J Occup Rehabil DOI 10.1007/s10926-015-9594-1

Participant Recruitment for Studies on Disability and Work: Challenges and Solutions Rosemary Lysaght1 • Rachelle Kranenburg2 • Carolyn Armstrong3 Terry Krupa1



 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract Purpose A number of key issues related to employment of persons with disabilities demand ongoing and effective lines of inquiry. There is evidence, however, that work researchers struggle with recruitment of participants, and that this may limit the types and appropriateness of methods selected. This two phase study sought to identify the nature of recruitment challenges in workplace-based disability research, and to identify strategies for addressing identified barriers. Methods The first phase of this study was a scoping review of the literature to identify the study designs and approaches frequently used in this field of inquiry, and the success of the various recruitment methods in use. In the second phase, we used qualitative methods to explore with employers and other stakeholders in the field their perceived challenges related to participating in disability-related research, and approaches that might address these. Results The most frequently used recruitment methods identified in the literature were non-probability approaches for qualitative studies, and sampling from existing worker databases for survey research. Struggles in participant recruitment were evidenced by the use of multiple recruitment strategies, and heavy reliance on convenience sampling. Employers cited a number of barriers to participation, including time pressures, fear of legal reprisal, and perceived lack of relevance to the organization. Conclusions Participant recruitment in disability-related research is a concern, particularly in studies that require collection of new data from organizations and & Rosemary Lysaght [email protected] 1

Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada

2

Providence Care Mental Health Services, Kingston, ON, Canada

3

London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada

individuals, and where large probability samples and/or stratified or purposeful samples are desirable. A number of strategies may contribute to improved success, including development of participatory research models that will enhance benefits and perceived benefits of workplace involvement. Keywords Occupational health  Research techniques  Research subject recruitment  Sample size

Introduction Research on the employment situation of persons with disabilities has been widespread and varied over the past half century, given the broad number of social, psychological, economic, and human rights issues that drive the need for enhanced knowledge in this area. The persistently low rates of employment of people with disabilities worldwide [1, 2] are a concern to disability and human rights advocates. The situation also constitutes a major public concern because of the economic impact of such large scale loss of productivity to the labour market and concerns related to the resulting high levels of disability compensation absorbed by governments and insurers [3]. Other issues related to employment, including, for example, equity, disability accommodation and worker retention, stigma in the workplace, and career mobility opportunities for people with disabilities are important areas for inquiry. All of these factors have led to a high volume of research in this field, and a number of periodicals entirely devoted to work and disability (e.g., Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation). Research related to disability and work can focus on individual, workplace, organizational, or broader societal

123

J Occup Rehabil

levels. While analysis in policy level papers may be based on extant data emerging from the health care system, insurance industry, or public sources such as census data, much disability-related research requires recruitment of workplaces, employers, workers, or unemployed persons with disabilities to inform their questions. Challenges exist, however, with respect to recruitment of participants for organizational research in general. For example, Anseel et al. [4] conducted a meta-analysis of response rates in survey research conducted in the organizational science arena. Their analysis was subdivided by respondent group based on Applebaum’s [5] taxonomy of work categories (i.e. non-working, consumers, non-managerial employees, managers and top executives) and considered the effectiveness of seven strategies for enhancing response rate across three modes of administration (mailed, web-based and personally administered). Response rates for the studies included in this analysis ranged from 37 to 59 %, the lowest rates being associated with top executives, and highest with non-working respondents. There are a number of reasons recruitment for workrelated research proves an even greater challenge when disability is the focus of attention. First, when recruitment is done through organizations, the workplace executives, owners, and sometimes human resource managers become the gatekeepers, controlling access to themselves, other employees and to the organization itself. Given that employer attitudes have been broadly cited as barriers to the employment of individuals with disabilities [6–8], it stands to reason that some employers may resist research that probes employment policies, practices or beliefs. Furthermore, employers often lack understanding of disability rights and pertinent legislation (see for example, [9]) and express concerns that releasing information or allowing access to a select portion of the workforce may in some way violate individual privacy rights. Some employers may have concerns related to legal risks and responsibilities, particularly if a number of persons in their workforce are engaged in insurance-related or other legal proceedings associated with their job status or compensation. Recruitment of people with disabilities from the general population for employment-related studies also presents challenges. For example, Ouellette-Kuntz et al. [10] reported on the results of recruiting people with intellectual disabilities and their families in Ontario, Canada through a range of study methods, including mailed surveys, case studies, and personal interviews. Initial contact with the individuals was made by either the province-wide government disability support provider or by a local service provider using different methods of invitation and endorsement. Response rates at this initial level ranged from 17 to 18 %. In particular, the studies related to

123

employment used a brief mailed survey from the disability support agency, and promised a $20 gift card if the respondent was chosen for the second phase of the study, an individual interview. Although 46 % of the survey respondents indicated willingness to be interviewed, only 36 % of those selected ultimately participated. Another Canadian study [11] recruited workers with back injuries using a provincial worker’s compensation board list of injured workers from a selected range of industries. The strategy was to recruit workers to the study and to utilize them as a portal to the employment site. Of the sample portion that could be reached and met eligibility criteria, 70 % agreed to participate, and ultimately 51 % of employers agreed to participate. This recruitment method was relatively successful, but at a cost of nearly $26,000 CDN to recruit 74 workers and 54 employers, or $262/worker, and $240/worksite. The presence of recruitment challenges in studies on disability and work is problematic for a number of reasons. First, researchers may find the need to craft their study designs to accommodate available data sources, rather than having the research questions lead the design. For example, Ipsen et al. [12] reported on recruitment difficulties, and how the initial direction of their research changed based on low participation recruitment in the early stages of their study. Another study [13] described how recruitment challenges became a major focus of their research on safety programs in the construction industry, despite use of best practices such as mailed invitations to companies with phone follow up, provision of incentives, and use of participation reminders. Second, use of convenience samples leads to concerns about the external validity of the research, particularly in cases where the nature of the sample source contains likely bias. Various authors have indicated concerns with recruitment methods such as open invitations and recruiting through employing organizations, which they suspected could exclude those workers experiencing discrimination or not employed for various reasons [11, 14, 15]. Finally, there is a concern that particular voices/issues are not ‘‘heard’’ as a result of recruitment problems. Even when theoretical sampling is used in qualitative research, challenges with identifying willing participants may introduce subtle biases into the findings.

Purpose This manuscript reports on a two phase study that was conducted with a goal of better understanding the nature and scope of the recruitment concerns that exist, and to identify possible solutions. In the first phase, we performed a scoping review of the recent literature on disability and work in order to identify the study designs and approaches

J Occup Rehabil

frequently used in this field of inquiry, and the application and success of the various recruitment methods in use. In the second phase, we used qualitative methods to explore with employers their perceived challenges related to participating in research on workplace disability, and approaches that might address these.







Phase 1 The research questions guiding the scoping study were: 1. 2.

What recruitment strategies are used with greatest frequency in studies related to work and disability? What is the relative success of the various strategies in relation to stated recruitment goals?

• •

Methods A broad search was initially conducted through Google and Google Scholar to gain an understanding of the fields in which such literature exists, as well as common search terms. Given the interdisciplinary nature of this topic, the following databases were selected: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), International Bibliography of Social Sciences (IBSS), ProQuest Business Collection and PSYCinfo via OVID. Inclusion criteria were as follows: • • • • • •

Empirical studies Published between 2007 and 2012 (inclusive) Main focus related to disability and work Researchers actively recruited workplaces or people within workplaces Method of subject recruitment is described Available in English

The five databases were searched with the following terms: ‘‘disability’’, ‘‘handicap’’, ‘‘employment’’, ‘‘employee’’, ‘‘workplace’’, ‘‘worker’’, ‘‘employee disabled’’, ‘‘work environment’’, ‘‘disabled people’’, ‘‘handicapped people’’, ‘‘handicapped workers’’, and ‘‘employment discrimination’’. The above terms were searched separately and in combination within each database. The search was conducted between June and December 2012. A total of 1705 articles were identified between the five databases. Of these, 59 articles were found to meet the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Following the initial search, the articles which met the inclusion criteria were summarized into tables using the following headings and codes: •

Database derived from: CINAHL, ERIC, IBSS, ProQuest Business, and PSYCinfo via OVID.

• •

Type of study: qualitative interview/focus group, qualitative case study, experiment/quasi-experiment and document/data analysis. Recruitment focus: workplaces, supervisors within workplaces, workers with disabilities within workplaces and worker data. Recruitment method: publicly available lists, single company, commercial mailing list, database, advertisements, disability organization-workers job-attached, disability organization-workers job-unattached, purposive sampling, convenience sampling and mixed methods. Number of subjects: number of subjects recruited in each sample. Response rate: where possible, response rate was identified, this being the best available measure of recruitment success in studies where methodologies involved sampling from an identified population, and a metric that allows comparison across various types of studies. The number of subjects expected through recruitment was used when response rate was not provided. Recruitment challenges: yes/no, reported versus inferred, nature of challenges Comments: any key phrases noted in article that state or infer challenges with recruitment.

Analysis The first step in the analysis was to summarize the information from publications using the above headings and codes. This step not only created a condensed version of the information, but also allowed for analysis and comparison of the information by database and therefore by field of study. Next, the information was sorted by recruitment focus (i.e. worker with disability/workplace, etc.) in order to analyse trends for types of studies completed and recruitment methods used based on the type of subject to be recruited. Three of the studies meeting the inclusion criteria were sorted into multiple recruitment focus categories as they had more than one recruitment subject aim (i.e. supervisors and employees with disabilities). Finally, we looked at response rate and researcher reported challenges to gain of sense of the relative success of the various recruitment methods in meeting the goals of research. In studies where response rate was not applicable (e.g. qualitative samples where theoretical sampling is used to the point of data saturation, single case studies) researcher reported challenges and general conventions related to the type of research in question were the best available determinants of success. Throughout the analysis the following changes were made in order to best include and categorize the

123

J Occup Rehabil

information found. The recruitment focus ‘‘worker-related data’’ was excluded from the results, as these studies used extant data rather than recruiting participants directly. Similarly, databases were included only if they were used as a recruitment strategy to identify and invite participants. Databases were not included where data from extant databases were analysed as the primary strategy, as the authors did not actively recruit subjects in these instances. Recruitment through disability organizations was examined, and found to involve two distinctly different types of subject pools: those recruiting job-attached workers (i.e. workers with work-related injuries or disability) and those recruiting job-unattached workers (i.e. persons living in the community without employment, potentially seeking work). Finally, a mixed methods category was added, as studies frequently began with or resorted to using multiple methods of subject recruitment (e.g. the use of a disability organization and advertisements). The subject recruitment focus for this review was separated into three categories: workplaces, supervisors of workers with disabilities, and workers with disabilities within workplaces. The majority of the studies solicited workers with disabilities as participants; 46 of the 59 included articles were aimed at this population. Two articles recruited both workers with disabilities and supervisors of workers with disabilities. Supervisors of workers with disabilities were the recruitment focus for 13 of the studies, and workplaces were the recruitment focus of only 5 of the studies. Within each target population grouping we then looked at the success of recruitment. Results Types of Study Within the subject recruitment focus, the articles included were assessed as to the type of study performed. The types of studies were organized into the following categories: experiment, questionnaire, qualitative case study, qualitative interviews/focus groups and mixed study. The mixed studies most often included both questionnaires paired with qualitative interviews (see Fig. 1). Studies using questionnaires as the source of data was the most common type of study used for disability and work research overall. Often, the questionnaires were administered during in-person or telephone interviews and were used for a wide range of methodologies. The second most common type of study used overall was qualitative research using interviews. This finding was particularly evident when the recruitment focus was at the individual level, namely for recruiting workers with disabilities or supervisors of these workers. When workplaces were the focus of recruitment, questionnaires were again used most frequently (three of the five studies). Various types of studies were conducted when

123

25 Workers

20

Supervisors Workplaces

15

10

5

0 Experiments Quesonnaires Qualitave

Case Study

Mixed

Interviews Fig. 1 Study type and frequency by recruitment target group

the recruitment focus was workers within workplaces. The most common was, as in the other two categories, questionnaires, followed by qualitative interviews, mixed method studies, case studies and experiments. Trends by Recruitment Method The recruitment methods used were initially categorized into the following eight categories: publicly available list, commercial mailing list, database, advertisement, disability organization, single company, mixed methods and other (i.e. convenience sampling). As noted above, databases were included as a recruitment method when they were used to identify eligible subjects, both at the workplace and individual level, who were then invited to participate in a study. The ‘other’ was found to include studies that employed primarily non-random purposive sampling and convenience samples. These were later identified as separate categories due to their frequency of use. Each subject recruitment focus was analysed based on the type of recruitment method used. Recruiting workplaces The articles which focused on recruiting workplaces did not show any particular trends in recruitment method. Only five studies met criteria for this review, and two of these used single companies to recruit their subjects. Table 1 displays all studies with the recruitment strategies they used, the number of subjects involved in the study and the response rate where it could be determined. The number of subjects in these studies ranged from 1 to 73. The smallest studies used single company convenience samples, while the largest mailed letters of invitation to contacts identified through publicly available lists. One paper employed purposive sampling techniques, which involved identifying a set number of companies from pre-determined categories. Recruiting supervisors Analysis of processes for recruiting supervisors also resulted in no clear recruitment strategy trends. Five studies used publicly available lists to

J Occup Rehabil Table 1 Recruitment methods and response rates (RR) in studies recruiting workplaces (n = 5) Recruitment method

Study

Type of study

N

RR

Publicly available list: multiple worksites identified through public listing and recruited by mail

Frost, P., Haahr, J. P., & Andersen, J. H. (2007)

Experiment

39

13.31 %

Single company: convenience

Lombardi, A., & Murray, C. (2011)

Questionnaire

1

N/A

Single company: convenience

Shigaki, C. L., Anderson, K. M., Howald, C. L., Henson, L., & Gregg, B. E. (2012) de Urres, F., & Verdugo, M. (2011)

Questionnaire

1

N/A

Questionnaire

73

Gates, L. B., Mandiberg, J. M., & Akabas, S. H. (2010)

Qualitative case study

Commercial mailing list Purposive sample

purposively identify multiple employers that met inclusion criteria, followed by mailed or electronic invitations to participate in the study. Mixed methods of recruitment were used for three of the thirteen articles and involved a combination of advertisements to organizations or agencies as well as the use of databases and public lists to identify and invite supervisors. The number of subjects recruited to these studies ranged from 7 to 142. Sufficient information was provided in 6 of the 13 studies to determine a response rate, where applicable. These ranged from 14.62 to 75.51 %. The study with the highest response rate used a convenience sample, recruiting the employers of workers with disabilities who were participating in a larger study. Of the 49 workers with disabilities participating in the study, only 34 employers were recruited to participate in short qualitative interviews and complete the Vocational Integration Index. Interestingly, the study which produced the largest sample size when recruiting supervisors had the second lowest recorded response rate at 17.17 %, despite using mixed methods to recruit subjects. Three studies employed convenience (2) or purposive (1) sampling. Both of the convenience studies recruited the employers of participants who were already engaged in a larger study. The other study purposively identified participants according to pre-determined criteria. The methods used to recruit supervisors are summarized in Table 2. Recruiting workers with and without disabilities Of the 46 studies that focused on recruiting workers with disabilities, or co-workers of people with disabilities, 21 used various disability organizations as the primary method to recruit their subjects. Upon further inspection it was noted that disability organizations were found to recruit two distinct types of workers with disabilities: those job-attached and those job-unattached. ‘‘Workers with disabilities -job-attached’’ refers to workers who are currently in the workforce or will be returning to the job following an injury or episode of inability to work due to disability. An example of this type of worker includes a wheelchair user who currently works in an accounting firm, or a

6

41.71 % N/A

construction worker who is recovering from a back injury but will be returning to the same job following return to work rehabilitation. Subjects of this type were often recruited through clinics offering vocational rehabilitation or through disability organizations such as Disability and Business Technical Assistance Centers This organization provides education and technological assistance on the ADA in the United States to promote full participation of people with disabilities in society, including those who are working [16]. The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) in Ontario funded many of the studies which were recruiting job-attached workers with disabilities. ‘‘Workers with disabilities—job-unattached’’ refers to workers with disabilities who are not currently employed in a paying job and are attempting to enter the workforce. Examples of this type of worker include a person who has multiple sclerosis who is applying to a new job after a relapse of the disorder, or a young man with an intellectual disability using a Supportive Employment Program (SEP) to access services such as job coaching in order to help him obtain a job in his community. Several studies which focused on these subjects used supported employment services to recruit their participants. Though subject recruitment through disability organizations was the most common method of recruiting workers with disabilities, all types of methods identified in this review were used. Table 3 presents a breakdown of all recruitment methods used to recruit workers with disabilities, the sample sizes obtained and a response rate calculation where enough information was provided. Mixed methods of recruitment were used in seven of these studies, and the combination of recruitment methods used varied. The total number of participants recruited for studies in this category ranged from 3 (for a single case study) to 4006. Interestingly, the articles at both ends of the sample size spectrum included experiments; therefore, the type of study cannot be the sole reason for the difference in number of participants recruited. One observational experiment used purposive sampling within a single company to examine only four participants. Potential participants were identified

123

J Occup Rehabil Table 2 Recruitment methods and response rates (RR) in studies recruiting supervisors (n = 13) Recruitment method

Study

Type of study

N

R.R.

Publicly available list: employers purposively selected and recruited by phone

Larson, J. E., Hautamaki, J. B., Tsang, H., Lam, C. S., Lee, Y., Jin, S., & Shi, K. (2009)

Qualitative multiple case study – (3 geographical locations)

100

40.00 % (met inclusion and accepted)

Publicly available list: purposively selected

Duff, A., Ferguson, J., & Gilmore, K. (2007)

Qualitative interview

9

N/A

Publicly available list: convenience sample

Fraser, R., Ajzen, I., Johnson, K., Hebert, J., & Chan, F. (2011)

Phase 1: Item generation survey

92

Not reported

10

34.48 %

7

Not reported

Phase 2: Qualitative focus groups Publicly available list: nomination/phone recruitment

Walsh, M. P. (2010)

Phase 1: Survey of transition specialists from regional list Phase 2: Phone recruitment of nominated employers

Publicly available list: multiple employers identified through disability coalition membership and recruited online

Habeck, R., Hunt, A., Rachel, C. H., Kregel, J., & Chan, F. (2010)

Questionnaire

95

14.62 %

Database

Chan, F., Strauser, D., Maher, P., Lee, E., Jones, R., & Johnson, E. T. (2010)

Questionnaire

138

Not reported

Database

Misra, S., Orslene, L. E., & Walls, R. T. (2010)

Qualitative focus groups

75

58.59 %

Mixed: advertisements and convenience sampling from local agencies Mixed: electronic mailing list compiled from public listing, plus survey distributed by 20 professional organizations

Stensrud, R. (2007)

Qualitative focus groups

67

Not reported

Copeland, J., Chan, F., Bezyak, J., & Fraser, R. T. (2010)

Questionnaire

142

17.17 %

Mixed: advertisements and snowball sampling

Dalgin, R. & Bellini, J. (2008)

Experiment

60

Not reported

Purposive sample: cases derived using criterion sampling from reported workplace accidents Convenience sample: employers of participants from larger study

Andersen, L. P., Kines, P., & Hasle, P. (2007) Irvine, A., & Lupart, J. (2008)

Qualitative interviews

22

N/A

Qualitative interviews

10

Not reported

Convenience sample: employers of participants identified in larger study

Banks, P., Jahoda, A., Dagnan, D., Kemp, J., & Williams, V. (2010)

Mixed methods (interviews and self report scales)

34

75.51 %

by their employer as meeting the study requirements, and four were chosen out of the ten who were nominated. Overall, response rates were only measureable in 17 of the 46 studies and range widely, from 9.08 to 100 %. Twelve papers studying workers employed a range of convenience and purposive sampling methods to recruit participants. Although some papers identified above used aspects of purposive or convenience sampling, it was not viewed as the primary method of recruitment. Most of the studies using purposive or convenience samples were qualitative in nature and had small sample sizes, and many used employer or organizational nomination or referrals to identify participants. The exceptions to this trend were four studies which used questionnaires for data collection and recruited between 49 and 1645 participants. Two of these

123

studies recruited participants through several companies which also had been identified and recruited using convenience sampling.

Phase 2 This exploratory qualitative study involved interviews with employers. The research questions guiding this inquiry were as follows. 1.

What factors influence the willingness of employers to participate in disability-related research on behalf of themselves and/or their organizations? •

What organization or individual-level factors limit or encourage response and ultimate participation?

J Occup Rehabil Table 3 Recruitment methods and response rates (RR) in studies recruiting workers (n = 46) Recruitment method

Study

Type of Study

N

R.R.

Mailing list: employee contact information provided by employers

Frost, P., Haahr, J. P., & Andersen, J. H. (2007)

Phase 1 – Baseline Survey

4006

(1)71.5 %

3808

(2) 95 %

Phase 2 - Experiment Mailing list: stratified random sample from mailing list

de Urres, F., & Verdugo, M. (2011)

Qualitative interviews

60

100 %

Single company: purposive convenience sample

Bucholz, J. L., Brady, M. P., Duffy, M. L., Scott, J., & Kontosh, L. G. (2008)

Experiment

4

N/A

Single company: purposive convenience sample

Conroy, J. W., Ferris, C. S., & Irvine, R. (2010)

Questionnaire

27

N/A

Single company

Lombardi, A., & Murray, C. (2011)

Questionnaire

289

26.66 %

Single company: electronic mailing list

Snyder, L. A., Carmichael, J. S., Blackwell, L. V., Cleveland, J. N., & Thornton, G. C. (2010)

Questionnaire

1880

41.37 %

Single company: internal advertisements

Shigaki, C. L., Anderson, K. M., Howald, C. L., Henson, L., & Gregg, B. E. (2012)

Questionnaire

1144

6.7 % (estimate)

Database

Hepburn, C., Franche, R., & Francis, L. (2010)

Questionnaire (multiple regression)

166

24.59 %

Database: invitations to participants from a previous study who had filed lost-time injury claim

Steenstra, I., Ibrahim, S., Franche, R., Hogg-Johnson, S., Shaw, W., & Pransky, G. (2010)

Qualitative interview

442

60.89 %

Advertisement

Foster, D. (2007)

Qualitative interview

20

Unknown

Advertisement

Shaw, L., MacAhonic, P., Lindsay, R., & Brake, P. (2009)

Questionnaire

49

Unknown

Disability organizations: invitation mailed to employees in disability sector

Noblet, A., Graffam, J., & McWilliams, J. (2008)

Worker Questionnaire

514

30.06 %

Disability organization—unattached

Bigby, C., Wilson, N., J., Balandin, S., & Stancliffe, R., J. (2011)

Qualitative focus groups

35

Not reported

Disability organization—unattached

Rampton, N., Waghorn, G., De Souza, T., & Lloyd, C. (2010)

Quantitative interview

49

Not reported

Disability organization—unattached

Banks, P., Jahoda, A., Dagnan, D., Kemp, J., & Williams, V. (2010)

Mixed methods (interviews and self report scales)

49

Not reported

Disability organization—unattached

Flores, N., Jenaro, C., Orgaz, M. B., & Martin, M. V. (2011)

Questionnaire

507

Not reported

Disability organization—unattached

Hensel, E., Kroese, B. S., & Rose, J. (2007)

Questionnaires (Baseline and 2 follow-up)

T1:60

98.36 %

T2:34

56.66 %

T3:22

36.66 %

Quasi-experimental pre-/post-employment

Disability organization—unattached

Jahoda, A., Banks, P., Dagnan, D., Kemp, J., Kerr, W., & Williams, V. (2009)

Qualitative interview

35

79.54 %

Disability organization—unattached, convenience sample

Minarovic, T. J., & Bambara, L. M. (2007)

Single case study

3

Unknown

Disability organizations—unattached

Boyce, M., Secker, J., Johnson, R., Floyd, M., Grove, B., Schneider, J., & Slade, J. (2008)

qualitative interview

20

33.33 %

Disability organization—attached, random sample from organization

Garca-Villamisar, D., & Hughes, C. (2007)

Quasi-Experiment

44

Not reported

Disability organization—attached

Martorell, A., Gutierrez-Recacha, P., Pereda, A., & Ayuso-Mateos, J. (2008)

Questionnaires

179

39.78 %

Disability organizations—attached

Su, C., Lin, Y., Wu, Y., & Chen, C. (2008)

Questionnaires

111

Unknown

123

J Occup Rehabil Table 3 continued Recruitment method

Study

Type of Study

N

R.R.

Disability organization—attached, stratified random sampling

Lamichhane, K. (2012)

Questionnaires and qualitative interviews

227

Not reported

Disability organization—attached

Ipsen, C., Ravesloot, C., Arnold, N., & Seekins, T. (2012)

Experiment

297

Not reported

Disability organization—attached, purposive sample

Jans, L. H., Kaye, H. S., & Jones, E. C. (2012)

Qualitative focus groups

41

N/A

Disability organization—attached

O’Sullivan, D., Strauser, D. R., & Wong, A. W. K. (2012)

Questionnaire

56

Initial: 53.5 % Final: 35.6 %

Disability organization—attached, secondary data

Zoer, I., Graaf, L., Kuiger, P., Prinzie, P., Hoorzemans, M., & Frings-Dresen, M. (2012)

Observational assessments

46

N/A

Mixed methods: publicly available lists and databases

Siva, A., Zarifoglu, M., Ertas, M., Saip, S., Karli, H. N., Baykan, B.,… Senocak, M. (2008)

Experiment

227

48.82 %

Mixed methods: single company and database

Raynor, O., & Hayward, K. (2009)

Questionnaire and qualitative focus group

32

40.10 %

Mixed methods: disability organization and single company

Cimera, R. E. (2009)

Case study

6

Unknown

Mixed methods: disability organization, single company and advertisements

Duff, A., & Ferguson, J. (2011)

Qualitative interview

12

Unknown

Mixed methods: disability organization and single company

Lysaght, R., Fabrigar, L., LarmourTrode, S., Stewart, J., & Friesen, M. (2012)

Questionnaire

152

Unknown

Mixed methods: disability organization and database

Wilton, R. (2008)

Qualitative interview

59

9.08 %

Mixed methods: broad announcements and targeted invitations through schools

Carter, E. W., Trainor, A. A., Ditchman, N., Swedeen, B., & Owens, L. (2011)

Mixed methods (qualitative interviews and standardized measures)

220

Not reported

Purposive sample: maximum variety purposive sampling through advertisements

MacEachen, E., Kosny, A., & Ferrier, S. (2007)

Qualitative interviews and policy analysis

48

Unknown

Purposive sample: cases derived using criterion sampling from pre-identified organizations

Beyer, S., Brown, T., Akandi, R., & Rapley, M. (2010)

Qualitative interview

54

N/A

Purposive sample: participants referred directly to mental health professionals

Wu, H. (2008)

Questionnaire

134

N/A

Purposive sample: nominations by special education teachers recruited through email survey (1 former student selected)

Laarhoven, T., Johnson, J., Laarhoven-Myers, W., Grider, K.L. & Grider K.M (2009)

Case study

1

N/A

Purposive sample: nomination of eligible subjects through a statewide network of special education teachers and transition specialists

Lindstrom, L., Doren, B., & Miesch, J. (2011)

Case study

8

Not reported

Purposive sample: nominations from author’s colleagues (‘reputational technique’)

Brock, B. L. (2007)

Qualitative interview

10

83.33 %

Convenience sample: participants from larger study

Vogel, S. A., Murray, C., Wren, C., & Adelman, P. B. (2007)

Quantitative and qualitative interviews

49

N/A

Convenience sample: participants nominated through co-op teacher at one selected high school

Versnel, J., Hutchinson, N. L., Munby, H., & Chin, P. (2008)

Case study and qualitative interview

2

N/A

Convenience sample: participants selected from six social enterprises in Quebec

Lanctot, N., Corbire, M., & Durand, M. (2012)

Questionnaire

67

Not reported

Convenience sample: participants selected through recommendations from author’s friends, colleagues, staff at Canadian National Institute for the Blind and from participants themselves

Naraine, M., & Lindsay, P. (2011)

Qualitative interview

13

Not reported

123

J Occup Rehabil Table 3 continued Recruitment method

Study

Type of Study

N

R.R.

Convenience sample: surveys administered to all of or a random sampling of employees at 14 conveniently selected companies

Schur, L., Kruse, D., Blasi, J., & Blanck, P. (2009)

Questionnaire

1645

5.50 %

2.

What factors could facilitate participation in disabilityrelated research?

workplaces, participants were reluctant to engage in conversation regarding this due to confidentiality concerns.

Participants

Procedure

The sample included seven employers (predominantly represented by human resources specialists) participated in the study out of a total of 13 organizations that were contacted, as well as a manager of an agency that provides rehabilitation services to injured workers, and the director of an organization supporting employers and work organizations across a range of sectors. The authors chose to recruit participants at the level of the organization as these individuals are generally the gatekeepers to several levels of participant, including injured workers, their supervisors, and representatives of the organization itself, such as case managers. Moreover, it was assumed that employers would have the broadest knowledge base of organizational policies and procedures that may encourage or act as a barrier to research participation. A purposeful sample that included employers from medium and large sized organizations across Canada was recruited through convenience and snowballing methods. The National Occupational Classification (NOC) was used as a tool to ensure the sample spanned a broad range of work organizations found in Canada. The NOC is the reference used nationally in Canada to organize and define job titles into various occupational groups (Human Resource and Skills Development Canada, 2012). Employers were included from five of the nine NOC categories including one employer from Business, Finance and Administration Occupations; one from Natural and Applied Sciences and Related Occupations; two from Health Occupations; three from Occupations in Education, Law and Social, Community and Government Services and one from Occupations in Manufacturing and Utilities. Two employers were from medium sized organizations with 100–499 employees and six were from large organizations with over 500 employees. Recruitment of participants was completed via email and telephone contact. Three participants indicated previous experience in disability-related research. All participants were able to describe and share policies related to employees with disabilities in their respective workplaces, or in the case of the director of the business organization, across workplaces served by the organization. When asked about specific examples of disabilities found within their

The study received clearance from the university research ethics board. A semi-structured interview protocol consisting of 10 different questions was designed specifically for this study. Questions were arranged into three different categories: organizational policies and structures, experience with workers with disabilities, and research experience. Interviews were conducted over the telephone and took approximately 30–60 min to complete. Prospective participants were initially contacted by phone or email. Those who expressed interest in the investigation were sent a letter of information prior to completing the study. Participants were informed that the study would require them to respond to a variety of questions regarding factors that facilitate or hinder willingness to participate in disability-related research. After reviewing the letter of information and prior to completing the study, participants provided informed consent. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Findings Data were coded based on the organizing framework for the interviews and included: factors that encourage participation in disability related research, factors that discourage participation in disability related research, potentially effective recruitment strategies for disability related research and effective methodologies for disabilityrelated research (see Table 4). Factors Affecting Participation Participants identified various factors that they felt would encourage willingness to participate in work disability-related research. Six participants identified the time commitment associated with participation as a factor influencing willingness to participate. One employer reported that organizations are ‘‘so busy getting work done, we don’t have time to help you.’’ In studies requiring staff time for administrative or other tasks, it was indicated that the company would need to assess the financial impact of participation at both the individual and unit level. For

123

J Occup Rehabil Table 4 Barriers to workplace participation in disability related research Thematic category

Examples

Knowledge gaps concerning disability among gatekeepers

Low recognition of full range of disability types and implications for workplace functioning, including hidden costs, accommodation needs Disability in the workplace a new concept for managers and supervisors—making research in this area low priority Organizations are largely focused on cultural diversity within their organization, rather than disability

Resource issues

A lack of incentives for participating in disability related research A large time commitment interferes with other responsibilities and commitments of the organization Lacking appropriate personnel within the organization to manage research invitations and participate in disability related research

Concerns regarding legal or reputational repercussions Researcher credibility issues

Fear of exposure of not following legislation/industry standards Concerns about maintaining the confidentiality of employees within the organization who have a disability Need to know and trust the research organization Lack of motivation to participate with unknown student researcher

Organizational factors

Requirement for upper management approval in larger corporate structures The nature of the job environment and job demands may limit the ability to participate in research (i.e. one participant cited that factory employees may find it difficult to participate in disability related research because their job requirements and setting) Organizations are not legislated to participate in research, hindering participation

example, for a rehabilitation agency, participation in the past has involved therapists collecting additional information on injured workers as part of the assessment process. This employer stated, ‘‘I’d say maybe up to 15 minutes additional time for our clinician; then we might be willing to consider. If it’s gonna require, though, probably much more than 15 minutes of our clinician’s time, then that’s where we would start to get hesitant.’’ For interview studies, a time commitment of up to 60 min was indicated as the ideal by several respondents, although it was noted that shorted time commitments could improve participation rates. Even the time commitment required of workers or rehabilitation recipients is of concern to employers and rehabilitation organizations, given that undue burden could impact the fidelity of the employer-worker or therapist-client relationship. A second commonly cited factor was the perceived relevance of the research. Respondents indicated that they would only entertain the possibility of participation if it seemed that they had files or participants that were a match for the study. Participants indicated that disability in the workplace is a topic that is relatively new for employers, and thus there may be a lack of knowledge in this area leading to hesitation to participate. Some employers had a limited understanding of disability, or did not perceive disability to be present in their workforce. If this is at all typical, any research related to disability may be perceived to hold limited relevance. Four participants stated that they would be inclined to participate in disability-related

123

research if it benefited the goals and success of the company as indicated by comments to the effect that ‘‘If the research is something I can use in my job here…’’ they would feel encouraged to participate. The perceived relevance is also a factor in evaluations of the cost-benefit of participation for the company—such that employers would be willing to take on a higher level of burden if the research was perceived to be of high benefit. Three participants cited the credibility of the organization or the researcher conducting the research as a factor influencing their willingness to participate. In some cases, where the researcher is well known to the organization, has previous research history with them, or is from a high profile institution, the workplace would be more motivated to learn about the study and potentially participate. Graduate students who are attached to such researchers or institutions also benefitted from this reputational advantage. Further it was suggested that if a company gatekeeper had had a negative experience with a researcher or research team, as in missed time targets or poor follow up of any type, there would be hesitation to partner with that research in future. A major concern that was cited involved organizational fears that there could be negative repercussions associated with participation. This concern took many forms. One related to organizational reputation, and worries that there could be procedural or service errors identified through the research. This was indicated through such statements as,

J Occup Rehabil

‘‘Maybe there is a bit of fear as well, because they don’t know if you are going to suggest they are doing something wrong…’’ and ‘‘There is a fear of exposing something they don’t want to…’’. Another concern related to confidentiality, and fears that persons with disabilities could be identified by others in the organization due to receiving invitations or through actual participation. Privacy of information, as in secure databases, was also a concern for some. Organizations that provide services to people with injuries or disability expressed concerns that risk of liability or other factors involving the service provision relationship could be affected by participation. Other factors that were mentioned included difficulties identifying the appropriate individual within the organization to participate in the study, use of methodologies where burden (e.g. travel, time commitment, testing) is low for the study participants, and in one case, wanting to receive public recognition for the company for helping further disability related research. Effective Recruitment Strategies Four participants suggested that an effective means of recruiting employers to participate in disability-related research is through use of professional associations such as a professional nursing association or an organization for accessibility professionals. One participant stated ‘‘Professional associations would provide access to a broad array of employers in a specific industry’’, thus increasing the probability of recruiting participants. Use of established connections was also suggested. The participant working for a business support organization noted that researchers should become aware of whether their own employers (i.e. universities) are members of established business networks, and if so, capitalize on this connection for recruitment. One participant also indicated that using personal networks and connections would be an effective means of recruiting participants, as these connections may also lead to referrals to other employers willing to participate in research. Participants suggested both cold calling and emailing as means of recruiting employers to participate. One participant highlighted cold calling as an ideal strategy because ‘‘if you get someone on the phone, they have to commit or not.’’ In contrast, a second participant stated ‘‘I think it’s easier if it’s an e-mail, because even if the day has been crazy, I will review my emails later in the day and be able to reflect on that myself.’’ It was noted that providing a definition of disability at the outset would be helpful to ensure that employers understand the relevance of disability-related research to their organization and employees, as many may not readily identify some conditions, such as a mental health concern, repetitive motion injury, or sensory loss as a ‘‘disability’’.

Specific efforts to reduce confidentiality concerns were also recommended, since fear of violating worker or client privacy rights is likely an overriding concern of many employers and service providers. Financial assistance with participation was cited as a factor that could incentivize participation, or at least mitigate perceived losses to the company bottom line. This factor seemed to be associated with the concerns about time, as well as the discussion concerning perceived relevance. Thus, if the company perceives that research participation will negatively impact either individual employees or the company as a whole, it would be important that appropriate compensation was provided. This was also mentioned relative to individual workers or clients with disabilities who could be asked to participate. Because workplaces or service providers are often considered to support or endorse a study, compensation to participants was seen as important in order to ensure positive perceptions of the study and of the organization that agreed to cooperate with it. Overall, the decision to participate appeared to relate to a business decision as to whether participation was feasible and beneficial. The manager of a large, multi-site rehabilitation company noted that there are many requests for participation in work-related research, and that as a private company, there can be real marketing advantages to being seen as an agency that both uses and participates in research. Yet the company is also protective of the bottom line, and upper management need to be convinced of its importance. She stated, ‘‘They need to understand and see the benefit of why we would participate in research. Because bottom line, you know, say if I were to get a call tomorrow from the CEO that said no more research studies, then that means no more research studies. And no matter what I think about it, those people up there have the power to make the ultimate final decisions on things’’. One participant described past research participation experiences that had involved in-depth planning and discussion with the researchers to develop the recruitment and data collection strategy. In such instances, the research team had received initial permission to discuss the research with relevant people in the organization, and determine whether agreement could be reached. This suggested a different level at which partnership is solicited, beyond the initial discussion with gatekeepers. Many of the considerations related to organizational burden, individual participant burden, and possible mitigating strategies such as research team assistance and financial compensation became especially pertinent at this stage of discussion. Overall, however, the host organization had opportunity to influence the research plan, ensuring that the study would be a good fit with organizational capacity and workflow.

123

J Occup Rehabil

Discussion The two phases of this research investigated the challenges of recruitment for studies related to disability and work. The findings appear to support the notion that there are problems associated with recruitment in this area of inquiry. Although research manuscripts frequently do not report recruitment challenges directly, a number of factors, such as the frequent use of convenience samples, mixed methods of recruitment, etc., suggest that challenges are experienced. A small number of studies have highlighted concerns related to recruiting samples that are adequate in size (i.e. [12] and free from various biases (i.e. [11]). Our scoping review suggests that large scale survey studies frequently make use of existing databases as a recruitment strategy. The processes used to engage participation through these databases remains unclear. For example, some studies do not report how participants meeting inclusion criteria are identified, how contact is made and ultimately how consent to participate is secured. In one Canadian study [17] a partnership with the government disability support provider allowed the researchers to craft and direct the sample selection for a general survey of citizens with disabilities about their work experiences (or lack thereof) without direct access to the database. It is important that studies report on the specifics of database sampling in order to both enhance methodological transparency and inform practice. Use of administrative databases can exclude workers in small workplaces and those in companies that are not covered by major insurers [11]. Where individual workers with disabilities are the focus of research, particularly those who are not job-attached, disability organizations and support agencies appear to be the favoured vehicles for identifying and contacting potential participants. While this is a helpful process to secure access to both workers with disabilities who are reentering work, and those who are detached from the workforce, without other processes for recruitment it may lead to an unintended bias, in that individuals with disabilities who are not associated with such organizations will be neglected. The second phase of this research sheds light on how recruitment in this area of study might be enhanced. It becomes apparent that there are several levels within organizations where decisions are made concerning research participation, and that the process may occur in stages. The concept of a ‘‘gatekeeper’’ within organizations was apparent in our discussions, particularly in larger organizations. The first challenge to the researcher is identifying the best first point of contact, and figuring out how to effectively reach and gain initial interest from that individual. This can be assisted by using networks such as

123

business organizations who can point out and possibly form a bridge to those gatekeepers, and by making the initial presentation palatable by highlighting relevance, and reducing sources of concern, especially those related to cost burden to the organization, and legal issues concerning connecting researchers with employers and supervisors. The sources of concern may be real or perceived, and the willingness to move beyond those related to organizational policy or individual reaction. With respect to ethical-legal issues, researchers could provide examples of how confidentiality, outreach to potential participants, and other concerns have been dealt with in other studies or organizations and provide education on research ethics. Without access to higher level decision makers, the recruitment effort may be thwarted, and thus these important questions must be dealt with at each point of contact. Once connections are established with those organizational members who can actually assist with the research, opportunity exists to build trust and ensure feasibility for the organization by working collaboratively and responsibility. We have ourselves experienced being involved in negotiations, only to have the initiative falter due to resistance at higher managerial levels. The initial ‘‘ask’’ and the ongoing discussion require researchers to be flexible while working within the confines of approved ethical procedures. There are clearly many types of research that are possible in the area of disability and work, and a range of recruitment strategies from a methodological perspective. Organizations may be asked simply to mount a recruitment poster on the wall or circulate a link to an online survey. The nature of the research may be much more demanding, however, and involve, as we heard from our informants, extensive testing or access to protected databases. Our impression is that once past the initial gatekeeper, an organizational decision can be based on a complex interpretation of factors related to perceived benefit to the organization and how that benefit balances out any perceived risks or burden. Care must be taken, however, to ensure that compromises made in sampling and research procedures to secure participation do not jeopardize the scientific integrity of the research. It is clear that research of this type will benefit not necessarily from large sample sizes, but by researchers being able to execute well designed studies with samples that adequately address the research question in an unbiased and rigorous manner.

Conclusions Participant recruitment for disability-related research is a concern, particularly in studies that require collection of new data from organizations and individuals, and where

J Occup Rehabil

large probability samples and/or stratified or purposeful samples are desirable. Major barriers to recruitment are time limitations, discomfort of employers with disabilities issues, and perceived lack of relevance to the workplace. A number of strategies may contribute to improved success in this regard, including development of research partnerships and ongoing relationships with companies or employer organizations, use of employer advisory groups to ensure relevance of research to workplaces, guide recruitment designs, and to endorse research among their peers.

Appendix: Scoping Review Studies Andersen, L. P., Kines, P., & Hasle, P. (2007). Owner attitudes and self reported behavior towards modified work after occupational injury absence in small enterprises: A qualitative study. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 17(1), 107–21. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.queensu. ca/10.1007/s10926-007-9064-5 Banks, P., Jahoda, A., Dagnan, D., Kemp, J., & Williams, V. (2010). Supported employment for people with intellectual disability: The effects of job breakdown on psychological well-being. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 23(4), 344–354. Beyer, S., Brown, T., Akandi, R., & Rapley, M. (2010). A comparison of quality of life outcomes for people with intellectual disabilities in supported employment, day services and employment enterprises. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 23(3), 290–295. Bigby, C., Wilson, N., J., Balandin, S., & Stancliffe, R., J. (2011). Disconnected expectations: Staff, family, and supported employee perspectives about retirement. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability,36(3), 167–174. doi:10.3109/13668250.2011.598852 Boyce, M., Secker, J., Johnson, R., Floyd, M., Grove, B., Schneider, J., & Slade, J. (2008). Mental health service users’ experiences of returning to paid employment. Disability and Society, 23(1), 77–88. doi:http://dx.doi.org. proxy.queensu.ca/10.1080/09687590701725757 Brock, B. L. (2007). The workplace experiences of educators with disabilities: Insights for school leaders. Educational Considerations, 34(2), 9–14 Bucholz, J. L., Brady, M. P., Duffy, M. L., Scott, J., & Kontosh, L. G. (2008). Using literacy-based behavioral interventions and social stories to improve work behavior in employees with developmental disabilities.Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 43(4), 486–501. Carter, E. W., Trainor, A. A., Ditchman, N., Swedeen, B., & Owens, L. (2011). Community-based summer work experiences of adolescents with high-incidence disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 45(2), 89–103.

Chan, F., Strauser, D., Maher, P., Lee, E., Jones, R., & Johnson, E. T. (2010). Demand-side factors related to employment of people with disabilities: A survey of employers in the midwest region of the united states. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(4), 412–419. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.queensu.ca/10.1007/s10926-0109252-6 Cimera, R. E. (2009). The monetary benefits and costs of hiring supported employees: A pilot study. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 30(2), 111–119. Conroy, J. W., Ferris, C. S., & Irvine, R. (2010). Microenterprise options for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities: An outcome evaluation. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 7(4), 269–277. Copeland, J., Chan, F., Bezyak, J., & Fraser, R. T. (2010). Assessing cognitive and affective reactions of employers toward people with disabilities in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(4), 427–434. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.queensu.ca/10.1007/ s10926-009-9207-y Dalgin, R. & Bellini, J. (2008). Invisible disability disclosure in an employment interview: Impact on Employers’ Hiring Decisions and Views of Employability. Rehabilitation Counselling Bulletin, 52(1), 6–15. de Urres, F., & Verdugo, M. (2011). Sheltered employment centers: Characteristics and users’ perception. Work, 38(2), 155–161. Duff, A., & Ferguson, J. (2011). Disability and the socialization of accounting professionals. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22(4), 351–364. doi:http://dx.doi. org.proxy.queensu.ca/10.1016/j.cpa.2010.12.009 Duff, A., Ferguson, J., & Gilmore, K. (2007). Issues concerning the employment and employability of disabled people in UK accounting firms: An analysis of the views of human resource managers as employment gatekeepers. British Accounting Review, 39(1), 15–38. doi:http://dx.doi. org.proxy.queensu.ca/10.1016/j.bar.2006.08.003 Flores, N., Jenaro, C., Orgaz, M. B., & Martin, M. V. (2011). Understanding quality of working life of workers with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 24(2), 133–141. Foster, D. (2007). Legal obligation or personal lottery? Employee experiences of disability and the negotiation of adjustments in the public sector workplace. Work, Employment and Society, 21(1), 67–84. doi:http://dx.doi. org.proxy.queensu.ca/10.1177/0950017007073616 Fraser, R., Ajzen, I., Johnson, K., Hebert, J., & Chan, F. (2011). Understanding employers hiring intention in relation to qualified workers with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 35(1), 1–11. Frost, P., Haahr, J. P., & Andersen, J. H. (2007). Reduction of pain-related disability in working

123

J Occup Rehabil

populations: A randomized intervention study of the effects of an educational booklet addressing psychosocial risk factors and screening workplaces for physical health hazards. Spine, 32(18), 1949–1954. Garca-Villamisar, D., & Hughes, C. (2007). Supported employment improves cognitive performance in adults with autism. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 51(2), 142–150. Gates, L. B., Mandiberg, J. M., & Akabas, S. H. (2010). Building capacity in social service agencies to employ peer providers. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 34(2), 145–152. doi:10.2975/34.2.2010.145.152 Habeck, R., Hunt, A., Rachel, C. H., Kregel, J., & Chan, F. (2010). Employee retention and integrated disability management practices as demand side factors. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(4), 443–455. doi:http://dx. doi.org.proxy.queensu.ca/10.1007/s10926-009-9225-9 Hensel, E., Kroese, B. S., & Rose, J. (2007). Psychological factors associated with obtaining employment. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 20(2), 175–181. Hepburn, C., Franche, R., & Francis, L. (2010). Successful return to work: The role of fairness and workplacebased strategies. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 3(1), 7–24. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy. queensu.ca/10.1108/17538351011031902 Ipsen, C., Ravesloot, C., Arnold, N., & Seekins, T. (2012). Working well with a disability: Health promotion as a means to employment. Rehabilitation Psychology, 57(3), 187–195. Irvine, A., & Lupart, J. (2008). Into the workforce: Employers’ perspectives of inclusion. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 36(1–2), 225–250. Jahoda, A., Banks, P., Dagnan, D., Kemp, J., Kerr, W., & Williams, V. (2009). Starting a new job: The social and emotional experience of people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 22(5), 421–425. Jans, L. H., Kaye, H., & Jones, E. C. (2012). Getting hired: Successfully employed people with disabilities offer advice on disclosure, interviewing, and job search. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 22(2), 155–165. doi:http:// dx.doi.org.proxy.queensu.ca/10.1007/s10926-011-9336-y Laarhoven, T., Johnson, J., Laarhoven-Myers, W., Grider, K.L. & Grider K.M (2009). The effectiveness of using a video iPod as a prompting device in employment settings. Journal of Behaviour Education, 18, 119–141. Lamichhane, K. (2012). Employment situation and life changes for people with disabilities: Evidence from nepal. Disability and Society, 27(4), 471–485. Lanctot, N., Corbire, M., & Durand, M. (2012). Job tenure and quality of work life of people with psychiatric

123

disabilities working in social enterprises. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 37(1), 39–48. Larson, J. E., Hautamaki, J. B., Tsang, H., Lam, C. S., Lee, Y., Jin, S., & Shi, K. (2009). Employer experience with disabilities in Beijing, Hong Kong, and Chicago. American Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilitation, 12(4), 317–329. doi:10.1080/15487760903248432 Lindstrom, L., Doren, B., & Miesch, J. (2011). Waging a living: Career development and long-term employment outcomes for young adults with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 77(4), 423–434. Lombardi, A., & Murray, C. (2011). Measuring university faculty attitudes toward disability: Willingness to accommodate and adopt Universal Design principles. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 34, 43–56. doi:10. 3233/JVR-2010-0533 Lysaght, R., Fabrigar, L., Larmour-Trode, S., Stewart, J., & Friesen, M. (2012). Measuring workplace social support for workers with disability. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 22(3), 376–386. doi:http://dx.doi.org. proxy.queensu.ca/10.1007/s10926-012-9357-1 MacEachen, E., Kosny, A., & Ferrier, S. (2007). Unexpected barriers in return to work: Lessons learned from injured worker peer support groups. Work, 29(2), 155–164. Martorell, A., Gutierrez-Recacha, P., Pereda, A., & Ayuso-Mateos, J. (2008). Identification of personal factors that determine work outcome for adults with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 52(12), 1091–1101. Minarovic, T. J., & Bambara, L. M. (2007). Teaching employees with intellectual disabilities to manage changing work routines using varied sight-word checklists. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities (RPSD), 32(1), 31–42 Misra, S., Orslene, L. E., & Walls, R. T. (2010). Personal assistance services (PAS) for workers with disabilities: Views and experiences of employers. Journal of Rehabilitation, 76(1), 22–27. Naraine, M., & Lindsay, P. (2011). Social inclusion of employees who are blind or low vision. Disability and Society, 26(4), 389–403. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy. queensu.ca/10.1080/09687599.2011.567790 Noblet, A., Graffam, J., & McWilliams, J. (2008). Sources of well-being and commitment of staff in the australian disability employment services. Health & Social Care in the Community, 16(2), 137–146. O’Sullivan, D., Strauser, D. R., & Wong, A. W. K. (2012). Five-factor model of personality, work behavior self-efficacy, and length of prior employment for individuals with disabilities: An exploratory analysis.Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 55(3), 156–165.

J Occup Rehabil

Rampton, N., Waghorn, G., De Souza, T., & Lloyd, C. (2010). Employment service provider knowledge of service user assistance needs. American Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilitation, 13(1), 22–39. doi:10.1080/15487760 903248507 Raynor, O., & Hayward, K. (2009). Breaking into the business: Experiences of actors with disabilities in the entertainment industry. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 9(1), 39–47. Saloviita, T., & Pirttimaa, R. (2007). Surveying supported employment in finland: A follow-up. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 4(4), 229–234. Schur, L., Kruse, D., Blasi, J., & Blanck, P. (2009). Is disability disabling in all workplaces? Workplace disparities and corporate culture. Industrial Relations, 48(3), 381–410 Shaw, L., MacAhonic, P., Lindsay, R., & Brake, P. (2009). Evaluating the support needs of injured workers in managing occupational transitions after injury. Work, 32(4), 477–490. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.queensu.ca/10.3233/ WOR-2009-0858 Shigaki, C. L., Anderson, K. M., Howald, C. L., Henson, L., & Gregg, B. E. (2012). Disability on campus: A perspective from faculty and staff. Work, 42(4), 559–571. Siva, A., Zarifoglu, M., Ertas, M., Saip, S., Karli, H. N., Baykan, B., … Senocak, M. (2008). Validity of the IDmigraine screener in the workplace. Neurology, 70(16), 1337–1345. Snyder, L. A., Carmichael, J. S., Blackwell, L. V., Cleveland, J. N., & Thornton, G. C. (2010). Perceptions of discrimination and justice among employees with disabilities. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 22(1), 5–19. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.queensu.ca/10.1007/ s10672-009-9107-5 Steenstra, I., Ibrahim, S., Franche, R., Hogg-Johnson, S., Shaw, W., & Pransky, G. (2010). Validation of risk factorbased intervention strategy model using data from the readiness for return to work cohort study. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20, 394–405. doi:10.1007/ s10926-009-9218-8 Stensrud, R. (2007). Developing relationships with employers means considering the competitive business environment and the risks it produces. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 50(4), 226–237. Su, C., Lin, Y., Wu, Y., & Chen, C. (2008). The role of cognition and adaptive behavior in employment of people with mental retardation. Research in Developmental Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 29(1), 83–95 Versnel, J., Hutchinson, N. L., Munby, H., & Chin, P. (2008). Work-based learning for adolescents with learning disabilities: Creating a context for success. Exceptionality Education International, 18(1), 113–134.

Vogel, S. A., Murray, C., Wren, C., & Adelman, P. B. (2007). An exploratory analysis of employment-related experiences of educators with learning disabilities. Educational Considerations, 34(2), 15–20. Walsh, M. P. (2010). Employers’ perceptions of transition programming for students with emotional disturbances. Journal of Employment Counseling, 47(3), 123–133. Wilton, R. (2008). Workers with disabilities and the challenges of emotional labour. Disability and Society, 23(4), 361–373. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.queensu.ca/10. 1080/09687590802038878 Wu, H. (2008). Predicting subjective quality of life in workers with severe psychiatric disabilities. Community Mental Health Journal, 44(2), 135–146. doi:http://dx.doi. org.proxy.queensu.ca/10.1007/s10597-007-9118-3 Zoer, I., Graaf, L., Kuiger, P., Prinzie, P., Hoorzemans, M., & Frings-Dresen, M. (2012). Matching work capacities and demands at job placement in employees with disabilities. Journal of Work, 42, 205–214. doi:10.3233/WOR2012-1343.

References 1. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Sickness, disability and work: breaking the barriers. A synthesis of findings across OECD countries. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; 2010. 2. Weathers RR II, Wittenburg DC. Employment. In: Stapleton RR, Weathers II RR, Burkhauser RV, editors. Counting working-age people with disabilities. Kalamazoo: Upjohn Institute; 2009. 3. Buckup S. The economic consequences of excluding people with disabilities from the world of work. Geneva: International Labor Organization; 2009. Report No.: 63. 4. Anseel F, Lievens F, Schollaert E, Choragwicka B. Response rate in organizational science, 1995–2008: a meta-analytic review and guidelines for survey researchers. J Bus Psychol. 2010;25:335–49. 5. Applebaum H. The anthropology of work in industrial society. Anthropol Work Rev. 1986;7:25–32. 6. Carter EW, Trainor AA, Ditchman N, Swedeen B, Owens L. Community-based summer work experiences of adolescents with high-incidence disabilities. J Spec Educ. 2011;45(2):89–103. 7. Hernandez B, Keys C, Balcazar F. Employer attitudes toward workers with disabilities and their ADA employment rights: a literature review. J Rehabil. 2000;66(4):4–16. 8. Leucking RG. Emerging employer views of people with disabilities and the future of job development. J Vocat Rehabil. 2008;29:3–13. 9. Lysaght R, Krupa T, Gregory A. Employers’ perspectives on intermittent work capacity—What can qualitative research tell us? Ottawa: Human Resources and Social Development Canada; 2011. Report No.: Final. 10. Ouellette-Kuntz H, Lunsky Y, Lysaght R, Martin L, Saaltink R. Partnering for research—lessons for subject recruitment. J Dev Disabil. 2013;19(2):25–35. 11. Koehoorn M, Trask CM, Teschke K. Recruitment for Occupational Research: using Injured Workers as the Point of Entry into Workplaces. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(6):e68354.

123

J Occup Rehabil 12. Ipsen C, Ravesloot C, Arnold N, Seekins T. Working well with a disability: health promotion as a means to employment. Rehabil Psychol. 2012;57(3):187–95. 13. Kidd P, Parshall M, Wojcik S, Struttman T. Overcoming recruitment challenges in construction safety intervention research. Am J Ind Med. 2004;45:297–304. 14. Foster D. Legal obligation or personal lottery? Employee experiences of disability and the negotiation of adjustments in the public sector workplace. Work Employ Soc. 2007;21(1):67–84.

123

15. Irvine A, Lupart J. Into the workforce: employers’ perspectives of inclusion. Dev Disabil Bull. 2008;36(1–2):225–50. 16. Jans LH, Kaye H, Jones EC. Getting hired: successfully employed people with disabilities offer advice on disclosure, interviewing, and job search. J Occup Rehabil. 2012;22(2):155–65. 17. Lysaght R, Petner-Arrey J, Cobigo V, Oullete-Kuntz H. Work preparation and participation in Ontario for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities—a cross-region analysis. J Dev Disabil. 2014;20(2):34–43.

Participant Recruitment for Studies on Disability and Work: Challenges and Solutions.

Purpose A number of key issues related to employment of persons with disabilities demand ongoing and effective lines of inquiry. There is evidence, ho...
481KB Sizes 0 Downloads 4 Views