University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Postsecondary faculty attitudes, beliefs, practices, and knowledge regarding students with ADHD: a comparative analysis of two-year and four-year institutions

(USC Thesis Other)

Postsecondary faculty attitudes, beliefs, practices, and knowledge regarding students with ADHD: a comparative analysis of two-year and four-year institutions

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

POSTSECONDARY FACULTY ATTITUDES, BELIEFS, PRACTICES, AND
KNOWLEDGE REGARDING STUDENTS WITH ADHD: A COMPARATIVE
ANALYSIS OF TWO-YEAR AND FOUR-YEAR INSTITUTIONS

by

Derek K. Ihori

___________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2012

Copyright 2012 Derek K. Ihori
ii

DEDICATION
This study is dedicated to the following people:
To my fiancée, Alexia Melara, who has been by my side and supported me as we
persevered together through our masters program, our doctorate program, our careers,
and life in general.
To my parents and family, who have given me all of the opportunities,
experiences, and support that have allowed me to be where I am and become the person
that I am today.
iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge my childhood friends Jon Wong and John Drenth,
who have always been there to support me and share memories with. I would also like to
acknowledge my friend and colleague, Ken Foersch, who has journeyed through the USC
program alongside me and continually assured me that it is perfectly acceptable for men
our age to play video games as a means to release doctoral-related stress.
I would like to thank my dissertation committee members, Dr. Patricia Tobey,
Professor Shafiqa Ahmadi, and Dr. Tony Knight, for their time, support, and assistance
through this fascinating and often stressful journey. In particular, Dr. Knight, who is also
the superintendent for the Oak Park Unified School District, has been an exceptional
model for me and whose style of leadership I hope to emulate throughout my professional
career.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vii
Abstract viii
Chapter I: Introduction 1
Background of the Problem 1
Statement of the Problem 2
Purpose of the Study 3
Significance of the Study 4
Research Questions 5
Methodology 6
Assumptions 6
Limitations and Delimitations 6
Definition of Terms 7
Summary 8

Chapter II: Review of the Literature 9
Diagnosing ADHD 10
Theories of ADHD 13
Executive Functioning Deficits 13
Neurobiological Model 14
Neurocognitive Theory 14
ADHD in Childhood and Adolescence 16
ADHD in Adulthood 20
Transition to Adulthood 20
Adult Students with ADHD in Postsecondary Education 22
Legal Protections for Students with ADHD 26
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act 27
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 27
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 30
Clinician Understanding of Legal Protections 31
Faculty Attitudes, Beliefs, Practices, and Training 32
Faculty Attitudes, Beliefs, and Practices 33
Faculty Training 37
Student Perceptions of Self-Disclosure and Accommodations 41
Self-Disclosure and Self-Advocacy 41
Student Perceptions of Accommodations 43
Summary of the Literature 45
v

Chapter III: Research Methodology 47
Design Summary 48
Participants and Setting 48
Instrumentation 52
Procedures 56
Analysis 57
Limitations and Delimitations 58

Chapter IV: Analysis and Interpretation of Results 60
Description of the Sample Population 60
Analyses of Statistical Consistency 64
Internal Consistency of the Revised PLuS 64
Analysis of Consistency: Community Colleges 65
Analysis of Consistency: Private Four-Year Universities 66
Analysis of Consistency: Public Four-Year Universities 67
Analysis of Research Questions 69
Research Question One 69
Research Question Two 69
Research Question Three 69
Research Question Four 70
Additional Analyses 71
Item Analysis 71
Teaching Experience 74
Previous Training 75
Gender 77
Teaching Status 78
Summary 79

Chapter V: Discussion of Results 80
Discussion of Data Analyses 80
Internal Consistency 80
Research Question One 81
Research Question Two 82
Research Question Three 82
Research Question Four 83
Additional Analyses 83
Strengths and Limitations 86
Implications for Practice 89
Recommendations for Further Research 93
Conclusions 94

References 95

vi

Appendices
Appendix A: Institutional Review Board Approval of Study 100
Appendix B: Demographic Data of Institutions in Sample 101
Appendix C: Revised PLuS Survey Items Divided by Factor 102
Appendix D: E-mail to Participants 106
Appendix E: PLuS Factors Assigned to Research Questions 1-3 107
Appendix F: Description of Analyses of Survey Data for Research
Questions 108

vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1 Cronbach’s Alpha for Revised PLuS Factors 64
Table 4.2 Independent T-Test Comparisons of Community College
Faculty 66

Table 4.3 Independent T-Test Comparisons of Private Four-Year
University Faculty 67

Table 4.4 Summary of Independent T-Test Comparisons of Public
Four-Year University Faculty 68

Table 4.5 Hierarchical Linear Regression Models – Teaching
Experience 75

Table 4.6 Hierarchical Linear Regression Models – Previous
Training 76

Table 4.7 Summary of Independent T-Test Comparisons of Male
Vs. Female Faculty 77

Table 4.8 Hierarchical Linear Regression Models – Teaching Status 78
viii

ABSTRACT

Understanding the attitudes, beliefs, and practices of postsecondary faculty regarding
students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and the laws that protect
such students is critical for both student success and compliance with federal laws. The
purpose of the present quantitative study was to identify differences between two-year
community college and four-year university faculty in regard to their attitudes and beliefs
about students with ADHD, their willingness to accommodate such students, and their
knowledge of the legal protections for students with disabilities. In order to gain this
information, electronic surveys were distributed to faculty members at two two-year
community colleges, two four-year public universities, and two four-year private
universities. The data was analyzed to determine whether significant differences in
faculty responses exist between two-year colleges and four-year universities. Further
analysis was conducted in order to determine whether differences exist between faculty
responses at private four-year universities and public four-year universities. The results
of the analyses indicate that no significant differences exist between types of universities
in regard to faculty attitudes and beliefs about students with ADHD, their willingness to
accommodate such students, and their knowledge of the legal protections for students
with disabilities. However, additional analyses of the survey results beyond the scope of
the research questions indicate that further professional development may be needed
across postsecondary institutions regarding Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
appropriate accommodations for students with ADHD, and referral processes for students
with ADHD to obtain educational accommodations.
1

CHAPTER I
Introduction
The purpose of the present quantitative study was to identify differences between
two-year community college and four-year university faculty in regard to their attitudes
and beliefs about students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), their
willingness to accommodate such students, and their knowledge of the legal protections
for students with disabilities. In addition to comparing two-year college faculty to four-
year university faculty, analysis was conducted to determine whether differences in
survey responses exist between public university faculty and private university faculty.
The results of the study can be used to target specific areas of need for professional
development for administrators and faculty at each type of postsecondary institution.
Background of the Problem
The American Psychiatric Association (2000) estimates that between 3% and 7%
of the school-age population has been diagnosed with ADHD. More recent research has
reported that the number of children between 4 and 17 years old with ADHD is
increasing exponentially (CDC, 2010). This increase in ADHD diagnoses suggests that
there will likely be a proportional increase in the ADHD population attending
postsecondary institutions as time progresses.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2011), in 2008-
2009 approximately 707,000 students with disabilities were enrolled in postsecondary
institutions in the United States, half of which were enrolled in public two-year colleges.
Of the 707,000 students with disabilities, NCES reports that approximately 18% (127,260
2

students) had been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This
suggests that ADHD is the second most common type of disability found in
postsecondary settings during the 2008-2009 school year, with specific learning
disabilities being the most common (NCES, 2011). When aggregated by type of
institution, students with ADD or ADHD constituted 13% of the public two-year college
disabled population, 23% of the public four-year university disabled population, 26% of
the private not-for profit four-year university disabled population, and 22% of the private
for-profit four-year university disabled population (NCES, 2011). Based on these
statistics, it is essential to determine the level of comfort that postsecondary faculty have
in accommodating the needs of students with ADHD as well as what their attitudes and
beliefs are toward such students. Furthermore, the level of knowledge that postsecondary
faculty have regarding legal protections for students with ADHD must be determined in
order to ensure that they are practicing in compliance with the law. Due to the potential
differences in the ADHD population between two-year and four-year institutions, the
attitudes, believes, and legal knowledge of faculty at each type of postsecondary
institution must be examined and compared in order to determine whether they vary in
their need for professional development.
Statement of the Problem
While the number of students with ADHD continues to grow in postsecondary
education, current research suggests that faculty members tend to harbor either a
conventional or an interactionist/social constructivist view regarding students with
disabilities (Ginsberg & Schulte, 2008). The conventional point of view tends to be less
3

accommodating and more rigid than those who harbor an interactionist/social
constructivist point of view. Research indicates that while most professors tend to report
positive attitudes toward students with disabilities and are willing to make
accommodations such as increased time to complete assignments or tests, they tend to be
hesitant to provide accommodations that they perceive would potentially provide an
unfair advantage over typical peers (Cook et al., 2009; Ginsberg & Schulte, 2008; Vance
& Weyandt, 2008). The research also indicates that while faculty feel that it is important
to be knowledgeable about specific disabilities and legal protections, they believe that
they do not currently possess an adequate level of training in these areas (Cook et al.,
2009). In addition, directors of disability services for multiple institutions across the
country agree with that further training is needed for postsecondary faculty (Salzberg et
al., 2002).
Purpose of the Study
The present study sought to explore the attitudes and beliefs that postsecondary
faculty have toward students with ADHD, their level of willingness to provide
accommodations, and their level of knowledge of the laws that protect students with
ADHD. For the purpose of this study, attitudes and beliefs were operationalized as level
of faculty fairness and sensitivity, performance expectations, believability of the
diagnosis of ADHD, and level of inviting student disclosure of a disability. In addition,
because the level of exposure to students with ADHD can vary depending on the type of
institution, the level of expertise that faculty have working with such students may
depend on whether they are employed at a two-year college, a four-year private
4

university, or a four-year public university. By examining the attitudes and beliefs that
faculty have toward students with ADHD and their level of knowledge regarding the
legal protections of such students, postsecondary institutions will be able to better focus
professional development activities on areas in need of improvement. In order to gain
this information, electronic surveys were distributed to instructional faculty at two two-
year community colleges, two four-year public universities, and two four-year private
universities. The data was then analyzed to determine whether significant differences in
faculty responses exist between two-year colleges and four-year universities. Further
analysis was conducted in order to determine whether differences exist between faculty
responses at private four-year universities and public four-year universities. Based on the
results, institutions can choose to provide targeted professional development activities for
faculty and administration in order to ensure that their students with ADHD are being
provided with the accommodations and consideration that they require.
Significance of the Study
In regard to two-year colleges, one study has been identified that explored two-
year faculty comfort with making accommodations for students with disabilities
(Sweener, Kundert, May, & Quinn, 2002) and one study was identified that addressed
community college professors’ attitudes toward alternative instructional strategies (Hart
& Dunn, 2008). A third study was identified that compared professor perceptions of
students with ADHD at a two-year college with the perceptions of professors at a four-
year college and revealed no differences (Vance & Weyandt, 2008). No studies have
been identified that compare two-year college faculty knowledge of legal protections
5

with the knowledge of four-year university faculty. In addition, no studies have been
identified that compare private university faculty perceptions and knowledge to the
perceptions and knowledge of public university faculty. Therefore, the present study
presents new research to the field with regard to comparing the perceptions and
knowledge of faculty at public institutions and private institutions and further explores
perceptions and knowledge differences between faculty at two-year colleges and four-
year universities. The results of this study can be utilized as a needs assessment to
determine specific areas to target for professional development based on type of
institution.
Research Questions
The present non-parametric quantitative study is carefully constructed in order to
address the following research questions:
1. Are the attitudes and beliefs of two-year college faculty toward students
with ADHD significantly different than those of four-year university
faculty?
2. Is the level of knowledge of two-year college faculty significantly
different than the level of knowledge of four-year university faculty
regarding the legal protections for students with ADHD?
3. Is there a significant difference between the willingness of two-year
college faculty and four-year university faculty in regard to making testing
and instructional accommodations for students with ADHD?
6

4. Are the responses to the above research questions significantly different
depending on whether the faculty is from a four-year public or a four-year
private institution?
Methodology
The present study utilized purposeful sampling to select two public two-year
colleges, two public four-year universities, and two private four-year universities across
Los Angeles County, California. An adapted form of the Productive Learning
University Strategies (PLuS) survey developed by Murray, Wren, and Keys (2008) was
distributed via e-mail to all instructional faculty members at each institution.
Multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) and t-tests were conducted on the results
in order to determine whether significant differences exist between the various types of
institutions.
Assumptions
The researcher assumes that all participants completed each item of the survey
honestly and that the survey data was analyzed and interpreted accurately.
Limitations and Delimitations
The researcher acknowledges that the proposed methodology poses some
limitations. For example, the validity of the study may be limited to those institutions
included in the sample and may in particular be less valid in relation to institutions
beyond Southern California. Therefore, the results may be limited in their ability to be
generalized to various regions of the United States. In addition, the institutions contacted
had not aggregated their Disability Services data by graduate and undergraduate student
7

status and as a result the percentage of undergraduate students with disabilities was not
able to be determined. Therefore, the present study did not differentiate between graduate
and undergraduate faculty, which may potentially impact the results.
Definition of Terms
Many terms are used synonymously within the field of education. Therefore, a
clear understanding of the terms used in the present study is essential for understanding.
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) – ADHD is a disorder defined in the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition Text Revision
(DSM-IV TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) and is characterized by
inattentiveness, over-activity, and impulsivity that are outside of the normal range for a
child’s age. It is possible to have a combination of any of these symptoms.
Community College – A community college is a public institution of higher education
that is designed to offer a two-year curriculum terminating with an associate’s degree
(Merriam-Webster, 2011). Community colleges are also known as junior colleges or city
colleges. In the present study, the term “community college” will be used synonymously
with the term “two-year college.”
Faculty – The term “faculty” refers to all ranks of academic instructional staff at
institutions of higher education (professors, assistant professors, associate professors,
adjunct faculty, lecturers, etc.).
Postsecondary Education – Postsecondary education refers to higher education
programs provided at two-year colleges or a four-year universities.
8

University – The term “university” will be used synonymously with the term “four-year
college” and refers to an institution of higher learning that maintains a curriculum
designed to be completed within four years and terminating with a bachelor’s degree
(Merriam-Webster, 2011).
Summary
The present chapter outlined the purpose of the present study, the methodology,
the importance of the findings, and definitions of key terms. The following chapter will
present a review of the literature in regard to ADHD diagnosis, the theoretical
neurological basis for the disorder, how the symptoms impact students throughout their
educational careers from primary through postsecondary schooling, and a review of
interventions that have been found to be effective at each educational level. In addition,
the literature review will discuss postsecondary faculty attitudes and perceptions toward
students with disabilities and the laws that are in place to protect such students.
9

CHAPTER II
Review of the Literature
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is an area of growing concern
in the field of education. In 2000, the American Psychiatric Association estimated that
between 3% and 7% of the school-age population had ADHD (2000). In addition, a 2007
parent survey conducted for the National Survey of Children’s Health indicates that the
number of ADHD diagnoses in children aged 4-17 years increased from 7.8% to 9.5%
between 2003 and 2007. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010). This
represents a 21.8% increase over a four-year period.
In regard to postsecondary school students, the exact number of students who
have been diagnosed as having ADHD is not known, as students only self-disclose their
diagnoses if they are seeking assistance from the school Disability Support Services
(DSS) program. The National Center for Education Statistics reports that during the
2008-2009 school year approximately 18% of students in postsecondary institutions who
were known to have disabilities had been diagnosed as having ADD or ADHD (NCES,
2011). When aggregated by type of institution, students with ADD or ADHD constituted
13% of the public two-year college disabled population, 23% of the disabled public four-
year university disabled population, 26% of the private not-for profit four-year university
disabled population, and 22% of the private for-profit four-year university disabled
population (NCES, 2011). However, these statistics only indicate the number of students
who self-disclosed their disabilities to the institutions and therefore may be an under-
representation of the actual ADHD population attending postsecondary schools. It
10

should also be noted that not all postsecondary institutions enroll students with
disabilities. While 99% of two-year public institutions and 99% of public four-year
institutions report that they enroll students with disabilities, only 88% of private not-for-
profit institutions and 74% of private for-profit institutions enroll students with
disabilities (NCES, 2011).
The following literature review will begin with an analysis of the symptoms that
lead to a diagnosis of ADHD as well as various theories regarding the neurology of
ADHD. The literature regarding the development and progression of ADHD symptoms
from elementary through postsecondary school will then be reviewed in order to gain an
understanding of the challenges that students with ADHD face throughout their
educational development. The legal protections for students with disabilities will also be
reviewed, as these laws provide a framework for understanding the required
responsibilities of postsecondary faculty when working with students with ADHD. The
research regarding faculty perceptions of the legal mandates, the accommodations
required, and of the students will then be discussed, as these are the main factors that will
be explored in the present study. Finally, the literature regarding student perceptions of
the accommodations they receive and their acceptance by professors will be discussed.
Diagnosing ADHD
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition Text
Revision (DSM-IV TR) identifies three subtypes of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). These include the Predominantly
Inattention Type, the Predominantly Hyperactive-Impulsive Type, and the Combined
11

Type. In order for a diagnosis to be made, the DSM-IV TR requires that the symptoms
for each of these subtypes be the result of a persistent pattern of inattention and/or
hyperactivity-impulsivity that occurs frequently, in at least two settings, and is more
severe than typical peers. Furthermore, some of the hyperactive-impulsive or inattentive
symptoms must have been present prior to seven years of age and must result in an
interference of developmentally appropriate social, academic, or occupational
functioning. In addition, the DSM-IV TR indicates that the clinician making the
diagnosis should take into consideration whether the ADHD symptoms occur only during
the course of other disorders such as Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Schizophrenia,
or other Psychotic Disorders (2000). In adults, clinicians typically rely on rating scales
and interviews when making a diagnosis (Hervey, Epstein, & Curry, 2004).
In diagnosing ADHD, the DSM-IV TR identifies various symptoms of
inattention, of which six or more must be present within six months prior to the
diagnosis. Examples of such symptoms include making careless mistakes in schoolwork,
occupational work, or other activities, difficulty sustaining attention on tasks or activities,
difficulty listening when spoken to directly, difficulty following through on instructions,
difficulty organizing activities, avoidance of tasks involving sustained mental effort,
losing things, distractibility, and forgetfulness (American Psychiatric Association, 2000).
Additional symptoms are described in regard to hyperactivity. Like the symptoms of
inattention, six or more hyperactive symptoms must be present for a patient to be
identified as having a hyperactive component of ADHD (2000). Examples of the
hyperactive symptoms include fidgeting with hands/feet or squirming in seats, frequently
12

getting up from a seat when remaining seated is expected, excessively running or
climbing when not appropriate, difficulty playing quietly, frequently rushing, and talking
excessively. In regard to impulsivity, the DSM-IV TR identifies symptoms such as
stating answers before questions have been finished, difficulty waiting for one’s turn, and
frequently interrupting others (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). It should be
noted that research conducted by Biederman, Mick, and Faraone (2000) indicates that
symptoms of hyperactivity and impulsivity tend to decrease in adulthood, although
inattentive symptoms tend to continue.
In addition to the diagnostic criteria provided by the DSM-IV TR, Nigg and
Casey (2005) have summarized the behavioral characteristics of ADHD in an extensive
review of the literature. When placed in slow, careful contexts, students with ADHD
tend to respond hastily, inaccurately, or inappropriately due to impulsivity. When
required to respond quickly and accurately, ADHD children tend to respond slowly and
inaccurately due to under-arousal. When required to make decisions quickly, students
with ADHD tend to have difficulty providing a prepared response due to poor executive
response inhibition. Furthermore, when an organized response is required, children with
ADHD tend to have difficulty planning, utilizing working memory, and integrating
various forms of information. In addition, students with ADHD tend to have difficulty
with delayed gratification and place more weight on immediate rewards than on longer-
term incentives. Finally, Nigg and Casey (2005) theorized that students with ADHD tend
to have difficulty managing time, as they have a tendency to overestimate time intervals.
13

The diagnostic criteria and behavioral symptoms described above help to provide
an understanding of the challenges that students with ADHD face. This level of
understanding will be explored within the present study, as an understanding of the
diagnosis likely impacts faculty perceptions of the students who display the symptoms of
ADHD.
Theories of ADHD
A true understanding of the struggles that students with ADHD face requires
some knowledge of the theories addressing the causes of the disorder. The following
section will explore the most widely accepted theories of ADHD and the reasons that
symptoms occur.
Executive Functioning Deficits
Researchers have developed several theories attempting to explain the causes of
ADHD symptoms. One of the most widely accepted theories of ADHD was developed
by Barkley (1997) over a decade ago. Barkley’s theory focuses primarily on a deficit in
response inhibition, which is typically used for self-regulation during times of temptation
or when a temporal delay is required. According to Barkley (1997), this deficit then
leads to impairments in the four neuropsychological functions that control goal-directed
behavior through the motor system (working memory, internalization of speech, self-
regulation of affect/motivation/arousal, and reconstitution). In describing these functions,
working memory tends to assist in determining how to respond to situations, self-
regulation assists in emotional self-control, internalization of speech assists in reflecting
and problem-solving, and reconstitution allows for analysis of situations. Barkley termed
14

these processes executive functions. Ultimately, multiple deficits in these executive
functions tends to result in poor self-control, difficulty executing goal-directed responses
and complex motor sequences, responding to tasks inappropriately, poor behavioral
control, and impaired ability to reengage in tasks after disruptions (Barkley, 1997).
Neurobiological Model
Building upon Barkley’s theory (1997), Sonuga-Barke (2003) presents a
neurobiological model in which both executive functioning deficits and deficits related to
an aversion to delays of preferred stimulus are placed within the same model. This model
views the neurobiological executive circuit and the reward circuit as separate pathways to
ADHD. The executive circuit leads to inhibitory deficits and eventually to deficits in
executive functioning, ultimately resulting in inattentive and hyperactive ADHD
symptoms while the reward circuit is associated with both delay aversion (the desire to
minimize delay of rewards) and the desire to maximize stimulation. Deficits in the
reward circuit ultimately results in impulsive, inattentive, and over-active ADHD
symptoms. Therefore, Sonuga-Barke’s (2003) research suggests a dual-pathway model
of ADHD (executive functioning deficits and deficits in the reward circuit).
Neurocognitive Theory
Nigg and Casey (2005) present a neurocognitive theory of ADHD. Their research
suggests that ADHD symptoms occur due to deficits in the frontostriatal,
frontocerebellar, and frontolimbic loops of the individual’s neural circuitry. The
frontostriatal loops are involved in executive functioning such as working memory,
response selection, and response suppression. Deficits in these areas tend to impair a
15

student’s ability to predict what will happen during given events and when they will
occur. Therefore, this weakness would impact the student’s ability to quickly recognize
and assess a given situation. Deficits in the frontocerebellar loops then impact the
manner in which the student may perceive time, such as how long he may have to wait
for a preferred activity or how long it has been since he received an instruction. Finally,
deficits in the frontolimbic loops may impact the student’s ability to understand the
emotional significance of a situation, thereby making it more difficult to learn from past
behavior. Ultimately, Nigg and Casey (2005) hypothesize that due to neurocognitive
impairments, students with ADHD may misread situations, engage in improper behavior
due to the misreading situations, and fail to understand what the consequences of their
behaviors may be. For example, a student with deficits in his frontostriatal and
frontocerebellar circuits may fail to identify how much time he has before the school bell
rings indicating that class has started. The student may then continue to engage in a
preferred activity because he did not know that the bell was going to ring. As a result, the
student may be off-task once the bell rings and may not notice that other students have
taken their seats. Finally, a deficit in the frontolimbic loops results in the student not
understanding the nature and severity of his error and therefore not modifying his
behavior in the future (Nigg & Casey, 2005).
The theories described above help to explain the neurological, biological, and
behavioral processes that are involved in ADHD symptoms. An understanding of these
theories can assist postsecondary faculty to understand that the behavioral symptoms of
ADHD are not necessarily voluntary. This understanding can lead to more sympathetic
16

perspectives of students with ADHD and an acknowledgement that there are biological
and neurological components to the disorder that are outside the student’s control.
ADHD in Childhood and Adolescence
In order to understand the challenges facing students with ADHD within the
postsecondary environment it is essential to understand the difficulties that they have
overcome during the elementary and secondary schooling years. The following section
will outline the behavioral symptoms that tend to be present during the kindergarten
through high school years and the interventions that have been found to be successful for
both children and adolescents.
Students with ADHD often present with a number of difficulties during their
elementary, middle, and high school years. In a study investigating academic, social-
emotional, and behavioral functioning of first through fourth grade students, DuPaul et al.
(2006) found that ADHD students tend to display impairment across all domains
regardless of gender. Social-emotional and behavioral difficulties were further explored
by Miranda, Soriano, Fernandez, and Melia (2008) in a study exploring the extent to
which psychological difficulties impact the severity of ADHD based on parent and
teacher perceptions. The study consisted of 72 students with ADHD who were between
the ages of 6 and 14 years old and the parents and teachers of each student were asked to
complete a questionnaire. While significant variability was found between parent and
teacher reports in regard to areas such as anxiety (13% agreement), emotional lability
(33% agreement), and social problems (29% agreement), there was a high level of
agreement in regard to externalizing behaviors such as restlessness/impulsiveness (90%
17

agreement), hyperactive behaviors (85% agreement), and conduct problems (43%
agreement). The researchers hypothesize that the high levels of disagreement in regard to
anxiety and emotional lability may be due to the fact that these symptoms are less
observable than impulsivity, hyperactivity, and conduct problems. Furthermore, the
difference in the environments in which the respondents observe the students (home
versus school) may have impacted their responses.
In addition to determining the consistency of responses between parents and
teachers, Miranda et al. (2008) sought to determine the relationship between various
psychological difficulties and ADHD. The results of the study indicated that students
with ADHD-Combined Type exhibited high rates of psychopathologies such as
emotional lability and conduct problems. Furthermore, the researchers found that older
children with ADHD but without concurrent learning disabilities displayed more
psychological difficulties than did the younger children, particularly in regard to
inattention and impulsivity. However, the inverse was true for students who exhibited
both ADHD and learning disabilities, as younger children with these co-morbid
conditions displayed more severe symptoms.
Interventions for students with ADHD at the elementary and secondary level tend
to focus on behavior modification and self-regulation, as school districts are not able to
make recommendations involving medication. In line with this reasoning, Trout,
Lienemann, Reid, and Epstein (2007) conducted a review of non-medication
interventions in order to identify the most effective methods of improving academic
outcomes for students with ADHD. The results of their study indicated that a
18

combination of medication and treatment produced the largest effects, particularly when
the treatment consisted of self-regulation techniques. Additional treatments that were
found to be effective include strategy instruction, direct instruction, and self-
reinforcement. The researchers also found that token economies (earning reinforcers for
appropriate behaviors), response cost (in response to inappropriate behaviors, the student
must return previously earned reinforcers), and peer tutoring were “promising”
interventions (p. 222).
Gureasko-Moore, DuPaul, and White (2007) conducted additional research
involving sixth and seventh graders with ADHD and the effectiveness of self-
management techniques on classroom preparedness and homework. The experimental
group subjects were provided with three 15-minute sessions with a school psychologist
during which they were taught self-management procedures for use in their classrooms
and homework routines. The procedures consisted of maintaining a student log as well as
self-monitoring checklists. The school psychologist then monitored their progress and
provided feedback for the duration of the study. The results indicated that classroom
preparation skills and homework behaviors increased significantly as a result of the
training. However, these results should be interpreted with caution, as the sample size for
the study was only made up of six male students. Furthermore, two of the students were
reported to have been taking psychotropic medications, which may have impacted the
results. However, the authors note that the students were taking the medications during
the baseline period, continued the same dosage throughout the study, and yet made
significant growth as a result of the interventions.
19

In regard to interventions addressing behavioral and self-regulation difficulties in
students with ADHD, daily report cards (DRCs) have been found to be effective (Fabiano
et al., 2010; Murray, Rabiner, Schulte, & Newitt, 2008). DRCs involve rating specified
behaviors at school daily and having the parents provide positive reinforcement at home
for appropriate marks on the DRC. Fabiano et al. (2010) studied the effects of DRCs
utilizing 63 first through sixth grade special education students with ADHD. The results
indicated positive effects in the areas of classroom functioning, special education goal
attainment, and teacher ratings of productivity and disruptive behavior. However, while
academic productivity increased, actual achievement testing remained stable, suggesting
that work production improved without concurrent development of academic skills.
Based on this, the researchers hypothesized that behavioral interventions alone are not
sufficient to improve learning.
Murray et al. (2008) further explored the effectiveness of DRCs on 24
kindergarten through fifth grade students with ADHD. In contrast to Fabiano et al.
(2010) discussed above, this study found that the subjects demonstrated significant
improvement in regard to academic skills as well as productivity. However, it should be
noted that Murray et al. (2008) utilized a teacher-rated measure of academic productivity
and skills while Fabiano et al. (2010) utilized standardized academic measures.
Therefore, while the perception of the teachers in the Murray et al. (2008) study may
have been that the students gained academic skill, the actual level of student skill was not
measured.
20

In summary, students with ADHD in childhood and adolescence tend to be
reported by their parents and teachers to be restless, impulsive, hyperactive, and have
conduct problems (Miranda et al., 2008). While a combination of medication and
behavioral treatment has been found to be the most effective intervention (Trout et al.,
2007), effective non-medication interventions include strategy instruction, direct
instruction, self-management and reinforcement, and the use of daily report cards
(Fabiano et al. 2010; Gureasko-Moore et al., 2007; Murray et al., 2008). This
information provides a backdrop to understanding the struggles and interventions that
students with ADHD have experienced during their journey to postsecondary education.
Such information is essential to provide to postsecondary faculty during professional
development activities in order to facilitate a more accurate perspective of the challenges
that face students with ADHD.
ADHD in Adulthood
Difficulties associated with ADHD persist through adulthood, although the
symptoms may change from those exhibited in childhood and adolescence. For example,
research conducted by Biederman, Mick, and Faraone (2000) indicate that symptoms of
hyperactivity and impulsivity tend to decrease in adulthood, although inattentive
symptoms tend to continue. The following review of research discusses the challenges
that adults with ADHD often face and the impact that ADHD symptoms have on their
lives. Research regarding predictors of success for postsecondary students with ADHD
will also be reviewed.

21

Transition to Adulthood
In exploring ADHD from adolescence through adulthood, Barkley, Fischer,
Smallish, and Fletcher (2005) conducted a study in which they followed children with
ADHD for approximately 13 years, seeking to determine how ADHD symptoms
impacted the children’s education and livelihood. The mean age of the ADHD group at
the time of study was 20 years old. Academically, the results of the study indicate that
the ADHD group had significantly lower educational attainment than the control group,
with 32% of the ADHD sample failing to complete high school. Furthermore, subjects
from the ADHD group were more likely to have been retained in grade, suspended in
high school, had lower grade point averages, and were less likely to enroll in college. In
regard to adult life, the ADHD subjects were more likely to have been fired from their
jobs, had fewer close friends, were more likely to have had sexual intercourse at a young
age, to have contracted sexually transmitted diseases, and to have parented a child at a
young age.
Barkley and Fischer (2010) conducted additional research examining the impact
of emotional impulsiveness (EI) in 27-year old adults with ADHD. For the purpose of
the study, EI was operationalized as impatience, low frustration tolerance, being
tempermental, quick to anger, irritable, and being easily emotionally excitable. The
results indicate that EI negatively contributed to the amount education that the subjects
attained as well as their rates of suspensions and expulsions from school. Outside of the
academic domain, EI was associated with high levels of driver license suspensions and
citations. Furthermore, EI was found to predict felony and misdemeanor arrests and
22

convictions. Credit ratings and difficulties managing money were also associated with EI
in ADHD adults.
Adult Students with ADHD in Postsecondary Education
In addressing the difficulties exhibited by the students with ADHD who attend
college, Norwalk, Norvilitis, and MacLean (2009) sought to determine the relationship
between ADHD symptoms and factors associated with persistence in college. Consistent
with the research conducted by Barkley et al. (2005) and Barkley and Fischer (2010), the
results of this study found that higher levels of ADHD symptoms are related to lower
levels of academic adjustment, study skills, grade point average, and self-efficacy in
career decision-making (Norwalk et al., 2009). In analyzing these findings, Norwalk et
al. (2009) hypothesized that these areas of difficulty were related to executive functioning
deficits. This hypothesis is consistent with the ADHD theories described by Barkley
(1997) and Sonuga-Barke (2003).
While historically the focus of ADHD research regarding interventions has been
within the elementary and secondary school settings, the amount of research exploring
effective interventions for the post-secondary ADHD population has begun to grow in
recent years. Despite this recent increase in postsecondary focus, research regarding
specific strategies, accommodations, and interventions continues to be scarce. In seeking
to identify predictors of academic success for college students with ADHD, Kaminski,
Turnock, Rosen, and Laster (2006) studied 82 college students with the disorder and
assessed their severity of symptoms, academic success, and coping resources. For the
purpose of the study, coping resources were defined as factors that were available before
23

stressors occurred and therefore could be utilized to assist when stressors did occur.
Interestingly, the results of the study indicate that ADHD students who exhibit high rates
of success reported fewer coping resources than did students who exhibited low rates of
success. Furthermore, the less successful students were found to be in greater health and
were more physically fit than the more successful students. The authors hypothesize that
this is due to the low success students spending more time exercising than studying. This
hypothesis was supported by data indicating that several students reported that their
exercise schedules impeded their academic success. Additional results of the study
indicated that freedom from financial concerns and effective time management were
associated with academic success. Based on these results, the authors recommend that
universities implement programs focusing on decreasing procrastination, enhancing
motivation, and leading students to pursue long-term goals.
Trammal (2003) explored the impact that receiving academic accommodations in
college has on final grades. Trammal’s sample consisted of 61 college students with
either specific learning disabilities (SLD) or attention deficit disorder (ADD). The results
of the study indicate that students performed best when only one accommodation was
implemented rather than multiple accommodations at one time. Students with ADD were
found to be more responsive to accommodations than students with SLD. In addition,
students with either SLD or ADD were found to perform better when they attended
classes that met for shorter periods of time. In reviewing how students received
accommodations for class, the researcher found that students with ADD made fewer
requests for accommodations but made better decisions in determining which
24

accommodations would best suit their needs. Unfortunately, a weakness of this study
was that the author did not identify which specific accommodations were most effective
for each type of disability.
Rather than study classroom accommodations, Allsopp, Minskoff, and Bolt
(2005) conducted research to determine the impact that individualized instruction for
specific courses has on the academic performance of students with ADHD. The sample
consisted of 46 four-year university students with ADHD at three different institutions.
More than half (57%) of the students were identified as having disorders such as
depression, anxiety, or obsessive-compulsive disorder in addition to ADHD. Specific
learning strategies for each individual’s needs were selected and taught using systematic
explicit instruction designed to address the particular course that the student was taking.
The results of the study indicated that improvement was contingent upon the student
independently using the strategies and having a supportive relationship with their strategy
instructor. In contrast, medication-related issues and emotional difficulties were found to
be associated with non-improvement. For students who did improve, one semester of
intervention was found to be adequate for the student to sustain their level of
improvement for subsequent semesters. The authors concluded that the success of this
intervention was due in large part to the individualized strategies that were provided to
each student rather than providing generic strategies to all students.
Lee, Osborne, Hayes, and Simoes (2008) explored the effects of the
accommodation of pacing during academic tests on performance in college students with
ADHD. The researchers designed an experiment in which the students were assigned to
25

either a computer-paced testing condition or a student-paced testing condition in order to
determine whether forced pacing (in the computer condition) resulted in higher student
performance. Ultimately, no significant differences were identified between the two
conditions. In fact, interviews with the participants revealed that many of the subjects
felt that the forced pacing increased their level of anxiety, although this did not appear to
decrease their performance when compared to the student-paced group. However,
interviews also revealed that students felt that the computerized testing structure in which
only one question was presented on the screen at a time was beneficial to their
performance. Therefore, the researchers hypothesize that the benefit of having a
structured testing format compensated for the negative impact that the increased anxiety
related to forced pacing may have had, thereby resulting in scores that were equivalent to
the student-paced group. Based on this hypothesis, the researchers suggest that future
studies be conducted to determine the effect of computerized testing on ADHD versus
non-ADHD students.
In summary, adults with ADHD often present with both academic and non-
academic difficulties (Barkley et al., 2005). While the hyperactive component of their
disorder tends to diminish in adulthood, the inattentive component often persists along
with emotional impulsiveness (Barkley & Fisher, 2010; Biederman et al., 2000). Those
who progress to postsecondary education are often in the minority and have overcome
significant challenges to reach the college and university levels. Once at the
postsecondary level, adults with ADHD tend to have lower levels of academic
achievement due to executive functioning deficits (Norwalk et al., 2009). Because of
26

this, adult students often require interventions and accommodations to assist them.
Programs focusing on decreasing procrastination, enhancing motivation, and the pursuit
of long-term goals may assist students with ADHD to be successful (Kaminski et al.,
2006). In regard to accommodations, single accommodations have been shown to be
more effective than having multiple accommodations (Trammal, 2003). In addition,
direct instruction focused on individual subjects has been shown to be effective, provided
that the students eventually begin to implement the strategies independently (Allsopp, et
al., 2005). Finally, forced pacing was not found to be effective, although computer-based
testing allowing for fewer distractions appears to be promising (Lee et al., 2008).
Knowledge of these effective accommodations can assist professors in working with
students with ADHD and understanding how they best learn.
Legal Protections for Students with ADHD
Students with disabilities who attend any school that receives public funding in
the United States are provided with several legal protections that postsecondary faculty
should be aware of in order to ensure compliance. These protections include Title II of
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Title II and Section
504 are broader in their scope of disabilities than the IDEA, which provides special
education services for students within specific ages who fall under one or more of 13
disability categories. While Section 504 and Title II apply to both school-age and
postsecondary students attending institutions receiving public funding, protections and
services under IDEA do not continue beyond high school and therefore are not essential
27

for postsecondary faculty knowledge. However, postsecondary faculty may benefit from
being aware that the eligibility requirements for Section 504 and IDEA are different and
therefore many students who were previously eligible for accommodations under are
IDEA are not necessarily eligible for any protections when entering postsecondary
education (Gordon, Lewandowski, Murphy, & Dempsey, 2002).
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act
Title II of the ADA was passed by Congress in 1990 and covers all agencies
(including schools) of the state and local government. Under Title II, qualified students
with disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodations that will provide an equal
opportunity to benefit from all programs, services, and activities that their typical peers
do (ADA, 2005). Title II specifically addresses architectural, communication, and
transportation barriers. For example, students with disabilities must have access to
buildings, receive aids that may be necessary to communicate with others, and receive
reasonable modifications to policies and procedures.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is similar to Title II in that it is
intended to prevent discrimination toward people with disabilities. Section 504 defines a
person with a disability as one who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially
limits one or more major life activities such as caring for one’s self, performing manual
tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, or working (Jacob &
Hartshorne, 2003; Zirkel, 2009). In regard to services and accommodations, Section 504
requires that schools provide a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) to qualified
28

students with disabilities. This education must be designed to meet the individual’s
educational needs in the same manner that their typical peers’ needs are met and may
include the use of regular classes, supplementary services, or special education and
related services (Jacob & Hartshorne, 2003). Section 504 was further refined with the
passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments (ADAA) in January 2009
and included limitations in concentrating, reading, and thinking as examples of major life
activities that would make one eligible for Section 504 protections. In regard to ADHD,
the ADAA now requires that the functional impact of the disability be determined
without consideration of mitigating measures such as medication (Shaw, Keenan,
Madaus, & Banerjee, 2010). Based on memorandums by the Department of Education,
accommodations provided by Section 504 may include, but are not limited to, a
structured learning environment, repeating or simplifying instructions and assignments,
supplementing instruction, behavior management, adjustable class schedules, and use of
note takers (Jacob & Hartshorne, 2003).
Within the postsecondary setting, a student must self-disclose their disability to
the institution if they would like to receive accommodations under Section 504 or Title II.
In order to qualify for such accommodations, the student must demonstrate that they have
a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity (Jacob &
Hartshorne, 2003; Zirkel, 2009). Mental impairments may include mental retardation,
emotional or mental illnesses, or learning disabilities such as ADHD (Wilhelm, 2003).
As previously mentioned, learning may qualify as a major life activity that may be
substantially limited by the physical or mental health impairment (Jacob & Hartshorne,
29

2003). In regard to the severity of the limitation, the United States Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has defined “substantially limited” as either being
unable to perform a major life activity that an average non-disabled person can perform
or not being able to perform such an activity in a comparable condition, manner, or
duration as an average non-disabled person (Wilhelm, 2003). Finally, the student must
be considered to be “otherwise qualified” to participate in the program in question. This
means that the individual must be able to meet the program requirements with reasonable
accommodations (Denbo, 2003; Wilhelm, 2003). If the student is not able to meet the
program requirements despite the use of reasonable accommodations, he or she is not
considered to be “otherwise qualified” under the ADA (Wilhelm, 2003).
The practice of verifying that a student has a qualifying disability varies from
institution to institution. The National Center for Education Statistics (2011) reports that
during the 2008-2009 school year 92% of institutions in the United States required some
form of verification. Of those institutions, 80% accepted a comprehensive vocational
rehabilitation agency evaluation as adequate verification. 44% of the institutions
accepted an Individualized Education Program (IEP), and 40% of the institutions
accepted a Section 504 plan from a secondary school. When aggregated by type of
institution, 99% of public two-year colleges and 98% of public four-year universities
required verification of a disability. In the private sector, 87% of private not-for-profit
four-year universities and 100% of private for-profit four-year universities required
verification.
30

Once the student has established that he or she has a disability that falls under the
scope of Section 504, the institution is required to provide reasonable accommodations
that are individualized to eliminate or reduce the impact of the disability on the major life
activity (Jacob & Hartshorne, 2003; Wilhelm, 2003). According to Wilhelm (2003), the
United States Supreme Court has been clear that reasonable accommodations are those
that are individualized for the student but do not lower the academic standards of the
program or require substantial program alteration. In regard to common
accommodations, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2011) reports that
during the 2008-2009 school year 93% of national postsecondary institutions that
enrolled students with disabilities provided additional exam time, 77% provided
classroom note takers, 72% allowed faculty-provided course notes or assignments, 72%
provided additional help with learning strategies or study skills, 71% provided alternative
exam formats, and 70% provided adaptive equipment and technology.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
A third legal protection for students with disabilities is the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), although this law does not apply to postsecondary
education. IDEA requires that school districts provide special education services for
students with disabilities beginning at the age of three years and spanning through either
the attainment of a high school diploma or the student’s 22
nd
birthday if he/she has not
yet achieved a diploma. In contrast to the requirements of Title II and Section 504, IDEA
defines thirteen categories of disabilities and students must fall under one or more of the
categories in order to qualify for services. In addition to accommodations similar to
31

those provided under Section 504, students who fall under IDEA receive specially
designed instructional services to meet their unique needs. These services may include
instruction in the classroom, home, or hospitals. Each service provided must be designed
to grant the student access to a free and appropriate public education within the least
restrictive environment. This means that students can only be removed from the regular
education environment when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education
in regular classes without the use of supplementary aides and services cannot be achieved
satisfactorily (IDEA, 1997).
Clinician Understanding of Legal Protections
While the criteria for a diagnosis of ADHD is well established, there continues to
be great variability in regard to mental health clinicians’ understanding of the laws that
protect postsecondary students with this disability. Gordon, Lewandowski, Murphy, and
Dempsey (2002) conducted a study of 147 clinicians in order to determine their
understanding of both ADA law and the diagnostic criteria that they were using to
diagnose SLD, ADHD, and psychiatric disabilities. The sample consisted of clinical
psychologists (37%), educational psychologists (29%), neuropsychologists (19%), and
other mental health professionals (15%). The results of the study indicated that clinicians
are aware that there are different eligibility requirements for legal protections than what
is required for a clinical diagnosis. However, clinicians were not aware that the purpose
of ADA is to prevent discrimination rather than to facilitate success. Clinicians also
tended to believe that students should receive accommodations even if their scores are
within the average range. Of particular interest to the researchers was the finding that
32

41% of clinicians did not appear to be aware that the DSM-IV TR criteria for a diagnosis
of ADHD requires that the symptoms began prior to seven years of age. Finally, the
results of the study found that many clinicians indicated that they favor advocating for
what they view to be the patient’s interests rather than strictly applying diagnostic
criteria. Based on this information, the researchers recommended increased professional
development and dissemination of accurate diagnostic and legal information to clinicians
who provide recommendations to universities regarding students with disabilities.
Faculty Attitudes, Beliefs, Practices, and Training
It is essential to consider the knowledge and perception of the implementers when
evaluating the degree to which a requirement is implemented. It is equally important to
consider the perspectives of those being affected by the fidelity with which the
requirement is being adhered to. Based on these assumptions, researchers have begun to
focus on the perceptions of both professors and students in regard to the implementation
of the required accommodations for students with ADHD.
Faculty perceptions of students with disabilities are particularly important because
they can impact the level at which students seek accommodations for their disabilities as
well as their academic achievement (Hartman-Hall & Haaga, 2002). The following
section will review previous research regarding professor perceptions of students with
ADHD as well as reasons to determine the level of acceptance of students with
disabilities in both two-year colleges and four-year universities.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2011), in 2008-
2009 approximately 707,000 students with disabilities were enrolled in postsecondary
33

institutions in the United States, half of which were enrolled in public two-year colleges.
Of the 707,000 students with disabilities, NCES reports that approximately 18% (127,260
students) had been diagnosed with attention deficit disorder (ADD) or ADHD. These
statistics suggest that a high number of ADHD students currently attend two-year
colleges and are potentially eligible for legal protections under Section 504. Therefore, it
is particularly important to determine the perceptions and comfort of two-year university
professors with accommodating students with disabilities. In exploring this subject,
Sweener, Kundert, May, and Quinn (2002) conducted a study surveying 502 community
college professors. The results of this study indicate that two-year college faculty tend to
be comfortable with providing accommodations that allow students either extra time and
space or the use of auxiliary aides. However, the professors tended to report that they
were uncomfortable providing accommodations that required additional time and effort
on their part.
Faculty Attitudes, Beliefs, and Practices
Vance and Weyandt (2008) conducted research investigating professor
perceptions of students with ADHD at two four-year universities and one two-year
college. The results of the study indicated no differences in perceptions between
professors at two-year colleges or four-year universities. The results also indicated no
differences in regard to opinions of professors of varying levels of education or
experiences. In regard to their perception of students with ADHD, the majority of
professors (58.9%) felt that a student with ADHD is equivalent to a student with a
learning disability and 29.6% of the professors ‘agreed’ or ‘somewhat agreed’ that a
34

student with ADHD is more stressful to teach than a non-ADHD student. In regard to
accommodations, 25.7% of professors most ‘agreed’ to ‘somewhat agreed’ that they
should not accept alternative assignments or provide copies of lecture notes to students
with ADHD. Furthermore, 12.3% of professors indicated that students with ADHD
should not be provided with special accommodations. The researchers then aggregated
the last two categories by area of professor expertise. The results of these analyses
indicated that professors who taught in the College of Sciences were most likely to feel
that they should not accept alternative assignments or provide lecture notes. In addition,
the researchers found that the professors who felt that students with ADHD should not
receive accommodations were mainly from the College of Education and Professional
Studies, followed by the College of Sciences. Finally, the researchers explored the
number of professors who had received training in working with students with ADHD
and very few indicated affirmatively. However, the majority of professors reported that
they would like to receive such training.
In further addressing faculty attitudes, beliefs, and practices toward students with
disabilities, Murray, Wren, and Keys (2008) developed and tested for reliability and
validity a 12 factor survey instrument. The researchers then distributed the surveys and
gained responses from 192 faculty members (30% response rate) at an urban private
university. The study addressed the following factors: (a) faculty perceptions of
providing major accommodations (such as reducing workload); (b) faculty willingness to
provide accommodations on exams; (c) faculty perception of the fairness of providing
accommodations; (d) faculty knowledge of the laws protecting students with disabilities;
35

(e) faculty willingness to invest additional time to support students with disabilities; (f)
faculty willingness to provide teaching accommodations; (g) faculty perceptions that
resource constraints made providing accommodations difficult; (h) faculty expectations
for the performance of students with learning disabilities; (i) faculty perceptions of
student self-disclosure and the level at which faculty should believe what students
disclose; (j) the level at which faculty invite student self-disclosure; (k) faculty
perceptions of whether they have sufficient knowledge to make accommodations; and (l)
faculty perceptions of whether they provide accommodations. The results of the survey
indicated a gender difference between male and female faculty responses. Female faculty
members were more likely then were males to provide accommodations, have greater
knowledge of learning disabilities, have greater sensitivity to students with disabilities,
and to personally invest their time to support students with disabilities. Overall, the
results of the study indicated that faculty members felt that they had positive expectations
for the students with disabilities, were willing to invest additional time for the students,
and were willing to make minor accommodations for the students. Faculty were less
willing to make major accommodations for students and tended to score lower in regard
to inviting students to self-disclose their disabilities. The results of the study also
indicated that faculty felt that they required additional knowledge in order to provide
appropriate teaching and testing accommodations and an analysis of the survey responses
indicated that perceptions of inadequate knowledge was negatively associated with the
provision of accommodations. This study is particularly relevant to the present
36

dissertation study, as it explores each of the factors that the dissertation study seeks to
explore.
In reviewing research regarding professor perceptions of students with
disabilities, Ginsberg and Schulte (2008) recognized two distinct trends, which they
termed the conventional view and the interactionist/social constructivist view. They
sought to explore these views in a study of 12 four-year public university professors. In
interviewing these professors, Ginsberg and Schulte found that professors who held the
conventional view tended to view students with disabilities as being distinct and separate
from the other members of the class. These professors felt that students with disabilities
are solely responsible for identifying how they should be taught and would not provide
accommodations unless the student provided proper documentation, as the professors felt
that it was not their job to offer accommodations. In addition, the professors who
demonstrated a conventional view tended to report that providing a student with
significant accommodations would not be fair to the other members of the class.
Professors who held a conventional view tended to provide accommodations such as
additional time to take tests, providing lecture notes in advance, allowing additional time
to complete assignments, and referrals to the campus learning center.
In contrast to the professors with a conventional view of students with disabilities,
Ginsberg and Schulte (2008) found that professors who demonstrated an
interactionist/social constructivist view tended to focus on ways in which they could
assist students with disabilities. They viewed their role as providing any support
necessary to meet the needs of their students and often did not require university
37

documentation prior to providing accommodations. Examples of accommodations
provided by professors with an interactionist/social constructivist view included checking
with the student to ensure understanding of concepts, reducing content to smaller pieces,
administering examinations orally, arranging for peer support, and meeting with the
students individually.
Faculty Training
In order to determine the relationship between the level of training that faculty
members receive and their attitudes toward students with ADHD, Murray, Lombardi,
Wren, & Keys (2009) conducted a study utilizing a revised form of the survey instrument
used in the previously discussed Murray et al. (2008) study. The results of the 2009
study indicated that faculty with prior training are more likely to be willing to provide
exam accommodations, view accommodations as fair, have greater general knowledge,
are more likely to invest their time for students with disabilities, invite self-disclosure,
and to provide accommodations. In addition, faculty with additional training were found
to perceive fewer resource constraints and to feel as though they had adequate knowledge
to make accommodations. Further analysis of the survey results indicated that faculty
who had attended previous trainings focusing on students with disabilities were more
likely to have positive attitudes and perceptions of such students than did faculty who did
not attend trainings. In regard to types of training that were most effective, faculty who
attended workshops or courses tended to have higher scores in regard to general
knowledge, followed by faculty who had only read books and articles on the subject
rather than attend workshops. Faculty who had no prior training scored lowest on the
38

survey. Similar to the Murray et al. (2008) study, the Murray et al. (2009) study explored
several factors that are further addressed in the present dissertation study and expanded to
include both two-year and four-year postsecondary settings. Combined with the
information gained from Murray et al. (2009), it is hoped that the present dissertation
study results will assist in developing training programs specifically designed for two-
year and four-year faculty and administrators.
In order to determine faculty members’ priorities in regard to their understanding
of students with disabilities and the laws that protect them, Cook, Rumrill, and
Tankersley (2009) surveyed 307 faculty members across eight university campuses. The
results of their study indicate that most faculty have positive attitudes toward students
with disabilities and feel that they provide these students with the same opportunities as
typical peers. However, many participants reported that they view accommodations as
providing an unfair advantage to students with disabilities and do not know what to do
when a student is unhappy about the accommodations provided. The results also
indicated that faculty members tend to feel that it is important to understand the
characteristics of student disabilities but do not feel that this information is available to
them. In addition, the subjects indicated that while they feel that knowledge of legal
mandates are important, they do not have a strong understanding in this area. In regard to
accommodations, faculty members tend to disagree with having to provide alternate or
extra-credit assignments, partial credit, or course substitutions. However, they did agree
allowing additional time on tests and the recording of lectures. These results are
consistent with a conventional view of students with disabilities as described by Ginsberg
39

and Schulte (2008). Overall, the results of this study indicate that there continues to be
need for professional development in the areas of legal mandates, appropriate
accommodations, and understanding of various disabilities. Despite these areas in need
of improvement, faculty tend to feel positively about students with disabilities and are in
agreement with providing accommodations that are relatively non-invasive or time-
consuming.
In regard to additional training for postsecondary faculty, Salzberg et al. (2002)
conducted a survey of 214 disability service directors from colleges and universities
across the country in order to determine what areas the directors felt were in most need of
training at their respective institutions. The results indicate that 61% of the directors
were not satisfied with their institutions’ current efforts to accommodate students with
disabilities and 98% of the directors felt that faculty should be provided with information
about the disability services programs. Furthermore, 96% of the directors felt that
additional training was needed to provide information about legal mandates and 90% felt
that ethical considerations should be included in faculty trainings about disabilities.
Consistent with the Cook, Rumrill, and Tankersley (2009) study discussed above,
Salzberg et al. (2002) found that 89% of directors felt that faculty required information
about specific disabilities and the impact that the disabilities have on student learning.
Unfortunately, 73% of the directors reported that it is difficult to have faculty participate
in and attend trainings, thus causing a barrier for the information to be distributed to those
who teach students with disabilities.
40

In regard to faculty training, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES,
2011) reports that in 92% of post-secondary education in the United States that enroll
students with disabilities provide one-on-one discussions with faculty who request
information or assistance regarding students with disabilities. In addition, 64% of these
institutions provide workshops and presentations for faculty, 58% provide a handbook,
54% have resources available for staff use, and 46% send annual mailings or e-mails to
faculty. When aggregated by type of institution, public two-year colleges and public
four-year universities were most likely to provide one-on-one discussions with faculty
asking for assistance, provide workshops for faculty, and have resources available for
faculty use. Private for-profit four-year institutions were most likely to have a faculty
handbook and private not-for profit four-year institutions had the lowest levels of
education materials or activities to assist faculty.
In summary, the literature indicates that professors tend to harbor either a
conventional or an interactionist/social constructivist view regarding students with
disabilities (Ginsberg & Schulte, 2008). The conventional point of view tends to be less
accommodating and more rigid than the interactionist/social constructivist point of view.
While professors tend to report positive attitudes toward students with disabilities and are
willing to make accommodations such as increased time to complete assignments or tests,
they tend to be hesitant to provide accommodations that they perceive would potentially
provide an unfair advantage over typical peers (Cook et al., 2009; Ginsberg & Schulte,
2008; Vance & Weyandt, 2008). The research also indicates that while professors feel
that it is important to be knowledgeable about specific disabilities and legal protections,
41

they feel that they do not currently possess an adequate level of training in these areas
(Cook et al., 2009). Directors of disability services for multiple institutions across the
country agree with this need for training, although they report that it is difficult to gain
faculty attendance at such trainings (Salzberg et al., 2002).
Student Perceptions of Self-Disclosure and Accommodations
In addition to studying the perceptions of postsecondary faculty regarding
students with disabilities, it is important to understand the perceptions that the students
have of themselves and the accommodations that they are entitled to. Student perceptions
and comfort with self-advocacy plays an especially important role within the
postsecondary environment because students must self-disclose their disabilities in order
to qualify for accommodations.
Self-Disclosure and Self-Advocacy
The National Center for Education Statistics (2011) collected data addressing the
degree to which postsecondary institutions encourage students with disabilities to identify
themselves. The results of the study indicate that 79% of postsecondary institutions
across the United States distribute materials providing such encouragement. Aggregated
according to type of institution, 90% of public two-year colleges and 92% of public four-
year universities distributed materials to students while 76% of private not-for-profit
four-year universities and 69% of private for-profit four-year universities distributed
materials encouraging students to self-disclose.
In addition to students being knowledgeable about the benefits of self-disclosing
their disabilities to their postsecondary institutions, students must feel comfortable
42

enough to do so. Hartman-Hall and Haaga (2002) sought to determine what factors tend
to determine whether or not students request accommodations. The study consisted of 86
university students who had been identified as having learning disabilities.
Approximately 35% of those students were also diagnosed with ADHD. The results of
the study indicate that students are more likely to seek out help if they have been exposed
to hypothetical situations in which a student receives a positive response from a professor
and are less likely to seek out help after being exposed to a hypothetical situation in
which a student receives a negative response. In addition, students who view their
disabilities to be global, stigmatizing, and non-modifiable are less likely to seek out
assistance, as are those students who have negative perceptions about their academic,
cognitive, or social abilities. Based on these findings, it is essential that professors be
educated about the potential long-term impact that their responses to requests for
accommodations may have on students and their likelihood to ask for accommodations
from other professors in the future. Furthermore, professors should encourage students
with disabilities and educate the students in ways that they can compensate for areas of
difficulty using the accommodations.
Further addressing student self-advocacy, Trammell and Hathaway (2007)
conducted a study that included 32 full-time and part-time professors at a private liberal
arts college seeking to determine whether students with self-disclosed disabilities seek
help from their professors at significantly different rates than their typical peers. The
professors kept logs of each student contact and whether the student did or did not have a
disability. Categories of visits included assistance for tests, advising, questions related to
43

academic majors and minors, papers, and “other.” The “other” category typically
included homework assistance, discussing group projects, questions about class material,
and research projects. Approximately 10.3% of students with disabilities sought
assistance from the professors while 13% of non-disabled students sought assistance.
Ultimately, the results indicated no significant differences between the assistance rates of
students with and without disabilities.
Student Perceptions of Accommodations
For those students who do take advantage of their legal protections, Sweener et al.
(2002) sought to explore the perceptions of students with disabilities regarding the
accommodations that they receive. In doing this, the researchers studied 31 freshman
students with disabilities. The students indicated a neutral level of comfort with asking
for accommodations. In particular, the students reported that they felt most comfortable
with asking for additional time to complete assignments and asking for extra credit
assignments. However, while most faculty reported that they were comfortable with
providing additional time to complete assignments, 44% of them felt uncomfortable with
providing extra credit assignments.
Kurth and Melard (2006) conducted an additional study exploring student
perceptions regarding the accommodation processes at 15 community and technical
colleges in California, Minnesota, and Kansas. The results of the study indicated that
students were most satisfied with the schools’ maintenance of confidentiality regarding
their disability. The students were least satisfied with the ways in which their disabilities
were discussed with them when determining accommodations. When asked about factors
44

that the students took into consideration when selecting accommodations, the
effectiveness of the accommodations were reported to be the most important. Additional
factors that were deemed as important to the students included the ability to increase their
independence and the ease of use of the accommodation. Cost, social acceptance, and
training were not reported to be important factors from the students’ perspective. In
regard to the effectiveness of the accommodations that they were provided, students
reported that the use of note takers, extended time on tests, adaptive technology,
preferential seating, and public transportation were most effective. However, while
having access to note-takers was reported to be an effective intervention, many of the
subjects reported that better accommodations were necessary, as the note-takers were
often poorly trained, failed to attend class, or had illegible writing. In addition, while not
as effective as the previously mentioned accommodations, tutors, tape recorders,
alternative test locations, taped texts and notes, and counseling services were reported to
be beneficial.
In summary, students report that the use of note-takers, extended time on tests,
adaptive technology, preferential seating, and public transportation are the most effective
accommodations for their disabilities (Kurth & Melard, 2006). Students are more likely
to seek accommodations from professors if they expect that the professor will provide a
positive response. A negative response from a professor or the perceived likelihood of a
negative response tends to have a negative impact on student self-advocacy (Hartman-
Hall & Haaga, 2002). In addition, students with disabilities are less likely to request
accommodations if they perceive their specific disability to be global, stigmatizing, and
45

non-modifiable (Hartman-Hall & Haaga, 2002). When they do request accommodations,
students are most comfortable asking for additional time to complete assignments and
asking for extra credit assignments (Sweener et al., 2002). Unfortunately, when
compared to research regarding professor perceptions, professors tend to be willing to
provide additional time but may be resistant to allowing for extra credit assignments
(Cook et al., 2009; Ginsberg & Schulte, 2008; Sweener et al., 2002; Vance & Weyandt,
2008). Therefore, the literature suggests that student who requests the opportunity for
extra credit assignments and is declined by the professor is less likely to request
accommodations from professors in the future.
Summary of the Literature
The present chapter reviewed the diagnostic criteria for ADHD as well as several
theories regarding the causes of ADHD symptoms. The progression of ADHD from
childhood through adulthood was discussed as well as various effective interventions at
the primary, secondary, and postsecondary education levels. In addition, the legal
protections for students with disabilities were discussed and the differences between the
protections in primary and secondary school were the protections in postsecondary
education were highlighted. Finally, research exploring professor perceptions of students
with ADHD and student perceptions of the accommodations they are provided with and
the experiences they have with faculty members were explored.
The literature reviewed clearly demonstrates the increasing need to determine
how to best meet the needs of student with ADHD in postsecondary education. The
starting point for meeting the needs for students is determining the level of knowledge
46

and understanding that postsecondary faculty have of students with ADHD and the laws
that protect them. The following chapter, Chapter III, will explore the methodology
utilized in the present study to determine the degree to which faculty at various types of
institutions are familiar with the laws that protect students with ADHD, their willingness
to provide accommodations for students with ADHD, and their beliefs and attitudes
toward such students.
47

CHAPTER III
Research Methodology
Due to the increasing numbers of students with ADHD that are entering
postsecondary education as described extensively in Chapter II, the present study was
intended to explore the attitudes and beliefs that postsecondary faculty have toward
students with ADHD, their willingness to provide accommodations for students with the
disorder, and their knowledge of the laws that protect students with disabilities. For the
purpose of this study, attitudes and beliefs were operationalized as level of faculty
fairness and sensitivity, performance expectations, believability of the diagnosis of
ADHD, and level of inviting student disclosure of a disability. The results of this study
will help to target areas in need of professional development related to faculty attitudes
and beliefs toward students with ADHD and their knowledge of legal mandates. The
present non-parametric quantitative study is carefully constructed in order to address the
following research questions:
1. Are the attitudes and beliefs of two-year college faculty toward students
with ADHD significantly different than those of four-year university
faculty?
2. Is the level of knowledge of two-year college faculty significantly
different than the level of knowledge of four-year university faculty
regarding the legal protections for students with ADHD?
48

3. Is there a significant difference between the willingness of two-year
college faculty and four-year university faculty in regard to making testing
and instructional accommodations for students with ADHD?
4. Are the responses to the above research questions significantly different
depending on whether the faculty is from a four-year public or a four-year
private institution?
The present chapter will describe in detail the manner in which the study was
conducted and how the results were analyzed.
Design Summary
Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval to conduct the present study was
gained through the University of Southern California (see Appendix A). In order to
address the research questions stated above, the present study utilized purposeful
sampling to select two public two-year colleges, two public four-year universities, and
two private four-year universities across Los Angeles County, California. Online
surveys using Qualtrics were distributed via e-mail to faculty members at each institution
for faculty to complete on a voluntary basis. The results were then analyzed using
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and t-test procedures as described in the
“Analysis” section below.
Participants and Setting
The present study consisted of surveys distributed to instructional faculty at six
postsecondary institutions. The sample included two public two-year colleges
(community colleges), two public four-year universities, and two private four-year
49

universities. In regard to location, Los Angeles County, California was chosen as an area
to explore based on its large size and the numerous postsecondary institutions located
within its boundaries. Los Angeles County is made up of 88 cities across 4,083 square
miles (Los Angeles County, 2011). Within the boundaries of Los Angeles County, there
are 20 public two-year community colleges, seven public four-year universities, and 44
private four-year universities that are accredited by the Western Association of Schools
and Colleges (WASC) (California Postsecondary Education Commission, 2011). The
inclusion criteria for participating institutions were the following:
1. Located in Los Angeles County, California.
2. Fall under the scope of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and
are therefore required to make accommodations for students with
disabilities as outline in Section 504.
3. Two-year colleges are public California Community Colleges by the
California Postsecondary Education Commission (California
Postsecondary Education Commission, 2011).
4. Public four-year universities are a part of either the University of
California (UC) or the California State University (CSU) systems.
5. Private four-year universities are WASC accredited.
6. All postsecondary institutions included in the study have an office that
drafts accommodations for students with disabilities in compliance with
Section 504.
50

In reviewing potential institutions, it was noted that the highest percentages of
students being serviced by Disability Services departments tended to be at two-year
colleges, while the lowest percentages tended to be at private four-year universities (with
the exception of one private four-year university). This is consistent with current
research by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES; 2011), which reports that
99% of two-year public institutions and 99% of public four-year institutions enroll
students with disabilities. In contrast, NCES (2011) reports that 88% of private not-for-
profit institutions and 74% of private for-profit institutions enroll students with
disabilities.
Community College 1 (CC1) is a public two-year community college located in
northern Los Angeles County. As of Fall 2009, CC1 had a student population of 22,334.
Their Disabled Students Programs and Services office reports that approximately 5% of
their total student population has registered as having a disability. As with all
postsecondary institutions, these students are identified through self-reporting to the
institution and therefore the percentage likely does not represent the total number of
students with disabilities on campus. CC1 is reported to have approximately 588 faculty
members.
Community College 2 (CC2) is a public two-year community college located in
western Los Angeles County. There are approximately 29,960 students enrolled at the
college. CC2’s Center for Students with Disabilities reports that approximately 7% of
their total student population has registered as having a disability. CC2 is reported to
have 1,130 full-time faculty.
51

Private University 1 (PR1) is a small private four-year university located in Los
Angeles County, California. PR1 has 921 students enrolled for the 2010-2011 school
year and has 130 faculty members. The Disability Resources office reports that
approximately 13% of the student body is registered as having a disability.
Private University 2 (PR2) is a large private nonsectarian research university in
Los Angeles, California. In 2010, PR2 had 17,500 undergraduate students and 19,500
graduate students for a total of 37,000 students. Approximately 2% of the student
population has registered with Disability Services. PR2 is reported to have 5,286 faculty
members.
Public University 1 (PUB1) is a large public university at the southeastern
boundary of Los Angeles County and adjacent to Orange County. In 2010, PUB1 had
33,416 total students and their Disability Services office indicates that 3% of the students
have registered as having a disability. PUB1 is reported to have 2,396 full-time faculty
and 853 tenured professors.
Public University 2 (PUB2) is a large public university in Los Angeles County.
In Fall 2011, PUB2 had 11,069 undergraduate students and 2,694 graduate students
enrolled and 623 faculty members. Their Disabled Student Services office reports that
approximately 3% of the student body has been identified as having a disability.
Please see Appendix B for details regarding the demographics of the participating
institutions.

52

Instrumentation
A survey was utilized for the purpose of the present study in order to quickly
obtain responses from a large number of faculty members across six postsecondary
institutions. The Productive Learning University Strategies (PLuS) survey developed by
Murray, Wren, and Keys (2008) was adapted for the present study with their permission.
According to Murray et al. (2008), the survey was developed through reviewing research
on faculty knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, practices toward students with disabilities,
Section 504, and an exploration of previously published measures. The PLuS survey was
then drafted and content validity was established utilizing experts in the field of learning
disabilities. Murray et al. (2008) report that the reliability of the measure was then
established utilizing an exploratory factor analysis. The final version of the Murray et al.
(2008) survey consists of 56 items that explore faculty knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and
practices. The participants respond to each item using a six-point Likert scale ranging
from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree” with a sixth field indicating “No Basis for
Judgment.” The survey was further refined to include perceptions of faculty training by
Murray, Lombardi, Wren, and Keys (2009).
While the surveys conducted by Murray et al. (2008) and Murray et al. (2009)
were specific to faculty perceptions of students with learning disabilities, the survey was
adapted for the present study by replacing the term “learning disability” with the term
“ADHD.” In addition, items from the Murray et al. (2008) and Murray et al. (2009)
surveys that specifically provided the names of the universities for which they were
drafted were modified to state, “at your institution” and items that had referred to
53

institution-specific programs were either eliminated or changed to “disability services at
my institution.” The final survey for the present study consists of 50 items after the
elimination of several of the institution-specific items addressing a programs provided at
those institutions. These eliminations are not believed to negatively impact either the
reliability or the validity of the survey for the purposes of the present study.
The survey developed by Murray et al. (2008) and utilized for the present study
explores faculty perceptions in several areas. Four of these areas are titled “Willingness
to Provide Major Accommodations,” “Willingness to Provide Exam Accommodations,”
“Willingness to Make Teaching Accommodations,” and “Willingness to Personally
Invest,” each of which explores the present research question regarding faculty
perceptions of students with ADHD. Factor analysis conducted by Murray et al. (2008)
indicates a high level of internal consistency reliability in each of these areas (“Major
Accommodations” α = .81; “Exam Accommodations” α = .71; “Teaching
Accommodations” α = .74; “Personally Invest” α = .75). Items related to these areas
address faculty willingness to make instructional, exam, and work accommodations for
students with disabilities as well as to their willingness to provide additional time beyond
working hours to work with students with disabilities. These four factor sets were found
to be necessary to include in the present study due to research indicating that professors
tend to have different perceptions regarding the level of accommodations that they are
willing to provide (Ginsberg & Schulte, 2008; Murray et al., 2008; Murray et al., 2009;
Vance & Weyandt, 2008).
54

A fifth factor included in the Murray et al. (2008) survey and adapted for the
present study is titled “Fairness and Sensitivity” and had an adequate reliability score (α
= .65). Items included in this category address the degree to which faculty may feel that
providing accommodations to students with disabilities is fair to the other students in the
class as well as the faculty member’s overall sensitivity to the needs of students with
disabilities. This aspect of the survey was found to be vital for the present study due to
research indicating that students are more willing to self-disclose their disabilities and
requests for accommodations to faculty if the students feel that they are likely to receive a
positive response from the faculty member (Hartman-Hall & Haaga, 2002). Two
additional factors in the Murray et al. (2008) survey that are related to faculty reactions to
students include “Disclosure and Believability” (α =.70) and “Inviting Disclosure” (α
=.84). These factors were included in the present survey in order to gain additional
information regarding faculty openness to receiving information regarding the need for
accommodations and the level to which the faculty members believe that the students’
disabilities are genuine.
Murray et al. (2008) included a factor titled “Knowledge of Learning Disabilities”
that was adapted to “Knowledge of ADHD” for the purpose of the present study. This
factor was reported by Murray et al. (2008) to have adequate reliability (α = .65) and
explores faculty knowledge of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and ADHD.
This factor contains two open-ended questions. The first asks the respondent to provide a
description of the implications of Section 504 on interactions with students. The second
open-ended question asks the respondent to provide a definition of ADHD. In analyzing
55

these two open-ended questions, responses were carefully coded based on key definitions
as described in Chapter II of the present dissertation. A lack of response to a question or
an incorrect response was coded as “No Knowledge” regarding the answer to that
particular question. In regard to Section 504, responses that referred to a disability, a
physical impairment, a mental impairment, discrimination, or the provisions of services
or accommodations were coded as “Moderate Level of Knowledge.” Responses that
referred to a disability, a physical impairment, or a mental impairment in addition to
referring to discrimination, equal access, services or accommodations were coded as
having a “High Level of Knowledge.” In regard to the definition of ADHD, responses
that referred to attention difficulties or hyperactivity were coded as “Moderate Level of
Knowledge.” Responses that refered to the existence of two or more subtypes of ADHD
(Predominantly Inattention Type, Predominantly Hyperactive-Impulsive Type, or
Combined Type) were coded as having a “High Level of Knowledge.”
The “Insufficient Knowledge” (α = .74) factor addresses the degree to which
faculty feel that they have the information needed to make adequate accommodations for
students with disabilities. In addition, a factor titled “Performance Expectations” (α =
.73; Murray et al., 2008) was included to determine the degree to which faculty feel that
students with ADHD can be successful. These factors address the present research
question regarding the level of knowledge that faculty have regarding ADHD,
accommodations for ADHD, and the laws that protect students with disabilities.
Research indicates that information regarding faculty knowledge of specific disabilities
and legal protections is needed in order to direct professional development opportunities
56

(Cook, et al., 2009; Murray et al, 2009; Salzberg et al. 2002) and additional research
indicates that faculty often feel that they lack information in these areas (Cook et. al,
2009). In addition, Murray et al. (2009) found that faculty with less training regarding
students with disabilities often perceived resource constraints as being major obstacles to
implementing the required accommodations. In order to further explore the perception of
resource constraints in the present study, the “Resource Constraints” factor from the
Murray et al. (2008) survey was retained (α = .89).
Finally, the original Murray et al. (2008) survey included a factor titled
“Providing Accommodations” (α = .71) that explored the degree of prior experience that
the faculty members had with providing accommodations to students with learning
disabilities. For the purpose of the present study, the focus of these questions was
changed to address ADHD rather than learning disabilities. This section was found to be
valuable for the present student in order to gain information regarding the level of
experience with ADHD that faculty members had at various institutions.
Specific items (modified for the present study) associated with each factor of the
survey (Murray et al., 2008) are described in Appendix C.
Procedures
The adapted PLuS survey was converted to an online format using Qualtrics and
the internet link was sent via e-mail to faculty at each of the participating institutions.
The e-mail explained to participants that the purpose of the survey was to gain
information regarding faculty attitudes and perceptions of students with ADHD and the
laws that protect them. The e-mail also explained that the survey is completely
57

anonymous and voluntary. Please see Appendix D for the text of the e-mail. While
maintaining anonymity, the survey began with basic demographic data including the
name of the institution at which the participant is employed, the number of years that the
participant has been teaching, the participant’s area of expertise, the participant’s sex, and
an estimation of how many students with ADHD the participant has instructed.
Analysis
Each factor of the PLuS has been categorized to address one of the research
questions. Please see Appendix E for a description of these categorizations.
Research Questions 1 through 3 address whether differences exist between the
responses of two-year community college faculty and four-year university faculty,
regardless of whether they are public or private universities. A multivariate analysis of
variance (MANOVA) was used to determine whether there were differences between
two-year college faculty responses and four-year university faculty in the PLuS factors
related to attitudes and beliefs and willingness to make testing and instructional
accommodations, with each area being treated as a separate dependent variable.
Knowledge of legal protections for students with ADHD was analyzed using an
independent sample t-test.
Research Question 4 addresses whether significant differences exist between the
responses of faculty from public institutions and the faculty from private institutions. In
order to address this, a MANOVA was conducted utilizing the type of institution as an
independent variable and the factors categorized under attitudes and beliefs (see the
factors addressing Research Question 1 in Appendix E) as dependent variables. In order
58

to address institutional differences (public versus private) in regard to knowledge of legal
protections, independent samples t-tests were utilized with the type of institution as an
independent variable and the factor labeled “Knowledge of ADHD” as the dependent
variable. Finally, in addressing institutional differences in regard to faculty willingness
to make testing and instructional accommodations, a MANOVA was utilized using type
of institution as an independent variable and each factor categorized as addressing
accommodations (see the factors addressing Research Question 3 in Appendix E) as
dependent variables.
Two institutions were surveyed for each type of institution. For example, CC1
and CC2 were surveyed for community colleges, PUB1 and PUB2 were surveyed for
public four-year universities, and PR1 and PR2 were surveyed for private four-year
institutions. In order to determine whether the two schools within each institution type
produced similar responses, MANOVAs were conducted with each school as an
independent variable and each factor of the PLuS as dependent variables. The results
will then be compared between the two institutions within each category.
Please see Appendix F for a full description of the analyses that were used to
address each research question. In addition, a Chronbach’s Alpha was be conducted in
order to further determine the reliability and validity of the factors that make up the PLuS
with the present study’s sample.
Limitations and Delimitations
The methodology described in the present chapter makes the assumption that
respondents responded honestly to all survey items and that the data was interpreted
59

accurately and without bias. However, the researcher acknowledges that the
methodology utilized posed some limitations. For example, the validity of the study was
limited to those institutions included in the sample and may in particular be less valid in
relation to institutions outside of Los Angeles County, California. Therefore, the results
may be limited in their ability to be generalized to various regions of the United States.
In addition, the institutions contacted had not aggregated their Disability Services data by
graduate and undergraduate student status and therefore the percentage of undergraduate
students with disabilities was not able to be determined. Therefore, the present study did
not differentiate between graduate and undergraduate faculty, which may potentially
impact the results.

60

CHAPTER IV
Analysis and Interpretation of Results
The present chapter will review the statistical outcomes of the study and will
address how those outcomes relate to the research questions.
Description of the Sample Population
As previously discussed in Chapter III, a revised version of the Productive
Learning University Strategies (PLuS) survey (PLuS; Murray, Wren, & Keys, 2008) was
sent via e-mail to faculty members at two community colleges, two private four-year
universities, and two public four-year universities. The survey was distributed to all
faculty members at CC2, PR1, and PUB1. Unfortunately, institutional barriers at CC1,
PR2, and PUB2 resulted in the need to e-mail the PLuS to the deans of each department
at these institutions with the request that the survey be distributed to all faculty members
within their respective departments. Please see Appendix B for a description of the
estimated number of faculty members at each institution who were distributed the PLuS
and the number of responses received.
The PLuS was sent via e-mail to the nine academic deans at CC1. Of those, four
deans (Career Technical Education, Distance Learning Programs/Training, Early
Childhood Education/Training Programs, and Social Science and Business) agreed to
distribute the survey to their faculty members. It is therefore estimated that the PLuS was
distributed to approximately 200 faculty members. Six faculty members completed the
survey (n=6), resulting in a response rate of approximately 3%. All six faculty members
reported that they had greater than six years of experience. However, none of the
61

respondents reported that they had received previous training regarding students with
ADHD. Approximately 83% of the respondents reported tenured status and 17%
reported that they were adjunct faculty. In regard to gender, 40% of respondents were
male and 60% were female.
The PLuS was sent via e-mail to all CC2 instructional faculty by the Director of
Institutional Research. It is therefore estimated that approximately 1,130 faculty
members received the survey. Of those faculty members, 41 (83% female, 17% male)
completed the survey (n=41), resulting in a response rate of approximately 3%. When
asked to provide their teaching status, 34% of respondents indicated they were tenured,
9% indicated they were tenure-track, 54% indicated they were adjunct, and 3% indicated
they were “other.” In regard to teaching experience, 71% of respondents reported greater
than six years of experience, 17% reported five to six years of experience, and 11%
reported three to four years of experience. In regard to previous training, 83% of
respondents indicated that they had received no previous training addressing working
with students with ADHD and 16% reported that they had received between one and
three hours of training.
The PLuS was sent via e-mail to all PR1 instructional faculty by the Disability
Resources office. It is therefore estimated that approximately 130 faculty members
received the survey. Of those faculty members, 27 (48% male, 52% female) completed
the survey, resulting in a response rate of approximately 21%. In regard to teaching
status, 23% of respondents reported that they were tenured, 57% reported that they were
adjunct, and 20% reported that they were “other.” Approximately 67% of respondents
62

indicated they had greater than six years of experience, 3% reported five to six years of
experience, 7% reported three to four years of experience, and 23% reported two years of
experience or less. In regard to previous training regarding working with students with
ADHD, 48% of respondents reported that they had received no training, 17% reported
that they had received one to three hours of training, 21% reported that they received four
to eight hours of training, and 14% reported that they had received greater than eight
hours of training.
The PLuS was sent via e-mail to 18 deans at PR2. Of those, eight deans (School
of Gerontology, School of Education, School of Social Work, College of Letters, Arts,
and Sciences, School of Accounting, Libraries, and School of Dentistry) agreed to
distribute the survey to their faculty members. It is therefore estimated that
approximately 800 faculty members received the survey. Of those faculty members, 59
(56% male, 44% female) completed the survey, resulting in an estimated response rate of
approximately 7%. Approximately 67% of the respondents reported that they had greater
than six years of experience, 10% reported that they had five to six years of experience,
14% reported three to four years of experience, and 10% reported that they had less than
two years of experience. In regard to teaching status, 26% of respondents were tenured,
18% were tenure-track, 14% were adjunct, 22% were clinical-track, and 20% were
“other.” In regard to previous training regarding working with students with ADHD,
96% of respondents indicated they had received no training, 2% reported that they had
received one to three hours of training, and 2% reported that they received more than
eight hours of training.
63

The PLuS was sent via e-mail by the Office of the Provost to all instructional
faculty members at PUB1. It is therefore estimated that approximately 2,396 faculty
members received the survey. Of those faculty members, 183 (34% male, 66% female)
completed the survey, resulting in a response rate of approximately 8%. Approximately
73% of the respondents indicated they had greater than six years of experience, 10%
reported five to six years of experience, 10% reported that they had three to four years of
experience, and 7% reported that they had less than two years of experience. In regard to
teaching status, 32% of respondents were tenured, 16% were tenure-track, 36% were
adjunct, and 16% were “other.” When asked about level previous training in working
with students with ADHD, 94% of respondents indicated that they had no prior training,
4% reported one to three hours of training, and 2% reported more than eight hours of
training.
The PLuS was sent via e-mail to six deans at PUB2. Three of the deans (College
of Business Administration, College of Natural and Behavioral Sciences, and the College
of Extended and International Education) agreed to distribute the survey to their faculty
members. It is therefore estimated that approximately 350 faculty members received the
survey. Of those faculty members, 11 (40% male, 60% female) completed the survey,
resulting in a response rate of approximately 3%. Approximately 80% of the respondents
indicated they had greater than six years of experience and 20% reported that they had
five to six years of experience. In addition, 20% of respondents reported that they were
tenured, 20% reported that they were tenure-track, 50% reported that they were adjunct
64

faculty, and 10% reported “other.” None of the respondents indicated that they had any
prior training working with students with ADHD.
Analyses of Statistical Consistency
Internal Consistency of the Revised PLuS
Prior to aggregating individual scale items, internal consistency was assessed by
computing Cronbach’s alpha for each of the proposed measures. The factor analysis is
provided in Table 4.1. The internal consistency of the “Performance Expectations,”
“Personal Action: Inviting Disclosure,” “Willingness to Personally Invest,” “Resource
Constraints,” and “Providing Accommodations” factors were found to be within
acceptable limits. However, the factors of “Fairness and Sensitivity,” “Willingness to
Make Major Accommodations,” “Willingness to Provide Exam Accommodations,” and
“Willingness to Make Teaching Accommodations” were found to be below the
commonly used .70 benchmark for alpha (Salkind, 2006) and were within the moderate
range between .60 and .69. Furthermore, the “Disclosure and Believability” factor was
found to be poor and the “Knowledge of ADHD” factor was outside of the acceptable
range.
Table 4.1
Cronbach’s Alpha for Revised PLuS Factors
Factor Reliability (alpha)
Fairness and Sensitivity .62
Performance Expectations .81
Disclosure and Believability .59
Personal Action: Inviting Disclosure .72
Knowledge of ADHD .38
Willingness to Make Major Accommodations .67
Willingness to Provide Exam Accommodations .66
Willingness to Personally Invest .77
Willingness to Make Teaching Accommodations .68
Resource Constraints .81
Providing Accommodations .76
65

When comparing the internal consistency of the original PLuS (Murray et al.,
2008) to the factors that were found to be moderate, poor, or low on the revised PLuS, the
“Fairness and Sensitivity” factor was found to be relatively similar. The internal
consistency of the “Disclosure and Believability,” “Willingness to Make Major
Accommodations,” “Willingness to Make Exam Accommodations,” and “Willingness to
Make Teaching Accommodations” factors were found to be greater for the original PLuS.
This was also true for the “Knowledge of Learning Disabilities” factor on the original
survey when compared to the “Knowledge of ADHD” factor on the revised PLuS. These
differences in internal consistency may be related to the fact that the original PLuS
measured the construct of learning disabilities while the PLuS was revised to measure a
different construct (ADHD) for the present study. In addition, some factors such as
“Knowledge of ADHD,” “Willingness to Make Teaching Accommodations,” and
“Disclosure and Believability” only consisted of two to three items. This may have
significantly impacted the internal consistency of these factors (Salkind, 2006).
Analysis of Consistency Between Participating Community Colleges
In order to determine whether there were differences in any of the 12 PLuS
factors between the two community colleges studied, a series of independent samples t-
tests were conducted. In order to adjust for the large family-wise error rate resulting from
this multiple testing, a Bonferroni correction was applied by dividing the standard alpha
level by the number of comparisons being made. Thus, results were considered
statistically significant only if they had a significance of p ≤ 0.004 (.05/12 comparisons).
66

As shown in Table 4.2, no differences between the CC1 and CC2 faculty member
responses were found to be statistically significant at the 0.004 level of significance.
Table 4.2
Summary of Independent T-Test Comparisons of Community College Faculty (n=24-33)
Variable CC1
a
CC2
a
Test Statistic Df p
b

Fairness and
Sensitivity
21.40 (5.27) 19.17 (2.53) 1.47 27 .15
Performance
Expectations
9.40 (0.89) 9.21 (1.07) 0.37 31 .72
Disclosure and
Believability
7.33 (2.08) 6.62 (2.36) 0.50 22 .63
Personal Action:
Inviting Disclosure
6.67 (2.31) 7.57 (2.73) -0.55 29 .59
Knowledge of
ADHD
8.25 (2.06) 6.73 (1.97) 1.43 28 .16
Willingness to Make
Major
Accommodations
30.25 (9.98) 27.38 (4.58) 0.56 3.24 .61
Willingness to
Provide Exam
Accommodations
20.80 (3.83) 20.00 (3.46) 0.46 27 .65
Willingness to
Personally Invest
8.33 (1.51) 7.17 (2.42) 1.13 34 .27
Willingness to Make
Teaching
Accommodations
14.00 (1.55) 12.76 (2.30) 1.25 29 .22
Resource
Constraints
5.33 (2.16) 4.23 (1.86) 1.27 30 .21
Insufficient
Knowledge
2.50 (1.23) 2.42 (1.30) 0.13 30 .90
Providing
Accommodations
8.50 (.84) 7.95 (2.03) 0.64 26 .53

a
Reported as M(SD)

Analysis of Consistency Between Participating Private Four-Year Universities
In order to determine whether there were differences in any of the 12 PLuS
factors for the faculty at the two private four-year institutions studied, a series of
independent samples t-tests were conducted. In order to adjust for the large family-wise
error rate resulting from this multiple testing, a Bonferroni correction was applied by
dividing the standard alpha level by the number of comparisons being made. Thus,
67

results were considered statistically significant only if they had a significance of p ≤
0.004 (.05/12 comparisons). As shown in Table 4.3, no differences between the faculty
at either of these institutions were found to be statistically significant at the 0.004 level of
significance.
Table 4.3
Summary of Independent T-Test Comparisons of Private Four-Year University Faculty (n=35-61)
Variable PR1
a
PR2
a
Test Statistic Df p
b

Fairness and
Sensitivity
19.69 (2.15) 18.75 (3.21) 1.17 43 .25
Performance
Expectations
8.78 (1.21) 8.80 (1.40) -0.06 59 .96
Disclosure and
Believability
6.83 (2.68) 7.47 (1.91) -0.81 33 .43
Personal Action:
Inviting Disclosure
7.00 (2.69) 8.55 (2.04) -2.22 51 .03
Knowledge of
ADHD
6.93 (1.60) 7.71 (1.53) -1.62 45 .11
Willingness to Make
Major
Accommodations
27.79 (4.98) 28.31 (5.24) -0.33 42 .74
Willingness to
Provide Exam
Accommodations
18.68 (3.09) 20.56 (2.38) -2.25 50 .03
Willingness to
Personally Invest
7.68 (1.84) 7.76 (1.64) -0.18 56 .86
Willingness to Make
Teaching
Accommodations
12.27 (2.66) 12.94 (2.04) -0.95 53 .35
Resource
Constraints
4.78 (2.00) 4.11 (1.75) 1.19 48 .24
Insufficient
Knowledge
2.94 (1.18) 2.28 (1.23) 1.90 50 .06
Providing
Accommodations
7.59 (2.62) 8.35 (1.93) -1.03 42 .31
a
Reported as M(SD) or n(%) unless otherwise noted.
b
reported for independent samples t-tests or chi-square tests of independence as appropriate.

Analysis of Consistency Between Participating Public Four-Year Universities
In order to determine whether there were differences in any of the 12 PLuS
factors for the faculty at the two public four-year universities studied, a series of
independent samples t-tests were conducted. In order to adjust for the large family-wise
68

error rate resulting from this multiple testing, a Bonferroni correction was applied by
dividing the standard alpha level by the number of comparisons being made. Thus, results
were considered statistically significant only if they had a significance of p ≤ 0.004
(.05/12 comparisons). As shown in Table 4.4, no differences between faculty in either of
these institutions were found to be statistically significant at the 0.004 level of
significance.
Table 4.4
Summary of Independent T-Test Comparisons of Public Four-Year University Faculty (n=70-137)
Variable PUB1
a
PUB2
a
Test Statistic Df p
b

Fairness and
Sensitivity
19.15 (2.04) 19.67 (2.31) -0.42 90 .67
Performance
Expectations
8.89 (1.25) 9.00 (0.89) -0.22 135 .83
Disclosure and
Believability
6.82 (2.01) 8.25 (2.99) -1.35 68 .18
Personal Action:
Inviting Disclosure
7.77 (2.23) 8.00 (1.93) -0.29 131 .77
Knowledge of
ADHD
7.18 (1.93) 8.00 (1.55) -1.02 121 .31
Willingness to Make
Major
Accommodations
28.11 (4.85) 29.75 (2.50) -0.67 95 .50
Willingness to
Provide Exam
Accommodations
19.71 (3.51) 21.71 (3.15) -1.47 117 .14
Willingness to
Personally Invest
8.06 (1.75) 8.14 (2.04) -0.13 132 .90
Willingness to Make
Teaching
Accommodations
12.10 (2.59) 14.40 (1.34) -1.97 133 .05
Resource
Constraints
4.17 (1.70) 4.12 (1.13) 0.08 117 .94
Insufficient
Knowledge
2.31 (1.12) 2.86 (0.90) -1.26 121 .21
Providing
Accommodations
7.68 (2.28) 7.00 (3.46) 0.57 80 .57
a
Reported as M(SD) or n(%) unless otherwise noted.
b
Reported for independent samples t-tests or chi-square tests of independence as appropriate.

69

Analysis of Research Questions
Research Question One: Are the attitudes and beliefs of two-year college faculty toward
students with ADHD significantly different than those of four-year university faculty?
The attitudes and beliefs of responding faculty members were measured using the
“Fairness and Sensitivity,” “Performance Expectations,” “Disclosure and Believability,”
and “Personal Action: Inviting Disclosure” factors of the PLuS. A MANOVA revealed
that there were no statistically significant differences in these factors between responding
faculty from four-year versus two-year faculty (F
(4, 104)
= 1.10, p = .36; Wilk’s λ = 0.96,
partial ε
2
= .04).
Research Question Two: Is the level of knowledge of two-year college faculty
significantly different than the level of knowledge of four-year university faculty
regarding the legal protections for students with ADHD?
The level of knowledge of responding faculty members regarding the legal
protections for students with ADHD was measured using the “Knowledge of ADHD”
factor of the PLuS. An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine whether
there were differences in this factor between faculty from four-year universities (M =
7.22) and 2-year universities (M = 6.93). The test revealed no statistically significant
differences between the two groups (t
(198)
= -0.77, p =.44).
Research Question Three: Is there a significant difference between the willingness of
two-year college faculty and four-year university faculty in regard to making testing and
instructional accommodations for students with ADHD?
70

The willingness of respondents to make testing and instructional accommodations
for students with ADHD was measured using the “Willingness to Make Major
Accommodations, “Willingness to Provide Exam Accommodations,” “Willingness to
Personally Invest,” “Willingness to Make Teaching Accommodations,” “Resource
Constraints,” “Insufficient Knowledge,” and “Providing Accommodations” factors on the
PLuS. A MANOVA revealed that there were no statistically significant differences in
these factors between responding faculty from four-year versus two-year faculty (F
(7, 84)
=
0.33, p = .94; Wilk’s λ = 0.97, partial ε
2
= .03).
Research Question Four: Are the responses to the above research questions significantly
different depending on whether the faculty is from a four-year public or a four-year
private institution?
In addressing attitudes and beliefs, a MANOVA revealed that there were no
statistically significant differences in “Fairness and Sensitivity,” “Performance
Expectations,” “Disclosure and Believability,” or “Personal Action: Inviting Disclosure”
factors of the PLuS between responding faculty from private four-year universities versus
faculty from public four-year universities (F
(4, 85)
= 1.01, p = .41; Wilk’s λ = 0.96, partial
ε
2
= .05).
In addressing the level of knowledge that faculty members have regarding the
legal protections of students with ADHD, an independent samples t-test was conducted to
examine whether there were differences between responding faculty from private four-
year universities (M = 7.21) and faculty from public four-year universities (M = 7.22).
71

The test revealed no statistically significant differences between the two groups (t
(168)
=
0.02, p =.98).
In addressing faculty willingness to provide testing and instructional
accommodations for students with ADHD, a MANOVA revealed that there were no
statistically significant differences in the “Willingness to Make Major Accommodations,”
“Willingness to Provide Exam Accommodations,” “Willingness to Personally Invest,”
“Willingness to Make Teaching Accommodations,” “Resource Constraints,” “Insufficient
Knowledge,” or “Providing Accommodations” factors of the PLuS between responding
faculty from four-year private universities versus faculty from four-year public
universities (F
(7, 66)
= 0.65, p = .71; Wilk’s λ = 0.94, partial ε
2
= .07).”
Additional Analyses
While no significant differences were identified between types of postsecondary
institutions, additional analyses were conducted in order to gain information outside the
scope of the research questions that could be useful for practitioners. These analyses
include an item analysis as well as regression analyses to determine whether significant
differences in participant responses existed depending on level of teaching experience,
amount of previous training the faculty member had received, the gender of the faculty
member, or the teaching status of the faculty member.
Item Analysis
While no significant differences were identified between the types of
postsecondary institutions, an item analysis was conducted in order to determine whether
specific areas exist that may be in need of additional professional development. In
72

regard to knowledge of legal protections for students with ADHD, it was found that
approximately 27% of all respondents indicated that they are not familiar with Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In addition, approximately 17% of the faculty
respondents (23% of community college respondents, 13% of public university
respondents, and 14% of private university respondents) reported that they do not include
a statement in their syllabi inviting students with disabilities to discuss accommodations
with them.
In regard to faculty knowledge related to students with ADHD, an item analysis
revealed that approximately 61% of faculty respondents indicated that they would like
additional information about the needs of students with ADHD. Furthermore,
approximately 49% of respondents indicated that they would like additional information
about the referral procedures at their institutions for students with ADHD. In addition,
approximately 9% of the respondents indicated that they are not familiar with their
institution’s Office of Disabilities Services (or equivalent office).
In regard to the amount of support that faculty feel they receive in addressing the
needs of students with ADHD, an item analysis revealed that approximately 10% of the
respondents “strongly disagree” or “disagree” that they receive adequate support from
their Office of Disabilities Services to make appropriate teaching accommodations and
approximately 11% of respondents indicated that they do not have sufficient knowledge
to make adequate teaching accommodations. An additional 11% of respondents indicated
that they do not have sufficient knowledge to make testing accommodations for students
with ADHD. In addition, approximately 20% of the faculty respondents are uncertain
73

where to find additional support to assist students with ADHD who are having difficulties
in the respondent’s course. Finally, approximately 15% of the faculty respondents
indicated that they feel that making teaching accommodations is unrealistic given their
time constraints and other job demands.
In responding to specific accommodations that respondents may be opposed to,
approximately 9% of faculty respondents indicated that they “disagree” or “strongly
disagree” with providing copies of lecture notes to students with ADHD, approximately
8% indicated that they “disagree” or “strongly disagree” with providing additional time to
complete assignments in the course, approximately 8% indicated that they “disagree” or
“strongly disagree” with providing copies of overheads or Powerpoint presentations,
approximately 54% indicated that they “disagree” or “strongly disagree” with providing
extra credit assignments for students with ADHD, and approximately 60% indicated that
they “disagree” or “strongly disagree” with reducing the reading load for students with
ADHD. Furthermore, approximately 3% of respondents indicated that they “disagree” or
“strongly disagree” with allowing students with ADHD to record class sessions,
approximately 33% indicated that they “disagree” or “strongly disagree” with extending
the due dates of assignments if needed, approximately 20% indicated that they “disagree”
or “strongly disagree” with accommodating the method of responding to exams for
students with ADHD, and approximately 25% of respondents indicated that they
“disagree” or “strongly disagree” with allowing students with ADHD to use technology
such as a laptop, calculator, or spell checker to complete tests.

74

Teaching Experience
A series of hierarchical linear regression models were examined in order to
determine whether teaching experience predicted any of the factors under study and
whether additional differences existed among different university types. In conducting
these analyses, teaching experience and school types were dummy coded and examined
in separate blocks in each regression model.
As shown in Table 4.5, no differences were detected between school types
(community college, private four-year university, or public four-year university).
However, teaching experience was found to be a statistically significant predictor of
Willingness to Provide Exam Accommodations, Perceptions of Resource Constraints,
and Providing Accommodations. Specifically, with each successive experience bracket
(3-4 years, 5-6 years, and greater than six years, respectively) faculty reported
significantly greater willingness to provide exam accommodations then the least
experienced group (0-2 years; p < 0.05 for each category). In regard to resource
constraints, the overall model was only marginally significant (p = .054) with only the
highest level of teaching experience (greater than six years) proving to be significantly
higher than the 0-2 years group (p = .02). Finally, in regard to willingness to provide
accommodations, only the highest level of teaching experience (and greater than six
years) proving to be significantly higher than the 0-2 years group (p = .006).

75

Table 4.5
Hierarchical Linear Regression Models – Teaching Experience
Outcome R
2
F Df p
b

Fairness and Sensitivity
Teaching Experience
School Type

.03
.03

1.35
0.27

3,161
2, 159

.26
.77
Performance Expectations
Teaching Experience
School Type

<.01
.02

0.29
1.60

3,225
2,223

.84
.21
Disclosure and Believability
Teaching Experience
School Type

.01
.01

0.41
0.25

3,124
2,122

.75
.78
Personal Action: Inviting Disclosure
Teaching Experience
School Type

.03
.03

2.11
0.14

3,211
2,209

1.00
.87
Knowledge of ADHD
Teaching Experience
School Type

<.01
.01

0.21
0.28

3,195
2,193

.89
.76
Willingness to Make Major Accommodations
Teaching Experience
School Type

.01
.01

0.25
0.05

3,162
2,160

.86
.95
Willingness to Provide Exam Accommodations
Teaching Experience
School Type

.04
.05

2.83
0.32

3,194
2,192

.04
.73
Willingness to Personally Invest
Teaching Experience
School Type

<.01
.02

0.09
2.23

3,222
2,220

.97
.11
Willingness to Make Teaching Accommodations
Teaching Experience
School Type

.01
.02

0.45
1.51

3,216
2,214

.72
.22
Resource Constraints
Teaching Experience
School Type

.04
.05

2.60
0.74

3,195
2,193

.05
.48
Insufficient Knowledge
Teaching Experience
School Type

.01
.03

0.79
1.43

3,201
2,199

.50
.24
Providing Accommodations
Teaching Experience
School Type

.07
.07

3.54
0.58

3,148
2,146

.02
.56

Previous Training
A series of hierarchical linear regression models were examined in order to
determine whether faculty training predicted any of the factors under study and whether
additional differences existed amongst different types of postsecondary institutions (see
76

Table 4.6). In conducting these analyses, faculty training and school types were dummy
coded and examined in separate blocks in each regression model.
Table 4.6
Hierarchical Linear Regression Models – Previous Training
Outcome R
2
F Df p
b

Fairness and Sensitivity
Training
School Type

.05
.06

3.03
0/13

3,160
2,158

.03
.88
Performance Expectations
Training
School Type

.01
.03

1.02
2.05

3,224
2,222

.38
.13
Disclosure and Believability
Training
School Type

.05
.05

2.04
.24

3,123
2,121

.11
.79
Personal Action: Inviting Disclosure
Training
School Type

.01
.02

1.00
0.44

3,210
2,208

.40
.64
Knowledge of ADHD
Training
School Type

.02
.03

1.59
0.31

3,194
2,192

.19
.74
Willingness to Make Major Accommodations
Training
School Type

.03
.04

1.84
0.43

3,161
2,159

.14
.65
Willingness to Provide Exam Accommodations
Training
School Type

.02
.03

0.98
0.94

3,193
2,191

.40
.39

Willingness to Personally Invest
Training
School Type

.01
.04

0.89
2.71

3,221
2,219

.45
.07
Willingness to Make Teaching Accommodations
Training
School Type

.03
.04

1.94
1.88

3,215
2,213

.12
.16
Resource Constraints
Training
School Type

.01
.01

1.39
1.54

3,194
2,192

.25
.22
Insufficient Knowledge
Training
School Type

.02
.05

1.25
3.12

3,200
2,198

.29
.05
Providing Accommodations
Training
School Type

.04
.04

1.79
0.38

3,147
2,145

.15
.69

As shown in Table 4.6, only two differences were found to be statistically
significant. Specifically, faculty with 1-3 hours of training displayed statistically
77

significantly higher scores on fairness and sensitivity than faculty members with no
training. In addition, after controlling for faculty members’ training, it was discovered
that faculty at private four-year universities reported statistically significantly higher
scores regarding their level of knowledge.
Gender
A series of independent samples t-tests were conducted in order to test whether
any differences existed between male and female faculty members on the factors
examined. As shown in Table 4.7, no statistically significant differences were detected.
Table 4.7
Summary of Independent t-test Comparisons of Male vs. Female Faculty (n=126-223)
Variable Male Female Test Statistic Df p
b

Fairness and
Sensitivity
19.54 (3.27) 19.97 (3.39) 1.39 160 .20
Performance
Expectations
8.87 (1.21) 8.96 (1.22) -0.51 221 .61
Disclosure and
Believability
7.24 (2.45) 6.75 (2.05) 1.81 124 .24
Inviting
Disclosure
7.24 (2.69) 7.93 (2.09) -1.92 121.34 .06
Knowledge of
ADHD
6.86 (1.91) 7.40 (1.80) -1.93 192 .06
Willingness to
Make Major
Accommodations
27.44 (5.0) 28.21 (4.2) -1.00 161 .32
Willingness to
Provide Exam
Accommodations
19.31 (3.27) 19.97 (3.39 -1.34 194 .18
Willingness to
Personally Invest
7.87 (1.90) 7.81 (1.85) 0.23 221 .81
Willingness to
Make Teaching
Accommodations
12.32 (2.63) 12.36 (2.48) -0.12 214 .91
Resource
Constraints
4.54 (1.86) 4.15 (1.69) 1.53 194 .13
Insufficient
Knowledge
2.59 (1.15) 2.34 (1.19) 1.47 200 .14
Providing
Accommodations
7.88 (2.34) 7.75 (2.22) 0.32 147 .75

78

Teaching Status
A series of hierarchical linear regression models were examined in order to
determine whether teaching status predicted any of the factors under study and whether
additional differences existed among different types of postsecondary institutions (see
Table 4.8).
Table 4.8
Hierarchical Linear Regression Models – Teaching Status
Outcome R
2
F Df p
b

Fairness and Sensitivity
Teaching Status
School Type

.01
.01

0.34
0.45

4,161
2,159

.85
.64
Performance Expectations
Teaching Status
School Type

.02
.03

0.93
1.54

4,224
2,222

.45
.22
Disclosure and Believability
Teaching Status
School Type

.09
.09

3.06
0.11

4,124
2,122

.02
.90
Inviting Disclosure
Teaching Status
School Type

.04
.05

2.34
0.31

4,211
2,209

.06
.73
Knowledge of ADHD
Teaching Status
School Type

.03
.04

1.46
0.72

4,194
2,192

.22
.49
Willingness to Make Major Accommodations
Teaching Status
School Type

.03
.03

1.32
0.15

4,161
2,159

.27
.86
Willingness to Provide Exam Accommodations
Teaching Status
School Type

.02
.02

.93
.13

4,194
2,192

.27
.86
Willingness to Personally Invest
Teaching Status
School Type

.02
.03

1.21
2.05

4,222
2,220

.31
.13
Willingness to Make Teaching Accommodations
Teaching Status
School Type

<.01
.02

0.19
1.65

4,216
2,214

.94
.19
Resource Constraints
Teaching Status
School Type

.03
.04

1.55
0.39

4,195
2,193

.19
.68
Insufficient Knowledge
Teaching Status
School Type

.02
.03

0.99
0.74

4,201
2,199

.41
.48
Providing Accommodations
Teaching Status
School Type

.04
.05

1.37
0.68

4,148
2,146

.25
.51

79

To conduct the teaching status analyses, faculty members’ teaching status and
school types were dummy coded and examined in separate blocks in each regression
model. As shown in Table 4.8, only one block of predictors was found to be statistically
significant. Specifically, Tenure Track and Clinical Track faculty reported higher levels
of Disclosure and Believability than Tenured faculty.
Summary
Overall, the results of the statistical analysis for the present study indicated no
significant differences between types of institutions in regard to the research questions.
However, valuable information was obtained from an item analysis, revealing that
approximately 27% of respondents are not familiar with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 and 17% of respondents do not include a statement in their syllabi inviting
students with disabilities to discuss accommodations with them. Additional item
analyses revealed specific accommodations that many faculty members are not willing to
put into place for students with ADHD. However, faculty with greater than six years of
experience were found to be most willing to put exam accommodations into place and
provide other accommodations, although they were also the most likely to perceive
resource constraints. In addition, faculty with 1-3 hours of previous training were found
to be more fair and sensitive to the needs of students with ADHD than faculty members
with no previous training. Finally, tenure and clinical track faculty were more likely to
invite disclosure and to believe the difficulties that students with ADHD report than were
faculty that are already tenured. These results will be further discussed along with
practical implications in Chapter V.
80

CHAPTER V
Discussion of Results
The purpose of the present quantitative study was to identify differences between
two-year community college and four-year university faculty in regard to their attitudes
and beliefs about students with ADHD, their willingness to accommodate such students,
and their knowledge of the legal protections for students with disabilities. In order to
gain this information, electronic surveys were distributed to faculty members at two two-
year community colleges, two four-year public universities, and two four-year private
universities.
Discussion of the Data Analysis
The following is a discussion of the findings of the study based on a revised
version of the Productive Learning University Strategies (PLuS) survey originally
developed by Murray, Wren, and Keys (2008). The original PLuS was designed to
survey faculty regarding their knowledge, attitudes, and willingness to provide
accommodations to students with learning disabilities. The PLuS was revised for the
present study in order to obtain the same information regarding students with ADHD.
Internal Consistency
The internal consistency of the “Performance Expectations,” “Personal Action:
Inviting Disclosure,” “Willingness to Personally Invest,” “Resource Constraints,” and
“Providing Accommodations” factors were found to be within acceptable limits. When
comparing the internal consistency of the original PLuS (Murray et al., 2008) to the
factors that were found to be moderate, poor, or low on the revised PLuS, the “Fairness
81

and Sensitivity” factor was found to be relatively similar. The internal consistency of the
“Disclosure and Believability,” “Willingness to Make Major Accommodations,”
“Willingness to Make Exam Accommodations,” and “Willingness to Make Teaching
Accommodations” factors were found to be greater for the original PLuS. This was also
true for the “Knowledge of Learning Disabilities” factor on the original survey when
compared to the “Knowledge of ADHD” factor on the revised PLuS. These differences
in internal consistency may be related to the fact that the original PLuS measured the
construct of learning disabilities while the PLuS was revised to measure a different
construct (ADHD) for the present study. Therefore, future studies may wish to further
revise the PLuS in order to better calibrate it to assess the construct of ADHD.
Research Question One
The first research question was: Are the attitudes and beliefs of two-year college
faculty toward students with ADHD significantly different than those of four-year
university faculty? This research question was developed in order to determine whether
differences existed between how two-year college faculty and four-year university faculty
felt about students with ADHD. If differences were identified, the causes of those
differences would be investigated so that professional development opportunities could
be targeted to address areas of need. However, the results of a MANOVA comparing the
faculty responses of two two-year community colleges and four four-year universities
(two public universities and two private universities) indicated no significant differences.
These results are consistent with previous research (Vance & Weyandt, 2008).

82

Research Question Two
The second research question was: Is the level of knowledge of two-year college
faculty significantly different than the level of knowledge of four-year university faculty
regarding the legal protections for students with ADHD? This research question was
developed to determine whether differences existed between how two-year college
faculty and four-year university faculty knowledge of ADHD and the protections
provided to students with ADHD by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. If
differences were identified, the causes of those differences would be investigated so that
professional development opportunities could be targeted to address areas of need. The
results of an independent samples t-test indicated that there were no statistically
significant differences between the two two-year community colleges and the four four-
year universities.
Research Question Three
The third research question was: Is there a significant difference between the
willingness of two-year college faculty and four-year university faculty in regard to
making testing and instructional accommodations for students with ADHD? This
research question was developed to determine whether faculty at the college level were
more willing than faculty at the university level to make major instructional and exam
accommodations for students with ADHD, and to personally invest additional time for
the students with ADHD. In addition, this research question explored whether
differences existed in regard to whether faculty felt resource constraints when working
with students with ADHD and whether they felt that they had sufficient knowledge to
83

assist students with ADHD. If differences were identified between the two types of
faculty, the causes of those differences would be investigated so that professional
development opportunities could be targeted to address areas of need. The results of a
MANOVA revealed that there were no statistically significant differences between the
faculty responses of the two types of universities.
Research Question Four
The fourth research question was: Are the responses to the above research
questions significantly different depending on whether the faculty is from a four-year
public or a four-year private institution? This research question was designed to
determine whether significant differences in attitudes and beliefs toward students with
ADHD, knowledge of ADHD and Section 504, or willingness to make accommodations
for students with ADHD existed depending on whether the respondent was from a four-
year public university or a four-year private university. The results of the statistical
analyses indicated that no significant differences existed for any of the research questions
explored.
Additional Analyses
While outside the scope of the research questions, additional analyses were
conducted in order to gain additional information that may be useful for practitioners and
administrators of postsecondary institutions. The results of these analyses indicate that
approximately 27% of the faculty members surveyed are not familiar with Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In addition, approximately 61% of faculty respondents
indicated that they would like additional information about the needs of students with
84

ADHD and 49% of respondents indicated that they would like more information
regarding referral procedures for students with ADHD. Finally faculty members may
require additional information regarding accommodations and why certain
accommodations may be needed for students with ADHD. For example, approximately
9% of faculty respondents indicated that they disagreed with providing students with
ADHD with copies of lecture notes.
In regard to how demographic characteristics of faculty members may impact
their actions, hierarchical linear regression models indicate that faculty members with
more experience tend to be more willing to provide accommodations. Specifically,
faculty members with greater than six years of experience were found to be more willing
to provide exam accommodations as well as accommodations in general than were their
counterparts with less experience.
In regard to how previous training impacts faculty actions, faculty members with
1-3 hours of training were found to display significantly higher scores in regard to
fairness and sensitivity toward students with ADHD than were faculty members with no
training. In addition, it should be noted that faculty members from private institutions
were found to have statistically higher scores in regard to their level of knowledge. No
other differences were identified on the PLuS in relation to how much previous training
participants had. This is in contrast to Murray, Lombardi, Wren, and Keys (2009), who
found that faculty members with previous training were more willing to provide exam
accommodations, scored higher on fairness and sensitivity, and were more willing to
personally invest time with students with learning disabilities, and to invite disclosure.
85

However, it should be noted that the Murray (2009) study was exploring these factors in
regard to learning disabilities rather than ADHD. Therefore, it is possible that faculty
members have different attitudes and beliefs regarding ADHD than they do learning
disabilities.
In exploring how the gender of faculty respondents may impact their behaviors
toward students with ADHD, the present study found no significant differences between
the responses of males and females. This is in contrast to Murray, Wren, and Keys, 2008,
which found that female faculty members were more likely to be willing to provide exam
accommodations, score higher on the fairness and sensitivity domain, have greater
knowledge of learning disabilities, and were more willing to personally invest in
supporting students with learning disabilities. However, it should be noted that Murray
(2008) utilized the PLuS to examine these factors in regard to faculty responses related to
learning disabilities while the present study modified the PLuS to examine faculty
responses related to ADHD. Therefore, as previously stated, it is possible that faculty
members have different attitudes and beliefs regarding ADHD than they do learning
disabilities.
Finally, faculty teaching status was examined in order to determine whether
teaching status predicted any of the factors under study. The results indicate that Tenure
Track and Clinical Track faculty tend to have higher levels in the Disclosure and
Believability domain than do Tenured faculty. No other domains were found to be
predicted by teaching status. This is consistent with previous research findings that
indicate that lower ranking faculty members are more likely to invite disclosure of
86

disabilities (Murray, Wren, & Keys, 2008). However, Murray (2008) found a higher
level of willingness for junior faculty to be willing to provide major accommodations to
students while the present study did not find significant differences between higher
ranking and lower ranking faculty members beyond the Disclosure and Believability
domain. However, as previously mentioned, Murray (2008) utilized the PLuS to examine
learning disabilities while the present study utilized the PLuS to examine ADHD.
Therefore, it is possible that faculty members have different attitudes and beliefs
regarding ADHD than they do learning disabilities. Future studies may wish to explore
these differences.
Strengths and Limitations of the Study
The present study presented with several methodological strengths. First, the
study included six postsecondary educational institutions of varying types, thereby
adding breadth to the study. Second, while not designed specifically to address ADHD,
the present study utilized the PLuS survey, which has been found to be valid and reliable
in previous studies (Murray, Wren, & Keys, 2008).
In addition to the strengths listed above, the present study consisted of some
limitations. First, due to institutional barriers, the survey was not distributed to all faculty
members at all institutions. For example, CC1, PR2, and PUB2 declined to distribute the
PLuS to all faculty members and as a result individual deans were contacted and were
asked to distribute the survey. Only a minority of deans at each of these institutions
agreed to participate in the study. Research by Vance and Weyandt (2008) found that
professors who taught in the College of Sciences are most likely to feel that they should
87

not accept alternative assignments or provide lecture notes. In addition, the researchers
found that the professors who felt that students with ADHD should not receive
accommodations were mainly from the College of Education and Professional Studies,
followed by the College of Sciences. Therefore, the results of the present study may have
been impacted by departments from CC1, PR2, and PUB3 who agreed to distribute the
survey. Future studies may wish to secure the participation of all departments at each
institution.
A second limitation of the present study was the small sample size. The ultimate
sample size was found to be small, with response rates ranging from 3% to 28%. This
low response rate means that a large percentage of each faculty was not included in the
results of the study and therefore it is not known whether the input of the non-
respondents would have significantly changed the results. This is particularly true for
faculty members who did not receive the survey because the dean of the department did
not choose to participate in the study. Based on this, the response rate and overall results
were likely negatively impacted by institutional barriers that prevented the survey from
being distributed to all faculty members at each of the participating institutions.
Therefore, future studies may wish to attempt to overcome such institutional barriers
prior to conducting similar research or to select participating institutions that are willing
to distribute the survey to all faculty members.
A third limitation of the study was that the participating institutions were isolated
to Los Angeles County, California and therefore the results may not be able to be
88

generalized outside of the county. Therefore, future studies may with to broaden their
research by including institutions across counties or states.
A fourth limitation of the study is the level of internal consistency found on the
revised PLuS. The moderate to low levels of internal consistency on several of the
revised PLuS factors is likely due to the original PLuS having been designed to assess the
construct of learning disabilities while the revised PLuS adapted the original survey to
measure the construct of ADHD. Therefore, future studies may wish to further calibrate
and pilot the revised PLuS in order to better measure the construct of ADHD. This can
be accomplished through increasing the number of items in each factor, standardizing the
population that the PLuS is distributed to (only some departments chose to participate in
the present study at some institutions), and deleting items that pilot participants report are
unclear (Salkind, 2006).
A final limitation of the study is the possibility that despite the survey being
anonymous, respondents may have responded based on social desirability, as
discrimination toward students with disabilities is not considered acceptable legally or
administratively. Therefore, future studies may wish to cross-validate faculty responses
with direct classroom observations or by conducting interviews or surveys with students.
Furthermore, the responses may be biased in that faculty members who were more
willing to complete surveys or had a greater knowledge of ADHD may have been more
likely to complete the revised PLuS. This was made evident by some faculty e-mails to
the researcher indicating refusal to participate because they felt that the revised PLuS was
more of a “test” of their knowledge than a survey.
89

Implications for Practice
While the present study did not identify any significant differences between the
attitudes, knowledge, or practices regarding students with ADHD between types of
institutions, the results did identify areas that may be in need of professional
development. The following recommendations for professional development are based
on such areas:
1. All types of institutions should familiarize their staff with Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and its implications for students.
The results of the present study indicate that approximately 27% of faculty
respondents are not familiar with Section 504. Section 504 requires institutions to
provide reasonable accommodations that are individualized to eliminate or reduce the
impact of a disability that impacts a major life activity (Jacob & Hartshorne, 2003;
Wilhelm, 2003). According to Wilhelm (2003), the United States Supreme Court has
been clear that reasonable accommodations are those that are individualized for the
student but do not lower the academic standards of the program or require substantial
program alteration. The results of the present study indicate that 17% of respondents do
not include a statement in their syllabi inviting students with disabilities to discuss
accommodations available to them. Therefore, it is recommended that the Disabilities
Services office at each institution assist departments with developing template language
to be included in all syllabi. This language should both invite students with disabilities to
speak to the faculty member regarding accommodations and provide contact information
for the Disability Services office.
90

2. Faculty should be provided with additional information about the needs of students
with ADHD.
The results of the present study indicate that approximately 61% of faculty
respondents would like additional information about the needs of students with ADHD.
Furthermore, approximately 20% of faculty respondents do not know where faculty
members find support to assist their students with ADHD. Therefore, postsecondary
institutions may wish to provide professional development for faculty members that
provide resources and information regarding students with ADHD and the services
available to meet their needs. In addition to providing information to faculty members
when they are hired, it is recommended that the Disability Services department make
information readily available for staff members by posting it on the institution’s website.
Furthermore, the Disability Services department should work closely with the Section
504 coordinator or compliance office in order to ensure that both faculty and students
have the most updated information available for various types of disabilities.
3. Types of appropriate accommodations for students with ADHD should be discussed
with faculty.
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2011) reports that during the
2008-2009 school year approximately 77% of national postsecondary institutions that
enrolled students with disabilities provided classroom note takers. While the present
study did not address classroom note takers, an item analysis indicated that
approximately 9% of faculty respondents disagreed with providing copies lecture notes to
students with ADHD, approximately 8% disagreed with providing copies of overheads or
91

Powerpoint presentations, and approximately 3% disagreed with allowing students with
ADHD to record class sessions. NCES (2011) also reported that 71% of national
postsecondary institutions provide alternative exam formats for students with qualifying
disabilities, although the present study indicates that approximately 20% of the faculty
surveyed “strongly disagree” or “disagree” with changing the method of responding to
exams. Furthermore, NCES (2011) reports that 70% of national postsecondary
institutions provide adaptive equipment and technology for students with qualifying
disabilities. However, the present study indicates that approximately 25% of faculty
survey “strongly disagree” or “disagree” with allowing students with ADHD to use
technology such as a laptop, calculator, or spellchecker to complete tests. In addition, the
results of the present study indicate that approximately 15% of faculty respondents feel
that making teaching accommodations for students with ADHD is unrealistic given the
their time constraints and other job demands.
The areas of disagreement described above are particularly noteworthy because
research by Kurth and Melard (2006) has shown that students report that the most
effective accommodations to assist their disabilities include note-takers, extended time on
tests, and the use of adaptive technology. Based on this information, it is recommended
that postsecondary institutions provide professional development to faculty members
addressing appropriate accommodations for students with ADHD and how students
qualify for such accommodations.
92

4. Training should be provided to faculty members addressing the referral procedures
for students with ADHD at each institution as well as what their equivalent to the Office
of Disabilities Services provides.
The results of the present study indicate that approximately 9% of the faculty
respondents surveyed are not familiar with their institutions equivalent to the Office of
Disabilities Services. In addition, approximately 49% of faculty respondents indicated
that they would like more information about the referral procedures for students with
ADHD. It is essential that faculty members have this information in order to properly
address the needs of their students with disabilities as well as to remain legally complaint
with Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973. Therefore, it is recommended that the Disability Services office at each
institution provide information to faculty members when they are hired, send memos to
faculty members at the beginning of each semester/quarter, and post information on the
institution’s website.
5. An additional needs assessment should be conducted at all institutions in order to
determine what support faculty feel that they require in order to make appropriate
teaching accommodations for students with ADHD.
The results of the present study indicate that approximately 11% of faculty
respondents feel that they do not have sufficient knowledge to make testing or teaching
accommodations for students with ADHD and approximately 10% of faculty respondents
feel that they do not receive adequate support from their institution’s equivalent to the
Office of Disabilities Services to make such accommodations. Furthermore,
93

approximately 12% of faculty respondents indicated that they do not receive adequate
support from their department/program regarding working with students who have
ADHD. A needs assessment would further identify target areas for professional
development in order to better meet the requirements of both faculty members and
students.
Recommendations for Further Research
Due to the institutional barriers encountered during the present study, it is
recommended that future studies exploring similar aspects of faculty perceptions of
ADHD first secure institutions that are willing to distribute surveys to all instructional
faculty members. It is also recommended that future studies broaden the geographic
range of participating institutions so that the results can be generalized to a greater area.
In addition, because of the low alpha level found for the “Knowledge of ADHD” factor in
the present student, future researchers may wish to further modify the PLuS by dividing
the “Knowledge of ADHD” factor into a “Knowledge of ADHD” factor and a
“Knowledge of Legal Protections” factor. Researchers may also wish to include multiple
items for each factor of the revised PLuS in order to further increase the internal
consistency of the measure. Finally, due to the potential for faculty members to respond
to surveys in a “socially acceptable” manner, future researchers may wish to cross-
validate faculty responses with direct classroom observations as well as conduct
interviews or surveys with students within the institutions being studied.

94

Conclusions
The results of the present study suggest that no significant differences exist
between two-year and four-year post-secondary faculty attitudes and beliefs toward
students with ADHD, knowledge of ADHD and Section 504, or willingness to make
accommodations for students with ADHD. This is consistent with previous research
conducted by Vance and Weyandt (2008) which explored faculty perceptions of students
with ADHD at two four-year universities and one two-year college.
While the results of the present study related to the research questions were not
found to be significant, a great deal of information was gained from the survey results
that can be used to assist postsecondary institutions in creating professional development
programs for faculty members. Such programs will not only assist institutions in
remaining compliant with legal mandates, but will also assist students with disabilities to
achieve within the postsecondary education environment.
95

REFERENCES
Allsopp, D.H., Minskoff, E.H., & Bolt, L. (2005). Individualized course-specific strategy
instruction for college students with learning disabilities and ADHD: Lessons
learned from a model demonstration project. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 20(2), 103-118.

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric
Association.

Barkley, R.A. (1997). Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions:
Constructing a unifying theory of ADHD. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 65-94.

Barkley, R.A. & Fischer, M. (2010). The unique contribution of emotional impulsiveness
to impairment in major life activities in hyperactive children as adults. Journal of
the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 49(5), 503-513.

Barkley, R.A., Fischer, M., Smallish, L., & Fletcher, K. (2005). Young adult outcome of
hyperactive children: Adaptive functioning in major life activities. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 45(2), 192-202.

Biederman, J., Mick, E., & Faraone, S.V. (2000). Age dependent decline of ADHD
symptoms revisited: Impact of remission definition and symptom subtype.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 157 816-818.

California Postsecondary Education Commission. (2011). Details for Los Angeles
Region. Retrieved from
http://www.cpec.ca.gov/SecondPages/RegionsDetail.asp?Region=M

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (November 2010). Increasing prevalence of
parent-reported attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder among children – United
States, 2003 and 2007. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 59(44).

Community college. (2011). In Merriam Webster: An Encyclopedia Britannica company.
Retrieved from http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/community%20college

Cook, L., Rumrill, P.D., & Tankersley, M. (2009). Priorities and understanding of faculty
members regarding college students with disabilities. International Journal of
Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(1), 84-96.

96

Denbo, S.M. (2003). Disability lessons in higher education: Accommodating learning
disabled students and student-athletes under the Rehabilitation Act and the
Americans with Disabilities Act. American Business Law Journal, 41, 145-203.

DuPaul, G. J., Jitendra, A.K., Tresco, K.E., Junod, R.E., Volpe, R.J., & Lutz, J.G. (2006).
Children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Are there gender
differences in school functioning? School Psychology Review, 35(2), 292-308.

Fabiano, G., Vujnovic, R., Pelham, W., Waschbusch, D., Massetti, G., Pariseau, M.,
Naylor, J., Yu, J., Robins, M., Camefix, T., Greiner, A., & Volker, M. (2010).
Enhancing the effectiveness of special education programming for children with
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder using a daily report card. School
Psychology Review, 39(2), 219-239.

Ginsberg, S.M. & Schulte, K. (2008). Instructional accommodations: Impact of
conventional vs. social constructivist view of disability. Journal of the Scholarship
of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 84-91.

Gordon, M., Lewandowski, L., Murphy, K., & Dempsey, K. (2002). ADA-Based
Accommodations in Higher Education: A Survey of Clinicians About
Documentation Requirements and Diagnostic Standards. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 35(4), 357-363.

Gureasko-Moore, S., DuPaul, G., & White, G. (2007). Self-management of classroom
preparedness and homework: Effects on school functioning of adolescents with
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 647-
664.

Hartman-Hall, H.M. & Haaga, D.A. (2002). College students’ willingness to seek help
for their learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 263-274.

Hart, C. T., Dunn, R. (2008). Effects of learning-style responsive versus traditional staff
development on community college professors’ attitudes toward alternative
instructional strategies. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College,
16(1), 13-21.

Hervey, A.S., Epstein, J.N., & Curry, J.F. (2004). Neuropsychology of adults with
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A meta-analytic review.
Neuropsychology, 18(3), 485-503.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Pub. L. No. 101-476), 20 U.S.C. Chapter 33.
Amended by Pub. L. No. 105-17 in June, 1997. Regulations appear at 34 C.F.R.
Part 300.

97

Jacob, S. & Hartshorne, T.S. (2003). Ethics and law for school psychologists. New
Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Kurth, N. & Mellard, D. (2006). Student perceptions of the accommodation process in
postsecondary education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability,
19(1), 71-84.

Los Angeles County. (2011). Cities. Retrieved from
http://portal.lacounty.gov/wps/portal/lac/residents/cities

Lee, K.S., Osborne, R.E., Hayes, K.A., & Simoes, R.A. (2008). The effects of pacing on
the academic testing performance of college students with ADHD: A mixed
methods study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(2), 123-141.

Miranda, A, Soriano, M., Fernandez, I., & Melia, A. (2008). Emotional and behavioral
problems in children with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder: Impact of age
and learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(4), 171-185.

Murray, D., Rabiner, D., Schulte, A., & Newitt, K. (2008). Feasibility and integrity of a
parent–teacher consultation intervention for ADHD students. Child Youth Care
Forum, 37, 111-126.

Murray, C., Lombardi, A., Wren, C.T., & Keys, C. (2009). Associations between prior
disability-focused training and disability-related attitudes and perceptions among
university faculty. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(2), 87-100.

Murray, C., Wren, C.T., & Keys, C. (2008). University faculty perceptions of students
with learning disabilities: Correlates and group differences. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 31(2), 95-113.

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education (2011). Students
with disabilities at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: First look.
Retrieved July 5, 2011, from the National Center for Education Statistics Web
site: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011018.pdf

Nigg, J.T. & Casey, B.J. (2005). An integrative theory of attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder based on the cognitive and affective neurosciences. Development and
Psychopathology, 17, 785-806.

Norwalk, K., Norvilitis, J.M., & MacLean, M.G. (2009). ADHD symptomatology and its
relationship to factors associated with college adjustment. Journal of Attention
Disorders, 13(3), 251-258.

98

Salkind, N.J. (2006). Tests and measurement for people who (think they) hate tests and
measurement. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Salzberg, C. L., Peterson, L., Debrand, C. C., Blair, R.J., Carsey, A. C., & Johnson, A. S.
(2002). Opinions of disability service directors on faculty training: The need,
content, issues, formats, media, and activities. Journal of Postsecondary Education
and Disability, 15, 101-114.

Shaw, S.F., Keenan, W.R., Madaus, J.W., & Banerjee, M. (2010). Disability
documentation, the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act, and the
summary of performance: How are they linked? Journal of postsecondary
Education and Disability, 22(3), 142-151.

Sonuga-Barke, E. (2003). The dual pathway model of AD/HD: an elaboration of neuro-
developmental characteristics. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 27, 593-
604.

Sweener, K., Kundert, D., May, D., & Quinn, K. (2002). Comfort with accommodations
at the community college level. Journal of Developmental Education, 25(3), 12-
42.

Trammell, J.T. (2003). The impact of academic accommodations on final grades in a
postsecondary setting. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 34(1), 76-90.

Trammell, J.T. & Hathaway, M. (2007). Help-seeking patterns in college students with
disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 20(1), 5-15.

Trout, A., Lienemann, T.O., Reid, R., Epstein, M. (2007). A review of non-medication
interventions to improve the academic performance of children and youth with
ADHD. Remedial and Special Education, 28(4), 207-226.

University. (2011). In Merriam Webster: An Encyclopedia Britannica company.
Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/university

U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. (2005, September). A Guide to
Disability Rights Laws. Retrieved from
http://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm#anchor62335

Vance, T.A., Weyandt, L. (2008). Professor perceptions of college students with attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of American College Health, 57(3), 303-
308.

Weyandt, L.L., & DuPaul, G. (2006). ADHD in college students. Journal of Attention
Disorders, 10(1), 9-19.
99

Wilhelm, S. (2003). Accommodating mental disabilities in higher education: A practical
guide to ADA requirements. Journal of Law & Education, 32(2), 217-237.

Zirkel, P.A. (2009). What does the law say? New section 504 student eligibility
standards. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41(4), 68-71.

100

APPENDIX A
Institutional Review Board Approval of Study
Date: Aug 08, 2011, 08:21am
Principal
Investigator:
Derek Ihori
Faculty
Advisor:
Patricia Tobey
Co-
Investigators:

Project Title: ADHD and Postsecondary Faculty
USC UPIRB # UP-11-00287

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
UNIVERSITY PARK INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD
FWA 00007099

Exempt Review

The iStar application and attachments were reviewed by UPIRB staff on 8/8/2011.

The project was APPROVED.

Based on the information provided for review, this study meets the requirements outlined
in 45 CFR 46.101(b)(2) and qualifies for exemption from IRB review. The study is not
subject to further IRB review. IRB exemption of this study was granted on 8/8/2011.

The following documents were reviewed and approved:
Certified Information Sheet, dated 08/08/2011
Certified Recruitment Script, dated 08/08/2011

Minor revisions were made to the recruitment and consent documents by the IRB
Administrator (IRBA). The IRBA revised documents have been uploaded into the
relevant iStar sections. Please use the IRBA revised documents if an amendment is
submitted and future revisions are required.

To access IRB-approved documents, click on the “Approved Documents” link in the
study workspace. These are also available under the “Documents” tab.

101

APPENDIX B
Demographic Data of Institutions in Sample
Appendix B
Demographic Data of Institutions in Sample
Institution CC1 CC2 PR1 PR2 PUB1 PUB2
Total Students 22,334 29,960 921 13,899 33,416 35,000
Students With
Disabilities
(Registered with
Disability
Services)
5% 7% 13% 3% 3% 3%
Total Faculty 588 1,130 130 5,286 2,396 2,694
Estimated
Number of
Faculty Who
Received the
PLuS*
200 1,330 130 800 2,396 350
Number of
Faculty
Respondents
6 41 27 59 183 11
Estimated
Response Rate
3% 3% 21% 7% 8% 3%
* Some institutions did not send the PLuS to all faculty members.
102

APPENDIX C
Revised PLuS Survey Items Divided by Factor
Appendix C
Revised PLuS Survey Items Divided by Factor
Factor Item
Willingness to Make
Major Accommodations
16. I am willing to reduce the overall course reading load for
a student with verified ADHD even when I would not allow
for a reduced reading load among students without ADHD.

15. I am willing to allow a student with verified ADHD to
complete “extra credit” assignments if necessary for student
success even when I do not provide this option to all students
in my course.

28. I am willing to grade students with verified ADHD on a
different curve than students without disabilities if needed.

13. I think it would be appropriate to allow a student with
verified ADHD to substitute an alternative course for a
required course if the substitution did not dramatically alter
the program requirements.

29. If a student with verified ADHD did not adequately meet
the course requirements despite receiving reasonable exam
accommodations, I would give him/her the grade s/she
earned.
30. I am willing to allow students with verified ADHD to
take proctored exams in a supervised location outside of the
normal exam location.

25. I am wiling to arrange extended time exams for students
who have verified ADHD.

26. I am willing to change the method of responding to exams
(e.g., from written to oral) for students with verified ADHD
in my course(s).

31. I am willing to allow students with verified ADHD to use
technology (e.g., laptop, calculator, spell checker) to
complete tests even when such technologies are not permitted
for use during testing by students without disabilities.

103

Appendix C continued
Revised PLuS Survey Items Divided by Factor
Factor Item
Willingness to Provide
Exam Accommodations
19. I am willing to allow students with verified ADHD to
tape record class sessions when necessary.

30. I am willing to allow students with verified ADHD to
take proctored exams in a supervised location outside of the
normal exam location.

25. I am willing to arrange extended time exams for students
who have verified ADHD.

26. I am willing to change the method of responding to exams
(e.g., from written to oral) for students with verified ADHD
in my course(s).

31. I am willing to allow students with verified ADHD to use
technology (e.g., laptop, calculator, spell checker) to
complete tests even when such technologies are not permitted
for use during testing by students without disabilities.

Fairness & Sensitivity 32. Providing testing accommodations to students with
verified ADHD is unfair to students without disabilities.

22. Providing teaching accommodations to students with
verified ADHD is unfair to students without disabilities.

17. I believe that I make individual accommodations for
students as necessary to those who have disclosed their
ADHD to me.

20. I am willing to extend the “due dates” of assignments to
accommodate the needs of students with verified ADHD
when necessary.

6. I am sensitive to the needs of students with ADHD at my
institution.

18. I believe that my overall teaching style permits all
students to learn the materials regardless of their individual
needs.
104

Appendix C continued
Revised PLuS Survey Items Divided by Factor
Factor Item
Knowledge of ADHD 1. I am familiar with section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), and
their implications for students with disabilities in institutions
of higher education. Describe: _____________________

2. I know what the term “Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder (ADHD)” means. Describe:
___________________

Willingness to
Personally Invest
27. I am willing to spend extra time (i.e., in addition to
normal office hours) helping a student with verified ADHD
prepare for an exam in my course.

14. I am willing to spend extra time (i.e., in addition to
normal office hours) meeting with students with verified
ADHD to clarify and/or review course related content.

Willingness to Make
Teaching
Accommodations
12. I am willing to provide students with verified ADHD with
copies of my overheads and/or PowerPoint presentations.

10. I am willing to provide students with verified ADHD with
copies of my lecture notes or outlines.

11. I am willing to provide students with ADHD with
additional time to complete assignments in my course(s).

Resource Constraints 41. Making adequate teaching accommodations for students
with verified ADHD in my courses is unrealistic given time
constraints and other job demands.

43. Making adequate testing accommodations for students
with verified ADHD in my courses is unrealistic given time
constraints and other job demands.

Performance
Expectations
3. I believe that students with ADHD can be successful at the
university level.

7. Students with ADHD are able to compete academically at
the university level.

105

Appendix C continued
Revised PLuS Survey Items Divided by Factor
Factor Item
Disclosure &
Believability
24. I believe that students use ADHD as an excuse when they
are not doing well in my class.

49. I find that students with verified ADHD wait to talk to me
until they are not doing well in the class and then it’s too late
to provide appropriate accommodations.

50. I find that students with ADHD wait to talk to me until
they are not doing well in the class and then I find it hard to
believe that they really have a disability.

Personal Action: Inviting
Disclosure
48. I make a statement in class inviting students with
disabilities to discuss accommodations with me.

47. I include a statement in my syllabus inviting students with
disabilities to discuss accommodations with me.

Personal Action:
Insufficient Knowledge
42. Currently, I do not have sufficient knowledge to make
adequate testing accommodations for students with ADHD in
my course(s).

Personal Action:
Providing
Accommodations
45. I have had students with ADHD in my course(s) and have
provided teaching accommodations.

46. I have had students with ADHD in my course(s) and have
provided testing accommodations.

Note: The above factors and corresponding items were described by Murray et al. (2008).
The items in the above table represent the modified versions for the purpose of the
present study.
106

APPENDIX D
E-mail to Participants
Dear Instructional Faculty Member,
My name is Derek Ihori and I am a doctoral student in the Rossier School of
Education at USC. I am conducting a research survey as part of my dissertation, focusing
on postsecondary faculty practices regarding students with Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). As an instructional faculty member, you have been
identified as someone who might be ideal for the survey. The survey takes
approximately 15 minutes to complete. You may skip questions if you desire.
Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and your responses will be
completely anonymous. Your identity as a participant will remain unknown at all times
during and after the study. Your relationship with your institution will not be affected
whether or not you participate in this study. Continuing to the followng page indicates
consent to participate in the study.
If you have questions, please contact me at dihori@usc.edu. Thank you in
advance for your participation. Your perspective is extremely valuable!
Sincerely,
Derek Ihori
107

APPENDIX E

PLuS Factors Assigned to Research Questions 1-3

Appendix E
PLuS factors assigned to Research Questions 1-3
Research Question Relevant Factors
1. Are the attitudes and beliefs
of two-year college faculty
toward students with ADHD
significantly different than
those of four-year university
faculty?
Fairness and Sensitivity
Performance Expectations
Disclosure and Believability
Personal Action: Inviting Disclosure
2. Is the level of knowledge of
two-year college faculty
significantly different than
the level of knowledge of
four-year university faculty
regarding the legal
protections for students with
ADHD?
Knowledge of ADHD
3. Is there a significant
difference between the
willingness of two-year
college faculty and four-year
university faculty in regard to
making testing and
instructional accommodations
for students with ADHD?
Willingness to Make Major Accommodations
Willingness to Provide Exam Accommodations
Willingness to Personally Invest
Willingness to Make Teaching Accommodations
Resource Constraints
Insufficient Knowledge
Providing Accommodations

108

APPENDIX F

Description of Analyses of Survey Data for Research Questions

Appendix F
Description of Analyses of Survey Data for Research Questions
Purpose of
Analysis
Independent
Variables
Dependent Variables Test
Determine whether
two-year college
faculty have
significantly
different responses
than four-year
university faculty.
Type of
Institution (Two-
Year or Four-
Year)
PLuS factors associated with:
1. Attitudes and Beliefs
2. Knowledge of Legal
Protections
3. Willingness to Make
Testing Accommodations

MANOVA
t-test

MANOVA
Determine whether
four-year public
faculty have
significantly
different responses
than four-year
private faculty.
Type of
Institution (Public
or Private)
PLuS factors associated with:
1. Attitudes and Beliefs
2. Knowledge of Legal
Protections
3. Willingness to Make
Testing Accommodations

MANOVA
t-test

MANOVA
Determine whether
significant
differences exist in
the responses of
faculty from
different
institutions of the
same type (CC1 vs.
CC2, PR1 vs. PR2,
PUB1 vs. PUB2).
Institution 1
Institution 2
Factors:
Fairness and Sensitivity
Performance Expectations
Disclosure and Believability
Personal Action: Inviting
Disclosure
Knowledge of ADHD
Willingness to Make Major
Accommodations
Willingness to Provide Exam
Accommodations
Willingness to Personally
Invest
Willingness to Make Teaching
Accommodations
Resource Constraints
Insufficient Knowledge
Providing Accommodations

Independent
Samples
t-tests

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Understanding the attitudes, beliefs, and practices of postsecondary faculty regarding students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and the laws that protect such students is critical for both student success and compliance with federal laws. The purpose of the present quantitative study was to identify differences between two-year community college and four-year university faculty in regard to their attitudes and beliefs about students with ADHD, their willingness to accommodate such students, and their knowledge of the legal protections for students with disabilities. In order to gain this information, electronic surveys were distributed to faculty members at two two-year community colleges, two four-year public universities, and two four-year private universities. The data was analyzed to determine whether significant differences in faculty responses exist between two-year colleges and four-year universities. Further analysis was conducted in order to determine whether differences exist between faculty responses at private four-year universities and public four-year universities. The results of the analyses indicate that no significant differences exist between types of universities in regard to faculty attitudes and beliefs about students with ADHD, their willingness to accommodate such students, and their knowledge of the legal protections for students with disabilities. However, additional analyses of the survey results beyond the scope of the research questions indicate that further professional development may be needed across postsecondary institutions regarding Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, appropriate accommodations for students with ADHD, and referral processes for students with ADHD to obtain educational accommodations.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Factors influencing the academic persistence of college students with ADHD

PDF

A study of the pedagogical strategies used in support of students with learning disabilities and attitudes held by engineering faculty

PDF

The role of self-regulation strategies on two- and four-year college students with ADHD

PDF

Early identification of a learning disability and its impact on success in postsecondary education

PDF

Social skills and self-esteem of college students with ADHD

PDF

Navigating and accessing higher education: the experiences of community college students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

PDF

Innovative strategies to accommodate postsecondary students with learning disabilities

PDF

The executive and academic functioning of stimulant-medicated and non-stimulant medicated adult college students with ADHD: a neuropsychological perspective

PDF

Capacity building for STEM faculty and leaders: supporting university students with ADHD in earning STEM degrees

PDF

Perceptions of college students with ADHD and their learning strategies

PDF

ADHD identity: a conceptual developmental model

PDF

Students with disabilities in higher education: examining factors of mental health, psychological well-being, and resiliency

PDF

How the departmental cultures experienced by part-time, non-tenure track faculty affect their ability to meet first-year college student needs

PDF

The moderating effects of racial identity and cultural mistrust on the relationship between student-faculty interaction and persistence for Black community college students

PDF

Understanding the psycho-social and cultural factors that influence the experience of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in Chinese American college students: a systems approach

PDF

The perceived barriers of nursing faculty presence in an asynchronous online learning environment: a case study

PDF

Factors impacting four-year postsecondary matriculation at a college-preparatory, Catholic high school: an innovation study

PDF

Improving faculty participation in student conduct hearing boards: a gap analysis

PDF

Postsecondary students, well-being, and sources of support

PDF

Exploring faculty-student interactions in a comprehensive college transition program for low-income and first-generation college students

Asset Metadata

Creator Ihori, Derek K. (author)

Core Title Postsecondary faculty attitudes, beliefs, practices, and knowledge regarding students with ADHD: a comparative analysis of two-year and four-year institutions

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2012-05

Publication Date 03/20/2012

Defense Date 03/05/2012

Tag ADHD,attitudes,beliefs,community college,faculty,four-year universities,OAI-PMH Harvest,perceptions,postsecondary,Section 504,university

Advisor Tobey, Patricia Elaine (committee chair), Ahmadi, Shafiqa (committee member), Knight, Tony (committee member)

Creator Email dihori@usc.edu,kerek.ihori@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC11291167

Unique identifier UC11291167

Legacy Identifier etd-IhoriDerek-519

Dmrecord 208025

Document Type Dissertation