Assessing Satisfaction with Campus Recreation Facilities among College Students with Physical Disabilities

2008 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 106-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taeho Yoh ◽  
Mike Mohr ◽  
Brian Gordon

The purpose of this study was to investigate satisfaction with campus recreation facilities among college students with physical disabilities. One hundred twenty-two college students with various physical disabilities participated in the study. This study found that use of and satisfaction with campus recreation facilities were significantly low among college students with disabilities. Specifically, 68% of college students with physical disabilities used campus recreation facilities less than 5 time per semester, and 37% of participants never used the facilities. The personnel in the area of campus recreation programs and facilities for students with disabilities should use the findings and suggestions of this study to provide better accessibility and accommodation of campus recreation facilities to students with disabilities.

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 245-260 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ezekiel W. Kimball ◽  
Adam Moore ◽  
Annemarie Vaccaro ◽  
Peter F. Troiano ◽  
Barbara M. Newman

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Shwalb ◽  
Tyler R. Pedersen ◽  
Julie E. Preece ◽  
Edward A. Martinelli ◽  
Phil A. Rash ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 132 (4) ◽  
pp. 496-504 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven L. West ◽  
Carolyn W. Graham ◽  
Peter Temple

Objective: Our objective was to provide the first comprehensive picture of alcohol use and binge drinking by US college students with disabilities (SWDs), who represent at least 11% (1.6 million) of the US college student population. Methods: In fall 2013, we used a stratified random sampling technique to identify and recruit 2440 SWDs from 122 US colleges and universities. A total of 1285 (53%) SWDs from 61 (50%) colleges and universities completed a survey of alcohol and other drug use and the use of substances by student peers. We conducted 4 multiple logistic regression analyses to compare binge-drinking and non–binge-drinking SWDs by potential correlates of such use and a final model that included only significant variables. Results: SWDs aged <21 vs ≥21 (odds ratio [OR] = 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-0.99) who spent more time vs less time socializing (OR = 1.24; 95% CI, 1.11-1.38), who spent less time vs more time studying (OR = –0.89; 95% CI, –0.80 to –0.99), and who used vs did not use marijuana (OR = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.18-1.75) or amphetamines (OR = 1.82; 95% CI, 1.15-2.89) were significantly more likely to binge drink. SWDs who reported using barbiturates were less likely to binge drink than were those who did not use barbiturates (OR = –0.36; 95% CI, –0.21 to –0.61). In the final model, use of amphetamines (OR = 1.74; 95% CI, 1.15-2.65) or marijuana (OR = 1.60; 95% CI, 1.32-1.94) was the highest predictor of binge drinking. Conclusion: SWDs’ reported rates of binge drinking, although high, were not as high as those of nondisabled college students. Nevertheless, prevention efforts should be targeted toward college SWDs.


Author(s):  
Michell L. Temple ◽  
Teresita Warren ◽  
J. Michael Anderson

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document