Autism and Accommodations in Higher Education: Insights from the Autism Community

Abstract

This article builds on the growing body of research on higher education for autistic students by soliciting input from autistic adults on their higher education experiences and suggestions on making these experiences more ‘autism-friendly’. Sixty-six individuals participated in a national exploratory survey and thirty-one participated in follow-up, online focus groups. The article reviews the accommodations individuals received and the accommodations they would have liked to receive. Concrete strategies are provided for institutes of higher education to address the social and sensory needs of autistic students, areas many participants reported being neglected in their academic experience, such as mentors and a neurodiverse space. These suggestions are intended to complement traditional academic accommodations to improve the outcomes of autistic students.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
1 3
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (2018) 48:679–693
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3353-4
S.I. : COLLEGE EXPERIENCES FORSTUDENTS WITHASD
Autism andAccommodations inHigher Education: Insights
fromtheAutism Community
JenniferC.Sarrett1
Published online: 14 December 2017
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017
Abstract
This article builds on the growing body of research on higher education for autistic students by soliciting input from autistic
adults on their higher education experiences and suggestions on making these experiences more ‘autism-friendly’. Sixty-six
individuals participated in a national exploratory survey and thirty-one participated in follow-up, online focus groups. The
article reviews the accommodations individuals received and the accommodations they would have liked to receive. Concrete
strategies are provided for institutes of higher education to address the social and sensory needs of autistic students, areas
many participants reported being neglected in their academic experience, such as mentors and a neurodiverse space. These
suggestions are intended to complement traditional academic accommodations to improve the outcomes of autistic students.
Keywords Autism· Higher education· Neurodiversity· Accommodations
Introduction
The National Center for Education Statistics reported that
in the 2008–2009 academic year 88% of institutes of higher
education enrolled students with disabilities. Of these insti-
tutions, 56% reported enrollment of students identifying as
having an Autism Spectrum Disorder (referred to as ‘autism’
for the remainder of the paper; Raue etal. 2011). Given the
well-known rise in prevalence of diagnosed autism since
the mid-1990s, it is likely that the rates of autistic students1
enrolling in post-secondary institutions will increase in the
coming years (Cox etal. 2017; Gobbo and Shmulsky 2014;
Hendrickson etal. 2013; Peña and Kocux 2013; Sayman
2015; Shattuck etal. 2012; Zeedyk etal. 2016). Based on
current US prevalence of autism, which is 1 in 68, an esti-
mated 49,000 autistic students graduated high school in
2015, many of whom are likely to be interested in attending
an institute of higher education (Wei etal. 2016). While this
is a promising trend, recent research has shown that autis-
tic students have lower graduation rates and lower rates of
post-graduation employment as compared to non-disabled
students as well as students with other disabilities, with the
exception of students with intellectual disabilities (Gelbar
etal. 2014; Gobbo and Shmulsky 2014; Kapp etal. 2011;
Sayman 2015; Shattuck etal. 2012; White etal. 2016). There
is a clear need to identify, develop, and implement new strat-
egies to increase the success of this student population.
Important legislation such as the Americans with Dis-
abilities Act of 1990 (ADA), the Higher Education Opportu-
nity Act of 2008, Section504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) attempt
to address the educational needs of students with disabilities
and have set important precedents (Hendrickson etal. 2013;
Timmerman and Mulvihill 2015). However, it is difficult to
address the needs of all students with packages of accom-
modations. Typical academic accommodations for students
with a range of disabilities, including autism, in higher edu-
cation are similar to those received in high school, such as
extended test time, distraction free testing, flexible due dates
for assignments, breaks during class, the use of technology
in the class, note takers, clear directions, the use of visuals,
* Jennifer C. Sarrett
jsarret@emory.edu
1 Center fortheStudy ofHuman Health, Emory University,
Atlanta, GA, USA
1 Note on language: I use the term ‘autistic student’ rather than the
phrase ‘student with autism’ to reflect the preference of autistic self-
advocates and the neurodiversity movement, which rejects use of per-
son first language because, for this community, autism is seen as cen-
tral to identity formation and the latter phrasing seems to suggest the
need to remind people that autistic people are, in fact, people (Kapp
2013; Silberman 2015). Further, I have written this article in a way
that is understandable and accessible to a wide variety of stakehold-
ers interested in this conversation and, thus, have attempted to avoid
overly complex language and jargon where possible.

680 Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (2018) 48:679–693
1 3
and optional group activities (Sayman 2015; Van Hees etal.
2015; Zeedyk etal. 2016). These accommodations often
reflect needs identified by practitioners without significant
input from college students with disabilities, frequently lead-
ing to accommodations that are misaligned with the needs
of the students who use them, including autistic students.
Often autistic students do not feel comfortable explaining
their needs or may not know how to advocate for themselves
and so their input on needed and desired accommodations
is not offered and must, instead, be solicited to ensure they
are appropriate and useful (Cox etal. 2017; Fabri et al.
2016; Madriaga and Goodley 2010). This article addresses
the need for input from the autism community by gathering
the perspectives of autistic individuals on accommodations
received and desired in institutes of higher education as well
as thoughts on making higher education more accessible and
autism-friendly. The results of a mixed method, qualitative
study that employed both an online survey and follow-up,
online focus groups are presented and used to develop a set
of recommendations for institutes of higher education based
on the experiences of autistic adults.
Background onInclusive Higher Education
forAutistic Students
One approach that has been proposed by educational experts
to better address the needs expressed by students with dis-
abilities, including and beyond autistic students, and to
improve access to the educational environment is Universal
Design for Learning, or UDL (Couzens etal. 2015; Sayman
2015; Zeedyk etal. 2016). UDL is the concept and practice
of designing educational environments such that they are
accessible to the most students possible, disabled and non-
disabled. Based on the architectural concept of Universal
Design, UDL employs the same core principles as those
considered in the creation of universally accessible physi-
cal spaces, such as equitable and flexible use, simple and
intuitive designs, and minimal effort needed to access the
space. Applied to educational spaces and practices, these
principles lead to inclusive educational environments that
are dedicated to multi-modal instruction, engagement, and
assessment that is attentive to various learning preferences
and needs (Grogan 2015; Shaw 2011). With UDL, the needs
of a variety of learners are addressed, however these models
are not meant to be restrictive; flexibility is central to ensur-
ing student needs are met (Fleischer 2012). Taking a flex-
ible, UDL approach to improving access to higher education
ensures a model is not based primarily on changing, or ‘fix-
ing’, student behavior but creating educational environments
that are respondent and accessible to a variety of learning
needs and cognitive styles (Fabri etal. 2016).
Despite growing interest in the outcomes and experi-
ences of autistic adults, there is still little research on the
experiences of autistic students in higher education. In
particular, research that gathers perspectives from autistic
students on a large scale is scant (Gelbar etal. 2015; Pin-
der-Amaker 2014). A 2015 study led by Nicholas Gelbar
noted the “fragmented and understudied” (p.46) state of
research in this area and, thus, completed a national survey
to gather information from autistic adults who had experi-
ences in higher education. This study included thirty-five
participants from across the United States and focused on
academic, social, and housing experiences. Overall, students
reported high levels of academic success but difficulties with
social experiences and executive functioning tasks, such as
time management and study skills. Additionally, students
received similar accommodations to those received in high
school (Gelbar etal. 2015).
Other studies support these findings, showing that autistic
students have a range of needs that extend beyond typical
academic concerns, yet are critical to academic success. As
Gelbar etal. (2015) noted, autistic students have important
social concerns and needs. A literature review in the area
showed that 50% of autistic students have difficulties obtain-
ing and maintaining friendships and with participating in
typical social events, which are often loud and busy (Fabri
etal. 2016). Difficulties with social interaction have been
widely reported in a host of other studies as well (Couzens
etal. 2015; Fleischer 2012; Gobbo and Shmulsky 2014; Say-
man 2015; Taylor 2005; Van Hees etal. 2015; Wei etal.
2014; White etal. 2016; Zeedyk etal. 2016), yet few accom-
modations address these needs. However, there seems to be
an increasing trend towards the development of disability,
and even autism, focused higher education programs that
include a social skills or mentoring component (Couzens
etal. 2015; Pugliese and White 2014; Schindler etal. 2015;
Zager and Alpern 2010).
Relatedly, research has also shown concerns regarding
these students’ sense of identity and the challenges they
encounter when developing a positive autistic identity in
the presence of significant disability related stigma. Identity-
related struggles are an important consideration as the devel-
opment of a positive disability identity is associated with
being comfortable disclosing one’s autistic status, which is
necessary to gain accommodations in higher education (Cai
and Richdale 2016; Couzens etal. 2015; Cox etal. 2017;
Fabri etal. 2016; Gelbar etal. 2015; Grogan 2015; Sayman
2015). Creating an accepting campus community that boasts
a UDL approach to learning is one way institutes of higher
education can both ensure they are aware of student needs
and address them in a way that reduces the stress of disclos-
ing one’s disability status.
Other important needs identified in the literature include
a consideration of how to improve parental involvement
(Fleischer 2012; Peña and Kocux 2013), independent living
skills (Schindler etal. 2015; Van Hees etal. 2015; Wei etal.

681Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (2018) 48:679–693
1 3
2014; White etal. 2016; Zeedyk etal. 2016), and mental
health concerns, such as anxiety and depression. Further,
difficulties with executive functioning and coping with
stress are frequently identified needs of autistic students (Cai
and Richdale 2016; Coduti etal. 2016; Fabri etal. 2016;
Fleischer 2012; Gelbar etal. 2015; Gobbo and Shmulsky
2014; Van Hees etal. 2015). While some of these needs are
addressed with typical disability accommodations, many are
left unconsidered and unaddressed.
One area in need of improvement is campus awareness
of autism. Many studies report a need for better faculty and
staff training on autism and the needs of autistic students in
higher education. Researchers both in the United States and
Australia have noted a general misunderstanding, or even
contradictory understandings, of autism by university staff.
In general, more campus training on autism that focuses on
countering inaccurate and often discriminatory assump-
tions about autism is greatly needed (Couzens etal. 2015;
Cox etal. 2017; Fabri etal. 2016; Fleischer 2012; Sayman
2015). For example, one study found that, compared to autis-
tic students, faculty and staff significantly underestimated
the significance of sensory and daily living needs of autistic
students (Knott and Taylor 2014). Unfortunately, faculty and
staff buy-in may be the largest challenge to generating better
autism awareness and understanding (Grogan 2015) despite
the fact that such faculty/staff inactions could possibly con-
stitute violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA; Grasgreen 2013; Harkin 1990). Further, the Gelbar
etal. (2015) study reported students described experienc-
ing stigmatizing classroom discussions on autism that did
not recognize that some students in the room may identify
as autistic.
Most of the literature identifying the needs of autistic stu-
dents include recommendations for autism specific accom-
modations. Studies that identified social-emotional needs
suggested the use of mentors, disability support groups, pri-
vate living spaces, and access to counseling (Cai and Rich-
dale 2016; Couzens etal. 2015; Gelbar etal. 2015; Grogan
2015; Zeedyk etal. 2016). Although less attention has been
given to the sensory needs of autistic students despite it
being a high priority area of concern for many autistic stu-
dents, some research noted the need for noise reduction or
more visual supports (Fabri etal. 2016; Gelbar etal. 2015;
Zeedyk etal. 2016). Overall, however, this area of accom-
modations was left unexplored.
Some of the literature includes suggestions in line with
a UDL approach to better address the needs to autistic stu-
dents, such as more online options for learning and assess-
ment (Satterfield etal. 2015) and first year introductory
experiences to help orient autistic students and facilitate
smoother transitions into new educational and living envi-
ronments (Couzens etal. 2015). Further, in class, instruc-
tional suggestions include using a wider variety of formats
to convey information (i.e., auditory, tactile, visual), and
flexible assignment formats (Zeedyk etal. 2016), the use of
unambiguous questions, stating behavioral expectations, and
previewing the class routine (Gobbo and Shmulsky 2014).
Again, many of these modifications are useful to a range of
students, including students who are not disabled.
It is important to note that many institutes of higher edu-
cation have developed support programs for their autistic
students.2 This is a promising trend. Such programs gen-
erally offer services related to providing assistance in the
areas of academic work, social skills, daily living skills, and
emotional and psychological well-being. Programs employ
a range of strategies, such as group sessions to practice
conversation skills or to work on homework, one-on-one or
group academic and organizational (i.e., time management,
daily planning) coaching, residential assistance, organized
social activities, or content tutoring. Unfortunately, some
of these programs require an additional fee to enroll (White
etal. 2016) and many have limited spots available. Thus,
access can be an issue even in institutions with specialized
programs. However, while research evaluating these pro-
grams is limited, there have been promising findings for spe-
cific programs, such as one that educates autistic students
with intellectual disabilities alongside their peers at college
(Zager and Alpern 2010), a brain-computer interface pro-
gram that monitored cognitive states, psychosocial programs
(White etal. 2016), and a program centered on the use of
a problem-solving manual to help with social interaction,
organization, and time management (Pugliese and White
2014). There is also evidence that peer mentoring programs
have benefits for both the mentor and mentee, particularly in
goal setting and attainment (Segall etal. 2016). The simple
presence of these programs reflects a growing recognition
of the increased numbers of autistic students in higher edu-
cation and the need to provide additional or supplementary
supports.
Similar to the Gelbar etal. (2015) study mentioned above,
the research presented here is based on data collected from
a national exploratory study on post-secondary experiences
of autistic adults. While this study inquired about academic,
social, and housing experiences, it also asked for sugges-
tions from the participants on how to make higher educa-
tion experiences more ‘autism-friendly’. By using a mixed
method, qualitative study designed with the access needs
of autistic individuals in mind, this study worked to con-
firm the findings from previous research on accommoda-
tions needs and experiences (Couzens etal. 2015; Cox etal.
2017; Fabri etal. 2016; Fleischer 2012; Gelbar etal. 2015;
2 For a fairly comprehensive list of these programs please visit the
CollegeAutismSpectrum.com site at: http://www.collegeautismspec-
trum.com/collegeprograms.html

682 Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (2018) 48:679–693
1 3
Sayman 2015) and extend this work to included opinions and
recommendations from the autistic participants on strategies
institutions can follow that more closely fit the needs of the
community. Thus, the results of this study are used to refine
previous recommendations for creating better educational
experiences for autistic students based on a UDL approach
as well as suggestions from individuals who identify as
autistic and had experiences in institutes of higher educa-
tion. Guiding questions for the current study were: (1) What
education, housing, and social accommodations did autistic
individuals who have attended or currently are attending an
institute of higher education receive? What was and was not
effective? (2) What accommodations would this population
have liked to receive, but did not? (3) What suggestions did
participants have for improving the autistic experience in
higher education?
Method
Procedures
The data presented here is a part of a larger study aimed
at collecting information about post-secondary (i.e., higher
education and employment3) experiences of autistic adults,
with a focus on gathering information on how to makes
these experiences more autism-friendly, or neurodiverse.4
The larger study was reviewed and approved by the Emory
Institutional Review Board (IRB #00087911) on April 8,
2016 and consisted of two components: an online survey and
online, follow-up focus groups. Both components included
features designed to be as autism-friendly and accessible to
the community as possible, such as the opportunity to leave
and return to the survey over the course of several months;
the use of jargon-free, accessible language; options for text-
based or audio focus groups; and online focus groups that
were available for 4days to allow participants ample time
to put thoughts into text. The survey was developed based
on issues in post-secondary experiences identified in pre-
vious research. Two autistic self-advocates, one academic
not involved in autism research, and one non-autistic, non-
academic individual took the survey and provided feedback
on the flow, wording, understandability, and accessibility of
the questions; the design of the survey (i.e., color, font size,
etc.); and the length of the survey. This input was gathered
to ensure that the survey was accessible to individuals not
involved in neurodiversity or autism research, used autism-
friendly language, covered topics important to the autistic
community, and was of a reasonable length. The resultant
survey had a total of eighty-seven items, including the con-
sent, instructions throughout, and demographic questions.
Twenty-four questions focused on educational experiences,
seventeen of which focused on higher education. Of these,
seven were open-ended questions (see Table1 for examples).
The focus group was designed based on initial survey
responses and included nine questions on higher educa-
tion experiences (see Table1 for examples). Because focus
group questions were intended to supplement survey data,
the results of each will be reported thematically, rather than
in separate sections, with some overlap to demonstrate how
the data from each compliments each other. Participants who
agreed to be contacted about the focus groups were given the
option of either an online, text only option or an audio only
phone option. All but one participant opted for the online
version; all focus groups were conducted in the online for-
mat. In order to increase accessibility, the focus group was
designed in a bulletin board format. On a secure site, partici-
pants were invited to a group where the focus group ques-
tions were posted. Participants were instructed on how to
maintain anonymity while participating in the discussions.
The site was available to participants for 4days, over which
time they and the researcher could answer the questions,
Table 1 Examples of open-ended survey and focus group questions on higher education
Survey questions
Briefly describe the accommodations you received
What other accommodations would you have like to received? (if none, put none)
Overall, what would an ideal post-secondary educational experience look like for you? What services, supports, designs, instructional tech-
niques, etc. would have made your higher education experience perfect?
What recommendations do you have for creating autism-friendly, neurodiverse educational experiences?
Focus group questions
What would be good indications of a higher education school or program being autism friendly? What would you look for or like to see?
Some of you mentioned social groups and supports for campus interactions, particularly with neurotypical students. What would this look like?
What would a safe space on campus have and look like?
3 An article with the results of the employment section of the data is
in Disability Studies Quarterly.
4 Neurodiversity is the notion that autism is a natural variant of
human neurological manifestation that should be neither cured nor
fixed. This approach is critical to the perspectives of autistic self-
advocates and aligns with the larger disability rights movement (Kapp
2013; Silberman 2015).

683Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (2018) 48:679–693
1 3
respond to comments, and propose new topics of discussion.
Similar to the ability to save and return to the survey, this
feature was included to ensure that participants who had
difficulty with verbal language had ample time to express
their thoughts. Although the study did not gather data on
which participants had difficulty with speech production,
research shows this to be a common difficulty in the autism
community (Cleland etal. 2010; Lin etal. 2015) and so was
an important access concern to consider. Six focus groups
were completed between May 30, 2016 and July 12, 2016.
Recruitment
The survey was open from April 14, 2016 until July 1, 2016
and distributed to various online forums (e.g., Wrong Planet,
AspiesCentral), support groups from around the U.S. (e.g.,
Autism Society of San Diego, Aspergers Adult Support),
and organizations working with adults with intellectual
and developmental disabilities (e.g., The Arc, Autistic Self
Advocacy Network), who emailed the survey link out to
their listservs and/or posted a link to the survey on social
media sites, primarily Facebook. Listservs, social media
sites, and online forums were provided a brief description of
the study, inclusion criteria, an estimated 30min completion
time, and the researcher’s email address (so potential partici-
pants could use to ask questions or voice concerns), and a
link to the survey. No compensation was offered. To increase
access, participants were ensured unlimited opportunities
to save and return to the survey while the survey was open.
Data Analysis
Data from both the survey and focus groups were analyzed
using a Grounded Theory approach such that codes groups
and codes were developed after a deep review of survey
and focus group responses (Bernard and Ryan 2010). First,
conceptual groups were determined and defined that were
apparent in the data and addressed guiding research ques-
tions (e.g., Accommodations, Institute Characteristics, Chal-
lenges Encountered) then specific codes were assigned and
defined (e.g., under Accommodations: Sensory-received;
under Institute Characteristics: Location; under Challenges
Encountered: Academic). Separate codebooks were devel-
oped by the PI for the education and employment sections
of the survey and the focus groups, resulting in a total of
four codebooks.
Interrater reliability was completed using the consensus
coding method (Miles and Huberman 1994) wherein two
coders code the same material and review and discuss the
results with the aim of coming to a consensus on all final
codes applied to the data. This method was chosen because
the PI was the coder of the dataset and so ensured a well-
defined codebook. Thus, the answers from one randomly
chosen open ended question from the survey and one ran-
domly chosen question from the focus group (from both
the education and employment sections) were chosen and
coded by the PI and trained coder. This first round of coding
resulted in 26% code agreement. The PI and trained coder
discussed the results in detail and came to 100% agreement
on all codes (i.e., 100% agreement via consensus coding)
and made improvements to the code book to clarify codes
and add codes needed for the data but not reflected in the
codebook. This process was repeated with the updated code-
book and different questions randomly selected from the sur-
vey and focus group data and the PI and trained coder again
reached 100% consensus coding after fewer points of disa-
greement (58% as compared to 74%) with only minor adjust-
ments to the codebook. Given the improvement in initial
code agreement and ease at which consensus was reached,
the codebook was left unchanged and, thus, finalized. Based
on word count of text coded, 12% of focus group and open-
ended survey data were used for reliability, meeting the
recommended 10% of data included in interrater reliability
checks (Campbell etal. 2013; Mao and Richter 2014). Fol-
lowing reliability, the PI coded the remainder of the data and
employed the identified codes to organize and analyze the
data. In this way, text from the survey and focus group was
pulled and assessed based on frequency of comments under
specific codes and within code categories and percentage of
participants making these comments.
Results
Participants
The study included individuals who identified as being autis-
tic, were 18years or older, and lived in the United States. A
total of ninety-four individuals accessed the survey, seven
of whom indicated they were ineligible to continue beyond
the consenting page. Of the remaining eighty-seven, sixty-
six indicated they attended an institute of higher education,
comprising 76% of those who completed the survey. The
remaining twenty-one participants reported only employ-
ment experiences; this data are analyzed elsewhere (Sarrett
2017). Ten of these participants answered less than half of
the questions regarding higher education experiences, how-
ever were included in the analysis. Thirty-one participants
took part in the online focus groups (43% of those who com-
pleted the survey), which ranged in number from three to
seven individuals per focus group.
Nearly half (47%) of participants were between the ages
of 18 and 25. The next largest age group was 26–35years
of age (29%), with decreasing numbers in subsequent age
groups (see Table2 for more demographic details). Over
half of the participants (51%) identified as cis-female, 15%

684 Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (2018) 48:679–693
1 3
identified as cis-male, and 8% identified as transgender
and 8% as gender fluid. Geographic distribution was fairly
mixed, with higher rates of participants from the Northeast
(32%) and Southeast (24%) regions of the United States.
One participant did not report a primary diagnosis, but
of the remaining respondents, nearly half (49%) reported
being diagnosed with autism or Autism Spectrum Disor-
der. Twenty-six percent were diagnosed with Asperger’s
Table 2 Participant demographic characteristics
a 1 participant did not report this item
b 15 participants did not report this item
Age Number of
participants
(%)
18–25 31 (47%)
26–35 19 (29%)
36–45 8 (12%)
46–55 5 (8%)
56–65 3 (5%)
Gender Number of
participants
(%)
Cis-female 34 (51%)
Cis-male 10 (15%)
Transgender male 4 (6%)
Transgender female 1 (2%)
Other 12 (18%)
Gender fluid 5 (8%)
Geographic region Number of
participants
(%)
Northeast 21 (32%)
Southeast 16 (24%)
Southwest 14 (21%)
Midwest 7 (11%)
Northwest 6 (9%)
Prefer not to answer 2 (3%)
Primary diagnosisaNumber of
participants
(%)
Autism spectrum disorder 32 (49%)
Asperger syndrome 17 (26%)
Self-diagnosis 9 (14%)
PDD-NOS 3 (5%)
Other 4 (6%)
Diagnostic agebNumber of
participants
(%)
22+ 19 (29%)
11–18 11 (17%)
4–10 10 (15%)
19–21 7 (11%)
≥ 3 4 (6%)

685Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (2018) 48:679–693
1 3
Syndrome and 5% as Pervasive Developmental Disorder-
Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS). Fourteen percent
were self-diagnosed, a category that is contested within the
autism community but which was included here because of
its relevance to the autistic self-advocacy community (Sar-
rett 2016). Information on level if impairment or function-
ing was not collected. Of the 51 participants who reported
diagnostic age, nineteen (29% of total participants) were
diagnosed at age twenty-two or older, meaning several were
diagnosed after or during their time at an institute of higher
education or attended an institute of higher education at
a later age. This reflects the results of a recent literature
review, which noted that 47% of the participants across the
studies included did not have a diagnosis when they began
college (Fabri etal. 2016). The data from this group are
included because their experiences interacting with higher
education structures and practices remain valuable in deter-
mining the needs of this community. Participants reported a
total of thirty-three comorbid conditions, the most frequent
of which were anxiety (36%), depression (30%), and ADD/
ADHD (24%).
Two participants did not report the type of institute of
higher education attended and of the remaining sixty-four,
twenty-three (36%) attended more than one category of insti-
tute. Fifty-three (83%) reported attending a college or uni-
versity, twenty (31%) attended community college, and one
reported attending a vocational or technical school. Fourteen
(22%) participants attended graduate school (seven (11%) for
each doctoral and master’s programs) and two (3%) attended
medical school.
Five participants did not indicate their area of study. As
some participants attended more than one institute of higher
education, including graduate education, some participants
reported more than one area of study. The two most com-
monly reported programs of study were liberal arts and the
humanities, at twenty-one (32% of the full 66) participants,
and the social sciences, at twenty (30%) participants. Fifteen
(23%) participants studied science, medicine, or math, nine
(14%) studied computer technology, seven (11%) studied
education, seven (11%) were in another category or unde-
clared, and two (3%) studied business or accounting. This
somewhat defies the often held belief of autistic individuals
being most interested in studying and following career paths
in science and/or technology.
Accommodations Received
Forty-three (65%) participants reported registering with
disability services at the institute of higher education they
attended. Forty-one (62%) reported receiving accommoda-
tions. This is somewhat lower than the findings of a study in
Europe which reported that 70% of students with disabili-
ties received some sort of institutional support (Fabri etal.
2016). Of the nineteen individuals who did not obtain an
autism diagnosis until after 22, ten reported registering with
disability services and/or getting accommodations in higher
education. These individuals may have received accommo-
dations for another diagnosis or attended college after their
diagnosis. The most commonly reported accommodations
are similar to those reported in previous research and are
typical of academic disability accommodations. The top five
accommodations received were extended test time, note tak-
ers, distraction free test areas (i.e., in a quiet room, test-
ing alone), flexible or extended due dates for assignments,
and the use of technology in the classroom (i.e., laptops,
smart pens). Other accommodations that were infrequently
reported but are in line with a UDL approach to higher edu-
cation are recording lectures, taking breaks during class, and
obtaining clear directions.
Twenty-eight (68%) participants who received accommo-
dations reported that the accommodations met their expec-
tations. Many described positive experiences with both the
disability services coordinators and the results of the accom-
modations. One participant noted: “I honestly didn’t realize
so many accommodations were available until I met with my
coordinator. He had a lot of great ideas.” Another participant
noted that, “with these accommodations, I graduated in the
top 4% of my class.” However, even among the participants
who reported that the accommodations met expectations,
several reported some difficulties with either the process or
with professor adherence. “They met my expectations,” one
participant reported, “but it was absolute hell trying to get
them to understand that the accommodations are necessary.”
Another participant reported, “accommodations are good if
the professor complies. Sometimes the professor does not
comply and there is nothing that can be done.”
Thirteen (31%) participants who received accommoda-
tions felt their accommodations did not meet their expecta-
tions. Many of these participants felt the accommodations
they received did not address their sensory, social, academic,
or psychiatric needs. “My mental health was never taken into
account in terms of my grades,” one participant reported.
Some found that many of the accommodations they were
granted were simply not useful, with one participant remark-
ing that
some of these [accommodations] were more useful
than others […] recording lectures was less useful,
for example, than having a notetaker […] because I
have too much [sic] auditory processing issues to suc-
cessfully navigate a crappy recording from a handheld
digital device, which picked up all the same noises that
were causing me trouble in the classroom.
This participant’s accommodations did not consider
sensory as well as academic needs, rendering some of the
accommodations impractical. Similarly, another participant

686 Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (2018) 48:679–693
1 3
reported the books on tape provided were not helpful
because this person can “read just fine” and would have liked
to receive written instructions in lecture courses, but this
accommodation was unavailable or was not offered.
Other participants reported dissatisfaction because of
inconsistent implementation, with one person noting, “If
the accommodations listed had consistently been provided
without excessive difficulty from professors and the need to
advocate for myself constantly, then yes [the accommoda-
tions would have been useful]. But realistically, no.” Among
the forty-eight participants who rated the frequency at which
faculty honored their accommodations in the survey, three
reported “Never” and five reported “Rarely”.
Focus group participants reflected this dissatisfaction.
Better awareness and provision of accommodations by
faculty and staff was the second most commented need in
the area of accommodations, with ten participants remark-
ing on this topic. One focus group member commented on
the perception of accommodations, stating, “It needs to be
understood accommodations are not meant to give an unfair
advantage to students, but to level out things where the
typical system doesn’t fit.” Another focus group participant
recalled, “I know too many professors who view this as not
their job or who are simply unprepared for anything more
complicated than extra time on tests.” Regardless of why
professors neglect to fulfill accommodation requests, at least
some students hypothesized that faculty members misunder-
stood the purpose of accommodations or were untrained in
providing them.
Accommodations Desired
This section focuses on accommodations study participants
would have liked to have received while attending an insti-
tute of higher education. The most frequently cited need
from both the survey and focus groups was increased autism
awareness on campus. These suggestions included com-
ments about the need to provide better training on autism to
staff, professors, and peers as well as impacting campus atti-
tudes about autism with the input of autistic people. “Actu-
ally listen to autistic people,” one participant noted, “we all
have different needs, different strengths and weaknesses.”
One survey participant had specific suggestions for various
staff members, noting that “medical and security staff should
know not to expect an autistic patient’s responses to be the
same as neurotypical’s in emergency situations” whereas
security staff need to know that “I truly may not know why
an action I’ve taken is unacceptable—if there isn’t a written
rule against it my logic may not see it as unacceptable.”
This area is also closely related to stigma and discrimina-
tory practices. Similar to findings from in the Gelbar etal.
(2015) study, participants in the current study reported
encountering negative attitudes on campus. “Don’t speak
about disabled people with disdain or hostility, accept dif-
ferences in others,” wrote one participant. Further, another
survey participant reported: “The way that psychology
classes and textbooks describe autism is often insulting,
and presented entirely from a neurotypical point of view.
Any classroom discussion of autism should include autistic
perspectives, and be mindful of the idea of neurodiversity.”
Concerns about negative attitudes extends beyond the class-
room and in to the production of educational materials.
The next four most reported desired accommodations
from the survey include: sensory friendly spaces and prac-
tices (to be discussed more fully below), educational prac-
tices designed for multiple learning preferences, a disabil-
ity support group, and more acceptance of self-stimulatory
behavior, or “stimming”, such as rocking back and forth or
flapping hands. These accommodations are not traditionally
academic and reflect the previous finding about incompat-
ible assumptions between faculty/staff and autistic students
about the needs of these students (Knott and Taylor 2014).
Four participants in the survey and seven in the focus
groups suggested that providing mentors, especially for new
students who identify as disabled, would be useful for social,
academic, and emotional support. However, there ere mixed
opinions regarding whether mentors should also be disabled
or autistic and what precisely their role should be (i.e., show
around campus, support for first year, check in regularly
throughout time on campus, as an adult aid).
The request for educational practices for a variety of
learning preferences is reflective of the need for UDL, a
term that four participants specifically used at least one time
in a survey or focus group response. In this area, participants
suggested that professors be trained on multiple learning
preferences and multiple teaching styles and encourage not
only lessons being taught with visual, auditory, and kines-
thetic strategies, but also allowing students to demonstrate
knowledge in these formats. This solution aligns well with
other requested and, for some, received, accommodations
such as flexible assignment due dates and formats, optional
group work, and clear instructions provided in multiple
formats.
There were several other desired accommodations noted
with less frequency but which align well with a UDL
approach to higher education. Five participants made com-
ments about the desire to be able to better tailor a curriculum
to their interest or skill set. One participant stated: “I wish
I could customize my degree requirements” and another
expressed a desire to opt-out of courses they believe they
will never use.5 Further, five participants desired the option
5 This is certainly not an autism-specific desire. In fact, a 2007 report
by researchers at James Madison University found that undergradu-
ate students in general are dissatisfied with general education require-
ments and would prefer more freedom and control over the direction
of their studies (Harmes and Miller 2007).

687Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (2018) 48:679–693
1 3
to take a reduced course load and still be considered full-
time. Participants reported being excluded from grant and
scholarship opportunities despite high grade point averages
(GPAs) because they were not considered full-time. Other
participants wanted more control over arranging their sched-
ules and desired preferential registration in order to do so.
Three participants desired advanced registration in order
to obtain a preferred schedule. One student wanted a class
schedule that would allow being “at school 3days/week,
with days in between [to] just do homework.”
While only eight (12%) survey participants commented
on the need for more online courses and online commu-
nication methods, seven (23%) focus group participants
made comments in this area. Given previous research not-
ing autistic students express a preference for online learning
options (Satterfield etal. 2015), this is lower than expected.
However, there were no specific questions on the provision
of this option, which may have yielded more comments on
this preference.
Four focus groups included comments on whether accom-
modations should be provided to people who do not have
an official disability diagnosis or designation, two of which
had extended conversations on this topic. Eight (26%) par-
ticipants argued that accommodations should be available to
students without a diagnosis while one (3%) argued strongly
against this practice. One (3%) participant made comments
both for and against accommodations for people without
diagnoses, but in different conversations. Those who agreed
accommodations should be available without a diagnosis
noted that not having an official diagnosis does not mean
a student does not identify as disabled or as having needs.
Providing accommodations without the requirement of
disability suggests, to some, that the classroom is a safe
space. One participant noted that if professors and staff
agreed to provide accommodations without “proof […
this would go] a long way to building trust and a feeling
of safety.” Other participants noted that even students who
do not identify as disabled may find some accommodations
helpful. One focus group member noted that “everyone
needs accommodations, and everyone is special, so using
those words for us reinforces separate and unequal.”
The participant who was not in favor of providing accom-
modations to students without a diagnosed disability argued
that the process of obtaining a diagnosis is rigorous and the
purpose of providing accommodations is to level the play-
ing field and so providing them to students who do not go
through the process and who are not disabled is unfair. One
solution offered, and agreed with by other participants, was
to make the process required to obtaining a diagnosis itself
more accessible. “[P]erhaps,” one participant suggested,
“schools could [make] it easier to seek out diagnosis and
[provide] access to diagnostic services free or at a reduced
cost.”
Discussion
This article reports the results from a national exploratory
study that utilized both an online survey and online, follow-
up focus groups to gather information from sixty-six autistic
adults about their experiences in higher education as well as
their thoughts on how these experiences could be designed
to be more autism-friendly. Specifically, this study focused
on the accommodations autistic students reported receiv-
ing, their satisfaction with these accommodations, and what
accommodations they would like to have received. Overall,
participants in the current study reported mixed levels of
satisfaction with the accommodations they received. Many
found accommodations focused on academic needs but did
not meet two primary concerns: sensory and social needs. In
response to these concerns, recommendations for institutes
of higher education in the areas of sensory needs and the
creation of a neurodiverse space are now provided.
Recommendations
As noted, participants were also asked how institutes of
higher education could be made more ‘autism-friendly’.
The below recommendations are built from those sugges-
tions and, where available, previous literature in the area.
Based on frequency of suggested need, recommendations are
focused on social accommodations and neurodiverse campus
spaces. See Table3 for an overview of recommendations.
Social Accommodations
Many participants in this study and in previous studies
reported difficulties navigating social situations at institutes
of higher education and indicated a need for more services
designed to improve the social life of autistic students. A
survey of Australians students who identify as being on the
autism spectrum reported that, while about 63% of students
reported having their academic needs met, only around 27%
reported having their social needs met. A literature review by
Gelbar etal. (2015) found that, similar to the results of the
current study, the most commonly reported social-emotional
challenges are anxiety, loneliness, and depression. Among
their participants, 56% reported feeling lonely, 61% reported
feeling isolated, and 42% reported feeling depressed. They
concluded that it “may be important for colleges to pro-
vide these students with the opportunities to acquire more
advanced social skills” (p.49).
Although the current study did not question participants
about their level of social interactions on campus or feel-
ings of loneliness or community involvement, many par-
ticipants noted that they would have liked to receive some

688 Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (2018) 48:679–693
1 3
accommodation that addressed social needs when asked
about desired accommodations and unmet needs. Most of
these were in the form of either desiring a disability sup-
port group with low-impact, sensory friendly events or the
availability of mentors. Participants suggested a variety of
models or features of these supports, which institutes of
higher education can consider, however, in line with dis-
ability advocacy recommendations (Charlton 1998, 2006;
Jaeger 2005), it is recommended that individual institutes
gather input from enrolled autistic students to ensure the
social supports meet the needs of current students.
A recent review of literature on social support groups
for autistic adults looked at the impact of both formal and
informal social support groups on quality of life. The authors
concluded that a model incorporating some of the structures
of formal social skills instruction into more informal social
support groups may be most useful (Tobin etal. 2014). This
suggestion is in line with the recommendations from the
participants in the current study. On participant noted that
structured activities can “provide scaffolding for social inter-
actions and predictability in what is going to happen” but
also suggests pairing this with “unstructured time to accom-
modate neurotypical needs for self-directed socialization.”
Others suggested that social groups should be organized
around the interests of the individuals in the group. For
instance, campuses could host activities and events set on a
regular schedule (i.e. every Monday evening) in which group
members can choose to participate or not. Group members
can be provided opportunities to nominate these activities
or events to ensure they are of interest to the group. If activi-
ties are located on campus in a designated space, such as the
space described below, individuals can attend and participate
or stay close, but choose not to interact with others or engage
in the organized activity. An interesting model proposed
by a survey participant is to have sessions wherein group
members could indicate an interest they have or would like
to learn about, perhaps with a visual indicator (i.e. a picture
of a board game, TV show, or restaurant), and stand by their
indicated topic. Other students can then approach the student
who is hosting that interest and decide on shared activities
to participate in or simply have a conversation about that
interest. In this way, small groups or pairs of students can
find others with common interests.
In a focus group discussion about the inclusion of neu-
rotypical people in support or social groups, the general
consensus was that these activities should be for autistic or
disabled students only. One focus group member noted:
I think autistic/disabled students should perhaps have
their own organization(s) or space where they run
cultural and educational events and neurotypical or
abled students are welcome to come and listen and
learn something. But we need to be in charge of the
space and event and they need to always be viewed as
a guest, in order for it to not verge into patronizing,
othering, charity territory.
In this way, other people can learn more about and inter-
act with the autism community in ways that autistic students
design. The concern about the involvement of neurotypical
students was echoed by another participant, who stated “I
can’t really think of a realistic way to create a non-awkward
social group with neurotypical students that doesn’t feel like
somebody is assigning me friends.” While support for get-
ting along and communicating with neurotypical students
and staff was of interest to several participants, this is a need
participants felt should be fulfilled with the use of social
skills counseling, social mediators, or a neurotypical mentor.
While social skills counseling and training is a well-
established strategy (Cappadocia and Weiss 2011; Otero
etal. 2015; Rao etal. 2008), the use of social mediators
Table 3 Overview of recommendations
Social accommodations
Disability support group with low-impact, sensory friendly events organized around the interests of the individuals in the group
Peer mentors trained on neurodiversity and autism to encourage and attend social events with, check-in regularly, and answer questions about
interactions with peers
Mediators trained in neurodiversity, autism, and mediation to help with interactions with staff and faculty
Neurodiverse space
Physical space for social gatherings, sensory time, and/or escape room with low lighting, low noise, and a policy of no strong smells
Sensory time should allow and encourage multi-sensory engagement and multiple seating options
Available, quiet space with noise cancelling headphones where students can be alone for some time
Other recommendations
Staff, faculty, and administration training on autism, neurodiversity, and accommodations for in and out of the classroom. Autism awareness
programing for peers
More inclusion of autistic feedback on program development
Disability focused suicide prevention programs
Autism awareness programing for peers

689Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (2018) 48:679–693
1 3
and neurotypical mentors are alternative ideas that have
overlapping roles. Mediators were suggested by partici-
pants for a range of situations, such as providing sugges-
tions for encounters with neurotypical staff or students.
Research on mediation in higher education focuses largely
on the legal and interpersonal mediation needs of faculty
members and students, finding official mediation programs
to be effective (Klingel and Maffie 2011; Miller 1987; Yarn
2014). There is little work looking at mediation for issues
related to disability. One study trained enrolled students
with disabilities in self-advocacy and conflict resolution,
finding the training to be useful and valuable for students
and staff (Palmer and Roessler 2000).
Disability-focused mediation would be helpful for insti-
tutes of higher education and their students with disabili-
ties. Mediators specifically trained on disability-related
issues could be part of campus disability services offices
and assist students with communicating or interacting
with accommodations needs and legal concerns but also
conflicts involving roommates, group members for class
activities, professors, members of a campus group, or
peers on campus with whom the student is having chal-
lenging interactions.
Relatedly, peer mentors have been found to be useful for
student retention, post-graduation employment, and sociali-
zation for students with and without disabilities (O’Brien
etal. 2009; Redmond 1990; Segall etal. 2016; Whelley etal.
2003). These roles are more causal than that of an official
mediator. Neurotypical, peer mentors can be student vol-
unteers who, in the words of one participant, “attend some
regular school events with the autistic students to help them
get more comfortable,” as well as check in regularly with the
student, encourage more social activities, and answer ques-
tions about social interaction strategies of non-autistic peers.
Many current autism-focused college programs have
some sort of social-focused mentoring program, some of
which employ peer mentors. Several utilize program staff
or graduate students with whom to engage in social activi-
ties. Many programs are developed and run by psychologists
or social workers with specialized experience in autism. It
is recommended here that programs be designed with the
specific campus and student body in mind and respondent
to feedback from enrolled autistic students. Additionally,
while mentors can be peers, mediators should be an official
campus role fulfilled by a staff member who has training in
mediation and is well versed in campus regulations and pro-
tocols. Students who request mediators and mentors should
have the option for continuous assistance over the course
of a semester or academic year(s) or request assistance on
a periodic, as needed basis. Both mediators and mentors
should be trained in neurodiversity and autism and can, as
one participant explained, “bridge what constantly feels like
a culture gap.”
Neurodiverse Space
Neurodiversity scholars Bertilsdotter Rosqvist etal. (2013)
explored the concept of shared and separate spaces as it
relates to autism, social interactions, and friendships. They
argue that shared spaces, which are ambiguous and com-
prised of people with a range of social identities, can be
threatening to people of difference. As it relates to autism
and neurodiversity, this space is often called ‘normal’, ‘nor-
mate’, or ‘mainstream’ spaces. Separate spaces, those that
are dedicated to individuals who share certain social identi-
ties, most often those considered to be of an outsider status
(e.g., ‘gay space’), can feel safe and inclusive. Neurodiverse
spaces, online and physical, allow autistic individuals to
open up about their neurostatus, develop friendships, and
unite over common issues and concerns, including strate-
gies for interacting in ‘normal’, or neurotypical spaces. In
this space, autism-specific definitions of friendships can be
enacted (Bertilsdotter Rosqvist etal. 2013; Brownlow etal.
2015; O’Dell etal. 2011). For the purposes of the current
work, it is proposed that making a neurodiverse space avail-
able to autistic students will provide opportunities to take a
break from the stress of navigating neurotypical spaces and
develop friendships, which can reduce the oft-reported feel-
ings of loneliness and anxiety (Fabri etal. 2016). Specified
spaces for students of similar cultures and identities may
help with student retention (Braxton etal. 2007), which, as
noted in the introduction, is an issue for disabled students.
While separate spaces for autistic students was not
reported as a desired accommodation on the survey (likely
because the focus of the survey questions were on academic
situations), comments about the need for sensory-related
accommodations were second only to more autism aware-
ness in the area of desired accommodations. These com-
ments suggest autistic students could benefit from a separate
space designed for their needs. These kinds of accommoda-
tions were more often discussed in the focus groups, where
fourteen participants provided suggestions for the creation
of an autism-friendly space on campus.
One of these suggestions was to create a simple meet-
ing space to facilitate the type of social support outlined
above. This space would need to be attentive to the sensory
needs of members. A recent review of autistic autobiogra-
phies identified needs of and suggestions for autism-friendly
architecture that is attentive to sensory needs, noting the
need for sensory rooms and escape rooms. Sensory rooms
are those that offer multi-sensory engagement and explora-
tion using light, textures, colors, and sound (Kinnaer etal.
2016). There is evidence that many autistic adults experience
sensory over-responsivity (Tavassoli etal. 2014) and that
sensory experiences are related to emotions and function
(Robertson and Simmons 2015). Even small environmental
modifications could reduce distress and improve quality of

690 Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (2018) 48:679–693
1 3
life (Robertson and Simmons 2015; Tavassoli etal. 2014).
Further, recent review of the literature finds that sensory
integration training has some positive effects for children
(Lang etal. 2012) and a pilot study of a sensory room in an
adult inpatient psychiatric facility found it led to reduced
distress as reported by its users as well as reduced observed
disruptive behavior (Novak etal. 2012).
Further, rooms with low lighting, low noise, and a policy
of no perfumes or strong smells that autistic students can
access may lead to beneficial quality of life and academic
changes. The space should also have a variety of seating
options, such as armchairs, ball chairs, beanbags, and com-
fortable floor seating. Additionally, there can be an area, or
areas, of the room dedicated to people wanting to be in the
space, but not interact with others. Escape places, which are
locations to which a person can retreat (Kinnaer etal. 2016),
should be incorporated. Focus groups participants expressed
a desire for places like this to engage in stimming behaviors
and rooms in which they can lock the door and retreat for
some time. Two participants suggested that these rooms be
located near a disability or counseling office so individuals
in distress can quickly and easily access those resources.
One participant argued against the need for these spaces,
noting “I’m against institutional safe spaces. Campuses nor-
mally have plenty of quiet places that students can use on
their own to create safe spaces. Students should be encour-
aged to organize themselves and take initiative to create their
own safe space. College is about learning to function in the
real world, which requires independence.” This comment
speaks to the need for autistic people to learn to navigate the
neurotypical world, and suggests that safe spaces will hinder
that skill set. It seems that this strategy is being employed by
autistic students; several participants identified the library as
a safe space on campus.
Physical space is often scarce at institutes of higher
education, so combining social and sensory spaces into
one location may be the best option. A single, designated
neurodiverse space can have dedicated sensory, stimming
hours and dedicated meeting or socializing hours. Regard-
less of time, a cubicle or otherwise sectioned off area could
be available as an escape place, which should have a door,
an occupied sign, and noise cancelling headphones. Addi-
tionally, online spaces are an easy option to provide autistic
students. Research has found autistic students prefer online
interactions with campus staff, peers, and each other (O’Dell
etal. 2011; Satterfield etal. 2015). Developing an online
support and networking space where autistic students can
share experiences, request advice, and develop friendships is
important for addressing the social needs of this community.
Additional Comments
The need for more autism awareness and understanding
by staff and peers was a frequently reported need by par-
ticipants. Campus initiatives, workshops, and trainings on
this topic need to be designed with the input of autistic
people and focus on the variability within the community
and the benefits of neurodiversity both in and out of the
classroom. As noted by one of the participants of the cur-
rent study, these trainings should involve non-faculty staff,
such as security and medical personnel. Trainings should
include useful strategies to employ in and out of the class-
room, which should also be addressed in pedagogical train-
ing received during graduate or professional school. While
these trainings can be rolled up into general disability train-
ing, the rising numbers of neurodiverse students in higher
education may warrant autism-specific trainings for faculty,
administration, and staff. These trainings may help with the
issue reported by participants of discriminatory class dis-
cussions and materials as it will prepare faculty to identify
and discuss these instances. Further, given the high rates of
distress noted in this and previous research, campuses should
develop suicide prevention or crisis intervention programs
targeted at students with disabilities.
Issues of inconsistent implementation and difficulty
obtaining accommodations are of concern. Non-compliance
likely reflects the difficulty with faculty and staff buy-in
noted above and, though not frequently reported, is a serious
breach of disability law and practice. Obtaining accommoda-
tions often requires some combination of acquiring official
testing and diagnoses, providing documentation of a diag-
nosis and/or needs, and regular meetings with disability ser-
vices staff.6 This process is often long and complicated. At
least one participant envisioned a solution grounded in UDL:
“I wish classes were designed in a way that accommodates
all learners, rather than only using lectures. […] Extended
test time and taking breaks helps, but I really want colleges
to become more aware of universal design, and apply it.”
Many of the autistic students who participated in this
study reported being dissatisfied with the accommodations
they received, particularly needs that are not traditionally
academic, such as psychiatric, sensory, or social needs. Insti-
tutes of higher education need to include a broader range of
accommodations needed for academic success. For instance,
the acceptance of self-stimulatory behaviors is important for
attending to sensory concerns and often assists students with
focusing. The current article provided specific recommenda-
tions for attending to the social and sensory needs of autis-
tic students through the development of support or social
6 This data was collected but not include due to space constraints.
However, it is available upon request.

691Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (2018) 48:679–693
1 3
groups and neurodiverse spaces. The input from participants
in the survey and focus groups was included in suggestions
on creating these spaces, however, it must be emphasized
that individual institutes should reach out to their autism
communities to best design these spaces and opportunities.
Limitations andFuture Directions
There are some limitations to the current study that suggest
areas of more focused, future research. The current study
did not include information on race or ethnicity or current
income. These factors may provide important insight into the
types of participants likely to provide input on a study such
as this one. Additionally, there was no information on what
autistic traits or symptoms participants exhibit nor the level
of significance of their disability or impairment. Though
designed for accessibility, the survey likely failed to capture
individuals who are more significantly disabled and, thus,
unable to fill out the survey and focus group forms. This
suggests a selection bias such that this participant group
may reflect individuals with certain manifestations of autis-
tic traits and a lower level of impairment. Future research on
the experiences of students with more significant disabilities
would provide interesting insight into their unique provision
needs and satisfaction with accommodations. This research
would need to be carefully designed to encourage and
enable access for these individuals. Additionally, given the
stated focus of the study was to gather information for more
autism-friendly post-secondary opportunities, it is possible
the individuals who chose to participate are more involved
in neurodiversity, and thus are commenting from that per-
spective. Finally, more strenuous reliability procedures could
have been taken, however it was determined that given the
study’s exploratory nature and the fact that the PI was the
sole coder of the dataset, the reliability measures used were
deemed appropriate. However, at sixty-six respondents, this
study is a larger national sample of autistic individuals on
the topic of post-secondary opportunities in the U.S. as com-
pared to previous research, such as Gelbar etal. (2015) at
thirty-five participants and White etal. (2016) with five par-
ticipants. While more research needs to be done, the number
of participants and geographic range is notable.
Implications
As the population of neurodiverse students entering insti-
tutes of higher education rises, it is imperative to pay
more attention to developing post-secondary experiences
that are more widely accessible and universally designed.
Many of the suggestions here, such as clearer instructions,
multi-modal learning and teaching strategies, and the use
of mentors and mediators, are useful for a range of students,
such as those with other disabilities, international students,
and many non-disabled students. By focusing on UDL with
autism in mind, any student with communication, physi-
cal, sensory, social, academic, executive functioning, or
independent living needs will be better set up to succeed in
higher education.
Acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge the assistance of Sierra
Weiss in distributing the survey information and with coding the result-
ant date. Additionally, I would like to thank Julia Bascom for her input
on the survey questions as well as Dr. Shan Mukhtar for her comments
and feedback on the survey questions and design as well as an early
version of this article.
Author Contributions As the sole author, JCS is responsible for all
aspects of the current article, from conception to implementation,
analysis, and article construction.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest Jennifer C. Sarrett declares that she has no conflict
of interest.
Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving human
participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of Emory
University, whose Institutional Review Board approved the current
study on April 8, 2016 and assigned the study the identification code
of IRB #00087911. Thus, the study is in compliance with the 1964
Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual
participants included in the study.
References
Bernard, H. R., & Ryan, G. W. (2010). Analyzing qualitative data:
Systematic approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Bertilsdotter Rosqvist, H., Brownlow, C., & O’Dell, L. (2013). Map-
ping the social geographies of autism—online and off-line narra-
tives of neuro-shared and separate spaces. Disability & Society,
28(3), 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.714257.
Braxton, J. M., Brier, E. M., & Steele, S. L. (2007). Shaping reten-
tion from research to practice. Journal of College Student Reten-
tion: Research, Theory & Practice, 9(3), 377–399. https://doi.
org/10.2190/CS.9.3.g.
Brownlow, C., Rosqvist, B. H., & O’Dell, L. (2015). Exploring the
potential for social networking among people with autism: Chal-
lenging dominant ideas of “friendship. Scandinavian Journal of
Disability Research, 17(2), 188–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/15
017419.2013.859174.
Cai, R. Y., & Richdale, A. L. (2016). Educational experiences and
needs of higher education students with autism spectrum disorder.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(1), 31–41.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-015-2535-1.
Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K.
(2013). Coding In-depth semistructured interviews: Prob-
lems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement.
Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294–320. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0049124113500475.

692 Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (2018) 48:679–693
1 3
Cappadocia, M. C., & Weiss, J. A. (2011). Review of social skills
training groups for youth with asperger syndrome and high
functioning autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders,
5(1), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2010.04.001.
Charlton, J. I. (1998). Nothing about us without us disability oppres-
sion and empowerment. Berkeley: Berkeley, Calif.
Charlton, J. I. (2006). Nothing about us without us. In Encyclo-
pedia of disability (pp.1163–1163). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Cleland, J., Gibbon, F. E., Peppé, S. J. E., O’Hare, A., & Rutherford,
M. (2010). Phonetic and phonological errors in children with high
functioning autism and asperger syndrome. International Journal
of Speech-Language Pathology, 12(1), 69–76.
Coduti, W. A., Hayes, J. A., Locke, B. D., & Youn, S. J. (2016). Mental
health and professional help-seeking among college students with
disabilities. Rehabilitation Psychology, 61(3), 288–296. https://
doi.org/10.1037/rep0000101.
Couzens, D., Poed, S., Kataoka, M., Brandon, A., Hartley, J., & Keen,
D. (2015). Support for students with hidden disabilities in univer-
sities: A case study. International Journal of Disability, Develop-
ment & Education, 62(1), 24.
Cox, B. E., Thompson, K., Anderson, A., Mintz, A., Locks, T., Morgan,
L., … Wolz, A. (2017). College experiences for students with
autism spectrum disorder: Personal identity, public disclosure, and
institutional support. Journal of College Student Development,
58(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0004.
Fabri, M., Andrews, P., & Pukki, H. (2016). A guide to best practice in
supporting higher education students on the autism spectrum—for
professionals within and outside of HE.
Fleischer, A. S. (2012). Support to students with asperger syndrome
in higher education—the perspectives of three relatives and three
coordinators. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research,
35(1), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1097/MRR.0b013e32834f4d3b.
Gelbar, N. W., Shefcyk, A., & Reichow, B. (2015). A comprehen-
sive survey of current and former college students with autism
spectrum disorders. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine,
88(1), 45–68.
Gelbar, N. W., Smith, I., & Reichow, B. (2014). Systematic review of
articles describing experience and supports of individuals with
autism enrolled in college and university programs. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44(10), 2593–2601. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2135-5.
Gobbo, K., & Shmulsky, S. (2014). Faculty experience with col-
lege students with autism spectrum disorders: A qualita-
tive study of challenges and solutions. Focus on Autism and
Other Developmental Disabilities, 29(1), 13–22. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1088357613504989.
Grasgreen, A. (2013). Settlements put colleges’ duty to ensure blind
students access to materials under new scrutiny. Retrieved August
16, 2016, from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/07/26/
settlements-put-colleges-duty-ensure-blind-students-access-mate-
rials-under-new.
Grogan, G. (2015). Supporting students with autism in higher educa-
tion through teacher educator programs. SRATE Journal, 24(2),
8–13.
Harkin, T. (1990) The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub.
L. No. 101–336, 12101, 42 .
Harmes, J., & Miller, B. J. (2007). What do college students think
about general education and assessment? Paper presented at the
Northeastern Educational Research Association, Rocky Hill, CT.
Hendrickson, J., Carson, R., Woods-Groves, S., Mendenhall, J., &
Scheidecker, B. (2013). UI Reach: A postsecondary program serv-
ing students with autism and intellectual disabilities. Education
and Treatment of Children, 36(4), 169–194.
Jaeger, P. T. (2005). Understanding disability: Inclusion, access, diver-
sity, and civil rights. Westport: Westport, Conn.: Praeger.
Kapp, S. (2013). Empathizing with sensory and movement differences:
Moving toward sensitive understanding of autism. Frontiers in
Integrative Neuroscience, 7, 38.
Kapp, S. K., Gantman, A., & Laugeson, E. A. (2011). Transition to
adulthood for high-functioning individiuals with Autism Spec-
trum Disorders. In M.-R. Mohammadi (Ed.), A comprehensive
book on autism spectrum disorders. Rijeka: InTech.
Kinnaer, M., Baumers, S., & Heylighen, A. (2016). Autism-friendly
architecture from the outside in and the inside out: An explora-
tive study based on autobiographies of autistic people. Journal of
Housing and the Built Environment, 31(2), 179–195. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10901-015-9451-8.
Klingel, S., & Maffie, M. (2011). Conflict management systems in
higher education: A look at mediation in public universities—pro-
quest. Dispute Resolution Journal, 66(3), 12–17.
Knott, F., & Taylor, A. (2014). Life at university with Asperger syn-
drome: A comparison of student and staff perspectives. Interna-
tional Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(4), 411–426. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13603116.2013.781236.
Lang, R., O’Reilly, M., Healy, O., Rispoli, M., Lydon, H., Streusand,
W., … Giesbers, S. (2012). Sensory integration therapy for autism
spectrum disorders: A systematic review. Research in Autism
Spectrum Disorders, 6(3), 1004–1018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rasd.2012.01.006.
Lin, I.-F., Mochida, T., Asada, K., Ayaya, S., Kumagaya, S.-I., & Kato,
M. (2015). Atypical delayed auditory feedback effect and Lom-
bard effect on speech production in high-functioning adults with
autism spectrum disorder. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00510.
Madriaga, M., & Goodley, D. (2010). Moving beyond the minimum:
Socially just pedagogies and Asperger’s syndrome in UK higher
education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(2),
115–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802504168.
Mao, Y., & Richter, S. (2014). Content analysis: Canadian newspaper
coverage of homelessness. London: SAGE Publications.
Miles, M., & Huberman, H. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A
sourcebook of new methods (2ndedn.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.
Miller, K. (1987). The effectiveness of mediation in higher education.
Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 3, 187–218.
Novak, T., Scanlan, J., McCaul, D., MacDonald, N., & Clarke, T.
(2012). Pilot study of a sensory room in an acute inpatient psy-
chiatric unit. Australasian Psychiatry, 20(5), 401–406. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1039856212459585.
O’Brien, P., Shevlin, M., O’Keefe, M., Fitzgerald, S., Curtis, S., &
Kenny, M. (2009). Opening up a whole new world for students with
intellectual disabilities within a third level setting: Opening up a
whole new world. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(4),
285–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3156.2009.00584.x.
O’Dell, L., Brownlow, C., & Rosqvist, H. B. (2011, January). Neuro-
diverse spaces: Exploring the potential for social networking to
reconstruct our ideas of “friendship.” Conference presented at
the Critical Autism Seminar Day, Sheffield, UK. Retrieved from
https://eprints.usq.edu.au/9403/.
Otero, T. L., Schatz, R. B., Merrill, A. C., & Bellini, S. (2015). Social
skills training for youth with autism spectrum disorders: A follow-
up: A follow-up. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics, 24(1),
99–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2014.09.002.
Palmer, C., & Roessler, R. T. (2000). Requesting classroom accommo-
dations: Self-advocacy and conflict resolution training for college
students with disabilities—ProQuest. Journal of Rehabilitation,
66(3), 38–43.
Peña, E. V., & Kocux, J. (2013). Parents’ experiences in the transition
of students with autism spectrum disorders to community col-
lege. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College; San
Diego, 20(2), 29–36.

693Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (2018) 48:679–693
1 3
Pinder-Amaker, S. (2014). Identifying the unmet needs of college
students on the autism spectrum. Harvard Review of Psychiatry,
22(2), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1097/HRP.0000000000000032.
Pugliese, C. E., & White, S. W. (2014). Brief report: Problem solv-
ing therapy in college students with autism spectrum disorders:
Feasibility and preliminary efficacy. Journal of Autism and Devel-
opmental Disorders, 44(3), 719–729. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10803-013-1914-8.
Rao, P., Beidel, D., & Murray, M. (2008). Social skills interventions
for children with asperger’s syndrome or high-functioning autism:
A review and recommendations. Journal of autism and devel-
opmental disorders, 38(2), 353–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10803-007-0402-4.
Raue, K., Lewis, L., & Coopersmith, J. (2011). Students with disa-
bilities at degree-granting postsecondary institutions—2011018.
pdf. Retrieved August 16, 2016, from http://nces.ed.gov/
pubs2011/2011018.pdf.
Redmond, S. P. (1990). Mentoring and cultural diversity in academic
settings. American Behavioral Scientist, 34(2), 188–200. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0002764290034002007.
Robertson, A. E., & Simmons, D. R. (2015). The Sensory experiences
of adults with autism spectrum disorder: A qualitative analysis.
Perception, 44(5), 569–586. https://doi.org/10.1068/p7833.
Sarrett, J. C. (2016). Biocertification and neurodiversity: The role and
implications of self-diagnosis in autistic communities. Neuroeth-
ics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-016-9247-x.
Sarrett, J. C. (2017). Interviews, disclosure, and misperceptions: Autis-
tic adults’ perspectives on employment related challenges. Dis-
ability Studies Quarterly, 37(2), 2017.
Satterfield, D., Lepage, C., & Ladjahasan, N. (2015). Preferences for
online course delivery methods in higher education for students
with autism spectrum disorders. Procedia Manufacturing, 3,
3651–3656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.758.
Sayman, D. M. (2015). I still need my security teddy bear: Experiences
of an individual with autism spectrum disorder in higher educa-
tion. Learning Assistance Review (TLAR), 20(1), 77–98.
Schindler, V., Cajiga, A., Aaronson, R., & Salas, L. (2015). The experi-
ence of transition to college for students diagnosed with asperger’s
disorder. The Open Journal of Occupational Therapy, 3(1), 2.
https://doi.org/10.15453/2168-6408.1129.
Segall, M. J., Rossbach, K., Bohlke, K., Colker, S., & Croft, S. (2016).
Peer mentoring for college students with Autism Spectrum Dis-
order. St. Louis, MO: Presented at the Council for Exception
Children.
Shattuck, P. T., Narendorf, S. C., Cooper, B., Sterzing, P. R., Wagner,
M., & Taylor, J. L. (2012). Postsecondary education and employ-
ment among youth with an autism spectrum disorder. Pediatrics,
129(6), 1042–1049. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-2864.
Shaw, R. A. (2011). Employing universal design for instruction. New
Directions for Student Services, 2011(134), 21–33. https://doi.
org/10.1002/ss.392.
Silberman, S. (2015). Neurotribes: The legacy of autism and the future
of neurodiversity. New York: Avery, a member of Penguin Group
USA.
Tavassoli, T., Miller, L. J., Schoen, S. A., Nielsen, D. M., & Baron-
Cohen, S. (2014). Sensory over-responsivity in adults with
autism spectrum conditions. Autism, 18(4), 428–432. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1362361313477246.
Taylor, M. J. (2005). Teaching students with autistic spectrum disorders
in HE. Education & Training; London, 47(6/7), 484–495.
Timmerman, L. C., & Mulvihill, T. M. (2015). Accommodations in the
college setting: The perspectives of students living with disabili-
ties. The Qualitative Report; Fort Lauderdale, 20(10), 1609–1625.
Tobin, M. C., Drager, K. D. R., & Richardson, L. F. (2014). A system-
atic review of social participation for adults with autism spec-
trum disorders: Support, social functioning, and quality of life.
Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 8(3), 214–229. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2013.12.002.
Van Hees, V., Moyson, T., & Roeyers, H. (2015). Higher education
experiences of students with autism spectrum disorder: Chal-
lenges, benefits and support needs. Journal of Autism and Devel-
opmental Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2324-2.
Wei, X., Christiano, E. R. A., Yu, J. W., Blackorby, J., Shattuck, P., &
Newman, L. A. (2014). Postsecondary pathways and persistence
for STEM Versus Non-STEM Majors: Among college students
with an autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Devel-
opmental Disorders, 44(5), 1159–1167. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10803-013-1978-5.
Wei, X., Wagner, M., Hudson, L., Yu, J. W., & Javitz, H. (2016). The
effect of transition planning participation and goal-setting on
college enrollment among youth with autism spectrum disor-
ders. Remedial and Special Education, 37(1), 3–14. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0741932515581495.
Whelley, T. A., Radtke, R., Burgstahler, S., & Christ, T. W. (2003).
Mentors, advisers role models, & peer supporters: Career devel-
opment relationships and individuals with disabilities. Ameri-
can Rehabilitation. Retrieved from https://www.highbeam.com/
doc/1G1-110802886.html.
White, S. W., Elias, R., Salinas, C. E., Capriola, N., Conner, C. M.,
Asselin, S. B., … Getzel, E. E. (2016). Students with autism spec-
trum disorder in college: Results from a preliminary mixed meth-
ods needs analysis. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 56,
29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2016.05.010.
White, S. W., Richey, J. A., Gracanin, D., Coffman, M., Elias, R., LaC-
onte, S., & Ollendick, T. H. (2016). Psychosocial and computer-
assisted intervention for college students with autism spectrum
disorder: Preliminary support for feasibility. Education and Train-
ing in Autism and Developmental Disabilities; Arlington, 51(3),
307–317.
Yarn, D. (2014). Designing a conflict management system for higher
education: A case study for design in integrative organiza-
tions. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 32(1), 83–105. https://doi.
org/10.1002/crq.21102.
Zager, D., & Alpern, C. S. (2010). College-based inclusion program-
ming for transition-age students with autism. Focus on Autism
and Other Developmental Disabilities, 25(3), 151–157. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1088357610371331.
Zeedyk, S. M., Tipton, L. A., & Blacher, J. (2016). Educational supports
for high functioning youth with ASD: The postsecondary pathway
to college. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabili-
ties, 31(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357614525435.