Although the field of disabilities studies incorporates psychology within its interdisciplinary purview, it embodies a distinct perspective consonant with the new paradigm of disability. This perspective is contrasted with that of psychology, and the place of disability within psychology is examined. Although psychology has begun to embrace diversity, disability has remained marginalized. Four areas are presented in this article: (a) the foundational ideas of disability studies, (b) training in disability within psychology, (c) the paradigms of disability reflected in research on disability, and (d) future research directions.

This article is intended to help those unfamiliar with disability studies by providing a context for disability on which psychologists can build. The 1st part presents data on disability training in graduate clinical programs and on training accessibility for graduate students with disabilities. The 2nd part is an introduction to disability studies and includes 3 core concepts of disability issues in psychology: (a) the framing of disability from 3 models (the moral, medical, and social models); (b) the ways in which disability is like and unlike other minority groups; and (c) the language that is used to describe disability. These 2 parts taken together constitute a brief introduction to disability issues within psychology.

Evaluation of graduate students in clinical programs may lead to dismissal of “problem” students. Court decisions affecting the parameters of dismissal can be divided into academic and disciplinary cases, with slightly differing requirements for each. Policies that comply with court rulings on due process are described. A survey of master's programs in clinical fields was conducted, and results indicate a 3.3% dismissal rate, a reliance on repetition of course work and personal therapy for remediation, and some inattention to the legal requirements for dismissal, notably those of due process.

No abstract

Only two prior studies have examined the experiences of microaggressions for persons with disabilities. Our study was specific to women with both visible and invisible disabilities. Using mixed methods, we asked about the frequency and bothersomeness of microaggression experiences, and in six focus groups with a total of 30 women, we gained more depth about those experiences. Guiding the semistructured focus groups were the 10 domains of microaggressions reported by Keller and Galgay. The women were over age 18 and had either a visible (77%) or hidden disability (33%). Eight (27%) were women of color. Findings supported the previous 10 domains, but we found two additional microaggressions: symptoms not being believed by medical professionals and thus delaying diagnosis, and disability being discounted by others based on looking healthy or young. We make five policy recommendations: (i) curriculum on unconscious bias against women and people with disabilities for medical professionals; (ii) targeted public campaigns to reduce specific types of microaggressions; (iii) changes to public transportation systems to increase accessibility; (iv) journal policy changes to encourage more attention to intersectionality in studies; and (v) greater transparency in psychotherapy about disability-friendly practices.