Disability Employment Research: Survey Design for Workforce Study
This paper presents a research proposal examining employment outcomes for workers with disabilities in the Atlanta region, with a focus on differences between small and large firms. Drawing on federal disability data limitations identified in existing national surveys, the study proposes a qualitative survey instrument designed to measure perceived job satisfaction and productivity among employed workers with and without disabilities. The paper outlines four research questions and corresponding hypotheses, details the rationale for instrument design choices, and addresses key methodological limitations including selection bias and definitional inconsistency in disability measurement. The appendices provide proposed research questions, hypotheses, and a full set of draft survey items with justifications for jury review.
- Problem Statement and Research Contribution: Gaps in national disability employment data identified
- Proposed Methods and Study Design: Survey design, sampling, and statistical analysis plan
- Limitations and Methodological Considerations: Selection bias, disclosure, and definitional confounds addressed
- Research Questions and Hypotheses: Four directional hypotheses on satisfaction and productivity
- Survey Instrument Items: Thirteen draft questions with methodological justifications
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its research gap clearly in existing federal data limitations, explaining precisely why new regional, qualitative research is needed rather than simply asserting a gap exists.
- Each proposed survey question in the appendix includes an explicit methodological justification, demonstrating awareness of construct validity, response bias, and statistical assumptions.
- The hypothesis structure is carefully tied to one-tailed versus two-tailed testing logic, showing statistical literacy integrated into the research design narrative.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper exemplifies instrument design transparency: rather than simply listing survey questions, the author explains why each item is worded as it is, what confounds it addresses, and how responses will be analyzed. This kind of methodological self-awareness — anticipating challenges like semantic ambiguity, disclosure reluctance, and classification problems — is a hallmark of rigorous social science research design.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a literature-grounded problem statement identifying gaps in national disability employment data. It then moves to a proposed methods section covering sampling rationale, instrument administration, and statistical analysis plans. A limitations section addresses selection bias and definitional inconsistency. Two appendices follow: the first presents four formal research questions with directional hypotheses and justifications; the second provides thirteen draft survey items, each with detailed rationale. The overall structure moves logically from problem to method to instrument.
Problem Statement and Research Contribution
Livermore, Whalen, Prenovitz, Aggarwal, and Bardos (2011) explain how the connection between disability, work productivity, and income benefits the whole of society by reducing reliance on tax-funded support programs (p. 1). All stakeholders have an interest in ensuring maximum productivity from all workers: if stable employment for workers with disabilities frees up resources for other public or private endeavors, and if turning tax consumers into taxpayers helps reduce the burden on those who currently pay, the social return is clear. Given public perceptions of funding constraints and the increased challenges to public services posed by an aging population majority, ensuring stable employment for everyone — especially workers with disabilities — grows more rather than less urgent over time. Even at current levels, Livermore et al. (2011) assert, "it is especially important for policymakers to have access to a wide variety of high-quality data on people with disabilities in order to better understand the needs of this population, assess how existing programs and policies are performing, and plan for the future" (p. 1).
Nonetheless, while many agencies collect data on disability and employment, "existing national disability-related survey and administrative data are limited in their ability to meet the needs of federal programs and policymakers," explain Livermore et al. (2011, p. 1). Constraints include inconsistency between definitions and metrics for disability, weakness in explaining program and service implementation, mismatch between existing administrative data, and "very limited longitudinal information" (Livermore et al., 2011, p. 1), among other opportunities for improvement. "The only large-scale national disability survey data collection effort ever conducted for the U.S. general population," they explain, was the 1994–97 National Health Interview Survey on Disability, which was useful then and as a future baseline, but demographic and economic conditions have changed enough to justify new research even were the data this dissertation aims to produce already available.
Other federal surveys — such as the American Community Survey, American Housing Survey, and Current Population Survey (CPS) — use common questions to identify various types of disability (Livermore et al., 2011, p. 4). The U.S. Department of Labor is implementing a new supplement that will improve the depth and breadth of CPS information, but CPS data is sampled nationally and does not break out particular regions. The surveys that do reveal information about local populations apparently do not identify differences in employer size. This is important because the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not cover businesses with fewer than 15 employees, the ADA "undue hardship" clause exempts employers from providing unreasonable accommodations for workers with disabilities (U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.), and the cost of accommodation would be relatively higher for small firms than for large firms with greater financial resources.
The result is that existing data lack characteristics that would help improve employment support and program performance for a population who, as Tremblay, Porter, Smith, and Weathers (2011) explain, earned enough in 2009 to graduate off Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) at a growth rate of only one half of one percent per year (p. 19). ADA notwithstanding, workers with disabilities have markedly higher rates of unemployment than non-disabled workers with equal education levels (U.S. Department of Labor, 2011). Julie Hotchkiss (2002) found that despite full implementation of ADA beginning in 1992, unemployment for workers with disabilities increased since then (p. 1), and that part-time employment has increased for workers with disabilities not because such jobs have become more qualitatively attractive, but because of health coverage policy change (Hotchkiss, 2004, p. 25). While this might sound like an improvement compared to no employment, "[p]art-time employment is often associated with jobs that have lower pay, fewer benefits, and less stability," Hotchkiss (2004) explained (p. 25), describing many confounds that distort comparisons of data from studies over time (Hotchkiss, 2002).
References
Deveau, J. L. (2011). Workplace accommodation and audit-based evaluation process for compliance with the employment equity act: Inclusionary practices that exclude — an institutional ethnography. Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, 36(3), 151–172.
Hotchkiss, J. L. (2002). A closer look at the employment impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Department of Economics, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
Hotchkiss, J. L. (2004). Growing part-time employment among workers with disabilities: Marginalization or opportunity? Economic Review (2004, Q3), 25–40. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
Kruse, D., & Schur, L. (2003). Employment of people with disabilities following the ADA. Industrial Relations, 42(1), 31–66.
Kukla, M., & Bond, G. (2012). Job match and job tenure in persons with severe mental illness. Journal of Rehabilitation, 78(1), 11–15.
Livermore, G., Whalen, D., Prenovitz, S., Agarwal, R., & Bardos, M. (2011). Disability data in national surveys. Washington, D.C.: Center for Studying Disability Policy.
Markesich, J. (2008). Surveying persons with disabilities: A source guide. Version II. Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Demographics and Statistics, Cornell University, Employment and Disability Institute.
Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics. (2011). 2011 Annual disability statistics compendium. Institute on Disability, University of New Hampshire.
Tremblay, T., Porter, A., Smith, J., & Weathers, R. (2011). Effects on beneficiary employment and earnings of a graduated $1-for-$2 benefit offset for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). Journal of Rehabilitation, 77(2), 19–28.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (2000). Sharing the dream: Is the ADA accommodating all? Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2011). Persons with a disability: Labor force characteristics news release. Economic News Release, June 24, 2011. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/disabl.htm
U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). Employers and the ADA: Myths and facts. Office of Disability Employment Policy.
U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.b). Accommodation and compliance series: The ADA Amendments Act of 2008. Job Accommodation Network, Office of Disability Employment Policy.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.