Evaluation of the universal design principles for university education: what the respondents did not mention

<jats:p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;span lang="en-US"&gt;Context and relevance.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; The research methodology of inclusive education has a number of complex issues that require attention and reflection. In research on Universal design for learning, it is important to analyze the tools the results are obtained with. The developed questionnaires and questionnaires need a more serious discussion, where, along with statistical data, it is necessary to carry out various data analysis angles. &lt;strong&gt;Objective.&lt;/strong&gt; The purpose of this article is to identify &amp;ldquo;hidden&amp;rdquo; risks and resources in teachers' and students' assessment of the principles of universal design for learning as a result of the analysis of uncertain answers to questions. &lt;strong&gt;Research questions&lt;span lang="en-US"&gt;.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Which principles of universal design for learning are the most difficult for teachers and students to evaluate? What does the tendency of respondents to avoid answering mean? How do teachers' doubts complement students' doubts, and where do they experience different difficulties? &lt;strong&gt;Methods and materials.&lt;/strong&gt; The study was conducted using the author's questionnaire for teachers and students, consisting of 3 sections. The indicators are evaluated by the respondents on the Likert scale. The obtained data were analyzed using the IBM SPSS Statistics software. The study period is April&lt;span lang="en-US"&gt;&amp;mdash;&lt;/span&gt;May 2024 with the participation of 327 teachers and 3158 students of Tyumen state university. &lt;strong&gt;Results.&lt;/strong&gt; In assessing the implementation of universal design for learning at the university, vague answers are more common among students than among teachers. Teachers' doubts more often indicate the choice of a socially acceptable option. In assessing communicative tolerance, a significant number of indicators have caused difficulties for both teachers and students. In evaluating the questions from the block &amp;ldquo;Representation&amp;rdquo; teachers were more likely to doubt what students were evaluating unambiguously: for example, the use of various technical capabilities. The least difficult questions for respondents are from the &amp;ldquo;Engagement&amp;rdquo; block, which can be a resource for solving the problems of inclusion. &lt;strong&gt;Conclusions.&lt;/strong&gt; The findings confirm that in-depth examination of data typically excluded from routine analysis reveals substantial added value for interpretation. The proposed approach can be regarded as a strategy for refining questionnaires&lt;span lang="en-US"&gt;. &lt;/span&gt;Instruments designed for multiple respondent groups provide broader analytical opportunities. The suggested analytical framework is of interest not only for interpreting results across diverse samples, including adolescent populations, but also for developing questionnaires with separate versions tailored for children and adults.&lt;/p&gt;</jats:p>