Administrative staff play a significant role in facilitating an inclusive and accessible academic environment for students with disabilities. However, the examination of the administrative staff's role in delivering accessible services for students with disabilities has received limited attention, particularly within the context of campus climate for diversity.
Objective
This study aims to fill this gap by investigating factors related to self-efficacy in the provision of accessible services, following Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory.
Methods
Administrative workers from eight higher education institutions (n = 200) completed a set of questionnaires measuring the association between micro-level factors (socio-demographic factors and frequency of encounters with students with disabilities), meso-level factors (familiarity with support services and participation in accessibility training) and macro-level factors (attitudes toward persons with disabilities) and their self-efficacy to provide accessible services.
Results
Positive attitudes, frequent interactions with students with disabilities, and familiarity with support services were found to be significantly associated with a higher level of self-efficacy in providing accessible services. Furthermore, regression analysis showed that the most predictive factor on administrative staff's self-efficacy was a macro-level factor: positive disability attitudes.
Conclusions
The study underscores that direct experience, familiarity with support resources, and positive attitudes play a crucial role in enhancing the sense of self-efficacy for accessible service provision. Accordingly, inclusive policies and staff training should prioritize these factors.
SalmiJD’AddioA. Policies for achieving inclusion in higher education. Policy Rev High Educ2021; 5: 47–72.
2.
HurenkoOSuchikovaYKravchenkoN, et al.Employment of young people with disabilities: the potential of social partnership of universities, municipalities and the labor market of Ukraine. Work2024; 79: 1–17.
3.
EtuknwaADanielsKEibC. Sustainable return to work: a systematic review focusing on personal and social factors. J Occup Rehabil2019; 29: 679–700.
4.
GillbergC. The significance of crashing past gatekeepers of knowledge: toward full participation of disabled scholars in ableist academic structures. In: BrownNLeighJ (eds) Ableism in academia: theorising experiences of disabilities and chronic illnesses in higher education. London: UCL Press, 2020, pp.11–30.
5.
VlachouAPapananouI. Experiences and perspectives of Greek higher education students with disabilities. Educ Res2018; 60: 206–221.
BowmanNA. How much diversity is enough? The curvilinear relationship between college diversity interactions and first-year student outcomes. Res High Educ2013; 54: 874–894.
8.
ShpigelmanCNMorSSachsD,et al.Supporting the development of students with disabilities in higher education: access, stigma, identity, and power. Stud High Educ2021; 47: 1776–1791.
9.
García-GonzálezJMGutiérrez Gómez-CalcerradaSSolera HernándezE. Barriers in higher education: perceptions and discourse analysis of students with disabilities in Spain. Disabil Soc2020; 36: 579–595.
10.
Tal-AlonNShapira-LishchinskyO. Teachers’ disability disclosure: multiple points of view. New Educ2023; 19: 103–120.
LordJESteinMA. Pursuing inclusive higher education in Egypt and beyond through the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Soc Incl2018; 6: 230–240.
13.
BroderickA. Of rights and obligations: the birth of accessibility. Int J Hum Rights2020; 24: 393–413.
14.
MorS. With access and justice for all. Cardozo Law Rev2017; 39: 611–647.
15.
ZehnerAL. Campus climate for students with disabilities. In: SoriaK (ed.) Evaluating campus climate at US research universities. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018, pp.125–149.
16.
HartJFellabaumJ. Analyzing campus climate studies: seeking to define and understand. J Divers High Educ2008; 1: 222–234.
17.
TaiJMahoneyPAjjawiR, et al.How are examinations inclusive for students with disabilities in higher education? A sociomaterial analysis. Assess Eval High Educ2023; 48: 390–402.
18.
MoriñaA. When what is unseen does not exist: disclosure, barriers and supports for students with invisible disabilities in higher education. Disabil Soc2024; 39: 914–932.
19.
LombardiARMurrayCGerdesH. College faculty and inclusive instruction: self-reported attitudes and actions pertaining to universal design. J Divers High Educ2011; 4: 250–261.
20.
MoylanCAJavorkaMLindquistC, et al.The sum of all parts: enhancing the value of campus climate surveys by including faculty and staff perspectives. J Evid-Based Soc Work2022; 19: 592–607.
21.
CarballoRMolinaVMCortes-VegaM-D,et al.Students with disabilities at university: benefits and challenges from the best faculty members’ experiences. Eur J Spec Needs Educ2023; 38: 110–125.
22.
DavisB. Access delayed; success denied: How administrative burdens shape college opportunity for first-generation, low-income students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 2022.
23.
MawudekuIAmkumahFJ. The role of administrators in enhancing students’ academic performance in higher education institutions. IOSR-JHSS2021; 26: 16–22.
HadleyW. College students with disabilities: a student development perspective. In: HarbourWSMadausJW (eds) New directions for higher education: disability services and campus dynamics. San Francisco: Wiley Periodicals, 2011, pp.77–81.
26.
SachsDSchreuerN. Inclusion of students with disabilities in higher education: performance and participation in student's experiences. Disabil Stud Q2011; 31: 1593–1561.
27.
ParkerSK. From passive to proactive motivation: the importance of flexible role orientations and role breadth self-efficacy. J Appl Psychol2000; 49: 447–469.
28.
LeakeDWStoddenRA. Higher education and disability: past and future of underrepresented populations. J Postsecond Educ Di2014; 27: 399–408.
29.
HongBSS. Qualitative analysis of the barrier’s college students with disabilities experience in higher education. J Coll Stud Dev2015; 56: 209–226.
30.
WalkerL. Impact of academic support centers on students with disabilities in postsecondary institutions. Learning Assistance Review2016; 21: 81–92.
31.
BanduraA. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev1977; 14: 191–215.
32.
BanduraA. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am Psychol1982; 37: 122–147.
33.
KhalilSASiddiquiDA. Authentic leadership and work engagement: the mediatory role of employees’ trust and occupational self-efficacy. Int j Organ Leadersh2019; 8: 17–42.
34.
OzyilmazAErdoganBKaraeminogullariA. Trust in organization as a moderator of the relationship between self-efficacy and workplace outcomes: a social cognitive theory-based examination. J Occup Organ Psychol2018; 91: 181–204.
35.
RaubSLiaoH. Doing the right thing without being told: joint effects of initiative climate and general self-efficacy on employee proactive customer service performance. J Appl Psychol2012; 97: 651–667.
36.
TimsMBakkerABDerksD. Daily job crafting and the self-efficacy-performance relationship. J Manag Psychol2014; 29: 490–507.
37.
PimpakornNPattersonPG. Customer-oriented behaviour of front-line service employees: the need to be both willing and able. Australas Mark J2010; 18: 57–65.
38.
ShuklaASinghSRaiH,et al.Employee empowerment leading to flexible role orientation: a disposition-based contingency framework. IIMB Manag Rev2018; 30: 330–342.
39.
BronfenbrennerU. The ecology of human development: experiments by nature and design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979.
40.
BinhasA. Shared living in Israel—higher education as an agent of change in a conflicted society. Ukrainian Policymaker2019; 5: 17–23.
41.
Tal-AlonNRoitmanYSCohenA, et al.Cross-Cultural differences in attitudes towards persons with disabilities: a study of Jewish and arab young adults in Israel. Am J Sci Edu Res2024; 6: 291–299.
42.
AlmogN. Everyone is normal, and everyone has a disability: narratives of university students with visual impairment. Soc Inclusion2018; 6: 218–229.
43.
SchreuerNShpigelmanCNMorS, et al.Academic staff members’ engagement in accessible higher education for students with disabilities. High Educ Res Dev2024; 43: 1–16.
FindlerLVilchinskyNWernerS. The multidimensional attitudes scale toward persons with disabilities (MAS): construction and validation. Rehabil Couns Bull2007; 50: 166–176.
46.
FindlerLJacobyAKGabisL. Subjective happiness among mothers of children with disabilities: the role of stress, attachment, guilt, and social support. Res Dev Disabil2016; 55: 44–54.
47.
ShpigelmanCNZlotnickCBrandR. Attitudes toward nursing students with disabilities: promoting social inclusion. J Nurs Educ2016; 55: 441–449.
48.
EaglyAHChaikenS. The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1998.
49.
RooneyRAOsipowSH. Task-specific occupational self-efficacy scale: the development and validation of a prototype. J Vocat Behav1992; 40: 14–32.
50.
BanduraA. Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In: UrdanTCPajaresF (eds) Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Information Age Publishing, 2006, pp.307–338.
51.
Retail Council of Canada. Enabling change for retailers: make your store accessible. Toronto, 2019,https://cutt.ly/8nDWsVa.
52.
BestColleges. Etiquette for working with students with disabilities. Charlotte: BestColleges, 2020.
53.
DanczaKHeadJMesaS. Key tools of the occupational therapist: occupational profiling, activity analysis and occupational performance analysis. In: DanczaKRodgerS (eds) Implementing occupation-centred practice. New York: Routledge, 2018, pp.49–79.
