Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In this study, we present research intended to establish the predictive variables related to satisfaction among different members of the educational community when including students with Asperger syndrome (AS) in the university system. This international study takes into account the opinions of students with AS who are at university as well as their families and the teaching staff directly involved in their learning process (N = 83). The results obtained through an ad hoc questionnaire indicate that both curricular and organizational pedagogical factors were predictive of the satisfaction of the students with AS in higher education.

Keywords

higher education Asperger syndrome autism spectrum disorder educational teaching perception and cognition psychoeducational program

Introduction

According to their psychosocial and pedagogical features, people with an autistic spectrum disorder of Level 1, and specifically a diagnosis of Asperger syndrome (AS), are characterized by a lack of the capacity to associate stimuli to meaningful or global entities. That is, in their specific way of processing information related to perceptual and cognitive variables, people with AS typically exhibit literality in perception, deficits in inductive thinking, and also deficits in establishing connections between external inputs and intrinsic information. This particular processing (reception, encoding, and response) of information makes it completely necessary to inform an educational process adapted to their needs and to ease access for these people to general studies and university studies, in particular (Alquraini & Gut, 2012; Gobbo & Shmulsky, 2012, 2014; Kite, Tyson, & Gullifer, 2011; McCrimmon, Schwean, Saklofske, Montgomery, & Brady, 2012; Minihan, Kinsella, & Honan, 2011; Ojea, 2008; Price, Shiffran, & Kerns, 2012; Stephenson, O’Neill, & Carter, 2012; Werner & Grayzman, 2011; Whitburn, 2013). With the intention of facilitating an adapted educational process, policy is needed for an inclusive education. This policy would require that universities meet the needs of all students, whatever their personal, psychological, or social characteristics. Construction of an innovative formative system for inclusion is possible; it must be bound to access, participation, and achievement of all students. But to create such a system, it is important that all stakeholders in the education system (students, teachers, and families) have an overall attitude and vision that facilitates the necessary approach. With this perspective, inclusive education will demand development and global changes involving the whole education system (Alzugaray, Mederos, & Sutz, 2011; Fernández, Álvarez, & Malvar, 2012; García & Cotrina, 2011; Slee, 2011; Smith, 2010; Soresi, Nota, & Wehmeyer, 2011; Styslinger, 2012; Yeo, Neihart, Tang, Chong, & Huan, 2011).

The prescribed action established by the United Nations Organization and changes promoted by the European Higher Education Area (European Commission, 2011; United Nations Organization, 1966, 2006; United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture, 1994) have offered an opportunity to reflect on the university system and with special emphasis on the needs of students (Vieira & Vidal, 2006). University education must guarantee a continuity of development and all-round training to the student, both at the academic level and the sociopersonal level. In the case of students with AS, this development must involve socioeducational adaptation and access to the curriculum, so the specific needs and particular interests are met (Luque & Rodríguez, 2008). As Alfonso and Díez (2008) emphasized, the creation of the European Higher Education Area demands that universities fulfill quality standards, attention to disabled students being one of the standards. In practice, this means a systemic plan must be implemented to guarantee an equal access for students with AS, as well as an equitable action and appropriate practices that lead to quality higher education (Álvarez, Alegre, & López, 2012; Bartolo, 2010; Sepúlveda, 2008; Sepúlveda, Medrano, & Martin, 2010). European universities have made great efforts to create programs and services oriented to support diverse students. In an international context, we can find experience in meeting the individual needs of university students with AS (Nielsen, 2011; Osborne & Reed, 2011; Pillay & Bhat, 2012; Robinson, Curwen, & Ryan, 2012). In that respect, in 2011, the European Commission, the Academic Network of European Disability Experts, the Eurostat, the World Health Organization, and the Council of Europe worked together on the design and implementation of the Indicators of Disability Equality in Europe, providing facilities for research on the creation of indicators and criteria that allow adapted responses to the needs of university students. The development of indicators is related to the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities following the new strategies for people with AS (European Commission, 2010). This effort examines indicators related to numbers of students with AS who successfully complete their higher education and identify three types of quantitative and qualitative indicators or criteria for educational centers (European Commission, 2011; Jallade, 2011; McAndrew, Farrow, & Cooper, 2012; Priestly & Lawson, 2009): (a) students’ rights according to current regulation and policies, (b) accessibility and barriers in the environment, and (c) equal participation for persons with disabilities.

In Spain, the implementation of global measures of attention to diversity started around 2000, and it is been heterogeneous and unequal at the different universities where it is been carried out (60% of the public universities). This means that many universities are not ready yet for integration of students with AS, not only because of architectural access issues but also because of their current regulations and curricular and educational organization. Although great efforts are being made to continue with the required measures to support and advise students with AS, the consolidation of the principles of equality of opportunities and nondiscrimination in the university system is still far from meeting current regulations (Fleischer, 2012; Flood, Hare, & Wallis, 2011; Griffith, Totsika, Nash, & Hastings, 2012a; Griffith, Totsika, Nash, Jones, & Hastings, 2012b; Hughes, 2012; Ruiz, Pistrang, & Mandy, 2012; Sawyer, Williamson, & Young, 2012; Sciutto, Richwine, Mentrikoski, & Niedzwiecki, 2012; Shady, Luther, & Richman, 2013; Sharma, Woolfson, & Hunter, 2012; Swain, Nordness, & Leader-Janssen, 2012; Tolrá, 1998; Voss & Bufkin, 2011). To resolve these problems, it is necessary to move forward on the design, approval, and application of regulations, which assure an appropriate attention and support to students with AS, specifying quality standards and good practice indicators for an efficient functioning of support services to students in all different contexts and, by doing so, building continuity into academic and professional training (Alcantud, Ávila, & Asensi, 2000; Forteza & Ortego, 2003; Luque & Rodríguez, 2008) over the students’ development. From this point of view, guidance and tutoring programs at universities are a basic element favoring quality and inclusion of students with different abilities, as they promote a model of integration in higher education (Álvarez, 2012; Bayot, del Rincón, & Hernández, 2002; Luque & Rodríguez, 2005).

According to Fernández et al. (2012), there is a lack of a clear, stable, and suitable policy informing teachers about students with AS. A consequence of this, as the research carried out by Castellana and Sala (2005) shows, is that there is a high percentage of teachers (72%) who are unaware of students with AS in their classes. Therefore, it would be difficult for them to offer the appropriate specific attention that will allow them to track all of these students’ progress (Castellana & Sala, 2005; Ferraz, 2002). As Ainscow (2001) emphasized, commitment from teachers is fundamental. When teachers are well informed and given suitable plans, they show neither lack of self-confidence nor discomfort in the presence of students with different abilities in their lecture rooms (Fernández et al., 2012). That is the reason why it is important to keep in contact with education professionals in the in initial stages of designing adaptive programs—to know their individualistic characteristics and the most effective resources to meet their needs, understanding they deal with different educational levels. The university teacher must have at their fingertips information about the psychosocial and educational characteristics of their students with AS.

In recent years, there has been a considerable increase in policies in favor of equality and disability, both at the legislative and action levels, which have led to a considerable increase in the number of students with AS accessing university studies, though the percentage of those who complete their degree is still very low. There are still many difficulties that students with disabilities must tackle if they decide to start university studies. Such difficulties explain why only 1% of the university students are classed as disabled and just 3% of people with AS hold a university degree. Universities have been steadily making changes and adjustments to ease physical access for people with AS and guarantee their participation under the same conditions as the rest of university students, to ensure normalization of university life. The university, as a public institution, is obliged to guarantee the right to education for everybody, with collaboration of all public administrations involved as well as social agents and organizations (Méndez, 2009; Trujillo & Cayo, 2006). In a legal context, the Constitutional Law 6/2001 of 21 December on universities, modified by the Constitutional Law 4/2007 of 12 April, establishes in Article 46.2b “equality of opportunities and no discrimination based on sex, race, religion or disability …” for students. The University Students’ Statue, passed by Royal Decree 1791/2010 on 30 December, states in Article 4 that “all university students, regardless racial or ethnic origin, religion, disability … have the right not to be discriminated against …” and continues in Article 12 by determining that “resources and necessary adaptations should be considered for students with AS to be able to exercise their rights on an equal basis …” This way, in the formerly mentioned Royal Decree, in Article 65, it has been established that “from each university the creation of … services to people with disabilities must be encouraged …”

Taking this context into account, it seems necessary to create a systematic plan of action, which enables monitoring and evaluation of the support of students with AS and the awareness of the needs themselves (Castro & Abad, 2009; Tinklin, Riddell, & Wilson, 2004; Vieira, 2008; Villa, Thousand, & Nevin, 2013; Villeneuve et al., 2013). This study had the following general objectives: (a) to analyze organizational and curricular explanatory variables in relation to the satisfaction of students diagnosed with AS; (b) to specify possible differences in satisfaction according to group of stakeholders (students with AS, their parents, and teachers); and (c) to present outlines of a general psycho-socio-educational action plan tailored to students with AS in higher education.

Hypothesis 1. Organizational and methodological variables grouped into subgroups or dimensions will be explanatory of the satisfaction of the stakeholders surveyed.

Hypothesis 2. There will be differences in satisfaction by group of stakeholders.

Method

Participants

This study involved 83 participants, of whom 32 were students diagnosed with AS studying for different university degrees, 24 teachers of students with AS, and 27 family members of these students (parents). Of the 32 students, 26 were men and 6 women; 18 were studying at universities in Spain, 6 in Italy, 4 in Mexico, and the other 4 in Chile. Likewise, 9 students were in the range of age 17 to 22 years, 10 between 23 and 28 years, and 3 were older than 29 years. As for the teachers instructing students with AS, 14 were men and 10 were women; 16 were taught at Spanish universities and 8 at Italian universities. Regarding the 27 family members who were surveyed, 12 lived in Spain, 7 in Italy, 4 in Mexico, and 4 in Chile. Of these, 8 were fathers and 19 were mothers of students with AS.

Design and Measure

The research model is a survey, based on the analysis of the answers given to a questionnaire prepared ad hoc (American Psychological Association, 2011; Goldstein, 2011; León & Montero, 2003; McCleary & McDowall, 2004; Montero & León, 2002). Several variables were measured (Table 1). Satisfaction was the dependent variable, corresponding to the overall mean satisfaction rating, while other variables comprised study factors.

Table 1.

Variables and Descriptions.

	Variable	Contents description
1.	Satisfaction	Level of user satisfaction with the educational process.
2.	Group	Group of the participants: students, teachers, families.
3.	Sex	Sex of the participants.
4.	Age	Age of the participants.
5.	Nationality	Geographical location of the participating university.
6.	Team	Functioning of the support team to the enrolled AS students.
7.	Teachers	Level of collaboration of teachers, who teach students with AS, with the support team.
8.	Families	Level of collaboration of the families of the AS students with the support team and the teachers.
9.	Response	Adaptation of the organizational and methodological process.
10.	Objectives	Level of explanation of the objectives in the teaching guide.
11.	Contents	Explanation of the contents in the teaching guide.
12.	Criteria	Level of relaxation and adaptation to the evaluation process.
13.	Agenda	Level of use of the temporalized personal agenda.
14.	Studies	Level of structured organization of the studies.
15.	Help	Specific aid received.

Note. AS = Asperger syndrome.

The questionnaire applied was based on the preparation of an ad hoc Likert-type questionnaire, using graded responses with anchors, 1: Strongly agree and 7: Completely disagree. Overall internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α) was α = .82 (N = 83).

Procedure

Based on the data from several students with AS who had completed their university studies at the University of Vigo, following specific programs coordinated by support teams, the questionnaire was tailored to the objectives of this research. The questionnaire was administered to the different groups of participants where enrollment processes for students with AS were carried out at the different universities. The resulting data were analyzed using the SPSS statistical package.

Results

The obtained data can be classified into three main groups: (a) descriptive analysis of the sampling distribution, (b) explanatory analysis of factors or independent variables in relation to Satisfaction, and (c) comparative analysis of the data on the group variable. The descriptive analysis is shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics by Group: Students (n = 32), Parents (n = 27), and Teachers (n = 24; Total N = 83).

	Variable	Total			Students			Parents			Teachers
	Variable	M	SD	SE	M	SD	SE	M	SD	SE	M	SD	SE
1.	Satisfaction	2.25	1.15	0.13	2.31	1.07	0.11	2.33	1.46	0.28	2.08	0.28	0.05
2.	Sex	2.80	1.88	0.21	0.18	0.39	0.07	0.70	0.46	0.08	0.41	0.50	0.10
3.	Age	2.93	2.16	0.02	0.50	0.67	0.11	2.00	0.00	0.00	2.00	0.00	0.00
4.	Nationality	3.18	1.55	0.17	0.81	1.09	0.19	1.00	1.10	0.21	0.33	0.48	0.09
5.	Team	2.00	0.72	0.17	3.15	3.37	0.41	3.44	1.71	0.33	2.25	0.44	0.09
6.	Teachers	2.30	1.08	0.12	3.06	1.98	0.35	2.37	2.33	0.45	2.91	0.88	0.17
7.	Families	2.11	1.07	0.12	3.25	2.50	0.44	2.62	2.51	0.48	2.83	0.91	0.18
8.	Response	2.66	1.03	0.11	3.62	1.40	0.24	3.18	1.98	0.38	2.58	0.88	0.17
9.	Objectives	2.89	1.62	0.18	1.75	0.50	0.89	2.14	0.94	0.18	2.16	0.56	0.11
10.	Contents	2.83	1.46	0.16	2.37	1.18	0.20	2.40	1.30	0.25	2.08	0.50	0.10
11.	Criteria	1.90	1.48	0.26	2.29	0.86	0.16	2.29	0.86	0.16	2.16	0.38	0.07
12.	Agenda	2.37	1.12	0.19	2.37	1.12	0.19	2.74	1.05	0.20	2.91	0.77	0.15
13.	Studies	2.89	1.62	0.17	3.25	1.72	0.30	2.96	2.02	0.39	2.33	0.48	0.09
14.	Help	2.83	1.45	0.15	3.43	1.81	0.32	2.48	1.34	0.25	2.41	0.50	0.10

Hierarchical regression analysis predicting Satisfaction was conducted (Table 3). Three sets of variables were entered at the steps of the analysis. The first subgroup comprised Group, Sex, Age, and Nationality. The second subgroup consisted of variables related to the formation process of the support team for students with AS, as well as the collaboration of teachers and families on their development (Team, Teachers, and Family). Finally, the third subgroup consisted of variables that were related to the adequacy and adaptation of specific programs developed to meet the previously assessed educational needs of students with AS, regarding the organizational, methodological, and curricular programs (Response, Targets, Content, Criteria, Agenda, Study, and Help).

Table 3.

Hierarchical Regression (Dependent Variable: Satisfaction).

Variable	Step 1					Step 2					Step 3
Variable	B	SE	β	t	p	B	SE	β	t	p	B	SE	β	t	p
Constant	2.03	0.30		6.80	<.001	2.16	0.35		6.14	<.001	2.34	0.49		4.76	<.001
Group	−0.46	0.22	−.34	−2.13	.04	−0.39	0.22	−.29	−1.80	.08	−0.59	0.22	−.43	−2.70	.009
Gender	−0.02	0.28	−.01	−0.08	.94	0.08	0.25	.04	0.33	.74	−0.34	0.24	−.15	−1.41	.16
Age	0.57	0.22	.42	2.56	.01	0.52	0.21	.38	2.46	.02	1.04	0.22	.76	4.70	<.001
Nationality	0.44	0.12	.38	3.57	.001	0.36	0.17	.31	2.15	.04	0.21	0.17	.18	1.21	.23
Team						−0.20	0.12	−.33	−1.77	.08	−0.21	0.11	−.34	−2.00	.05
Teachers						−0.41	0.11	−.67	−3.73	<.001	−0.55	0.12	−.91	−4.63	<.001
Family						0.54	0.11	1.01	4.68	<.001	0.35	0.12	.66	3.05	.003
Response											0.05	0.09	.06	0.50	.62
Objectives											−0.25	0.15	−.15	−1.66	.10
Contents											0.20	0.14	.19	1.47	.15
Criteria											−0.07	0.14	−.06	−0.48	.64
Agenda											−0.30	0.11	−.27	−2.84	.006
Studies											0.61	0.12	.87	5.13	<.001
Help											−0.08	0.08	−.10	−0.96	.34
R ²	.22					.40					.61
Adj R²	.18					.34					.53
SE	1.04					0.93					0.79
F	5.36					7.70					5.09
dfn, dfd	4.78					6.75					7.68
p	.001					.00					.00

The first step of the analysis explained meaningful variance in Satisfaction (R²= .22; corrected R²= .18; p = .001). The second step significantly increased the variance explained (R²= .40; corrected R²= .34; p = .001). Finally, the third step showed an even greater increase in variance explained (R²= .61; corrected R²= .53; p = .001), which is a 20.7% increase compared with Step 1.

Students, teachers, and families of students with AS may have different views on the satisfaction criteria regarding the educational process developed. To answer this question, a multiple comparison post hoc analysis was conducted. Because the Levene test, previously conducted, indicated different variances (F = 4.94, p < .001), the data collected by the Games-Howell analysis comparative test are outlined later and listed in Table 4.

Table 4.

Games-Howell Multiple Comparisons Post Hoc Analysis.

Group (I)	Group (J)	Difference		p
Group (I)	Group (J)	M	SE	p
Students	Teachers	0.23	0.23	.58
Students	Families	−0.02	0.36	1.00
Teachers	Students	−0.23	0.23	.58
Teachers	Families	−0.25	0.29	.67
Families	Students	0.02	0.36	1.00
Families	Teachers	0.25	0.29	.67

Note. Dependent variable: Satisfaction. Differences in means are significant at p < .05.

The teachers’ responses substantially differed from those of the students and their families. These differences show a more objective assessment by the teachers, in relation to the development of the educational and organizational process and to the implementation of the measures adopted to ensure the adaptation to the needs of such students. On the other hand, students and their families have a more subjective perception of the process, more related to obtaining positive results regarding the acquisition of the competences of the university degree.

Discussion

The satisfaction of participants in the different groups of stakeholders surveyed with the perceived effectiveness of the specific educational activities was well explained by the selected dimensions. Educational factors, either organizational or curricular, explained the most variance in Satisfaction and therefore are excellent predictors of an effective educational process adapted to these students with AS, who followed their undergraduate studies at different universities.

The factors comprising the operation of the support team, collaboration of teachers, and the collaboration of families with the team greatly contributed to explain Satisfaction ratings. However, the educational response, clarification of objectives, definition of the contents, relaxation of the criteria of evaluation, temporalized use of the personal agenda, structured organization of the study, and use of immediate assistance constituted the major explanatory variables. Actually, the factors listed, as demonstrated in this research, had important predictive power relevant to setting quality standards for adaptation of schooling processes for AS students in higher education. Abad, Álvarez, and Castro (2008) stated that quality assurance systems of universities, currently included in the protocols of evaluation of degrees, have to consider various actions to encourage the adaptation of students with AS to university life by developing a system of coaching and mentoring tailored to their specific needs. Plans or programs of action must comprise a response process, properly sequenced and organized, affecting the whole schooling process in a comprehensive way, from the reception plan or tutorial action plan to processing specific individualized support programs for the development of basic skills consistent with prior needs assessments (Harpur, Lawlor, & Fitzgerald, 2004; Kaland, Mortensen, & Smith, 2011; Klin, Pauls, Schultz, & Volkmar, 2005; Maheady, Harper, & Mallette, 2001; Minne & Semrud-Clikeman, 2012; Nyden, Myren, & Gillberg, 2008).

The comprehensive tutorial action plan must entail, among others, the following program elements (Table 5).

Table 5.

Program Elements.

1) Identifying the educational needs of students under the specific attention plan.

2) Clearly specifying the objectives, contents, and methodologies of the degree, which must be properly included in the teaching guide.

3) Informing the educational community, students, teachers, and staff about the enrollment of students with AS, with the consent of the family.

4) Developing together the support program with the participation of the specific support team, teachers, students with AS, and their families.

5) Developing plans for teacher training regarding the characteristics of students with AS and methodological teaching–learning processes adapted to them.

6) Developing channels of information and establishing coordination mechanisms between all the factors involved: support team, teachers, families, and other social or educational services provided by external means.

7) Informing students with AS and their families about the benefits and services of the center.

8) Informing students with AS on the situation and location, among others, of the offices of teachers, departments, study rooms, computer rooms, libraries, concierges, photocopying machines, entertainment areas, sports centers, cafes, and contacts.

9) Informing about the media and digital and online platforms that form the academic information support.

Note. AS = Asperger syndrome.

The organization and location of the classroom must meet a set of requirements. Among them, we would highlight the following: (a) trying to ensure a predictable environment in the classroom, which anticipates any changes, both in relation to the structure of the contents and to the duration or type of activities to be developed; (b) reserving a stable and permanent seat in the classroom for students with AS; (c) trying to avoid places with an excess of stimuli that may distract their attention, staying away from noisy environments that can affect the hypersensitivity of people with AS; (d) providing clear operating rules in the classroom and developing guidelines properly organized; (e) establishing clear guidelines for academic organization: how to send materials and give documents or reports; (f) determining in advance the contents, activities, and individual or group papers that must be properly specified in the paper or the digital platforms used; (g) properly anticipate the contents of lessons, informing the support team to progress in the process of understanding contents; (h) encouraging participation of students with AS in group activities, as well as allowing them to work individually, if desired; (i) specifying specific tutoring hours, both face-to-face and online, to ensure that they follow the activities planned properly, and they correctly understand the contents of the class; (j) providing in advance the material to be used in class or providing it on an accessible platform; and (k) specifying, meeting the support team, the type of evaluation best suited to the characteristics of students with AS, thus adjusting its format or relaxing the timing of the objectives assessments.

The specific individualized support plan must also include the following general objectives: (a) collaborating with teachers and families in the design of the specific support process for students with AS; (b) promoting collaboration of teachers and families in monitoring the support process; (c) collaborating in the initial assessment of needs of students with AS; (d) reporting on the choice of subjects per period, regulating the types and amount of contents, according to the needs assessment; (e) arranging and temporalizing content specifically; (f) establishing and monitoring the use of a personal agenda, both for planned activities and for the schedule of study, considering time and type of study, at the center and at home; (g) providing role-playing tests, using scripts listed in the personal agenda, in relation to the presentation of papers or public speeches; (h) establishing specific plans for the development of social and communication skills; and (i) designing specific support plans aiming to ease the acquisition of academic skills. Among the latter support skills are sequencing analysis of the information perceived; building information in a gestalt manner; developing progressive semantics of the processes perceived; enabling the creation of links related to the acquisition of information, to facilitate its recovery; developing capacities that enable analysis, synthesis, and criticism, along with the actual curricular practice; developing the ability to establish relationships, comparisons, similarities, and differences between the information received; developing capacities for personal inquiry and investigation; carrying out tests and mock situations before the real research process with other students; and developing levels of assessment and evaluation processes.

To ensure social and work integration, practice sessions should bring together the theory previously learnt and its application. Situations from an internship related to the degree should be simulated. Finally, guidelines for mediation and support in the workplace must be developed.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Manuel Ojea Rúa is professor of theory and history of education in the Department of Analysis and Intervention Psychosocial at the University of Vigo. He is a member of the Technical Commission of the Attention to Students with Special Educational Needs at the University of Vigo.

Nuria Diéguez García is professor of educational guidance. She is a member collaborator in the Attention to Students with Asperger Syndrome at the University of Vigo.

References

Abad

Álvarez

Castro

(2008) Apoyo a la integración a estudiantes con discapacidad en la enseñanza universitaria: Algunas medidas y propuestas de actuación orientadora [Support for the integration of students with disabilities in university education: Some measures and proposals for guidance]. Education and Diversity: International Yearbook of Research on Disabled and Multicultural People 2: 129–150.

Ainscow

(2001) Desarrollo de escuelas inclusivas. Ideas, propuestas y experiencias para mejorar las instituciones escolares [Development of inclusive schools. Thoughts, proposals and experiences to improve educational institutions], Madrid, Spain: Narcea.

Alcantud

Ávila

Asensi

(2000) La integración de estudiantes con discapacidad en los estudios superiores [The integration of students with disabilities in higher education], Valencia, Spain: Publishing Services, University of Valencia.

Alfonso

Díez

(2008) Universidad y discapacidad: Indicadores de buenas prácticas [University and disability: Indicators of good practice]. Siglo Cero 39(2, No. 226): 82–98.

Alquraini

Gut

(2012) Critical components of successful inclusion of students with severe disabilities: Literature review. International Journal of Special Education 1(27): 42–59.

Álvarez

(Coord.) (2012) Tutoría universitaria inclusiva [University tutorial inclusive], Madrid, Spain: Narcea.

Álvarez

P. R.

Alegre

O. M.

López

(2012) Las dificultades de adaptación a la enseñanza universitaria de los estudiantes con discapacidad: Un análisis desde un enfoque de orientación inclusiva [The need to adapt to university education for students with disabilities: An analysis from the perspective of inclusive education]. E-Journal of Educational Research, Assessment and Evaluation (RELIEVE) 18(2): 3.

Alzugaray

Mederos

Sutz

(2011) La investigación científica contribuyendo a la inclusión social [Scientific research contributing to social inclusión]. Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad (CTS) 17(6): 11–30.

American Psychological Association (2011) Publication manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th ed. Washington, DC: Author.

10.

Bartolo

(2010) The process of teacher education for inclusion: The Maltese experience. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 1(10): 139–148.

11.

Bayot

del Rincón

Hernández

(2002) Orientación y atención a la diversidad: Descripción de programas y acciones en algunos grupos emergentes [Orientation and attention to diversity: Description of programs and actions in some emerging groups]. E-Journal of Educational Research, Assessment and Evaluation (RELIEVE) 8: 1.

12.

Castellana

Sala

(2005) Estudiantes con discapacidad en las aulas universitarias, estudio sobre la atención a la diversidad dentro de las aulas universitarias. I Congreso Nacional de Universidad y Discapacidad [Disabled students in university classrooms, study on attention to diversity in university classrooms. I National Congress of University and Disability], Salamanca, Spain: Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia.

13.

Castro

J. F.

Abad

(2009) La incorporación a los estudios superiores: Situación del alumnado con discapacidad [The addition to higher education: Situation of disabled students]. Qurriculum 22: 165–188.

14.

European Commission (2010) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee of the Regions: European Disability Strategy 2010–2020: A Renewed Commitment to a Barrier-Free Europe (COM (2010) 636 final, 15.11.2010, {SEC (2010) 1323} {SEC (2010) 1324}), Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

15.

European Commission (2011) Modernisation of higher education in Europe: Funding and the social dimension, Brussels, Belgium: Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency.

16.

Fernández

M. D.

Álvarez

Malvar

M. L.

(2012) Accesibilidad e inclusión en el Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior: El caso de la Universidad de Santiago de Compostela [Accessibility and inclusion in the European higher education: The case of the University of Santiago of Compostela]. Aula Abierta 40(3): 71–82.

17.

Ferraz, A. (2002). Ergonomía de la información para estudiantes universitarios con discapacidad [Ergonomics information for college students with disabilities] (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Departament de Projectes d'Enginyeria y Departament d'Expressió Gráfica a l'Enginyeria, School of Industrial Engineering of Barcelona, Polytechnic University of Catalonia, Barcelona.

18.

Fleischer

(2012) Support to students with Asperger syndrome in higher education: The perspectives of three relatives and three coordinators. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research 35(1): 54–61.

19.

Flood

Hare

Wallis

(2011) An investigation into social information processing in young people with Asperger syndrome. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice 15(5): 601–624.

20.

Forteza

Ortego

(2003) Los servicios y programas de apoyo universitarios para personas con discapacidad: Estándares de calidad, acción y evaluación [Services and programs of university support for people with disabilities: Quality standards, action and evaluation]. Revista de Educación Especial 33: 9–26.

21.

García

Cotrina

(2011) Accesibilidad, inclusión e innovación docente en la universidad [Accessibility, inclusion and innovation in university teaching]. Cuadernos Digitales: Revista de Nuevas Tecnologías y Sociedad 67: 1–12.

22.

Gobbo

Shmulsky

(2012) Classroom needs of community college students with Asperger’s disorder and autism spectrum disorders. Community College Journal of Research and Practice 1(36): 40–46.

23.

Gobbo

Shmulsky

(2014) Faculty experience with college students with autism spectrum disorders: A qualitative study of challenges and solutions. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 1(29): 13–22.

24.

Goldstein

(2011) Multilevel statistical models, 4th ed. London, England: Arnold.

25.

Griffith

G. M.

Totsika

Nash

Hastings

R. P.

(2012a) I just don’t fit anywere: Support experiences and future support needs of individuals with Asperger syndrome in middle adulthood. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice 16(5): 532–546.

26.

Griffith

G. M.

Totsika

Nash

Jones

R. S. P.

Hastings

R. P.

(2012b) We are all there silently coping: The hidden experiences of parents of adults with Asperger syndrome. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability 37(3): 237–247.

27.

Harpur

Lawlor

Fitzgerald

(2004) Succeeding in college with Asperger’s syndrome: A student guide, London, England: Jessica Kingsley.

28.

Hughes

(2012) An autoethnographic approach to understanding Asperger syndrome: A personal exploration of self-identity through reflexive narratives. British Journal of Learning Disabilities 40(2): 94–100.

29.

Jallade

J. P.

(2011) International approaches to education: A review of some major cooperative programmes. European Journal of Education 46(1): 7–24.

30.

Kaland

Mortensen

Smith

(2011) Social communication impairments in children and adolescents with Asperger syndrome: Slow response time and the impact of prompting. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorder 5(3): 1129–1137.

31.

Kite

Tyson

Gullifer

(2011) Exploring the perception of Asperger disorder. Australasian Journal of Special Education 35(2): 204–219.

32.

Klin

Pauls

Schultz

Volkmar

(2005) Three diagnostic approaches to Asperger syndrome: Implications for research. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 35(2): 221–234.

33.

León

O. G.

Montero

(2003) Métodos de investigación en psicología y educación [Research methods in psychology and education], 3rd ed. Madrid, Spain: McGraw-Hill.

34.

Luque

Rodríguez

(2005) Accesibilidad y adaptaciones curriculares al alumnado con discapacidad en la universidad. Una reflexión docente. I Congreso Nacional de Universidad y Discapacidad [Accessibility and curriculum adaptations to students with disabilities in university. A teacher reflection. I National Congress of University and Disability], Salamanca, Spain: Vicerrectorado de Servicios a la Comunidad Universitaria.

35.

Luque

Rodríguez

(2008) Alumnado universitario con discapacidad: Elementos para la reflexión psicopedagógica [College students with disabilities: Psychology elements for reflection]. Revista Española de Orientación y Psicopedagogía 19(3): 270–281.

36.

Maheady

Harper

G. F.

Mallette

(2001) Peer-mediated instruction and interventions and students with mind disabilities. Remedial and Special Education 22(1): 4–14.

37.

McAndrew

Farrow

Cooper

(2012) Adapting online learning resources for all: Planning for professionalism in accessibility. Research in Learning Technology 4(20): 345–361.

38.

McCleary

McDowall

(2004) Time series designs. In: Cooper

(ed.) APA handbook of research methods in psychology vol 1, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 613–627.

39.

McCrimmon

A. W.

Schwean

V. L.

Saklofske

D. H.

Montgomery

J. M.

Brady

D. I.

(2012) Executive functions in Asperger syndrome: An empirical investigation of verbal and nonverbal skills. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 6(1): 224–233.

40.

Méndez

R. M.

(2009) Los estudiantes: Su percepción sobre lo que implica “ser estudiantes” y “hacer universidad” [Students: Their perception about what it means to be “students” and “to university”]. Revista de Investigación Educative (RIE) 1(27): 9–26.

41.

Minihan

Kinsella

Honan

(2011) Social skills training for adolescents with Asperger syndrome using a consultation model. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 11(1): 55–69.

42.

Minne

Semrud-Clikeman

(2012) A social competence intervention for young children with high functioning autism and Asperger syndrome: A pilot study. Autism 16(6): 568–585.

43.

Montero

León

O. G.

(2002) Clasificación y descripción de las metodologías de investigación en psicología [Classification and description of methodologies of research in psychology]. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 2: 503–508.

44.

Nielsen

C. M.

(2011) Towards applied integrationism: Integrating autism in teaching and coaching sessions. Language Sciences 33(4): 593–602.

45.

Nyden

Myren

Gillberg

(2008) Long-term psychosocial and health economy consequences of ADHD, autism, and reading–writing disorder: A prospective service evaluation project. Journal of Attention Disorders 2(12): 141–148.

46.

Ojea

(2008) Síndrome de Asperger en la universidad [Asperger syndrome in university], Alicante, Spain: Editorial Club Universitario.

47.

Organic Law 6/2001 of 21 December, on Universities, as modified by the Organic Law 4/2007 of 12 April (LOMLOU) (BOE no. 89, April 12, 2007).

48.

Organic Law 6/2001 of 21 December, on Universities, as modified by the Organic Law 4/2007 of 12 April (LOMLOU) (BOE no. 89, April 12, 2007).

49.

Osborne

Reed

(2011) School factors associated with mainstream progress in secondary education for included pupils with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3(5): 1253–1263.

50.

Pillay

Bhat

(2012) Facilitating support for students with Asperger syndrome. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy 26(2): 140–154.

51.

Price

Shiffran

Kerns

(2012) Movement perception and movement production in Asperger syndrome. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 6(1): 391–398.

52.

Priestly

Lawson

(2009) Indicators of disability equality in Europe (IDEE): A preliminary list of indicator proposals for discussion, Utrecht, The Netherlands: Academic Network of European Disability Expert.

53.

Robinson

Curwen

Ryan

(2012) A review of co-morbid disorders of Asperger disorder and the transition to adulthood. International Journal of Special Education 27(1): 4–16.

54.

Royal Decree. (1791/2010). Royal Decree 1791/2010, dated 30th December, related to Universities (BOE no. 318, 24/12/2010).

55.

Ruiz

Pistrang

Mandy

(2012) High-functioning autism and Asperger disorder: Utility and meaning for families. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 42(2): 230–243.

56.

Sawyer

Williamson

Young

(2012) Can gaze avoidance explain why individuals with Asperger syndrome can’t recognise emotions from facial expressions? Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 42(4): 606–618.

57.

Sciutto

Richwine

Mentrikoski

Niedzwiecki

(2012) A qualitative analysis of the school experiences of students with Asperger syndrome. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 27(3): 177–188.

58.

Sepúlveda

(2008) La actitud docente hacia la integración de alumnos con síndrome Asperger [The teaching attitude towards integration of pupils with Asperger syndrome]. Revista de Psicodidáctica 13(2): 117–119.

59.

Sepúlveda

Medrano

Martin

(2010) Integración en el aula regular de los alumnos con síndrome Asperger o autismo de alto funcionamiento: Una mirada desde la actitud docente [Integration into the regular classroom for students with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism: A view from the teaching attitude]. Bordón 62(4): 131–140.

60.

Shady

Luther

Richman

(2013) Teaching the teachers: A study of perceived professional development needs of educators to enhance positive attitudes toward inclusive practices. Education Research and Perspectives 1(40): 169–191.

61.

Sharma

Woolfson

Hunter

(2012) Confusion and inconsistency in diagnosis of Asperger syndrome: A review of studies from 1981 to 2010. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice 16(5): 465–486.

62.

Slee

(2011) The regular school: Exclusion, schooling and inclusive education, London, England: Routledge.

63.

Smith

(2010) How to fix an az-burger. Reclaiming Children and Youth 19(1): 7–11.

64.

Soresi

Nota

Wehmeyer

(2011) Community involvement in promoting inclusion, participation and self-determination. International Journal of Inclusive Education 1(15): 15–28.

65.

Stephenson

O’Neill

Carter

(2012) Teaching students with disabilities: A web-based examination of preparation of preservice primary school teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 5(37): 13–23.

66.

Styslinger

(2012) Making meaning: Strategies for literacy learning. Phi Delta Kappan 4(94): 40–45.

67.

Swain

Nordness

Leader-Janssen

(2012) Changes in preservice teacher attitudes toward inclusion. Preventing School Failure 2(56): 75–81.

68.

Tinklin

Riddell

Wilson

(2004) Policy and provision form disabled students in higher education in Scotland and England: The current state of play. Studies in Higher Education 29(5): 637–657.

69.

Tolrá

M. J.

(1998) Retos de los servicios universitarios de apoyo a la integración. XVII Seminario Interuniversitario de Teoría de la Educación “La Educación Universitaria: Nuevos retos educativos y tecnológicos” [Challenges of university support services integration. XVII Interuniversity Seminary of Theory of Education “University education. New educational and technological challenges”], Málaga, Spain: Universidad de Málaga.

70.

Trujillo

Cayo

(2006) Universidad y discapacidad. Guía de recursos [University and disability. Resource guide], Madrid, Spain: Ediciones Cinca.

71.

United Nations Organization (1966) International agreement of economic, social and cultural rights, Washington, DC: Author.

72.

United Nations Organization (2006) Meeting on human rights of people with disabilities, Washington, DC: Author.

73.

United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture (1994) International conference on special educational needs, Washington, DC: Author.

74.

Vieira

M. J.

(2008) Criterios para la evaluación del sistema de apoyo y orientación al estudiante universitario: Revisión y propuesta [Criteria for evaluation of system support and guidance college student: Review and proposal]. Revista de Educación 345: 399–423.

75.

Vieira

M. J.

Vidal

(2006) Tendencias de la educación superior Europea e implicaciones para la orientación universitaria [Trends in European higher education and implications for vocational guidance]. Revista Española de Orientación y Psicopedagogía 17(1): 75–97.

76.

Villa

Thousand

Nevin

(2013) A guide to co-teaching: New lessons and strategies to facilitate student learning , 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

77.

Villeneuve

Chatenoud

Hutchinson

Minnes

Perry

Dionne

Weiss

(2013) The experience of parents as their children with developmental disabilities transition from early intervention to kindergarten. Canadian Journal of Education 1(36): 4–43.

78.

Voss

J. A.

Bufkin

L. J.

(2011) Teaching all children: Preparing early childhood preservice teachers in inclusive settings. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 32(4): 338–354.

79.

Werner

Grayzman

(2011) Factors influencing the intention of students to work with individuals with intellectual disabilities. Developmental Disabilities 32(6): 2502–2510.

80.

Whitburn

(2013) The dissection of paraprofessional support in inclusive education: You’re in mainstream with a chaperone. Australasian Journal of Special Education 2(37): 147–161.

81.

Yeo

Neihart

Tang

Chong

Huan

(2011) An inclusion initiative in Singapore for preschool children with special needs. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 2(31): 143–158.

Predictability of Psychopedagogical Variables Related to User Satisfaction Level When Including Students With Asperger Syndrome at University

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Method

Participants

Design and Measure

Procedure

Results

Discussion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Author Biographies

References