Supporting Students with Disabilities during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Perspective of Disability Resource Professionals
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript reads well. The introductory part of the abstract can be shortened; central results may be added instead. Please put more keywords.
Introduction. Seeing disability in a deficient way does not express the contemporary understanding. Thus, readers may harvest the impression that all students with disabilities have confronted with difficulties, especially in the domain of mental health, is not correct (you may easily find literature, where several personal factors are implicated). In sum, please soften this particular argument. Then, please state and elaborate, which is the theoretical or research gap you are addressing to.
“Although faculty may indicate…”. Is it perhaps: “Although most faculties may indicate…”
“(Aquino 2020). Hav-” => “”(Aquino 2020). Hav- [check for similar issues].
If in your country postsecondary education is different from higher education, please change all “postsecondary” terms accordingly. Does this issue affect the contents of Table 1 too?
Just before methods, please state what are the aims and even better the research questions of your study. What do you actually expect to find?
Methods. Did you take the data from a national survey? If so, where can readers find this data? I couldn’t find a relevant reference.
Discussion. If needed, state clearly, how each research question of yours is answered.
Implications. Do you follow a certain theoretical framework (e.g., for organizational development), while you develop implications and propositions? Which is that? Furthermore, you speak about a holistic view; would you propose a model for that? Perhaps, the International Classification of Functioning?
A limitations section is needed. Among others, you may underscore that personal variables were not assessed [Table 5 may speak for factors lying within persons]. Likewise, there wasn’t any comparative view of the problems faced by students without disability.
Author Response
Reviewer 1:
Thank you for your detailed review of this manuscript. We appreciate this feedback and have made significant changes based on your ideas. Please see below for a line-by-line response:
The manuscript reads well. The introductory part of the abstract can be shortened; central results may be added instead. Please put more keywords.
-- Response: The abstract was updated based on suggestions. Additional keywords were added.
Introduction. Seeing disability in a deficient way does not express the contemporary understanding. Thus, readers may harvest the impression that all students with disabilities have confronted with difficulties, especially in the domain of mental health, is not correct (you may easily find literature, where several personal factors are implicated). In sum, please soften this particular argument. Then, please state and elaborate, which is the theoretical or research gap you are addressing to.
-- Response: Language reviewed and updated.
“(Aquino 2020). Hav-” => “”(Aquino 2020). Hav- [check for similar issues].
-- Response: Full formatting review completed to better adhere to journal expectations.
If in your country postsecondary education is different from higher education, please change all “postsecondary” terms accordingly. Does this issue affect the contents of Table 1 too?
-- Response: Language updated.
Just before methods, please state what are the aims and even better the research questions of your study. What do you actually expect to find? Methods. Did you take the data from a national survey? If so, where can readers find this data? I couldn’t find a relevant reference.
-- Response: Significant updates made to method section.
Discussion. If needed, state clearly, how each research question of yours is answered.
-- Response: Discussion updated to better address findings.
Implications. Do you follow a certain theoretical framework (e.g., for organizational development), while you develop implications and propositions? Which is that? Furthermore, you speak about a holistic view; would you propose a model for that? Perhaps, the International Classification of Functioning?
-- Response: Implications section updated. No framework included.
A limitations section is needed. Among others, you may underscore that personal variables were not assessed [Table 5 may speak for factors lying within persons]. Likewise, there wasn’t any comparative view of the problems faced by students without disability.
-- Response: Limitations section added.
Reviewer 2 Report
The document is of some relevance given the distance in time since the pandemic emerged. It is important that the role of people with difficulties during this stage is highlighted.
However, the document only states too simply the categories or areas where these students have perceived or experienced problems or have not been helped. I think that going into more depth or explaining these categories or their causes better would give more value and more rigour to the work.
The citations in the text are wrong as they do not correspond to the way the journal asks for them to be put.
On the other hand, several self-citations were detected, which should be replaced by others from other authors who deal with the same subject matter in order to give the study a more rigorous vision.
Finally, none of the references correspond to the standards required by the review. They should all be reviewed and changed.
Author Response
Reviewer 2:
Thank you for your detailed review of this manuscript. Significant changes were made to this manuscript based on your shared suggestions. Please see below for the a line-by-line response:
The document is of some relevance given the distance in time since the pandemic emerged. It is important that the role of people with difficulties during this stage is highlighted.
-- Response: Additional literature added in introduction.
However, the document only states too simply the categories or areas where these students have perceived or experienced problems or have not been helped. I think that going into more depth or explaining these categories or their causes better would give more value and more rigour to the work.
-- Response: Additional information on overall instrument added to methods section.
The citations in the text are wrong as they do not correspond to the way the journal asks for them to be put.
-- Response: A full revision of formatting was completed.
On the other hand, several self-citations were detected, which should be replaced by others from other authors who deal with the same subject matter in order to give the study a more rigorous vision.
-- Response: Additional literature added to further support manuscript argument.
Finally, none of the references correspond to the standards required by the review. They should all be reviewed and changed.
-- Response: All references reviewed and updated.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors, I would like to comment on relevant issues in your article:
Introduction: the article would be improved if it presented a stronger introduction and theoretical framework, with allusions to the international level and a clearer rationale for the relevance of this study.
Methodology: could be better written, it does not explain well how the questionnaires were distributed, it does not explain how they were evaluated, it does not include the questionnaire used... It is recommended to include the questionnaire used in the appendix.
Results and discussion: the results could have been described including some graphs and the discussion could have been expanded in some points.
Conclusions: these are limited to one paragraph, but could be expanded by indicating limitations and future lines of the study.
The format of the article must be adapted to the standards required by the journal.
Author Response
Reviewer 3:
Thank you for your detailed review of this manuscript. Significant changes were made based on your suggestions. Please see below for a line-by-line response:
Introduction: the article would be improved if it presented a stronger introduction and theoretical framework, with allusions to the international level and a clearer rationale for the relevance of this study.
-- Response: Introduction revised and study aim included.
Methodology: could be better written, it does not explain well how the questionnaires were distributed, it does not explain how they were evaluated, it does not include the questionnaire used... It is recommended to include the questionnaire used in the appendix.
-- Response: Methodology fully revised and expanded to provide additional information on instrument and data collection for reader.
Results and discussion: the results could have been described including some graphs and the discussion could have been expanded in some points.
-- Response: Discussion updated to better highlight findings of study.
Conclusions: these are limited to one paragraph, but could be expanded by indicating limitations and future lines of the study.
-- Response: Conclusion expanded and implications section reimagined and updated.
The format of the article must be adapted to the standards required by the journal.
-- Response: Manuscript fully updated to adhere to journal expectations.
Reviewer 4 Report
Thank you for the oportunity to review this important manuscript which adds to the literature on students with disability in higher education. However, the present manuscript lacks detailed information about the utilized methodology and study participants, and therefore I recomend to reject the manuscript. In order to support author to bring their paper forward, I would like to encourage the authors to address the following points.
Title: Please make clear that professionals were surveyed.
Abstract. Please consider to include sample size, statistical methodology employed and some concrete examples of results found. Please make clear that professionals were surveyed, not students.
Introduction. Excisting literature on students with disabilities is described, but it reads rather general. The reader would benefit from more concrete examples how student support is shaped and how these services are utilized. In addition, the past few years the literature has described the impact of COVID-19 on the lives of people with disabilities. Authors are encouraged to incorporate these studies in the introduction. Finally, although I am aware that many COVID-19 measures were not federal, could authors provide a timeline of the COVID-19 measures students confronted? This context allows readers a better understanding of how students' lives were interrupted and compare the measures in their own country. In addition, the study is about professionals' experiences. Although this can be interesting,the paper should be framed as a study among professionals, instead of describing problems students with disabilities had experienced.
Please provide the exact aim of the study at the end of the introduction.
Methods. This section misses to describe important details how the study was designed and conducted. Recruitment, inclusion criteria, response rate, which instruments/measurements the survey contained, what the primary outcomes were, which statistically methods were employed.
Results. Please provide the chracteristics of the sample. Tables 2-3: the 'No difficulty' column mirrors 'Difficulty', so it can be deleted.
Dicussion: Overall I miss the discussion of the results in relation with the current literature. Secondly, a paragraph about the study limitations is missing.
Author Response
Reviewer 4:
Thank you for your detailed review of this manuscript. Significant changes were made to address your suggestions. Please see below for a line-by-line response:
Title: Please make clear that professionals were surveyed.
-- Response: Title updated to better reflect sample.
Abstract. Please consider to include sample size, statistical methodology employed and some concrete examples of results found. Please make clear that professionals were surveyed, not students.
-- Response: Abstract updated to better address findings and sample.
Introduction. Excisting literature on students with disabilities is described, but it reads rather general. The reader would benefit from more concrete examples how student support is shaped and how these services are utilized. In addition, the past few years the literature has described the impact of COVID-19 on the lives of people with disabilities. Authors are encouraged to incorporate these studies in the introduction. Finally, although I am aware that many COVID-19 measures were not federal, could authors provide a timeline of the COVID-19 measures students confronted? This context allows readers a better understanding of how students' lives were interrupted and compare the measures in their own country. In addition, the study is about professionals' experiences. Although this can be interesting,the paper should be framed as a study among professionals, instead of describing problems students with disabilities had experienced.
-- Response: Introduction reimagined and revised to address R4 comments.
Please provide the exact aim of the study at the end of the introduction.
-- Response: Aim included at the end of introduction.
Methods. This section misses to describe important details how the study was designed and conducted. Recruitment, inclusion criteria, response rate, which instruments/measurements the survey contained, what the primary outcomes were, which statistically methods were employed.
-- Response: Methods expanded to address feedback and missing elements.
Results. Please provide the chracteristics of the sample. Tables 2-3: the 'No difficulty' column mirrors 'Difficulty', so it can be deleted.
-- Response: Table updated.
Dicussion: Overall I miss the discussion of the results in relation with the current literature. Secondly, a paragraph about the study limitations is missing.
-- Response: Discussion and implications reimagined and edited to address suggestion.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
You have essentially improved the manuscript. I am happy for that.
Now, that the distinction of the situation between students with and without disabilities is clearer, please note: You are beginning a paragraph by stating “Research highlights that students with disabilities enrolled within…”. Then, in the same paragraph you state Son et al. (2020), who do not make any reference to students with disabilities. This may be quite confusing. Please check for similar issues; By fixing such things, you can make your arguments more robust.
Author Response
Reviewer 1:
Thank you for this valuable feedback. Based on your suggestion, the introduction was reviewed and the noted paragraph was adjusted to better focus on literature specific to students with disabilities. The Son et al. citation was removed to support this change.
Thank you again for this valuable feedback!
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
The changes have improved your article, but there are still errors in the references of the document when adapting to the journal's rules. Also, you have not put the questionnaire in an annex in order to show transparency in the study.
Author Response
Reviewer 3:
Thank you for this valuable feedback. The reference list was reviewed and updated to adhere to journal formatting requirements.
Thank you again for your review of this project!
Reviewer 4 Report
Abstract: please include sample size
Introduction: Line1: 11.9% instead of 11.9 percent
Methods.
- 2.2: Please state the response rates. I’d figure that AHEAD has data on their members; if response rates are low, authors are encouraged to perform a none-response analyses (binomial tests, one sample t-tests)
- 2.3: Authors may include references to the EDUCAUSE COVID-19 QuickPoll and Biennial AHEAD Survey of Professionals. Same holds for the “larger national project”
- 2.3: I still miss details about the instruments used in the survey. If no standardized instruments were used, please provide the themes of the survey, including response categories. At least the primary outcomes should be addressed.
Findings:
- First paragraph can be deleted, it repeats the methods
- Please start findings with at least the sample sizes. Authors may transfer some characteristics from 2.2 to Findings
- Table 2: rank items from most-to-least difficulty (i.e., First Access to health services (82.2%), last Access to academic advising (51.1%); Include N in title between parentheses
- Table 3: see remark Table 2 about the item ranking; Include N in title between parentheses
- Table 4: rank items from greatest improvement to smallest improvement. Include N in title between parentheses
- Table 5: rank items from greatest to smallest effective; Include N in title between parentheses
Discussion:
- Authors may say something about the response rate as study limitation- or strength
- Last paragraph of 4., and sections 4.1 and 4.2 (first paragraph) are quite general and almost reads as summarized results. Reference to existing literature is lacking. Does this really adds to the paper, or can it be left out?
Author Response
Reviewer 4:
Thank you for this valuable feedback. Several updates were made based on your helpful suggestions. Please see below for a list detailing the noted changes:
"Abstract: please include sample size"
-- Sample size added to abstract
"Introduction: Line1: 11.9% instead of 11.9 percent"
-- The word percent is now replaced with the percent sign.
"Authors may include references to the EDUCAUSE COVID-19 QuickPoll and Biennial AHEAD Survey of Professionals. Same holds for the “larger national project”
-- Appropriate/ additional citations were added to support these requests.
"Please start findings with at least the sample sizes. Authors may transfer some characteristics from 2.2 to Findings"
-- Sample sizes added.
"Table 2: rank items from most-to-least difficulty (i.e., First Access to health services (82.2%), last Access to academic advising (51.1%); Include N in title between parentheses"
-- Table 2 reorganized/ updated as per the requested order.
"Table 3: see remark Table 2 about the item ranking; Include N in title between parentheses"
-- -- Table 3 reorganized/ updated as per the requested order.
"Table 4: rank items from greatest improvement to smallest improvement. Include N in title between parentheses"
-- Table 4 reorganized/ updated as per the requested order.
"Table 5: rank items from greatest to smallest effective; Include N in title between parentheses"
-- -- Table 5 reorganized/ updated as per the requested order.
"Authors may say something about the response rate as study limitation- or strength"
-- Language on response rate added to limitation section.
