Amy Bennett and Andrea Didier, both at the University of East London, discuss how they are using the Pre-arrival Academic Questionnaire data to uncover disclosure gaps and improve early support for access and participation priority groups
The purpose of the access and participation plan
The Access and Participation Plan (APP) sets out how we reduce inequalities in access, continuation, and progression, with a focus on underrepresented and disadvantaged student groups. Within the What Works Team at UEL, we monitor the engagement and outcomes of these priority groups in APP-funded activity. This work relies heavily on the accurate identification of these groups within institutional data, as both our reporting and the targeting of support depend on it. When students are correctly identified, support can be more effectively and appropriately targeted, which may contribute to improved outcomes.
The Pre-arrival Academic Questionnaire at UEL
UEL has been undertaking the Pre-arrival Academic Questionnaire (PAQ) led by Dr Michelle Morgan since 2021. The PAQ undertaken by new students as a piece of reflective course work on entry has provided valuable data helping us look at prior learning experiences, concerns and expectations by underrepresented and disadvantaged student groups.
Up until the pilot, the PAQ was completely anonymously but new students got the headline findings three weeks in with advice so they could see their voice was listened to. All key stakeholders received the findings to look at so they could explore how students could be supported in real time in their areas.
With the launch of the first national pilot, entrants were asked to supply their ID to confirm they were a student at our university and provide consent for the use of their data to be used confidentially. This enabled us to be really proactive in our ability to reach out and support our students.
What we did
Given this additional piece of ID information, we wanted to explore how reliably our institutional systems capture key APP priority groups. We decided to focus on disability, estranged, and care-experienced status, as these are APP priority groups and characteristics that rely on self-disclosure. The PAQ provides a valuable comparison point because it captures self-reported data early in the student journey.
We therefore compared what students disclosed in the PAQ with what was recorded in institutional systems. Through this, we aimed to:
- Evaluate the completeness and reliability of institutional data.
- Identify where students may not be captured in existing systems.
- Explore how disclosure varies across student groups.
If differences in disclosure were found, this would provide a basis to:
- Explore how and where data is collected, and whether this varies by student group or entry route.
- Understand how students interpret and report these identities.
- Assess how this might affect our ability to identify and support students earlier.
If no differences were found, this would strengthen confidence in the completeness and reliability of institutional data used for APP reporting.
Ultimately, this work aimed to use the PAQ to help us understand whether some students may be overlooked due to data gaps, and how we might improve both identification and support for priority APP groups.
How we reviewed the PAQ data
The analysis was based on a cleaned and matched PAQ dataset, supported by descriptive analysis using a Power BI dashboard to explore patterns across student groups.
The PAQ data was cleaned to remove:
- Duplicate responses
- Invalid or missing student IDs
PAQ responses were then matched to institutional records using student IDs.
How variables were defined
Disability
PAQ disability status was based the multi-select question “Would you consider yourself as having any of the following impairment, health condition or learning differences?” and recoded to:
- Yes (any selection)
- No (no selection)
Institutional data was sourced from the Student Information System (SITS) Dashboard, consistent with what is used for APP monitoring and reporting. Recorded disabilities were recoded into Yes / No / Prefer not to say.
Estranged and care-experienced status
Both were derived directly from PAQ questions (“Are you estranged from your parents? (e.g. you are not in contact with and supported by your biological or adoptive parents)” and “Have you experienced living in public care or as a looked after child? (e.g. residential children’s home, looked after at home under a supervision order, lived with friends, relatives”) (Yes / No / Prefer not to say).
Institutional data for estranged and care-experienced status were sourced from the Student Engagement and Retention database. Care experience data was recoded from detailed categories into “Yes” (care experienced, care leaver, self-declared), “No” (no experience of care), and “Unknown / not recorded” (don’t know, not available, null values), with “Prefer not to say” retained as a separate category.
Sample overview
The final sample based on institutional records were:
- Level of study: 56.0% undergraduates / 44.0% postgraduates.
- Gender: 52.0% female / 48.0% male.
- Fee status: 56.0% home / 44.0% overseas.
What did we find?
First, it is important to note that the disclosure gaps presented compare overall proportions of students reporting a disability in the PAQ and institutional data, rather than differences at an individual student level.
This approach was considered appropriate as analysis at the individual level showed:
- 0.8% over-recorded (no disability in PAQ, recorded in SITS)
- 11.2% match (disability disclosed in both)
- 25.3% under-recorded (disability reported in PAQ but not recorded in SITS)
- 59.5% match (no disability recorded in either)
Disability disclosure
A substantially higher proportion of students reported a disability in the PAQ (38.38%) compared to institutional records (11.5%), representing a 26.9% gap. This suggests that institutional data may under-record students with disabilities, meaning reliance on formal disclosure alone may underestimate the number of students with support needs.
Fee status
The most pronounced gap was observed among overseas students:
- Overseas students: 37.3% (PAQ) vs 1.0% (SITS) = +36.3% gap
- Home students: 29.1% (PAQ) vs 19.3% (SITS) = +19.8%gap
This indicates substantial under-identification of disability among overseas students in institutional records. This may reflect differences in how disability is understood, disclosed, or recorded across cultural contexts, as well as potential concerns about the implications of disclosure. Initial analysis of responses to the PAQ question on concern about disclosing a disability or mental health condition supports this, with 20.4% of overseas students reported being “slightly” or “very” concerned about disclosing a disability compared to 7.5% of home students.
Level of study
Postgraduate students showed a larger disclosure gap than undergraduates:
- Postgraduates: 37.9% (PAQ) vs 6.9% (SITS) = +31.0% gap
- Undergraduates: 38.8% (PAQ) vs 15.0% (SITS)= +23.8% gap
While both groups show substantial gaps, the larger gap among postgraduates suggests potential under identification within this group. This may reflect differences in data collection routes, such as the absence of UCAS data for postgraduate entrants and highlights the need for further investigation into how data is captured for different entry pathways.
Clearing
The largest disability disclosure gap was among “late deciders” entering directly through clearing (+28.3%), followed by those who did not get their first choice (+24.8%) those not entering through clearing (+23.2%). The smallest gap was among those who applied through clearing because they declined their original offer (+16.8%).
This suggests under-identification is not limited to clearing but reflects a broader issue in how disability data is captured at the beginning of the student journey.
Gender
Disclosure gaps were also evident across gender groups:
- Male new students: 35.2% (PAQ) vs 7.1% (SITS) = +28.1% gap
- Female new students: 40.8% (PAQ) vs 15.2% (SITS) = +25.6% gap
Students identifying as “Other” showed the highest reported rated in both the PAQ and institutional data, however, this group was very small (n = 7) and findings should therefore be interpreted with caution.
Disclosure concern
Students who reported higher levels of concern in the PAQ about disclosing a disability showed the largest gaps:
- High concern: 62.0-76.0% (PAQ) vs 12-30% (SITS) = +42 to +50.0% gap
- Lower concern: 25.0-45.0% (PAQ) vs 4-13% (SITS) = +18 to 32.0% gap
This suggests that students less comfortable disclosing a disability may be less likely to be captured in institutional records, reinforcing the importance of early self-reported data such as the PAQ.
Estranged and care-experienced status
Smaller disclosure gaps were observed for estranged and care-experienced compared to disability:
- Estranged status: 5.0% (PAQ) vs 2.4% (SERT) = +2.6% gap
- Care experienced status: 11.1% (PAQ) vs 7.2% (SERT) = +3.9% gap
These smaller gaps likely reflect the lower overall prevalence of these characteristics. For care-experienced students, institutional data still captures only around half of those identified in the PAQ, indicating meaningful under-identification.
A bigger issue was the extent of missing data in institutional records:
- Estranged: 65.8% not recorded.
- Care experienced: 86.3% not recorded.
This was particularly pronounced among:
- Postgraduates: 99.8% not recorded for estrangement; 77.4% for care experience.
- Overseas students: 99.3% not recorded for estrangement; 100% for care experience.
This suggests that gaps are driven not only by disclosure behaviour, but also by limitations in data collection processes. As a result, some students may not be identified for support because the opportunity to capture this information is limited.
How are we using the findings?
The findings are informing discussions across the APP team about how PAQ data can complement institutional data. The insights strengthened understanding of data quality and completeness, highlighted where students may be under-identified, and informed thinking around earlier identification and support.
The findings also reinforced the importance of taking a Whole Provider Approach and developing initiatives and structures that are inclusive by design. As this work represents an early-stage analysis, actions are still currently being explored.
Planning and emerging actions include:
- Understanding from students why they choose not to disclose.
- Exploring how PAQ responses can be used for early signposting to support services.
- Reviewing how key characteristics are captured in institutional systems.
- Identifying opportunities to improve data collection processes.
Amy Bennett is Educational Data Insight Officer and Andrea Didier is Associate Director of Student Services (Engagement & Retention) at the University of East London
Pre-arrival questionnaire (PAQ) national pilot wave 1 initial results: In April 2026, Advance HE published the national pilot wave 1 initial results 2025, which offer a detailed picture of the expectations, prior experiences and early transition concerns that incoming undergraduates bring with them into higher education. Read more here
