An ecological approach to understanding barriers to employment for youth with disabilities compared to their typically developing peers: views of youth, employers, and job counselors
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to explore the extent to which youth with physical disabilities encounter different barriers to finding employment compared to their typically developing peers. METHODS: This study draws on 50 qualitative in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of 31 youth (16 typically developing and 15 with a disability), and youth employers and job counselors knowledgeable about employment readiness among adolescents (n = 19). We utilize Bronfrebrenner's ecological framework to reveal the complex web of factors shaping youth's labor market outcomes. RESULTS: Only half of youth with a disability were working or looking for work compared to their peers. The findings show this was a result of different expectations of, and attitudes toward, youth with disabilities. For many youth with a disability, their peers, family and social networks often acted as a barrier to getting a job. Many youth also lacked independence and life skills that are needed to get a job (i.e. self-care and navigating public transportation) compared to their peers. Job counselors focused on linking youth to employers and mediating parental concerns. Employers appeared to have weaker links to youth with disabilities. System level barriers included lack of funding and policies to enhance disability awareness among employers. CONCLUSIONS: Youth with physical disabilities encounter some similar barriers to finding employment compared to their typically developing peers but in a stronger way. Barriers to employment exist at several levels including individual, sociostructural and environmental. The results highlight that although there are several barriers to employment for young people at the microsystem level, they are linked with larger social and environmental barriers. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: Clinicians working with youth should promote the development of skills that can lead to improved self-confidence and communication skills for youth. Encourage the development of extracurricular activities and social networking to build these skills and to make contacts for finding employment. Clinicians should support youth with disabilities and their parents in practicing independence skills (such as self-care, self-advocacy and navigating public transportation) they need prior to seeking employment. Vocational rehabilitation professionals should educate youth on how to disclose their condition to a potential employer, how to ask for ask for accommodations and how to market their abilities. Clinicians should help to link youth with disabilities to volunteer opportunities and to employers. Advocate for disability awareness training for employers regarding how to accommodate people with disabilities and the potential they offer in the workplace.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».