ERIC EJ1149595: A Customized Transportation Intervention for Persons with Visual Impairments

2017·0.13 MB·English

by  ERIC

A Customized Transportation
Intervention for Persons
with Visual Impairments
Adele Crudden, Karla Antonelli, and Jamie O’Mally
Structured abstract: Introduction: Transportation can be an employment barrier
for persons with disabilities, particularly those with visual impairments. A custom-
ized transportation intervention for people with visual impairments, based on con-
cepts associated with customized employment, was devised, implemented, and
evaluated. Methods: A pretest and posttest intervention and comparison group
design evaluated changes in participants’ social problem-solving skills, transporta-
tion self-efficacy, and transportation knowledge. Participants worked with a trans-
portation coordinator to plan and secure work-related transportation. Surveys as-
sessedparticipantsatisfactionwiththeintervention.Results:Theinterventiongroup
had significantly higher scores for social problem-solving skills at posttest after
considering pretest scores. The intervention group responded favorably to measures
of satisfaction with the intervention. Discussion: The customized transportation
intervention had a positive effect on social problem-solving skills and the partici-
pantsweresatisfiedwiththeintervention,althoughtheimpactoftheinterventionon
employment outcomes remains unclear. Attrition in the study and lack of a random
sample mean the results must be interpreted with caution. Implications for practi-
tioners: Engaging individuals with visual impairments in discussions about trans-
portationtoworkmayeducatethemaboutnewoptionsorassisttheminthinkingof
unexplored options. Persons who appear to have good problem-solving skills and
confidence in their abilities may still benefit from these discussions.
B
ecause transportation is an integral tion. People with and without disabilities
component of obtaining and maintaining use many of the same transportation
employment,someemployersaskjobap- methods to get to work, but persons with
plicants if they have reliable transporta- disabilities are almost twice as likely
to lack transportation as those without
The contents of this report were developed disabilities (Kessler Foundation/National
under a grant from the U.S. Department of Organization on Disability, 2010), which
Health and Human Services, NIDILRR grant
negatively affects their participation in
90RT5011-01-00. However, these contents
employment (U.S. Department of Trans-
do not necessarily represent the policy of the
portation, 2003). Those who are visually
Department of Health and Human Services
and should not indicate endorsement by the impaired (that is, people who are blind
federal government. or have low vision) have identified
341
©2017AFB,AllRightsReserved JournalofVisualImpairment&Blindness,July-August2017
transportation as a barrier to employment Lack of or inaccessible environmental
(Crudden&McBroom,1999;Gold&Sim- cues, such as maps or signs, associated
son,2005;McDonnall,2011),ashavetheir with public transportation cause some
state vocational rehabilitation counselors people with visual impairments to limit
(Crudden, Sansing, & Butler, 2005). This their activities (Marston & Golledge,
studyinvestigatedanattempttoassistpeo- 2003).Despitetheseproblems,somepeo-
ple with visual impairments in planning ple with vision loss choose where to live
and securing work-related transporta- based on availability of public transpor-
tion. A customized transportation inter- tation(AmericanFoundationoftheBlind,
vention was devised and implemented 2003). Public transportation is typically
based on strategies used in the custom- not an option for people in rural areas,
ized employment approach to job since it tends to be underfunded and lim-
placement. ited or nonexistent.
A recent survey of persons with visual
Transportation and
impairments found that over one-third
visual disability
(38.1%) of the respondents had turned
The two most prevalent means of trans- downajobbecauseoftransportationcon-
portation, driving and public transit, pose cerns (Crudden et al., 2015). This finding
particular problems for persons with vi- is consistent with previous research that
sual impairments. Some people with low indicated that some people with visual
vision are able to drive and may do so impairments abandon seeking employ-
with assistance from bioptic devices, but ment or turn down jobs due to lack of
their driving time, speed, or route may be transportation (Bjerkan, Nordtømme, &
limited by fatigue, glare, or weather con- Kummeneje, 2013). Others with visual
ditions. For the majority of individuals impairments resolve employment transpor-
who are blind or have profound low vi- tation needs by using public transportation,
sion, driving is not an option. walking, riding with family members, car-
Twostudies(Corn&Sacks,1994;Crud- pooling,usingcabs,orhiringdrivers(Crud-
den, McDonnall, & Hierholzer, 2015) that den et al., 2015). Some negotiate rides and
included questions about how people reduced fees with cabs and other transpor-
with visual impairments traveled to work tation providers (Crudden, 2015).
found that public transit was the most Someissuesconcerningaccessanduse
common method, and both studies found of transportation are addressed by voca-
that 41% of the respondents relied on it. tional rehabilitation counselors or orien-
However, public transportation can be tation and mobility (O&M) specialists.
problematic. Public transportation users For example, vocational rehabilitation
with visual impairments have reported counselors typically obtain O&M evalu-
that despite the requirements of the ations and arrange instruction to teach
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, safe and efficient travel skills. O&M
drivers may fail to call out stops (Rosen- specialists, as well as vocational rehabil-
bloom, 2007) and that using public trans- itation counselors, may discuss transpor-
portation is difficult, inconvenient, un- tation with clients who are visually im-
safe, or unreliable (Crudden et al., 2015). paired, including the use of public transit
342
JournalofVisualImpairment&Blindness,July-August2017 ©2017AFB,AllRightsReserved
and completing applications for paratran- skills, transportation knowledge, and
sit, but the focus of O&M instruction transportation self-efficacy than people
is typically travel and mobility skills who do not participate. The following re-
rather than identifying and negotiating search questions were also addressed: (a)
employment-relatedtransportation(Crud- Isthecustomizedtransportationinterven-
den, 2015). Counselors might also autho- tion an effective strategy to improve the
rize payment for transportation for a de- ability of vocational rehabilitation con-
fined period for consumers who become sumers to find and access transportation
employed and, depending on the particu- to work? and (b) Are vocational rehabil-
lar counselor, might discuss the impor- itation consumers satisfied with the cus-
tance of dependable transportation in
tomized transportation intervention?
maintaining employment.
Consistent with strategies associated
Although O&M specialists and voca-
with participatory action research (Rea-
tional rehabilitation counselors are aware
son & Bradbury, 2001), this study sought
that persons with visual impairments en-
to produce practical knowledge useful to
counter barriers in securing work-related
stakeholders (individuals with visual im-
transportation, neither of these profes-
pairments, vocational rehabilitation pro-
sions is specifically charged with assist-
fessionals, O&M specialists, and policy
ing clients in arranging transportation to
makers). Members from each of these
work.Theredonotappeartobestandard-
groups served on an advisory council to
ized procedures or policies within the
provide expertise, feedback, and assis-
state vocational rehabilitation system to
tance with this project. Prior to imple-
determine transportation options for con-
mentation, this study was reviewed and
sumers. This is a concern because navi-
approvedbytheMississippiStateUniver-
gating transportation options can be a
sity Institutional Review Board for the
complex task that requires creative strat-
Protection of Human Subjects.
egies such as identifying friends, neigh-
bors, coworkers, or workers at nearby
Methods
businesses for rides or carpools; identify-
PARTICIPANTS
ing, screening, and hiring a driver; or
State vocational rehabilitation counselors
advocating for transportation services
referred consumers who are visually im-
with public or private providers.
The current study evaluated the effect paired, had open cases, and needed assis-
of a customized transportation interven- tance securing transportation to work. Of
tion to assist vocational rehabilitation 54 referrals, 48 (26 men and 22 women)
consumers with visual impairments in agreed to participate. Information about
one state vocational rehabilitation agency levelofvisionlosswasobtainedfromthe
in securing employment-related transpor- state agency records; thirty-three partici-
tation. Specifically, this study evaluated pants were blind and 15 had low vision.
the following hypothesis: If persons with Preferred reading modalities were: regu-
visual impairments participate in a cus- lar print, 6.3% (n (cid:2) 3); braille, 10.4%
tomized transportation intervention, they (n(cid:2)5);electronicprint,39.4%(n(cid:2)19);
will have greater social problem-solving and large print, 43.8% (n (cid:2) 21). Ages
343
©2017AFB,AllRightsReserved JournalofVisualImpairment&Blindness,July-August2017
ranged from 19 to 63 (M (cid:2) 39.2, SD (cid:2) various situations. Self-efficacy was fos-
12.3), with age of onset of vision loss tered by breaking tasks into manageable
ranging from age 1 or younger (n (cid:2) 19), steps and discussing successes. Coordina-
age2to20(n(cid:2)15),andage21andover tors worked with participants to establish
(n(cid:2)14).Educationlevelsincludedbach- clear goals, develop a collaborative plan,
elor’s degree or higher (n (cid:2) 7); some provideadvocacyandreferral,andplanfor
college or vocational training (n (cid:2) 8); closure and follow-up.
high school graduate or equivalent (n (cid:2) Two transportation coordinators, with
14); some high school, no diploma (n (cid:2) supervision from a manager, provided
6); and 13 participants who did not pro- the customized transportation interven-
vide education information. Because lo- tiontointerventiongroupmembers.Co-
cation of residence can impact transpor- ordinators were employed on a contract
tationoptionsavailable,participantswere basis for the duration of the project and
codedasresidingineitherurban(n(cid:2)35) were not otherwise employed. Each had
orsuburban-rural(n(cid:2)13)areasbasedon a graduate degree, experience working
Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) with persons with disabilities, experience
zip codes (Morrill, Cromartie, & Hart, negotiating delivery of various social ser-
1999; Rural-Urban Commuting Area vices, and knowledge about local trans-
Codes Rural Health Research Center, portation options. Each coordinator was
n.d.). trained by the researchers, who provided
anoverviewoftheinterventiongoals,co-
INTERVENTION ordinator responsibilities, record-keeping
The customized transportation intervention procedures, strategies and techniques for
was based on concepts associated with the interacting with participants and individ-
customized employment approach to job ualizing transportation plans, and trans-
placement.“Customizedemployment”uses portation resources. After training and
anegotiationprocessthatblendsstrategies, beforeworkingwithparticipants,coordina-
services,andsupportstocreateuniqueem- torscompletedmockexercisesandreceived
ployment options for persons with disabil- feedback from the research staff members
ities (Luecking, Gumpman, Saecker, & and the transportation manager, who also
Cihak,2006).Inthecustomizedtransporta- provided ongoing support to coordinators.
tion intervention, each participant met with
a transportation coordinator to discuss MEASURES
goals, options, support systems, resources, Orientationandmobilityscreening
and costs, and to develop a customized Our advisory council recommended con-
transportation plan. Transportation coordi- ducting an O&M screening, because the
natorsmaintainedcontactwithparticipants, ability to travel safely is critical to using
usually by telephone, as they proceeded various transportation options. In consul-
through planned activities. To enhance so- tation with a nationally recognized O&M
cialproblem-solvingskills,coordinatorsfo- educator, we developed a 14-item instru-
cused on guiding participants in generating ment to screen O&M travel skills. This
solutions, addressing challenges, and gen- screening was administered by telephone
eralizing previously learned strategies in at pretest only and included items about
344
JournalofVisualImpairment&Blindness,July-August2017 ©2017AFB,AllRightsReserved
experiencewithO&Mtraininganduseof goals, and become easily discouraged by
public transportation and confidence in setbacks. We developed this 14-item in-
performing various mobility tasks. As a strument based on recommendations for
safety precaution, intervention partici- development of self-efficacy scales, partic-
pantswhoreportedconcerns(n(cid:2)5)were ularly that a self-efficacy scale be domain
referred to their vocational rehabilitation specific (Bandura, 2006). Our advisory
counselor for additional services. council assisted in identifying domains of
functioning related to transportation and in
SocialProblem-SolvingInventory, developing individual items for each do-
Revised(SPSI-R) main.Developmentincludedreviewbyex-
Social problem-solving is defined as the pertsinthefieldandpilottesting.Datafrom
ability to: generate possible solutions to a separate sample of 436 visually impaired
typical problems of daily life, choose a so- people was examined to assess the appro-
lution likely to yield positive results, and priateness of combining items into a scale.
evaluate the consequences of the choice Cronbach’salphawas.92andtheresultsof
(D’Zurilla & Nezu, 2007). A problem- anexploratoryfactoranalysisstronglysup-
solving model is suitable for arranging ported the unidimensionality of the items,
transportation(Perla&O’Donnell,2004)in withallitemsloadingat.55oraboveonone
thattoeffectivelytraveltowork,employees factor.Participantsratedtheirconfidencein
must identify transportation options; evalu- theirabilitytoperformtasksassociatedwith
atecost,reliability,andconvenienceofeach transportation on a scale from 0 (no confi-
option; select an option and possibly a dence at all) to 10 (completely confident)
backup plan; and assess the effectiveness (see Table 1). This measure was adminis-
and suitability of the options. This 25-item tered at pre- and posttest.
instrument was administered at pre- and
posttest and has established reliability and Transportationknowledgescale
constructvalidity(D’Zurilla,Nezu,&May- We developed a 12-item multiple choice
deu-Olivares, 2002). instrument to measure participants’ knowl-
edge about issues associated with finding
Transportationself-efficacyscale and using various methods of transporta-
Self-efficacy, confidence in one’s ability tion. Transportation tasks were identified
to successfully complete a task, affects and items developed to address each task
how a person approaches a task. High using input from our advisory council and
self-efficacy is typically based on previ- experts in the field. Extensive pilot testing
ous success, and low self-efficacy can be was conducted and revisions were made
improved through mastery experiences based on feedback. See Table 2 for an
(Bandura, 1994). Those with high self- abridged version of the final items.
efficacytendtoviewdifficultactivitiesas
challenges, have confidence in their abil- PROCEDURE
ity to achieve goals, and recover quickly Agency administrators requested that
from setbacks. Those with low self- consumers from each vocational rehabil-
efficacy tend to avoid difficult tasks, be- itation counselor’s caseload, which was
lieve they are incapable of achieving determined by geographic region, be
345
©2017AFB,AllRightsReserved JournalofVisualImpairment&Blindness,July-August2017
Table1
Transportationself-efficacyscale:Meanconfidenceratingsforitemsbygroup.
Intervention Comparison
mean(SD) mean(SD)
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
Transportationself-efficacyitems n(cid:2)16 n(cid:2)6 n(cid:2)32 n(cid:2)26
1.Callagenciestoschedule
orrequesttransportation 9.2(1.6) 9.8(0.4) 7.2(3.2) 6.8(3.4)
2.Findandhireadriver 7.6(2.1) 8.0(1.9) 6.1(3.5) 6.1(3.6)
3.Arrangearidewithcoworkers 7.3(2.2) 8.2(2.2) 6.3(3.2) 6.3(3.5)
4.Arrangearidewithsomeone
workingnearby 5.2(3.4) 6.0(1.5) 5.2(3.5) 4.2(3.3)
5.Arrangeafairpricewithadriver 8.5(2.7) 9.2(1.0) 7.2(3.0) 7.9(2.4)
6.UsetheInternettofind
transportationoptions 7.1(3.7) 8.7(2.8) 5.5(3.8) 6.7(3.5)
7.Identifytwoormore
transportationoptions 7.5(3.2) 9.5(0.8) 7.7(2.2) 7.9(2.4)
8.Findoutaboutcostsfor
transportationoptions 8.4(2.6) 8.8(1.3) 7.0(2.9) 7.0(2.5)
9.Rideabusorshuttle 9.4(1.0) 9.3(0.8) 8.2(2.8) 7.9(3.3)
10.Explaintoadriverwheretogo 8.9(2.5) 9.5(0.8) 8.9(1.9) 9.1(1.9)
11.Askforassistanceatadestination 9.2(1.4) 9.8(0.4) 8.5(2.3) 8.7(2.1)
12.Earnenoughmoneytopayfor
transportation 8.7(2.9) 8.7(1.5) 7.3(3.1) 7.0(3.2)
13.Findowntransportation 7.3(3.0) 8.0(3.6) 7.2(2.5) 7.7(2.7)
14.Createabackupplanfor
transportation 8.2(1.7) 8.2(1.8) 6.5(3.2) 7.6(2.8)
placed in the same group. Intervention and completing pretest measures by telephone,
comparisongroupswerethusdeterminedto comparisongroupparticipantsweremailed
accommodate that request, while also at- a copy of the informed consent, a handout
tempting to balance the demographics of about transportation, and a $25 gift card.
thegroupsbasedonracialcompositionand Intervention group participants were as-
rural or urban status. Counselors knew signed a transportation coordinator, who
which group their consumers would be contacted them to arrange an individual
placedinpriortoreferral.Afteridentifying meeting. During the initial meeting, the
consumerswithvisualimpairmentsneeding transportation coordinator provided partici-
assistance in securing work-related trans- pants with a copy of the informed consent,
portation,vocationalrehabilitationcounsel- discussed transportation needs and options,
orsobtainedconsumers’signedconsent,as anddevelopedatransportationplanforon-
required by their state agency, and referred going activities to identify and secure a
them for the study. method to get to work.
The research team telephoned potential Approximately 60 days after referral,
participants, read a statement of informed interventiongroupparticipantscompleted
consentapprovedbytheuniversity’sreview a telephone survey assessing their satis-
board,discussedthepurposeoftheproject, faction with the intervention. Participants
andscheduledpretestdatacollection.After who completed posttest instruments
346
JournalofVisualImpairment&Blindness,July-August2017 ©2017AFB,AllRightsReserved
Table2
Transportationknowledgescale:Averagepercentagecorrectforitemsbygroup.
Intervention Comparison
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
Transportationknowledgeitems n(cid:2)16 n(cid:2)6 n(cid:2)32 n(cid:2)26
1.Whatistheaveragepriceofgasper
galloninAlabama? 94 100 72 88
2.Whatistheaveragecostofowning
amidsizecarforoneyear? 50 50 41 38
3.Somedriversarepaidbythemile.What
doyouthinkisareasonableamountto
paypermile? 31 83 53 54
4.Ifyoucallataxi,youwillbeaskedfor
nameandaddressinformation.What
elseshouldyoutellthem? 81 100 72 92
5.Whatshouldyoudotopayataxiorcab
driver? 63 50 72 65
6.Anappropriatetipforataxidriverwho
takesyoutoworkeachdaywouldbe
________? 50 100 41 65
7.Talkingtofamily,friends,orothersisa
goodwaytofindadriver.Onceyouhave
aname,youshould____. 69 83 75 77
8.Ifsomeonedrivesyoutoandfromwork
eachday,youshould____. 56 83 53 65
9.Withahireddriverorcab,whatisyour
responsibilityforknowinghowtoget
toandfromworkeachday? 56 83 63 62
10.Whenridinginacarpool,itisokay
to____? 63 100 75 88
11.Ifyousharearidetoworkwithafriend
orfamilymember,youshould____. 87 100 97 88
12.Thereisabusyoucantaketowork.
Itpicksyouupaquarter-milefromyour
houseanddropsyouoffabouttwo
blocksfromyourworkplace.Which
ofthefollowingoffersyouthemost
independenceintravel? 56 33 41 54
Totalscore 7.56/12 9.67/12 7.53/12 8.38/12
(cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2)
63.00 80.58 62.75 69.83
approximately one year from referral re- self-efficacy, and transportation knowl-
ceived a $25 gift card. Participants also edge) were measures of theoretically
gave consent for the vocational rehabili- distinct constructs, making independent
tation agency to release additional infor- analyses appropriate (Field, 2013). We
mationfromtheirfiles,includingemploy- tested for pre-existing differences by
ment and closure statuses. group(interventionvs.comparison)inthe
pretest scores using one-way ANOVAs
DATAANALYSES for each of the dependent variables. At
Each of the three dependent variables posttest,one-wayANCOVAswere used to
(social problem-solving, transportation analyze group differences, using pretest
347
©2017AFB,AllRightsReserved JournalofVisualImpairment&Blindness,July-August2017
scores as the covariate. Descriptive sta- neither participants’ level of vision nor
tisticswereconductedtodescribegroup their area of residence were confounding
outcomes and determine subsequent variables. To analyze the impact of the
analyses. intervention, posttest scores from the in-
tervention and comparison groups were
PARTICIPANTATTRITION compared using ANCOVA for each of
Of the 48 participants who completed the three instruments. A Bonferroni cor-
pretests, 16 were in the intervention rection was used for each analysis and
group. After pretesting, 3 intervention there were no major violations of the as-
group participants withdrew (2 found sumptions for ANCOVA.
transportation and 1 said transportation At posttest, the intervention group
planning was not appropriate at the scored significantly higher (M (cid:2) 130.67,
time). The remaining 13 intervention SD(cid:2)10.11)ontheSPSI-Rthanthecom-
group participants completed custom- parisongroup(M(cid:2)111.42,SD(cid:2)14.90),
ized transportation plans with a trans- when controlling for pretest scores, indi-
portation coordinator; 1 later withdrew. cating that the intervention group exhib-
Twelve completed satisfaction surveys. ited greater improvement in problem-
Two additional participants were de- solving skills than the comparison group,
leted when transportation coordinators F(1,29) (cid:2) 8.21, p (cid:2) .008, with a partial
were unable to contact them. Twenty- (cid:2)2 (cid:2) .22, indicating a large effect size.
six of the 32 comparison group partic- Table 3 provides means and standard de-
ipants and 6 intervention participants viations of participant scores for the five
completed posttests after approximately dimensions within the SPSI-R.
1 year. The overall attrition rate for the For the transportation self-efficacy
initial 48 referrals was 33.3%. Reten- scale, scores had a possible maximum of
tionwashigherinthecomparisongroup 140. At posttest, the intervention group
(81.3%) than in the intervention group rated their confidence higher (M (cid:2)
(37.5%), which may pose a threat to 121.67,SD(cid:2)11.83)thanthecomparison
internal validity. group(M(cid:2)100.38,SD(cid:2)21.31),butthe
differencewasnotstatisticallysignificant,
Results F(1,29) (cid:2) 2.74, p (cid:2) .109. Table 1 pro-
Pretest scores on the three measures (so- vides means and standard deviations for
cial problem-solving, self-efficacy, and each item.
transportation knowledge) were analyzed Table 2 lists the mean percentages of
for independence and were not correlated correct responses for groups on the trans-
(all rs (cid:3) .28, all p-values (cid:4) .05), thus portationknowledgescale.ANCOVAanal-
confirming the appropriateness of sepa- ysis showed that the groups were not sig-
rate analysis. Consequently, individual nificantly different at posttest, F(1,29) (cid:2)
ANOVAs for each measure were per- 1.296, p (cid:2) .264, although the intervention
formed to assess potential differences be- group scored slightly higher (M (cid:2) 9.67,
tween the intervention and comparison SD (cid:2) 0.52) than the comparison group
groupspriortotheintervention.Analyses (M(cid:2)8.38,SD(cid:2)2.02)onthe12-itemtest
were also conducted to confirm that at posttest. Possible violations of normality
348
JournalofVisualImpairment&Blindness,July-August2017 ©2017AFB,AllRightsReserved
Table3
SPSI-Rsubscales:Meanscoresbygroup.
Intervention Comparison
mean(SD) mean(SD)
Problem-solvingstyle Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
Interpretationofhigherscores n(cid:2)16 n(cid:2)6 n(cid:2)32 n(cid:2)26
Positiveorientation
Problemsaresolvablechallenges
ratherthanthreats;beliefinability
tobesuccessful 115.63(11.66) 123.00(9.42) 114.06(13.90) 115.35(13.38)
Negativeorientation
Problemsarethreatstowell-being;
doubtsabilitytosolveproblems 89.00(10.22) 74.83(4.58) 100.50(19.58) 86.81(8.69)
Rational
Carefulandsystematicapproach
toproblem-solving;likelyeffective
inproblem-solvingsituations 109.50(19.88) 70.83(3.97) 114.88(18.70) 68.54(4.33)
Impulsiveorcareless
Impulsivelychoosesfirstoption;
unsystematicallyevaluates
alternativesolutions;likely
ineffectiveinproblem-solving 95.31(10.80) 73.17(6.91) 98.63(17.06) 81.88(11.68)
Avoidance
Avoidsproblemsratherthan
confronts;attemptstoshift
responsibilitytoothers;likely
ineffectiveinproblem-solving 93.75(9.98) 78.50(10.60) 96.88(13.56) 90.50(11.80)
andlinearityfortheinterventiongroupthat tation options, with more than half
were noted for this variable, as well as a (58%) reporting learning new transpor-
significantdifferenceingroupvariancesin- tation options. Most participants (92%)
dicated by Levene’s test (p (cid:2) .04), can be were satisfied with the services and be-
attributedtothesmallnumberofresponses lieved they could find transportation to
(n(cid:2)6)allwithinanarrowrange(from9to work in the future. Although the major-
10 on a 13-point scale). Although the po- ity of the intervention participants
tential violation of these assumptions (67%) received some information about
was considered minimal, we conducted transportation options from their voca-
a mixed-factorial repeated measures tional rehabilitation counselors, all par-
ANOVA which also indicated that the ticipants recommended that a transpor-
groups were not significantly different tation coordinator be assigned to other
at posttest, F(1,30) (cid:2) 0.001, p (cid:2) 0.980 consumers with visual impairments to
with Bonferroni correction. assist with identifying transportation
Intervention group participants com- options.
pleted a satisfaction survey regarding Atthetimeofthesatisfactionsurvey,8
the customized transportation interven- of 12 intervention participants were un-
tion. Of the 12 who completed it, 75% employed. Information provided by the
said the coordinators provided informa- vocational rehabilitation agency several
tion helpful in learning about transpor- monthsafterthecompletionoftheproject
349
©2017AFB,AllRightsReserved JournalofVisualImpairment&Blindness,July-August2017
indicated that 8 of the 16 original inter- intervention and their lack of success in
vention group participants (50%) and 24 finding employment could have nega-
of the 32 original comparison group par- tively impacted their overall confidence,
ticipants (75%) were employed. Addi- including their transportation self-
tionally, a small number of participants efficacy. Participants who searched for
remained enrolled in vocational rehabili- transportation and were discouraged by
tation services (five intervention and six theoptionsavailablemayhaveratedtheir
comparison). self-efficacyonsomeitemsloweratpost-
test than at pretest.
Discussion
All participants appeared to have some
Theinterventiongroupscoredhigherthan degree of knowledge about typical tasks
the comparison group on all measures at associated with managing transportation.
posttest, and trends in all cases showed The comparison group received informa-
that the intervention group improved tionabouttransportation,whichmayhave
more from pretest to posttest than the positively impacted their posttest scores.
comparison group. Perhaps influenced by The intervention group tended to be most
small sample size, however, significant knowledgeable about appropriate tips for
differences were found in only one area, drivers, cost of gasoline, carpooling eti-
social problem-solving. Although the quette, and knowing the route to work,
sample size is small, the effect on social especially following the intervention.
problem-solvingwassignificantandsize-
able. Consequently, we conclude that LIMITATIONS
participation in the intervention had a This longitudinal study evaluates the
positive impact on the ability of the in- effectiveness of a unique intervention,
tervention group to engage in problem- which poses challenges and limitations.
solving tasks, such as assessing transpor- Sample size, attrition, selection, and lack
tation needs, identifying transportation of random assignment to groups are im-
options, choosing the most feasible op- portant considerations.
tion, and monitoring and evaluating the Researchers relied on vocational reha-
appropriateness of the selected option. bilitation counselors to identify and refer
All participants tended to have confi- participants. Although we believe coun-
denceintheirabilitytoexplaintoadriver selors made reasonable efforts to do so,
where to go, ask for assistance upon ar- theymayhaveexperienceddifficultycon-
rivalatadestination,rideabusorshuttle, tacting people with visual impairments to
or arrange a fair price with a driver. Par- obtain their signed consent for referral—
ticipants had less confidence in arranging theseindividualsmayhavebeenreluctant
a ride with someone working at a nearby to participate in research or they may
business, finding and hiring a driver, have been skeptical that the intervention
and using the Internet to find transporta- would be helpful. There are no estab-
tion resources. These skills may warrant lished guidelines for addressing transpor-
increased attention during the vocational tation within the vocational rehabilitation
rehabilitation process. Many participants agency, so counselors may have elected
were engaged in job seeking during the to continue using their existing practices.
350
JournalofVisualImpairment&Blindness,July-August2017 ©2017AFB,AllRightsReserved