INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the
most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1.The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating
adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an
indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of
movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete
copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­
graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning”
the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer
of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with
small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again-beginning
below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by
xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and
tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our
Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we
have filmed the best available copy.

Universe

Micrdritms

International

3 0 0 N. ZEEB ROAD, ANN A R B O R , Ml 4 8 1 0 6
18 B E D FO R D ROW, LONDON WC1R 4 E J, ENGLAND

8112102
KING, THEODORE I., II

A SURVEY OF CONCERNS PERCEIVED BY STUDENT WHEELCHAIR
USERS AT THREE MAJOR PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES IN MICHIGAN

Michigan State University

University
Microfilms
International

300 N, Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106

PH.D.

1980

PLEASE NOTE:
In all cases this material has been filmed 1n the best possible
way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this
document have been identified here with a check mark v0* .
1. Glossy photographs ______
2. Colored illustrations ______
3. Photographs with dark background_ _ _
4.

Illustrations are poor copy ______

5. °rint shows through as there 1s text on bothsides of page _ _ _ _ _
6. Indistinct, broken or small print on severalpages
7.

Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine _ _ _ _ _ _

8.

Computer printout pages with indistinct print _ _ _ _ _

9.

Page(s) _ _ _ _ _ _ lacking when material received, and not available
from school or author

10.

Page(s) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ seem to be missing in numbering only as text
follows

11. Poor carbon copy ______
12.

Not original copy, several pageswith blurred

type _ _ _ _ _

13. Appendix pages are poor copy ______
14.

Original copy with light type ______

15. Curling and wrinkled pages ______
16.

Other __________________________________________________________

University
Micixjfilms
International
3 0 0 N. /?EEB R D „ A N N A R B O R . Ml 4 H 1 0 6 13131 7 0 1 - 4 7 0 0

A SURVEY OF CONCERNS PERCEIVED BY
STUDENT WHEELCHAIR USERS AT THREE
MAJOR PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES IN MICHIGAN
By
Theodore I. King, II

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Higher Education

1980

ABSTRACT
A SURVEY OF CONCERNS PERCEIVED BY
STUDENT WHEELCHAIR USERS AT THREE
MAJOR PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES IN MICHIGAN
By
Theodore I. King, II

Statement of the Problem
Institutions of higher education have been striving over
the past few years to eradicate barriers which limit use of
their facilities by wheelchair users.

These efforts are

attempts to comply with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

It

is generally accepted that gains have been made but no clear
efforts have been attempted to find out if the problems
addressed are those that have the greatest impact on wheel­
chair users and if these modifications have been sufficient.
By conducting a survey among the wheelchair users them­
selves at a representative sample of universities it was
hoped that a better understanding of immediate needs could
be ascertained which would assist the universities in better
addressing these needs.

Methods
Three large public universities in Michigan were chosen
as the higher education facilities from which to draw study
participants:

Michigan State University, Wayne State

University and The University of Michigan.

The defined

Theodore I. King, II

population consisted of student wheelchair users.

All

participants were enrolled as full or part-time students at one
of these three universities.

The students were originally

contacted through the handicapper affairs offices at the
universities to request their participation in the study.
Data collection was accomplished through use of the
following:

(1) the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control

Instrument, (2) a questionnaire designed by the investigator
to determine perceived concerns of a student wheelchair user
at a major university, and (3) personal interviews with a
subsample of the research population to clarify and expound
on perceived concerns.

Major Findings
The areas suggesting major concerns by student wheel­
chair users in responding to the questionnaire were:

lack

of adequate snow removal, accessible housing cafeterias,
accessible drinking fountains, accessibility to sporting
events on campus and adequate help to facilitate self care
activities (e.g., dressing and personal hygiene).
The independent variables that were identified by the
investigator as influencing responses to the questionnaire
were:

sex, university attended, level of education, medical

diagnosis, muscle involvement, manual vs. electric wheelchair
use, years in a wheelchair at a university and locus of
control.

Sex and medical diagnosis were variables that

yielded statistically significant differences in response
patterns.

Theodore I. King, xx

The major issues identified by students who were inter­
viewed were:

accessible bathrooms within classroom buildings,

accessible campus housing, available handicapper parking
spaces, library accessibility, adequate ramps to buildings
with steps, accessible elevators and accessible doorways
into buildings.

To Harold Daly

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to give thanks to my doctoral committee members,
Marylee Davis, Howard Hickey, Cas Gentry and Donald Freeman.
Their advice and encouragement during my quest for the degree
has been extremely helpful.
A special thanks is extended to my immediate family my parents and my sister.

Throughout my struggle to obtain

several degrees in an effort to satisfy my own needs they
have been at my side without question to offer their support
in any way possible.

The unity of such a strong family has

been the reason for my ability to endure many hardships and
achieve many goals.
Appreciation is also extended to the directors of the
Handicapper Affairs Offices at the three universities in-*
volved in this study - Judy Taylor, Betsy Schrauder and James
Kubaiko.

Without the support of their offices and the

willingness to give of their time this study would not be
as valuable in assessing the true needs and concerns of
wheelchair users at a university.
Finally, thanks to Necia Black from Michigan State
University in serving as a research consultant for this
study and her willingness to adapt to my time schedule
so often.

k

I

f

111

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

DEDICATION................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.............. . ........................iii
LIST OF T A B L E S ......................................... Vi
CHAPTER ONE:

THE P R O B L E M .............................

1

Introductory Statement...........................
1
Purpose of the Study. . . . . . . . ............
4
Statement of the Problem.........................
5
Questions .......................................
6
Definition of Terms .............................
7
Significance.....................................
8
Limitations .....................................
9
Organization of the S t u d y ......................... 10
Footnotes to Chapter O n e ................
CHAPTER TWO:

11

REVIEW OF LITERATURE....................... 12

Introduction. .
............ .. . . ............. 12
Special Services................................... 12
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973..................
15
Research Directly Related to Present Study. . . .
17
S u m m a r y ........................................... 24
Footnotes to Chapter Two............................... 25
CHAPTER THREE:

DESIGN................................... 26

Introduction................................
26
The Defined Population............................. 26
Sampling Procedures .............................
28
Description of the S a m p l e ......................... 28
The Research Instruments......................
. 31
V a r i a b l e s ......................................... 34
Data Analysis Procedures........................... 34
S u m m a r y ........................................... 36
CHAPTER FOUR:

ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A ..................... 38

Introduction....................................... 38
Question One....................................... 38
Question Two..........................
41
Sex of Respondent.
........................... 43
iv

Page

Age of Respondent...............................45
University Attended.............................45
Academic Major ..............................
49
Level of Education............................ 49
Medical Diagnoses...............................51
53
Muscle involvement ..........................
Use of Manual and ElectricWheelchairs . . . .
55
Number of Years as a Wheelchair U s e r .......... 59
Operating a Motor Vehicle. . .
............... 62
Locus of C o n t r o l .............................. 64
Question Three.................................. 66
S u m m a r y .......................................... 71
CHAPTER FIVE!

SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS.......................... 73

S u m m a r y .......................................... 73
Implications of the S t u d y .........................78
79
Recommendations for Future Research ............
APPENDIX A:

INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO STUDENT WHEELCHAIR
USERS...................................... 81

APPENDIX B:

CHARACTERISTICS OF WHEELCHAIR USERS WHO
PARTICIPATED IN THE STUDY.................. 83

APPENDIX C:

MULTIDIMENSIONAL HEALTH LOCUS OF CONTROL
INSTRUMENT
...........................87

APPENDIX Di

QUESTIONNAIRE TO DETERMINE PERCEIVED
CONCERNS OF STUDENT WHEELCHAIR USERS AT A
MAJOR UNIVERSITY.......................... 90

APPENDIX Es

TABLE OF MEANS FOR EACH QUESTIONNAIRE
STATEMENT............................

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

97

........................................102

v

LIST OP TABLES
Page

TABLE I:

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE GROUPED INTO
TEN MAJOR CATEGORIES........................... 42

TABLE II:

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIREBYSEX...............44

TABLE III:

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE BY A G E ............ 46

TABLE IV:

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIREBYUNIVERSITY . .

TABLE V:

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE BY LEVEL OF
EDUCATION
................................50

TABLE VI:

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE BY MEDICAL
DIAGNOSIS...................................... 52

TABLE VII:

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE BY MUSCLE
I NVOLVEMENT.................................. 54

TABLE VIII:
TABLE IX:
TABLE X:

47

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE BY PERCENT USE
OF MANUAL WHEELCHAIR .....................
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE BY PERCENT USE
OF ELECTRIC W H E E L C H A I R ................

56
58

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE BY NUMBER OF YEARS
AS WHEELCHAIR USER..............................60

TABLE XI:
TABLE XII:
TABLE XIII:

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE BY YEARS IN
WHEELCHAIR AT U N I V E R S I T Y ..................... 61
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE BY DRIVING A
MOTOR V E H I C L E ................................63
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE BY INTERNAL
LOCUS OF CONTROL SCORES..................... 65

CHAPTER ONE:

THE PROBLEM

Introductory Statement
"Galen, in the second century A.D., stated that 'Employ­
ment is nature's best physician and essential to happiness.
In this era of educational pursuits it has become
recognized that to obtain a good job, one can generally
assume that at least a high school education holds especial
importance.

For the physically handicapped it is even of

greater importance to achieve a higher degree of education
to assist in securing meaningful employment.

Physically

handicapped persons must rely mainly on their mental
capacities in gaining employment and feeling that they are
offering a meaningful contribution to the world in which
they live.
In contrast to the role that brute strength
played in the lives of our ancestors, it is how
much you have in your head and how you can use it
that pays off in today's modern world. Knowledge
itself, however, is not salable or usable. To
put your knowledge and experience to practical
use, you must be able to speak or use your hands.
If you can communicate, either orally or in
2
writing, what's in your head can be put to use.
Yearly, thousands of physically handicapped individuals
enroll at institutions of higher learning across the United
States.

Some have only minor difficulties which rarely

hamper their ability to gain an education.

Others are

severely handicapped and find college life a struggle both
in the classroom and in their living environment.

1

^

According to Rusalem, two special factors in the edu­
cation and rehabilitation of physically handicapped
individuals may play roles in influencing the decision to
attend college and the goals to be achieved at college.'*
These factors are vocational rehabilitation and post-high
school employment opportunities.

In every state of the

United States joint federal-state vocational rehabilitation
agencies serve individuals with physical, emotional and
mental handicaps.

These agencies assist students in gaining

an education to benefit them in securing employment through
services extended to financing necessary assistive devices
to aid handicapped students through school (e.g., buying
eyeglasses, hearing aids or recording machines).

Also, when

there are fewer opportunities for handicapped students in
the post-high school world, college attendance may be con­
sidered a logical choice.
On September 26, 1973, President Nixon signed the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (HR 8070).

Existing authority

for the vocational rehabilitation program had expired in
June 1972.
According to Section 504 of the Vocational
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 'No otherwise
qualified handicapped individual in the United
States, ...shall solely by reason of his handi­
cap be excluded from participation in, be denied
the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimina­
tion under any program or activity receiving
Federal financial assistance.'4
This legislation dictated changes not only in enrollment
at institutions of higher education but mandated physical
changes to eliminate barriers to physically handicapped

persons.

This included items such as braille labels for

the visually impaired and ramps for wheelchair users.

Since

each institution would require time to assess their
facilities and make the necessary changes to adhere to the
new legislation, approximately five years was given to these
federally-subsidized programs to meet the requirements of
this new legislation.

Final regulations governing the act

went into effect in June 1977 and colleges and universities
were faced with many deadlines during the 1977-78 academic
year.
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was clearly the biggest
step the government had taken to assist in securing equal
opportunities for handicapped persons interested in acquiring
a college education.

In the wake of its inception as a law,

colleges and universities responded by setting up special
offices designed to study the problems of handicapped
students on their campus and to assist in complying with the
regulations.

This act meant that whether there was one or

fifty students in wheelchairs on campus that buildings and
programs must be made accessible to wheelchair students.
With the advent of the Rehabilitation Act, the return
of many Vietnam veterans to campus with war-related dis­
abilities, and the success of modern medicine, there has
been a tremendous growth in the handicapped population on
college campuses.
In an effort to comply with the Rehabilitation Act
much time, effort and money has been spent to make colleges

4

and programs accessible to handicapped students.

The imple­

mentation of special services through handicapper affairs
offices has been the major thrust of higher education
facilities in response to this recent legislation.

Over the

past five years institutions of higher education have made a
concerted effort in making their programs accessible through
contact with handicapped students and working in cooperation
with other institutions facing the same changes.

Many formal

and informal studies within these institutions have assisted
these institutions in providing better services to handi­
capped students.

However, as colleges and universities seek

to open their programs to this population of students, few
studies have concentrated on the handicapped students' per­
ceptions of the problems they face and the priority of such
a list of current problems.
A study designed to identify these disabled students'
perceptions as to current problems encountered at institu­
tions of higher learning would assist in implementing better
programs aimed directly at fulfilling student needs.

Purpose of the Study
The major purpose of this study is to determine the
problems and needs perceived by wheelchair students at
three major public universities.

Secondarily, several

independent variables (e.g., sex, age, medical diagnosis,
time in wheelchair, etc.) will be compared with perceived
problems to look for significance.

In an effort to limit

5

the scope of the study and amount of data collected, to in­
crease validity, a clearly defined group of physically handi­
capped students will be used for the study.

Statement of the Problem
Institutions of higher education (in an effort to com­
ply with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973) have been striving
over the past few years to eradicate barriers at their
facilities which limit use by wheelchair users.

It is felt

0

that gains have been made but no clear efforts have been
attempted to find out if the problems addressed are those
which have the greatest impact on wheelchair users and if
these modifications have been sufficient.
In conducting a survey among the wheelchair users
themselves at a representative sample of universities it
is hoped that a better understanding of immediate needs can
be ascertained which would assist the universities in better
addressing these needs.

It is felt that the wheelchair

users would have a clearer idea of what current problems
exist and provide insight as to what directions the
universities should channel their energies in not only
complying with federal law, but also more adequately making
the universities and their programs more accessible to
wheelchair users.

6

Questions
In preliminary contacts by this researcher with several
student wheelchair users they noted a serious lack of
attention by various universities in eliminating "barriers"
to allow greater accessibility for wheelchair users.

These

barriers included attitudes of instructors in adapting to
wheelchair users in classrooms as well as physical barriers
in being able to enter buildings and maneuver independently
within them.
In reviewing the literature, support was found to sug­
gest that unnecessary duplication of services occurs for the
handicapped vs. non-handicapped students and that formal
surveys and/or needs assessments were lacking to indicate
what problems were perceived by the wheelchair users at the
level of higher education.
For the purpose of this study ten major areas regarding
"accessibility" concerns were felt to be important.
ten areas are:

These

the health center, the library, campus

events, study aids, campus terrain, transportation, campus
housing, campus buildings, the attitude of the university
toward handicappers, and student services.
The major questions to be addressed by this study are:
1.

What unique problems are experienced by student
wheelchair users when they attend a large public
university?

7

2.

Do certain characteristics of wheelchair users
have an impact on their perception of problems
at a university?

3.

What changes, if any, do student wheelchair users
feel a university should make in an effort to
alleviate these problems?

Definition of Terms
1.

Accessibility - Referring to the ease by which

buildings and/or programs can be entered (obtainability).
2.

Barrier-Free - Referring to a building and/or pro­

gram that is completely accessible; lacking any type of
physical or mental obstacle.
3.

Disabled - Unable, unfit or disqualified; generally

regarded as a negative term when referring to a person with
a physical or mental handicap.
4.

Handicapped - A person who experiences a physical

or mental hindrance in being able to perform activities of
daily living.

Generally regarded as a less positive term

than handicapper when referring to an individual with a
physical or mental handicap.
5.

Handicapper - A person with a physical or mental

handicap who determines the degree to which their handicap
will ultimately affect their life and can operate equally
successfully as a person without the handicap.

Regarded as

a positive term when referring to a person with a physical
or mental handicap.

6.

Physically Handicapped Students - Students who

have some form of physical disability which constitutes a
distinct handicap to employment yet not complicated by
recognizable emotional involvement.
7.

Rehabilitation - "Restoration of the handicapped

to the fullest physical, mental, social, vocational and
economic usefulness of which they are capable."^
8.

Habilitation - "Not restoring but achieving inde­

pendence, self care, and work potential

in the first instance;

as, for example, in the child born blind or with cerebral
palsy.
9.

Hemiplegia - Paralysis of one

side of the body.

10.

Paraplegia - Paralysis of both lower extremities

and, generally, the lower trunk.
11.

Quadriplegia - Paralysis of all four limbs.

Significance
In conducting this study two major outcomes are
anticipated:

first, to determine the perceived problems of

wheelchair students at three major public universities and
secondly, to determine the adequacy of special programs and
services currently available to these students.
The ramifications of such a study include being able
to determine priority problems that these specific handi­
capped individuals are experiencing at their campuses and,
as a result, to offer better services to make the university
more accessible and more responsive to the needs of

handicapped students.

Though only three major universities

will be examined, it is hoped that some measure o£ general­
ization can be made to extend the findings of the study to
other universities across the United States.

Limitations
The major limitations of the current study include the
small sample size and the questionnaire design.
The target population for the study includes wheelchair
users at institutions of higher education.

The defined

population for the study are wheelchair users at Michigan
State University, The University of Michigan and Wayne State
University.

The sample is that group of wheelchair users

at these three universities who volunteered to participate
in the study.

This is a relatively small sample and will

therefore limit generalizability of the results of the study
to the target population.
The major instrument in determining perceived needs by
the wheelchair users in the sample is a questionnaire de­
signed by this investigator.

The questionnaire contains

forty-eight questions aimed at determining perceived needs
of wheelchair users at a university.

These questions were

arrived at through discussions with wheelchair users and the
special offices at the three universities designed to assist
handicappers at their facility.

Individuals with expertise

in designing questionnaires were consulted and the question­
naire was pilot tested at Eastern Michigan University to

10

improve internal validity by clarifying wording of questions.
The instrument is therefore not standardized and formal
validity and reliability have not been determined.

It is

noted that prior to using this instrument only "face"
validity was established.

Results based on information from

this questionnaire can only suggest relationships, not
correlations.

Organization of the Study
In Chapter Two current literature is reviewed to sup­
port the need for undertaking the proposed study.

In

Chapter Three the design of the proposed research is dis­
cussed with an emphasis on examining the dependent and
independent variables, data collection instruments and
procedures, and analysis procedures.

In Chapter Four the

data that were collected are shared and analyzed.

Chapter

Five contains the summary, conclusions and implications
suggested by the study as well as recommendations for
future research.

11

Footnotes to Chapter One

^W. Scott Allan, Rehabilitation: A Community Challenge
(New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958) , p. 75.
2

Howard A. Rusk, et al^, Living With a Disability
(Garden City, N.Y.: Blakiston Co., Inc., 1953), p. TIT
^Herbert Rusalem, Guiding the Physically Handicapped
College Student (New York: Teachers College, Columbia
University, Bureau of Publications, 1962), p. 407.
4Lone Phillips, "For Your Information," National
Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges,
Circular No. 209, February 3, 1978, p. 1.
5W. Scott Allan, Rehabilitation: A Community Challenge
(.New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. , T958) , p. 2.
g

Allan, op. cit., p. 1.

CHAPTER TWO:

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction
Despite an extensive literature search and review, this
researcher discovered only four research studies which were
directly relevant to the current study.

Several short

articles in professional journals offer specific insights
that are incorporated into the study and are listed in the
bibliography.
The review of the literature contains information re­
lating to special services commonly offered by institutions
of higher learning for minority group students, the develop­
ment and rationale for the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and
major references identified as highly applicable to the
current study.

Special Services
Universities have responded to the needs of their
students Cor potential students) over the past two decades
by instituting many "special services" on campus.

Some of

these services include tutoring, legal aid, financial aid,
personal counseling, career counseling, and job placement.
Further, in an attempt to provide educational opportunity
for all people universities have begun to satisfy the needs
of a large number of minority groups including women, blacks,
veterans, the poor, and the physically handicapped.
12

13

"Satisfying primary needs rather than long-range goals often
dictates a reordering of priorities.

The solution is not

*

just money but the innovative use of peer-tutors, paraprofessionals, all available resources."

7

In a study completed by Simmons and Maxwell-Simmons in
1978 they noted that many minority students have been
successful in attending institutions of higher learning be­
cause of the college support programs and their own high
motivation.

Several suggestions were made to assist in

increasing the retention of these students at the university
level including:

"The fostering of a good academic support

program, dissemination of information and communications,
establishing positive relations with high schools,
encouraging institutional support and developing alternative
and private funding sources, providing sensitive counseling,
motivating students, fostering good community and parent
g

relations, and providing staff training."
Rusalem notes that for the wheelchair student many
difficult problems surface on a campus.

"Among them are the

mechanics of living, inability to enter some buildings be­
cause of steps, inability of many means of public transporta­
tion,

and inability to participate in such activities as

walking and dancing."

g

Though many problems cannot be

eliminated totally, Rusalem identifies the responsibility
of the university as seeking to give as much support as
possible to the wheelchair student to allow him or her the
opportunity to seek an education with as few major

14

difficulties as possible.
The earliest university program in the country designed
to serve the needs of severely handicapped students was
started at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign in
1948.

Several other universities have had at least one

person assigned to deal with the problems of handicapped
students as far back as the 1950's.

In most instances,

these programs came into existence due to the efforts of the
handicapped students themselves.
*

Although the full impact of the new legislation,
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, on colleges and
universities is yet to be determined, the
necessity for major structural modification to
accommodate students with mobility impairments
presents the major immediate obstacle in terms of
costs. At the same time universities are facing
the challenge of making all aspects of their
program available to handicapped persons 'in the
most integrated setting appropriate.' To meet
this goal universities are setting up a whole
range of services designed to serve specific
needs to various categories of disabilities,
generally coordinated through a central office
on campus.
Among the services offered to handicapped students
by such offices are: Help in the admissions pro­
cess; orientation and mobility training; attendant
recruitment and referral; counseling; wheelchair
repair; provision of handbooks, accessibility
guides and tactile maps; assistance with trans­
portation difficulties; referral service for
help with special problems not handled directly
by the office; test proctoring; assistance with
scheduling and other academic problems related
to the handicap and the development of resource
centers offering a wide array of study aids
needed by handicapped students such as recordings
of printed material, braille transcription,
talking calculators and TV magnifiers.10
This description of special services distributed by the
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant

15

Colleges begins to get at the enormity of the task for such
offices at universities designed to assist handicapped
students.

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973
As early as 1970 the federal government became actively
interested in the pursuit of a post-secondary degree by
physically handicapped students.

At that time the Special

Services for Disadvantaged Students in Institutions of
Higher Education Program was instituted, authorized under
the Higher Education Amendments of 1968.

Included in the

definition of "disadvantaged students" were those students
who are recipients of the vocational rehabilitation program
benefits.

Under this program, institutions of higher

education were eligible to apply for grants to assist dis­
advantaged students in attending their facility.
More directly assisting handicapped students was the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (H.R. 8070).

Specifically

Section 504 of the Act states that "no otherwise qualified
handicapped individual, solely by reason of his handicap,
shall be subjected to discrimination under any program
receiving federal financial assistance."3,1
According to Mistier (.1978) , to understand the regu­
lations one must examine why there was a need for them.

In

the past, some institutions refused to admit disabled people
and explained that the institution was unprepared for them.
Money continued to be committed to building campus facilities

16

that were not architecturally accessible.

In schools that

admitted disabled people, there was little or no provision
made to ensure equal access.

For example, registration

would often be held in an inaccessible facility yet no
provision was made for help into the inaccessible facility
and no alternate location was offered.

Blind people

frequently encountered difficulty in obtaining permission to
use tape recorders in class.

In other instances, deaf

people were left without support to deal with communication
problems.

Campus housing was often inaccessible.

Trans­

portation was provided for students but the vehicles were
usually inaccessible to disabled people.
Pertaining to Section 504 of the Act, the U.S. Depart­
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare printed a booklet
outlining the responsibilities of higher education facilities
as mandated by the Act.
In colleges and other postsecondary institutions,
recruitment, admissions, and the treatment of
students must be free of discrimination.
Quotas for admission of handicapped persons are
ruled out, as are preadmission inquiries as to
whether an applicant is handicapped.
However,
voluntary post-admission inquiries may be made in
advance of enrollment concerning handicapping
conditions to enable an institution to provide
necessary services.
Higher education institutions must assure accessi­
bility of programs and activities to handicapped
students and employees. Architectural barriers
must be removed where the program is not made
accessible by other means. A university, however,
is not expected to make all its classroom buildings
accessible in order to comply with program
accessibility standards. It may have to undertake
some alterations, or it may reschedule classes to

17

accessible buildings, or take other steps to
open the program to handicapped students.
Handicapped persons should have the same options
available to others in selecting courses.
Other obligations of the institutions include:
— Tests which a college or university uses or
relies upon, including standardized admissions
tests, must not discriminate against handicapped
persons. Tests must be selected and administered
so that the test results of students with impaired
sensory, manual or speaking skills are not dis­
torted unfairly but measure the student1s
aptitude or achievement level, and not his or her
disability.
— Students with impaired sensory, manual or
speaking skills, must be provided auxiliary aids
although this may often be done by informing them
of resources provided by the government or
charitable organi zations.
— Colleges and universities must also make rea­
sonable modifications in academic requirements,
where necessary, to ensure full educational oppor­
tunity for handicapped students. Such modifica­
tions may include the extension of time for com­
pleting degree requirements, adaptation of the
manner in which specific courses are conducted,
and elimination of rules prohibiting handicapped
persons from having tape recorders in class or dog
guides on campus.
— Physical education must be provided in a nondiscriminatory manner and handicapped students
cannot be unnecessarily segregated in physical
education classes.
— Infirmary services must be provided handicapped
students on a par with those offered others.12

Research Directly Related to Present Study
In reviewing the literature, four dissertations were
located with topics relating directly to this study and
will be examined for content, results and implications for
this study.
In 1965 E.H. Tait completed a dissertation at Colorado
State College entitled "Problems Perceived by Physically

18

Handicapped Students Enrolled at Three Colorado Institutions
13
of Higher Learning During the Spring of 1965."
The pur­
pose of the study was to identify, categorize, and evaluate
disability related problems encountered by physically handi­
capped college and university students at three institutions.
The population selected for the study was composed of the
handicapped clients of the Division of Vocational Rehabil­
itation of the Department of Rehabilitation of the State of
Colorado enrolled as full-time, four year degree-oriented
students at the higher education facilities used in the study.
Background case study information and compilation of
the lists of the physically handicapped students to be in­
cluded in the study were obtained from the files of the local
Vocational Rehabilitation District Office under whose
jurisdiction the students were pursuing their college ob­
jectives.

Personal interviews were conducted to obtain

insights into the students' perceived problems using the
Department of Vocational Rehabilitation Structured Interview
Guide which was designed specifically for the study.

Stu­

dent perceptions relating to their academic and nonacademic life on the campus were sought in an effort to
determine problem areas as well as to accumulate information
relating to this group of college students.
Of the 106 students included in the study, fifty stu­
dents possessed a visible handicap, while fifty-six had a
non-visible handicap.

Twenty-three separate disabilities

were present in the population studied.

In general, the

19

author set forth the following conclusions upon completion
of the study:
1.

The role of the physically handicapped student
on the campus needed to be better understood
not only by the student himself, but by all
others concerned with his program.

2.

Physical education activities, if not suitably
altered or waived, may constitute a real obstacle
to these students.

3.

For many physically handicapped students a one
initial year enrollment at a junior college may
be very beneficial; proportionally much more so
than a two year enrollment.

4.

Students with specific disabilities, for example,
diabetes, have developed ways of getting along
on their campus which would be helpful to new
diabetic students to know.

5.

The students, as a group, were satisfied with the
offerings of their institution, were increasingly
aware of the rigorous academic demands, were
appreciative of the support given them by the
Department of Rehabilitation of the State of
Colorado, were resolute in their ambitions to
complete their program, were, once acclimated and
adjusted, much the same as any other college
student on their campus.

This study served to demonstrate the need to actively
seek out the handicapped students' perceptions as to prob­
lems they encounter on campus.

By working specifically

through the students, the investigator was able to identify
previously undetected problems and/or offer suggestions for
changes within the university structure to better assist the
handicapped student.
Though several general problems and concerns were
identified and are useful to formulating ideas for the
present

study, specific problems for certain handicaps were

20

not identified.

Concentrating on a specific population (viz,

wheelchair students) can offer more specific insight into
problems encountered and offer more concrete solutions
through the existing special service offices.

In Tait's

study all of the students interviewed were able to walk,
though some required crutches.

It should be noted that for

the wheelchair student many problems exist which are not
apparent to an individual who is ambulatory.
In 1972 K.B. Kloepping completed a dissertation en­
titled "The Prediction of Academic Achievement of Physically
Disabled Students."

The principle concern of this study was

to determine what variables are significantly related to
academic achievement in a physically disabled population.
While increasing numbers of physically disabled
persons are attending school, almost no systematic
attention has been given to the process by which
these potential students are selected for college
level work. Traditional selection criteria may
be valid for this population, however, other
factors may also be significant variables.
Personal experience with disability, environmental
obstacles which can produce frustration and anxiety,
and attitudinal barriers may all have a significant
impact on the individual.14
In reviewing this study it was hoped that an insight
could be gained regarding physically handicapped students'
decisions to attend college and what academic problems they
encountered.
The ALPHA Biographical Inventory was one measure used
in the research.

It has been found to be a powerful pre­

dictor of academic achievement.

Rotter's I-E scale and the

Anxiety vs. Integration factor of the 16 Personality Factors

21

Questionnaire were two personality indices used in the
research.

The I-E scale measures the degree to which an

individual is self-controlled or controlled by his or her
environment.

The Anxiety vs. Integration scale is a measure

of trait-factor anxiety in the individual’s personality.
Cumulative college grade point average (GPA) was the cri­
terion used in the research.
The results of this study indicated that the two best
predictors of academic achievement for the physically dis­
abled research population were the I-E scale and high school
rank.

The study suggested an external orientation on the

part of the students possibly resulting in apathy, depend­
ence, passivity, and psychological maladjustment behaviors
associated with non-success in an academic setting.

If an

external orientation leads to non-success in academic
achievement, then determining ways of altering specific
behavioral patterns of an external orientation is a
significant need.
One of the major limitations of this study, however, is
that GPA may not be the best indicator of academic achieve­
ment.

In terms of the present research it is important to

note the value of the internal vs. external orientation of
the students.

This will be done through the use of an

instrument to determine "locus of control” as will be dis­
cussed later in this literature review as well as in Chapter
Three regarding design of the study.

22

In 1978 J.E. Varghese completed a dissertation en­
titled "An Investigation of Special Programs for Handicapped
Students at Institutions of Higher Learning in Michigan with
Special Emphasis on Three Major Public Universities.11 This
study is especially pertinent to the present research
effort as the same three universities were used in the re­
search .
This was a descriptive study to examine the special pro­
grams for handicapped students operated by Michigan State
University, The University of Michigan and Wayne State
University.
the question:

The main thrust of the study was to investigate
"do

the special programs for the handicapped

students at these three major public universities in Michigan
duplicate the services offered by the same universities to
15
their non-handicapped students through regular channels?"
Surveys, questionnaires and personal interviews were
utilized to gain information for the study.

Information was

collected regarding programs, staff, funding and students.
The investigator discovered much duplication of services
between the special programs and services offered by the
three universities to their non-handicapped students through
regular channels.

It was felt that the special programs

office should function more as a facilitator and liaison;
playing an advocacy role on behalf of the handicapped
student population.
The investigator was not able to find any comprehensive
needs assessment study done among the college and university

23
handicapped population and strongly recommended that a needs
assessment be conducted at the earliest opportunity in order
to develop the full potential of handicapped students in the
realm of higher learning.

He also recommended that it

should be discerned if existing services and facilities at a
college or university could be used by its handicapped
student population as they exist today, or with limited
modifications.
In 1979 Mary Ellen Wierenga completed a dissertation
4

entitled "The Interrelationship Between Multidimensional
Health Locus of Control, Knowledge of Diabetes, Perceived
Social Support, Self-Reported Compliance and Therapeutic
Outcomes Six Weeks After the Adult Patient Has Been Diag­
nosed With Diabetes Mellitus."

The portion of this study

which is pertinent to the present study revolves around the
concept of locus of control.
Locus of control as a concept relates to whether
or not individuals expect to possess or lack
power over what happens to them. The role of
reinforcement and reward has been recognized as
a stimulus for individuals to obtain and perform
knowledge and skills. However, what one person
perceives as a reward may not be interpreted the
same way by someone else. The extent that indi­
viduals perceive the reward following from or con­
tingent on, their own behavior or attributes
(internal), as opposed to, the extent that they
feel the reward is controlled by forces outside
of themselves and may occur independently of
their own actions (external) influences their
interpretation of reward.
As locus of control may be an important independent
variable for the present study, the Multidimensional Health
Locus of Control instrument utilized by Wierenga will also

24
be used as an instrument by this investigator.

Whether the

students in the present study are influenced more by
"internal" or "external" environmental factors may be im­
portant in their determination of perceived problems at the
university they attend.

Summary
In reviewing the literature it is quite evident that
little has been published regarding wheelchair users at
institutions of higher education.
In studying the use of "special services" for minority
groups at universities the literature suggests that such
services have been beneficial to these groups.

Likewise,

most universities currently have offices to assist the
handicapped student population at their institutions.
In reviewing several dissertations directly related to
determining the needs of handicappers at a university, it is
noted that though special offices for handicappers exist,
they may not be adequately meeting the needs of the target
population.

Lack of some essential services and unnecessary

duplication of others is suggested.
A survey of wheelchair users at universities is impor­
tant in assisting universities in determining whether the
special programs offered for their handicapper population
are appropriately addressing their needs.

25

Footnotes to Chapter Two
7

"Special Needs Conference: Providing Educational
Opportunity For All People," Flint, Michigan, 1975.
Q

Ron Simmons and Cassandra Maxwell-Simmons, "Principles
of Success in Programs for Minority Students” (Stevens
Institute of Technology, Hoboken, N.M., 1978).
g
Herbert Rusalem, Guiding the Physically Handicapped
College Student (New York: Teachers College, Columbia
University, Bureau of Publications, 1962), p. 38.
^°Lone Phillips, "For Your Information," National
Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges,
Circular No. 209, February 3, 1978, p. 2.
■^"Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973: Fact
Sheet," U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Office of the Secretary, Office for Civil Rights, Washington,
D.C., July, 1977, p. 1.
^"Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973: Fact
Sheet” (U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Washington, D.C., 1977).
^David H. Tait, "Problems Perceived by Physically
Handicapped Students Enrolled at Three Colorado Institutions
of Higher Learning During the Spring of 1965," Colorado State
College, 1965.
^*4Kent B. Kloepping, "The Prediction of Academic Achieve­
ment of Physically Disabled Students,” The University of
Arizona, 1972.
15

Joseph E. Varghese, "An Investigation of Special Pro­
grams for Handicapped Students at Institutions of Higher
Learning in Michigan with. Special Emphasis on Three Major
Public Universities," Wayne State University, 1978.
^ M a r y Ellen Wierenga, "The Interrelationship Between
Multidimensional Health Locus of Control, Knowledge of
Diabetes, Perceived Social Support, Self-Reported Com­
pliance and Therapeutic Outcomes Six Weeks After the Adult
Patient Has Been Diagnosed With Diabetes Mellitus,"
Michigan State University, 1979, pp. 32-33.

CHAPTER THREE:

DESIGN

Introduction
The major purpose of this study is to ascertain the
problems perceived by wheelchair students at major public
universities.

Questionnaires were used to gather data on

attitudes regarding specified problem areas.

A secondary

purpose of the study is to identify relationships between
selected independent variables and the concerns students
identified.

The Defined Population
The target population for the study was defined as any
student attending an institution of higher education who
requires the use of a wheelchair for mobility either
partially or totally.
The defined population for the study included all
student wheelchair users at Michigan State University, The
University of Michigan and Wayne State University.

Michigan

State University's main campus is located in East Lansing,
Michigan, with a total student enrollment of approximately
45,000.

The campus has an essentially flat terrain.

There

is a Handicappers' Affairs Office to assist student handi­
cappers which has been in existence for eight years.
small number of the campus dormitories have been made

A

27
accessible for wheelchair users as well as some of the cam­
pus apartments.
The University of Michigan is located in Ann Arbor,
Michigan, with a total student enrollment of approximately
35,000.

The Disabled Student Services Office has been in

existence for six years.

The main campus area is separated

into a central and north campus area approximately two miles
apart.

The campus terrain is hilly in parts and would make

wheelchair propulsion difficult.

Some of the dormitory

rooms have been made accessible to wheelchair users.
Wayne State University is located in the metropolitan
Detroit area and has an approximate enrollment of 35,000
students.

The Educational Rehabilitation Office to assist

student handicappers has been in existence for approximately
eighteen years.

The campus terrain is essentially flat.

Some of the dormitory rooms have been made accessible to
wheelchair users as well as some of the campus apartment
complexes.
All three campuses are located in the southern portion
of the lower peninsula in Michigan and have similar climates
with four distinct seasons.

The average annual snowfall at

the three campuses is approximately fifty to sixty inches.
The final sample consisted of student wheelchair users
who consented to participate in the study who were enrolled
as full or part time students at one of the three univer­
sities used in the study.

Because only thirty-three students

agreed to participate in the study, it is difficult to

28
suggest that the sample is truly representative of the tar­
get population.

It should also be noted that the sample is

further “biased" in the sense that students who agreed to
participate in the study were informed that they would be
asked to identify problem areas in attending a university
in a wheelchair.

Therefore, students who had grievances

might have been more willing to participate than those who
were content with the university's facilities.

Sampling Procedures
The handicapper affairs offices at each of the three
universities involved in the study were contacted.

Each of

the offices agreed to send out an introductory letter (see
Appendix A) in January 1980 to all student wheelchair users
identified at their university requesting that they par­
ticipate in the study.

If the wheelchair students were

willing to participate, a form was sent back to the
investigator stating their interest arid giving their name
and address.

In this way the universities were able to

maintain anonymity of wheelchair students they were aware
of on their campus and the students had complete control over
their decision to participate or not participate in the
study.

Description of the Sample
After the introductory letters had been sent to the
students, they were allowed one month to respond to the

29

request.

The handicapper affairs offices then sent a second

letter to the students who had not responded within that
period of time.

From the two mailings the following number

of students volunteered to participate in the study:

ten

of seventeen students (58.8%) who received letters from
Michigan State University, twenty-five of forty-four students
(56.8%) from Wayne State University and five of eight stu­
dents (62.5%) from The University of Michigan.
The research instruments were sent to these forty
students in March of 1980.

The students were allowed three

weeks to send back the instruments and letters were sent to
request returns from those who had not responded by the
requested deadline.

By the end of April 1980 thirty-three

of the forty students (82.5%) responded by filling out and
returning the data collection instruments.

A phone call was

made to the remaining seven students requesting participation
but no further returns were forthcoming.
Appendix B contains a description of the demographic
characteristics of the sample including:

sex, age, uni­

versity attended, academic major, academic level, medical
diagnosis, muscle involvement, percent use of manual wheel­
chair, percent use of electric wheelchair, number of years
as a wheelchair user, number of years as a wheelchair
user at a university and operation of a motor vehicle.
Of the total number of respondents, twenty (60.6%)
were male and thirteen (39.4%) were female.

The age of the

participants ranged from eighteen to fifty with a mean of

30
27.53 and a median of 26.5.

Michigan State University was

represented by eight students <24.2%), Wayne State
University by twenty-one students <63.6%) and The University
of Michigan by four students (.12.1%).

The thirty-three

students listed a total of twenty-three different majors.
Only one major was represented by three students - guidance
and counseling.

Six majors were represented by two students

each while the remaining sixteen majors were represented
by only one student each.
The students were separated into academic level at the
university with the following results:

three freshmen (.9.1%),

four sophomores (.12.1%), eight juniors (24.2%), nine seniors
(.27.3%) and nine graduate students (27.3%).

The medical

diagnoses listed by the students were counted as follows:
eighteen spinal cord injuries (54.5%), seven cerebral palsy
(21.2%), two polio and two spinal osteoarthritis (6.1%)
and one each for cerebral edema, osteogenesis imperfecta,
neurological and muscular dystrophy (.3.0%).

Two students

(6.1%) classified themselves as hemiplegic, fourteen (.42.4%)
as paraplegic and thirteen (.39.4%) as quadriplegic.
een

Eight­

of the twenty-eight C64.3%) who used a manual wheel­

chair did so over 95.0% of the time.

Nine of the thirteen

(69.2%) who used an electric wheelchair did so over 95.0%
of the time.
The length of time participants had been using a wheel­
chair for mobility ranged from 1.2 years to thirty years.
The mean length of time in a wheelchair was 8.44 years? the

31

median was 5.08 years.

The range for length of time using

a wheelchair at the university was from 0.3 years to 8.5
years with a mean of 3.34 years and a median of 3.02 years.
Nineteen of the students (57.6%) reported that they oper­
ated a motor vehicle while the remaining fourteen (42.4%)
stated that they did not drive.

The Research Instruments
Data collection was accomplished through use of the
following:

(1) the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control

Instrument (see Appendix C ) , (2) a questionnaire designed by
the investigator to determine perceived concerns of a stu­
dent wheelchair user at a major university (see Appendix D ) ,
and (3) personal interviews with a subsample of participants
to clarify and expound on certain areas of the question­
naire on perceived concerns.

Questions used for the personal

interviews may be found on page 67.
The Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Instrument
is standardized and was used exactly as written and used in
Wierenga's (1979) study.

The instrument was designed to

differentiate between individuals whose locus of control is
determined by internal factors (themselves), external
factors (others) or who feel their well-being is controlled
mostly by chance.
There are six questions focusing on each of the three
control factors.

The instrument is constructed such that

the higher the combined score for the six questions

32

regarding any particular factor, the stronger role that
factor plays in determining locus of control.
As reported by Wierenga (1979), the alpha coefficient
reliability for the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control
Instrument was found to be:

(1) internal - .767, (2) power­

ful others - .673 and (.3) chance - .753.

The means and

standard deviations were almost identical for each subscale.
As an initial indication of predictive validity, correlations
were computed between health status and the scores obtained
4

by the instrument.

As expected, health status correlated

positively with ■’internal” (r = .403, p <.001}, negatively
with "chance" (r = -.275, p <.01) and did not correlate with
"powerful others" tr » -.055).

Definitive evidence of the

validity and reliability of the instrument will not be
fully realized until it is used more extensively.
Tho questionnaire to determine perceived concerns of
student wheelchair users at a major university was designed
by this investigator.

Assistance in the design of the

questionnaire was received by speaking to wheelchair users
at three universities other than those used in the study,
interviewing the directors of the handicapper affairs
offices at the three universities used in the study, and
advice from a research consultant in the College of
Education at Michigan State University.

The first draft

of the questionnaire was revised following feedback from the
investigator's doctoral committee members.

The second

draft of the questionnaire was then pilot tested with

33
student wheelchair users from Eastern Michigan University
to determine difficulties with comprehension and to determine
what additional problem areas should be added to the
instrument.

Statistical analysis of the validity of the

questionnaire instrument was not accomplished and only "face"
validity was established.
All areas regarding "accessibility" were considered in
designing the questionnaire.
identified:

Ten major categories were

the health center, the library, campus events,

study aids, campus terrain, transportation, campus housing,
campus buildings, the attitude of the university toward
handicappers, and student services.

Questions were

developed for the survey questionnaire to solicit responses
which indicated attitudes by the student wheelchair users
regarding these ten areas.

An additional section for

general comments was added at the end of the questionnaire
to allow the students to comment about other specific con­
cerns that they did not feel were addressed in the question­
naire.
The questions used in the personal interviews were
formulated after initial examination of the data collected
by the questionnaire and certain problem areas were
identified.

Three students from each of the universities

were interviewed.

The students were asked each question

individually and given a chance to respond while the
investigator recorded the responses by taking notes.

34
Variables
The dependent variables in the study included the
responses to the questionnaires and the responses to the
interview questions.
The independent variables included:
1.

The university attended

2.

Extent of wheelchair use

3.

Level of education

4.

Level of trauma (muscle involvement)

5.

Number of years in a wheelchair at a university

6.

Academic major

7.

Sex

8.

Age

9.

Locus of control

Data Analysis Procedures
Locus of control was determined for each student and
major problems perceived by the students were identified
through use of the questionnaire.

A computer was used to

analyze responses to items on the questionnaire through
comparison of mean responses.

Where appropriate the inde­

pendent variables were separated into two categories for
comparison purposes (e.g., wheelchair users twenty-five
years or younger vs. twenty-six years or older).

The per­

ceived concerns were compared to the independent variables
to determine if there were differences in the pattern of
responses across conditions in each variable (.e.g., male vs.

35

female).
The questionnaire designed to determine perceived
problems by the student wheelchair users utilized a seven
point Likert-type scale.

The means were determined for

each of the questions as answered by the participants in
the study to determine problem areas.

In comparing responses

to the questionnaire with the independent variables the data
were collapsed from the seven point scale to a three point
scale to indicate high agreement, moderate agreement and low
agreement with the statements.

This was done to make

statistical comparisons possible by increasing the number of
respondents in a given category.

Though limited power exists

due to the small sample size, chi-square distribution and
analysis of variance (one-way classification) tests were
computed to determine if observed differences in response
patterns were statistically significant.

The chi-square

test provides a conservative test of statistical significance
and the analysis of variance test provides a more liberal
test.

The chi-square analysis is more conservative in that

the data from this study will readily satisfy the assump­
tions on which the test is based (e.g., ordinal vs. interval
scale).
variance.

However, the test is less powerful than analysis of
That is, the likelihood of making a Type II error

(accepting a false hypothesis) is greater.
A subsample of the respondents was selected at random
and interviewed (.three from each of the universities) to

36

gain more insight as to why they identified certain areas
as concerns and how they felt these situations could be
improved.

The investigator recorded similarities in the

responses to the interview questions.

Summary
The purpose of the study was to ascertain the problems
perceived by wheelchair students at major public universities.
The handicapper affairs offices at each of the three
universities were contacted and agreed to send out an
introductory letter with a consent form to all student wheel­
chair users known to them asking for their participation in
the study.

Locus of control instruments and questionnaires

were then sent to willing participants to determine locus
of control and perceived problems at the university.
instruments can be found in the appendices.

These

The locus of

control instrument is standardized and taken from the study
conducted by Wierenga (1979).

The questionnaire to

determine perceived problems was constructed by the
investigator with the assistance of the directors of the
handicapper affairs offices at the three universities in the
study and through input from the investigator's doctoral
committee members.
An initial analysis of the questionnaire responses re­
garding perceived problems was used to formulate several
personal interview questions which were asked to three
students from each institution.

This procedure was

37

instituted to assist in clarifying the results and to gain
further information regarding the major problems identified.
Chi-square and analysis of variance tests were com­
puted to determine if observed relationships between the
perceived problems and the nine independent variables were
statistically significant.

CHAPTER POUR:

ANALYSIS OP THE DATA

Introduction
This chapter presents and analyzes the research
findings.

Information will be shared and analyzed as it

was collected from three specific sources:

the Multi­

dimensional Health Locus of Control Instrument, the
questionnaire designed by the investigator, and the per­
sonal interview questions.

In reporting the data the three

major questions of the study will be addressed.
1.

What problems unique to student wheelchair
users are experienced when they attend a
large public university?

2.

Do certain characteristics of wheelchair
users have an impact on their perception of
problems at a university?

3.

What changes, if any, do student wheelchair
users feel a university should make in an
effort to alleviate these problems?

Question One
What problems unique to student wheelchair users are experi­
enced when they attend a large public university?
The questionnaire designed by the investigator con­
tained forty-eight specific questions regarding services at
the university.

All questions were posed in a positive
38

39
manner so that if the respondent agreed to the statement
then it would not be interpreted as a problem.

The responses

were in the form of a seven point Likert-type scale with "1"
as strongly disagree and "7" as strongly agree.

If a ques­

tion did not apply to a respondent then it was left blank
and not considered when determining the mean for that
question.

In reporting data in the form of tables later in

this chapter it is noted that the number of respondents
across categories is not consistent due to some of the ques­
tions not being answered by all participants.
Appendix E contains a list of the forty-eight questions
along with the number of respondents to each question and the
mean response level.

In answering the question of what

problems student wheelchair users experience at a university,
the means of the individual questions were compared.

It was

found that seven of the questions were scored with an
average of 5.5 tbetween "slightly agree" and "moderately
agree") or greater.
9, 10, 18 and 19.

These were questions numbered 2, 7, 8,
These areas may be interpreted as not

being perceived as problems by the majority of the students
in this study.

These specific questions dealt with the

issues of accessible doorways to buildings, adequate side­
walks without stairs, adequate curb cuts, lack of hills to
negotiate in a wheelchair, adequate assistance for class
registration, and access for career counseling services.
Five questions scored "negatively" in that the average
score was less than four (."neutral") on the questionnaire.

40

These were questions numbered 11, 25, 31, 34 and 45,

These

areas may be interpreted as the major perceived problems
as determined by the student wheelchair users in this study.
These specific questions dealt with the issues of adequate
snow removal, accessible housing cafeterias, accessible
drinking fountains, accessibility to sporting events on
campus and adequate help to facilitate self care activities
(e.g., dressing and personal hygiene).
The forty-eight questions were grouped into ten major
categories for comparison purposes as follows:
Category

Questions

Health Center

41

Library

42, 43

Campus Events

34, 35, 36

Study Aids

38, 39, 40

Campus Terrain

7, 8, 9, 10 f 11

Transportation

12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Campus Housing

25, 26, 27, 28, 29

Campus Buildings

1# 2, 3, 4, 5, 30,

Atti tilde

6, 33, 37, 44, 45,

Student Services

17, 18, 19, 20, 21

Though some of the categories were represented by only
a small number of questions, they were felt to be important
enough as single concerns to look at separately.

There would

therefore be higher reliability with items having more
questions when comparing overall mean response levels.

To

keep the means for each of the ten categories comparable,

41
the sum of the mean responses for all questions within each
category was divided by the number of questions within that
category.

This value therefore represents the mean res-

ponse level (seven point scale) for all items within a given
category.
Table I provides a summary of how each of the partici­
pants responded to items in the ten major categories.

The

two categories with the lowest means were "campus events"
(4.25) and "health center" (4.37).

This means that the

*

student wheelchair users were most apt to consider campus
events and the health center as their major concerns.

The

two categories with the highest means were "student ser­
vices"

(5.16) and "campus terrain” (5.17).

This suggests

that of the ten major categories the students felt that
their needs were best met in the services which are being
provided for them and the lack of difficulty in locomotion
around campus.

Question Two
Do certain characteristics of student wheelchair users have an
inpact on their perception of problems at a university?
In an attempt to answer this question, the demographic
data obtained from the respondents were compared to the
responses to the questionnaire as compiled into the ten
major categories previously described.

In reporting this

data in the form of tables in the next section of this
chapter, the seven point scale is collapsed into three

42

TABLE I
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE GROUPED
INTO TEN MAJOR CATEGORIES

High
Agreement
(7,6)

Moderate
Agreement
(5,4,3)

Low
Agreement
(2,1)

Mean

8

16

6

4.37

16

10

7

4.59

Campus Events

8

15

4

4.25

Study Aids

9

16

1

4.41

Campus Terrain

17

14

0

5.17

Transportation

11

14

0

4.98

Campus Housing

9

15

1

4.76

Campus Buildings

14

17

0

4.89

Attitude

10

15

1

4.76

Student Services

15

13

0

5.16

Health Center
Library

Totals

117
(41.4%)

145
(51.4%)

20
(7.0%)

4.73
(Avg.

43

categories where:

a response

of seven or six on the

questionnaire is labeled "high agreement," a response of
five, four or three is labeled "moderate agreement," and a
response of two or one is labeled "low agreement."

The

reason for collapsing the data in this manner is due to the
small numbers of respondents and the many blank cells re­
sulting if the tables are reporting the full seven point
scale.
Results of chi-square and analysis of variance tests
are also reported in the tables.

As noted in Chapter Three

these analyses provide evidence of the statistical sig­
nificance of relationships between a given independent
variable and responses to items in each category of the
questionnaire.

The chi-square tests are based on the three

categories of agreement cited above; the analysis of vari­
ance tests, on the other hand, consider mean response levels
on the full seven point scale.

Though the comparison of the

means in many instances suggested relationships between
responses to the questionnaire and the independent variables,
the statistical analysis seldom suggested that these re­
lations were statistically significant.
The results of these comparisons are as follows:
Sex of Respondent:
When responses to the questionnaire are analyzed ac­
cording to sex of the wheelchair user some obvious
differences may be noted (.see Table II) .

In nine of the

ten categories, the male tended to agree with the statements

TABLE U
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE BY SEX
FEMALES (n = 13; 39.42)

HALES (n = 20; 60.62)

Low
Agreement
(2.1)

Mean

r

£- ratio

6

4

3.92

1.66

1.28

6

2

5

3.96

4.61

2.13

4.98

1

7

3

3.18

4.81

9.96**

0

4.69

2

8

1

4.03

3.24

1.56

7

0

5.30

6

7

0

4.98

.21

.61

9

6

0

5.27

2

8

0

4.56

2:44

2.00

7

6

0

5.41

2

9

1

4 05

4.34

6.89*

10

10

0

5.32

4

7

0

4.11

.12

6.40*

5

9

1

4.68

5

6

0

4.86

1.01

.11

11

6

0

5.57

4

7

0

4.53

1.17

5.10*

6
(3.62)

5.09
(Avg.)

14
(12.12)

4.22
(Avg.)

Moderate
Agreement
(5,4,3)

Low
Agreement
(2.1)

Mean

High
Agreement
(7,6)

5

10

2

4.70

3

10

8

2

5.00

Campus Events

7

8

1

Study Aids

7

8

Campus Terrain

11

Transportation
Campus Housing

High
Agreement
(7.6)
Health Center
Library

Ccaipus Buildings
Attitude
Student Services
Totals

* = <.05
** =

<.01

82
(49.4%)

78
(47.02)

35
(30.22)

Moderate
Agreement
(5,4.3)

67
(57.72)

2

45
more than the females.

The only exception was attitude of

the university where females felt that the overall attitude
of the university in meeting their needs was better than
as the males perceived it.
The results of chi-square tests of observed differences
in response patterns among males and females suggest that
none of these differences are statistically significant.

The

analysis of variance tests, however, suggested that the mean
response levels for males and females are significantly
different for campus events, campus housing, campus buildings
and student services.

These results suggest that female

wheelchair users at a university have more concerns than
male wheelchair users.
Age of Respondent;
The students were separated into two age groups {ap­
proximately at the median) for comparison purposes - twentyfive years or younger and twenty-six years or older {see
Table III).

In comparing the means for each of the ten

categories of responses as well as the average mean score
for all categories, there did not appear to be a relation­
ship between age and perceived problems.

The average mean

score for all ten categories was 4.71 for the younger group
and 4.76 for the older group of students.
University Attendedi
In comparing the responses of students according to
which university they attend (Table IV) some observations
may be considered important,

However, the small numbers of

TABLE III
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE BY AGE

26 YEARS OR OLDER (n = 19; 59 .4X)

25 YEARS OR YOUNGER (n = 13; 40.6X)
High
Ag^eem^nt

Moderate
A^reene^t

Low
Agreement

Mean

High
Agreement
(7.6)

Moderate
Agreement
(5,4.3)

Low
Agreement
(2,1)

Mean^

(2.1T

Health Center

2

7

2

4.17

6

8

4

4.50

Library

9

2

2

5.07

7

7

5

4.24

Cainpus Events

3

6

0

4.40

5

8

4

4.16

Study Aids

3

5

0

4.70

6

10

1

4.25

Campus Terrain

B

5

0

5.04

9

8

0

5.27

Transportation

2

7

0

4.36

9

6

0

5.40

Campus Housing

4

5

0

4.64

5

9

1

4.84

Cainpus Buildings

4

7

0

4.57

10

9

0

5.10

Attitude

5

3

0

5.29

5

11

1

4.48

Student Services

5

5

0

4.83

9

7

0

5.38

4
(4.OX)

4.71
(Avg.)

16
(9.4X)

4.76
(Avg.)

Totals

45
(44.5*}

52
(51.5X)

71
(41,8X)

83
(48.8X)

TABLE IV
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE BY UNIVERSITY

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
(n = 8; 24.2%)

UAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY
(n = 21; 63.6%)

THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
(n = 4; 12.1%)

High
Moderate
Low
Agreement Agreement Agreement Mean
(7,6)
(5,4,3)
(2,1)

High
Moderate
Low
High
Moderate
Low
Agreement Agreement Agreement Mean Agreement Agreement Agreement Mean
(7,6)
(5,4,3)
(2,1)
(7,6)
(5,4,3)
(2,1)

Health Center

2

4

2

4.12

6

10

3

4.63

0

2

1

3.33

Library

4

1

3

4.31

11

7

3

4.83

1

2

1

3.87

Cainpus Events

3

2

0

5.20

5

11

3

4.14

0

2

1

3.33

Study Aids

1

4

0

4.33

8

9

1

4.59

0

3

0

3.44

Campus Terrain

4

4

0

5.02

12

7

0

5.30

1

3

0

4.80

Transportation

3

4

0

4.80

8

8

0

5.21

0

2

0

3.80

Campus Housing

3

3

0

5.00

6

9

1

4.85

0

3

0

3.80

Campus Buildings

2

5

0

4.18

12

8

0

5.45

0

4

0

3.37

Attitude

3

2

0

5.45

7

10

1

4.63

0

3

0

4.37

Student Services

3

3

0

5.02

12

7

0

5.46

0

3

0

3.58

Totals

28
(43 .0%)

32
(49.2%)

5
4.74
(7.6%) (Avg.)

87
(47.0%)

86
(46.4%)

4.91
12
(6.4%) (Avg.)

27
2
(6.2%) (84.4%)

3.77
3
(9.3%) (Avg.)

48
students responding from Michigan State University (n = 8)
and The University of Michigan (n = 4) do not provide
definitive evidence of relationships.

Thus statistical

analyses were not completed for this variable.
Overall, wheelchair users at The University of Michigan
rated their facility as having the most problems while
wheelchair users at Wayne State University rated their
institution as having the least problems of the three
universities.

In comparing overall responses to the ten

categories between the three universities the following
results were obtained.

Michigan State University students

indicated 43.0% high agreement, 49.2% moderate agreement
and 7.6% low agreement.

Wayne State University students

indicated 47.0% high agreement, 46.4% moderate agreement
and 6.4% low agreement.

The University of Michigan students

indicated 6.2% high agreement, 84.4% moderate agreement and
9.3% low agreement.

The average mean scores for the three

institutions in responding to all ten categories were:
Michigan State University, 4.73; Wayne State University,
4.91; and The University of Michigan, 3.77.
Of particular interest is the mean score average in
each of the ten categories at The University of Michigan
as eight of the ten categories reflected a mean score of
less than 4.0 ("neutral"). At the other two universities
no mean score for an individual category was below 4.0.
Specific perceived problem categories at The University of
Michigan were the health center and campus events.

Michigan

49

State University students rated the health center and cainpus
buildings as their major concerns.

Wayne State University

students were most concerned in the areas of campus events
and study aids.
Academic Major;
Due to the large number of academic majors listed by
the participants in the study and the resultant lack of numbers of students within those majors, comparisons based
on academic major and responses to the questionnaire were
not completed.
Level of Education:
Comparisons between level of education and responses to
the questionnaire are shown in Table V.

Due to the small

numbers of students within each of the undergraduate levels,
freshmen through seniors were combined and compared with
graduate students.

Due to the large discrepancy in numbers

of students within the categories (undergraduate students »
24, graduate students = 9) and the close average mean for
all ten categories between the two groups of students,
specific relationships are difficult to suggest.
The graduate students reflected more disagreement over­
all with the statements on the questionnaire.

The overall

average mean for the undergraduate students was 4.87 as they
reflected high agreement 44.9% of the time, moderate agree­
ment 48.8% and low agreement 6.3% of the time.

The overall

average mean for the graduate students was 4.49 as they
reflected high agreement 32.5% of the time, moderate

TABLE V
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE BY LEVEL OF EDUCATION

UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS (n = 24; 72.7%)

GRADUATE STUDENTS (n - 9; 27.3%)

High
Agreement
(7,6)

High
Moderate
Agreement Agreement
(7.6)
(5,4,3)

Moderate
Low
Agreement Agreement Mean
(5,4,3)
(2,1)

Low
Agreement Mean
(2.1)

5

13

4

4.45

3

3

2

4.50

13

6

5

4.68

3

4

2

4.17

Campus Events

6

11

2

4.54

2

4

2

3.79

Study Aids

8

10

1

4.68

1

6

0

3.76

Campus Terrain

13

10

0

5.13

4

4

0

5.25

Transportation

8

10

0

4.99

3

4

0

4.97

Campus Housing

7

10

1

4.76

2

5

0

4.74

10

12

0

5.16

4

5

0

4.68

9

10

0

4.97

1

5

1

4.25

13

8

0

5.36

2

5

0

4.77

13
(6.3%)

4.87
(Avg.)

7
(9.1%)

4.49
(Avg.)

Health Center
Library

Campus Buildings
Atti tude
Student Services
Totals

92
(44.9%)

100
(48.8%)

25
(32.5%)

45
(58.4%)

51

agreement 58.4% and low agreement 9.1% of the time.

The

largest discrepancies to be noted in comparing within the
ten categories are seen in campus events and study aids where
the graduate students perceived more problems than the
undergraduates.

For campus events the mean score was 4.54

for undergraduates and 3.79 for graduates.

For study aids

the mean score was 4.68 for undergraduates and 3.76 for
graduates.
Medical Diagnoses:
In comparing medical diagnoses with responses to the
questionnaire only spinal cord injury and cerebral palsy
were used.

The other categories of diagnoses contained too

few individuals to consider comparison significant.

As

mentioned previously, eighteen students listed their
diagnosis as spinal cord injury whereas seven listed
cerebral palsy.

Table VI compares these two diagnoses with

responses to the questionnaire.

The cerebral palsy students

indicated more disagreement with the statements in seven of
the ten categories (.library, campus events, study aids,
transportation, campus housing, campus buildings and student
services).

Both the chi-square and the analysis of vari­

ance tests suggested that differences in responding to items
in the library category were statistically significant
<p <.05).
The spinal cord injury students indicated 44.0% high
agreement, 53.3% moderate agreement and 2.7% low agreement
with the statements on the questionnaire.

The cerebral

TABLE VI
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE BY MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS

SPINAL CORD INJURY (n = IB; 72.0%)

CEREBRAL PALSY (n = 7; 28.0%)

High
Moderate
Low
Agreement Agreement Agreement Mean
(7,6)
(5,4,3)
(2,1)

Low
High
Moderate
Agreement Agreement Agreement Mean
(7,6)
(5,4,3)
(2,1)

x2

3

9

3

4.20

2

4

1

4.57

10

8

0

5.36

3

0

4

3.57

13.55*

5.88*

Campus Events

5

9

1

4.64

1

3

1

3.53

.89

1.85

Study Aids

5

8

0

4.69

1

3

1

3.93

2.97

1.14

Caucus Terrain

10

7

0

5.26

5

2

0

5.28

.01

.00

Transportation

6

6

0

5.05

2

4

0

4.90

.44

.05

Caiupus Housing

4

9

0

4.86

2

3

1

4.23

2.42

.73

Campus Buildings

9

9

0

5.15

2

3

0

4.10

.00

2.57

Attitude

5

a

0

4.78

4

I

0

5.75

.15

1.95

Student Services

9

7

0

5.34

3

2

0

4.67

.00

.94

8
(13.8%)

4.45
(Avg.)

Health Center
Library

Totals

66
(44.0%)

80
(53.3%)

4
(2.7%)

25
4.93
(Avg.) (43.1%)

25
(43. U )

.25

f-ratio

.19

53

palsy students indicated 53.1% high agreement, 43.1% moder­
ate agreement and 13.8% low agreement with the statements.
Overall the average mean score for the spinal cord injury
students was 4.93 while for the cerebral palsy students it
was 4.45 for all ten of the categories.
The library, campus events and study aids all ranked
as major concerns for the cerebral palsy individuals whereas
the health center was the highest concern for the spinal
cord injury students.

The cerebral palsy students noted

campus terrain and overall attitude of the university in
meeting their needs as the most agreeable categories.

It

should be noted that cerebral palsy individuals generally
have communication problems as well as physical problems
in comparison to the spinal cord injury students.

This may

be the reason for their perception of greater problems at
the universities.
Muscle Involvement:
In Table VII muscle involvement of the students' handi­
cap or disability is compared to the responses given to the
questionnaire.
were:

The three categories for muscle involvement

hemiplegia, paraplegia and quadriplegia.

Only two

hemiplegics were identified in the research population and,
therefore, were not included for comparison purposes.
Fourteen paraplegics and thirteen quadriplegics were
identified.

The paraplegics indicated 48.7% high agree­

ment, 48.7% moderate agreement and only 2.5% low agreement
with the statements when all ten categories were combined.

TABLE VII
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE BY MUSCLE INVOLVEMENT

PARAPLEGIA (n = 14; 51.81)

QUADRIPLEGIA (n = 13; 48.14)

Low
High
Moderate
Agreement Agreement Agreement Mean
(7,6)
(5.4,3)
(2.1)

High
Moderate
Low
Agreement Agreement Agreement Mean
(7,6)
(5,4.3)
(2.1)

X2

f-ratu

Health Center

3

B

1

4.58

2

6

4

3.92 2.29

.82

Library

8

5

1

5.11

5

3

5

4.08 3.83

1.91

Campus Events

4

7

1

4.55

3

5

2

4.07

.63

.44

Study Aids

4

6

0

4.73

2

7

1

3.97 1.74

1.61

Campus Terrain

8

5

0

5.34

7

6

0

5.05

.00

.40

Transportation

6

5

0

5.18

2

6

.0

4.65

.21

.80

Caucus Housing

4

7

0

5.16

3

6

1

4.22 1.17

2.14

Campus Buildings

8

5

0

5.32

3

9

0

4.23 2.06

4.25

Attitude

5

5

0

5.14

4

6

0

4.86

.50

.22

Student Services

8

5

0

5.32

4

6

0

4.76

.36

.96

3
(2.54)

5.04
(Avg.)

Total s

58
(48.74)

58
(48.74)

35
(32.44)

60
(55.54)

4.38
13
(12.04) (Avg.)

55

The quadriplegics indicated 32.4% high agreement, 55.5%
moderate agreement and 12.0% low agreement with the state­
ments .
The students identifying themselves as paraplegics had
an overall average mean in responding to the questionnaire
of 5.04.

Their major concerns were the health center,

campus events and study aids where the mean score was less
than 5.0; whereas in the other seven categories their mean
scores were above 5.0.

The quadriplegic students perceived

their greatest needs in the areas of the health center and
study aids where the mean scores were less than 4.0.

The

only category to have a mean score of greater than 5.0 was
campus terrain for quadriplegics.

Their overall average

mean for responding to the questionnaire statements was 4.38.
In comparing the overall average means the paraplegic
students were more agreeable to the questionnaire state­
ments than the quadriplegics though chi-square and analysis
of variance tests did not suggest any statistically
significant differences between the responses of the two
groups.

This result may reflect the fact that quadriplegics

encounter more difficulties due to the level of muscle
involvement in comparison to paraplegics and, therefore,
require more assistance from the university in meeting their
needs.
Use of Manual and Electric Wheelchairs;
Tables VIII and IX compare the percent use of manual
and electric wheelchairs with responses to the questionnaire.

TABLE VIII
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE BY PERCENT USE OF MANUAL WHEELCHAIR

951 OR GREATER (n = 18; 64.31)

80* OR LESS (n = 10; 35.7*)
High
Agreement
(7.6)

Moderate
Agreement
(5,4,3)

Low
Agreement
(2,1)

Mean

High
Agreement
(7,6)

Moderate
Agreement
(5,4,3)

Low
Agreement
(2.1)

Mean

Health Center

5

2

3

4.33

2

11

2

4.38

Library

6

1

3

4.44

9

7

2

4.64

Campus Events

4

5

1

4.33

4

7

2

4.20

Study Aids

4

4

1

4.25

4

9

0

4.48

Campus Terrain

5

5

0

4.98

8

8

0

5.24

Transportation

4

5

0

4.82

6

7

0

5.06

Campus Housing

4

4

1

4.40

5

8

0

4.93

Campus Buildings

5

5

0

4.68

8

10

0

4.98

Attitude

4

5

0

4.89

4

8

1

4.70

Student Services

5

5

0

6.04

8

6

0

5.22

9
(9.41)

4.62
(Avg.)

7
(4.81)

4.78
(Avg.;

Totals

46
(47.91)

41
(42.71)

58
(39.71)

81
(55.51)

57

Manual wheelchair users were grouped into students who used
manual wheelchairs eighty percent or less and those who
used manual wheelchairs ninety-five percent or more of the
time.

The means for each of the ten categories in comparing

the two groups were extremely close though the average mean
reflected a slightly greater agreement with the question­
naire statements for those students who used manual wheel­
chairs ninety-five percent or greater for mobility (4.78)
as opposed to those using manual wheelchairs eighty percent
or less for mobility (4.62).

Overall, students who used

manual wheelchairs eighty percent or less for mobility
indicated 47.9% high agreement, 42.7% moderate agreement
and 9.4% low agreement with the questionnaire statements.
Those students using manual wheelchairs ninety-five percent
or greater for mobility indicated 39.7% high agreement,
55.5% moderate agreement and 4.8% low agreement with the
statements.
The electric wheelchair students were grouped into
students who used electric wheelchairs fifty percent or
less and those who used electric wheelchairs ninety-five
percent of more of the time for mobility.

In this case, the

group that used electric wheelchairs more often agreed with
the statements to a greater degree in eight of the ten
categories - all but the library and campus terrain.

The

overall average mean also reflected this difference of
opinion as it was 3.63 for students using electric wheel­
chairs fifty percent or less and 4.58 for students who used

TABLE IX
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE BY PERCENT USE OF ELECTRIC WHEELCHAIR

50% OR LESS (n = 4; 30.a%)

95% OR GREATER (n = 9 ; 69.2%)

Low
High
Moderate
Agreement Agreement Agreement Mean
(7,6)
(5,4,3)
(2.1)

High
Moderate
Low
Agreement Agreement Agreement Mean
(7,6)
(5,4,3)
(2.1)

Health Center

0

1

2

2.00

3

4

2

4.55

Library

1

2

1

4.12

4

1

4

4.05

Campus Events

1

1

1

3.67

1

6

1

4.00

Study Aids

0

2

1

2.89

3

5

0

4.39

Campus Terrain

2

2

0

5.15

5

4

0

5.02

Transportation

0

3

0

4.00

2

4

0

4.47

Campus Housing

0

2

1

2.67

2

5

0

4.98

Campus Buildings

0

3

0

3.79

3

5

0

4.26

Atti tude

0

2

0

3.87

5

4

0

5.18

Student Services

1

2

0

4.12

4

4

0

4.87

7
(8.6%)

4.58
(Avg.)

Totals

5
(16.1%)

20
(64.5%)

3.63
6
(19.3%) (Avg.)

32
(39.5%)

42
(51.8%)

59

electric wheelchairs at least ninety-five percent of the time
for mobility.

Due to the small numbers in each of the two

categories, however, statistical analyses were not completed.
Students who used electric wheelchairs fifty percent or
less for mobility indicated 16.1% high agreement, 64.5%
moderate agreement and 19.3% low agreement with the question­
naire statements.

Students who used electric wheelchairs

ninety-five percent or more of the time for mobility
indicated 39.5% high agreement, 51.8% moderate agreement
*

and only 8.6% low agreement with the statements.
These results suggest that electric wheelchair users
may perceive more problems in attending a university in com­
parison to manual wheelchair users.

It also suggests that

the more a person uses an electric wheelchair, the fewer
problems they may have in attending a university.
Number of Years as a Wheelchair User:
The total number of years as a wheelchair user and the
number of years in a wheelchair at a university are compared
to the responses to the questionnaire in Tables X and X I .
The students were separated into two groups for the number
of years as a wheelchair user - five years or less and
six years or greater.

The overall average means for re­

sponding to the questionnaire statements were close for these
two groups 14.60 vs. 4.74).

No indications are apparent that

responses to the questionnaire vary as a function of the
number of years a person has used a wheelchair.

TABLE X
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE BY NUMBER OF TEARS AS WHEELCHAIR USER

S YEARS OR LESS (n = 17; 51.52)

6 YEARS OR GREATER (n = 16; 48.52)

Moderate
High
Low
Agreement Agreement Agreement Mean
(5,4,3)
(7,6)
(2,1)

High
Moderate
Low
Agreement Agreement Agreement Mean
(7.6)
(5.4,3)
(2,1)

3

10

3

4.11

5

6

3

4.67

10

4

3

4.50

6

6

4

3.94

Campus Events

4

10

1

3.93

4

5

3

4.15

Study Aids

5

9

1

4.26

4

7

0

4.02

Campus Terrain

7

9

0

4.96

10

5

0

5.31

Transportation

6

9

0

4.91

5

5

0

5.29

Campus Housing

4

9

1

4.34

5

6

0

5.13

Campus Buildings

7

9

0

4.91

7

8

0

5.13

Atti tude

6

B

0

4.87

4

7

1

4.64

Student Services

9

8

0

5.23

6

5

0

5.14

9
(5.82)

4.60
(Avg.)

11
(8.72)

4.74
(Avg.)

Health Center
Library

Totals

61
(39.31)

85
(54.82)

56
(44.12)

60
(47.22)

TABLE XI
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE BY YEARS IN WHEELCHAIR AT UNIVERSITY

2.5 YEARS OR MORE (n = 21; 63.62)

2 YEARS OR LESS (n = 12 i 36.42)
High
Agreement
(7,6)

Moderate
Agreement
(5,4,3)

Low
Agreement
(2,1)

Hean

High
Agreement
(7,6)

Moderate
Agreement
(5.4,3)

Low
Agreement
(2.1)

Mean

Health Center

3

7

1

4.53

4

9

5

3.66

Library

7

3

2

4.20

9

6

5

3.66

Campus Events

2

7

0

4.40

6

6

4

3.75

Study Aids

3

6

0

4.88

5

10

1

3.95

Campus Terrain

4

6

0

4.81

11

7

0

5.08

Transportation

4

6

0

4.71

6

8

U

4.39

Campus Housing

3

6

0

4.66

6

9

]

4.52

Campus Buildings

4

6

0

4.45

9

11

0

4.40

Attitude

2

7

0

4.74

7

8

1

4.47

Student Services

5

5

0

5.27

9

8

0

4.63

3
(3.02)

4.67
(Avg.)

17
(9.92)

4.25
(Avg.)

Totals

37
(37.42)

59
(59.62)

72
(42.12)

82
(47.92)

62

The students were also separated into two groups for
comparison purposes for number of years as a wheelchair
user on campus - two years or less and two and one-half
years or greater.

The mean score for four of the ten

categories (health center, library, campus events and study
aids) was below 4.0 for students who used a wheelchair on
campus for two and one-half years or more whereas none of
the mean scores was below 4.0 in the ten categories for
the students using wheelchairs for two years or less at a
university.

The overall average mean for all ten categories

was also higher for the students using wheelchairs at a
university for a shorter period of time (4.67) in comparison
to the group using wheelchairs for a longer period of time
at the university (4.25).

This suggests that the students

using wheelchairs for two and one-half years or more may
perceive more problems at a university than wheelchair
students using wheelchairs for two years or less at a
university.

This difference may also suggest that students

using wheelchairs at the university longer may have "felt"
these problems for a longer period of time.

Another

possible explanation is there may have been changes during
the past two years which have alleviated some of these
problems and concerns which caused the newer wheelchair
users to not experience the same difficulties.
Operating a Motor Vehicle;
Table XII compares the responses of student wheel­
chair users who operate a motor vehicle and those who do

TABLE XII
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE BY DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE

DRIVES (n = 19; 57.64)

DOES NOT DRIVE (n = 14; 42.44)

High
Agreement
(7,6)

Moderate
Agreement
(5.4,3)

Low
Agreement
(2.1)

Mean

High
Agreement
(7,6)

Moderate
Agreement
(5.4,3)

Low
Agreement
(2.1)

Mean

Health Center

2

12

2

4.25

6

4

4

4.50

Library

9

7

3

4.53

7

3

4

4.68

Campus Events

S

8

2

4.36

3

7

2

4.11

Study Aids

3

11

0

4.33

6

5

1

4.50

Campus Terrain

8

9

0

5.03

9

5

0

5.33

Transportation

6

8

0

4.97

5

6

0

5.00

Cainpus Housing

5

9

0

5.24

4

6

1

4.14

Cainpus Buildings

8

10

0

5.06

6

7

0

4.67

Attitude

3

9

1

4.44

7

6

0

5.08

Student Services

9

7

0

5.34

6

6

0

4.94

8
(5.14)

4.75
(Avg.)

12
(9.54)

4.69
(Avg.!

Totals

58
(37.2%)

90
(57.74)

\

59
(46.84)

55
(43.64)

64

not.

The individual means for the ten categories suggest

that questionnaire responses do not vary as a function of
this independent variable.

The overall average mean for

responses to the questionnaire was 4.75 for wheelchair users
who drive as compared to 4.69 for wheelchair users who do
not drive.

These data suggest that operation of a motor

vehicle is not a significant factor in the perception of
problems at a university for wheelchair users.
Locus of Control;
The Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Instrument
was used to determine the students’ locus of control internal (themselves), external (powerful others) or chance.
All of the participants in the study scored highest on the
internal locus of control factors.

This may be due to the

fact that as wheelchair users they must be strongly motivated
and controlled internally to confront the problems of
attending a university in a wheelchair.
Though each of the participants scored highest on an
internal locus of control on the Multidimensional Health
Locus of Control Instrument, the scores ranged from sixtythree to one hundred percent.

In view of this wide range

of scores, the group was divided into two categories (.high
and low internal locus of control scores) and used to com­
pare responses to the questionnaire designed by the
investigator.

Table XIII summarizes this comparison.

The group with the highest internal locus of control
scores (eighty percent or greater) was more agreeable with

TABLE XIII
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE BY INTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL SCORES

LESS THAN BOX (n = 13 , 39.4%)

80% OR GREATER (n = 20; 60.6%)

Moderate
Low
High
Agreement Agreement Agreement Mean
(5.4,3)
(2.1)
(7.6)

High
Moderate
Low
Agreement Agreement Agreement Mean
(7.6)
(5,4,3)
(2.1)

x2

f-ratic

Health Center

3

6

4

4.08

5

10

2

4.59

1.66

.53

Library

4

4

5

3.96

12

6

2

5.00

4.40

2.13

Campus Events

3

7

2

3.92

5

8

2

4.51

.24

.82

Study Aids

2

8

1

4.00

7

8

0

4.71

3.24

1.84

Campus Terrain

5

8

0

4.92

12

6

0

5.34

1.42

1.10

Transportation

4

6

0

4.78

7

8

0

5.12

.00

.43

Campus Housing

3

7

1

4.25

6

8

0

5.16

1.73

2.54

Campus Buildings

4

8

0

4.53

10

9

0

5.12

.46

1.37

Attitude

6

7

0

4.93

4

8

1

4.59

1.47

.42

Student Services

5

7

0

4.73

10

6

0

5.49

.51

2.59

7
(4.3%)

4.96
(Avg.)

Totals

39
(32.SX)

68
(56.7%)

13
4.41
(10.8%) (Avg.)

78
(48.1%)

77
(47.5%)

tn

ui

66

the statements on the questionnaire in nine of the ten
major categories (all except "attitude”).

Overall this

group had an average mean of 4.96 while the group scoring
lower on internal locus of control had an average mean of
4.41.

The group with less than eighty percent as a score

on internal locus of control indicated 32.5% high agreement,
56.7% moderate agreement and 10.8% low agreement with the
statements on the questionnaire.

The group who scored eighty

percent or higher on internal locus of control indicated
48.5% high agreement, 47.5% moderate agreement and only 4.3%
low agreement with the statements.
Though chi-square and analysis of variance tests did
not reveal significant differences, the results seem to
suggest that the more the students perceive themselves as
controlling their own environment or health (internal locus
of control), the less problems they perceive at the
university in overcoming physical, emotional and mental
barriers as student wheelchair users.

Question Three
What changes, if any, do student wheelchair users feel a
university should make in an effort to alleviate these problems?
In an attempt to answer this question, personal inter­
views were conducted with a subsample of the study par­
ticipants.

After analyzing the data received from the

questionnaire, nine students were contacted personally by
the investigator in May 1980 to expound upon the major

67

problems perceived by the student wheelchair users involved
in the study.

The nine students interviewed were a

stratified random sample from the students who returned com­
pleted questionnaires.

Three were selected from each of the

three campuses.
The interview questions focused on the specific areas
in the questionnaire which the participants in the study
selected as their major problems.

As mentioned previously,

five questions scored "negatively" overall in that the
average score was less than four ("neutral") on the question­
naire.

These areas may be interpreted as the major concerns

as determined by the student wheelchair users in this study.
These specific questions dealt with the issues of adequate
snow removal, accessible housing cafeterias, accessible
drinking fountains, accessibility to sporting events on
campus and adequate help to facilitate self care activities.
The interview schedule included the following questions:
1.

How often is snow removal (lack of) a determining
factor in your ability to travel around campus
in your wheelchair?

2.

In what ways is campus housing inaccessible to a
wheelchair user?

3.

How do you circumvent the problem of inaccessi­
bility to drinking fountains on campus?

4.

How are campus events (concerts, sports events,
etc.) inaccessible to a wheelchair user?

5.

What are your major concerns that the university
should address to make attendance at the
university easier for you as a wheelchair user?

6.

In what ways is the office for handicapper affairs
at your university meeting your needs? In what
ways should they improve?

68

In responding to the question regarding snow removal
most of the students noted that this past winter was not a
major problem due to the limited amount of snow.

From

previous experiences, however, most noted that the major
problems exist with lack of adequate snow removal at drop­
off points when transported by the campus handicapper van
service, ramps, curb cuts and some doorways.

A major prob­

lem for wheelchair users is that the type of equipment used
by the universities in removing snow leaves a small ridge
on either side of the sidewalk which has to be negotiated
when turning a corner onto another sidewalk,entering a
building or crossing a street.

One student mentioned that

the problem exists somewhat due to the fact that often the
building entrances which are made accessible to wheelchair
users are not the main entrances.

Therefore a wheelchair

student by necessity must travel around to a side door or
back door of the building to an area which is usually not
kept as clean in regards to snow removal.
Three of the students indicated that they have had no
contact with campus housing and were not able to comment
on accessibility problems.

The remainder of the students

were highly vocal on this issue as they felt that the
universities are not responding to making campus housing
accessible to wheelchair users.

They note that the

universities have spent time and energy into making a few
of the housing units accessible though problems were
identified as still existing within those units.

A major

69

complaint is that all housing units are not accessible,
therefore often prohibiting them from attending functions
in other housing units or from visiting friends in other
campus housing units.

In general, the student wheelchair

users interviewed felt that they do not have the same options
available to them as non-wheelchair users and that this is
discriminatory.

One student mentioned that prior to

attending the university he had been in contact with the
handicapper affairs office and was "promised the world" in
terms of accessible campus housing but nothing was avail­
able when he moved to the campus area and he now resides in
a local apartment complex.
All of the students interviewed remarked that .nearly
ninety-five percent of the drinking fountains on campus are
inaccessible to wheelchair users.

To circumvent the problem

most carry their own cup with them or use the snack bars to
get a drink when needed.

It was suggested by some that a

cup dispenser be placed next to the fountains to allow
accessibility.
Four of the students interviewed stated that they did
not attend many campus events and therefore did not comment
on accessibility problems.

The others mentioned their

difficulty in obtaining tickets though this problem is not
unique to student wheelchair users.

Another problem men­

tioned in attending campus events is that wheelchair users
usually have to sit on the ground level for concerts or
sporting events and they do not feel that this usually is the

70

best vantage point for viewing an event.

They again men­

tioned that they do not feel they have the same options as
students who do not use wheelchairs.

One student mentioned

that she does not attend such events because she is unable
to sit with her non-handicapped friends.

Two students noted

that changes need to be made for recreational sports
facilities to allow accessibility not only to the building
itself but to locker rooms, showers and all floors within
the building.
Other major concerns cited by the students, interviewed
were:
1.

Usually only one bathroom is accessible within
a campus building - usually a classroom building.
The buildings should not be considered acces­
sible unless all facilities within the buildings
are accessible. Also, more than just one or
two residence halls or campus apartment com­
plexes should be accessible to allow more
options.

2.

There need to be more accessible parking spaces
for student wheelchair users who operate a
motor vehicle. The parking areas should be
closer to the classroom buildings which are
commonly used by students.

3.

The libraries need to be made more accessible
to student wheelchair users.

4.

Many of the ramps that were first constructed
to make buildings accessible are too steep and
need to be rebuilt.

5.

Many of the doorways into buildings are wide
enough to be accessible to wheelchair users but
the doors are often not constructed to allow
independent opening for someone in a wheelchair.

6.

Many of the campus elevators are inadequate as
they are too small to be able to turn around while
in a wheelchair and are often not in operation.

71

In response to the question regarding services offered
by the office for handicapper affairs at the university,
seven of the students felt that the handicapper affairs
offices were trying to do too much at once.

It was sug­

gested that the offices could best function on behalf of the
students by reorganizing and concentrating their efforts
on the major problems perceived by the students.

In this

way, some of the major concerns could be better addressed
rather than alleviating only a portion of the problem in
many areas.

Two students felt that the office could best

serve their needs through use of an ombudsman to handle
their concerns as they arose.

They often find instructors

who are unaware of the regulations surrounding the Rehabili­
tation Act of 1973, Section 504, and therefore have
difficulty with expectations within certain classes.

Five

of the students interviewed noted that they act as their
own advocate and bypass the handicapper affairs office.
These five students see a need for.an active group of stu­
dent wheelchair users to assist in effecting changes at
the university.. They admit that they do not take the time
to involve themselves often enough due to the time and
energy required to attend classes and keep up with the
class assignments.

Summary
In this chapter the information collected from the
Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Instrument, the

72

questionnaire designed by the investigator and the interviews
with nine of the participants in the study was described.
The independent variables in the study were compared with
the responses to the questionnaire to identify significant
relationships that might facilitate future research.

The

independent variables which suggested relationships were;
sex, university attended, level of education, medical
diagnosis, muscle involvement, manual vs. electric wheel­
chair use, years in a wheelchair at a university, and locus
of control.

However, sex and medical diagnosis were the

only variables that yielded statistically significant dif­
ferences in response patterns.

The comparisons between the

independent variables and the responses to the questionnaire
were displayed in the form of tables depicting responses as
categorized into ten major subgroupings from the question­
naire statements.

Several additional problems were noted

in the personal interviews with recommendations for modifica­
tions to alleviate these concerns.
In Chapter Five the results of the study will be
summarized along with major conclusions and recommendations
for future research.

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary
The purpose of this study was to ascertain the problems
perceived by wheelchair students at major public universities.
The major questions addressed by the study were:
1.

What problems unique to student wheelchair users
are experienced when they attend a large public
university?

2.

Do certain characteristics of wheelchair users
have an impact on their perception of problems at
a university?

3.

What changes, if any, do student wheelchair users
feel the university should make in an effort to
alleviate these problems?

The subjects for the study were originally contacted
through the handicapper affairs offices of the three univer­
sities used in the study:

Michigan State University, Wayne

State University and The University of Michigan.

Forty

students from these universities volunteered to be parti­
cipants in the study.

Of these forty, thirty-three re­

sponded to the instruments sent to them for data collection.
The data collection instruments included the Multi­
dimensional Health Locus of Control Instrument, a question­
naire designed by the investigator and personal interview

73

74
questions.

All participants responded to the Multidimen­

sional Health Locus of Control Instrument and questionnaire.
Nine students (three from each of the universities) re­
sponded to personal interview questions to clarify infor­
mation obtained through the mail.
The dependent variables for the study included the
responses to the questionnaires and interview questions.
The independent variables for the study included:
1.

The university attended

2.

Extent of wheelchair use

3.

Level of education

4.

Level of trauma (muscle involvement)

5.

Number of years in a wheelchair at a university

6.

Academic major

7.

Sex

8.

Age

9.

Locus of control

Differences in responses to the questionnaire were
analyzed for each of the independent variables.

Forty-eight

specific questions regarding services at the university were
incorporated into the questionnaire.

All questions were

posed in a positive manner so that if the respondent agreed
to the statement then it would not be interpreted as a
problem.

The responses were on a seven point Likert-type

scale with "1" representing "strongly disagree" and "7"
representing "strongly agree."

75

In determining perceived problems by wheelchair users
at a university, the mean scores were calculated for each
question for all respondents.

Seven of the forty-eight

questions had a mean of 5.5 (between "slightly agree" and
"moderately agree") or greater.

These areas may be inter­

preted as not being perceived as problems by the student
wheelchair users at this*time and included issues of acces­
sible doorways to buildings, adequate sidewalks without
stairs, adequate curb cuts, lack of hills to negotiate in
a wheelchair, adequate assistance for class registration
and access for career counseling services.
Five questions scored "negatively" overall in that the
average score was less than four ("neutral") on the question­
naire.

These areas may be interpreted as perceived problems

by student wheelchair users.

These specific questions dealt

with the issues of adequate snow removal, accessible cafe­
terias within campus housing, accessible drinking fountains,
accessibility to sporting events on campus and adequate
help to facilitate self care activities (e.g., dressing and
personal hygiene).
The forty-eight questions were also grouped into ten
major categories for comparisons with the independent vari­
ables.

The ten categories were:

1.

Health Center

2.

Library

3.

Campus events

4.

Study Aids

76
5.

Campus Terrain

6. Transportation
7.

Campus Housing

8.

Campus Buildings

9. Attitude
10.

Student Services

The data support the following:
1.

Male wheelchair users may perceive fewer concerns
at a university than female wheelchair users.

2. Perception of concerns may be a function of the
specific university due to physical differences
on campus and the attention of the university
toward handicappers.
3. Graduate student wheelchair users may perceive
more concerns at a university than undergraduate
student wheelchair users.
4. Medical diagnosis and muscle involvement may be
factors in determining perceived concerns of student
wheelchair users as students with greater physical
problems require greater accessibility.
5. Manual wheelchair users may perceive fewer concerns
at a university than electric wheelchair users.
6. Student wheelchair users may perceive more prob­
lems the longer they attend a university.

77

7. , Student wheelchair users with a high internal
locus of control tend to perceive fewer concerns
at a university than wheelchair users scoring
lower on internal locus of control.
These suggested results must be interpreted cautiously at
this time due to lack of statistical significance in most
cases.

Sex and medical diagnosis were the only variables

that yielded statistically significant differences in re­
sponse patterns.

i

To determine what changes would be suggested by student
wheelchair users and to gain further insight as to the prob­
lems suggested in the data collected from the questionnaire,
nine students were interviewed by the investigator.

Prom

the nine interviews conducted as part of this study, the
following concerns were rated high:
1.

Adequate snow removal to allow greater accessibility
to wheelchair users.

2.

Improvement of campus housing accessibility to
allow greater options to wheelchair users.

3.

Greater accessibility to drinking fountains on
campus.

4.

Greater accessibility to campus events (viz.
sporting events and concerts).

5.

Greater accessibility to all aspects within campus
buildings (viz. bathrooms).

6.

Greater number of handicapper parking spaces
nearer classroom buildings.

78
7.

Libraries made more accessible.

8.

Reconstruction of some of the older ramps to lessen
the grades.

9.
10.

More accessible and functional elevators.
Doorways to allow independent opening for wheelchair
users.

11.

Limiting the scope of the handicapper affairs
offices to focus on a few of the major problems.

Implications of the Study
This study shares results which indicate to a univer­
sity that special problems continue to exist for student
wheelchair users.

It suggests that needs assessments at a

university may be important in determining what the priority
problems are that exist and the best ways of alleviating them.
If student wheelchair users currently perceive major problems
in attending a university, then other handicappers (e.g.,
visually impaired, hearing impaired) may also experience
problems which are significant to them and hamper their
ability to attend a university.
This study also suggests that some of the modifications
that have been completed are not adequate to meet the needs
of student wheelchair users.

Though the university may, for

example, make some residence halls accessible to wheel­
chair students, many of these halls remain inaccessible
therefore not permitting visitation by wheelchair users.

79

This 3tudy indicated several specific perceived prob­
lems by student wheelchair users which should be addressed
more closely by the universities.

These concerns include:

snow removal, accessible student housing, accessible drinking
fountains, accessibility to campus events, more assistance
with self care tasks and overall greater accessibility to
and within campus buildings.

The data suggest that the

handicapper affairs offices may be tending to focus on too
many problems at one time and, therefore, are not doing an
effective job of alleviating many of the major difficulties
encountered by wheelchair users.

It is suggested that the

needs of the handicappers may be better met by determining
what the priority needs are and then focusing on a few of
the major problems rather than trying to address all of them.

Recommendations for Future Research
As a result of this study the following recommendations
are made for future research:
1.

A study to focus on the services currently provided
by the handicapper affairs office at a university
and the effectiveness of current programs may assist
in providing better services to its handicapper
population at the university.

Are these offices

tending to spread themselves "too thin" and not
adequately meeting the majority of needs of handi­
cappers at a university?

80

2.

Formal needs assessments would be helpful with
other specific disabilities to better determine
problems encountered by these students at a
university and assist in more adequately meeting
their needs.

3.

Many studies should be conducted to determine if
correlations exist between several independent
variables and perceived problems at a university by
student wheelchair users.

According to the results

of this investigation, the independent variables
that suggest strong correlations with perceived
concerns include:

sex, university attended, medical

diagnosis, muscle involvement and locus of control.

APPENDIX A

INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO STUDENT
WHEELCHAIR USERS

81

82

18 Jcin 80

Dear Wheelchair User:
I am currently a doctoral student at Michigan State Univer­
sity. I have gained acceptance from my doctoral committee
regarding my proposed dissertation. The dissertation is
centered around the perceived problems of wheelchair students
at Michigan State University, The University of Michigan and
Wayne State University. In essence, it is a "needs assess­
ment" designed to identify and prioritize problems perceived
by wheelchair users at these three major public universities.
My plans for data collection include mailing initial surveys
to willing participants in the study to obtain general con­
cerns. These surveys would be followed by a personal inter­
view of approximately thirty minutes to an hour to clarify
information obtained from the surveys and to assist in
identifying the reasons for existing problems.
To increase validity of the study it is important to involve
as many wheelchair users as possible who are attending these
institutions. The handicapper services office at your
university has consented to mail this introductory letter
to all wheelchair students known to them at the university.
I have not been given any names or addresses to maintain
confidentiality of records and your individual privacy.
I would appreciate hearing from you as soon as possible in
response to my request that you participate in this research
effort. Research such as this is important if we are to
improve current services offered to handicappers on campus.
Enclosed is a form to be returned directly to me via the
self-addressed, stamped envelope if you would be willing to
respond to a survey questionnaire and meet with me for
thirty minutes. I hope to send out the initial survey in
early February and would, therefore, appreciate a quick
response to this request.
Thank you for your consideration in joining this research
effort. I hope to be hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,

Ted King

APPENDIX B

CHARACTERISTICS OF WHEELCHAIR USERS
WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE STUDY

83

84

Total Number of Participants:

33

Sex:

Males - 20 (60.6%)
Females - 13 (39.4%)

Age:

Range - 18 years to 50 years
Mean - 27.53 years
Median - 26.5 years

University Attended:
Michigan State University - 8 (24.2%)
Wayne State University - 21 (63.6%)
The University of Michigan - 4 (12.1%)
Academic Major:
23 different majors listed from the 33 respondents.
One major was identified by 3 students - Guidance
and Counseling.
Six majors were represented by 2 students in each:
Finance
Accounting
Social Work
Political Science
Liberal Arts
Sociology
The remaining academic majors listed were only
represented by one student in each:
Electrical Engineering
Urban Problems
English
Computer Science
Business
Industrial Psychology
Industrial Engineering
Special Education
Psychology
Vocational Rehabilitation
Law
Architecture
Telecommunications
Social Service Administration
Mass Communication
Recreation
Two of the students did not list an academic major.
Academic Level:
Freshmen - 3 (9.1%)
Sophomores - 4 (12.1%)
Juniors - 8 (.24.2%)
Seniors - 9 (27.3%)
Graduates - 9 (27.3%)

85

Medical Diagnosis:
Spinal Cord Injury - 18 (54.5%)
Cerebral Palsy - 7 (21.2%)
Polio - 2 (6.1%)
Spinal Osteoarthritis - 2 (6.1%)
Cerebral Edema - 1 (3.0%)
Osteogenesis Imperfecta - 1 (.3.0%)
Neurological - 1 (3.0%)
Muscular Dystrophy - 1 (3.0%)
Muscle Involvement:
Hemiplegia - 2 (6.1%)
Paraplegia - 14 (42.4%)
Quadriplegia - 13 (39.4%)
No Response - 4 (12.1%)
Percent Use of Manual Wheelchair for Mobility:
Percent
0
1
5
50
80
95
99
100

n
T
3
3
3
1
1
1
16

Percent Use of Electric Wheelchair for Mobility:
Percent

n

S

20

1
13
25
50
95
99
100

1
1
1
1
3
3
3

Number of Years as a Wheelchair User:
Range - 1.2 - 30 years
Mean - 8.44 years
Median - 5.08 years
Number of Years as a Wheelchair User at a University;
Range - .3 - 8.5 years
Mean - 3.34 years
Median - 3.02 years

86

Operate a Motor Vehicle:
Yes - 19 (57.6%)
No - 14 (42.4%)

APPENDIX C

MULTIDIMENSIONAL HEALTH LOCUS OP
CONTROL INSTRUMENT

87

88

MHLC SCALE - FORM A
NAME:

___________________________

DIRECTIONS: FOR EACH ITEM, CIRCLE THE NUMBER THAT REPRE­
SENTS THE EXTENT TO WHICH YOU DISAGREE OR AGREE WITH THE
STATEMENT. CIRCLE ONLY ONE NUMBER PER ITEM. THERE ARE NO
RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWERS.
<1>
CD

CD

M 0)

a> en CD
u n u
O' toO' <D
(0 -H <0 <0
W
Q (0 U
■H
■HO'
a >i q <
(H
>1

<D
(D
u o
O' 0)
< M
O'
*r-H
>i <

CD >i >i CD >i
rl D H
d +j 4J to o'

rl +J H

O'
C U JS -C
V4 fl
O CDO' O' (D O

‘H 'H 13 1-1
O i—t •—I O -P

to

S

CO

01

s

Cft

1.

If I get sick, it is my own behavior
which determines how soon I get well
again.

12

3 4 5 6

2.

No matter what I do, if I am going to
get sick, I will get sick.

12

3 4 5 6

3.

Having regular contact with my physician
is the best way for me to avoid illness.

1

4.

Most things that affect my health happen
to me by accident.

12

3 4 5 6

5.

Whenever I don't feel well, I should con- 1 2
suit a medically trained professional.

3 4 5 6

6.

I am in control of my health.

12

3 4 5 6

7.

My family has a lot to do with my
becoming sick or staying healthy.

1 2

3 4 5 6

8.

When I get sick I am to blame.

12

3 4 5 6

9.

Luck plays a big part in determining how
soon I will recover from an illness.

1 2

3 4 5 6

Health professionals control my health.

12

3 4 5 6

10.

2 3 4 5 6

89

<D
0
Oi
(U
<a
•H
a
(—
i
Oi
c
0
u
+1

cn

a>
a)
u
Oi
a
01
•H
a
>»
iH
<0
<a
to
a>

<l)
a)
M
Oi
<a
01
•H
Q
>i
i-H
4J
A
0i
TJ
rH
O
S in

<0
ai
<1>
a>
a) g> 0)
<
M
Oi
0i
< rH <
>i <U
rH 4J rH
+» <d 01
A u C
OI a) 0
•H *0 u
rH 0 +J
in S CO

11 . My good health is largely a matter of
good fortune.

1 2

3 4 5 6

12 . The main thing which affects my
health is what I myself do.

1 2

3 4

13.

If I take care of myself, I can avoid
illness.

1

2

3 4 5 6

14.

When I recover from an illness, it's
usually because other people (for
example, doctors, nurses, family
friends) have been taking good care of
me.

1 2

3 4 5 6

15.

No matter what I do, I'm likely to
get sick.

1 2

3 4 5 6

16.

If it's meant to be, I will stay
healthy.

1 2

3

17.

If I take the right actions, I can
stay healthy.

1 2

3 4 5 6

18.

Regarding my health, I can only do
what my doctor tells me to do.

1 2

3 4 5 6

5 6

4 5 6

APPENDIX D

QUESTIONNAIRE TO DETERMINE PERCEIVED
CONCERNS OF STUDENT WHEELCHAIR
USERS AT A MAJOR UNIVERSITY

90

91
QUESTIONNAIRE TO DETERMINE PERCEIVED CONCERNS OF STUDENT
WHEELCHAIR USERS AT A MAJOR UNIVERSITY:
Name:
SEX:

M

F

AGE :

________

(Circle one)

UNIVERSITY ATTENDED:

MSU

WSU

U of M

(Circle one)

ACADEMIC MAJOR:

____________________________________________

ACADEMIC LEVEL:

Fr

So

Jr

Sr

Gr

(Circle one)

MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS OF YOUR CHARACTERISTICS (e.g., spinal cord
injury, multiple sclerosis): __________________________
MUSCLE INVOLVEMENT:

Hemiplegia

Paraplegia
(Circle one)

Quadriplegia
APPROX. % USE OF A MANUAL WHEELCHAIR FOR MOBILITY:

%

APPROX. % USE OF AN ELECTRIC WHEELCHAIR FOR MOBILITY:
HOW LONG HAVE YOU USED A WHEELCHAIR?

%

______________________

HOW LONG HAVE YOU USED A WHEELCHAIR AT THE UNIVERSITY?______
DO YOU DRIVE A CAR:

Yes

No

(Circle one)

FOR THE FOLLOWING SET OF QUESTIONS CIRCLE THE NUMBER THAT
REPRESENTS THE EXTENT TO WHICH YOU DISAGREE OR AGREE WITH THE
STATEMENT. CIRCLE ONLY ONE NUMBER PER ITEM. THERE ARE NO
RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWERS. IF A QUESTION DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU,
SIMPLY LEAVE IT BLANK.
a>
a>
CD u CD
<U O' <U
CD
U <« U
CD
O’ CO O'
CD Vi CD
(0 •H (0
a) O' CD
CO a CO
VI <! VI
•H
•H
O'
O'
Q
a
<
<
>
1
i*"*4
H
>i 0) r>
i
>i CD >1
i
rH H +» <—1
r—1 4J
O' cd ■M (0 4J
O'
u
a
M c
JZ VI
o CD O' 4J O' CD o
u •a ■H 3 •H •a u
■p o rH CD (H o
CO X CO Z CO s CO
1. The entrances to buildings on campus
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
are accessible to wheelchairs.

92

(D
<D
tn

<a

CO
■H
Q

0
0
u
O'
•a
CO
•H
Q
>i
rH
<D
4->

d)
0)

ID
<D

sh

<a U ID
ID
U
tn
<

tn

id
CO

•H

a

rH
en id
a n A
0 CD O'
•H
n
-u O rH
CO 2 co

rH
(0
U
A

3
a)

2

<u
u
O'
< >i
*H
ID
iH +»
+J id
A u
tn <0
•H T3
rH O
CO 2

2.

The doorways within buildings on
campus are accessible to wheelchairs.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3.

The various floors in buildings with
more than one level are accessible to
wheelchairs.

12 3

4.

There is an accessible bathroom in
campus buildings.

12

5.

The physical arrangement within class- 1 2 3
rooms allows wheelchair accessibility.

4 5

6

6.

The campus handicapper affairs office
is aware of the majority of student
wheelchair users' needs.

12 3

4 5

6

7.

There are adequate sidewalks on campus to allow wheelchair transporta­
tion ...

12

3 4

5 6

1 2

3 4

5 6

Alternate routes are available where
sidewalk stairs present difficulty
on campus for wheelchair users.

12

3 4

5 6

10 . The campus terrain is flat enough so

12

34

5 6

11 . There is adequate snow removal during
the winter months to allow wheelchair
usage.

12

3 4

5 6

The vehicles providing transportation
for student wheelchair users have the
proper equipment for easily handling
wheelchairs.

1 2

3 4

5 6

8 . Curb cuts are available for wheelchair users on campus.
9.

4 5

34

6

5 6

that hills do not create problems
for wheelchair users.

12.

rH
tn
G
0
u
4J

CO

93

<u

<o
<a u <o
a> c* <u
n at u

tn

tn

tn

<u

a)
O tTi
<d !h

o

<ti *H (ti
a
to
n 4
n
•H
-H
O'
O'
a >i a
< >i <
t-4
iH
>i a) >i
>. a)
s
iH
H i—I rH 4J rH
to

tn

(5

nj

U

0
<u
M T3

+J dj

jC U

tn -u
H 3

4J

Xi

ret

U

O' d)
-H »0

O'

C

o
M

4J O rH <0 H o -U
to g cn z co g w
13.

There are an adequate numberof cam12
pus vehicles providing transportation
for student wheelchair users.

14.

The method of scheduling for use of
campus transportation services is
adequate.

15.

Campustransportation
generally punctual.

16.

vehicles are

3 4

5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12

3 4

5 6 7

Adequate handicapper parking spaces
are available on campus for use of
personal vehicles.

12

3 4

5

6 7

17.

Physical barriers are not a problem
at the university in accomplishing
registration of class procedures.

12

3 4

5

67

18.

Adequate assistance is available to
help with filling out class regis­
tration forms if necessary.

19.

Physical barriers do not restrict
the use of career counseling ser­
vices for wheelchair users.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12

3 4

5

6 7

12

3 4

5

6 7

21 . Physical barriers do not restrict the 1 2
use of curriculum advising for
proper classes and classload for
wheelchair users.

3 4

5

6 7

20 . The career counseling services of-

fered are adequate to meet the needs
of student wheelchair users.

22.

The curriculum advising services
offered are adequate to meet the
needs of student wheelchair users.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

94
cd

<D
CD
U
d
n)
to
•H
Q
>1
M
O'
S
0
u
■U
CO

CD
M
O'
m
0)
•H
a

rH
CD
4J
tfl
U
CD
'O
o
S

a)
a>
oi
(0
0)
■H
a
r>Hi
•P
A
O'
•H
iH
CO
u

rH
u

■u
0
CD
3

CD
CD
CD P
CD O'
U rtl
O'
< >i
H
>i CD
rH -P
+> ff)
A u
O' CD
*H •O
*H O
cn s

CD
CD
U
O'

<

rH
O'
e
0
u
4J
CO

23.

Physical barriers do not restrict
the use of personal counseling
services for wheelchair users.

1 2 3 4

5 6 7

24.

The personal counseling services of­
fered are adequate to meet the
needs of student wheelchair users.

1

2

3

4 5

6 7

25.

Campus housing contains cafeterias
which adequately meet the accessi­
bility needs of wheelchair users.

1

2

3

4 5

6 7

26.

Bathrooms within campus housing
contain adequate space to maneuver
a wheelchair.

1

2

3

4 5

6 7

27.

The furniture and fixtures within
bathrooms in campus housing are
adequate to meet the needs of
wheelchair users.

1

2

3

4 5

6 7

28.

The space within campus living
quarters (bedroom and study area)
is adequate to maneuver a wheel­
chair.

1 2 3 4

29.

The furniture and fixtures within
campus living quarters (bedroom and
study area) are adequate to meet
the needs of wheelchair users.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

30.

Coin telephones at the university
are accessible to wheelchair users.

1

23

4 5

6 7

31.

Drinking fountains at the university
are accessible to wheelchair users.

1

23

4 5

6 7

32.

Elevator buttons at the university
are within reach of a wheelchair
user.

1

23

4 5

6 7

5 6

7

H> 1
>« 0)
rH +)
<8
£3 U
0 0)
Sh f3
■U 0
CO S

Agree

Q

Strongly

tn

Agree

n)
w
-rH

Moderately

5h
tn
ITS
W
•H
O

Agree

u

Slightly

o

a>

Disagree

0)
0)

Slightly
Neutral

95

33.

The handicapper affairs office at
the university is generally meeting
the needs of student wheelchair
users.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

34.

Sports events are adequately accessible to student wheelchair users.

12

3 4 5 6 7

35.

Concerts and other cultural events
sponsored by the university are
accessible to student wheelchair
users.

12

3 4

5 6 7

36.

Social functions (i.e., parties,
special dinners, etc.) sponsored by
the university are accessible to
wheelchair users.

12

3 4

5 6 7

37.

I feel the university as a whole is
making a strong effort to accommo­
date the needs of student wheelchair
users.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

38 . Adequate staff are available at the
university to assist with tutoring
needs for wheelchair users.

12

3 4

5 6 7

39.

Adequate physical media (e.g., tape
recorders) are available at the
university to assist with needs of
wheelchair users.

12

3 4

5 6 7

40.

Adequate staff are available at the
university to assist with notetaking when needed to meet the needs
of wheelchair users.

12

3 4

5 6 7

41.

Adequate health services are available at the university to meet the
needs of student wheelchair users.

12

3 4

5 6 7

96

CD
CD

U

Ci

CD
CD

u

O'
<0

CD
CD

<D

to

CD
CD U
CD O'
M
O'
< >i
r)
rH -CDP
-P <d
A U
O' CD
•H *o
rH O
to
2

Q
>i
i
—l
O'
c
0
-P
CO

O'
nl
Q •tnH
n>li a
CD > i
4J r—1
nj •P
U A
CD O'
T J ■H
0 H
£ CO

rH
(0
U
•P
3
<D
Z

2 3

4 5

6

7

6

7

tn
■H

tn
•H

CD
CD

U
<

O'

rH
O'
c
o
u
-p
to

42.

Physical barriers do not restrict
the use of library services at the
university.

1

43.

Adequate staff are available to
assist wheelchair users with use of
the library services (e.g., book
retrieval).

1 2 3

4

5

44.

The services currently offered by
the handicapper affairs office at
the university are helpful to wheel­
chair users.

1 2 3

4

5

6 7

45.

Adequate help is available to
facilitate self care activities for
student wheelchair users (e.g.,
dressing, hygiene, transfers).

1 2 3

4

5

6 7

46.

The special services available at
the university influenced my
decision in attending.

1

2 3

4

5

6 7

47.

Teachers at the university are
generally sensitive to the needs of
student wheelchair users.

1

2 3

4

5

6 7

48.

I would recommend attendance at this 1
university to other wheelchair users.

2 3

4

5

6 7

PLEASE LIST ANY OTHER CONCERNS YOU HAVE AS A STUDENT WHEEL­
CHAIR USER AT THE UNIVERSITY NOT ADDRESSED BY THIS QUESTION
NAIRE:

APPENDIX E

TABLE OF MEANS FOR EACH
QUESTIONNAIRE STATEMENT

97

98
Question

n

Mean

1. The entrances to buildings on campus are
accessible to wheelchairs.

33

5.333

2.

The doorways within buildings on campus
are accessible to wheelchairs.

33

5.606

3.

The various floors in buildings with more
than one level are accessible to wheel­
chairs.

32

5.156

4.

There is an accessible bathroom in campus
buildings.

32

5.313

5.

The physical arrangement within classrooms allows wheelchair accessibility.

33

4.333

6. The campus handicapper affairs office is
aware of the majority of student wheel­
chair users' needs.

32

5.344

7.

There are adequate sidewalks on campus
to allow wheelchair transportation.

33

5.576

8.

Curb cuts are available for wheelchair
users on campus.

33

5.909

31

5.677

9. Alternate routes are available where
sidewalk stairs present difficulty on
campus for wheelchair users.
10.

The campus terrain is flat enough so
that hills do not create problems for
wheelchair users.

33

5.545

11.

There is adequate snow removal during
the winter months to allow wheelchair
usage.

33

3.152

12. The vehicles providing transportation for
student wheelchair users have the proper
equipment for easily handling wheelchairs.

29

4.828

13. There are an adequate number of campus
vehicles providing transportation for
student wheelchair users.

29

5.448

14. The method of scheduling for use of campus transportation services is adequate.

28

5.036

15/ Campus transportation vehicles are
generally punctual.

26

5.308

99
Question

n

Mean

16.

Adequate handicapper parking spaces are
available on campus for use of personal
vehicles.

32

4.031

17.

Physical barriers are not a problem at
the university in accomplishing regis­
tration of class procedures.

32

4.656

18.

Adequate assistance is available to help
with filling out class registration forms
if necessary.

32

6.125

19.

Physical barriers do not restrict the use
of career counseling services for wheel­
chair users.

31

5.548

20.

The career counseling services offered
are adequate to meet the needs of stu­
dent wheelchair users.

31

4.452

21.

Physical barriers do not restrict the
use of curriculum advising for proper
classes and classload for wheelchair
users.

32

5.156

22.

The curriculum advising services offered are adequate to meet the needs
of student wheelchair users.

32

4.969

23.

Physical barriers do not restrict the
use of personal counseling services for
wheelchair users.

30

5.233

24.

The personal counseling services offered
are adequate to meet the needs of
student wheelchair users.

29

4.586

25.

Campus housing contains cafeterias which
adequately meet the accessibility needs
of wheelchair users.

26

3.923

26.

Bathrooms within campus housing contain
adequate space to maneuver a wheelchair.

29

5.103

27.

The furniture and fixtures within bathrooms in campus housing are adequate to
meet the needs of wheelchair users.

28

5.214

28.

The space within campus living quarters
(bedroom and study area) is adequate to
maneuver a wheelchair.

29

5.241

100

Question

n

Mean

29.

The furniture and fixtures within campus
living quarters (bedroom and study areal
are adequate to meet the needs of
wheelchair users.

27

4.741

30.

Coin telephones at the university are
accessible to wheelchair users.

32

4.781

31.

Drinking fountains at the university
are accessible to wheelchair users.

32

3.750

32.

Elevator buttons at the university are
within reach of a wheelchair user.

33

5.000

33.

The handicapper affairs office at the
university is generally meeting the
needs of student wheelchair users.

32

5.125

34.

Sports events are adequately accessible
to student wheelchair users.

30

3.800

35.

Concerts and other cultural events sponsored by the university are accessible
to student wheelchair users.

30

4.500

36.

Social functions (i.e., parties, special
dinners, etc.) sponsored by the univer­
sity are accessible to wheelchair users.

28

4.393

37.

I feel the university as a whole is
making a strong effort to accommodate the
needs of student wheelchair users.

33

4.879

27

4.407

38. Adequate staff are available at the
university to assist with tutoring needs
for wheelchair users.
39.

Adequatephysical media (e.g., tape recorders) are available at the university
to assist with needs of student wheel­
chair users.

27

4.741

40. Adequate staff are available at the
university to assist with notetaking when
necessary to meet the needs of wheelchair
users.

28

4.250

41.

30

4.367

Adequate health services are available at
the university to meet the needs of
student wheelchair users.

101

Question

n

Mean

42.

Physical barriers do not restrict the
use of library services at the
university.

30

4.182

43.

Adequate staff are available to
assist wheelchair users with use of
the library services (e.g., book
retrieval).

33

5.000

44.

The services currently offered by the
handicapper affairs office at the
university are helpful to student
wheelchair users.

32

5.313

45.

Adequate help is available to facilitate self care activities for student
wheelchair users (e.g., dressing,
hygiene, transfers).

26

3.846

46.

The special services available at the
university influenced my decision in
attending.

32

4.125

47.

Teachers at the university are generally sensitive to the needs of
student wheelchair users.

33

5.182

48.

I would recommend attendance at this
university to other wheelchair users.

32

5.375

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allan, W. Scott. Rehabilitation; A Community Challenge.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958.
Anderson, S.B., Ball, S., Murphy, R.T., and Associates.
Encyclopedia of Educational Evaluation. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass PuEIishers, 19"?5.
Arneson, Kathleen C. "The Rehabilitation Act of 1973," The
Social and Rehabilitation Record, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Dec.j a n . T 1 9 7 3 - n r . -----------------------

Berdie, Ralph F. "Counseling for Physically Disabled Stu­
dents," Journal of Higher Education, XXVI, No. 9
(December, 1935), 475-478.
Berman, Jules H. "The Rehabilitation Act. of 1973,"
Washington Bulletin, Vol. 23, Issue 21 (November 12,
1973).
Biehl, G. Richard. Guide to the Section 504 Self-Evaluation
For Colleges and UnTversitTes. Washington, D.C.:
National Association of College and University
Business Officers, 1978.
Condon, Margaret, E. "Extracurricular Activities of
Physically Handicapped Students," Personnel and
Guidance Journal, XXXVII (September^ 1958), 53-54.
Condon, Margaret E. "Program Adjustments for the Physically
Handicapped at the College Level," Personnel and
Guidance Journal, XXV (September, 1956), 41-42.
Condon, Margaret E. "Survey of Special Facilities for the
Physically Handicapped in College," Personnel and
Guidance Journal, XXXV, No. 9 (May, 1957), 5T9-5&3.
Condon, Margaret E., and Lerner, R.S.
"Rehabilitation
Counselor in Higher Education," Journal of Higher
Education, XXVI, No. 4 (April, 1955), 205^2id.
Denzin, N.K. The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction
to Sociological Methods. CKIcago: AlcLine Publishing
Company, 1975.
102

103

Eastmond, J.N. "Implementation of a Model for Needs
Assessment in Higher EducationDissertation for Ph.D.,
The University of Utah, 1976.
Gollay, Elinor, and Bennett, Alwina. The College Guide for
Students with Disabilities. Massachusetts: Abt Pub­
lications, l97(TI
Graden, Hank, et al. "The Campus Scene: Attendants Trained
to Aid Handicapped Students," Journal of Rehabilitation,
(November-December, 1973), 11-TTI
Kaufman, R.A. Educational System Planning.
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 19

Englewood

Kerlinger, F.N. Foundations of Behavioral Research.
York: Holt, Rinehart, an3“Winston, 197TI

New

Kloepping, Kent Burrell. "The Prediction of Academic
Achievement of Physically Disabled Students," Dis­
sertation for Ed.D., The University of Arizona, 1972.
Lerner, Ruth S., and Martin, Marion. "What Happens to the
College Student with a Physical Handicap," Personnel
and Guidance Journal, XXXIV, No. 2 {October, 1955),
80-8dI
May, Barrie Jo, and Furst, Edward J. "Evaluation and Re­
vision of an Inventory for Measuring Attitudes Toward
Mainstreaming," Washington, D.C., Office of Education,
1977.
Mistier, Sharon. "Planning for Implementation of Section 504
at Colleges and Universities," Washington, D.C.,
Rehabilitation Services Administration, March, 1978.
"Overcoming Barriers to Higher Education." Regional
Spotlight, Vol. XII, No. 2, Winter 1978.
Phillips, Lone. "For Your Information," National Association
of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, Circular
No. 209 (February 3, 1978).
Popham, W.J. Educational Evaluation.
Prentice-Hall, 1975.

Englewood Cliffs:

Purdy, George D. "A Comparison of Handicapped College Stu­
dents and College Students in General," Georgia
University, Athens, March, 1967.

104

Quatrano, Louis A.
"Interrelationship of Disabled College
Student’s Attributes, Program Use, and Study Attitudes,"
Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the
American Psychological Association (84th, Washington,
D.C., September 3-7, 1976).
Roth, Jane Elizabeth.
"Theory and Practice of Needs Assess­
ment With Special Application to Institutions of
Higher Learning*" Dissertation for Ph.D., The University
of California, Berkeley Campus, 1978.
Rusalem, Herbert. Guiding the Physically Handicapped College
Student. New York: Teachers College, Columbia
University, Bureau of Publications, 1962.
Rusk, Howard A . , and Taylor, Eugene J. Living With a
Disability. Garden City, N.Y.: Blakiston Co., Inc.,
19537 --Scholoss, Irvin P. "Congressional News: Rehabilitation Act
of 1973," American Foundation for the Blind: Washington
Report, 1973.
"Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973: Fact Sheet."
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Office of the Secretary, Office for Civil Rights,
Washington, D.C., July, 1977.
Simmons, Ron, and Maxwell-Simmons, Cassandra.
"Principles
of Success in Programs for Minority Students." Stevens
Institute of Technology, Hoboken, N.J., 1978.
"Special Needs Conference: Providing Educational Opportunity
for All People." Flint, Michigan, October 16 and 17,
1975.
"Special Services for Disadvantaged Students in Institutions
of Higher Education Program: Application Information
and Program Manual." U.S. Office of Education,
Division of Student Special Services, Washington, D.C.,
1970.
Stern, Martin.
"Handicapped Students Make Progress Acting
on Own Behalf," Ann Arbor News, Michigan, September 19,
1973.
Tait, David H.
"Problems Perceived by Physically Handi-^
capped Students Enrolled at Three Colorado Institutions
of Higher Learning During the Spring of 1965," Dis­
sertation for Ed.D., Colorado State College, 1965.

105

Tucker, W.V., and Olson, R.E.
"Some Experiences in
Educating Physically Handicapped Students," Personnel
and Guidance Journal, XXXXI (May, 1963), 803-807.
Varghese, Joseph E. "An Investigation of Special Programs
for Handicapped Students at Institutions of Higher
Learning in Michigan with Special Emphasis on Three
Major Public Universities," Dissertation for Ed.D.,
Wayne State University, 1978.
Wierenga, Mary Ellen.
"The Interrelationship Between
Multidimensional Health Locus of Control, Knowledge
of Diabetes, Perceived Social Support, Self-Reported
Compliance and Therapeutic Outcomes Six Weeks After
the Adult Patient Has Been Diagnosed With Diabetes
Mellitus," Dissertation for Ph.D., Michigan State
University, 1979.