In a master’s-level counseling course, teaching the concepts of research and program evaluation is fundamental to preparing future counselors to engage in evidence-based practices, assess program effectiveness, and contribute to the advancement of the counseling profession. Both research and program evaluation are systematic processes that play critical roles in enhancing client outcomes, ensuring accountability, and addressing the diverse needs of individuals and communities served by counseling professionals (Trevisan & Carey, 2023). While both share similarities in methodology and ethical considerations, they differ in purpose, scope, and application within the counseling field.

Research in counseling-structured inquiry processes is aimed at generating new knowledge or validating existing theories to inform practice. It often explores broader questions related to mental health, therapeutic interventions, or human behavior (Watkins & Schneider, 2024). For example, research might investigate the efficacy of mindfulness-based stress reduction techniques for treating trauma or examine cultural factors influencing counseling outcomes. Research findings contribute to the academic knowledge base and guide counselors in implementing evidence-based interventions (Carise et al., 2009).

Program evaluation, on the other hand, focuses on assessing specific counseling programs or interventions to determine their effectiveness in achieving intended goals. It is a practical tool used by counselors, administrators, and stakeholders to improve services, allocate resources efficiently, and ensure accountability (Balkin & Kleist, 2022). For instance, program evaluation could measure the impact of a school-based suicide prevention initiative on student well-being (Ayer et al., 2023) or assess the effectiveness of community mental health outreach programs (Harris, 2016).

Both research and program evaluation share several similarities within the counseling field, particularly in their systematic approaches and reliance on evidence-based practices. Both processes utilize structured methodologies, such as surveys, interviews, focus groups, and data analysis, to collect and interpret information (Levin-Rozalis, 2003). These tools enable counselors to gather meaningful insight that informs decision-making and improves counseling practices. Additionally, adherence to ethical standards is central to both research and program evaluation. Ethical principles, including informed consent, confidentiality, and minimizing harm, ensure that both processes are conducted responsibly and with respect to participants (Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification, 2023). In addition, there is considerable overlap in the techniques employed in both domains; this includes tools like statistical modeling and qualitative coding used to analyze data and derive actionable conclusions (Balthazar & Vendrely, 2021).

Despite these similarities, research and program evaluation differ in their purpose, scope, stakeholders, and flexibility. Research aims to generate generalizable knowledge about counseling theories or interventions, contributing to the broader academic knowledge about counseling theories or intervention and discourse within the field (Hays & McKibben, 2021). Conversely, program evaluation focuses on assessing the effectiveness or efficiency of specific programs within particular contexts, providing practical insights for improving services (Russ-Eft et al., 2024). The scope of research tends to address broad questions relevant to the counseling profession, while program evaluation is narrower in focus, targeting localized outcomes tied to specific programs or interventions (Wanzer, 2021). Another key difference lies in their intended audiences. Program evaluations directly aid stakeholders such as clients, funders, or administrators by offering actionable recommendations tailored to their needs. Research primarily benefits the academic community by indirectly informing counseling practices (Donaldson, 2021). Finally, program evaluation is typically more adaptable to stakeholder needs and timelines compared to research studies, which often follow rigid protocols (Levin-Rozalis, 2003; Wanzer, 2021).

Despite an estimated 20-25% of Americans reported to be living with a disability, individuals with disabilities remain significantly underrepresented in research (CDC, 2025; Jones et al., 2020; NCD, 2024). Whether intentional or not, the exclusion of disability perspective and lived experience can reduce the validity and generalizability of findings, as results may not reflect the needs or outcomes of a substantial portion of the population. Promoting inclusive practices among researchers and practitioners is everyone’s responsibility and starts with increasing awareness and understanding of how this can be accomplished.

This article explores how research and program evaluation methods can be designed and implemented to promote inclusion within the counseling field, particularly in Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP)-accredited master’s programs. It will discuss inclusive frameworks such as community-based participatory research (CBPR), participatory action research (PAR), and Universal Design for Research (UDR), emphasizing their alignment with ethical standards and accessibility. Additionally, this article will address practical considerations for designing accessible research tools, inclusive data collection methods, and effective dissemination strategies (e.g., lecture content, classroom and online discussion, activities, assignments) to ensure equitable participation and meaningful application of findings in counseling practice. Accessibility should not only be considered in terms of what researchers are legally responsible for but, equally importantly, how to uphold the spirit of laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as Amended, 2008) regarding how and why the law was intended to promote the full inclusion of individuals with disabilities. By designing studies and evaluations that are inclusive, accessible, and equitable from the start, researchers set a clear tone that all are welcome.

Positionality Statement

Three of the authors are tenured counselor educators, and the other three are disability and employment researchers at a Carnegie R1 institution. All six authors identify as Caucasian. Our differing standpoints and experiences contributed to a multifaceted approach to the paper, allowing us to interrogate our assumptions and ensure the trustworthiness of our interpretations. We engaged in regular reflexive dialogue to remain accountable to the communities represented in this work. We recognize that our identities both afford us certain privileges and present limitations. Rather than aiming for objectivity, we strive for transparency and reflexivity in our roles as authors.

Infusing Disability into a Counseling Research Course

Within the following sections, we present content for research design and program evaluation inclusive of disability principles. Grounded in participatory values, the strategies actively emphasize the involvement of people with disabilities as co-researchers to improve relevance and equity of the findings. Inclusive approaches prioritize accessibility and strengths-based framing and shift the focus and recommendations toward environmental and structural barriers rather than individual characteristics. Importantly, research must also be attentive to differences experienced by disability subcommunities by using community-engaged and participatory methods that adapt to distinct preferences and communication modes. A good example is the linguistic and cultural identity of Deaf communities. “Deaf” with a capital D is used by those identifying with the Deaf community, language, and culture. The lower-case “deaf” refers to the physical condition of hearing loss. In the context of research and program evaluation, individuals identifying as Deaf may prefer the use of American Sign Language (ASL) over spoken or written English because it is their first language. When embraced by researchers, these principles support contextually grounded evidence and evaluation practices that reflect the diverse lived experiences and outcomes valued by disability communities.

This information can be infused into lecture content and existing course activities and assignments, though several example assignments have been included. Literature cited throughout can be used for course readings and as instructor resources.

Best Research and Program Evaluation Methods to Promote Inclusion

In CACREP-accredited master’s counseling programs, integrating inclusive research frameworks is essential to preparing future counselors to engage in ethical, accessible, and culturally responsive research (Sharma et al., 2021). Research and program evaluation methods that prioritize accessibility, equity, and active participation from diverse populations, including individuals with disabilities, are critical in shaping counseling practices that are both inclusive and effective (Bhattarai et al., 2020; Douglas et al., 2024; Gates & Li, 2025).

A foundational approach to inclusive research is community-based participatory research (CBPR), which aligns with CACREP’s emphasis on social and cultural diversity by ensuring individuals with disabilities are active collaborators in the research process (Battle et al., 2022; Collins et al., 2018). This method fosters a deeper understanding of clients’ lived experiences and systemic barriers (Marrone et al., 2022). Similarly, participatory action research (PAR) promotes empowerment and advocacy (Mackinnon & Stephens, 2010; Rodríguez & Brown, 2009), key components of a counselor’s professional identity, by encouraging researchers to co-develop interventions with participants rather than imposing predetermined frameworks (Fish & Syed, 2021). These participatory methods reflect a disability justice framework (Benjamin-Thomas & Rudman, 2023; Schneider, 2012), by centering the voices of people with disabilities in balance with the researchers. This reinforces CACREP’s focus on ethical and legal considerations by advocating for equitable and intersectional research practices that acknowledge and address systemic oppression (e.g., Standards 3.H.9, 3.H.10, and 3.H.11) (CACREP, 2023). Additionally, Universal Design for Research supports CACREP standards in research and program evaluation by guiding future counselors in developing accessible methodologies that remove barriers to participation (Heppner et al., 1992). By integrating these frameworks, master’s counseling programs can equip students with the skills to conduct ethical, inclusive research that informs best practices and promotes equitable outcomes.

Accessibility in data collection approaches is essential for capturing the rich experiences of individuals from diverse backgrounds in research (Marconcini et al., 2021). Qualitative methods, such as interviews, autoethnography, and focus groups, should be designed with accessibility in mind by offering multiple communication formats, including sign language interpretation, speech-to-text transcription, and alternative response options such as written or asynchronous participation (Stewart & Shamdasani, 2017). These strategies allow individuals with varying abilities to share their experiences, providing deeper insights into both personal and systemic barriers (Akyıldız & Ahmed, 2021; Corbin & Strauss, 2008).

Similarly, quantitative data collection should incorporate accessible instrument design by ensuring compatibility with screen readers, offering plain language versions, presenting multiple language options, and allowing multiple response formats (e.g., verbal, digital, or tactile options; Fan et al., 2023; Geisen & Bergstrom, 2017). By integrating these inclusive approaches, researchers can develop a comprehensive and representative evidence base that accurately informs counseling practice, policy development, and program improvements (Lazar et al., 2015).

To promote meaningful participation, research participant recruitment strategies should prioritize outreach to disability organizations, advocacy groups, and alumni networks to ensure a diverse and representative group. Best practices for accessibility include:

By incorporating these inclusive research and evaluation strategies, counseling programs can uphold CACREP’s commitment to diversity, accessibility, and ethical research practices while generating findings that meaningfully inform the field of counseling. A detailed example of a disability-focused qualitative analysis assignment is provided in Appendix A.

Design Considerations in Research and Program Evaluation Methods

Design considerations in research and evaluation involving persons with disabilities are framed with important historical context and directly relate to contemporary ethical requirements of research. CACREP-accredited programs also need to meet the curricular standards of teaching ethical considerations relevant to all aspects of research and program evaluation. Regulations addressing human subjects research have been shaped by historical harms perpetrated upon marginalized individuals in the name of research. One important example is specific to the treatment of children with disabilities at Willowbrook State School. Willowbrook, an institution housing children with developmental disabilities, conducted several studies using residents between 1956 and 1971. For instance, to understand the spread of hepatitis (which was frequently contracted by residents at the institution), a study was conducted in which children were intentionally infected with the virus (Ben-Moshe, 2020; Spellecy & Busse, 2021). Infusing examples like Willowbrook into coursework related to research and evaluation may help to emphasize the importance of research review boards and ethical research practices. Intentional consideration of the risks to research participants is always an imperative of research design, but it is especially important when assessing risks in the context of obtaining the informed consent of participants. Greater understanding of historical context does not erase the harms incurred in situations such as at Willowbrook; however, it can help future researchers and evaluators remain diligent about careful, thoughtful planning. This includes working within the regulations set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations, with oversight carried out by Institutional Review Boards (IRB) designed to minimize the risks of harm to research subjects, particularly vulnerable populations including disabled individuals.

During the planning and design phase of the research or evaluation process, there are many opportunities to carefully consider how researchers might be more inclusive of individuals with disabilities. Spending ample time during the planning process considering inclusion of individuals with disabilities can mitigate later challenges and enhance the research design to best capture the study population of interest. In evaluation, design elements that are inclusive of people with disabilities can help ensure all participant voices are considered in the evaluative process and any recommendations stemming from the evaluation project activities. This section focuses on topics related to design considerations for individuals with disabilities including accessibility of research tools, planned data collection methods, and definitions of disability. This information will assist CACREP-accredited programs in addressing culturally sustaining and developmentally responsive strategies for research and program evaluation.

One such consideration is the accessibility of the chosen tools. There are many tools that have been created to assist with research and evaluation processes. Software applications like Qualtrics have accessibility features built into the program, which can assist in survey development. Researchers should carefully consider instrument design elements such as the length of a survey, number of items, reading level, and color scheme, all which impact how accessible the survey is to the end user. It is important to also evaluate the planned method of data collection against accessibility standards (Clarke & Lalor, 2024) to ensure all intended participants, including individuals with disabilities, have an opportunity to participate.

Should a member of your research or evaluation team have accessibility needs, it is also important to consider applications such as data analysis software for accessibility. For example, data analysis software programs such as SPSS, R, NVivo, Dedoose, and SAS may have different accessibility features, and it is important to communicate with team members regarding which software or program may be best given the needs of individuals on the team. Additionally, any output or results should be saved in formats that are readable for screen reader software to ensure equitable participation among research team members with visual impairments.

One potentially helpful step in designing a study can be to have the evaluation/research team “critique” themselves by walking through each step of the planned data collection methods and processes to consider who may be excluded (either intentionally or unintentionally). For example, an online-only survey tool may not be compatible with screen readers for individuals with visual impairments. Or maybe the measurements and scales that were selected as a part of the survey require a specific reading level and are not inclusive of individuals with lower reading comprehension or limited English proficiency. These design features may impact the representativeness of the sample and interpretation of the results (i.e., Are the results generalizable to all individuals with disabilities or only those who were able to participate in the study?). Additionally, an online survey requires internet access and proficient use of a computer or smartphone device to participate, which may not be available to everyone.

The goal of taking a critical lens to the research or evaluation design in this way is not to create a perfectly designed study devoid of any flaws (this is also likely not possible for several reasons, which include funding and timing constraints). However, researchers and evaluators engaging in scientific inquiry need to thoughtfully consider the pros and cons of various methodologies and be prepared to discuss the implications of these choices. This is especially important when drawing conclusions about results and findings; ethical conduct of research obligates researchers to clearly address potential limitations in peer-reviewed manuscript submissions and other forms of dissemination. Even something seemingly “simple” such as defining disability can be a very important consideration in the research process and has implications for how the data are later analyzed.

In disability research and evaluation, the choice of how disability is defined and measured has significant implications for data interpretation and policy relevance. Definitions of disability, often grounded in legal and administrative frameworks, provide consistency and comparability but may exclude individuals who do not meet specific criteria, such as those with less visible or fluctuating impairments (Patel et al., 2016; Patel & Merrick, 2011). As an example, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as Amended, 2008) defines disability as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.” While it is important to know this legal definition, it is equally important to understand that disability identity is diverse, and no single way applies to everyone. These definitions can also reflect cultural and political values, which complicate cross-national comparisons and may limit the inclusivity of research findings (Kiuppis & Soorenian, 2017). In contrast, self-report measures allow individuals to define their own experiences with disability, offering a more nuanced and person-centered approach. This method can capture subjective experiences that standardized definitions might overlook, but it is also vulnerable to biases such as social desirability, misunderstanding of terms, or inaccuracies (Dixon, 2020; Link & Phelan, 2001). As an example, individuals who identify as neurodivergent (e.g., autism, ADHD, dyslexia) may view their differences as a natural part of who they are rather than something needing to be fixed.

The format of response options (e.g., categorical or open-ended) can shape data collection. Categorical responses are easier to quantify and analyze, making them attractive for large-scale studies, but they may constrain participants’ ability to fully express their identities or experiences. Write-in responses, while richer in detail and potentially more inclusive, pose challenges for coding and analysis, especially when responses vary widely in language and specificity (Grandits et al., 2024). Appendix B contains a guided ethical discussion activity. The provided design considerations options demonstrate examples of disability inclusion and can (and should) be applied to all parts of the design process by researchers and evaluators when determining their specific methodology.

Dissemination of Findings and Discussing Outcomes

Effective dissemination of program evaluation results or research findings is essential to ensuring the knowledge generated reaches all relevant stakeholders, including study participants, practitioners, policymakers, and the broader community. When considering the report of research and evaluation results, it is important to use the American Psychological Association’s publication guide actively to help avoid and prevent bias in language concerning race, disability, and sexuality (APA, 2020). Furthermore, knowledge translation (KT) theory and practice inherently address the research-to-practice gap, and inclusive dissemination strategies are central to this approach (Olson & Oudshoorn, 2020). KT is a dynamic process that ensures research findings are accessible, understandable, and actionable (Graham et al., 2006). Importantly, in the field of counseling, KT strategies promote access by facilitating the implementation of interventions that enhance autonomy, inclusion, and mental well-being of individuals with disabilities (Corcuff et al., 2024; Dew & Boydell, 2017).

A comprehensive dissemination strategy not only amplifies the impact of the research but also fosters transparency and trust among stakeholders (Viswanathan et al., 2016). In fact, KT is most effective when clients, including those with disabilities, counselors, and families are actively involved in shaping research and its applications (Kothari & Wathen, 2013). Participatory research methods, such as co-designing interventions with the intended population, increase the relevance and uptake of findings (Cargo & Mercer, 2008).

Acknowledging Limitations

Transparency about a study’s limitations is a fundamental aspect of responsible research dissemination. Recognizing and openly discussing limitations such as access, selection bias, non-response rates, and limited generalizability provides context for interpreting the findings accurately. This practice enhances the credibility of the research and guides future studies to address these gaps.

Knowledge Translation Beyond Traditional Publications

While publishing in peer-reviewed journals is standard practice for academic researchers, it is equally important to share findings with the participants and communities involved in the research. KT plays a vital role in advancing accessibility for individuals with disabilities by ensuring that research findings are not only disseminated but also transformed into usable, relevant, and accessible formats for diverse stakeholders. Engaging community organizations and hosting public forums, or community conversations can facilitate the dissemination of findings in accessible and relevant ways. Traditional dissemination practices often rely on academic jargon, complex formats, or inaccessible platforms that exclude people with disabilities from fully engaging with the knowledge produced. In contrast, KT emphasizes co-creation, plain language communication, multimodal formats (e.g., videos, infographics, screen-reader compatible documents), and community partnerships to ensure information is both understandable and actionable. This approach respects participants’ contributions and ensures they are informed about the outcomes of the research they were involved in (Parent-Johnson & Duncan, 2024). By centering disability-inclusive practices, KT bridges the gap between evidence and implementation, enabling individuals with disabilities, service providers, and policymakers to apply research findings in ways that support equitable outcomes. Such practices empower communities with knowledge that can inform decision-making and drive social change. Appendix C provides guidelines for a knowledge translation assignment centered on disability-inclusive counseling.

Reaching Diverse Populations

Despite ongoing advancements in counseling research, integrating evidence-based practices into clinical settings remains a challenge (Fischer & Mendez, 2019; Oliver & Lang, 2019). One of the main barriers to KT in counseling research is the accessibility of findings. Using plain language summaries, visual aids, and digital resources ensures information is usable by diverse audiences, including individuals with cognitive and sensory disabilities (Dew & Boydell, 2017; Lundgard & Satyanarayan, 2021). To ensure that research findings or evaluation results are accessible to the populations involved, it is essential to:

  • Tailor messages to stakeholders: Effective KT requires customizing research messages to suit different audiences, such as clients, families, providers, and policymakers (Gagliardi et al., 2015). Using clear, non-technical language and relevant examples enhances comprehension and applicability (Davis et al., 2003).

  • Include stakeholders in the research process: Involving stakeholders such as clients, caregivers, and clinicians in the research process increases the likelihood of knowledge uptake (Corcuff et al., 2024; Kothari & Wathen, 2013). Collaborative and participatory approaches such as integrated KT, where researchers work closely with end-users, have shown positive outcomes in mental health settings (Cargo & Mercer, 2008).

  • Develop plain language summaries: These clear, concise research summaries are written in a way that is easy for a general audience to understand, including people with disabilities, policymakers, and non-experts. These summaries use clear, non-technical language to ensure complex research findings are accessible to a broader audience, including those with cognitive or sensory impairments (Stoll et al., 2022). An example of a plain language summary can be found in Appendix D.

  • Provide alternative formats: Providing materials in various formats such as braille, large print, or audio ensures accessibility for individuals with visual or auditory impairments. Utilizing visual aids, such as infographics, charts, and other visual representations, can help convey data effectively, especially for visual learners. Furthermore, providing clear alternative text (alt text) for images and figures is essential for ensuring equitable access to research outputs for individuals who are blind or have low vision. Alt text serves as a nonvisible, text-based substitute that conveys the function or content of visual elements, allowing screen readers to communicate substantive information that would otherwise be inaccessible. The American Counseling Association (n.d.) provides clear guidance on how, when, and why to integrate alt text into visual materials.

  • Leverage digital platforms: Utilizing websites, social media, and webinars can broaden reach and engage diverse audiences in interactive ways. Websites and related digital media should be tested for accessibility using reputable resources such as the General Services Administration (n.d.).

  • Engage with communities: Hosting workshops, community meetings, or focus groups allows for direct interaction, feedback, and discussion, fostering a sense of ownership and relevance among stakeholders (Goorts et al., 2021).

Regardless of the modalities selected, all content should be assessed for accessibility prior to dissemination. Resources such as the Accessibility Resources section of the National Clearinghouse of Rehabilitation Training Materials (https://ncrtm.ed.gov/accessibility-resources) can serve as helpful, cost-effective guides. A thoughtful and inclusive dissemination strategy that acknowledges study limitations and employs diverse and accessible communication methods ensures research findings are effectively shared with all stakeholders, thereby maximizing the research’s impact and value.

Conclusion

Incorporating inclusive research and program evaluation methods is essential for advancing ethical, accessible, and culturally responsive practices in the counseling field. By integrating frameworks such as CBPR, PAR, and UDR, master’s-level counseling programs can equip future counselors with the tools to address systemic barriers and promote equity in their work. Additionally, thoughtful design consideration, accessible data collection methods, and inclusive dissemination strategies ensure research findings are representative, actionable, and impactful. The purpose of this article was to introduce inclusive practices of research and program evaluation methods, however, it is far from exhaustive and should be treated as a foundation. Additional elements of successful engagement in disability inclusion may include evaluation and disclosure of positionality to the research topic, seeking out and understanding disability frameworks outside of the counseling field, and continued efforts to seek out best practices in conducting disability related research successfully. By prioritizing these approaches, counseling professionals can uphold CACREP standards while promoting meaningful change for diverse populations, including people with disabilities. This commitment to inclusion not only strengthens the counseling profession but also ensures services and interventions effectively meet the needs of all clients and communities.