Cargando…

Accessibility and disability inclusion among top-funded U.S. Undergraduate Institutions

BACKGROUND: There is limited data to assess, track, or quantify accessibility and disability inclusion across universities. OBJECTIVE: This cross-sectional study assessed disability inclusion and accessibility at the top 50 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded undergraduate programs in the Uni...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Campanile, Jessica, Cerilli, Caroline, Varadaraj, Varshini, Sweeney, Fiona, Smith, Jared, Zhu, Jiafeng, Yenokyan, Gayane, Swenor, Bonnielin K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9683566/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36417345
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277249
_version_ 1784835077871501312
author Campanile, Jessica
Cerilli, Caroline
Varadaraj, Varshini
Sweeney, Fiona
Smith, Jared
Zhu, Jiafeng
Yenokyan, Gayane
Swenor, Bonnielin K.
author_facet Campanile, Jessica
Cerilli, Caroline
Varadaraj, Varshini
Sweeney, Fiona
Smith, Jared
Zhu, Jiafeng
Yenokyan, Gayane
Swenor, Bonnielin K.
author_sort Campanile, Jessica
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There is limited data to assess, track, or quantify accessibility and disability inclusion across universities. OBJECTIVE: This cross-sectional study assessed disability inclusion and accessibility at the top 50 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded undergraduate programs in the United States. We hypothesized that there is no association between NIH funding and the University Disability Inclusion Score. METHODS: A novel tool, the University Disability Inclusion Score assessed disability inclusion and accessibility using 10 indicators spanning 4 categories: (1) accessibility of built and virtual environment, (2) public image of disability inclusion, (3) accommodations processes and procedures, and (4) grievance policy. Based upon the total points (out of a total score of 100), each university was assigned a letter grade (A-F). RESULTS: Of the top 50 NIH-funded institutions, 6% received an A grade on the Score, while 60% received D or F. The mean scores were 15.2 (SD = 5) for accessibility of built and virtual environment (20 points), 10 (SD = 3) for public image of disability inclusion (20 points), 30.6 (SD = 10) for accommodations processes and procedures (50 points), and 8.1 (SD = 3) for grievance policy (10 points). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest room for improvement in disability inclusion and accessibility among top university recipients of NIH funding. To provide an equitable academic experience, universities must prioritize disability inclusion.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9683566
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96835662022-11-24 Accessibility and disability inclusion among top-funded U.S. Undergraduate Institutions Campanile, Jessica Cerilli, Caroline Varadaraj, Varshini Sweeney, Fiona Smith, Jared Zhu, Jiafeng Yenokyan, Gayane Swenor, Bonnielin K. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: There is limited data to assess, track, or quantify accessibility and disability inclusion across universities. OBJECTIVE: This cross-sectional study assessed disability inclusion and accessibility at the top 50 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded undergraduate programs in the United States. We hypothesized that there is no association between NIH funding and the University Disability Inclusion Score. METHODS: A novel tool, the University Disability Inclusion Score assessed disability inclusion and accessibility using 10 indicators spanning 4 categories: (1) accessibility of built and virtual environment, (2) public image of disability inclusion, (3) accommodations processes and procedures, and (4) grievance policy. Based upon the total points (out of a total score of 100), each university was assigned a letter grade (A-F). RESULTS: Of the top 50 NIH-funded institutions, 6% received an A grade on the Score, while 60% received D or F. The mean scores were 15.2 (SD = 5) for accessibility of built and virtual environment (20 points), 10 (SD = 3) for public image of disability inclusion (20 points), 30.6 (SD = 10) for accommodations processes and procedures (50 points), and 8.1 (SD = 3) for grievance policy (10 points). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest room for improvement in disability inclusion and accessibility among top university recipients of NIH funding. To provide an equitable academic experience, universities must prioritize disability inclusion. Public Library of Science 2022-11-23 /pmc/articles/PMC9683566/ /pubmed/36417345 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277249 Text en © 2022 Campanile et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Campanile, Jessica
Cerilli, Caroline
Varadaraj, Varshini
Sweeney, Fiona
Smith, Jared
Zhu, Jiafeng
Yenokyan, Gayane
Swenor, Bonnielin K.
Accessibility and disability inclusion among top-funded U.S. Undergraduate Institutions
title Accessibility and disability inclusion among top-funded U.S. Undergraduate Institutions
title_full Accessibility and disability inclusion among top-funded U.S. Undergraduate Institutions
title_fullStr Accessibility and disability inclusion among top-funded U.S. Undergraduate Institutions
title_full_unstemmed Accessibility and disability inclusion among top-funded U.S. Undergraduate Institutions
title_short Accessibility and disability inclusion among top-funded U.S. Undergraduate Institutions
title_sort accessibility and disability inclusion among top-funded u.s. undergraduate institutions
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9683566/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36417345
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277249
work_keys_str_mv AT campanilejessica accessibilityanddisabilityinclusionamongtopfundedusundergraduateinstitutions
AT cerillicaroline accessibilityanddisabilityinclusionamongtopfundedusundergraduateinstitutions
AT varadarajvarshini accessibilityanddisabilityinclusionamongtopfundedusundergraduateinstitutions
AT sweeneyfiona accessibilityanddisabilityinclusionamongtopfundedusundergraduateinstitutions
AT smithjared accessibilityanddisabilityinclusionamongtopfundedusundergraduateinstitutions
AT zhujiafeng accessibilityanddisabilityinclusionamongtopfundedusundergraduateinstitutions
AT yenokyangayane accessibilityanddisabilityinclusionamongtopfundedusundergraduateinstitutions
AT swenorbonnielink accessibilityanddisabilityinclusionamongtopfundedusundergraduateinstitutions