Emily Tudor

Research Proposal: ETR 520

Northern Illinois University

 Page |1

Abstract
Given that students with disabilities make up an increasingly larger portion of

student populations, research needs to be done on what institutional factors prove to be

barriers for students to seek accommodations for their disabilities on campus to remove

some barriers from their educational path. This study seeks to provide an answer as to

what barriers students face when seeking accommodations, and in what ways can the

institutions they attend work to reduce the number of barriers all students face when

completing their degrees.

A qualitative interview based study is proposed with 10-12 participants which will

seek through open ended questions reveal some of these barriers and factors that allow

for, or hinder students with disabilities’ success on campus.

 Page |2

Introduction

A college education is a public good that privileged individuals can obtain for

personal betterment and to increase their income bracket. In modern times, however

colleges prices are increasing at an unprecedented rate. Some students are being forced to

pay more for the same education though as students with disabilities graduate at the

similar rate as their abled bodied peers but they do so in a longer period, Jorgenson,

Fichten, Havel, Lamb, James, and Barille (2005). This in turn forces students with

disabilities to pay more for the same education as their peers. Additionally, some more

recent studies have indicated that students with disabilities are more likely to drop out of

their programs of study as compared abled bodied peers, Gonzalez, Elliot, (2016);

Becker, & Palladino. (2016).

The central phenomenon of this research will be factors directly related to students

with disabilities seeking accommodations. Previous research has indicated that students

with disabilities whom seek accommodations are more likely to be successful on

campuses, Jorgenson et al., (2005); Stein, (2013); Lyman, Beecher, Griner, Brooks, Call,

& Jackson. (2016). The most pressing topic this research will study is the bias towards

and student perceived bias towards of students with disabilities by faculty. Perceived bias

is defined as non-outwardly apparent bias that students feel is present when interacting

with faculty members. This bias is also inclusive of student’s expected outcome from
 Page |3

disclosing a disability to a faculty member and requesting accommodations from a

faculty member through a universities Disability Resource Center (DRC).

The conceptual framework guiding this research is the Transition model first

popularized by Schlossberg. This student development model is frequently used to model

student development in higher education. Most commonly this theory is used to gauge

and adapt to students needs as they transition into and out of college. In this research, the

theory will also be used to model students with disabilities transition into a place of self-

advocacy to requesting accommodations.

The purpose of this research is to analyze what protective factors contribute to the

retention of students with disabilities, and how can campuses best accommodate these

students so they can graduate at the same or similar paces as their peers? Both questions

are directly related to the central phenomenon of seeking accommodations as shifting the

onus of accommodations from the students to the institutional will help eliminate some

perceived bias that often stops these students from being comfortable seeking

accommodations to begin with, Lyman et al., (2016).

This study seeks to expand what is already known about students with disabilities in

the following ways. Primarily, the fact that students with disabilities do better with

accommodations is well researched, Jorgenson et al., (2005); Becker, Palladino, (2016)

Lyman et al., (2016); Stein, (2013); but the factors that contribute to perceived bias and

barriers to seeking accommodations are not yet well understood. Additionally, while

public universities are mandated to follow the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

there are many instances of building being grandfathered in which preclude some
 Page |4

buildings from abiding by the act. This in turn may affect perception of bias for students

with physical disabilities.

Additionally, there is a strong divide between students with invisible and visible

disabilities which are often so called due to an individual’s use of mobility assistive

devices. Students with invisible disabilities are more susceptible to perception bias as

they have passing privilege and thus are less likely to disclose their disability to gain

accommodations, Jackson, Taylor, Anderson-Fye, Floersch, (2013).

Thus, it is critical for higher education staff and faculty better understand bias and

perceived bias in order to best serve students with disabilities on college campuses.

Understanding the perception of bias that students experience in seeking accommodations

is critical to mitigating bias in the accommodation seeking process. Therefore, to

understand how students perceive bias one must research student’s lived experiences

though their own words. This research study will be utilizing a qualitative research style

which will employ one on one interviews with students on campus who self-disclose

disabilities and have already begun to receive accommodations on campus.

The section of individuals whom have already begun their accommodation

process is critical as it demonstrates a transition from the planning to the action stage and

is indicative of students whom have moved through their perception of bias to seek help.

It is this factor of bias identification and coping strategies that the research study will

focus on. This factor is the least well understood component of students seeking

accommodations and recording primary source lived experiences from students is the

most impactful way this study can research this phenomenon. There are ethical concerns
 Page |5

in working with this type of population that need to be accounted for before the study can

begin.

Ethical Concerns

Working with students whom are marginalized, especially students whom may

have cognitive disabilities is an area that must be given appropriate consideration. To

begin, students with disabilities on campus, especially students whom are actively

receiving accommodations on campus may feel that participation in the study is

mandatory or there could be consequences to their ability to keep accommodations. As

such, there needs to be a clear designation that this research is not taking place via the

Northern Illinois University’s Disability Resource Center staff. Research must be clearly

conveyed as optional and that there are no consequences for non-participation or for

withdrawing from the study at any point

Additionally, there is the issue of coercion must be discussed as any association

with the disability services center on campus could be problematic. For example, if

students were to feel they must partake in the study or that the Disability Resource Center

sponsor it, students may fear they would be at risk of losing accommodations or negative

impacts should they not participate in the study. This would negatively impact not only

the student’s education but also the study so there must be zero concerns of student

coercion or the study would be forfeit due to ethical considerations.

Additionally, as the issues of accommodations is one that affects students with

developmental disabilities or cognitive disabilities. Learning disabilities make up roughly

one third of students’ conditions that accommodations are requested for Jorgenson et al.,
 Page |6

(2005)., as such there needs to be a designation to ensure that students with learning

disabilities are not exploited for research data. As such there will be copies of the

research goals and interview questions made available ahead of time to any student

interested in participating. As such, if the student doesn’t feel comfortable with the

content they can either skip the question or not participate in the program. There needs to

be extra time and attention given to participant’s rights before the interview begins to

ensure that students can consent and fully understand their rights.

To help distance the study from the Disability Resource Center, the study will be

held at a neutral third location on campus. This is to help distance the study from any

ethical concerns previously mentioned in addition to providing a secure and accessible

location for students to participate in the interview. The location chosen is the library on

campus as it is commonplace for many students to go to the library for a variety of

reasons and no one would question why a student went to library. This will protect

student anonymity, safety, and comfort in participation.

Literature Review

Disclosure of Non-Apparent Disabilities- Jackson et al.

One of most timely works regarding students and disabilities is Jackson, Taylor,

Anderson-Fye, & Floersch. (2013) published in the Journal of Postsecondary Education

and Disability. In this work, the authors critically examine non-apparent disabilities,

which they term psychiatric disabilities and students whom disclose their identities to

seek accommodations. The term psychiatric disability does not include any conditions

that may be considered learning disabilities by Jackson et al.

 Page |7

As such, they conducted a survey which included 86 individuals whom completed

the survey in its entirety. After which 17 undergraduate students were selected for in

person interviews, effectively making this a mixed method study. The findings were that

the primary cause of many students dropping their classes and seeking accommodations

to help remove barriers for students relates to the theme of stress overload. There were

three “Pathways” covered by the authors relating to students’ disclosure of identity to

professors which include immediate disclosure, delayed disclosure, and non-disclosure.

Of the three pathways, immediate disclosure was listed as preferred with delayed

disclosure being second most preferred and non-disclosure was listed as the least

preferred for student success. There were no ethical concerns with the study but there was

a major limitation in that there was no coverage of learning disabilities or physical

disabilities which would require different accommodations and different circumstances

that would lead to student success.

Disclosure of Non-Apparent Disabilities-Stein

Stein (2013) was also featured in the very same issue of the Journal of

Postsecondary Education and Disability that Jackson et al. was. Stein took a qualitative

grounded theory approach to her research. Once again, the focus was students whom had

psychological disabilities on public university campuses. This definition also did include

students with learning disabilities such as dyslexia and Attention Deficit Hyperactive

Disorder. Learning disabilities were only around 20% of the interviewed students. 14

total students were recruited and interviewed and the sample was roughly 90% white

female, traditional aged college students.

 Page |8

The study has found that the surveyed students found accommodations a mixed

experience with some students’ being glad that barriers can be removed from the

educational experience but were made to feel uncomfortable or “Othered” in having to

seek accommodations or to utilize accommodations at all times the students felt they

would be useful to them. Students also listed that accommodations can vary in helpful.

One example was note takers sometimes being very through with the note provided to the

students via their accommodations and sometimes the note takers were not very through

with the note taking.

Major limitations again were that the research was only looking at one type of

university and students with very specific types of disabilities. To make the data truly

generalizable the scope of the research would need to be expanded.

Accommodation Seeking Factors

The framework for this research proposal comes from an article by Lyman,

Beecher, Griner, Brooks, Call, and Jackson (2016), published by the foremost journal

related to the field, Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability. The article is one

of the only to examine what factors go into students seeking accommodations and

barriers that students have to seeking accommodations in an institutional way. Lyman et

al. interviewed a total of 16 students with disabilities at a variety of private, religious

institutions. This piece also looks at student emotional barriers to seeking

accommodations on campus. In many ways, this is unique as many researchers view

accommodations as the perfect solution to students with disabilities but in framing

 Page |9

student voices Lyman et al. allows the reader to see that institutional accommodations are

not always a perfect solution.

Many of the themes pulled from the student interviews are emotional ranging

from “Not wanting to be a burden” to “I feel angry that my professors don’t respect my

accommodations and fighting back is exhausting”

Major limitations include a difference in age range compared to typical public

universities, and that only one type of university is studied. While this research is very

foundational to this research proposal, it is fallible and we seek to expand on the

knowledge base to make findings more generalizable.

Professor Feelings Around Accommodations

Published in the Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, Becker, &

Palladino. (2016). A quantitative survey based study of 127 faculty members at a

midwestern public university. Most of the faculty members had been at the university for

over 7 years. The data was then tabulated and run through a quantitative analysis program

where statistics were outputted.

The findings were that most professors (approximately 85% of all faculty

members said that students with disabilities should have the same access to education as

students without disabilities. However, when asked questions related to implementing

accommodations for students in class, roughly 20 to 24% of faculty members felt

accommodations could be a burden on class. The findings were then given anecdotal

context via a very short qualitative section of the article.

 P a g e | 10

Limitations exist primarily in the smaller sample size for a quantitative study.

Additionally, there might be an argument that the internal validity is lowered due to

faculty having the above described internal conflict which could mean mixed validity

results. However in many ways having this internal conflict is more representative of the

reality of students reported experiences of faculty and captures the reality of the situation.

STEM Faculty’s Experiences with Students With Disabilities

In 2015, Love, Kreiser, Camargo, Grubbs, Kim, Burge, & Culver published a qualitative

study in the Journal of Education and Training Studies that looks at 5 faculty members

who teach in the STEM field and their experiences with students with disabilities. STEM

is an acronym that refers to classes and majors that fall under the Science, Technology,

Engineering, and Mathematics fields. The study featured good diversity in ethnicity but

was almost entirely women participants, 80%. Faculty participants were interviewed and

recorded and then the narratives were analyzed.

The findings include an overall theme of acceptance and understanding of

students with disabilities on campus. Around half of all participants wished there was

more education for faculty around students with disabilities and how to best handle the

accommodation process. Some of the most favorable responses towards students with

disabilities came from faculty members whom had individuals with disabilities in their

families.

Some limitations of the study included the fact that all faculty involved in this

interview were older (45+) and had several decades of in industry experience and at least

7 years of experiences as an instructor. This means that younger teachers in the STEM
 P a g e | 11

fields were not included in the study and data is not available on their opinions of

students with disabilities.

Faculty’s Experiences with Veteran Students with Disabilities

In 2016, Gonzalez, & Elliott published a study in the Journal of Postsecondary

Education and Disability, regarding faculty experiences in working with veteran students.

This quantitative study looked at a survey that was collected after a general training for

faculty at a smaller public university and a community college. 311 total participants

were included and the data was collected, analyzed and descriptive statistics were

performed.

Findings included that individuals whom had more experience either personally,

familiarly, or professionally with the military were more likely to be supportive of student

veterans. Faculty whom taught classes that had military content (IE. History, Public

Health) were more likely to be knowledgeable and support veteran students regardless of

ability status. Faculty whom has less contact with the Military as a subject or lived

experience were still likely to wish to help veteran students but reported feeling less

capable of assisting a student veteran with disabilities than their more experienced peers.

Students Self-Reports on Learning and Using Self-Advocacy Skills

Daly-Cano, Vaccaro, & Newman (2015), released a study in the Journal of Postsecondary

Education and Disability related to students’ self-advocacy skills. Daly-Cano et al.

defines Self-Advocacy as “the ability to communicate one’s needs and wants and to make

decisions about the supports needed

 P a g e | 12

to achieve them.” Their study was a grounded theory qualitative interview study with

undergraduate students with disabilities between the ages of 18-36. Fifty-one first year

students were surveyed and the narratives were compiled and themes were pulled. After

which, recommendations to improve student self-advocacy skills were included.

Findings include a general feeling of unpreparedness amongst first generation

students with disabilities and a general lack of awareness of campus based resources for

students with disabilities. Additionally, student’s disabilities often compiled their personal

challenges as students with anxiety would often be anxious about seeking assistance for

their disability which made seeking assistance harder than anticipated for those students.

Limitation include that there was no case control element to the study as we are

unsure if students with disabilities feel higher or lower levels of self-advocacy skills than

their peers without disability. Additionally, varying information about student’s previous

experiences with Individualized Education Plans (IEPS) lead to possible confounding

factors related to student preparedness.

Self-Advocacy with Executive Functioning

Grieve, Webne-Behrman, Couillou, & Sieben-Schneider 2014 released a study in

the Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability that looks at executive functioning

levels in students with disabilities. Executive Functioning is defined (EF) as the ability to

think abstractly and to plan,

initiate, sequence, monitor, and stop complex behavior. It is a ranking of a student’s

ability to plan for their own success at university and in life and measures their ability to
 P a g e | 13

seek assistance if required. The quantitative study looks at 50 students from a pubic

midwestern university using the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function- Adult

Version (BRIEF-A) measuring tool. Higher EF scores were indicative of students facing

more challenges in daily life on campus.

Data was compiled and analyzed and then descriptive statistics were prepared.

Findings indicated that students with physical disabilities were the least likely to have

elevated EF scores while students with some types of learning disabilities often have

elevated EF scores. This means that the relative difficulty in seeking accommodations on

campus barriers between types of disabilities on campus.

Limitations included a limited number of participants for a quantitative study, and

possible self-reporting bias. The BRIEF-A tool has previously been tested for reliability

and validity and is not of concern.

Graduate Student Accommodations in Online Classes

Terras, Leggio, & Phillips (2015), looked at graduate students and technology

when critically examining accommodations for online classes in this study published by

the Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability. This qualitative interview study

looked at 11 graduate students taking online classes in a moderately sized public

university. These 11 students were those that volunteered for the study that was emailed

to the entirety of the graduate level students at the university. Most of the interviewing

was done via Voice Over IP services such as Skype as the students primarily lived away

from the campus.

 P a g e | 14

Findings included that many students chose online classes for their graduate

program as it allowed them to minimize the impact of their disabilities on their education

and was a primary factor in choosing a graduate program. Additionally, students whom

had experiences in working with a disability services center in their undergraduate

programs were more likely to seek assistance at their current university.

Some limitations that may be present are self-reporting bias from the student

respondents, limited utilization and knowledge of on campus resources due to their online

student status, and initial high self-advocacy ratings which means these students are not

representative of many first generation or first year undergraduate students, limiting the

generalizability of the study.

Factors that Cause Students with Disabilities to Withdraw from University

Thompson-Ebanks (2014) published a study in the Journal of Postsecondary

Education and Disability that explores why student’s voluntary withdraw from university.

This is in juxtaposition to students whom are removed from the university due to

financial or academic reasons. This exploratory qualitative study recruited 5 former

students with invisible disabilities, sometimes termed non-apparent disabilities for

interviews. Interviews were then coded and themes were pulled from the coded

interviews. Most of the students were white, with a good mix of male and female

participation 2:3 and most were traditional college age 4:1

Findings included some themes shared by all students and some specific themes.

Themes shared by all former students include: financial concerns, feelings of inadequacy,

and the specifics of their own disability. Themes shared by at least 60% of the study
 P a g e | 15

included: medical reasons, self-advocacy concerns, and having to disclose their disability

to faculty and staff.

Limitations include a small sample size even for a qualitative study, low

racial/ethnic diversity, and only one type of college setting studied. To make the study

more generalizable a larger sample size at more universities with more ethic and racial

diversity is needed.

Methodology

Recruitment and Compensation

As covered prior, addressing ethical concerns is the first step to beginning the

research study. After IRB approval has been received, recruitment of study participants

can begin. Ideally, these individuals will not be recruited from the Disability Resource

Center to prevent ethical concerns but will instead be recruited from the greater campus

via the university announcements, email recruitment and word of mouth. The study’s

design is to conduct at an hour interview with at least five students and no more than

twelve students with a projected average of around eight to ten students. Students whom

participate must have some type of self-identified disability that they are receiving

accommodations for.

Recruitment will be based primarily on intentional selection as well as snowball

sampling. Recruiting the first student participants will be done through campus wide

event messaging emails and campus wide flyer distribution. This is the preferred

methodology for this study because it places the focus of recruitment away from the

convenience sampling of recruiting at the Disability Resource Center and the ethical
 P a g e | 16

issues it entails. Subsequent recruitment will rely more on “Snowball style” recruitment

with students whom participated recruiting friends that also qualify for the study.

This is in line with best practices to ensure adequate data is recorded for

generalizability. Students whom participate in the study will be compensated financially

with a fifteen-dollar Amazon gift cards. This is to ensure that students are compensated

for their time above minimum wage but are not incentivized too heavily by money that

false responses will be collected. While compensation is not mandatory, it is unethical to

not offer compensation to an already marginalized and often over studied population of

students.

Interview

The interview will be one hour in length and will consist of open ended questions

on subjects related to accommodations on campuses and what barriers students felt were

present in seeking accommodations. Follow up probing questions will be used to gather

more data on strategies that students utilized to overcome said barriers as well as what

resources students would have found helpful while transitioning to a university while

seeking accommodations.

The location for the interview will be in an accessible, neutral location, one the

NIU library’s study rooms. This will allow privacy for the interview while still being in a

safe, neutral place for students to feel comfortable in. This way there is no further

stigmatization of students whom participate in the study by say, having to go to a location

 P a g e | 17

that is associated with perceived bias such as the disability resource center or a more

sterile office environment.

There interview will be audio visually recorded to ensure that students whom

communicate orally as well as using ASL are properly represented in the final research

report. Additionally, students will be presented with both a large print copy of the

interview questions and there will be a Braille version of the questions as well.

Interviews will be a mix of primarily open ended questions to stimulate

participant’s ability to freely answer the questions however they see fit, some probing

questions to seek information where questions were not fully answered and follow up

questions to allow students to focus more deeply on areas of interest. In total, there will

be around ten open ended questions with a variable amount of follow up questions

depending on student responses. In this way, interviews will be semi structured, while the

questions, and the probes will be the same, some students may experience differing

numbers of probes depending on the length of their responses.

Data Collection and Evaluation

After the interviews have been completed, the interviews will be transcribed and

coded via computer software. This process is done so that overall themes can be pulled

from the interview and strategies that students use to cope with perceived bias can be

broken down and generalized.

Data will be analyzed using the Dataiku DSS software package which allows for a

seamless blend of cost efficiency, analysis and coding tools, and data security. The reason

this program was chosen to handle the project is due to its convenient and powerful
 P a g e | 18

ability to keep all data locally stored on local machines to avoid data security breaches

that may occur online. All local machines will be secured with passwords and any

audiovisual data from recordings will be stored in a safe to prevent theft. Student name

and identification information will not be collected beyond the bare minimum and all

documents pertaining to students All measures combined will ensure data security and

student anonymity.

After data collection, entry and coding have been completed, the data can be

analyzed and themed can be pulled from the research. As people vary greatly based on

their intersectional identities and disability there are likely to be several themes that

emerge that can be condensed into a few central themes of the student narratives.

Projected themes will be covered shortly hereafter.

Credibility and Validity

The study follows IRB approval and sound sampling and interview guidelines

which builds the basis for a credible study. There are some points of concern to

credibility that will be addressed. As the study is only interviewing 8-12 subjects, the

generalizability is limited to universities that are more similar than different to the

research site. While this does not touch internal validity, there is concerns that due to the

diversity in the study body as well as in specific needs for different disabilities there

might not be as much external generalizability.

All research procedures follow best practices and avoid guided or leading

questions. As such there are no notable validity concerns that might arise from poor

sampling, leading questions, or student compensation bias. As we are relying on student

 P a g e | 19

narratives there is always a chance students may falsify some details of their narratives or

remember events incorrectly. While this is an inherent factor to all interview based

studies, it does place our study on alert to ensure no false data is included.

Projected Outcomes

As people differ greatly in previous lived experiences, there will be a variety of

themes that travel along intersectional identities. Some students might have similar

themes if their lives are similar but for the most part we expect there to be a variety of

themes present in student interviews.

For example, a student with less marginalized intersectional identities might be

more likely to seek accommodations from an institution as they have likely experienced

less institutional oppression in their lifetimes. Students that hold more socially privileged

identities are more likely to be protected from adverse outcomes of having a disability

and are therefore more likely to see institutional accommodations as favorable and

helpful and therefore will seek out accommodations. However, students whom hold more

marginalized identities will be less likely to see institutional accommodations or need

more protective factors to feel safe seeking accommodations because of a previous

history of institutional marginalization

Students previous experiences with disclosure of disability are also likely to be

impactful on their likelihood to seek accommodations through an institution. Students

whom have previous experience in disclosing their identity and seeking accommodations

may find the process easier or more difficult at university based on how they were treated
 P a g e | 20

previously. A likely scenario includes students with positive previous experiences listing

those as protective factors and students with negative previous experiences listing them

as risk factors for not seeking accommodations initially.

Limitations

The large diversity in students means that ultimately not all institutional barriers

will be addressed via the themes gathered from student responses. The survey size is

adequate for the research taking place, however with the depth and breadth of student

identity and disability there is always a need for further research. This study is the first of

its kind seeking to more intimately understand the factors that cause students to seek

accommodations and how to remove institutional barriers from that process.

Barriers may differ at community colleges, private universities, and public

universities. This study only looks at barriers at public universities. This study is only

looking at barriers and student accommodations at a public, four-year institution. As each

type of institutional is likely to attract a different type of student, it is critical to realize

that this research is only generalizable to other four year public institutions and more data

would be needed at other sites to make the findings truly generalizable to more

institutions.

Also, this study might not apply well to non-traditionally aged students as their

needs may vary. Students needs to be successful in college may change as they age and

have different needs based on the stage of their life. As such there can be a large amount

of variety in what barriers students with disabilities face when seeking accommodations

on campus.
 P a g e | 21

Another limitation might be the sampling style that relies partially on snowball

style recruitment. Due to the qualitative nature of this study it can be difficult to find

enough student participants through this recruitment style. It could potentially lengthen

the amount of time it would take to complete the interview portion of the study. The

longer the study takes the more vulnerable the data becomes to irregularities and change.

As always, more research on the subject is needed but this is a pivotal first step.

As there is no other research that directly measures what we are trying to measure, there

is a larger variety of outcomes as pioneering always comes with inherently more pitfalls

as there are no previous examples to follow.

 P a g e | 22

References

Stein. (2013). DSS and Accommodations in Higher Education: Perceptions of Students

with Psychological Disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and

Disability, 26(2), 145-161.

Lyman, Beecher, Griner, Brooks, Call, & Jackson. (2016). What Keeps Students with

Disabilities from Using Accommodations in Postsecondary Education? A

Qualitative Review. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 29(2),

123-140.

Jackson, Taylor, Anderson-Fye, & Floersch. (2013). College Student Disclosure of Non-

Apparent Disabilities to Receive Classroom Accommodations. Journal of

Postsecondary Education & Disability, 26(1), 35-51.

Jorgenson, S., Fichten, C., Havel, A., Lamb, D., James, C., & Barile, M. (2005).

Academic Performance of College Students With and Without Disabilities: An

Archival Study. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 39(2). Retrieved January 25,

2017.

Becker, & Palladino. (2016). Assessing Faculty Perspectives About Teaching and

Working with Students with Disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education

and Disability, 29(1), 65-82.

Gonzalez, & Elliot. (2016). Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Towards Student

Veterans. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 29(1), 35-46.

 P a g e | 23

Grieve, Webne-Behrman, Couillou, & Sieben-Schneider. (2014). Self-Report Assessment

of Executive Functioning in College Students with Disabilities. Journal of

Postsecondary Education & Disability, 27(1), 19-32.

Love, T. S., Kreiser, N., Camargo, E., Grubbs, M. E., Kim, E. J., Burge, P. L., & Culver,

S. M. (2014). STEM Faculty Experiences with Students with Disabilities at a

Land Grant Institution. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(1).

Thompson-Ebanks, V. (2014). Voluntary Withdrawal of College Juniors and Seniors with

Non-apparent Disabilities: Family, Peers, and Institutional Factors. Journal of

Postsecondary Education & Disability, 27(2),

Terras, Leggio, & Phillips. (2015). Disability Accommodations in Online Courses: The

Graduate Student Experience. Journal of Postsecondary Education & Disability,

28(3), 229-340.

Daly-Cano, Vaccaro, & Newman. (2015). College Student Narratives About Learning and

Using Self-Advocacy Skills. Journal of Postsecondary Education & Disability,

28(2), 213-227