PLoS ONE (Jan 2022)

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

  • Jessica Campanile,
  • Caroline Cerilli,
  • Varshini Varadaraj,
  • Fiona Sweeney,
  • Jared Smith,
  • Jiafeng Zhu,
  • Gayane Yenokyan,
  • Bonnielin K Swenor

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277249
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 17, no. 11
p. e0277249

Abstract

Read online

BackgroundThere is limited data to assess, track, or quantify accessibility and disability inclusion across universities.ObjectiveThis 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.MethodsA 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).ResultsOf 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).ConclusionsOur 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.