Accessible Computer Technologies for Students With Disabilities in Canadian Higher Education

Two studies explored how well English and French speaking colleges and universities in Canada address availability and access to new computer and information technologies for individuals with disabilities. In Study 1, 156 professionals who provide disability-related supports on campus responded to structured interview questions. In Study 2, 40 professionals who work in Quebec's Francophone junior/ community college system (CEGEP) participated. Results showed that most institutions had specialized adaptive computer equipment, though colleges were less likely than universities, and loan programs providing adaptive computer equipment were seen as very effective. Respondents believed they were not very knowledgeable about adaptive computer technologies and those from Francophone institutions scored lower than from Anglophone institutions. The needs of students were seen as moderately well met, with Francophone respondents more favorable than Anglophone. Respondents from Anglophone universities expressed different needs than those from Anglophone colleges or Francophone institutions. Disability service providers wished students were better equipped and prepared for the postsecondary experience, computer based teaching materials used by professors were more accessible, and more extensive support services for adaptive hardware and software available. We provide recommendations based on universal design principles that are targeted at those involved in technology integration in postsecondary education.


Introduction
Information and communication technologies (ICTs) are rapidly expanding in all fields and are becoming important tools in the new Canadian economy.Consequently, computer-related knowledge has become critical to secure employment.Consistent with this stance, the policy document, "Future directions" recently published by the Government of Canada (1999) highlights problems caused by systemic barriers and stresses the need for access to ICTs for people with disabilities in the new knowledge based economy.
The new knowledge based economy will provide citizens with disabilities an unprecedented opportunity to fully participate in the social and economic life of Canada.This will happen only if they have the same opportunities as other Canadians for acquiring postsecondary education and computer skills, the tools of the new economy (e.g., Government of Canada, 1999;Human Resources Development Canada, 2002;Pettigrew, 1998).Postsecondary education is supporting the need for computer literacy by providing students opportunities to learn and use new technologies in all aspects of their schooling, from online registration to virtual labs.The challenge is to ensure that these opportunities are both physically and technologically accessible to all learners, including those with various impairments.Unless this requirement is met, people with disabilities face a real danger of being rendered technologically illiterate and, thus, unattractive to the labor market of tomorrow.The goal of the research presented here is to examine how well English and French speaking colleges and universities in Canada are addressing the need to ensure that their new ICTs are available and accessible to students with disabilities.

Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in Postsecondary Education
Computer literacy and knowhow are part of most postsecondary students' formal education.One need only look at North American colleges and universities to see this trend in action.Campuses are becoming increasingly "wired" and the technology is appearing in all aspects of academic life (cf.Bernstein, Caplan, Glover, 2001; EDUCAUSE Online Guide to Evaluating Information Technology on Campus, 2002;Green, 2002).In parallel with this trend is evolution in the accessibility and affordability of both popularly used and adaptive computer technologies (cf. Adobe, 2003;Apple, 2003;Freedom Scientific, 2003;IBM, 2003;Microsoft Corporation, 2003).If these technologies are designed for compatibility then the two trends have the potential to level the playing field for learners with disabilities.This outcome is, of course, contingent on individuals with disabilities gaining timely access to the specialized technologies they need.
For example, if a department decides to teach the majority of its courses online, and these courses are developed using web sites and authoring tools that do not adopt accessible and inclusive design standards, what are the educational implications for the estimated 100,000 postsecondary students with disabilities (Fichten, et al., 2003) on Canadian campuses, many of whom need adaptations to use computers effectively (Fichten, Asuncion, Barile, Fossey, & Robillard, 2001a)?Adaptations include both software (e.g., software that reads what is on the screen) and hardware solutions (e.g., an adapted mouse) to enable students with various disabilities to access electronic materials.Solving the accessibility issue by replacing a technology rich computer based learning experience for students with disabilities by a learning experience that fails to use computer technologies defeats the purpose of the original learning goal.

How Students With Specific Disabilities Use Computers
In previous research we asked close to 800 postsecondary students with various disabilities and 36 campus based disability service providers about the type of computer adaptations the used (Fichten, et al., 2001a;Fichten, et al., 2001b).It is the campus-wide integration of computers with adaptive hardware and software, such as those noted in our previous studies and listed below, that the present research addresses.
Individuals who are blind typically reported using specialized software that reads to them what is on the screen.Some also use a special hardware/software combination that takes a line of text on the screen and converts it into a line of text on a Braille display.To turn a printed page into a format they can use (eText), these individuals often use specialized systems consisting of a scanner and optical character recognition (OCR) software.
People with some useable vision also indicated that they used a scanner, OCR, and software that reads what is on the screen.In addition, many also used magnification software and/or large screen monitors.Persons with low vision can also use a variety of specialized software as well as built-in features of popular commercially available software packages to change the contrast and enlarge and otherwise make text, cursors, and other visual elements more visible on the screen.
People with learning disabilities reported using many of the same technologies as students with visual impairments to help them better process printed materials and what is written on the screen.In addition, dictation software (speech-to-text), document managers, schedulers, concept mapping software, electronic dictionaries, grammar and spell checkers, and word prediction software were frequently used.
Students with hearing impairments reported using writing aids such as spelling and grammar checkers, e-mail and chat programs, accessibility features built into the operating system of conventional software (e.g., visual flash instead of sounds), captions and subtitles for video clips (when available), and the C-Note System (CNS, 2003), a set-up that involves two joined laptop computers).
Learners with speech/communication impairments also used e-mail and chat programs.They also used portable note taking devices to interact with others in face-to-face contexts and multimedia projectors for oral presentations.
Students with mobility and neuromuscular impairments reported using a variety of ergonomic adaptations, dictation programs and voice control software that allows hands free dictation and control of menus as well as software based keyboard adaptations, software or hardware that allows for one handed typing, along with a variety of alternative mice and input devices.

Campus Based Professionals Who Provide Services to Students With Disabilities
At most Canadian postsecondary institutions there is at least one designated professional whose responsibility it is to provide disability related services and accommodations to students as well as to liaise and advocate with the campus community.Ensuring that the computer technology needs of students with disabilities are met has often become part of the job description.
There are several American (Burgstahler, 1992(Burgstahler, , 1993;;Burris, 1998;Coomber, 1996;Horn & Shell, 1990;Jackson, Morabito, Prezant, & Michaels, 2001;Michaels, Prezant, Morabito, & Jackson, 2001;Lance, 1996) as well as Canadian studies (Epp, 1996;Killean & Hubka, 1999) that deal, at least in part, with the views of postsecondary disability service providers about computer and adaptive computer technologies on campus.Nevertheless, these studies do not provide a comprehensive picture of current realities in Canada's colleges and universities for a variety of reasons.First, several of the studies are now more than 10 years old (Burgstahler, 1992(Burgstahler, , 1993;;Horn & Shell, 1990).Some are based on very small samples (Coomber, 1996) and most are from American postsecondary institutions (Burris, 1998, Jackson et al., 2001;Michaels, et al., 2001).Of course, both Canada's postsecondary system and the policies related to disability accommodations are considerably different from that of the United States, especially when it comes to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 1990) and to the private vs. public postsecondary institution distinction.
Of the two Canadian studies, Epp's (1996) investigation was targeted specifically to individuals who provide disability related services to students who use electronic text and Braille in the province of British Columbia.Although this is an important investigation, it clearly does not -nor was it intended to -evaluate views and concerns of campus-based individuals who provide disability related services to a wide range of students with disabilities in postsecondary institutions across Canada's 13 provinces and territories.The Killean and Hubka (1999) study was a wide-ranging Canadian investigation of 70 individuals (41% return rate) who provide disability related services to postsecondary students.This is an interesting and important investigation of a broad range of issues related to disability service provision at Canadian postsecondary campuses.Given the objectives of this study, however, new computer and information technology accessibility accommodations were not examined in a comprehensive manner.

New Computer Technologies and Language Issues
Of 34 countries surveyed by the Angus Reid Group (2000) in the fall of 1999, Canada tied for 2nd place in "home PC penetration" and ranked 2nd in Internet use, with 56% of the population after the US (at 59%).It is evident that English is the predominant language of both the computer industry, as France ranked 19th with 22%, while Belgium ranked 15th, with 28%.For example, Internet use in France was 10% in a study conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (2000).
Quebec has been at the forefront of computer and Internet use in the Francophone world, and it has followed the North American rather than the European trend.For example, Quebec offers eLearning based distance education in French both at the university as well as junior/community college (CEGEP) levels.Quebec's computer integration in the elementary and secondary schools has been similar to that of the rest of Canada (Statistics Canada, 1999), although home access to the Internet has been somewhat lower in Quebec (e.g., 29% compared to 48%: PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2000).Data concerning the use of computers and the internet in the CEGEPs suggest that by the late 1990s, almost half of CEGEP professors, regardless of age or years of experience, used some type of computer assisted learning in their courses (Jacques Joly Consultant Inc., 1999).

Francophone Students With Disabilities in Quebec and the Rest of Canada
The situation of Canada's Francophone and Anglophone students with disabilities is different in a variety of important ways.First, the language of instruction is different.Second, the conceptualization of disability is very different in Quebec, where the vast majority of Francophone postsecondary students study, from that of the rest of Canada (e.g., Fougeyrollas, Cloutier, Bergeron, Coté, & St. Michel, 1998;Lemieux-Brassard, 2000).Third, most adaptive computer technologies were designed and developed in the US.This means that they work only in English, and not in French.Fourth, although Quebec is the most highly computerized Francophone region in the world, nevertheless, computer and Internet use among Francophones lags somewhat behind Anglophones.Fifth, the proportion of students with disabilities in Francophone colleges and universities is substantially and significantly smaller that that in Anglophone institutions (Fichten, et al., 2003).Sixth, in Quebec, high schools end in Grade 11, and students who plan on pursuing a university education must complete a 2 year junior/community college (CEGEP) program of pre-university studies.This system is unique in Canada and Quebec's 48 tuition free public CEGEPs accounted for close to 150,000 postsecondary students in 2001 (Ministère de l'éducation, 2002a).
There are Francophone junior/community colleges and bilingual universities outside Quebec.The circumstances of the students with disabilities enrolled in these institutions are likely to be different from both their Anglophone and their Quebec based Francophone peers.Given the nature of the literature on the Canadian context, clearly, a more comprehensive look at the computer and adaptive computer technologies needs and concerns of individuals who provide services to postsecondary students with a variety of disabilities is needed.

Present Investigation
The goal of the two studies that comprise this investigation was to explore the use of computer and information technologies in Canada's Anglophone and Francophone colleges and universities.Study 1 focused on a cross-Canada comparison of Anglophone and Francophone universities and junior/community colleges.Study 2 focused exclusively on Quebec's Francophone junior/community colleges, the CEGEPs.

Method Study 1
Participants were 156 Canadian postsecondary personnel responsible for providing services to students with disabilities (110 females and 46 males).They were participating in a larger investigation of the technology needs of students with disabilities (Fichten, et al., 2001c).Ninety-six worked in a junior/community college, 58 in a university, and 2 in a postsecondary distance education institution (1 junior/community college and 1 university).They represent 91 of the 115 community/junior colleges and 55 of the 68 universities that were listed on the web pages of the Association of Canadian Community Colleges (ACCC, 2003) or the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC, 2003) on April 22, 2000.
In cases where 2 or more individuals were responsible for different campuses or for students with different disabilities (e.g., a learning disabilities specialist vs. someone who provides services to students with physical disabilities), we attempted to interview all of them.Thus the 156 participants represent 146 independent institutional members of the ACCC or the AUCC.The overall institutional participation rate was 80%: 79% participation from junior/community colleges, 81% from universities, and 2 of the 3 postsecondary distance education institutions.One hundred and sixteen (74%) respondents represented Anglophone institutions, 39 (25%) represented Francophone institutions, and 1 (1%) represented a bilingual institution.31 of the 39 respondents (80%) representing Francophone institutions were from Quebec.Participants had an average of 9.25 years of experience working with students with disabilities (median = 9.50, mode = 10).
Participants were faxed or emailed the questions and an informed consent form prior to the scheduled appointment for the interview during the spring 2000 semester.These consisted of 60 items, including demographic information (questions are available in Fichten, et al., 2001c).Most used a 6-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 6=strongly agree) and took two forms: "actual situation" and "desired situation.""Actual situation" items were generally positively worded, described a set of conditions at the institution (e.g., computer equipment is up-to-date), and stated that the characteristic met the needs of students with disabilities (e.g., "At my institution, computer and/or adaptive computer technologies are sufficiently up-to-date to meet the needs of students with disabilities")."Desired situation" items revolved around making the interviewee's job easier to perform if certain conditions were to be met (e.g., "It would make my job easier if students with disabilities were knowledgeable users of computer and/or adaptive computer technologies").For 12 topics the two types of items, "actual " and "desired" situation, were paired (e.g., "The availability of adaptive computer technologies in specialized labs/centres for students with disabilities at my institution meets their needs" and "It would make my job easier if there were more adaptive computer technologies available in specialized labs/centres at my institution").A key criterion item inquired about how well, overall, the computer and/or adaptive computer technology needs of students with disabilities are met at the respondent's institution.

Study 2
The same procedure was followed in Study 2, where 40 Quebec junior/community college (CEGEP) personnel responsible for providing services to students with disabilities (18 females and 22 males) at Francophone colleges took part.They, too, were participating in a larger investigation of the technology needs of students with disabilities (Fichten, et al., 2000).Of the 50 individuals who were asked to volunteer, 40 (80%) participated.They represent 34 of the 38 public Francophone CEGEPs, which enrolled students with disabilities, an overall institutional participation rate of 89%.Respondents had worked providing services to students with disabilities for an average of 8.49 years (SD = 5.5, range < 1 to 24).Additional details are available in Fichten et al., 2000.It should be noted that there is substantial overlap between Studies 1 and 2: 18 of the 40 participants (45%) are also part of the Study 1 sample.Nevertheless, doubling the sample size of Francophone disability service providers allowed for a more focused analysis of the situation in Francophone colleges.
To allow for analyses which take into account the overall size of the institution as well as the total number and proportion of students with disabilities we obtained the following enrollment statistics about each CEGEP: (a) total enrollment for 1999 (from the web page of the Ministère de l'éducation, 2002b) and (b) the number of students with disabilities in each CEGEP who are receiving government subsidized disability related services (provided by the 3 designated "centres d'accueil" that are responsible for administrative aspects of services for students with disabilities for all CEGEPs).

Computer Related Expertise of Canadian Campus Based Disability Service Providers
Overall, participants indicated that they were not especially knowledgeable about adaptive computer technologies.The mean was 3.70 (SD = 1.52) on a 6-point scale, with higher scores indicating being more knowledgeable.Indeed, the scores of 12% of participants suggest that they were not at all knowledgeable, while only 9% of scores suggest that the respondent was an expert.A 3-way ANOVA (2 Sex (Female/ Male) x 2 Institution (College/University) x 2 Language (Anglophone/Francophone) indicates that while there were no significant differences between males and females or between individuals from colleges and universities on how knowledgeable they felt they were, scores of Francophone respondents were lower (M = 2.97) than those of their Anglophone colleagues (M = 3.93), F(1,143)=5.83, p<.05.

Specialized and Adaptive Computer Technologies at Anglophone and Francophone Colleges and Universities
Twenty-three variables evaluated campus based disability service providers' perceptions of the adequacy of the institution's computer technologies in meeting students' needs.A key criterion was a 6-point Likert scale rating on the following item, "Overall, the computer and/or adaptive computer technology needs of students with disabilities at my institution are adequately met."It can be seen in Table 1 that the computer related needs of students were moderately well met at respondents' institutions (mean greater than 4 on a 6-point scale).
Test results for a series of 2-way multivariate and univariate analysis of variance comparisons (MANOVAs and ANOVAs) which compared linguistic and institutional factors (2 Institution (College/University) x 2 Language (Anglophone/Francophone) are presented in Table 2. None of the MANOVA interaction effects were significant.Means in Table 1 and the test results indicate that institution type was generally not related to perceptions of adequacy.Nevertheless, what differences do exist suggest that respondents from universities had higher scores than those from colleges.Language, however, was clearly an important variable (significant findings on 3 of the 5 MANOVAs and on the single ANOVA not included in any of the MANOVAs) and on almost half of the univariate comparisons.
Thus, the results show that ratings of campus based disability service providers at Francophone institutions are generally higher than those at Anglophone institutions.For example, the results show that disability service providers at Francophone institutions had significantly higher scores on the accessibility of the institution's library and the availability of adapted computers with Internet compatibility.A notable exception was that Anglophone institutions are significantly more likely feel that the presence of a specialist in adaptive computer technology on campus adequately meets students' needs.
As an alternate way of evaluating differences, we examined items that indicated that the aspect was adequate (i.e., scores above the scale's mean of 3.50) or inadequate in meeting the needs of students (i.e., below the mean).It can be seen in Table 1 that both Anglophone and Francophone institutions agreed that they provided adequate hours of access to computers; that their computer technologies were up-to-date; there were adequate adapted computers in specialized labs; that administration reacts positively concerning computer accessibility; and that outside agencies provide students with appropriate equipment.Table 1 also shows that the following were seen as adequate in Francophone but not in Anglophone institutions: funding for computer technologies; accessibility of the library's computers; availability of technical support; accessibility of computer based teaching materials used by professors; and appropriate training provided by rehabilitation agencies.Anglophone institutions did not have adequate ratings on any items where Francophone institutions did not.Both Anglophone and Francophone institutions agreed that the following aspects are inadequate: opportunities of employees to learn about specialized accessible computer technologies; the availability of a specialist in adaptive hardware and software on campus; the ability of computer support personnel to service computers with adaptive hardware or software; being consulted when campus-wide computing decisions are made; availability of a multidisciplinary advisory committee that deals with computer accessibility; and the education of faculty concerning adaptive computer There was no clear linguistic or institution based pattern on any other items.Provincial/regional computer technology loan programs to institutions.Of the 132 institutions that indicated that they had computer technologies on campus for their students, 35 (27%) indicated that a provincial/regional loan program supplied some of the technologies on campus.Mean response to the question inquiring about perceptions about the adequacy of resources provided by the loan program in meeting the needs of students with disabilities was 4.72 (SD = 1.43) on a 6-point scale, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction.This indicates considerable satisfaction.Indeed, only 16% of respondents indicated that the equipment provided failed to meet students' needs.There was no significant difference on this variable between community/junior colleges and universities or between Anglophone and Francophone institutions.Institutions with and without specialized computer equipment for students with disabilities on campus.Of the 154 non-distance education respondents, 132 (86%) indicated that they had equipment for students with disabilities and 22 (14%) indicated that they did not.While colleges (81%) were significantly less likely than universities (93%) to have computers for their students with disabilities, c 2 (1)=4.00,p<.05, there were no significant differences between comparable Anglophone and Francophone institutions.Surprisingly, there was no significant difference on the rating of the overall adequacy of computer services in meeting the needs of students with disabilities between institutions that did (M=4.26,SD=1.36) and those that did not (M=3.55,SD=1.81) have specialized equipment on campus for their students, t(136)=1.63,p>.05.
Priority of computer related services.The priority placed upon computer related services was average when weighted against all other disability-related support services, with a mean of 2.25 (SD =.87) on a 4-point scale where 1 indicates very high priority and 4 indicates very low priority).The difference between universities (72% rated computer related services as high or very high priority) and colleges (61%) was not significant.Similarly, Francophone (colleges M=2.33, universities M=2.27) and Anglophone (colleges M=2.32, universities M=2.09) institutions did not differ significantly on priority rating.

What is Lacking
A 2-way between groups MANOVA (2 Institution (College/University) x 2 Language (Anglophone/Francophone) on all "desired situation" items was conducted to compare wish lists of Anglophone and Francophone service providers from colleges and universities.Test results show that both main effects and the interaction were significant.Univariate ANOVAs shows that the main effect of language was significant for all 16 variables.Given the higher "actual" scores of Francophone institutions, we expected participants from Anglophone institutions to have higher "desired" scores than those from Francophone institutions (i.e., Anglophone service providers wanted more services/resources _ Francophone services providers were generally more satisfied with their actual situations).The main effect of institution was significant on 8 comparisons.Here the results are inconsistent, with some comparisons showing colleges to have higher scores while others showing that universities have higher scores.This is explained, in part by the finding that 12 of the 16 interaction effects were significant.These all show that while Francophone institutions had lower scores than Anglophone institutions, this was especially true of universities.Figure 1 presents these data most clearly.
Figure 1.Wish lists: interaction between language and institution type Spearman rank order correlations show that there is very high agreement between Anglophone and Francophone colleges on the ranking of the 16 "desired" items, Rho =.903, p<.001.The correlation between Francophone colleges and universities is also very high, Rho =.838, p<.001, as is the correlation between Francophone universities and Anglophone colleges, Rho =.759, p<.001.Scores from Anglophone universities, however, are not related significantly to Francophone universities, Rho =.388, p>.05, or to either Anglophone, Rho =.388, p>.05, or Francophone, Rho =.426, p>.05, colleges.
Because of discrepancies in language and institution type, Table 3 presents the wish lists of Anglophone and Francophone colleges and universities separately.It can be seen in Table 3 that, overall, disability service providers wish that students were better equipped and prepared for the postsecondary experience.For example, among the highest ranked items for Francophone and Anglophone colleges and universities was the wish for students to be more knowledgeable computer users, for students to be able to get subsidized computer technologies for home use more easily; and for students to have better access to computers off campus.The next group of highly ranked items relates to the need for accessibility of computer based teaching materials used by professors and for support services.

Results: Study 2
Important differences were found between colleges and universities, suggesting that data from colleges and universities should be analyzed separately.In addition, there were substantial differences between Anglophone and Francophone institutions.Because the number of Francophone institutions in Study 1 was relatively small, a larger sample was needed.There are few Francophone universities, and most were represented in Study 1.Therefore, in Study 2 we examined the totality of Quebec's public Francophone junior/community college system: the CEGEPs.

Expertise of Quebec'S Campus Based Disability Service Providers
Participants indicated that they were not especially knowledgeable about adaptive computer technologies: the mean was 3.00 on a 6-point scale, with higher scores indicating being more knowledgeable.This is similar to the score of 2.97 for all Francophone institutions in Study 1. Indeed, 59% of participants' answers indicated that they were not very knowledgeable, with only 9% indicating that they were reasonably expert.

Correlates of Good Institutional Computer and Adaptive Computer Technologies
Overall, the data indicate that participants felt that the computer related needs of students were moderately well met at their CEGEPs (mean = 4.34 on a 6-point scale, SD = 1.54).This too, is similar to scores in Study 1. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients indicate that none of the demographic variables (i.e., size of the CEGEP, number of students with disabilities registered to receive disability related services, proportion of students with disabilities) was related significantly to the adequacy of meeting students' computer and adaptive computer technology needs.

Institutions With and Without Computer and Adaptive Computer Technologies on Campus for Students With Disabilities
Twenty-nine of 39 respondents who answered this question (74%) indicated having specialized equipment for students with disabilities on campus.To ascertain whether CEGEPs that did and did not have computer equipment for students with disabilities on campus differed in enrollment, we conducted a series of independent t-tests on enrollment statistics.Although the means suggest that the CEGEPs with equipment were larger than those that do not have equipment, had more students with disabilities, and had a larger proportion of students with disabilities, the t-tests on these variables were not significant.Given the enormous standard deviations and ranges in these scores (i.e., the number of students enrolled in the CEGEPs in the sample ranged from 100 to 8000, the number of students with disabilities ranged from 1 to 35, and the proportion of students with disabilities ranged from.01%to.83%), the absence of significance is neither meaningful nor surprising.
A MANOVA comparison of colleges with and without computers on campus for students with disabilities on 13 "actual situation" and personal factors variables was not significant.
The priority accorded to computer related services was average, with a mean of 2.25 (SD =.94) on a 4-point scale where 1 indicates very high priority and 4 indicates very low priority.CEGEPs with and without computer technologies on campus did not differ significantly.

Aspects of Computer Technologies at Colleges
Scores on how well various aspects of computer technologies met students' needs are presented in Table 4.These indicate very similar responses to those in Study 1, suggesting that Study 1 results adequately represent Francophone colleges.

Table 1 .
Adequacy in Meeting the Computer Related Needs of Students with Disabilities: Mean Scores for Actual Conditions Inside the Institution.

Table 2 .
Adequacy in Meeting the Computer Related Needs of Students with Disabilities: Test Results for Actual Conditions Inside the Institution.

Table 3 .
What Personnel Providing Services to Students With Disabilities in Anglophone and Francophone Colleges and Universities Want in Rank Order.

Table 4 .
Adequacy In Meeting the Computer Related Needs Of Francophone Cegep Students with Disabilities: Mean Scores for Actual Conditions Inside the Institution.