Therapeutic Science for Rehabilitation (재활치료과학)

Korean Society of Neurological Occupational Therapy (대한신경계작업치료학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Restaurant Accessibility and Task Evaluation Tool: Development and Preliminary Validation

식당의 접근성과 활동 평가 도구: 개발과 예비 타당성

  • Park, Minsoo (Sava Senior Care) ;
  • Park, Kang-Hyun (Dept. of Occupational Therapy, School of Health Science, Yonsei University) ;
  • Park, Ji-Hyuk (Dept. of Occupational Therapy, School of Health Science, Yonsei University) ;
  • Smith, Roger O. (Rehabilitation Research Design & Disability (R2D2) Center, Dept. of Occupational Science and Technology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee)
  • 박민수 ;
  • 박강현 (연세대학교 일반대학원 작업치료학과) ;
  • 박지혁 (연세대학교 보건과학대학 작업치료학과) ;
  • Received : 2019.11.12
  • Accepted : 2019.12.27
  • Published : 2020.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective : The purpose of this study was to develop and establish the preliminary validity of the Restaurant Accessibility and Task Evaluation Information Tool (RATE-IT), an electronic survey for evaluating restaurant accessibility for people with disabilities. Methods : A multi-phase method was used to develop and validate the RATE-IT. The taxonomy was developed in phase one, while the validity of the content was tested in phase two. Finally, the validity of the constructs was assessed in phase three. Results : The results indicated that appropriate items were included (relevance=0.99 and language level=0.99) and also supported that the RATE-IT evaluated the construct of restaurant accessibility (F=0.72, p=.40). When compared to a checklist of the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) for Buildings and Facilities questions, RATE-IT showed the potential to differentiate restaurants by their level of accessibility (p=.10). Further, the RATE-IT was also easy to use (p<.00), understandable (p<.00), and efficient (p<.00). Conclusion : RATE-IT shows a promising methodology and is strongly preferred by users.

목적 : 본 연구의 목적은 식당의 접근성과 활동 평가 정보 도구(RATE-IT)의 예비 타당도를 확보하고 개발하고자 하였다. 장애를 가진 사람들을 위한 식당의 접근성을 평가하기 위해 전자 설문지가 사용되었다. 연구방법 : RATE-IT의 타당성을 확인하고 개발하기 위해 다양한 방법이 사용되었다. 연구 1단계에서는 관련 문항을 분류하였고, 2단계에서는 내용타당도를 검증하였다. 3단계에서는 구성 타당도를 측정하였다. 결과 : 연구결과에 따르면 적절한 문항들이 본 검사 도구에 포함됨을 알 수 있었다(relevance=0.99 and language level=0.99). 또한 이러한 결과는 RATE-IT이 식당 접근성의 구성 문항을 적절하게 평가할 수 있음을 시사한다(F=0.72, p=.40). 건물과 시설에 관한 문항을 검증하기 위해 Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines(ADAAG)의 체크리스트와 비교하였을 때 RATE-IT은 접근성 수준에 따라 식당을 분류 할 수 있는 잠재성을 보여주었으며(p=.10), 사용하기 쉽고(p<.00), 이해하기 쉽고 효과적인(p<.00) 것으로 나타났다. 결론 : 연구결과 RATE-IT은 사용자 관점에서 사용하기 쉽고 편리한 효용성을 가진 도구로 보여진다.

Keywords

References

  1. Americans with Disabilities Act. (1990). Public Law No. 101-336, US Statut Large, 104, 327-328.
  2. Anson, C. A., Stanwyck, D. J., & Krause, J. S. (1993). Social support and health status in spinal cord injury. Paraplegia, 31(10), 632-638.
  3. Baker, S. M., & Kaufman-Scarborough, C. (2001). Marketing and public accommodation: A retrospective on title III of the American with disabilities Act. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 20(2), 297-304. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.20.2.297.17370
  4. Brandt, E. N., & Pope, A. M. (1997). Enabling America: Assessing the role of rehabilitation science and engineering. Washington: National Academy Press.
  5. Burnett, J. J., & Paul, P. (1996). Assessing the media habits and needs of the mobility-disabled consumer. Journal of Advertising, 25(3), 47-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1996.10673506
  6. Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists. (1997). Enabling occupation: An occupational therapy perspective. Ottawa, ON: CAOT Publications ACE.
  7. Center for Accessible Housing. (1991). Definitions: Accessible, adaptable, and universal design (Fact sheet). Raleigh: North Carolina State University.
  8. Center for Universal Design. (1997). The principles of universal design(version 2.0) Raleigh: North Carolina State University. Retrieved from https://projects.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/pubs_p/docs/udffile/chap_3.pdf
  9. Christiansen, C., & Baum, C. (1997). Person-environment occupational performance: A conceptual model for practice. In C. Christiansen & C. Baum (Eds.), Occupational Therapy: Enabling Function and Well-Being (2nd Ed.). Thorofare, NJ: SLACK Incorporated.
  10. Davis, L. (1992). Instrument review: Getting the most from your panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research, 5(4), 194-197. doi:10.1016/S0897-1897(05)80008-4
  11. DBTAC Northwest ADA Information Center. (2010). Accessibility checklist. Retrieved from http://nwadacenter.org/toolkit/accessibility-checklists
  12. Dejong, G., & Lifchez, R. (1983). Physical disability and public policy. Scientific American, 248(6), 40-49. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0683-40
  13. Department of Justice. (2010). 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. Retrieved from http://www.ada.gov/2010ADAstandards_index.htm
  14. Dunn, W. (1989). Validity. In Miller, L. J. (Ed.). Developing Norm-Referenced Standardized Tests (1st ed., pp. 149-168). New York: Haworth Press.
  15. Dunn, W., Brown, C., & McGuigan, A. (1994). The ecology of human performance: A framework for considering the impact of context. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 48(7), 595-607. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.48.7.595
  16. Fange, A., Iwarsson, S., & Persson, A. (2002). Accessibility to the public environment as perceived by teenagers with functional limitations in a south Swedish town centre. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(6), 318-326. doi:10.1080/09638280110089906
  17. Frances, R. (1983). The development of federal accessibility law. Journal of Rehabilitation, 49(1), 29-32.
  18. Imrie, R., & Kumar, M. (1998). Focusing on disability and access in the built environment. Disability & Society, 13(3), 357-374. doi:10.1080/09687599826687
  19. Imrie, R., & Wells, P. (1992). Planning and disability: Creating a barrier-free environment. Town and Country Planning. 61(10), 278-280.
  20. Jette, A. M. (1994). Physical disablement concepts for physical therapy research and practice. Journal of Physical Therapy, 74(5), 380-386. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/74.5.380
  21. Kaufman-Scarborough, C., & Baker, S. M. (2005). Do people with disabilities believe the ADA has served their consumer interests? The American Council of Consumer Interest, 39(1), 1-26.
  22. Kielhofner, G., & Burke, J. (1980). A model of human occupation, part I: Conceptual framework and content. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 34(9), 572-581. doi:10.5014/ajot.34.9.572
  23. Law, M., Cooper, B., Strong, S., Stewart, D., Rigby, P., & Letts, L. (1996). The person-environment-occupation model: A transactional approach to occupational performance. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63(1), 9-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/000841749606300103
  24. Letts, L., Law, M., Rigby, P., Cooper, B., Stewart, D., & Strong, S. (1994). Person - environment assessments in occupational therapy. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 48(7), 608-618. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.48.7.608
  25. Lotito, M. J., Alvarez, F. P., & Pimentel, P. (1992). The Americans with disabilities Act: Making the ADA work for you. Northridge, CA: Milt Wright & Associates, Inc.
  26. Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382-385. doi:10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017
  27. McClain, L., Beringer, D., Kuhnert, H., Priest, J., Wilkes, E., & Wilkinson, S. (1993). Restaurant wheelchair accessibility. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47(7), 619-623. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.47.7.619
  28. McClain, L. (2000). Shopping center wheelchair accessibility: Ongoing advocacy to implement the Americans with disabilities Act of 1990. Public Health Nursing, 17(3), 178-186. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1446.2000.00178.x
  29. McClain, L., & Todd, C. (1990). Food store accessibility. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 44(6), 487-491. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.44.6.487
  30. National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research. (1993). Research plan for the national center for medical rehabilitation research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved from https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/documents/NCMRR_Research_Plan_1993.pdf
  31. Patla, A. E., & Shumway-Cook, A. (1999). Dimensions of mobility: Defining the complexity and difficulty associated with community mobility. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 7(1), 7-19. doi:10.1123/japa.7.1.7
  32. Pierce, L. L. (1998). Barriers to access: Frustrations of people who use a wheelchair for full-time mobility. Rehabilitation Nursing, 23(3), 120-125. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2048-7940.1998.tb01763.x
  33. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing and Health, 29(5), 489-497. doi:10.1002/nur.20147
  34. Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. (2007). Focus on research methods: Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing and Health, 30(4), 459-467. doi:10.1002/nur.20199
  35. Pope, A. M., & Tarlov, A. R. (1991). Disability in America: Toward a national agenda for prevention. Washington, DC: Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins.
  36. Portney, L. G., & Watkins, M. P. (2009). Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice (3rd Ed.). Alexandria, VA: Prentice Hall.
  37. Q90 Corporation. (2003). ADAAG Pro ADA Facility survey software. Retrieved from http://www.adaag.com/
  38. Reedy, J. (1993). Marketing to consumers with disabilities: How to identify and meet the growing market needs of 43 million Americans. Chicago, Illinois: Probus Publishing Company.
  39. Satariano, W. A. (1997). Editorial: The disability of aging-looking to the physical environment. American Journal of Public Health. 87(3), 331-332. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.87.3.331
  40. Smith, R. O. (1995). OT FACT software system for integrating and reporting occupational therapy assessment, version 2.03 [computer software and manual]. Rockville, MD: American Occupational Therapy Association.
  41. Smith, R. O. (1999). OT FACT application in mental health. In A. E. Drummond (Ed.), Assessments in Occupational Therapy Mental Health: An Integrative Approach (1st ed., pp. 289-308). Thorofare: SLACK Incorporated.
  42. Smith, R. O. (2002). OTFACT: Multi-level performanceoriented software with an assistive technology outcomes assessment protocol. Technology and Disability, 14(3), 133-139. doi:10.3233/TAD-2002-14309
  43. Stark, S., Hollingsworth, H. H., Morgan, K. A., & Gray, D. B. (2007). Development of a measure of receptivity of the physical environment. Disability and Rehabilitation, 29(2), 123-137. doi:10.1080/09638280600731631
  44. Steinfeld, E., & Danford, G. S. (1999). Theory as a basis for research on enabling environments. In Steinfeld, E., & Danford, G. S. (Eds.). Enabling environment: measuring the impact of environment on disability and rehabilitation (1st ed., pp.11-34). New York: Plenum Publishers.
  45. Swedberg, L. (2001). Facilitating accessibility and participation in faith communities. OT practice, 6(9), 1-8.
  46. Thapar, N., Warner, G., Drainoni, M. L., Williams, S. R., Ditchfield, H., & Wierbicky, J. (2004). A pilot study of functional access to public buildings and facilities for persons with impairments. Disability and Rehabilitation, 26(5), 280-289. doi:10.1080/09638280310001649543
  47. Tuckman, B. W. (1978). Conducting educational research. New York, NJ: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
  48. Tzonichaki, I., & Kleftaras, G. (2002). Paraplegia from spinal cord injury: Self-esteem, loneliness, and life satisfaction. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 22(3), 96-103. doi:10.1177/153944920202200302
  49. U. S. Access Board. (1990). ADA Accessibility guidelines for buildings and facilities (ADAAG). Retrieved from https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/buildings-and-sites/about-the-ada-standards/background/adaag
  50. U. S. Access Board. (1992). Americans with disabilities Act accessibility guidelines (ADAAG) checklist for buildings and facilities. Retrieved from http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/checklist/a16.html
  51. U. S. Access Board. (2004). Americans with disabilities Act and architectural barriers Act accessibility guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.access-board.gov/attachments/article/412/ada-aba.pdf
  52. U. S. Census Bureau. (2008). Americans with disabilities: 2005. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p70-117.pdf.
  53. Waltz, C. F., & Bausell, R. B. (1981). Nursing research: Design, statistic, and computer analysis. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.
  54. World Health Organization (WHO). (1980). International classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps. ICIDH: A manual of classification relating to the consequences of Disease. Geneva: WHO.
  55. World Health Organization (WHO). (2009). International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Retrieved from http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/.