This is a reprint of the Journal on Postsecondary Education and Disability, volume 13, #3,
Fall 1998, published by the Association on Higher Education And Disability.
Improving Technology Training
Services in Postsecondary
Education: Perspectives of
Recent College Graduates with
Disabilities
Richard T. Roessler and H. Michael Kirk
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
Abstract
Recent college graduates with disabilities (N = 40) completed a telephone interview
regarding the type and quality of technology services they received in college. Although
they were satisfied with the auxiliary classroom aids and technology information they
had received, 37% reported the need for additional classroom accommodations. The
majority of the participants rated their academic advisors' knowledge of technology as
being inadequate to meet their needs. The participants noted that they had not (a)
completed an evaluation of their technology needs while in school, (b) received training
on how to use technology in the workplace, and (c) developed reasonable
accommodation strategies as part of their placement planning. Nevertheless, they
expressed confidence in their abilities to accommodate disability related limitations on
the job. The results of the survey were used to develop recommendations for program
development.
Enrollment data from college and university campuses reflect some dramatic shifts in the
student population. Specifically, there has been a significant increase in the number of
students with disabilities who are pursuing postsecondary degrees. In 1976, less than 3%
of entering students reported disabilities. By 1994, the percentage of students with
disabilities enrolled in colleges and universities had grown to 9% (Henderson, 1995).
These students present a diverse array of disabilities, physical disabilities, and sensory
impairments (Thompson & Bethea, 1996).
Disability-related impairments present unique challenges to students' progress in their
academic programs. Fortunately, students are not without protections and resources in
dealing with barriers to physical and program access. Legislation, such as Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act and Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
ensures students' rights to request and receive accommodations (Lynch & Gussel, 1996).
Section 504 has given rise to the establishment of disability support service programs
across the United States. Such programs provide significant resources for students. The
purpose of these programs is to help colleges and universities make "appropriate
academic adjustments and reasonable modifications to policies and practices to allow the
full participation of students with disabilities in the same programs and activities
available to non-disabled students" (Jarrow, 1991, p. 1).
Of course, under the provisions of Section 504 and Title II of the ADA, students must
take the initiative to disclose their disability status, provide proper documentation, and
request appropriate accommodations. The burden of creating an accommodated
educational experience does not fall solely on students with disabilities. Institutions have
responsibilities as well. Postsecondary institutions must inform students of their rights
and responsibilities. As Torkelson, Lynch, and Gussel (1996) stressed, "Students have the
right to nondiscrimination, meaningful access, individualized assessments, effective
academic adjustments and aids, and confidentiality" (p. 352).
According to Kroeger and Schuck (1993), "effective academic adjustments and aids"
include auxiliary supports, such as note-takers and interpreters , as well as assistive
technology, such as reading machines and voice activated computers. To date, evidence
suggests that auxiliary aids are far more often used as academic accommodations for
disability-related limitations than are different types of assistive technology. In a recent
survey of disability support service programs, Carroll and Johnson-Bown (1996) found
that campus service providers were providing students with disabilities with only
minimal assistance in terms of assistive technology. Thompson and Dooley Dickey
(1994) further documented the need for critical technology training services for students
with disabilities, including orientation to legislative protections, assessment of assistive
technology needs, training in the use of assistive technology, and access to aids and
devices for classroom use.
Based on comments gathered in focus groups with students with disabilities, Coomber
(1996) reported specific student concerns about the technology training services. Students
with disabilities reported training services. Students with disabilities reported that they
were not informed about new technology and its availability. Because of lack of training
and support, they believed they were unprepared to benefit from technology. Moreover,
they experienced confusion regarding whom to contact for technology assistance on
campus, as well as the nature of personal and institutional responsibilities in the
accommodation seeking process.
The lack of (a) education on civil rights legislation, (b) technology needs assessment, (c)
technology training services, and (d) access to assistive technology has ramifications
beyond the college years for students with disabilities. Without technology-related
information and services during college, students are less likely to succeed in their
transition in to the world of work (Satcher, 1995). For example, they may not know what
they have the right to request a reasonable accommodation following the job offer and the
right to request that employers review their accommodation needs following employment
(Thompson & Dooley Dickey, 1994). In addition, they may not have knowledge of the
wide range of assistive technology available to them and the proper steps to transfer the
use of such technology to the workplace (Rumrill, Gordon, & Roessler, 1993). As
Satcher (1995) found, successful college graduates with learning disabilities tended to
know about (a) civil rights protections under the ADA, and (b) technology needs and
solutions in the workplace. Unfortunately, observers have noted that there is very little
research that addresses how students with disabilities cope with these career development
needs at the postsecondary lever (Friehe, Aune, & Leuenberger, 1996).
Evidence supports the value of increasing students' knowledge of assistive technology
and of their rights to request and use such technology in educational and employment
settings. Programs such as Career Connections at the University of Minnesota (Aune,
Mueller, Johnson, Gaipa, Kiu, & Lorsung, 1995) and Project Career at the University of
Arkansas (Rumrill, Roessler, Boen, & Brown, 1995) have informed students of their
rights to accommodations in both educational and employment settings, assisted students
in analyzing their technology needs and in developing reasonable accommodation plans
that apply in both settings, and supervised students in accommodated work experience
opportunities in the community . Outcome statistics reported by the Career Connections
project reported an 88% employment rate 6 to 12 months after graduation (Aune et al.,
1995), an employment rate that compares very favorably with the general employment
rate of 66% for college graduates with disabilities (Gingerich, 1996).
Assisting students with disabilities with their technology-related needs in college is an
important step toward enhancing their success both in school and work. Differences of
opinion, however, exist regarding the preferred means of providing such assistance. The
debate centers on whether such programs should be provided by specialized support
centers, such as those endorsed under Section 504, or by "generic or generally available
service" (Enright, Conyers, & Szymanski, 1996). Concern exists that generic service
providers may not (a) have the expertise to provide specialized training on assistive
technology, (b) be able to facilitate classroom accommodation request procedures, and
(c) be knowledgeable about disclosure and accommodation provisions of Title I of the
ADA. On the other hand, Jones (1996) and Enright et al. (1996) stress the importance of
inclusive service delivery in which faculty, academic advisors, career service counselors,
and student affairs personnel provide high quality assistance for students with disabilities.
Regardless of the method of service provision, the first step that researchers must take
involves gathering information about the comprehensiveness of technology training
services currently available to college students with disabilities. Hence, the purpose of
this study was to identify the types and quality of technology services received by a
group of 40 recent graduates with disabilities from a large state university. Students were
also asked to comment on (a) the improvements needed in technology services while in
school, (b) their self-perceived knowledge of protections contained in the ADA, and (c)
their confidence in their ability to identify and implement accommodations in the
workplace.
Method
Participants
Comprised of 40 recent university graduates who had registered for services from the
Office of Campus Access (OCA; i.e., they had documented permanent disabilities), the
sample consisted primarily of people ranging in age from 24 to 44 (M = 34, SD =10).
Most of the participants (77%, n = 31) had received a bachelor's degree from the
university. They obtained their degrees in the following academic areas: liberal arts
(40%, n = 16), education (35%, n =14), business (17%, n = 7), agriculture and home
economics (5%, n = 2), and architecture (2%, n =1). Including 24 women (60%) and 16
men (40%), the sample was predominantly white (92%, n = 37). About one-third (37%, n
=15) of the group was married at the time of the interview. Individuals in the sample
reported the following types of primary disabilities: physical disabilities (47.5%, n=19),
learning disabilities (37.5%, n = 15), sensory disabilities (7.5%, n = 3), emotional
disabilities (5%, n = 2), and speech impairment (2.5%, n =1). Sixty percent (n = 24) of
the participants were employed, and 5 of the unemployed individuals reported that they
were seeking employment. The majority (n = 8) of the remaining 11 unemployed
participants were continuing their education. Only one participant reported being
unemployed due to disability-related reasons.
Instrumentation
Telephone interview development. Based on a review of relevant research (Carroll &
Johnson-Bown, 1996; Coomber,1996; Tompson & Dooley Dickey, 1994) and their
experiences in administering Project Career for college students with disabilities
(Roessler, Rumrill, & Brown, 1994), the authors developed a structured telephone
interview with questions pertinent to attitudes toward and experiences with technology
use and accommodation planning in college. In particular, questions about the quality of
technology training services addressed the deficiencies that students with disabilities
reported in Coomber's (1996) focus groups, and the need for additional information on
ADA Title I provisions documented in Thompson and Dooley Dickey's (1994) research.
Interview format. The first section of the interview addressed demographic and
disability issues, including information about whether the students were currently
employed, in graduate training, or seeking employment. Participants were also asked
whether they experienced barriers in securing classroom and employment
accommodations. In the second section of the survey, respondents described the nature
and quality of technology and accommodation services they received. Students described
their perceptions of their academic advisor's help with technology needs, the amount of
technology training and learning they experienced while in college, their evaluation of
different types of accommodations used in college, and the satisfactoriness of information
about their rights and responsibilities under the ADA. The interview closed with
questions about participants' satisfaction and self-efficacy levels regarding specific tasks
involved in identifying and implementing on-the-job accommodations, a deficiency area
that was previously notified by Thompson and Dooley Dickey (1994).
Item formats included extensive checklists, open-ended questions with probes, and
satisfaction/ adequacy ratings based on a 1-5 scale (5 being the most positive rating). For
example, the item "What classroom accommodations did you use while you were a
student?" was followed by a checklist including 17 specific accommodations and space to
list other accommodations. Respondents answered open-ended questions such as, "Were
there technical skills training opportunities that you did not take advantage of that you
now wish you had?" Student ratings using the 1 to 5 scale were gathered on such items as
"During the time you were a student, how much did you learn about the variety of
technology available at the school? (1 - nothing, 5 - everything I needed to know).
To improve the validity of the interview, the investigators completed several steps. The
OCA director and the program specialist critiqued the questions prior to a pilot test. In the
pilot test, 2 interviewers and the senior author interviewed 5 college graduates with
disabilities. Based on feedback from these interviewees, the authors made several
changes in the interview questions. As a result of the pilot test, the interviewers, 1
master's and 1 doctoral student in rehabilitation, also gained valuable experience in
conducting the 1-hour interview.
Procedure
With assistance from OCA, researchers developed a list of students with disabilities who
had graduated after 1991 (N = 688). Because many of these students had temporary
impairments while enrolled in school (e.g., a student with a broken leg who used
handicapped parking for 6 weeks), they were not eligible to participate in the study. After
eliminating individuals with temporary conditions, investigators requested current
telephone numbers from the Alumni Office for the remaining graduates. Based on their
records, the Alumni Office could provide current address information for 103 possible
participants.
Telephone contacts were initiated based on a random sequence (derived from the use of a
random numbers table). Any individual who could not be contacted in three attempts was
dropped from the sample. Following this procedure, 40 graduates who agreed to complete
the telephone survey were contacted.
Throughout the interview, interviewers encouraged participants to suggest ways to
improve technology training and assistance for college students with disabilities. A rater
familiar with assistive technology and the needs of college students with disabilities
coded free responses, for the most part, by simply listing verbatim responses of the
students and then grouping similar statements together.
Data Analysis
Descriptive summaries of the survey results from the 40 participants with disabilities are
reported regarding (a) types of disability-related limitations and accommodations, (b)
services received regarding technology needs in college, (c) services received regarding
technology needs in employment, and (d) confidence regarding their ability to implement
accommodations at work. In some cases, fewer than 40 participants responded to a given
item. Therefore, percentages reported are based on a smaller number of responses.
Correlations among selected variables were also calculated.
Results
Types of Disability-Related Limitations and Accommodations
The participants described how disability related limitations had affected their
performance in college and how accommodations had helped them cope with those
problems. Reflecting the diversity of people and disabilities contained in the sample, a
number of different barriers and accommodative solutions were noted. Nevertheless,
several trends occurred in the symptom and accommodation data. When they were asked
to describe performance related areas affected by their disabilities, at least 10% (n > 4) or
more of the sample identified the following issues: mobility/walking (35%, n = 14),
reading problems (25%, nn =10), taking longer to do work (17%, n = 7), writing (15%, n
= 6), fatigue (12%, n = 5), and vision (10%, nn = 4). Consistent with the fact that about
45% (n =18) of the sample reported learning disabilities, frequently used
accommodations (i.e., mentioned by four or more of the students) included computer
software such as spellchecker (25%, n = 10), tape recorders (17%, n = 7), and taped texts
(12%, n = 5). Of those participants specifying that they used accommodations (n = 21),
13 (62%) said they paid for them, 7 (33%) said that OCA paid for them, and one
participant reported sharing accommodation costs with OCA. Overall, the participants
rated their accommodations as very adequate for meeting classroom needs (M = 4.14, SD
=1.19 on a 5-point scale).
In an open-ended question about accommodation use, the participants voluntarily
described frequently used strategies. Twelve percent or more of the sample had
experience with the following: extended time for tests (50%, n = 20), non-distracting
testing environment (32%, n = 13), handicapped parking permit (22%, n = 9), note-taker
(22%, n = 9), reader (17%, n = 7), recording of lectures (17%, n = 7), scribe (15%, n = 6),
reading material on tape (15%, n = 6), and van service (12%, n = 5). Unfortunately,
accommodations provided were not always sufficient; 15 of the participants (37%)
reported that they needed other accommodations in college.
Services Received Regarding Technology Needs in College
In their postsecondary education experiences during the early to mid 90's, the vast
majority of respondents (92%, n = 37) did not participate in an evaluation of their
technology needs. Some of the participants were fortunate in that they found their
academic advisors to be very knowledgeable about such issues; however, most did not.
On a 5-point rating from not knowledgeable (1) to very knowledgeable (5), the average
rating of faculty advisor's knowledge was 2.4 (SD = 1.66). In fact, the majority of the
participants who responded to this item (53%, n = 17) believed that their faculty advisors
had very little to no knowledge about technology and how it could be used by students
with disabilities.
The participants were somewhat more positive about what they had learned about
technology in college, providing midrange ratings (M = 2.9, SD = 1.3) of how much they
had learned. Sixteen of the students (40%) believed that they had learned nothing or very
little while 16 (40%) believed that they had learned a great deal or everything they
needed to know. Respondents received information about technology throughout their
time at the university, and they were satisfied with the quality of the information they
received (M = 3.6, SD = 1.14). Gaining information on technology by their own efforts
(13%, n = 4), they also used other sources such as OCA (29%, n = 9); students/friends
(23%, n = 7); professors (23%, n = 7); and computer course, parents, campus police, and
orientation staff (3%, n = 1) respectively.
Participants described the general technology skills training that they received in their
postsecondary education. The majority of the participants (60%, n = 24) completed
introductory training in use of the personal computer, and a significant number (45%, n =
18) learned how to use a word processor program. Other computer-based technology
addressed included using info-links (the on-line computer catalog and search engine,
37%, n = 15), spreadsheet programs (35%, n = 14), e-mail (27%, n = 11), presentation
software (20%, n = 8), and the internet (15%, n = 6). The vast majority of participants
(92%, n = 37) reported that they were introduced to technology that did not meet their
needs, although 35% (n =14) of the group believed that they did not take advantage of the
training experiences available to them. The most frequent reasons for not taking
advantage of technology training were lack of knowledge about such services (17%, n =
7) and limited access to services (15%, n = 6), with 1 to 3 of the respondents noting other
reasons such as intimidation, embarrassment, bureaucracy, finances, lack of assistance,
and lack of time. In reflecting on their college careers, from 5 to 9 of the respondents had
the following advice for current students with disabilities: learn computer skills (22%, n
= 9), use OCA (22%, n = 9), make the effort to learn about technology (22%, n = 9), and
be persistent (12%, n = 5).
Services Received Regarding Technology Needs in Employment
While they were students, the respondents reported that they rarely discussed how to
apply technology at work with advisors, instructors, or OCA staff. Eighty-seven percent
of the sample (n = 34) indicated that they did not receive any training about how to use
assistive technology or accommodations in the workplace. Only a few respondents
learned how to use (a) computer software applicable to business settings, (b) the overhead
instead of the blackboard, and (c) technology from OCA staff or a rehabilitation
counselor. Several participants volunteered ideas about how the university could improve
technology transfer services (e.g., teach students about the different types of assistive
technology used by employees with disabilities and about appropriate ways to
communicate one's technology needs to the employer).
Just as technology transfer was rarely discussed during college, respondents did not
participate in activities to help them plan their approach to securing employment upon
graduation. Seventy-five percent of the participants (n = 30) did not receive formal job
seeking assistance, and none of the participants developed reasonable accommodation
strategies as part of their placement planning. Respondents who had employment plans
typically implemented them on their own. Only a few of the participants (n = 4, 10%) had
used Career Services or other campus placement agencies in their efforts to secure
employment.
Confidence in Ability to Make On-the-Job Accommodations
Although the results underscore the need for technology training for college students with
disabilities, the respondents were quite confident in their abilities to accommodate
disability-related limitations on the job (see Table 1 for ratings). On a global satisfaction
rating (5 = very satisfied), the average rating of satisfaction with ability to accommodate
disabilities at work was 4.03 (SD = 1.13). Similarly, respondents believed that they could
cope with a variety of tasks related to implementing accommodations at work. On a 1 - 5
scale (1 = not very sure to 5 = very sure), average ratings ranged from 3.6 to 4.00 on
seven different tasks consistent with accommodation seeking recommendations in Title I
of the ADA. Participants were most confident in their abilities to identify accommodation
needs and evaluate the effectiveness of on-the-job accommodations, and they were least
confident in their abilities to communicate directly with their employers (e.g., request that
employers review their accommodation needs and negotiate with their employers
regarding implementation of accommodations).
Using a 1- 5 rating scale, respondents reported a moderate knowledge of the employment
provisions in Title I of the ADA (M = 2.92, SD = 1.29). Apparently, this amount of
knowledge is sufficient to support their confidence in their accommodation seeking
abilities. At the same time, the results suggest that the participants need additional
information on their legal rights; this finding is consistent with other research (Stageberg,
Fischer, & Barbut, 1996; Thompson & Dooley Dickey, 1994).
Intercorrelations Among the Variables
Selected relationships among the variables on the technology survey were examined to
learn more about factors affecting the participants' confidence and self-efficacy in the
accommodation process. The first set of relationships addresses variables related to
overall satisfaction with one's ability to accommodate disability on the job. The second
set of relationships addresses factors related to students' confidence in their abilities to
perform specific tasks involved in identifying and implementing accommodations.
Satisfaction with ability to accommodate one's disability on the job. Student ratings
on the satisfaction item were positively and significantly correlated (N = 38, p < .05) with
confidence ratings on 5 of the 7 accommodation tasks. Students who were more satisfied
with their ability to accommodate disability on the job were also more confident that they
could identify their accommodation needs (r = .57), request a review with their employer
(r = .47), negotiate with the employer in implementing accommodations (r = .34),
evaluate the effectiveness of on-the-job accommodations (r = .35), and participate in all
phases of the accommodation process (r = .34).
Confidence in performing accommodation implementation tasks. The participants'
ratings of the level of "technology" knowledge and assistance provided by their faculty
advisors had a significant relationship to accommodation self-confidence. Participant
ratings of academic advisor knowledge correlated positively and significantly (p < .05)
with confidence ratings on five of the seven accommodation tasks, with similar trends on
the other two tasks (p < .10). Therefore, program recommendations address the role of
the academic advisor as well as other means for improving technology services for
students with disabilities.
Discussion
Program Recommendations
The following recommendations about improving the technology training services that
postsecondary institutions offer students with disabilities are based on the results of this
study. Each of these recommendations is discussed in detail.
1. Conduct systematic evaluations of technology needs of every entering student and
on an as needed basis thereafter. Survey respondents reported using a variety of
auxiliary classroom aids that proved to be adequate for certain needs. Thirty-seven
percent of the sample reported that they needed other accommodations. Moreover, 92%
of the sample had not participated in an evaluation of their technology needs. Based on
these results, OCA has initiated an assessment (504 Conference) for all entering students
(first year and transfer students). This review is a concrete response to the call for
individualized assessment contained in Title II of the ADA. Involving the student,
academic advisor, and OCA staff experienced in technology assessment, the 504
Conference culminates in a written accommodation plan for the student's upcoming
academic year. The student may request a review of this plan on an annual basis. This
assessment process contributes to two significant outcomes. It helps students make a
smooth transition into college (Enright et al. 1996), and it ensures that students with
disabilities at least initially participate in an important technology service (Friehe, Aune,
& Leuenberger, 1996).
2. Incorporate more types of assistive technology in students' accommodation plans.
Consistent with other findings in the literature (Carroll & Johnson Bown, 1996), the most
frequently used types of accommodations cited by participants of this study included
auxiliary and, often, non-technological classroom aids, such as extended time for testing,
non-distracting testing environment, notetakers, and readers. Respondents rarely reported
experience with assistive technology such as voice-activated word processing, closed
circuit television, modified keyboards, different types of screen enhancers, and grammar
check software that would reduce or remove barriers to academic success. In addition to
using resources for assistive technology consultation for students such as the state
vocational rehabilitation agency, the Job Accommodation Network, and ABLEDATA
(Rubin & Roessler, 1995), postsecondary institutions must develop mechanisms for
delivering the services students need to resolve the problems noted in Coomber's (1996)
focus groups. They include a lack of awareness regarding how to access and use
technology and ongoing support in terms of troubleshooting and upgrading.
3. Involve students with disabilities with academic advisors who take an active role
in helping students meet their technology, academic, and career development needs.
In this study, the participants rated their academic advisors as inadequate in terms of
knowledge of technology and how to apply it in the classroom and workplace. The
majority of the participants who responded to the faculty advisors' knowledge item
indicated that their academic advisors had little to no information in this area. Hence,
students with disabilities need access to more proactive and informed advisors. As noted
previously, quality advisement may result from specialized or inclusive service delivery
approaches, with the preference being for advisement delivered in the same way for all
students. In that vein, Frost (1992) stressed that all students should receive more intensive
assistance (i.e., "developmental advising"). For students with disabilities, developmental
advisors could perform such tasks as (a) engage students in discussing and resolving
barriers to their academic progress; (b) involve them in academic problem solving and
decision making; (c) encourage students' use of campus resources; (d) involve them in
schedule planning; and (e) show interest in students' academic, career, and outside
interests. To implement developmental advising for students with disabilities, academic
advisors need training on legislative protections of students' civil rights, disability-related
services at the institution, appropriate classroom technologies for students, and the
barriers that students with disabilities face in the employment process (Aune et al., 1995;
Rhoads, Slate, & Steger, 1994). Academic advisors also need quality advising materials
that are updated on a regular basis. The desk reference guide produced by Project
PAACS at Mississippi State University provides a good example (Thompson & Bethea,
1996). Quality developmental advising has the potential to contribute to students' selfconfidence in the technology transfer and accommodation request process.
4. Identify students who need more training in information technology and
implement strategies to involve them in formal programs offered by the computing
center, library, and disability services staff. The participants were only moderately
satisfied with what they had learned about technology while they were in college.
Significantly, those respondents who had learned about technology reported that the
information was of high quality. Nevertheless, 40% of the sample said that they learned
little or nothing about technology while in school. The participants mentioned techniques
for helping them overcome such deficits (e.g., enroll in computing center classes on word
processing, e-mail, and the internet; complete information technology training offered by
the library such as info-links; contact formal sources of help such as the disability student
service office; and learn about technology by talking with professors, friends, and
rehabilitation counselors). To overcome low program participation rates by students with
disabilities, other researchers have suggested intensified marketing for the programs,
publicity about how the programs relate to high priority student goals such as
employment, and better information sharing among campus programs regarding students
and their needs (Friehe et al., 1996).
5. Improve technology-related services that help students make the transition from
use of technology in the classroom to use of technology in the workplace. Gaps
existed in technology-related service delivery for the participants while they were in
college. For example, the vast majority of the respondents never participated in an
evaluation of the assistive technology or accommodative strategies that would have
helped them be more productive in work. They had not received formal assistance in the
job seeking process in terms of structuring their job search, incorporating reasonable
accommodations in the placement planning process, or following through on the
outcomes of their j ob seeking plans. The literature contains examples of university-based
programs that provide these enhanced technology transfer and career planning services.
For example, the Career Connections Project and Project Career developed programs and
materials for involving students with disabilities in technology training, mentoring by
successful employees in the student's field of interest, career counseling and case
management, accommodated and supervised work experience in the community, support
groups, and systematic technology and placement planning seminars (Aune et al., 1995;
Rumrill et al., 1995).
6. Determine whether students have the behavioral proficiency to match their selfconfidence in their abilities to request and make on-the-job accommodations. Unlike
the students in Thompson and Dooley Dickey's (1994) study, the college graduates in this
sample reported surprisingly high levels of self-confidence regarding their abilities to
request and secure on-the-job accommodations. While important, high levels of
technology transfer and accommodation self-efficacy may be necessary but not sufficient.
Several reasons exist for this assertion. In a recent report entitled "ADA Watch-Year
One," the National Council on Disability (1993) stressed that the provision of reasonable
accommodations for employees with disabilities remained an area of unmet need. Hence,
one might assume that many individuals do not actually have the skills to request and
implement reasonable accommodations when they are needed. Furthermore the research
literature documents the presence of deficiencies in self-advocacy skills among college
students with disabilities when they role-play requesting classroom accommodations
from instructors (Roessler, Rumrill, & Brown, 1997). Therefore, student personnel
professionals should determine whether students could match their confidence with the
performances needed to self-advocate for accommodations and provide self-advocacy
training for students who demonstrate skill deficiencies.
Limitations
Recommendations based on these data must be considered with respect to several
shortcomings of the study. The small sample was drawn from only one institution of
higher learning, and it consisted of people with different types of disabilities who had the
need for different types of assistive technology. Because some individuals could not be
reached, they were dropped from the sample; this may have biased the results to some
degree. Moreover, the pool of participants was comprised solely of graduates with
disabilities who maintained a current address and telephone number with the Alumni
Office. Although acknowledging that the results are exploratory in nature, we believe that
they are consistent with findings from other studies completed in similar settings (e.g.,
Carroll & Johnson Bown, 1996; Coomber, 1996; Friehe et al., 1996) which support the
need for more comprehensive technology training for people with disabilities enrolled in
postsecondary education. Further research is needed to determine whether programmatic
changes such as those suggested improve technology skills for students with disabilities.
Recommendations for Future Research
Future research should address the limitations in the current study as well as explore
significant implications of the survey data. Specifically, investigations are needed in
which the technology survey is administered with a larger random sample of recent
college graduates with disabilities representing several postsecondary institutions. In this
same vein, studies with undergraduates are needed to determine their satisfaction with
current technology training services. Such studies would produce broader insights into
issues pertaining to the varieties of technology assessment and transfer services needed,
the adequacy of academic advising regarding technology utilization, and the extent of
preparation students receive regarding technology utilization in employment. Research is
needed to identify effective advisors in order to learn how they acquire and use current
information on assistive technology in their work with students. Finally, social skills
research is needed to determine whether students can match their high accommodationseeking self-efficacy, as reported in this article, with skill demonstration in role-play and
in in-vivo situations.
Table 1 Confidence in on-the-job accommodation ability
Satisfaction item
Satisfaction with ability to accommodate disability on the job
M
SD
4.03 1.13
Accommodation Self-efficacy Scale: How certain are you that you can ...
Identify your employment accommodation needs
4.02 1.21
Request that your employer review your accommodation needs 3.60 1.39
Discuss your needs with your employer in a face-to-face
meeting
3.92 1.37
Negotiate with your employer in implementing reasonable
accommodations
3.62 1.43
Evaluate the effectiveness of an on-the-job accommodation
4.05 1.01
Keep the employer informed about your ongoing
accommodation needs
3.80 1.28
Participate in all aspects of the accommodation process with
your employer
3.77 1.31
Rating (1-5, 5 = High)
Authors Note
Please contact the senior author at the following address for the full text of the
technology survey: Department of Rehabilitation, 346 N. West Avenue, University of
Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701.
About the Authors
Richard T. Roessler, Ph.D., CRC, is a university professor of rehabilitation at the
University of Arkansas. Roessler is the principal investigator for Project APT, a 3-year
transition services grant funded by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation
Services.
H. Michael Kirk, MS, is a doctoral student in the department of rehabilitation at the
University of Arkansas. He received his masters in counseling from the University of
Memphis and is a graduate assistant with Project APT.