IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v19y1984i6p619-627.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analyzing surveys on deaf adults: Implications for survey research on persons with disabilities

Author

Listed:
  • Schroedel, John G.

Abstract

Differences in operationalizing definitions of disability, variations in methods of data collection and diversities in salient characteristics of disabled persons are generic problems in conducting social research surveys with persons who have disabilities. These problems are of concern not only to social scientists seeking to improve survey methods, but they also have practical significance to decision makers needing high quality information to guide social policies that influence the provision of health care, education and social services to persons with chronic impairments. Reports of 41 surveys on deaf adults in the United States and Canada conducted between 1959 and 1981 were analyzed to determine how rates of response, a key indicator of reliability of survey data, are affected by three methods of data collection, degree of verification efforts, scope of the sample and socio-demographic characteristics of those in the survey populations. Measurable results are provided so that planners of future surveys can correct for anticipated rates of sample attrition under various survey conditions. Other data indicate that trade-offs can be made between changes in the size of the sample and method of data collection to lead to more effective surveys. Important terms such as deafness, deaf population and deaf community are discussed as these relate to interpreting the results of survey studies on deaf adults. Discussion is also given to conducting social surveys with groups of individuals having other disabilities besides loss of hearing.

Suggested Citation

  • Schroedel, John G., 1984. "Analyzing surveys on deaf adults: Implications for survey research on persons with disabilities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 19(6), pages 619-627, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:19:y:1984:i:6:p:619-627
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(84)90228-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:19:y:1984:i:6:p:619-627. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.