Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology · 2026
Bridging the service quality gap in assistive technology for inclusive higher education in India.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kataria Pawan, Rajput Chetna Sharma, Singh Moksha, Manjhi Anil
Аннотация
PURPOSE: India's National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016 set a strong framework for inclusive higher education, yet a substantial implementation gap persists for students with disabilities. This study investigates the quality of assistive technology (AT)-driven services for students with disabilities in Indian Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) by measuring the alignment between current service delivery and student expectations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A convergent mixed-methods design was used. The quantitative strand surveyed 300 students with disabilities drawn from 50 HEIs across five regions using multi-stage stratified random sampling during the 2024-2025 academic year. A SERVQUAL-based instrument measured perceptions and expectations across reliability, assurance, tangibility, empathy, and responsiveness, with analysis in IBM SPSS Statistics. The qualitative strand thematically analysed open-ended responses from 247 of these participants using NVivo.
RESULTS: Findings show a negative overall service quality gap (-7.74), with tangibility recording the largest deficit (-2.28), followed by responsiveness (-1.64) and empathy (-1.34). Regression analysis indicated a significant positive relationship between AT adoption and perceived service quality (β = 0.45, p < .001). Thematic analysis identified four barrier themes (financial constraints, technical and compatibility challenges, institutional and attitudinal barriers, and infrastructure gaps) and four prospect themes (learning independence, digital accessibility by design, career readiness, and institutional reputation). Triangulation showed convergent evidence that infrastructure deficits and low faculty awareness underlie the measured gaps.
CONCLUSION: The study provides empirically grounded guidance for HEI and policy action under NEP 2020 and SDG 4.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A convergent mixed-methods design was used. The quantitative strand surveyed 300 students with disabilities drawn from 50 HEIs across five regions using multi-stage stratified random sampling during the 2024-2025 academic year. A SERVQUAL-based instrument measured perceptions and expectations across reliability, assurance, tangibility, empathy, and responsiveness, with analysis in IBM SPSS Statistics. The qualitative strand thematically analysed open-ended responses from 247 of these participants using NVivo.
RESULTS: Findings show a negative overall service quality gap (-7.74), with tangibility recording the largest deficit (-2.28), followed by responsiveness (-1.64) and empathy (-1.34). Regression analysis indicated a significant positive relationship between AT adoption and perceived service quality (β = 0.45, p < .001). Thematic analysis identified four barrier themes (financial constraints, technical and compatibility challenges, institutional and attitudinal barriers, and infrastructure gaps) and four prospect themes (learning independence, digital accessibility by design, career readiness, and institutional reputation). Triangulation showed convergent evidence that infrastructure deficits and low faculty awareness underlie the measured gaps.
CONCLUSION: The study provides empirically grounded guidance for HEI and policy action under NEP 2020 and SDG 4.