Requesting Classroom Accommodations: Self-Advocacy and Conflict Resolution Training for College Students with Disabilities.

In 1996, approximately six percent of the students enrolled in postsecondary educational institutions had disabilities (National Clearinghouse on Postsecondary Education for Individuals with Disabilities, 1998). According to the National Center for Education Statistics (1999), college students with disabilities have traditionally reported sensory (visual or hearing loss) or orthopedic conditions. But the National Center (1999) also noted that, given advances in medical, educational, and environmental technologies, students with a variety of other types of disabilities including learning and neuromuscular impairments have enrolled in and successfully completed higher education programs.

In studying the ways in which a wide variety of impairments are dealt with in postsecondary institutions, Brinckerhoff, Shaw, and McGuire (1993) identified multiple accommodations ranging from special housing and equipment to notetakers, tape recorded lectures, readers, scribes, and interpreters. Moreover, the legal requirement to provide academic accommodations challenges student services professionals to generate an ever increasing range of accommodations for students with disabilities. Unfortunately, research indicates that young adults with disabilities enrolled in postsecondary education have little understanding of accommodations or of effective ways to implement their civil rights (Carroll & Johnson-Bown, 1996). In a study of college students with disabilities at fifteen colleges across eight states, Thompson (1993) found significant deficits in the knowledge of disability rights in a majority of the participating students. Other researchers have reported that many college students with disabilities need assistance in dealing with complex social interactions such as the `request and negotiate' demands in the accommodation situation (Chavez, 1984; Evenson & Evenson, 1983; Wall & Culhane, 1991.

Knowledge and skill deficiencies are not the only factors limiting students' success in requesting accommodations. Institutional resistance is a critical environmental condition making it more difficult for students with disabilities to request accommodations. Although more than 20 years have passed since the publication of Section 504 regulations and nine years have passed since the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), higher education, like many other social systems, continues to struggle with implementing policies for providing reasonable accommodations (Tucker & Goldstein, 1995). Heyward, Lawton and Associates (1995) stated that a struggle is underway between service providers and institutions of higher education over compliance with federal regulations and proper implementation of accommodations for students. Unfortunately, students with disabilities are frequently the casualties of this conflict (Heyward et al., 1995). Therefore, self-advocacy and conflict resolution training is an important intervention to offer college students with disabilities.

Recently developed educational materials and instructional programs define reasonable accommodations and the procedures for requesting them (Rumrill, Roessler, & Brown, 1994; Thompson & Bethea, 1996). Unfortunately, few, if any, training programs are available that delineate the sequence and timing of conflict resolution behaviors when disputes occur. The student with a disability must not only be educated in the procedures of requesting accommodations, but must also be provided the tools to resolve the inevitable differences of opinion that occur in the absence of clear accommodation policies.

The intervention evaluated in this study, Self-Advocacy and Conflict Resolution Training (SACR), addressed both the communication (self-advocacy) and negotiation (conflict resolution) skills that students need to implement their rights to accommodation in the educational process. In the SACR training program, students received information about academic barriers and reasonable accommodations; they were provided information detailing the protection they can expect from civil rights laws as well as the responsibilities expected of them; they received training in social competence skills for self-assertion and self-advocacy; and they practiced situational conflict resolution strategies. SACR training consisted of two modules, self-advocacy and conflict resolution.

Module 1: Self-Advocacy and Communication Skills

Following a brief introduction to academic barriers, accommodations, and the request process, participants watched a trainer model the skills involved in effective self-advocacy, practiced requesting accommodations with the trainer(s) and with each other, and role played self-advocacy skills with faculty members and other staff. The training focused on 17 behaviors identified by Rumrill, Roessler, and Brown (1997) as important in self-advocating for classroom accommodations, e.g., introduction, solution, resources, agreement, and close (see Table 1).

Table 1

Target Behaviors

Self-Advocacy Behaviors                Conflict-Resolution
                                            Behaviors

Greet instructor                            Specifying
Introduce self by name                      Reflecting
Refer to specific class                     Mutualizing
Identify disability status                  Collaborating
Explain needs functionally                  Inventing
Mention previous accommodations             Selecting
Explain benefits of past                    Summarizing
 accomodations
Request use of accommodations
Identify resources and how they help
Explain what you will do
Ask for agreement
Affirm agreement
Restate accommodations
Clarify your role
Clarify instructor's role
Close with positive statement
Express appreciation

Module 2: Conflict Resolution through Negotiation

This module presented negotiation training as a means; of resolving conflicts in implementing accommodations. Participants (a) observed a model using principled negotiation skills (Fisher & Ury, 1981), (b) applied these skills in an assortment of conflict situations, and (c) role played negotiation skills with training faculty and other staff. This portion of the training targeted seven behavioral domains related to resolving conflict (see Table 1).

Hypotheses

In comparisons between treatment and control groups, participants in the treatment condition were expected to possess a significantly higher (a) level of targeted self-advocacy and conflict resolution behavior, (b) mean level of task-specific (self-advocacy and conflict resolution) self-efficacy, (c) mean level of general accommodations rights and responsibilities knowledge, and (d) mean level of social competence.

Method

Participants

Enrolled in two and tour year postsecondary institutions. 50 students with disabilities completed the SACR training program. Requiring eight hours to complete, the training covered the 24 target behaviors of self-advocacy and conflict resolution as well as students' levels of efficacy and knowledge. All participants received an information pamphlet, Navigating the Accommodations Path, which provided supplemental information relative to the SACR workshop.

Referred by each institution's Office of Student Services, the 50 individuals with disabilities qualified for academic accommodation. The educational sites included in this study were geographically diverse (two universities and two community colleges in the South; one midwestern university, and one northeastern university). The students at each institution were randomly assigned to either the treatment (TC) (n = 24) or control (CC) (n = 26) conditions.

The control group consisted of 26 individuals (52%); the experimental group contained 24 individuals (48%). The sample included 33 females (66%) and 17 males (34%) ranging in age from 18 to 56 (M = 33.80 years, SD = 11.65). Although the sample consisted primarily of European Americans (n = 34, 68%), Native American (n = 8, 16%) was the second largest ethnic group represented. The types of disabilities reported by participants reflected national postsecondary education enrollment trends with learning (n = 16, 32%) and orthopedic (n = 12, 24%) disabilities accounting for more than half of the sample.

A chi-square test of association was conducted to test for possible differences between the experimental and control groups on gender, primary disability types, and ethnic group membership. Fisher's Exact (2-Tail) (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1994) test was used rather than the standard chi-square test of association in those cases where cells displayed expected cell frequencies of less than five. To determine if there was a significant difference between the age of the participants in the treatment and control conditions, an independent-samples t test was conducted. No significant differences were detected between the groups in gender and primary disability. The treatment group tended to be older (t = 2.38,p [is less than] .02) and more ethnically diverse (Fisher's Exact = 9.38, p [is less than] .02) than the control participants.

Instrumentation

Measures for determining the effectiveness of the intervention included behavioral ratings of participant self-advocacy skill acquisition and behavioral ratings of participant conflict resolution skill acquisition. Students completed paper and pencil measures of (a) self-advocacy self-efficacy, (b) conflict resolution self-efficacy, and (c) knowledge of academic accommodation rights and responsibilities. Expert raters with master's level training and experience in disability services provided evaluations of students' social competence.

Behavioral Rating of Targeted Skills. Self-advocacy and conflict resolution skill acquisition was measured with behavioral ratings of each student's performance during audiotaped request simulations. For control participants, these role plays were conducted prior to instruction with a training faculty member. Immediately following the training, each treatment participant performed a request for academic accommodation with a training faculty member. Control and treatment performances were audiotaped. Instructed to dispute some aspect of the requested accommodation, the SACR trainer provided each participant an opportunity to demonstrate acquired accommodation request and conflict resolution behaviors.

Two Ph.D. candidates in rehabilitation rated the audiotapes for target behaviors. Their training incorporated `an explicit set of scoring rules' (Gall et al., 1996, p. 360) focusing on behaviors identified as improving the request process and enhancing conflict resolution. A random selection of 20% (n = 10) of the total sample's audiotapes was used to train the raters, with 10% applied to the initial training and the remaining 10% held in reserve for additional training, if required. Interrater agreement was assessed using Cohen's (1960) Kappa coefficient. Raters agreed in 95% of the behavior assessments, resulting in a Kappa coefficient of .90.

Task-Specific Self-Efficacy (SA & CR). The self-report efficacy instruments measured the level of confidence that students had in their abilities to request accommodations (SA) and resolve ensuing conflicts (CR). Based on Bandura and Schunk's (1981) method of measuring task-specific self-efficacy, each scale (SA and CR) used a 10-point Likert-type scoring ranging from not confident (1) to very confident (10). For example, students rated their confidence that they could present the benefits of accommodations that they have used in the past on the 1-10 scale. The items in each of these scales were generated directly from the targeted skills previously identified as critical in requesting academic accommodations and in resolving conflict using negotiation strategies. Luzzo (1993) and Rumrill (1993) used this method to develop reliable and valid measures of task-specific self-efficacy.

High internal consistency (Cronbach's coefficient alpha, Gall et al., 1996, p. 257) was found for each self-efficacy measure (Request Self-Efficacy Alpha = .94; Conflict Resolution Self-Efficacy Alpha = .95). To address the possibility that such high coefficient alphas indicate the measurement of generalized, instead of task-specific, self-efficacy, a discriminant validity coefficient (DVC) (Crocker & Algina, 1986) was calculated. This coefficient determines the strength of relationship between measures of different constructs using the same method of measurement (heterotrait-monomethod coefficient). This correlational analysis yielded a correlation of .79 (Pearson's r). Fisher's Z transformation (Glass & Hopkins, 1996) was used to test the difference between the discriminant validity coefficient and each self-efficacy scale's coefficient alpha. A statistically significant difference (Request SE - Z = 3.24, p [is less than] .001; Conflict Resolution SE - Z = 3.67, p [is less than] .001) was found between each of the scales and the DVC, supporting the task-specific nature of each self-efficacy measure.

Rights and Responsibilities: Disability Accommodation Knowledge Survey (RR-DAKS). The RR-DAKS was developed to determine the extent of students' general knowledge of their rights and responsibilities related to academic accommodations as defined in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as their understanding of institutional implementation procedures. The nine items contained in the RR-DAKS were generated based on information in the instructional pamphlet, Navigating the accommodations path, which presented students with information about (a) their rights to and responsibilities for academic accommodations, (b) strategies for requesting and implementing academic accommodations, and (c) the policies and procedures for resolving disputes specific to each institution. The institution-specific information was collected from the directors of each school's Office of Disability Services or Student Services and incorporated into the training materials prior to the workshop presentation. Because the items contained in the RR-DAKS addressed a broad range of accommodation knowledge, scale reliability was assessed using test - retest (Gall et al., 1996, p. 256) procedures, resulting in a coefficient of stability of .83 (Pearson's r). Twenty percent (n = 10) of the sample was randomly selected for the re-testing process four weeks following the original administration of the measure.

Social Competence. Assessed as a global construct by raters with pertinent experience and training, social competence refers to a wide range of social skills, behavioral competencies, and coping behaviors that enable an individual to deal effectively with the demands of everyday living (Goldfried & D'Zurilla, 1969; McFall, 1982; Wrubel, Benner, & Lazarus, 1981). The social competence of this study's participants with respect to self-advocacy and conflict resolution skills was assessed through behavioral ratings of audiotaped accommodations request and conflict resolution performances. Two disability support personnel working at a state university independently rated the audiotapes which were anonymous and randomized. Experienced in training students to self-advocate for disability accommodations, these two professionals were qualified to assess the social competence of student participants.

Each student received an overall social competence score equal to the sum of the item scores from each rater. Interrater agreement was assessed using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient between the raters' scores for each student (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1994). Using a scale ranging from 1 (not capable) to 5 (very capable), the raters assessed the following dimensions: (a) the individual's ability to effectively request an academic accommodation (r = .73), (b) the individual's ability to effectively resolve a dispute related to a request for academic accommodation (r = .57), and (c) the individual's overall capability in an accommodation request situation (r = .65). The moderate-to-strong Pearson correlations (.57 - .73) indicated that the raters typically agreed on the behaviors that they observed.

Procedure

Students referred to the SACR training were asked to read and sign an informed consent form in order to participate in the study. Participants also provided information about themselves, their academic standing, and their disabilities. They were randomly assigned to the treatment or control conditions (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). The students were then given a choice of several time blocks and asked to enroll in a training session meeting their scheduling needs. Their assignment to either the experimental or control conditions was not a factor in selection of a training session. All training materials and activities were provided in accessible formats specific to each participant's needs.

Asked to report early for the training, those students randomly assigned to the control condition were taken to a private room and tested. Students assigned to the treatment group were engaged in informal discussion as they arrived prior to training. They were tested following the training consistent with the posttest-only design. As is evidenced in the timing of the assessments, the posttest-only design is appropriate because the control group was assessed on all measures of interest prior to receiving the intervention.

Statistical Analysis

Due to the contaminating effects of pretesting in the control condition, the SACR intervention was evaluated using a posttest-only control-group design (Gall et al., 1996). Posttest measurements included the five previously detailed self-report and behavioral indices and a social competency indicator. These indices acted as dependent variables in a between-groups, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). Independent variables in this analysis were the (a) institution (four four-year and two two-year institutions) and (b) condition group (Treatment or Control). The MANOVA analysis was used to test four hypotheses.

Results

The SACR intervention produced significant treatment effects (Wilks' Lambda = .18, Multivariate F (6, 33) = 25.05, p [is less than] .0001). Location of the training was not a significant factor in the acquisition of these skills and attitudes (Wilks' Lambda = .37, Multivariate F (30, 134) = 1.26, p = .19). In other words, the treatment effects appear unrelated to the geographic region or educational system in which the training was conducted. The condition by location interaction was non-significant (Wilks' Lambda = .31, F (30, 134) = 1.49, p [is less than] .06), indicating that the within experimental groups variance was equally distributed among training locations. This finding suggests that the intervention curriculum was consistently effective across training locations.

The treatment group exhibited a significantly higher mean number of self-advocacy behaviors (F(11, 38) = 60.93, p [is less than] .0001, [R.sup.2] = .69, see Table 2) and conflict resolution behaviors (F(11, 38) = 120.29, p [is less than] .0001, [R.sup.2] = .80; see Table 2). As a result of the intervention, trained individuals possessed significantly more self-advocacy and conflict resolution skills than untrained individuals. Location and condition by location interaction had no significant impact on the treatment effect.

Table 2

Effect of Self-Advocacy/Conflict Resolution Intervention

                            Treatment         Control

Variable                  Mean     (SD)     Mean    (SD)

Self-Advocacy Behaviors    8.83   (2.22)    3.87   (1.78)
(SABEH)

Conflict-Resolution        4.96   (1.78)    0.31   (0.55)
Behaviors (CRBEH)

Knowledge Acquisition      7.33   (1.43)    6.11   (1.47)
(KNOW)

Request Self-Efficacy     71.33   (8.08)   58.27   (16.67)
(REQSE)

Conflict Resolution       69.75   (7.22)   51.19   (16.36)
Self-Efficacy (CONSE)

Social Competence         11.06   (3.30)    7.25   (3.01)
(SOCCOM)

Variable                   P. Value for

                          Group Difference

Self-Advocacy Behaviors          .0001
 (SABEH)

Conflict-Resolution              .0001
Behaviors (CRBEH)

Knowledge Acquisition            .001
(KNOW)

Request Self-Efficacy            .002
(REQSE)

Conflict Resolution              .0001
Self-Efficacy (CONSE)

Social Competence                .003
(SOCCOM)

Results indicated that statistically significant differences existed between the treatment and control groups in the amount of general knowledge of accommodation rights and responsibilities they possessed (F(11, 38) = 11.79, p [is less than].0015, [R.sup.2] = .35; see Table 2). No significant differences in knowledge acquisition were found among the training sites nor was there a significant condition by location interaction. These findings indicated that as a result of the training, regardless of the geographic setting, participants' knowledge of rights to and responsibilities for academic accommodations increased significantly.

As a result of the intervention, the self-efficacy of the treatment group in requesting accommodations (F(11, 38) = 10.58, p [is less than] .002, [R.sup.2] = .52; see Table 2) and resolving conflicts associated with those requests (F(11, 38) = 21.75, p [is less than] .0001, [R.sup.2] = .53; see Table 2) increased significantly in comparison to the control group. Individuals who received the training believed themselves more capable of successfully requesting academic accommodations and more able to successfully resolve disputes that may arise during that process. There was a location effect (F(11, 38) =3.01, p =.02) in the Request Self-Efficacy (REQSE) variable. An examination of the REQSE means and standard deviations by location indicated that two of the training sites (two and four) exhibited a lower degree of variance, which may account for the location effect.

The self-advocacy and conflict resolution behaviors of the treatment group were determined significantly more effective in the global assessment of social competence (F(11, 38) = 10.03, p [is less than] .003, [R.sup.2] = .43; see Table 2). Independent observers perceived the individuals in the treatment group as significantly more socially competent in requesting accommodations and resolving disputes that arise during the request process.

Discussion

This study found that students with disabilities improved their knowledge of accommodation rights and responsibilities as a result of the SACR intervention. A tribute to either their own efforts or to educational services, students in this study possessed relatively high levels of civil rights and institutional policy knowledge prior to training. Support for this statement is evident in a comparison of the group means on the knowledge measure to the range of possible scores Mcontrol = 6.11, Mtreament = 7.33, Range - 0 to 9). Yet, from a theoretical and pragmatic perspective, knowledge, in and of itself, was not sufficient to induce self-advocacy behavior among the participants.

Previous studies have also shown that, as a product of social marginalization and the stigma of minority group membership, persons with disabilities often have limited communication skills (Rumrill, Roessler, & Brown, 1994; Satcher, 1995) and little belief in their ability to achieve (Evenson & Evenson, 1983). The findings of this study indicated that, as a result of the SACR training, students with disabilities significantly increased their SA and CR skills and thus were better prepared to satisfy their classroom accommodations needs. Further evidence of this finding is that the SACR trained participants were perceived by postsecondary educators as significantly more competent in requesting accommodations and resolving differences of opinion in the determination of reasonable accommodation. Of course, skill gains reported in this study were observed in role-play assessments, not in `real life' interactions with instructors. Further research is needed to determine the extent to which students can generalize these skills to in-vivo situations.

Defined as one's sense of mastery in his/her personal environment, self-efficacy is critical to long-term use of newly developed skills. People who perceive themselves as competent and effective in implementing a task (efficacy expectation) are more likely to attempt and persist at the task (outcome expectation) than those people who possess lower self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). In fact, low self-efficacy is often a major obstacle to success for individuals with disabilities in a variety of situations (Devins & Seland, 1987; Marsh, Ellison, & Strite, 1983). In this study, students offered examples of such negative self-beliefs prior to training, e.g., `I can't really talk to my instructors' or `No, I don't think I could question my professor once she said she didn't want to change her classroom to a first floor room. It might make her mad.' Fortunately, SACR training addressed the origins of these low self-efficacy beliefs by incorporating Bandura's four information sources for self-efficacy acquisition.

1. By providing participants with knowledge of effective request and negotiation behaviors and opportunities to practice those skills (performance accomplishment), the training exposed participants to reinforcement from significant others in the process of requesting accommodations and resolving disputes. Scores from the control group indicate that many students with disabilities came to the training with various limitations in communication skills. From basic conversation construction (`What words can I use to describe my disability in functional terms?') to advanced negotiation strategies (`How do I get past the instructor's objection without appearing too pushy?'), participants practiced communication skills in one-on-one sessions with the trainer and in supervised practice with other members of their group. The group only moved on to new skills when each participant had successfully demonstrated the skill.

2. Because the training occurred in a small-group structure, participants were able to watch other people practice useful skills, receive positive outcomes, and talk about how they felt about doing the tasks both before and during the training (vicarious experience). From the outset, participants were encouraged to give each other constructive feedback following individual practice sessions. Initial unfamiliarity among the participants restrained feedback early in the training, but this quickly changed to a cooperative learning environment as group members became more comfortable with each other.

3. A positive product of the small-group structure was the individual encouragement each participant received from training staff and other group members while practicing each of the skills (verbal persuasion). Comments such as `I know this seems awkward, but I know you can do it,' and `You sure made that look easy,' are but two examples of the verbal encouragement (persuasion) offered by training staff and group members.

4. Throughout the role-plays, participants commonly exhibited, and often verbalized, high degrees of performance anxiety (emotional arousal). One participant initially refused to participate in the role-plays, citing discomfort in front of other people. This person was not required to participate and eventually volunteered to re-engage in the practice element of the workshop. As a result of practicing target behaviors, receiving verbal encouragement, and observing positive models, participants developed strategies for managing and coping with the emotional arousal associated with requesting accommodations and resolving conflicts.

Conclusion

The SACR intervention is a valuable tool for student services and rehabilitation personnel. By conducting the SACR training, student services personnel can expect several positive benefits. First, students will be able to properly request and implement needed classroom accommodations. Second, students will learn how to communicate their needs, thus reducing the number of occurrences in which service personnel must advocate on behalf of students. Furthermore, as they implement and maintain accommodations more effectively, students would be expected to require less staff assistance, thus freeing resources (i.e., time and funds) for other program investments. A relatively uncomplicated program, the SACR intervention is easily learned by student personnel professionals. Thus, only a minimal investment of time is required to offer the training. Similar results could also be expected for vocational rehabilitation professionals who adapt SACR training to help people with disabilities request job accommodations, an essential right guaranteed under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The SACR intervention is relatively easy to implement, yet has the potential for significant positive impact on the quality of life for people with disabilities.

Acknowledgement

This article is based on a doctoral dissertation completed by the senior author. The authors wish to acknowledge the many contributions of the other committee members, specifically Drs. George Denny, Jason Andrew, and Virginia Johnson.

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(3), 586-598.

Brinckerhoff, L., Shaw, S., & McGuire, J. (1993). Promoting postsecondary education for students with learning disabilities. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Carroll, A., & Johnson-Bown, C. (1996). Disability support services in higher education: An extension of the rehabilitation process. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling,27(3), 54-59.

Chavez, S. (1984). Young adulthood development revisited: The disabled college student. International Journal for the Advancement of Counseling, 7(3), 225-28.

Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Education and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37-46.

Devins, G., & Seland, T. (1987). Emotional impact of multiple sclerosis: Recent findings and suggestions for future research. Psychology Bulletin, 101, 363-375.

Evenson, T., & Evenson, M. (1983). An innovative approach to career development of disabled college students. Journal of Rehabilitation, 49, 64-67.

Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Gall, M., Borg, W., & Gall, J. (1996). Educational Research (6th Edition). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Glass, G. & Hopkins, K. (1996). Statistical methods in education and psychology (3rd Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Goldfried, M., & D'Zurilla, T. (1969). A behavior-analytic model for assessing competence. In C.D. Spielberger (Ed.) Current topics in clinical and community psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Academic Press.

Hatcher, L., & Stepanski, E. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for univariate and multivariate statistics. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

Heyward, Lawton & Associates (Summer, 1995). Faculty members and services providers: The unhappy alliance. Disability Accommodation Digest. Narragansett, RI: Author.

Luzzo, D. (1993). Reliability and validity testing of the Career Decision-making Self Efficacy Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 26, 137-142.

March, G., Ellison, G., & Strite, C. (1983). Psychosocial and vocational rehabilitation approaches to multiple sclerosis. Annual Review of Rehabilitation, 3, 242-267.

McFall, R. (1982). A review and reformulation of the concept of social skills. Behavioral Assessment, 4, 1-33.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: A profile of preparation, participation, and outcomes. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

National Clearinghouse on Postsecondary Education for Individuals with Disabilities. (1998). Profile of 1996 college freshmen with disabilities. American Council on Education, Volume 1, Number 1E.

Rumrill, P. (1993). Increasing the frequency of accommodation requests among persons with multiple sclerosis: a demonstration of the progressive request model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.

Rumrill, P., Roessler, R., & Brown, P. (1994). The accommodations planning team seminar: Improving prospects for competitive careers for students with disabilities. Unpublished manuscript, University of Arkansas at Fayetteville.

Rumrill, P., Roessler, R., & Brown, P. (1997) Self-Advocacy Training: Preparing students with disabilities to request classroom accommodations. University of Arkansas: Arkansas Research & Training Center in Vocational Rehabilitation.

Satcher, J. (1995). Bridges to career success: A model program serving students with learning disabilities. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation,27(4), 25-29.

Thompson, A. (1993). An examination of college students' with disabilities self-perceptions of their job acquisition skills. Dissertation. Mississippi State University.

Thompson, A., & Bethea, L. (1996). College students with disabilities: A desk reference guide for faculty and staff. Mississippi State University.

Tucker, B., & Goldstein, A. (1995). Legal rights of persons with disabilities: An analysis of federal law. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.

Wall, C., & Culhane, H. (1991). Project Employment: A model for change. OSERS News in Print, 4(1), 17-21.

Wrubel, J., Benner, P., & Lazarus, R. (1981). Social competence from the perspective of stress and coping. In J. D. Wine & M. D. Smye (Eds.), Social competence. New York: Guilford.

Richard T. Roessler University of Arkansas

Charles Palmer, Ph.D., CRC, Department of Counselor Education & Educational Psychology, P.O. Box 9727, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762.