Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Theresa L. Maitland, PhD The Learning Center’s ADHD/LD Services UNC Chapel Hill IRB Approved Study #07-1097 CHARACTERISTICS, ENROLLMENT.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Theresa L. Maitland, PhD The Learning Center’s ADHD/LD Services UNC Chapel Hill IRB Approved Study #07-1097 CHARACTERISTICS, ENROLLMENT."— Presentation transcript:

1 Theresa L. Maitland, PhD The Learning Center’s ADHD/LD Services UNC Chapel Hill IRB Approved Study # CHARACTERISTICS, ENROLLMENT PATTERNS, GRADUATION RATES AND SERVICE USE OF COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH ADHD/LD

2  Brief history  IRB reviewed study  Did not constitute human subject research  Master set of ADHD/LD students with disability data  Obtained high school and UNC records from Office of Research  Created de-identified data set  Two private funds supported Erica Richman, Ph.D to serve as research coordinator  Many thanks to our collaborators & contributors:  Research Coordinator: Erica Richman Ph.D.  Database designer: Steve Robbillard  Database consultants: Billie Shambley, Angela Coley and Geeta Menon  Leon Hamlet, Registrar’s Office  Dr. Lynn Williford, Assistant Provost; Weiguo Jiang, Data Analyst from the Office of Institutional Research: and Dr. Lawrence Rosenfeld from the IRB office were instrumental in the study’s completion. BACKGROUND

3 LD/ADHD College Students  May have increased rates of academic probation  (Heiligenstein et al., 1999)  May have lower GPAs-nearly 1.0 lower  ( Blasé et al., 2009; Frazier et al., 2007)  May have higher graduation rates (and persistence rates)  (Canto et al., 2005;Huber, 2009; Vogel & Adelman 1992)  May have lower overall retention & graduation rates: 11%-50% lower  Horn et al., 1999; Greg, 2009; Greenbaum et al., 1995;Lee et al. (2008); Murray et al., 2000)  May have the same graduation rates by may take longer to graduate  (Vogel & Adelman 1990, 1992; Jorgeson et al., 2003, Wessel et al., ) VERY LITTLE IS KNOWN ABOUT THE COLLEGE EXPERIENCES OF STUDENTS WITH ADHD/LD

4 Disability Related  Diagnosis (LD, ADHD, Both)  Amount of service use Demographics  Background (Ethnicity, race and country of origin)  Gender  1 st time Freshmen/Transfer High School Variables  SAT Scores, GPA, Percentile University Variables  Sub-populations (1 st generation, Covenant Scholar, Athlete)  Major at Graduation: STEM versus Humanities/Social Sciences  Cumulative GPA  Semesters Enrolled  Enrollment Patterns (# of withdrawals, ineligibilities, semesters on probation, academic underloads)  Graduated/Not Graduated OUR VARIABLES

5  Sample size:  n=1938 ( )  n=921 ( ; for comparison analyses)  Sample sizes may also vary based on particular analysis  Undergraduates  All cleared for services  1976-Sept (median of 2001) ADHD/LD SAMPLE

6 ADHD/LD SAMPLE: DIAGNOSES

7  N=8994  All Undergraduate Students  ADHD/LD removed  Cohorts RANDOM SAMPLE

8  Research Question 1: Do students in the ADHD/LD Sample have different enrollment patterns than students in the Random Sample  Research Question 2: Do the grade point averages of the students in the ADHD/LD sample differ from students in the Random Sample?  Research Question 3: Are there differences in the graduation rates between students in the ADHD/LD sample and students in the Random Sample?  Research Question 4: Within the ADHD/LD Sample does diagnosis of ADHD, LD or both ADHD/LD impact graduation rate?  Research Question 5: Do graduation rates and GPAs of students with ADHD/LD differ based on the frequency of sessions with a Learning Specialist? RESEARCH QUESTIONS

9  All descriptive and comparative analyses were performed using StataIC 12 (StataCorp, 2011).  Descriptive statistics, including measures of central tendency, cross-tabulations, and chi-squares were used to compare means and characterize the sample with respect to student demographics, high school, and academic success variables.  Linear regression, logistic regression, and multi-nomial logistic regression models were employed to examine the relationships among service use, student characteristics, diagnosis, and academic success STATISTICAL ANALYSES

10 COMPARISONS: DEMOGRAPHICS & CHARACTERISTICS

11 GENDER COMPARISONS: n=400 n=509 n=5338 n=3656

12 BACKGROUND COMPARISONS: ____________________________________________________________________ Equal Percentages 2% 3% 6% <1% 7% 10% 70% 1% <1% 4% 7% <1% 2% 13% 72% 1% ADHD/LD RS

13 COMPARISONS: FIRST-TIME-FRESHMEN VS. TRANSFER STUDENTS

14  ADHD/LD students enter with significantly lower SAT scores  60, 50, & 30 point lower SATV, SATM, SATW scores (p<.01)  The average SAT scores for ADHD/LD sample are 569 (verbal) and 648 (math)  Mean SAT scores:  SATV = 634 (RS) vs. 596 (ADHD/LD); 38 points lower  SATM = 648 (RS) vs. 618 (ADHD/LD); 30 points lower  Students in the ADHD/LD sample are 85% more likely to have lower high school GPAs than typical non-disabled students (p<.01)  Average HS GPAs are 3.66 (ADHD/LD) vs (RS) (p<.01)  HS Rank averages 55 percentile (ADHD/LD) compared to 72 percentile (RS) (p<.01) COMPARISONS: HIGH SCHOOL VARIABLES

15 Sample Comparisons ENROLLMENT PATTERNS ADHD/LD N=1193 RS N=8994

16  Withdrawal  student withdraws from all classes before the semester ends.  ADHD/LD students are statistically more likely to have more withdrawals than the RS (p<.02).  ADHD/LD students are almost 20% more likely to withdraw than the RS (p<.01). ENROLLMENT PATTERNS: WITHDRAWALS ( )

17 ____________________________________________________________________ WITHDRAWALS ( ) Equal Percentage Line

18  Underload;  Student obtains permission to enroll in <12 hours and be considered a full time student  Not an accommodation must petition through Academic Advising  No significant differences ENROLLMENT PATTERNS: UNDERLOADS

19 ____________________________________________________________________ COURSE UNDERLOADS Equal Percentage Line

20  Probation (2007 – now):  Student must obtain a GPA of 2.0 in 9 hours  No previous probation & gets a semester to complete a process to restore “good standing:  ADHD/LD students are statistically more likely to be on probation than the RS (p<.01).  ADHD/LD students are twice as likely to be on probation(p<.01). ENROLLMENT PATTERNS: PROBATION

21 _____________________________________________________________________ PROBATION Equal Percentages

22  Ineligible:  >2.00 GPA, was on probation previous semester  Can’t enroll at university, use online or summer classes to restore “good standing”  ADHD/LD students are statistically more likely to be ineligible than the RS (p<.01).  ADHD/LD students are greater than 50% more likely than RS students to be ineligible at least one time (p<.01). ENROLLMENT PATTERNS: INELIGIBILITIES

23 ____________________________________________________________________ INELIGIBILITIES Equal Percentage Line

24 ENROLLMENT PATTERNS: TOTAL SEMESTERS ENROLLED  ADHD/LD students are 25% more likely to enroll in more semesters compared to the RS (p<.01).  On average ADHD/LD students (n=426) are enrolled 2 more semesters than the RS (n=3,854) (p<.01)

25 Sample Comparisons COLLEGE ACADEMIC VARIABLES: GPA & GRADUATION RATES

26  Students with ADHD/LD have significantly lower GPA’s than the random sample (n= 9536, p<.01)  ADHD/LD: 2.76 (n=905)  RS: 3.11 (n=8,984) GENERAL COMPARISONS: CUMULATIVE GPA ( )

27  ADHD/LD students are significantly less likely to graduate than students in the RS (p<.01)  ADHD/LD students graduate at a significantly lower rate of 76% compared to students in the random sample who graduate at 88%, x 2 (1, n=5,293) = 54.4, p = <.01.  Compared to NLTS2 2009: 34% of disabled, 41% of LD, 40% of OHI & 35% of ED had a 4 year degree 8 years after high school versus 55% of general population GLOBAL GRADUATION RATES: COMPARING ADHD/LD STUDENTS TO THE RS

28 All StudentsPercent Graduated ADHD/LD76% (n=420) RS87% (n=4,148) COMPARISONS: GRADUATION RATES FT FreshmenPercent Graduated ADHD/LD77% (n=329) RS88% (n=3,391) Transfer StudentsPercent Graduated ADHD/LD82% (n=70) RS85% (n=757) Cohorts 21 ASP students who graduated are neither considered FR or TR, but Special Degree Seeking and are not shown on this chart.

29  Diagnosis (LD/ADHD/Both) does not predict graduation x 2 (2, n=1490) = 0.09, p =.95 (not significant). DIAGNOSES, GRADUATION & SUB-POPULATIONS

30 All StudentsPercent Graduated ADHD76% (n=153) LD78% (n=112) Both76% (n=151) GRADUATION RATES & DISABILITY ( COHORTS) First-time FreshmenPercent Graduated ADHD76% (n=126) LD78% (n=83) Both75% (n=117) Transfer StudentsPercent Graduated ADHD80% (n=20) LD91% (n=20) Both81% (n=29)

31 AVERAGES OF GRADUATION RATES : FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS (FROM THE OFFICE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH DATA) Averages Within 4 Years Within 5 Years Within 6 Years Within 10 Years ADHD/LD46.6%71.8%76.5%82.5% Cohort74.3%85.0%86.7%86.5% Differences: ADHD/LD vs. Cohort -27.7%-13.2%-10.2%-4.0%

32  Mean years to Graduation for 1 st time freshmen:  ADHD/LD: 4.3 years (n=325)  RS: 4.0 years (n=4,42) GLOBAL GRADUATION INFORMATION

33 AVERAGES GRADUATION RATES : JUNIOR TRANSFER STUDENTS (FROM THE OFFICE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH DATA) Averages Within 2 years Within 3 yearsWithin 4 years ADHD/LD29.7%71.8%75.6% Cohort53.2%78.1%80.9% Differences: ADHD/LD vs. Cohort -23.5%-6.3%-5.3%

34 Population: 2002 & 2003 Cohorts OnlyGraduation Rates: 5 and 6 year averages Parents with Bachelors or higher90.3% Not needy90.1% UNC88.2% Needy/no Pell Grant85.9% Parents with some college82.3% 1 st Gen ( Parents with high school education or less ) 79.9% Pell Grant78.9% ADHD/LD71.75% STUDENT GRADUATION RATES ADHD/LD & STUDENT BODY(2002 COHORTS) (TAKEN FROM OIR 2010 RETENTION STUDY & COVENANT RETENTION AND GRADUATION DATA )

35 Group : 2002,& 2003 Cohorts OnlyGraduation Rates: 5 and 6 year averages Asian/Pac. Is. 89.3% Hispanic 87.1% Non-Resident 87.0% Native American 84.2% Black 77.8 % ADHD/LD % COMPARING STUDENT GRADUATION RATES ADHD/LD & OTHER MINORITY GROUPS (TAKEN FROM OIR 2010 RETENTION STUDY )

36 USE OF SERVICES ADHD/LD SAMPLE

37  Numbers of sessions range from 1-94, (M=7, SD=10)  76% (n=1,115/1461) of all students cleared for services return for at least one session.  Males (75%, n=613) and females (77%, n=502) return for services at about the same rate. ADHD/LD SAMPLE: USE OF SERVICES

38 SAT  Students who return for services (n=858) are statistically more likely to have higher SATM & SATV scores (by 20 points; p<.01) than those who do not return (n=277) (ttest).  Amount of service use: students with higher GPAs had more service contacts with learning specialists (b = 1.76, p <.027) [Richman, 2013].  Students who used services two or more times were twice as likely to be dually diagnosed with ADHD/LD (exp(β)=.52, p <.002)[Richman,2013]. ADHD/LD: USE OF SERVICES

39 USE & GRADUATION (*DIFFERENCES NOT SIGNIFICANT) Amount of UseGraduated 0 or 1 session 76% (n=247) 2 to 5 sessions80.66% (n=534) 6 or more sessions84% (n=384)

40 SERVICE USE & GPA (*DIFFERENCES NOT SIGNIFICANT*) Amount of UseAverage GPA No Service Use2.7 Single Visit (for Accommodations) or more visits2.8

41  Findings not generalizable to other settings  Many variables were not included in our data analysis model (e.g. SES, self-determination, age of diagnosis, resiliency, accommodation use etc.)  Data on sessions is limited due to missing data (30%) and some may not be accurate  Students in the ADHD/LD group self selected voluntarily  May be others in the RS given research on low rate of disclosure in college students with disabilities  If so, the differences between groups many be even greater LIMITATIONS

42 When compared to their non-disabled peers, college students with ADHD/LD :  Are an at-risk population and may not be graduate at the same rate as their non-disabled peers.  Are at even greater risk than other at-risk populations  Are significantly more likely to experience unusual enrollment patterns than their peers without ADHD/LD  Are significantly less likely to graduate  Take longer to graduate  Have lower GPAs  Students attending more sessions showed trends (not significant) toward higher graduation rates;  Students attending more sessions had significantly higher GPAs (Richman, 2013) SUMMARY

43  Additional studies are needed in different settings to see if findings are consistent and to determine what factors influence student success  Need to identify and implement evidenced based practices at the high school and college level  Need to disseminate “at-risk” status for transitioning teens to:  Parents and teens  College administrators setting policy and developing programming for at-risk groups on campuses  Need creative programming strategies to attract teens reluctant to access services IMPLICATIONS

44  Copy of edited slides:  Statistical/Methodological questions;  me and I will get them to our Research Assistant: Erica Richman Q &A

45  Blasé, S. L., Gilbert, A. N., Anastopoulos, A. D., Costello, E., Hoyle, R. H., Swartzwelder, H., & Rabiner, D. L. (2009). Self-Reported ADHD and adjustment in college: Cross-sectional and longitudinal findings. Journal of Attention Disorders, 13(3), doi: /  Canto, A., I., Proctor, B.E., & Prevatt, F. (2005). Educational outcomes of students first diagnosed with learning disabilities in postsecondary school. Journal of College Admissions,  Frazier, T. W., Youngstrom, E. A., Glutting, J. J., & Watkins, M. W. (2007). ADHD and achievement: Meta-analysis of the child, adolescent, and adult literatures and a concomitant study with college students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, doi: /  Greenbaum, B., Graham, S., & Scales, W. (1995). Adults with learning disabilities: Educational and social experiences during college. Exceptional Children, 61(5),  Gregg, N. (2009). Adolescents and adults with learning disabilities and ADHD: Assessment and accommodation. New York, NY: Guilford Press.  Heiligenstein, E., Guenther, G., Levy, A., Savino, F., & Fulwiler, J. (1999). Psychological and academic functioning in college students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of American College Health, 47(4), doi: /  Horn, L., Berktold, J., & Bobbitt, L. (1999). Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: a profile of preparation, participation and outcomes. Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Reports. U.S. Department of Education: National Center for Education Statistics. REFERENCES

46  Huger, Marianne, (2009).The Retention of College Students with Learning Disabilities.A Dissertation Submitted to The Faculty of The Graduate School of Education and Human Development of The George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education.  Jorgensen, S., Fichten, C. S., Havel, A., Lamb, D., James, C., & Barile, M. (2003). Students with and without disabilities at Dawson College graduate at the same rate. Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 25(2-3),  Murray, C., Goldstein, D. E., Nourse, S., & Edgar, E. (2000). The postsecondary school attendance and completion rates of high school graduates with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(3),  Richman, E. (2013). The Academic Success of College Students with ADHD/LD. A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate School of Social Work at UNC Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of a Doctor of Social Work.  Vogel, S., & Adelman, P. (1992). The success of college students with learning disabilities: Factors related to educational attainment. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25,  Wessel, R., D., Jones, J. A., Markle, L., Westfall, C. (2009). Retention and graduation of students with disabilities: Facilitating student success. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 21(3),


Download ppt "Theresa L. Maitland, PhD The Learning Center’s ADHD/LD Services UNC Chapel Hill IRB Approved Study #07-1097 CHARACTERISTICS, ENROLLMENT."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google