CHARACTERISTICS, ENROLLMENT PATTERNS,
GRADUATION RATES AND SERVICE USE OF
COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH ADHD/LD
Theresa L. Maitland, PhD
The Learning Center’s ADHD/LD Services
UNC Chapel Hill
IRB Approved Study #07-1097
tmaitlan@email.unc.edu
BACKGROUND
 Brief history
 IRB reviewed study




Did not constitute human subject research
Master set of ADHD/LD students with disability data
Obtained high school and UNC records from Office of Research
Created de-identified data set
 Two private funds supported Erica Richman, Ph.D to serve as
research coordinator
 Many thanks to our collaborators & contributors:





Research Coordinator: Erica Richman Ph.D.
Database designer: Steve Robbillard
Database consultants: Billie Shambley, Angela Coley and Geeta Menon
Leon Hamlet, Registrar’s Office
Dr. Lynn Williford, Assistant Provost; Weiguo Jiang, Data Analyst from the
Office of Institutional Research: and Dr. Lawrence Rosenfeld from the
IRB office were instrumental in the study’s completion.
VERY LITTLE IS KNOWN ABOUT THE COLLEGE
EXPERIENCES OF STUDENTS WITH ADHD/LD
LD/ADHD College Students
 May have increased rates of academic probation
 (Heiligenstein et al., 1999)
 May have lower GPAs-nearly 1 .0 lower
 ( Blasé
et al., 2009; Frazier et al., 2007)
 May have higher graduation rates (and persistence rates)
 (Canto et al., 2005;Huber, 2009; Vogel & Adelman 1992)
 May have lower overall retention & graduation rates: 11% -50%
lower
 Horn et al., 1999; Greg, 2009; Greenbaum et al., 1995;Lee et al. (2008);
Murray et al., 2000)
 May have the same graduation rates by may take longer to
graduate
 (Vogel & Adelman 1990, 1992; Jorgeson et al., 2003, Wessel et al., )
OUR VARIABLES
Disability Related
 Diagnosis (LD, ADHD, Both)
 Amount of ser vice use
Demographics
 Back ground (Ethnicity, race and countr y of origin)
 Gender
 1 st time Freshmen/Transfer
High School Variables
 SAT Scores, GPA , Percentile
University Variables
Sub-populations (1 st generation, Covenant Scholar, Athlete)
Major at Graduation: STEM ver sus Humanities/Social Sciences
Cumulative GPA
Semesters Enrolled
Enrollment Patterns (# of withdrawals, ineligibilities, semesters on
probation, academic underloads)
 Graduated/Not Graduated





ADHD/LD SAMPLE
Sample size:
n=1938 (1953-2010)
n=921 (2002-2010; for comparison analyses)
Sample sizes may also vary based on
particular analysis
Undergraduates
All cleared for services
1976-Sept. 2010 (median of 2001)
ADHD/LD SAMPLE: DIAGNOSES
Missing
5%
N=91
Both
26%
ADHD
37%
N=508
N=722
LD
32%
Total n=1938
N=617
RANDOM SAMPLE
 N=8994
 All Undergraduate Students
 ADHD/LD removed
 2002-2010 Cohorts
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
 Research Question 1 : Do students in the ADHD/LD Sample have
different enrollment patterns than students in the Random
Sample
 Research Question 2: Do the grade point averages of the
students in the ADHD/LD sample differ from students in the
Random Sample?
 Research Question 3: Are there differences in the graduation
rates between students in the ADHD/LD sample and students in
the Random Sample?
 Research Question 4: Within the ADHD/LD Sample does
diagnosis of ADHD, LD or both ADHD/LD impact graduation rate?
 Research Question 5: Do graduation rates and GPAs of students
with ADHD/LD differ based on the frequency of sessions with a
Learning Specialist?
STATISTICAL ANALYSES
 All descriptive and comparative analyses were performed
using StataIC 12 (StataCorp, 2011).
 Descriptive statistics, including measures of central tendency,
cross-tabulations, and chi-squares were used to compare
means and characterize the sample with respect to student
demographics, high school, and academic success variables.
 Linear regression, logistic regression, and multi -nomial
logistic regression models were employed to examine the
relationships among service use, student characteristics,
diagnosis, and academic success
COMPARISONS:
DEMOGRAPHICS &
CHARACTERISTICS
GENDER COMPARISONS:2002-2010
70%
59%
60%
50%
56%
44%
41%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
n=400
n=509
n=5338
ADHD/LD
n=3656
RS
Females
Males
BACKGROUND COMPARISONS:
2002-2010
ADHD/LD
<1%
4%
7%
<1%
2%
13%
72%
1%
Equal
____________________________________________________________________
Percentages
2%
3%
6%
<1%
7%
10%
70%
1%
Asian/Pac
Islander
Black
White
Multi-racial
RS
Non-Resident
Unknown
Hispanic
Native
American
COMPARISONS: FIRST-TIME-FRESHMEN
VS. TRANSFER STUDENTS 2002-2010
90%
80%
82%
82%
704
7400
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
18%
10%
18%
1594
155
0%
ADHD/LD
RS
Freshmen
Transfer
COMPARISONS: HIGH SCHOOL
VARIABLES
 ADHD/LD students enter with significantly lower SAT scores
 60, 50, & 30 point lower SATV, SATM, SATW scores (p<.01)
 The average SAT scores for ADHD/LD sample are 569 (verbal) and 648
(math)
 Mean SAT scores:
 SATV = 634 (RS) vs. 596 (ADHD/LD); 38 points lower
 SATM = 648 (RS) vs. 618 (ADHD/LD); 30 points lower
 Students in the ADHD/LD sample are 85% more likely to have
lower high school GPAs than typical non-disabled students
(p<.01)
 Average HS GPAs are 3.66 (ADHD/LD) vs. 4.24 (RS) (p<.01)
 HS Rank averages 55 percentile (ADHD/LD) compared to 72
percentile (RS) (p<.01)
ENROLLMENT
PATTERNS
2002-2010
ADHD/LD N=1193
RS N=8994
Sample
Comparisons
ENROLLMENT PATTERNS: WITHDRAWALS
(2002-2010)
Withdrawal
student withdraws from all classes before
the semester ends.
ADHD/LD students are statistically more
likely to have more withdrawals than the
RS (p<.02).
ADHD/LD students are almost 20% more
likely to withdraw than the RS (p<.01).
WITHDRAWALS (2002-2010)
ADHD/LD
8%
1%
RS
0.44%
0.11%
Equal
Percentage
____________________________________________________________________
Line
11%
1 Withdrawal
3%
1.19%
0.11%
2 Withdrawals
3 Withdrawals
4 Withdrawals
ENROLLMENT PATTERNS: UNDERLOADS
Underload;
Student obtains permission to enroll in <12
hours and be considered a full time student
Not an accommodation must petition
through Academic Advising
No significant differences
COURSE UNDERLOADS
ADHD/LD
2%
1%
RS
0%
0%
Equal
Percentage
____________________________________________________________________
Line
4%
1 Underload
3%
1%
2 Underloads
3 Underloads
0%
4 Underloads
ENROLLMENT PATTERNS: PROBATION
Probation (2007 – now):
Student must obtain a GPA of 2.0 in 9 hours
No previous probation & gets a semester to
complete a process to restore “good standing:
ADHD/LD students are statistically more
likely to be on probation than the RS
(p<.01).
ADHD/LD students are twice as likely to be
on probation(p<.01).
PROBATION
ADHD/LD
0%
RS
0%
1%
Equal
_____________________________________________________________________
1%
1%
Percentages
4%
1 Probation
2 Probations
3 Probations
ENROLLMENT PATTERNS: INELIGIBILITIES
Ineligible:
 >2.00 GPA, was on probation previous
semester
Can’t enroll at university, use online or
summer classes to restore “good standing”
ADHD/LD students are statistically more
likely to be ineligible than the RS (p<.01).
ADHD/LD students are greater than 50%
more likely than RS students to be
ineligible at least one time (p<.01).
INELIGIBILITIES
ADHD/LD
RS
0%
3%
1%
Equal
Percentage
____________________________________________________________________
2%
Line
8%
4%
1 Ineligibility
2 Ineligibilities
3 Ineligibilities
ENROLLMENT PATTERNS:
TOTAL SEMESTERS ENROLLED
 ADHD/LD students are 25% more likely to enroll
in more semesters compared to the RS (p<.01).
 On average ADHD/LD students (n=426) are
enrolled 2 more semesters than the RS
(n=3,854) (p<.01)
COLLEGE ACADEMIC
VARIABLES:
GPA & GRADUATION RATES
Sample
Comparisons
GENERAL COMPARISONS:
CUMULATIVE GPA (2002-2010)
Students with ADHD/LD have
significantly lower GPA’s than the
random sample (n= 9536, p<.01)
ADHD/LD: 2.76 (n=905)
RS: 3.11 (n=8,984)
GLOBAL GRADUATION RATES: COMPARING
ADHD/LD STUDENTS TO THE RS
 ADHD/LD students are significantly less likely to
graduate than students in the RS ( p<.01)
 ADHD/LD students graduate at a significantly lower
rate of 76% compared to students in the random
sample who graduate at 88%, x 2 (1, n=5,293) =
54.4, p = <.01.
 Compared to NLTS2 2009: 34% of disabled, 41% of LD, 40% of
OHI & 35% of ED had a 4 year degree 8 years af ter high
school versus 55% of general population
COMPARISONS:
GRADUATION RATES
2002-2006 Cohorts
21 ASP students who
graduated are neither
considered FR or TR, but
Special Degree Seeking
and are not shown on
this chart.
All Students
Percent Graduated
ADHD/LD
76%
(n=420)
RS
87%
(n=4,148)
FT Freshmen
Percent Graduated
ADHD/LD
77%
(n=329)
RS
88%
(n=3,391)
Transfer Students
Percent Graduated
ADHD/LD
82%
(n=70)
RS
85%
(n=757)
DIAGNOSES, GRADUATION &
SUB-POPULATIONS
Diagnosis (LD/ADHD/Both) does
not predict graduation
x 2(2, n=1490) = 0.09, p = .95
(not significant).
GRADUATION RATES & DISABILIT Y
(2002-2006 COHORTS)
All Students
Percent Graduated
ADHD
76%
(n=153)
LD
78%
(n=112)
Both
76%
(n=151)
First-time Freshmen
Percent Graduated
ADHD
76%
(n=126)
LD
78%
(n=83)
Both
75%
(n=117)
Transfer Students
Percent Graduated
ADHD
80%
(n=20)
LD
91%
(n=20)
Both
81%
(n=29)
AVERAGES OF GRADUATION RATES 1994-2006:
FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS
( F ROM T H E OF F I C E OF I N ST ITUTI ONAL RE SE ARC H DATA )
Averages
Within 4
Years
Within 5
Years
Within 6
Years
Within 10
Years
ADHD/LD
46.6%
71.8%
76.5%
82.5%
Cohort
74.3%
85.0%
86.7%
86.5%
Differences:
ADHD/LD
vs. Cohort
-27.7%
-13.2%
-10.2%
-4.0%
GLOBAL GRADUATION INFORMATION
Mean years to Graduation for 1 st time
freshmen:
ADHD/LD: 4.3 years (n=325)
RS: 4.0 years (n=4,42)
AVERAGES GRADUATION RATES 1994-2009:
JUNIOR TRANSFER STUDENTS
( F ROM T H E OF F I C E OF I N ST ITUTI ONAL RE SE ARC H DATA )
Within 2 years Within 3 years
Within 4 years
Averages
ADHD/LD
29.7%
71.8%
75.6%
Cohort
53.2%
78.1%
80.9%
Differences:
ADHD/LD vs.
Cohort
-23.5%
-6.3%
-5.3%
STUDENT GRADUATION RATES
ADHD/LD & STUDENT BODY(2002 COHORTS)
( TA K E N F R O M O I R 2 0 1 0 R E T E N T I O N S T U DY &
C O V E N A N T R E T E N T I O N A N D G R A D U AT I O N D ATA )
Population: 2002 & 2003 Cohorts Only
Graduation Rates: 5 and 6 year
averages
Parents with Bachelors or higher
90.3%
Not needy
90.1%
UNC
88.2%
Needy/no Pell Grant
85.9%
Parents with some college
82.3%
1st Gen (Parents with high school education or less)
79.9%
Pell Grant
78.9%
ADHD/LD
71.75%
COMPARING STUDENT GRADUATION RATES
ADHD/LD & OTHER MINORIT Y GROUPS
( TA K E N F R O M O I R 2 0 1 0 R E T E N T I O N S T U D Y
)
Group : 2002,& 2003 Cohorts Only
Graduation Rates: 5 and 6 year averages
Asian/Pac. Is.
89.3%
Hispanic
87.1%
Non-Resident
87.0%
Native American
84.2%
Black
77.8 %
ADHD/LD
71. 75 %
USE OF SERVICES
ADHD/LD SAMPLE
ADHD/LD SAMPLE: USE OF SERVICES
Numbers of sessions range from 1-94, (M=7,
SD=10)
 76% (n=1,115/1461) of all students cleared for
services return for at least one session.
 Males (75%, n=613) and females (77%, n=502)
return for services at about the same rate.
ADHD/LD: USE OF SERVICES
SAT
 Students who return for services (n=858) are
statistically more likely to have higher SATM & SAT V
scores (by 20 points; p<.01) than those who do not
return (n=277) (ttest).
 Amount of service use: students with higher GPAs
had more service contacts with learning specialists
(b = 1.76, p < .027) [Richman, 2013].
 Students who used services two or more times were
twice as likely to be dually diagnosed with ADHD/LD
(exp(β)=.52, p < .002)[Richman,2013].
USE & GRADUATION
(*DIFFERENCES NOT SIGNIFICANT)
Amount of Use
Graduated
0 or 1 session
76% (n=247)
2 to 5 sessions
80.66% (n=534)
6 or more sessions
84% (n=384)
SERVICE USE & GPA
(*DIFFERENCES NOT SIGNIFICANT*)
Amount of Use
Average GPA
No Service Use
2.7
Single Visit (for
Accommodations)
2.6
2 or more visits
2.8
LIMITATIONS
 Findings not generalizable to other settings
 Many variables were not included in our data analysis model
(e.g. SES, self-determination, age of diagnosis, resiliency,
accommodation use etc.)
 Data on sessions is limited due to missing data (30%) and
some may not be accurate
 Students in the ADHD/LD group self selected voluntarily
 May be others in the RS given research on low rate of disclosure in
college students with disabilities
 If so, the differences between groups many be even greater
SUMMARY
When compared to their non -disabled peers, college students with
ADHD/LD :
 Are an at-risk population and may not be graduate at the same
rate as their non-disabled peers.
 Are at even greater risk than other at -risk populations
 Are significantly more likely to experience unusual enrollment
patterns than their peers without ADHD/LD
 Are significantly less likely to graduate
 Take longer to graduate
 Have lower GPAs
 Students attending more sessions showed trends (not
significant) toward higher graduation rates;
 Students attending more sessions had significantly higher GPAs
(Richman, 2013)
IMPLICATIONS
 Additional studies are needed in dif ferent settings to see if
findings are consistent and to determine what factors
influence student success
 Need to identify and implement evidenced based practices at
the high school and college level
 Need to disseminate “at -risk” status for transitioning teens
to:
 Parents and teens
 College administrators setting policy and developing programming
for at-risk groups on campuses
 Need creative programming strategies to attract teens reluctant
to access services
Q &A
 Copy of edited slides: email tmaitlan@email.unc.edu
 Statistical/Methodological questions;
 Email me and I will get them to our Research Assistant: Erica
Richman
REFERENCES

Blasé, S. L., Gilbert, A. N., Anastopoulos, A. D., Costello, E., Hoyle, R. H., Swartzwelder, H., &
Rabiner, D. L. (2009). Self -Reported ADHD and adjustment in college: Cross -sectional and
longitudinal findings. Journal of Attention Disorders, 13 (3), 297-309.
doi:10.1177/1087054709334446

Canto, A., I., Proctor, B.E., & Prevatt, F. (2005). Educational outcomes of students first diagnosed
with learning disabilities in postsecondary school. Journal of College Admissions, 189. 8 -13

Frazier, T. W., Youngstrom, E. A., Glutting, J. J., & Watkins, M. W. (2007). ADHD and achievement:
Meta-analysis of the child, adolescent, and adult literatures and a concomitant study with college
students. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 40, 49-65. doi:10.1177/00222194070400010401

Greenbaum, B., Graham, S., & Scales, W. (1995). Adults with learning disabilities: Educational and
social experiences during college. Exceptional Children, 61(5), 460 -471.

Gregg, N. (2009). Adolescents and adults with learning disabilities and ADHD: Assessment and
accommodation. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Heiligenstein, E., Guenther, G., Levy, A., Savino, F., & Fulwiler, J. (1999). Psychological and
academic functioning in college students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of
American College Health, 47 (4), 181-185. doi:10.1080/07448489909595644

Horn, L., Berktold, J., & Bobbitt, L. (1999). Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: a
profile of preparation, participation and outcomes. Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis
Reports. U.S. Department of Education: National Center for Education Statistics.
 H u g e r, M a r i a n n e , ( 2 0 0 9 ) . T h e Re te n t i o n o f C o l l e g e S t u d e n t s w i t h L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s . A
D i s s e r t a t i o n S u b m i t t e d to T h e Fa c u l t y o f T h e G r a d u a t e S c h o o l o f E d u c a t i o n a n d H u m a n
D e v e l o p m e n t o f T h e G e o r g e Wa s h i n g t o n U n i v e r s i t y i n p a r t i a l f u l fi l l m e n t o f t h e
r e q u i r e m e n t s fo r t h e d e g r e e o f D o c to r o f E d u c a t i o n .
 J o r g e n s e n , S . , F i c h te n , C . S . , H av e l , A . , L a m b , D . , J a m e s , C . , & B a r i l e , M . ( 2 0 0 3 ) .
S t u d e n t s w i t h a n d w i t h o u t d i s a b i l i t i e s a t D aw s o n C o l l e g e g r a d u a t e a t t h e s a m e r a te .
J o u r n a l f o r Vo c a t i o n a l S p e c i a l N e e d s E d u c a t i o n , 2 5 ( 2 - 3 ) , 4 4 - 4 6 .
 M u r r ay, C . , G o l d s t e i n , D . E . , N o u r s e , S . , & E d g a r, E . ( 2 0 0 0 ) . T h e p o s t s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l
a t te n d a n c e a n d c o m p l e t i o n r a te s o f h i g h s c h o o l g r a d u a t e s w i t h l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s .
L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s R e s e a r c h & P r a c t i c e , 15 ( 3 ) , 1 1 9 - 1 27.
 R i c h m a n , E . ( 2 01 3 ) . T h e Ac a d e m i c S u c c e s s o f C o l l e g e S t u d e n t s w i t h A D H D / L D . A
D i s s e r t a t i o n S u b m i t t e d to t h e Fa c u l t y o f T h e G r a d u a t e S c h o o l o f S o c i a l Wo r k a t U N C
C h a p e l H i l l i n p a r t i a l f u l fi l l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s fo r t h e d e g r e e o f a D o c to r o f S o c i a l
Wo r k .
 Vo g e l , S . , & Ad e l m a n , P. ( 1 9 9 2 ) . T h e s u c c e s s o f c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s w i t h l e a r n i n g
d i s a b i l i t i e s : Fa c to r s r e l a te d to e d u c a t i o n a l a t t a i n m e n t . J o u r n a l o f L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s ,
2 5 , 4 3 0 - 4 41
 We s s e l , R . , D . , J o n e s , J . A . , M a r k l e , L . , We s t f a l l , C . ( 2 0 0 9 ) . Re te n t i o n a n d g r a d u a t i o n o f
s t u d e n t s w i t h d i s a b i l i t i e s : Fa c i l i t a t i n g s t u d e n t s u c c e s s . J o u r n a l o f P o s t s e c o n d a r y
E d u c a t i o n a n d D i s a b i l i t y, 21 ( 3 ) , 116 - 1 24 .