Assistive Technologies for Enhancing Information Accessibility among Student with Physical Disabilities in Kenyan Public Universities

1.1 Statement of the Problem

Access to information is fundamental for academic success, yet students with physical disabilities often face significant barriers in university settings. While universities in Kenya have implemented some accessibility measures, such as ramps, disability support offices, and limited adaptive devices, there is inadequate empirical evidence on the availability, usability, and effectiveness of assistive technologies in supporting independent academic engagement. Existing studies suggest that even where assistive tools are present, challenges such as limited training, poor integration with learning systems, maintenance issues, and inconsistent institutional support restrict their effectiveness. This gap limits SWPDs’ ability to fully participate in lectures, access digital resources, and engage in assessments and research activities. Consequently, there is a critical need to examine how assistive technologies are provided, utilized, and supported in Kenyan public universities to identify systemic barriers and inform interventions that promote equitable information access and academic inclusion

3.1 Research Philosophy

The study was underpinned by an interpretivist research philosophy, which assumes that reality is socially constructed and can only be understood through individuals’ lived experiences and subjective interpretations (Acharya, 2025). This philosophical orientation was particularly appropriate given that the study sought to explore information accessibility among students with print disabilities (SWPDs), a phenomenon deeply embedded in personal, institutional, and technological contexts.

Interpretivism enabled the researcher to move beyond surface-level observations and engage with the meanings that participants attach to their experiences. Accessibility is not merely a technical issue but also a social and experiential one, shaped by interactions with institutional systems, assistive technologies, and support structures. Consequently, a positivist approach, which emphasizes objectivity and quantification, would have been insufficient to capture the depth and complexity of these experiences. The interpretivist stance therefore provided a suitable epistemological foundation for generating rich, contextualized insights.

3.2 Research Design

A qualitative multiple-case study design was adopted to facilitate an in-depth and context-sensitive exploration of assistive technology practices within higher education institutions. The qualitative approach was justified by the exploratory nature of the study, which aimed to understand “how” and “why” questions related to accessibility rather than to measure variables or test hypotheses.

The multiple-case study design allowed each university to be treated as a distinct case while enabling cross-case comparisons. This approach strengthened the analytical power of the study by revealing both convergences and divergences in accessibility practices across different institutional settings. Furthermore, examining multiple cases enhanced the robustness and transferability of the findings, as patterns identified across diverse contexts are more likely to be applicable beyond the immediate study sites.

3.3 Study Sites

The study was conducted in four universities in Kenya: University of Nairobi, Alupe University, Mt. Kenya University, and Tangaza University. These institutions were purposively selected to ensure variation in key characteristics, including institutional ownership (public versus private), geographical location, infrastructure capacity, and levels of assistive technology implementation.

This diversity was critical in capturing a comprehensive picture of accessibility practices within the Kenyan higher education sector. Public universities often differ from private institutions in terms of funding structures, policy implementation, and resource availability, while geographical differences may influence access to technological infrastructure. By incorporating institutions with varying profiles, the study was able to generate comparative insights and identify context-specific as well as common challenges and practices.

3.4 Target Population and Sample Size

The target population comprised three categories of participants: students with print disabilities (SWPDs), disability coordinators, and registrars. These groups were deliberately selected because they represent different yet interconnected perspectives on accessibility within universities.

A total of 36 participants were included in the study, consisting of 24 SWPDs (six from each university), eight disability coordinators, and four registrars (one from each university). The larger proportion of student participants was justified by their central role as primary users of assistive technologies and their capacity to provide detailed accounts of lived experiences. Disability coordinators contributed operational insights into the implementation and management of accessibility services, while registrars offered strategic perspectives on institutional policies and resource allocation.

This triangulation of participant categories enhanced the depth and comprehensiveness of the data by integrating experiential, operational, and administrative viewpoints. The sample size was deemed adequate for qualitative inquiry, as it allowed for rich data generation while remaining manageable for in-depth analysis.

3.5 Sampling Procedures

The study employed purposive sampling as the primary strategy to identify participants with relevant knowledge and experience in assistive technology and accessibility. This approach aligns with qualitative research principles, which prioritize information-rich cases over statistical representativeness.

For students with print disabilities, stratified purposive sampling was applied to ensure diversity across key characteristics such as type of disability, gender, and year of study. This stratification minimized the risk of bias and ensured that multiple perspectives were represented, thereby enhancing the credibility of the findings.

Snowball sampling was used to identify disability coordinators due to the variability in institutional roles and titles associated with disability support services. Initial participants facilitated the identification of other relevant staff members actively involved in accessibility initiatives, making this approach particularly suitable in contexts where formal role definitions may be unclear.

For registrars, a census approach was adopted given their limited number and their strategic importance in institutional decision-making. Including one registrar from each university ensured comprehensive coverage of administrative perspectives.

Sampling continued until data saturation was reached, defined as the point at which no new themes or insights emerged from additional interviews. This ensured that the data collected were sufficiently rich and comprehensive to address the research objectives.

3.6 Data Collection Methods

Data were collected using semi-structured interviews and document analysis, allowing for methodological triangulation and enhancing the validity of the findings.

Semi-structured interviews served as the primary data collection method due to their flexibility and depth. An interview guide was developed based on the study objectives, ensuring consistency across participants while allowing for probing and follow-up questions. This approach enabled participants to articulate their experiences in their own words, thereby generating rich and nuanced data.

The interviews were organized around key thematic areas, including the availability and usability of assistive technologies, institutional support mechanisms, and challenges encountered. Questions were tailored to each participant category to ensure relevance and depth of inquiry. Each interview lasted between 30 and 60 minutes, was conducted with informed consent, and was audio-recorded to ensure accuracy. The recordings were subsequently transcribed verbatim to preserve the integrity of the data.

Document analysis was employed as a complementary method to provide contextual and corroborative evidence. The documents reviewed included institutional disability policies, ICT and accessibility frameworks, and records related to procurement and resource allocation. This method allowed the researcher to examine the alignment between institutional policies and actual practices, thereby strengthening the credibility of the findings through triangulation.

3.7 Data Analysis

The data were analyzed using thematic analysis, a systematic and flexible approach for identifying and interpreting patterns within qualitative data. The process began with familiarization, during which the researcher immersed themselves in the data by reading and re-reading the transcripts.

This was followed by open coding, where meaningful segments of data were identified and labeled. The codes were then organized into categories based on similarities and relationships, which were subsequently developed into broader themes aligned with the research objectives. This iterative process involved constant comparison and refinement to ensure that the themes accurately reflected the data.

Thematic analysis was particularly suitable for this study because it allowed for both inductive and deductive analysis, enabling the identification of both anticipated and emergent themes. Key themes included the availability of assistive technologies, usability and accessibility challenges, institutional support mechanisms, and the impact of assistive technologies on academic participation.

3.8 Trustworthiness of the Study

To ensure the rigor and quality of the study, the criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability were applied.

Credibility was enhanced through triangulation of data sources and methods, as well as member checking, where participants were invited to review and validate the findings. Transferability was supported by providing rich, detailed descriptions of the research context, enabling readers to determine the applicability of the findings to other settings.

Dependability was ensured through the maintenance of an audit trail documenting all research processes and decisions, thereby allowing for transparency and potential replication. Confirmability was achieved through reflexive journaling, which enabled the researcher to critically examine and mitigate personal biases, ensuring that the findings were grounded in the data.

3.9 Ethical Considerations

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI). All participants were provided with detailed information about the study and gave informed consent prior to participation.

Confidentiality and anonymity were maintained by assigning codes to participants and removing identifying information from all data records. Data were securely stored and accessed only by the researcher. Participants were also informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any stage without any negative consequences.

These ethical safeguards ensured that the study upheld principles of respect, beneficence, and justice, while protecting the rights and well-being of all participants.

4.1 Availability of Assistive Technologies

The findings indicate that assistive technologies are present across institutions but are unevenly distributed, spatially concentrated, and insufficient to meet user demand. A consistent pattern emerging from interviews is that access is constrained not only by the number of devices available but also by their location within institutional spaces.

“The equipment is there, but sometimes you have to wait because only a few computers are adapted.” (SWPD-UoN)

This reflects a shared experience of scarcity, where availability does not necessarily translate into accessibility due to limited quantities. The issue is compounded by the centralization of resources within libraries, effectively restricting access during lectures and other academic activities.

“Most assistive tools are in the library. In lecture halls, you manage on your own.” (SWPD-MKU)

Document analysis reinforces these findings and provides a broader institutional perspective. All four universities had disability or inclusion policies; however, only two explicitly mentioned assistive technologies. This indicates a policy-level gap in recognising assistive technologies as a core component of inclusion. Procurement records further revealed irregular acquisition cycles, particularly in Alupe and Tangaza, suggesting that access is not systematically planned but instead occurs intermittently based on available funding.

A comparative analysis of institutional provision further illustrates disparities in the availability and integration of assistive technologies across sites, as shown in Table 1 below:

Table 1.

Availability of Assistive Technologies Across Sites

The table shows that UoN demonstrates relatively high provision in adjustable workstations and overall library accessibility, while MKU records moderate provision across most categories. In contrast, Alupe and Tangaza consistently exhibit low to minimal availability, particularly in critical technologies such as screen readers and speech-to-text software. Notably, all institutions report low levels of assistive technology integration within lecture halls, highlighting a systemic gap in embedding accessibility within core teaching and learning environments.

Across all sites, library accessibility is comparatively stronger than other areas, confirming a structural bias toward library-based support. This indicates that assistive technologies are largely confined to designated resource centres rather than being mainstreamed into everyday academic spaces.

Staff perspectives align with these findings, framing the issue in terms of institutional constraints and prioritization.

“Specialized software is not common here.” (DC-Alupe)

“Funding limits the number of assistive devices.” (REG-Tangaza)

These statements are corroborated by documentary evidence showing the absence of detailed implementation frameworks to operationalise inclusion policies. The convergence of interview data, document analysis, and comparative institutional evidence indicates that assistive technologies are treated as supplementary provisions rather than embedded components of teaching and learning infrastructure.

While UoN and MKU demonstrate relatively stronger provision, all institutions exhibit a structural bias toward library-based accessibility. This underscores limited mainstreaming of assistive technologies into core academic spaces and highlights the need for more strategic, policy-driven, and system-wide integration to ensure equitable access for students with disabilities.

4.2 Usability and User-Friendliness

Usability emerged as a multi-dimensional theme shaped by training, system compatibility, and technical reliability. Participants’ experiences suggest that the effectiveness of assistive technologies depends less on their presence and more on the conditions under which they are used.

A key determinant of usability is user training, which many participants identified as insufficient.

“If someone shows you how to use it, it becomes easy.” (SWPD-UoN)

This highlights the role of guided learning in transforming technology from a barrier into an enabler. However, the lack of structured training programs limits this potential.

“Students have not been trained enough to maximize the tools.” (DC-Alupe)

Document analysis supports this finding, as institutional policies rarely include provisions for continuous user training or capacity building. Training, where it exists, is often informal and inconsistent, leading to uneven user experiences.

Compatibility challenges, particularly with Learning Management Systems, further undermine usability.

“The system doesn’t respond well with voice software during exams.” (SWPD-MKU)

This reflects a misalignment between assistive technologies and core academic systems, which is not adequately addressed in institutional ICT policies. Document review shows limited integration planning, suggesting that accessibility considerations are not fully incorporated into digital infrastructure design.

Technical reliability also emerged as a critical concern.

“When the system hangs, you lose time.” (SWPD-Tangaza)

This issue is reinforced by document analysis indicating limited technical support staff and absence of maintenance schedules in institutional records. The triangulated evidence suggests that usability is not merely a technical attribute but a function of training, system integration, and ongoing support, factors that are currently underdeveloped across institutions.

• • 70% (17/24 SWPDs) reported inadequate training
• • 62% (15/24) experienced compatibility issues with LMS
• • 50% (12/24) reported frequent technical breakdowns

• Likert Scale Clarification
• A 5-point Likert scale was used to assess usability:
• 1 = Very Difficult
• 2 = Difficult
• 3 = Neutral
• 4 = Easy
• 5 = Very Easy
• • Average usability rating across institutions: 3.1 (moderate usability)
• • UoN: 3.5 | MKU: 3.3 | Tangaza: 2.9 | Alupe: 2.7

Table 2.

Usability Analysis

Usability is not solely determined by technology presence but by training, system integration, and maintenance, reinforcing the argument that accessibility is socio-technical rather than purely technological.

4.3 Institutional Support Mechanisms

The findings reveal a pronounced gap between policy commitments and actual implementation, driven largely by financial constraints and weak accountability systems. While all institutions have formal inclusion policies, these are often broad and lack operational detail.

“The policy exists, but implementation depends on departments.” (DC-UoN)

This indicates decentralization of responsibility, which leads to inconsistent application across faculties. Document analysis confirms that policies do not clearly define roles, responsibilities, or enforcement mechanisms, resulting in fragmented implementation.

Budgetary limitations were consistently identified as a major barrier.

“Accessibility competes with other priorities.” (REG-MKU)

“Budget allocation is minimal.” (REG-Alupe)

These perspectives are supported by documentary evidence showing that only one institution has a dedicated budget line for assistive technologies. In other cases, funding is embedded within general budgets, making it vulnerable to reallocation.

Another critical gap identified is the absence of monitoring and evaluation systems.

Document analysis shows that none of the institutions have formal frameworks for tracking accessibility outcomes or assessing the effectiveness of assistive technologies. This lack of oversight is reflected in staff perceptions, where implementation is seen as ad hoc rather than systematic.

• • All institutions had formal policy statements, but:

• Only 1 university had a dedicated assistive technology budget line
• None had clear monitoring and evaluation frameworks

• • 83% (10/12 staff) acknowledged inadequate funding
• • 75% (9/12) reported absence of monitoring systems

Table 3.

Institutional Support

There is a systemic disconnect between policy commitment and operational implementation, largely driven by financial and administrative constraints.

The triangulated findings suggest that institutional support is characterized by policy presence without structural reinforcement, limiting the sustainability and effectiveness of accessibility initiatives.

4.4 Impact on Information Accessibility and Academic Participation

Despite the structural and operational challenges identified, assistive technologies were found to have a significant positive impact on students’ academic experiences. Participants described increased independence, improved confidence, and enhanced participation in academic activities.

“I can access journals without depending on anyone.” (SWPD-UoN)

This reflects a shift toward greater autonomy, particularly in accessing digital resources. The ability to independently retrieve information represents a critical outcome of assistive technology use.

“It boosts confidence because you don’t feel different.” (SWPD-MKU)

This highlights the psychosocial benefits of accessibility, where technology contributes to a sense of inclusion and belonging. These findings are consistent with institutional policy goals, which emphasize equity and participation, although such outcomes are not systematically measured in practice.

However, the impact is not uniform, and significant barriers remain.

“We still rely on peers because systems are not fully adapted.” (SWPD-Alupe)

This indicates that while assistive technologies enhance participation, they do not fully eliminate dependency. Document analysis supports this observation, showing limited integration of accessibility measures into all academic processes, particularly in teaching and assessment.

• • 79% (19/24 SWPDs) reported increased independence
• • 71% (17/24) reported improved academic confidence
• • 54% (13/24) still relied on peer assistance

Table 4.

Impact Analysis

Assistive technologies significantly enhance autonomy and participation, but partial implementation limits full inclusion, particularly in resource-constrained institutions.

The triangulated evidence suggests that assistive technologies have transformative potential, but their impact is constrained by partial implementation and systemic limitations.

4.5 Cross-Cutting Analysis

Across all institutions, the findings demonstrate strong interdependence between availability, usability, and institutional support. Triangulation reveals that weaknesses in one area reinforce challenges in others. For example, limited funding affects both availability and technical support, which in turn undermines usability.

Institutions with relatively stronger resource bases show better outcomes, as reflected in both participant experiences and documentary evidence. However, even in these contexts, accessibility remains uneven and incomplete.

Overall, the findings indicate that assistive technologies are necessary but not sufficient for full inclusion. Their effectiveness depends on systemic integration, continuous training, and sustained institutional commitment. The absence of these elements results in a model of partial accessibility, where inclusion is experienced inconsistently across spaces and contexts.

4.6 Methodological Reflection

The integration of interview data and document analysis enhanced the depth and credibility of the findings by enabling cross-verification of evidence. Participant narratives provided insight into lived experiences, while institutional documents revealed structural intentions and gaps. Although the study is limited to four institutions, the use of multiple data sources strengthens analytical transferability and provides a robust foundation for understanding accessibility in similar contexts.

5.1 Objective 1: Availability of Assistive Technologies

The study revealed that assistive technologies (ATs) are unevenly distributed across universities, with clear disparities between relatively well-resourced institutions and those with limited funding. While some universities provide a range of tools such as screen readers, speech-to-text software, and adjustable workstations, others rely on minimal adaptations, often confined to basic physical infrastructure. Importantly, the qualitative findings deepen this understanding by showing that availability is not only about presence, but also about accessibility in practice.

Interview data demonstrated that many students experience “conditional access,” where technologies exist but are difficult to use due to limited quantities and centralized locations. The concentration of ATs in libraries, as opposed to lecture halls and learning spaces, reflects what can be described as spatialized accessibility—where inclusion is restricted to specific zones rather than embedded across the institution. Document analysis corroborated this pattern, showing that institutional policies tend to emphasize resource centers rather than mainstream teaching environments, while procurement records revealed irregular and inconsistent acquisition cycles.

These findings align with Alaban and Singh (2024), who emphasize that availability is a primary determinant of equitable access in higher education. However, the current study extends this argument by demonstrating that availability must be understood as distributed availability, not mere presence. Similarly, Maina et al. (2026) highlight that assistive technologies are often concentrated in libraries, leaving other academic spaces underserved, an observation strongly supported by both participant narratives and institutional documents in this study.

The disparities observed across institutions further reflect broader structural inequalities in resource allocation. Public universities, benefiting from larger funding pools, tend to provide more comprehensive AT infrastructure, while smaller and private institutions struggle to maintain even basic provisions. This supports Wanjiku (2025), who calls for national-level policy frameworks to standardize minimum accessibility requirements. The findings suggest that without such frameworks, accessibility remains institution-dependent, resulting in unequal educational experiences for students with physical disabilities (SWPDs).

5.2 Objective 2: Usability and User-Friendliness of Assistive Technologies

The study demonstrates that the effectiveness of assistive technologies is significantly shaped by usability factors, including training, system compatibility, and technical reliability. While some participants reported positive experiences, these were typically linked to prior training or institutional support, indicating that usability is not inherent in the technology itself but is socially and institutionally mediated.

A key insight from the qualitative findings is that usability is highly dependent on user capacity. Students who received guidance found the technologies easier to use, while those without training experienced frustration and underutilization. Document analysis supports this, revealing that most institutions lack structured training programs or formal capacity-building strategies. This reinforces the argument that usability is not just a design issue, but also a pedagogical and institutional responsibility.

Compatibility challenges with Learning Management Systems (LMS) further complicate usability. Students reported difficulties using assistive technologies during assessments and online learning activities, pointing to a disconnect between accessibility tools and core academic platforms. Institutional documents showed limited integration planning, suggesting that accessibility is often treated as an add-on rather than a design principle in digital systems.

These findings are consistent with Atata and Odedeyi (2025), who argue that adaptive user interface design is critical for enabling independent access. However, the present study adds nuance by showing that even well-designed technologies fail without proper integration and support systems. McNicholl, Desmond, and Gallagher (2023) similarly emphasize that AT effectiveness is mediated by user competence and confidence, a pattern clearly reflected in participants’ experiences.

In the Kenyan context, Ahmed et al. (2025) stress the importance of aligning technology procurement with usability considerations. The current findings reinforce this by demonstrating that usability challenges—such as system breakdowns and incompatibility—are exacerbated by weak technical support and lack of maintenance frameworks, as evidenced in institutional documents. Thus, effective AT implementation requires a holistic usability ecosystem that includes training, integration, and ongoing technical support.

5.3 Objective 3: Institutional Support Mechanisms

The findings reveal that institutional support mechanisms are characterized by a significant gap between policy and practice. While all universities studied had formal inclusion or disability policies, their implementation was inconsistent, fragmented, and often dependent on individual departments or personnel.

Interview data highlighted that policy enforcement is decentralized, leading to variability in how accessibility measures are applied across faculties. This is supported by document analysis, which shows that policies often lack clear implementation guidelines, defined responsibilities, and accountability structures. As a result, accessibility initiatives tend to be reactive rather than strategic.

Budgetary constraints emerged as a central barrier, with many institutions lacking dedicated funding for assistive technologies. Documentary evidence confirmed that only one institution had a specific budget line for ATs, while others incorporated accessibility into general budgets, making it vulnerable to competing priorities. This aligns with Griesmeyer-Krentz et al. (2022), who identify disability services personnel as key change agents but caution that their effectiveness is limited without adequate institutional support.

Furthermore, the absence of monitoring and evaluation frameworks represents a critical institutional weakness. Without mechanisms to track progress or assess impact, accessibility efforts remain uncoordinated and difficult to sustain. This finding supports Wanjiku (2025), who emphasizes that equity-focused models must integrate policy, financial investment, and operational systems.

The study therefore suggests that institutional support must move beyond policy declaration to structured implementation, incorporating dedicated funding, technical staffing, and accountability systems. Without these elements, assistive technologies remain underutilized and their potential impact diminished.

5.4 Objective 4: Impact of Assistive Technologies on Academic Participation

The findings confirm that assistive technologies have a significant positive impact on academic participation, particularly in enhancing independence, confidence, and engagement among SWPDs. Students reported increased ability to access academic materials independently, reducing reliance on peers and support staff. This represents a critical shift toward academic autonomy.

However, the study also reveals that this impact is uneven and conditional. While students in better-resourced institutions experienced greater benefits, those in resource-constrained environments continued to face barriers, often relying on peers when technologies were unavailable or unreliable. Document analysis supports this observation, showing limited integration of accessibility measures into teaching, assessment, and digital learning systems.

These findings align with Sahito, Kerio, and Khoso (2024), who highlight the role of digital libraries and e-learning platforms in enhancing educational equity. The present study confirms this, particularly in institutions where assistive technologies are well-maintained and integrated. Similarly, McNicholl et al. (2023) emphasize the psychosocial benefits of AT use, including increased confidence and self-efficacy—outcomes clearly reflected in participant narratives.

Importantly, the study extends existing literature by demonstrating that the impact of ATs is not absolute but relational, depending on the interaction between technology, institutional support, and user capacity. Where these elements align, ATs function as powerful enablers of inclusion; where they do not, their impact is significantly reduced.

Across all objectives, the study demonstrates that availability, usability, institutional support, and impact are deeply interdependent. Triangulated evidence shows that weaknesses in one dimension directly affect the others. For instance, limited funding reduces availability, which in turn restricts usability, while lack of training further diminishes impact.

6.1 Recommendations

Universities should adopt a system-wide approach to assistive technology provision, ensuring that tools are not only available but equitably distributed across all learning spaces, including lecture halls, laboratories, and digital platforms. Accessibility should be embedded into institutional infrastructure rather than confined to specialized units such as libraries.

There is a need for structured training programs targeting both students and staff. Continuous capacity building will enhance usability, improve confidence, and ensure that assistive technologies are effectively utilized. Disability coordinators, lecturers, and ICT personnel should be trained to provide ongoing technical and academic support.

Institutions should strengthen policy implementation frameworks by allocating dedicated budgets for assistive technologies, establishing clear operational guidelines, and introducing monitoring and evaluation systems to track progress and outcomes. Accountability mechanisms will ensure that accessibility commitments translate into practice.

Regular maintenance and system integration should be prioritized to ensure compatibility between assistive technologies and learning management systems. Investments in technical support staff and infrastructure are essential for sustaining functionality and reliability.

Finally, universities should actively involve SWPDs in decision-making processes, ensuring that assistive technologies and support services are responsive to actual user needs. Participatory approaches will enhance relevance, improve satisfaction, and promote inclusive educational environments.

6.2 Limitations of the Study

Despite the study providing valuable insights into the availability and usability of assistive technologies for students with physical disabilities in Kenyan public universities, several limitations should be acknowledged. The study focused on only four universities, which, while diverse in type and location, may not fully represent the experiences of students across all public and private institutions in Kenya. As such, the findings may have limited generalizability beyond the selected sites. The study relied primarily on qualitative methods, capturing perceptions, experiences, and self-reported challenges. While this approach offered rich, in-depth insights, it did not quantify the broader prevalence or impact of assistive technology usage, limiting the ability to make statistical generalizations.

Some data were dependent on participants’ willingness to disclose personal experiences, and factors such as social desirability bias or underreporting of challenges could have influenced responses. Additionally, the study focused on physical disabilities, with less emphasis on the intersectionality of multiple disabilities, which may present unique accessibility challenges. Finally, infrastructural and resource constraints within the selected universities, such as limited documentation on assistive technology deployment and variations in institutional support, may have affected the completeness of the data collected. Despite these limitations, the study provides a robust foundation for understanding assistive technology accessibility and offers actionable insights for enhancing inclusivity in higher education.

6.3 Implications of the Study