CHARACTERISTICS, ENROLLMENT PATTERNS, GRADUATION RATES AND SERVICE USE OF COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH ADHD/LD Theresa L. Maitland, PhD The Learning Center s ADHD/LD Services UNC Chapel Hill IRB Approved Study #07-1097 tmaitlan@email.unc.edu
BACKGROUND Brief history IRB reviewed study Did not constitute human subject research Master set of ADHD/LD students with disability data Obtained high school and UNC records from Office of Research Created de-identified data set Two private funds supported Erica Richman, Ph.D to serve as research coordinator Many thanks to our collaborators & contributors: Research Coordinator: Erica Richman Ph.D. Database designer: Steve Robbillard Database consultants: Billie Shambley, Angela Coley and Geeta Menon Leon Hamlet, Registrar s Office Dr. Lynn Williford, Assistant Provost; Weiguo Jiang, Data Analyst from the Office of Institutional Research: and Dr. Lawrence Rosenfeld from the IRB office were instrumental in the study s completion.
VERY LITTLE IS KNOWN ABOUT THE COLLEGE EXPERIENCES OF STUDENTS WITH ADHD/LD LD/ADHD College Students May have increased rates of academic probation (Heiligenstein et al., 1999) May have lower GPAs-nearly 1.0 lower (Blasé et al., 2009; Frazier et al., 2007) May have higher graduation rates (and persistence rates) (Canto et al., 2005;Huber, 2009; Vogel & Adelman 1992) May have lower overall retention & graduation rates: 11% -50% lower Horn et al., 1999; Greg, 2009; Greenbaum et al., 1995;Lee et al. (2008); Murray et al., 2000) May have the same graduation rates by may take longer to graduate (Vogel & Adelman 1990, 1992; Jorgeson et al., 2003, Wessel et al., )
OUR VARIABLES Disability Related Diagnosis (LD, ADHD, Both) Amount of service use Demographics Background (Ethnicity, race and country of origin) Gender 1 st time Freshmen/Transfer High School Variables SAT Scores, GPA, Percentile University Variables Sub-populations (1 st generation, Covenant Scholar, Athlete) Major at Graduation: STEM versus Humanities/Social Sciences Cumulative GPA Semesters Enrolled Enrollment Patterns (# of withdrawals, ineligibilities, semesters on probation, academic underloads) Graduated/Not Graduated
ADHD/LD SAMPLE Sample size: n=1938 (1953-2010) n=921 (2002-2010; for comparison analyses) Sample sizes may also vary based on particular analysis Undergraduates All cleared for services 1976-Sept. 2010 (median of 2001)
ADHD/LD SAMPLE: DIAGNOSES Missing 5% N=91 Both 26% N=508 ADHD 37% N=722 Total n=1938 LD 32% N=617
RANDOM SAMPLE N=8994 All Undergraduate Students ADHD/LD removed 2002-2010 Cohorts
RESEARCH QUESTIONS Research Question 1: Do students in the ADHD/LD Sample have different enrollment patterns than students in the Random Sample Research Question 2: Do the grade point averages of the students in the ADHD/LD sample differ from students in the Random Sample? Research Question 3: Are there differences in the graduation rates between students in the ADHD/LD sample and students in the Random Sample? Research Question 5: Do graduation rates and GPAs of students with ADHD/LD differ based on the frequency of sessions with a Learning Specialist?
STATISTICAL ANALYSES All descriptive and comparative analyses were performed using StataIC 12 (StataCorp, 2011). Descriptive statistics, including measures of central tendency, cross-tabulations, and chi-squares were used to compare means and characterize the sample with respect to student demographics, high school, and academic success variables. Linear regression, logistic regression, and multi-nomial logistic regression models were employed to examine the relationships among service use, student characteristics, diagnosis, and academic success
ENROLLMENT PATTERNS 2002-2010 ADHD/LD N=1193 RS N=8994 Sample Comparisons
ENROLLMENT PATTERNS: WITHDRAWALS (2002-2010) Withdrawal student withdraws from all classes before the semester ends. ADHD/LD students are statistically more likely to have more withdrawals than the RS (p<.02). ADHD/LD students are almost 20% more likely to withdraw than the RS (p<.01).
WITHDRAWALS (2002-2010) ADHD/LD RS 8% 1% 0.44% 0.11% Equal Percentage Line 3% 1.19% 11% 0.11% 1 Withdrawal 2 Withdrawals 3 Withdrawals 4 Withdrawals
ENROLLMENT PATTERNS: UNDERLOADS Underload; Student obtains permission to enroll in <12 hours and be considered a full time student Not an accommodation must petition through Academic Advising No significant differences
COURSE UNDERLOADS ADHD/LD RS 2% 1% 0% 0% Equal Percentage Line 3% 1% 4% 0% 1 Underload 2 Underloads 3 Underloads 4 Underloads
ENROLLMENT PATTERNS: PROBATION Probation (2007 now): Student must obtain a GPA of 2.0 in 9 hours No previous probation & gets a semester to complete a process to restore good standing: ADHD/LD students are statistically more likely to be on probation than the RS (p<.01). ADHD/LD students are twice as likely to be on probation(p<.01).
PROBATION ADHD/LD RS 0% 0% 1% Equal 1% 1% Percentages 4% 1 Probation 2 Probations 3 Probations
ENROLLMENT PATTERNS: INELIGIBILITIES Ineligible: >2.00 GPA, was on probation previous semester Can t enroll at university, use online or summer classes to restore good standing ADHD/LD students are statistically more likely to be ineligible than the RS (p<.01). ADHD/LD students are greater than 50% more likely than RS students to be ineligible at least one time (p<.01).
INELIGIBILITIES 3% ADHD/LD 1% RS 0% Equal Percentage 2% Line 8% 4% 1 Ineligibility 2 Ineligibilities 3 Ineligibilities
ENROLLMENT PATTERNS: TOTAL SEMESTERS ENROLLED ADHD/LD students are 25% more likely to enroll in more semesters compared to the RS (p<.01). On average ADHD/LD students (n=426) are enrolled 2 more semesters than the RS (n=3,854) (p<.01)
COLLEGE ACADEMIC VARIABLES: Sample Comparisons GPA & GRADUATION RATES
GENERAL COMPARISONS: CUMULATIVE GPA (2002-2010) Students with ADHD/LD have significantly lower GPA s than the random sample (n= 9536, p<.01) ADHD/LD: 2.76 (n=905) RS: 3.11 (n=8,984)
GLOBAL GRADUATION RATES: COMPARING ADHD/LD STUDENTS TO THE RS ADHD/LD students are significantly less likely to graduate than students in the RS (p<.01) ADHD/LD students graduate at a significantly lower rate of 76% compared to students in the random sample who graduate at 88%, x 2 (1, n=5,293) = 54.4, p = <.01. Compared to NLTS2 2009: 34% of disabled, 41% of LD, 40% of OHI & 35% of ED had a 4 year degree 8 years after high school versus 55% of general population
COMPARISONS: GRADUATION RATES 2002-2006 Cohorts All Students Percent Graduated ADHD/LD 76% (n=420) RS 87% (n=4,148) FT Freshmen Percent Graduated ADHD/LD 77% (n=329) RS 88% (n=3,391) 21 ASP students who graduated are neither considered FR or TR, but Special Degree Seeking and are not shown on this chart. Transfer Students Percent Graduated ADHD/LD 82% (n=70) RS 85% (n=757)
AVERAGES OF GRADUATION RATES 1994-2006: FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS (FROM THE OFFICE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH DATA) Averages Within 4 Years Within 5 Years Within 6 Years Within 10 Years ADHD/LD 46.6% 71.8% 76.5% 82.5% Cohort 74.3% 85.0% 86.7% 86.5% Differences: ADHD/LD vs. Cohort -27.7% -13.2% -10.2% -4.0%
GLOBAL GRADUATION INFORMATION Mean years to Graduation for 1 st time freshmen: ADHD/LD: 4.3 years (n=325) RS: 4.0 years (n=4,42)
AVERAGES GRADUATION RATES 1994-2009: JUNIOR TRANSFER STUDENTS (FROM THE OFFICE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH DATA) Averages Within 2 years Within 3 years Within 4 years ADHD/LD 29.7% 71.8% 75.6% Cohort 53.2% 78.1% 80.9% Differences: ADHD/LD vs. Cohort -23.5% -6.3% -5.3%
STUDENT GRADUATION RATES ADHD/LD & STUDENT BODY(2002 COHORTS) ( TA K EN FRO M O IR 2010 RETENTION STUDY & C OV ENANT RETENTION AND GRADUAT ION DATA ) Population: 2002 & 2003 Cohorts Only Graduation Rates: 5 and 6 year averages Parents with Bachelors or higher 90.3% Not needy 90.1% UNC 88.2% Needy/no Pell Grant 85.9% Parents with some college 82.3% 1 st Gen (Parents with high school education or less) 79.9% Pell Grant 78.9% ADHD/LD 71.75%
COMPARING STUDENT GRADUATION RATES ADHD/LD & OTHER MINORIT Y GROUPS ( TA K E N F R O M O I R 2 01 0 R E T E N T I O N S T U DY ) Group : 2002,& 2003 Cohorts Only Graduation Rates: 5 and 6 year averages Asian/Pac. Is. 89.3% Hispanic 87.1% Non-Resident 87.0% Native American 84.2% Black 77.8 % ADHD/LD 71. 75 %
USE OF SERVICES ADHD/LD SAMPLE
ADHD/LD SAMPLE: USE OF SERVICES Numbers of sessions range from 1-94, (M=7, SD=10) 76% (n=1,115/1461) of all students cleared for services return for at least one session. Males (75%, n=613) and females (77%, n=502) return for services at about the same rate.
ADHD/LD: USE OF SERVICES SAT Students who return for services (n=858) are statistically more likely to have higher SATM & SATV scores (by 20 points; p<.01) than those who do not return (n=277) (ttest). Amount of service use: students with higher GPAs had more service contacts with learning specialists (b = 1.76, p <.027) [Richman, 2013]. Students who used services two or more times were twice as likely to be dually diagnosed with ADHD/LD (exp(β)=.52, p <.002)[Richman,2013].
USE & GRADUATION (*DIFFERENCES NOT SIGNIFICANT) Amount of Use Graduated 0 or 1 session 76% (n=247) 2 to 5 sessions 80.66% (n=534) 6 or more sessions 84% (n=384)
SERVICE USE & GPA (*DIFFERENCES NOT SIGNIFICANT*) Amount of Use Average GPA No Service Use 2.7 Single Visit (for Accommodations) 2.6 2 or more visits 2.8
LIMITATIONS Findings not generalizable to other settings Many variables were not included in our data analysis model (e.g. SES, self-determination, age of diagnosis, resiliency, accommodation use etc.) Data on sessions is limited due to missing data (30%) and some may not be accurate Students in the ADHD/LD group self selected voluntarily May be others in the RS given research on low rate of disclosure in college students with disabilities If so, the differences between groups many be even greater
SUMMARY When compared to their non-disabled peers, college students with ADHD/LD : Are an at-risk population and may not be graduate at the same rate as their non-disabled peers. Are at even greater risk than other at-risk populations Are significantly more likely to experience unusual enrollment patterns than their peers without ADHD/LD Are significantly less likely to graduate Take longer to graduate Have lower GPAs Students attending more sessions showed trends (not significant) toward higher graduation rates; Students attending more sessions had significantly higher GPAs (Richman, 2013)
IMPLICATIONS Additional studies are needed in different settings to see if findings are consistent and to determine what factors influence student success Need to identify and implement evidenced based practices at the high school and college level Research suggests using services enhances success, coaching does as well. Need to disseminate at-risk status for transitioning teens to: Parents and teens College administrators setting policy and developing programming for at - risk groups on campuses Need creative programming strategies to attract teens reluctant to access services