Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Typ-2-Diabetes und Adipositas Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation
Erschienen in: Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 1/2022

09.06.2021 | COVID-19 Zur Zeit gratis

Developing a Multilevel Scale to Assess Retention of Workers with Disabilities

verfasst von: Miri Krisi, Eyal Eckhaus, Revital Nagar

Erschienen in: Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation | Ausgabe 1/2022

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose Persons with disabilities (PwD) face difficulties in employment. Despite extensive research on PwD in the workplace, there is lack of research on the factors behind retaining or terminating the job of a PwD. This study aims to address this gap by developing the Retaining Workers with Disability (RWD) model. Method Predicated on 1032 respondents with employment decision authority, we performed exploratory factor analysis (EFA) followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for convergent and discriminant validity of the RWD model. Next, we developed the two-rank model RWD-II and employed CFA for validation. Results We presented a dual-facet measurement tool for assessing employer attitudes towards retaining PwD in the workplace. Two dominant factors were measured, direct and indirect work-related items. Indices for both models (one and two-rank) showed a good fit. Conclusion Our study highlighted two major factors influencing managers in the decision-making process of retaining workers with disabilities as follows: direct and indirect work-related concerns. The measure was validated using the RWD scale. By providing the tool to identify attitudes towards PwD work retention, we offer the first step in identifying and changing a negative approach toward this population in the workplace. Practical contributions are discussed.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Crpd U. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and optional protocol. New York: United Nations; 2006.
2.
Wehman P, Taylor J, Brooke V, Avellone L, Whittenburg H, Ham W, et al. Toward competitive employment for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities: What progress have we made and where do we need to go. Res Pract Persons Severe Disabil. 2018;43(3):131–144.
3.
Heymann J, Stein MA, Moreno G, de Elvira Moreno, M. R. Disability, employment, and inclusion worldwide. Disability and equity at work. 2014:1–19.
4.
Baldridge DC, Beatty JE, Konrad AM, Moore ME. People with disabilities. In The Oxford Handbook of Diversity in Organizations. 2016.
5.
6.
Miethlich B, Oldenburg A. The employment of persons with disabilities as a strategic asset: A resource-based-view using the value-rarity-imitability-organization (VRIO) framework. 2019:1–13.
7.
Brooke V, Brooke AM, Schall C, Wehman P, McDonough J, Thompson K, et al. Employees with autism spectrum disorder achieving long-term employment success: A retrospective review of employment retention and intervention. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities. 2018;43(3):181–193. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​1540796918783202​.
8.
9.
Shadmi E, Chen Y, Dourado I, Faran-Perach I, Furler J, Hangoma P, et al. Health equity and COVID-19: Global perspectives. International journal for equity in health. 2020;19(1):1–16.
10.
Bonaccio S, Connelly CE, Gellatly IR, Jetha A, Martin GK. The participation of people with disabilities in the workplace across the employment cycle: Employer concerns and research evidence. J Bus Psychol. 2020;35(2):135–158.PubMed
11.
Kennedy J, Wood EG, Frieden L. Disparities in insurance coverage, health services use, and access following implementation of the affordable care act: A comparison of disabled and nondisabled working-age adults. Inquiry: a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing. 2017;54:1–10.
12.
Kaye SH. The disproportionate impact of the great recession on workers with disabilities. San Francisco: Institute for Health and Aging, University of California; 2010. p. 1–18.
13.
Wilson-Kovacs D, Ryan MK, Haslam SA, Rabinovich A. ‘Just because you can get a wheelchair in the building doesn’t necessarily mean that you can still participate’: Barriers to the career advancement of disabled professionals. Disability & Society. 2008;23(7):705–717.
14.
Amir Z, Strauser DR, Chan F. Employers’ and survivors’ perspectives. Work and cancer survivors. 2009:73–89.
15.
16.
17.
Thomas C. Female forms: Experiencing and understanding disability. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). 1999.
18.
Guimarães B, Barkokébas Junior B, Martins L. Absenteeism of people with disabilities in the construction industry in brazil. Work. 2018;60(3):411–419.PubMed
19.
Östlund G, Johansson G. Remaining in workforce – employment barriers for people with disabilities in a swedish context. Scand J Disabil Res. 2018;20(1):18–25.
20.
Kulkarni M, Lengnick-Hall ML. Obstacles to success in the workplace for people with disabilities: A review and research agenda. Hum Resour Dev Rev. 2014;13(2):158–180.
21.
Kosny A, Lifshen M, Pugliese D, Majesky G, Kramer D, Steenstra I, et al. Buddies in bad times? the role of co-workers after a work-related injury. J Occup Rehabil. 2013;23(3):438–449.PubMed
22.
23.
Tal A. Stigma among employers towards people with disabilities in general and psychiatric disabilities in particular. Ministry of economy, research and economy authority, Jerusalem. 2013.
24.
Mitra S, Kruse D. Are workers with disabilities more likely to be displaced? The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2016;27(14):1550–1579.
25.
Ceylan RF, Ozkan B, Mulazimogullari E. Historical evidence for economic effects of COVID-19. The European Journal of Health Economics. 2020:817–823.
26.
Mimoun E, Ben Ari A, Margalit D. Psychological aspects of employment instability during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychol Trauma Theory Res Pract Policy. 2020;12:S183–S185.
27.
Dixon-Ibarra A, Horner-Johnson W. Peer reviewed: Disability status as an antecedent to chronic conditions: National health interview survey, 2006–2012. Preventing Chronic Disease. 2014;11.
28.
Tazaki M. Impact of COVID-19 on people with mental disabilities in japan. Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation and Mental Health. 2020;7(2):113–114.PubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Stevens A, Courtney-Long E, Gillespie C, Armour BS. Hypertension among US adults by disability status and type, national health and nutrition examination survey, 2001–2010. Preventing Chronic Disease. 2014;11.
30.
World Health Organization. Global tuberculosis report 2013. World Health Organization. 2013.
31.
Mahdi S, Albertowski K, Almodayfer O, Arsenopoulou V, Carucci S, Dias JC, et al. An international clinical study of ability and disability in autism spectrum disorder using the WHO-ICF framework. J Autism Dev Disord. 2018;48(6):2148–2163.PubMedPubMedCentral
32.
World Health Organization. World health statistics 2015. World Health Organization. 2015.
33.
Majumdar D, Dutta C, Mukherjee AK, Sen S. Source apportionment of VOCs at the petrol pumps in kolkata, india; exposure of workers and assessment of associated health risk. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ. 2008;13(8):524–530.
34.
Zhu X, Law KS, Sun C, Yang D. Thriving of employees with disabilities: The roles of job self-efficacy, inclusion, and team-learning climate. Hum Resour Manage. 2019;58(1):21–34.
35.
Lent RW, Brown SD, Hackett G. Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. J Vocat Behav. 1994;45(1):79–122.
36.
Lent RW, Brown SD, Hackett G. Contextual supports and barriers to career choice: A social cognitive analysis. J Couns Psychol. 2000;47(1):36–49.
37.
Cho S, Mor-Barak ME. Understanding of diversity and inclusion in a perceived homogeneous culture: A study of organizational commitment and job performance among korean employees. Adm Soc Work. 2008;32(4):100–126.
38.
Riches VC, Green VA. Social integration in the workplace for people with disabilities: An australian perspective. J Vocat Rehabil. 2003;19(3):127–142.
39.
Gebauer JE, Sedikides C, Wagner J, Bleidorn W, Rentfrow PJ, Potter J, et al. Cultural norm fulfillment, interpersonal belonging, or getting ahead? A large-scale cross-cultural test of three perspectives on the function of self-esteem. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2015;109(3):526–548.PubMed
40.
Mondy RW, Mondy JB. Human resource management. 12th ed. Boston: Pearson Education Limited; 2012.
41.
Quick JC, Nelson DL. Leadership development: On the cutting edge. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. 2008;60(4):293.
42.
Bandura A. Fearful expectations and avoidant actions as coeffects of perceived self-inefficacy. Am Psychol. 1986;41(12):114.
43.
Lent RW, Morrison MA, Ezeofor I. The career development of people with disabilities: Asocial cognitive perspective. In: Strauser, D.R (Ed.). Career Development, Employment and Disability in Rehabilitation: From Theory to Practice. 2014:113–124.
44.
Gorsuch RL. Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1983.
45.
Baldwin SA, Imel ZE, Braithwaite SR, Atkins DC. Analyzing multiple outcomes in clinical research using multivariate multilevel models. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2014;82(5):920–930.PubMedPubMedCentral
46.
Ochs LA, Roessler RT. Students with disabilities: How ready are they for the 21st century? Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin. 2001;44(3):170–176.
47.
Toldrá RC, Santos MC. People with disabilities in the labor market: Facilitators and barriers. Work. 2013;45(4):553–563.PubMed
48.
Eckhaus E, Sheaffer Z. Factors affecting willingness to contribute goods and services on social media. null. 2019;56(3):390–400.
49.
50.
Coyne KS, Tubaro A, Brubaker L, Bavendam T. Development and validation of patient-reported outcomes measures for overactive bladder: A review of concepts. Urology. 2006;68(2):9–16.PubMed
51.
Knekta E, Runyon C, Eddy S. One size doesn’t fit all: Using factor analysis to gather validity evidence when using surveys in your research. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2019;18(1):1–17.
52.
Paez P. Training methods and topics for hospitality employees with disabilities: Managers' attitudes and perceived knowledge. (PhD Dissertation), Iowa State University. 2010.
53.
Sharma A, Zsarnoczky M, Dunay A. An empirical study on the influences of management’s attitudes toward employees with disabilities in the hospitality sector. Polish Journal of Management Studies. 2018;18(2):311–323.
54.
Kaye HS, Jans LH, Jones EC. Why don’t employers hire and retain workers with disabilities? J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21(4):526–536.PubMedPubMedCentral
55.
Wetherell EM. The use of crowdsourcing in the development of measurement instruments. Theses and Dissertations. 2019:4–51.
56.
Eckhaus E, Davidovitch N. How do academic faculty members perceive the effect of teaching surveys completed by students on appointment and promotion processes at academic institutions? A case study. International Journal of Higher Education. 2019;8(1):171–80. https://​eric.​ed.​gov/​?​id=​EJ1206988.
57.
58.
Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. NJ, Pearson. 2012.
59.
Lee M. Development of an instrument of learning strategies for upper elementary school students. Doctoral Dissertations. 2014.
60.
Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: Sage. 2013.
61.
Nelson S, Albert JM, Liu Y, Selvaraj D, Curtan S, Ryan K, et al. The psychometric properties of a new oral health illness perception measure for adults aged 62 years and older. PloS one. 2019;14(4):e0214082.
62.
Costello AB, Osborne J. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2005;10(7):1–9.
63.
Maffini CS, Wong YJ. Feelings about culture scales: Development, factor structure, reliability, and validity. Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol. 2015;21(2):213–224.PubMed
64.
Hevey D, Pertl M, Thomas K, Maher L, Craig A, Ni CS. Consideration of future consequences scale: Confirmatory factor analysis. Personality Individ Differ. 2010;48(5):654–657.
65.
Charkhabi M, Khalezov E, Kotova T, Baker JS, Dutheil F, Arsalidou M. School engagement of children in early grades: Psychometric, and gender comparisons. PLoS One. 2019;14(11):e0225542.
66.
Hershenson DB. Work adjustment, disability, and the three R’s of vocational rehabilitation: A conceptual model. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin. 1981;25(2):91–97.
67.
Hershenson DB. Work adjustment: A neglected area in career counseling. J Couns Dev. 1996;74(5):442–446.
68.
Hershenson DB, Szymanski EM. Career development of people with disabilities. Rehabilitation counseling: Basics and beyond. 1992;2:273–303.
69.
Strauser DR. Introduction to the centrality of work for individuals with disabilities. Career development, employment and disability in rehabilitation: From theory to practice: 2014.
70.
Leal N, Eusebio C, Rosa Md. Attitudes towards people with disabilities: A systematic literature review. Revista Brasileira de Educação Especial. 2020;26(4):689–710.
71.
Maja PA, Mann WM, Sing D, Steyn AJ, Naidoo P. Employing people with disabilities in south africa. South African Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2011;41(1):24–32.
72.
Chan F, Strauser D, Maher P, Lee EJ, Jones R, Johnson ET. Demand-side factors related to employment of people with disabilities: A survey of employers in the midwest region of the united states. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20(4):412–419.PubMed
73.
Ang MC. The challenges and benefits of employing persons with disabilities: The japanese multinational corporations’ perspective. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology. 2017;8(5):359–66.
74.
Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A., Dobránszki J. Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Accountability in Research. 2015;22(1):22–40.
75.
Wu J, Lin JJH, Nian M, Hsiao Y. A solution to modeling multilevel confirmatory factor analysis with data obtained from complex survey sampling to avoid conflated parameter estimates. Front Psychol. 2017;8(1464):1–19.
76.
Fairbrother M, Martin IW. Does inequality erode social trust? results from multilevel models of US states and counties. Soc Sci Res. 2013;42(2):347–360.PubMed
77.
Wang J, Xie H, Fisher JF. Multilevel models: Applications using SAS®. Walter de Gruyter. 2011.
78.
Park S, Lake ET. Multilevel modeling of a clustered continuous outcome: Nurses’ work hours and burnout. Nurs Res. 2005;54(6):406–413.PubMedPubMedCentral
79.
Mustafaraj J. The importance of automatic thought’s evaluation through cognitive–behavioral therapy in patients with generalized anxiety disorder. European Journal of Social Science Education and Research. 2015;2(4):86–93.
80.
Biesta G, Filippakou O, Wainwright E, Aldridge D. Why educational research should not just solve problems, but should cause them as well. Br Edu Res J. 2019;45(1):1–4.
81.
Grimm P. Social desirability bias. In: Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing. American Cancer Society; 2010.
82.
Lynch NC, Lynch MF, Cullinan CP. Managing the going concern risk in an uncertain environment: Certified public accountant. The CPA Journal. 2020;90(5):34–41.
83.
Chen H, Rossi PH. The theory-driven approach to validity. Eval Program Plann. 1987;10(1):95–103.
84.
Adriaenssen DJ, Johannessen J. Conceptual generalisation: Methodological reflections in social science a systemic viewpoint. Kybernetes. 2015;44(4):588–605.
85.
Fuqua DR, Rathbun M, Gade EM. A comparison of employer attitudes toward the worker problems of eight types of disabled workers. J Appl Rehabil Couns. 1984;15(1):40–43.
86.
Cebisa ZE. The accommodation of people with disabilities within transnet's workforce in KwaZulu- natal.[dissertation]. University of Kwazulu-Natal; 2018.
87.
Jooste C, Strydom J, Berndt A, du Plessis F. Applied strategic marketing. Pearson. 2012.
88.
Graffam J, Shinkfield A, Smith K, Polzin U. Factors that influence employer decisions in hiring and retaining an employee with a disability. J Vocat Rehabil. 2002;17(3):175–181.
89.
Lindsay S, Cagliostro E, Albarico M, Mortaji N, Karon L. A systematic review of the benefits of hiring people with disabilities. J Occup Rehabil. 2018;28(4):634–655.PubMed
90.
Morgan RL, Alexander M. The employer’s perception: Employment of individuals with developmental disabilities. J Vocat Rehabil. 2005;23(1):39–49.
Metadaten
Titel
Developing a Multilevel Scale to Assess Retention of Workers with Disabilities
verfasst von
Miri Krisi
Eyal Eckhaus
Revital Nagar
Publikationsdatum
09.06.2021
Verlag
Springer US
Schlagwort
COVID-19
Erschienen in
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation / Ausgabe 1/2022
Print ISSN: 1053-0487
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-3688
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-021-09984-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2022

Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 1/2022 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

The Value Filter: A Novel Framework for Psychosocial Adjustment to Traumatic Upper Extremity Amputation

OriginalPaper

Prevalence, Predictors and Wage Replacement Duration Associated with Diagnostic Imaging in Australian Workers with Accepted Claims for Low Back Pain: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OriginalPaper

First Contact Practitioners’ (FCPs) and General Practitioners’ Perceptions Towards FCPs Delivering Vocational Advice to Patients with Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Qualitative Investigation of the Implementation Potential of the I-SWAP Initiative

Review

A Scoping Review of the Benefits and Challenges of Using Service Dogs for Finding and Maintaining Employment

OriginalPaper

Matching Perceived Physical Capacity and Work Demands: A New Classification of the Modified Spinal Function Sort (M-SFS)

Meta Review

Barriers and Facilitators Associated with Return to Work Following Minor to Serious Road Traffic Musculoskeletal Injuries: A Systematic Review