Effectiveness of the International Symbol of Access and inclusivity of other disability groups.
Access
Accessibility
Disability
Impairment
Symbol
Universal
Journal
Disability and health journal
ISSN: 1876-7583
Titre abrégé: Disabil Health J
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101306633
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2020
01 2020
Historique:
received:
21
06
2018
revised:
12
08
2019
accepted:
28
08
2019
pubmed:
14
9
2019
medline:
16
4
2020
entrez:
14
9
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The International Symbol of Access (ISA) is recognized world-wide for designating and identifying areas which are wheelchair accessible, however its meaning has evolved to include both restricted use and universal accessibility. This study seeks to investigate the effectiveness of the ISA in representing individuals of all impairment types. A mixed-method survey was disseminated in the U.S. and internationally to persons without self-identified impairment and individuals of various impairment group types, including mobility, vision, hearing, and cognitive impairments, using convenience sampling (n = 981). Quantitative data was analyzed using ranking patterns and regression analysis. Qualitative data was analyzed using thematic analysis and triangulation. Participants with self-identified mobility impairments rated the ISA more favorably than other disability groups (p = 0.002). In addition, there is a significant correlation between age and effectiveness of the ISA, with participants rating the symbol more favorably as age increases. Common themes included association of the ISA with a mobility impairment, implications for restricted use or reserved space, and physical accessibility. The ISA is not effective in representing individuals with non-mobility impairments and its ambiguous nature leads to confusion for both persons with and without impairment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The International Symbol of Access (ISA) is recognized world-wide for designating and identifying areas which are wheelchair accessible, however its meaning has evolved to include both restricted use and universal accessibility.
OBJECTIVE
This study seeks to investigate the effectiveness of the ISA in representing individuals of all impairment types.
METHODS
A mixed-method survey was disseminated in the U.S. and internationally to persons without self-identified impairment and individuals of various impairment group types, including mobility, vision, hearing, and cognitive impairments, using convenience sampling (n = 981). Quantitative data was analyzed using ranking patterns and regression analysis. Qualitative data was analyzed using thematic analysis and triangulation.
RESULTS
Participants with self-identified mobility impairments rated the ISA more favorably than other disability groups (p = 0.002). In addition, there is a significant correlation between age and effectiveness of the ISA, with participants rating the symbol more favorably as age increases. Common themes included association of the ISA with a mobility impairment, implications for restricted use or reserved space, and physical accessibility.
CONCLUSIONS
The ISA is not effective in representing individuals with non-mobility impairments and its ambiguous nature leads to confusion for both persons with and without impairment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31515162
pii: S1936-6574(19)30146-3
doi: 10.1016/j.dhjo.2019.100836
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
100836Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.