Previous Article in Journal
“To Live or Not to Live”: The Silent Voices of Adolescents with Disabilities in Ghana
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Disabilities
Volume 5
Issue 3
10.3390/disabilities5030065
disabilities-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Disability Awareness Programs on Influencing University Students’ Attitudes

by
Nazem Qandeel
1,*,
Anan Abu Mariam
1,
Numan Al-Natsheh
2,
Hatem Shlool
3 and
Ayman Oudah
4
1
Department of Special Education, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman 19111, Jordan
2
Department of Clinical Psychology, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman 19111, Jordan
3
Physical and Health Education Department, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman 19111, Jordan
4
Al-Bayan Bilingual School, Kuwait City 32004, Kuwait
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Disabilities 2025, 5(3), 65; https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities5030065
Submission received: 24 April 2025 / Revised: 23 June 2025 / Accepted: 16 July 2025 / Published: 23 July 2025
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

The present study investigated the impact of a disability awareness program on the attitudes of university students at Al-Ahliyya Amman University towards people with disabilities. The study employed a randomized, two-group, pre- and post-test design. A total of 60 university students were randomly allocated to either the experimental or control group. The results of a survey showed that those in the experimental group, in comparison with the control group, exhibited a statistically significant increase in the favorability of their attitudes towards people with disabilities following the implementation of the program. Based on the results of this study, we recommend implementing disability awareness programs inside universities and subsequently evaluating their effectiveness in enhancing student attitudes and interactions with people with disabilities, which in turn could lead to a more inclusive society and improve the quality of life for people with disabilities by reducing social barriers and fostering greater understanding and acceptance. The limitations of this study include its restriction to a single university setting and its utilization of a rather small sample size. The study did not assess the long-term effects of the disability awareness program.

1. Introduction

In recent years, efforts to include people with disabilities have multiplied worldwide, including assistive technology, barrier-free environments, supportive legislation, and wider access to education and employment [1,2]. These measures rest on the conviction that inclusion is vital for building a fair society in which everyone can live with dignity and realize their potential [3]. Evidence further shows that full inclusion boosts quality of life for people with disabilities and, at the same time, nurtures more innovative, tolerant, and equitable communities [4,5,6].
Nevertheless, despite these initiatives, considerable barriers persist that limit full inclusion. Physical barriers—such as inaccessible buildings and transportation—intersect with social stigma and deficiencies in policy implementation to restrict opportunities for people with disabilities and undermine the effectiveness of inclusion initiatives [7,8,9]
Current studies suggest that disability awareness initiatives, whether they are short workshops, multi-week courses, or community projects, are effective in reducing misconceptions and promoting positive attitudes towards people with disabilities [10,11,12]. Yet, the majority of studies continue to concentrate on school settings, resulting in a distinct deficiency at the university level, particularly in Jordan and comparable contexts [13,14,15].
In Jordan, the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in March 2008, the legislation of Law No. 20/2017, and the initiation of the 2019–2029 National Strategy for Inclusive Education indicate significant legislative advancement; however, field reports and campus surveys continue to expose persistent architectural barriers, inconsistent policy implementation, and—most importantly—ongoing social segregation between university students with and without disabilities [15,16]. Several national organizations have attempted to address this gap, including the Hayat Center’s disability leadership workshops and UNICEF-Jordan’s inclusive school awareness campaigns [17,18]; however, these efforts have rarely focused on university environments directly.
Recent research indicates that several undergraduates rarely participate in meaningful daily interactions with peers with disabilities, and this restricted engagement promotes negative stereotypes and uncertainty regarding suitable support approaches [19,20]. These observations highlight a disparity between progressive law and actual campus experiences, reinforcing the necessity for disability awareness programs that are collaboratively developed with people with disabilities and systematically assessed for effectiveness.
University students are a pivotal demographic capable of initiating significant societal change through their future professional and personal efforts. Research indicates that significant contacts between students with and without disabilities are infrequent, fostering misconceptions and limiting awareness [21,22,23].
Over eight consecutive semesters of teaching the “Introduction to Special Education” course, the first author frequently noted that numerous students maintained unclear or stereotypical perceptions of disability. Similar findings have been documented in the wider literature, highlighting student uncertainty about inclusive design, respectful language, and daily accommodations [16,22,24,25]. This educational experience, in addition to survey findings indicating that undergraduate interactions with peers who have disabilities are infrequent and primarily superficial at Jordanian educational institutions [24,26], underscored the urgent necessity for a structured awareness program developed in collaboration with people with disabilities. The current study aimed to design, implement, and evaluate a ten-week disability awareness course at Al-Ahliyya Amman University, with two primary objectives: (a) to address the previously identified attitudinal gap and (b) to provide context-specific evidence to enhance the existing literature on inclusion in higher education.
Based on these objectives, the current study investigated three questions: Does enrolment in the disability awareness program produce a statistically significant improvement in students’ overall attitudes toward people with disabilities compared with a control group? Which attitude dimension—human rights awareness, disability awareness, or awareness of diversity—shows the greatest change after the intervention? Do the observed gains vary by gender? To answer these questions, the study employed a randomized pre-test–post-test control group design, a commonly utilized method for assessing educational interventions and determining causal relationships.

2. Materials and Methods

The present study utilized a randomized pre-and post-test design with two groups: an experimental group that participated in the “disability awareness program” and a control group that did not receive any intervention. Participants were randomly assigned and assessed at two points: before the program (pre-test) and immediately after its conclusion (post-test). The design aimed to measure changes in the dependent variable, disability awareness levels, by comparing the pre-test and post-test scores within and between the groups. The ‘disability awareness scale’ was used to quantify these levels.
The independent variable of this study was the “disability awareness program” procedure, which was designed to increase the participants’ awareness of disability. The process involved interventions designed to increase students’ understanding and awareness of disabilities.
To determine the efficacy of the program, the pre- and post-test results were analyzed using the ‘disability awareness scale,’ to assess participants’ understanding and perceptions across three key dimensions: human rights awareness, disability awareness, and awareness of diversity. Each dimension was measured through a series of Likert-scale questions, with responses categorized into graded levels of awareness. By comparing the pre-test and post-test scores, we evaluated the changes in disability awareness levels among the participants.
This study employed appropriate statistical analyses (which will be delineated in the following sections) in order to determine the significance of any observed changes and the effectiveness of the “disability awareness program” in improving disability awareness among university students.

2.1. Participants

During the first week of the 2023–2024 academic year, course instructors presented the study to first-year students. A total of 76 volunteers (40 females, 36 males; ages 18–22) showed initial interest and came from various academic fields, including special education, physical and health education, English language and literature, clinical psychology, and audiology and speech pathology.
The inclusion criteria included: (a) first-year status, (b) not having a close family member with a disability, (c) no previous coursework in special education or disability studies, and (d) a commitment to attend all ten sessions. Participation incurred no costs, the study objectives were explained clearly, and informed consent was secured from each student.
After screening, 60 students (30 females, 30 males) met the criteria. A total of 9 participants withdrew due to time commitments, and 8 participants were excluded for not meeting the criteria, resulting in 30 participants per group (15 females and 15 males). Each student was assigned a unique identifier, and the Minitab (Version 19.2020.2) random-number generator was utilized to allocate individuals to either the experimental or control group.
To ensure group equivalence and to mitigate potential selection bias, a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted. This analysis considered both the group assignment and gender as variables. Table 1 summarizes the results.
Table 1 demonstrates that there were no statistically significant differences between the groups or genders (all p-values > 0.05), showing the equivalence of the experimental and control groups prior to the intervention.
The university administration granted permission to conduct the study. This approval ensured that the research adhered to ethical, systematic, and responsible standards. This was achieved through a review process conducted by the Scientific Research Ethics Committee at the College of Educational Sciences under university number FES-18G-229.

2.2. Instrument

The disability awareness scale was developed through a multi-step process. A total of 20 items were initially drafted following a review of the related theoretical literature and specialized scientific articles [12,14,19,27,28,29]. The draft was then reviewed by an expert panel which includes university professors, specialists from various centers, and adults with disabilities who are active in disability rights and advocacy. A pilot test including 50 students was carried out, resulting in the removal of four overlapping items, therefore finalizing the version to 16 items. These steps are summarized in Table 2. The scale was administered in Arabic to ensure that every participant fully understood each statement.
The scale had three dimensions. The first dimension was human rights awareness (including five questions). Sample items include “Do you think it is difficult for people with disabilities to lead independent lives in local communities?” and “Do you think it is difficult for people with disabilities to work?” The second dimension was disability awareness (including six questions). A sample item is “Do you believe that the gender, age, values, and lifestyle of individuals have an impact on disability?” The third dimension was awareness of diversity (including five questions). A sample item is “Do you think disability is an element of human diversity?”
Each question offers five response options based on a Likert scale ranging from one to five. The five replies encompassed a spectrum ranging from strong agreement to strong disagreement.
This process is used to classify the responses into three levels of awareness based on the scores obtained from the disability awareness scale. The determination of the length of each category is achieved by dividing the range of the answer choices by the number of levels, which, in this situation, is three.
In order to establish the face validity of the scale, it was administered to a group of faculty members from universities in Jordan (four professors in the field of special education, three individuals with at least 15 years of experience working in the field of special education, three adults with disabilities who are active in the field of disability rights and awareness, and three university audiology and speech therapist professors). Agreement among the experts regarding the appropriateness of the scale’s items, as well as the overall scale for the target population, was considered an indicator of the face validity. A consensus agreement of 80% was reached among the experts, suggesting the tool’s satisfactory face validity.
Furthermore, the construct validity was examined as another indicator of the tool’s validity. A calculation of the correlation coefficients was performed to determine the relationships between the items, their corresponding dimensions, and the overall scale. The correlation coefficients ranged from 0.4 to 0.72 regarding the items and their dimensions and from 0.32 to 0.67 regarding their overall scale. These findings support the tool’s construct validity.
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to evaluate the scale’s internal consistency. The obtained reliability coefficients for the overall scale and each of its three dimensions are presented in Table 3.
To further assess the reliability of the disability awareness scale, a test–retest reliability analysis was conducted. In this analysis, the scale was administered to a sample of 50 university students twice, with a two-week interval between the two administrations. The correlation between the scores of the first and second administrations was then calculated. A high correlation coefficient (r = 0.85, p < 0.01) was obtained, indicating that the scale produced consistent results over time. This finding provides strong support for the test–retest reliability of the scale, suggesting that it can be used to reliably measure disability awareness in different settings.
Therefore, the scale used in this study demonstrated acceptable levels of validity and reliability.

2.3. Training Program

The training program aimed to raise awareness about the needs of people with disabilities, increasing awareness of their symptoms and issues by providing the participants with information about disabilities, the experiences of people with disabilities, and the daily challenges they face in society. The content was prepared after examining recent empirical research and two standard special-education textbooks [20,30,31,32,33].
The disability awareness program lasted ten weeks, consisting of two one-hour sessions per week, totaling 20 h. All sessions were conducted in Arabic. During Weeks 9 and 10, three adult advocates with disabilities engaged actively by offering direct insights into disability and greeting participants at the partner centers. Table 4 presents the weekly focus, core activities, and expected outcomes.
The program covered a wide range of topics related to disabilities, including terminology and definitions of different types of disabilities, participant perspectives, social and educational characteristics, and other related topics. This was the first part of the process.
The second part covered a range of disabilities (intellectual disabilities, learning disabilities, sensory impairments (hearing, vision), autism spectrum disorders, etc.) and included a discussion of the causes of these disabilities, the effects on cognition and behavioral learning, and the symptoms of each type, as well as scientifically proven programs designed to help people with these conditions. This part also included information about the abilities and strengths of people with disabilities and discussed some myths. such as the belief that autism can be contagious, that people with intellectual disabilities cannot live independently, that there is a medical cure for autism, and that mothers are to blame for conditions like autism or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). These misconceptions were debunked to promote better understanding.
The program also addressed the full inclusion of people with disabilities into the community, the least restrictive environment (LRE), and how to communicate and support them effectively.
The final component of this program focused on planned field visits to various special education centers and workplaces for people with disabilities. The participants interacted with children in these centers, and some adult people with disabilities shared their educational and work experiences. This segment highlighted the capabilities of this group, emphasizing that, despite their differences, they can be active and productive members of society.

3. Results

This study aimed to examine a program’s impact on increasing awareness among participants toward people with disabilities. To control any baseline differences, adjusted post-test means were calculated using pre-test scores as a covariate in the ANCOVA; these values appear in the final column of Table 5. Table 5 displays the means and standard deviations of the pre- and post-test measurements of participants’ overall level of awareness in both the control and experimental groups, while considering gender and group. The mean differences appeared to be substantial. A two-way covariance analysis (ANCOVA) was conducted to determine the statistical significance of these mean differences.
As shown in Table 6, the F-value for gender (male, female) was 0.024 (p = 0.877), indicating no statistically significant differences in the overall awareness level between genders. The F-value for the group–gender interaction was 0.426 (p = 0.517), suggesting no statistically significant differences. However, the F-value for the group (control, experimental) was 92.163 (p = 0.000), indicating statistically significant differences in the overall awareness level between the two groups.
As indicated in Table 7, no statistically significant differences were found based on gender or interaction effects across all dimensions of the scale (human rights awareness, disability awareness, and awareness of diversity), as all p-values exceeded 0.05. However, clear statistically significant differences emerged between experimental and control groups in two key dimensions: disability awareness (p < 0.001) and awareness of diversity (p < 0.001). Conversely, no significant differences between groups were observed in the human rights awareness dimension (p > 0.05). These results suggest that the observed overall improvements due to the training program were mainly driven by increased awareness and understanding of disabilities and diversity issues rather than human rights awareness.

4. Discussion

By focusing on first-year students at Al-Ahliyya Amman University, this study tested whether a structured disability awareness program can strengthen attitudes toward disability as an element of human diversity. Universities are an ideal setting because they gather young adults who will soon shape workplace and community norms [34]. In Jordan, progressive legislation—such as Law 20/2017 and the 2019–2029 inclusion strategy—co-exists with lingering social distance on many campuses; thus, equipping undergraduates with a clear understanding of the rights and day-to-day experiences of people with disabilities directly supports the Kingdom’s inclusion agenda [35,36]. Strengthening this awareness not only fosters a more welcoming campus climate but also prepares future professionals to create equitable environments in the wider society.
The present results confirm that a ten-week, multi-component course can meaningfully improve two specific attitudinal dimensions—disability awareness and diversity awareness—while leaving human rights awareness largely unchanged. This pattern mirrors earlier school-based studies that found the largest gains in knowledge of disability characteristics and social inclusion rather than in abstract rights discussions [11,37,38]. Within the Jordanian campus context, where students often report limited direct contact with peers with disabilities [35,36], the finding underscores the value of experiential activities (field visits, guest advocates) embedded in the course [12]. By emphasizing realistic interactions and myth-busting content, the program appears to bridge the gap between national policy aspirations and everyday student perceptions [39].
The results of the study in [25], which implemented a disability awareness program for a group of Australian school students in order to increase their awareness and positive attitudes toward people with disabilities, were comparable to those of this study, in that this program was also effective.
According to the findings of the study in [12], that was carried out with fifty-one children from Canada, a program provided to those children (which included presentations and interactive discussions) positively impacted their awareness of people with physical disabilities. On the other hand, the results indicated that the training program had a positive effect on increasing the level of awareness of diversity. This was confirmed in [38], which discussed the significance of diversity in the process of inclusion. The existence of differences in diversity awareness between the two groups indicated that participation in the program and learning accurate concepts about disabilities and people with disabilities positively affected diversity awareness and respect for the rights of people with disabilities.
The program’s effectiveness can be attributed to its diverse range of informational dissemination strategies, including lectures, interactive discussions, engagement with people with disabilities, and visits to special centers. Some participants noted that this was the first time they had been exposed to the characteristics of people with disabilities and interacted with them. This program played a crucial role in reshaping participants’ perspectives and attitudes toward people with disabilities by removing barriers and refuting myths. The combination of instructional methods and personal experiences contributed to dismantling societal stereotypes and developing a more inclusive mindset.
The results of the current study can be explained by the absence of a statistically significant effect regarding the dimension of human rights awareness. As a result of state-mandated measures, Jordan began enacting laws related to those with disabilities from 1989 (Provisional Act for the Welfare of Disabled People) to 2017 (The 2017 Law on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities). Furthermore, it is important to remember that Jordan is a pioneer among Arab countries in promoting the rights of people with disabilities. It was one of the first countries to sign agreements on the rights of people with disabilities, enact laws and legislation protecting their rights, and promote inclusive education for these people. The Jordanian government has launched a ten-year strategy for inclusive education to provide inclusive and comprehensive educational opportunities for all students, regardless of their abilities or special needs. In addition, an operational guide for inclusive education has been released that provides a practical framework for implementing inclusive education policies and procedures in schools in order to protect the rights of people with disabilities. Moreover, the results of our study are consistent with the study in [16], which was conducted on 499 participants and aimed to verify the attitudes and perceptions of the public towards physical, visual, auditory, and mental disabilities. The study showed that more than half of the study sample believed in the rights of people with disabilities.
This research demonstrates that the implemented program effectively increased students’ awareness of diversity and respect for the rights of people with disabilities. This positive impact highlights the significance of providing students with awareness and educational programs to increase their awareness and enhance their ability to interact with people with diverse backgrounds and abilities.
The small sample size and composition may have limited this study, reducing its generalizability. The study only examined university students, limiting the ability to draw conclusions about other demographic groups or people outside academia. Self-reporting may be another drawback. The participants’ awareness and perceptions were assessed using self-report questionnaires, which included questions such as: “Do you think it is difficult for people with disabilities to lead independent lives in local communities?”, “Do you think disability is an element of human diversity?”, and “Do you think that the environment surrounding individuals has an impact on disability?”. They may have been biased by social desirability or recall bias, which may have impaired the accuracy of the data. Integrating several research methods, such as observational studies, in-depth interviews, or focus groups could provide better information about the program’s outcomes and the participants’ experiences.
The university might implement brief, non-credit workshops based on the current program as a practical extension of this research to give students organized chances to learn about inclusiveness and disability issues. Without adding to the full course load, these workshops would incorporate the same methods and approaches that have been demonstrated here, providing all interested students with a foundation in disability awareness. Before implementing such workshops more widely in the curriculum, follow-up research should look at how they affect students’ views and professional practices over the long run.
We advise that further research be conducted with a larger sample size, especially in government universities. These investigations should aim to confirm the results of the current study, investigating the program’s long-term effects on students’ attitudes and behaviors regarding disabilities.

5. Conclusions

This research highlights the significance of increasing university students’ understanding and awareness of disability issues. The findings indicate that the intervention program positively influenced the participants’ disability awareness and the development of inclusive attitudes. Significant practical applications based on this research could contribute to developing educational strategies and initiatives to foster inclusive and supportive environments for people with disabilities.
The university could implement short, non-credit workshops modeled after the existing ten-week program, providing interested students with a structured overview of disability issues without significantly increasing workload. The workshops will retain effective interactive elements such as field visits, guest speakers with disabilities, and myth-busting activities, while alleviating students of the time commitments associated with a full-semester course.
In addition, the recommendation to conduct additional research with larger sample sizes and in government universities would allow for the validation and generalization of the results of this study. Future research would strengthen this evidence, contributing to ongoing improvements in educational practices and policies by examining the long-term effects of the program on students’ attitudes and behaviors regarding disabilities.
It is essential to recognize that increasing disability awareness and inclusion is an ongoing process that requires continued efforts and dedication from educational institutions, policymakers, and society at large. By embracing this study’s findings and practical applications, universities can play a vital role in promoting a more inclusive and equitable society where individuals with disabilities are valued, supported, and afforded equal opportunities.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and design: N.Q., A.A.M., A.O., and N.A.-N. Data analysis and interpretation: N.Q., A.O., and H.S. Drafting and revising: N.Q., N.A.-N., and A.A.M. Approval: N.Q., H.S., and A.A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the Scientific Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Educational Sciences at Al-Ahliyya Amman University (Protocol Code: FES-18G-229) on 15 October 2023.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all the participants involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Nazem Qandeel, upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude to the university administration for granting approval for the research and to the participants for their valuable contributions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Disability Language/Terminology Positionality Statement

In this paper, we have taken deliberate and conscious steps to use inclusive and non-stigmatizing language to describe people with disabilities. The terminology adopted throughout the paper aligns with person-first language (e.g., “people with disabilities”) in accordance with the theoretical framework of the social and human rights models of disability, both of which inform the design and implementation of our awareness program. The language choices reflect the legal and sociocultural context of Jordan, which emphasizes human dignity and inclusion through legislation such as Law No. 20/2017 and the National Strategy for Inclusive Education (2019–2029). Our team also consulted with people with disabilities during the design and evaluation phases of the study, ensuring that terminology used in the program and manuscript reflects both academic accuracy and cultural appropriateness. While we recognize that preferences vary among individuals and communities—some of whom may favor identity-first language—we chose person-first terminology to reflect the norms of educational, legal, and institutional discourse in Jordan. We remain committed to upholding the dignity and individuality of all people, and we welcome ongoing dialog regarding respectful and evolving disability terminology.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ADHDAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
CRPDConvention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
LRELeast Restrictive Environment

References

  1. Saran, A.; Hunt, X.; White, H.; Kuper, H. Effectiveness of interventions for improving social inclusion outcomes for people with disabilities in low-and middle-income countries: A systematic review. Campbell Syst. Rev. 2023, 19, e1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Mikton, C.; Maguire, H.; Shakespeare, T. A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions to prevent and respond to violence against persons with disabilities. J. Interpers. Violence 2014, 29, 3207–3226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Fisk, R.P.; Dean, A.M.; Alkire, L.; Joubert, A.; Previte, J.; Robertson, N.; Rosenbaum, M.S. Design for service inclusion: Creating inclusive service systems by 2050. J. Serv. Manag. 2018, 29, 834–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Fujimoto, Y.; Rentschler, R.; Le, H.; Edwards, D.; Härtel, C.E. Lessons learned from community organizations: Inclusion of people with disabilities and others. Br. J. Manag. 2014, 25, 518–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Barnes, C.; Mercer, G. Disability, work, and welfare: Challenging the social exclusion of disabled people. Work Employ. Soc. 2005, 19, 527–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Choi, H.S.; Johnson, B.; Kriewitz, K. Benefits of inclusion and segregation for individuals with disabilities in leisure. Int. J. Disabil. Hum. Dev. 2013, 12, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Braunsteiner, M.-L.; Mariano-Lapidus, S. A perspective of inclusion: Challenges for the future. Glob. Educ. Rev. 2014, 1, 32–43. [Google Scholar]
  8. Sherman, J.; Sherman, S. Preventing mobility barriers to inclusion for people with intellectual disabilities. J. Policy Pract. Intellect. Disabil. 2013, 10, 271–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Blanck, P. Disability inclusive employment and the accommodation principle: Emerging issues in research, policy, and law. J. Occup. Rehabil. 2020, 30, 505–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Hayward, L.; Fragala-Pinkham, M.; Schneider, J.; Coe, M.; Vargas, C.; Wassenar, A.; Emmons, M.; Lizzio, C.; Hayward, J.; Torres, D. Examination of the short-term impact of a disability awareness training on attitudes toward people with disabilities: A community-based participatory evaluation approach. Physiother. Theory Pract. 2021, 37, 257–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Papaioannou, C.; Evaggelinou, C.; Barkoukis, V.; Block, M. Disability Awareness Program in a Summer Camp. Eur. J. Adapt. Phys. Act. 2013, 6, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Anderson, J.; Wilbers, L.; Loepp, E.; Malek, S.; Scherer, K.; Bero, C. Effects of a Disability Awareness Clinic on Boy Scouts’ Attitudes toward Disability. J. Soc. Serv. Res. 2021, 47, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lindsay, S.; Edwards, A. A systematic review of disability awareness interventions for children and youth. Disabil. Rehabil. 2013, 35, 623–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Chae, S.; Park, E.-Y.; Shin, M. School-based interventions for improving disability awareness and attitudes towards disability of students without disabilities: A meta-analysis. Int. J. Disabil. Dev. Educ. 2019, 66, 343–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Thompson, S. Disability Inclusive Development Situational Analysis for Jordan. 2020. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12413/15517 (accessed on 12 June 2024).
  16. Darawsheh, W.B. An investigation of public perception and attitudes towards disability in Jordan. Int. J. Disabil. Dev. Educ. 2022, 69, 687–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. UNICEF UNICEF Jordan Raises Awareness of the Rights of Children with Disabilities to Access Education in Zarqa. Available online: https://www.unicef.org/jordan/press-releases/unicef-jordan-raises-awareness-rights-children-disabilities-access-education-zarqa (accessed on 4 March 2024).
  18. Jordan, T. Training to Enhance Capacities of Persons with Disabilities Coalition Institutions Concluded. Available online: https://jordantimes.com/news/local/training-enhance-capacities-persons-disabilities-coalition-institutions-concluded (accessed on 4 March 2024).
  19. Qandeel, N.; Abumariam, A. Attitudes Of Elementary School Students Toward Their P eers With Disabilities. Amman, Jordan. J. Posit. Sch. Psychol. 2022, 6, 51–62. [Google Scholar]
  20. Alorani, O.; AL-labadi, A.I.N. Effect of Field Training on the Attitude of Students towards Persons with Disabilities in Special Education Centers. Int. J. Educ. Pract. 2020, 8, 337–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Al-Adwan, A.S.; Alsoud, M.; Li, N.; Majali, T.E.; Smedley, J.; Habibi, A. Unlocking future learning: Exploring higher education students’ intention to adopt meta-education. Heliyon 2024, 10, e29544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Bruder, M.B.; Mogro-Wilson, C. Student and faculty awareness and attitudes about students with disabilities. Rev. Disabil. Stud. Int. J. 2010, 6, 3–13. [Google Scholar]
  23. Roth, D.; Pure, T.; Rabinowitz, S.; Kaufman-Scarborough, C. Disability awareness, training, and empowerment: A new paradigm for raising disability awareness on a university campus for faculty, staff, and students. Soc. Incl. 2018, 6, 116–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Abu-Hamour, B. Faculty Attitudes toward Students with Disabilities in a Public University in Jordan. Int. Educ. Stud. 2013, 6, 74–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. May, C. An investigation of attitude change in inclusive college classes including young adults with an intellectual disability. J. Policy Pract. Intellect. Disabil. 2012, 9, 240–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Al-Hmouz, H. Experiences of students with disabilities in a public university in Jordan. Int. J. Spec. Educ. 2014, 29, 25–32. [Google Scholar]
  27. Fernández Faúndez, E.M. Attitudes towards the inclusion of university students with disabilities: Development and validation of a scale based on the Theory of Planned Behavior. Electron. J. Res. Educ. Psychol. 2018, 16, 199–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. OTA, M.; KWON, H.; HAN, C.; KOHZUKI, M. Development of the Disability Awareness Program (DAP) scale; Centering on the Content Validity Verification. Asian J. Hum. Serv. 2020, 18, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Timms, M.; McHugh, S.; O’Carroll, A.; James, T. Assessing impact of disability awareness training using the Attitudes Towards Disabled Persons Scale (ATDP–Form 0). Int. J. Rehabil. Res. 1997, 20, 319–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Al Jundiu, K.M. Attitudes of the Colleges of Education Students towards Individuals with Mobility Disabilities in Jordan. J. Assoc. Arab. Univ. High. Educ. Res. 2022, 42, 1. [Google Scholar]
  31. Albahusain, W. A Co-Teaching Training Program’s Impact on Female Student Teachers: Department of Special Education, King Saud University. SAGE Open 2022, 12, 21582440221079883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hallahan, D.P.; Kauffman, J.; Pullen, P.C. Exceptional Learners: An Introduction to Special Education; Pearson: Chennai, India, 2018; Volume 14. [Google Scholar]
  33. Khatib, J. Basics of Special Education, What Teachers and Parents Need to Know; Dar AL-Shorok: Amman, Jordan, 2021; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  34. Froman, L. The University as Learning Community. J. Adult Dev. 1999, 6, 185–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Stetieh, H. Exploring the University of Jordan campus: Is it accessible to persons with visual disabilities? Open House Int. 2024, 49, 18–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Peters, S.J. Review of Marginalisation of People with Disabilities in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000186600 (accessed on 4 March 2024).
  37. Lloyd, A.; Smith, M.; Dempsey, I.; Fischetti, J.; Amos, K. Short-and medium-term impacts of the Just Like You disability awareness program: A quasi-experimental comparison of alternative forms of program delivery in New South Wales’ primary schools. Aust. J. Educ. 2017, 61, 288–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ison, N.; McIntyre, S.; Rothery, S.; Smithers-Sheedy, H.; Goldsmith, S.; Parsonage, S.; Foy, L. ‘Just like you’: A disability awareness programme for children that enhanced knowledge, attitudes and acceptance: Pilot study findings. Dev. Neurorehabilit. 2010, 13, 360–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Abu-Hamour, B.; Al-Hmouz, H. Special education in Jordan. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 2014, 29, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) results: a comparison of study groups and gender.
Table 1. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) results: a comparison of study groups and gender.
SourceType III Sum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSig.
Group32.267132.2671.6420.205
Gender4.26714.2670.2170.643
Group * Gender32.267132.2671.6420.205
Error1100.1335619.645
Corrected Total1168.93359
* Interaction effect between group and gender; R squared = 0.059 (adjusted R squared = 0.008).
Table 2. Development steps of the disability awareness scale.
Table 2. Development steps of the disability awareness scale.
StepActionItems RetainedItems RemovedReason for Removal
1Draft produced from the literature review20--
2Evaluation by an expert panel consisting of 13 reviewers164Overlap or ambiguous wording
3Conducted a pilot test including 50 students, followed by item analysis160All retained items satisfied the item–total correlation criterion of r > 0.40
Table 3. Reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha).
Table 3. Reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha).
DimensionCronbach’s Alpha
Human rights awareness0.89
Disability awareness0.91
Awareness of diversity0.90
Overall scale0.92
Table 4. Weekly outline of the disability awareness program.
Table 4. Weekly outline of the disability awareness program.
WeekTopicActivities
1Terminology and definitionsInteractive lecture; discussion
2Human rights and Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)Case-study analysis; discussion
3Intellectual and learning disabilitiesSeminar-format presentation featuring an illustrative video, case-study, and discussion
4Sensory impairments (hearing, vision)
5Autism spectrum and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
6Physical disabilities and assistive tech
7Inclusive design and Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
8InclusionDebate (exclusive and inclusive contexts) and explanation of the advantages of inclusion
9Visit (part 1)Guided observation at centers
10Visit (part 2)Advocate-led courses featuring individuals with disabilities; on-site question and answer sessions
Table 5. Means and standard deviations of overall awareness level for the control and experimental groups, for different genders (male, female) and their interaction.
Table 5. Means and standard deviations of overall awareness level for the control and experimental groups, for different genders (male, female) and their interaction.
GroupGenderNPre-TestPost-TestAdjusted Post-Test
MeanSDMeanSDMeanSD
ControlMale1549.2004.31350.1335.343
Female1548.2674.23450.4004.718
All3048.7334.22650.2674.95550.5090.808
ExperimentalMale1549.2005.14461.9334.788
Female1551.2003.95061.6673.266
All3050.2004.61961.8004.02961.5580.808
Table 6. Results of two-way ANCOVA for overall awareness level in pre- and post-test measurements attributed to group (control, experimental), gender (male, female), and their interaction.
Table 6. Results of two-way ANCOVA for overall awareness level in pre- and post-test measurements attributed to group (control, experimental), gender (male, female), and their interaction.
Source of VarianceSum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSig.
Group1779.06811779.06892.1630.000 **
Gender0.46310.4630.0240.877
Interaction8.21618.2160.4260.517
Error1061.692551779.068
Total2849.43958
** Statistically significant at the significance level p ≤ 0.05.
Table 7. Results of two-way ANCOVA for scale dimensions pre- and post-test by group (control, experimental), gender (male, female), and interaction effects.
Table 7. Results of two-way ANCOVA for scale dimensions pre- and post-test by group (control, experimental), gender (male, female), and interaction effects.
DimensionSource of VarianceSum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSig.
Human rights awareness Group3.77713.7770.4390.510
Gender6.38016.3800.7420.393
Interaction14.066114.0661.6360.206
Error472.597558.599
Total496.82058
Disability awarenessGroup171.3951171.39517.2530.000 **
Gender0.86510.8650.0870.769
Interaction0.88410.8840.0890.767
Error546.391559.934
Total719.53558
Awareness of diversityGroup425.8411425.84192.6260.000 **
Gender0.74210.7420.1610.689
Interaction0.91610.9160.1990.657
Error252.858554.597
Total680.35758
** Statistically significant at the significance level p ≤ 0.05.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Qandeel, N.; Mariam, A.A.; Al-Natsheh, N.; Shlool, H.; Oudah, A. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Disability Awareness Programs on Influencing University Students’ Attitudes. Disabilities 2025, 5, 65. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities5030065

AMA Style

Qandeel N, Mariam AA, Al-Natsheh N, Shlool H, Oudah A. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Disability Awareness Programs on Influencing University Students’ Attitudes. Disabilities. 2025; 5(3):65. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities5030065

Chicago/Turabian Style

Qandeel, Nazem, Anan Abu Mariam, Numan Al-Natsheh, Hatem Shlool, and Ayman Oudah. 2025. "Evaluating the Effectiveness of Disability Awareness Programs on Influencing University Students’ Attitudes" Disabilities 5, no. 3: 65. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities5030065

APA Style

Qandeel, N., Mariam, A. A., Al-Natsheh, N., Shlool, H., & Oudah, A. (2025). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Disability Awareness Programs on Influencing University Students’ Attitudes. Disabilities, 5(3), 65. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities5030065

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop