial aid received. This study will also collect data on several key dependent variables. These include current employment status, post-college employment history, post-college earnings history, post-college education/training, types/extent of on-going public support (if any), housing/ living arrangements, social engagement, and community involvement. In order to strengthen content validity of the questionnaire and data collection protocols, and ensure that key independent and dependent variables are addressed therein, project researchers will develop the initial questionnaire and data collection protocols using a multi-step process: 1) Develop a detailed inventory of the eligibility determination process for services/supports, disability categories/criteria for each, services, accommodations and supports provided by each participating site. 2) Develop initial operational definitions of each disability category, service, accommodation, and support service contained in this inventory. To complete steps one and two, project staff will build upon participating sites’ categorizations and definitions of their services and supports, and categorizations and operational definitions contained in pertinent literature [e.g. Burgstahler et al., 2000; Getzel et al., 2001; Paul, 2000; Rich and Gentile, 1995; Stodden, 2001; Stodden et al., 2001; Vogel, 2000; and Vogel et al., 1999] and applicable state and federal legislation/regulations, including Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act as Amended, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. 3) Submit to DSS staff from all sites for correction and feedback and revision. 4) Submit revised inventory/operational definitions to the project steering committee for clarifications/corrections. 5) Reach consensus among project staff and DSS staff from all participating sites on the roster of operational definitions. Project researchers and DSS staff at participating sites will use two-way teleconferencing capabilities possessed by all participating sites to facilitate these discussions. 6) Conduct a comprehensive review of questions and approaches used  in large-scale national surveys such as  Baccalaureate and Beyond; Students with Disabilities in Postsecondary Education: A Profile of Preparation, Participation and Outcomes; Beginning Post Secondary Students Longitudinal Study First Follow-up 1996-98 Methodology Report; the National Longitudinal Transition Study II, and the National Longitudinal Transition Study III (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). 7) Develop initial questionnaire and data collection protocols. 8) DSS program staff at participating sites will critique the draft and suggest revisions/clarifications. 9) Submit questionnaire and data collection protocols to the project steering committee for suggested revisions/clarifications. The steering committee members represent all key stakeholder groups impacted by the project’s findings. 10) Project staff will prepare the final questionnaires and protocols. [See attached letter from UW Dean of Students Dr. Alicia Chavez for list of individuals who have agreed to serve on the project steering committee].

Pilot Test. To further strengthen the reliability, validity and generalizability of this research, project staff will conduct a pilot test that will include all participating sites. Pilot Test Sample.  One-hundred-fifty adult subjects will comprise the pilot test cohort. Each of the five participating universities will randomly select thirty individuals from their respective cohorts of students with disabilities who meet three criteria: 1) the individual self-identified to his/her respective DSS program provider; 2) the individual received services from that provider; and 3) the individual graduated, transferred, or dropped out during/at the end of the 2000-2001 school year. Pilot Test Design. To account for possible moderator variables, subjects will be stratified across the participating schools by total years of higher education completed, departure status (dropout, transfer, or graduation), and primary disability designation. In order to allow the analysis to control for other possible moderator variables, including departure status (transfer, dropout, graduate), academic performance, academic major, credit load, credits completed in major, academic and non-academic support services received, and amount of financial aid received, project researchers will retrieve, record and code each pilot test subject’s 2001-2002 transcript data and DSS program records describing services received. To ensure that data collection, coding, and recording procedures are uniform across sites, UW researchers will provide specific directions and any training needed by staff at the cooperating sites. The pilot test will target an initial reliability across sites of .90 (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient) in data collection, recording, and coding. Analysis of Pilot Test Data. Project staff will  organize and record   pilot test data using MS-ACCESS. Project researchers will employ SPSS to test for statistically significant associations among the independent and dependent variables using logistic regression or least squares as appropriate. Research Study. Subjects. Each participating university will provide 125 subjects, for a total of 625. These subjects will be drawn randomly from the total population of former students with disabilities who meet the following criteria: a) the individual self-identified to his/her respective DSS program provider; b) the individual received services from that provider; and c) the individual graduated, transferred, or dropped out during/at the end of the 2002-2003 school year.  Design. Subjects will be stratified across the participating schools, total years of higher education completed, departure status (dropout, transfer, or graduation), and primary disability designation. In order to allow the analysis to control for departure status (transfer, dropout, graduate), academic performance, academic major, credit load, credits completed in major, academic and non-academic support services received, and amount of financial aid received, project researchers will retrieve, record and code each pilot test subject’s transcript data and DSS program records describing services received.

Instrumentation Research Question and Null Hypotheses. An unresolved instrumentation issue isThis stratification will enable researchers to provide preliminary empirical data on an UNRESOLVED INSTRUMENTATION ISSUE  coming to the fore as DSS program funds remain tight and demands on staff increase. Specifically, fiscal and other resource pressures are prompting service providers to consider on-line data collection to hold down costs and conserve personnel time. However, there is an apparent lack of empirical data addressing the comparative validity and reliability of web-based follow-up and paper follow-up surveys of individuals with disabilities. An extensive search of the literature, including U.S. Department of Education data bases describing on-going studies funded through that agency, uncovered no empirical research demonstrating whether or not web-based follow-up surveys of former students with disabilities exhibit acceptable levels of validity. The empirical research findings concerning differential validity and response rates of different web-based survey designs for any respondents are inconclusive and sometimes contradictory (Zukerberg et al., 1999). None focused on individuals with disabilities. Thus it becomes critically important to test the comparative validity and response rates resulting from use of web-based surveys when the target respondents are individuals with disabilities. This study will do so by randomly designating seventy-percent of the total sample (350) to receive a paper survey, and thirty-percent (150) to respond to a web-based survey. Both surveys will present the same questions in the same order. To maximize the likelihood that web-based survey respondents provide accurate and complete answers, project researchers will create a host web site that meets the highest accessibility standards as defined and described in documents produced through the W³C Consortium headquartered at the University of Wisconsin’s TRACE Center [URL: http://www.w3.org/]. The web-based survey will also adhere to principles of web-based questionnaire design described in Dillman et al.(1998). To provide needed oversight regarding these technical requirements, the project will consult with staff in the UW Computer Center whose duties include helping UW researchers construct web-based survey instruments and build web sites that are fully accessible to individuals with disabilities. Data analysis will test two null hypotheses in order develop a preliminary answer to the following Instrumentation(I) Research Question: “What, if any, statistically significant differences exist between the reliability and validity of web-based and paper-pencil follow-up surveys completed by persons with disabilities?” Null hypotheses: I-Ho¹. “There will be no significant differences (.05 level) in the response rates of those answering a web-based survey and the response rates of those answering the same questions on a written survey. I-Ho². There will be no significant differences (.05 level) in the validity levels attained by responses to a web- based survey and the validity levels attained by responses to the same questions on a written survey. Ensuring High Response Rates. In order to generate at least a 65% response rate in both the pilot study and the research study, project researchers will: a) include assurances of confidentiality–no individually identifiable data will be included in any published report or presentation; b) use code numbers for each respondent, and ensure that only project staff have access to personally identifiable information; c) include assurances that all written and electronic data traceable to a specific person will be recorded and maintained only on secure web sites and computers, or  in secure locked files, accessible only to project researchers; d) re-contact non-respondents within two weeks of their response deadlines; and e) contact final non-respondents to ascertain reasons for non-response. Project staff will question a 5% random sample of non-respondents to see if their responses exhibit any significant differences from the responses of those who completed questionnaires.

ANALYSIS. Using logistic regression (Demaris, 1992; Hosmer and Lemeshow, 1989) or least squares (Johnston, 1963; Pedhazur and Schmelkin, 1991) as appropriate, project researchers will test for statistically significant associations among this data and subjects’ responses to survey questions that address their perceptions of their college experiences, employment status, personal independence, social engagement, and community involvement. The analysis will control for gender, disability, race/ethnicity, academic major, and departure status (transfer, dropout, graduate), credit load, credits completed in major, DSS Program Services received (type, intensity, and duration), and amount of financial aid received. Logistic regression is the statistician’s preferred method when analyzing dichotomous variables such as “did or did not earn a bachelor’s degree.” Logistic regression’s objective is to identify the maximum likelihood of a relationship, the probability of observing the conditions of success (Cabrera, 1994). The principal metric is an odds ratio. Its results may make a dramatic, sometimes unexpected, statement. Least squares seeks to minimize the difference between predicted and observed probabilities, i.e. between the theoretical and the empirical. Least squares expresses its fundamental conclusion in a metric accessible to the general reader: the percent of variance (the R2) accounted for by the model (Pedhazur, 1982). Logistic regression has an analogous metric of conclusion, the G2, but it is less accessible.

        Using logistic regression or least squares as appropriate, project researchers will test for statistically significant associations among this data and subjects’ responses to survey questions that address their perceptions of the quality of the instruction they received; the quality of their preparation to enter a career; employment history since ending their postsecondary experience; characteristics of positions held since ending their postsecondary experience; and factors associated with personal independence, social engagement, and community involvement. Using logistic regression or least squares as appropriate, project researchers will also test for statistically significant differences ($.05 level) in: (a) the response rates of individuals answering the web-based survey and the response rates of those answering the paper survey; and (b) the validity levels of respondents’ answers to the web-based questions  and respondents’ answers to the paper questions. The analysis will control for gender, disability, race/ethnicity, academic major, and departure status (transfer, dropout, graduate). Project staff will also calculate effect sizes for any statistically significant findings, as well as calculate confidence intervals to guard against spurious observed effects at or above the .05 significance level (Cahan, 2000, Cohen, 1988; Gleser and Olkin, 1994; Timm, 1999; Levin and Robinson, 2000).

REPORTING AND DISSEMINATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONSProject researchers will collect, record, code, and analyze data during Project Years One and Two. In Project Year Three, they will: 1) summarize the findings developed through the analysis; 2) develop policy and program recommendations based on these findings; 3) communicate these findings and recommendations to key decision makers at each participating university; 4) prepare five Research to Practice Briefs that target key findings to the needs, backgrounds, and interests of five key stakeholder groups: DSS Program operators, state and local policy makers, university administrators, individuals with disabilities, and teacher educators; and 6) launch a six-stage National Dissemination Initiative to place copies of the Research to Practice Briefs in the hands of key stakeholder groups [Project Year Three]. This initiative will encompass electronic, print, and face-to face approaches: i) Post electronic versions (WordPerfect, RTF, and Adobe Acrobat formats) of the Research to Practice Briefs on the project’s web page for no-cost downloading. ii) Post an anonymous public-use version of the project’s data set on the project web page so that other researchers may re-analyze the data or replicate the study. iii) Produce and ship five-hundred complementary print copies of the Research to Practice Briefs to ten national organizations representing key stakeholder groups, and sell additional copies nationally through the CEW Publications Unit (139,000 catalogs distributed yearly). iv) Produce and disseminate 2,500 complementary copies of a CD-ROM version of the Research to Practice Briefs and 2,500 complementary copies of a CD-ROM version of the project’s data set to ten national offices of key stakeholder organizations and to attendees at fifteen professional conferences via the CEW Publications Unit exhibit booth. v) Submit manuscripts to three peer-reviewed professional journals. vi) Make presentations to three national conferences attended by key stakeholders (see “4" above).

---