Exploring people with disabilities’ perspectives on the availability of appropriate work that fits their capabilities in Jordan

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

There is a lack of information regarding the availability of work and the appropriateness of work to people with disabilities (PWD) in Jordan. Therefore, this research was initiated and it was hypothesized that work is available and it is appropriate to PWD abilities.

OBJECTIVES:

To explore the availability of work and the appropriateness of working conditions to PWD abilities.

METHOD:

Thirty-five individuals completed the “People with Disabilities Working Condition Scale” (PWDWCS). Descriptive and nonparametric statistical analyses including Chi square, Pearson correlation, Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal Wallis tests were used, and content analysis was used for the open-ended questions section to identify the availability of work in terms of opportunities and competition as well as to identify the work fitness to PWDs’ abilities.

RESULTS:

Sixty percent of the participants had difficulties finding a job, with a high competition on the available ones. Several work conditions do not fit PWDs’ abilities including improper fitness of work assignment to their capabilities and relatively inappropriate wages. In addition, a higher percentage of the participants reported: A) availability of written job descriptions and procedure manuals B) lack of work-related training and continuing education (CE) programs C) PWD are not being promoted D) availability of relative social acceptance at work E) a relatively comfortable work environment F) finally, work areas which require several modifications to boost accessibility.

CONCLUSION:

Initial hypotheses could not be confirmed. Several challenges face PWD in Jordan pertaining to the availability and fitness to work. Rehabilitation for all sectors of work is necessary as well as for PWD to improve their employability and work appropriateness to PWD abilities.

Keywords

Working conditions supported employment accessibility qualitative research stigma rehabilitation reasonable accommodations

1 Introduction

Work is an essential component for people with disabilities (PWD). Therefore, it grabs the attention of world organizations as well as rehabilitation professions. For example, Occupational therapists, as professionals in the health field, rehabilitate individuals, groups, and communities focusing on several areas including work. Work, according to Occupational Therapy Practice Framework: Domain and Process, represents one of the main eight occupational areas of interest [1]. In addition, International Classification of Function, Disability and Health (ICF) also focuses on work and employment for PWD [2]. Further, World Health Organization (WHO) identified five areas for community rehabilitation including “Livelihood” as a component in community rehabilitation [3].

On the other hand, being able to work and live independently is of great value for everyone including PWD. Work provides opportunities for participation, improving income, enhancing an individual’s sense of dignity as well as providing financial support, social support and protection, and increasing an individual’s life productivity [4, 5]. Moreover, work is found to enhance health conditions, as well as increase self-identity and lead to living a more satisfactory quality of life [6].

PWD are a vulnerable group, who have a reduced chance [7 –9] to find and continue working worldwide. Despite the presence of several laws and regulations that mandate and support employment of PWD in governmental and private institutions, several individuals continue to suffer from the lack of opportunities of employment [9, 10]. According to the United Nations’ (UN) report, 2007, 80%–90%of PWD who can work were unemployed in the developing countries, and that, 50%–70%were unemployed in the developed countries. In addition, employment for PWD is a quite challenging process because of its underlying complex and multiple issues that may include changing economics, organizational structure and changes [11], beliefs about PWDs’ abilities, prejudice, and social factors [12 –17].

Working conditions may facilitate work engagement or pose a problem for PWD. It affects PWDs’ ability to find an appropriate job that fits their capabilities, to perform job tasks or even to sustain their employment. PWD in the labor force may face several obstacles at their work such as accessibility [18], inappropriate working conditions, poorly prepared work stations, incongruent dynamics at work, lack of rest time, stigma, underestimation of abilities, and un-appreciation of accomplishments and achievements, inequality, underrepresentation and many others [12, 19]. In addition, perception, fear, myths and prejudice continue to limit the understanding and acceptance of disability in workplaces everywhere [5 , 21]. On the other hand, facilitated working conditions may positively affect PWDs’ sense of job satisfaction [22], and enhance their job performance at work. As a part of a larger project on working conditions of PWD in Jordan, this research aims to explore the availability as well as the appropriateness of working conditions to PWD regarding their education, preparation and capabilities in Jordan. Researchers rarely delve into this type of study in Jordan.

The results of this research are expected to provide information about employability, current fitness of working conditions to PWDs’ abilities, challenges facing PWD, and PWDs’ needs in the workplace. Furthermore, it will provide a database to legislators, ministries that are responsible for employment, education and rehabilitation, Disabled People’s Organization (DPO), and decision makers who have direct and indirect interest in the employment of PWD. In addition, it will provide a database for larger projects and researches pertaining to working conditions of PWD in Jordan.

2 Methodology

Based on the purpose of this research, the study questions include, “Is work available to PWD in Jordan?” and “Is the available work appropriate to PWD considering their education, preparation and capabilities? An exploratory research design was used to answer the study’s questions. IRB approval was obtained from the Hashemite University/Zarqa/Jordan.

2.1 Instrument: People with disability working condition scale (PWDWCS)

The PWDWCS questionnaire was developed. The questionnaire was composed of three sections: demographic data, perspective statements, and open-ended questions. The validity of the instrument had been confirmed using content validity [23, 24] by experts on the field of rehabilitation and scholars at the Hashemite University, as well as, experts and specialists from the Higher Council for the Rights of Persons with Disability (HCD)/Jordan. In addition, internal items consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was calculated (Alpha = 0.938), which has satisfactory reliability [25] as a measurement tool.

2.1.1 Demographic data

Demographic data was used to identify general characteristics of the participants including gender, age group, disability type, working area (government, private, universities, NGO, and military), type of work, salary, time required to find a job, years of work at the current job, previous work experience, and education level. This also helped to identify variations among PWDs’ working conditions in different sectors, salary categories, social status and groups.

2.1.2 Perspective statements

Thirty-eight perspective statements designed to elicit participants’ opinions on their working conditions in Jordan. These statements were built based on the factors listed above and as presented in the UN’s fact sheet (2007) and the WHO’s report on disability [26]. The statements were organized on a Likert like scale consists of three points: (1) Agree, (2) Neither agree nor disagree (NAND), and (3) Disagree.

Data collected by PWDWCS that is specific to the availability and appropriateness of work befitting PWDs’ education, preparation and capabilities in Jordan was used. To answer these study questions, twenty-three different perspective statements were selected and analyzed (Table 1).

Table 1
Availability of appropriate work theme: Percentages of perspective statements

P #^* Theme items Agree NAND^θ Disagree Missing

Percent Valid % Percent Valid % Percent Valid % Percent Valid %

1 I easily found work opportunity 25.7 25.7 14.3 14.3 60.0 60.0 0 0

2 There is a high competition on the available work opportunities^ 42.9 44.1 8.6 8.8 45.7 47.1 2.9 –––

3 The wages are suitable to work nature 40.0 41.2 17.1 17.6 40.0 41.2 2.9 –––

5 The wages payed for PWD are less than payed to people with no disability^ 22.9 22.9 14.3 14.3 62.9 62.9 0 0

6 The nature of the assigned work coincides my abilities 37.1 37.1 20.0 20.0 42.9 42.9 0 0

7 My skills and abilities are beyond the required work job description^ 45.7 47.1 17.1 17.6 34.3 35.3 2.9 –––

8 On recruitment I had been trained on the work requirements 42.9 44.1 17.1 17.6 37.1 38.2 2.9 –––

10 My employer makes available continuing education programs to improve work skills 45.7 45.7 8.6 8.6 45.7 45.7 0 0

11 I wish that I got more training at work to be able to accomplish work tasks efficiently^ 54.3 55.9 14.3 14.7 28.6 29.4 2.9 –––

13 My work place creates vacancies to employ PWD according to the laws and regulations 54.3 55.9 17.1 17.6 25.7 26.5 2.9 –––

16 In my institution there are written manuals for work procedures 48.6 50.0 14.3 14.7 34.3 35.3 2.9 –––

17 In my institution, there is a written job description 51.4 51.4 8.6 8.6 40.0 40.0 0 0

18 I feel oppressed at my work place^ 25.7 27.3 20.0 21.2 48.6 51.5 5.7 –––

20 I do not get employment development and promotion chances compared to employees with no disabilities^ 54.3 54.3 2.9 2.9 42.9 42.9 0 0

23 I am not allowed to talk or give opinion on work related matters^ 22.9 23.5 14.3 14.7 60.0 61.8 2.9 –––

25 My assignments at work are higher than those for employees with no disabilities^ 14.3 14.7 22.9 23.5 60.0 61.8 2.9 –––

29 The work environment is comfortable 48.6 50.0 20.0 20.6 28.6 29.4 2.9 –––

31 It is hard to access working tools at my work area^ 40.0 40.0 17.1 17.1 42.9 42.9 0 0

33 I cannot get to the break area because it is not accessible^ 31.4 32.4 31.4 32.4 34.3 35.3 2.9 –––

34 I cannot use the WC &other service areas because they are not designed for people with disabilities^ 37.1 37.1 14.3 14.3 48.6 48.6 0 0

35 The work area requires several modifications to make it accessible^ 45.7 45.7 17.1 17.1 37.1 37.1 0 0

36 There are furniture, barriers and obstacles that limit my mobility at work area^ 34.3 35.3 20.0 20.6 42.9 44.1 2.9 –––

38 I feel lonely at work^ 31.4 31.4 17.1 17.1 51.4 51.4 0 0

P #^*	Theme items	Agree	NAND^θ	Disagree	Missing
1	I easily found work opportunity	25.7	25.7	14.3	14.3	60.0	60.0	0	0
2	There is a high competition on the available work opportunities^**	42.9	44.1	8.6	8.8	45.7	47.1	2.9	–––
3	The wages are suitable to work nature	40.0	41.2	17.1	17.6	40.0	41.2	2.9	–––
5	The wages payed for PWD are less than payed to people with no disability^**	22.9	22.9	14.3	14.3	62.9	62.9	0	0
6	The nature of the assigned work coincides my abilities	37.1	37.1	20.0	20.0	42.9	42.9	0	0
7	My skills and abilities are beyond the required work job description^**	45.7	47.1	17.1	17.6	34.3	35.3	2.9	–––
8	On recruitment I had been trained on the work requirements	42.9	44.1	17.1	17.6	37.1	38.2	2.9	–––
10	My employer makes available continuing education programs to improve work skills	45.7	45.7	8.6	8.6	45.7	45.7	0	0
11	I wish that I got more training at work to be able to accomplish work tasks efficiently^**	54.3	55.9	14.3	14.7	28.6	29.4	2.9	–––
13	My work place creates vacancies to employ PWD according to the laws and regulations	54.3	55.9	17.1	17.6	25.7	26.5	2.9	–––
16	In my institution there are written manuals for work procedures	48.6	50.0	14.3	14.7	34.3	35.3	2.9	–––
17	In my institution, there is a written job description	51.4	51.4	8.6	8.6	40.0	40.0	0	0
18	I feel oppressed at my work place^**	25.7	27.3	20.0	21.2	48.6	51.5	5.7	–––
20	I do not get employment development and promotion chances compared to employees with no disabilities^**	54.3	54.3	2.9	2.9	42.9	42.9	0	0
23	I am not allowed to talk or give opinion on work related matters^**	22.9	23.5	14.3	14.7	60.0	61.8	2.9	–––
25	My assignments at work are higher than those for employees with no disabilities^**	14.3	14.7	22.9	23.5	60.0	61.8	2.9	–––
29	The work environment is comfortable	48.6	50.0	20.0	20.6	28.6	29.4	2.9	–––
31	It is hard to access working tools at my work area^**	40.0	40.0	17.1	17.1	42.9	42.9	0	0
33	I cannot get to the break area because it is not accessible^**	31.4	32.4	31.4	32.4	34.3	35.3	2.9	–––
34	I cannot use the WC &other service areas because they are not designed for people with disabilities^**	37.1	37.1	14.3	14.3	48.6	48.6	0	0
35	The work area requires several modifications to make it accessible^**	45.7	45.7	17.1	17.1	37.1	37.1	0	0
36	There are furniture, barriers and obstacles that limit my mobility at work area^**	34.3	35.3	20.0	20.6	42.9	44.1	2.9	–––
38	I feel lonely at work^**	31.4	31.4	17.1	17.1	51.4	51.4	0	0

^*P#: Perspective number as it appeared in the original instrument analysis, similar number will appear in all subsequent analysis and tables in this paper. ^**Item value reversed for theme hypothesis evaluation. ^θNAND. = Neither agree nor disagree.

2.1.3 Open ended questions

The last part of the questionnaire consists of three open-ended questions regarding obstacles and challenges for PWD at work area. In addition, blanks at the end of the questionnaire, titled “Other Issues”, allow freeform participation and inclusion of other issues the survey may not cover.

2.2 Sampling and study design

Data collected for a grand project (currently in progress) assessing the working conditions of PWD in Jordan was used in this study. The data presented was acquired by currently working PWD. Therefore, the sampling design resembles the original study presented below.

2.2.1 Participants’ eligibility and research location

A convenience sample of working PWD, who have either physical, visual, or auditory disabilities, had been invited and recruited in this study. None working and never worked PWD, as well as other types of disabilities had been excluded. The participants’ ages were between 18–60 years old. All participants who were recruited in this study were registered into the HCD database for benefits and services. The council authorities were contacted through official channels to distribute the questionnaire over its offices across Jordan. The questionnaires were sent to the following offices: Northern office (in Irbid municipality), Southern office (serves Al Karak and Al Aqaba municipalities), East Amman office (serves the eastern part of Jordan including Zarqa municipality), and the Central office(serves PWD in Amman the capital city of Jordan, the Jordan valley and Al Balqa municipalities).

2.2.2 Recruitment procedure

HCD personnel invited the candidates to participate in the study after explaining the purpose of the research. Those who had agreed to participate signed the consent form and answered all PWDWCS questions in a quiet room at the council’s offices. Filling out the questionnaire required 15–20 minutes. Initially data was collected over a period of two months. Initial completed eligible questionnaires were 14 in total. Therefore, the data collection time was extended for another 10 months. The total number of the distributed questionnaires was 150 with a response rate of 79.3%. Among the remaining 119 questionnaires, 70 questionnaires were not filled out completely, and “never worked” individuals completed 14 questionnaires. Therefore, all 84 questionnaires were excluded from this study. The final number of the eligible and analyzed questionnaires was 35, which will affect the generalizability of the results.

2.3 Data analysis procedure

The hypotheses for this research were that “work opportunities to PWD are available” and that “The available working conditions are appropriate to PWDs’ education, preparation and capabilities”. To examine these hypotheses, five sets of analyses were performed using SPSS version 20 and Excel 2016. First, a descriptive statistical analysis of the theme, which included calculations of means, frequencies and percentages on each perspective statement. After that, positively worded statements’ scores organized in a direct order, negatively worded statements’ scores were organized in a reverse order, and the final cumulative percentage of the theme was calculated and used to test the study hypotheses. Second, an analysis of each perspective statement’s responses was performed. This included calculating one sample Chi-Square for each item to identify if each item’s response occurred with an equal probability, and if not, then in what direction it occurred (agreement, NAND or disagreement). Third, an analysis of a correlation coefficient matrix, which was used to understand and infer the relation between different participant’s responses on the perspective statements. Fourth, a group analysis (using Mann-Whitney U, and Kruskal Wallis tests) used to identify any significant difference among different groups (the groups were based on gender, age, marital status, type of disabilities, years of experience, level of education, type of employer, salary category, time required to find work, and previous employment). Finally, content analysis of open-ended questions was used to identify any further obstacles for PWD at workplace.

3 Findings and discussion

3.1 Demographics

Most of the participants were male (68.6%) (Table 2), with the largest age group being 45 years or older (31.4%). In addition, the majority were married (65.7%); none of the participants was divorced, widowed or separated. The majority of the participants (81.8%) have physical disabilities, compared to 15.2%with visual disabilities, and 3%with auditory disabilities. Nearly one third of the participants (31.5%) had a low level of education (below high school). In contrast, two third of the participants had higher levels of education (high school to doctorate degree). Approximately half of the participants (53.1%) reported spending two or less years looking for, and finding jobs. Furthermore, six participants reported spending several years looking for work (4, 7, 8, 10, 12, and 13 years specifically). The majority of the participants (43.8%) work in private sectors, and 37.5%of the participants work in governmental institutions. The remaining participants work in other sectors (Table 2). The nature of work includes office and labor work.

Table 2
Demographic data

Demographics Items % Valid % Demographics Items % Valid %

Gender Female 31.4 31.4 Type of disability Physical 77.1 81.8

Male 68.6 68.6 Visual 14.3 15.2

Auditory 2.9 3.0

Age group 20–25 years 11.4 11.4 Missing 5.7 –

26–30 years 17.1 17.1

31–35 years 11.4 11.4 Level of education Illiterate 8.6 8.6

36–40 years 14.3 14.3 Occupation Based training 2.9 2.9

41–45 years 14.3 14.3 Basic below high school education 20.0 20.0

> 45 years 31.4 31.4 High school 25.7 25.7

Diploma 8.6 8.6

Marital status Single 34.3 34.3 Bachelor 28.6 28.6

Married 65.7 65.7 Master 2.9 2.9

Others 0 0 Doctorate 2.9 2.9

Previous employment No 80.0 80.0 Type of employer Government 34.3 37.5

Yes 20.0 20.0 Private sector 40.0 43.8

Time required to find work < 1 year 22.9 25.0 NGO^* 2.9 3.1

1–2 years 25.7 28.1 Military sector 11.4 12.5

> 2 years 42.9 46.9 Universities 2.9 3.1

Missing 8.6 – Missing 8.6 ––

Salary category < 100 JD^** 8.6 8.8 Years of experience 1/2–2 years 20.0 25.9

100–200 JD 14.3 14.7 > 2–5 years 14.3 18.5

201–300 JD 25.7 26.5 > 5–10 years 11.4 14.8

301–400 JD 25.7 26.5 > 10–15 years 11.4 14.8

401–500 JD 14.3 14.7 > 15 years 20.0 25.9

501–600 JD 2.9 2.9 Missing 22.9 ––

> 600 JD 5.7 5.9

Missing 2.9 – Number of family members other than yourself 0 54.3 54.3

1, 2, &3 0 0

Nature of work Office work 45.7 64 4 5.7 5.7

Labor work 25.7 36 5 5.7 5.7

Missing 28.6 ____ 6 14.3 14.3

7 8.6 8.6

8 0 0

9 2.9 2.9

10 5.7 5.7

14 2.9 2.9

Demographics	Items	%	Valid %	Demographics	Items	%	Valid %
Gender	Female	31.4	31.4	Type of disability	Physical	77.1	81.8
	Male	68.6	68.6		Visual	14.3	15.2
					Auditory	2.9	3.0
Age group	20–25 years	11.4	11.4		Missing	5.7	–
	26–30 years	17.1	17.1
	31–35 years	11.4	11.4	Level of education	Illiterate	8.6	8.6
	36–40 years	14.3	14.3		Occupation Based training	2.9	2.9
	41–45 years	14.3	14.3		Basic below high school education	20.0	20.0
	> 45 years	31.4	31.4		High school	25.7	25.7
					Diploma	8.6	8.6
Marital status	Single	34.3	34.3		Bachelor	28.6	28.6
	Married	65.7	65.7		Master	2.9	2.9
	Others	0	0		Doctorate	2.9	2.9
Previous employment	No	80.0	80.0	Type of employer	Government	34.3	37.5
	Yes	20.0	20.0		Private sector	40.0	43.8
Time required to find work	< 1 year	22.9	25.0		NGO^*	2.9	3.1
	1–2 years	25.7	28.1		Military sector	11.4	12.5
	> 2 years	42.9	46.9		Universities	2.9	3.1
	Missing	8.6	–		Missing	8.6	––
Salary category	< 100 JD^**	8.6	8.8	Years of experience	1/2–2 years	20.0	25.9
	100–200 JD	14.3	14.7		> 2–5 years	14.3	18.5
	201–300 JD	25.7	26.5		> 5–10 years	11.4	14.8
	301–400 JD	25.7	26.5		> 10–15 years	11.4	14.8
	401–500 JD	14.3	14.7		> 15 years	20.0	25.9
	501–600 JD	2.9	2.9		Missing	22.9	––
	> 600 JD	5.7	5.9
	Missing	2.9	–	Number of family members other than yourself	0	54.3	54.3
					1, 2, &3	0	0
Nature of work	Office work	45.7	64		4	5.7	5.7
	Labor work	25.7	36		5	5.7	5.7
	Missing	28.6	____		6	14.3	14.3
					7	8.6	8.6
					8	0	0
					9	2.9	2.9
					10	5.7	5.7
					14	2.9	2.9

^*NGO: None Governmental organization. ^**JD: Jordanian Dinar.

Participants’ salaries ranged from less than 100 Jordanian Dinars (JD) (≅ 141$ US Dollar) per month (8.8%) to more than 600 JDs (5.9%), and none had a volunteer job. Their years of experience ranged between (6 months–2 years) (25.9%) to more than 15 years (25.9%).

3.2 Theme analysis

The availability of appropriate work that fits PWDs’ abilities theme-related statements analysis revealed results in favor of the availability of appropriate work (45.8%) compared to (37.9%) disagreed (Table 3). The higher percentage above may be related to the fact that it represents working PWDs’ opinion. On the other hand, many factors could depict the lowest percentage above including marketplace forces, economic fabric of the community, community and social support [27 –29], commitment to PWDs’ workplace rights [8, 16], weak enforcement of law and regulation pertaining to PWD [30], stigma [7 , 31–33], education system, rehabilitation system and biopsychosocial characteristics of PWD [12]. Other factors may include the characteristics of coworkers as well as employer-related factors [17] like discrimination, high cost and productivity issues [20].

Table 3
Availability of appropriate work theme and its component responses analysis

Availability of appropriate work theme Availability of work component Appropriateness component

Perspective Frequency Percent% Missing% Frequency Percent% Missing% Frequency Percent% Missing%

Agree 362 45.76 44 42.72 318 46.22

NAND 129 16.31 14 13.59 115 16.72

Disagree 300 37.91 45 43.69 255 37.06

Missing 14 1.74 2 1.90 12 1.71

Total 791 103 688

Grand Total 805 105 700

	Availability of appropriate work theme	Availability of work component	Appropriateness component
Agree	362	45.76		44	42.72		318	46.22
NAND	129	16.31		14	13.59		115	16.72
Disagree	300	37.91		45	43.69		255	37.06
Missing	14		1.74	2		1.90	12		1.71
Total	791			103			688
Grand Total	805			105			700

This theme assessed two components: the availability of work and the appropriateness of work to PWDs’ education, preparation and capabilities (Table 3). The discussion of these components included an analysis of each component-related perspective statements, taking into consideration the actual percentage of employment of PWD in Jordan, general working conditions of PWD as well as employees without disabilities (EWOD), and comparing these working conditions with national and international standards.

3.2.1 Availability of work opportunity

An analysis of the availability of work-related perspective statements (1, 2, and 10) (Table 1 and Table 3) revealed 42.7%of the participants reported the availability of work compared to 43.7%who did not, while 13.6%of the participants were neutral. Whereas an item-by-item analysis (Table 1) revealed that higher percentages of the participants reported that their employers created job vacancies for PWD (55.9%agreed compared to 26.5%disagreed) with a significant difference between agree and neutral (X^2 (1) = 6.760 p = 0.009) (Table 4). At the same time a lower percentage reported a high competition (44.1%, agreed compared to 47.1%disagreed) with a significant difference between agree and neutral (X^2 (1) = 8.0, p = 0.005), and disagree and neutral (X^2 (1) = 8.895 p = 0.003). This indicated that participants’ responses vary significantly, i.e. there is no agreement on the competition item despite reporting availability of job vacancies created by employers. In addition, the majority (60%) of PWD reported difficulty finding work opportunities (X^2 (1) = 4.800, p = 0.028) compared to 25.7%disagreed, which reflects a significant difference, indicating that work opportunities were relatively not available to PWD. The interpretation of these results refers to one or more of the following reasons: a relatively low number of offered jobs compared to the actual need, inappropriateness of the job offered to PWDs’ abilities, unannounced work vacancies, and the incapability of PWD to seek and apply for work.

Table 4
Chi square test statistics

One sample Pairwise

Test items (perspective statements) X² Df. Sig.^** R^* X² Df. Sig.

I easily found work opportunity 11.886 2 0.003 D–A 4.800 1 0.028

D–N 9.846 1 0.002

There is a high competition on the available work opportunities 9.235 2 0.010 A–N 8.000 1 0.005

D–N 8.895 1 0.003

The wages payed for PWD are less than that payed for people with no disability 14.114 2 0.001 D–A 6.533 1 0.011

D–N 10.704 1 0.001

My employer makes available continuing education programs to improve work skills 9.657 2 0.008 A–N 8.895 1 0.003

D–N 8.895 1 0.003

I wish that I got more training at work to be able to accomplish work tasks efficiently 8.882 2 0.012 A–N 8.167 1 0.004

My work place creates vacancies to employ PWD according to the laws and regulations 8.176 2 0.017 A–N 6.760 1 0.009

In my institution there are written manual for work procedure 6.412 2 0.041 A–N 6.545 1 0.011

In my institution there is a written job description 10.343 2 0.006 A–N 10.714 1 0.001

D–N 7.118 1 0.008

I do not get employment development and promotion chances compared to employees with no disabilities 15.314 2 0.000 A–N 16.200 1 0.000

D–N 12.250 1 0.000

I am not allowed to talk or give opinion on work related matters 12.765 2 0.002 D–A 5.828 1 0.016

D–N 9.846 1 0.002

My assignments at work are higher than those for employees with no disabilities 12.765 2 0.002 D–A 9.846 1 0.002

D–N 5.828 1 0.016

I cannot use WC &other service areas because they are not designed for people with disabilities 6.400 2 0.041 D–N 6.545 1 0.011

I feel lonely at work 6.229 2 0.044 D–N 6.00 1 0.014

	One sample		Pairwise
I easily found work opportunity	11.886	2	0.003	D–A	4.800	1	0.028
				D–N	9.846	1	0.002
There is a high competition on the available work opportunities	9.235	2	0.010	A–N	8.000	1	0.005
				D–N	8.895	1	0.003
The wages payed for PWD are less than that payed for people with no disability	14.114	2	0.001	D–A	6.533	1	0.011
				D–N	10.704	1	0.001
My employer makes available continuing education programs to improve work skills	9.657	2	0.008	A–N	8.895	1	0.003
				D–N	8.895	1	0.003
I wish that I got more training at work to be able to accomplish work tasks efficiently	8.882	2	0.012	A–N	8.167	1	0.004
My work place creates vacancies to employ PWD according to the laws and regulations	8.176	2	0.017	A–N	6.760	1	0.009
In my institution there are written manual for work procedure	6.412	2	0.041	A–N	6.545	1	0.011
In my institution there is a written job description	10.343	2	0.006	A–N	10.714	1	0.001
				D–N	7.118	1	0.008
I do not get employment development and promotion chances compared to employees with no disabilities	15.314	2	0.000	A–N	16.200	1	0.000
				D–N	12.250	1	0.000
I am not allowed to talk or give opinion on work related matters	12.765	2	0.002	D–A	5.828	1	0.016
				D–N	9.846	1	0.002
My assignments at work are higher than those for employees with no disabilities	12.765	2	0.002	D–A	9.846	1	0.002
				D–N	5.828	1	0.016
I cannot use WC &other service areas because they are not designed for people with disabilities	6.400	2	0.041	D–N	6.545	1	0.011
I feel lonely at work	6.229	2	0.044	D–N	6.00	1	0.014

^*R represent responses (A = Agree, N = Neither agree nor disagree, & D = Disagree), arranged in favor of significance ^** P < 0.05.

Group analysis (Table 5) revealed no significant difference across all groups for the item “easily found work opportunity” meaning that there was a consensus among all participants that it was not easy to find a work opportunity. On the other hand, the competition perspective analysis revealed a significant difference only in the type of employer (X^2 (4) = 10.257, p = 0.036). Pairwise comparison showed a significant difference between government and private sectors (X^2 (1) = 7.526, p = 0.002), and between private and military (X^2 (1) = 4.928, p = 0.026) only. The lowest competition was among private sector participants, followed by universities, government, military, and the highest competition was among NGO’s sector, respectively. This result of the increased competition can be explained in light of scarcity of jobs, higher salaries and job security offered to PWD in NGO, then military, government, and private sectors, respectively. Furthermore, referring to the demographic data, fifteen participants (46.9%) reported spending up to 13 years looking for a job, which is congruent to the perspective statement about easiness in finding a job percentage above.

Table 5

Groups analysis

	Groups
Theme statement	Gender^Ψ	Age group^Φ	Marital status^Ψ	Type of disability^Φ	Years of experience^Φ	Level of education^Φ	Type of employer^Φ	Salary category^Φ	Time to find work^Φ	Previous employment^Ψ
There is a high competition on available work opportunities	0.828	0.298	0.913	0.448	0.218	0.407	0.036^*	0.113	0.294	0.771
The nature of assigned work coincides my abilities	0.334	0.517	0.037^*	0.558	0.876	0.634	0.451	0.395	0.385	0.505
On recruitment I had been trained on work requirements	0.867	0.663	0.017^*	0.736	0.168	0.751	0.350	0.883	0.592	0.133
My employer makes available continuing education programs to improve work skills	0.517	0.551	0.745	0.978	0.650	0.285	0.153	0.434	0.773	0.454
I wish that I got more training at work to be able to accomplish work tasks efficiently	0.663	0.417	0.068	0.193	0.034^*	0.582	0.624	0.536	0.349	0.803
In my institution there are written manuals for work procedures	0.445	0.646	0.028^*	0.916	0.350	0.432	0.736	0.614	0.148	0.222
My assignments at work are higher than those for employees with no disabilities	0.586	0.209	0.790	0.209	0.384	0.589	0.445	0.639	0.653	0.048^*

Note: statements with significant group presented, all other statements have no significant difference. ^ΨMann-Whitney U Test. ^ΦKruskal-Wallis Test. ^*P < 0.05.

Pearson Correlation (Table 6) between these three items (1, 2, and 10) (Table 1) revealed a weak positive non-significant correlation, indicating that each perspective statement was standalone independent from the other two perspective items. In conclusion, none of the previous results supports the initial hypothesis that “work for PWD was available”.

Table 6

Correlation coefficient

N	Perspective statements	Positive correlation	Negative correlation
1	I easily found work opportunity	3 (0.347^), 6 (0.384^), 8 (0.362^*)	20 (–0.352^*).
2	There is a high competition on the available work opportunities”	11 (0.627^**)	3 (–0.385^), 6 (–0.379^).
3	The wages are suitable to work nature	1 (0.347^), 6 (0.619^), 8 (0.593^), 13 (0.551^), 16 (0.355^)	2 (–0.385^), 7 (–0.376^), 11 (–0.513^**).
5	The wages payed for PWD are less than that payed for people with no disability	23 (0.459^), 33 (0.537^), 34 (0.387^), 35 (0.461^*).	6 (–0.391^), 8 (–0.416^), 10 (–0.394^), 13 (–0.397^), 16 (–0.495^*), 17 (–0.382^), 25 (–0.517^**).
6	The nature of assigned work coincides my abilities	1 (0.384^), 3 (0.619^), 4 (0.553^), 8 (0.686^), 9 (0.465^), 10 (0.402^), 12 (0.472^), 13 (0.459^), 14 (0.614^), 16 (0.512^), 17 (0.480^*), 29 (0.389^), 32 (0.485^), 37 (0.519^).	2 (–0.379^), 5 (–0.391^), 11 (–0.644^**).
7	My skills and abilities are beyond the required work job description	11 (0.503^**).	3 (–0.376^), 8 (–0.533^), 10 (–0.483^), 13 (–0.515^), 16 (–0.614^), 17 (–0.534^*),
8	On recruitment I had been trained on work requirements	1 (0.362^), 3 (0.593^), 6 (0.686^), 10 (0.435^), 13 (0.611^), 16 (0.602^), 29 (0.405^*),	5 (–0.416^), 7(–0.533^), 11 (–0.617^*).
10	My employer makes available continuing education programs to improve work skills	6 (0.402^), 8 (0.435^), 13 (0.707^), 16 (0.466^),17 (0.504^), 29 (0.561^).	5 (–0.493^), 7(–0.483^), 11 (–0.411^*).
11	I wish that I got more training at work to be able to accomplish work tasks efficiently	2 (0.672^), 7 (0.503^), 23 (0.355^), 35 (0.405^), 36 (0.422^*)	3 (–0.513^), 6 (–0.644^), 8 (–0.617^*), 10 (–0.411^), 13 (–0.532^), 16 (–0.462^), 29 (–0.472^**).
13	My work place creates vacancies to employ PWD according to the laws and regulations	3 (0.551^), 6 (0.459^), 8 (0.611^), 10 (0.707^), 16 (0.564^), 17 (0.437^), 29 (0.605^*).	5 (–0.397^), 7 (–0.515^), 11 (–0.532^), 33 (–0.411^).
16	In my institution there are written manuals for work procedures	3 (0.355^), 6 (0.512^), 8 (0.602^), 10 (0.466^), 13 (0.564^), 17 (0.693^), 29 (0.454^*),	5 (–0.495^), 7 (–0.614^), 11 (–0.462^*), 33 (–0.359^)
17	In my institution, there is a written job description	6 (0.480^), 10 (0.504^), 13 (0.437^), 16 (0.693^), 29 (0.549^**).	5–0.382^), 7 (–0.534^), 33 (–0.347^)
18	I feel oppressed at my work place	20 (0.398^), 23 (0.538^), 25 (0.473^), 31 (0.388^), 33 (0.563^), 34 (0.545^), 35 (0.521^), 36 (0.663^), 38 (0.698^**)	28 (–0.632^**)
20	I do not get employment development and promotion chances compared to employees with no disabilities	18 (0.398^), 23 (0.464^), 31 (0.581^), 34 (0.555^), 35 (0.472^), 36 (0.425^), 38 (0.651^**).	1 (–0.352^*).
23	I am not allowed to talk or give opinion on work related matters	5 (0.459^*), 11 (0.355^), 18 (0.538^), 20 (0.464^), 25 (0.469^), 31 (0.617^), 33 (0.614^), 34 (0.717^), 35 (0.604^), 36 (0.577^), 38 (0.578^**).	———
25	My assignments at work are higher than those for employees with no disabilities	18 (0.473^), 23 (0.469^), 31 (0.440^), 33 (0.550^), 34 (0.633^), 35 (0.571^), 36 (0.557^), 38 (0.456^).	5 (–0.517^**).
29	The work environment is comfortable	6 (0.389^), 8 (0.405^), 10 (0.561^), 13 (0.605^), 16 (0.454^), 17 (0.549^).	11 (–0.472^**)
31	It is hard to access working tools at my work area	18 (0.383^), 20 (0.581^), 23 (0.617^), 25 (0.440^), 33 (0.697^), 34 (0.851^), 35 (0.800^), 36 (0.731^), 38 (0.665^*).	———
33	I cannot get to break area because it is not accessible	5 (0.537^), 18 (0.563^), 23 (0.614^), 25 (0.550^), 31 (0.697^), 34 (0.725^), 35 (0.782^), 36 (0.701^), 38 (0.509^*).	13 (–0.411^), 16 (–0. 359^), 17 (–0.347^*),
34	I cannot use the WC and other service areas because they are not designed for people with disabilities	5 (0.387^), 18 (0.545^), 20 (0.555^), 23 (0.717^), 25 (0.633^), 31 (0.851^), 33 (0.725^), 35 (0.801^), 36 (0.748^), 38 (0.567^*)	———
35	The work area requires several modifications to make it accessible	5 (0. 461^*), 11 (0.405^), 18 (0.521^), 20 (0.472^), 23 (0.604^), 25 (0.571^), 31 (0.800^), 33 (0.782^), 34 (0.801^), 36 (0.750^), 38 (0.518^**).	———
36	There are furniture, barriers and obstacles that limit my mobility at work area	11 (0.422^), 18 (0.663^), 20 (0.415^), 23 (0.577^), 25 (0.557^), 31 (0.731^), 33 (0.701^), 34 (0.748^), 35 (0.750^), 38 (0.730^**).	———
38	I feel lonely at work	18 (0.698^), 20 (0.651^), 23 (0.578^), 25 (0.456^), 31 (0.665^), 33 (0.509^), 34 (0.567^), 35 (0.518^), 36 (0.730^**)	———

^*P < 0.05; ^**P < 0.01.

Finding a job for PWD continues to be a difficult mission [30]. The actual percentage of individuals with disability in Jordan represents 13%of the population according to the HCD statistics in Jordan [10]. Jordan Ministry of Labors, based on the (LRPWDA) Article 25 [5], mandates the percentage of employment of PWD to be up to 4%based on the institution’s size [34, 35]. In comparison, based on Jordan Labor Watch (2016), the actual recruitment of PWD in Jordan was less than 1%in the public sector and less than 0.5%in the private sector [36] which represents a very low percentage of the PWD in Jordan. While that, Europe currently employs 44%of PWDs’ population [21]. Literature also reveals that employment for PWD is less than the employment for those without disabilities [9 , 37] worldwide. Employment of PWD statistics in Jordan represents below the actual mandates to hire PWD and well below percentages of those in developed countries. In addition, this represents a breach to the article 25 [1] on PWD rights in Jordan, which stated that, “No person may be excluded from employment or from training on the basis of, or because of, disability. . . ” [34, 36]. The results of this part of the research were incongruent with a previously conducted study on PWDs’ employment, in which the results showed moderate satisfaction of PWD about the availability of facilities [38].

Several factors depicted these results and might include social factors [12 , 39] like prejudice, social stigma [21, 40], fear of employers about PWDs’ abilities [20 , 42], a high cost of preparing, adjustment and modification of work environment [12, 20] to fit PWDs’ needs. Other factors might also include accessibility at work place, equal actions, handling, conducting, and training on work tasks, psychosocial characteristics of PWD, and availability of transportation [12, 21]. In addition, other factors may include a relatively low number of offered jobs compared to the actual needs, inappropriateness of jobs offered to PWDs’ abilities, low salary, unannounced or inappropriate announcing work vacancies, and inability of PWD to seek and apply for work. It might also be construed to PWDs’ personal factors [17] like low self-esteem, fear of inability to perform job tasks, lack of experience, self-stigmatization, lack of rehabilitation and feeling dependent.

3.2.2 Availability of appropriate working conditions that fit PWDs’ capabilities

The second assessed component is the factors affecting the appropriateness and fitness of work to PWDs’ abilities, which include wages, work assignments, clear working procedures, work-related training, employment development and promotions, PWDs’ feelings at work, and work environment and services. A general evaluation of this part of the theme showed 46.2%of the participants agreed on the availability of appropriate working conditions, compared to 37.1%who disagreed and a percentage of 16.7%missing responses (Table 3). General theme results supported relative availability of appropriate work that fits PWDs’ education, preparation and capability over inappropriate working conditions. Even though, these relatively close percentages indicated that a considerable group of PWD had difficulties in finding a work opportunity that fits their capabilities. These results did not support the hypotheses about the existence of appropriate working conditions to PWD in Jordan. Therefore, a detailed analysis of each perspective statement became a necessity to identifying areas of concern regarding this part of the research.

3.2.2.1.Income and work assignment-related perspectives:Detailed perspective statements analysis revealed that, an equal percentage (41.2%) of PWD reported wages were and were not suitable to the work nature, at the same time, the majority of the participants (62.9%, X^2 (1) = 6.533, p = 0.011) reported that their wages were not less than payed to EWOD, and only 22.9%considered their wages less than EWOD. This indicated that despite getting no less wages than EWOD, half of the participants considered their wages inappropriate. Several studies revealed injustice in wages for PWD compared to EWOD worldwide [20 , 44]. The factors that affect the results may include personal issues, marital status, number of family members, national and global economic inflation rates, taxes, the inherent low income in Jordan, and others.

In addition, a higher percentage of the participants (42.9%compared to 37.1%) reported that the nature of the assigned work did not coincide with their abilities. Furthermore, the participants believed that their skills were beyond the requirements of the assigned work job description (47.1%), compared to (35.3 %) who disagreed. On the other hand, the majority of the participants 61.8%(X^2 (1) = 9.846, p = 0.002) believed that their work assignments were not higher than those assigned to EWOD. In conclusion, a higher percentage of the participants believed that they had skills beyond the requirements of their current position, even though, they relatively got no less wages and no more work assignments compared to EWOD. Contrary to that, literature revealed unfair assignment distribution among PWD and EWOD [33]. These results may pose a problem with job satisfaction [33], and it can be an indicator of recruiters’ disbelief about PWDs’ abilities [12–14 , 17], which may also reflect stigmatization against PWD.

The correlation analysis (Table 6) revealed a significant positive correlation between suitability of wages to work nature, and the nature of the assigned work coincide PWDs’ abilities statements (r = 0.619, n = 34, p = 0.00). In addition, the suitability of wages had a positive correlation to “my skills and abilities are beyond the required work job description” (r = 0.376, n = 33, p = 0.031), and an insignificant negative correlation found to “work assignments was higher than those for EWOD” (r = –0.115, n = 33, p = 0.524). These results mean that PWD whose work assignments were below or appropriate to their abilities reported wages were suitable to the work nature. On the other hand, those who reported being payed less than EWOD believed that their assigned work duties were higher than that for EWOD (correlation r = 0.517, n = 34, p = 0.002) and some of them were not satisfied with their wages even though their assigned work fit their abilities (r = 0.391, n = 35, p = 0.020).

The group analysis (Table 5) showed a significant difference among marital status groups, as married PWD reported a higher percentage of disagreement for the item “nature of assigned work coincides with my abilities” (The mean rank for married group = 20.61 (n = 23), and for single group = 13 (n = 12), U = 198, p = 0.0373). The group analysis on the item “My skills and abilities are beyond the required work job description” showed that married PWD reported a higher percentage of agreement than the single group. These results indicate that the married PWD perceived themselves as more competent to the assigned work description.

In addition, PWD who had no previous work reported a significant higher percentage of disagreement on the perspective “my assignments at work are higher than EWOD” (Mean rank for no previous work group = 19.22 (n = 27), and for previously worked group = 10.86 (n = 7), U = 48, p = 0.0485).

3.2.2.2.Availability of clear working procedures:In terms of the availability of clear working procedures, a higher percentage of the participants (51.4%compared to 40%, X^2 (2) = 10.343, p = 0.006) reported the availability of a written job description, as well as, a higher percentage (50%compared to 35.3%, X^2 (2) = 6.412, p = 0.041) reported the availability of written procedure manuals. Pairwise analysis results showed no significant variation in the participants’ agree and disagree responses for both perspective statements. Meanwhile, the analysis showed a significant difference between agree and neutral (X^2 (1) = 10.714, p = 0.001), disagree and neutral (X^2 (1) = 7.118, p = 0.008) responses for the availability of the job description. In addition, the analysis showed a significant difference between agree and neutral responses (X^2 (1) = 6.545, p = 0.011) for the availability of the written procedure manuals. These results indicate a disagreement among PWD on these two perspective statements. In conclusion, many institutions (not statistically significant) made available job description and procedure manuals making the expectations of the required work and methods of accomplishment clear to PWD.

Pearson Correlation analysis showed a positive correlation between the two perspective statements (r = 0.693, n = 34, p = 0.000), meaning that the institutions that had written job descriptions also had a written manual for work-related tasks. Group analysis using the Mann-Whitney U test revealed a significant difference between married and singles pertaining to the availability of written manuals for work procedures (The mean rank for married group = 20.25 (n = 22), and for singles group = 12.46 (n = 12), U = 192.5, p = 0.0277)), with a higher percentage of participants who agreed on the availability of written manuals among married participants. No other significant variation for other perspective statements was noted. It was indicated in the literature that the availability of working policies and procedure manuals could be a facilitator to PWD, and the unavailability was considered a barrier [11, 12].

3.2.2.3.Education, training, employment development and work promotion:Perspectives analysis of work-related education, training, employment development, and promotions, revealed a higher percentage (44.1%compared to 38.2%) of the participants getting work-related training on recruitment. In addition, an equal percentage of the participants (45.7%) reported getting continuing education programs, even though, a higher percentage of the participants (55.9%compared to 29.4%, X^2 (2) = 8.882, p =0.012) reported their willingness to get more work-related training. Pairwise analysis for the last item showed a significant difference between agree and NAND. (X^2 (1) = 8.167, p = 0.004). These results suggest an increased need for work-related training and continuing education programs.

The statement “On recruitment I had been trained on work requirements” was positively correlated to “my employer makes available continuing education (CE) programs” (r = 0.435, n = 34, p = 0.010) and “I wish that I got more training at work to be able to accomplish work tasks efficiently” (r = 0.617, n = 33, p = 0.000). This later perspective statement also correlated positively to “my employer makes available CE. . . ” (r = 0.411, n = 34, p = 0.016).

In conclusion, PWD who received work-related training on recruitment and CE did not feel satisfied, or it did not meet their actual needs or expectations, as indicated by a higher percentage of PWDs’ willingness to get more work-related training. Work-related training was discussed in previous researches as a working condition [16, 21] that employers required to improve for PWDs’ employee.

The last perspective statement in this group “I do not get chances to employment development compared to EWOD” was not significantly correlated to any other perspective, indicating a standalone perspective, and that a higher percentage of the participants (54.3%X^2 (2) = 15.314, p = 0.00) reported not getting employment development (compared to 42.9%who disagree). Pairwise analysis showed a significant difference between agree and NAND (X^2 (1) = 16.200, p = 0.000), and between disagree and NAND (X^2 (1) = 12.250, p = 0.000). Group analysis on this perspective statement showed no significant difference across all groups. These results indicate a disagreement between participants on this perspective with a higher percentage of responses agreeing on “not getting work development opportunities”.

Employment development and promotions were essential indicators of an appropriate work environment [33]. A higher percentage of the participants reported not getting a chance for employment development and promotion compared to EWOD. Connecting this result with PWD who reported a higher percentage of having skills beyond the requirements of their assigned work could indicate dissatisfaction and feeling that the work environment is unjust and inappropriate. On the other hand, this may indicate stigma, inequality and inequity. Klimoski and Donahue [8] pointed out this as an issue in PWDs’ employment conditions.

Group analysis using the Mann-Whitney U test for the item “on recruitment I had been trained on work requirements” showed a significant difference between married and single groups (The mean rank for married group = 20.30 (n = 23), and the mean rank for singles group = 11.64 (n = 11), U = 191, p = 0.0168) favoring the agreement of married participants on getting work-related training. In addition, years of experience as determinant group for the item “I wish that I got more training. . . ” using Kruskal Wallis test showed a significant difference between group 1 (experience 6 months- two years) and group 4 (experience > 10–15 years) with X^2 (1) = 6.417, p =0.011). In addition, a significant difference between group 1 and group 5 (experience > 15 years) with X^2 (1) = 5.2, p = 0.023. These results indicate that PWD who had more experience significantly reported a higher wish to get more training at work to be able to accomplish their work tasks efficiently than those who had low experience. No other significant results found for all other groups.

3.2.2.4.Social context at work:Respecting and supporting PWDs’ abilities to participate in work-related discussion as well as their abilities for socialization were indicators of an appropriate work environment [6 , 45]. A lower percentage of the participants (31.4%compared to 51.4%) reported feeling lonely at work, similarly a lower percentage (27.3%compared to 51.5%) reported feeling oppressed at work place, and a higher percentage 61.8%(X^2 (2) = 12.765, p = 0.002) reported that they were allowed to talk and give opinions on work-related matters compared to 23.5%reported the opposite. Pairwise analysis for the last statement confirmed the results (X^2 (1) = 5.828, p = 0.016). These results indicate relative acceptance of PWD, presence of work-related interaction among employees and appropriate social climate at work place. Such a result can be explained by the nature of the Jordanian culture, and indiscriminately by the religious nature of the population. A similar result found in literature, for example, Riches et.al. [15] found that employers and other employees have a positive attitude towards PWD secondary to direct experience with PWD.

All three-perspective statements had a significant positive correlation to each other. “I feel oppressed at my work place” had a positive correlation (r = 0.698, n = 33, p = 0.000) to “I feel lonely at work”. Similarly it had a positive correlation (r = 0.538, n = 32, p = 0.001) to “I am not allowed to talk or give an opinion on work-related matters”. Finally, “I feel lonely. . . ” had a positive correlation (r = 0.578, n = 34, p = 0.000) to “I am not allowed to talk. . . ” On the other hand, group analysis showed no significant difference across all groups for these perspective statements indicating a consensus on the socialization-related statements at the work place.

3.2.2.5. Work environment:The last factor pertaining to the availability of appropriate work discussed in this study is the availability of an appropriate work environment i.e. accessibility that fits the needs and abilities of PWD to perform work-related activities and tasks. Accessibility at work environment enhances the workers’ confidence and mobility [12 , 47]. It also may affect the employability of PWD [18]. A higher percentage of the participants (50%compared to 29.4%) reported that the working environment was comfortable. A lower percentage (35.3%compared to 44.1%) reported the presence of furniture and other obstacles that limited their mobility at work area. Moreover, a lower percentage (40%compared to 42.9%) reported difficulty accessing work-related tools, similarly a lower percentage (32.4%compared to 35.3%) reported inability to get to the break area, and a lower percentage (37.1%compared to 48.6%) reported inability to use the WC (toilet) and other service areas. Finally, a higher percentage of the participants (45.7%compared to 37.1%) reported that the work areas require several modifications to make it accessible. Chi Square statistic showed no significant difference in the distribution of responses of all perspective statements tested under this category. In addition, group analysis revealed no significant difference on PWDs’ responses in any perspective statement across all groups belonged to this category.

Pearson Correlation’s analysis revealed a significant strong positive correlation between all perspective statements except for “The work environment is comfortable”. The item “it is hard to access working tools at my work area” had a significant positive correlation to all of the following statements: “I cannot get to the break area because it is not accessible” (r = 0.697, n = 34, p = 0.000); “I cannot use the WC (toilet) and other services. . . ” (r = 0.851, n = 35, p = 0.000), “there are furniture barriers. . . ” (r = 0.731, n = 34, p = 0.000), and “The work area requires several modifications. . . ” (r = 0.800, n = 35, p = 0.000).

The statement “I cannot get to the break area because it is not accessible” had a significant positive correlation with, “I cannot use the WC and other service areas. . . ” (r = 0.725, n = 34, p = 0.000), “There are furniture barriers. . . ” (r = 0.701, n = 33, p = 0.000), and “The work requires several modifications. . . ” (r = 0.782, n = 34, p = 0.000). In addition, the statement “I cannot use the WC and other service areas because they are not designed for PWD” had a significant positive correlation with “There are furniture barriers and obstacles. . . ” (r = 0.748, n = 34, p = 0.000), and “The work area requires several modifications. . . ” (r = 0.801, n = 35, p = 0.000). Finally, the item “The work area requires several modifications to make it accessible” had a significant positive correlation to other items, as above, and to the item “There are furniture barriers. . . ” (r = 0.750, n = 34, p = 0.000).

In conclusion, the work area is relatively comfortable, despite that, it continues to be in need for several modifications to render better accessibility at workplace areas.

3.3 Open ended questions analysis

Content analysis of open-ended section responses revealed that “The work assignment exceeds the participants’ abilities (9 responses). The participants also reported lack of work opportunities, inability to perform work-related tasks, and presence of impediments at work environment including accessibility (4 responses for each item). In addition, the participants reported low salaries, long working hours and lack of assistive devices as obstacles (2 responses for each item). Finally, the inability to achieve self-esteem needs, the inability to concentrate at work area, the inappropriate physical environmental preparation, the inequality among peers at work, the high workload, and PWD stigmas, represented obstacles for some participants (one response for each item). These responses supported the previously discussed issues related to the availability and appropriateness of work to PWDs’ abilities.

3.4 Limitations

This research intended to collect data from PWD at several municipalities and regions in Jordan. Distributing questionnaires through HCD’s offices proved to be of limited effectiveness, and due to the limitation on budget, the researcher was unable to recruit research assistants to collect in site data, which led to the limited number of participants. In addition, a comparison between municipalities as different groups could not be performed due to the limited number of responses from northern and southern municipalities. Other limitations included the inability to recruit PWD who do not benefit from the services on HCD, as well as, the inability to recruit all categories of disabilities. In addition, the results of this research are of limited generalizability due to the small number of eligible participants.

3.5 Future studies

It is recommended to conduct several studies on a wider scale to include more participants of PWD. Moreover, comparing working PWD to those who do not work in order to gain better understanding on the perspective of availability of work opportunities to PWD. Another suggested study may include a research to identify the causes of unemployment among PWDs’ community in Jordan.

4 Conclusion and recommendation

Although this study found several positive aspects related to the availability and the appropriateness of working conditions to PWDs’ abilities, it also revealed important facets of challenging work reality to PWD in Jordan. The initial hypotheses could not be confirmed, work opportunities were not relatively available to PWD, and the available work did not relatively fit PWDs’ education, preparation and capabilities in Jordan.

Several findings supported this conclusion, including limited availability and high competition on work opportunities/vacancies to PWD. There was a considerable percentage (50%) of participants, who reported inappropriate wages for the nature of work, as well as, inappropriate below PWDs’ abilities work assignments. In addition, a lower but considerable percentage of PWD reported unavailable job descriptions, or procedures manuals. Furthermore, PWD reported unsatisfactory initial training and continuing education programs. Moreover, a higher percentage of the participants reported not getting employment development opportunities or promotions compared to EWOD. Additionally, although the social context was relatively acceptable to PWD, almost one third of the participants reported the opposite. Finally, several modifications in the work environment were required to render better accessibility at workplaces across all sectors’ institutions.

The availability of work opportunities should be increased to integrate more PWD into the work force of the community. This requires the integration effort of different sectors including the government, private sector, DPOs, HCD, Ministry of labor, and PWD themselves. The government should work on increasing and enforcing the mandate of employing PWD quota into the work force. In addition, laws pertaining to employment of PWD should be revised to enhance, encourage and support all sectors to adopt employment of PWD.

Making appropriate working conditions available to PWD requires enforcement of rigorous observatory procedure lead by the government to ensure appropriate working conditions. In addition, increasing recruitment among PWD requires providing rehabilitation services to all institutions as well as to PWD to improve the process of recruitment. Rehabilitation services may include programs targeting: proper announcing job vacancies, processing of work application, selecting candidates, improving salaries, modifying work environment, enhancing fitness of work offered to PWD and eliminating stigma and personal factors. Community rehabilitation programs may also be required to be directed to both recruiters as well as to PWD themselves. A multidisciplinary teamwork is required to design and implement these rehabilitation programs particularly occupational therapy services. Occupational therapy services include ergonomics, work environment modification, employment interests and pursuits, employment seeking and acquisition, job performance, retirement preparation and adjustment, volunteer exploration, and volunteer participation” [1].

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to acknowledge the Hashemite University for the support and help in providing all the required reviews, approval and communications (with HCD) to facilitate the conduction of this research, as well as providing electronic resources, databases and the SPSS program for the data analysis. In addition, special thanks goes to HCD personnel who helped in distributing and collecting the PWDWCS.

Conflict of interest

None to report.

References

AOTA. Occupational Therapy Practice Framework: Domain and process. The American Journal of Occupational Ther- apy. 2014;68 (Supplement 1)(March/April 2014,):S 1-S 48.

International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.

Community-based rehabilitation: CBR guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.

Nurhayati

. Social Inclusion For Persons With Disabilities Through Access To Employment In Indonesia. Prophetic Law Review. 2020;2(1):1–21.

UN. United Nations Enable. Employment of persons with disabilities fact sheet [Internet]. November 2007 September/10/2019. Available from: http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/toolaction/employmentfs.pdf.

H-C

. Predicting Subjective Quality of Life in WorkersWith severe Psychiatric Disabilities. Community Mental Health Journal. 2008:135-46.

Aroonsrimorakot

, Laiphrakpam

, Paisantanakij

, Nilthongkum

. Barriers to employment of persons with disabilities. Interdisciplinary Research Review. 2020;15(4):1–7.

Klimoski

, Donahue

. HR. Strategies For Integrating Individuals With Disabilities Into The Work Place. Human Resources Management Review. 1997;7(1):109–38.

McKinney

, Swartz

. Employment integration barriers: experiences of people with disabilities. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2019: 1-23.

10.

Thompson

. The current situation of persons with disabilities in Jordan.K4D Helpdesk Report. Knowledge, evidence and learning for development. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies; 2018.

11.

Westmorland

, Williams

, Strong

, Arnold

. Perspectives on work (re)entry for persons with disabilities: Implications for clinicians. Work. 2002:29-40.

12.

Coelho

, Sampaioa

, Luz

, Mancini

. Work reality perceived by individuals with impairments: A biopsychosocial experience. Work. 2013;45:537–51.

13.

McDonnall

, 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.

14.

Nota

, Santilli

, Ginevra

, Soresi

. Employer Attitudes Towards the Work Inclusion of People With Disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities. 2014;27:511–20.

15.

Riches

, Green

. Social integration in the workplace for people with disabilities: An Australian perspective. Jourmal of Vocational Rehabilitation. 2003;19:127–42.

16.

Schur

, Kruse

, Blasi

, Blanck

. Is Disability Disabling in All Workplaces? Workplace Disparities and Corporoate Culture. Industrial Relation: A Jornal of Economy and Society. 2009;48(3):381–410.

17.

Vornholt

, Uitdewilligen

, Nijhuis

FJN

. Factors Affecting the Acceptance of People with Disabilities at Work: A Literature review. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation. 2013;23(4):463–57.

18.

Anand

, Sevak

. The role of workplace accommodations in the employment of people with disabilities. IZA Journal of Labor Policy. 2017;6(1):12.

19.

World Report on Disability 2011. Geneva: World Health Organization press; 2011.

20.

Castro

, Moreira

, Silva

. Wage differential and disability in Brazil-a productive or discriminatory effect? Encontro Nacional de Economia. 2017.

21.

Jachova

, Grut

, Valso Eide

, Tyrmi

, Karovska

. “Workplaces for All” A pilot Study on Employment and Working Conditions for People with Disabilities in Macedonia. Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation. 2006;3(4):45–56.

22.

Akkerman

, Janssen

, Kef

, Meininger

. Perspectives of Employees with Intellectual Disabilities on Themes Relevant to Their Job Satisfaction. An Explorative Study using Photovoice. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities. 2014:542-54.

23.

Patton

. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publication; 2002.

24.

Polit

, Beck

. Essentials of Nursing Research: Appraising Evidence for Nursing Practice. Philadelphia, PA, USA: Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2010.

25.

Lance

, Butts

, Michels

. The source of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: What did they really Say? Organizational Research Methods. 2006;9(2):202–20.

26.

(WHO) WHO. World Report on Disability 2011. Geneva: World Health Organization press; 2011.

27.

Gustafsson

, Peralta

, Danermark

. Supported Employment and Social Inclusion–Experiences of Workers with Disabilities in Wage Subsidized Employment in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research. 2018;20(1).

28.

Raynor

, Hayward

, Semenza

, Stoffmacher

. Community conversations to increase employment opportunities for young adults with developmental disabilities in California. Journal of Disability Policy Studies. 2018;28(4):203–15.

29.

WHO. World Report on Disability 2011. Geneva: World Health Organization press; 2011.

30.

Broka

, Mihailova

, Demme-Vimba

, MEANINGFUL EMPLOMENT OF YOUNG ADULTS WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES IN LATVIA. Economic Science for Rural Development Conference Proceedings; 2017.

31.

Friedman

, Rizzolo

. Fair-Wages for PeopleWith Disabilities: Barriers and Facilitators. Journal of Disability Policy Studies. 2020:1044207320919492.

32.

Petri

. Peer Review on Social Inclusion, Health and the Equalisation of Opportunities for Young People with Disabilities. Luxembourg: European Commission. 2018.

33.

Villanueva-Flores

, Valle

, Bornay-Barrachina

. Perceptions of discrimination and distributive injustice among people with physical disabilities. Personnel Review. 2017;46(3):680–98.

34.

the Law on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities No. 20 for the Year 2017. Higher Council for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (HCD)2017.

35.

Laws and regulations pertaining to people with disability in Jordan2017 september 10. Available from: http://www.mol.gov.jo/Echobusv3.0/SystemAssets/PDFs/AR/Employment/Disabilities/ding%20(1).pdf.

36.

Employment of Persons with Disabilities in Jordan Meager conditions, scarce opportunities. Amman: Phenix Center for Economic and Informatics Studies; 2016.

37.

Bricout

, Bentley

. Disability status and perceptions of employability by employers. Social Work Research. 2000;24(2):87–95.

38.

Ababneh

. Disabled employees in Jordanian public sector: an exploratory study. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 2016;29(2):164–82.

39.

Miller

, Gottlieb

, Morgan

, Gray

. Interviews with Employed People with Mobility Impairments and Limitations: Environmental supports impactingwork acquisition and satisfaction. Work. 2014:361-72.

40.

Banu

. Analysis of the impact and effectiveness of support measures and interventions on people with disabilities. Jurnalul Practicilor Comunitare Pozitive. 2018;18(1):18–36.

41.

Brite

, Nunes

, Souza

. Labor Inclusion of Individuals With Disabilities: Managers’ conceptions as a contributing 1000 factor. Work. 2015:553-61.

42.

, Pacha

, Moore

, Zhang

. Employability Skills for Entry-level Employees With and Without Disabilities: A comparison between the perspectives of educators & employers. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation. 2014;40:203–12.

43.

Kruse

, Schur

, Rogers

, Ameri

. Why do workers with disabilities earn less? Occupational job requirements and disability discrimination. British Journal of Industrial Relations. 2018;56(4):798–834.

44.

Wong

, McLafferty

, Planey

, Preston

. Disability, wages, and commuting in New York. Journal of Transport Geography. 2020;87:102818.

45.

Jakobsen

, Svendsen

. Employers’ Perspective: When a return to work (RTW) is the objective for persons with reduced mobility. Work. 2013;42:145–53.

46.

Gray

, Morgan

, Gottlieb

, Hollingsworth

. Person Factors and Work Environments of Workers Who Use Mobility Devices. Work. 2014:349-59.

47.

Irvine

, Lupart

. Into the Workforce: Employers’ perspectives of inclusion. Developmental Disability Bulletin. 2008;36(1 & 2):225–50.

	One sample				Pairwise
Test items (perspective statements)	X²	Df.	Sig.^**	R^*	X²	Df.	Sig.
I easily found work opportunity	11.886	2	0.003	D–A	4.800	1	0.028
				D–N	9.846	1	0.002
There is a high competition on the available work opportunities	9.235	2	0.010	A–N	8.000	1	0.005
				D–N	8.895	1	0.003
The wages payed for PWD are less than that payed for people with no disability	14.114	2	0.001	D–A	6.533	1	0.011
				D–N	10.704	1	0.001
My employer makes available continuing education programs to improve work skills	9.657	2	0.008	A–N	8.895	1	0.003
				D–N	8.895	1	0.003
I wish that I got more training at work to be able to accomplish work tasks efficiently	8.882	2	0.012	A–N	8.167	1	0.004
My work place creates vacancies to employ PWD according to the laws and regulations	8.176	2	0.017	A–N	6.760	1	0.009
In my institution there are written manual for work procedure	6.412	2	0.041	A–N	6.545	1	0.011
In my institution there is a written job description	10.343	2	0.006	A–N	10.714	1	0.001
				D–N	7.118	1	0.008
I do not get employment development and promotion chances compared to employees with no disabilities	15.314	2	0.000	A–N	16.200	1	0.000
				D–N	12.250	1	0.000
I am not allowed to talk or give opinion on work related matters	12.765	2	0.002	D–A	5.828	1	0.016
				D–N	9.846	1	0.002
My assignments at work are higher than those for employees with no disabilities	12.765	2	0.002	D–A	9.846	1	0.002
				D–N	5.828	1	0.016
I cannot use WC &other service areas because they are not designed for people with disabilities	6.400	2	0.041	D–N	6.545	1	0.011
I feel lonely at work	6.229	2	0.044	D–N	6.00	1	0.014