Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The perception of campus climate and satisfaction in a postsecondary setting for students with disabilities
(USC Thesis Other)
The perception of campus climate and satisfaction in a postsecondary setting for students with disabilities
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
1
THE PERCEPTION OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION IN A
POSTSECONDARY SETTING FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
by
Christopher Elquizabal
_____________________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2019
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
2
Acknowledgements
There are many people that have earned my gratitude for their emotional support,
educational guidance, and overall contribution to my time at the Rossier School of Education.
More specifically, I would like to thank the following people, without whom this dissertation
would not have been possible: my committee members, peers, and close family-friends. First,
and foremost, I am especially indebted to Dr. Ruth Chung, my committee chair, for her support
and guidance throughout this entire process. I am also grateful to each member of my
Dissertation Committee, Dr. Hinga and Dr. Kehdi, for providing me extensive personal and
professional direction about both scientific research and professional life in general.
Secondly, this journey would not have been possible without the additional
encouragement from those that never questioned my potential but rather sought ways to facilitate
it, my Cronkcrew. There are no greater memories of community and belonging for me than those
created with a group of graduate students that cannot ever be replicated nor forgotten. The
impact this group had on my life has been ever so positive. In particular, Darcy-Tell Morales,
thank you for offering me your unrelenting support and constant guidance at times when it all
seemed to be out of grasp. Your humility, dedication to social justice, friendship and presence
are more than anyone could ever wish for and strive to be. Edgardo, for inspiring me to do, be,
and seek better. Lastly, I am most thankful to those that have been in in my life since the
beginning and continue to be there today: my sister, Maggie, and close friend, Alejandra, for
continuously offering me love, guidance, and support with whatever career or educational
endeavors I choose to pursue. They are the ultimate role models.
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2
List of Figures and Tables 4
Abstract 5
Chapter One: Introduction 6
Importance and Purpose of Study 7
Conceptual Framework and Critical Disability Theory 8
Key Terms and Definitions 14
Campus Climate 14
Student Satisfaction 15
Disability Status 16
Chapter Two: Literature Review 18
Population Overview 19
Disability Status 22
Disabilities in Higher Education 22
Intersection of Disability, Race/Ethnicity and other Identities 26
Disability Status and Campus Climate 28
Disability Status and Student Satisfaction 31
Summary of Literature Review 33
Purpose of Study and Research Questions 34
Research Question 1 34
Research Question 2 35
Research Question 3 36
Chapter Three: Methodology 36
Study Participants 37
Measures 38
Procedure 42
Chapter Four: Results 42
Preliminary Analyses 43
Analysis of Research Questions 43
Research Question 1 43
Research Question 2 47
Research Question 3 51
Chapter Five: Discussion 51
The Relationship Between Campus Climate and Students’ Disability Status 52
Interaction between disability status, ethnicity/race and campus climate 54
The Relationship Between Satisfaction and Students’ Disability Status 57
Campus Climate Predicting Satisfaction 59
Implications for Practice 60
Recommendations for Improving Students’ with Disabilities Perceptions of Campus
Climate and Satisfaction 60
Limitations for Current Study 62
Directions for Future Research 63
Conclusion 64
References 65
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
4
Appendix A: UCUES Sample Questionnaire 74
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
5
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1. Study Participants 37
Table 2. Four-way Factorial ANOVA for Campus Climate 44
Figure 1. Differences for Campus Climate by Race/Ethnicity 45
Table 3. Simple Effect Differences for Campus Climate by Ethnicity/Race 46
Figure 2. Differences for Campus Climate by Ethnicity/Race and Gender 46
Figure 3. Differences for Campus Climate by Ethnicity/Race and Resident Status 47
Table 4. Four-way Factorial MANOVA for Satisfaction and Satisfaction with
Social Experiences 48
Figure 4. Differences in Satisfaction by Ethnicity/Race 50
Table 5. Simple Effect Differences for Satisfaction by Ethnicity/Race 50
Table 6. Regression for Satisfaction Scores 51
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
6
Abstract
Students with disabilities are an increasing population at the postsecondary level, yet a
critical deficit for institutions of higher learning persists in attempting to better understand the
social and academic experiences of those with varying degrees of disabilities. Using the University
of California Undergraduate Experience Survey (UCUES, 2016), data, this study examined
differences in perceptions of campus climate and satisfaction for undergraduate students (n =
37,065) with disabilities at UC’s nine undergraduate campuses. In addition to disability status, the
role of gender, ethnicity and resident status were also analyzed to determine if those identities
interacted with disability status in predicting campus climate and student satisfaction scores.
Results indicated that campus climate was not found to be statistically significantly different for
undergraduate students with disabilities when compared to those without a disability. Yet,
interactions between campus climate, ethnicity, gender, and disability status were found to be
significant. Additionally, students with disabilities were found to have reported significantly
lower satisfaction with their academic and social undergraduate experience compared to those
without disabilities. Similar to campus climate, a two-way interaction between ethnicity and
disability status was found to be statistically significant. Finally, campus climate was also found
to be predictive of student satisfaction scores. The results of this study underscore the importance
satisfaction with academic and social undergraduate experiences has on students with disabilities
and the vital role campus climate plays in predicting the perceptions of satisfactory experiences
for this largely unexplored student population. Implications and directions for future research are
discussed.
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
7
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
The impact of campus climate and educational satisfaction for students with disabilities
remains largely unexplored. One facet that is notably limited is the relationship between a student’s
disability status and their experiences with campus climate, satisfaction and sense of belonging
(Murray, Lombardi & Kosty, 2014). This is important as students with disabilities in
postsecondary institutions are estimated to comprise approximately 11 percent of the
undergraduate student population (Koch, Mamiseishvili, & Wilkins, 2016; Knight, Wessel, &
Markle, 2018), with roughly 70 percent of these students self-reporting disabilities that often
remain invisible or hidden to the public such as Learning, ADHD and Psychological differences as
the most prominent categories (Banks, 2014; Koch, Mamiseishvili, & Wilkins, 2016; Knight,
Wessel, & Markle, 2018). However, the percentage of students with disabilities attending
postsecondary institutions is argued to be higher than 11 percent. For example, Kim and Lee
(2016) suggest that the population of students with disabilities may approach more than 17 percent,
and Herbert, Hong, Byun, Welsh, Kurz, and Atkinson, 2014, noted that estimates closer to 26
percent, as most research postulates that many students with disabilities, particularly those with
hidden disabilities, do not self-disclose to their postsecondary institution (Banks, 2014; Lombardi,
Murray, & Gerdes, 2011) by registering with their office of disabilities.
The volume of students with disabilities transitioning to institutions of higher education is
partly attributed to civil rights legislation that has, in many aspects, granted greater access to a
plethora of public and private educational programs for qualified students with disabilities (Wolf,
2011; Collins & Mowbray, 2008). Although the number of students with disabilities has increased,
this unique population remains largely unmentioned, unexplored and draped in the confinement of
being defined solely by their medical impairments (Kimball et al., 2016) within the research
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
8
literature. This is especially problematic for racial and ethnic populations that have been
historically marginalized, who often may not perceive their impairment as a disability nor consider
themselves as a member of the disabilities community, resulting in a lesser likelihood of self-
disclosure (Banks & Hughes, 2013; Banks, 2014) and increased negative academic experiences.
For example, Peña, Stapleton and Schaffer (2016) argue that the experiences of students with
disabilities has historically not been perceived as a student population within campus diversity
initiatives but rather as a population that is often recognized through a lens of medical impairment
and functional limitations, regularly ignoring their intersecting identities of race, class, gender and
sexuality. Yet, despite the growing number of students with heterogeneous forms of disabilities
across college campuses, their experience beyond accommodations and functional limitations
remains largely unexamined (Banks & Hughes, 2013; Jones et al., 2015; Wolf, 2011).
Importance and Purpose of Study
A growing body of research has linked students’ sense of satisfaction (Thomas, Herbert
& Teras, 2014; Fleming, Oertle, Plotner, & Hakun, 2017), and perceptions of campus climate
(Ceja, & Yosso, 2000) on their campuses to a number of important outcomes, including their
persistence in college, engagement in research and their overall well-being (Jones, N., Brown,
R., Keys, C. B., & Salzer, M. 2015; Thomas, Herbert & Teras, 2014; Fleming, Oertle, Plotner, &
Hakun, 2017). As a result, some colleges engage in efforts to support students (especially
members of underrepresented groups) cultivate a positive sense of campus climate, satisfaction
and belonging. However, for students with disabilities, that responsibility is often delegated to
the campus’ student’s disabilities office, the entity on a college campus that is solely in the
business of facilitating academic accommodations.
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
9
The number of students with disabilities across universities in the U.S. continues to rise.
Yet, it is estimated that the majority, approximately more than 70 percent, of students with
disabilities forego registering with their disability services office in order to gain access to any
form of academic accommodations (Herbert, Hong, Byun, Welsh, Kurz, & Atkinson, 2014;
Collins, & Mowbray, 2008). This seems to be especially true for students with hidden disabilities
(Pardeck, 2002; Dong & Lucas, 2014; Collins, & Mowbray, 2008). In order for universities to
truly support the success of students with disabilities, it is critical that they create spaces and
encourage practices that help students establish a sense of inclusivity through positive
perceptions of their campus climate and a greater sense of satisfaction with their university
experience. Thus, it is the purpose of this study to examine the role a student’s disability status has
on their perceptions of campus climate and level of satisfaction within their postsecondary
institution.
Conceptual Framework and Critical Disability Theory
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
10
Historically, people with disabilities have been largely described by a medical model in
that their medical diagnosis and the perceived impact that diagnosis or impairment has on their
ability to live typical lives becomes their primary defining characteristic in being labeled
disabled (Peña, Stapleton & Shaffer, 2016). The medical model is presented as viewing
disabilities as a problem of the person, directly caused by disease, trauma, or other health
condition which therefore requires sustained medical care provided in the form of individual
treatment by professionals (Thomas & Branscombe, 2017). In the medical model, management
of the disability is aimed at curing the impairment or assisting the individual's adjustment and
behavioral change in order to arrive to a partial or fully effective cure (Thomas & Branscombe,
2017). In the medical model, medical care is viewed as the main issue, and at the political level,
the principal response is that of modifying or reforming healthcare policy.
Simply stated, the individual’s identity as disabled is superimposed by a medical
diagnosis which often has significant sociopolitical, economic and educational limitations that
are solely attributed to the individuals innate perceived medical impairment while negating the
social construct of one’s identity. As a result, the medical model not only influences how abled-
bodied and non-disabled people treat those with disabilities but also how deficit-based
representations of this population reduce prodisability policy support by further reinforcing and
ultimately solidifying the legitimization of the current state of affairs (Thomas & Branscombe,
2017). Consequently, people with disabilities have been primarily treated from a perspective of
illness and dysfunctionality that requires medical treatment to mediate a greater sense of success
due to an impairment (Peña et al., 2016) with the goal of curing the condition.
By and large, people with disabilities have been defined by a socially constructed identity
of non-abled, inherently ignoring and further perpetuating systemic, institutional, and structural
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
11
barriers that correspondingly disenfranchise them socially, economically and educationally based
on perceived medical limitations (Peña et al., 2016; Vaccaro, Kimball & Wells, 2015). For
example, for students with learning disabilities, accommodations such as additional time on
exams may often be implemented by a university to ameliorate the students learning difference
and barrier to testing under typical time restraints. However, the sole focus on accommodations
by post-secondary institutions places an exclusive spotlight on the disability while
simultaneously preserving institutional and systemic ableism (Peña et al., 2016) by abstaining
from entirely incorporating practices that would improve the classroom inclusivity for students
with disabilities (Aker, Boland, & Nowik, 2012).
Critical disability theory antithetically challenges the medical model by acknowledging
that people within the disability population have intersecting identities of race, class, gender and
sexuality in addition to understanding the sociopolitical, economic, and educational lived
realities of having an impairment (Peña et al., 2016; Vaccaro, Kimball et al, 2015), many of
which may not have a cure. Much like any identity, simply because a person has been diagnosed
with an impairment does not necessarily mean that said person identifies as being disabled or
part of the disability community. As stated by Peña et al., (2016) the medical model has
presumptuously imposed a disabled identity upon students with impairments, yet, “having an
impairment is not identical to having a disability.” (p. 86). That is to say, a student may be
diagnosed with an impairment, say ADHD, and very well be identified as a student with a
disability both socially and by their postsecondary institution, but, that does not mean that the
student self-identifies as a student with a disability, as identity is also largely self-constructed
through one’s socialization process. Therein lies the disconnect with a medical-only-model to
understanding disabilities, especially hidden disabilities, as a student’s sociocultural
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
12
understanding of disabilities impacts their decision to not only accept the impairment as a
disability but to also identify as a student with a disability and seek out appropriate resources.
Critical disability theory is utilized as the primary lens in which this researcher analyzes
the importance of campus climate and student educational satisfaction, as it pertains to students
with hidden disabilities. Critical theory moves beyond the constraints of a diagnosis and
challenges a singular understanding of a student as simply disabled and in need of only
accommodations (Peña et al., 2016; Vaccaro, Kimball et al, 2015). Critical disability theory
validates ones’ various intersecting identities and the interwoven interactions these identities
have on one’s behavior by integrating racial, ethnic, sexual, and gender identities in addition to
one’s impairment as something that may or may not be a part of a student’s own identity as a
person with a disability. The understanding is centered in the affirmation that disability is a
social reality that is often institutionally constructed and reinforced systematically relative to
ableism as a form of privilege (Peña et al., 2016; Vaccaro, Kimball et al, 2015).
Thus, one of the goals of this analysis is to acknowledge the role of ableism as it pertains
to the social stigma associated with disabilities, especially mental health impairments. More so,
the interwoven relationship between ableism as the primary lens in which disabilities are socially
understood and the influence that may have on a student’s sense of positive campus climate
(Aker, Boland, & Nowik, 2012; Lombardi, Murray, & Gedes, 2011) and educational satisfaction
(Koch, Mamiseishvli, & Wilkins, 2016; Murray, Lombardi, & Kosty, 2014) within the college
setting that moves beyond requests for academic adjustments (Madaus et al., 2011; Miscovic &
Gabel, 2012; Peña et al., 2016). This is accomplished by utilizing critical disability theory as
theoretical lens that informs the conceptual framework in which to examine as well as create an
understanding of how social, educational, and institutional contexts “serve as sites for
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
13
(in)justice” (Peña et al., 2016, p. 89), especially as it relates to campus climate and satisfaction
amongst students with disabilities.
To carry out the research study examining the role campus climate and educational
satisfaction has on students with hidden disabilities in a postsecondary setting, three interactive
themes were identified during the review of literature. The first theme is constructed by the
postsecondary institution’s campus climate. Within this framework, ableism is considered a form
of privilege that fosters a campus climate in which stigma associated with disabilities may go
unacknowledged by those not considered nor ascribed to a disability-oriented identity. For
example, faculty, peers and staff may question the authenticity of a student’s hidden disability as
real or genuine (Peña, Stapleton, & Schaffer, 2016). Moreover, faculty perceptions of hidden
disabilities as primarily a medical impairment while neglecting the intersecting experiences and
other interwoven identities, may further hinder their willingness to self-disclose (Peña, Stapleton,
& Schaffer, 2016) thereby influencing a student’s perception of their campus climate as
unwelcoming to those with disabilities. Additionally, the normalization of disabilities and
campus awareness of educational opportunities, research projects, services, and resources
available to this population are interactive challenges students with disabilities may face.
Student identity is a secondary theme as various levels of saliency are often associated
with different aspects of one’s identity construction. As shown in the conceptual framework
image, students’ disability status is not a sole component of identity, rather, disability is its own
theme that overlaps with one’s racial, ethnic, sexual, immigration and economic identity. In fact,
students may often face competing identity salience based on context. Moreover, not all students
with disabilities identify as part of the differently-abled population; this is especially true for
students with non-visible disabilities. In other words, a student may be aware that their
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
14
impairment, say ADHD, is disabling in one context (math) and not another (art). Although aware
of such a disability, a conscientious effort may be made by the student to reject ADHD as an
integral part of their identity (Banks & Hughes, 2013).
Lastly, disability construction is an interacting factor in its conceptualization at the
postsecondary institutional level and within the students’ understanding and acceptance of such
labels. The theme is intentionally placed to overlap as not all impairments are disabilities and not
all disabilities are considered impairments (Peña, Stapleton, & Schaffer, 2016). Additionally,
how students construct meaning of their disability and the forms in which the institution engages
with such identities further influences the students’ own disability process and the degree to
which they are satisfied with varying degrees of their institutional experience.
In this conceptual map three thematic factors are shown to be associated with a student’s
disability experience within their postsecondary institution. The overlap is meant to visually
represent the intersectionality of the disability process as more than a medical model perspective
of impairment that is often void of a student’s own identity and meaningful understanding of
their ability status. Rather, the concepts overlap and interact, as a student’s perception of their
disability being an equally essential element of the campus community is influenced by their
own experience within the institution’s campus climate and educational satisfaction, in addition
to their prior experiences that transcend and may outright conflict with their disability status.
Primarily, the ecological overlapping is meant to identify the interwoven processes
between: a) institutional factors (e.g., campus climate and educational satisfaction) that influence
how students perceive, interact and either accept or reject their disability as welcomed by their
institution and; b) disabilities as a social construction that students must actively engage in to
then construct meaning within their experienced impairment that may or may not be self-
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
15
accepted as a disability and; c) the integrative or conflictory nature of ones’ self-identity as the
saliency for one may be directly at odds with another e.g., race, ethnicity, and disability, etc.
Key Terms and Definitions
Campus Climate
A clear definition for campus climate has not been systematically defined nor
operationalized across all published studies. In fact, most research pertaining to campus climate is
university specific and often remains internal to the college for institutional changes. In a study
examining all accessible research articles pertaining to campus climate, Hart and Fellabaum (2008)
found that most studies were conducted internally, were quantitative in nature and focused
primarily on gender, race and ethnicity as a gauge for measuring diversity initiatives as integral to
campus climate as a construct. In examining the definitions available for campus climate, it was
noted that published studies often interchanged campus climate with campus culture, although both
concepts are conceptually distinct. As a result, Hart and Fellabaum (2008) recommended through
their analysis that an ideal model for campus climate should include a:
"…historical legacy of diversity; the social structural or demographic diversity of the
campus; the perceptions of campus climate by all campus constituencies; and the lived
experiences and behaviors of the members of the campus community." (p. 233).
Similarly, the definition provided by Chapman (2010) aligns well with that of Hart and
Fellabaum (2008) which arose from Chapman’s examination of the campus climate scales in the
University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey (UCUES). Chapman (2010) notes the
following definition:
“…perceived campus environment as a direct result of diversity interactions, structural
diversity, and institutional characteristics; and an indirect result of structural diversity and
institutional characteristics through diversity interactions. The model examines the various
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
16
dimensions of diversity independently and collectively in recognition that diversity is
measured by more than race and ethnicity.” (p. 9).
The UCUES survey specifically asks students to rate their perceptions of inclusivity on the
basis of race, gender, sexuality, immigration and disability status, among other important facets of
student identities (Chapman, 2010; “UCUES Data Tables”, 2018) which affords students the
ability to interpret their experiences in relation to macro and micro levels of campus diversity
and inclusivity beyond the confines of race and gender.
In this study, the definition offered by Chapman (2010), is utilized when referring to
campus climate as it incorporates the experiences of students with disabilities. This is done so as it
more clearly operationalizes the construct into practical measures of student beliefs about their
campus climate through their interactions with faculty by means of instructional practices, attitudes
towards students of diverse demographic backgrounds, and the degree to which peers and faculty
rate their institutions respect for diversity and inclusivity at their university.
Student Satisfaction
Much like campus climate, student satisfaction does not have a clear definition, instead, it is
arguably a multilayered construct which includes a series of broad student experiences within the
college setting (Schreiner & Nelson, 2013; Strahan & Credé, 2015). Conceptually, satisfaction
can be understood to be influenced by a student’s social experiences, interpersonal relationships
and integration to their campus’s social life (Schreiner & Nelson, 2013; Fleming, Oertle, Plotner
& Hakun, 2017). Satisfaction is associated with predictability of student retention as it measures
student’s fulfillment with their educational cost, academic performance and overall willingness
to re-enroll for another academic term (Schreiner & Nelson, 2013; Strahan & Credé, 2015).
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
17
For the purpose of this study, student satisfaction is defined as: An individuals’ attitudes
toward their satisfaction with their college experience, a construct which includes the following
facets: (1) Sense of Belonging, (2) Educational Value, (3) Academic Experience/Performance,
(4) Social Experience, (5) Enrollment, (6) Diversity and Inclusion (Schreiner & Nelson, 2013;
Strahan & Credé, 2015; Fleming, Oertle, Plotner & Hakun, 2017).
Disability Status
The term disability status refers to individuals with physical conditions that may affect a
person’s ability to move about, to use arms and legs effectively, to swallow food, and to breathe
unaided (Black and Pretes, 2007). Such limitations may also be evident in other areas such as
vision, speech, language, hearing, and bowel movement (Abes & Wallace, 2018). Disability
status is also used to incorporate students with disabilities that are often not visible to others,
which includes cognitive, emotional and neurological conditions. The terms invisible and hidden
disability may be used interchangeably throughout this research study. First, to more accurately
understand what is meant by students with disabilities, this research study will use the definition
under The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 in conjunction with the American
Disabilities Act of 2008, which expanded upon the definition of a “disability” under Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to that of any “physical and/or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more major life activities” (Coduti et al., 2016, p. 288). Major life
activities then include various forms of communication, such as seeing, hearing, speaking, and
thinking in addition to learning (Coduti et al., 2016). The population within the disability
community include students with physical, autoimmune disorders, learning, neurobehavioral and
psychological conditions which have distinct differences, but nevertheless, may overlap in how
students learn, process information, and perform academically, as well as access physical spaces.
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
18
Students with learning disabilities are reported as the most common form of disability by
postsecondary institutions at 31% of the population (McGregors et al., 2016). To better
understand what is meant by learning disability, the definition by McGregors et al., (2016) is
used, in that Learning Disabled is:
“. . . a heterogeneous group of disorders manifested by significant difficulties in the
acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning, or mathematical
abilities. These disorders are intrinsic to the individual, presumed to be due to central
nervous system dysfunction, and may occur across the life span” (p. 90)
Similarly, postsecondary students with a neurobehavioral diagnosis of attention deficit
disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADD/ADHD) are reported to comprise 18%
of the population whereas psychiatric or psychological conditions, such as chronic depression,
bipolar and anxiety disorders are roughly estimated to account for 15% of the postsecondary
population with a hidden disability (Coduti et al., 2016; McGregors et al., 2016). En masse, these
populations comprise approximately more than 70 percent of the student population on a college
campus with a disability (Banks, 2014; Koch, Mamiseishvili, & Wilkins, 2016; Knight, Wessel, &
Markle, 2018) and are referred to as students with hidden disabilities as living in the shadows
becomes a reality for most when their symptoms can be largely unseen or unnoticed by their
peers and faculty members.
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter provides a comprehensive review of the literature related to the subject matter
of this study, which is the relationship between perceptions of campus climate and satisfaction for
students with disabilities in their postsecondary institution. The chapter begins by examining
students with disabilities as a uniquely unexplored college population. This is followed by a review
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
19
of the relevant literature on demographics such as race/ethnicity, gender, sexuality and immigration
status, and the experiences of students with disabilities in a college setting. Additionally, the
current literature on the role campus climate and satisfaction has on the reported experiences for
students with disabilities within the university setting is presented. Lastly, specific research
questions and corresponding hypotheses for the study are proposed.
Population Overview
Postsecondary institutions across the nation have witnessed an increase in the population
of students with disabilities. The access to postsecondary education for students with disabilities
may, in part, be attributed to civil rights legislation that has, in many aspects, granted greater
opportunities to higher education programs for qualified students with disabilities (Wolf, 2011;
Collins & Mowbray, 2008). At the college level, although access has been afforded, students with
disabilities experience distinct differences in the process by which they can receive supportive
services, such as academic accommodations. That is due to differences in the legislative mandates
set forth for both secondary and postsecondary institutions. For example, the K-12 educational
system is governed by Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).
For secondary schools, the primary goal and purpose of these legislative measures is to
ensure that all eligible students with disabilities have available a Free Appropriate Public
Education (FAPE), including special education and related services (IDEA). For example, in
California, School districts are responsible for providing trained personnel to assess eligibility
and plan educational services to all students, including: infants, children, and youth (0 through
21 years) with disabilities (“California Department of Education”, 2019). At the secondary
level, these legislative policies mandate schools be proactive in identifying students with
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
20
disabilities and provide services within an individualized education plan (IEP) or section 504
plan that outlines any modification of educational content, programs, and benefits with semi-
annual and annual reviews taking place. The IEP meeting may consists, largely, of those
representing the student, such as their parent(s) or legal guardian with the team of special
education services coordinator, teachers, advocates and, in some cases, the student themselves.
In contrast, postsecondary institutions adhere to The Vocational Rehabilitation Act of
1973, Section 504 and the American with Disabilities Act, and The ADA Amendments Act of
2008 (ADA-AA) that amended the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and other
disability nondiscrimination laws at the Federal level of the United States (“United States
Government, Department of Justice”, 2016; “U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission”,
2009). Together, these policies outline the process by which a college campus is to assess if a
student meets the criteria for a disability and if such a disability would qualify a student for
reasonable academic accommodations (Wolf, 2006). In particular, Section 504 (subpart E) of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), ensure
that no otherwise qualified person with a disability be “denied access to, or the benefits of, or
be subjected to discrimination by any program or activity provided by any public institution or
entity” (“United States Government, Department of Justice”, 2016; “U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission”, 2009).
Within the postsecondary setting, students must then self-disclose their disability to the
appropriate office, provide documentation of their condition when necessary, and register with
their Office of Disabilities to receive reasonable accommodations (Newman & Madaus, 2015).
Nonetheless, students remain hesitant irrespective of these protections and of the positive
association between self-disclosure and student academic persistence (Kim & Lee, 2016). Students
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
21
with disabilities have been found to be particularly at-risk during their first-year experience, those
with learning disabilities reporting lower GPA levels (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2012) while
students with psychological disabilities uniquely facing greater social and academic isolation
(Koch, Mamiseishvili, &Wilkins, 2016), overall resulting in a greater likelihood of prematurely
withdrawing from their institution (Mamiseishvilli & Koch, 2011) permanently.
Much of the students with disabilities in a postsecondary setting are those with hidden or
physically unseen differences in learning, psychological wellbeing and neurological development
(Peña, Stapleton, & Schaffer, 2016). For example, the National Center for Educational Statistics
(2012) survey data suggests that 11 percent of students in postsecondary institutions are reported
to have a disability, with 31 percent within the learning disabilities category, 18 percent with
attention deficit and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and 15 percent with psychiatric
conditions (NCES, 2012). Students with other health impairments, mobility and traumatic brain
injuries comprise the remainder of the population. Yet, in spite of being the one of the fastest
growing populations across college campuses, students with disabilities remain vastly
unexplored in terms of factors that impact student’s success beyond that of accessing academic
accommodations (Murray, Lombardi, & Kosty, 2014; Knight, Wessel, & Markle, 2018).
Emerging research is finding that students with disabilities report unique experiences
related to their postsecondary campus climate and levels of educational satisfaction.
Unfortunately, academic adjustments tend to be the sole focal area of most college campuses
when referring to supports offered to students with varying degrees of disabilities across
postsecondary institutions (Koch, Mamiseishvili, & Wilkins, 2016; Aker, Nowik, 2012; Fleming,
Oertle, Plotner, & Hakun, 2017). However, contrary to postsecondary legally mandated
practices, student’s satisfaction with their college experience (Fleming, Oertle, Plotner, &
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
22
Hakun, 2017) and the campus climate, which includes overall attitudes and faculty interactions
(Hart & Fellabaum, 2008) seems to be more predictive of students with hidden disabilities
overall college experience (Koch, Mamiseishvili, & Wilkins, 2016; Aker, Nowik, 2012;
Fleming, Oertle, Plotner, & Hakun, 2017) and potential retention rates, than simply having
academic adjustments.
Disability Status
The term disability status refers to individuals with visible (e.g., physical) or hidden (e.g.,
psychological) conditions that may affect a person’s ability to move about, have control of their
digestive system; experience substantial neurological and cognitive delays; depression, or other
limiting conditions that substantially impact areas such as sustained thinking, processing, and
communicating (Black and Pretes, 2007; ADAAA, 2008), amongst other areas of daily
functioning.
Disabilities in Higher Education
Historically, postsecondary schools have faced particular challenges in supporting the
success of students from underrepresented communities (McCallister, Wilson & Baker, 2014).
This is especially true for students with disabilities (Peña, Stapleton and Schaffer, 2016). Since
the inception of the Americans with Disabilities Act (especially Section 504), institutions of
higher education have witnessed an increase in enrollment of students with disabilities on their
campuses, with one in ten of the overall student population self-reporting to have a disability
(Mamiseishvili & Koch, 2011). For example, Pena (2014) found that California alone
experienced a twenty percent increase from 1999 to 2007 in enrollment of students with
disabilities. Similarly, other researchers have found that students with learning and psychiatric
disabilities, which are considered invisible or hidden disabilities, are largely underreported by
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
23
students (Troiano, Liefeld & Trachtenberg, 2010; Parks & Shulte, 2009). Subsequently, it is
estimated that anywhere between 9 to 24 percent of the student population may have some form
of disability on a college campus (Miskovic & Gabe, 2012; McCallister et al., 2014) and may be
enrolled in more than 99 percent of universities and colleges in the United States (Conduti,
Hayes, Locke & Youn, 2016), with the vast majority having hidden conditions.
Although access and enrollment has been increased for students with disabilities into
institutions of higher education within the past decade, that does not necessarily mean that
students with disabilities have been successful within institutions of higher education
(McGregor, Langenfeld, Horn, Oleson, Anson and Jacobson, 2016; Peña et al., 2016). Many
students with physical disabilities, such as visual impairments, are generally forced to have to
request academic adjustments in order to access classrooms reading material and university
websites (Abreu, Hillier, Frye, & Goldstein, 2016), thus significantly limiting daily access to the
most typical experiences afforded to those without disabilities. Students with limited mobility
may face hurdles to enter and exit buildings, find accessible restrooms, access physical spaces
during campus events and engage in daily academic tasks (Sanchez, 2018).
Students with hidden disabilities such as learning and psychiatric disorders, which are the
most common forms of student disabilities on a college campus (McCallister et al., 2014), remain
less likely to disclose their disability to their post-secondary institution (Troiano, Liefeld &
Trachtenberg, 2010; Parks & Shulte, 2009). Moreover, this distinct population of students remain
significantly understudied and highly marginalized within postsecondary institutions (Peña et al.,
2016; Parks & Shulte, 2009; Denhart 2008). This is considerably problematic for institutions of
higher education seeing that students with invisible disabilities are believed to be less likely to
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
24
establish relationships with faculty members, engage in self-advocacy skills and report lower levels
of adjustment than nondisabled students (Vaccaro, Daly-Cano & Newman, 2015).
For instance, Mamiseishvili and Kock (2012), in their study of persistence amongst
students with disabilities at two-year postsecondary institutions, found that half (50.6) percent of
the 890 students in their study “withdrew by the end of the third year” (p. 328). Moreover, students
with invisible disabilities, such as psychiatric disorders, are at particular risk of withdrawing from
postsecondary institutions within the first three years (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2012;
Miskovic & Gabel, 2012; Hartley, 2010). Reasons for which are often within the impairment
themselves: low affect, motivation, disinterest in academics, and difficulty concentrating or
following through on task, such as attending class and submitting course work. Students with as
psychological conditions may also be challenged with feelings of isolation, loneliness and social
difficulties (Kadison & DiGeronimo, 2004) . The research on the impact of not completing a
postsecondary education is well established in that one’s access to social, financial and overall
economic mobility becomes vastly limited (Mamiseishvili & Koch, 2011).
As the population of students with disabilities increases at four-year institutions, there are
specific challenges faced by this marginalized group that sets them largely apart from other
underrepresented communities (Hong, 2015; Conduti et al., 2016; Peña et al., 2016). One prime
example is outlined in a study by Lombardi, Murray and Gerdes (2012) in which they found that
although first-generation college students and students with disabilities shared similar
postsecondary outcomes: low retention rates, poor levels of adjustment and overall academic
challenges, students with invisible disabilities reported experiences uniquely related to their
disability that further impacted their academic success. Specifically, perceived discrimination,
misunderstanding of disability by faculty and social stigma associated with hidden disabilities,
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
25
such as learning and mental health disorders in particular, impacted students’ willingness to seek
out academic resources (Mamiseishvili & Koch, 2011; Herbert, Hong, Byun, Welsh, Hurz &
Atkinson, 2014). In other words, institutional climate related to the negative perceptions of
invisible disabilities, especially mental health disorders, impacts a student’s willingness to disclose
their disability to their college, faculty, staff and peers and further limits their educational
opportunities relative to those without disabilities.
Students’ willingness to disclose their disability is quite significant, since the lack of such
disclosure is associated with their low participation in establishing faculty relationships, which
proves imperative in accessing such things as student research opportunities and letters of
recommendation from faculty and networking opportunities (McGregor et al., 2016). It is
important to note that disclosure is more than simply discussing ones’ needs in terms of
academic adjustments. In many cases, disclosure means not hiding ones’ disability for fear of
discrimination or retribution in experiencing limited opportunities.
As a result of doing so, student engagement dwindles and overall satisfaction with
campus life suffers (Herbert et al., 2014; McGegor et al., 2016). Unfortunately, for students with
invisible disabilities, social stigma associated with disabilities that cannot be physically seen by
others, negatively impacts a student’s decision to not only seek services on campus (Murray,
Lombardi & Kosty, 2014; Peña et al., 2016), but also to register with disabled student programs
(Hatley, 2010) and request reasonable accommodations they are legally entitled to (Murray,
Lombardi & Kosty, 2014; Peña et al., 2016; Hatley, 2010). Consequently, for postsecondary
institutions, this is an especially important problem to address as the low rates of self-disclosure
amongst students with invisible disabilities has been found to correlate to students’ greater sense of
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
26
alienation and academic failure from postsecondary institutions (Vaccaro, Daly-Cano et al., 2015;
Troiano, et al., 2010).
More importantly, many of these campus climate and satisfaction factors that may
influence a student’s decision to disclose cannot be addressed by a disability office nor adjusted
through the accommodation process. For example, a faculty member cannot be forced to provide a
student with a disability an internship opportunity or a research study position, solely on the basis
of a disability. Students with disabilities, like all students, must meet the admittance criteria into
any program. Nevertheless, campus stigma and assumptions of abilities students with disabilities
may possess are associated with the greater climate of the university. As a result, students with
hidden disabilities may forego various opportunities that are essential to further expanding a
student’s academic skills, solely based on false ability assumptions by faculty, instructors and
peers.
Intersection of Disability, Race/Ethnicity and other Identities
Although the number of students with disabilities has increased, this unique population
remains largely unmentioned as encompassing of diversity initiatives. Instead, it is a group vastly
unexplored and draped in the confinement of being defined by their medical impairments (Kimball
et al., 2016). This is especially true for racial and ethnic populations that have been historically
marginalized, who may not perceive their impairment as a disability nor consider themselves as a
member of the disabilities community, resulting in a lesser likelihood of self-disclosure (Banks &
Hughes, 2013; Banks, 2014). For example, Peña, Stapleton and Schaffer (2016) argue that the
experiences of students with disabilities has historically not been perceived as a diversity
population but rather as a population that is often recognized through a lens of medical impairment
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
27
and functional limitations, regularly ignoring their intersecting identities of race, class, gender and
sexuality.
Yet, despite the growing number of students with disabilities, experiences of students of
color beyond accommodations and functional limitations remains largely ignored (Banks &
Hughes, 2013; Jones et al., 2015). Cheng, Kwan and Sevig (2013) explored the effects of
psychological distress and psychocultural variables (i.e., ethnic identity, other-group orientation)
on perceived stigmatization by others and self-stigma for seeking psychological help, using a
sample 260 African American, 166 Asian American, and 183 Latino American students. Their
study revealed that across all 3 groups, higher levels of psychological distress and perceived
racial/ethnic discrimination, respectively, predicted higher levels of perceived stigmatization by
others for seeking psychological help, which, in turn, predicted greater self-stigma for seeking
psychological support. Given the relationship between stigma, race/ethnicity and seeking
psychological help—an extension of disability services—this study provides a parallel as the
largest growing population amongst the disability community are those with psychological
impairments.
Similarly, Koch, Mamiseishvili and Wilkins (2016) found that for students with
psychological conditions, the dropout rate seems to be reportedly higher in comparison to
students with other hidden disabilities (e.g., ADHD/LD) and students without disabilities.
Moreover, they noted that more than a quarter of students with psychiatric disabilities came from
low-income backgrounds, and more than half of students with psychiatric disabilities were first-
generation college students (Koch, Mamiseishvili, & Wilkins, 2016).
In all, students of color with hidden disabilities continue to report lower levels of
educational satisfaction (Peña, Stapleton et al., 2016; Miskovic & Gabel, 2012), overall academic
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
28
integration (Koch, Mamiseishvili, & Wilkins, 2016) and positive perception of campus climate
(Murray, Lombardi, & Kosty, 2014). Consequently, students of color with disabilities are not
only less likely to self-disclose and/or identity as a person with a disability (Banks, 2014) but are
also more likely to experience feelings of isolation due to misconceptions of limited intellectual
capability related to one’s disability status (Banks, & Hughes, 2013).
Disability Status and Campus Climate
Campus climate has been associated with the college persistence of various
underrepresented and marginalized student populations across postsecondary institutions
(Murray, Lombardi, and Kosty, 2014). Campus climate is made of many ecological factors, of
which, includes faculty perceptions of diversity and inclusion for one’s culture, gender and
disability status (Murray, Lombardi, and Kosty, 2014; Chapman 2010). For students with
disabilities, campus climate factors seem to be more heavily correlated with student’s college
experience and consequently, their persistence, than academic accommodations (Murray,
Lombardi, and Kosty, 2014) alone. Nevertheless, academic adjustments tend to be the sole focal
support system offered to students with disabilities across college campuses (Murray, Lombardi,
and Kosty, 2014) often ignoring that not only do most students not seek academic
accommodations but many of their experiences are outside the scope of any adjustments.
The exclusion of students with disabilities as an extension of diversity campus initiatives
short-changes an ever-increasing student body from being adequately included throughout
campus life. A student’s experience with faculty attitudes, beliefs and personal interactions
colors their perceptions of the college campus climate, which seems to be more predictive of
their ability to adequately adjust to campus life (Murray, Lombardi, and Kosty, 2014). In turn,
college adjustment for students with disabilities is highly associated with their academic
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
29
performance (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2012), the degree to which they engage positively
with their peers (Jones, Brown, Keys & Salzer, 2015), and their willingness to establish faculty
relationships (Koch, Mamiseishvili, &Wilkins, 2016; O'Shea & Meyer, 2016), all of which
greatly impact college persistence.
The full integration of an underrepresented population cannot be understated; it is
estimated that students with disabilities withdraw at higher rates than other at-risk populations
(Koch, Mamiseishvili & Wilkins, 2016) and take longer to graduate than students without a
disability (Knight, Wessel & Markle, 2018). As previously noted, academic adjustments in
isolation are insufficient for students with disabilities given that the majority choose not to
register with their disability office. One argument is that campus climate is not only experienced
on a broader macro level of campus life by students, instead, many facets of campus climate,
ergo the belief and commitment to campus diversity, are experienced at a micro level: the
classroom.
Faculty attitudes about the integration of students with disabilities as a diversity group is
indicative as to how students with disabilities experience their college classroom. This notion is
suggested in the findings by Barnard, Stevens, Siwatu, and Lan (2008) in which faculty members
with strong diversity beliefs reported lower levels of positive attitudes towards students with
disabilities. In other words, faculty members who placed a high importance in their belief for
campus diversity may indeed hold onto a stronger deficit view of those with disabilities. The
deficit perspective, Barnard, Stevens, Siwatu and Lan (2008) argue, may lead to perceiving
students with disabilities as individualized problems that are an added burden on the instructor.
In contrast, ones’ belief in the importance for campus diversity as an asset-based perspective,
which at its core, is the notion that students arrive with added benefits to the classroom. Asset-
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
30
based thinking is a philosophy that translates as being less problematic for it requires very little
instructional labor on the part of the faculty member.
Similarly, Lombardi, Murray, and Gerdes, (2011) investigated college faculty perceptions
of students with disabilities and inclusive instruction, their findings suggested that faculty
agreed, in sentiment, with inclusive classroom practices that included academic adjustments.
However, in practice, the sentiment and the implementations of such practices were inconsistent.
For example, researchers found that faculty expressed a willingness to provide minor
accommodations (i.e., extended exam time) but were opposed to providing what they perceived
to be major accommodations, which ranged from course documents in an alternative format to
adjusting course assignments or attendance requirements (Lombardi & Murray, 2011) for
students with unpredictable medical conditions.
These findings are similar to those by Aker, Boland, and Nowik (2012) which indicated
that the nature of student-and-faculty interaction is a significant factor in students’ decisions to
secure additional support for a disability-related need. This is an important facet in constructing
positive perceptions of classroom climate for students with disabilities (Aker, Boland, & Nowik,
2012). Not all perceptions of campus climate and diversity are created equally; Aker, Boland,
and Nowik (2012) note that students and faculty perceptions on the experiences of students with
disabilities within the classroom setting remain incongruent. For example, students with
disabilities are hesitant to disclose their disability to faculty members due to variety of reasons,
of which, stigma of their disability was often reported (Aker, Boland, & Nowik, 2012) and
official procedures, such as registering with the disability’s office, were often avoided.
In contrast, faculty perceive the classroom culture as not too dissimilar for students with
or without disabilities. This may be influenced by their belief in personally perceiving academic
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
31
accommodations as reasonable although incongruent in their pedagogical practices as they are
hesitant to implement said academic adjustments (Aker, Boland, & Nowik, 2012; Lombardi &
Murray, 2011; Lombardi, Murray & Gerdes, 2011) nor have an adequate understanding of their
legal obligations pertaining to implementing academic accommodations (O'Shea & Meyer,
2016). Consequently, the lack of faculty knowledge and professional development may
negatively impact the perception of a positive classroom climate for students with disabilities
(O'Shea & Meyer, 2016). Campus climate is highly correlated with the importance campuses
place on diversity initiatives, of which, representation of students with disabilities remain largely
non-existent. Yet, campus climate has been found to be one of the top most important rated
support factors by students with disabilities across postsecondary institutions (Murray,
Lombardi, & Kosty, 2014). In many cases, accommodations are not perceived to be part of the
campus climate. Instead, integration of inclusive pedagogical practices with an awareness for
students with hidden disabilities that is a welcoming environment and suggests faculty enjoy
establishing relationship with the disability population (Murray, Lombardi, & Kosty, 2014;
O'Shea & Meyer, 2016) seems to be rated of higher value.
Disability Status and Student Satisfaction
To thrive in higher education, students with disabilities need to feel greater sense of
satisfaction with their college experience, and that begins with their sense of campus social
integration. A study by Jones, Brown, Keys and Salzer, (2015) found that students with
disabilities whom reported strong social supports were more likely to overcome challenges.
Moreover, the same researchers also found that their sense of connectedness to the campus
community was more predictive of their college persistence than simply receiving academic
accommodations for their symptoms related to their disability. Similarly, Strahan and Credés
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
32
(2015) findings indicated that a student’s level of satisfaction with their college was associated
with a moderate to strong relationship with student retention rates and intentions to re-enroll for
the following academic term.
Students from marginalized groups have been found to be successful when their sense of
satisfaction with their college experience is positive. In one 2013 study, Banks and Hughes
interviewed African American students with hidden disabilities on a college campus. They noted
that students with disabilities felt empowered to persist once they established a positive narrative
for both their racial and disability identity within their campus setting. These students reported
feeling connected to their campus by having a faculty member who not only valued their
participation in class, but also reaffirmed their sense of identity as a student with a disability as
being an asset rather than a deficit. Students with a sense of membership and belonging reported
better coping skills (Banks & Hughes, 2013) and willingness to seek out support when they
experience academic or social challenges that may arise due to (often unpredictable) symptoms
related to their disability (Cheng, Kwan & Sevig, 2013).
That is, students of marginalized groups report a greater sense of satisfaction when they
feel they have greater ownership within their campus experience (Fleming, Oertle, Plotner &
Hakun, 2017), validation from their faculty (Murray, Lombardi & Kosty, 2014), connection to
their peers and agency within the larger campus community (Vaccaro, Daly-Cano et al., 2015).
This is especially true for students with disabilities as Vaccaro, Daly-Cano (2015) noted that self-
advocacy, both within the postsecondary institution and outside of a campus setting, was increased
when students with disabilities felt visible and included, all facets related to student satisfaction.
More precisely, a student’s sense of belonging enhanced their sense of agency to establish positive
peer relationships and engage in academic challenges (Vaccaro, Daly-Cano et al., 2015). Of great
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
33
importance in these findings were that students also reported establishing a positive student
identity within their postsecondary institution and a greater sense of academic mastery (Vaccaro,
Daly-Cano et al., 2015) when they experience higher social integration and satisfaction with their
educational experience (Jones, Brown, Keys & Salzer, 2015).
Summary of Literature Review
An increasing number of students with disabilities have enrolled in colleges and
universities across the United States since 1973, largely due to the opportunities provided by the
passage of disability laws that mandate accommodations be provided to students with
documented disabilities (Peña, Stapleton, & Schaffer, 2016; Rao, 2004). Yet, a large number of
students forego registration with their disability office and in submitting requests for academic
adjustments; this is especially the case for students with hidden disabilities. For example, Dong,
Shengli, and Lucas, Margaretha S. (2014) found that students with psychological conditions are
less likely to seek academic accommodations with approximately only 10 percent of the
population doing so. Similarly, Abreu, Hillier, Frye, and Goldstein, (2016) results indicated that
students with disabilities not only took longer to graduate but for those that received academic
adjustment provided through the students with disabilities office, such services were often
underutilized.
In fact, research suggests retention rates for students with disabilities are more likely to
be influenced by their perceptions of campus climate and levels of educational satisfaction
within their academic institution, than academic adjustment alone (Abreu, Hiller, Frye, &
Goldstein, 2016). Moreover, academic adjustments are moot given that interpersonal
relationships with peers and faculty as well as their overall classroom environment is beyond the
purview of a disability office. That is, unlike classroom materials, campus life experiences
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
34
related to its climate are not amenable or influenced through the disability office as no academic
accommodation can modify the very nature of relationships with peers and faculty that then
impacts a student’s level of satisfaction with their institution. Moreover, a student’s sense of
belonging, related to satisfaction, cannot be accommodated. This is but one area that establishes
the need to move disabilities beyond the foci on the accommodation process and into the realm
of the institutional milieu, much like other marginalized populations, by beginning to explore the
reported experiences of students with disabilities related to their perceptions of their campus
climate and educational satisfaction.
Purpose of Study and Research Questions
The overarching purpose of this paper is to address the experiences amongst students with
disabilities in institutions of higher education. The primary goals of this study were to examine the
role campus climate and student satisfaction has on students with disabilities at their respective
postsecondary institutions. The foci of the population sample for this study is on students with any
form of self-reported disability, be it physical, invisible and/or hidden. The later refers to those
students with Learning Disabilities, ADHD and psychological disorders, that broadly describes
disabilities that others cannot physically see (Pena, 2014; Kruse et al., 1998; Mamiseishvili &
Koch, 2011). The disability population are of particular interest for two reasons: a) students with
disabilities are one of the largest growing student populations on college campuses and b) it is
believed they are less likely to report a positive perception of their campus climate and
satisfaction with their educational institution than those without disabilities.
In order to determine if a relationship existed between the key variables of the study, the
following specific questions and hypotheses were addressed in this study:
Research Question 1:
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
35
Is there a difference by disability status in perception of campus climate when compared
to those without a disability?
Hypothesis 1a: Those with disabilities will have a more negative perception of campus
climate than those without disabilities.
Hypothesis 1b: Those with disabilities will differ in their perception of campus climate
based on their gender.
Hypothesis 1c: Those with disabilities will differ in their perception of campus climate
based on their resident status.
Hypothesis 1d: Those with disabilities will differ in their perception of campus climate
based on their ethnicity.
Research Question 2:
Is there a difference by disability status in levels of student satisfaction when compared to
those without a disability?
Hypothesis 2a: Those with disabilities will report a lower level of satisfaction with
education than those without disabilities.
Hypothesis 2b: Those with disabilities will report a lower level of satisfaction with social
experiences than those without disabilities.
Hypothesis 2c: Those with disabilities will differ in their level of satisfaction based on
their gender.
Hypothesis 2d: Those with disabilities will differ in their level of satisfaction based on
their resident status.
Hypothesis 2e: Those with disabilities will differ in their level of satisfaction based on
their ethnicity.
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
36
Research Question 3:
Does campus climate predict student satisfaction scores among those with a disability?
Hypothesis 3a: Campus climate will predict satisfaction scores for students with
disabilities.
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This study investigated the relationship between disability status (those with disabilities
and those without) across campus climate and educational satisfaction on students within the
postsecondary setting. This chapter will review the methods utilized in conducting this study. First,
relevant demographic characteristics of participants will be discussed. Second, the measures used
to operationalize constructs and collect data will be examined. Finally, recruitment and data
collection procedures will be explained.
Background of the UCUES Study Participants
The 2016-2017 University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey (UCUES) was
utilized for this study. The UCUES is a standardized biennial survey conducted at UC’s nine
undergraduate campuses and is sent to all undergraduate students (“UCUES”, 2018). The 2016-
2017 UCUES survey was completed by 63,129 undergraduate students with a response rate of 38
percent (“UCUES Data Tables”, 2018) from their 191,095-undergraduate student population
(“University of California at a Glance”, 2018). The UCUES collects information about student
behaviors such as their use of time working, studying, socializing, and participating in campus
activities; their level of academic engagement; their self-ratings of academic and interpersonal
skills; and their involvement in community service in addition to campus climate, educational
satisfaction, perceived stigma and sense of belonging at their UC campus (“UCUES Data Tables.”,
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
37
2018). The UC system was selected because of its large undergraduate student population of more
than 216,000 (“Fall 2017 Enrollment at a Glance”, 2018).
Study Participants
In the fall 2017 enrollment period, females comprised 61% of the undergraduate population
with males accounting for 39% (Table 1). Racial and ethnic demographics were as follows:
Asian/Pacific Islanders comprised 32% of the undergraduate student population; White students
accounted for 25%; the Hispanic population represented 24%; 6% was made up of multiple races;
and African American at 2% of the undergraduate student population. Additionally, 86% were
residents with 14% reported non-residency status (Table 1). A student’s residency status is defined
by one of four categories: CA resident, Non-CA resident, Foreign/International, or Unknown
(“UCUES Data Tables”, 2018). Students that answered the question, “learning, physical, or
psychological disabilities like mine” represented 59% of the population with “not applicable” at
34% of the population (Table 1).
Table 1
Study Participants
Participants Frequency Percent
Gender Male 24,302 38.5
Female 38,624 61.2
Missing 124 .02
Total 63,129 100.0
Race/Ethnicity Asian 19,988 31.7
Black 1,375 2.2
Hispanic 15,234 24.1
Multiple Races 3,592 5.7
White 15,992 25.3
Total 62,926 100.0
Resident Status Resident 54, 571 86.4
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
38
Non-resident 8,557 13.6
Total 63,129 100.0
Disability Status No Disability 21,304 33.7
Disability 37,065 58.7
Total 58,369 100.0
Measures
The UCUES is a standardized biennial survey conducted at UC’s nine undergraduate
campuses and is sent to all undergraduate students (“UCUES”, 2018). In most instances, students
were asked to indicate their level of agreement from 59 items using a 6-point Likert-type scale to
assess 6 domains related to campus climate for diversity and inclusion. The UCUES asks
students to rate their perceptions of campus diversity and inclusion through a series of statements
which describe the following sub-scales: (1) Diversity Awareness, (2) Cross-cultural Comfort,
(3) Faculty Prejudices, (4) Student Prejudices, (5) Inclusion of Other Cultures, (6) Value of
Diversity by the Institution (Chatman, 2010). Some sample statements from this instrument are
as follows: “Students of my sexual orientation are respected on this campus” and “In this
academic year, I have heard about teaching faculty or instructors express negative view about
learning or psychological disabilities.” (“UCUES Data Tables”, 2018).
As shown in Appendix A, students were provided an informed consent form prior to
participating in the survey and were notified that all survey responses would remain confidential.
The survey itself was divided into 12 core modular sections that are received by all nine-UC
campuses, including: 1) demographic information (Appendix B); 2) campus climate (Appendix C);
and 3) satisfaction. Detailed information on the survey instrument and variables used for this study
are described below.
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
39
Demographics. The demographics measured for this study were disability status,
ethnicity/race, gender, and resident status.
Disability status. Disability was calculated based on the item “Students with a physical,
psychological, or learning disability like mine are respected.” Those that responded with a not
applicable response were coded as not having a disability, while those that provided a response
were coded as having a disability.
Ethnicity/race. Ethnicity/race is a nominal measurement. The instrument identifies a
student’s race/ethnicity in one of seven categories (i.e., African American, American Indian,
Hispanic/Latino(a), Asian, White, International, or Unknown) based on UC’s spring term
enrollment data. Winter or fall term data is used if spring data is not available (“UCUES Data
Tables”, 2018).
Gender. Gender is a nominal measurement. The instruments indicate what sex a student
was assigned at birth, female or male, as reported in UC’s spring term enrollment data.
Residency status. Residency status is a nominal measurement. The instrument identifies
student’s resident status through one question: when did you come to the United States to live?
Options range from “I was born in the U.S.” to years beginning with 2000 or earlier and every year
thereafter listed as options for students to choose from.
Campus climate for diversity and inclusion. The 2016-2017 Campus Climate for
Diversity and Inclusion section of the University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey
(UCUES) was utilized for this study. The UCUES campus climate for diversity and inclusion is
proven to be high in reliability and validity. The coefficient alpha reliability of the UCUES campus
climate for diversity and inclusion questions in relation to expressed prejudice by faculty and staff
was .96, which signifies that it is reliable (Robinson Kurpius & Stafford, 2006). The UCUES
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
40
campus climate for diversity and inclusion also has face validity in that it appears to measure what
it intends to measure (Robinson Kurpius & Stafford, 2006). In addition, the UCUES has been used
in various studies, and has been cited by Chatman (2010) for his examination of campus climate
scales. Chatman (2010) notes that the conceptual model of this UCUES section describes:
“…perceived campus environment as a direct result of diversity interactions, structural
diversity, and institutional characteristics; and an indirect result of structural diversity and
institutional characteristics through diversity interactions. The model examines the various
dimensions of diversity independently and collectively in recognition that diversity is
measured by more than race and ethnicity.” (p. 9).
The UCUES was the most reasonable instrument to examine perceptions of campus climate
diversity and inclusion as its subscales ranged between .81 and .96 (Chatman, 2010) and it is
largely standardized across all nine UC campuses.
As part of campus climate, students are asked questions related to negative views about
disabilities from others. The frequency of experiencing negative views about disabilities was
measured across three sources: students, teaching faculty or instructors, and non-teaching staff or
administrators. Each source had a question about physical disabilities and another about learning
or psychological disabilities. An example question was “In this academic year, I have heard
teaching faculty or instructors express negative views about physical disabilities.” The response
scale was from 1 (never) to 6 (very often).
Thus, for the purpose of this study’s analysis, campus climate for diversity and inclusion
was measured using 13 items with a response scale for 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).
An example item is “Overall, I feel comfortable with the climate for diversity and inclusion in my
classes.” Cronbach’s alpha found in this study was .93.
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
41
Satisfaction. In the 2016-2017 University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey
(UCUES), participants were asked to indicate their level of Satisfaction through a series of 11
questions on a 6-point Likert-type scale, ranging from (very dissatisfied) to (very satisfied) and
(strongly agree) to (strongly disagree), which measures their level of campus belonging,
satisfaction with academic performance and overall value of their college experience. Sample
items include, “I feel that I belong at this university,” “I feel valued as an individual at this
institution,” and “At UC [CAMPUS], I have been excluded from study groups because of my
group membership.” (“UCUES Data Tables”, 2018). Additionally, “knowing what I know now,
I would still choose to enroll at this campus” is the type of question that has been used as an
indicator of students’ satisfaction with their experience in college, which has been found to be
related to other constructs such as persistence (Suhre, Jansen & Harskamp, 2007; Krumrei-
Mancuso et al., 2013).
Similarly, Oertle, Plotner, and Hakun (2017) utilized identical questions found in the
UCUES construct for satisfaction in which questions related to a sense of belonging were
associated with student satisfaction. For example, their analysis yielded a scale reliability for the
belonging score of .893 and found a significant relationship between belonging and student
satisfaction, which Fleming, Oertle, Plotner, and Hakun (2017), reported with a path estimate of
“0.64, p < .001” (p. 220). These results suggest that higher levels of belonging were associated
with higher levels of student satisfaction.
In this study, satisfaction was measured in two ways: the first refers to satisfaction with
education and the second as satisfaction with experiences. Together, these two variables measure
Satisfaction as one composite score. That is because the modules specifically ask students to
rater their satisfaction with education as measured using four statements with a response scale
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
42
from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 6 (very satisfied). An example statement was rating their “overall
academic experience.” Cronbach’s alpha found in this study was .76. Satisfaction with
experiences was measured using 7 items with a response scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6
(strongly agree). An example item was “I feel that I belong at this university.” Cronbach’s alpha
found in this study was .79.
Procedure
The 2016 UCUES was a standardized biennial survey conducted at UC’s nine
undergraduate campuses with required modules that are made available via e-mail and university
log-in accounts to all undergraduate students. The 2016-2017 UCUES survey was completed by
63,129 undergraduate students with a response rate of 38 percent (“UCUES Data Tables”, 2018)
from their 191,095-undergraduate student population (“University of California at a Glance”,
2018). The data is collected by each campus and submitted to the University California Office of
the President (UCOP). For the purposes of this study, the information received was stripped of any
identifying information, such as UC Campus, student identifications, and any other private or
confidential identifiers before being made available to the researcher.
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to investigate the difference by disability status in
perception of campus climate (Research Question 1), satisfaction with their education (Research
Question 2), and the predictability of campus climate on student satisfaction (Research Question
3). The study also examines whether individuals with disabilities differ in their perception of
campus climate or satisfaction with their education based on their gender, resident status, or
ethnicity. Lastly, the predictability of campus climate for student satisfaction was also analyzed.
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
43
The following chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the results of the study, descriptive
statistics of the sample, hypotheses tested and the analyses of the research questions.
Preliminary Analyses
Pearson zero-order correlations were conducted to examine the relationship between
perceptions of campus climate and students’ satisfaction with their education. Campus climate
scores were positively correlated with satisfaction scores (r = .42, p < .001). The satisfaction scale
and satisfaction with social experiences scale are also strongly positively correlated (r = .64, p <
.001).
Analysis of Research Questions
The main research questions are whether students with disabilities compared to students
without disabilities differ in their perceptions of campus climate and satisfaction with their
undergraduate experience. For Research Question 1, a factorial ANOVA was conducted with
disability status, ethnicity, gender, and residency status as independent variables and campus
climate perceptions as the dependent variable. For Question 2, a factorial MANOVA was
conducted with disability status, ethnicity, gender, and residency status as independent variables
and two satisfaction scores as dependent variables. The effect of disability status and interactions
with disability status and other independent variables are the main points of interest.
Research Question 1: is there a difference by disability status in perception of campus
climate when compared to those without a disability?
Hypothesis 1a: Those with disabilities will have a more negative perception of campus
climate than those without disabilities.
Hypothesis 1b: Those with disabilities will differ in their perception of campus climate
based on their gender.
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
44
Hypothesis 1c: Those with disabilities will differ in their perception of campus climate
based on their resident status.
Hypothesis 1d: Those with disabilities will differ in their perception of campus climate
based on their ethnicity.
Research Question 1 addresses whether students with disabilities compared to students
without disabilities differ in their perceptions of campus climate, as well as whether this varies
by gender, resident status, or ethnicity. A factorial ANOVA was conducted with disability status,
ethnicity, gender, and residency status as independent variables and campus climate perceptions as
the dependent variable (Table 2).
Table 2
Four-way Factorial ANOVA for Campus Climate
DV = Campus Climate
Effect df F p partial η
2
Disability Status 1, 52069 1.86 .173 .001
Resident Status 1, 52069 3.68 .055 .001
Gender 1, 52069 12.46 .000 .001
Ethnicity 4, 52069 45.72 .000 .003
Disability Status * Resident Status 1, 52069 1.30 .254 .001
Disability Status * Gender 1, 52069 0.35 .554 .001
Disability Status * Ethnicity 4, 52069 7.96 .000 .001
Resident Status * Gender 1, 52069 0.19 .661 .001
Resident Status * Ethnicity 4, 52069 0.86 .490 .001
Gender * Ethnicity 4, 52069 2.41 .047 .001
Disability Status * Resident Status * Gender 1, 52069 0.24 .627 .001
Disability Status * Resident Status * Ethnicity 4, 52069 5.56 .000 .001
Disability Status * Gender * Ethnicity 4, 52069 3.66 .006 .001
Resident Status * Gender * Ethnicity 4, 52069 0.67 .614 .001
Disability Status * Resident Status * Gender *
Ethnicity
4, 52069 3.75 .005 .001
Note. Interactions of variables examined are represented by *
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
45
The model was significant for the main effect of ethnicity (F(1, 52069) = 45.72, p < .001),
gender (F(1, 52069) = 12.46, p < .001), and resident status (F(1, 52069) = 3.68, p = .06). However,
there was no significant main effect for disability status on campus climate perceptions, so
Hypothesis 1a was not confirmed (F(1, 52069) = 1.86, p = .17).
There were also no significant interactions between disability status and gender (F(1,
52069) = .35, p = .55) or disability status and resident status (F(1, 49580) = 1.09, p = .30), so
Hypothesis 1b and 1c were not confirmed.
However, there was a significant two-way interaction between disability status and
ethnicity (F(4, 49580) = 7.54, p < .001), suggesting that Hypothesis 1d was confirmed. Simple
effects of disability status were run to analyze the interaction between disability status and
ethnicity on campus climate perceptions. There were no differences found between comparison of
Asians with disabilities to those without disabilities (F(1, 52140) = .06, p = .82) or Black students
with versus without disabilities (F(1, 52140) = 1.35, p = .25) in campus climate perception.
However, Hispanic (F(1, 52140) = 15.02, p < .001) students with disabilities reported higher
campus climate perception than Hispanics without disabilities; whereas Multi-racial (F(1, 52140) =
3.30, p = .07). and White students (F(1, 52140) = 3.59, p = .06) with disabilities reported a lower
perception of their campus climate in comparison to Multi-racial and White students without
disabilities, respectively. Figure 1 and table 3 are provided with means by ethnicity.
Figure 1. Differences for Campus Climate by Race/Ethnicity.
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
46
Table 3
Simple Effect Differences for Campus Climate by Ethnicity/Race
Disability No Disability
M SD M SD
Asian 4.54 .79 4.54 .76
Black 4.05 .97 3.99 .89
Hispanic 4.49 .92 4.44 .90
Multi-racial 4.54 .86 4.60 .79
White 4.71 .80 4.74 .77
There was also a significant three-way interaction between disability status, ethnicity, and
gender. The file was split by gender and simple effects of disability status were run to analyze
the three-way interaction. For Asian, Black, and Hispanic students, there seems to be a smaller
difference between those with a disability compared to those without disability for males and
females. However, multi-racial males with disabilities reported lower campus climate
perceptions compared to multi-racial males without disabilities. Meanwhile, White females with
disabilities reported lower campus climate perceptions than White females without disabilities
(Figure 2).
Figure 2. Differences for Campus Climate by Ethnicity/Race and Gender.
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
47
There was also a significant three-way interaction between disability status, ethnicity, and
residency status. Non-resident Asian students with a disability reported lower campus climate
perceptions compared to non-Resident Asian students without a disability; whereas there no
difference for Resident Asian students. For Black and Hispanic students, there seems to be a
significantly smaller difference between disabled vs. non-disabled residents and non-residents.
Multi-racial and White residents with a disability reported lower campus climate perceptions
compared to Multi-racial and White residents without a disability, respectively (Figure 3).
Last, there was a significant four-way interaction between disability status, ethnicity,
resident status, and gender. However, this should be taken with caution, considering there are
some cells with as little as 5 students in them (for example, Black non-resident students without
a disability).
Research Question 2: is there a difference by disability status in levels of student
satisfaction when compared to those without a disability?
Hypothesis 2a: Those with disabilities will report a lower level of satisfaction with
education than those without disabilities.
Figure 1. Differences for Campus Climate by Ethnicity/Race and Resident Status.
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
48
Hypothesis 2b: Those with disabilities will report a lower level of satisfaction with
experiences than those without disabilities.
Hypothesis 2c: Those with disabilities will differ in their level of satisfaction based on
their gender.
Hypothesis 2d: Those with disabilities will differ in their level of satisfaction based on
their resident status.
Hypothesis 2e: Those with disabilities will differ in their level of satisfaction based on
their ethnicity.
Research Question 2 addresses whether students with disabilities compared to students
without disabilities differ in their satisfaction, and whether this varies by gender, resident status,
or ethnicity. Two satisfaction scores are used as dependent variables: 1) an aggregate Satisfaction
scale that includes both satisfaction with academic and social experiences, and 2) a subscale of
Satisfaction that is focused on questions pertaining to social experiences, which excludes
satisfaction with academics. A factorial-MANOVA was run with the satisfaction score and
satisfaction with social experiences score as the dependent variables, and gender, ethnicity,
disability status, and residency status as the independent variables (Table 4).
Table 4
Four-way Factorial MANOVA for Satisfaction and Satisfaction with Social Experiences
DVs = Satisfaction and Satisfaction with Social Experiences
Effect df F p partial η
2
Disability Status 2, 49552 4.06 .017 .001
Resident Status 2, 49552 3.08 .046 .001
Gender 2, 49552 2.56 .077 .001
Ethnicity 8, 99106 32.79 .000 .003
Disability Status * Resident Status 2, 49552 1.92 .147 .001
Disability Status * Gender 2, 49552 .72 .487 .001
Disability Status * Ethnicity 8, 99106 3.47 .001 .001
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
49
Resident Status * Gender 2, 49552 .98 .377 .001
Resident Status * Ethnicity 8, 99106 .39 .928 .001
Gender * Ethnicity 8, 99106 1.93 .051 .001
Disability Status * Resident Status * Gender 2, 49552 1.71 .181 .001
Disability Status * Resident Status * Ethnicity 8, 99106 1.83 .066 .001
Disability Status * Gender * Ethnicity 8, 99106 1.10 .362 .001
Resident Status * Gender * Ethnicity 8, 99106 .94 .481 .001
Disability Status * Resident Status * Gender *
Ethnicity
8, 99106 1.35 .214 .001
Note. Interactions of variables examined are represented by *
For the overall model, there was a main effect of resident status (F(1, 49552) = 3.08, p =
.05, Pillai’s V = .001) and ethnicity (F(1, 49552) = 32.75, p < .001, Pillai’s V = .0005). Most
important, there was a main effect for disability status on satisfaction (F(1, 49552) = 4.06, p = .02,
Pillai’s V = .001). As previously noted, the satisfaction score incorporates the entire scale which
measure satisfaction with academics and social experiences. To have a better understanding, a
follow-up ANOVA for satisfaction revealed a significant effect for the Satisfaction scale score
(F(1, 49553) = 8.12, p = .004) and a marginally significant effect for the Satisfaction with Social
Experiences scale score (F(1, 49553) = 3.10, p = .08). Students with disability status report (M =
3.89, SD = .10) lower Satisfaction scores compared to non-disabled (M = 4.02, SD = .98) students,
confirming Hypothesis 2a. Students with disabilities also indicate lower Satisfaction with Social
Experiences (M = 4.28, SD = .85) compared to students without disabilities (M = 4.39, SD = .83),
confirming Hypothesis 2b.
However, in the overall model, there were no significant interactions between disability
status and resident status (F(4, 49552) = 1.92, p = .15) or disability status and gender (F(2, 49552)
= .72, p = .49), so Hypotheses 2c and 2d are not confirmed. There was a significant two-way
interaction between disability status and ethnicity, suggesting that Hypothesis 2e is confirmed (F(8,
99106) = 3.47, p = .001). Follow-up ANOVAs for the satisfaction revealed that the interaction was
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
50
significant for both the aggregate satisfaction (F(4, 49553) = 3.94, p = .003) and satisfaction with
social experiences (F(4, 49553) = 4.06, p = .003). Simple effects for disability status were also run
to analyze the interaction between disability status and ethnicity on satisfaction and satisfaction
with social experiences. Simple effects for both scales looked similar, so only simple effects for the
satisfaction score will be reported (the scale score for satisfaction is the entire scale, including
social experiences) below (Table 5). There were no significant differences for Black students with
disabilities compared to those without disabilities in Satisfaction. However, Asian (F(1, 49649) =
11.05, p = .001). Hispanic (F(1, 49649) = 2.89, p = .09), Multi-racial (F(1, 49649) = 23.63, p <
.001), and White students (F(1, 49649) = 114.87, p < .001) with disabilities reported lower
Satisfaction compared to Asian, Hispanic, Multi-racial, and White students without disabilities,
respectively (Figure 4, Table 5).
Table 5
Simple Effect Differences for Satisfaction by Ethnicity/Race
Disability No Disability
M SD M SD
Asian 3.77 .96 3.82 .96
Black 3.73 1.07 3.74 1.01
Hispanic 3.93 .99 3.96 .99
Multi-racial 3.90 1.01 4.07 .97
White 4.08 1.03 4.26 .95
Figure 4. Differences in Satisfaction by Ethnicity/Race.
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
51
Research Question 3: is campus climate predictive of student satisfaction scores among
students with disabilities?
Hypothesis 3a: Campus climate will predict satisfaction scores for students with
disabilities.
To assess if campus climate predicted satisfaction scores for students with disabilities, a
regression with disability status (0 = No, 1 = Yes), a z-scored Campus Climate score, and an
interaction between the two variables, was conducted. Results indicated that disability status was
negatively associated with satisfaction (b = -.12 [-.14, -.11], t(55484) = -15.16, p < .001); campus
climate perceptions were positively associated with satisfaction (b = .52 [.51, .54], t(55484) =
67.42, p < .001), and the interaction between disability and climate was significant (b = -.03 [-
.05, -.02], t(55484) = -4.05, p < .001), with the overall model explaining 19 percent of the
variance for satisfaction, therefore, confirming Hypothesis 3a (Table 6).
Table 6
Regression for Satisfaction Scores
Predictor
Satisfaction
b t p
Disability Status -.15 [-.19, -.10] -6.29 <.001
Gender .12 [.07, .16] 5.20 < .001
Campus Climate .41 [.41, .42] 101.22 < .001
R
2
Adjusted .19
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences amongst students with disabilities
in institutions of higher education. More specifically, this study sought to examine the differences
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
52
by disabilities status amongst undergraduate students and their reported perceptions of campus
climate and satisfaction with their undergraduate experience. Additionally, the role of gender,
ethnicity and resident status were analyzed to determine if those identities interacted with disability
status in predicting campus climate and student satisfaction scores.
Results indicate that campus climate was not differently significant for students with
disabilities when compared to those without. However, as hypothesized, students with
disabilities did report significantly lower satisfaction with their undergraduate experience
compared to those without disabilities. Moreover, campus climate was found to be predictive of
student satisfaction scores. The following chapter provides a summary and discussion of the
results as well as the implications for both theory and practice. The limitations of this study and
possible opportunities for future research are also discussed.
The Relationship Between Campus Climate and Students’ Disability Status
One important facet of this study was to investigate whether students with disabilities
report lower campus climate perceptions compared to students without disabilities. One main
effect in this study were differences by disability, ethnicity/race, gender and residency status.
Results suggest that there is no significant difference between students with disabilities when
compared to those without disabilities (Hypothesis 1a was not confirmed) in terms of how they
reported perceiving their campus climate. The results were not what was assumed to be true:
students with disability should have reported differential experiences in terms of the campus
climate. It is important to place these results in context. Campus climate, as previously noted, is
not clearly defined. In terms of the UCUES survey, it is a set of questions that are specific to
feeling respected on campus as a person of a specific gender, disability, racial, ethnic or religious
group. There are also questions to being excluded due to ones’ affiliation.
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
53
It is postulated that persons with less visible or more hidden disabilities such as learning
disabilities and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) may experience more negative
characterizations of their campus because of others perceiving them as not having a disability
and, thus, not worthy of the benefits of claiming a disability. In addition, persons with more
hidden or less visible disabilities may have more difficulty accepting their disability and may
attempt to pass as a student without a disability rather than embrace an identity as person with a
disability (Smart, 2001). This aligns with other findings in that, conceptually, climate is difficult
to pin-point for students with disabilities that may, or may not, be able to attribute differential
treatment (explicit or implicit) that is a direct result of their disability. As noted by the Office of
Civil Rights (2016), universities of higher education have been found to be out of compliance
with both federal and state mandates related to adjudicating disability-based discrimination,
harassment, and retaliation complaints. Specifically, it was noted by the Office of Civil Rights
(2016), that universities have created unclear policies, procedures, and practices that have not
allowed for timely resolutions, impartial investigations of disability discrimination claims against
faculty, staff, or students, and in some cases, fully failed to investigate matters that involved the
denial of reasonable accommodations.
In such cases, campus climate is then associated and conceptualized in terms of
discriminatory practices that, unlike explicit form of exclusion from services, or full campus
experiences, may be difficult for students to accurately express. Similarly, Woodhams and
Danieli (2000) suggested that, in many cases, the multifariousness amongst the disability
population in and of itself contributes to disability as identities being considered a matter of
distinct individual differences that, consequently, may be dismissed as an integral aspect of
campus climate and diversity. Therefore, it is likely that the results of this analysis are conflated
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
54
given the integration of all disability types into one lumped group rather than separate
populations within the disability commnity.
Interaction between disability status, ethnicity/race and campus climate. Although
hypothesis 1a was not supported, there were aspects of campus climate and disability status there
were found to interact. In this study, there was a significant interaction found between disability
status and ethnicity, such that Multi-racial and White students with disabilities reported lower
campus climate perceptions compared to Multi-racial and White students without disabilities,
respectively (confirming Hypothesis 1d). These results may due to the unique interaction
between disability and other, perhaps more stable or salient identities, such as race or ethnicity,
that may influence the lens by which disabilities are conceptually understood.
The literature on disability identity is limited, especially in terms of its saliency compared
to race, ethnicity, gender or other social identity processes that have been vastly empirically
examined, and, how these identities are negotiated across social, institutional and political
spheres. Nevertheless, researchers such as Axtell, 1999; Caldwell, 2011; Valeras, 2010;
Whitney, 2006; and Banks and Hughes, 2013, have all found that identity development not only
suggests that a dual negotiation is possible in relation to other intersectional identities (e.g.,
LGBTQ, racial, and gender) but that disability provides its own unique contribution to the
identity development process, independent of other aspects of ones’ identity.
This may, in part, also offer a plausible explanation for the three-way interaction found
between disability status, ethnicity, and gender when predicting campus climate perceptions.
Simple effects suggest that multi-racial males with disabilities compared to multi-racial males
without disabilities report lower campus climate perceptions; whereas there was no difference for
multi-racial females. The discrepancy by gender and race, in this case, may validate the complex
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
55
history of disabilities amongst men of color when compared to females with disabilities. For
example, in K-12, youth of color (especially African-American and Latino youth) are more
likely to be placed into special education at disproportionate rates (U.S. Department of
Education, 2016), often leading to a contentious relationship with their perception of the
disability label as a positive identity and of their educational environment (Banks & Hughes,
2013) in the college setting. In many cases, the disability criteria are also part of K-12 eligibility
model, which is specific to certain types of disabilities, such as learning impairments, Autism,
and physical conditions, assessed internally within the school.
The results in campus climate were clear for African American males in that their campus
climate score, irrespective of disability, were lower in comparison to any group. When
incorporating disability as an identity for students of color, there are many contentious factors to
consider in terms of the impact that may have in how they self-identify, if at all, within the
postsecondary setting. The data suggests that students of color, males in particular, face
disproportional outcomes that include disciplinary referrals, lower retention rates, timely
graduation and equal access to higher education (Vincent, Tobin, Hawken, Frank, 2012). The
likelihood that disability offices are avoided by marginalized populations with long histories of
negative experiences within the special education system is quite foreseeable and fully
understandable, given their lived realities. Furthermore, the UCUES survey, as constructed
within the campus climate scale, does not allow for a realistic capture of the unique experiences
students of color may be having to negotiate in terms of campus inclusivity on the basis of their
disability.
By contrast, White female students with disabilities (compared to White females without
disabilities) report lower campus climate perceptions; whereas a smaller difference was found for
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
56
White males. These findings are not surprising as non-white students are more likely have been
placed in special education for being gifted (Vincent, Tobin, Hawken, Frank, 2012), are more
often well equipped to advocate for themselves due to more advantages experiences within the
special education system (Artiles, Kozleski, Trent, Osher, and Ortiz, 2010); likelier to have
mental health professionals that assist navigating the accommodation process, and are more
hyperaware of disability-related rights (Showers & Kinsman, 2017) and what reasonable
accommodations they may be entitled to request at the postsecondary setting.
In addition, there was a three-way interaction between disability status, ethnicity, and
residency status. Simple effects suggest that non-resident Asian students with a disability
reported lower campus climate perceptions compared to non-resident Asian students without a
disability; whereas there were no differences for resident Asian students. These results are highly
complex to interpret for many of the following reasons: the term “Asian” (much like Latino,
Latinx, or Hispanic) is problematic as disabilities within these heterogeneous populations color
the perceptions, understandings and identity development of ones’ disability, or lack thereof. For
example, Foster and Kinuthia (2003) found that amongst deaf students from Southern and
Eastern Asian backgrounds, there was great variability in how they perceived their deafness as a
disability by immigration status, country of origin, culture, and familial relationships. In some
cases, the term disability was not equivalent to how western cultures conceptualize it.
Similar differences are also noted by Mereish (2012), in which their results indicated that
Asian American and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs) with hidden and physical disabilities were more
likely to report negative and discriminatory experiences that often resulted in various forms of
psychological and physical distress. Although campus climate was not directly being assessed, it
is important to note that climate, as measured in this studies UCUES questionnaire, relies on
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
57
students having to rate their first-hand experiences with discrimination at their specific institution
of higher education. Finally, it was also found that Multi-racial and White residents with a
disability reported lower campus climate perceptions compared to Multi-racial and White
residents without a disability, respectively.
The Relationship Between Satisfaction and Students’ Disability Status
With the increase of students with disabilities attending post-secondary education, it is
important to have an understanding of how satisfied a student with a disability is with their
college experience. At present, the research on college satisfaction focuses on specific
accommodations and how those specific variables moderate or mediate college satisfaction;
however, there is limited research in the area of college satisfaction with social and academic
experiences for students with disabilities. To address the current gap in research, the second
question in this study was meant to examine if there was a difference in overall satisfaction in
students with a disability compared to students without a disability. Further, analysis of group
differences in relation to domain scores was conducted, with specific interest in gender,
residency status and ethnicity/race.
The results indicated statistically significant differences between students with
disabilities and students without disabilities in their level of satisfaction. Specifically, students
with disabilities reported a lower sense of satisfaction with their overall undergraduate
experience compared to students without disabilities. This means that students with disabilities
were found to be less satisfied with their education and social experiences as undergraduate
students. For example, when compared to students without disabilities, students with disabilities
reported being less satisfied with their GPA; value of their education for the price they are
paying at their UC campus, and their overall academic experiences. The results align with those
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
58
found by Smart (2008) in which students with hidden disabilities were less satisfied with the
college social experience, academic experience, the monetary value of the experience, the
general campus environment, or more than one these set of experiences.
Students with disabilities also indicate lower satisfaction with social experiences compared
to students without disabilities. The social experiences students’ rate within the UCUES (2016)
modules includes their sense of being valued as an individual at their institution, feeling that they
belong at their campus, and having a sense of social integration. Having positive relationships is
understood as the feeling of being cared about by others, being socially integrated into a group,
and having a sense of support (Seligman, 2011) or cohesion with others. It involves a sense of
connectedness, vulnerability, and expressing emotions, hopes and experiences with others. These
close relationships are considered to represent a fundamental human need (Peterson, 2006) that
pertains to being connected with others and building a sense of community.
For students with hidden disabilities that are more likely to feel isolated, their sense of
belonging and social integration is highly correlated with their retention and perceptions of the
campus environment. Other researchers have found that as a group, university students with
hidden disabilities (e.g., LD’s, psychological conditions, autism) have a lower sense of well-
being than students without such conditions, a difference that has been found to be mediated by
rates of anxiety and sadness (Davis, Nida, Zlomke, & Nebel-Schwalm, 2009). In this study,
students with disabilities reported being less satisfied with their sense of connectedness with
others and more likely to report being excluded from social groups due to their group
membership (e.g., disability, ethnicity, or gender). These factors have been found to impact
student retention.
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
59
Lastly, results in this study also indicated that this effect varies by ethnicity in that some
students of color with disabilities reported significantly lower levels of satisfaction when
compared to other students. In particular, Asian, Hispanic, Multi-racial, and White students with
disabilities reported lower satisfaction compared to Asian, Hispanic, Multi-racial, and White
students without disabilities, respectively. Interestingly enough, for African-American students
with disabilities, their level of satisfaction was similar, and no significant differences were found
on the basis of disability; it is important to note, however, that their overall average satisfaction
compared to other populations were lower. That is to say, that their satisfaction with their academic
and social experiences may not differ by disability status but may be impacted by their racial
experiences on campus. As noted by Banks and Hughes (2013), African-American students often
found that their disclosure of their disability would partially isolate them from their ethnic/racial
group, and this often resulted on refusing to identify with the disabled label. These individuals
noted feelings of being forced to choose between affiliating with their racial/ethnic community
or the stigma associated with having a disability.
Campus Climate Predicting Satisfaction
One important finding in this study was how campus climate and student satisfaction
were related. Results in this study found that campus climate was predictive of student
satisfaction scores, such that individuals without a disability reported higher satisfaction
compared to individuals with a disability as campus climate perceptions increased. Similarly,
Fleming et al., (2017), were particularly interested in the relationship between belonging and
students’ satisfaction within their academic institution, and the impact of self-advocacy and
perceptions of campus climate among students with disabilities. Results from their study
examined the experiences of students with disabilities at three large 4-year academic institutions
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
60
and found that campus climate had a mediating effect on the relationship between student
satisfaction and sense of belonging in that ones’ greater sense of belonging indicated a greater
satisfaction that led to a higher sense of self-advocacy. This increase in self-advocacy, belonging,
and satisfaction, was associated with an improved perception of their campus climate.
The overall results for this study indicated that disability status was negatively associated
with satisfaction; campus climate perceptions were positively associated with satisfaction, and
the interaction between disability and climate was significant, with the overall model explaining
19 percent of the variance for satisfaction.
Implications for Practice
The results of this study provide important implications for postsecondary institutions
administrators, faculty, academic advisors, disability specialists and researchers. The population
of students with disabilities is increasing well beyond the presently estimated 11 percent, yet,
postsecondary institutions remain institutionally unprepared to offer the support required by this
vulnerable student population. It is imperative that professionals in the college setting understand
the unique and highly diverse experiences of students with disabilities, especially as it relates to
their social and academic integration into the campus life. For researchers, this study begins to
add to the dearth literature concerning students with disabilities’ experiences in higher education
beyond that of academic adjustments.
Recommendations for Improving Students’ with Disabilities Perceptions of Campus
Climate and Satisfaction
In this study, students with disabilities reported feeling less integrated into social groups
on campus, which reduced both their sense of being valued and sense of belonging at their
institution. More importantly, students with disabilities reported being excluded from social
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
61
groups because of their identity. As a result, students with disabilities were likely to agree that
their educational experience was unsatisfactory, not worth the financial value and that they
would, knowing what they know now, choose not to enroll in that institution if given the
opportunity. Disability services professionals should partner with academic and student affairs
colleagues in other functional areas (e.g., residential life, student academic programs, campus
organizations) to support in the modification of existing programs, policies, and services that
promote involvement in both social and academic opportunities for students with disabilities.
It is often the case that universities delegate all disability-related matters to their
disability office. It is true that higher education institutions are legally mandated to only provide
reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities, when requested. However, this narrow
requirement limits postsecondary institutions to focus solely on academic adjustments (e.g., extra
time on exams) as opposed to proactively promoting initiatives, policies and programs that
promotes full inclusion of students with disabilities into campus life. This is highly problematic
as McGregor et al., (2016) noted in their research of students with learning disabilities, ADHD
and other hidden conditions, that 70 percent of students with disabilities did not register with
student disability office; in fact, many avoided doing so, possibly because adjustments were
unnecessary or what was needed was not within the purview of the disability office.
In order to increase integration of students with disabilities across the institution,
mandated trainings, similar to that of Title IX and other civil rights legislation, should be
required of administrators, course content creators, policy-makers, faculty and advisors, so as to
increase awareness of the need for accessibility across the campus that goes beyond physical
space or mandated academic adjustments. The training would include but not be limited to,
universally designing academic programs, courses, and content; designing academic policies,
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
62
programs and pedagogical practices that foster a culture of accessibility. Additionally, student
support services should invest in designing institutional programs that reduce stigma of hidden
disabilities amongst peers, and, academic affairs leadership should promote initiatives that
establish positive relationships between students with disabilities and faculty (Dirth &
Branscombe, 2017).
This study also explored the differences in students’ perceptions of their campus climate
with their undergraduate experience by disability status, ethnicity/race, gender and residential
status. Although results did not indicate significant differences in perceptions of campus climate
by disability status, alone, findings did suggest that for students of color with disabilities, their
perceptions were less favorable than those without disabilities. It appears that to increase
satisfaction and promote an overall inclusive climate, strategies must go beyond solely offering
academic adjustments to students with disabilities. Instead, student affairs, counseling and
psychological services, and academic affairs programs should begin to incorporate self-advocacy
skills in existing programs to facilitate building social connectedness (Fleming, et al., 2017). The
need to expand and evolve programming for students with disabilities is necessary because
retention and degree attainment for students with disabilities in the postsecondary setting appears
to be dependent on much more than academic accommodations alone (Caldwell, 2011; Barnard
et al., 2008) and evidence suggests satisfaction is a more accurate predictor of academic success.
Limitations of Current Study
These findings, while important, must only be considered within the context of some of
its drawbacks. First, the current study utilized an existing dataset, rather than designing survey
question for the primary use of the research hypotheses. The UCUES data set was utilized
because of the large sample of students with disabilities that would be difficult to ascertain
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
63
otherwise. However, this was also a disadvantage in that students with medical conditions self-
reported having a disability, which may or may not, qualify as a disability under the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), including changes made by the ADA Amendments Act of
2008 (ADAAA). This resulted in a larger than anticipated population that may not entirely be
representative of the disability population. Secondly, an additional downside of utilizing the
UCUES dataset is in the limitation of the questions asked by the survey that reduces the
likelihood of capturing a richly diverse populations set of experiences across the disability
population by clumping all disabilities together. Consequently, this does not allow for a
disaggregation of data between those with hidden conditions, versus visible disabilities, and
students that may have been registered with their disability’s office. There are also limitations
associated with the use of self-report measurement, which is subject to social desirability bias
(Creswell, 2014). Lastly, some survey items come from different modules and/or respondents
may skip some questions/items, resulting in varying total number of respondents from item to
item.
Directions for Future Research
Additional studies should be conducted to replicate and extend these preliminary findings
and to further explore how multiple aspects of student identity (e.g., disability type, race and
ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status) influence feelings of satisfaction,
belonging, and perception of campus climate among students with disabilities. In order to gain a
deeper understanding of the student experience, a mixed-methods approach may prove fruitful in
terms of potentially exploring how students conceptualize and express their intersecting racial,
ethnic, gender, and disability identities. In the future, longitudinal studies could clarify what
happens to students’ sense of satisfaction and perceptions of campus climate over the course of
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
64
their college career and the possible impact that has on student retention and degree attainment.
Lastly, this study only focused on a survey of undergraduate students. It would be interesting to
examine the experiences of graduate students and if there are any differences in their perceptions
of campus climate and satisfaction in comparison to their peers without disabilities.
Conclusion
In closing, it is important to highlight that the changing student demographics at
postsecondary institutions provide an opportunity to build institutional support that moves
beyond a compliance and academic adjustments-only-model. Institutions of higher learning have
long been resistant to creating robust accessible campuses that fully integrate and include
students with disabilities in all aspects of their programs. The purpose of this study was to
examine the differences amongst students with disabilities in their perceptions of campus climate
and satisfaction with their educational and social experiences at their 4-year institution. Students’
perceived reports of campus climate and satisfaction using UCUES (2016) data source indicated
that students with disabilities tended to report lower levels of satisfaction with their academic
and social experiences. Students with disabilities, especially students of color, may be more
likely to persist and reach academic objectives if they feel valued, connected and that they
belong at their respective institutions. Implications and strategies for practice, policy, and
research were outlined to better assist this growing student population across college campuses.
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
65
References
Abes, E., & Wallace, M. (2018). “People See Me, but They Don’t See Me”: An Intersectional
Study of College Students with Physical Disabilities. Journal of College Student
Development, 59(5), 545–562. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2018.0052
Anfang, S. (2011). Commentary: disability evaluations - are the evaluators able?(response to
article by Paul P. Christopher and others in this issue, p. 183). Journal of the American
Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 39(2), 194–196.
Artiles, A., Kozleski, E., Trent, S., Osher, D., & Ortiz, A. (2010). Justifying and Explaining
Disproportionality, 1968-2008: A Critique of Underlying Views of Culture. Exceptional
Children, 76(3), 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600303
Banks, J. (2014). Barriers and Supports to Postsecondary Transition. Remedial and Special
Education, 35(1), 28-39. doi:10.1177/0741932513512209
Abreu, M., Hillier, A., Frye, A., & Goldstein, J. (2016). Student Experiences Utilizing Disability
Support Services in a University Setting. College Student Journal, 50(3), 323–328.
Axtell, S. (1999). Disability and chronic illness identity: Interviews with lesbians and bisexual
women and their partners. International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies, 4(1),
53-72
Barnard-Brak, L., Sulak, T., Tate, A., & Lechtenberger, D. (2010). Measuring College Students’
Attitudes Toward Requesting Accommodations: A National Multi-Institutional
Study. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35(3), 141–147.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508409358900
Barnard, L., Stevens, T., Siwatu, K. O., & Lan, W. (2008). Diversity beliefs as a mediator to
faculty attitudes toward students with disabilities. Journal of Diversity in Higher
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
66
Education, 1(3), 169-175. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/6
14489181?accountid=14749
Black, R., & Pretes, L. (2007). Victims and Victors: Representation of Physical Disability on the
Silver Screen. (Report). Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities.
Boston, Q., Dunlap, P., Ethridge, G., Barnes, E., Dowden, A., & Euring, M. (2015). Cultural
Beliefs and Disability: Implications for Rehabilitation Counsellors. International Journal
for the Advancement of Counselling, 37(4), 367–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10447-
015-9250-7
Caldwell, J. (2011). Disability identity of leaders in the self-advocacy movement. Intellectual
and Developmental Disabilities, 49(5), 315-326. doi: 10.1352/1934-9556-49.5.315
Chatman, S. (2010). Working with large-scale climate surveys: Reducing data complexity to
gain new insights. New Directions for Institutional Research,2010(145), 7-27.
doi:10.1002/ir.320
Cheng, H., Kwan, K. K., & Sevig, T. (2013). Racial and ethnic minority college students' stigma
associated with seeking psychological help: Examining psychocultural correlates. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 60(1), 98-111. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1
413414064?accountid=14749
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
67
Collins, M., & Mowbray, C. (2008). Students with Psychiatric Disabilities on Campus:
Examining Predictors of Enrollment with Disability Support Services. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 21(2), 91–104.
Davis, T.E., Nida, R.E., Zlomke, K.R., Nebel-Shwalm, M.S., (2009). Health-related quality of
life in college undergraduates with learning disabilities: the mediational roles of anxiety
and sadness. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 31:228.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-008-9110-4
Dirth, T., & Branscombe, N. (2017). Disability Models Affect Disability Policy Support through
Awareness of Structural Discrimination. Journal of Social Issues, 73(2), 413–442.
https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12224
Dong, Shengli ; Lucas, Margaretha S. (2014). Psychological Profile of University Students with
Different Types of Disabilities. (2014). Journal of College Student Development, 55(5),
481–485. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2014.0044
Ethan H. Mereish, (2012) "The intersectional invisibility of race and disability status: an
exploratory study of health and discrimination facing Asian Americans with disabilities",
Ethnicity and Inequalities in Health and Social Care, Vol. 5 Issue: 2, pp.52-60,
https://doi.org/10.1108/17570981211286796
Fact Sheet on the EEOC’s Final Regulations Implementing the ADAAA. (2009, January 1).
Retrieved November 12, 2018, from
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/regulations/adaaa_fact_sheet.cfm
Fleming, A., Oertle, K., Plotner, A., & Hakun, J. (2017). Influence of Social Factors on Student
Satisfaction Among College Students With Disabilities. Journal of College Student
Development, 58(2), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0016
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
68
Gabel, S., Reid, D., Pearson, H., Ruiz, L., & Hume-Dawson, R. (2016). Disability and Diversity
on CSU Websites: A Critical Discourse Study. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 9(1), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039256
Herbert, J. T., Hong, B. S. S., Byun, S., Welsh, W., Kurz, C. A., & Atkinson, H. A. (2014).
Persistence and graduation of college students seeking disability support
services. Journal of Rehabilitation, 80(1), 22-32. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1512705238?accountid=14749
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. B. (2014). Educational research: quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. Los Angeles, Calif.: SAGE.
Johnson, D., Wasserman, T., Yildirim, N., & Yonai, B. (2014). Examining the Effects of Stress
and Campus Climate on the Persistence of Students of Color and White Students: An
Application of Bean and Eaton’s Psychological Model of Retention. Research in Higher
Education, 55(1), 75–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-013-9304-9
Jones, N., Brown, R., Keys, C. B., & Salzer, M. (2015). Beyond Symptoms? Investigating
Predictors Of Sense Of Campus Belonging Among Postsecondary Students With
Psychiatric Disabilities. Journal of Community Psychology,43(5), 594-610.
doi:10.1002/jcop.21704
Joy Banks, & Michael S. Hughes. (2013). Double Consciousness: Postsecondary Experiences of
African American Males with Disabilities. The Journal of Negro Education, 82(4), 368-
381. doi:10.7709/jnegroeducation.82.4.0368
Kadison , R. D. , & DiGeronimo ,T. F. (2004). College of the overwhelmed: The campus mental
health crisis and what to do about it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
69
Kattari, S. K. (2015). Examining Ableism in Higher Education through Social Dominance
Theory and Social Learning Theory. Innovative Higher Education,40(5), 375-386.
doi:10.1007/s10755-015-9320-0
Kimball, E. W., Moore, A., Vaccaro, A., Troiano, P. F., & Newman, B. M. (2016). College
students with disabilities redefine activism: Self-advocacy, storytelling, and collective
action. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 9(3), 245-260. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1
814145546?accountid=14749
Kim, W. H., & Lee, J. (2015). The Effect of Accommodation on Academic Performance of
College Students with Disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin,60(1), 40-50.
doi:10.1177/0034355215605259
Kim, Y. K., & Sax, L. J. (2009). Student–Faculty Interaction in Research Universities:
Differences by Student Gender, Race, Social Class, and First-Generation
Status. Research in Higher Education,50(5), 437-459. doi:10.1007/s11162-009-9127-x
Klassen, R. M., Tze, V. M. C., & Hannok, W. (2013). Internalizing Problems of Adults with
Learning Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46(4), 317–
327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411422260
Koch, L. C., Mamiseishvili, K., & Wilkins, M. J. (2016). Postsecondary integration and
persistence: A comparison of students with psychiatric disabilities to students with
learning Disabilities/Attention deficit disorders. Rehabilitation Research, Policy, and
Education, 30(3), 259-275. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1
871584175?accountid=14749
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
70
Kurpius, S. E., & Stafford, M. E. (2006). Testing and measurement: a user-friendly guide.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Lombardi, A. R. & Murray, C. & Gerdes, H. (2012). Academic Performance of First-Generation
College Students with Disabilities. Journal of College Student Development 53(6), 811-
826. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved March 5, 2017, from Project MUSE
database.
Mamiseishvili, K., & Koch, L. C. (2010). First-to-Second-Year Persistence of Students with
Disabilities in Postsecondary Institutions in the United States. Rehabilitation Counseling
Bulletin, 54(2), 93-105. doi:10.1177/0034355210382580\
McEwan-Adkins, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research: what's good, what's
not, and how to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
McGregor, K. K., Langenfeld, N., Van Horne, S., Oleson, J., Anson, M. and Jacobson, W.
(2016), The University Experiences of Students with Learning Disabilities. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 31: 90–102. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12102
Morina, A., Lopez-Gavira, R., & Molina, V. (2017). What if we could Imagine an Ideal
University? Narratives by Students with Disabilities. International Journal of Disability
Development and Education, 64(4), 353–367.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2016.1228856
OCR finds flaws in college’s investigation of disability discrimination complaint.
(2016). Student Affairs Today, 18(11), 10–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/say.30169
Pardeck, J. (2002). A critical analysis of the social work literature on disabilities. Journal of
Social Work in Disabilities & Rehabilitation, 1 (2), 1-5.
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
71
Peña, E. V., Stapleton, L. D. and Schaffer, L. M. (2016), Critical Perspectives on Disability
Identity. New Directions for Student Services, 2016: 85–96. doi:10.1002/ss.20177
Rao, S. (2004). Faculty attitudes and students with disabilities in higher education: A literature
review. College Student Journal, 38(2). 191-198. Retrieved from http://eden.rutgers.edu/
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as Amended by title IV of WIOA. (2017, February 27).
Retrieved November 3, 2018, from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/reg/narrative.html
United States Government, Department of Justice. (2016, December 2). The Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 and Revised ADA Regulations Implementing Title II and Title
III. Retrieved January 3, 2019, from https://www.ada.gov/2010_regs.htm
Sánchez, F. (2018). Enabling Geographies: Mapping Campus Spaces through Disability and
Access. Pedagogy, 18(3), 433–456. Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.edu/article/704552
Shallish, Lauren. (2015). “Just How Much Diversity Will the Law Permit?”: The Americans with
Disabilities Act, Diversity and Disability in Higher Education. Disability Studies
Quarterly, 35(3). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v35i3.4942
Showers, A., & Kinsman, J. (2017). Factors That Contribute to College Success for Students
with Learning Disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40(2), 81–90.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948717690115
Solorzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical Race Theory, Racial Microaggressions,
and Campus Racial Climate: The Experiences of African American College
Students. Journal of Negro Education, 69, 60–2), p.60–73.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-
being. New York, NY: Free Press.
Smart, J. (2001). Disability, society, and the individual. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
72
Thomas, L., Herbert, J. & Teras, M. (2014). A sense of belonging to enhance participation,
success and retention in online programs. The International Journal of the First Year in
Higher Education, 5(2), 69‐80. doi: 10.5204/intjfyhe.v5i2.233
Vaccaro, A., Daly-Cano, M., & Newman, B. M. (2015). A sense of belonging among college
students with disabilities: An emergent theoretical model. Journal of College Student
Development, 56(7), 670-686. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1
731521409?accountid=14749
Vaccaro, A., Kimball, E., Moore, A., Newman, B., & Troiano, P. (2018). Narrating the Self: A
Grounded Theory Model of Emerging Purpose for College Students with
Disabilities. Journal of College Student Development, 59(1), 37–54.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2018.0003
Valeras, A. B. (2010). 'We don't have a box': Understanding hidden disability identity utilizing
narrative research methodology. Disability Studies Quarterly, 30 (3-4)
Vincent, C., Tobin, T., Hawken, L., & Frank, J. (2012). Discipline Referrals and Access to
Secondary Level Support in Elementary and Middle Schools: Patterns Across African-
American, Hispanic-American, and White Students. Education & Treatment of
Children, 35(3), 431–458. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2012.0018
Whitney, C. (2006). Intersections in identity-identity development among queer women with
disabilities. Sexuality & Disability, 24(1), 39-52. doi:10.1007/s11195-005-9002-4
Wolf, L. (2001). College students with ADHD and other hidden disabilities. Outcomes and
interventions. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 931, 385–395.
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
73
Woodhams, C., & Danieli, A. (2000). Disability and diversity: a difference too far? Personnel
Review, 29, 402–416.
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
74
Appendix A
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
75
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
76
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
77
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND SATISFACTION
78
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Students with disabilities are an increasing population at the postsecondary level, yet a critical deficit for institutions of higher learning persists in attempting to better understand the social and academic experiences of those with varying degrees of disabilities. Using the University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey (UCUES, 2016), data, this study examined differences in perceptions of campus climate and satisfaction for undergraduate students (n = 37,065) with disabilities at UC’s nine undergraduate campuses. In addition to disability status, the role of gender, ethnicity and resident status were also analyzed to determine if those identities interacted with disability status in predicting campus climate and student satisfaction scores. Results indicated that campus climate was not found to be statistically significantly different for undergraduate students with disabilities when compared to those without a disability. Yet, interactions between campus climate, ethnicity, gender, and disability status were found to be significant. Additionally, students with disabilities were found to have reported significantly lower satisfaction with their academic and social undergraduate experience compared to those without disabilities. Similar to campus climate, a two-way interaction between ethnicity and disability status was found to be statistically significant. Finally, campus climate was also found to be predictive of student satisfaction scores. The results of this study underscore the importance satisfaction with academic and social undergraduate experiences has on students with disabilities and the vital role campus climate plays in predicting the perceptions of satisfactory experiences for this largely unexplored student population. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Perceptions of campus racial climate as predictors for cross-race interaction at Christian colleges and universities: differences by race/ethnicity, sex, and religiosity
PDF
Students with disabilities in higher education: examining factors of mental health, psychological well-being, and resiliency
PDF
Ethnic identity development, ethnic student organizations, campus racial climate, cultural integrity, and sense of belonging for Filipino American undergraduate students at a selective predominan...
PDF
The relationship of spirituality and academic engagement to undergraduate student persistence at Christian colleges
PDF
Utilization of accommodations for learning or other non-apparent disabilities: the influence of ableism on student behavior
PDF
The impact of learning community involvement and campus climate on student satisfaction and the retention of Latino students at a highly selective private institution
PDF
The relationship of college climate and policy to transgender student belonging
PDF
Perceptions of inclusion: high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities and their level of self-efficacy
PDF
Investigating differences in online & traditional student perceptions of value and satisfaction with five key educational elements
PDF
Perceptions of campus racial climate and sense of belonging at faith-based institutions: differences by ethnicity, religiosity, and faith fit
PDF
A comparative study of motivational predictors and differences of student satisfaction between online learning and on-campus courses
PDF
Parental involvement and student motivation: A quantitative study of the relationship between student goal orientation and student perceptions of parental involvement among 5th grade students
PDF
U.S. Filipinos in higher education: sense of belonging, validation, well-being, and campus culture as predictors of GPA and intent to persist
PDF
The relationship between the campus climate and under-represented students’ experiences on campus and the influences on fit, self-efficacy, and performance: a qualitative study
PDF
Disability, race, and educational attainment - (re)leveling the playing field through best disability counseling practices in higher education: an executive dissertation
PDF
Assessing LGBT student experiences and perceptions: a campus climate case study
PDF
An exploration of the relationship of awareness and use of student services to sense of belonging, overall satisfaction with institution, and intent to persist to degree completion among internat...
PDF
Student academic self‐efficacy, help seeking and goal orientation beliefs and behaviors in distance education and on-campus community college sociology courses
PDF
Does the colorline still exist in the 21st century: examining racial climate on the campus of a University with a Diverse Student Body (UDSB) as perceived by a group of African American college s...
PDF
Disability disclosure: the lived experiences of medical school students with disabilities
Asset Metadata
Creator
Elquizabal, Christopher
(author)
Core Title
The perception of campus climate and satisfaction in a postsecondary setting for students with disabilities
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
07/30/2019
Defense Date
04/23/2019
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
academic satisfaction,campus climate,Disability,hidden disability,Higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest,postsecondary
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Chung, Ruth (
committee chair
)
Creator Email
celquizabal@gmail.com,elquizab@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-200003
Unique identifier
UC11663235
Identifier
etd-Elquizabal-7681.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-200003 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Elquizabal-7681.pdf
Dmrecord
200003
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Elquizabal, Christopher
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
academic satisfaction
campus climate
hidden disability
postsecondary