A Codeveloped Web-Based Disability Disclosure Toolkit for Youth With Disabilities: Mixed Methods Pilot Evaluation (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> Youth and young adults with disabilities experience many barriers in securing employment such as discrimination, inaccessible environments, and lack of support. Youth often need to decide whether and how they should disclose their need for accommodations to employers, which can help them to do their best at work. However, few evidence-based toolkits focusing on disability disclosure exist for youth with various types of disabilities. Supporting youth to develop self-advocacy skills is salient because they are an underrepresented and marginalized group in the labor market. </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> The objective of this study was to conduct a pilot evaluation of a web-based toolkit to enhance disability disclosure for youth and young adults helping to advocate for their needs and request workplace accommodations. </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> We conducted 2 in-person focus groups to codevelop a web-based disability disclosure toolkit, which was followed by a pilot evaluation with a pre-post survey. Primary outcomes focused on the relevance of the toolkit content, preliminary perceived impact on knowledge and confidence, and open-ended feedback on the usefulness of the toolkit. Secondary outcomes focused on effectiveness (ie, measures of self-determination). </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> A total of 14 youths with various types of disabilities took part in the study (aged 20-25 years; n=11, 78% female) including 3 who participated in the codevelopment focus group sessions and 11 youths who participated in the surveys. Our findings involved three main themes in the codevelopment sessions that included (1) disability disclosure and workplace accommodation experiences (ie, knowing when, whether, and how to disclose their disability and request workplace accommodations), (2) usefulness of the tool (ie, relatable content, format and design, and suggestions for further development), and (3) perceived impact of the toolkit (ie, navigating disclosure decisions and how to approach employers and develop other relevant employment skills). The survey findings showed that the majority of participants (10/11, 91%) reported that the toolkit increased or changed their knowledge or understanding of disability disclosure. Most participants (8/11, 73%) reported that the toolkit helped to increase their perceived confidence in their daily activities. The majority of participants (8/11, 73%) agreed or strongly agreed that the toolkit was easy to understand and comprehensive. Regarding the preliminary impact of the toolkit, participants did not demonstrate any significant improvements in self-determination (all <i>P</i>&gt;.05). </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> Our findings emphasize the importance of codeveloping a disability disclosure toolkit with youth to enhance its relevance for their needs. Our toolkit indicates preliminary potential as an educational resource for youth and young adults with disabilities as they search for and secure employment. Further research is needed to assess the impact of the tool with larger samples to understand the impact of workplace disability disclosure decisions for youth with disabilities. </sec>
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 | 0.019 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".