Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(2), 115-128 115 Disability Stigma on Campuses: Helping Students with Psychiatric Impairments to Succeed

Daniel J. Trunk, Beavercreek City Schools,Daniel Charles J. J. Russo, T runk¹University of Dayton,Charles Jack Trammell, J. MountRusso² Saint Mary'sJack University Trammell³

Abstract

ThisThis study study investigated investigated the the impact impact of disability of disability type ontype perceived on perceived disability-related disability-related stigma of stigma 55 students of 55 withstudents disabilitieswith disabilities at a medium-sized, at a medium-sized, private mid-westernprivate mid-western university, university as measured, as measured by the Postsecondary by the Postsecondary Student Survey Stu- ofdent Disability-Related Survey of Disability-Related Stigma (PSSDS). Stigma The researchers (PSSDS). conducted The researchers five independent conducted samples five independent t-tests to determine samples ift -teststhere wereto determine significant if differencesthere were insignificant perceived difstigmaferences scores in betweenperceived students stigma with scores psychiatric between impairments students with psychiatric impairments compared to those with other types of impairments. Previous research reports that comparedcollege students to those with with impairments,other types of impairments.in particular Previousthose with research psychiatric reports conditions, that college experience students with unique dis- impairments,ability-related in particularbarriers impacting those with their psychiatric social conditions,and academic experience experiences unique and disability-related degree completion. barriers The impacting results theirof the social analyses and academic revealed experiences that students and with degree psychiatric completion. impairments The results reportedof the analyses significantly revealed higher that students stigma withscores psychiatric compared impairments to peers withreported other significantly types of impairmentshigher stigma onscores the comparedAcademic to Success, peers with Personal other types Relation of - impairmentsships, and Sense on the of Academic Self and Success, Identity Personalfactors of Relationships, the PSSDS, andas well Sense as ofon Self the and overall Identity stigma factors scores. of the The PSSDS,article also as well discusses as on the implications overall stigma for furtherscores. research.The article also discusses implications for further research.

Keywords: disability stigma, psychiatric impairment, mental health stigma, college students with disabilities

StudiesStudies conducted conducted over the pastover 20 the years past demonstrate 20 years ademon - stillstill significantly significantly less likely less to likelyattend collegeto attend or to graduatecollege withor to trendingstrate aincrease trending in students increase with in disabilities students pursuingwith disabilities degreesgraduate compared with degreesto their peers compared not having to disabilities their peers (Marshak not postsecondarypursuing postsecondary study. For example, study admissions. For example, data collected admis by- ethaving al., 2010; disabilities Newman et al.,(Marshak 2010). Within et al., the subpopulation2010; Newman of Palombisions data(2000) collected suggested thatby thePalombi number of(2000) students suggested with studentset al., 2010).with disabilities, Within those the with subpopulation psychiatric disorders of students or disabilitiesthat the attendingnumber collegeof students has grown with significantly disabilities in recent attend - impairments,with disabilit the ies,focal thosepoint of with this study, psychiatric are a particular disorders or years,ing college with an estimatedhas grown 400% significantly increase between in recentthe mid- years, 1970s subgroupimpairments, with unique the focalneeds pointand challenges of this study that may, are not a particbe fully- andwith the an turn estim of theated 21st century.400% increaseData from thebetween National the Center mid- metular on subgroup many campuses. with uniqueResearchers needs have and found challenges that students that for1970s Education and Statisticsthe turn (2010) of the reported 21st that century slightly. lessData than from withmay disabilities not be fully are less met likely on tomany seek accommodationscampuses. through 11%the ofNational undergraduate Center students for Education reported having Statistics a disability (2010) officesResearchers of disabilities haveservices found or other that student students sup- with port officesdisabil - duringreported the 2007-2008 that slightly school less year. than Similarly, 11% a follow-upof under studygradu - whenities theyare perceiveless likely greater to levelsseek ofaccommodations environmental stigma through (e.g., conductedate students by the reported National Centerhaving for aEducation disability Statistics during (2015) the Belch,offices 2011; of Denhart,disabilities 2008; services Hartley, 2010; or other Kranke student et al., 2013; sup - revealed2007-2008 slightly school over 11% year of. students Similarly in U.S., a follow-uppostsecondary study Litnerport etof al.,fices 2005; when Salzer they et al., perceive 2008; Weiner greater & Weiner, levels 1996). of en - institutionsconducted were by identified the National as having Center disabilities for Education during the Sta- Yet,vironmental there is a lack stigma of research (e.g., focusingBelch, 201on the1; perceivedDenhart, stigma2008; 2011-2012tistics (2015) academic revealed school year.slightly Although over exact 11% admissions of students ofHartley students, 2010;with psychiatric Kranke disabilitieset al., 2013; compared Litner to et their al., peers 2005; data and future projections for students with disabilities pursuing with other types of disabilities. As noted, students with psychiatric in U.S. postsecondary institutions were identified as Salzer et al., 2008; Weiner & Weiner, 1996). Yet, there higher education are difficult to calculate, it is evident that these disabilities tend to have lower retention and graduation rates numbershaving continuedisabilities to increase during (Leake, the 2015;2011-2012 Sniatecki academic et al., comparedis a lack to of students research with focusing other types on of the disabilities, perceived as well stigma as 2015).school Despite year .this Although increase exactin admission admissions and attendance, data and fu- theirof studentspeers who with do not psychiatric have disabilities. disabilities Perceived compared stigma on to individualsture projection with disabilitiess for students in the United with Statesdisabilities are pursuing campustheir peers related with to mental other types of disabilities. higher education are difficult to calculate, it is evident As noted, students with psychiatric disabilities that these numbers continue to increase (Leake, 2015; tend to have lower retention and graduation rates Sniatecki et al., 2015). compared to students with other types of disabili- Despite this increase in admission and attendance, ties, as well as their peers who do not have disabil- individuals with disabilities in the United States are ities. Perceived stigma on campus related to mental

1 Beavercreek City Schools; 2 University of Dayton; 3 Mount Saint Mary's University 116 Trunk et al.; Disability Stigma healthhealth disorders disorders may may cause cause students students with psychiatric with psychiatric disabilities Sectiontion 504) 504) and ADAADA do notdo mandatenot mandate the delivery the deliveryor provision or todisabilities choose to refrain to choose from disclosing to refrain their from disabilities disclosing to those their on ofprovision specific services of specific such as services mental health such support, as mental as opposed health to campusdisabilities who may to bethose able onto helpcampus them towho procure may the be able to accommodations.support, as opposed Still, these to lawsaccommodations. do help create a frameworkStill, these for accommodationshelp them to procurethey may thebe legally accommodations entitled to receive. they This may betterlaws meeting do help the create needs ofa studentsframework with mentalfor better health meeting needs. studybe legally was situated entitled within to areceive. legal and equal opportunity Eventhe needsthough ofSection students 504 and with the mental ADA are health intended needs. to prevent Even frameworkThis withstudy a particular was situated emphasis within on community a legal inclusionand equal discrimination,though Sectio studiesn 504 (e.g., and Russo the ADA & Osborne, are intended 2009; Collins to pre & - andopportunity accommodation framework of students with in highera particular education emphasis with on Mowbray,vent discrimin 2005; McEwanation, &studies Downie, (e.g., 2013; Russo Salzer et& al., Osborne, 2008) psychiatriccommunity impairments. inclusion The and purpose accommodation of the study, whichof students was demonstrate2009; Collins that students& Mowbray with psychiatric, 2005; McEwan disabilities &often Down do - originallyin higher part educationof a larger study, with was psychiatric to investigate impairments. the impact of notie, seek 2013; the accommodationsSalzer et al., 2008)to which demonstrate they may be entitled, that stu - disabilityThe purpose type on ofstudent the studyperceived, which disability was stigma. originally This study part therebydents possiblywith psychiatric leading to lower disabilities degree completion often do rates not and seek comparedof a larger disability study stigma, was toratings investigate between thestudents impact with of dis- greaterthe accommodations future economic disadvantage. to which theyMarshak may et al.be (2010) entitled, psychiatricability type disabilities on student and those perceived with other typesdisability of disabilities, stigma. investigatedthereby possibly barriers forleading students to with lower disabilities degree contributing completion to such as learning disabilities and attention-deficit/hyperactivity their not seeking out and utilizing disability services at their higher This study compared disability stigma ratings be- rates and greater future economic disadvantage. disorder. By comparing the perceived stigma of students with education institutions. This study revealed that disability stigma, psychiatrictween students disabilities with to theirpsychiatric peers with disabilities other types ofand those the students’Marshak desire et foral. self-advocacy (2010) investigated and self-sufficiency, barriers their for disabilities,with other the types research of disabiliaimed to ties,provide such evidence as learning for the need dis- lackstudents of knowledge with aboutdisabilities their disabilities, contributing a lack of toquality their not forabilities a cultural and shift attention-defi away from a completelycit/hyperactivity medical model disorder of . servicesseeking delivered out and despite utilizing requests, disability and negative services at their “mentalBy comparing illness” towards the perceive a more acceptingd stigma campus of students community with disability-relatedhigher educat experiencesion institution with s.faculty This and study school revealed personnel that supportivepsychiatric of mental disabilities health awareness to their peers and disability with other types weredisability all reasons stigma, participants the students’ chose to desirenot disclose for self-advoca their dis- - accommodation.of disabilities, the research aimed to provide evidence abilitiescy and to self-suf campusficiency personnel, theiror seek lack out ofaccommodations. knowledge about The for the need for a cultural shift away from a complete- financialtheir disabilities, cost of private a psychologicallack of quality evaluations services to demonstrate delivered ly medical model of “mental illness” towards a more evidencedespite ofrequests, disabilities, and if college negative and university disability-related programs do exnot- accepting campus community supportive of mental provideperiences them, with may alsofaculty deter and students school on campusespersonnel from were all health awareness and disability accommodation. applyingreasons for partic accommodationsipants chose (Wisbey to not & Kalivoda, disclose 2011). their dis- Lightnerabilities et al.to (2012)campus uncovered personnel similar or results seek inout their accommo analysis - Literature Review includingdations. 42 The students financial with learning cost ofdisabilities private at psychological a large competitiveevaluations state to university. demonstrate Data gatheredevidence through of disabilities, individual if Prior Priorto entering to entering postsecondary postsecondary educational settings,educational students set - interviewscollege andrevealed university four main programs themes that do contributed not provide to students them, withtings, disabilities students are withprotected disabilities by the Individuals are protected with Disabilities by the notmay seeking also accommodationsdeter students onon campuses campuses after from being applying on EducationIndividuals Act (IDEA,with 2004).Disabiliti The esIDEA Education requires all Act 50 states, (IDEA, Individualizedfor accommodations Education Programs (Wisbey (IEPs) & Kalivoda, while in K-12 201 schools.1). because2004). allThe states IDEA currently requires accept all federal 50 states,IDEA funding, because through all The themesLightner included et al. a lack(2012) of time uncovered students reported similar to seekresults out localstates education currentl agenciesy accept or federalschool boards, IDEA to funding, provide a throughfree assistancein their analythroughsis offices including of disability 42 students services; lackwith of learning appropriatelocal education public education agencies (FAPE) or school to all identifiedboards, studentsto provide knowledgedisabilities about at theira lar ownge disabilities competitive and how state to seek university help; the. witha free disabilities appropriate in the leastpublic restrictive education environment, (FAPE) including to all iden - wantData or gathered perceived throughneed to establish individual identities interviews separate revealedfrom thosetified with students psychological with disabiliand psychiatricties in impairments the least restrictive and beingfour consideredmain themes “students that with contributed disabilities;” andto feelingsstudents that not disorders.environment, In higher including education those settings, with students psychological with psychiatric and becauseseeking things accom weremodations going well onthey campuses did not necessarily after being need onthe disorderspsychiatric are responsible impairments for maintaining and disorders. the same academic extraIndividualized support. Baker Education et al. (2012) Programs investigated (IEPs) the perceptions while ofin and behavioralIn higher standards education as theirsettings, peers students who are not with disabled. psychi - studentsK-12 schools. and faculty Theat a small,theme liberals included arts women’s a lack college of time Also,atric students disorders with are disabilities responsible on campuses for maintaining are responsible the same to regardingstudents students reported with to disabilities. seek out The assistance results of thisthrough study of- seek out services and sup- port in the form of accommodations academic and behavioral standards as their peers who highlightedfices of disabilitythe existence services; of a discrepancy lack of in knowledge the views of about from the college or university office of disability services or inclusiveness for students with disabilities on campus between therapeuticare not disabled. services through Also, counselingstudents centerswith disabilities (Wisbey & on their own disabilities and how to seek help; the want campuses are responsible to seek out services and sup- facultyor perceived and students need at tothe establi university.sh identities The study furtherseparate reported from Kalivoda, 2011). Unlike in K-12 setting, officials in high- er that faculty members tended to view the campus and classrooms educationalport in the institutions form of areaccommodations not obligated to identify from andthe evaluatecollege being considered “students with disabilities;” and or university office of disability services or therapeutic asfeelings more inclusive that because and supportive things while were students going reportedwell they lower did students who may have or demonstrate symptoms of psychiatric ratings relating impairments.services through Consequently, counseling many individualscenters (Wwithisbey mental & health Ka- not necessarily need the extra support. needslivoda, often 201 do1). not Unlike get the insupport K-12 and setting, services of ficialsthey may in needhigh - Baker et al. (2012) investigated the perceptions iner order educational to be successful, institutions a reality are which not mayobligated contribute to identifyto lower of students and faculty at a small, liberal arts wom- retentionand evaluate rates (Lightner students et al.,who 2012). may Two have other or federal demonstrate statutes en’s college regarding students with disabilities. impactingsymptoms the disabled,of psychiatric Section 504impairments. of the Rehabilitation Consequent Act of - The results of this study highlighted the existence 1973ly, many individuals with mental health needs often of a discrepancy in the views of inclusiveness for do not get the support and services they may need in students with disabilities on campus between facul- order to be successful, a reality which may contribute ty and students at the university. The study further to lower retention rates (Lightner et al., 2012). reported that faculty members tended to view the Two other federal statutes impacting the disabled, campus and classrooms as more inclusive and sup- Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Sec- portive while students reported lower ratings relat- Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(2) 117 toing the toinclusiveness the inclusiveness and support and for thosesupport with disabilitiesfor those on with DifficultiesDifficulties associated associated with “invisible” with mental “invisible” health disorders mental may campus.disabilities The study on campus. added that The faculty study members added reported that faculty lower includehealth the disorders side effects may of medications;include the difficulty side ef fectsconcentrating of medi - meanmembers ratings reported compared lowerto students mean on questionsratings comparedabout the to andcations; sustaining difficulty attention concentr as well asating maintaining and sustaining stamina or attenvitality;- capabilitiesstudents ofon students questions with disabilitiesabout the in capabilitiesmeeting the demands of stu - troubletion as adapting well as to maintaining changes in schedules stamina or or living vitality; situations, trouble ofdents academic with programs, disabilities as well in meeting as demands the of demands the profession of aca - severeadapting anxiety to changesrelated to testsin schedules and group orassignments; living situations, difficulty post-graduation.demic programs, Among as wellall students as demands with disabilities of the professionin higher interactingsevere anxiety or maintaining related relationships to tests and with group others; assignments; and higher education,post-graduation. those with psychiatric impairments, the focus of this ratesdifficulty of drug andinteracting alcohol abuse or (Belch,maintaining 2011; Hartley, relationships 2010; study,Among represent all a growing students population. with disabilitiesAccording to thein mosthigher Stein,with 2013;others; Wolf, and 2001). higher Given thatrates the of college drug experience and alcohol may recenteducation, data from those the National with psychiatricCenter for Education impairments, Statistics the beabuse the first (Belch, time students 2011; Hartleywith psychiatric, 2010; impairments Stein, 2013; are awayWolf, (2015),focus approximatelyof this study 20%, represent of the population a growing of students population. with from2001). supports Given they that may the have college had in theexperience past, such mayas family, be the disabilities,According or aboutto the 2% most of the recent total student data from population, the National on cam- closefirst friends,time students and previous with therapists, psychiatric these newimpairments living and are pusCenter reported for havingEducation a psychiatric Statistics disability (2015), during approximately the 2011-2012 learningaway fromarrangements supports may they be a maysource have of significant had in stress.the past, school year. Statistics from the Higher Education Research Further, the academic rigor required to complete college and 20% of the population of students with disabilities, such as family, close friends, and previous therapists, Institution (2011) estimated approximately 4% of undergraduate university courses may be more than what students experienced studentsor about in 20102% ofreported the total having student psychological population, disorders. on cam- inthese their secondarynew living school and careers. learning Megivern, arrangements Pellerito, and may be Becausepus reported of the patternhaving of a many psychiatric students disabilitywith disabilities during not the Mowbraya source (2003) of significant found that the stress. most common Further reasons, the academstudents - disclosing2011-2012 their school disabilities year to. peers or professionals at their withic rigor psychiatric required disability to withdrawcomplete from college their colleges and university and schools,Statistics it is difficult from to estimate the Higher a valid numberEducation of individuals Research with universitiescourses may were be psychiatric more than symptomology what students such as experienced anxiety, psychiatricInstitution disabilities (2011) in estimatedUnited States approximately higher education systems4% of feelingsin their of secondary isolation, lack school of academic careers. integration, financial (Collinsunder graduate& Mowbray, students 2008; Stein, in 2010 2013). reported Despite this, having the number psy- problems,Megivern, and changed Pellerito, life goals. and The Mowbray authors also (2003) reported found that ofchological students with disorders. such impairments Because appears of the to patternbe sizable of and many althoughthat the aware most of theircommon psychiatric reasons impairment students and its with symptoms, psy- growing.students Undiagnosed with disabilities and untreated not disclosing psychiatric disabilitiestheir disabil may- 90%chiatric of students disability did not withdraw seek assistance from from their their colleges campus and meanities thatto peersmany college or professionals and university atstudents their areschools, left to it is officesuniversities of disability were services psychiatric or counseling symptomology centers. Kranke such et al. as struggledifficult with to symptoms estimate of disordersa valid suchnumber as depression, of individuals anxiety, (2013)anxiety concluded, feelings students of isolatio tendedn, not lack to disclose of academic their disabilities inte- andwith schizophrenia psychiatric without disabilities the care andin Unitedsupport ofStates qualified higher togration, anyone onfinancial cam- pus problems, for reasons includingand changed the stigma life goals. universityeducation and systems mental health (Collins professionals. & Mowbray Moreover,, 2008; although Stein, associatedThe authors with alsomental reported health disorders, that although fears of aware not being of their studies2013). reveal Despite an increase this, the in thenumber pursuit of of studentspostsecondary with study, such consideredpsychiatric “normal,” impairment concerns andfor how its they symptoms, would be viewed 90% byof approximatelyimpairments 85% appears of students to be with sizable psychiatric and growing.disabilities theirstudents professors did andnot how seek this assistance could affect futurefrom relationshipstheir campus with withdrawUndiagnosed from college priorand tountreated completing psychiatric their degrees (Kesslerdisabil- professors,offices of and disability the need services to feel in- ordependent counseling such ascenters. not etities al., 1995).may Hartleymean (2010)that describedmany college four risk andfactors university for feelingKranke as though et theal. disability (2013) would/shouldconcluded affectstudents their academictended retentionstudents relating are left specifically to struggle to students with withsymptoms mental or of disor- performance.not to disclose The researchers their disabilities suggested to that anyone students on were cam - psychiatricders such disabilities as depression, in college: anxiety temporary, and cognitive schizophrenia impairment, morepus likelyfor reasons to disclose including their disabilities the stigma when they associated perceived with their pervasivewithout socialthe care stigma, and poor support academic of self-confidence,qualified university and instructorsmental health as supportive, disorders, when fears they ofexperienced not being a “stressconsidered conflictedand mental peer healthrelationships. professionals. The social stigmaMoreover associated, although with overload,”“normal,” or whenconcerns their disabilities for how had they a significant would beimpact viewed on mentalstudies health reveal diagnoses an increase also makes in thestudents pursuit reluctant of postsec to dis- - theirby theiracademic professors performance, and suchhow as this a student could having affect to missfuture closeondary their studydisability, approximately to faculty members 85% or peers. of students The “invisibility” with classrelationships for a week duewith to professors, symptoms of andtheir thedisability. need The to feelauthors in- ofpsychiatric mental health disabilities disorders can withdraw also lead to from having college faculty prior noteddependent that students such withas not psychiatric feeling disabilities as though on the campuses disability may membersto completing question their whether degrees poor performances (Kessler et areal., due 1995). to actual strugglewould/should more significantly affect their with internalacademic stressors performance. compared toThe disabilitiesHartley or if they(2010) are a describedresult of low fourmotivation risk or factors knowledge. for theirresearchers peers who suggested are not disabled. that studentsPrevious research were more on students likely Soumaretention et al. relating (2012) observed specifically that students to students with psychiatric with men - withto disclose disabilities their has demonstrateddisabilities whenthat the they perception perceived of disability their disabilitiestal or psychiatric might experience disabilities disability-related in college: limitations temporary that may stigmainstructors remains as a commonsupportive, reason when why these they individuals experienced choose a negativelycognitive impact impairment, their educational pervasive and social-emotional social stigma, poor not“stress to disclose overload,” their conditions or when to theirstaff or disabilities faculty on campuses had a sig nor- functioning.academic self-confidence, and conflicted peer rela- requestnificant accommodations impact on their for their academic disabilities performance, through an office such of tionships. The social stigma associated with mental disabilityas a student services. having According to missto Dovidio, class Major, for aand week Crocker due to health diagnoses also makes students reluctant to dis- symptoms of their disability. The authors noted that close their disability to faculty members or peers. The students with psychiatric disabilities on campuses “invisibility” of mental health disorders can also lead may struggle more significantly with internal stress- to having faculty members question whether poor ors compared to their peers who are not disabled. performances are due to actual disabilities or if they Previous research on students with disabilities are a result of low motivation or knowledge. Souma has demonstrated that the perception of disability et al. (2012) observed that students with psychiatric stigma remains a common reason why these individ- disabilities might experience disability-related lim- uals choose not to disclose their conditions to staff itations that may negatively impact their educational or faculty on campuses nor request accommodations and social-emotional functioning. for their disabilities through an office of disability services. According to Dovidio, Major, and Crocker 118 Trunk et al.; Disability Stigma

(2000),(2000), stigmatization stigmatization involved involved both the bothrecognition the recognition of individual Sample differencesof individual or deviations differences from theor deviationsnorm based onfrom some the norm The populationThe population for the study for wasthe studyall undergraduate was all under studentsgradu with- distinguishingbased on some or specific distinguishi characteristicsng or specificand, consequentially, characteris - psychiatricate students disabilities with psychiatri at BU. Givenc disabilities the confidential at natureBU. Given of devaluationstics and, consequentially of the persons due, devaluations to this characteristic. of the These persons studentthe confidenti disability alstatus, nature especially of student considering disability the stigma status, es- authorsdue to addedthis characteristic.that most potentially These stigmatizing authors conditions, added that associatedpecially consideringwith psychiatric the disabilities stigma in associated particular, the with study psy - althoughmost potentia not detrimentallly stigmatiz to one’s inghealth conditions, in-and-of-themselves, although includedchiatric a disabilitiessample of students in parti at cularBU who, the volunteered study included to a cannot potentiallydetriment threatenal to one’ the sstigmatized health in-and-of-themselves, individuals’ participate.sample of Thus, students the research at BU employed who volunteered a nonprobability, to partic - psychologicalcan potentially health threaten due to associated the stigmatized social isolation individuals’ and purposiveipate. Thus, sampling the methodresearch that employed allowed participants a nonprobability to , rejection.psychological While students health with due psychiatric to associated disabilities social may beisola - volunteerpurposive to participate sampling in method the study. that A total allowed of 57 questionnaires participants consideredtion and toreje havection. hidden While stigmatizing students characteristics with psychiatric not wereto volunteer completed toduring participate the data collectionin the study process,. A resultingtotal of in57 readilydisabilities visible mayto others, be considered the suppression to have of their hidden concealable stigma - 55questionnaires usable surveys; weretwo of thecompleted surveys were during completed the data by col- stigmastizing charactmay, in fact,eristics bring not about readily greater visible levels of to stress others, and the graduatelection studentsprocess, who resulting may have in inadvertently 55 usable been surveys; sent the two psychologicalsuppression incapacitation of their concea comparedlable tostigmas peers with may readily, in fact, solicitationof the surveys for research were e-mail compl andeted were by not graduate usable given students the re- visiblebring stigmasabout greater(Smart & levels Wegner, of 2000). stress In and sum, psychological although the searchwho may questions have and inadvertently instruments being been used. sent the solicitation ratesincapacitation of individuals compared with psychiatric to peers disabilities with pursuingreadily highervisible for research e-mail and were not usable given the re- educationstigmas (Smartare increasing, & Wegner these, students 2000). continue to face search questions and instruments being used. challengesIn sum, contributing although to low the retention rates ratesof individuals and negative with experiences on campus. In general, students with psychiatric psychiatric disabilities pursuing higher education are Variables disabilities may be the least understood subgroup on campus, The demographicThe demographic items and items research and variables research included variables on the in - contributingincreasing, to these a significant students lack continueof academic to and face emotional challenges questionnaire used in the study were included not only to allow supportcontributing and to theirto low continued retention marginalization rates and (Megivernnegative etexpe al., - cluded on the questionnaire used in the study were for the intended statistical analyses, but also to provide 2003;riences Mitchell on cam et al.,pus. 2013). In general, Due, at least students in part, with to perception psychiat - included not only to allow for the intended statistical descriptive statistics related to demographic characteristics and regardingric disabilities mental healthmay bedisorders, the least students understood with psychiatric subgroup analyses, but also to provide descriptive statistics re- service utilization of students with both psychiatric and other disabilitieson campus, often contributing do not disclose to their a significant disabilities to lack peers, of aca- lated to demographic characteristics and service uti- impairments at the target institution. The disability stigma facultydemic members, and emotional or other schoolsupport personnel. and to In their turn, thesecontinued lization of students with both psychiatric and other variable referred to each individual student’s disability-related studentsmarginalization may not receive (Megivern accommodations et al., 2003; they may Mitchell be legally et impairments at the target institution. The disability stigma scores on the PSSDS, while the disability type variable entitledal., 2013). to under Due, Section at least 504 inand part, the ADA. to perception The following regard - stigma variable referred to each individual student’s referred to the type of disabilities with which the students researching mental question health guided disorders, this study students on perceived with disability psychiatric disability-related stigma scores on the PSSDS, while completing the questionnaire had been diagnosed. The eleven stigmadisabilities in students often with do psychiatric not disclose disabilities their in disabilitieshigher to the disability type variable referred to the type of dis- ability categories in this study were consistent with those education:peers, faculty What aremembers, the differences or other in perceived school personnel. In disabilities with which the students completing the used in the National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey and in disability-relatedturn, these students stigma maybetween not students receive with accommodations psychiatric questionnaire had been diagnosed. The eleven dis- previous research (Herrick, 2011). For the purposes of this impairmentsthey may be com- legally pared entitledto peers withto under other typesSection of 504 and ability categories in this study were consistent with study, the disability type variable was recoded into a impairments?the ADA. those used in the National Postsecondary Student Aid dichotomous, categorical variable allowing for a two-group The following research question guided this study Survey and in previous research (Herrick, 2011). For comparison between students with psychiatric disabilities and on perceived disability stigma in students with psy- the purposes of this study, the disability type variable students with all other types of disabilities. chiatric disabilities in higher education: What are was recoded into a dichotomous, categorical variable the differences in perceived disability-related stigma allowing for a two-group comparison between stu- between students with psychiatric impairments com- dents with psychiatric disabilities and students with pared to peers with other types of impairments? all other types of disabilities.

Method Instrumentation PostsecondaryPostsecondary Student SurveyStudent of Disability-Related Survey of StigmaDisabil - Setting (PSSDS).ity-Related The PSSDS, Stigma created (PSSDS). as a dissertation The PSSDS, project cre- The researchersThe researche conductedrs conducted the study at the a private, study four-yearat a private, (Trammell,ated as a 2006), dissertation is an instrument project used (T torammell, measure perceived2006), is researchfour-year university research in the university Midwestern in United the Midwestern States. Blair Unit- disabilityan instrument stigma experienced used to measure by individuals perceived with disabilities disability on Universityed Stat es.(BU; Blair pseudonym) University has an (BU; undergraduate pseudonym) enrollment has anof collegestigma campuses. experienced Trammell by explainedindividuals that thewith PSSDS disabilities was approximatelyundergraduate 10,000 enrollment undergraduate of students,approximately with approximately 10,000 designedon college under campuses. the assumption Trammell that numerous explained factors orthat sources the andunder additionalgraduate 3,000 students, graduate andwith professional approximately students. and Specific ad- contributePSSDS wasto the designed effects of disability under thestigma. assumption The instrument, that nu- universityditional characteristics 3,000 graduate and demographic and professional data are not students. described whichmerous uses factors a Likert-type or sources scale rating contribute system, is comprisedto the ef fectsof 24 inSpecific detail to protect university the confidentiality characteristics of the protected and demographic group being questionsof disability relating stigma. to four identified The instrument, factors related which to students’ uses a studieddata areas well not as described the reputation in ofdetail the institution. to protect the confi- perceivedLikert-type disability scale stigma: rating academic system, success, is comprised peer of 24 dentiality of the protected group being studied as well relationships,questions relating sense of selfto fourand identity, identified and global factors awareness. related as the reputation of the institution. to students’ perceived disability stigma: academic success, peer relationships, sense of self and identi- ty, and global awareness. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(2) 119

The PSSDS’The PSSDS’ Academic Academic Success domain Success was domaindesigned wasto de- our contact in the office of disability services to send measuresigned toa student’s measure perceptions a student’ ofs hisperceptions or her own ofacademic his or her the questionnaire to possible participants. abilitiesown academic and achievements abilities as and a student achievements with a disability. as a studentThe Personalwith a disabil Relationshipsity. The domain Personal was designed Relationships to measure domain a Data Analysis student’swas designed perceptions to measureof how disability a student’ and stigmas perceptions impacted their of In orderIn toorder determine to determine whether there whether was a theresignificant was difference a signif -in personalhow disability relationships, and particularlystigma impacted in ways that their might personal be re- disabilityicant dif stigmaference ratings in reporteddisability by studentsstigma withratings psychiatric reported categorizedlationships, as negativeparticularly or discriminatory. in ways that The Sensemight of be Self cate and- disabilitiesby students compared with to psychiatric their peers with disabilities other types ofcompared disabilities, Identitygorized domain as negative was designed or discriminatory to measure students’. The Sense of theto re-their searchers peers conductedwith other a seriestypes of of independent disabilities, samples the re- self-awarenessSelf and Identity of their domainown disabilities, was designedthe degree to whichmeasure they t-tests.searchers This typeconducted of analysis a seriesis useful of when independent comparing meansamples acceptstudents’ their conditions,self-awareness and their ofability their to live own with them.disabilities, The scorest-tests. between This typetwo groups of analysis to determine is useful if statistically when significantcompar- Globalthe degree Awareness to which domain they was acceptdesigned their to go conditions, beyond the sense and differencesing mean exist scores on a between measured twodependent groups variable to determine (Ary, Jacobs, if oftheir self asability an attempt to live to measurewith them. students’ general acceptances &statistically Sorensen, 2010). significant The mean dif factorferences scores forexist the fouron PSSDSa mea - of their disability identities and the extent to which they impacted The Global Awareness domain was designed to factorssured anddependent total stigma variable scores on (Ary the ,PSSDS Jacobs, were & comparedSorensen, skills such as self-advocacy, communication, and academic go beyond the sense of self as an attempt to measure between2010). studentsThe mean with psychiatricfactor scores disabilities for theand fourstudents PSSDS with all capital. Six of the 24 items on the PSSDS uniquely load into one other disability types. The alpha level was initially set at .05 for ofstudents’ each of the general four stigma acceptances factors measured of their on disability the instrument. iden - factors and total stigma scores on the PSSDS were tities and the extent to which they impacted skills eachcompared independent between samples students t-test. However, with psychiatric given the increase disabil in- For example, the academic success factor score is derived from familywise error rate associated with testing multiple hypotheses, asuch summation as self-advocacy of responses ,on communication, questions 11, 12, 13,and 18, academic 22, and ities and students with all other disability types. The capital. Six of the 24 items on the PSSDS uniquely thealpha researchers level was adjusted initially the alpha set atlevel .05 for for each each test toindepen .025 - 23 on the PSSDS. Individuals completing the PSSDS are asked using the Bonferroni correction (Field, 2009; Pallant, 2013). toload respond into to one each of question each of on the the fourscale stigmaby selecting factors a response mea- dent samples t-test. However, given the increase in fromsured those on providedthe instrument. on the five-point For example,scale that most the accuratelyacademic familywise error rate associated with testing multiple representssuccess factortheir experiences score is derivedon campus from (0 = never,a summation 1 = of hypotheses, the researchers adjusted the alpha level occasionally,responses on2 = questionsregularly, 3 =1 1,frequently, 12, 13, 4 18, = all 22, of the and time). 23 on for each test to .025 using the Bonferroni correction Accordingthe PSSDS. to Trammell, “the higher the total score … the more (Field, 2009; Pallant, 2013). stigmatizedIndividuals a student completing felt” (2006, p.the 16). PSSDS Overall stigmaare asked scores to arerespond derived to from each a summation question of on the the four scaleunique by stigma selecting factors, a Results eachresponse having from a potential those score provided from 0-24. on Thethe overallfive-point scale disability-relatedthat most accurately stigma scores represents have the their potential experiences to range from on 0 The researchersThe researche providedrs provided a staff member a staf fromf member the office from of the tocampus 96, with (0the = latter never representing, 1 = occasionally the highest, 2 degree = regularly of perceived, 3 = disabilityoffice of services disability with the services Qualtrics-created with the survey Qualtrics-creat link; that staff- stigma.frequently Trammell, 4 = providedall of the the time). following According scale to categorize to Trammell, membered survey then link;sent an that email staf tof the member 631 potential then participantssent an email overall“the higherstigma scores:the total 0 – score24 little … stigmatization, the more stigmatized25 – 48 a containingto the 631 an potentialinvitation to particip participateants in thecontaining research, anas wellinvita as - moderatestudent stigmatization,felt” (2006, p.49 16).– 72 highOverall stigmatization, stigma scoresand 73 –are 96 thetion link to to participate the questionnaire. in the The research, researchers as alsowell placed as the paper link extremelyderived highfrom stigmatization. a summation of the four unique stigma copiesto the of questionnaire.the survey in the office The of disabilityresearchers services. also Fifty-five placed factors, each having a potential score from 0-24. The studentspaper copies completed of thethe electronic survey inversion the of ficethe research of disability overall disability-related stigma scores have the poten- instrument.services. NoFifty-five completed students paper copies completed of the survey the wereelectron - tial to range from 0 to 96, with the latter representing received.ic version of the research instrument. No completed the highest degree of perceived stigma. Trammell pro- paper copies of the survey were received. vided the following scale to categorize overall stigma scores: 0 – 24 little stigmatization, 25 – 48 moderate Demographics stigmatization, 49 – 72 high stigmatization, and 73 – DisabilityDisability Type. On T theype. primary On thedisability primary type item disability of the type 96 extremely high stigmatization. questionnaire,item of the 25questionnaire, participants reported 25 participantshaving psychiatric reported disabilitieshaving psychiatric (45.5%), 13 (23.6%)disabili respondedties (45.5%), as having 13 (23.6%) Procedures attention-deficit/hyperactivityresponded as having attention-deficit/hyperactivitydisorder (ADHD), 10 indicated that After gainingAfter approvalgaining fromapproval the university from theInstitutional university Review Insti - theydisorder had learning (ADHD), disabilities 10 indicated (18.2%), and that 3 identified they had learn- Boardtutional (IRB), Review as well as Board establishing (IRB), a contactas well in as the establishing office of themselvesing disabilities as having (18.2%), health impairments and 3 identified (5.5%). Two themselves (3.6%) disabilitya contact services, in the the of re-fice searchers of disability sent the researchservices, the re- studentsas having reported health having impairments hearing impairments (5.5%). while Two another (3.6%) two questionnairesearchers sentto all studentsthe research registered questionnaire with disability toservices all stu at - (3.6%)students students reported responded having that hearingthey had orthopedicimpairments while BUdents during register spring ofed 2016. with The disability instrument services was sent at to BU students during impairments.another two For (3.6%) the purposes students of hypothesis responded testing, that 25 they students had whospring were ofsecond 2016. year The students instrument through seniorswas sent six timesto students during (45.5%)orthopedic were placedimpairments. in the psychiatric For the disability purposes group of whilehypoth 30 - thewho course were of the second data collection year students period, and through not sent seniors to first year six (54.5%)esis testing, were put 25 in studentsthe “other” (45.5%)disability type were group. placed in the studentstimes duringbecause the they course had not of begun the schooldata collection yet during the period, initial Co-occurringpsychiatric Disability disability Types. group On the while research 30 instrument,(54.5%) were sendingand not of thesent questionnaire. to first year Given students the confidential because nature they of had participantsput in the reported“other” whether disability they typehad a group. secondary impairment studentnot begun disability school status, yet the during researchers the initialworked sendingthrough of the in additionCo-occurring to the primary Disability Types. On the research questionnaire. Given the confidential nature of stu- instrument, participants reported whether they had dent disability status, the researchers worked through a secondary impairment in addition to the primary 120 Trunk et al.; Disability Stigma

impairmentsimpairments they theyreported. reported. Eighteen Eighteen (32.7%) participants (32.7%) par- thethe effect effect size size statistic statistic indicates indicates the the magnitude magnitude of ofthe the reportedticipants having reported co-occurring, having or co-occurring,dual, dis- abilities. or The dual, two mostdis- impactimpact of of disability disability type type on stigmaon stigma scores. scores. Levene’s Levene’ s common co-occurring pair of impairments reported by the abilities. The two most common co-occurring pair of TestTest for for Equality Equality of ofVariances Variances was was nonsignificant nonsignificant for allfor participants were psychiatric impairments and ADHD, with seven impairments reported by the participants were psychi- t-testall t-te analysis,st analysis, except except for the for Personal the Personal Relation- Relation ships - individualsatric impairments having reported and theseADHD, dual with diagnoses. seven Three individuals ships factor analysis. factor analysis. The results of the Academic Success participantshaving reported reported thesehaving dualpsychiatric diagnoses. disabilities Three and healthpartici - The results of the Academic Success factor impairments.pants reported Other having co-occurring psychiatric disabilities disabilities reported andincluded health factort-test t-testdemonstrated demonstrated a statistically a statistically significant significant (t (t(53) dual:impairments. psychiatric andOther specific co-occurring learning dis- disabilities abilities, dual reported (53)= 3.25, = 3.25, p =p =.002) .002) difdifferenceference inin Academic Academic Success Success psychiatricincluded disabilities,dual: psychiatric psychiatric and and orthopedicspecific learningdisabilities, dis - factorfactor scores scores between between students students with with psychiatric psychiatric im- ADHD and specific learning disabilities, visual and health abilities, dual psychiatric disabilities, psychiatric and impairmentspairments compared compared toto students with other other types types of of impairments, and developmental disability and ADHD. For the orthopedic disabilities, ADHD and specific learning impairments.impairments. More More specifically, specifically students, students with psychiatricwith psy- purposedisabilities, of this visualstudy, studentsand health were impairments, placed into a disability and devel group- chiatric impairments reported significantly higher (i.e., psychiatric or other) by their primary reported disability on impairments reported significantly higher Academic opmental disability and ADHD. For the purpose of this Academic Success factor scores (M = 12.68, SD = the study instrument. Engagement in Counseling Services. Of Success factor scores (M = 12.68, SD = 4.00) on the thestudy 55 participants, students werewho completed placed into the aresearch disability questionnaire, group (i.e., 4.00) on the instrument compared to those with other psychiatric or other) by their primary reported disabil- instrumenttypes of impa comparedirments to ( thoseM = 9.47, with otherSD = types3.35). of The ef- 22 (40%) reported that they received counseling services while impairments (M = 9.47, SD = 3.35). The effect size, 33ity (60%) on the answered study instrument.that they did not receive counseling services. fect size, calculated using Cohen’s d, of .87 indicates calculated using Cohen’s d, of .87 indicates a large Of theEngagement 22 students who in received Counseling counseling Services. services, Of 14 (63.6%)the 55 a large effect. reportedparticipants that they who received completed this help throughthe research the university question - effect.The The results results of of the the PersonalPersonal Relationships factor factor counselingnaire, 22 center (40%) at BU, reported while 8 (36.4%)that they responded received that theycoun - t-testt-test indicated indicated a statisticallya statistically significant significant (t (36.16) (t (36.16) = obtainedseling servicesassistance whilefrom out- 33 side (60%) service answered providers. Previousthat they 2.85,= 2.85, p = .007)p = .007) difference difference in Personal in Personal Relation- Relation ship - Disability-Relateddid not receive Services. counseling Students services. were asked Of to the report 22 stu- factorship factorscores scores between between students students with psychiatric with psychiatric dents who received counseling services, 14 (63.6%) impairments and those with other types of impair- whether they received services or accommodations by means of impairments and those with other types of impaiments. IEPsreported and/or Sectionthat they 504 Plansreceived in high this school help due throughto their the ments. More specifically, students with psychiatric More specifically, students with psychiatric impairments disabilitiesuniversity or whethercounseling they didcenter not receive at BU, services while through 8 (36.4%) impairments reported significantly higher Personal eitherresponded of these thatdocuments. they obtainedThirteen (23.6%) assistance of the 55 from out- reportedRelationship significantly factor higher scores Personal (M = 10.76, Relationship SD = 4.78) participantsside service reported providers. they received IEP services while 13 (23.6%) factoron the scores instrument (M = 10.76, compared SD = 4.78)to students on the instrumentwith other respondedPrevious that they Disability-Relat received servicesed through Services. Section Students 504 comparedtypes of toimpairments students with (M other = 7.70, types SD of impairments= 2.68). The Plans.were Twenty-nineasked to report (52.7%) whether participants they reported received that theyservices did (Mef fect= 7.70, size, SD calculated = 2.68). The using effect Cohen’ size, calculateds d, of .79 using indi- notor receiveaccommodations services or accommodations by means of IEPsin high and/or school dueSection to Cohen’scates a mediumd, of .79 indicateseffect. a medium effect. The results their disabilities. The study did not take into account, for those 504 Plans in high school due to their disabilities or of theThe Sense results of Self of the and Sense Identity of Selffactor and t-test Identity revealed factor a whowhether had received they did prior not services receive and accommodations,services through when either the t-test revealed a statistically significant (t (53) = 2.45, statistically significant (t (53) = 2.45, p = .018) difference studentsof these were documents. initially identified Thirte asen having (23.6%) impairments. of the 55 par- p = .018) difference in Sense of Self factor scores ticipants reported they received IEP services while inbetween Sense of students Self factor with scores psychiatric between impairments students with com - 13 (23.6%) responded that they received services psychiatricpared to those impairments with other com- types pared of impairments.to those with otherMore through Section 504 Plans. Twenty-nine (52.7%) par- typesspecifically of impairments., students More with psychiatricspecifically, impairmentsstudents with re - ticipants reported that they did not receive services or psychiatricported signific impairmentsantly higher reported Sense significantly of Self factor higher scores accommodations in high school due to their disabil- Sense(M = 1of1.80, Self factorSD = 3.55)scores on (M the = 11.80, instrument SD = 3.55)compared on ities. The study did not take into account, for those theto thoseinstrument with comparedother types to ofthose impairments with other (typesM = 9.47,of who had received prior services and accommoda- impairmentsSD = 3.49). (MThe = ef9.47,fect SD size, = 3.49).calculated The effectusing size, Cohen’ s tions, when the students were initially identified as d, of .66 indicates a medium effect. having impairments. calculatedThe results using Cohen’sof the Global d, of .66 Awareness indicates factora medium t-test effect.demonstrated The results no ofsignifican the Globalt ( tAwareness (53) = 1.42, factor p = t-test.160) Stigma by Disability Type demonstrateddifferences in no Global significant Awareness (t (53) = 1.42,factor p =scores .160) be- The researchThe research question askedquestion what askedthe differences what the in perceived differenc - differencestween students in Global with Awareness psychiatric factor impairments scores between and disability-relatedes in perceive stigmad disability-r ratings wereelated between stigma students ratings with were studentsthose with with otherpsychiatric types impairments of impairments. and those The with mean psychiatricbetween impairments students withcom- psychiatricpared to their peersimpairments with other com types- otherscores types on theof impairments. Global Awareness The mean factor scores of the on PSSDS the of impairments across the four factors of the PSSDS, as well as pared to their peers with other types of impairments Globalfor students Awareness with psychiatricfactor of the impairments PSSDS for students (M = 10.24, theacross total PSSDS the four stigma factors score. ofIn orderthe PSSDS, to investigate as well this as the SD = 4.25) did not differ significantly from those in with psychiatric impairments (M = 10.24, SD = 4.25) did question,total PSSDS the researchers stigma conductedscore. In fiveorder separate to investigate independent this the study with other types of impairments (M = 8.63, samplesquestion, non-directional the researchers t-tests using conducted a Bonferroni fivecorrected separate alpha notSD differ = 4.10). significantly from those in the study with other levelindependent of .025. Significant samples t-test non-directional results revealed statistically t-tests using a typesThe of impairments researchers (Mconducted = 8.63, SD the = final4.10). independent The significantBonferroni differences corrected in mean alpha scores level between of .025. the two Significant groups, researcherssamples t-test conducted to compare the final the independent PSSDS total samples disabili - whilet-test results revealed statistically significant differ- t-testty-related to compare stigma the factor PSSDS scores total between disability-related students with ences in mean scores between the two groups, while stigmapsychiatric factor impairmentsscores between to studentsthose with with otherpsychiatric types impairments to those with other types Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(2) 121 ofof impairments. impairments. The resultsThe results of the t-test of theindicated t-test a indicatedstatistically a disclosinggretted disclosing their disabilities their disabilities on campuses on duecampuses to negative due significantstatistically (t (53) significant = 3.16, p = ( .003)t (53) difference = 3.16, inp PSSDS= .003) total dif fer- consequencesto negative consequences of doing so and of doingwould sonot and recommend would not scores between students with psychiatric impairments and ence in PSSDS total scores between students with psy- othersrecommend disclose others theirs. disclose It is possible, theirs. then,It is possible, that although then, students with other types of impairments. Among the students in chiatric impairments and students with other types of participantsthat although in thisparticipants study were in eligiblethis study to receive were eligible theimpairments. sample, those Among with psychiatric the students impairments in the reported sample, those to receive accommodations, they did not use them accommodations, they did not use them due to reasons significantlywith psychiatric higher PSSDS impairments total scores reported (M = 45.48, significantly SD = 13.81) due to reasons such as stigma. onhigher the instrument PSSDS comparedtotal scores to students (M = 45.48, with other SD types= 13.81) of on suchThird, as stigma. as W Third,iener as and Wiener Wiener and (1990)Wiener (1990)reported, impairmentsthe instrument (M = 35.27,compared SD = 10.11).to students The effect with size, other calculated types reported,students studentswith psychiatric with psychiatric impairments impairments may not may have not usingof impairments Cohen’s d, of .84(M reveals= 35.27, a large SD effect = 10.1 of disability1). The typeeffect on havefelt entitledfelt entitled to toor or deserving deserving ofof academic academic accom- perceived disability-related stigma as students with psychiatric size, calculated using Cohen’s d, of .84 reveals a large accommodations.modations. In this In thisrespect, respect, participants participants may may have impairments re- ported significantly greater levels of stigma. effect of disability type on perceived disability-related thoughtthought that that because because their their psychiatric psychiatric impairments impairments stigma as students with psychiatric impairments re- shouldshould not not have have impacted impacted their theiracademic academic performances, perfor- ported significantly greater levels of stigma. theymances, chose they not choseto request not toaccommodations. request accommodations. Regardless Regardless of the reasons, the lack of utilization of of the reasons, the lack of utilization of potentially Discussion potentially legally-mandated accommodations may legally-mandatedimpact student success. accommodations may impact student This Thisstudy study expanded expanded previous previous research research on students on stu - success.Unexpectedly Unexpectedly,, despite despite reporting reporting having having psychiat - withdents disabilities with disabilities in higher ineducation higher education by focusing by on focus - psychiatricric impairments, impairments, only 10 only of the 10 25 of respondingthe 25 responding students individualsing on individuals with psychiatric with psychiatric disabilities. disabilities. From an equal From studentsreported reported utilizing utilizing assistance assistance through through the counseling the accessan equal and access opportunity and opportunity lens, this study lens, investigated this study thein- counselingcenter at BU center while at BUanother while 5 another reported 5 reportedreceiving help vestigated the impact of disability type on student through outside service providers. These findings are impact of disability type on student perceived disability receiving help through outside service providers. These perceived disability stigma. In general, the results of similar to those reported by Belch (2011) and Cooper findings are similar to those reported by Belch (2011) stigma.the study In general, supported the theresults research of the hypothesis,study supported which et al. (2003), who also identified the underutilization thestated research there hypothesis,would be significant which stated dif thereferences would in beper - andof counselingCooper et al. services (2003), bywho students also identified with psychiatric the significantceived disability-related differences in perceived stigma disability-relatedbetween students underutilizationimpairments. of counseling services by students with stigmawith psychiatric between students impairments with psychiatric compared impairmentsto those with psychiatricFinally impairments., approximately Finally, one-half approximately of the participants one-half comparedother impairments. to those with other impairments. Insofar as of(n the = 26) participants in the study (n = reported26) in the receiving study reported services and/ the researchersInsofar as the sent researchers the research sent questionnaire the research to ques - receivingor accommodations services and/ due or accommodationsto their disabilities due into theirhigh studentstionnaire who to hadstudents self-disclosed who had their self-disclosed disabilities on their disabilitiesschool. Of in the high students school. withOf the psychiatric students with disabilities, disabilities on campus, all of the respondents in psychiatriconly two reported disabilities, having only twoIEPs reported in high havingschool, IEPs while in campus,the sample all of were the respondents registered asin thehaving sample impairments were six answered that they received accommodations high school, while six answered that they received registeredthrough the as havinguniversity impairments office of through disability the universityservices. through 504 Plans. Seventeen students with psychiat- officeDespite of disabilitythis, only services. 46 of the Despite 55 (83.6%) this, only participants 46 of the accommodationsric impairments throughreported 504 receiving Plans. Seventeenno prior services. 55reported (83.6%) receiving participants academic reported accommodations. receiving academic Of the studentsComparatively with psychiatric, of the 30 impairments participants reported with other receiving types accommodations.nine students who Of did the notnine receive students accommodations, who did not noof priordisabilities, services. 18 Comparatively, received services of the in 30high participants school. receiveseven identified accommodations, as having seven psychiatric identified impairments. as having with Itother is possible types of thatdisabilities, the onset 18 of received the psychiatric services inim - psychiatricThe research impairments. results The suggest research three results conclusions suggest highpairments school. didIt is notpossible occur that until the theonset students of the entered from this finding. First, it is possible that the re- higher education. Even so, it is also possible that three conclusions from this finding. First, it is possible psychiatric impairments did not occur until the students sponding students with psychiatric impairments did enteredstudents’ higher impairments education. were Even not so, properlyit is also possibleidentified thatnot theneed responding academic students accommodations with psychiatric because their in K-12 settings. Given the importance of collab- impairmentsdisabilities maydid not not need have academic impacted accommodations their educational thatorative students’ transition impairments planning were for not studentsproperly identifiedwith im - becauseperformances their disabilities to the point may where not havethey neededimpacted such their as - inpairments K-12 settings. moving Given from the importanceK-12 to higher of collaborative education educationalsistance in orderperformances to access to the the curricula point where in accordance they transitionsettings (Madaus,planning for Shaw students, & Dukes,with impairments 2010), this un- neededwith Section such assistance 504. in order to access the curricula movingder-identification from K-12 to may higher contribute education tosettings students (Madaus, with in accordanceSecond, it with is possible Section 504.that Second,previous it negative is possible ex - Shaw,these &impairments Dukes, 2010), being this under-identificationunprepared for the may chal - thatperiences previous with negative faculty experiences and college with or faculty university and of- contributelenges they to studentsmay face with in college.these impairments being ficials, or factors such as stigma related to mental Stigma by Disability Type. The results of this college or university officials, or factors such as stigma unprepared for the challenges they may face in college. illness, prevented the students from requesting and/ study demonstrated that the 55 participating students Stigma by Disability Type. The results of this study relatedor using to mentalaccommodations illness, prevented. Stein the (2013) students reported from with disabilities obtained a mean total PSSDS score requestingthat mental and/ illness or using stigma accommodations. alone may preventStein (2013) stu- demonstratedof 39.91, thereby that theplacing 55 participating them in the students “moderate with stig - reporteddents with that psychiatric mental illness impairments stigma alone from may requesting prevent disabilitiesmatization” obtained range. aIn mean other total words, PSSDS this score reveals of that, studentsaccommodations. with psychiatric To this impairments end, a study from byrequesting McLean 39.91,as a whole, thereby there placing seemed them into thebe “moderatea moderate amount accommodations.and Andrews (1999) To this found end, that a study nearly by McLeantwo-thirds and of stigmatization”of stigma on campus range. In experienced other words, by this the reveals participants that, Andrewsstudents (1999)diagnosed found with that psychiatricnearly two-thirds impairments of students re- asrelated a whole, to theirthere disabilities seemed to. beAgain, a moderate given theamount limited of diagnosed with psychiatric impairments regretted stigma on campus experienced by the participants related to their disabilities. Again, given the limited 122 Trunk et al.; Disability Stigma numbernumber of responsesof responses and the and potential the forpotential nonresponse for bias,nonre it is- toto student student success success and andpersistence persistence in college in college(Bialka, Morro, (Bialka, difficultsponse to bias,generalize it is thesedifficult findings to generalize to the larger thesepopulation findings of Brown,Morro, & Hannah,Brown, 2017; & Hannah, Tinto, 1993). 2017; The T into,results 1993). of this study studentsto the larwithger disabilities population at BU. of It isstudents certainly possiblewith disabilities that revealThe that, results compared of tothis those study with revealother types that, of compareddisabilities, to studentsat BU. registeredIt is certainly with disability possible services that studentswho chose registered not to studentsthose with with psychiatricother types impairments of disabilities, reported greater students perceived with completewith disability the research services questionnaire who chose may notexperience to complete more the impactpsychiatric on disability impairments stigmatization reported on their inter-personalgreater perceived stigmaresearch than questionnairethose who chose may to participate. experience Further, more it may stigma be relationships.impact on Becausedisability students stigmatization with disabilities, on in general,their inter may- eventhan more those likely who that chose students to with participate. impairments Further who have, it not may demonstratepersonal relationships.lower levels of social Because integration students (DaDeppo, with 2009), dis - chosenbe even to disclosemore likelytheir disabilities that students on campus with experience impairments the thisabilities, finding suggestsin general, that students may demonstrate with psychiatric lower disabilities levels at greatestwho have amounts not ofchosen perceived to disclosestigma. However, their disabilities these are on BUof maysocial be particularlyintegration at-risk (DaDeppo, socially and 2009), that campus this officialsfinding simplycampus speculations experience and thecannot greatest be supported amounts by any of perceivedother shouldsuggests undertake that studentstargeted efforts with topsychiatric help these students disabilities develop at informationstigma. However obtained in, thesethe study. are The simply results speculations of the group and interpersonallyBU may be andparticularly help them at-riskbuild social socially networks and on that their cam - comparisoncannot be analyses supported revealed by thatany respondents other information with psychiatric ob- campuses.pus officials Finally, should the results undertake of the study targeted supported efforts the to help impairments, in general, reported greater levels of stigmatization research hypothesis that students with psychiatric disabilities tained in the study. these students develop interpersonally and help them on campus. The t-tests conducted for this study found that, in would report significantly greater levels of perceived disability supportThe of theresults research of the hypotheses, group comparison these students analyses reported re- stigmabuild relatedsocial to networks their sense on of theirself. This campuses. finding is not surprising significantlyvealed that higher respondents stigma scores with in psychiatric three of the four impairments, PSSDS becauseFinally many, commonthe results psychiatric of the conditions study aresupported characterized the stigmain general, factors, reportedas well as ingreate overallr stigmalevels scoresof stigmatization compared to byresearch persistent hypothesis depressed moods, that lowstudents self-esteem, with and psychiatric decreased thoseon campus. with other The types t-tests of disabilities. conducted Respondents for this studyin this studyfound self-concept,disabilities not would to mention report considerable significantly mental greater health stigma levels in withthat, psychiatric in support impairments of the research reported higherhypotheses, stigmatization these stu- theof broaderperceived culture. disability On the PSSDS, stigma students related with to psychiatric their sense ratingsdents onreported questions significantl that loaded intoy higher the Academic stigma Success scores in impairmentsof self. This reported finding higher is levelsnot surprising of stigmatization because on items many factor.three Inof fact, the of four the fourPSSDS factors stigma on the PSSDS,factors, students as well with as in includingcommon “I thinkpsychiatric of myself conditionsas smart,” “Teachers are characterized view me as by psychiatricoverall stigma impairments scores reported compared the highest to thoselevels ofwith other havingpersistent a shortcoming,” depressed and moods,“I feel good low about self-esteem, myself.” This factorand stigmatizationtypes of disabilities. related to academic success. This factor, which isdecreased of particular self-concept, importance as studiesnot to (e.g., mention Baker etconsiderable al., 2012; includesRespondents items such as in “My this grades study are with lower psychiatric than expected” impair and- Krankemental et healthal., 2013; stigma Thompson-Ebanks, in the broader 2011; culture. Weiner & Weiner, “Iments do poorly reporte on testsd higher in part duestigmatization to my disability,” ratings reflects on ques- 1996)On have the shown PSSDS, students students are less with likely psychiatricto disclose their impair - students’tions that perceptions loaded into of their the own Academic academic Success performance factor and. In disabilitiesments reported and ask higherfor accommodations levels of stigmatization when they perceive on items theirfact, need of thefor accommodationsfour factors on in theorder PSSDS, to be successful students in with facultyincluding members “I think as resistant of myself to accommodation as smart,” “T oreachers when they view college.psychiatric This is impairmentsa noteworthy finding reported considering the highest that 13 of levels the feelme faculty as having members a shortcoming,” have negative views and towards“I feel disabilities.good about studentsof stigmatiza in the “othertion disability”related groupto academic indicated havingsuccess. learning This Conversely,myself.” ThisKranke factor et al. (2013) is of indicated particular that studentsimportance who feelas disabilities,factor, which a diagnosis includes characterized items such by significant as “My deficitsgrades in are at facultystudies members (e.g., Bakerare supportive et al., are2012; more Kranke likely to discloseet al., 2013; their leastlower one than academic expected” area. This and reveals “I do poorlythat although on tests the in part disabilitiesThompson-Ebanks, and ask for accommodations. 2011; Weiner Students & Weiner with , 1996) psychiatricdue to my impairment disability may,” reflec not bets directly students’ impacting perceptions students’ of psychiatrichave shown impairments students reported are less higher likely stigma to scores disclose on items their academictheir own skills, academic they reported performance greater perceived and their deficits need in such for comprisingdisabilities the andGlobal ask Awareness for accommodations factor compared towhen those theywith areasaccommodations compared to those in orderwith diagnosed to be successful academic deficits.in college. otherperceive types facultyof disabilities. members The differences as resistant were to not accommoda significant, - HartleyThis (2010) is adescribed noteworthy poor academic finding self-confidenceconsidering thatas a 13 though.tion or when they feel faculty members have negative barrierof the for students students in with the psychiatric “other disability” impairments group in college. indicat The - views towards disabilities. Conversely, Kranke et al. resultsed having of this learning study confirmed disabilit thisies, outcome, a diagnosis expanding character on it - (2013) indicated that students who feel faculty mem- throughized by further significant comparison deficits to those in with at otherleast typesone ofacademic bers are supportive are more likely to disclose their disabilities.area. This Another reveals finding that of althoughthis study wasthe that psychiatric students with im - disabilities and ask for accommodations. psychiatricpairment impairments may not be reported direct significantlyly impacting higher students’ levels of ac- Students with psychiatric impairments reported perceivedademic skills,stigma withthey regard reported to peer greater and interpersonal perceived deficits higher stigma scores on items comprising the Glob- relationships.in such areas Social compared integration, to which those involves with thediagnosed development ac- al Awareness factor compared to those with other ofademic interpersonal defici relationshipsts. Hartley with (2010) peers describedand faculty memberspoor aca as- types of disabilities. The differences were not sig- welldemic as feeling self-confidence a sense of belonging as a barrier on campus, for studentsis important with nificant, though. psychiatric impairments in college. The results of this study confirmed this outcome, expanding on it Recommendations for Future Research through further comparison to those with other types InsofarInsofar as this asstudy this was study conducted was conducted at a mid-sized at aprivate mid-sized of disabilities. institution,private institution, replication of replicationthis study at larger of this public study and privateat larger Another finding of this study was that students institutionspublic and may private provide institutiinsights intoons the may disability-related provide insights with psychiatric impairments reported significantly stigmatizationinto the disability-related perceived by students stigmatization with impairments perceived at other by higher levels of perceived stigma with regard to peer typesstudents of colleges with andimpairments universities. at Future other qualitative types of studies colleges and interpersonal relationships. Social integration, shouldand universities. also be conducted Future to better qualitative understand studiesthe unique should which involves the development of interpersonal re- experiencesalso be conducted of students withto bettpsychiatricer understand impairments the on unique lationships with peers and faculty members as well as campusesexperiences and howof students their impairments with psychiatric impact their impairments feeling a sense of belonging on campus, is important on campuses and how their impairments impact their Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(2) 123 abilityability to functionto function within withinthese three these areas. three Phenomenological areas. Phenom - Recommendations for Future Practice qualitativeenological designs qualitative using interview designs techniques, using interview such as those tech - CultureCultur Change.e Change. The results The of the results study revealof the that study campus reveal describedniques, suchby Seidman as those (2013), described may allow by researchers Seidman to (2013),gain culturethat campus related to culture individuals related with disabilities, to individuals especially with those dis with- moremay holistic allow under- researchers standings to of gainthe meaning more makingholistic processes under- psychiatricabilities, impairments,especially maythose be lesswith than psychiatric fully inclusive. impair At the - ofstandings students with of psychiatricthe meaning impairments making on campusprocesses and ofhow stu - heartments, of organizational may be less culture than arefully the inclusive.underlying values At the and heart thesedents conditions with psychiatric impact their lives.impairments Of particular on surprise campus was and that beliefsof or ganizationalof individuals within culture the organization. are the underlying For example, values onlyhow 15 these of the conditions25 students withimpact psychiatric their lives.impairments in the althoughand beliefs faculty ofmembers individuals may have within statements the onor ganization.their syllabi studyOf received particular any sort surprise of counseling was services,that only with 15 only of 10the of 25 notingFor example,that students although with impairments faculty may members receive may have themstudents utilizing with those psychiatric offered through impairments the university. in theFurther study re- accommodationsstatements on andtheir may syllabi say and noting espouse that that studentsthey support with quantitativeceived any research sort of investigating counseling the services, impact of counselingwith only 10 studentsimpairments with impairments, may receive if the accommodationstrue beliefs of those educatorsand may servicesof them on utiliz studentsing withthose psychiatric offered impairmentsthrough the may university help . aresay that and students espouse with thatimpairments they support get unfair students advantages with or thatim- emphasizeFurther quantitative the potential academic research and investigating social benefits the of impact theypairments, lack the same if the academic true beliefs capabilities of those as their educators peers who doare participation in counseling services. Utilizing qualitative of counseling services on students with psychiatric notthat have students disabilities, with then impairments the organizational get unfair culture advantagesremains methodologies, researchers may also be able to gain better negative.or that Regardlessthey lack ofthe the same artifacts academic supporting capabilitiesthe rights of as under-impairments standing ofmay why studentshelp emphasize with psychiatric the impairments,potential ac - ademic and social benefits of participation in coun- individualstheir peers with who dis- doabilities not haveand the disabilities, espoused or then spoken the values orga- of who in this study disclosed their disabilities on their campuses, campus officials claiming nondiscrimination, this study indicated seling services. Utilizing qualitative methodologies, nizational culture remains negative. Regardless of the do not take advantage of mental health services offered through that the underlying values on campus continue to stigmatize researchers may also be able to gain better under- artifacts supporting the rights of individuals with dis- the university Real or perceived faculty stigmatization toward disability as perceived by the students. Moreover, underlying disabilitiesstanding canof bewhy a main students factor in withstudents psychiatric choosing not impair to - culturalabilities viewpoints and the of espoused psychiatric or impairments spoken values from a ofmedical campus disclosements, theirwho impairments in this study on campus disclosed (Martin, their 2010). disabilities As such, modelofficials perspective claiming may nondiscrimination, lead to the assumption this that conditionsstudy indi - researchon their is campuses,needed from doa faculty not takedevelopment advantage perspective of mental to suchcated as thatgeneralized the underlying anxiety disorder values or majoron campus depressive continue disorder explorehealth faculty services perceptions offered of through students thewith universitypsychiatric disabilities areto stigmatizeillnesses that disabilitycan, and should, as perceived be “cured.” by Although the students. medical and toReal help facultyor perceived members facultygain awareness stigmatization of these potentially toward interventionMoreover such, as underlying pharmaceutical cultural interventions viewpoints may certainly of be unconsciousdisabilities biases can be and a beliefs.main factorFurther, in it maystudents be prudent choosing to appropriatepsychiatric in someimpairments cases, students from may a medical be less likely model to discuss per- investigatenot to disclose faculty andtheir staff impairments knowledge of on laws campus offering (Martin, orspective seek treatment may leadfor such to conditionsthe assumption if they feel that they conditions will be protections2010). As for such, students research with disabilities is needed such from as Section a faculty 504 andde- judgedsuch oras seen generalized as having somethinganxiety wrongdisorder with them.or major Instead, de a- thevelopment ADA. Data perspective gathered through to explore these investigations faculty perceptions may be culturalpressive shift disorder away from are this illnesview ofses “mental that illness”can, and towards should, a usedof students to create professionalwith psychiatric development disabilities opportunities and to to help help morebe “cured.” open and acceptingAlthough campus medical community intervention that supports such mental as facultyfaculty members members gain awarenessgain awareness of potentially of these unconscious potential - healthpharmaceutical awareness and interventions disability accommodation may certainly may behelp appro - biasesly unconscious and beliefs, asbiases well as and to helpbeliefs. them Furtherbetter understand, it may be studentspriate infeel some more supportedcases, students and willing may to talk be about less challengeslikely to nondiscriminationprudent to investigate laws and institutionalfaculty and responsibilities. staff knowledge Finally, of it theydiscuss may beor facingseek relatedtreatment to their for mental such health. conditions Another if they wouldlaws beof usefulfering to protections conduct future for re- searchstudents to better with understand disabili- recommendationfeel they will forbe changejudged is or the seen practice as havingof universal something theties experiences such as Section and needs 504 of graduateand the studentsADA. Data with disabilities.gathered instructionalwrong with design them. (UID) Instead, as an ex- a culturalample of positiveshift away campus from Becausethrough two these graduate investigation students volunteereds may be for used participation to create in culturethis view related of to“mental students illness” with disabilities. towards UID a morefosters open multimodal and theprofessional current study, development and given increasing opportunities rates of graduate to help student fac- teachingaccepting and assessmentcampus commu methodsnity in orderthat tosupports enhance learningmental enrollmentulty members for students gain with awareness impairments of (NCES, potentially 2009), unconit may - forhealth all students awareness by creating and adisability learning environment accommodation that encourages may bescious reasonable biases to engageand beliefs, in post hocas studieswell asto exploreto help how them differenthelp students strengths feel and morelearning supported styles (Wisbey and &willing Kalivoda, to 2011). talk thesebetter students understand successfully nondiscrimination navigated their undergraduate laws and institu - Opposedabout challenges to simply pro- they viding may accommodations be facing related to persons to theirwith studiestional andresponsibilities. earned their degrees. Further, exploring factors disabilities,mental health. UID maintains that students should have the freedom associatedFinally with, it these would students' be useful successes, to conduct as well as future barriers re - to demonstrateAnother growthrecommendation and mastery using for changemany different is the methods prac- theysearch faced to as better undergraduates, understand coupled the experiences with an examination and needs of andtice that of ituniversal should be ainstructional priority of the facultydesign members (UID) toas support an ex- challengesof graduate they studentsmay continue with to facedisabilities. in their graduate Because education, two studentample discussion of positive and campus cooperative culture learning. related Faculty to students aregraduate also likely students to have importantvolunteered implications for participation for student and in the Development.with disabilities. Kranke etUID al. (2013) fosters found multimodal that students teachingwho academiccurrent affairsstudy ,professionals and given as increasing they seek to rates create ofmore gradu - perceiveand assessment faculty members methods as supportive in order andto enhanceunderstanding learning are inclusive environments designed to foster student success on ate student enrollment for students with impairments morefor alllikely students to by creating a learning environment campuses. (NCES, 2009), it may be reasonable to engage in post that encourages different strengths and learning styles hoc studies to explore how these students successfully (Wisbey & Kalivoda, 2011). Opposed to simply pro- navigated their undergraduate studies and earned their viding accommodations to persons with disabilities, degrees. Further, exploring factors associated with UID maintains that students should have the freedom these students' successes, as well as barriers they faced to demonstrate growth and mastery using many dif- as undergraduates, coupled with an examination of ferent methods and that it should be a priority of the challenges they may continue to face in their graduate faculty members to support student discussion and education, are also likely to have important implica- cooperative learning. tions for student and academic affairs professionals as Faculty Development. Kranke et al. (2013) they seek to create more inclusive environments de- found that students who perceive faculty members signed to foster student success on campuses. as supportive and understanding are more likely to 124 Trunk et al.; Disability Stigma disclosedisclose their their disabilities disabilities on campuses on campuses and request and request (e.g.,(e.g., Lazar, Lazar 2014;, 2014; Seligman, Seligm 1995)an, and 1995) textbooks and (e.g., textbooks Corey, accommodations.accommodations. At the At same the time,same Becker time, and Becker Palladino and (2016) Pal- 2013;(e.g., Jongsma, Corey, Peterson,2013; Jongsma,& Bruce, 2014) Peterson, continue to& report, Bruce, thoughtladino that (2016) students thought who perceive that facultystudents members who as perceive unwilling counseling2014) contin and mentalue to health report, therapy counseling can be very andeffective mental in tofaculty provide membaccommodationsers as unwilling or unapproachable to provide may accommo be less - helpinghealth decrease therapy the can symptoms be very of aef vastfective number in ofhelping psychiatric de - likelydations to dis- or close unapproachable their disabilities. may Moreover, be less Baker likely et al. to (2012) dis- conditions.crease the Further, symptoms counseling of anda vast mental number health therapyof psychiat can - foundclose a theirdiscrepancy disabilities. in the views Moreover of faculty, Baker members et al.compared (2012) helpric conditions.individuals to learnFurther coping, counseling skills to address and personalmental healthand tofound students a discrepancy with regard to inthe the perceived views inclusiveness of faculty membersfor interpersonaltherapy can challenges help individua in a morels effective to learn manner. coping The skills to studentscompared with disabilitiesto students on cam-with pus. regard These to results the perceived importanceaddress personalof counseling and and inte mentalrpersonal health supportchallenges for students in a demonstratedinclusiveness that for faculty students members with tended disabilities to view their on cam- withmore psychiatric effective impairments manner. in higher education has been campusespus. These and classroomsresults demonstrated as more inclusive that and faculty supportive mem but- documentedThe importance (Belch, 2011; of Eisenberg counseling et al., and 2009). mental Despite health this, underestimatedbers tended to the view needs their of students campuses with disabilitiesand classrooms even as as thesupport low numbers for students of students with using psychiatric therapeutic impairmentsresources on in theymore did inclusive not fully understand and supportive the unique but challenges underestimated that such the campushigher in educat this studyion ishas problematic been documented and indicative (Belch, of an 2011; students face. Professional development opportunities may underutilization of available and potentially beneficial counseling needs of students with disabilities even as they did Eisenberg et al., 2009). Despite this, the low numbers include informative sessions designed to provide faculty services. Student development and counseling center staff membersnot fully with understand data regarding the the unique prevalence challenges rates of variousthat such membersof students may collaborateusing therapeu to createtic initiatives resources to help on increase campus psychiatricstudents disabilitiesface. among college students, common myths awarenessin this study of available is problematic counseling servicesand indicative on campus, of asan well un - and misconceptionsProfessional ofdevelopment mental illness, opportunitiesand effective may in- asderutilization promote the use of of available such services and on potentially campus as a beneficialmeans of accommodationclude informative strategies sessions to better designed meet students’ to provide needs. facul - increasingcounseling student services. success. Students should be aware that they Sessionsty members may introduce with data and regarding reinforce institutional the prevalence rates do notStudent necessarily devel needopment to be in andcrisis counseling to utilize services, center that staf theyf nondiscriminationof various psychiatric legal requirements disabilities under among Section college 504 and stuthe- maymembers benefit frommay counseling collaborate to help to createcreate ainitiatives positive self-image to help ADA.dents, Insofar common as faculty myths members and may misconceptions have advanced educationof men- andincrease to help themawareness find balance of available with the many counseling pressures servicesthey may andtal trainingillness, only and in eftheirfective fields accommodationof study, they may notstrategies be explicitly to face.on campus,Simply having as well literature as promoteavailable or the email use reminders of such about ser- awarebetter of meet educational students’ laws andneeds. policies Sessions applicable may to studentsintroduce availablevices on services campus may ashelp a students means feelof moreincreasing comfortable student withand disabilities. reinforce Being institutional aware of suchnondiscrimination regulations may helplegal re- utilizingsuccess. them Students as needed. should Academic be andaware social that integration they do on not facultyquirements members under be more Section understanding 504 and when the students ADA. requestInsofar campusnecessarily may be need powerful to factorsbe in forcrisis increasing to utilize persistence services, and accommodationsas faculty members in the classroommay have or advanced disclose their education disability. and successthat they for collegemay benefitstudents fromthat can counseling help them to todevelop help inter-cre- Studenttraining Development. only in their Little fields research of studyhas been, they conducted may not be andate intra-personally a positive self-image (Astin, 1984; and Bialka to ethelp al., 2017;them Tinto, find bal- investigatingexplicitly awarethe cognitive, of educational interpersonal, laws and andintrapersonal policies ap- 1997).ance Belchwith (2011)the many thought pressures that recognizing they may the variablesface. Simply dimensionsplicable to of studentsdisability. Complicatingwith disabilities. matters Beingis that different aware of impactinghaving literatthe integrationure available of students or withemail psychiatric reminders impairments about individualssuch regulations may make may different help meaning faculty of theirmembers disabilities be moreat onavailable campus is services important may to supporting help students their needs feel and more creating com - varyingunderstanding points in their when lives. students Wisbey requestand Kalivoda accommodations (2011) collaborativefortable utilizing and inclusive them student as needed. programs. These programs suggestedin the classroom that individuals or disclose who acquire their or disability become aware. of may includeAcademic student and advocacy social organizations,integration studenton campus learning may disabilitiesStudent later inDevelopment. their lives, as is oftenLittle the research case with hasmany been communities,be powerful student-faculty factors for linkages, increasing or outreach persistence programs andto individualsconducted with investigating psychiatric impairments the cognitive, given common interperson ages of - helpsuccess students for better college understand students their that disabilities can help and them the to de- onset,al, and may intrap have ersonala more difficult dimen timesions coming of disabilityto terms with. Com their - accommodationsvelop inter- and and intra-perso services theynally may (Astin,be entitled 1984; to receive. Bialka disabilityplicating identity mat comparedters is that to those dif ferentwho have individuals made such may Increasinget al., 2017; Campus Tinto, Awareness. 1997). IncreasingBelch (201 mental1) thought health and that adjustmentsmake different throughout meaning their entire of their lives. disabilitiesStudent development at vary - disabilityrecognizing awareness the mayvariables ultimately impacting help decrease the stigmaintegration and professionalsing points inmust their be consciouslives. W isbeyof this andwhen Kalivoda working with (201 1) increaseof students student with success. psychiatri Stu- dents,c impairments faculty members, on campusand studentssuggested with psychiatricthat individuals impairments, who as acquirethese students or become may not campusis important staff alike to need supporting to be aware their of signs needs and andsymptoms creating of beaware fully accepting of disabilities of their impairment,later in their or maylives, not as yet is be often aware the of variouscollaborative mental health and disorders,inclusive as student well as prevalence programs. rates These on thecase impact with the many condition individual may haves onwith their psychiatric lives. The results impair of - cam-programs pus. However, may includemore importantly student than advocacy reducing stigmaorganiza is the- thisments study given also revealed common that ages student of onset,counseling may services have aon more needtions, to dispelstudent rumors learning by addressing communities, fears that student-facultysome may have campusdifficult were time underutilized, coming evento terms among with those their with psychiatric disability aboutlinkages, mental or illness outreach (Belch, programs 2011). to help students better impairmentsidentity compared who may have to those benefitted who the have most made from such ad- understand their disabilities and the accommodations interventions with trained mental health practitioners. As many justments throughout their entire lives. Student devel- and services they may be entitled to receive. studies opment professionals must be conscious of this when Increasing Campus Awareness. Increasing men- working with students with psychiatric impairments, tal health and disability awareness may ultimately help as these students may not be fully accepting of their decrease stigma and increase student success. Stu- impairment, or may not yet be aware of the impact dents, faculty members, and campus staff alike need the condition may have on their lives. to be aware of signs and symptoms of various mental The results of this study also revealed that student health disorders, as well as prevalence rates on cam- counseling services on campus were underutilized, pus. However, more importantly than reducing stigma even among those with psychiatric impairments who is the need to dispel rumors by addressing fears that may have benefitted the most from interventions with some may have about mental illness (Belch, 2011). trained mental health practitioners. As many studies Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(2) 125

It is importantIt is important for campus for officials campus to create officials positive to createcultures pos - professionals,trators, professionals, officials, and otherofficials, personnel and on other campuses personnel have a towardsitive culturesstudents withtowards impairments students evidenced with by literatureimpairments responsibilityon campuses to advocatehave a responsibility for the students theyto advocate serve and for fight the to supportingevidenced their by needs, literature accessible supporting buildings their and campusneeds, acces- helpstudents ensure they that theirserve needs and are fight being to met.help Only ensure through that their grounds,sible buildings espoused and beliefs campus and values, grounds, and a espousedtrue dedication beliefs to concertedneeds are efforts being can met. educational Only professionalsthrough concerted help to expand efforts nondiscriminatoryand values, and service a true delivery. dedication To this to end, nondiscriminato Hadley (2011) - knowledge,can educational reduce stigma, professionals and facilitate help change to expand to improve knowl - wasry service of the opinion delivery that .“Campuses To this end, can Hadley be a more (201 welcoming1) was of learningedge, reduce opportunities stigma, for studentsand facilitate with psychiatric change and to improveother placethe opinion when students that “Campuses feel safe, supported, can be anda more encouraged welcoming to typeslearning of disabilities, opportunities on their campuses.for students with psychiatric growplace as when individuals, students and their feel disabilities safe, supported, are viewed and as partencour of the- and other types of disabilities, on their campuses. diversityaged to on grow campus” as individuals,(p. 80). Hartley and (2010) their posited disabilities that just asare orientationsviewed as exist part to of introduce the diversity first-year on students campus” to various (p. 80). References aspectsHartley of the college(2010) environment, posited that so should just orientationsas orientations be usedexist to to provide introduce students first-year with information students related to various to disability aspects and Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Intro- mentalof the health college supports environment on campuses., so shouldAccording orientations to Salzer et al. be duction to research in education (8th ed.). Bel- (2008),used tostudents provide with students psychiatric with impairments information who were related aware toof mont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. accommodations that were available on campus were more likely disability and mental health supports on campuses. Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A devel- to request such accommodations. Eisenberg et al. (2009) found According to Salzer et al. (2008), students with psy- opmental theory for higher education. Journal of that university officials may, in their efforts to identify students whochiatric may be impairments suffering from who undiagnosed were aware psychological of accommoda disorders,- College Student Personnel, 25, 397-308. adopttions mental that were health available screening ontools campus and proactive were interventionmore likely Baker, K. Q., Boland, K., & Nowik, C. M. (2012). A strategies.to request Waiting such for accommodations.students to experience Eisenber mental healthg et al. campus survey of faculty and student perceptions crises(2009) before found offering that supportuniversity will do of littleficials to help may the, inoverall their ef- of students with disabilities. Journal of Postsec- campusforts to community identify proactivelystudents whomeet themay needs be sufof otherfering students from ondary Education and Disability, 25, 309-329. whoundiagnosed may be at risk. psychological disorders, adopt men- Becker, S., & Palladino, J. (2016). Assessing facul- tal health screening tools and proactive intervention ty perspectives about teaching and working with strategies. Waiting for students to experience mental students with disabilities. Journal of Postsecond- health crises before offering support will do little to ary Education and Disability, 29, 65-82. help the overall campus community proactively meet Belch, H. A. (2011). Understanding the experiences the needs of other students who may be at risk. of students with psychiatric disabilities: A founda- tion for creating conditions of support and success. Conclusion New Directions for Student Services, 134, 73-94. Bialka, C. S., Morro, D., Brown, K., & Hannah, G. This Thisquantitative quantitative study examinedstudy examined the impact the ofimpact disability of (2017). Breaking barriers and building bridges: type,disability either type,psychiatric either or psychiatric other, on perceived or other levels, on per of - Understanding how a student organization at- disabilityceived levels stigma. of Thedisability study wasstigma. situated The withinstudy anwas equal sit- tends to social integration of college students with opportunityuated within framework an equal withopportunity an emphasis framework placed withon an disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education inclusionemphasis of placedstudents on with inclusion disabilities of studentsin higher with dis- and Disability, 30, 157-172. abilities in higher education. Collins, M. E., & Mowbray, C. (2005). Higher educa- education.The literature The literature helping helping to form to form the thefoundation foundation of tion and psychiatric disabilities: National survey ofthis this study study suggestedsuggested that studentsstudents with with disabilities disabilities of campus disability services. American Journal faceface many many challenges challenges related related to inclusionto inclusion on campus on cam - of Orthopsychiatry, 75, 304-315. andpus degreeand degree completion. completion. At the sameAt the time, same the time,literature the Collins, M. E., & Mowbray, C. (2008). Students with revealedliterature that revealed stigma thatrelated stigma to mental related illness to mental may be ill a - psychiatric disabilities on campus: Examining factorness mayin students be a factor with psychiatricin students impairments with psychiatric not im- predictors of enrollment with disability support disclosingpairments their not disabilitiesdisclosing ontheir campus disabilities and requesting on campus services. Journal of Postsecondary Education and requesting accommodations they may be legally and Disability, 21, 91-104. accommodations they may be legally entitled to receive. entitled to receive. According to the 55 participants Cooper, A. E., Corrigan, P. W., & Watson, A. C. Accordingin this study to the, students 55 participants with psychiatric in this study, impairments students (2003). Mental illness stigma and care seeking. withreported psychiatric greater impairments levels of perceived reported greaterdisability-related levels of Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 191, perceivedstigma on disability-related campus. stigma on campus. This 339-341. studyThis further study exemplifies further theexemplifies notion that the there notion is more that Corey, G. (2013). Theory and practice of counseling workthere to is be more done. work Although to be this done. study Although focused this study and psychotherapy (9th ed.). Brooks/Cole. specificallyfocused specifically on students onwith students disabilities, with stigmatization disabilities, DaDeppo, L. M. W. (2009). Integration factors related isstigmatization a phenomenon is impactinga phenomenon many impactingstudents who many may stu - to the academic success and intent to persist of col- dents who may not perceive themselves as members lege students with learning disabilities. Learning not perceive themselves as members of campus of campus communities. Faculty members, adminis- Disabilities Research and Practice, 24, 122-131. communities. Faculty members, administrators 126 Trunk et al.; Disability Stigma

Denhart, H. (2008). Deconstructing barriers: Percep- Lightner, K. L., Kipps-Vaughan, D., Schulte, T., & tions of students labeled with learning disabilities Trice, A. D. (2012). Reasons university students in higher education. Journal of Learning Disabil- with learning disability wait to seek disability ser- ities, 41, 483-497. vices. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Dovidio, J. F., Major, B., & Crocker, J. (2000). Stig- Disability, 25, 145-159. ma: Introduction and overview. In T. F. Heather- Litner, B., Mann-Feder, V., & Guerard, G. (2005). ton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull (Eds.), Narratives of success: Learning disabled students The Social Psychology of Stigma (pp. 1-30). The in university. Exceptional Education Canada, Guilford Press. 15(1), 9-23. Eisenberg, D., Golberstein, E., & Hunt, J. B. (2009). Madaus, J. W., Shaw, S. F., & Dukes, L. L. (2010). Mental health and academic success in college. Introduction. In S. F. Shaw, J. W. Madaus, & L. L. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, Dukes (Eds.), Preparing students with disabilities 9(1), 1-35. for college success: A practical guide to transi- Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS: tion planning (pp. 1-7). Baltimore, MD: Paul H And sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll. London. Sage. Brookes Publishing. Hadley, W. M. (2011). College students with disabili- Marshak, L., Van Wieren, T., Ferrell, D., Swiss, L., & ties: A student development perspective. New Di- Dugan, C. (2010). Exploring barriers to college rections for Higher Education, 154, 77-81. student use of disability services and accommo- Hartley, M. T. (2010). Increasing resilience: Strategies dations. Journal of Postsecondary Education and for reducing dropout rates for college students Disability, 22, 151-165. with psychiatric disabilities. American Journal of Martin, J. M. (2010). Stigma and student mental Psychiatric Rehabilitation, 13, 295-315. health in higher education. Higher Education Re- Herrick, S. J. (2011). Postsecondary students with search & Development, 29, 259-274. disabilities: Predictors of adaptation to college. McEwan, R. C., & Downie, R. (2013). College success (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https:// of students with psychiatric disabilities: Barriers etda.libraries.psu.edu of access and distraction. Journal of Postsecond- Higher Education Research Institution. (2011). Col- ary Education and Disability, 26, 233-248. lege students with “hidden” disabilities: The McLean, P., & Andrews, J. (1999). The learning sup- freshman survey fall 2010. (Research Brief). port needs of students with psychiatric disabilities Retrieved from http://www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/ studying in Australian post-secondary institutions pubs/briefs/HERI_ResearchBrief_Disabili- (Evaluative Report ISBN-0-87397-544-8). Na- ties_20 11_April_25v2.pdf tional Centre for Vocational Education Research. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 Megivern, D., Pellerito, S., & Mowbray, C. (2003). U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. (2004). Barriers to higher education for individuals with Jongsma, A. E., Peterson, L. M., & Bruce, T. J. psychiatric disabilities. Psychiatric Rehabilita- (2014). The complete adult psychotherapy treat- tion Journal, 26, 217-231. ment planner (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Mitchell, S. L, Kader, M., Haggerty, M. Z., Bakhai, Kessler, R. C., Foster, C. L., Saunders, W. B., & Stang, Y. D., & Warren, C. G. (2013). College student P. E. (1995). Social consequences of psychiatric utilization of a comprehensive psychiatric emer- disorders, I: Educational attainment. American gency program. Journal of College Counseling, Journal of Psychiatry, 152, 1026-1032. 16,49-63. Kranke, D., Taylor, D. A., Jackson, S. E., Floersch, National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). J., & Anderson-Frye, E. (2013). College student Number and percentage distribution of students disclosure of non-apparent disabilities to receive enrolled in postsecondary institutions, by level, classroom accommodations. Journal of Postsec- disability status, and selected student charac- ondary Education and Disability, 26, 35-51. teristics: 2003-04 and 2007-08. Retrieved from Lazar, S. G. (2014). The cost-effectiveness of psy- https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/ chotherapy for the major psychiatric diagnoses. dt10_240.asp Psychodynamic Psychiatry, 42, 423-458. National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Leake, D. (2015). Problematic data on how many Enrollment in post-secondary institutions 2008, students in postsecondary education have a dis- graduation rates 2002, and 2005 cohorts, and fi- ability. Journal of Postsecondary Education and nancial statistics fiscal year 2008: A first look. Disability, 28, 73-87. U.S. Department of Education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(2) 127

National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Di- Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the gest of education statistics, 2013. U.S. Depart- causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). ment of Education. University of Chicago Press. Newman, L., Wagner, M., Cameto, R., Knokey, A. Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: Ex- M., & Shaver, D. (2010). Comparison across ploring the educational character of student time of the outcomes of youth with disabilities up persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 68, to 4 years after high school. A report of findings 599-623. from the National Longitudinal Transition Study Trammell, J. (2006). Development of the Postsecond- (NLTS) and the National Longitudinal Study- 2 ary Student Survey of Disability-Related Stigma (NLTS-2). SRI International. (SSDRS). Virginia Commonwealth University. Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual (5th ed.). Weiner, E., & Weiner, J. (1996). Concerns and needs Open University Press. of university students with psychiatric disabil- Palombi, B. (2000). Recruitment and admission of ities. Journal on Postsecondary Education and students with disabilities. New Directions for Stu- Disability, 12, 2-9. dent Services, 91, 31-39. Wisbey, M. E., & Kalivoda, K. S. (2011). College Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504, 29 U.S.C. § students with disabilities. In M. J. Cuyjet, M. F. 794(a) (2012). Howard-Hamilton, & D. L. Cooper (Eds.), Mul- Russo, C.J. & Osborne, A.G. (2009). Section 504 of ticulturalism on campus: Theory, models, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans practices for understanding diversity and creat- with Disabilities Act: Implications for education- ing inclusion (pp. 347-370). Stylus. al leaders. Corwin Press. Wolf, L. E. (2001). College students with ADHD and Salzer, M., Wick, L., & Rogers, J. (2008). Familiari- other hidden disabilities. Annals of the New York ty with and use of accommodations and supports Academy of Sciences, 931, 385-395. among postsecondary students with mental ill- ness. Psychiatric Services, 59, 370-375. About the Authors Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative re- search: A guide for researchers in education DanielDaniel Trunk, Ph.D.Trunk, is a nationallyPh.D. is certified a nationally school psychologist certified and the social sciences (4th ed.). Teachers Col- currentlyschool practicingpsychologist in the Beavercreekcurrently practicing City Schools in district the Beain - lege Press. southwestvercreek Ohio. City Dr. Schools Trunk is district also an adjunctin southwest faculty member Ohio. Drin . Seligman, M. E. P. (1995). The effectiveness of psy- theTrunk School is alsoof Education an adjunct and Health faculty Sciences member department in the School at the chotherapy: The Consumer Report study. Ameri- Universityof Education of Dayton and teaching Health classes Sciences in assessment, department special at the can Psychologist, 50, 965-974. education,University and of research Dayton methods. teaching His classesresearch inprofessional assessment, and Smart, L., & Wegner, D. M. (2000). The hidden costs researchspecial interestseducation, include and educational research methods.leadership, Hisspecial research of hidden stigma. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, educationprofessional law, organizational and research behavior, interests and include mental healtheducation needs- M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psy- ofal students leadership, in K-12 special and higher education education settings.law, or ganizationalHe can be chology of stigma (pp. 220-242). New York, NY: reachedbehavior by, e-mail and mental at: [email protected]. health needs of students in K-12 The Guilford Press. and higher education settings. He can be reached by Sniatecki, J. L., Perry, H. B., & Snell, L. H. (2015). e-mail at: [email protected]. Faculty attitudes and knowledge regarding col- lege students with disabilities. Journal of Post- CharlesCharles J. Russo, J. Russo,J.D., Ed. J.D., D., is Ed.the Joseph D., is Panzerthe Joseph Chair inPan - secondary Education and Disability, 28, 259-275. Educationzer Chair in in the Education School of Education in the School and Health of Education Sciences, and Souma, A., Rickerson, N., & Burgstahler, S. (2012). DirectorHealth of Sciences, its Ph.D. Program, Director and of Research its Ph.D. Professor Program, of Law and in Academic accommodations for students with psy- theResearch School of Professor Law at the Universityof Law inof Dayton.the School The 1998-99 of Law at chiatric disabilities. Retrieved from http://www. Presidentthe University of the Education of Dayton. Law Association, The 1998-99 and 2002President recipient of washington.edu/doit/Brochures/Academics/ ofthe its EducationMcGhehey (Achievement) Law Association, Award, andhe authored 2002 recipient or of psych.html co-authoredits McGhehey more than(Achievement) 300 articles in Apeer-reviewedward, he authored journals; or Stein, K. F. (2013). DSS and accommodations in authored,co-authored co-authored, more thanedited, 300 or co-edited articles 68in books, peer-reviewed and has higher education: Perceptions of students with morejournals; than 1,100 authored, publications. co-authored, Dr. Russo edited,also has spokenor co-edited psychological disabilities. Journal of Postsecond- extensively68 books, on and issues has in moreEducation than Law 1,100 in thirty-three publications. of the Dr. ary Education and Disability, 26, 145-161. UnitedRusso States also hasand thirty-onespoken extensively other Nations. on In issuesaddition, in he Educa edits - Thompson-Ebanks, V. (2014). Personal factors that twotion journals Law inand thirty-three serves on more of thethan Uniteda dozen Stateseditorial and boards. thir- influence the voluntary withdrawal of undergrad- ty-one other Nations. In addition, he edits two journals uates with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary and serves on more than a dozen editorial boards. Education and Disability, 27,195-207. 128 Trunk et al.; Disability Stigma

JackJack Trammell Tramme is Chairll is Chair of Sociology, of Sociology Criminal, Criminal Justice. Jus - Humantice. Human Services Services at Mount at Mount Saint Mary’sSaint Mary’ Universitys University in Emmitsburg,in Emmitsbur Maryland.g, Maryland. His research His research specialties specialties include: in - disability,clude: disability social history,, social and history methodology., and methodology.