Journal on Postsecondary Education and Disability



Journal on Postsecondary Education and Disability

Editor

Sally S. Scott, The University of Connecticut

Associate Editors

Manju Banerjee, Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic

Elizabeth Getzel, Virginia Commonwealth University

Elaine Manglitz, University of Georgia

Editorial Review Board

Betty Aune, College of St. Scholastica

Ron Blosser, Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic

Loring Brinkerhoff, Educational Test Service and Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic

Donna Hardy Cox, Memorial University of Newfoundland

Catherine S. Fichten, Dawson College Montreal

Anna Gajar, The Pennsylvania State University

Sam Goodin, University of Michigan

Richard Harris, Ball State University

Cheri Hoy, University of Georgia

Charles A. Hughes, The Pennsylvania State University

Cyndi Jordan, University of Tennessee, Memphis and Hutchison School

Joseph Madaus, University of Connecticut

James K. McAfee, The Pennsylvania State

University

Joan M. McGuire, University of Connecticut

David McNaughton,The Pennsylvania State University

Daryl Mellard, University of Kansas

Ward Newmeyer, University of California, Berkeley

Nicole Ofiesh, University of Arizona

Lynda Price, Temple University

Frank R. Rusch, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Daniel J. Ryan, University of Buffalo

Stan Shaw, University of Connecticut

Patricia Silver, University of Massachusetts

Judith Smith, Purdue University Calumet

Judy Smithson

Sharon Suritsky, Upper St. Clair School District

Ruth Warick, University of British Columbia

Marc Wilchesky, York University

AHEAD Board of Directors

Sam Goodin, President

University of Michigan

J. Trey Duffy, Immediate Past President

University of Wisconsin - Madison

Randy Borst, President-Elect

University at Buffalo, SUNY

Carol Funckes, Treasurer

University of Arizona

Kent Jackson, Secretary

Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Carol DeSouza, Executive Director

AHEAD

Joanie Friend, Director of Communication

Metropolitan Community Colleges

Jim Kessler, Director of Membership/

Constituent Relations

University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill

Richard Allegra, Director of Professional

Development

University of Illinois at Chicago

David Sweeney, Director of Marketing

Texas A&M University

Eunice Lund-Lucas, International

Director-at-Large

Trent University

Margaret Ottinger, United States

Director-at-Large

University of Vermont

Journal on Postsecondary Education and Disability

Volume 15, Number 1

Fall 2001

Peer-Based Coaching for College Students with

ADHD and Learning Disabilities 5 - 20

Lavonne M. Zwart & Leanne M. Kallemeyn

The Psychosocial Development of College Students

With and Without Learning Disabilities 21 - 33

James J. Costello & R. William English

Computer Technologies For Postsecondary Students

With Disabilities I: Comparison of Student And

Service Provider Perspectives 34 - 66

Catherine S. Fichten

Jennison V. Asuncion

Maria Barile

Myrtis E. Fossey

Chantal Robillard

Computer Technologies For Postsecondary Students

With Disabilities II: Resources and Recommendations

For Postsecondary Service Providers 67 - 92

Catherine S. Fichten

Jennifer V. Asuncion

Maria Barile

Mrytis E. Fossey

Chantal Robillard

Joan Wolforth

Book Review: Meeting the Challenge of Learning Disabilities in Adulthood. 93 - 94

Elaine Manglitz

Copyright C 2001, The Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD), Boston, MA

The Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability is published two times per year, nonprofit bulk rate postage paid at Boston, Massachusetts. Any article is the personal expression of the authors and does not necessarily carry AHEAD endorsement unless specifically set forth by adopted resolution.

The Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability seeks manuscripts relevant to postsecondary access and support for students with disabilities, including theory, practice and innovative research. For information on submitting a manuscript, see“Author Guidelines” pages 104 - 105 of this issue. Send materials to: Dr. Sally Scott, University of Connecticut, Department of Educational Psychology/Hall 110, Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability/ Unit 2064, Storrs, CT, 06269-2064

Note from the Editor

Welcome to the fall issue of the Journal. In this issue, you will find articles on a range of interesting and practical topics as well as some new features of the Journal. I am pleased to welcome three new Associate Editors who will be joining me in piloting several new initiatives pertaining to the Journal this year. Elaine Manglitz, Manju Banerjee, and Liz Getzel will be providing leadership in enhancing outreach efforts for the Journal, creating supports for new writers, and hosting a book review column (see the first review in this issue). We hope you will enjoy these new features of the Journal and welcome your feedback.

The articles in this issue reflect a range of topics and exemplify outstanding efforts to link research and practice. In the lead article, Zwart and Kallemeyn describe their research examining the effectiveness of a peer-based coaching program for students with ADHD and LD. Following, Costello and English report the results of an empirical study examining psychosocial development of college students with learning disabilities. Wrapping up this issue, two companion articles by Fichten and her colleagues at the Adaptech Project in Montreal, Canada provide us with a comprehensive perspective on their ambitious activities examining computer, information, and adaptive computer technology needs and concerns of Canadian postsecondary students. The first article describes the outcomes of three related research studies and is complemented by the companion article discussing recommendations for practice and service delivery.

As always, I am available for comment, feedback, or inquiries at s.scott@uconn.edu.

Sally Scott

Editor

Peer-Based Coaching for College Students with ADHD and Learning Disabilities

Lavonne M. Zwart

Leanne M. Kallemeyn

Calvin College

Abstract

A peer-based coaching program for students with ADHD and learning disabilities was studied for its effectiveness in helping college students with self-efficacy and study skills. Participants were divided into two groups: an experimental group, which included students who participated in the coaching program; and a control group, which included students who did not participate in the coaching program. The Self-Efficacy Scale (Sherer et al., 1982) and the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (Weinstein, Schutte, & Palmer, 1987) were given at the beginning and end of the program to all participants. The findings suggest that peer-based support may be an effective means for enhancing general self-efficacy as well as some key areas of learning strategies and study skills for college students with ADHD and learning disabilities.

Students with a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often arrive at college with some deficits in study strategies (Javorsky & Gussin, 1994; Zentall, 1993), as do students with learning disabilities (McGuire, Hall, & Litt, 1991; Shaw, Byron, Norlander, McGuire, & Anderson, 1988). Difficulties with organization and executive functioning can affect time-management, procrastination, and study skills including test taking, note-taking, and paper writing (McGuire et al., 1991). In the last decade or so, there has been an emphasis on providing programming and support at the college level for these students. Many of these studies have de-emphasized a specific content tutoring approach and focused instead on a learning strategy instruction approach (Brinckerhoff, Shaw, & McGuire, 1992; McGuire et al., 1991).

Brinckerhoff (1991) encouraged colleges and universities to consider the promotion of learning strategy instruction for students with learning disabilities. He suggested giving tutors specific education in learning disabilities and learning strategies to pass on to each student so they can work with these students more effectively. This insight is also applicable to students with ADHD. Useful learning strategies for students with ADHD include: organizational skills, time-management, goal setting, and specific study skills (Finn, 1998; Willis, Hoben, & Myette, 1995). Self-advocacy training is also recommended to teach students skills of speaking out and educating peers or professors about their disabilities (Brinckerhoff et al., 1992; Cullen, Shaw, & McGuire, 1996; Roessler, Brown, & Rumrill, 1998).

Programming that is geared toward gaining skills in learning strategies and self-advocacy can lead to student independence and academic success (Brinckerhoff et al., 1992; McGuire et al., 1991). One such program called the “AD/HD Skills and Strategies Program” had positive results with students with ADHD at the college level (Burt, Parks-Charney, & Schwean, 1996). This program was conducted at the University of Saskatchewan by group facilitators and involved a program with eight components that are purported to help students with ADHD implement certain self-advocacy and study techniques.

Peer-based support is another avenue to help students with ADHD learn these skills. A model of peer mentoring for students with disabilities has been used at the University of California, San Diego (Ellis, Gimblett, & Witztum, 1997) with some success. This peer-mentoring program was used to help retain high-risk students with disabilities during their first year of transition to college. Research on peer-based programs emphasizes the need to include knowledge about ADHD and learning disabilities in the training. Training for tutors needs to address the features and symptoms of the disability in approaching the learning styles of each student (Richard, 1995).

Recently, several books have been published specifically for college students with ADHD. These books include educational information about the diagnosis and its manifestation in college. Self-advocacy and study skills for college students including time-management strategies, environment for studying, note-taking and test preparation are discussed (Bramer, 1996; Nadeau, 1994; Quinn, 1994). These books are concisely written and provide helpful information. However, some students with ADHD may find it difficult to garner information from a book alone and may benefit from practicing the tasks with a trained peer.

Some college students diagnosed with ADHD also seem to learn better in a small group format such as a tutorial than in a large group setting such as a seminar or class (Zentall, 1993). Specifically training students as peer coaches so they can help with study strategies and self-advocacy techniques provides students with one-on-one help. According to Hallowell and Ratey (1991), a coach can be any person who is educated about ADHD and provides support and encouragement. Barga (1996) studied several students in college to identify what skills were important in managing their learning disability. She found that those who coped positively utilized the support of a “benefactor,” in this case usually a mother, who helped with homework, advocacy, support, and understanding. In a college setting where a family member is not readily available or when a family member might not be appropriate, peers might also play the role of “benefactor” or “coach.”

At some colleges and universities, service provision options available for students with ADHD include coaching services (Parker, 1998). Coaching services may involve some instruction in learning strategies but these services also encourage students to have their own answers, and ideas for studying. Coaches are trained to build on what the student already knows. The peer coach is a person who learns from the student with a disability and inquires about what is already working. The peer coach then offers ideas for the student to accept or not accept depending on what is helpful.

This study is an outcome research project which looked at the effectiveness of a peer-based coaching program for students primarily with the diagnosis of ADHD and/or learning disabilities implemented at a 4-year private college. It was hypothesized that students who participated in the peer-based coaching program would show significant improvements in self-efficacy (as measured by the Self-Efficacy Scale; Sherer et al., 1982) and study skills (as measured by the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory; Weinstein et al., 1987) in comparison with students who were not involved in the program.

Method

Participants

This study was conducted at a private college with a student body of approximately 4,000 students. Fifty students agreed to participate in the study. This sample was 94% Caucasian while 6% of students were from other racial backgrounds; 52% were males and 48% females. The majority of students (66%) were freshmen; 22% were sophomores; 12% were juniors and seniors. Seventy-two percent of students were diagnosed with ADHD; of whom 9% were also diagnosed with a learning disability. Twenty-two percent of students were diagnosed with only a learning disability; 6% had no diagnosis but struggled academically.

Before the fall semester, students with ADHD and learning disabilities submitted documentation to the Services for Students with Disabilities Office after gaining admission to the college (first-year students) or after completing recent assessment for ADHD or LD (second through fourth year students). The documentation for ADHD followed the Guidelines for Documentation of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Adolescents and Adults (Consortium on ADHD, 1998) and included a DSM-IV diagnosis (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). The documentation for learning disabilities followed the Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) guidelines (1997). As the documentation was received and read, particular attention was paid to the recommendations section in the student’s documentation. If the professional who provided the assessment recommended a coaching program, or specific help that the coaching program targeted, such as time-management or study skills, the student was identified for participation in the coaching program. There were also several students who were not diagnosed or not yet diagnosed with a disability but who had pronounced academic struggles who were receiving help through the Disabilities Office. Even though the coaching program targeted students with ADHD and LD, students who could benefit from the program but did not have a diagnosis were not excluded. Thirty-five students with ADHD, a learning disability, or pronounced academic struggles were invited to participate in the coaching program.

Out of the 35 identified students, 27 students committed to participate in the program. These students completed the pretest measures with a research assistant prior to their first meeting with their coach. Also, at the beginning of the semester 35 students were contacted to participate in the control group. Out of the 35 students, 23 students agreed to serve as controls. These students were not randomly selected but recruited through the Services to Students with Disabilities Office in an attempt to have similar experimental and control groups. These students also completed the pretest measures with a research assistant. At the time of pretest, all students were asked to sign a consent form to be in the program and informed about confidentiality.

Of the 27 students in the experimental condition, 22 students completed the coaching program and the post measures. Of the 23 students in the control group, 20 completed the posttests approximately one month prior to the end of the semester, which is typically when students in the experimental group completed the program. Participants were involved in the program in the Fall Semester (September to December 1999). Depending on the participants’ needs, they attended between 2 and 10 coaching sessions, with a mean of 5.5 sessions.

Measures

All students were given two measures at the beginning and end of the study and a third measure at the end of the study only. The following instruments comprised the measures for the study. The Self-Efficacy Scale (SES) is a 30-item instrument that measures general expectations of self-efficacy, which are a person’s expectations of mastery based on past experiences of success, which lead to behavioral changes. The SES has two subscales: General and Social. For the purpose of this study, the General Self-Efficacy Scale was used, which focuses on self-efficacy in the face of educational and vocational challenges. General self-efficacy focuses on initiation and persistence with tasks and a sense of efficacy in the face of adversity (e.g., a disability). Items were assessed with a five-response Likert scale, ranging from disagree strongly (1) to agree strongly (5). Scale scores are devised by summing items in the subscale. The SES has fairly good internal consistency, with alpha scores of .86 for the general subscale. The scale was also shown to have good construct validity in that the scale correlated moderately in a predicted fashion with other measures of a similar nature. Criterion-related validity was shown by a positive correlation between success experiences in educational, vocational, and military areas and scores on the Self-Efficacy Scale (Sherer et al., 1982). The authors encourage the use of this scale as an index of progress based on a particular intervention.

The Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI) is a 77-item instrument that assesses students’ practices and attitudes about learning and studying (Weinstein, Schutte, & Palmer, 1987). The LASSI has been studied for its effectiveness in determining learning/study skills difficulties with postsecondary students with learning disabilities (Kovach & Wilgosh, 1999). Since the coaching program emphasized study skills and learning strategies, this scale provided an indication of the usefulness of coaching techniques. The scale is composed of ten subscales: 1) attitude, which relates to general attention given to school; 2) motivation, which relates to responsibility for performing school related tasks; 3) use of time-management principles; 4) anxiety about school performance; 5) concentration; 6) information processing, which relates to the use of organization to help with understanding and recall of subject matter; 7) selecting main ideas for further study; 8) use of study aids; 9) self-testing as it relates to reviewing subject matter; and 10) test preparation. Items were assessed with a five-response Likert scale ranging from not at all typical of me (1) to very much typical of me (5). Coefficient alphas for the scales range from .68 for use of study aids to .86 for time management (Weinstein, 1987).

A posttest measure called Resources was given to students to assess student utilization of other campus resources during the coaching program. Students in both experimental and control groups were asked if they had utilized the following resources during the past semester: tutoring, rhetoric center, and a study skills course. Since these resources share common goals with the coaching program, differences in utilization of these resources between groups were assessed.

Coaching Program

The coaching program is a program for students with ADHD and learning disabilities who specifically want help with self-advocacy, time-management, study skills, and organizational skills. Other help also exists for students with both of these disabilities such as: subject tutoring, a rhetoric center that helps specifically with writing, and a study skills course. The coaching program offers students with ADHD and learning disabilities specific skills and strategies they may not find from another service. Even though the program is marketed to students who are diagnosed with a disability, other students who would benefit from the program (e.g., have pronounced academic difficulties, are in the process of being tested for a disability) are also welcome to participate.

The following is an overview of the program. For more detailed information, contact the first author. The program has two main parts: Coach selection and training, which involves selecting and training the peer coaches, and coaching sessions, which involve meetings between the coach and student.

Coach selection and training. Student coaches are hired through recommendations from professors. They have a GPA of at least 3.0 and have demonstrated skills in time-management and study skills. Attempts are made to recruit students with disabilities to be coaches, as well as students without disabilities who are interested in working with this population. Coach training happens in three parts. First, the coaches are trained in a group seminar for a four-hour time period by the Coordinator for Students with Disabilities. During this time, coaches are given a manual of training information. In this manual, basic skills of building rapport, empathy, and confidentiality are reviewed. Legal issues pertaining to the support of students with disabilities are discussed.

Coaches are given basic education on both ADHD and learning disabilities and are introduced to a resource library at the college as well as pertinent websites (See Table 1). Coaches are also given information on the definition of each diagnosis as well as diagnostic information specific to college students. They are taught to help students with self-advocacy skills with peers and professors. Time-management skills are reviewed by having each coach review use of a day planner to schedule daily activities and create to-do lists.

Table 1

Recommended References for Coaching Program

Education on ADHD and Learning Disabilities:

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual. (4th ed.). Washington, D.C: Author.

Barkley, R. A. (1998). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for diagnosis and treatment. New York: The Guilford Press.

Brinckerhoff, L. C., Shaw, S. F., & McGuire, J. M. (1993). Promoting postsecondary education for students with learning disabilities: A handbook for practitioners. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, Inc.

Hallowell, E. M., & Ratey, J. J. (1994). Driven to distraction: Recognizing and coping with attention deficit disorder from childhood to adulthood. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Richard, M. M. (1995). Students with attention deficit disorders in postsecondary education: Issues in identification and accommodation. In K. G. Nadeau (Ed.), A comprehensive guide to attention deficit disorder in adults: Research, diagnosis, treatment. New York: Brunner/Mazel Publishers.

Swanson, H. L. (Ed.). (1991). Handbook on the assessment of learning disabilities: Theory, research and practice. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Westman, J. C. (1990). Handbook of learning disabilities: A multisystem approach. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Self advocacy:

Bramer, J. S. (1996). Study skills for college students with ADD. Plantation, FL: Specialty Press.

Silberberg, E., & Opperman, W. (1999, July). Self-advocacy workshop. Paper presented at the annual AHEAD conference, Atlanta, GA.

Time management:

Bramer, J. S. (1996). Study skills for college students with ADD. Plantation, FL: Specialty Press.

Note-taking:

Bramer, J. S. (1996). Study skills for college students with ADD. Plantation, FL: Specialty, Press.

Study skills:

Carlton, P., Burke, L., and Kunze,T. (1998, July). A cornucopia of strategies for working with LD and ADD Students. Paper presented at the annual AHEAD conference, Las Vegas, NV.

Lunsford, A., Connors, R. (1996). The St. Martin’s Handbook. (3rd ed.). New York: St. Martin’s Press.

McEwan, E. K. (1997). Managing attention and learning disorders. Wheaton, IL:Harold Shaw Publishers.

Miller, E. F. (1998). Effective Strategies for tutoring students with LD and ADHD, Bethlehem, PA: Rabbit Hill Press.

Sotiriou, P. E. (1989). Integrating college study skills: Reasoning in reading, listening, and writing. (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Organizational skills:

Hallowell, E. M., & Ratey, J. J. (1994). Driven to distraction: Recognizing and coping with attention deficit disorder from childhood to adulthood. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Kristan, P. (1995, March). Getting it together: Notes from a personal organization skills consultant to adults with ADHD. The ADHD Report. New York: Guilford Publications.

Websites:









Tips for helping students with procrastination are also discussed. Coaches review note-taking skills. Specific tasks such as highlighting, reading textbooks effectively, studying for objective and essay tests, and tips for writing papers are reviewed. Lastly, coaches are trained to help their students with organizational skills such as keeping their binders organized, using filing systems for school and home, and keeping their desks and rooms organized.

Secondly, coaches are given in-service training every other week during the academic year. This is a time when the coaches review the training manual and are given additional training inservices on topics pertinent to students with ADHD and learning disabilities. Coaches learn about resources such as books, websites, and organizations that may be helpful to students. Coaches learn about on-campus referrals. They are orientated to the Services to Students with Disabilities Office, the library, the rhetoric center for writing skills, and tutoring services. Coaches review the diagnosis of ADHD and learning disabilities and discuss causes, symptoms, and treatment of each. Coaches review time-management strategies, and specific study skills. Inservices also focus on specific topics such as career planning for students with disabilities, and ADHD and interpersonal relationships. Coaches are encouraged to present information at the meetings regarding ADHD or learning disabilities that is specifically of interest to them. During the inservice time, coaches also discuss the students they are seeing in order to gain additional feedback from the supervisor and other peer coaches. Third, the coaches may consult with the supervisor on an as-needed basis about a specific student.

Coaching sessions. A student who is interested in the program is screened by the Coordinator for Students with Disabilities. At this time the student is given preliminary information about the coaching program and asked to make a time commitment to the program (approximately one hour per week for at least five weeks). After the student is given information about the coaching program, he/she makes a choice about whether or not to participate in the coaching program. If the student chooses to participate in the program, the initial coaching session is scheduled for one-hour. During this meeting, the coach becomes acquainted with the student on a personal level, asking why she/he requested coaching services, where she/he struggles most, and where she/he needs help. The coach explains the coaching program and asks the student to sign a contract of commitment to the program. They also plan for their sessions together by filling out a Student Needs Checklist. This checklist includes the information found in Table 2. The student and the coach review the checklist to determine the course of the coaching program for that student. The student decides which areas she/he would like to focus on, however, most students focus on time-management principles and study skills. Each student is required to own a planner and is guided

Table 2

Student Needs Checklist

Education on ADHD/ learning disability diagnosis

Learn more about my diagnosis

Learn more about my own learning style

Time management

Learn to use a planner

Schedule consistent study time

Help with procrastination

Note taking skills

Learn a new system of note taking

Help with organization of notes

Help with not writing too much or too little

Learn to review and edit notes after each lecture

Study skills

Finding the appropriate environment to study

Reading, highlighting, and summarizing textbooks

Study strategies and test preparation

Test-taking: help with objective tests (multiple choice tests), help with essay tests

Writing a research paper

Organization

Help organizing room

Papers cluttering desk (help establishing a filing system)

by the coach to use the planner to keep track of schoolwork, study time, work, meals, weekly appointments, recreational time, and sleep. Coaches help students struggling with procrastination to break large tasks into smaller tasks and assign due dates for each of these small tasks. During each coaching session, the student’s progress is reviewed. Students also review study skills. Specific tasks such as note-taking, highlighting, reading textbooks effectively, studying for objective and essay tests, and tips for writing papers are reviewed as needed.

The student might also choose to become better educated about their diagnosis, learn self-advocacy skills, or learn organizational skills. The coach builds on what the student already knows and encourages what is working for the student while describing and teaching new skills. Coaches might introduce students to websites and a resource library at the college that contains information on ADHD and learning disabilities in order to help students learn more about their diagnosis. They might suggest using role-playing as a way to prepare the student to discuss his or her disability with peers or professors. Coaches might also help students organize their binders, use filing systems, and learn to keep their desks and rooms organized. After each session, the coach completes a coaching report detailing the events of the session. The report is then read by the supervisor.

Results

Pretest Equivalencies of Groups

Attempts were made to have similar experimental and control groups at pretest. To verify that the two groups were equivalent at pretest, chi-squares were performed on gender, year in college, and diagnosis. There were no differences in gender or year in college at pretest. However, the diagnosis of the students was significantly different between the two groups, X2(3) = 13.02, p < 0.01. In the experimental group, 78% of the students were diagnosed with ADHD, 13% with both ADHD and a learning disability, and 9% with no diagnosis. In the control group, 48% of the students were diagnosed with ADHD, 44% with a learning disability, 4% with both ADHD and learning disability, and 4% with no diagnosis. Comparatively, the experimental group had a higher representation of students with ADHD than the control group. Also, 44% of the students in the control group were diagnosed with only a learning disability while none of the students in the experimental group were. Due to this difference, an additional analysis was performed on the data.

In addition to the chi-squares, t-tests were performed on each subscale of the outcome measures in order to measure equivalency at pretest. Significant differences were detected on two subscales of the LASSI. The control group (M = 27.1, SD = 6.0) scored higher on the motivation subscale than the experimental group (M = 22.6, SD = 4.6), t(48) = -2.977, p < 0.01. The control group (M = 20.7, SD = 6.7) also scored higher on the time management subscale than the experimental group (M = 15.6, SD = 5.0), t(48) = -2.961, p < 0.01. These differences may be due to the non-random assignment of participants into the experimental and control group. These differences are addressed in the Discussion section.

On the additional posttest measure called Resources, chi-squares were performed to assess differences between control and experimental groups in the use of the following resources: tutoring, the rhetoric center, and a study skills course. No significant differences in utilization of these services were detected between the experimental and control group.

Evaluation of Outcome Measures

Analysis 1. Change-scores between the pretest and posttest measures were calculated for the SES and LASSI subscales for both the experimental and control groups. As seen in Table 3, scores of the experimental group improved on all subscales. Comparatively, the control group’s scores improved on some subscales and dropped on others. One-tailed t-tests revealed a significant difference in change-scores between the two

Table 3

Results of Change-Scores for General Self-Efficacy and LASSI Subscales

Experimental Control

(n=22) (n=20)

Outcome Measures M SD M SD t value (df = 40)

General Self-Efficacy 4.64 8.56 -1.00 5.88 2.46*

LASSI

Attitude 1.19 3.93 -1.16 3.80 1.92*

Motivation 3.52 4.84 -1.58 2.61 4.08**

Time management 3.43 3.98 -0.42 4.01 3.04*

Anxiety 2.81 3.56 0.68 3.30 1.95*

Concentration 3.33 5.01 1.15 3.59 1.56

Inf. processing 2.14 5.24 1.47 4.98 .41

Main ideas 2.05 3.32 -0.42 2.71 2.56**

Study aids 2.48 4.52 0.68 3.67 1.37

Self-testing 3.04 4.55 2.05 3.78 .75

Test preparation 3.62 5.24 -0.26 4.40 2.52**

*p < 0.05 (one-tailed)

**p < 0.01 (one-tailed)

groups on several of the subscales. The experimental group showed significant improvements over the control group on the General Self-Efficacy Scale and the following LASSI subscales: attitude, motivation, use of time-management principles, anxiety, selecting main ideas, and test preparation. On the General Self-Efficacy Scale and the first three LASSI subscales a worsening of scores in the control group, in addition to improvement by the experimental group, contributed to the substantial differences in change-scores. On the latter four LASSI subscales, the significant change in scores was mainly due to improvement by the experimental group while the control group made little change.

Since the experimental group had such a large proportion of people with ADHD and no students with the diagnosis of learning disability alone, a subsequent analysis was conducted on the data. All people with an LD diagnosis alone were taken out of the control group and a new control group (Control 2) was formed with 11 participants. For this group and the experimental group, pretest equivalency of groups was reanalyzed and there were no longer any significant differences between the experimental and control group at pretest.

Change-scores between the pretest and posttest measures were again calculated for the SES and LASSI subscales for the experimental and newly formed control group. The results of this new analysis showed some differences from the original comparison between groups. The General Self-Efficacy Scale was no longer significant. Five out of the six subscales that were originally significant (p < .05, one-tailed) on the LASSI remained significant. These five subscales were: motivation, time-management, anxiety, selecting main ideas, and test taking. Results on the other subscale, attitude, were not significant but showed a positive trend in the predicted direction. The other four subscales remained non-significant.

Table 4

Paired-Sample Tests for Experimental and Control Groups

Experimental Control Control 2

(n=22) (n=20) (n = 11)

Outcome Measures t value t value M SD t value

(df = 21) (df = 19) (df = 10)

General Self-Efficacy 2.54* -.76 2.27 4.60 1.63

LASSI

Attitude 1.38 -1.33 -1.09 3.30 -1.10

Motivation 3.33* -2.64* -1.82 2.99 -2.01

Time management 3.95* -0.46 0.45 4.39 0.34

Anxiety 3.62* 0.90 0.18 2.56 0.26

Concentration 3.05* 1.40 1.82 2.09 2.89*

Inf. processing 1.88 1.29 2.36 5.35 1.46

Main ideas 2.82* -0.68 -0.64 2.91 -0.73

Study aids 2.51* 0.81 1.73 3.41 1.68

Self-testing 3.07* 2.37* 3.36 4.01 2.78*

Test preparation 3.17* -0.26 -0.36 4.52 -0.27

*p < 0.05 (two-tailed)

Analysis 2. Since this subsequent analysis differed from the original findings, the data were reanalyzed to look at each group independent from the other to show within group changes from pre- to posttest. Paired sample tests were used with three separate groups (see Table 4). Means and standard deviations are not shown for the first two groups since the data is available on Table 3. Means, standard deviations and t-values are reported for the third paired samples test (Control 2). The first paired samples test looked at the experimental group only. These results show that the experimental group made significant improvements on almost all of the subscales, from pre- to posttest. The second paired samples test looked at the entire control group. These results show that the control group had varied results, making some improvements and some declines. The control group made a significant improvement in a desired direction on only one of the LASSI subscales, self-testing. A third paired samples test was performed on Control 2. This test was performed in order to more accurately compare these students with the experimental group. Again, the results showed that the control group had varied results making some improvements and some declines. This group made a significant improvement in the desired direction on two LASSI subscales: self-testing and concentration.

Discussion

The purpose of this research was to study the outcome and effectiveness of a peer-based coaching program by looking at differences in self-efficacy and study skills between an experimental and control group. The intervention had an impact on the participants in the coaching program. In both analyses, the experimental group significantly benefited from the intervention in key areas of self-efficacy and learning strategies and study skills.

Outcome Measures

In the original analysis, general self-efficacy changed significantly for those who participated in the coaching program over those in the control group. However, when changes were made to the control group to ensure equivalency of groups at pretest, general self-efficacy was no longer significant. This difference is unclear and may be due, in part, to the reduced size of the control group. However, on the second analysis, general self-efficacy improved significantly for those who were in the coaching program from pre- to posttest. Due to these discrepancies the data should be looked at with caution.

In order to bring about greater self-efficacy, the coaches tried to help students gain success and mastery by learning advocacy skills through education about their diagnosis and through time-management and study skills. Also, effectiveness in certain tasks may have given the students more willingness to initiate and persist with tasks. One of the goals of the coaching program was to aid students in finding ways to learn more about their diagnosis in order to approach professors and peers in a knowledgeable way as well as approach their academics in ways that would bring about positive results.

In the original analysis, 6 of the 10 measures on the LASSI showed significant results. Those measures were: attitude, motivation, use of time management principles, a decrease in anxiety about school performance, selecting main ideas, and test preparation. The first subscale, attitude, showed improvement for the experimental group over the control group on the original analysis. However when changes were made to the control group to ensure equivalency of groups at pretest, attitude was no longer significant, but showed a trend in the predicted direction. This subscale is used to measure attitude and interest in college. If the students did find success in academics through utilization of the coaching program, this may have helped increase their interest in college-related tasks.

The groups were not equivalent at pretest for two of the LASSI subscales, motivation and time-management. This difference may be due to the difficulty with not using a random sample for the control and experimental group. Those in the control group could have been students who had more motivation and better time-management skills to begin with. Also results should be interpreted with caution since the control group had higher scores on these two subscales at pretest and did not have much room to increase their scores whereas the experimental group was lower at pretest and therefore had more room to increase their scores on these two measures. The significant difference in change scores was due to both the experimental group increasing their scores and the control group decreasing their scores.

Therefore with the above caution taken into consideration, we can say that the nature of this program appeared to help with motivation toward taking responsibility for performing school-related tasks. The personal encouragement and accountability may have been a motivating factor to keep up with academic work. The coaches often helped students accomplish goals with use of a reward system, whereby the student engaged in a desirable behavior (e.g. social interaction, watching television) after accomplishing a certain task. Coaches also used e-mail and phone calls to help encourage students.

Students in the program most often chose time-management principles from the Student Needs Checklists. Students wanted help keeping a planner, organizing their time, setting goals and priorities, and minimizing procrastination. This study shows that the coaching program may have helped students with time-management skills. The one-on-one nature of the program provided some accountability for the student. In fact, written student feedback after the program indicated an appreciation for the sessions as a source of accountability.

Students in the experimental group improved over students in the control group on the anxiety subscale of the LASSI. Therefore students’ ratings of their own anxiety decreased as a result of the coaching program. This is especially encouraging in light of previous research (Grimes, 1995) that showed that students with a learning disability demonstrated significantly more anxiety toward school than low-risk students. Two other subscales on the LASSI that showed a significant improvement in change scores were selecting main ideas and test preparation. Both of these subscales are indicative of improvements in study skills. On the other four subscales of the LASSI, although results were not statistically significant, the trend was in a positive direction.

Limitations of Matched Controls

There were disadvantages to using matched controls as opposed to randomly placing students in each group. First of all, even though attempts were made to have similar groups, there were significant differences between the experimental group and control group on the basis of diagnosis. There were more students with ADHD in the experimental group (78%) than in the control group (48%). Also there were no students in the experimental group with a diagnosis of LD alone, while there were 44% of students in the control group with a diagnosis of LD. One of the reasons for this misrepresentation is that there were a limited number of students to choose from for the control group. Due to these differences, a subsequent analysis was performed.

This analysis looked at each of the groups through a paired samples test. This test showed that the experimental group clearly benefited from the program and improved their scores on most of the measures from pre- to posttest (see Table 4). The control group (both with and without the participants diagnosed with LD) did not show the same improvements as the experimental group. However, in both cases there were significant changes on one or two of the subscales for the control group.

In both control groups the self-testing subscale on the LASSI improved significantly (see Table 4). Interestingly, this subscale measures how well students monitor their own reviewing and preparing for tests. Possibly the control group, without the help of the coaching program, had to develop this skill since there was no available peer support. Perhaps the coaching program was not helping students obtain independent self-testing skills, which is a disadvantage, and would be an area of further development within the program. The concentration subscale also improved for Control 2 from pre- to posttest. Concentration helps students focus their attention on school. It is unclear as to why the students in this group actually improved in this area without support, however, it may be due, in part, to the non-random selection of groups.

In summary, the difficulty with matched controls is a flaw in the study. Therefore the results should be looked at with caution. However, this study can serve as giving some preliminary direction to future studies that may be able to eliminate some of these flaws.

Other Limitations

The coaching program did not include identical protocols for each session for all students. The students and coaches chose the direction of the sessions at the first session by using the Students Needs Checklist. This checklist could always be revised if students wanted more help in a certain direction. However, this method relies on the students to give an accurate representation of their needs. There are advantages to this style of program, in that students have autonomy and ownership of their own program. However, if students think they are strong in an area when they are not, they may not get the help they need from the coach. In this study, the students in the coaching program may not have received help in each area that the LASSI measures.

Another limitation has to do with the varying number of sessions. Again, the coaching program is somewhat self-directed by the students as they identify their own needs. However, this led to differences in the number of sessions that each student was given. The results may have been different with a standard number of sessions (e.g., every student had five sessions).

Initially 70 students were contacted to participate in the program. These students were contacted through meetings with an advisor in the Services for Students with Disabilities Office, through e-mail, or through postal mail. Although 35 students were asked to participate in the coaching program, 27 students agreed to participate, and eight students decided not to participate. The students who chose not to participate either did not think the program would be helpful or did not have enough time to participate. Also, 35 students were asked to serve as controls. No student refused to participate but 12 out of 35 students did not respond to our request or did not follow through with their agreement to take the pre-test.

Therefore, the program began with 50 students. During the program five students dropped out of the coaching program and three students from the control group never returned to fill out the posttest. All three students from the control group were contacted and agreed to fill out the posttest material but did not follow through with their agreement. The five students in the coaching program who dropped out of the program left for varying reasons (e.g., not following through with coaching, leaving college). At least one student didn’t really think the coaching program was teaching him new information. It is hard to know if these students’ scores on the pre-post measure would have affected the final results. For example, if all five left the coaching program because they were doing poorly in school, they may have affected the results by receiving lower scores on the posttest in areas of self-efficacy and study skills. However, the difficulties in keeping the students in the program is indicative of trying to keep students linked to a program of any kind in college, even those that may be helpful.

Future Research

As peer-based coaching programs are utilized more in colleges and universities, larger colleges and universities with a broader pool of prospective participants may want to systematically study the effectiveness of such a program using a random sample of students assigned to an experimental and control condition. The effectiveness of varying numbers of sessions could also be studied.

Another area of study might be comparing peer-based programs of support to programs that utilize professionals from within the college/university setting. Differences in effectiveness between these groups may or may not be apparent. Using professionals may reduce the likelihood of providing one-on-one support. Group education and support could also be compared to individual help. Differences in student involvement, commitment, as well as self-efficacy and study skills could be compared for students receiving group or one-on-one support.

The present coaching program is somewhat self-directed by the students as they identify their own needs. However, in the future this program could be standardized so that each student receives the same guidance from each coach. Each student would then receive consistent help and the program could be more easily generalized.

For this study, the coaching program offered short-term help. However, some students may need longer term coaching. In the future, coaching programs could offer both short-term and long-term coaching based on the student request or needs. The programs could then be compared for effectiveness.

This study provides some preliminary data on an outcome study of a peer-based coaching program for students in college or university with ADHD and learning disabilities. The results are promising and indicate that students with these disabilities may benefit from a one-on-one peer-based coaching program that provides help with self-efficacy and with study skills. More research is needed in this area as programs and services continue to be provided for students with disabilities.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Association on Higher Education And Disability. (1997). Guidelines for documentation of a learning disability in adolescents and adults. Columbus, OH: Author.

Barga, N. K. (1996). Students with learning disabilities in education: Managing a disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(4), 413-421.

Bramer, J. S. (1996). Succeeding in college with attention deficit disorders: Issues and strategies for students, counselors, and educators. Plantation, FL: Specialty Press, Inc.

Brinckerhoff, L. C. (1991). Establishing learning disability support services with minimal resources. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 9(1 & 2), 184-196.

Brinckerhoff, L. C., Shaw, S. F. & McGuire, J. M. (1992). Promoting access, accommodations, and independence for college students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(7), 417-429.

Burt, K. L., Parks-Charney, R., & Schwean, V. L. (1996). The AD/HD skills and strategies program: A program for AD/HD adults in postsecondary education. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 12(2) 122-134.

Consortium on ADHD. (1998, January). Guidelines for documentation of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders in adolescents and adults.

Cullen, J. P., Shaw, S. F., & McGuire, J. M. (1996). Practitioner support of self-advocacy among college students with learning disabilities: A comparison of practice and attitudes. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 12(2), 2-15.

Ellis, A., Gimblett, R., & Witztum, M. (1997). Peer mentoring program efficacy study. San Diego, CA: University of California, San Diego, Office for Students with Disabilities.

Finn, L. L. (1998). Students’ perceptions of beneficial learning disability accommodations and services at the postsecondary level. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 13(1), 46-67.

Grimes, S. K. (1995). Targeting academic programs to student diversity utilizing learning styles and learning–study strategies. Journal of College Student Development, 36(5), 422-430.

Hallowell, E. M., & Ratey, J. J. (1991). Driven to distraction: Recognizing and coping with attention deficit disorder from childhood to adulthood. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Javorsky, J., & Gussin, B. (1994). College students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: An overview and description of services. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 170-177.

Kovach, K., & Wilgosh, L. (1999) Learning and study strategies, and performance anxiety in postsecondary students with learning disabilities: A preliminary study. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 27(1), 46-57.

McGuire, J. M., Hall, D., & Litt, A. V. (1991). A field-based study of the direct service needs of college students with learning disabilities. Journal of College Student Development, 32, 101-108.

Nadeau, K. G. (1994). Survival guide for college students with ADD or LD. Washington, DC: Magination Press.

Parker, D. R. (1998, April). Service provision options for students with ADHD. ALERT, 22(2), 24-27.

Quinn, P. O. (Ed.). (1994). ADD and the college student: A guide for high school and college students with Attention Deficit Disorder. Washington DC: Magination Press.

Richard, M. M. (1995). Pathways to success for the college student with ADD: Accommodations and preferred practices. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 11(2 & 3), 16-30.

Roessler, R. T., Brown, P. L., & Rumrill, P. D. (1998). Self-advocacy training: Preparing students with disabilities to request classroom accommodations. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 13(3), 20-31.

Shaw, S. A., Byron, J., Norlander, K. A., McGuire, J. M., & Anderson, P. L. (1988). Preparing learning disabled students for college. In L. Weinger (Ed.), Issues in College Learning Centers, 6, 2-14.

Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663-671.

Weinstein, C. E. (1987). Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI): User’s manual. Clearwater, FL: H & H Publishing.

Weinstein, C. E., Schutte, A. C., & Palmer, D. P. (1987). Learning and Study Strategies Inventory, (LASSI). Clearwater, FL: H & H Publishing.

Willis, C., Hoben, S., & Myette, P. (1995). Devising a supportive climate based on clinical vignettes of college students with attention deficit disorder. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 11(2 & 3), 31-43.

Zentall, S. S. (1993). Research on the educational implications of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Exceptional Children, 60(2), 143-153.

About the Authors

Lavonne M. Zwart, Psy.D. is a licensed clinical psychologist who works at Calvin College as a therapist in the Broene Counseling Center and as a part-time assistant professor in the psychology department. Currently, her research interest is focused on students with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Learning Disabilities.

Leanne M. Kallemeyn received a BA in psychology from Calvin College. Currently, she assists with a program evaluation for a nurse home visiting program and teaches at Early Head Start. She intends to seek an advanced degree in the areas of child development and program evaluation.

The Psychosocial Development of College Students With and Without Learning Disabilities

James J. Costello

Emporia State University

R. William English

The Florida State University

Abstract

This study was designed to explore the psychosocial development of college students with and without learning disabilities. The construct of psychosocial development was measured by the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Inventory (SDTLI; Winston and Miller,1987). Analysis of the data revealed significant differences between students with and without learning disabilities in terms of their academic autonomy and mature interpersonal relationships. There were no differences found between the two groups within the developmental constructs of purpose, salubrious lifestyle, and intimacy. It appears that the presence of a learning disability may interfere with psychosocial development and/or that students with learning disabilities may unknowingly sacrifice psychosocial development to maintain acceptable academic standards including grade point average and academic progress.

Universities in the United States have experienced a dramatic increase in the number of students with disabilities admitted to postsecondary institutions (American Council on Education, 1996; Henderson, 1992, 1995). The primary catalyst impacting this increase was federal legislation that mandated that individuals with disabilities were to be protected from discrimination in educational settings (Scott, 1996). A sub-group within this expanding population that demonstrated the most dramatic increase has been individuals with learning disabilities (American Council on Education, 1996; Henderson, 1995). This group represents approximately one-third of the matriculated students with disabilities entering post-secondary education (Henderson, 1995).

Due to the obvious growth in numbers of students with learning disabilities, the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (1988) recommended a systematic program of research to examine the psychosocial and academic performance differences among individuals with learning disabilities. In 1991, Gottesman suggested that the lifelong effects of a learning disability appeared to be far greater than simply the persistence of difficulties in reading, writing, and spelling. Gottesman went on to suggest that learning disabilities have had significant impact on the education, employment, interpersonal relationships, and emotional well being of those individuals with this disorder. In 1996, Carroll and Johnson Brown suggested that college students with learning disabilities presented support needs that were psychosocial as well as academic in nature.

This study attempted to synthesize the existing literature concerning college student development and link that information to the psychosocial development of traditional college age students with learning disabilities. A theory of college student development initially proposed by Arthur Chickering in 1969, and revised in 1993 by Chickering and Reisser has been the dominant paradigm for student development research over the past thirty years (Garfield & David, 1986; Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991; Thrasher and Bloland, 1989; White & Hood, 1989), and therefore was employed in this study. At the core of Chickering and Reisser’s theory are the seven vectors of college student development which were built upon two of Eric Erikson’s stages of adolescent and young adult development.

The intent of this study was to compare traditional age university students with and without learning disabilities on a measure of psychosocial development that was based on the theoretical foundation as proposed by Chickering (1969) and Chickering and Reisser (1993). The specific research question employed in this study was: Is there a difference in the psychosocial development between university students who had self-identified as having learning disabilities, and their peers who had not?

Methodology

This study was descriptive in nature and was completed due to the lack of research regarding the psychosocial development of college students with learning disabilities. The design can be described as correlational since its purpose was to discover or clarify relationships through the use of correlation coefficients (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996). The study was designed to ascertain the magnitude of the relationships between the psychosocial development variables of interest.

Research Sample and Selection of Participants

The participants in this study were traditional-age, undergraduate students who attended two large public universities in the southeast region of the United States. The selected universities were chosen based on their similarity in terms of admission criteria, minority student population, and gender representation within their respective undergraduate student populations. Table 1 displays the data describing the admission criteria for the two universities that participated in the study. All of the scores reported in Table 1 represented the middle 50% of each university’s admitted freshman class of 1998. Both universities were in urban settings and since both were in the same state university system, it was felt that these groups were sufficiently homogeneous for research purposes.

The universities in this study had similar eligibility policies regarding documentation of learning disabilities and provision of reasonable accommodations to students with disabilities. To be eligible for support services and reasonable

Table 1

Admission Criteria of Universities Participating in the Study

Criteria University A University B

GPA 3.6-4.1 3.1-4.0

SAT 1170-1340 1060-1260

ACT 25-29 23-27

Gender 49% Women 53% Women

51% Men 47% Men

Minorities 20.95% 21.1%

accommodations, a student at either university was required to present documentation from a licensed psychologist verifying the presence of a learning disability. When that type of documentation was not available, a copy of the student’s Individual Education Plan (IEP) completed during secondary school served as verification of the presence of prior learning disability diagnosis and academic support services. There was no specific limit regarding the age of the learning disability documentation in practice or policy at either of the participating universities. No further institution or university system criteria were applied when considering eligibility for reasonable accommodations for students with learning disabilities.

Students without learning disabilities were randomly selected from a list of undergraduate students generated by their respective university registrar. Students with learning disabilities were randomly selected from a list provided by the respective university offices serving students with disabilities on the participating campuses. Any duplication in sample selection was monitored to assure assignment of individual students to the appropriate group. However, it must be noted that the participating sample was a self-directed sample (i.e., students self-selected to participate in the study); and therefore, the results of this study reflect only the information provided by students who chose to participate in the process and generalization of these results should be considered with caution.

Instrumentation

Two instruments were used to collect data relevant to this study. They were the Student Demographic Form (SDF), and the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Inventory (SDTLI, Winston & Miller, 1987).

The Student Demographic Form was developed by the researchers and contains demographic information central to the focus of this research. The instrument contained a total of ten questions of either a fill-in-the-blank or multiple-choice format. Specifically, information about age, gender, race, grade point average, year in college, frequency of use of university-based support services, existence of a learning disability, and student age at the initial diagnosis of the learning disability were contained in the SDF. The first seven questions were completed by all participants and the final three questions were completed only by those students who self-identified as having a learning disability.

The SDTLI developed by Winston and Miller (1987) was based on Chickering’s general theoretical framework, but does not completely conform to the vector structure proposed in 1969 or 1993. This instrument has been popular in student development research and has been accepted as one of the dominant measures of psychosocial development with college age subjects (Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). The SDTLI consists of items that characterize three basic developmental tasks and three scales (Winston & Miller, 1987). The three tasks are consistent with three of the vectors contained within Chickering’s theory, and the three scales explore other developmental tasks experienced by many college students (Winston & Miller, 1987). The tasks and scales are Establishing and Clarifying Purpose (PUR); Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships (MIR); Academic Autonomy (AA); Salubrious Lifestyle (SL); Intimacy (INT); and a Response Bias scale (RB). The following paragraphs provide a brief overview of each of the tasks, scales and subscales that constitute the SDTLI.

Establishing and clarifying purpose (PUR). This task measures the extent to which students have developed well-defined educational goals and have become active, self-directed learners. Additionally, items within this area explore the degree to which students have synthesized knowledge about themselves and the world of work into appropriate career and lifestyle plans (Winston, 1990). The PUR task is further defined by five subtasks that include: Educational involvement (EI), career planning (CP), lifestyle planning (LP), life management (LM), and cultural participation (CP).

These subtasks address the degree to which students have: well defined educational goals and plans (EI); an awareness of the world of work and an accurate understanding of one’s abilities and limitations (CP); a personal direction and orientation in one’s life that takes into account a diverse set of personal, ethical, family and religious issues (LP); an ability to structure their lives and manipulate their environment in ways that allow them to satisfy daily needs and meet responsibilities (LM); and are actively involved in a wide variety of activities, including cultural events and that their leisure time is spent productively (CUP) (Winston & Miller, 1987).

Developing mature interpersonal relationships (MIR). This task measures the extent to which students had developed relationships characterized by independence, frankness, and trust. Also, this task assesses the degree to which students appreciated individual differences among friends or felt pressured to conform to peer-group norms or to conceal differences of opinion (Winston & Miller, 1987).The MIR task is further defined by three subtasks that include: peer relationships (PR), tolerance (TOL), and emotional autonomy (EA). They focus on how well student’s have developed relationships with peers that are based greater degrees of trust, independence, frankness, and individuality (PR); respect and acceptance of different backgrounds, beliefs, cultures, races, lifestyles, and appearances (TOL); and a freedom from the need for continuous reassurance and approval from others (EA) (Winston and Miller, 1987).

Academic autonomy (AA). The Academic Autonomy subscale measures students’ capacity to deal with ambiguity and to monitor and control their own behavior in ways that allowed them to attain their educational goals. Also, this subscale examines the degree to which students fulfill their academic requirements without extensive direction from others (Winston & Miller, 1987).

Salubrious lifestyle (SL). This scale measures the degree to which a student’s lifestyle is consistent with good health and wellness practices (Winston, 1990).

Intimacy (INT). The Intimacy Scale is experimental and was completed only by students who reported being involved in an intimate relationship within the previous year. It is designed to measure the extent to which students have established a self-defined intimate relationship with another person based on mutual respect, honesty, acceptance, reciprocal caring, and trust (Winston & Miller, 1987).

Response bias (RB). This scale was intended to identify students who were attempting to “fake good” or who were careless in completing the inventory. A score that was equal to or greater than five indicated a “fake good” profile and that instrument should not be included in data analysis (Winston & Miller, 1987).

The SDTLI takes approximately 25 to 35 minutes to complete and consists of 132 items (Winston & Miller, 1987). There are three sections to the instrument and the student is asked to read each question carefully and decide if the statement is true (usually true) or false (not usually true) considering their view of self. There is also a third alternative of “O” in ten of the 70 questions in section one. This option is available in those circumstances where “other” would be more appropriate than “true” or “false”. The three sections of the instrument are: (1) Education, career and lifestyle (70 items); (2) Intimate Relationships (19 items); and (3) Relationships and the academic environment (43 items).

The answer sheet for the SDTLI consists of the original and a carbon copy, and the carbon copy is used for scoring. Scoring is accomplished by counting the numbers of True and False responses in each task, subtask or scale area. Raw scores are converted to standard scores (T scores) and the converted scores are then interpreted based on class standing (i.e., Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, and Senior).

In terms of the instrument validity and reliability, total task scores are appropriate measures for most research studies (Winston, 1990). Short-term test-retest coefficients ranged from .70 to .87, with longer term coefficients of nearly one academic year ranging from .53 to .80. Cronbach alphas ranged from .90 for the Establishing and Clarifying Purpose (PUR) Task to .45 for the Career Planning (CP) subtask. All tasks and scales were .70 or higher. These data suggest that the tasks and scales are sufficiently homogeneous for research with groups of college age students (Winston, 1990).

A variety of approaches were taken to estimate the validity of the various scales and subtasks of the SDTLI (Winston & Miller, 1987). Construct validity was based on the conceptualizations of psychosocial development proposed by Chickering (1969) and the test developer’s observations of college students. Concurrent validity was addressed by correlating the tasks and subtasks of the SDTLI with selected scales from the Career Development Inventory (Super,

Thompson, Lindeman, Jordaan, & Myers, 1981), Mines-Jensen Interpersonal Relationship Inventory (Hood & Mines, 1986), Omnibus Personality Inventory (Heist & Yonge, 1968), and the Iowa Developing Autonomy Inventory Scales (Jackson & Hood, 1986). Positive and statistically significant correlations were found ranging from .27 to .70.

Winston (1990) reported that the sub-tasks were correlated more highly with the tasks to which they were assigned than to any other task and to the sub-tasks grouped under that task. Because of the lack of compelling validity data for the INT Scale, it was suggested that users exercise caution when interpreting results to individual students (Winston & Miller, 1987).

Data Collection Procedures

Research packets were mailed to students with and without learning disabilities attending the institutions participating in this study, between November of 1998 and March of 1999. Each research packet contained a cover letter, endorsement letters from university administrators responsible for disability services, Informed Consent Form, campus-based support resource list, and a Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Inventory. Follow-up mailings were completed at two and four week intervals after the initial mailing.

Participants were requested to complete and return the Informed Consent Form and Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Inventory and the Student Demographic Form to the researcher (first author). The completed SDTLI answer sheets were collected and scored by the researcher using the suggested scoring process in the manual (Winston & Miller, 1987). The information obtained from the Student Demographic Form was tabulated by the primary researcher and calculated in terms of the presented descriptive data in Table 2. A preliminary analysis of the response bias scale of the SDTLI and self-reported age of the student was carried out and determinations made as to their inclusion in the study. If the response bias scale was two or greater, that packet was not used. If the self-reported age of the student was less than 17 or greater than 24, that packet was also not included in the final analysis.

A total of 498 research packets were mailed to randomly selected students with and without learning disabilities who attended the universities participating in this study. A total of 252 (50.6%) of these packets were returned. Following a review of the data, 42 research packets were eliminated from the final analysis due to incomplete elements within the packet. Therefore, 210 (42%) completed research packets were used in the final data analysis. Within the 210 completed packets, there was nearly an equal representation of freshmen (n=51; 24%), sophomores (n=54; 26%), juniors (n=52; 25%), and seniors (n=53; 25%).This balance was also present in terms of students with learning disabilities (n=104; 49.5%) and their peers without learning disabilities (n=106; 50.5%).

Limitations

This study was limited by the psychometric properties of the research instrument, the age range of the sample, the subject’s honesty in self-report, personal characteristics of volunteer subjects, and the level of language development within each individual in the sample. Also, the

Table 2

Descriptive Data of Scores on the SDTLI

Students with LD Students without LD

M SD M SD

Variable (n=104) (n=106)

PUR 41.20 10.11 42.73 9.54

EI 10.51 2.84 10.46 2.83

CP 11.03 3.24 11.72 4.04

LP 6.36 3.98 7.00 2.21

LM 9.72 3.03 10.65 2.71

CP 2.98 1.78 2.83 1.33

MIR 19.66 5.18 21.25 4.61

PR 8.37 2.73 8.37 2.73

TOL 6.02 1.64 6.22 1.46

EA 5.36 1.95 5.69 2.02

INT 11.01 5.71 11.75 5.36

SL 5.08 1.88 5.21 1.74

AA 4.98 2.45 6.12 2.26

RB 0.42 0.68 0.27 0.47

Note. PUR – purpose; EI – educational involvement; CP – career planning; LP – lifestyle planning; LM – life management; CP – cultural participation; MIR – mature interpersonal relationships; PR – peer relationships; TOL – tolerance; EA – emotional autonomy; INT – intimacy; SL – salubrious lifestyle; AA – academic autonomy; RB – response bias.

Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Inventory had no normative data regarding a population of college students with learning disabilities

Data Analysis and Results

For the purposes of this study, the level of significance was established at p=.05, the hypotheses were analyzed using a two-tailed test of significance, and a medium effect size at the .5 level of .30 was used. Therefore, a minimum sample size of 168 subjects, two groups of 84 each, was necessary to establish the necessary statistical power for reasonable generalization of the findings obtained from this study (Cohen & Cohen, 1975; Olejnik, 1984). The actual sample size of 210 well exceeded the minimum standard of 168 to establish the statistical power.

A review of the descriptive data obtained in this study (see table 3) suggested that students with learning disabilities were slightly older (21.3, SD=3.54 vs. 20.7, SD=1.94) and had earned more college credits (63.40, SD=38.27 vs. 59.86, SD=35.78) than their peers without learning disabilities. Also, students with learning disabilities reported a cumulative Grade Point Average that was slightly less than their peers without learning disabilities (2.92, SD= 0.50 vs 3.12, SD=0.47). Finally, students with learning disabilities reported that they accessed campus-based support services

Table 3

Descriptive Data of Research Sample

Students with LD Students without LD

M SD M SD

Variable (n=104) (n=106)

Demographics

Age 21.28 3.54 20.74 1.94

Credits 63.40 38.27 59.86 35.78

GPA 2.92 0.50 3.12 0.47

Age at LD-ID 14.93 6.84

Support Services

Career 1.24 2.18 1.15 1.54

Counseling 1.35 3.08 0.36 1.35

Health 2.60 6.03 2.08 3.59

OSD 4.50 9.91

Ethnicity

African-American 6 5.08 8 7.5

American-Indian 1 1.0 1 0.9

Asian-American 2 1.9 2 1.9

Caucasian 85 81.7 81 76.4

International 3 2.9 3 2.8

Latin-American 4 3.8 8 7.5

Mexican-American 1 1.0

Other 2 1.9 3 2.8

Gender

Female 57 54.8 71 67.0

Male 47 45.2 35 33.0

Identification Point

Elementary School 36 34.6

Middle School 4 3.8

High School 9 8.7

College 55 52.9

Note: Support services represents the mean number of visits to the campus-based career center, counseling center, student health center, and office for students with disabilities (OSD). Also, the final component of this table presents frequency data describing when learning disabilities were identified (Identification Point).

such as career guidance (1.24, SD=2.18 vs. 1.15, SD=1.54), personal counseling (1.35, SD=3.08 vs. 0.36, SD=1.35), and health services (2.60, SD=6.03 vs. 2.08, SD=3.59) more often than their peers without learning disabilities.

In Table 2 further differences were noted between the two groups on the tasks, sub-tasks, and scales of the SDTLI. Students with learning disabilities tended to score lower on these measures with the exception of the peer relationship scale where the two groups demonstrated equal scores. Also, students with learning disabilities scored slightly higher on the Response Bias scale of the instrument, but these scores were well within the acceptable range according to Winston and Miller (1987). With the exception of the Educational Involvement (EI) and Cultural Participation (CUP) sub-tasks, students with learning disabilities again scored lower than their peers without learning disabilities.

Demographic data from the total sample (Table 3) revealed that participants were predominantly caucasian (79%, n=166) and female (60%, n=128). Surprisingly, the majority of students with learning disabilities reported their disabilities were first diagnosed either in elementary school (34%, n=36) or in college (53%, n=55).

Two steps were taken to estimate the reliability of the self-report data and justify further analysis for group differences. First, the coefficient alpha (Cronbach, 1970) was calculated to examine the internal consistency of the sample responses on the SDTLI. The coefficient alpha obtained for the total inventory on this research sample was .77 (n=210), which compared favorably to the coefficients of .50 to .90 (n=954) obtained during the development of the SDTLI (Winston and Miller, 1987).

Secondly, the self-report data was compared to actual data managed by the university registrar and the Office for Students with Disabilities. These correlations were all positive and statistically significant at the .01 level. They were .99 for credits earned, .95 for grade point average, and .96 for visits to the Office for Students with Disabilities. Based on the results of these reliability estimates, it was determined that these data demonstrated adequate internal consistency on the SDTLI and a very high degree of relationship between self-report and actual data.

The primary research question of this study was to determine if there was a difference in the psychosocial development between university students who had self-identified as having learning disabilities, and those students who had not as measured by the SDTLI. To answer this question a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was calculated and two constructs within the domain of psychosocial development were found to be different (Table 4). Students with learning disabilities scored significantly lower on the academic autonomy (AA) scale (F=12.334, p=.001) and mature interpersonal relationships (MIR) scale (F=5.533, p=.020).

Table 4

Multivariate Analysis of Variance between groups

Variable df F p

AA 1 12.344 .001**

MIR 1 5.533 .020*

PUR 1 1.265 .262

INT 1 .928 .337

SL 1 .273 .602

Note. *p

America On Line. (2001). AOL’s AIM (AOL Instant Messenger). Retrieved August 12, 2001 from

Apple (2001). People with special needs. Retrieved April 13, 2001 from

Atlantic Centre of Support for Disabled Students. (2001). Liberated Learning Project. Retrieved April 15, 2001 from

Audisoft. (2001). AudiSee visual-FM system. Retrieved April 13, 2001 from

Banks, R. & Coombs, N. (1998). The spider and the fly. CMC (Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine), 5(2), Retrieved August 25, 1999 from

Bausch, P.T. (1994). The impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act on university continuing education. Journal of Continuing Education, 42(3), 10-15.

Bernstein, R., Caplan, J., & Glover, E. (2001). America’s most wired colleges 2000. Retrieved April 13, 2001 from

Burgstahler, S. (1992). Computing services for physically disabled students in post-secondary institutions: Results of a survey in Washington state. Unpublished manuscript. U. of Washington, Washington, DC.

Burgstahler, S. (1993). Computing services for disabled students in institutions of higher education Dissertation Abstracts International: The Human and Social Sciences, 54 (1), 102-A.

Burgstahler, S. (1998). Making web pages universally accessible. CMC Magazine. Available August 23, 1999 on the World Wide Web:

Campbell, L.M. & Waddell, C.D. (1997). Electronic curbcuts: How to build an accessible Web site. Retrieved April 18, 1999 from .

Cast. (2001). Cast Bobby Accessibility Checker. Retrieved April 13, 2001 from .

Chisholm, W., Vanderheiden, G., & Jacobs, I. (1999). List of checkpoints for Web content accessibility guidelines 1.0 - W3C. Retrieved August 12, 2001 from

CNS (Computerized Notetaking System). (2001). C-Note System - Computerized Notetaking System. Retrieved April 13, 2001 from

Cooper, M. (1999). Universal design of a Web site – CSUN ’99 presentation. Retrieved April 13, 2001 from

Department of Justice of the United States (2001). Section 508 home page. Retrieved April 13, 2001 from

Do-It. (2001). Technology and universal design. Retrieved August 12, 2001 from

EDUCAUSE Online Guide to Evaluating Information Technology on Campus.(2001). Retrieved April 13, 2001 from and

Ekberg, J. (1999). A step forward: Design for all. Helsinki, Finland. Available from the author at STAKES, PO Box 220, SF-00531, Helsinki, Finland. Available e-mail: jan.ekberg@stakes.fi

Elkind, J. (1998). Computer reading for machines for poor readers. Perspectives: The International Dyslexia Association, 24(2).

Fichten, C.S., Asuncion, J., Barile, M., Fossey, M., & De Simone, C. (2000). Access to educational and instructional computer technologies for postsecondary students with disabilities: Lessons from three empirical studies. Journal of Educational Media, 25(3), 179-201.

Fichten, C.S., Asuncion, J.V., & Barile, M. (2001a). Computer and information technologies: Resources for the postsecondary education of students with disabilities. Final report to the Office of Learning Technologies. Hull, Quebec: Office of Learning Technologies. Available at:

Fichten, C.S., Asuncion, J., Barile, M., Fossey, M.E., & Robillard, C. (2001b). Computer technologies for postsecondary students with disabilities I: Comparison of student and service provider perspectives. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 15(1), 28-58.

Fichten, C.S., Asuncion, J. Barile, M., Généreux, C., Fossey, M., Judd, D., Robillard, C., De Simone, C., & Wells, D. (2001c). Technology integration for students with disabilities: Empirically based recommendations for faculty. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7, 185-221.

Fichten, C.S., Barile, M., Asuncion, J.V., & Fossey, M. (2000a). What government, agencies, and organizations can do to improve access to computers for postsecondary students with disabilities: Recommendations based on Canadian empirical data. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 23(3), 191-199.

Fichten, C.S., Barile, M., Robillard, C., Fossey, M., Asuncion, J., Généreux, C., Judd, D., & Guimont, J.P. (2000b). Access to college for all: ITAC Project - Computer and adaptive computer technologies in the cegeps for students with (309 pages). Final report to PAREA, July, 2000. Québec: Ministère de l’Éducation. Eric Document Reproduction Service (ED445457). Available at

Fichten, C.S., Lavers, J., Barile, M., Asuncion, J., Généreux, C. & Robillard, C. (1999). Mainstream and “free” computer information and adaptive technologies revisited. Alert: The Official Newsletter of the Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD), 23(2), 12-14.

Fossey, M.E., Fichten, C.S., Barile, M., Asuncion, J.V., (2001a). Computer technologies for postsecondary students with disabilities. [Booklet]. Montréal: Adaptech Project, Dawson College. Retrieved August 12, 2001 from

Fossey, M.E., Fichten, C.S., Barile, M., Asuncion, J.V., (2001b). Technologies informatiques pour les étudiants ayant des incapacités au postsecondaire. [Brochure]. Montréal: Adaptech Project, Dawson College. Retrieved August 12, 2001 from

Freedom Scientific. (2001). Freedom Scientific products. Retrieved August 12, 2001 from

Hamilton, S., Grossman, P, Black, R. & Tate, P. (2001, July.). We did it, so can you: California addresses their OCR identified deficiencies. Presentation at the Annual AHEAD (Association on Higher Education And Disability), Conference, Portland, Oregon

HEATH Resource Center (American Council on Education - National Clearinghouse on Postsecondary Education For Individuals With Disabilities). Welcome to the HEATH Resource Center. Retrieved April 13, 2001 from

Henter-Joyce, Inc. (2001). JAWS for Windows. Retrieved April 13, 2001 from

High Tech Center Training Unit of the Chancellor’s Office of California Community Colleges. (1999, August). Distance education: Access guidelines for students with disabilities. Retrieved April 13, 2001 from

IBM. (2001). Accessibility center guidelines. Retrieved April 13, 2001 from

Microsoft Corporation (2001). Accessibility & Microsoft. Retrieved April 13, 2001 from

Oregon State University. (1999a, March). Oregon State University software access guidelines. Retrieved April 13, 2001 from

Oregon State University (1999b, March). Oregon State University web accessibility guidelines. Retrieved April 13, 2001 from

Oregon State University. (1999c, March). Oregon State University hardware access guidelines. Retrieved April 13, 2001 from

ReadPlease (2000). ReadPlease 2000 web page. Retrieved August 12, 2001 from

Roessler, R.T. & Kirk, H.M. (1998). Improving technology training services in postsecondary education: Perspectives of recent college graduates with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 13(3), 48-59.

Santa Monica College. (1998). General guidelines for designing accessible web pages. Retrieved April 13, 2001 from

Santa Monica College. (undated). Universal access to Santa Monica College web pages. Retrieved April 13, 2001 from

Schofield, J. (1999). Back to school online. Maclean’s, September, 22-26.

textHELP Systems. (2001). Read & Write. Retrieved April 13, 2001 from

Trace Center. (2001). Designing a more usable world - for all. Retrieved April 13, 2001 from

UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies. (1999). An overview of the 1998-99 faculty norms. Retrieved August 30, 1999 from

United States Department of Justice. (1998). Workforce Investment Act of 1998: Sec. 508. Electronic And Information Technology. Retrieved April 13, 2001 from

W3C. (2001). Web accessibility initiative. Retrieved April 13, 2001 from

Waddell, C. (2000). Providing services for post-secondary students: Legal issues. CSUN 2000 Conference Proceedings. Retrieved April 10, 2000 from

Wasser, S. (1998, Winter). How well does McGill provide information technology to its students? McGill University Computing Centre Newsletter, 7-8. Retrieved August 22, 1999 from

Author Notes

The research that forms the basis of this report has had the involvement of many partners, including: college and university personnel responsible for providing services to students with disabilities (Canadian Association of Disability Service Providers in Post-secondary Education “CADSPPE,” which includes many Canadian AHEAD members, Service d’Aide à l’Intégration Des Élèves “SAIDE,” and Le Services aux étudiants handicapés du Cégep de Sainte-Foy), both provincial and federal groups of postsecondary students with disabilities (National Educational Association of Disabled Students “NEADS” and the Association québécoise des étudiants ayant des incapacités au postsecondaire “AQEIPS”), as well as a distributor of adaptive technologies (Betacom), a rehabilitation agency (Mackay Center), and academic educational technology groupings (Concordia University’s Centre for the Study of Learning and Performance “CSLP,” the Network for the Evaluation of Education and Training Technologies “EvNet”).

We also had the active and enthusiastic support of our Advisory Board and members of the Adaptech Listserv. Funding for the research was provided by grants from the Office of Learning Technologies (OLT), the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), EvNet, FCAR, PAREA, the Henry and Berenice Kaufmann Foundation and Dawson College. We are grateful for the assistance and support. In addition, we would like to thank the dedicated members of our research team: Iris Alapin, Rachel Fima, Christian Généreux, Jean-Pierre Guimont, Darlene Judd, Daniel Lamb, and Jason Lavers for their substantial contribution to the research which forms the foundation for this article.

About the Authors

Catherine Fichten, Ph.D. teaches psychology at Dawson College, where she also directs the Adaptech Project. She is also a clinical psychologist at the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal and is Associate Professor of Psychiatry at McGill University.

Jennison V. Asuncion, M.A. is Co-Director of the Adaptech Project. He is an Advisor to the Board of the National Educational Association of Disabled Students “NEADS.”

Maria Barile, M.S.W. is the Co-Director of the Adaptech Project. She is a social worker and an activist in the disability community.

Myrtis E. Fossey, B.A. is a long time research assistant at the Adaptech Project. She is also currently a graduate student in Psychology at Concordia University

Chantal Robillard, M.A. is the coordinator of francophone communications for the Adaptech Project. She is also currently a Ph.D. student in Anthropology at Université de Montréal.

Joan Wolforth, Ed.D. is Director of the Office for Students with Disabilities at McGill University.

Book Review Column

Welcome all JPED readers to the Book Review Column! I am looking forward to initiating a process and dialogue for us to share our perspectives on books relevant to our field. One of the goals of the JPED Book Review Column is to bring new publications to the attention of service providers, administrators, researchers, and others within the field of disability services in higher education. Another goal of the column is to help shape and extend the field itself by situating the books within the field’s current perspectives and issues, challenging conventions, and/or suggesting new directions. Finally, the addition of the column is intended to provide an opportunity for those of you who are interested in submitting reviews for possible publication. A book review in a professional journal is a service to the readers. Therefore, the structure of upcoming reviews will convey the content of the book, evaluate the publication as to its relevance to the field, and assess its particular quality and usefulness for various audiences within our field.

Below you will find my contact information; please do not hesitate to contact me to discuss possible books for review. Also, watch the AHEAD website for upcoming guidelines and information on ways you can be involved with the column. Let’s make this column a place for us to share promising publications with our colleagues, as well as a place to begin an ongoing professional exchange of ideas.

Elaine Manglitz, Ed.S.

Learning Disabilities Center

University of Georgia

(706) 542-4596

Elaine@arches.uga.edu

Book Review

Roffman, A.J. (2000). Meeting the challenge of learning disabilities in adulthood. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing

Dr. Roffman’s book explores the lasting impact of learning disabilities on adults’ lives and offers strategies for those adults in managing the challenges that arise as they enter and navigate adulthood. Her endeavor to understand and explore the experiences of a heterogeneous group of adults with learning disabilities led her to conduct semi-structured interviews with thirteen diverse individuals, addressing such life domains as day-to-day life, education, employment, mental health, family or origin, friendships, relationships, and quality of life. The author subsequently transcribed her taped interviews and selected relevant quotes from her participants, sorting them into chapters emphasizing the particular life domains discussed. She rounded out her data collection process with a review of the related literature and with her own observations from a period of nearly twenty years of experience and involvement with adults with LD.

Dr. Roffman weaves the literature on adults with learning disabilities with the worlds of the adults themselves. She offers practical strategies across a wide range of ability levels and difficulties. Her emphasis on successful ways actual adults with LD have coped in various life domains is a powerful testament to the initiative and creativity these individuals demonstrate. The explanation and comments on the strategies provided in the words of adults who use them is a strength of her book. The book also contains a good list of resources/organizations for adults with learning disabilities.

Although Dr. Roffman intentionally interviewed thirteen individuals who represented a cross-section of adults with learning disabilities and were diverse in dimensions including age, gender, socioeconomic level, eduational achievement, religion, and career experience, I was left wondering how these various dimensions differentially impacted the adults’ experiences of learning disabilities. She must indeed have a wealth of qualitative data to analyze and perhaps will continue to use her database to answer questions like mine above. Her book is valuable in that it does offer us a window into the lives of adults with learning disabilities through the use of qualitative methods and analysis.

Although Dr. Roffman’s book is an important resource for adults with learning disabilities, it is just as appropriate for those professionals who work and live with them. I would especially recommend it for community college students with learning disabilities, service providers (especially those early in their careers) and vocational rehabilitation counselors as well.

Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability

Author Guidelines

The Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability welcomes manuscript submissions that are of an innovative nature and relevant to the theory and practice of providing postsecondary support services to students with disabilities. Guidelines for authors are as follows:

Content

Manuscripts should demonstrate scholarly excellence in at least one of the following categories:

· Research. Reports original quantitative or qualitative research;

· Integration. Integrates research of others in a meaningful way; compares or contrasts theories; critiques results; and/or provides context for future exploration.

· Innovation. Proposes innovation of theory, approach, or process of service delivery based on reviews of the literature and research.

Format

All manuscripts must be prepared according to APA format as described in The Publication Manual (5th ed.), American Psychological Association, 2001. *

· Manuscripts should not exceed 20-25 typewritten pages.

· Authors should use terminology that emphasizes the individual first and the disability second (see pages 63-65 of APA Manual). Authors should also avoid the use of sexist language and the generic masculine pronoun.

· Manuscripts should have a title page that provides the names and affiliations of all authors and the address of the principal author. (Authors should refrain from entering their names on pages of the manuscript.)

· An abstract of 100-150 words should accompany all manuscripts. Abstracts must be typed and double-spaced on a separate sheet of paper.

· An original and four (4) hard copies of the manuscript should be furnished.

· An electronic copy of the manuscript should be provided on disk with platform and software clearly labeled (PC, Microsoft Word preferred).

· A cover letter should indicate whether or not the manuscript has been published or submitted elsewhere for consideration of publication.

*For information on changes in the fifth edition, see .

For responses to frequently asked questions about APA style , consult the APA web site at .

Please note:

· Do not send original artwork during the manuscript review process; it will be requested upon article acceptance.

· Authors will be notified by mail upon receipt of their manuscript.

Mailing address:

Manuscripts should be submitted directly to the editor at the following address:

Dr. Sally Scott

University of Connecticut

Department of Educational Psychology

Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability/Hall Bldg.

362 Fairfield Road, Unit 2064

Storrs, CT 06269-2064

Upon acceptance for publication

For manuscripts that are accepted for publication, the following items must be provided to the editor:

· An electronic copy of the final manuscript on a 3.5” disk (PC, Microsoft Word preferred) with word processing software and level of computer system clearly defined

· A hard copy of the final manuscript

· A signed and completed Copyright Transfer form

· A 40-50 word bibliographic description for each author

9/01

__________________

Manuscript submissions by AHEAD members are especially welcome. The Journal reserves the right to edit all material for space and style. Authors will be notified of changes.

-----------------------

Computer Technologies for Students Who Have Low Vision

Computer Technologies for Students With Learning Disabilities

Computer Technologies for Students Who Have A Hearing Impairment

Computer Technologies for Students Who Have Mobility Impairments/Difficulty Using Their Hands or Arms

Computer Technologies for Students Who Have Mobility Impairments/Difficulty Using Their Hands or Arms (continued)

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download