Higher Education Research & Development, Vol. 20, No.

3, 2001

Characteristics, Academic and Post-

university Outcomes of Students with a
Disability at the University of Newcastle
PHIL FOREMAN, IAN DEMPSEY, GREG ROBINSON & ERIC
MANNING
University of Newcastle

ABSTRACT A cohort of 108 students with a disability, and a matched sample of students
without a disability, were surveyed over a three-year period at the University of Newcastle.
The purpose of the study was to examine the characteristics and academic outcomes
for students with a disability because this group of students is signiŽ cantly under-represented
at Australian universities. SigniŽ cant differences were found between some personal charac-
teristics, academic performance, and outcomes following discontinuance or completion of
study. The results are discussed within the context of disability legislation and policy in
Australia.

Introduction
There has been concern about the under-representation of people with a disability
in Australian universities for some time (Schauder, 1981). This concern arises from
the discrepancy between the number of students with a disability who may be
eligible to enrol at universities, and the number of students with a disability who are
enrolled. For example, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS, 1999) has esti-
mated that 19.3% of the Australian population have a disability, although this Ž gure
is in ated considerably by the fact that it includes disabilities of older people, such
as arthritis and deafness. Martin (1994) has estimated that 4% of the population in
the age group commonly represented in higher education have a disability, and this
is a more appropriate Ž gure to use for the purposes of comparison
These estimates of eligibility contrast with the number of students who are
enrolled. Watson (1988) found that of the 58% of Australian institutions of higher
education able to provide data on students with a disability, 0.9% of the students
enrolled at these institutions had a disability. Andrews (1991) estimated the number
of students with a disability enrolled in higher education institutions to be 1% of
the total student enrolment. More recently, Smith, Carroll and Elkins (1999) found
that the proportion of supported students with a disability (i.e. students with a

ISSN 0729-4360 print; ISSN 1469-8360 online/01/030313-13 Ó 2001 HERDSA

DOI: 10.1080/07294360120108386
314 P. Foreman et al.

disability who had requested support), at the 31 Australian universities they sur-
veyed, varied from 0.51% to 2.98%. While over 70% of school leavers continue in
education or enter training schemes in Australia, among those with disabilities, only
about 25% do so (Organisation for Economic and Cultural Development (OECD),
1997).

Policy and Legislation

In response to the under-representation of people with a disability in higher
education, a range of policy initiatives and legislation has developed in this country
in recent years. The Ž rst of these initiatives was a social justice statement from the
Commonwealth government, A Fair Chance for All (Department of Employment,
Education and Training (DEET), 1990). The second initiative, the Commonwealth
Disability Discrimination Act (1992) (DDA), makes it unlawful to discriminate on
the basis of disability in education and other areas.
The key provisions of the DDA for universities relate to offering employment,
admissions, providing access to services and the harassment of students. The DDA
identiŽ es an “unjustiŽ able hardship” criterion, which requires universities to justify,
where appropriate, the failure to accept an application for admission by a student
with a disability. Because the Act is relatively new and not fully tested in this area,
it is unclear how these legislative provisions will impact on the nature of support
provided to these students (Glanville, 1995).
This policy and legislation has been supplemented by Department of Education,
Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA) funding to promote the development of
responsive practices to people with a disability by universities. For example, for
several years DETYA has required universities to produce annual equity plans that
describe strategies to increase their representation of people with a disability and
other target groups. DETYA has also funded the Tertiary Initiatives for People with
Disabilities project to support academically able students with a disability to attend
university and to secure employment.
In 1995, funding for 15 Regional Disability Liaison OfŽ cers was established.
These ofŽ cers were expected to co-ordinate support to all tertiary institutions in a
region and to work with disability liaison ofŽ cers within individual institutions.
O’Connor and Watson (1995) reported that 33 of the 38 Australian universities had
employed a disability ofŽ cer to support students with a disability. To assist these
initiatives, DETYA has developed a set of equity performance indicators for stu-
dents with a disability, in the areas of access and participation (Martin, 1994).
In response to these developments, Australian universities have established poli-
cies and programs to support students with a disability. For example, a goal of the
University of Newcastle Strategic Plan (1999) is to enhance access, participation
and positive outcomes for members of equity target groups (including students with
a disability), consistent with equal opportunity and afŽ rmative action principles. To
facilitate the achievement of this goal, the University has established a Disability and
Student Support Unit to provide information, advice and speciŽ c support services
when required.
 Characteristics and Outcomes of Students with a Disability 315

Characteristics of Students with a Disability

Although the literature is not extensive, the evidence suggests that students with a
sensory and physical disability comprise the bulk of students with a disability at
universities. Andrews (1991) reported 27% with physical disability, and 32% with
sensory disability as a proportion of the population of students with a disability. In
the United States, Lawrence, Kent and Henson (1982) found 22% with physical
disability, 32% with a sensory disability, and 19% with multiple disabilities. These
proportions contrast with Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (1990) population
estimates of 31% for physical disabilities, and 16% for sensory disability. In a
national survey of Australian universities, Smith, Carroll and Elkins (1999) found
that 12% of all supported students with a disability had a learning disability.
Both Andrews (1991) and Lawrence, Kent and Henson (1982) found a slightly
higher proportion of female students with a disability in universities than males. For
both studies, the proportions were in the order of 54% of students being female.
However, in a survey conducted at the University of Newcastle, Taylor (1995)
found only 47% of students with a disability were female. She also reported a mean
age of 24 years for students with a disability. In this sample, students with a
disability were more likely to be born outside Australia, and were less likely to report
English as their Ž rst language. The mean age of students with a disability in a study
by Trowbridge and Mannely (1987) was 32 years, and there were some differences
in mean age across disability types. Lawrence, Kent and Henson (1982) reported a
similar Ž nding, where 61% of students with a disability entered university aged
17–18 years, compared with 79% of students without a disability.
Andrews (1991) and Martin (1994) reported that the majority of students with a
disability in surveyed institutions were enrolled in Arts faculties. Overall, these
studies suggest that students with a disability are more likely to be female, older than
other students, and that the majority may have either a sensory or physical disability.

Academic Success and Employment Status Outcomes for Students with a

Disability
Using four separate year cohorts of University of Wollongong students, Lewis
(1994) concluded that the mean aggregate university marks of students with a
disability were equivalent to other students, but they were less likely to have passed
75% of the credit points they attempted. For these samples, TER scores were
important but imperfect predictors of academic success.
In a comparison of the employment and enrolment status of graduates with and
without disabilities at the University of Queensland, O’Connor and Watson (1995)
reported a smaller percentage of graduates with a disability in full-time employment
(51.1%) or in full-time study (17.8%) than other graduates (58.2% and 26.5%
respectively). A higher proportion of graduates with a disability (11.1%) than other
graduates (5.4%) were unemployed and seeking employment. The importance of a
transition plan for students with a disability was highlighted by O’Connor and
316 P. Foreman et al.

Watson (1995), who in their study of University of Queensland graduates, estab-

lished that many found it difŽ cult to apply for jobs in the open workplace.
The above surveys suggest that people with a disability in Australia are under-
represented at university level, with lower academic achievement and employment
success. These surveys, however, were undertaken before the recent range of policy
initiatives developed to assist students with a disability, and it would seem important
to evaluate the success of these policies.
The purpose of the present study was:

1. To determine the level of satisfaction with support services of students with a

disability at the University of Newcastle.
2. To determine how academically successful these students are at the University.
3. To determine the employment status of students with a disability following
graduation or discontinuation.
4. To determine whether there are any differences between students with and
without a disability in relation to academic and post-graduation success.

Procedure
Student Group Sampled and Observed
Students with a disability can be identiŽ ed, according to Andrews and Smith
(1992), in three ways:

1. Students who identify themselves as having a disability on their enrolment form.

2. Students who register for advice or support with disability support units in the
institution.
3. Students who are known to another organisation which acts as an advocate for
them.

The present study used the second approach. That is, it requested the co-operation
of students who had made themselves known to the Disability and Student Support
Unit at the University of Newcastle. This method was used because, at the time of
commencement of the study, inclusion of information about disability on enrolment
forms had only recently been introduced at the University and the researchers did
not have access to this information.
The approach via the Support Unit’s contacts had the advantage that the study
was addressing the concerns of students for whom equity was a personally important
issue, because of their disability. There were 220 such students, who had required
advice or support to assist them with their study. That number clearly did not
include some students who had a disability but had not sought or required assist-
ance, as 466 students had identiŽ ed themselves as having a disability on their
enrolment form, later in the Ž rst year of the study. The latter Ž gure constituted
2.6% of the total student enrolment at the university.
A comparison group was sampled from all enrolled students who were not
contacts of the Disability and Student Support Unit. The matched group was
 Characteristics and Outcomes of Students with a Disability 317

constituted to be unlike as regards disability, but the same in some other features
that were likely to distinguish the disability group. Matching was made on the
following attributes, as far as possible:

1. age
2. sex
3. part-time or full-time attendance
4. the course, and level of the course
5. how long (years) since commencing the course

The Time-Frame of the Research

The study was based on questionnaires, interviews and academic records with the
disability group and the matched group, beginning in 1996. The same students were
followed up in 1997 and 1998. If they graduated or discontinued during that time
they were contacted and interviewed regarding their university experience and their
prospects.
First, a questionnaire was mailed to the disability group, with a covering letter and
a reply-paid envelope. Students with disability of vision were provided with the
material in a form they could read, such as large print, and other forms of
communication if required. The questionnaire concluded with a request that they
agree to answer a similar questionnaire in 12 months. Completed questionnaires
were received from 108 (49%) students, 89 (82%) of whom gave permission for
access to their academic record.
After replies were received from the disability group, the Institutional Research
Unit used university enrolment records to select students to be asked to form a
comparison group. From all students who had not identiŽ ed themselves as having a
disability, individuals were selected who matched individuals in the disability group
in the attributes listed above.
Three non-disability students were matched with one disability student, so that
the matched group would be about the same size as the disability group, after the
expected non-reply rate. The matched group was sent the same material as the
disability group, except for slightly modiŽ ed wording where this was unavoidable.
Reminder letters were sent some weeks later. There were 99 replies to 324 requests,
giving a 31% response rate.
Numbers declined, inevitably, from Year 1 to Year 3 of the project, for the
following reasons:

1. Some students who answered the questionnaire and returned it did not give
approval for another approach 12 months later, and/or for access to their
academic records. Their questionnaire answers, but not their academic records,
were included in the results for Year 1.
2. Students completed their course and graduated, or discontinued before complet-
ing the course.
3. Students who participated in Year 1 were not retained in Year 2 or 3 if they had
318 P. Foreman et al.

changed course. For reasons of homogeneity, the project was limited to students
who remained in the one course.
4. Some students who, in Year 1, had agreed to participate, did not return question-
naires in the later years.
Consequently, in terms of stages of the course, the groups were not static. Year 1 of
the project contained many students in their Ž rst year at university, whilst Year 2
and especially Year 3 contained more experienced students.

Questionnaires
The questionnaire sought the following information:
1. biographical information (i.e. gender, year and place of birth, Ž rst language,
dependent children, living arrangements, weekly income and its source, mode of
entry to current course);
2. enrolment information (i.e. year of enrolment, mode of completion, number of
subjects enrolled in), expectations of completion, permission for access to records
of results;
3. self-perceptions relating to academic performance(four item Likert scale, e.g. “In
comparison with other students in the course, academically, I am doing very
well), and a six item Locus of Control scale (Lumpkin, 1985);
4. factors that had assisted/impeded progress at university (e.g. lecturers’ attitudes,
presentation of tutorials, timetabling).
As the research design included a comparison group of students without a disability,
the questions had to make equal sense to students with and without a disability. The
wording of the questionnaires and letters of request did not address the respondents
with the term “disabled” and avoided using such words as far as possible. This
choice of words also reduced any tendency to reply according to the stereotype by
which the respondent had been addressed.

Results: Questionnaires and performance measures

Student Demographics
The most frequent impairments reported by the students with a disability were
physical (36%), visual (12%), hearing (10%) and medical (10%). Twenty-two per
cent of the students had more than one disability or impairment. There was no
signiŽ cant difference between the disability and matched group on age, because age
was one of the matching variables. However, in comparison with all University
enrolments, the disability group had signiŽ cantly more students aged 30 years or
older (c2 5 63, df 5 1, p , 0.001). There were relatively more females in the disabil-
ity group (64%), than in the total University enrolment (52%) (c2 5 12.037, df 5 1,
p , 0.001).
Most students with a disability were enrolled in the Faculty of Arts and Social
Science (40% versus 19% for total University enrolment). The proportion of
 Characteristics and Outcomes of Students with a Disability 319

TABLE 1. Attitudes to Study. Mean responses to items by group, comparison of groups by t-test.*

Year Disability Matched Difference

of between
project N Mean N Mean means p

In comparison with other students in Yr 1 3.16 98 3.50 2 0.34 0.005

the course, academically, I am doing Yr 2 1053 3.22 22 3.50 2 0.28 0.260
very well. Yr 3 214 3.00 9 3.56 2 0.56 0.171
The amount of work expected of me at Yr 1 105 2.42 98 2.78 2 0.36 0.011
the university is very easy to cope Yr 2 32 2.50 21 3.10 2 0.60 0.027
with. Yr 3 14 2.36 9 3.22 2 0.87 0.035
I regard the level of support and Yr 1 104 3.59 98 3.57 0.02 0.914
assistance I receive from lecturers to Yr 2 32 3.75 22 3.77 2 0.02 0.930
be very good. Yr 3 13 4.08 9 4.00 0.08 0.863
I Ž nd it very easy to understand the Yr 1 105 3.32 98 3.51 2 0.19 0.070
university work I am expected to do. Yr 2 32 3.13 22 3.50 2 0.38 0.155
Yr 3 14 3.14 9 3.89 2 0.75 0.048

* Strongly disagree 5 1, Disagree 5 2, Uncertain 5 3, Agree 5 4, Strongly agree 5 5

students with a disability was less than the proportion anticipated on the basis of
Faculty size in eight of the 11 Faculties, with Arts and Social Science the most
over-represented, and the Faculty of Economics and Commerce and the Faculty of
Education the most under-represented. There were no signiŽ cant differences be-
tween the disability group and the matched group on expected time of completion
of the course, their dependents, place of birth, basis of entry to the University and
locus of control.
Students with a disability were more likely to live at home with parents, and less
likely to live with a spouse or partner, than the matched group (c2 5 13.799, df 5 5,
p 5 0.017). Median incomes of the two groups, while studying at the University, was
signiŽ cantly different ($85/week less for students with a disability) (Mann-Whitney
U test, p 5 0.009).

Attitudes to University Study

Table 1 reports all students’ attitude to study. Those in the disability group:
1. in the Ž rst year of the study only, felt that they were not doing as well as others;
2. found it harder to cope with the amount of work;
3. got the same support and assistance from lecturers as others did.

University Services
In each year of the project, students were asked to identify services that had assisted
or impeded their progress. The Fisher exact test was applied to 2 3 2 frequency
tables (groups 3 ticked/not-ticked) of each Assisted and Impeded item.
320 P. Foreman et al.

The disability group was signiŽ cantly different from the matched group in the Ž rst
year of the project in the following ways:

1. Fewer were assisted by presentation of lecture material (p 5 0.008)

2. Fewer were assisted by presentation of tutorial material (p 5 0.005)
3. More were assisted by support services in the University (p 5 0.000)
4. Fewer were assisted by assessment practices (p 5 0.049)
5. Fewer were assisted by access to library services (p 5 0.000)

The only items that were signiŽ cantly different in Year 2 were that more students
with a disability were assisted by Support Services (p 5 0.002), and fewer students
with a disability were assisted by location of the campus (p 5 0.004). Also, in Year
3 fewer students with a disability were assisted by location (p 5 0.013). There were
no statistically signiŽ cant differences between the groups on factors that had im-
peded their progress across all years of the study.

Academic Performance
The academic records of participating students who had given permission were used
to produce three measures of academic performance:

1. grade point average;

2. withdrawal index (subject load completed without withdrawal/total subject load
enrolled in); and
3. success index (subject load completed without failure/total assessed subject
load).

The measures were calculated from student records as they stood at the end of
1996, 1997 and 1998. Postgraduate students in certain courses were not assessed as
pass, credit etc. each semester or year, so there are no performance measures
for them. The measures are indications of the progress towards graduation that
the student had made up to the end of the year in question, as they are based on
that year and all previous years in which the student had been enrolled in the
course.
Being cumulative, the measures of performance do not derive their values only in
the year of their name. The success index Year 2 (1997), for example, began its
accrual earlier, in 1996 and even earlier years in the case of students who com-
menced before 1996. For this statistical reason, in the present longitudinal data,
differences between groups which appear in Year 1 are very likely still to be seen in
Year 2 and Year 3. It would be very unlikely for a difference between groups in Year
1 data to have disappeared in Year 2 and Year 3 data.

Grade Point Average

A student with all High Distinctions would have a GPA of 4.0, the highest possible.
A student with no Fails and all subject Passes would have a GPA of 1.0.
 Characteristics and Outcomes of Students with a Disability 321

TABLE 2. Measures of Performance. Mean GPA by group and t-test

Disability Matched t
Separate
Case included if: N Mean N Mean Diff variance df p

Student had a GPA Yr 1 776445 1.63 463218 2.09 2 0.46 2 3.441 114.6 0.000
in the given year Yr 2 1.74 2.16 2 0.42 2 2.935 82.0 0.002
Yr 3 1.83 2.39 2 0.56 2 3.169 45.1 0.001
Student had a GPA Yr 1 434343 1.78 181818 2.16 2 0.39 2 2.016 39.9 0.033
in all years 1, 2 & 3 Yr 2 1.73 2.30 2 0.57 2 3.430 45.2 0.000
Yr 3 1.77 2.39 2 0.62 2 3.560 43.9 0.000

A comparison was made of the mean GPAs of the disability group and the
matched group. Statistical analysis was applied to sets of cases deŽ ned in two ways:

1. All students in a given Year, with the number of cases diminishing from Year 1 to
Year 3: Three t-tests were applied, one to each Year of the project, comparing the
disability group and the matched group.
2. Only the students who remained in the study to Year 3 and had each year’s GPA:
Three t-tests were applied to each year’s measures, comparing the disability
group and the matched group, and one repeated measures analysis of variance of
the 3 years’ GPAs.

Table 2 shows the t-test results, which indicate that the disability group performed
signiŽ cantly less well across each year of the study, and across both statistical
analyses. Mean differences in GPAs varied from 0.62 to 0.38. Analysis of variance
(F[1, 59] 5 9.737, p 5 0.003) indicated a signiŽ cant difference between groups by
GPA. While the difference increased each year, neither the linear nor the quadratic
interaction Year by Group was statistically signiŽ cant (p 5 0.065, p 5 0.251 respect-
ively).

Withdrawal Index
The withdrawal index is less than 1 if the student has withdrawn from one or more
subjects since enrolling. Otherwise it is 1, as for the majority of students. The index
shows the extent to which students have dropped subjects, after enrolling in them
but before reaching an assessment. This can happen for a number of reasons that do
not necessarily re ect adversely on the student in question.
The distributions in Figure 1 show that students with disability were more likely
to withdraw from subjects in all three years of the project, though the differences are
not statistically signiŽ cant. The Mann-Whitney U test gave p 5 0.077 for Year 1,
p 5 0.329 for Year 2 and p 5 0.168 for Year 3.
322 P. Foreman et al.

FIG. 1. Withdrawal index of students with withdrawal index less than 1: Years 1, 2 and 3.

Success Index
The success index is similar to a withdrawal index, with failed subjects in place of
withdrawn subjects. It is less than 1.00 if the student has failed in one or more
subjects, and 1.00 otherwise. Being sensitive only to the pass/fail boundary, the
success index is more narrowly focussed than the grade point average. A success
index of 1.0 indicates that the student’s results have consistently reached Pass
standard at least, but it is insensitive to any higher grades.
The success index shows a similar pattern to the withdrawal index. Figure 2 shows
that the disability group has fewer students with success index 1, indicating no fails,
than the matched group. The Mann-Whitney U test indicates that the difference is
statistically signiŽ cant for Year 1, but not for the other years of the project (Year 1
p 5 0.029, Year 2 p 5 0.334, Year 3 p 5 0.488). The results suggest that students
with a disability were more likely to fail Ž rst-year subjects than other students.

FIG. 2. Success index of students with success index less than 1: Years 1, 2 and 3.
 Characteristics and Outcomes of Students with a Disability 323

Post-University Outcomes
Where possible, participants who had graduated, or discontinued their university
studies, were contacted and asked to agree to an interview, either by phone or in
person. Interviews were secured with 47 participants, 26 from the disability group
and 21 from the matched group. As the item responses on the interview schedule
were discrete (e.g. “Since discontinuing your studies at the University of Newcastle,
have you actively looked for employment? yes, no, I was already employed while I
was studying”), a reliability check was not conducted.
There was no signiŽ cant difference between the groups as to whether their studies
had ended with graduation or not. After 13 respondents were excluded because they
already had a job, the ex-students of the disability group (36%) were less likely than
the matched group (75%) to be looking for employment after completing their
university studies (c2 5 4.636; df 5 1; p 5 0.031).

Discussion
The identiŽ ed characteristics of students with a disability in this study were similar
to those identiŽ ed in previous studies, all of which have reported a predominance of
physical and sensory disabilities. The most frequent disability in this survey was
physical (36%), followed by sensory (visual and hearing, 22%). Andrew’s (1991)
survey of Australian universities reported 27% with a physical disability and 32%
with a sensory disability, while the ABS (1990) estimate was 31% with a physical
disability and 16% with a sensory disability.
The results of this survey identiŽ ed a higher proportion of females with a disability
enrolled (64%), as did Andrews (1991) and Lawrence, Kent and Henson (1982).
The survey in this study also found that students with a disability were more likely
to be older, which re ects previous Ž ndings (Trowbridge & Mannely, 1987;
Lawrence, Kent, & Henson, 1982).
As with previous studies, it was found that students with a disability had more
difŽ culty with studies at tertiary level than students who do not have a disability. In
this study, signiŽ cantly more students with a disability felt they were not doing as
well as other students, and reported that it was harder to cope with the work. Some
of these differences were apparent across all years of the study.
Although the relationship between students’ attitudes to study and their percep-
tion of the services provided by the University was not directly examined, it may be
the case that generic University services are important in framing the attitudes of
students with a disability to study, over and above any speciŽ c support services that
may be provided. For example, in the Ž rst year of this study, students with a
disability were less likely than students without a disability to be assisted by lecture,
tutorial and assessment practices, and library services. These differences were not as
apparent in later years of the study.
There are several implications that  ow from these Ž ndings. First, assuming
increasing numbers of students with a disability enter tertiary education in response
to legislation and policy initiatives, it may become more difŽ cult for universities to
provide specialist support to each student on an individual basis. Second, there is a
324 P. Foreman et al.

need for all academic staff as well as library, administration and information
technology staff to be aware of their obligation to provide for needs of students with
a disability, given the demonstrated difŽ culties that these students experience. This
provision can be assisted through disability awareness training (Canadian Rehabili-
tation Council for the Disabled, 1990; Parsons, 1996), as well as through well-
formulated and widely distributed policy statements (Hurst, 1998).
The differences in attitudes to study of students with and without a disability were
supported by academic results. Students with a disability had a signiŽ cantly lower
GPA, were more likely to withdraw from subjects, and were more likely to have
failed subjects. This higher incidence of academic problems was reported in previous
studies, with Lewis (1994) stating that students with a disability at the University of
Wollongong were less likely to have passed 75% of credit points attempted. It would
be interesting to explore whether this poorer academic performance was re ected in
lower employment levels, as identiŽ ed by O’Connor and Watson (1995) at the
University of Queensland. The only indication in this study of post-tertiary employ-
ment levels was the Ž nding that students with a disability who had graduated or
discontinued were less likely than the matched group to be looking for employment.
There were limitations to this study that must be taken into account when
generalising the results. The major limitation is the involvement of only one
university in the study, although the results for student characteristics and outcomes
did parallel those found in previous studies. There were also restrictions in the
method of identiŽ cation of students with a disability. Limited access to information
about disability status on enrolment forms meant that only students who had
applied to the Disability and Student Support Unit for assistance were surveyed.
The procedure did not identify all students with a disability, as evidenced by the fact
that later access to enrolment form information suggested that the disability cohort
may have been larger than that identiŽ ed.

Conclusion
This study examined the experiences of students with a disability at the University
of Newcastle over a three-year period, comparing the experiences of those students
with the experiences of students without a disability. The results showed that
students with a disability tended to be less successful than students without a
disability, although there was no signiŽ cant difference between the group in their
reason for discontinuing studies, or in the extent to which they believed that the
University had prepared them for employment. The disability group also experi-
enced additional stressors such as lower income.
As a result both of legislation and social justice principles, all Australian universi-
ties now enrol students with a disability. The results of this study emphasise the
need for university-wide policies and practices that ensure that such students derive
maximum beneŽ t from their educational opportunities.

Address for correspondence: Dr Ian Dempsey, Centre for Special Education and
Disability Studies, Faculty of Education, University of Newcastle, Callaghan NSW
2308, Australia. E-mail: Ian.Dempsey@newcastle.edu.au
 Characteristics and Outcomes of Students with a Disability 325

References
Andrews, R.J. (1991). Assistance for students with disabilities: Review of existing data. Canberra:
Australian Government Publishing Service.
Andrews, R.J., & Smith, J. (1992). Additional costs of education and training for people with
disabilities: Final report. Paradise Point, Qld: Robert J. Andrews and Associates.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (1990). Disability and Handicap, Australia: 1988. Canberra: Author.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (1999). Disability, ageing and carers Australia, 1998: Summary of
Ž ndings. Canberra: Author.
Canadian Rehabilitation Council for the Disabled (1990). D.A.T. Disability awareness training.
Toronto, Ontario: Author.
Commonwealth of Australia (1992). Disability Discrimination Act. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/
legis/cth/consol act/dda1992264/
Department of Employment Education & Training (1990). A fair chance for all. Canberra: Author.
Glanville, L. (1995). Enabling policies accessing higher education: The socio-legal response.
Australian Disability Review, 1, 55–62.
Hurst, A. (Ed.) (1998). Higher education and disabilities: International approaches. BrookŽ eld, Vt.:
Ashgate.
Lawrence, J.K., Kent, L., & Henson, J.W. (1982). The handicapped student in America’s colleges: A
longitudinal analysis, Part 3: Disabled 1978 freshmen 3 three years later. Los Angeles, Califor-
nia: Higher Education Research Institute.
Lewis, D.E. (1994). The performance at university of equity groups and students admitted via
alternative modes of entry. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Lumpkin, J.R. (1985). Validity of a brief locus of control scale for survey research. Psychological
Reports, 57, 655–659.
Martin, L. (1994). Equity and general performance indicators in higher education. Canberra: Aus-
tralian Government Publishing Service.
O’Connor, B., & Watson, R. (1995). Students with disabilities in tertiary education: An
Australian perspective. Australian Disability Review, 1, 31–53.
Organisation for Economic and Cultural Development (1997). Post-compulsory education for
disabled people. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED413729.
Parsons, I. (1996). Disability awareness, disability discrimination law: a training manual. Geelong
West, Vic.: Villamanta Publishing Service.
Schauder, D. (1981). University admission policies and people with disabilities. The Australian
Universities Review, 24, 22–25.
Smith, S., Carroll, A., & Elkins, J. (1999). University students with learning disabilities: Results
of a national survey. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 4, 18–30.
Taylor, A. (1995). Students with disabilities enrolled at the University of Newcastle in 1991, 1992,
1993: A demographic analysis. Unpublished thesis, University of Newcastle.
Trowbridge, J., & Mannely, K. (1987). Needs of students in post-secondary education in the State of
Washington. Olympia: Washington Governor’s Committee on the Employment of the
Handicapped.
University of Newcastle (1999). Institutional strategic plan 1998–2002. Newcastle, NSW: Author.
Watson, R. (1988). Report on the needs of students with disabilities at the University of Queensland.
University of Queensland, Counselling and Careers Centre.
Copyright of Higher Education Research & Development is the property of Routledge and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.