Disclosure, accommodations and self-care at work among adolescents with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to explore whether adolescents with disabilities disclose their condition and what types of accommodations are requested at work. METHOD: In-depth, qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 adolescents with a physical and/or mobility-related disability. We also reviewed their self- and staff assessments completed throughout an employment training program in which they took part. RESULTS: The findings show that most youth were able to disclose their conditions and recognize some of their limitations in performing tasks at work. Youth requested physical accommodations, more time to complete tasks and cognitive accommodations. Youth also performed several self-care tasks to manage their disability at work including personal care, pain management and fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: Within the context of this employment training program, youth were able to disclose their condition to their employer, ask for accommodations and manage their disability in the workplace. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: Educators and clinicians should: Assist youth in understanding whether, when and how to disclose their disability to their potential employer. Help youth to understand what accommodations are available to them in the workplace and how to access them, to help them to perform their job effectively. Coach youth on how to manage their disability in a work context, especially with regard to personal care, pain management and fatigue. Encourage and facilitate participation in experience-based opportunities to practice disclosure, requesting accommodations and self-management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".