Showing 1 – 9 of 9 results.
Self-published
A11y in Sci Professional Development Resources Study (ICPSR 237431)
Released/updated on: 2025-09-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This was a two phase qualitative content analysis of free professional development resources addressing technology accessibility in K-12. Five research questions guided the study. Phase 1 examined questions 1-3 and Phase 2 examined questions 4-5. The research questions were:
1. What is the nature of the asynchronous K-12 technology accessibility professional development resources (e.g., format, size, platform) that are readily available online?
2. Which audience(s) do the professional development resources explicitly or tacitly target?
3. What K-12 contexts do the professional development resources explicitly address?
4. What K-12 technology accessibility information do the professional development resources contain?
5. What pedagogical approaches and assumptions (i.e., Universal Design for learning, Case Based Learning, accessibility, prior knowledge) shaped the professional development resource?
Curated
Annual Housing Survey, 1979 [United States]: SMSA Files (ICPSR 8264)
Released/updated on: 2008-08-22
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, Milwaukee, United States, Grand Rapids, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Omaha, Colorado, Honolulu, Denver, Wisconsin, Las Vegas, Buffalo, Nevada, Seattle, Raleigh, Chicago, Hawaii, Florida, New York (state), Miami, Baltimore, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Portland (Oregon), Ohio, Hartford, Maryland, Houston
This data collection provides information on the characteristics of the housing inventory in 15 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs). Data include year the structure was built, type and number of living quarters, occupancy status, presence of commercial establishments on the property, presence of a garage, and property value. Additional data focus on kitchen and plumbing facilities, type of heating fuel used, source of water, sewage disposal, and heating and air conditioning equipment. Information about housing expenses includes mortgage or rent payments, utility costs, garbage collection fees, property insurance, and real estate taxes as well as repairs, additions, or alterations to the property. Similar data are provided for housing units previously occupied by respondents who had recently moved. Indicators of housing and neighborhood quality are also supplied. Housing quality variables include privacy of bedrooms, condition of kitchen facilities, basement or roof leakage, presence of cracks or holes in walls, ceilings, or floor, reliability of plumbing and heating equipment, and concealed electrical wiring. The presence of storm doors and windows and insulation was also noted. Neighborhood quality variables indicate presence of and objection to street noise, odors, crime, litter, and rundown and abandoned structures, as well as the adequacy of street lighting, public transportation, public parks, schools, shopping facilities, and police and fire protection. Extensive information on the ability of handicapped persons to move around their homes is also provided. Respondents were asked if they needed special equipment, or the help of another person to move around. They were also asked about the presence or need for housing features to aid their movement, such as ramps, braille lettering, elevators, and extra wide doors. In addition to housing characteristics, demographic data for household members are provided, including sex, age, race, income, marital status, and household relationship. Additional data are available for the household head, including Hispanic origin, length of residence, and travel-to-work information.
Curated
Annual Housing Survey, 1980 [United States]: SMSA Files (ICPSR 8257)
Released/updated on: 2007-11-01
Geographic coverage: Warwick, Oklahoma City, Indiana, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Grand Rapids, Louisville, Alabama, Arkansas, Utah, Washington, Albany (New York), New York City, Pawtucket, Massachusetts, Missouri, Salt Lake City, Memphis, St. Louis, Saginaw, Ogden, Rhode Island, Schenectady, Allentown, Sacramento, Providence, Kentucky, Bethlehem, California, New York (state), Birmingham, New Jersey, Michigan, Troy, Mississippi, Baltimore, Illinois, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Indianapolis
This data collection provides information on the characteristics of the housing inventory in 15 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs). Data include year the structure was built, type and number of living quarters, occupancy status, presence of commercial establishments on the property, presence of a garage, and property value. Additional data focus on kitchen and plumbing facilities, type of heating fuel used, source of water, sewage disposal, and heating and air conditioning equipment. Information about housing expenses includes mortgage or rent payments, utility costs, garbage collection fees, property insurance, real estate taxes, and repairs, additions, or alterations to the property. Similar data are provided for housing units previously occupied by respondents who had recently moved. Indicators of housing and neighborhood quality are also supplied. Housing quality variables include privacy of bedrooms, condition of kitchen facilities, basement or roof leakage, presence of cracks or holes in walls, ceilings, or floor, reliability of plumbing and heating equipment, and concealed electrical wiring. The presence of storm doors and windows and insulation was also noted. Neighborhood quality variables indicate presence of and objection to street noise, odors, crime, litter, and rundown and abandoned structures, as well as the adequacy of street lighting, public transportation, public parks, schools, shopping facilities, and police and fire protection. Extensive information on the ability of handicapped persons to move around their homes is also provided. Respondents were asked if they needed special equipment, or the help of another person to move around. They were also asked about the presence or need for housing features to aid their movement, such as ramps, braille lettering, elevators, and extra wide doors. In addition to housing characteristics, demographic data for household members are provided, including sex, age, race, income, marital status, and household relationship. Additional data are available for the household head, including Hispanic origin, length of residence, and travel-to-work information.
Curated
Annual Housing Survey, 1982 [United States]: SMSA Files (ICPSR 8310)
Released/updated on: 2008-09-03
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Milwaukee, Madison, Newport News, Indiana, United States, Kansas City (Kansas), Cincinnati, Oakland, San Diego, Atlanta, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Columbus (Ohio), New Orleans, Springfield (Massachusetts), Wisconsin, San Bernardino, San Antonio, Chicago, Kentucky, Rochester (New York), Passaic, Clifton, California, Kansas, Florida, New York (state), New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Miami, San Francisco, Paterson, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Portland (Oregon), Louisiana, Ohio, Ontario (California), Hartford, Georgia, Virginia, Colorado Springs, Philadelphia, Riverside
This data collection provides information on the characteristics of the housing inventory in 12 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs). Data include year the structure was built, type and number of living quarters, occupancy status, presence of commercial establishments on the property, presence of a garage, and property value. Additional data focus on kitchen and plumbing facilities, type of heating fuel used, source of water, sewage disposal, and heating and air conditioning equipment. Information about housing expenses includes mortgage or rent payments, utility costs, garbage collection fees, property insurance, and real estate taxes as well as repairs, additions, or alterations to the property. Similar data are provided for housing units previously occupied by respondents who had recently moved. Indicators of housing and neighborhood quality are also supplied. Housing quality variables include privacy of bedrooms, condition of kitchen facilities, basement or roof leakage, presence of cracks or holes in walls, ceilings, or floor, reliability of plumbing and heating equipment, and concealed electrical wiring. The presence of storm doors and windows and insulation was also noted. Neighborhood quality variables indicate presence of and objection to street noise, odors, crime, litter, and rundown and abandoned structures, as well as the adequacy of street lighting, public transportation, public parks, schools, shopping facilities, and police and fire protection. Extensive information on the ability of handicapped persons to move around their homes is also provided. Respondents were asked if they needed special equipment, or the help of another person to move around. They were also asked about the presence or need for housing features to aid their movement, such as ramps, braille lettering, elevators, and extra wide doors. In addition to housing characteristics, demographic data for household members are provided, including sex, age, race, income, marital status, and household relationship. Additional data are available for the household head, including Hispanic origin, length of residence, and travel-to-work information.
Curated
Eurobarometer 54.2: Impact of New Technologies, Employment and Social Affairs, and Disabilities, January-February 2001 (ICPSR 3211)
Released/updated on: 2008-08-14
Geographic coverage: Europe, United Kingdom, Portugal, Global, Spain, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Belgium, Norway, Luxembourg, Ireland, Finland, Denmark, Italy, France, Germany
Time period: 2001-01-02--2001-02-06
This round of Eurobarometer surveys diverged from a focus on standard Eurobarometer measures, and instead assessed respondents' views on the perceived impact of new technologies, employment, moving, and issues related to people with disabilities. Interviews began by asking respondents if they felt important changes in the world were impacting them personally, how they felt about these changes, and what the impact of new technologies would be over the next five to ten years in terms of their daily lives, access to information, free time, feelings of security, risk of accidents, household chores, family and social relationships, and deterrence of criminal activities. They were asked how much they agreed that new technologies would reduce income inequalities, differences in educational and cultural opportunities, and the number of people excluded from society, as well as improve people's participation in the political process, create more possibilities for expressing one's opinions, provide more access to political representatives and the civil service via the Internet, and promote on-line voting for elections and referenda. Responses were also sought regarding who respondents felt benefited most from the Internet, if they had concerns about voting on-line, and who should deal with new ethical issues brought about by new technologies. Respondents were further questioned about whether they thought that over the next five to ten years people in general would undertake more or less work-related training, experience more or less work-related stress, change jobs more or less than today, work more or less hours per week, retire earlier or later, and what impact new technologies would have on employment opportunities. They were asked to what extent they agreed that it was necessary to master new technologies to find or keep a job, that the educational system taught new technology effectively, and that all pupils should have full access to new technologies, as well as who they thought should pay for work-related training on new technologies. Respondents with a job were asked how satisfied they were with their job in terms of earnings, job security, type of work, number of working hours, start and end times, length of travel time, how many times they had changed jobs in the last five years, how similar the skills required for their current job were to their previous job, and the reason for changing jobs. Those who thought they would change jobs in the next five years were asked if they thought the required skills would be similar or different and what would encourage them to make the change. Those who hadn't changed jobs in the last five years or didn't plan to change jobs in the next five years were asked why. All respondents with a job were also asked if they thought they would need new skills to improve future job prospects, if in the last year they had participated in training to improve their skills, and why they wanted or didn't want to improve their job skills. Respondents were next asked if they had moved in the last ten years or if they intended to move in the next five years. Those who had moved or intended to move were asked where, i.e., within the same city, different city-same region, different region-same country, different European Union (EU) country, or outside of the EU, and the reason for the move. Those not having moved and not intending to move were asked why not. All respondents were asked whether they would prefer to remain in their current region of residence or move to another region if they were unemployed, to what extent moving to a different geographical location in the next five years would improve their job prospects, if they would be willing to live in another EU country with a different language, how they felt about the number of foreigners in their country, and whether better career prospects, financial circumstances, social benefits, public services, or social life would encourage them to move. On the subject of the disabled, respondents were asked if they personally knew anyone (including a family member, friend, acquaintance, neighbor, colleague, client, pupil/student, or other) with a disability or infirmity that limited their activities, how at ease they felt in the presence of people with disabilities, and how at ease people in general felt in the presence of people with disabilities. They were asked how difficult they thought it was for certain groups of people with disabilities (i.e., blind, deaf, physically and intellectually disabled people) to access public transport and services, restaurants, university or school, their work place, sports events, and cultural events, whether access to public places for people with disabilities had improved over the last ten years, who was actually responsible for making improvements in these matters (e.g., local authorities, national government, nongovernmental organizations, the EU, etc.), and who should be responsible. They were asked to indicate how aware they were of each of 21 types of disabilities (e.g., visual, hearing, neuromuscular, skeletal, arthritis, cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and others), what percent of the population in their country had a physical disability, how strongly they agreed that disabled persons should be more involved in society, that more money should be spent on removing physical barriers, and that children with disabilities should be taught in the same schools as other children, and whether they would feel at ease with a person in a wheelchair as their boss, next-door neighbor, colleague, a politician, an artist, a teacher, or a shop worker. Standard demographic information collected includes age, sex, occupation, nationality, marital status, vote intention, age at completion of full-time education, number of people in household, number of children under 15 in household, household income, size of locality, region of residence, religiousity, and language of interview (for select countries).
Curated
Partially restricted
Simple Crosstabs
Multi-method Community Inquiry (R2 Part B): Surveys of Community Members, Detroit and Flint, Michigan, 2019-2022 (ICPSR 38534)
Released/updated on: 2024-10-29
Geographic coverage: Detroit, Flint, United States, Michigan
Time period: 2019-11-01--2022-07-31
Multi-method Community Inquiry (R2 Part B): Surveys of Community Members was the second of a three-part study designed to enhance understanding of the complex interactions between the person and environment that are associated with healthy aging for individuals with long-term physical disabilities from low-income and minority communities and to identify best practices related to impactful policies, programs, and resources.
This study used cross-sectional surveys to identify environmental factors that support healthy aging among individuals with long-term physical disabilities from low-income and minority communities. The specific research questions in this project are:
- What kinds of systems, policies, and community programs do adults with physical disabilities use and how helpful do they perceive them to be?
- Does the use of these social recourses improve health outcomes?
- Do individuals from diverse backgrounds seem to benefit differently from the social resources available to them?
Curated
Survey of Disability and Work, 1978: [United States] (ICPSR 8491)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: United States
The Survey of Disability and Work was designed to examine the economic, medical, and social consequences of limitation in work activity for the disabled person and the person's family, including eligibility for public income-maintenance programs. This study includes information on disability program provisions and the public's knowledge of these government programs, as well as the source for this information and advice as to whether or not to apply for any of the various kinds of benefits. Other objectives of this survey were to examine work incentives and income adequacy as they affect a disabled person's inclination to apply for benefits or to return to the labor force once on the rolls. Measures of medical severity (in terms of symptoms and diagnoses) were established, as well as, the number and characteristics of the disabled, the proportion of different forms of health problems, national disability rates for different races and age groups, and the proportion of the disabled whose total family income falls below the poverty level. Included in this data collection are variables on the labor force, work experience and limitations, job satisfaction, attitudinal data, family income and background, government programs, and disability benefits.
Self-published
A systematic discourse analysis of how U.S. political leaders frame disability: Implications for students with disabilities (ICPSR 307656)
Released/updated on: 2026-07-06
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2025-01-01--2025-12-31
This study examined how U.S. political leaders publicly framed disability during calendar year 2025, using a systematic discourse analysis of public statements and federal legislation. It also examined how this discourse was reflected in federal education policy, including statements by the Secretary of Education and education-related bills.
The study analyzed 121 public statements about people with disabilities made by White House and Cabinet officials, and 32 federal bills introduced in 2025 that could affect the rights, services, or educational opportunities of individuals with disabilities. Statements were identified through a two-stage process that combined a custom Python-based web-scraping tool, which extracted verbatim, attributed quotations from news articles, press releases, interview transcripts, official speeches, and social media posts using the OpenAI GPT-4 API, with manual verification searches conducted in ChatGPT Plus and Perplexity AI Pro. Federal bills were identified through Congress.gov. All statements were reviewed by the authors to confirm accuracy, attribution, and date. Each statement and bill was independently scored by two human coders and by GPT-4 using an author-developed four-point rubric grounded in the social and human rights models of disability, ranging from 1 (dehumanizing) to 4 (affirming).
The data contain one record per statement, including the speaker's name and title, date, verbatim quotation, source, context, an analysis of the framing, a score from 1 (dehumanizing) to 4 (affirming), and the rationale for the score. The bills data are available on the project website and are not included in this deposit.
The study was approved by the university Institutional Review Board (March 2025) and was preregistered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/hbfe5/).
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Wheelchair Tiedown and Occupant Restraint System (WTORS) Activity in Paratransit Vehicles, 2012 (ICPSR 36970)
Released/updated on: 2017-12-20
Time period: 2012-01-01--2013-01-01
The purpose of this study was to characterize wheelchair tiedown and occupant restraint system (WTORS) usage on paratransit vehicles. A retrospective review of on-board video monitoring recordings of trips by passengers seated in Wheeled Mobility Devices (WhMDs) was conducted. Data was collected from March through October, 2012. The study was conducted using two paratransit vehicles within one metropolitan area. Along with general information about the WhMDs and other equipment used by the passengers, details of the passengers' access and use of the vehicle were recorded. Details of WTORS usage including number of tiedowns and restraints used, attachment points to the WhMD and the vehicle floor, and any improper usage were recorded. Instability of the WhMD and incidents observed while the vehicle was in motion, along with contributing factors, were recorded and described.