Scoping Review - Physical Accessibility & Post-secondary Education
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background:Statistics Canada (2006) reports mobility impairments account for the largest proportion of disabilities experienced by students.Although accessibility standards exist for the physical design of built environments, universities and colleges are frequently cited as inaccessible.It is imperative to determine physical accessibility as research shows that successful involvement in post-secondary education leads to a more productive life and improved vocational options (Christ & Stodden, 2005).The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) can provide a useful framework to categorize the barriers and facilitators to physical accessibility that affect participation in education. Purpose:The aim of this research was to examine the evidence on the physical accessibility of post-secondary schools for students with mobility impairments and provide an overview of the barriers and facilitators. Methods:A scoping review was conducted to determine the breadth and depth of the evidence available.The primary search terms were "accessibility", "school" and "mobility impairment."Only sources written in English after 1990 were included, as the first major accessibility legislation was enacted in 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act.The databases searched were OvidMedline, CINAHL, Pubmed, Scopus, ProQuest, CBCA Education, ERIC, Engineering Village, PyscInfo, SocINDEX, and Google.Following a systematic screen of title, abstract and full-text relevancy, 49 articles were included for review.The ICF categories of Products and Technology and Natural Environment and Human-Made Changes to Environments were used to organize data extraction.Frequency of cited barriers and facilitators within these categories were recorded and presented in chart and paragraph form.Findings: The literature demonstrated that most barriers fell in the ICF categories of Design, Construction and Building Products and Technology for Gaining Access to Facilities Inside Buildings for Public Use (n=83) and Design, Construction and Building Products and Technology for Entering and Exiting Buildings for Public Use (n=56).These categories also presented the most facilitators (n=67 and n=37, respectively).Other barriers and facilitators were related to Products and Technology for Personal Indoor and Outdoor Mobility and Transportation; Products and Technology for Way Finding, Path Routing and Designation of Locations in Buildings for Public Use; Products and Technology for Gaining Access to Facilities in Buildings for Private Use; Products and Technology of Urban Land Development; Land Forms; Population Density; and Precipitation. Implications:Barriers to accessibility pose substantial problems, as barriers were mentioned more frequently than facilitators.To overcome barriers, the necessary changes required expensive architectural adaptations, such as installing elevators.Conversely, facilitators required less costly modifications, such as enlarging designated parking spaces.This research, combined with knowledge of accessibility legislation and human functioning, can help to support participation and raise awareness of occupational injustices related to accessing education.Future research could help determine funding and resource allocation priorities for constructing accessible environments.Future directions for stakeholders should include enforcing accessibility legislation, engaging in knowledge translation, and advocating for disability rights.Limitations of the study were exclusion of visual and hearing impairments, exclusion of non-English literature, possibility of overlooking search terms used in other countries, and not assessing the quality of the literature.
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 | 0,007 | 0,052 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,023 | 0,032 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,016 | 0,002 |
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 ».