谁是残疾人?论残疾的功能定义是否与主观定义针对相同的个体

J. Baart, W. Elbers, A. Schippers
{"title":"谁是残疾人?论残疾的功能定义是否与主观定义针对相同的个体","authors":"J. Baart, W. Elbers, A. Schippers","doi":"10.3389/frsus.2023.1163128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"With the increased attention to disability as a vulnerability criterion in the Sustainable Development Goals, international organizations and NGOs within the international development sector have started to pay explicit attention to persons with disabilities, including the collection of data on persons with disabilities. The Washington Group Short Set of Questions, which focuses on functional limitations, has been gaining popularity as an assessment tool for disability. This set of questions reflects a categorization of disability that does not necessarily correspond with subjective disability assessments, such as the yes/no question (“do you have a disability?”) which many development actors have used in their assessment tools when they collect disability data This study compares the subjective and the functional limitations assessment tools for disability to answer the question: do they identify the same individuals as persons with disabilities? Based on a survey carried out amongst persons with disabilities in Cambodia, we included both the Washington Group Short Set and a subjective question asking respondents to self-identify their disability type. We find that, although all respondents self-identified as disabled, not all respondents would be considered disabled according to the Washington Group Short Set of questions. In addition, there is little overlap between specific disability types according to a subjective classification method and the domains of functioning measured through the Washington Group methodology. Our findings affirm that categorization as abled or disabled depends on the tool used. This is important, as the assessment approach chosen by those collecting disability data can shape the design choices of policies and programs, and determine who benefits.","PeriodicalId":253319,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Sustainability","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who is disabled? On whether the functional definition of disability targets the same individuals as the subjective definition\",\"authors\":\"J. Baart, W. Elbers, A. Schippers\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/frsus.2023.1163128\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"With the increased attention to disability as a vulnerability criterion in the Sustainable Development Goals, international organizations and NGOs within the international development sector have started to pay explicit attention to persons with disabilities, including the collection of data on persons with disabilities. The Washington Group Short Set of Questions, which focuses on functional limitations, has been gaining popularity as an assessment tool for disability. This set of questions reflects a categorization of disability that does not necessarily correspond with subjective disability assessments, such as the yes/no question (“do you have a disability?”) which many development actors have used in their assessment tools when they collect disability data This study compares the subjective and the functional limitations assessment tools for disability to answer the question: do they identify the same individuals as persons with disabilities? Based on a survey carried out amongst persons with disabilities in Cambodia, we included both the Washington Group Short Set and a subjective question asking respondents to self-identify their disability type. We find that, although all respondents self-identified as disabled, not all respondents would be considered disabled according to the Washington Group Short Set of questions. In addition, there is little overlap between specific disability types according to a subjective classification method and the domains of functioning measured through the Washington Group methodology. Our findings affirm that categorization as abled or disabled depends on the tool used. This is important, as the assessment approach chosen by those collecting disability data can shape the design choices of policies and programs, and determine who benefits.\",\"PeriodicalId\":253319,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Sustainability\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Sustainability\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2023.1163128\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Sustainability","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2023.1163128","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随着可持续发展目标对残疾作为脆弱性标准的关注程度的提高,国际发展领域的国际组织和非政府组织开始明确关注残疾人,包括残疾人数据的收集。以功能限制为重点的华盛顿小组简短问题集作为残疾评估工具越来越受欢迎。这组问题反映了残疾的分类,不一定与主观残疾评估相对应,例如许多发展参与者在收集残疾数据时在评估工具中使用的是/否问题(“你有残疾吗?”)。本研究比较了残疾的主观和功能限制评估工具,以回答这个问题:它们是否将同一个人识别为残疾人?根据在柬埔寨残疾人中进行的一项调查,我们包括了华盛顿小组短集和一个主观问题,要求受访者自我确定他们的残疾类型。我们发现,尽管所有受访者都自认为是残疾人,但并非所有受访者都会根据华盛顿小组短问题集被认为是残疾人。此外,根据主观分类方法确定的特定残疾类型与通过华盛顿小组方法测量的功能领域之间几乎没有重叠。我们的研究结果证实,分类为残疾或残疾取决于所使用的工具。这一点很重要,因为收集残疾数据的人选择的评估方法可以影响政策和项目的设计选择,并决定谁受益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Who is disabled? On whether the functional definition of disability targets the same individuals as the subjective definition
With the increased attention to disability as a vulnerability criterion in the Sustainable Development Goals, international organizations and NGOs within the international development sector have started to pay explicit attention to persons with disabilities, including the collection of data on persons with disabilities. The Washington Group Short Set of Questions, which focuses on functional limitations, has been gaining popularity as an assessment tool for disability. This set of questions reflects a categorization of disability that does not necessarily correspond with subjective disability assessments, such as the yes/no question (“do you have a disability?”) which many development actors have used in their assessment tools when they collect disability data This study compares the subjective and the functional limitations assessment tools for disability to answer the question: do they identify the same individuals as persons with disabilities? Based on a survey carried out amongst persons with disabilities in Cambodia, we included both the Washington Group Short Set and a subjective question asking respondents to self-identify their disability type. We find that, although all respondents self-identified as disabled, not all respondents would be considered disabled according to the Washington Group Short Set of questions. In addition, there is little overlap between specific disability types according to a subjective classification method and the domains of functioning measured through the Washington Group methodology. Our findings affirm that categorization as abled or disabled depends on the tool used. This is important, as the assessment approach chosen by those collecting disability data can shape the design choices of policies and programs, and determine who benefits.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Campus sustainability at Rhodes University, South Africa: perceptions, awareness level, and potential interventions PET and polyolefin plastics supply chains in Michigan: present and future systems analysis of environmental and socio-economic impacts COP28 and the global stocktake: a weak attempt to address climate change Strengthening resilience: decentralized decision-making and multi-criteria analysis in the energy-water-food nexus systems Tomato disease detection with lightweight recurrent and convolutional deep learning models for sustainable and smart agriculture
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1