TY - JOUR
T1 - Accessibility and disability inclusion among top-funded U.S. Undergraduate Institutions
AU - Campanile, Jessica
AU - Cerilli, Caroline
AU - Varadaraj, Varshini
AU - Sweeney, Fiona
AU - Smith, Jared
AU - Zhu, Jiafeng
AU - Yenokyan, Gayane
AU - Swenor, Bonnielin K.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Campanile et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PY - 2022/11
Y1 - 2022/11
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85142873631&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85142873631&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0277249
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0277249
M3 - Article
C2 - 36417345
AN - SCOPUS:85142873631
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 17
JO - PloS one
JF - PloS one
IS - 11 November
M1 - e0277249
ER -