People with visual impairment in outward-facing work: Developing a tool to measure employer attitudes

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Over the years, persons with disabilities have suffered unjustifiably due to a low employment rate, largely the result of unsupportive and negative attitude from employers. Such attitudes are exacerbated during periods of economic stress, with a case par excellence being the current COVID-19 pandemic. Prior studies have addressed common concerns of employers within the workplace. However, the dimensions of these concerns extend beyond the internal working environment, to the outward-facing work environment, involving interactions with customers and suppliers. These concerns have not, thus far, been properly addressed.

OBJECTIVE:

To develop the Service from People With Visual Impairment (SPVI) psychometric measure, a 6-item employers’ attitude assessment tool.

METHODS:

This study is based on 1,036 questionnaires collected using Online Panel Data (OPD), from managers who have hiring authority. We performed Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) followed by Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for discriminant and convergent validity. Finally, we present an empirical model comprising a stable single factor and establish predictive validity using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM).

RESULTS:

CFA showed good fit to the observed data; CMIN/DF = 1.94, p > 0.05, CFI = 1, TLI = 0.99, NFI = 1, RMSEA = 0.03. SEM showed good fit; CMIN/DF = 1.91, CFI = 1, TLI = 0.99, NFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.03.

CONCLUSION:

The results suggest that the instrument could become a pragmatic tool to assess employer attitudes to employ people with visual impairment or blindness due to external work environment concerns. The tool is relevant to a wide range of circumstances, including economic downturns. Practical considerations are discussed.

Keywords

Vision disorders employment occupations rehabilitation

1 Introduction

1.1 The challenge of employing people with visual impairment

Visual impairment is defined as blindness or impaired vision that results in limitations in daily functions [1]. One of the central problems for people with disabilities (PwD) is the challenge of integrating into the broader labor force. There is a small percentage of people with visual impairment in the broader labor force, and those that do achieve gainful employment tend to earn lower wages and have fewer opportunities for promotion [2]. People with blindness have always dealt with high rates of unemployment and underemployment [3]. Despite the recent decades of advancement and improvement of their status in society, there is still a gap in employment rates between working age people with blindness (39%) and people of working age without visual impairment (73%) in the broader labor force [4].

Among PwD, those with visual impairment suffer disproportionately from low rates of employment, relative to other PwD, such as those with learning disabilities [5]. Accordingly, the unemployment rate of people with visual impairment is higher than the unemployment rate of the general working age population [5, 6] Workers with visual impairment who have achieved gainful employment complain of low wages, lack of proper accommodations, inability to receive promotions and career development, and illegal termination [7]. Similarly, they deal with discrimination in entrance examinations or interviews, disparagement of their capabilities, or disrespect toward them, their jobs, and being limited to low level positions [8, 9]. The causes of high rates of unemployment among people with visual impairment include lower educational and professional training, disabilities relating to visual impairment, feelings of dissuasion, negative public opinion, lack of accessible public transportation, and discrimination during the hiring process [10].

The negative opinions of employers are considered to be one of the most significant obstacles to employment for people with visual impairment [11]. Employers often prefer to hire people without disabilities, because they believe that PwD cannot efficiently perform the work that is requested of them. Additional concerns for employers might be unforeseen healthcare services costs and associated compensation, not to mention potential legal processes surrounding incidents involving a PwD [12]. Moreover, workplace accommodation [13, 14], including the use of assistive technologies to help a PwD perform essential tasks at work, can be a challenge for some employers. These required accommodations vary according to the person and the extent of their visual impairment [15]. For those with visual impairment, such accommodations may involve simple changes in the work environment such as adjusted lighting or the provision of magnifying glasses; more demanding modifications include the provision of screen readers and Braille script throughout the workplace [15].

1.2 Employers’ negative perceptions of employees with visual impairment

Employers’ negative attitudes towards people with visual impairment is considered one of the greatest obstacles to the latter’s ability to achieve gainful employment [16]. Employers often believe that employing a blind person presents complex challenges, far beyond the ones faced by people with other disabilities [17]. For example, the prevailing sentiment among employers is that employees with visual impairment do not integrate well into society, making them less desirable than employees without disabilities. Moreover, social discomfort can arise at the workplace when customs are not fully established in how to treat visually impaired employees [18]. Accordingly, Lynch [19] found that most managers believe that people with visual impairment can only perform a handful of jobs at their organization successfully. Additionally, they believe that employees with visual impairment are more expensive than those without disabilities, and as a result, choose to hire them much less frequently.

As we have shown above, employees’ dis preference in hiring blind employees or employees with visual impairment is due to a variety of irrational fears and concerns, largely created due to the spread of misinformation regarding the needs involved in employing people with visual impairment, including workplace accommodations, assistive technologies, and the unique challenges of workplace safety for employees with visual impairment [20]. McDonnall, O’Mally and Crudden [21] highlight that the greatest roadblock to progress on this front is employers’ limited knowledge or even lack of knowledge regarding people with visual impairment and how they perform routine work tasks. However, this is not an insurmountable obstacle, as it was found that when employers communicate with a professional rehabilitation agency (and become educated), there is a higher chance of them employing a person with visual impairment [22].

One additional source of employers’ negative attitudes towards hiring people with visual impairment are the pre-existing biases of co-workers and customers towards people with visual impairment, especially relating to their ability to properly perform their work duties [23].

1.3 Distancing from PwD

Generally, PwD and people with visual impairments experience a type of social distancing in public [7, 24] which also manifests at the workplace [25]. While prior studies of employers’ concerns regarding PwD have addressed internal work processes and integration, the external workplace, including customers and suppliers [26] has not been properly investigated.

The social obstacles facing people with visual impairment include impatience and fear from customers [27], as well as hesitation, and ultimately, rejection [28]. As a result, employers are concerned that hiring PwD could negatively affect their customers, and that their customers could respond negatively to employees with disabilities [29]. Employers are concerned that a customer’s negative attitude toward the hiring of employees with disabilities could be a factor influencing their quality of service [30]. This is especially the case when disabilities are clearly visible and affect the external appearance of the employee providing the service [31]. In businesses where employees with disabilities communicate with customers, there is so-called “aesthetic anxiety” about these employees. As a result, the aesthetic appeal of the business is diminished in the customers’ eyes [32]. The consequence of such customer biases against PwD is a reduction by the employer in the allocation of tasks to the visually impaired that demand direct contact with customers [33]. In short, people with visual impairment, in particular, are considered less visually attractive [31]. The oft-repeated maxim, “the customer is always right”, finds application here, even if it is empirically unfounded and, more disturbingly, discriminatory [34].

1.4 Employers risk-taking

Employers constantly fret about taking risks, and thus prefer to minimize situations that might damage their careers and work environments [35]. Moreover, risk exposure is a situation where a company could face potential losses [36]. Therefore, employers have a general duty to minimize business risks [37].

As a result, employers prefer to avoid the risk of hiring employees with disabilities [38]. They are concerned that hiring employees with disabilities could place them in a state of financial or legal risk (for example, due to a workplace accident or discrimination) [39]. This concern causes employers to prefer hiring a candidate who constitutes less risk even over a highly-skilled candidate. Employers see the hiring of PwD as a risk and an unnecessary difficulty at the workplace [40]. Among people with physical disabilities, those with blindness or visual impairments end up bearing a higher burden when it comes to employers concerns [41]. Employers believe that hiring people with blindness involves a risk that is too high for their company, and they avoid hiring them [42]. Employers are concerned that people with blindness and/or people with visual impairments will not be able, as a result of their disability, to properly carried out their job duties [43] or successfully integrate into the workplace [44].

According to Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior [45], there is a link between beliefs and behaviors, and the best way to predict behavior is to measure behavioral intention. Therefore, the theory presents a link between managerial attitudes, subjective norms, and intention to hire PwD [46]. As a result, a favorable attitude toward hiring PwD will increase employers’ intention to hire PwD, and vice versa [46]. Therefore, employers’ risk avoidance, which constitutes the negative attitude towards employing PwD, unfortunately results in low rate of employment of PwD.

On the other hand, Upper Echelons Theory argues that a company’s outcomes can be predicted by their top managers’ characteristics [47]. Indeed, managerial ability has a significant impact on corporate earnings quality [48]. However, high-ability managers are receptive to risk-taking; whereas low ability managers refrain from risk-taking [49]. This does not mean, of course, that the negative attitude toward employing PwD comes from management inadequacy. It may simply be the result of a lack of knowledge. Rational decision-making is dependent on having access to complete and accurate information [50]. Greater awareness of the risk involved in a certain decision increases the decision-maker’s need to analyze the relevant data. Therefore, managers who are aware of their lack of knowledge regarding PwD may simply turn to risk avoidance as a default behavior. This behavior may be easily remedied, however, through providing organizational information in an integrated manner via human-resource training.

Previous studies that have investigated attitudes toward PwD in the workforce typically focus on the internal work environment [51], such as the effect of PwD on productivity and integration capabilities, without properly addressing the outward-facing work environment. In order to support both practitioners and academics for research that will fill this literature gap, we validate and provide a useful tool.

2 Methodology

2.1 Measurement tool

We developed the Service from People With Visual Impairment (SPVI) scale consisting of 6 items (Table 1). The following item was added to the scale, to be used in the predictive validity sections: (Q7) “Organizations/employers would prefer employing a person without a disability over a visually impaired or blind person” [17]. These items were reviewed by four experts in the area of employment for people with blindness or visual impairments. Each item included a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A pilot test (n = 38) was conducted to evaluate the instrument, using personal interviews of managers in charge of employees in their organization, and with hiring authority. Based on psychometric analyses (utilizing Cronbach’s alpha and exploratory factor analysis), the scale was deemed satisfactory for further research.

Table 1
Factor loadings for 10 items

# Item Loading

Q3 A visually impaired / blind employee will find it difficult to give the same standard of customer service as an employee without a disability. 0.79

Q6 A visually impaired / blind employee will find it difficult to explain the company’s products face to face. 0.75

Q4 A visually impaired / blind employee will find it difficult to give a presentation. 0.75

Q5 A visually impaired / blind employee will find it difficult to lecture in front of an audience. 0.71

Q1 A visually impaired / blind worker will find difficulty in working with finances. 0.65

Q2 Customers may feel discomfort in accepting help from an employee who is visually impaired / blind. 0.60

#	Item	Loading
Q3	A visually impaired / blind employee will find it difficult to give the same standard of customer service as an employee without a disability.	0.79
Q6	A visually impaired / blind employee will find it difficult to explain the company’s products face to face.	0.75
Q4	A visually impaired / blind employee will find it difficult to give a presentation.	0.75
Q5	A visually impaired / blind employee will find it difficult to lecture in front of an audience.	0.71
Q1	A visually impaired / blind worker will find difficulty in working with finances.	0.65
Q2	Customers may feel discomfort in accepting help from an employee who is visually impaired / blind.	0.60

The final survey was distributed using Online Panel Data (OPD). OPD is an advantageous system for field testing to support measurement development [52]. The screening question was, Are you taking part in the decision-making process regarding applicants’ recruitment? with an objective criterion of having the capability to veto a job candidate. Those who qualified were invited to complete the survey.

2.2 Sample

We collected 1,036 completed questionnaires. Of the respondents, 57.2% (593) were female and 42.8% (443) were male; 32.6% (338) were between the ages of 25–35, 39.3% (407) were between the ages of 36–45, and 28.1% (291) were between the ages of 46–65. In terms of education, 14.8% (153) had completed high school, 19.2% (199) had post-secondary education, and 66% (684) had university education.

2.3 Procedure and analysis

First, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed to assess the SPVI scale’s dimensions, followed by Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for convergent and discriminant validity [53]. For prediction validity, we employed Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to test the model’s fit.

Model fit was estimated using CFI, TLI, NFI, RMSEA, and the ratio CMIN/DF. Values of CFI, NFI, and TLI >0.95 and RMSEA <0.08 are considered good fit [54]. The CMIN/DF ratio should be as small as possible [55]. Typically, a ratio <3 is considered good fit [56].

We used SPSS v.26 for EFA, and AMOS v.26 for CFA and SEM.

3 Results

3.1 Exploratory factor analysis

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.8, greater than the recommended value of 0.6 [57]. Additionally, Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ² (15) = 1857.2, p < 0.001). The loadings were all ≥0.6 (Table 1), which is highly rigorous. Given these indicators, factor analysis was deemed suitable for these 6 questionnaire items. A principle-components factor analysis of the 6 items using varimax rotations was conducted. Eigen values showed that the variables loaded onto one factor, explaining 50.31% of the variance. The factor-loading matrix is presented in Table 1.

Cronbach’s alpha examined internal consistency for the scales, showing adequate alphas of 0.80.

3.2 Confirmatory factor analysis

CFA was performed to for convergent and discriminant validity of the scale.

CFA showed good fit to the observed data. CMIN/DF = 1.94, p > 0.05, CFI = 1, TLI = 0.99, NFI = 1, RMSEA = 0.03. Model loadings are presented in Fig. 1. All loadings are significant at p < 0.001, and are >0.50 [58].

Fig. 1

SPVI model loadings.

3.3 Criterion (predictive validity)

We assumed that respondents who reported a high score for Q7, implying a negative attitude towards employing people with VI disabilities, would also report a high score on the SPVI measure. Because most respondents marked a rating of 4 or 5 to Q7 (Table 2), generalization was possible, and we modeled these two scores. A correlation was made between the scores, as they represent branches of the same variable. Lastly, to assess the instrument’s predictive validity, we employed SEM.

Table 2
Q7 rating frequencies

Rating N %

1 18 1.7

2 31 3

3 133 12.8

4 369 35.6

5 485 46.8

Total 1036 100

Rating	N	%
1	18	1.7
2	31	3
3	133	12.8
4	369	35.6
5	485	46.8
Total	1036	100

The hypothesized model showed a good fit with the data, implying strong support for the hypothesis: CMIN/DF = 1.91, CFI = 1, TLI = 0.99, NFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.03. Figure 2 illustrates the model and standardized coefficients. Both ratings of the score 4 (labeled Q7.4) and the ratings of the score 5 (labeled Q7.5) were statistically significant in their effect on SPVI (p < 0.001, p < 0.05, respectively).

Fig. 2

SEM standardized coefficients.

4 Discussion

Using an OPD helped overcome the problem of social-desirability bias. This bias arises when the respondent’s rating is motivated by the desire to avoid embarrassment and repercussions [59], resulting in an inaccurate rating. The anonymity of the OPD ensures the reduction or complete elimination of this bias. Another solution that was used to avoid socially desirable response bias is the formulation of the independent variable item as an indirect estimation rather than a direct question [60]: “employers prefer...” rather than “I prefer....” Indeed, the high ratings, unfortunately, regarding the negative attitude towards people with VI (Table 2) confirmed that socially desirable response bias was not a problem in this instrument.

According to Virtue Theory, individuals make active decisions about where to work, and how to behave at work, on the basis of personal values [61]. Furthermore, Virtue Theory suggests that a variety of moral virtues, such as purity and loyalty could lead to status attainment [62]. This implies that employees who practice virtue as part of the organization’s values, will be more productive, and more loyal to the organization. Organizations using a Virtue Theory approach find competitive advantage though higher productivity, reduced absenteeism, and positive morale [63]. By practicing virtue, organizations might better support employment opportunities and accommodation for PwD [61]. Moreover, PwD were found to be loyal and highly motivated workers [64], and can, therefore, contribute to the company’s success.

The findings of this study are also supported by Prospect Theory [65], which posits that people’s decision-making is based on evaluation of losses and gains, with more weight on the former. That is, employers place greater weight on the possibility of losing profit, rather than the advantages arising from the employment of PwD.

According to the Agency Theory, since executives’ employment security and income are both tied to one firm, they are assumed to exhibit risk aversion in decisions regarding the firm, in order to lower the risk to their personal wealth [66, 67]. The results of this study support this approach. Employers demonstrate a negative attitude towards people with visual impairment, due to concerns that they may deter customers, and thus reduce profit. These concerns may have increased, as the results show, due to the current global recession caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Finally, this study offers several contributions.

First, this study investigates the dimensions of negative attitude toward PwD regarding possible social discomfort in the outward-facing work environment, suggesting that solutions targeted at typical concerns such as workplace accommodations will not be sufficient for bolstering the employment rate of PwD. Pinto and Ert [68] specify that “additional research is required to understand how to overcome the barriers that limit the contribution of this important population to the labor market” (p.114). However, in order to overcome a problem, we first need to understand the extent of its manifestation.

Second, we have developed a single factor model. Single factor models are simple to use [69], and can therefore be used in practice, for example, by human resource departments, to measure perceptions and attitudes of employers. They can also be extended in future research.

Third, single factor models are often more robust than structural change [70], and therefore may be effectively employed in regular times as well as economic downturns, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, economic crises or recessions are unfavorable for the employment of PwD in general [12], and even more so for people with visual impairment, who suffer from a lower employment rate than those with other disabilities [71]. In short, employment challenges for people with visual impairments have reached a tipping point, warranting the correspondingly urgent need for experts to come up with practical solutions.

5 Conclusion

The OPD allowed the collection of responses from a specific niche, namely, people who have hiring authority in their organization. These respondents exhibited risk aversion regarding their company’s profit, in their negative attitude towards the employment of people with visual impairment, which has probably increased during the current uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the pool of respondents was collected from the same country, and different cultures have different norms and attitudes towards risk-taking and uncertainty [72]. Future studies may extend this research by recruiting respondents from an international pool, and investigating national uncertainty levels and their relation to the developed measure. For instance, one such study could extend the proposed model with Hofstede’s [73] cultural model. Hofstede’s model includes five categories, one of which is the Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI): the degree to which members of a given culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations.

The results of this study also highlight the lack of knowledge that executives may have with regard to people with visual impairments. There are many success stories of PwD in the workforce, including people with visual impairment, and specific clients who have expressed their appreciation of service from PwD [74]. Future studies may extend this research by investigating the array of areas where employers lack knowledge regarding people with visual impairments and exploring possible solutions for transmitting this knowledge. Such studies may provide another step toward improving the quality of life for people with visual impairment disabilities. Certainly, such an improvement in quality of life in a marginalized population of society would affect the broader population, since enriching the happiness of others in our community and surroundings can have a tremendous positive impact on our own happiness [75].

Conflict of interest

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding

This work was supported by the Israel National Insurance Institute.

References

Leissner

, Coenen

, Froehlich

, Loyola

, Cieza

. What explains health in persons with visual impairment? Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2014;12:65–81.

Wittich

, Watanabe

, Scully

, Bergevin

. Development and adaptation of an employment-integration program for people who are visually impaired in Quebec, Canada. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness (Online). 2013;107(6):481–95.

Krisi

, Eckhaus

, Nagar

. Developing a multilevel scale to assess retention ofworkers with disabilities. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation. 2021. 10.1007/s10926-021-09984-5.

Silverman

, Bell

, Mendez

. Understanding the employment experiences of Americans who are legally blind. Journal of Rehabilitation. 2019;85(1):44–52.

Goertz

YHH

, Houkes

, Nijhuis

FJN

, Bosma

. Factors associated with participation on the competitive labour market of people with visual impairments in The Netherlands. Work. 2017;58(3):251–61.

Goertz

YHH

, Lierop , Brigitte van

, Houkes

, Nijhuis

FJN

. Factors related to the employment of visually impaired persons: A systematic literature review. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness. 2010;104(7):404–18.

Unger

, Rumrill

Jr , Hennessey

. Resolutions of ADA title i cases involving people who are visually impaired: A comparative analysis. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness. 2005;99(8):453–63.

Bengisu

, Izbirak

, Mackieh

. Work-related challenges for individuals who are visually impaired in Turkey. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness. 2008;102(5):284–94.

Shigaki

, Anderson

, Howald

, Henson

, Gregg

. Disability on campus: A perspective from faculty and staff. Work. 2012;42(4):559–71.

10.

, Chen

, Kosciulek

. Employment outcomes among individuals with visual impairments: The role of client satisfaction and acceptance of vision loss. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling. 2010;41(3):3–8.

11.

Coffey

, Coufopoulos

, Kinghorn

. Barriers to employment for visually impaired women. International Journal of Workplace Health Management. 2014;7(3):171–85.

12.

Burke

, Bezyak

, Fraser

, Pete

, Ditchman

, Chan

. Employers’ attitudes towards hiring and retaining people with disabilities: A review of the literature. The Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling. 2013;19(1):21–38.

13.

Schreuer

, Myhill

, Aratan-Bergman

, Samant

, Blanck

. Workplace accommodations: Occupational therapists as mediators in the interactive process. Work. 2009;34(2):149–60.

14.

Sundar

. Operationalizing workplace accommodations for individuals with disabilities: A scoping review. Work. 2017;56(1):135–55.

15.

Babu

, Heath

. Mobile assistive technology and the job fit of blind workers. Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society. 2017;15(2):110–24.

16.

Dong

, Warner

, Mamboleo

, Guerette

, Zalles

. Barriers in accommodation process among individuals with visual impairments. Journal of Rehabilitation. 2017;83(2):27–35.

17.

McDonnall

, Zhou

, Crudden

. Employer attitudes towards persons who are blind or visually impaired: Perspectives and recommendations from vocational rehabilitation personnel. Journal of Rehabilitation. 2013;79(3):17–24.

18.

Golub

. A model of successful work experience for employees who are visually impaired: The results of a study. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness. 2006;100(12):715–25.

19.

Lynch

. Survey reveals myths and misconceptions abundant among hiring managers about the capabilities of people who are visually impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness (Online). 2013;107(6):408–10.

20.

Wolffe

, Candela

. A qualitative analysis of employers’ experiences with visually impaired workers. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness. 2002;96(9):622–34.

21.

McDonnall

, O’Mally

, Crudden

. Employer knowledge of and attitudes toward employees who are blind or visually impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness (Online). 2014;108(3):213–25.

22.

McDonnall

. Factors associated with employer hiring decisions regarding people who are blind or have low vision. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness (Online). 2018;112(2):197–203.

23.

Papakonstantinou

, Papadopoulos

. Employers’ attitudes toward hiring individuals with visual impairments. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2020;42(6):798–805.

24.

Toriello

, Leierer

, Sheaffer

, Cubero

. Threat and visibility impact of disabilities and other conditions on social distance preferences. Rehabilitation Education. 2007;21(3):159–68.

25.

Vornholt

, Uitdewilligen

, Nijhuis

FJN

. Factors affecting the acceptance of people with disabilities at work: A literature review. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation. 2013;23(4):463–75.

26.

Koufteros

, Peng

, Lu

, Peters

. The impact of organizational structural design on internal and external integration: An empirical assessment and a cross-regional examination. Journal of Organization Design. 2014;3(2):1–17.

27.

Naraine

, Lindsay

. Social inclusion of employees who are blind or low vision. Disability & Society. 2011;26(4):389–403.

28.

Fekler

, Bokek-Cohen

, Braw

. Are you seeing him/her? mate choice in visually impaired and blind people. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education. 2020;67(5):467–83.

29.

Lengnick-Hall

, Gaunt

, Kulkarni

. Overlooked and underutilized: People with disabilities are an untapped human resource. Human Resource Management. 2008;47(2):255–73.

30.

Rosenbaum

, Baniya

, Seger-Guttmann

. Customer responses towards disabled frontline employees. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management. 2017;45(4):385–403.

31.

Kalargyrou

, Barber

, Pei-Jou

. The impact of disability on guests’ perceptions of service quality delivery in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 2018;30(12):3632–55.

32.

Jasper

, Waldhart

. Employer attitudes on hiring employees with disabilities in the leisure and hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 2013;25(4):577–94.

33.

Stone

, Wright

. When your face doesn’t fit: Employment discrimination against people with facial disfigurements. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2013;43(3):515–26.

34.

Bengisu

, Balta

. Employment of the workforce with disabilities in the hospitality industry. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 2011;19(1):35–57.

35.

John

, Litov

, Yeung

. Corporate governance and risk-taking. The Journal of Finance. 2008;63(4):1679–728.

36.

Posthuma

, Roehling

, Campion

. Employment discrimination law exposures for international employers. International Journal of Law and Management. 2011;53(4):281–98.

37.

White

KRB

, Burr

. Effectively managing a crisis: Taking the first steps. Professional Safety. 2017;62(6):30–4.

38.

Annett

. Categorizing supervisor reflections on risks of hiring persons with disabilities. Journal of Organizational Psychology. 2017;17(4):29–35.

39.

Kaye

, Jans

, Jones

. Why don’t employers hire and retain workers with disabilities? Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation. 2011;21(4):526–36.

40.

Stensrud

. Developing relationships with employers means considering the competitive business environment and the risks it produces. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin. 2007;50(4):226–37.

41.

Malakpa

SWG

. Problems and prospects in employment and job retention of the blind and visually impaired in the United States: A future concern of special education. International Journal of Special Education. 2007;22(1):53–8.

42.

Crudden

, McBroom

, Skinner

, Moore

. Comprehensive examination of barriers to employment among persons who are blind or visually impaired. Mississippi State University, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Blindness and Low Vision. 1998:32-34.

43.

Smith

. Diversity and disability: Exploring the experiences of vision impaired people in the workplace. Equal Opportunities International. 2002;21(8):59–72.

44.

Heera

. Employers’ perspective towards people with disabilities: A review of the literature. The South East Asian Journal of Management. 2016;10(1):54–74.

45.

Ajzen

. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action Control. 1985:11-39.

46.

Ang

, Ramayah

, Amin

. A theory of planned behavior perspective on hiring Malaysians with disabilities. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal. 2015;34(3):186–200.

47.

Chatterjee

, Hambrick

. It’s all about me: Narcissistic chief executive officers and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly. 2007;52(3):351–86.

48.

Demerjian

, Lev

, Lewis

, McVay

. Managerial ability and earnings quality. The Accounting Review. 2013;88(2):463–98.

49.

Yung

, Chen

. Managerial ability and firm risk-taking behavior. Rev Quant Finance Account. 2018;51(4):1005–32.

50.

Beck

, Fuller

, Unwin

. Increasing risk in the ‘scary’ world of work? male and female resistance to crossing gender lines in apprenticeships in England and Wales. Journal of Education and Work. 2006;19(3):271–89.

51.

Chi

, Qu

. Integrating persons with disabilities into the work force. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration. 2003;4(4):59–83.

52.

Wetherell

. The use of crowdsourcing in the development of measurement instruments. Theses and Dissertations. 2019:4-51.

53.

Eckhaus

, Sheaffer

. Factors affecting willingness to contribute goods and services on social media. The Social Science Journal. 2019;56(3):390–400.

54.

Hinz

, Sandar

, Glaesmer

, Brahler

, Zenger

, Hilbert

, et al. Optimism and pessimism in the general population: Psychometric properties of the Life Orientation Test (LOT-R). International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology. 2017;17(2):161–70.

55.

Zhao

, Zhu

. Formalizing and validating the web quality model for web source quality evaluation. Expert Systems with Applications. 2014;41(7):3306–12.

56.

Fukutake

, Shimamura

, Namba

, Ogino

. Relationship among independence of daily living, human relationships, and preparation for bereavement among healthy elderly Japanese people. Psychogeriatrics. 2020;20(4):437–46.

57.

Tabachnick

, Fidell

. Using multivariate statistics. NJ, Pearson. 2012.

58.

Beauducel

, Herzberg

. On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2006;13(2):186–203.

59.

Latkin

, Edwards

, Davey-Rothwell

, Tobin

. The relationship between social desirability bias and self-reports of health, substance use, and social network factors among urban substance users in Baltimore, Maryland. Addictive Behaviors. 2017;73:133–6.

60.

Fisher

. Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research. 1993;20(2):303–15.

61.

Barclay

, Markel

, Yugo

. Virtue theory and organizations: Considering persons with disabilities. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2012;27(4):330–46.

62.

Bai

. A (moral) virtue theory of status attainment in human social hierarchies. Proceedings. 2014;2014(1):16544.

63.

Arjoon

. Virtue theory as a dynamic theory of business. Journal of Business Ethics. 2000;28(2):159–78.

64.

Lindsay

, Cagliostro

, Albarico

, Mortaji

, Karon

. A systematic review of the benefits of hiring People with disabilities. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation. 2018;28(4):634–55.

65.

Kahneman

, Tversky

. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica (pre-1986). 1979;47(2):263–91.

66.

Donaldson

. Corporate debt capacity: A study of corporate debt policy and the determinants of corporate debt capacity. Boston: Harvard University Press1961.

67.

Williamson

. Managerial discretion and business behavior. The American Economic Review. 1963;53(5):1032–57.

68.

Pinto

, Ert

. Risk preferences of people with disabilities and their relation to labor market participation. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics. 2018;11(2):106–15.

69.

Capon

, Go

. Frameworks for market strategy: European edition. Routledge; 2016.

70.

Wegener

, Basse

. The stability of factor sensitivities of German stock market sector indices: Empirical evidence and some thoughts about practical implications. Journal of Risk and Financial Management. 2019;12(3):140–50.

71.

Martz

, Xu

. Person-related and service-related factors predicting employment of individuals with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation. 2008;28(2):97–104.

72.

, Griffin

, Yue

, Zhao

. How does culture influence corporate risk-taking? Journal of Corporate Finance. 2013;23:1–22.

73.

Hofstede

. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Cambridge, UK: McGraw-Hill, 1991.

74.

Kulkarni

. Organizational career development initiatives for employees with a disability. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2016;27(14):1662–79.

75.

Eckhaus

, Sheaffer

. Happiness enrichment and sustainable happiness. Applied Research in Quality of Life. 2019;14(4):1079–97.

People with visual impairment in outward-facing work: Developing a tool to measure employer attitudes

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

OBJECTIVE:

METHODS:

RESULTS:

CONCLUSION:

Keywords

1 Introduction

1.1 The challenge of employing people with visual impairment

1.2 Employers’ negative perceptions of employees with visual impairment

1.3 Distancing from PwD

1.4 Employers risk-taking

2 Methodology

2.1 Measurement tool

2.3 Procedure and analysis

3 Results

3.1 Exploratory factor analysis

3.2 Confirmatory factor analysis

Table 2 Q7 rating frequencies Rating N % 1 18 1.7 2 31 3 3 133 12.8 4 369 35.6 5 485 46.8 Total 1036 100

5 Conclusion

Conflict of interest

Funding

References

Table 2
Q7 rating frequencies

Rating N %

1 18 1.7

2 31 3

3 133 12.8

4 369 35.6

5 485 46.8

Total 1036 100