CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 168Disability Education and EmploymentInclusion and Disability in Education and SportDisability Rights and Representation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measuring university faculty attitudes toward disability: Willingness to accommodate and adopt Universal Design principles

Lombardi, Allison R., Murray, Christopher·2011·Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation
DOI 10.3233/jvr-2010-0533
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Today, more students with disabilities attend four year institutions, but may struggle to succeed within these settings. University faculty attitudes and practices contribute to the success or failure of students in these postsecondary settings. In this study, we developed, administered, and evaluated a measure of faculty attitudes and perceptions toward students with disabilities. Results from 289 faculty members indicated that responses loaded on eight reliable factors pertaining to (a) Fairness in Providing Accommodations, (b) Knowledge of Disability Law, (c) Adjustment of Course Assignments and Requirements, (d) Minimizing Barriers, (e) Campus Resources, (f) Willingness to Invest Time, (g) Accessibility of Course Materials, and (h) Performance Expectations. Group comparisons by faculty gender, rank, college/school, and prior disability-focused training indicated more positive attitudes toward providing accommodations and adopting Universal Design principles among faculty who are female, nontenured, housed within the College of Education, or had prior disability-focused training experiences. These findings suggest that faculty attitudes and perceptions toward disability and their willingness to accommodate and adopt Universal Design principles can be reliably assessed. The potential usefulness of such assessments for practices within postsecondary environments are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3233/jvr-2010-0533

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 38 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 168

Related

Metadata

Authors
Lombardi, A. R., & Murray, C.
Affiliations
University of Oregon (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2011-01
Volume
34
Issue
1
Pages
43-56
ISSN
  • 1052-2263 (ISSN-L)
  • 1878-6316
DOI
10.3233/jvr-2010-0533
OpenAlex
W1892975557
Cited by
168
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 1
FWCI
19.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Education
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Disability Education and Employment
  • Social Sciences › Education › Inclusion and Disability in Education and Sport
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disability Rights and Representation
Keywords
students with disabilities, academic accommodations, Universal Design for Learning, teacher perceptions, course accessibility, faculty rank, postsecondary education, scale development

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review