The Spectrum of Disability Documentation Requirements at 12 Institutions A Thematic Analysis

IF 0.5 Q4 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Emily Tarconish, Ashley Taconet, Nicholas W. Gelbar, Joseph W. Madaus, Lyman L. Dukes, Michael N. Faggella-Luby
{"title":"The Spectrum of Disability Documentation Requirements at 12 Institutions A Thematic Analysis","authors":"Emily Tarconish, Ashley Taconet, Nicholas W. Gelbar, Joseph W. Madaus, Lyman L. Dukes, Michael N. Faggella-Luby","doi":"10.18666/ldmj-2021-v26-i2-11121","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The two laws primarily governing disability services in postsecondary education, the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, permit institutions of higher education to determine disability documentation requirements on an individual basis. Many institutions have utilized documentation guidelines delineating a range of domains to be addressed, and often, suggestions for specific tests to be included, as well as strict recency requirements. Following passage of the ADAAA in 2008, the Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) published documentation guidance practices that reflected the updated ADAAA. The current qualitative study examined the perspectives of 12 directors of disability services (DDS) at postsecondary institutions in the United States regarding the disability documentation requirements at their respective schools and their perspectives on why the standards were adopted. Findings revealed a wide spectrum from flexibility to rigidity in requirements from those who employ traditional guidelines to those who apply selective degrees of the AHEAD guidance. Benefits and drawbacks of documentation and the AHEAD guidance are discussed, as well as suggestions for practitioners and institutions seeking to implement the AHEAD guidance.","PeriodicalId":42442,"journal":{"name":"Learning Disabilities-A Multidisciplinary Journal","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning Disabilities-A Multidisciplinary Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18666/ldmj-2021-v26-i2-11121","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The two laws primarily governing disability services in postsecondary education, the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, permit institutions of higher education to determine disability documentation requirements on an individual basis. Many institutions have utilized documentation guidelines delineating a range of domains to be addressed, and often, suggestions for specific tests to be included, as well as strict recency requirements. Following passage of the ADAAA in 2008, the Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) published documentation guidance practices that reflected the updated ADAAA. The current qualitative study examined the perspectives of 12 directors of disability services (DDS) at postsecondary institutions in the United States regarding the disability documentation requirements at their respective schools and their perspectives on why the standards were adopted. Findings revealed a wide spectrum from flexibility to rigidity in requirements from those who employ traditional guidelines to those who apply selective degrees of the AHEAD guidance. Benefits and drawbacks of documentation and the AHEAD guidance are discussed, as well as suggestions for practitioners and institutions seeking to implement the AHEAD guidance.
12个机构的残疾文件要求范围:专题分析
《美国残疾人法案修正案》(ADAAA)和1973年《康复法案》第504条,这两部主要管理高等教育中残疾人服务的法律,允许高等教育机构根据个人情况确定残疾人文件要求。许多机构已经利用文档指南来描述要处理的领域范围,并且经常包括要包括的特定测试的建议,以及严格的近时性要求。继2008年ADAAA通过后,高等教育和残疾协会(AHEAD)发布了反映最新ADAAA的文档指导实践。目前的定性研究审查了美国高等教育机构的12名残疾服务主任对各自学校残疾文件要求的看法,以及他们对为什么采用这些标准的看法。调查结果显示,从采用传统指导方针的人到采用选择性程度的AHEAD指导方针的人,要求从灵活性到刚性的范围很广。讨论了文件和AHEAD指南的优缺点,以及对寻求实施AHEAD指南的从业者和机构的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
6.20%
发文量
4
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信