Affiliations: Occupational Therapy and Neurology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA
Note: [] Corresponding author: David B. Gray, Ph.D., Washington
University School of Medicine, Campus Box 8505, 4444 Forest Park Ave, St.
Louis, MO 63108, USA. Tel.: +1 314 932 1026; Fax: +1 314 932 1022; E-mail: graydb@wusm.wustl.edu
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Few studies of employed people who use
wheelchairs, canes, crutches or walkers have been reported in the literature.
One reason for this paucity of research reports is that surveys are most often
made of unemployed individuals with disabilities a defined broadly.
Understanding the work site of successfully employed people who use mobility
devices requires the development of as survey that can be used to examine the
important features of worksite from employees who use mobility devices at their worksites. OBJECTIVE: This article describes the development and
psychometrics of a survey on currently employed people with lower limb
impairments and mobility limitations who use mobility devices. The items in the
Mobility Device User Work Survey (MWS) were based on interviews and survey
items pilot tested on employed mobility device users. PARTICIPANTS: A sample of 183 employed people who use mobility devices including wheelchairs,
canes, crutches or walkers was recruited using internet postings on disability-related organizations.
The average age of the sample was 46.3, most were college educated, 72% used wheelchairs and the average number of years
of employment was 24. METHODS: The MWS was completed by 183 people who met the inclusion criteria. The survey was sent to these same people a second
time and 132 of them returned the second survey. RESULTS: The MWS consists of 106 questions on demographic, work and worksite characteristics and
58 subjective evaluation items that were organized into five scales. The internal consistencies (Cronbach's alpha) of the five scales were moderate (0.72) to good (0.93). Stability values of the five scales were calculated
using correlations between forms and ranged from 0.70 to 0.80. The evaluative
scales were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The MWS provides a tool for studying the variables that influence employed people
who use mobility devices. Future studies of unemployed people who use mobility
devices may benefit from using the results of the MWS to plan interventions.
