Gender matters in the transition to employment for young adults with physical disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore the role of gender in the transition to employment for young adults with physical disabilities. METHODS: This study drew on in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of 33 participants (23 youth and 10 clinicians). The youth in our sample included 13 females (mean age 22.9) and 10 males (mean age 21.3) who had various types of physical disabilities. The person-environment-occupation (PEO) model informed our analysis. RESULTS: Our research showed several similarities and some differences between young males and females with physical disabilities as they transition to employment and adulthood at the person, environment, and occupational level. At the person level, issues included managing their condition, self-advocacy, and willingness to ask for help. At the environment level, themes focused on parental and social support, accommodations, stigma and discrimination, and transportation challenges. Finally, in the occupation component of the PEO model, we found that males and females with disabilities had different levels of engagement in employment. Although most clinicians commented on gender differences, many reported that they did not tailor their clinical practice accordingly. CONCLUSIONS: Gender sensitive vocational approaches are needed for youth with disabilities as they transition to employment. Implications for rehabilitation Clinicians, educators, and parents should encourage independence and self-advocacy skills among youth so that they are prepared to ask for accommodations that they need to succeed in a work environment. Clinicians and educators should present a variety of career and job options to youth, including science, technology, engineering, and math disciplines, an area where youth with disabilities, particularly females, are under-represented. Males may feel less able to self-advocate and seek support and may need additional assistance from clinicians, educators, and parents. Clinicians should tailor their vocational rehabilitation practices to the gender-specific needs of youth with disabilities. Clinicians and parents should ensure that both males and females have the resources and supports they need to be successful in their transition to employment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".