1. characteristics, enrollment patterns, graduation rates and service use of college students with adhd/ld TM
Theresa L. Maitland, PhD
The Learning Center’s ADHD/LD Services
UNC Chapel Hill
IRB Approved Study #

2. Background 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.
Grew out of my curiosity: What happened to students?
Database purchased in 2002 made it possible
2003 went through IRB process with no idea how the project would ever be completed
2008 miraculously met a grad student who wanted to do her dissertation but had no money
Next day we had a budget surplus and could hire her
Then two private funds that had been dormant had research as a mission of use
Took 10 years to complete it this fall.
Our office changed roles , at start of project we were responsible for obtaining and reviewing doc and managing accoms for ADHD/LD, by 2007, moved fully out of this role in fall 2010.
Had very stringent doc guidelines from late 90s until fall 2010 and all students had clear evidence of dis.

3. Very little is known about the college experiences of students with ADHD/LD
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., )
No studies included students with LD/ADHD and /or Both. Most on LD , or all disabilities and only one I could find on ADHD.
Higher grad/persistence rates:
Canto , Proctor and Prevatt (2005)
Looked at persistence only in three groups those diagnosed with LD who got accoms., those diagnosed with LD that did not get accoms and those referred for testing not diagnosed. The LD group had a significantly higher persistence rate of 2 semesters than those students without diagnoses who were referred for an evaluation.
Vogel & Adelman
The 62 students were selected from a total pool of 110 students with LD at a
particular institution. The sample included only traditional-aged students who had not
completed an associate’s degree prior to enrollment. All students were matched based on
ACT composite scores except for those students whose ACT scores were the four lowest
and for whom no match was available. Demographics for the LD and matched samples
were provided, although the article did not state if such characteristics were used as
criterion for selecting the matched sample.
The researchers collected institutional data on selected students concerning high
school preparation and performance, GPA at the time of exit from the institution, and
graduation status. There was no procedure of instrumentation performed by Vogel and
Adelman (1992) in addition to the routine screening procedures done by the institution;
therefore, this research is classified as secondary data analysis.
However, the results relevant to the present line of inquiry are revealing. The
students in the LD group graduated at a higher rate than those in the matched group, 69
33.0% and 25.5%, respectively (Vogel & Adelman, 1992). In addition, the failure rate of
students with LD was significantly lower than for their matched peers, 18% and 51%
respectively. It was reported that students with LD often took a significantly lighter
course load and took on average one year longer to complete their degrees than the
matched cohort. This may have been a mitigating factor on retention outcomes.
These results, while illuminating, have limited generalizability due to weakness in
research design, sampling, and reporting
Horn and Berktold
postsecondary education” (p. iii). They analyzed the results of four surveys of the NCES:
the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, Third Follow-up Survey, 1994
(NELS:88/94); the 1990 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, Second
Follow-up (BPS:90/94); the 1995/96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study
(NPSAS:96); and the 1993 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study, First Follow-up
(B&B:93/94). The results relevant to this dissertation were those related to the
persistence of students with disabilities toward degree attainment although this study
Horn and Berktold (1999) presented retention rates for students with LD in
postsecondary education by disability type. Students with LD were shown to have
dropped out at higher rates (47.7%) than those who reported no disability (36.0%) and
those who generally reported themselves as having a disability (47.2%). No raw numbers
were reported for these attrition rates. There was no statement of significance associated
with these findings. Additionally, factors that are understood to affect postsecondary
attrition were reported by disability type.
Murray et al.
Graduation rates, which imply a level of persistence, for students with LD were
significantly lower than that of the comparison group (Murray et al., 2000). Ten years
after high school graduation, only 44% (n = 168) of these students had persisted through
degree attainment in the postsecondary setting, as opposed to 55.9% (n = 315) of students
without LD
Huber
%). Second, this
dissertation found that students with LD dropped out at low rates. Of those students who
enrolled in a four-year institution in 2004 who had LD, 75.20% continued to be enrolled
or had attained a degree by 2006, compared with 68.80% of students with no disability.
Students with LD were also less likely to leave the system of higher education (no
degree, no transfer) than students with no disability, 5.00% and 12.70% respectively.
vii
Greg
Increasing numbers of students with disabilities are pursuing postsecondary education. The number of students with learning disabilities (LD) attending college has more than tripled in the last 3 decades (Stodden, Conway, & Chang, 2003). An estimated 23% of students with LD enroll in a 2-year college program, with 11% attending a 4-year institution (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza, & Levine, 2005). Similarly, 30% of students with attention deficit disorder/attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADD/ADHD) enroll in 2-year college programs, and 6% attend 4-year institutions (Wagner et al., 2005). However, the transition to a postsecondary education environment can make students with LD and/or ADD/ADHD feel anxious and overwhelmed (Cohen, 2004; Cohn, 1998; Lee & Jackson, 1992; Sandier, 2008). Only 28% of these students manage to graduate, which is approximately half of the graduation rate for students without disabilities (Gregg, 2009)
Jorgeson et al.,
Wessel et al. Students without disabilities and students with disabilities had the same rates in years 6-8 but not in year 4. Students with apparent disabilities had lower rates.

4. Our Variables Disability Related High School Variables
Diagnosis (LD, ADHD, Both)
Amount of service use
Demographics
Background (Ethnicity, race and country of origin)
Gender
1st time Freshmen/Transfer
High School Variables
SAT Scores, GPA, Percentile
University Variables
Sub-populations (1st 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
ERDuring the time that this data was collected our office was offering both accommodations and one on one services and all students had to submit documentation

5. adhd/ld sample Sample size: Undergraduates All cleared for services
n=921 ( ; for comparison analyses)
Sample sizes may also vary based on particular analysis
Undergraduates
All cleared for services
1976-Sept (median of 2001)
*numbers checked* ER
TLM 10/2 put in new n

6. Adhd/ld sample: diagnoses
*numbers checked and updated 10/30/12* ER
Data from the annual report ( ) suggest that Students with both LD/ADHD or just ADHD have been equal % at 34%.
Students with LD have been the lowest % at 28%.

7. random sample N=8994 All Undergraduate Students ADHD/LD removed
Cohorts ER
*numbers checked*
Of course data from NLTS2 suggests that there may be many students in the general population who choose not to disclose. Upwards to 70% . Only 28% disclose

8. Research questions
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?

9. Statistical Analyses
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
Questions can be ed to me and I will forward them.

10. Comparisons: Demographics & Characteristics

11. Gender Comparisons:2002-2010 n=400 n=509 n=5338 n=3656 ER
*numbers checked*
n= n= n=5338 n=3656

12. Background comparisons: 2002-2010
ADHD/LD RS
<1% % % <1% % % % %
Equal
Percentages
____________________________________________________________________
Top of the graph reflects LD and bottom Random Sample. If the lines meet near the middle proportions are similar.
Equal in White, Multiracial, Native American, Black, Hispanic. Unusual compared to other studies that show many fewer minority students in college programs.
At UNC active screening and funds for students on financial aid to get tested.
Not equal in Asian/Pacific Islanders and Non-Residents of the USA. ER
*numbers checked*
Consider adding percentages for ease of discussion
Comparison to entire student body ; From the Office of Institutional Research Report on Fall 2011 Undergraduate Student enrollment:
ADHD: 6, 52, 74, 8, 26, 150, 868, 9
UNC: 170, 306, 581, 80, 616, 863, 6279, 99
2% % % <1% % % % %

13. Comparisons: first-time-freshmen vs. transfer students 2002-2010
704
7400 ER
*numbers checked*
155
1594

14. Comparisons: High school variables
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)
Verified 11/13/12
Percentile gives you the % rank.
The average ADHD/LD HS rank percentile is 55 with a median of 70 and a SD of 37.

15. Enrollment Patterns 2002-2010 ADHD/LD n=1193 RS n=8994
Sample Comparisons
Enrollment Patterns ADHD/LD n=1193 RS n=8994
Anecdotal observations of me , our staff and others in the country is that they seem to have more starts and stops, stay in college longer and have more academic difficulty. But we never know for certain because we don’t meet the folks in the general population.
Erica’s study was a much better design and she found significance that supports many of the findings we had. She is in the process of submitting her results to journals.
Our analysis showed that in both populations increased enrollment pattern abnormalities is negatively correlated with graduation rates.
ADHD/LD
437 self-identified ADHD/LD students
First-time freshmen (undergraduate)
Entered university during years
Controls
4,235 Undergraduate students
She did Propensity Score Analysis and found matches in the RS Variables included: year of entry, birth year, high school GPA, math and verbal SAT scores, gender, athlete status, and race/ethnicity (all associated with college graduation). She had two matched samples ADHD/LD = 403
Controls = 403
Special Academic Circumstances
Withdrawals 81 (20) 68 (17)
Ineligibilities 76 (19) 38 (9)
Underloads 41 (10) 23 (6)
__________________________________________________________________________________

16. Enrollment patterns: Withdrawals (2002-2010)
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).
An academic withdrawal occurs when a student formally leaves the university and drops all classes prior to the end of the semester or retroactively.
Updated (5) 11/20/12
See students do this when they have a mental health or physical health crisis or to avoid failure or academic jeopardy.
Erica’s study found that ADHD students were significantly likely to have more withdrawals than LD students.
Increased numbers of withdrawals is linked with decreased likelihood of graduating in the ADHD/LD population (p<.01) Done in a regression model. NOT the case with RS!

17. Withdrawals ( )
Equal
Percentage
Line
____________________________________________________________________
N: (one wthdrl) 729 (RS), 101 (ASP)
N: (2 wthdrls) 125 (RS), 28 (ASP)
N: (3 wthdrls) 40 (RS), 1 (ASP)
N: (4 wthdrls) 10 (RS), 1 (ASP)

18. Enrollment patterns: underloads
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
ER Permission to take less than 12 credit hours and still be enrolled as afull time student.
Suggests that the need for an underload to happen on occasion is distributed equally across the population. At UNC an underload is not a common accommodations for ADHD/LD , requires special permission.

19. Course Underloads
Equal
Percentage
Line
____________________________________________________________________
N: (one under) 145 (RS), 40 (ASP)
N: (2 under) 28 (RS), 58 (ASP)
N: (3 under) 24 (RS), 12 (ASP)
N: (4 under) 16 (RS), 4 (ASP)

20. Enrollment patterns: Probation
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).
Student did not obtain a 2.0 GPA with 9 credit hours or has become ineligible (below a 1.99) and was granted approval for academic probation.
Updated 11/27/12 (5)
From 2010 Retention Study: Characteristics of students most likely to be on probation
Male, black, 1st generation, low income

21. Probation
_____________________________________________________________________
Equal
Percentages
N: (1 prob) 121 (RS), 38 (ASP)
N: (2 prob) 11 (RS), 7 (ASP)
N: (3 prob) 5 (RS), 1 (ASP)

22. Enrollment patterns: Ineligibilities
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).
Updated (5) 11/27/12
If students do not maintain a satisfactory GPA (>1.99) and subsequently do not complete the required interventions, when they were on academic probation, they become academically ineligible and are barred from registering for classes.
ADHD student were significantly more likely to be ineligible than LD

23. Ineligibilities
Equal
Percentage
Line
____________________________________________________________________
N: (1 inelig) 312 (RS), 78 (ASP)
N: (2 inelig) 108 (RS), 36 (ASP)
N: (3 inelig) 31 (RS), 20 (ASP)

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)
Updated (5) 11/27/12
*checked n’s*
Mention that we would like to see if this pattern changes as we get data from students who enrolled when the 8 semester rule was instituted in 2007.
The 2010 Retention Report indicates that in 2002 cohort, 21% had enrolled in 10 semesters and 11.6% had enrolled in 12 semesters.

25. College Academic Variables: GPA & Graduation Rates
Sample Comparisons
College Academic Variables: GPA & Graduation Rates
Erica’s study was a much better design and she found significance that supports many of the findings we had. She is in the process of submitting her results to journals.
ADHD/LD
437 self-identified ADHD/LD students
First-time freshmen (undergraduate)
Entered university during years
Controls
4,235 Undergraduate students
She did Propensity Score Analysis and found matches in the RS Variables included: year of entry, birth year, high school GPA, math and verbal SAT scores, gender, athlete status, and race/ethnicity (all associated with college graduation). She had two matched samples ADHD/LD = 403
Controls = 403
Graduation
Graduated 287 (71) 328 (81) <0.001
Did not graduate 115 (29) 84 (21)
Months Graduation 53 (8.2) 50 (4.9) n/a
Grade Point Average
Cumulative GPA (0.60) 2.98 (0.57) <0.0001

26. General Comparisons: Cumulative GPA (2002-2010)
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)
Erica’s dissertation found that the ADHD/LD groups GPA dropped much lower from their high school GPA than what is expected in college. Check on exact information.
Bellfield, Crosta (2011) & Kobrin & Patterson (2011) Found that average drop in is .6. Students in our sample had a full 1.0 drop. ER
*numbers checked*
N=total number of students in regression model (but ttest used more cases)

27. Global Graduation Rates: comparing ADHD/LD students to the RS
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%, x2(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
Students in the RS are 67% more likely to graduate than ADHD/LD students (p<.01)
This statistic is much higher than any other published study, reflecting the setting in which we work . This statistic also does not look at years to graduation but whether students graduated or didn’t.
NLTS2 found that 8 years after high school 55% of General population had a 4 year degree versus 34% of Disabled pop.
41% of LD, 40% of OHI, 35% of ED

28. Comparisons: Graduation rates
Cohorts
All Students
Percent Graduated
ADHD/LD
76% (n=420) RS
87% (n=4,148)
FT Freshmen
Percent Graduated
ADHD/LD
77% (n=329) RS
88% (n=3,391)
Updated (5) 11/20/12
Same global rates broken down by FT freshman and transfer students.
Without athletes 79.18
Transfer Students
Percent Graduated
ADHD/LD
82% (n=70) RS
85% (n=757)
21 ASP students who graduated are neither considered FR or TR, but Special Degree Seeking and are not shown on this chart.

29. Diagnoses, Graduation & Sub-Populations
Diagnosis (LD/ADHD/Both) does not predict graduation x2(2, n=1490) = 0.09, p = .95 (not significant).
SLIDE TOTALLY RE-RUN with new dataset (5) 10/2/12-ER
Erica’s findings
Multivariate Modeling Results ADHD-only students (compared to LD-only) were 30% more likely to be ineligible (exp(β)=1.30, p < .012) and 66% more likely to withdraw from school (exp(β)=1.66, p < .001).

30. Graduation rates & Disability (2002-2006 Cohorts)
All Students
Percent Graduated
ADHD
76% (n=153) LD
78% (n=112)
Both
76% (n=151)
First-time Freshmen
Percent Graduated
ADHD
76% (n=126) LD
78% (n=83)
Both
75% (n=117) ER
Transfer Students
Percent Graduated
ADHD
80% (n=20) LD
91% (n=20)
Both
81% (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/LD
46.6%
71.8%
76.5%
82.5%
Cohort
74.3%
85.0%
86.7%
86.5%
Differences:
vs. Cohort
-27.7%
-13.2%
-10.2%
-4.0%
When we take years to graduation into account we see some interesting patterns. The 4-year rates for the ADHD/LD group are almost 30% lower than the RS. When given more time (5, 6 and 10 years) we see the differences reduced. Not too many students I see or parents I meet are entertaining the possibility of a 10 year college experience.
Erica’s student found that:
4 year rates were 55%
5 year rates were 87%
6 year rates were 94%

32. Global Graduation Information
Mean years to Graduation for 1st time freshmen:
ADHD/LD: 4.3 years (n=325)
RS: 4.0 years (n=4,42)
Updated (5) 11/20/12
Could not look at summer/regular semesters because we’re missing quite a lot of data in the summer enrollment variable
Cannot tabulate global rate for RS due to start date of 2002 and can’t use past 2006
(# of students who have graduated or not, independent of length of time)
***Include grad rate stats from other studies: ours is much higher than found in any other study.

33. Averages Graduation Rates : junior transfer students (from the Office of Institutional Research Data)
Averages
Within 2 years
Within 3 years
Within 4 years
ADHD/LD
29.7%
71.8%
75.6%
Cohort
53.2%
78.1%
80.9%
Differences:
ADHD/LD vs. Cohort
-23.5%
-6.3%
-5.3%
Same trend with transfer students. By the way, we are looking specifically at jr, not soph transfers and there is much written about jr transfer problems nationally. These tend to be students from community colleges and they tend to have much lower graduation rates due to the struggles transitioning to a 4 year college.

34. student graduation rates adhd/ld & Student body(2002 cohorts) (Taken From OIR 2010 Retention Study & Covenant Retention and Graduation Data)
Population: 2002 & 2003 Cohorts Only
Graduation Rates: 5 and 6 year averages
Parents with Bachelors or higher
90.3%
Not needy
90.1%
UNC
88.2%
Needy/no Pell Grant
85.9%
Parents with some college
82.3%
1st Gen (Parents with high school education or less)
79.9%
Pell Grant
78.9%
ADHD/LD
71.75%
So, we wanted to see how our students compare to other graduation rates published by our OIR. Although these are indeed very high graduation rates for any college, which reflects who gets admitted, it is still interesting that our students have the lowest rates.
The ADHD/LD data is taken directly from our graduation rates tables from our study sample. When using Weiguo’s tables the statistic is similar at 71%. This stat is the 5 and 6 year average from the 2002 and 2003 cohort only which is the sample used by the OIR 2010 Retention Study. Without athletes the rate is 71% approximately.

35. Comparing student Graduation Rates ADHD/LD & other Minority Groups (taken from OIR 2010 Retention Study )
Group : 2002,& 2003 Cohorts Only
Graduation 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 %
Similar when comparing our students with other “traditional minority groups” that are the focus of many retention programs, it is interesting to see that our students continue to have the lowest reates.
The ADHD/LD data is taken directly from our graduation rates tables from our study sample. When using Weiguo’s tables the statistic is similar at 71%. This stat is the 5 and 6 year average from the 2002 and 2003 cohort only which is the sample used by the OIR 2010 Retention Study. This rate without athletes is 71%.

36. Use of services Adhd/ld sample
Our analysis of service use has many limitations:
30% of data is missing
At one point students were required to come in once a semester and that changed over time to once a year
Records were kept inconsistently by staff
Can’t tease out what they came in for
Still found some interesting things
Erica’s Findings
1,229 (79%) students graduated
Time to graduation average: 4.5 years (SD = 1.8)
Some students had only the 4-year minimum
Among students who graduated, 59% (n = 719) did so within 4 years & 92% (n = 1,113) within 6 years.
Overall, 16% (n = 255) withdrew at least one time
20% (n = 307) were ineligible at least once
11% (n = 170) received permission to carry a course underload
The average cumulative GPA was 2.7 (SD = .6), (a 1-point drop from the sample’s high-school GPA of 3.7).

37. Adhd/ld sample: use of services
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. ER
During the time that this data was collected our office was offering both accommodations and one on one services and all students had to submit documentation. Rerun data with new session note information

38. Adhd/ld: use of services
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].
Rerun analyses on Diagnosis and use
GPA analyses will be done again with three groups (no use, 1/accommodations only, 2 or >)

39. Use & Graduation (*Differences Not Significant)
Amount of Use
Graduated
0 or 1 session
76% (n=247)
2 to 5 sessions
80.66% (n=534)
6 or more sessions
84% (n=384)
Broke our users into three groups, non-users : those who came never came in or came in once ; presumably to get accommodations but did not return. Those who had a small amount of sessions 2-5 and those who had 6 or more sessions and we see a trend that , while not significant, shows that more frequent use is related to an increase in graduation rates.
Students who met with a learning specialist 2 or more times had graduation rates that were almost 5 % higher than those who did not come in at all or came in only one time (presumably for accommodations).
Are the difference between 2 or more and other groups significant? On 10/2 we learned that all differences among groups are significant.

40. Service Use & GpA (*differences not significant*)
Amount of Use
Average GPA
No Service Use
2.7
Single Visit (for Accommodations)
2.6
2 or more visits
2.8
SLIDE TOTALLY RE-RUN with new dataset (5) 10/2/12-ER

41. Limitations 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
Erica’s limitations
From a single university (not generalizable)
Ideally this would have been done with a control group
Accommodations and outside service usage unknown
ADHD/LD group was self-selected
Missing data
Other unavailable but informative variables
Parent education
Low income
Time of diagnosis

42. Summary
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)
The results of this study of UNC Chapel Hill students with ADHD/LD reinforce what is described in the literature: students with ADHD/LD are an at-risk population and may not be retained or graduated at the same rate as their non-disabled peers. The data also indicates that undergraduate students diagnosed with ADHD/LD experienced many more enrollment pattern abnormalities. Compared to their non-disabled peers, these students had significantly more semesters in which they withdrew, were on academic probation or were academically ineligible. Similarly, they had lower overall graduation rates and took longer to graduate. This finding held true for 1st year students as well as junior transfer students. The largest differences were found in the 4 and (for 1st year students) 2 year graduation rates (for junior transfer students) although these differences lessened over time. The findings suggests that the enrollment patterns challenges experienced more frequently by students diagnosed with ADHD/LD may contribute directly to their lower graduation rates and to the fact that they take longer to graduate then other students. Additionally, the GPAs (Grade Point Averages) of students in the ADHD/LD Sample were significantly lower than the GPAs of students in the Random Sample. While the graduation rates for students in the ADHD/LD Sample were higher than those reported in most other published studies, it is important to note that UNC students with ADHD and/or LD were found to have the lowest 5 and 6 year graduation rates than any other at-risk group on campus.
A promising finding was that graduation rates of students increased depending upon the frequency of sessions they had with a learning specialist. This finding is even more impressive since frequent users of services also more unusual enrollment patterns that were associated with academic difficulties. In spite of this fact, frequent users had higher graduation rates than students who never used services or only came in for one meeting: presumably to arrange accommodations. This suggests that if a student is willing to seek out and use learning specialists they can overcome their patterns of having academic enrollment difficulties and eventually graduate.
campus.

43. Implications
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
Erica’s implications
Conducting intervention research on existing and new college based services.
Examining other and larger populations in order to better understand ADHD/LD college students, their demographics, needs, and patterns.
Addressing policy that better reflects the patterns of ADHD/LD students’ academic success.
Making services other than basic accommodations available to ADHD/LD students
2 of 6 (learning strategy instruction & tutoring) have been tested and validated with this population
2 of 6 (coaching & support group interventions) not yet validated with this population but show promise of becoming substantiated practices
2 of 6 (assistive technology & summer transition programs) require substantially more research to determine whether these are effective interventions for this populations
While the results suggest that meeting with a learning specialist can be helpful, influencing students with ADHD/LD to proactively use resources is likely to be a major challenge. Recent studies suggest that only a small minority of students (28%) who enter college with a diagnosis and a history of receiving help in high school officially disclose their disabilities and only 19% actually use accommodations and services. For some diagnosed students, obtaining support in high school was discouraged by teachers and administrators. They may have been given the message that they are doing fine so they are phased out of special education programs or denied accommodations due to receiving adequate grades. Additionally, many bright students with these differences get diagnosed for the first time in college when the increased expectations for academics and self-management lead to their first failure experiences. Many students who entered college with diagnoses or who get diagnosed in college report that high school was very easy given the structure provided by teachers, coursework and parents. Apparently, all of these external supports allowed them to be successful, consequently, many report having little to no experience using resources and view this as a sign of weakness.
Given the study’s finding that students with ADHD/LD are at significant risk for academic challenges in college, creative marketing efforts need to be targeted to admitted students with formal diagnoses as well as those whose learning differences may have been informally accommodated. Students and parents need to be better informed about the differences between high school and college and more prepared for the possibility that transition challenges may be the norm rather than the exception. They need to understand the importance of using of services proactively to mitigate the impact of their disabilities and differences given the increased academic expectations, differing methods used in college classes and the sudden expectation students face for total self-management. Clearly, students with ADHD/LD or undiagnosed differences would benefit from having access to successful transition programs such as Summer Bridge. In addition, the implementation of shorter transition programs that would allow them to come to campus a week to 3 days before classes start might also connect them to services and give them an opportunity to have a smoother transition. Additional programming needs to be developed to ensure their success during their challenging first year on campus as they encounter academic, social and emotional challenges. Programs need to be developed that will allow students who come to college diagnosed with ADHD and/or LD to develop the many new skills they will need. In addition, general programming needs to be expanded that will help all students develop time management and study skills needed for college success. Inclusive offerings may elicit more active participation from reluctant 1st year and transfer students who are not interested in formally disclosing their disability status or have yet to be diagnosed.
Training and outreach is needed to raise awareness for administrators, faculty and staff of the serious “at-risk” status of students with these hidden, cognitive disabilities. Educational efforts are need to counteract the fact that ADHD and/or LD in college students still is misunderstood or minimized as not real or not as significant as other disabling conditions. Adults on campus need to know what the warning signs are of a learning or attentional disability or difference and what resources are available for students. Faculty and staff could benefit from suggestions on how to talk with students about seeking help knowing that many may be reluctant to disclose or use resources.
Additional funding is needed to increase staff in the Learning Center so more individual and group services can be targeted to this “at risk” population. Although the population of students on campus has increased exponentially in the past decade the staff of learning specialists has been reduced by over 50%. Programming efforts need to be directed to both students who officially disclose to the university as well as the vast majority who won’t disclose but might seek help in programming targeted to all students. Program development activities need to explore a range of models for working with college students with ADHD/LD to find models that students would be willing to use and that produce positive academic outcomes. The current interventions offered by learning specialists need to be examined and replicated since the results of this study suggest that students having frequent sessions appeared to benefit.
Although this study confirms the “at-risk” status of students with ADHD/LD it also provides much support for their inclusion at UNC. The university provides free, easy to use learning support services available in the Learning Center. The committed, experienced staff of learning specialists offers any willing student with ADHD and/or LD the opportunity to develop the awareness, skills and strategies they need to achieve their goals and be successful at Carolina.

44. Q &A Copy of edited slides: email tmaitlan@email.unc.edu
Statistical/Methodological questions;
me and I will get them to our Research Assistant: Erica Richman

45. References
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.

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),