Over the past 25 years, substantial legal changes, research advances, and rapidly developing technology have resulted in dramatic changes in the postsecondary disability landscape. As a result, disability service professionals have seen their job duties significantly expand while serving a rapidly increasing and diversifying postsecondary population with disabilities. The current study details the relevant developments of the past 25 years, reviews literature documenting emerging challenges, and provides a case study of the system-wide approach developed by the University System of Georgia to support its disability service professionals during this period of rapid evolution. The services and supports provided by the three independent components (i.e., the Regents Centers for Learning Disorders, the Center for Inclusive Design and Innovation, and the Regents' Administrative Committee on Accessibility and Disability Services) are described. In addition, the authors describe how the components work in a collaborative way to leverage the benefits of a multidisciplinary approach. The authors close by describing how system-wide approaches or aspects of the University System of Georgia approach could be adopted in other states and settings.

The study investigated the amount of extended time (ET) used by postsecondary students with learning disabilities, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and psychological disorders granted a 50% ET accommodation (i.e., time and one-half). Extended time used was evaluated by disability type, including comorbid presentations, and year in school. The sample was composed of 2,227 undergraduate course tests taken with ET. ADHD was the most common disability, and the majority of tests (75%) were taken by upperclassmen. The average amount of time used on tests taken with ET was well below the amount granted, and no pattern emerged to suggest a connection between disability type and amount of time used. Further, tests taken by individuals with multiple disabilities generally did not require greater amounts of ET than tests taken by individuals with single disabilities. Implications and recommendations regarding disability service access and ET as an accommodation are discussed.

In 2012, the Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) released guidance for disability documentation meant to help support students' requests for accommodations. Even at that time, the guidance went against AHEAD's own prior statements, and was contradicted by a developing body of empirical research. Since the release of the guidance, that body of research has grown substantially, continuing to question the accuracy of students' self-reports and the value of casual conversations and observations made by disability services professionals. In addition, recent research has suggested that even external documentation from disability evaluators (such as psychologists) must be very carefully reviewed to ensure that there is sufficient evidence to support disability accommodations. We discuss selected findings from the empirical literature and propose improvements to documentation review processes.

The transition to postsecondary education presents opportunities and challenges for all students, including those with disabilities. The laws that mandate service provision for students with disabilities in the college environment differ significantly from the special education mandates of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and, as a result, the services that students receive at the college level, and how they are accessed, will often be different than what were received in high school. In order to enhance transition planning, this chapter presents information about services that might be available at the postsecondary level and about how students with disabilities access these via self-disclosure and the submission of disability documentation. Research that summarizes the perceptions of students with disabilities regarding the transition to, and experiences within, college is highlighted, as is a range of assistive technologies that can enhance transition to, and success in, college.

The current study examined study habits of postsecondary students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) through the theoretical context of deliberate practice. The responses of participants with and without ADHD were compared on a survey of study time, study quality, and self-perceptions of study habits, as well as a measure of test anxiety. Groups were equivalent on reports of study time and time spent in other activities, percentage of classes they attend, use of conducive study environments, and planning of studying. Despite similar study behaviors, ADHD participants were more likely to feel unprepared for tests, reported significantly higher test anxiety, and had lower grade point averages. Regardless of ADHD status, the majority of study participants were not implementing deliberate practice behaviors, with the exception of class attendance, and study times fell far below recommended levels. Findings provided evidence that emulating the study behaviors of peers is not sufficient for students with ADHD to experience similar outcomes.

Although reading is an essential skill for college success, little is known about how college students with and without disabilities read within their actual college curriculum. In the present article, we report on two studies addressing this issue. Within study 1, we developed and validated curriculum-based oral reading fluency measures using a sample of college students without disabilities (N = 125). In study 2, we administered the curriculum-based measures to four groups (each with n = 25): college students without disabilities, college students with dyslexia, college students with ADHD, and a clinical control group. Study 1 results indicated that the curriculum-based measures demonstrated good reliability and criterion validity. Results from study 2 indicated that college students with dyslexia were substantially slower readers than all groups without dyslexia (ds > 1.8). The curriculum-based measures demonstrated high accuracy in classifying participants with dyslexia and with impaired oral reading fluency (area under the curve > .94). Implications for incorporating curriculum-based measures in postsecondary settings are discussed.

Testing agencies request documentation to verify a test-taker's disability status under the Americans With Disabilities Act of 2008 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. A number of recent legal developments, culminating in technical assistance from the U.S. Department of Justice, suggest changes in enforcement of relevant laws are imminent. This article reviews the legal developments and presents results of a survey of the learning disability and Attention-Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder documentation guidelines of 10 standardized tests commonly used to aid admissions decisions for undergraduate and graduate programs. Consistent with the recent guidance, virtually all guidelines requested documentation from a qualified evaluator, a diagnosis, and accommodation recommendations and rationale. In contrast, agencies were less likely to request the information necessary to grant accommodations based on history of accommodation use. Few agencies had policies allowing submission of reduced amounts of documentation for students with lengthy histories of disabling conditions. Finally, guidelines frequently neglected to provide the guidance that evaluators need to generate useful documentation. Benefits and limitations of the recent legal guidance are discussed, and recommendations for testing and enforcement agencies, as well as secondary schools, are provided.

The prevalence of ADHD on college campuses has increased dramatically. From 2000 to 2008, the number of postsecondary students claiming ADHD as a disability nearly tripled, making it the fastest growing disability category on college campuses (United States Government Accountability Office [US GAO], 2009). Students with ADHD are now the second largest group of individuals with postsecondary disabilities requesting academic accommodations, representing over a quarter of this population (US GAO, 2011). There is strong reason to believe that the number of college students claiming ADHD as a disability will continue to grow, perhaps at an even quicker rate than it has over the past decade. The rate of high school students diagnosed with ADHD has also increased dramatically, particularly among adolescent boys, with nearly 1 in 5 diagnosed with ADHD (Visser et al., 2014). Further, the criteria for diagnosing ADHD in the recently released Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition (DSM5) have been loosened, likely increasing the probability that even more college students will seek disability services under the category of ADHD. In some ways, the dramatic increase in college students with ADHD may be perceived as encouraging, as postsecondary students with disabilities have historically been hesitant to selfidentify their disabilities and to seek accommodations (Newman et al., 2011). On the other hand, the sheer magnitude and pace of the increase in ADHD in college, along with troubling findings such as academic accommodations being disproportionately granted to those who are white, from upper class socioeconomic backgrounds, and from private schools (see Alfano & Boone, 2007, for a discussion of this issue), have led some to be skeptical of the complete legitimacy of the increased prevalence of ADHD among college students. The main way in which postsecondary institutions seek to legitimize disability claims for ADHD is to require students to submit documentation from a qualified professional substantiating such claims. Although ADHD documentation has been anecdotally reported to often be questionable and inadequate (e.g., Murphy, 2012), empirical investigation of ADHD documentation has been minimal. Recently, however, Nelson, Whipple, Lindstrom, and Foels (2014) empirically investigated reports by 100 psychologists that were submitted to document disability claims by college students who had been diagnosed with ADHD. The reports were coded to determine the assessment methods that were used, documentation practices that were included, and academic accommodations that were recommended. In the remainder of the current article, we highlight the promising and concerning findings from that study, and further discuss potential reasons for inadequate assessment and documentation practices, the importance of requiring reasonable documentation, and recommendations for improving the assessment and documentation of ADHD for postsecondary disability claims.

Test anxiety was examined in college students with and without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Results indicated that, relative to college students without ADHD, college students with ADHD reported higher total test anxiety as well as specific aspects of test anxiety, including worry (i.e., cognitive aspects of test anxiety) and emotionality (i.e., physiological aspects of test anxiety). Effect sizes were large for total test anxiety and the worry aspect of test anxiety. Nearly half of college students with ADHD reported clinically significant levels of the worry aspect of test anxiety. Females with ADHD reported higher levels of the emotionality aspect of test anxiety than did males with ADHD. Those with combined type and inattentive type ADHD did not differ on any aspect of test anxiety. Implications for assessment and intervention are discussed.

Once students with disabilities leave high school, they must take proactive steps to document their disabilities to educational institutions or employers when requesting accommodations. The Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) has been the principal organization offering suggestions on documentation requirements, and AHEAD’s recently revised guidance involves radical changes to the suggested requirements. AHEAD now recommends that students’ self-reports and disability services professionals’ impressions take precedence over external, objective records. This article reviews the relevant research to evaluate the evidence base for the revised guidance, finding it lacking in important ways as it applies to hidden disabilities (learning, cognitive, and psychiatric disabilities). The evidence supporting various sources of disability documentation is reviewed, and implications for policy and practice are discussed.

Objective: To examine how ADHD evaluations are documented for postsecondary students requesting disability eligibility. Method: A total of 100 psychological reports submitted for eligibility determination were coded for documentation of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) criteria, methods and instruments used in the evaluations, and recommended academic accommodations. Results: Results showed that a minimal number of reports (≤1%) documented that students met all DSM criteria for ADHD. Psychologists rarely documented childhood impairment, symptoms across settings, or the use of rule-outs. Symptom severity was emphasized over current impairment. The majority of psychologists utilized a multi-informant, multi-method evaluation approach, but certain methods (e.g., symptom validity tests, record reviews) were limited in use. Most reports included recommendations for academic accommodations, with extended time being the most common (72%). Conclusion: This study raises awareness to the aspects of adequate ADHD evaluation and subsequent documentation that can be improved by psychologists. Recommendations are made regarding valid documentation of ADHD for disability determination purposes.

Test anxiety and its correlates were examined with college students with and without specific reading disability (RD; n = 50 in each group). Results indicated that college students with RD reported higher test anxiety than did those without RD, and the magnitude of these differences was in the medium range on two test anxiety scales. Relative to college students without RD, up to 5 times as many college students with RD reported clinically significant test anxiety. College students with RD reported significantly higher cognitively based test anxiety than physically based test anxiety. Reading skills, verbal ability, and processing speed were not correlated with test anxiety. General intelligence, nonverbal ability, and working memory were negatively correlated with test anxiety, and the magnitude of these correlations was medium to large. When these three cognitive constructs were considered together in multiple regression analyses, only working memory and nonverbal ability emerged as significant predictors and varied based on the test anxiety measure. Implications for assessment and intervention are discussed.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the information postsecondary institutions require when determining disability service eligibility for students with reported ADHD.METHOD:ADHD documentation requirements of 200 U.S. institutions were surveyed by reviewing guidelines posted on disability services websites.RESULTS:Whereas virtually all institutions required documentation, findings revealed significant variability in requirements across institutions. Required variables most often included a qualified evaluator (80%), diagnostic statement (75%), and identification of substantial limitations (73%), but only 5 of 46 evaluated variables were required by at least 50% of institutions. Supportive data such as diagnostic criteria, standardized assessment results, and rationale for accommodations were rarely required.CONCLUSION:The majority of institutions required little to verify ADHD as a disability. Furthermore, there was little agreement on what components are essential for verification. When integrated with research, a large portion of guidelines failed to address identified weaknesses in ADHD diagnosis and disability determination.

We investigated various structural models of phonological processing and the relationship of phonological processing abilities to basic reading. Data were collected on 116 kindergarten and first grade students. The specific ability model, which included phonological awareness, phonological memory, and rapid automatized naming as separate abilities, had the strongest fit to the data. Of the specific phonological processing abilities, rapid automatized naming was least associated with a second-order factor. Phonological awareness and rapid automatized naming accounted for variance in word reading, although the latter demonstrated limited practical utility. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Prior research with children generally supports the two-dimensional structure of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD; inattentive and hyperactive/impulsive factors) of the DSM-IV-TR as well as invariance of the two-factor structure across nations and cultures. Research with adults supports either a two-factor or three-factor structure depending on reporting source and breadth of symptoms assessed. However, research with adults is limited and there are few studies addressing cross-national invariance in adults. The purposes of this study were to (1) assess relative fit of two- versus three-factor solutions for self-report of childhood and recent ADHD symptoms in adults; and (2) further establish cross-national invariance of factors. Participants included 271 U.S. and 712 Japanese university students who completed a rating scale assessing the 18 DSM-IV-TR ADHD symptoms. Confirmatory factor analysis using Mplus (Version 6) and the mean and variance-adjusted weighted least squares (WLSMV) procedure showed invariance of two- and three-factor models across U.S. and Japanese samples. The two- and three-factor models showed similar fit indices. Neither a two-factor or three-factor model was clearly superior. The two-factor model was favored, however, because it is more parsimonious and consistent with current theory, and because of high correlations between hyperactive and impulsive factors in the three-factor models. Invariance across nations is consistent with previous studies and supports ADHD as a universally valid syndrome rather than a cultural construct. These results add to the limited knowledge of assessment of ADHD symptoms in Japan.

In order to gain access to accommodations and services at colleges and universities, students with learning disabilities must provide documentation of their disablities, and as students with learning disabilities access higher education at increasing rates, the need for documentation of their disabilities and its impact becomes even more important. Secondary schools, however, are not required by law to provide the documentation often requisite at the postsecondary level. Due to inconsistencies between the requirements of postsecondary institutions and information provided by high schools, students with learning disabilities may find themselves caught between regulations of one agency versus the requirements of another. In this article, issues related to the disconnect between the assessment information that secondary schools provide and what colleges and universities need will be explored, with special attention given to ramifications related to documentation quality and comprehensiveness. Recommendations are then presented for secondary and postsecondary personnel related to these issues.

The current investigation identified characteristics that discriminated authentic dyslexia from its simulation using measures common to postsecondary learning disability evaluations. Analyses revealed accurate simulation on most achievement measures but inaccurate feigning on neurolinguistic processing measures, speed on timed tasks, and error quantity. The largest group separations were on rapid naming, speeded orthographic, and reading fluency tasks. Simulators accurately feigned dyslexia profiles on cut-score and discrepancy diagnostic models but not on the more complex aspects of the clinical judgment model. Regarding simulation detection, a multivariate rule exhibited the greatest classification accuracy, followed by univariate indices developed from rapid naming tasks. The findings of the current study suggest that aspects of a comprehensive evaluation may aid in the detection of simulated dyslexia.

The comprehension section of the Nelson-Denny Reading Test (NDRT) is widely used to assess the reading comprehension skills of adolescents and adults in the United States. In this study, the authors explored the content validity of the NDRT Comprehension Test (Forms G and H) by asking university students (with and without at-risk status for learning disorders) to answer the multiple-choice comprehension questions without reading the passages. Overall accuracy rates were well above chance for both NDRT forms and both groups of students. These results raise serious questions about the validity of the NDRT and its use in the identification of reading disabilities.

The current exploratory investigation examined the diagnostic accuracy of the Word Memory Test (WMT), Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM), and Word Reading Test (WRT) with three groups of postsecondary students: controls, learning disability (LD) simulators, and a presumed honest LD group. Each measure achieved high overall diagnostic accuracy, yet each contributed differently to suboptimal effort detection. False-negative classifications varied by measure, yet no simulator went undetected by all three tests. The WMT and WRT identified different members of the presumed honest LD group as demonstrating poor effort, whereas the TOMM identified none. Each measure contributed unique variance in a logistic regression, with effort status best predicted by WMT Consistency. Findings provided preliminary evidence that all three measures may be useful when assessing effort during postsecondary LD evaluations. Implications for future practice and research are discussed.