= .020) and available programs and services on campus (X21 = 8.90, p = .002).
Personal contact. Faculty with higher levels of personal contact compared to those with limited contact with individuals with disabilities such as experience with an immediate family member (X23 = 100.87, p < .001) reported having more teaching experiences with students with disabilities in higher education (X29 = 75.43, p = .001), having more knowledge and skills in making accommodations (X21 = 81.50, p = .001) and spending significantly more extra time making accommodations (X29 = 28.91, p =. 001). The high contact group also reported being more aware of resources and services on campus (X29 = 52.15, p = .001), having more frequently communicated with service providers (X29 = 24.02, p = .004), and having more familiarity with Section 504 (X29 = 87.27, p .001) and with ADA (X29 = 80.82, p = .001).
Academic rank. Higher ranking faculty (full professors) as compared to lower ranking members reported significantly more experience in teaching students with orthopedic impairments (X23 = 18.25, p = .001), visual impairments (X23 = 25.76, p = .001), and more knowledge of services and resources on campus (X29 = 49.98, p = .001). On the other hand, professors reported less familiarity than did instructors and associate professors with recent disability legislation, namely ADA (X29 = 25.30, p = .002). Instructors reported spending on the average more time per week with students who have a disability than higher ranking faculty (X29 = 19.43, p = .021). In addition, they expressed more interest than higher ranking faculty in receiving training in the areas of classroom accommodations (X23 = 13.41, p =.003) and on services and programs on campus (X23 = 14.99, p = . 001).
Academic discipline. Comparisons between faculty in the College of Education and faculty in all other colleges indicated that faculty in education reported that they had more overall contact with individuals who have disabilities (X23 = 7.61, p = .054) for example with a coworker (X21 = 5.25, p = .021), that they had more skills and knowledge regarding disabilities (X23 = 18.79, p = .001), and had more training in the area of disabilities (X23 = 44.91, p = .001), and a greater familiarity with Section 504 (X23 = 42.13, p = .001) and ADA (X23 = 18.29, p = .001). Faculty in education were also significantly more interested in workshops on topics such as classroom accommodations (X21 = 7.12, p = .007) and programs and services on campus (X21 = 13.89, p = .001). Comparisons of faculty responses among all participating colleges revealed that the observed differences reported above were accounted for mainly by responses of faculty in the College of Education. It may be noted that in the comparison among colleges, faculty in Law and Education reported more familiarity than other faculty with Section 504 (X221 = 68.44, p = .001) and ADA (X221 = 46.57, p = .001). Faculty in Law compared to all other faculty expressed more interest in participating in workshops on legal issues (X27 = 18.65, p = .009).
Participants were asked to identity areas in which they would like to receive additional training and information and to provide input regarding strategies to assist them in working with students with disabilities. The percent of faculty checking areas in