URC

AWARENESS OF THE ARCHITECTURAL AND INTERIOR DESIGN NEEDS
OF
INDIVIDUALS WITH PHYSICAL DISABILITIES

Ophelia Yuen

The Master's College


ABSTRACT

A possible reason for the neglect of rehabilitating public and private facilities is a lack of awareness of the architectural and interior design needs of disabled individuals caused by misconceptions. The purpose of the study was to determine the extent of awareness of the architectural and interior design needs of people with physical disabilities. The study’s survey instrument, which was distributed to students attending The Master’s College during the Spring semester, 2004, requested demographic data in addition to the responses to the six Likert-type survey questions and reflected that (a) current architectural and interior designs that subjects have encountered do not allow adequate access for people with physical disabilities and (b) sampled students of The Master's College are not fully aware of the architectural and interior design needs of individuals that are physically disabled. Therefore, from the information gathered from the Review of the Literature and the survey instrument, it is concluded that even though there has been an increase of accessibility in architectural and interior design, the community still does not have complete awareness of the architectural and interior design needs of individuals with physical disabilities.

INTRODUCTION

A person with disabilities is defined as a person that has “a speech, hearing or vision problem, may be learning disabled, crippled, or mentally or emotionally disturbed” (Educational Facilities Laboratories and the National Endowment for the Arts, introduction, p.6). According to the 2000 U.S. Census, one of every five people from ages five and older, have a disability (Freedman, Martin, & Schoeni, 2004). The reason for limited access by people with disabilities in many private and public areas is unknown. This problem statement was categorized as descriptive research because it “attempts to describe systematically, factually, and accurately” society’s perception of the architectural and interior design needs of people with physical disabilities (Joseph & Joseph, 1986, p. 9). Therefore, the purpose of the study was to determine the extent of awareness of the architectural and interior design needs of individuals with physically disabilities.

Individuals with Physical Disabilities

Individuals with physical disabilities consist of approximately 54 million Americans (The White House, 2001). This figure, however, does not include the many people who are temporarily impaired for some period of time due to accidents or illness. There are many different groups of people that fit in the category of physically disabled. Some are paraplegics, whose legs are paralyzed. Others are quadriplegics, who have paralysis of their arms and legs or of their entire body below the neck. Many individuals are impaired because they have diseases such as cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, or spina bifida. A few other causes of physical disabilities include prenatal exposure to harmful chemicals, abnormal development of limbs, and spinal cord injury. Although some people with physical disabilities are completely confined to a wheelchair or bed, others can walk around without even being noticed as individuals that have limitations. These people may have speech, hearing, or visual impairments, which vary in degrees of severity. For example, someone with a hearing loss can either be hard of hearing or completely deaf.

Therefore, the community of the are physically disabled consists of individuals with very disparate characteristics and lifestyles. Nonetheless, as a group, they do agree on how they should be identified and viewed by others that are not disabled. In referring to actual people, adjectives such as “disabled”, “physically disabled”, and especially “handicapped” should not be employed as nouns. They prefer to be known as people first and not by their impairment. These individuals also desire to be seen as part of regular society and not as a special group that should be separated from the rest of the world. Even though they may possess limitations, they still aim for integration and achievement in the world.

Attitudes Toward and Perceptions of Individuals with Physical Disabilities

Participation in community activities and in the arts is difficult, however, due to attitudinal barriers. According to Lifchez and Winslow, authors of Design for Independent Living: The Environment and Physically Disabled People, society isolates those that depict what is unfavorable in life, and thus, segregates individuals with impairments (Lifchez & Winslow, 1979). As an outcome, there is discrimination in employment and in service. Some people even ignore the topic of physical disabilities. Pam Cluff, an architect, designer, and pioneer in the movement of accessibility by design in Canada, stated in an interview, “People were defensive and seemed almost embarrassed that this was an issue” (Farkas, Winter 1999, pp.10-13).

Architectural and interior designs are often based on the idea of the average man. Many people also pity those with disabilities because they believe there is little that can be done to assist people with physical impairments. Due to the impression that most people fit in a particular standard and the perception that individuals who are physically impaired cannot be helped, architects and designers often neglect the needs of the latter group.

Research conducted at Colorado State University supports this view (Chang, Tremblay, & Dunbar, 2000). This study, devised to examine design students’ knowledge of universal design and their attitudes toward people with physical disabilities, involved the participation in a teaching unit on universal design and the completion of a pre-and post-test attitudinal survey. Results revealed that the mind-set of the interior design students toward people with physical disabilities was significantly more positive at the end than the beginning of the experiment.

Historical Overview

History also illustrates the misconceptions and lack of awareness of the needs of individuals who are physically impaired. The first national endeavor to rectify structural hindrances to accessibility in the United States was in 1959. The President’s Committee on Employment of the Handicapped, the National Society for Crippled Children and Adults, and the American Standards Association labored together to set a list of guidelines that became a part of legislation (Welsh & Blasch, 1980). Prior to this, those who were physically limited lived in segregated housing and were hindered from participating in the arts, such as visiting museums, and theaters. In extreme cases, some people considered them to be inferior beings.

However, society slowly began to change its view and to recognize the problem of structural barriers in architectural and interior designs. Modifications of public buildings such as residential complexes, post offices, and schools gradually became more and more frequent. In 1969, the international symbol of accessibility was adopted. In addition, the government assumed a greater role in facilitating accessibility. Finally, new and influential legislation arose in the second half of the twentieth century.

The Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, the first law that significantly assisted the needs of individuals with physical limitations, gave birth to the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Milner, n.d.; Welsh & Blasch, 1980). This committee oversaw the construction of buildings in order to guarantee that accessibility standards were met. It could carry out investigations, withhold funds for construction, and hold public hearings. Another law entitled the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 influenced the architectural and interior designs of college and university campuses (Milner, n.d.). These recipients of government funding were commanded to alter their facilities and services to enhance accessibility for people with physical disabilities. Consequently, rehabilitation and new construction of buildings were made with little delay. A more recent law passed by the federal government was the Americans with Disabilities Act. Passed on July 26, 1990 by Congress, this law prohibited and continues to prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities in five main areas: employment, public services, public accommodations, telecommunications, and miscellaneous provisions (The White House, 2001). This law made considerable changes and additions to past legislation, ensuring people who have impairments greater access to public facilities than before. Many standards set by these new laws, along with those created by the state and local authorities, took the form of building codes. Although building codes were originally applicable to new buildings, they became enforced in facilities that were already built.

Architectural Design Barriers and Needs

Many public buildings and houses are built so that individuals with physical handicaps have difficulty getting in, out, and around the structure. The list of structural barriers in architecture comprises a myriad of obstacles that most architects fail to recognize previous to construction. Studies reveal that these hazards can cause serious injuries. For instance, approximately 14% of falls take place on stairs (Dickinson, Shroyer, Elias, Curry, & Cook, 2004). Remedies for these obstructions, though, can be quite simple. A small ramp and/or elevator can be a supplement to stairs to serve those who use crutches or a wheelchair. The sides of escalators can be extended to the floor so that someone who is blind would not bump his/her head on its underside. All architectural impediments, no matter how big, can be replaced so that the needs of individuals with disabilities can be fulfilled. Some specific architectural design needs include:

  • larger bathrooms with adequate space to maneuver a wheelchair.
  • lower kitchen cabinets in order that all can reach.
  • handrails for support next to stairs, toilets, and bathtubs.
  • ramps and/or elevators in multi-leveled buildings.
  • knee space under bathroom and kitchen sinks in order that people in wheelchairs can be more comfortable while using the sinks.
  • mounted telephones that do not protrude so that it is not in the pathway of someone who can not see.
  • audio and visual feedback in elevators for individuals who are blind and hard of hearing.

Interior Design Barriers and Needs

Obstacles that derive from the design of the interior of the facility exist in addition to barriers that may be part of the actual building. Studies have found that interior design hazards lead to one-third to one-half of all falls (Dickinson, et al., 2004). Similar to the obstructions that may be present in architecture, these problems can also be easily fixed with an alternate design. Instead of round knobs, there should be loop handles. Cushions on chairs and sofas should be firm enough so that a person would not sink into the seat and would not need to struggle to arise from it. With some thought, interior designers can easily create new imaginative and more accessible designs that can meet their clients’ particular needs. Some specific interior design needs include:

  • dense, tightly woven carpeting for smoother and safer movement around the room.
  • side-by-side refrigerator and freezer for better access for those in wheelchairs.
  • pullout shelves so that one does not have to reach.
  • lever-type faucets to make handles less difficult to turn.
  • no wall fixtures that are low enough for a person to bump.
  • light-weight doors so that there is more ease when opening and closing the doors for an individual who is weak or uses a wheelchair or crutches.

Universal Design

Although some designs make accessibility impossible for people with physical disabilities, there are several designs that accommodate them but, at the same time, are inconvenient to others. Therefore, designers have invented the idea of universal design, “which holds that everything from buildings to city buses to cameras should be designed for use by the greatest number of people, whether they are disabled, or simply don’t fit the mold of the 6-foot tall, white male around which much of society is organized” (Wagner, August 1992, p.74). Based on seven principles, universal design can create environments that heighten accessibility for people with and without impairments.

Any public or private building that originates from universal design must align with seven principles or characteristics (Hoffsette, n.d.).

  • The first standard is “equitable use.” This implies that the design is useful and convenient for individuals of diverse capabilities. Automatic faucets, for example, can be helpful to a young child who normally would not be tall enough to reach a faucet handle or to a person who does not have the physical strength to turn it.
  • The second guideline is “flexibility in use.” The design must allow adaptability to individuals with a wide spectrum of inclinations and abilities. For instance, a sloping curb is flexible and can be used by anyone regardless of physical limitations.
  • “Simple and intuitive use,” the next criterion in universal design, suggests that the design is straightforward and comprehendible despite the person’s awareness or experience. An illustration of this concept is audio feedback in an elevator which informs the people in the elevator the floor where they have just arrived.
  • The fourth principle of “perceptible information” requires that the design successfully communicates the necessary information to the user no matter the user’s knowledge or abilities. A restroom sign with large letters, a picture indicating gender, and Braille would satisfy this requirement.
  • Standard five is called “tolerance of error.” This indicates that the design must reduce dangers and the chances of accidents. An example would be handrails in the bathtub, which are employed for balance and support.
  • The next guideline, “low physical effort,” denotes that the user should be able to proficiently put to work the design with a minimum amount of exhaustion. A design that fits this description would be automatic doors that open when an individual simply walks up to them.
  • The last principle is “size and space for approach and use.” This means that the design should maintain an appropriate shape and adequate dimensions to serve anyone regardless of his size, posture, or mobility. Bathroom stalls made specifically for people with disabilities have plenty of space and are examples of this principle.

The philosophy of universal design became popular in the twenty-first century. This concept is gaining wider respect due to the fact that environments which hold to this design are extremely versatile and effective. As more and more architects and designers come to the realization that there is a tremendous need for more barrier-free environments, this concept will increase accessibility to not only individuals with impairments but also the rest of the population.

Present Conditions    

In a study executed in 1996, students in a retail marketing class of Rutgers University were required to observe and carry out a typical shopping trip. They emulated customers with mobility disabilities through the use of wheelchairs, motorized carts, leg braces, or crutches. These students revealed that the goal of the Americans with Disability Act had not been attained in many retail environments (Kaufman-Scarborough , 1999). Furthermore, out of the retailers who did not comply with the legislation, some did not demonstrate any desire to go beyond what was required to make the environment as accessible as possible to all their customers.

However, the past decade has produced more developments in architecture and interior design for aiding accessibility for people with physical disabilities. Elevators and ramps are readily found in multi-leveled buildings. Public housing programs now accommodate those with extra needs. A pilot study was conducted “to compare functional access to public buildings and facilities for persons with and without impairments” (Thapar, Warner, Drainoni, Williams, Ditchfield, Wierbicky, & Nesathurai, 2004, abstract). Four people, three of whom had physical disabilities, utilized a task-oriented data collection instrument in order to decide functional accessibility in regards to percentage of jobs completed, time, distance, barriers, and facilitators. The conclusion of this experiment was that task performance received high percentages for each of the four participants.

Furthermore, classes intended to educate architectural and interior design students about barrier-free designs and accessibility regulations are offered in greater numbers. At Cornell University, students in an interior design class had to explore the needs of individuals who are physically impaired individuals and how they would employ the surrounding space (Lang, March 2002). They were assigned to construct a residence hall suite for students with sensory or motor disabilities. Additionally, other students of the interior design class completed many projects such as indoor mini-playgrounds for child care programs, residential spaces for patients with Alzheimer’s disease, and shared-use spaces for individuals with dementia who live in assisted-living facilities.

The government is also continuing its participation in solving the problem of inaccessibility; on February 1, 2001, President George W. Bush commenced a new program known as the New Freedom Initiative (United States Department of Health and Human Services, 2003). This plan is designed to promote more opportunities for the population with disabilities in all areas of life. The New Freedom Initiative intends to remove structural and attitudinal barriers to enhance accessibility and to achieve many other goals with this program.

Overall, the Review of the Literature suggests that current accessibility conditions have improved from the conditions of the past. A greater percentage of the population is more aware of the architectural and interior design needs of individuals with physical disabilities. However, there are still additional attitudinal and structural obstacles that must be addressed.

 

METHOD

The purpose of the study was to determine the extent of awareness of the architectural and interior design needs of individuals with physical disabilities. The following research questions provided the focus of this study:

1. Do current architectural and interior designs allow adequate access for people with physical disabilities?

2. Are students of The Master's College aware of the architectural and interior design needs of individuals that are physically disabled?

Method of Data Collection

The survey instrument used in this study was designed to collect data to measure awareness of the architectural and interior design needs of individuals with physical disabilities.  It consisted of 6 Likert-type survey questions and 3 yes-no demographic questions. The Likert-type attitudinal scale employed in the survey ranged from 1, denoting “Not at all”, to 4, denoting “All the time.”  The survey instrument was distributed to students attending The Master’s College during the Spring semester, 2004. Copies of the survey instrument were circulated via hand distribution and the campus mail. They were returned to the researcher directly and through the campus mail.

Statistical Procedures

STATPAK was employed to examine the data; the scale of measurement was ordinal. This scale of measurement is one “in which the measurement categories form a rank order along a continuum” (Brown & Cozby, 1999, p.372). The one-dimensional Chi-square test measured “the significance of frequencies occurring in different categories or groups” (Gay, 1992, p.443). The 0.05 level of significance was used in this study. Data retrieved from the demographic portion of the survey instrument was reported in percentages, tables, and figures.

RESULTS

The subjects sampled for this study comprised students attending The Master’s College during the spring semester of 2004. One hundred thirty-two copies of the survey instrument were distributed; 27 were returned and 27 were used in this study. The study indicated that 92.6% of the subjects knew of a person who is physically impaired; 7.4% did not know of a person who is physically impaired. Out of the survey population, 33.3% had a history of physical impairment while 66.6% did not. In addition, data revealed that 29.6% of the sample population had a history of taking care of a person with a physical disability; 70.4% of the sample population did not have a history of taking care of a person with a physical disability. Table 1 summarizes the survey responses.

Research Question One

Do current architectural and interior designs allow adequate access for people with physical disabilities? Questions 1, 2, and 3 of the survey instrument located in Appendix A addressed this research question.

Since the computed Chi-square values for questions 1, 2, and 3 are less than the tabled Chi-square values at the 0.05 level of significance, it can be concluded that there is not a statistically significant difference between the students who answered “1” and the students who answered “4,” thereby suggesting that (a) the students did not often see ramps at public facilities with multiple levels; (b) the students did not often see family restrooms at public facilities; and (c) the students did not often encounter street intersections with sounds that signify “Stop” and “Walk” for people with visual impairments.

The finding from question 1 supports the findings of the study by students of Rutgers University, which concluded that many retailers did not fully comply with the Americans with Disability Act (Kaufman-Scarborough , 1999). The result from question 2, on the other hand, deviates from the experiment carried out by Neela Thapar and her team, who found that all participants of the experiment, including those with physical disabilities, received high percentages in task performance in public buildings (Thapar, et al., 2004), while the finding from question 3 coincides with the research conducted in 1996 in New Jersey that many environments remained not fully accessible (Kaufman-Scarborough , 1999).

Research Question Two

Are students of The Master's College aware of the architectural and interior design needs of individuals that are physically disabled? Questions 4, 5, and 6 of the survey instrument located in Appendix A addressed this research question.

Since the computed Chi-square values for questions 4, 5, and 6 are less than the tabled Chi-square values at the 0.05 level of significance, it can be concluded that there is not a statistically significant difference between the students who answered “1” and the students who answered “4,” thereby implying that (a) the students did not often notice the height of sinks in restrooms and kitchens in public facilities; (b) the students believed that handrails do not have to be on both sides of stairs in public facilities according to federal regulations while, in actuality, federal laws do require that handrails be on both sides of stairs in public environments (The Access Board, n.d); and (c) the students understood that Braille is often not located next to the corresponding text. Braille is always placed under the corresponding text (International Braille Research Center, 1997).

The result from question 4 deviates from the project conducted at Cornell University, in which students successfully explored the needs of individuals who are physically impaired and how they would employ the surrounding space (Lang, March 2002). The finding from question 5 supports the finding of the experiment conducted at Colorado State University, which discovered that the mind-set of the interior design students toward people with physical disabilities were significantly more positive at the end than the beginning of a course educating them about individuals who are physically impaired (Chang, et al., Fall 2000). The finding from question 6, however, aligns with a study conducted at Cornell University. Students who participated in the study successfully explored the needs of individuals who are physically impaired (Lang, March 2002).

Table 1
Summary of Responses to Survey Questions

SURVEY QUESTION

 SCALE NUMBER

TOTAL
RESPONSES

COMPUTED
CHI-SQUARE VALUE

 TABLED
CHI-SQUARE VALUE

1

2

3

4

No Response

 

1

 

2

 

9

 

3

 

11

 

2

 

25

 

9.5342

 

36.4200

 

2

 

13

 

4

 

5

 

5

 

0

 

27

 

18.2500

 

38.8800

 

3

 

14

 

6

 

4

 

3

 

0

 

27

 

15.8800

 

38.8800

 

4

 

10

 

8

 

6

 

3

 

0

 

27

 

13.4286

 

38.8800

 

5

 

2

 

1

 

4

 

17

 

3

 

24

 

5.7143

 

35.1700

 

6

 

8

 

9

 

6

 

3

 

1

 

26

 

11.7857

 

37.6500

Findings

The results of the one-dimensional Chi-square test suggest that students did not often see ramps at public facilities with multiple levels; they did not often see family restrooms at public facilities; they did not often encounter street intersections with sounds that signify “Stop” and “Walk” for people with visual impairments; they did not often notice the height of sinks in restrooms and kitchens in public facilities; they believed that handrails do not have to be on both sides of stairs in public facilities according to federal regulations; lastly, students understood that Braille is often not located next to the corresponding text.

DISCUSSION

Within the stated purpose and findings of this study, the following conclusions appear warranted:

  1. Current architectural and interior designs that subjects have encountered do not allow adequate access for people with physical disabilities.
  2. Sampled students of The Master's College are not fully aware of the architectural and interior design needs of individuals that are physically disabled.

The Review of the Literature indicates that although more attempts are being made for greater accessibility in architecture and interior design, current facilities are still not completely accessible to everyone. This is due to the lack of awareness of the needs of people with physical impairments. Architects and interior designers must come to the realization that approximately one out of every five Americans are physically disabled (Freedman, Martin, & Schoeni, 2004) and that the lack of attentiveness to and knowledge of this group’s needs can lead to many injuries. However, increased awareness should not only occur within the circle of architectural and interior design. As this study reveals, many people, such as students of The Master's College, are not completely aware of the needs of people with physical disabilities. Therefore, many more steps must be taken to educate the general population about individuals with physical needs and ways to accommodate to them. It is only through the learning about and interaction with individuals with physical impairments that attitudinal and structural barriers be removed and full integration can emerge.

However, due to the limited scope of this study, there are many aspects of this problem that may not have been covered or determined. Consequently, further research is warranted regarding the awareness of the architectural and interior design needs of individuals with physical disabilities.

Recommendations for Further Study

This study provides some information regarding the reason for limited access by people with disabilities in many private and public areas. Additional questions pertaining to the reason for limited access by people with disabilities in many private and public areas warrant further investigation; possibilities for further research and study include using a different population:

  1. To determine the reason for limited access by people with disabilities in many private and public areas,
  2. To determine the difference in degrees of accessibility of private and public facilities in the United States and in another country.
  3. To research the development of perceptions of and attitudes towards individuals with physical disabilities,
  4. To conduct an experimental research that contrasts the interaction of architects and interior designers with people that have physical impairments and the interaction of architects and interior designers with those lacking physical impairments,
  5. To study the various ways of accommodating to people who have physical disabilities in architectural and interior design, and
  6. To observe and analyze the effects of a course designed to address the needs of individuals with physical disabilities.

 

REFERENCES

Brown, K. W., & Cozby, P. C. (1999). Research methods in human development. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Chang, B. V., Tremblay, K. R., Jr., Dunbar, B. H. (2000, Fall). An experimental approach to teaching universal design. Education, 121(1), 153-158. Retrieved January 28, 2004, from ProQuest database.

Dickinson, J. I., Shroyer, J. L., Elias, J. W., Curry, Z. D., & Cook, C. E. (2004, April). Preventing falls with interior design. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences, 96 (2), 13-20.

Educational Facilities Laboratories, & The National Endowment for the Arts. (1975). Arts and the handicapped: an issue of access. New York, NY: Educational Facilities Laboratories.

Farkas, S. (1999, Winter). Access by design. We International, 46-49, 10-13. Retrieved February 14, 2004, from ProQuest database.

Freedman, V. A., Martin, L. G., & Schoeni, R. F. (2004, September). Disability in America. Population Bulletin, 5 (3), 3-32. Retrieved March 10, 2005, from FirstSearch database.

Gay, L. R. (1992). Educational research: competencies for analysis and application (4th ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Hoffsette, L. (n.d.). Undergraduate Research Journal for the Human Sciences. Hospitable or hospital? The need for universal design in housing. Retrieved January 29, 2004, from the Kappa Omicron Nu website: http://kon.org/urc/hoffsette.html

International Braille Research Center. (1997). Retrieved February 21, 2004, from http://www.braille.org

Joseph, M. L., & Joseph, W. D. (1986). Research fundamentals in home economics. Redondo Beach, CA: Plycon.

Kaufman-Scarborough, C. (1999, Winter). Reasonable access for mobility-disabled persons is more than widening the door. Journal of Retailing, 75(4), 479-508. Retrieved March 10, 2005, from FirstSearch database.

Lang, S. S. (2002, March). Living spaces for students with special social, behavioral, and psychological needs. Human Ecology, 30(1), 18. Retrieved January 28, 2004, from ProQuest database.

Lifchez, R., & Winslow, B. (1979). Design for independent living: the environment and physically disabled people. London: The Architectural Press, Ltd.

Milner, M. (n.d.). Adapting historic campus structures for accessibility. Washington, D.C.: Association of Physical Plant Administrators of Universities and Colleges.

Thapar, N., Warner, G., Drainoni, M., Williams, S. R., Ditchfield, H., Wierbicky, J., & Nesathurai, S. (2004, March). A pilot study of functional access to public buildings and facilities for persons with impairments. Disability and Rehabilitation, 26(5), 280-289. Retrieved March 20, 2004, from EBSCOhost database.

The Access Board. (n.d.). Accessibility guidelines and standards. Retrieved February 24, 2004, from http://www.access-board.gov/indexes/accessindex.htm

The White House. (2001, February). Executive summary: Fulfilling America’s promises to Americans with disabilities. Retrieved March 20, 2004, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/freedominitiative/freedominitiative.html

United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2003, October 16). The New Freedom Initiative. Retrieved March 21, 2004, from http://www.hhs.gov/newfreedom/ init.html.

Wagner, M. (1992, August). Right of access. Interiors, 151(8), 74-77. Retrieved March 20, 2004, from ProQuest database.

Welsch, R. L., & Blasch, B. B. (1980). Foundations of mobility and orientation. New York, NY: American Foundation for the Blind.


APPENDIX A

 

    

ARCHITECTURAL AND INTERIOR DESIGN NEEDS OF INDIVIDUALS WITH PHYSICAL DISABILITIES

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

 

Please answer all of the following questions and return to Ophelia Yuen (mailbox #2253)
by April 1, 2004.

 

1.   How often do you see ramps at public facilities with multiple levels?

Not at all          1          2          3          4          All the time

2.   How often do you see family restrooms at public facilities?

Not at all          1          2          3          4          All the time

3.      How often do you encounter street intersections with sounds that signify “Stop” and “Walk” for people with visual impairments?

Not at all          1          2          3          4          All the time

4.      How often do you notice the height of sinks in restrooms and kitchens in public facilities?

Not at all          1          2          3          4          All the time

5.      According to federal regulations, should handrails be on both sides of stairs in public facilities?

Not at all          1          2          3          4          All the time

6.      How often are Braille (a code which enables blind persons to read and write) dots located next to the corresponding text?

Not at all          1          2          3          4          All the time

7.   Do you personally know an individual that has a physical disability (is crippled or has a hearing, speech, or visual impairment)?

Yes      No

8.   Have you ever been physically impaired for a period of at least 1 week?

Yes      No

9.      Have you ever had to take care of a person with a physical disability for a period of at least 24 hours?

Yes      No

 

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey instrument. May God bless you.

 

 


URC RESOURCES:

©2002-2016 All rights reserved by the Undergraduate Research Community.

Research Journal: Vol. 1 Vol. 2 Vol. 3 Vol. 4 Vol. 5 Vol. 6 Vol. 7 Vol. 8 Vol. 9 Vol. 10 Vol. 11 Vol. 12 Vol. 13 Vol. 14 Vol. 15
High School Edition

Call for Papers ¦ URC Home ¦ Kappa Omicron Nu

KONbutton K O N KONbutton