A Survey of Wireless Technology Supporting Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities in the Workplace

Abstract

Despite the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its amendments, there are still barriers to successful employment for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). Known barriers include lack of accommodations; negative stigma; and lack of investment in education, on-the-job training, and work experiences. Although many young adults with IDD want to fully engage in community-based employment, they often require supports that employers are unable or unwilling to provide. Wireless or wearable technologies in the workplace have the potential to provide necessary supports to employees with IDD and their employers. In the present study, we conducted a web-based survey of employees with IDD (n = 66), service providers (n = 54), and family members (n = 19) to determine which technologies individuals with IDD use in the workplace, and how these technologies influence their employment experiences. We analyzed survey data using quantitative and qualitative descriptive analyses. All survey respondents endorsed the use of technology in the workplace to enhance employment outcomes for individuals with IDD. The three groups of respondents varied in their identification of barriers; however, the most commonly identified barriers to effective technology use at work were Lack of Knowledge and Instruction on Device Use/Adaptations and Employer-imposed Barriers. Study findings have the potential to influence workplace decisions and training for people with IDD and their employers, families, and other service providers.

Keywords

intellectual disabilities developmental disabilities employment assistive technology wireless technology

Introduction

The year 2020 marked 30 years since the passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), which was created to improve conditions and options for people with disabilities to access gainful employment and other needed resources. Despite recent data that suggest the employment rate for individuals with disabilities in the US has reached its highest recorded level since 2008 (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021), the employment rate of people with disabilities remains disproportionately low in comparison to that of people without disabilities. Indeed, the 2021 US Bureau of Labor Statistics Jobs Report suggests that the labor force participation rate for people with disabilities is 36.8%, which is still significantly lower than the employment rate for people without disabilities (76.6%; US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021).

In addition to disparities in the overall employment rate among all persons with disabilities, specific barriers to employment have been identified and must be addressed as more and more people with disabilities enter the labor force. For example, research suggests that people with disabilities who are employed face a negative stigma during the interview process and on the job; a lack of investment in education, on-the-job training, and vocational experiences; and a lack of appropriate accommodations (National Council on Disability, 2020). Barriers also tend to be even greater for those with IDD as compared to barriers observed among those with other types of disabilities (Heron et al., 2020; Hiersteiner et al., 2016), which highlights another area that must be more thoroughly addressed. Employers’ perceptions and lack of knowledge regarding people with IDD has long been, and continues to be, a barrier to employment (Domzal et al., 2008; Kaye et al., 2011; Lindsay et al., 2012; Scheef et al., 2018).

The planning and provision of employment services and support for people with IDD is imperative, especially as they transition out of secondary school (Butterworth, Hierseiner et al., 2015a). Although many young adults with IDD want to enter the workforce and strive for success and achievement as an employee, they often lack access to the resources and extra assistance that employers may be unable or unwilling to provide including job coaches, modified work environments, and many more (World Report on Disability, 2011). The barriers adults with IDD face within vocational settings remain common and create challenges not only for employees with IDD, but also for employers and families of those with IDD (Butterworth, Winsor, et al., 2015b; Khayatzadeh-Mahani et al., 2020).

Once employment is secured, people with IDD can potentially face additional barriers when attempting attain the necessary assistive technology (AT) to be successful in their workplace. In essence, there continues to be a misconception that using AT in vocational settings will require extensive resources or financial support from employers (Hall et al., 2017; Stumbo et al., 2009). Furthermore, some AT devices may be complex, which, coupled with low expectations for individuals with IDD, can lead to underutilization (Wehmeyer et al., 2012).

Regardless of the previously listed hesitations, AT is a promising option in terms of providing feasible support and assistance for employees with IDD in the workplace (Bryant et al., 2010). AT is defined as any item, piece of equipment, software program, or product system that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of persons with disabilities (Assistive Technology Industry Association, 2021, Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 2004). Numerous studies have examined the impact of AT in the workplace for people with IDD but none have specifically discussed wireless AT devices for this population (Perelmutter et al., 2017). Notably, wireless technology includes telecommunication devices that use radio waves, cellular service, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth to transmit information rather than physical wires (Jackson, 2016). Wireless technologies can also include wearable technologies, such as glasses, watches, or wristbands. In the workplace, the limits are endless for types of wireless technology that can potentially improve work performance of people with IDD by closing performance gaps through non-invasive and supportive methods. Non-invasive methods refer to a decrease in the need for support from another human (i.e., job coach or employer; Wehmeyer et al., 2006; Wehmeyer et al., 2008), such as AT use. In fact, Chang et al., (2014) trained three people with IDD to use an interactive computer-based game and augmented reality to successfully improve their vocational job skills. More specifically, the computer game provided task prompts to help users learn to appropriately place recyclable materials into the appropriate “bin.” The recycling game cued the particpants for items incorrectly placed and participants learned to make corrections throughout the ‘missions’. Furthermore, Green et al. (2011) used a vibrating watch to successfully improve the time management skills of a person with IDD. The preprogrammed wristwatch, which was worn by a young adult female with an intellectual disability, vibrated to indicate when it was time to finish work and transition into the classroom. The participant also rated the wristwatch with high satisfaction. Moreover, Randall et al. (2020) incorporated the use of a smartphone application and video/audio prompting to improve the number of office-related tasks completed by four participants with IDD. The findings indicated that all four young adults showed large gains in\being able to complete office-related tasks such as shredding, copying, and scannining. The results of the aforementioned studies are consistent with the prior research that indicates that AT can be used to increase independence in the workplace for people with disabilities. Accordingly, more research on the effective and systematic use of AT as support in the workplace is needed.

Present Study and Research Questions

In this study, we aimed to explore how three groups of stakeholders—individuals with IDD, service providers, and family members, perceive the use of technology in the workplace by individuals with IDD. We specifically aimed to answer the following research questions:

1. What wireless or wearable technologies do individuals with IDD use in vocational settings?

2. In what ways do individuals with IDD use wireless or wearable technologies in the workplace?

3. How do stakeholders view the role of technology in supporting vocational skills and outcomes for individuals with IDD?

4. What barriers or challenges exist for individuals with IDD who use wireless or wearable technologies in the workplace?

5. What supports or accessibility features exist for individuals with IDD who use wireless or wearable technologies in the workplace? What supports or accessibility features would be helpful?

Methods

Sampling and Recruitment

Eligible participants included any person 18 years or older who had a diagnosis of IDD or was an employer/service provider, family member, and/or caregiver for a person with IDD. The survey link, hosted on the university’s Qualtrics platform, was sent nationwide via email and social media posts (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) to personal and professional contacts of members of the research team. Survey participants were also encouraged to share the survey with their networks throughout the United States. The survey was available for completion on the university’s Qualtrics platform for two months. Participants self-reported their eligibility by recording their role in the transition process (i.e. person living with a disability, disability service provider, or family member or caregiver of a person living with a disability) in the first few questions of the survey. Ineligible participants were filtered out following the responses to the first few questions.

Instrumentation

The survey questions were created from the feedback received through a previously conducted focus group that consisted of individuals with IDD, caregivers, and employers (Donehower Paul et al., 2022). The focus group provided feedback that was used in the creation and preparation of the survey. The 54-question survey, “Using Wireless Technology in the Workplace” was created using the Qualtrics software and made accessible to any participants using a mobile device and/or laptop. Once a participant started the survey, it had to be completed in order for the responses to be recorded for analysis. Participants were instructed to access the support of a family member, caregiver, or other support to complete the survey if necessary and were asked, at the beginning of the survey, to indicate if they completed the survey independently or with the support of another person. Specific assistive technology was not provided by the research team to participants completing the survey.

A total of 54 multiple choice, short answer, and Likert scale response questions were included in the survey. The questions regarded demographic information (i.e., name, age, education), workplace information, usage of wireless technology daily, usage of wireless technology in the workplace, and barriers to wireless technology in the workplace. Three different versions of the survey were available depending on how the participant described themselves in one of the beginning questions (i.e., person living with a disability, disability service provider, or family member or caregiver of a person living with a disability). If necessary, people with disabilities were allowed to have assistance in completing the survey; 22.3% (n = 31) of the participants reported that they completed the survey with the support of another person. The main difference in the questions in the survey for people with disabilities was using the first-person pronoun “I” while employers’ and family members’ questions were written with third person pronouns such as “individuals with disabilities”.

There were two kinds of multiple-choice questions included in the survey: single response (25 questions) and multi-response (11 questions). Of the 36 multiple choice questions, 14 questions included an open ended answer choice where participants had the opportunity to create their own answer choice. First, the single response multiple choice question gave participants the opportunity to choose one of the included answer choices. For example, “Do you face barriers with using wireless technology in the workplace to support your employment? 1) Yes; 2) No; 3) Maybe”. The second type of multiple-choice question was the multiple response question which allowed participants to choose multiple answers. For example, “Thinking about individuals with disabilities, what are some wireless technologies or wearables that might support them in the workplace? Select all that apply: 1) Cell phone; 2) Tablet; 3) Activity Tracker/Smart Watch; 4) Wireless Headphone; 5) Bluetooth Earpiece; 6) Other. Please specify.”

The survey also included 11 open-ended questions. These questions gave the participants the opportunity to answer the question in their own words. These questions always followed multiple choice questions to provide the chance for further details to be added. For example, a multiple-choice question inquiring about barriers was followed by the open-ended question: “What are other barriers that individuals with disabilities face when using wireless technology to support them in an integrated employment setting. Please list any you can think of.” A response was not required for the short answer questions.

Likert scale questions were the last type of question included in the survey. These five questions asked the participants to choose a rate in response to a provided statement. The rating options were Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral, Somewhat Disagree, and Strongly Disagree. For example, “Please rate the following statements: The ability to use wireless technology as a support would help me if I was actively seeking employment.” The selection of the pronouns used in the Likert scale questions was adjusted according to whether the participant identified as a person with IDD or not.

Data Analysis

The survey data were exported from Qualtrics to SPSS Statistics 27 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) for analysis. Of 227 submitted surveys, only 61.2% (n = 139) surveys were entirely completed and 38.8% (n = 88) of the surveys were started but left mostly incomplete. We chose to conduct a complete case analysis; responses that were 100% complete were analyzed and used at the final analytic sample (n = 139). On average, participants took slightly over an hour (M = 78.9 minutes, SD = 366.5 minutes) to complete the survey. Note that the average amount of time it took for participants to complete the survey is lengthened due to a few outliers (as evidenced by the high standard deviation presented); some participants may have opened the survey, started taking it, and left it open for quite some time before finishing it, which greatly extended the amount of time recorded for a few participants. Basic descriptive analyses (e.g., frequencies and percentages) were computed to assess the demographic composition of the sample as well as the responses to multiple-choice and Likert scale questions. Because participants responded to the multiple-choice and Likert scale questions by making one selection, the research team disaggregrated data based on respondent group and calculated a percentage for each possible response within each respondent group.

Open-ended question responses were analyzed by one team member with expertise in qualitative research and disability using a basic descriptive content analysis approach (Neuendorf, 2017). This researcher completed the initial content analysis coding process by reviewing and grouping responses to each open-ended question according to major theme. The themes were consistent across respondent types (i.e., persons with IDD, service providers, family members) to allow for comparison across groups.

Results

Participants

Table 1 displays the demographic information regarding the participants who completed the survey in entirety (n = 139). The sample included 47.5% persons living with IDD (n = 66), 38.8% of disability service providers (n = 54), and 13.7% family members or caregivers of a person living with a disability (n = 19). Among all three categories, 70.5% (n = 98) of the participants were female, 28.78% (n = 40) were male, and one participant was non-binary. Of the participants living with a disability, 50% were white, 24.4% were Black or African American, 10.6% were Asian, 1.5% were Native American or Alaska Native, and 13.6% were multi-racial or another race. The disability service provider group of participants was made up of 75.9% (n = 41) white, 18.5% (n = 10) African American, and 5.6% (n = 3) multi-racial or another race. The average age of persons living with a disability was 37.9 years, disability service providers was 46.3 years, and family members or caregivers of a person living with a disability was 46.9 years. Participant groups also reported their work settings, which included K-12 schools, corporations, self-employed settings, non-profit organizations, the food service industry, retail, college, local or federal government, franchise company, or other. Across all participant groups, the most frequently reported work settings included non-profit (n = 31), K-12 (n = 24), and college (n = 13). The most frequently reported job setting of the participants who identified as being a person with a disability were non-profit organizations (n = 10), college (n = 4), and corporate (n = 3). Of the participants who identified themselves as a disability service provider, the most frequently reported job settings were K-12 (n = 22), non-profit (n = 18), and college (n = 7). Participants who reported themselves as a family member or caregiver of a person living with a disability most frequently reported their job settings as non-profit (n = 3), corporations (n = 3), college (n = 2), and self-employed settings (n = 2).

Table 1.

Participant demographics.

Demographic Characteristic	IDD (n = 66) % or M(sd)	SP (n = 54) % or M(sd)	F (n = 19) % or M(sd)
Age	37.9 (15.2)	46.3 (12.3)	46.9 (11.2)
Race
White	50%	75.9%	57.9%
Black or African American	24.2%	18.5%	26.3%
Asian	10.6%	0%	5.3%
Native American or Alaska Native	1.5%	0%	5.3%
Latinx	0%	0%	0%
Multi-racial or another race	13.6%	5.6%	5.3%
Gender
Female	50%	87%	94.7%
Male	50%	13%	0%
Non-binary	0%	0%	5%
Education
Some high school or graduate	62.1%	0%	0%
Some college	9%	5.6%	21.1%
2- or 4-year degree	22.7%	25.9%	42.1%
Graduate or professional degree	6%	68.5%	36.8%
Locale
Urban	18.2%	33.3%	26.3%
Suburban	62.1%	50%	63.2%
Rural	19.7%	16.7%	10.5%
% Employed	48.5%	100%	73.7%
Self-reported technology use
Tech savvy	42.4%	53.7%	42.1%
Some “know-how”	45.5%	44.4%	57.9%
Infrequent user	12.1%	1.9%	0%

Note. IDD = Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities; SP= Service Providers; F = Family members.

RQ1

What wireless or wearable technologies do individuals with IDD use in vocational settings?

The most frequently used technology items that were reported across participant groups were cell phones and tables followed by wireless headphones. Table 2 displays the responses regarding technology used in the vocational setting across groups. Bluetooth earpieces and wearable activity trackers were reported as being used less frequently across all respondent groups than the other included devices.

Table 2.

Wireless technologies used as reported across respondent groups.

Device Type	IDD (n = 66)%	SP (n = 54)%	F (n = 19)%
Cell Phones	86.4%	94.4%	84.2%
Tablets	74.2%	83.3%	94.7%
Activity trackers/smartwatches	37.9%	72.2%	89.5%
Wireless headphone	47.0%	53.7%	84.2%
Bluetooth earpiece	27.3%	59.3%	52.6%
Other	16.7%	16.7%	15.8%

Note. IDD = Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities; SP= Service Providers; F = Family members.

RQ2

In what ways do individuals with IDD use wireless or wearable technologies in the workplace?

The most common ways that individuals with IDD use wireless or wearable technologies in the workplace as reported across all three participant categories was connecting to WiFi, checking and/or sending emails, and checking schedules. Cell phones and tablets were reported to be used most frequently to accomplish the previously listed vocational related tasks. Cell phones and tablets were also used frequently to complete job-related duties. Table 3 displays the percentages of respondents in each respondent group that reported use of the specific devices for each job related activity. As Table 3 shows, 72.7% of the survey participants who identified as IDD reported using their cell phones to connect to WiFi in the workplace. Moreover, 66.7% of survey participants who identified themselves as service providers reported using their cell phone to access WiFi in the workplace. Lastly, 78.9% of survey participants who identified themselves as a family member reported using their cell phone to access WiFi in the workplace.

Table 3.

Ways people with IDD use wireless or wearable technology in the vocational setting.

Activity	Devices
Activity	Cell Phone(%)	Tablet(%)	Activity Tracker(%)	Wireless Headphone(%)	Bluetooth Earpiece(%)	Screen Reader(%)	Other(%)
WiFi	IDD: 72.7SP: 66.7F: 78.9	IDD: 54.5SP: 64.8F: 63.2	IDD: 25.8SP: 20.4F: 36.8	IDD: 31.8SP: 24.1F: 36.8	IDD: 30.3SP: 22.2F: 36.8	IDD: 21.2SP: 18.5F: 47.4	IDD: 18.2SP: 18.5F: --
Checking and sending emails	IDD: 71.2SP: 75.9F: 73.7	IDD: 56.1SP: 74.1F: 68.4	IDD: 12.1SP: 20.4F: 21.1	IDD: 12.1SP: 11.1F: 15.8	IDD: 13.6SP: 16.7F: 15.8	IDD: 21.2SP: 57.4F: 52.6	IDD: 9.1SP: 1.9F: --
Checking schedule	IDD: 65.2SP: 88.9F: 73.7	IDD: 47.0SP: 79.6F: 68.4	IDD: 21.2SP: 31.5F: 31.6	IDD: 13.6SP: 13.0F: 21.1	IDD: 13.6SP: 20.4F: 15.8	IDD: 21.2SP: 59.3F: 63.2	IDD: 9.1SP: 5.6F: --
Complete job duties	IDD: 42.4SP: 79.6F: 57.9	IDD: 51.5SP: 77.8F: 52.6	IDD: 25.8SP: 40.7F: 42.1	IDD: 30.3SP: 50.0F: 57.9	IDD: 24.2SP: 51.9F: 42.1	IDD: 27.3SP: 68.5F: 68.4	IDD: 10.6SP: 5.6F: --
The device is not used at all	IDD: 13.6SP: --F: --	IDD: 19.7SP: 9.3F: 5.3	IDD: 57.6SP: 46.3F: 26.3	IDD: 56.1SP: 37.0F: 21.1	IDD: 59.1SP: 38.9F: 36.8	IDD: 57.6SP: 29.6F: 5.3	IDD: 72.7SP: 63.0F: --

Note. IDD = Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities; SP= Service Providers; F = Family members.

RQ3

How do stakeholders view the role of technology in supporting vocational skills and outcomes for individuals with IDD?

Participants rated that the ability to use wireless technology as a support would help those with disabilities who are actively seeking employment with 89.39% (n = 59) of individuals with IDD, 94.44% (n = 51) of service providers, and 94.74% (n = 18) or family members or caregivers rating it strongly agree or somewhat agree. When asked if the use of wireless technology in the workplace should be encouraged, 84.84% (n = 56) of individuals with IDD, 94.44% (n = 51) of service providers, and 94.74% (n = 18) of family members strongly agree or somewhat agree.

Respondents were asked if they believe that individuals with disabilities and others would benefit from the use of wireless technologies in their workplace: 93.75% (n = 60) of individuals with IDD, 94.44% (n = 51) of service providers, 94.74% (n = 18) family members strongly or somewhat agreed to this statement. Respondents were also asked if they thought that individuals with disabilities would need a high level of support if they were using wireless technology in their workplace: 40.90% (n = 27) of individuals with IDD, 44.44% (n = 24) of service providers, and 63.16% (n = 12) family members strongly or somewhat agreed.

RQ4

What barriers or challenges exist for individuals with IDD who use wireless or wearable technologies in the workplace?

The question about barriers and challenges was an open-ended question asked of all respondents. We received 39 responses from service providers (72.2% of service providers); 24 responses from people with IDD (36.4% of people with IDD); and 12 family members (63.2%). Responses were analyzed and categorized across six themes: Access, Cost, Knowledge and Instruction on Device Use/Adaptations, Employer-imposed Barriers, Appropriate Use & Device Safe Care, and Technical Issues. The two themes most commonly endorsed across all three groups were Knowledge and Instruction on Device Use/Adaptations and Employer-imposed Barriers. Table 4 shows the number of responses and representative quotes across participant types.

Table 4.

Themes and selected quotes describing barriers to technology use.

Themes Identified	Respondent Category	# of Responses	Representative Quotations
Access	Providers	4	“They may not have the fine motor dexterity to utilize the device to its full potential”
	IDD	1	“Sometimes I just don’t have the time to use it”
	Family	0	n/a
Cost	Providers	5	“Many individuals cannot afford the high price of technology”
	IDD	1	“Affordability and purchasing the appropriate wireless technology due to lack of funding”
	Family	1	“Cost [is a barrier]”
Knowledge and Instruction on Device Use/Adaptations	Providers	10	“Not knowing how to use the technology is the main issue”
	IDD	7	“I think the barriers I face when using is limited and it helps to have someone show me how to”
	Family	2	“Individual is not trained on how to use”
Employer-imposed Barriers	Providers	10	“Employers lack understanding that devices are being used for accommodation purposes”
	IDD	5	“We are not allowed to use wireless technology at all while working in patient care”
	Family	4	“Some employers may have preconceived notions that wireless technology is a distraction and may limit an employee’s level of production”
Appropriate Use & Device Safe Care	Providers	5	“Not having appropriate boundaries for when the use of technology is appropriate”
	IDD	2	“Social media and friends’ messages distract me”
	Family	2	“Not using it for personal use at work”
Technical Issues	Providers	5	“Device does not get the link up to the WiFi for usage”
	IDD	8	“Some devices are not hearing aid-compatible or can be hard to use when wearing hearing aids”
	Family	3	“One challenge is when systems upgrade, requiring new sets or orders of tasks to be completed, it may take them a bit to adjust”

RQ5

What supports, or accessibility features exist for individuals with IDD who use wireless or wearable technologies in the workplace? What supports or accessibility features would be helpful?

The responses regarding the supports that exist for individuals with IDD who use wireless or wearable technologies in the workplace were much more variable than previously discussed responses as seen in Table 5. For example, 13.8% of respondents with IDD reported that no support would be required to incorporate technology in the workplace whereas no respondent in the other two participant groups agreed with that statement. Interestingly, 12.1% of participants with IDD reported that self-help or self-troubleshooting support would be beneficial while none of the family respondents agreed with that thought.

According to the open response questions, other types of assistance could be beneficial for using technology in the workplace. Qualitatively, Financial Assistance was the most common theme, with 42 participants reported Financial Assistance as being one of the main types of assistance needed. As one participant described, “For many individuals with disabilities, financial assistance would be required in order to have access to technology devices in the employment setting.” In addition to providing direct financial support, some participants mentioned that the “assistance of outside agencies that are perhaps providing the technology” would reduce the need for financial support and enhance technology access. One participant specifically identified vocational rehabilitation agencies as potential partners: “Vocational Rehabilitation could pay for assistive technology and also for someone to help the individual learn how to use it.”

Operational Support was also mentioned by numerous respondents. Operational support refers to support provided to individuals through either the device manufacturer (e.g., Apple Store) or via asynchronous online learning resources (e.g., YouTube videos) to help them learn how to use the device. Participants mentioned “operational setup and assistance troubleshooting,” “tech support,” and “knowledge of how to troubleshoot device on their own before calling for tech support” as critical operational supports needed.

The last theme featured in the open responses across participants was Job Coaching and Training for the technology devices. This type of support refers to on-site support that would be provided either by the employer directly, or by a third-party source approved to work with the individual at their job site (often employer-sponsored). Participants indicated that direct support using devices, both at initiation and in an ongoing manner, would be beneficial. Support could be provided through “help from a job coach or instructor,” described one respondent. Other types of on-site direct support mentioned included, “assistance from employer to input needed info on device,” “training for co-workers,” and “ training utilizing the device s[pecifically for] the job setting.” One respondent noted that, “training in a way the learner learns best” is an important consideration.

Table 5.

Support type by respondent group.

Support Type	IDD (n = 66) %	SP (n = 54) %	F (n = 19)%
Self-help- Employee troubleshoots device on their own	12.1%	13.0%	—
Assistance from a family member/caregiver	27.3%	25.9%	10.5%
Assistance from an employer	31.8%	27.8%	52.6%
Assistance from tech support	15.2%	33.3%	36.8%
No help is needed	13.6%	—	—

Discussion

This study explored perspectives about wireless technology use in the workplace by surveying 66 individuals with IDD, 54 service providers, and 19 family members. Overall findings demonstrated that wireless technology in the vocational setting can be effective for individuals with IDD if implemented correctly and with the necessary supports; findings confirm and extend the extant literature regarding the use of wireless technology in the workplace setting. Major findings from the survey data are described and contextualized below.

Our first two research questions focused on understanding what wireless technologies are used in the workplace by individuals with IDD, and how they are used. Survey responses across all participant groups suggest that cell phones and tablets were the most frequently used pieces of wireless technology in the workplace, and that the most frequent reasons for using these devices is to access Wi-Fi and to check or send emails. Indeed, the results of this study match previous research suggesting that iPhones can be an effective tool to support individuals with IDD in the workplace (Randall et al., 2020). More than 85% of US adults own a smart phone (Pew Research Center, 2021); additionally, a majority of US workplaces have long required employees to access Wi-Fi and to use email to communicate about job duties (Pew Research Center, 2008), so this finding is not surprising. Leveraging cell phones and tablets that many individuals with IDD already have access to has the potential to release employers from the financial burdens described in the literature (Hall et al., 2017; Stumbo, et al., 2009) related to providing AT to employees with IDD. Doing so may also provide employees with IDD an opportunity to use a device they are familiar with to be successful in the workplace, which could also address another barrier identified in our study related to technical issues and a lack of technology support when using more complex or unfamiliar devices.

Our third research question attempted to address stakeholder perceptions of wireless technology use in the workplace among individuals with IDD. Across all participant groups, the use of wireless technology in the workplace was highly favorable; nearly all participants across respondent groups indicated that the use of wireless technology in the workplace should be encouraged.

The fourth research question focused on identifying barriers to effective use of wireless technology supports in vocational settings for people with IDD. The most common barriers to using technology in the workplace identified across respondent groups were Knowledge and Instruction on Device Use/Adaptations and Employer-imposed Barriers. The present study confirms findings from prior research regarding these common barriers, as well as barriers regarding financial assistance and operation support (Domzal, et al., 2008; Kaye, et al., 2011; Lindsay, et al., 2012; Stumbo, et al., 2009). However, we observed interesting differences in the barriers endorsed by each group. For example, people with IDD commonly endorsed Technical Issues as a common barrier, yet this barrier was not mentioned frequently in the other groups. Likewise, providers agreed that Cost was a common barrier, but individuals with IDD and family members were less likely to mention this specific barrier. Although our research confirms approximately the same barriers as those identified in prior research, the fact that there was not agreement across groups about what barriers are most common presents interesting implications for future research; namely, whenever possible, the perspectives of people with disabilities need to be centered, and given more consideration above the perspectives of family members and providers, within research exploring issues that are pertinent to them (Vinoski Thomas et al., 2020).

Our final research question focused on understanding necessary supports for individuals with IDD to effectively use wireless technology supports in vocational settings. Support from family members and employers was identified as necessary to facilitate the successful use of wireless technology in the workplace. Another trend from the survey was the need for support—specifically job coaching and training— specifically for the technology devices. Interestingly, responses again differed on the need for support between individuals with IDD, and the service providers and family members. About a quarter of respondents with IDD reported they could either troubleshoot themselves or would not need help. The other two respondent groups largely did not endorse the idea that people with IDD may not need device support or could troubleshoot on their own, which further extends the barrier of low expectations of individuals with IDD that is evident in the extant research (Wehmeyer, et al., 2012).

Strengths and Limitations

A number of limitations should be considered when interpreting study findings. We had a limited number of participants in some of the respondent groups, so we were unable to conduct more complex analyses. The survey link was only sent out once. We acknowledge that follow-up reminders may have encouraged more participation. We did not select participants at random; therefore, the results cannot be generalized to all individuals with IDD, service providers, and family members. Survey participants also self-reported their eligibility. Because participants self-reported their eligibility or role, it was impossible for the researchers to confirm the information and instead had to rely solely on each participant’s response. This also restricted the research team from tracking if survey participants required any assistive technology when completing the survey. Therefore, the answers to the survey questions could be skewed if participants were unable to access the necessary supports they need in order to successfully answer each question. As stated, 22.3% of the survey participants did report that they completed the survey with the support of another person, therefore, their responses could have been influenced by the presence of an assistant meaning the participant did not feel comfortable reporting the truth. The research team created survey questions, rather than deriving them from a validated measure. In the survey, we worded questions slightly differently depending on the participants’ role (i.e., person with IDD, service provider, or family member). Therefore, the questions for each participant group looked slightly different for each group. We believe the responses across groups were comparable, yet the slight difference in the wording of the questions may have impacted the way that participant groups responded to the questions. Furthermore, regarding the survey questions, participants were not required to respond to the open-ended questions that followed the multiple choice questions; therefore, participants may have opted not to respond. Lack of response from some participants may have influenced the analysis of themes addressed in the open-ended questions. Lastly, themes extracted from open-ended responses were categorized by one team member; therefore we did not compute inter-rater reliability for the coding of these themes.

The study was strengthened by including responses from three participant groups, which not only included interesting and varying findings but also increased the impact of the study. Another strength of this study was using multiple choice and open-ended questions to give participants an opportunity to include more personal perspectives in their answers to the quantitatively framed questions.

Implications

There is currently a deficiency in research surrounding the use of wireless technology to support people with IDD in the workplace. Although the use of technology has continuously increased across humanity, research still suggests that the use of wireless technology to support people with IDD in the workplace is lacking for many reasons including the lack of employer knowledge and perceptions with regard to people with IDD (Domzal, et al., 2008; Kaye, et al., 2011; Lindsay, et al., 2012), misconception that using assistive technology in the vocational setting will require resources or financial support from employers (Stumbo, et al., 2009), and the complexity of the devises coupled with low expectations for with IDD (Wehmeyer, et al., 2012).

Using wireless technologies create non-invasive methods of job training and support decrease in the need for support from another human (i.e., job coach or employer; Wehmeyer et al., 2006: Wehmeyer et al., 2008). Furthermore, employment is an essential component of community life that enhances opportunity for people with disabilities (TASH, 2016). For this reason, it is vital that the research surrounding wireless technology in the workplace for people with IDD be continued and supported by a variety of stakeholders. For technology developers, it is important to focus on developing technologies that are accessible and well suited to support specifically in the workplace setting. This includes providing technology that is accessible to people with IDD as well as employers and family. For services providers in the workplace, this survey highlights the need to provide training regarding the technology to the employers and employees. For the employers, this survey demonstrates the importance of receiving appropriate training necessary to support employers who would benefit from the support of wireless technology in the workplace.

Future Research

While there is some research surrounding the use of assistive technology for people with IDD in the workplace, there is still a need to explore the options of wireless technology specifically. First, it should be noted that the most frequently used devices among people with IDD (cell phones and tablets) are also devices that support people without disabilities to complete their job functions. A Universal Design approach to these technology supports, and employer perceptions and rules around the use of cell phones and tablets at work, would be interesting to explore in future research.

Although this survey did highlight a variety of perspectives from different stakeholders, the need for further information specifically from people with IDD and their employers is still obvious to continue to improve the workplace performance. Future research should continue to extend the literature surrounding the use of wireless and wearable technology in the workplace, as the results of this survey concluded that it is favorable among people with IDD, service providers, and family and/or support members.

A survey similar to that used in the present study that explores the perspectives specifically of employers would provide a more comprehensive understanding of how wireless and wearable technology supports are perceived and could be utilized in the workplace. It would be interesting to explore the distinct perspective of the employers because they are the providers of job opportunities and on-the-job training, and often times provide or recommend the assistive technology to support people with IDD at work. It may also be interesting to explore the perspectives of fellow employees, who may provide support for their coworkers with IDD. These perspectives may extend the present research even further and give more insight into the necessary supports that people with IDD need in the workplace in order to be successful.

Overall, the present research provides more insight into the use of wireless and wearable technologies in the workplace and adds to the field of research regarding this topic. A need remains for more research on wireless and wearable technologies in the workplace to ensure that people with IDD are provided the necessary supports to be successful.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research, 90RE5025-01-00.

ORCID iDs

Chelsea Marelle

Claire Donehower Paul

Author Biographies

Chelsea Marelle, M.Ed., is a Ph.D student at Georgia State University. She has her Bachelors’ degree in Early Childhood Education from Valdosta State University and her Master’s degree in Special Education from Vanderbilt University. She was a special education teacher for 5 years where she served as an elementary resource, cross category, specific learning disability, and autism self-contained classroom teacher. Her research interests include special education teacher preparation programs and professional development, behavior and classroom management, and autism specific classroom interventions. Marelle has presented at state, national, and international conferences, and contributed to several articles.

Erin Vinoski Thomas is a Research Assistant Professor of Health Promotion & Behavior in the School of Public Health at Georgia State University (GSU). She also serves as the Associate Director of the Center for Leadership in Disability (CLD) at GSU. Dr. Vinoski Thomas’s work focuses on improving health equity for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities through the development, implementation, and evaluation of inclusive health promotion programs. She is an expert in qualitative methods, scale development, and implementation science.

Claire Donehower is an assistant professor in the Department of Learning Sciences. She received her doctorate from the University of Central Florida in the Exceptional Education Program. Her research focuses on improving academic, social and behavioral outcomes for students with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) using innovative technology. Prior to her doctoral studies, Donehower worked at the Kennedy Krieger School Programs for nine years as an assistant teacher, special education teacher and assistant principal. She received a B.A degree in psychology from Boston College and an M.S. degree in special education of severe and profound disabilities from the Johns Hopkins University. Additionally, Donehower is a board-certified behavior analyst and has post-graduate certificates in the Education of Students with Autism and Other Pervasive Developmental Disorders and Special Education Leadership and Administration.

References

Americans With Disabilities Act (1990). Public Law 101–336. 108th Congress, 2nd session (July 26, 1990).

Assistive Technology Industry Association (2021). What is AT? Retrieved from https://www.atia.org/home/at-resources/what-is-at/

Bryant

B. R.

Bryant

D. P.

Shih

Seok

(2010). Assistive technology and supports provision: A selective review of the literature and proposed areas of application. Exceptionality, 18(4), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2010.513925

Butterworth

Hierseiner

Engler

Bershadsky

Bradley

(2015a). National core indicators: Data on the current state of employment of adults with IDD and suggestions for policy development. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 42, 209–220

Butterworth

Winsor

Smith

F.A.

Migliore

Domin

Ciulla Timmons

Cohen Hall

(2015b). StateData: The national report on employment services and outcomes, 2014. Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion

Chang

Kang

Liu

(2014). A computer-based interactive game to train persons with cognitive impairments to perform recycling tasks independently. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35, 3672–3677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2014.09.009

Domzal

Houtenville

Sharma

(2008). Survey of employer perspectives on the employment of people with disabilities: Technical report. In: Office of Disability and Employment Policy. McLean, VA: U.S. Department of Labor)CESSI.

Donehower Paul

Vinoski Thomas

Marelle

Hussain

S. Z.

Doulin

A. M.

Jimenez

(2022). Using wireless technology to support individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities in vocational settings: A focus group study. Vocational Rehabilitation, 56(3), 302–312. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-221193

Green

J. M.

Hughes

E. M.

Ryan

J. B.

(2011). The use of assistive technology to improve time management skills of a young adult with an intellectual disability. Journal of Special Education Technology, 26, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264341102600302

10.

Hall

Hickox

Kuan

Sung

(2017). Barriers to employment: Individual and organizational perspectives. In Buckley

R. M.

Wheeler

A. R.

Halbesleben

J. R. B.

(Eds), Research in personnel and human resources management (pp. 243–286). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Ltd.

11.

Heron

L. M.

Agarwal

Gonzalez

Garcia

Maddux

Attong

Burke

S. L.

(2020). Understanding local barriers to inclusion for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities through an employment conference. International Journal of Disability Management, 15(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1017/idm.2020.1

12.

Hiersteiner

Bershadsky

Bonardi

Butterworth

(2016). Working in the community: The status and outcomes of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in integrated employment —Update 2. Retrieved from https://www.thinkwork.org/working-community-status-and-outcomes-people-idd-integrated-employment-update-2

13.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (2004). 20 U.S.C. § 1400

14.

Jackson

(2016). Dispelling wireless technology myths and developing a roadmap for success. Biomedical Instrumentation & Technology, 50(6), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.2345/0899-8205-50.s6.27

15.

Kaye

H. S.

Jans

L. H.

Jones

E. C.

(2011). Why don’t employers hire and retain workers with disabilities? Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21, 526–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-011-9302-8

16.

Khayatzadeh-Mahani

Wittevrongel

Nicholas

D. B.

Zwicker

J. D.

(2020). Prioritizing barriers and solutions to improve employment for persons with developmental disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 19, 2696–2706. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2019.1570356

17.

Lindsay

Robinson

McDougall

Sanford

Adams

(2012). Employers’ perspectives of working with adolescents with disabilities. International Journal of Disability Community & Rehabilitation, 11(1). 11. http://www.ijdcr.ca/VOL11_01/articles/lindsay.shtml

18.

National Council on Disability (2020). progress report on national disability policy: Increasing disability employment (p. 2020). Retrieved from https://ncd.gov/sites/default/files/NCD_Progress_Report_508_0.pdf

19.

Neuendorf

(2017). The content analysis guidebook (2nd ed.). Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071802878

20.

Perelmutter

McGregor

K. K.

Gordon

K. R.

(2017). Assistive technology interventions for adolescents and adults with learning disabilities: An evidence-based systematic review and meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 114, 139–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.005

21.

Pew Research Center (2008). Most working Americans now use the internet or email at their jobs. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2008/09/24/most-working-americans-now-use-the-internet-or-email-at-their-jobs/

22.

Pew Research Center (2021). Demographics of mobile device ownership and adoption in the United States. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/

23.

Randall

K. N.

Johnson

Adams

S. E.

Kiss

C. W.

Ryan

J. B.

(2020). Use of an iPhone task analysis application to increase employment-related chores for individuals with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 35(1), 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643419836410

24.

Scheef

A. R.

Barrio

B. L.

Poppen

M. I.

McMahon

Miller

(2018). Exploring barriers for facilitating work experience opportunities for students with intellectual disabilities enrolled in postsecondary education programs. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 31(3), 209–224

25.

Stumbo

N. J.

Martin

J. K.

Hedrick

B. N.

(2009). Personal assistance for students with severe physical disabilities in post-secondary education: Is it the deal breaker? Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 30(1), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-2009-0449

26.

TASH National Agenda (2016). Employment. Retrieved from http://tash.org/advocacy-issues/employment/

27.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2021). Economic news Release: Employment situation summary. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

28.

Vinoski Thomas

Warren-Findlow

Reeve

C. L.

Webb

J. B.

Laditka

S. B.

Quinlan

M. M.

(2020). Universal design for measurement: Centering the experiences of individuals with disabilities within health measurement research. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 44(3), 203–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278719900530

29.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Palmer

S. B.

Smith

S. J.

Davies

D. K.

Stock

(2008). The efficacy of technology use by people with intellectual disability: A single-subject design meta-analysis. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23, 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340802300303

30.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Palmer

S. B.

Smith

S. J.

Parent

Davies

D. K.

Stock

(2006). Technology use by people with intellectual and developmental disabilities to support employment activities: A single-subject design meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 24, 81–86. http://hdl.handle.net/1808/17895

31.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Tassé

M. J.

Davies

D. K.

Stock

(2012). Support needs of adults with intellectual disability across domains: The role of technology. Journal of Special Education Technology, 27(2), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264341202700203