Participation of People With Disabilities in Web-Based Research

Open AccessParticipation of People With Disabilities in Web-Based ResearchLeen VereenoogheLeen Vereenooghe, Department Psychology, Faculty Psychology and Sports Science, Bielefeld University, Universitätsstraße 25, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany, [email protected] Germany Search for more papers by this authorPublished Online:December 17, 2021https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000472PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditE-Mail SectionsMoreWeb-based research has many advantages. However, the methods used may mean that people with disabilities are unable participate. This paper aims raise awareness prompt researchers think about accessibility combination their research.Designing conducting people, irrespective abilities, can access participate constitute a considerable challenge. Yet, participation is important, as concerns regarding non-representative study samples well-documented (Frederick et al., 2012; Gill & Redwood, 2013; Scheifes 2011; Schmidt 2020; Shankar 2018; Spaul Zarin 2005).Where studies present rationale excluding participants disabilities, two main reasons often be identified: either striving homogeneous or reference task demands, implying specific not able complete them similar standard without such disabilities. Meanwhile, sample generalizability appear essential internal validity theoretical fundamental than applied research. Hence, from perspective, representation various abilities impairments always considered an important condition study. stark contrast human rights-based perspective it impairments.A Human Rights-Based ApproachThe UN Convention on Rights (CRPD) considers disability “results interaction between persons attitudinal environmental barriers hinders full effective participation” therefore stipulates wherever possible reasonable adjustments should implemented erase discriminatory practices [United Nations, 2006, Preamble (e)].For countries have ratified convention (United n.d.), which includes all member states European Union, officially binding, whereas signing countries, United States America, merely expressed intention comply non-binding way. From consideration “should opportunity actively involved decision-making processes policies programmes” [UN CRPD, (o)], follows exempt responsibility implement CRPD (Ollerton Horsfall, 2013). Therefore, imperative consider how our choices hinder facilitate inclusion psychological ascertain findings meet needs reflect diverse population.Research Access AccessibilityWhether motivation explicitly include recruit representative guided approach, requires accessible To improve research, we recruitment practices. call scrutiny participant eligibility criteria addressing potential negative attitudes toward impairments, particularly concerning who lack capacity consent (Shepherd, 2020).To different impairments. For example, Feldman al. (2014) showed while intellectual were excluded over 90% 300 surveyed medical clinical trials, could made seventy percent them.Web-Based Research Promote ParticipationIn ways, technology provides through use alternative augmented communication tools. web-based including online surveys experiments, key benefit offers opportunities reach special hard populations (Reips, 2000), thereby increasing chances Likewise, Citizen Science projects further increase non-researchers lay-researchers assisting data collection, example.However, terms Internet use, there digital divide both actual among those most impacted (Berger 2010; Johansson 2020). Consequently, also instead participation.Reasonable Adjustments Improve Accessibility ResearchFirst, shown implementing universal design principles (Story 1998) adhering web-content guidelines (WCAG 2.1; W3C, 2018) content applications (Campoverde-Molina These perhaps first steps take Wilson colleagues provide excellent account survey combining multiple strategies (Wilson 2013), Goegan offer guiding questions assist reflecting questionnaire’s (Goegan 2018). As wishing materials barrier participation, clinicians – alike guidance (Crook 2016). Together, these measures already one step reducing face-to-face research.Second, technological advances additional options speech-recognition text-to-speech services, well eye-tracking built-in webcams, enable sensory motor navigate experiments questionnaires. It expected relying technologies will necessary hardware, but then software still required designed make active technologies. While open-source products reduce any financial new light protection security.A argument against developing resources incentives. Can every researcher team knowledge, expertise, time conduct barrier-free professional incentives legal action? Here, division scientific labor way forward. Or Dattani Bechhofer (2021) propose: “Although young scientists becoming increasingly well-versed some tools, cannot expect excel at all, even most, skills voluntarily,” level specialization distribution expertise “would burden work placed each quality quantity science conducted overall.”ConclusionCalls promote new. Recommendations generally modifying optimizing designs (Rios 2016; Williams Moore, 2011), face-to-face, By knowledge currently available technologies, impairments.References Berger, A., Caspers, T., Croll, J., Hofmann, Kubicek, H., Peter, U., Trump, T. (2010). Web 2.0/Barrierefrei. Eine Studie zur Nutzung von 2.0: Anwendungen durch Menschen mit Behinderungen [Web 2.0/barrier-free. A 2.0 disabilities]. Aktion Mensch e.V. First citation articleGoogle Scholar Campoverde-Molina, M., Luján-Mora, S., García, L. V. (2020). Empirical web educational websites: systematic literature review. IEEE Access, 8, 91676–91700. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2994288 articleCrossref, Google Crook, B., Tomlins, R., Bancroft, Ogi, (2016). “So they do get recruited”: Exploring service user staff perspectives learning inhibit it. British Journal Learning Disabilities, 44(2), 130–137. Dattani, Bechhofer, N. (2021). The speed science. https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-speed-of-science/ Feldman, M. Bosett, Collet, C., Burnham-Riosa, P. (2014). Where research? published trials. Intellectual Disability Research, 58(9), 800–809. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12091 Frederick, K., Barnard-Brak, L., Sulak, (2012). Under-representation nationally secondary data. International Method Education, 35(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2011.609545 Gill, S. (2013). Editorials: minority ethnic groups research-call action. General Practice, 63(612), 342–343. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp13X668456 Goegan, D., Radil, A. I., Daniels, (2018). questionnaire research: Integrating individuals Disabilities: Contemporary Journal, 16(2), 177–190. Johansson, Gulliksen, Gustavsson, C. divide: internet, smartphones, computers tablets Sweden. Universal Information Society, 20, 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-020-00714-x Ollerton, D. Utilising rights inclusive participatory action tool. 28(5), 616–630. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.717881 Reips, U.-D. (2000). experiment method: Advantages, disadvantages, solutions. In H. BirnbaumEd., Psychological (pp. 89–118). Academic Press. Rios, Magasi, Novak, Harniss, Conducting Including public health, epidemiological, outcomes studies. American Public Health, 106(12), 2137–2144. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303448 Scheifes, Stolker, J. Egberts, G., Nijman, Heerdink, E. R. (2011). Representation randomised controlled trials antipsychotic treatment behavioural problems. 55(7), 650–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01353.x Schmidt, Inclusiveness cognitive bias modification children neurodevelopmental disorders: Developmental 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2020.1720156 Shankar, Rowe, Van Hoorn, Henley, W., Laugharne, Cox, Pande, Roy, Sander, W. Under epilepsy PLoS One, 13(6), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198261 Shepherd, An under-represented underserved population trials: Methodological, structural, systemic adults lacking consent. Trials, 21(1), https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04406-y Spaul, Hudson, Harvey, Macdonald, Perez, Exclusion criterion: disability. Lancet, 395(10223), e29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30051-9 Story, F., Mueller, Mace, (1998). file: Designing ages abilities. NC State University. Nations. (n.d.). Status treaties. Chapter IV: Rights. 15. Disabilities. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/Treaties.aspx?id=4&subid=A&clang=_en Nations Assembly. (2006). Session 61 Resolution 106. Persons A/RES/61/106. W3C. Content Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. Williams, Inclusion mainstream biomedical Translational Medicine, 3(82), Article 82cm12. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.3002133 Wilson, E., Campain, Hagiliassis, N., McGillivray, Gottliebson, Bink, Caldwell, Cummins, Graffam, Increasing large social Telecommunications Australia, 63(2), https://doi.org/10.7790/tja.v63i2.411 Zarin, Young, West, (2005). Challenges evidence-based medicine: comparison patients treatments randomized practice network. Social Psychiatry Psychiatric Epidemiology, 40(1), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-005-0838-9 ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byFrom Modems Mobile Apps PsychologyUlf-Dietrich Reips Tom Buchanan17 December 2021 | Zeitschrift für Psychologie, Vol. 229, No. 4Web-Based ReviewUlf-Dietrich Reips17 4 Topical Issue: PsychologyVolume 229Issue 4December 2021ISSN: 2190-8370eISSN: 2151-2604 articleChapterHistory.receivedFebruary 1, 2021articleChapterHistory.revisedJune 9, 2021articleChapterHistory.acceptedJune 2021articleChapterHistory.epubDecember InformationZeitschrift Psychologie (2021), pp. 257-259 https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000472.© 2021The Author(s)LicensesDistributed Hogrefe OpenMind article under license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)PDF download Funding: publication enabled