Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Toward More Accurate and Inclusive Surveying: A Discourse Analysis of NCES Postsecondary Survey Instruments Using a Critical Disability Studies Framework

  • Published:
Research in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines the limitations and ableist assumptions embedded in quantitative survey instruments used to gather data on postsecondary students with disabilities. Specifically, three National Center for Educational Statistics postsecondary surveys were examined as data sources. Employing a critical disability studies lens and discourse analysis, the paper identifies how these surveys perpetuate dominant ideologies through reliance on the medical model of disability, binary response options, and restrictive language that limits respondent self-representation. The findings highlight significant barriers in the framing of disability-related questions, which compromise the validity and inclusivity of data collection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
€34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  • Annamma, S. A., Connor, D., & Ferri, B. (2013). Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): Theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16(1), 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Annamma, S. A., Ferri, B. A., & Connor, D. J. (2018). Disability critical race theory: Exploring the intersectional lineage, emergence, and potential futures of DisCrit in education. Review of Research in Education, 42(1), 46–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Areheart, B. A. (2008). When disability isn’t just right: The entrenchment of the medical model of disability and the goldilocks dilemma. Ind. LJ, 83, 181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arneil, B. (2024). The Intersection of Ableism, Domestic Colonialism and Statistics in Britainfrom Bentham to Galton. Modern Intellectual History. 1–16.

  • Arstein-Kerslake, A., Maker, Y., Flynn, E., Ward, O., Bell, R., & Degener, T. (2020). Introducing a human rights-based disability research methodology. Human Rights Law Review, 20(3), 412–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avellone, L., & Scott, S. (2017). National databases with information on college students withdisabilities.

  • Baglieri, S., Valle, J. W., Connor, D. J., & Gallagher, D. J. (2011). Disability studies in education: The need for a plurality of perspectives on disability. Remedial and Special Education, 32(4), 267–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barazandeh, G. (2005). Attitudes toward disabilities and reasonable accommodations at the university. The UCI Undergraduate Research Journal, 8(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaser, B., & Ladner, R. E. (2020, March). Why is data on disability so hard to collect and understand?. In 2020 Research on Equity and Sustained Participation in Engineering, Computing, and Technology (RESPECT) (Vol. 1, pp. 1–8). IEEE.

  • Breckenridge, C. A., & Vogler, C. A. (2001). The critical limits of embodiment: Disability’s criticism. Public Culture, 13(3), 349–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brzuzy, S. (1997). Deconstructing disability: The impact of definition. Journal of Poverty, 1(1), 81–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burchardt, T. (2000). The dynamics of being disabled. Journal of Social Policy, 29(4), 645–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, D. F., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Bridging key research dilemmas: Quantitative research using a critical eye. New Directions for Institutional Research

  • Cowan, R. S. (1972). Francis Galton’s statistical ideas: The influence of eugenics. Isis, 63(4), Article 509528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Critical Disability Studies Collective. (n.d.). Terminology. Terminology | University ofMinnesota. Retrieved from https://cdsc.umn.edu/cds/terms13 December 2022.

  • Davis, L. (1997). The bell curve, the novel, and the invention of the disabled body in the nineteenth century. The Disability Studies Reader, 9–28.

  • Delfs, C. H., & Campbell, J. M. (2010). A quantitative synthesis of developmental disability research: The impact of functional assessment methodology on treatment effectiveness. The Behavior Analyst Today, 11(1), 4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolmage, J. T. (2018). Disabled upon arrival: Eugenics, immigration, and the construction of race and disability. The Ohio State University Press.

  • Ercikan, K., & Roth, W. M. (2011). Constructing data. The SAGE Handbook for Research in Education: Pursuing Ideas as the Keystone of Exemplary Inquiry. 219–245.

  • Faggella-Luby, M., Lombardi, A., Lalor, A. R., & Dukes, L., III. (2014). Methodological trends in disability and higher education research: Historical analysis of the Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 27(4), 357–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. (2001). Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. Methods of critical discourse analysis, 5(11), 121–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felix, E. R., Gándara, D., & Jones, S. (2024). “All Students Matter”: The place of race indiscourse on student debt in a federal higher education policymaking process. Teachers College Record, 126(2), 147–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fichten, C. S., & Amsel, R. (1986). Trait attributions about college students with a physical disability: Circumplex analyses and methodological issues 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16(5), 410–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, C., & Owen, A. L. (2017). Defining disability: Understandings of and attitudes towards ableism and disability. Disability Studies Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v37i1.5061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2014). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. Routledge.

  • Gillborn, D. (2012). Intersectionality and the primacy of racism: Race, class, gender and disability in education. Keynote address presented at the 6th Annual Conference of theCritical Race Studies in Education Association, May 31–June 2, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York City.

  • Gillborn, D., Warmington, P., & Demack, S. (2018). QuantCrit: Education, policy, ‘Big Data’and principles for a critical race theory of statistics. Race Ethnicity and Education, 21(2), 158–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, S. B., & Johnson, V. A. (1997). Stigma by association: Perceptions of the dating partners of college students with physical disabilities. Basic and Applied SocialPsychology, 19(4), 495–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gough, H. G. (1960). The adjective check list as a personality assessment research technique. Psychological Reports, 6(1), 107–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grills, N., Singh, L., Pant, H., Varghese, J., Murthy, G. V. S., Hoq, M., & Marella, M. (2017). Access to services and barriers faced by people with disabilities: a quantitative survey. Disability, CBR & Inclusive Development, 28(2), 23–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grönvik, L. (2009). Defining disability: effects of disability concepts on research outcomes. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, H., & Pool Hegamin, A. (2001). Assessing scientific measures of disability. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 12(2), 114–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heimlich, K. (2001). Animal-assisted therapy and the severely disabled child: A quantitative study. Journal of Rehabilitation, 67(4).

  • Iacono, T., & Carling-Jenkins, R. (2012). The human rights context for ethical requirements for involving people with intellectual disability in medical research. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56(11), 1122–1132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, D. L., & Jones, S. J. (2014). A virtual commitment: Disability services information on public community college websites. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 27(2), 129–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kafer, A. (2013). Feminist, queer, crip. Indiana University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, S. (1983). Assessing self-maintenance: activities of daily living, mobility, and instrumental activities of daily living. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 31(12), 721–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitchin, R. (2000). The researched opinions on research: Disabled people and disability research. Disability & Society, 15(1), 25–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konur, O. (2006). Teaching disabled students in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 351–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroll, T., Neri, M. T., & Miller, K. (2005). Using mixed methods in disability and rehabilitation research. Rehabilitation Nursing Journal, 30(3), 106–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanahan, L., Scotchmer, M., & McLaughlin, M. (2004). Methodological critique of current NCES survey measures of instructional processes.

  • Lauer, E. A., Henly, M., & Coleman, R. (2019). Comparing estimates of disability prevalence using federal and international disability measures in national surveillance. Disability and Health Journal, 12(2), 195–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, M., & Letts, L. (1989). A critical review of scales of activities of daily living. The American journal of occupational therapy, 43(8), 522–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linton, S. (1998). Disability studies/not disability studies. Disability & Society, 13(4), 525–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovett, B. J., & Sparks, R. L. (2013). The identification and performance of gifted students with learning disability diagnoses: A quantitative synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46(4), 304–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madans, J. H., & Loeb, M. (2013). Methods to improve international comparability of census and survey measures of disability. Disability and rehabilitation, 35(13), 1070–1073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maggin, D. M., O’Keeffe, B. V., & Johnson, A. H. (2011). A quantitative synthesis of methodology in the meta-analysis of single-subject research for students with disabilities:1985–2009. Exceptionality, 19(2), 109–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mamiseishvili, K., & Koch, L. C. (2011). First-to-second-year persistence of students with disabilities in postsecondary institutions in the United States. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 54(2), 93–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mannor, K. M., & Needham, B. L. (2024). The study of ableism in population health: A critical review. Frontiers in Public Health, 12, 1383150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, K. E., & Kidney, C. A. (2012). What is right? Ethics in intellectual disabilities research. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9(1), 27–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrew, K. S., Thurlow, M. L., & Spiegel, A. N. (1993). An investigation of the exclusion of students with disabilities in national data collection programs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(3), 339–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrew, K. S., Algozzine, B., Ysseldyke, J. E., Thurlow, M. L., & Spiegel, A. N. (1995). The identification of individuals with disabilities in national databases: Creating a failure to communicate. The Journal of Special Education, 28(4), 472–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitra, S. (2017). Disability, health and human development. Springer Nature.

  • Murugami, M. W. (2009). Disability and identity. Disability Studies Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v29i4.979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2006). The Condition of Education 2006. NCES 2006–071. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

  • NCES Data Officer (2022a, April 15). Missing BPS Data from 2017?

  • NCES Data Officer (2022b, April 18). Missing BPS Data from 2017?

  • Nelson, T. E., Oxley, Z. M., & Clawson, R. A. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19, 221–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Day, B., & Killeen, M. (2002). Research on the lives of persons with disabilities: The emerging importance of qualitative research methodologies. Journal of Disability PolicyStudies, 13(1), 9–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, M., & Harley, D. (2012). Models and measurement in disability: An international review. Health Policy and Planning, 27(5), 357–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pate, J. R., Ruihley, B. J., & Mirabito, T. (2014). Displaying disability: A content analysis of person-first language on NCAA Bowl Championship Series college athletic department websites. Journal of Applied Sport Management, 6(1), 5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer, D. (1994). Eugenics and disability discrimination. Disability & Society, 9(4), 481–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piedmont, R. L., McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1991). Adjective check list scales and the five factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(4), 630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piepzna-Samarasinha, L. L. (2018). Care work: Dreaming disability justice. Arsenal Pulp Press.

  • Price, M., & Kerschbaum, S. L. (2016). Stories of methodology: Interviewing sideways, crooke and crip. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, 5(3), 18. https://doi.org/10.15353/cjds.v5i3.295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rammstedt, B., Beierlein, C., Brähler, E., Eid, M., Hartig, J., Kersting, M., & Weichselgartner, E. (2015). Quality standards for the development, application, and evaluation of measurement instruments in social science survey research. RatSWD Working Paper Series, 245.

  • Rembis, M. (2018). Disability and the history of eugenics. Ders/Catherine Kudlick/Kim E. Nielsen (Hg): The Oxford Handbook of Disability History. Oxford, 85–103.

  • Renwick, C. (2016). Eugenics, population research, and social mobility studies in early and midtwentieth-century Britain. The Historical Journal, 59(3), 845–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R. (2004). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. In An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (pp. 31–48). Routledge

  • Safer, A., Farmer, L., & Song, B. (2020). Quantifying difficulties of university students with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(1), 5–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuels, E. (2017). Six ways of looking at crip time. Disability studies quarterly. https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v37i3.5824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simeonsson, R. J., Leonardi, M., Lollar, D., Bjorck-Akesson, E., Hollenweger, J., & Martinuzzi, A. (2003). Applying the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) to measure childhood disability. Disability and rehabilitation, 25(11–12), 602–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, E., & Cryle, P. (2017). Eugenics and the normal body: The role of visual images and intelligence testing in framing the treatment of people with disabilities in the earlytwentieth century. Continuum, 31(3), 365–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, D., de la Salle, S., Sloshower, J., & Williams, M. T. (2022). Research abuses against people of colour and other vulnerable groups in early psychedelic research. Journal of Medical Ethics, 48(10), 728–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki, S., Morris, S. L., & Johnson, S. K. (2021). Using QuantCrit to advance an anti-racist developmental science: Applications to mixture modeling. Journal of Adolescent Research, 36(5), 535–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Titchkosky, T. (2001). Disability: A rose by any other name? Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 38, 125–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaccaro, A., Kimball, E. W., Wells, R. S., & Ostiguy, B. J. (2015). Researching students with disabilities: The importance of critical perspectives. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2014(163), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.20084

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valeras, A. (2010). “We don’t have a box”: understanding hidden disability identity utilizing narrative research methodology. Disability Studies Quarterly, 30(3/4).

  • Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), Article 249283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, K. T. L., & Warlick, S. E. (2020). Accessibility and disability services in Virginia’s four-year academic libraries: A content analysis of library webpages. Virginia Libraries, 64(1), 2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wessel, R. D., Jones, J. A., Markle, L., & Westfall, C. (2009). Retention and graduation of students with disabilities: Facilitating student success. Journal of PostsecondaryEducation and Disability, 21(3), 116–125.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Utah, Educational Leadership and Policy, 201 Presidents’ Circle, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA

    Danielle Susi-Dittmore

Authors
  1. Danielle Susi-Dittmore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Danielle Susi-Dittmore.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

I am the sole and corresponding author for this manuscript and do not have any conflicts of interest to disclose. I understand that, if accepted for publication, a certification of authorship form will be required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Susi-Dittmore, D. Toward More Accurate and Inclusive Surveying: A Discourse Analysis of NCES Postsecondary Survey Instruments Using a Critical Disability Studies Framework. Res High Educ 66, 27 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-025-09845-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-025-09845-7

Keywords