Multidimensional Disability Attitudes and
Equitable Evaluation of Educational
Accommodations by College Students
Without Disabilities
Thomas D. Upton
Southern Illinois University-Carbondale
Dennis C. Harper
The University of Iowa
Abstract
Disability attitudes can impact how people with disabilities are perceived and responded to by
college peers both within and outside the classroom setting. This study investigated specific and
multidimensional disability attitudes of college students without disabilities at a large midwestern
university. We assessed general attitudes toward college educational accommodations, student perceptions
of selected types of educational accommodation for selected disabilities, and the relationship of these
variables to gender and level of college study. Survey data gathered from 852 university students were
analyzed to determine their reported general disability attitudes and their view of the provision of
educational accommodations to their peers with selected disabilities. Results indicated that college
students’ general attitudes toward college educational accommodations varied significantly across gender;
more females than males reported favorable attitudes toward providing classroom accommodations to
students with disabilities. Also, participants perceived selected disabilities on a relatively stable continuum
of “accommodation deservedness.” Frequency of need for educational accommodation and number of
required accommodations quantified relative “accommodation deservedness” across presented
disabilities. Additionally, student evaluation of selected types of classroom accommodations varied
significantly across both gender and year of college study. Plausible explanations for differences based on
gender, level of college study, and accommodation deservedness are discussed. Data-based implications
for disability support professionals and postsecondary institutions are suggested.
Inclusion of “otherwise qualified” college students with disabilities, as mandated by Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, continues to be a controversial topic in educational research and collegiate
administrative practice. Traditionally, postsecondary collegiate institutions have attempted to promote
inclusion of students with all types of disabilities by providing of disability-specific educational
accommodations (Richard, Finkel & Cohen, 1998; Scott, 1990). While it has been recognized and accepted
that timely and appropriate educational accommodations (i.e., alternative learning materials, extended time
on exams, etc.) are important to academic success, accommodations within the college classroom often
encompass a variety of implications, both positive and negative, to the student recipients as well as their
classmates.
Since attitudes are relevant links to behavior (Antonak & Livneh, 1989; Chubon, 1992; Fazio,
Towles-Schwen, 1999), it is important to evaluate and to define existing disability attitudes in our colleges
across the United States. Historically, disability attitude inquiry has reported varying disability attitudes
among differing groups of people (largely college students) based on age, gender, level of education,
professional choice/affiliation, and amount of previous disability contact (Yuker & Block, 1986; Yuker &
Hurley, 1987). For example, college students with more previous and direct disability contact through
personal or work experience have reported more favorable attitudes toward persons with disabilities
(Anderson & Antonak, 1992; Barrett & Pullo, 1993; Yuker, 1992). These scholars examined and reported
largely negative disability attitudes of general undergraduates, rehabilitation undergraduates, and collective
data from undergraduates and graduates, respectively. Gender, age, higher level of education, and type of
disability contact have also been linked to disability attitudes (Jones, Farina, Markus, Miller, & French,
1984).
Since 1960, volumes of disability attitude data have been generated using Yuker’s Attitude Toward
Disabled Persons (ATDP) scale, which unidimensionally quantifieds how respondents viewed persons with
disabilities as a group (Yuker & Block, 1986). Contemporary researchers (Antonak & Livneh, 1989;
Linkowski, 1994; Livneh & Antonak, 1994) have debated the accuracy of this unidimensional disability
attitude measure in quantifying more contemporary disability attitudes. Specifically they postulate that
disability attitudes are multidimensional (have multiple components and interactions in varying contexts)
and should be accurately quantified as such.
The Scale of Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons (SADP) was created as a relatively brief
contemporary assessment of multidimensional disability attitudes (Antonak, 1982, 1992). Respondent
disability attitude data have been generated on this instrument from many groups, including high school
students (Fiedler & Simpson, 1987); college students (Antonak & Livneh, 1989; Beattie, Anderson, &
Antonak, 1997); parents of children with disabilities (Gilbride, 1993), and human services professionals
(Benham, 1988). These studies quantified the existence of negative disability attitudes and in some
instances tried to enhance study participants’ disability attitudes.
College-level disability attitudes need to be examined for several reasons. First, postsecondary
institutions and educators would benefit by understanding how this growing group of students are viewed
and responded to by their peers without disabilities. Such information has multiple implications for
collegiate administrators, disability support professionals, faculty, and students. Such an investigation may
also heighten awareness of key disability attitude components and their impact in the college classroom.
Lastly, a better understanding of disability attitudes of peers may serve to focus educators’ attention on
these emerging issues and provide relevant data to inform comprehensive institutional disability
educational policies on student rights and responsibilities. In addition, such data may provide an empirical
basis for sound decision making and practice.
We hypothesized that understanding and responding to students with disabilities receiving
educational accommodation was likely related to several areas: (a) general attitudes toward disability, (b)
specific attitudes toward particular classroom accommodations for students with disabilities, and (c)
preferences, both positive and negative, toward particular disabilities as well.
We selected the SAPD (Antonak, 1982) as a multidimensional measure of disability attitude. In
addition, we designed and piloted measures of specific attitude and preference toward college students’
particular classroom accommodations. Educational accommodations presented were determined by existing
collegiate policy and available classroom accommodations on the authors’ college campus. Scenarios of the
most frequently observed students with disabilities (cerebral palsy, visual impairment, brain injury, hearing
impairment, learning disability, arthritis, diabetes, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, spinal cord
injury, manic-depression, depression, and spina bifida), as confirmed by data reported by the Office of
Student Disability Services in 1999-2000, were used to construct educational accommodation scenarios.
General disability attitudes and three distinct dimensions of these attitudes among college students
were examined with regard to gender and year of college study. General attitudes toward college
educational accommodations and the evaluation of 10 comprehensive types of educational accommodation
were examined with regard to the variables of gender and year of college study. Participant responses to 12
specific disability scenarios (based on existing disabilities) suggested how deserving of educational
accommodation participants might view particular students with specific disabilities. The purpose of the
investigation was to examine what college students report as their general and specific disability attitudes
and how they view the provision of educational accommodations to their peers with disability.
Method
The study used a multidimensional disability attitude measure, the SAPD Form R (Antonak, 1992),
to quantify current postsecondary general disability attitudes of college students toward peers with selected
disabilities. A specific measure of attitudes toward accommodation was designed to provide more detailed
and specific disability attitude information as well. In addition, disability-specific attitudes were examined
with regard to the relative accommodation deservedness of existing disabilities.
Participants
The sample consisted of 937 students enrolled at a large midwestern university in the fall of 1999 and
the spring of 2000. Participant volunteers were 76.8% female and 23.2% male. For level (year) of college
study, participants were reported as freshman (5.5%), sophomore (19.3%), junior (23.7%), senior (44.1%),
and graduate student (7%). Participants’ culture of origin was mostly Caucasian (approximately 94%
White, not of Hispanic/Latino origin). The total sample was recruited from classes in the following
colleges: Education, n = 214; Liberal Arts, n = 361; Nursing, n = 243; and Engineering, n = 34. Only data
from those not reporting a disability were included (N = 852). (Information about the 71 students with
disabilities who completed the evaluations will be reported in a future study.)
Materials
Initially, participants completed a demographic information form, which provided age, gender, level
of college study, and previous disability knowledge (see Table 1). The Scale of Attitudes Toward Disabled
Persons (SAPD Form R; Antonak, 1992) quantified multidimensional disability attitudes. Specifically,
general attitudes toward college educational accommodation were measured with a 7-item Likert type
measure assessing how favorably participants responded to students with disabilities accessing
postsecondary educational accommodations (see Table 2). Also, 10 specific types of educational
accommodation were evaluated with regard to students’ perceptions of how equitably (with regard to all
students) these types of accommodation could be provided to students with disabilities (see Table 3).
Lastly, participants responded to 12 disability-specific college classroom scenarios.
Table 1
Personal Information Form
______________________________________________________________________________________
Form A
Subject No.___
(1) Today’s date: __ / __ / __
(2) Age last birthday __
(3) __ Male __Female
(4) Check one:
__Alaskan Native or American Indian (tribal/nation affiliation) _____________
__African American/Black
__Hispanic/Latino(a)
___Asian or Pacific Islander
__White, not of Hispanic/Latino origin
__Other(please list)________________
(5) College level classification (check only one)
__Freshman
__Sophomore
__Junior
__Senior
__Other (specify)__________
(6)Undergraduate Major __________________________________
Definition of disability:
This study defines disability as “having a mental or physical impairment (difference) that substantially
limits one or more major life activities, having a record of such an impairment or being regarded as having
such an impairment”(this includes physical, psychiatric, psychological, and emotional disabilities).
(7) Do you have a disability?_______ If yes, have you reported this to university officials? _____
(8) Do you know a person or persons with a disability? _______ If yes, what type of relationship do you
have with this person or persons? (check all that apply)
__Spouse
__Child
__Sibling
__Relative (explain)___________
__Client
__Patient
__Student
__Employee
__Neighbor
__Friend
__Acquaintance (explain)___________________________________________
__Other (explain)__________________________________________________
(9) Please rate your general knowledge of the conditions and life circumstances of persons with a disability
(as defined above) by circling the appropriate number.
No Knowledge
Extensive Knowledge
1
2
3
4
5
6
(10) Please estimate the frequency of your contact with persons with a disability (as defined above) by
circling the appropriate number.
Less than once per month Once per month
Weekly
Daily
1
2
3
4
(11) Please rate the intensity (closeness of personal relationship) with persons with disability (as
defined above), regardless of the frequency of that contact by circling the appropriate number.
Not At All Intense
1
2
Very Intense
3
4
5
6
These scenarios reflected the most frequent disabilities present on the college campus. Each scenario
included a disability type, described three functional limitations, and asked participants to make two
choices. First, participants were asked if the college student in the scenario deserved educational
accommodation. If the answer was affirmative, participants were to select the necessary types of
accommodation. If negative, participants were to continue completing the survey materials. A
representative scenario for a college student with a learning disability is presented in Table 4.
The 12 disability scenarios consisted of two forms, each presenting of six scenarios (four physicalbody and two brain-based; cognitive or emotional. Each student completed rankings of six scenarios.
Forms were counterbalanced by disability type and the order of scenarios was randomized within forms in
the administration to students. Also, survey material forms were alternated during data collection.
Table 2
General Attitudes toward College Educational
Accommodation
______________________________________________________________________________________
Responding to these items about college educational accommodation and the following scenarios requires
that respondents clearly understand what disability and educational accommodation mean. This study
defines disability as “having a mental or physical impairment (difference) that substantially limits one or
more major life activities, having a record of such an impairment or being regarded as having such an
impairment” (this includes physical, psychiatric, psychological, and emotional disabilities). Educational
accommodation is defined as “the provision of any educational support that is needed for the person with a
disability to access, learn, and benefit from educational services alongside peers without disability.”
Directions: Please read the following items and circle the number you view as the best answer. For these
items use the following key:
1 = strongly disagree; 2 = slightly disagree, 3 = slightly agree; and 4 = strongly agree.
1.
Educational accommodations should be provided to college students with disabilities.
1
2
3
4
2.
Providing college educational accommodations to students with disabilities is fair to all students.
1
2
3
4
3.
Persons with disabilities should attend college if they want to.
1
2
3
4
4.
College students whose disability negatively impacts their lives should be provided with educational
accommodations.
1
2
3
4
5.
College students with a personal history of disability should have access to educational
accommodations.
1
2
3
4
6.
College students diagnosed with a disability who have physical limitations should be provided with
educational accommodations.
1
2
3
4
7.
College students diagnosed with a disability who have cognitive limitations (mental and/or
learning deficiencies) should be provided with educational accommodations.
1
2
3
4
Table 3
Equitable Evaluation of Selected Types of Accommodations
______________________________________________________________________________________
Please assume that the following types of educational accommodation are available at The University
of Iowa. Rate how fair you view the provision of the following types of educational accommodation to
college students with disabilities with regard to all students at the University of Iowa by circling the
number that best corresponds with your view. For this item use the following key:
1 = unfair, 2 = somewhat unfair, 3 = somewhat fair, 4 = fair.
Testing Alternatives (for example, extended time for tests or alternative test formats)
1
2
3
4
Assistive Technology (for example, closed captioning or voice-activated computer)
1
2
3
4
Alternative Instructional Materials (for example, read text for student or books on tape)
1
2
3
4
Classroom Flexibility (for example, flexible test schedule or flexible due dates for assignments)
1
2
3
4
Learning Aids (for example, note takers or additional faculty assistance)
1
2
3
4
Special Administrative Privileges (for example, priority registration or late withdrawal--after
deadlines)
1
2
3
4
Course Substitution (for example, course substitution for foreign language requirement or course
substitution for math requirement)
1
2
3
4
Disability-Specific Needs (for example, eat during class to control glucose level or alternate seating and
standing to manage pain)
1
2
3
4
Referral to University Support Services (for example, referral to university counseling services or
referral to university tutoring service)
1
2
3
4
Different Grading Criteria (oral reports in place of written reports or take home exams instead of inclass exams)
1
2
3
4
__________________________________________________________________________________
Procedure
Students were recruited and participated as follows. After Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval
of the study, interested faculty were identified by multiple solicitations to obtain their permission to recruit
study participants in their classes. This process required presenting an overview of the study, recruitment of
interested participants, as well as completion and collection of the survey data. Those interested in
participating completed the materials during class time under supervision. Participants were requested to
respond to all survey items, which took approximately 25 minutes. Subjects were debriefed regarding the
study’s purposes following completion of all instruments.
Instruments
Data measuring multidimensional disability attitudes were gathered using the 24-item Scale of
Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons,
Table 4
Disability-Specific Scenario
______________________________________________________________________________________
A fellow college student in a large general education class complains that he did poorly on his first exam
and may withdraw from the class. This person tells you that he has a diagnosed learning disability. This
condition prevents him from fully comprehending written information. Consequently, he does not complete
course reading prior to lectures. This in turn hinders his prelearning of the material and from staying
focused during the lectures. This student visits the professor and asks for educational accommodation due
to his learning disability. Please indicate if this student, in your opinion, deserves educational
accommodations.
___In my view this student does not deserve educational accommodation
___In my view this student deserves educational accommodation. More specifically, which of the
following potential types of educational accommodation does he deserve?
[Note: Place an “X” next to the deserved types of educational accommodation. If more than three
types of accommodation are deserved, place an “X” next to each deserved type of educational
accommodation and circle the Xs of the three most important types of educational accommodation.]
___1. Testing Alternatives (for example, extended time for tests or alternative test formats)
___2. Assistive Technology (for example, closed captioning or voice-activated computer)
___3. Alternative Instructional Materials (for example, Braille texts or books on tape)
___4. Classroom Flexibility (for example, flexible due dates for assignments or flexible class attendance
policy)
___5. Learning Aids (for example, additional faculty assistance or copy of faculty notes)
___6. Special Administrative Privileges (for example, priority registration, late withdrawal--after
deadlines)
___7. Course Substitution (for example, course substitution for foreign language requirement or
course substitution for math requirement)
___8. Disability-Specific Needs (for example, unannounced classroom exits due to limited bladder control
or alternate sitting and standing to manage pain)
___9. Referral to University Support Services (for example, referral to university counseling services or
university tutoring services)
___10. Different Grading Criteria (for example, oral reports instead of written reports or take-home exams
instead of in-class exams)
Form R (SADP Form R; Antonak, 1992). This instrument, developed in 1982 (updated in 1992) to assess
multidimensional disability attitudes, is a reliable instrument (Spearman-Brown reliability of .81) with
internally consistent (alpha of .88) test items. Factor analysis identified three distinct components,
Pessimism-Hopelessness, Behavioral Misconceptions, and Optimism-Human Rights, which contributed
67%, 18%, and 15%, respectively, of the common variance (Antonak, 1982). Four scores were used from
this measure. The total SAPD score reflected respondents’ view of persons with disabilities as a group,
whereas the subscales provided quantifiable data on the three components of disability attitudes. Higher
scores on all these data points indicated more favorable disability attitudes according to standard test
interpretation.
General attitudes toward college educational accommodation were measured using a seven item, 4point Likert-type scale developed for the study (see Table 2). This internally consistent measure (alpha of
.942) was constructed to quantify respondents’ general attitudes regarding providing of educational
accommodations to college students with disabilities. Samples items include: Educational accommodations
should be provided to college students with disabilities, Providing college educational accommodations to
students with disabilities is fair to all students, and Persons with disabilities should go to college if they
want to. Participants rated items from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree. Items were designed to
define participants’ general views of the provision of educational accommodations to their peers with
selected disabilities. The data were developed and piloted with the aid of collegiate faculty (multiple
departments) familiar with accommodations, students with disabilities, and graduate-level rehabilitation
counseling students. Twenty-five graduate counseling students completed the materials as a pilot study,
providing constructive feedback. Changes in the directions and measures were made reflecting this
feedback. Total scores on the measure ranged from 7 to 28, with higher scores reflecting more favorable
attitudes toward the provision of postsecondary educational accommodations.
Students’ perceptions of equitable evaluations of 10 types of accommodation were quantified using
measure (alpha internal consistency of .841) that was constructed to quantify how equitable the provision
of 10 comprehensive types of educational accommodation was viewed with regard to all students with
disabilities (see Figure 3 for representative items and format). These data were developed and piloted with
the aid of collegiate faculty familiar with accommodations, students with disabilities, and graduate-level
rehabilitation counseling students. These 10 types of accommodation represented a comprehensive list of
potential educational accommodations (e.g., testing alternatives, assistive technology, and referral to
university support services) based on existing institutional policy. These items were rated from 1 = unfair to
4 = fair. Potential scores ranged from 10 to 40, with higher scores indicating more equitable evaluation of
the types of educational accommodation.
Disability-specific scenarios provided a way to assess how student participants viewed specific
disabilities and accommodations within a classroom context. Two specific areas were assessed. Initially,
we were interested in how deserving of accommodations participants viewed all the presented disabilities.
Affirmative scenario responses, indicating the college student with a particular disability in a scenario
deserved a particular accommodation, provided relative ranks for the disability scenarios. Those with
higher affirmative percentages were viewed operationally as more deserving. Additionally, the sum of
“yes, deserves accommodation” and total number of selected necessary accommodations provided another
means for defining what participants viewed as more deserving disability scenarios. This total number of
selected accommodations, Total Accommodation Index (TAI), was computed across all disability
scenarios. Mean number of selected accommodations, compared across disabilities, provided another way
to ascertain how deserving participants viewed the specific disabilities in relation to all disabilities.
Data Analyses
Descriptive analyses, independent t-test procedures, and one-way ANOVAs were completed to
analyze all test measures and subject variables. Specifically, we examined general disability attitudes, three
particular dimensions of disability attitudes, general attitudes toward college educational accommodation,
and how equitable evaluation of types of accommodation varied among gender and level of college study.
Lastly, descriptive analyses on the disability specific scenarios were completed. Percentages of “yes,
deserves accommodation” and the Total Accommodation Indexes (TAIs) across disability type were
tabulated as well.
Results
College Students’ General Disability Attitudes
Gender and general attitude. Total SAPD scores were examined to obtain an indication of the
participants’ general attitudes toward persons with disabilities as a group. Gender total means of the SAPD
were 113.48 and 109.38 for females and males, respectively. This difference was significant (t (845) = 3.93, p £ .001). Gender differences from the Pessimism-Hopelessness subscale of the SAPD were 29.96
and 29.26 for females and males, respectively, and were not significant (t (845) = -1.76, p £ .079). Gender
data from the Behavioral Misconceptions subscale were 31.33 and 29.64 for females and males,
respectively, and this difference was significant (t (845 ) = -3.42, p £ .001). Finally, gender differences on
the Optimism-Human Rights subscale were 52.20 and 49.48 for the females and males, respectively; this
difference was also significant (t (845) = -3.97, p £ .001). In sum, two of the three identified components of
a student’s multidimensional disability attitude scale varied between genders.
Year of college and general attitude toward disability. Mean general attitudes toward disability
varied as follows: freshman = 109.63, sophomore = 105.87, junior = 114.01, senior = 113.06, and graduate
student = 121.07. Relationships between level of college study and general attitudes were examined using
one-way ANOVA procedures. Total SAPD scores analyzed by level of college study was found to be
statistically significant, (F(4,844) = 13.03, p £ .001). Scheffe post-hoc analysis revealed that graduate
student total SAPD means were significantly higher than all other groups; seniors were higher than
sophomores; and juniors were higher than sophomores.
Year of college and specific attitude toward disability. Pessimism-Hopelessness means varied across
level of college study as follows: freshman = 28.79, sophomore = 28.16, junior = 30.27, senior = 30.09, and
graduate student = 31.19. These differences were significant, (F(4,844) = 7.64, p £ .001). Scheffe post-hoc
analysis indicated that all groups significantly differed from each other except freshmen and sophomores.
Behavioral Misconceptions means varied across level of college study as follows: freshman = 29.71,
sophomore = 28.67, junior = 31.14, senior = 31.41, and graduate student = 34.23 (see Table 2). Statistical
differences among level of college study also differed significantly (F(4,844) = 11.84, p £ .001). Scheffe
post-hoc analysis revealed that graduate students reported significant differences on the Behavioral
Misconception subscale than all other groups. In addition, senior and junior responses were significantly
different than sophomores.
Similarly, the Optimism-Human Rights mean data varied across levels: freshman = 51.13, sophomore
= 49.04, junior = 52.61, senior = 51.56, and graduate student = 55.66. Again, these differences were
statistically different across levels of college study (F(4,844) = 8.33, p £ .001). Scheffe post-hoc analysis
documented significant differences. Specifically, significant differences were found between graduate
students and both seniors and sophomores; between seniors and sophomores; and between juniors and
sophomores. In sum, data on each of the subscales of the SAPD varied significantly when analyzed with
respect to level of college study.
Attitude Toward Provision of Educational Accommodations
Data addressing the attitude of college students toward educational classroom accommodations were
quantified from two sources developed for this study. General attitude toward college educational
accommodation and students’ perception of equitable evaluation of accommodation assessed general
attitude regarding postsecondary accommodations and how equitable provision of types of accommodation
were viewed by all students. Data were analyzed using these measures with respect to gender and level of
college study.
Gender and provision of accommodation. Gender means for general attitudes toward college
educational accommodation were 25.74 and 24.91 for females and males, respectively. This difference was
statistically significant (t (845) = -2.40, p = .017). Gender means for equitable evaluation of types of
accommodation were 33.50 and 32.04 for females and males, respectively; also statistically significant (t
(845) = -3.90, p £ .001). Both measures examining students’ general attitude toward college educational
accommodation and equitable evaluation of types of accommodation significantly varied with regard to
gender.
Year of college study and accommodation equity. Participant level of college study was examined
with regard to general attitudes toward college educational accommodation. Means were as follows:
freshman 25.37; sophomore 25.25; junior 25.66; senior 25.63, and graduate student 25.61. These
differences were not statistically significant (F(4,844) = .305, p = .88). Hence further analysis was
warranted.
An examination of students’ perceptions of equitable evaluation of accommodations for level of
college study resulted in the following calculated means: freshman 31.53; sophomore 31.49; junior 33.94;
senior 33.32; and graduate student 35.49. These mean differences were statistically different, (F(4,844) =
12.73, p £ .001). Scheffe post-hoc analysis documented statistical differences among graduate students and
seniors, sophomores, and freshmen; between seniors and sophomores; and between juniors, and both
sophomores and freshmen. These analyses indicated that level of college study was related to students’
equitable evaluation of accommodations, but did not impact their general attitudes toward college
educational accommodation.
Disability-Specific Findings
Relative deservedness of accommodations across disabilities. Relative percentages of “yes,
deserves accommodation” were calculated across all students (Form A and Form B, 423 and 429
participants, respectively). Relative disability ratings were summed and reported together in Table 5. These
data revealed that students with blindness (98.4%), cerebral palsy (97.4%), brain injury (96.9%), and
hearing impairment (95.1%) were most frequently selected as deserving educational accommodations in the
college classroom.
Mean number of accommodations across disabilities. Participants who endorsed a need for
accommodation for a given type of disability were asked to select which of the 10 types of educational
accommodations were needed for each student with a particular disability. Collective total of “yes, deserves
accommodation” and selected types of accommodation were then computed across scenarios and quantified
as the Total Accommodation Indexes (TAIs) for each disability scenario. The mean TAIs across disabilities
were calculated as another method and as a rank of the “most deserving” disabilities by the students. An
examination of mean TAI scores showed that students with cerebral palsy (4.871), blindness (4.497), brain
injury (4.185), and hearing impairment (3.872) were reported as being the most deserving of receiving
more educational accommodation compared to other disabilities (see Table 6).
Discussion
This study explored attitudes of college students toward students with selected disabilities and related
educational accommodations. Findings indicate that females consistently reported more positive general
and specific disability attitudes than males, and were more in favor of providing educational
accommodations to students with disabilities than were their male counterparts. Specifically, females rated
educational options more favorably and recommended they be offered more frequently. This finding
concurs with previous disability attitude studies (Antonak & Livneh, 1989; Yuker & Block, 1986; Yuker &
Hurley, 1987) supporting the contention that females generally respond more favorably and positively than
males to persons with all types of disabilities. Similarly, more positive female disability attitudes were
reported on the SAPD subscales of Pessimism-Hopelessness, Behavioral Misconceptions, and OptimismHuman Rights.
Table 5
Accommodation Deservedness of College Educational Accommodations
______________________________________________________________________________________
Disability
Form n
% yes Disability
Form n
% yes
______________________________________________________________________________________
Blindness
B
423
98.4
Diabetes
A
366
86.9
Cerebral palsy
A
410
97.4
ADHD
B
358
83.4
Brain injury
B
412
96.0
Spinal cord injury
B
357
83.4
Hearing impairment
A
402
95.1
Manic depression
A
326
77.6
Arthritis
B
406
94.4
Depression
B
328
76.5
Learning disability
A
367
87.6
Spina bifida
A
186
44.3
______________________________________________________________________________________
Table 6
Mean Total Accommodation Index (TAI) Across Disabilities
______________________________________________________________________________________
Disability
Total Accommodation Index (TAI)
M
______________________________________________________________________________________
Most deserving
Cerebral palsy
4.871
Blindness
4.497
Brain injury
4.185
Hearing impairment
3.827
Learning disability
3.717
Arthritis
3.464
Diabetes
3.217
ADHD
3.089
Spinal cord injury
2.948
Manic depression
2.607
Depression
2.363
Least deserving
Spina bifida
1.135
______________________________________________________________________________________
Gender findings may be related to traditional female gender role socialization, whereby females tend
to be nurturers and more concerned for the welfare of others compared to males (Lamanna & Riedmann,
1994). Also, the larger number of nursing, education, and liberal arts students who participated in this study
may have presented positive preference toward individuals with disabilities due to their educational
affiliation.
Additionally, data outcomes from the total SAPD score, SAPD subscales (PessimismHopelessness, Behavioral Misconceptions, and Optimism-Human Rights), and evaluation of types of
educational accommodation are new contributions to the disability attitude literature. Generally results
suggest that those enrolled in higher levels of college study responded more favorably with regard to
persons with disabilities. Significant differences on these five measures with regard to level of college
study present interesting data to consider. For example, it is uncertain whether enhanced attitudes are a
result of specific training, life experience, personal maturation, specific contact with students with
disabilities, or are due to some other unknown factor or combination.
It appears that attitudes toward postsecondary educational accommodation were impacted by how
equitable or fair differing accommodations were considered to be with regard to all college students.
Trends whereby females and those in higher levels of college study evaluated the types of accommodation
more favorably were identified. Three random participant interviews following data collection supported
the contention that offering accommodations was based on the visibility of the disability, explicit
connection with need for educational accommodations, and relative fairness of providing selected
classroom accommodations. Participant responses seem to have resulted in support for the provision of
educational accommodation to those with more severe and obtrusive physical disabilities.
Related findings regarding “accommodation deservedness” of students with presented disabilities are
noteworthy. Data from Tables 5 and 6 highlight how students with blindness, cerebral palsy, head injury,
and hearing impairment were found to be most deserving of classroom accommodations. Alternately,
students with spinal cord injury, manic depression, depression, and spina bifida were consistently reported
as least deserving of accommodations. These rankings can be understood in a number of ways. Participants
were expected to attribute a need/no need for educational accommodations after reading disability scenarios
that included a disability label and three respective functional limitations. The scenarios provided minimal
information upon which participants attributed the relative accommodation deservedness. Initially, it
appeared that the college students deemed most deserving of accommodation were described as having
disabilities with physical implications (blindness, cerebral palsy, and hearing impairment). The more
dissimilar a student with a disability was viewed (from one’s self—usually more severely disabled) the
more likely an accommodation was affirmed. Also, each of the disabilities selected were very obvious and
potentially debilitating. The spina bifida scenario was an exception and may be explained by the fact that
participants did not attribute orthopedic and social limitations as educationally impairing. Cognitive
impairment sometimes associated with spina bifida was not presented as a functional limitation in this
scenario and this may account for the relatively low percentage (44.3%) of participants attributing the need
for educational accommodation. Across scenarios nearly 75% of the college disability scenarios were
attributed as deserving accommodation. This was surprisingly high and may be explained by the attitude
literature (Jones et al., 1984) on disability preference, which has suggested that individuals without
disabilities are more “giving” and positive toward those with disabilities that are more severe and most
visibly obvious.
The four disability scenarios converged as most deserving using two quantification methods;
however, the reasoning behind this ordering is uncertain. It is possible that participants used the attribution
process of “spread” (Dembo, Levinton, & Wright, 1956; Wright,1983), whereby the power of a single
characteristic, in this case disability label and its attendant image, can lead to other directed inferences
about the persons. If participants were most aware of the four most deserving disabilities, then “spread” is
likely to markedly diminish the functional abilities of students with such a disability influencing
participants to attribute a strong need for accommodation deservedness. Alternatively, it is probable that
participants had minimal knowledge of the selected disabilities and responded to these scenarios based
upon their individually held beliefs and, in some cases, stereotypes. Recent researchers (Fichten, Robillard,
Judd, & Ansel, 1989; Kelly, Sedlacek, & Scales, 1994) presented data showing that students without
disabilities stereotypically perceived the personality traits of their peers with disabilities which may have
extended to the attributed need for educational accommodations. Thus, previously developed disability
stereotypes or beliefs may have guided participant responses. Clearly, ambiguity about an individual can
have both positive and negative consequences.
Further research may consider individual responsibility (origin and causation) for disability and
investigate the perception that educational accommodations unfairly favor their recipients over peers.
Weiner (1993) showed how perceived personal responsibility for disability decreased others’ desire to
assist these people. Perhaps participants responded unfavorably to disabilities for which they perceived the
onset as being potentially related to personal behaviors. Also, it seems reasonable that increased life
experiences may eliminate, or at least reduce, the perceived threat of unfair educational advantage with the
provision of specific accommodations. Perhaps this may explain why accommodations were reported as
more equitable by students at higher levels of college study.
Limitations
Several limitations of this study are noted. First, voluntary, convenience sampling may have
limited the generalizability of our findings. Also, a disproportionate number of females in the sample may
have provided a more positive view of disability attitudes. Study participants were 76% female, whereas
females comprised 53 % of the student body (University Registrar, 1999). The lack of cultural/racial
diversity is another limitation. The sample included about 6% of subjects from a single postsecondary
campus, who were not from the majority Caucasian culture. Non-White study participation was 6.1%
whereas non-White enrollment described 9.1% of the student body (University Registrar, 1999). Finally,
we need to know more about the life history of students relating to their views and contacts with particular
disabilities.
A related concern is that persons may have reported socially desirable answers to the survey
questions. Future studies may want to include a social desirability measure to control for such type of
responses. Attempts to limit these responses based solely on social desirability were undertaken.
Specifically, no participant names or other identifying information were included on data collection
materials, data were to only be reported in a group format, and participants were assured that no attempts to
identify individual participants and responses would be made.
Replication of this study including more comprehensive disability contact data from students,
faculty, and administrators would be beneficial. Increasing our understanding of collegiate disability
attitudes and their relationship to educational accommodation is necessary so that educators can better
educate all students, including those with disabilities. Although postsecondary institutions have a history of
providing educational accommodations for students with particular disabilities, we need to understand the
context of these provisions and their impact on the education of all students.
Implications
Study data confirm the following. First, female participants and those in more advanced levels of
college study responded more favorably to persons with disabilities. Additionally, participants indicated
they perceived students with visible disabilities (e.g, students with blindness, deafness, and cerebral palsy)
as most deserving of educational accommodation, whereas students with invisible disabilities (e.g., students
with ADHD, depression, and manic depression) were designated as least deserving of accommodation.
These disability-specific findings are perplexing and prompt the question, “What did these postsecondary
students consider a ‘real’ disability?” As attitudes guide other behavior, variations in general and disabilityspecific attitudes among students without disabilities must be addressed to ensure acceptable peer
interactions among postsecondary students without disabilities and their peers with disabilities.
To this end, comprehensive disability education throughout the postsecondary educational
environment is needed. Several constituents may be involved in such education. First, administrators must
play a key role in supporting student and faculty orientation (including legal rights and responsibilities of
students with disabilities), sponsoring universitywide disability education, offering a general education
disability course, and training faculty to reasonably accommodate “qualified” students with disabilities. As
institutional representatives, administrators have a legal responsibility to make educational services
accessible to all “qualified” students at their institutions.
Additionally, disability support professionals serving students with disabilities will likely be called
upon to facilitate more favorable institutional (faculty, staff, and students) disability attitudes. These
professionals have comprehensive knowledge of medical, psychological, social, and educational intricacies
related to contemporary disabilities. This knowledge can benefit the institution in a number of ways. First
and foremost, these professionals can continue providing appropriate educational accommodation to ensure
that college students with disabilities are able to access and benefit from postsecondary education alongside
their peers without disabilities. Maintaining such a focus can positively model disability-sensitive behavior.
In addition, a more active role in educating the college community about specific disabilities, the legal
rights and responsibilities of students with disabilities, and postsecondary responsibilities to educating all
“qualified” students will be useful. Comprehensive institutional education may take several forms. For
example, disability support professionals may promote ongoing universitywide disability awareness
training, sponsor disability scholars to speak on contemporary disability issues, or develop experientially
based disability training provided by college students with disabilities.
Furthermore, faculty are a potential source of student disability education, as they have a
responsibility to best serve all students. For example, it may be sound policy to address the rights and
responsibilities of students with disabilities at the beginning of and throughout a course. Faculty can also
integrate accurate disability information throughout their course that accentuates the similarities of persons
with disabilities without unduly emphasizing their differences. Modeling respectful, nonpatronizing
treatment of students with disabilities is a potent way to vicariously elevate college students’ disability
attitudes.
Comprehensive postsecondary disability knowledge must include accurate disability information but
also student interactions with people with various disabilities. Personal interactions are closely linked with
more accurate understanding of persons with disabilities (Anderson & Antonak, 1992; Barrett & Pullo,
1993; Yuker, 1992; Yuker & Block, 1986; Yuker & Hurley, 1987) and must be utilized to enhance
disability attitudes. Comprehensive efforts in postsecondary disability education may enhance students’
understanding of their peers with disabilities and promote a more inclusive student acceptance of peers with
varying disabilities.
References
Anderson, R., & Antonak, R. (1992). The influence of attitudes and contact on reactions to persons with
physical and speech disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 34, 240-247.
Antonak, R. (1982). Factor analysis of the Attitude Toward Disabled Persons scale-Form A. Rehabilitation
Psychology, 27, 235-243.
Antonak, R. (1992). Scale of Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons (SAPD) Form R. Durham, NH:
University of New Hampshire.
Antonak, R., & Livneh, H. (1989). The measurement of attitudes toward people with disabilities: Methods,
psychometrics, and scales. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Barrett, K., & Pullo, R. (1993). Attitudinal changes in undergraduate rehabilitation students as measured by
the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons scale. Rehabilitation Education, 7, 119-126.
Beattie, J., Anderson, R., & Antonak, R. (1997). Modifying the attitudes of prospective educators toward
students with disabilities and their integration into regular classrooms. The Journal of Psychology,
131, 245-259.
Benham, P. K. (1988). Attitudes of occupational therapy personnel toward persons with disabilities. The
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 42, 305-311.
Chubon, R. (1992). Attitudes toward disability: Addressing fundamentals of attitude theory and research in
rehabilitation education. Rehabilitation Education, 6, 301-412.
Dembo, T., Levinton, G.L., & Wright, B. (1956). Adjustment to misfortune: A problem of socialpsychological rehabilitation. Artificial Limbs. (Reprinted in Rehabilitation Psychology¸ 22, 1-100.)
Fazio, R., & Towles-Schwen, T. (1999). The MODE model of attitude-behavior processes. In S. Chaiken &
Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 171-186). New York: Guilford
Press.
Fichten, C., Robillard, K., Judd, D., & Ansel, R. (1989). College students with physical disabilities: Myths
and realities. Rehabilitation Psychology, 34, 243-257.
Fiedler, C. R., & Simpson, R. L. (1987). Modifying attitudes of nonhandicapped high school students
toward handicapped peers. Exceptional Children, 53, 342-349.
Gilbride, D. (1993). Parental attitudes toward their child with a disability: Implications for rehabilitation
counselors. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 36(3), 139-150.
Jones, E., Farina, A., Markus, H., Miller, D., & French, R. (1984). Social stigma: The psychology of
marked relationships. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Kelly, A., Sedlacek, W., & Scales, W. (1994). How college students with and without disabilities perceive
themselves and each other. Journal of Counseling & Development, 73, 178-182.
Lamanna, M., & Riedmann, A. (1994). Marriages and families: Making choices and facing changes (5th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Linkowski, D., (1994). A reaction to “Indirect methods to measure attitudes toward persons with
disability.” Rehabilitation Education, 8, 141-142.
Livneh, H., & Antonak, R. (1994). Indirect methods to measure attitudes toward persons with disabilities.
Rehabilitation Education, 8, 144-148.
Richard, M., Finkel, M. & Cohen, M. (1998). Preparing reports documenting attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder for students in post-secondary education: What neurologists need to know. The Neurologist,
4, 277-283.
Scott, S. (1990). Coming to terms with the “otherwise qualified” student with a learning disability. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 27, 403-412.
University Registrar. (1999). A profile of students enrolled at the University of Iowa: First semester 19992000. Iowa City, IA: Author.
Wright, B. (1983). Physical disability: A psychosocial approach (2 ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Weiner, B. (1993). On sin or sickness: A theory of perceived responsibility and social motivation.
American Psychologist, 48(9), 957-965.
Yuker, H. (1992). Attitudes toward persons with disabilities: Conclusions from the data. Rehabilitation
Psychology News, 19(2), 17-18.
Yuker, H., & Block, J. (1986). Research with the Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale (ATDP) 19601985. Hempstead, NY: Hofstra University, Center for the Study of Attitudes Toward Persons with
Disabilities.
Yuker, H., & Hurley, M. (1987). Contact with and attitudes toward persons with disabilities: The
measurement of intergroup contact. Rehabilitation Psychology, 32, 145-154.
About the Authors
Thomas D. Upton, Ph.D., CRC is an assistant professor in Rehabilitation Counselor Training
Program at Southern Illinois University-Carbondale. Additionally, he has worked in comprehensive
rehabilitation centers, as a Senior Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) counselor, a private VR consultant, and a
brain injury consultant. Research interests include functioning post brain injury, rehabilitation counselor
preparation, disability attitudes, educational accommodations, and social reactions to disability.
Dennis C. Harper, Ph.D., ABPP is a Professor of Pediatrics and Rehabilitation at The University of
Iowa. Dr. Harper has over 25 years in working with children with disabilities, has published over 100
refereed journal articles, presented research around the world, and has extensive knowledge and research
interest in understanding the social intricacies of disabilities.
This study was supported in part by a grant from the National Institutes of Health
(NICHD), #F31 HDO8631-01, but the opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those
of the funding agency. Part of this study was submitted by the first author in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Rehabilitation
Counseling (Counseling, Rehabilitation, and Student Development) in the graduate
college of the University of Iowa.