Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The creation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990 and update in 2010 (ADA-ABA) allowed many thousands of people with disabilities to gain access to formerly inaccessible community buildings [1]. However, studying the literature or speaking with a person with a disability (PwD) easily reveals that ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) remain limited for several reasons: a) the ADA provides only minimal guidelines for building features; b) older buildings are exempt from the ADAAG; and c) accessibility is relative to an individual’s functional capabilities where one set of generic guidelines will not ensure accessibility for all individuals even with the same medical diagnosis [2]. ...

Our team recently conducted a cross-sectional survey ... Seventy-one percent of participants responded being “probably” or “definitely” interested in an app designed to provide accessibility ratings about buildings. The data and qualitative responses corroborate many of the frustrations reflected in the literature. Some examples of qualitative comments include:

“I called ahead to a restaurant to ask whether it was accessible for wheelchairs. They said it was. I wheeled the two miles to the location to find only steps into the place... I told them ‘No way!’ and left.”

“[It] confuses me why I and others with mobility issues who use accessible entrances would be embarrassed by a public buildings' noncompliance with the ADA and Rehab Act...”

Furthermore, Smith et al. explain that ... given the varied accessibility of buildings, a public rating system should be an empowering strategy for PwD as they decide where to go in the community.

The Rehabilitation Research Design and Disability (R2D2) Center team have completed five apps as an ARB App Suite. The AccessPlace app ... to quickly measure inclines, decibels and distances in the context of accessibility. Figure 1 shows screenshots of the ARB suite.

However, moving forward into knowledge translation ... The purpose of this paper is to describe the PAR process used for the ARB project and the key findings that resulted in this phase of structured process.

METHODS

PAR methodology was employed as a qualitative methodology ... After a general overview of meeting, updates, and review of meeting objectives, the PAR members were split into Zoom subgroups for discussion.

We use a Modified Nominal Group Technique (MNGT) ... A standard 5-step protocol was used for the MNGT procedures: 1) Introduction and explanation of the purpose, 2) Silent generation of ideas, 3) Sharing ideas, 4) Group discussion and 5) Ranking and prioritizing.

RESULTS

The “Look-Think-Act-Review” process facilitated through MGNT procedures contributed to major decisions regarding technology transfer. Our projects have recently completed their first year of implementation and we have conducted two formal PAR meetings. The discussions and feedback from PAR members have already led to significant additions to the project that will enhance our outcomes and truly serve the needs of PwD. See table 1 for feedback from PAR meetings and action steps the project team is taking.

Table 1: Feedback from PAR Meetings

Last, PAR members are closely working with the team ... translation of findings into change for the lives of people with disabilities.

CONCLUSION

The highly engaged PAR process has been catalytic ... highlight the value of engaging stakeholders as critical team members throughout project activities and not just as study participants.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project is supported in part by the U.S. Department of HHS/ACL, National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR), grant numbers 90DPKT0016, & 90IFDV0030.

REFERENCES

1. Access-Board. 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. 2010 p. 1–279. Report No.: 28 CFR 35.151
2. Hammel J, Magasi S, Heinemann A, Gray DB, Stark S, Kisala P, Hahn EA. Environmental Barriers and Supports to Everyday Participation: A Qualitative Insider Perspective From People With Disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2015;96(4):578–88.
3. Burns SP, Mendonca RJ, & Smith RO. (2023). Accessibility of public buildings in the United States: a cross-sectional survey. Disability & Society, 1-16.
4. Smith RO, Tomashek D, Wilson C. Perspectives on Building Accessibility: Survey responses by people with disabilities on accessibility experiences and the need for information. In Toronto, Canada; 2019.
5. Tomashek D, Spaeth N, Latzig N, Pelkey N, Smith RO. Validation of the AccessPlace Personal Accessibility Information Review Sorting. In Arlington, VA; 2018. https://www.resna.org/sites/default/files/conference/2018/jea/Tomashek.html
6. Williams D, Johnson N, Bangole OC, Hasan K, Tomashek D, Ahamed SI, et al. Access Tools: Developing a usable smartphone-based tool for determining building accessibility. In Denver, CO; 2015.
7. Tomashek D, Smith RO, Schwartz J, Ahamed SI. Development, concurrent validity, and instrument reliability of the access slope mini-tool mobile app. In Indianapolis, IN; 2014.
8. Johnson N, Saxena P, Williams D, Bangole OC, Hasan K, Ahamed SI, et al. Smartphone-based light and sound intensity calculation application for accessibility measurement. In Denver, CO; 2015.
9. Williams D, Johnson N, Saha AK, Spaeth N, Tomashek D, Ahamed SI, et al. Access Ruler: An Accessible Measurement Application for Determining Accessibility In The Built Environment. In Washington D.C.; 2016.
10. Burns S, Smith RO, Mendonca R, Pickens ND. Integrating A Participatory Design Approach: Developing Hestia With Multidisciplinary Perspectives. In New Orleans, LA; 2017.
11. Baum F, MacDougall C, Smith D. Participatory action research. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006 Oct;60(10):854–7.
12. Seekins T, White G. Participatory Action Research Designs in Applied Disability and Rehabilitation Science: Protecting Against Threats to Social Validity. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 2012 Nov 20;94.
13. Hammel J, Finlayson M, Lastowski S. Using participatory action research to examine outcomes and effect systems change in assistive technology financing. Journal of Disability Policy Studies. 2003;14(2):98–108.
14. Daley CM, James AS, Ulrey E, Joseph S, Talawyma A, Choi WS, et al. Using Focus groups in community-based participatory research; Challenges and Resolutions. Qualitative Health Research. 2010;20(5):697–706.
15. Elliott TR, Shewchuk RM. Using the Nominal Group Technique to Identify the Problems Experienced by Persons Living with Severe Physical Disabilities. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2002 Jun 1;9(2):65–76.
16. Murphy, Black, Lamping, McKee, Sanderson, Askham, et al. Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2(3). https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta/hta2030
17. Van De A, Delbecq AL. Nominal Versus Interacting Group Processes for Committee Decision-Making Effectiveness. Acad Manage J. 1971 Jun 1;14(2):203–12.