map your community’s usability: a new tool to empower...
TRANSCRIPT
3/11/2014
1
Map Your Community’s Usability: A New Tool to Empower Consumers
David B. Gray, PhDJessica Dashner, OTD OTR/LWashington University School of MedicineProgram in Occupational Therapy
March 5, 2014
Welcome!David Gray and Jessica Dashner will lead this interactive webcast.
The RTC/MICL team at the University of Kansas is hosting the webinar. We are Glen White, Martha Hodgesmith and Val Renault.
3/11/2014
2
NIDRR Funding
The Research and Training Center on Measurement and Interdependence in Community Living (MICL) and the contents of this webcast were developed under a grant from the Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) grant number H133B110006.
However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.
Housekeeping
Please mute your phone for first portion of call (*6 or Mute button).
Type in the chat box if you want to ask a question during the presentation (lower right corner of screen).
The presentation will be archived online within two weeks.
3/11/2014
3
Today’s Agenda
Discuss how you can use the CHEC, or Community Health Environment Checklist, to assess the usability of sites in your community for people with disabilities.
Demonstrate websites and online maps you can use to share the CHEC scores with consumers.
Ask for your feedback and ideas on how to best implement these tools in your community.
A Preview: Community Usability Maps
Different shapes & colors are a way of showing community sites
Post Office
Hospital
Restaurant
3/11/2014
4
CHEC-M (Mobility): Restaurants in St. Louis
The left column lists type of limitation with types of sites under them
CHEC Score Pop-upProvides More Information
3/11/2014
5
Example: Business with All Three CHEC Scores
Usability vs. Accessibility Accessibility describes the physical environment
Based on regulations outlined in section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and ADAAG regulations.
A space is either accessible or not, e.g., a door’s accessibility can be measured with a measuring tape; it is 32” across or not.
Usability describes how an individual interacts with his or her environment. Spaces can be usable for some individuals and not others,
e.g.: An accessible bathroom may not be usable for someone of small stature.
Can describe issues that are not covered by accessibility regulations.
3/11/2014
6
The purpose of the CHEC is to provide an objective measure of the physical and social environment, including the features important to persons with disabilities. By identifying barriers and supports in the community
environment, we can identify features that influence the participation of people with disabilities.
We wanted to focus on those features of most relevance to people with disabilities who have a mobility, hearing or visual impairment.
The Tool Behind the Maps: The CHEC (Community Health Environment Checklists)
The CHEC Is a Tool by and for People with Disabilities Assessment tool designed to evaluate government
spaces and public areas in the community
Began as a generic tool for use by community members interested in making their buildings usable and receptive
Easy to use
Little training required
Understandable scoring (0-100)
Goal is to provide pragmatic solutions to problems encountered: Can a person with a disability get in, participate fully and leave without difficulty?
Not an ADA assessment
Not for litigation
3/11/2014
7
How We Developed the CHECs
Reviewed existing literature on assessing receptivity
Methods
Key Informant Interviews
Focus Groups
Cognitive Mapping
Survey Draft
Feature Ranking by Individuals with Disabilities
Identifies Most Important Features
Development of Scoring
Interclass Correlations
Brief Training for Raters
15 Key Destination Sites Government Buildings
City Hall, Post Office
Performance Venues
Stadium, Theatre
Large Stores
Small Stores
Dining Establishments
Schools and Libraries
Religious Facilities
Self Care Service Providers
Grocery, Cleaners, Barber
Transportation
Health Care Providers
Eye Doctor, ILC
Health Vendors
Pharmacy, DME
Professional Service Providers
Bank, Law Office
Indoor Leisure
Casino
Outdoor Leisure
Major Tourist Attractions
Zoo
3/11/2014
8
1) CHEC-Mobility (CHEC-M)2) CHEC-Low Vision (CHEC-LV)3) CHEC-Hard of Hearing(CHEC-HOH)
Administering the CHECs
Existing CHEC Instruments
Mobility
Doctors’ Offices (DO)
Exercise Facilities
Houses of Worship
Low Vision* Hard of Hearing*
General Building (GB) General Building (GB) General Building (GB)
Restaurants Restaurants Restaurants
Doctors’ Offices (DO)Doctors’ Offices (DO)
Parks
*These tools do not measure usability for people who are blind or deaf.
3/11/2014
9
Scoring
Total building scores range from 0-100; higher scores indicate more usability and receptivity
Scoring is weighted so features with more importance contribute more to the building score
Items are scored Yes, No or NA
YES and NA are scored the same so sites are not penalized for not having things that do not apply (e.g., drive-through window)
CHEC-MOBILITY (CHEC-M)
3/11/2014
10
CHEC-M Features
1. Entrance
2. Curb Cuts
3. Automatic Doors
4. Accessible Bathroom
5. Elevator/Single Level
6. Distance to Entrance
7. Accessibility features in working order
8. Wide Spaces
9. Floor Surfaces
10. Lightweight Doors
11. Parking
12. Spaces not Crowded
13. Accessible places to sit
14. Accessible path/entrance marked
15. Accessibility Signage
16. Accessible Counters
17. Lighting
18. Accessible Phone
19. Accessible Drinking Fountains
20. Area of Rescue
21. Loaner Wheelchair/Scooter
22. Drive Through Window
Section IENTERING the BUILDING
CHEC – M: Community Health Environment Checklist -Mobility
FEATURE
Level surface ITEM Score Comments
9
The route to the entrance is free of loose gravel, large
cracks, debris, and uneven pavement. Yes No
The route (excluding ramps) is relatively flat (a slope of
1:20 or less) Yes No
The width of the route is about 36" wide Yes No Width:
Is there a ramp present? IF NO skip to 13* Yes No
3/11/2014
11
FEATURE
Level surface ITEM Score Comments
9
The route to the entrance is free of loose gravel, large
cracks, debris, and uneven pavement. Yes No
The route (excluding ramps) is relatively flat (a slope of
1:20 or less) Yes No
The width of the route is about 36" wide Yes No Width:
Is there a ramp present? IF NO skip to 13* Yes No
30in
CHEC-LOW VISION (CHEC-LV)
3/11/2014
12
CHEC-Low Vision Features
1. Glare-reducing features
2. Materials in alternative formats
3. Adequate exterior lighting
4. Adequate task lighting
5.Clearly-marked interior stairs/ramps with handrails for support
6.Clearly-marked signs
7. Clear smooth pathways for outdoor walking
8. Accessible crosswalks
9. Clearly-marked exterior stairs/ramps with handrails for support
10. Adequate ambient lighting
11. Clear/Smooth pathways for interior walking
12. High environmental contrast
13. Clearly-marked wayfinding signs
14. Employee assistance
15. Accessible elevators
16. Accessible entrance
17. Painted curbs
18. Special seating
10
The doors are automatic or there is contrast
between the wall and door or wall and
doorframe? Yes No N/A
11
The entrance has windows that increase the
daylight in the entryway to ease transition
between exterior and interior lighting? Yes No N/A
Lighting and Pathways
3/11/2014
13
CHEC-HARD OF HEARING (CHEC-HOH)
CHEC-Hard-of-Hearing Features1. Low background noise
2. Captioning
3. Seating arrangement (near walls or near speaker)
4. AT (listening devices/video phones/capTel phones/microphones)
5. Employees who speak slowly and clearly
6. Minimal crowd
7. Seating type (small or round tables, booths)
8. Text or visual aids (signage/posters/monitors) accompanying oral messages
9. Low background music
10. Acoustics (sound absorbing wall and floor covering)
11. Adequate lighting
12. Proximity to employee for lip reading
13. Assistance from stranger/employee/co-worker to locate item or repeat messages
14. Training on use of assistive technology
15. Provision of pagers or buzzers (restaurants)
16. Access to alternative room
17. Alternative communication (pen and paper)
18. Self check-out
19. Suggestions box
20. Interpreter
3/11/2014
14
Sound-absorbing Materials
4Are sound absorbing materials on at
least one wall in at least one room
(drapes, tapestries, upholstery, etc.)? Yes No N/A
5
Is the floor covered with a sound
absorbing material or carpeting where
conversations are most likely to
occur? Yes No N/A
Equipment & Estimated CostsADA Stick- $39.95 on adastick.com
Light Meter ~$14 on amazon.com or check for phone App
Sound Meter ~$80 on amazon.com or check for phone app
Fish Hook- $24.99 on cabelas.com
Tape Measure ~$5-10
3/11/2014
15
Examples of Use
Assessment and comparison of eight cities in Missouri
Independent Living Center (ILC) staff received training to assess sites in their communities
Level II Fieldwork students in North Carolina assessed sites near a Rehabilitation Center to inform individuals with SCI about places they can visit
Other Examples of Use
St Louis University students are assessing the accessibility of campus
Several Occupational Therapy (OT) programs have expressed interest in adding the CHEC to their curriculum
Consulted with an Alternative High School to assess accessibility of campus for a student using a manual wheelchair
Assessment of homeless shelters in St. Louis area
3/11/2014
16
Current Sample of Sites AssessedCommunity # Buildings Assessed
Missouri
Cape Girardeau 45
Farmington 49
Hannibal 35
Poplar Bluff 35
Springfield 148
St. Louis 142
Rolla 45
Warrensburg 45
Illinois
Carbondale 57
Wisconsin
Menomonie 61
North Carolina
Charlotte 38
TOTAL 700
Current Methodology: From Site Selection to Mapping
1) Select community
2) Prepare site destination lists 411.com using destination categories
3) Complete CHECs
4) Score CHECs
5) Map CHEC scores
3/11/2014
17
How We Selected Communities
• Smaller communities
• Served by an Independent Living Center (ILC)
• Within 4 hours (driving) from St. Louis
Prepare Site Destination List
• Any number of buildings in 15 categories
Large stores
Small stores
Self-care service providers
Dining establishments
Healthcare providers
Health vendors
Professional service providers
3/11/2014
18
CHEC Training Methods
Face-to-Face
Moodle (online)
Training Manual
Moodle: Online Training Program
3/11/2014
19
Parking Training
3/11/2014
20
Moving CHEC Scores Online
At the present time, our team at Washington University will create your map and send you a link to share.
Other display options are being explored, such as the following Drupal (open-source) website.
3/11/2014
21
Further Development
What is missing?
Consumer input/personal experiences
What do consumers want on the map
Key Informant Interviews
Receptivity - how people with disabilities are treated at the sites
3/11/2014
22
Next Steps
Develop feasible training to establish reliability of information collected
Populate maps in a variety of cities
Automate the mapping system
Determine potential users and consumers
ILCs
Hospitals & Rehabilitation Centers
Allied Health Programs
Existing Community Members
Visitors/Tourism industry
Interested in Mapping Your Community?
Current Procedures
Contact us by Email
Complete and pass tests in Moodle training
We will send you the
CHEC and data entry
spreadsheet
Select sites to assess in
your community
Use CHEC on a sample of buildings and enter
data
Return data entry
spreadsheet
We will create your map and
send you a link to share
3/11/2014
23
Time to Hear from You
We’d like your feedback on:
Administration
Training
Obtaining equipment
How much time you could spend
Using the maps
Selecting sites
Potential consumers you may know
If you want to provide additional feedback …
Looking for individuals with mobility, vision or hearing impairments
Review the maps from a “user” perspective and provide feedback
Compensation for your time and effort
Contact us if interested!
3/11/2014
24
Contact the CHEC team:
Jessica Dashner, OTD OTR/L
314-932-1018
David B. Gray, PhD
Current Google Site http://sites.google.com/site/washuchec/home
Holly Hollingsworth, PhD
Susan Stark, PhD
Kerri Morgan
Denise Dickerson
Megen Devine
Meghan Gottlieb
Mike Scheller
Jackie Webel Schenkelberg
Lisa Garrett
AcknowledgementsGraduate Students
• Emilie Marty
• Rachel Dargatz
• Susan Crumbaugh
• Jaclyn Tarloff Schwartz
• Jade Holloway Gross
• Jaclyn Goff
• Anne Kramlinger
• Margaret Bassi
• Kelsey Luedtke