The difference a word makes: responding to questions on 'disability' and 'difficulty' in South Africa
SOURCE: Disability and Rehabilitation
OUTPUT TYPE: Journal Article
PUBLICATION YEAR: 2009
TITLE AUTHOR(S): M.Schneider
KEYWORDS: DISABILITIES, DISABLED PERSONS
Print: HSRC Library: shelf number 5666
HANDLE: 20.500.11910/5030
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11910/5030
OUTPUT TYPE: Journal Article
PUBLICATION YEAR: 2009
TITLE AUTHOR(S): M.Schneider
KEYWORDS: DISABILITIES, DISABLED PERSONS
Print: HSRC Library: shelf number 5666
HANDLE: 20.500.11910/5030
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11910/5030
If you would like to obtain a copy of this Research Output, please contact Hanlie Baudin at researchoutputs@hsrc.ac.za.
Abstract
Purpose. This article discusses the current efforts to measure disability in a comparable manner internationally, the effects of using different types of wording in questions, and the implications of the approach of asking about 'difficulties' rather than 'disability' on the use of disability statistics. Method. The study design was qualitative. Twenty-one focus groups were run with adults responding for themselves. Nine groups were classified a priori by the author as 'disabled', six as 'unsure', and the last six as 'non-disabled'. The participants completed a questionnaire using the Washington Group on Disability Statistics (WG) Short Set, the South African Census 2001 question, and the question 'Are you disabled?'. This was followed by group discussion on these questions and on how the concept of disability is understood by group participants. Results. Participants understand disability as being a permanent, unchangeable state, mostly physical, and where a person is unable to do anything. The participants in the three groups of allocated disability status (disabled, unsure and non-disabled) provided quite different responses on the three questions. All participants in the 'disabled' and 'unsure' groups reported having 'difficulty' on the WG questions, but the 'unsure' groups did not identify as being 'disabled' on either of the two other questions. Conclusions. Using questions that ask about 'difficulty' rather than 'disability' provides a more comprehensive and inclusive measure of disability with a clearer understanding of what is being measured. Asking about 'difficulty' provides an improved measure of disability status for effective data collection and analysis to promote development, implementation and monitoring of disability-inclusive policies.-
Related Research Outputs:
- Progress report on the disability assessment tool
- Zip zip my brain harts
- When is it merciful to act corruptly
- Disablity and the environment
- A history of the disability rights movement in South Africa
- Integrating disability within government: the office on the status of disabled persons
- Disability and human rights: the South African Human Rights Commission
- HIV/AIDS and disability: new challenges
- Tough choices: disability and social security in South Africa
- 'Ag shame' and superheroes: stereotype and the signification of disability
- Questionnaire design, translation and interviewer training
- Washington group work on survey questions
- Good questions and bad questions
- Enumerator training: disability issues
- HIV/AIDS and disability organisations in South Africa
- The right to belong and participate: support services to children with disabilities
- Children with disabilities in South Africa: a situation analysis 2001-2011
- COVID-19 survey on persons with disabilities: enabling better responses to future crises
- Let your voice be heard: tell us about your experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic
- Disability assessment tool