Assistive Technology Workplace Accommodation and Employment among Diverse Populations with Disabilities: Does Race/Ethnicity Matter?

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between assistive technology workplace accommodation (AT-WA) usage and employment status among racial/ethnic populations with disabilities. Chi-square tests and logistic regression were used to analyze secondary data from the 2015 Kessler Foundation National Employment and Disability Survey (KFNEDS). Results indicated that significantly more consumers who used AT-WA were currently working, and a significantly greater proportion of them were White. Moreover, a significantly lower proportion of those who did not use AT-WA had less expected odds of being currently employed. Specific implications are discussed to inform practices, policy, and/or future research.

Over 61 million Americans in the United States (U.S.) have a disability that impacts major life activities such as work (Okoro et al., 2016). Participation in the workforce is a valued activity that fully provides opportunities for people with disabilities to engage in social activities and enrichment, and various economic benefits. Reasonable accommodations in the workplace serve a vital role in making employment for such individuals possible. The term “reasonable accommodations” defined in the Americans Disabilities Act (ADA) is any modification or adjustment to a job or the work environment that will enable an applicant or employee with a disability to participate in the application process or to perform essential job functions (Reasonable Accommodations in the Workplace, 2021).

Examples of reasonable accommodations include alarms on a watch or phone, a color-coded filing system, computer screen readers, modified work schedules, and adjustable desks. The ADA prohibits employers from declining to hire people with disabilities, or offering them lower wages, due to the perceived costs of reasonable accommodations. The ADA further extends full civil rights and equal opportunities to people with disabilities in both the public and private sectors. Specifically, the law prohibits discrimination based on physical or mental disability in employment, public services, public accommodations, and telecommunications. In cooperation with the ADA, assistive technology (AT) can help play a major role in complying with reasonable accommodations.

The most frequently quoted definition of assistive technology derives from the Technology-Related Assistance of Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1988. Subsequently, renamed the Assistive Technology Act and amended, this law defines assistive technology as any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially or off the shelf, modified or customized, that increases, maintains, or improves functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities. Assistive technology is considered either “low, mid, or high tech” depending on the device’s complexity and the materials used to produce it (Inge, 2006).

AT offers a wide range low-tech and high-tech devices that directly support individuals with disabilities participation in productive work. For example, Low-tech AT devices usually are in-expensive and easy to purchase or make. Additionally, low-tech AT does not necessarily require specialized training to identify or create and is relatively easy to implement for individuals with disabilities (e.g., apparatuses that lower the height of a desk, squishy balls to help relieve stress tension and boost focus, walking canes). High-tech AT devices would be the use of electronics, special manufacturing techniques, and materials. Generally, high-tech AT can be obtained from a specialized service provider (e.g., rehabilitation engineer; rehabilitation counselor; occupational, physical, or speech therapist) and requires additional assistance for the user. See Table 1 for examples of AT devices as reasonable workplace accommodations for various disability types.

Table 1.

Assistive Technology Workplace Accommodations for Various Types of Disabilities

Disability Type	AT Device or Service Workplace Accommodation
Vision	Large print materials. Computer with voice input. Electronic note taker. Raised lettering on room labels. Accessible company websites.
Hearing	Real-time captioning for conferences and audio streaming of web teleconferences. Certified sign language interpreter. Teletype telephone. Telephones with amplification devices and visual and auditory alerting systems.
Lower Mobility	Adjustable/Ergonomic height desks and workstations. Sip-and-puff systems. Accessible Vehicles. Automatic Door Openers. Doorknob grips, light switch, and handle extenders. Ramps (e.g., portable and threshold). Stair lifts.
Upper Mobility	Trackball for easier mouse manipulation. Touch screens. Ergonomic keyboard. Speech amplification systems. Eye Mobility.
Cognitive	Memory aids (pop-up timer on computer, alarm set in phone). Flexible Schedule. Recorder Device. iPhone/iPad. Telephone auto-dialer. Voice output with optical character recognition to read documents or use a reading pen.

The receipt of AT-WA (e.g., screen readers, ergonomic workstations, screen clips, and microphone headsets) by employees with a disability has shown positive association with continued employment and delayed labor force exit (Von Schrader et al., 2014; Hill et al., 2016; Kristman et al., 2016). Moreover, AT-WA is an essential vocational rehabilitation service for employees with disabilities. AT can address the interface between personal characteristics such as functional limitation in mobility, cognitive, or communication domains and the work-place environment to facilitate the person’s performance of job-related activities. The demands for AT-WAs are increasing dramatically in part due to increasing disability rates, modern technological advancements, and both Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act enable more AT-WAs. However, only between one-quarter and one-third of individuals with a disability receive employer accommodations to help them retain employment (Hill et al., 2016; Anand & Sevak, 2017).

Employment retention is one issue, but acquisition is another. Persons with disabilities in the U.S., compared to those without disabilities, experience higher unemployment rates (Kessler Foundation, 2017; Ross & Bateman, 2018; Schur et al., 2017). For example, recently, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in 2019, persons with a disability were at a 19.3% employment-population ratio, compared to their counterparts without a disability at 66.3% (Persons with a Disability: Labor Force Characteristics-2019, 2020). Among unemployed persons with a disability, rates vary by racial/ethnic minority status (i.e., non-Hispanic White vs. individuals identified as non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, or Pacific Islander).

While the unemployment rate for Whites with a disability has declined over the years, the rates for Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians have remained steady (Persons with a Disability: Labor Force Characteristics-2019, 2020). Among persons with disabilities, Blacks reported the highest unemployment rate in 2019 at 11.8 %, followed by Hispanics at 8.6%, Asians at 6.7%, and Whites at 6.6% (Persons with a Disability: Labor Force Characteristics-2019, 2020). Thus, there is an existing unemployment gap among racial/ethnic minority groups and Whites as well as a gap between people with and without disabilities. These gaps contraindicate current predominant rehabilitation practice progress, which is that technological developments and public policies have improved accessibility for people with significant impairments and chronic health conditions to work.

Some studies have examined employment barriers persons with disabilities (Cichy et al., 2017; Sevak et al., 2015; Sundar et al., 2018; Yin & Shaewitz, 2015). The types of barriers that have been identified throughout the literature include social and public policy (Mitra & Kruse, 2016; Livermore & Honeycutt, 2015; Nogueira et al., 2016), workplace accommodations (Anad & Sevak, 2017; Cook & Burke-Miller, 2015; Kristman et al., 2016; McDowell & Fossey, 2015), AT (Huang et al., 2016; Morash-Maceneil et al., 2018; Shin et al., 2016; Ward-Sutton et al., 2020), low-scoio-economic status (Chan et al., 2018; Jagger, 2017; Lindsay et al., 2018; Metcalfe et al., 2017; Kaya, 2018), and lack of vocational rehabilitation (VR) services (Cimera et al., 2015; Cross et al., 2015; Eckstein et al., 2017; Manyibe et al., 2012; Moore et al., 2016; McDonnall, 2016).

Although some studies have investigated the association between the employment of persons with disabilities and a wide range of factors, there is a lack of empirical research examining the interplay between employment and AT-WAs for persons with disabilities among racial/ethnic minority groups. If this interplay continues to be ignored, high unemployment among people of color (i.e., racial/ethnic minorities) with a disability will continue and possibly increase. While a broad spectrum of workplace accommodations exists, AT-WA is a specific strategy to improve employment outcomes for people of color (PoC) with a disability and is necessary to address the diverse needs of individuals with disabilities related to technological supports, as mandated in U.S. legislation.

The continued advancement and technological development of AT-WA requires attention to the critical role this specific type of support plays in the successful employment of people with disabilities. Evidence shows, enhanced effects of specialized placement, job development, and other supported employment strategies that would be otherwise difficult without the use of AT (Chiu et al., 2015; Hedrick et al., 2006; Inge, 2006; Morash-Macneil et al., 2018; Shin et al., 2016; Sundar, 2017). On a global scale, The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that over 1 billion people globally currently need AT, but only 1 in 10 have access. It estimates that by 2030, due to the growth of disability and ageing populations, 2 billion people in the world will be in need of at least one AT device (Assistive Technology, 2018). Despite evidence about the advantages and increased demand of AT devices in the workplace, PoC with disabilities have not benefited equally from using AT (Ilunga Tshiswaka et al., 2016; Ward-Sutton, 2019; Ward-Sutton et al., 2020).

Furthermore, the available literature on diverse disabled populations and AT-WA usage is limited and illustrates a void in addressing AT’s cultural and linguistic accessibility that would align with long-standing policies and practices (e.g., ADA and Assistive Technology Act). This area of research should focus on a range of racial/ethnic minority statuses, including various disability types and workplace accommodations. Therefore, this study’s purpose was to use data from the 2015 Kessler Foundation National Employment and Disability Survey (KFNEDS) to first explore the relationship between AT-WA usage and employment status among individuals with disabilities. Secondly, this study examined the relationship among racial/ethnic minority statuses and AT-WA usage. Additionally, researchers investigated what factors impact usage of AT-WAs for individuals with disabilities. The KFNEDS provided a unique opportunity to examine these relationships because the data result from the first national survey to explore the workplace experiences of people with disabilities, specifically PoC, and identify successful strategies for finding and maintaining employment. Specifically, the following research questions were addressed:

1. Is there a statistically significant relationship between AT-WA usage and employment status among individuals with disabilities?

2. Is there a statistically significant relationship between the racial/ethnic minority status of individuals with a disability and AT-WA usage?

3. Is there a relationship between racial/ethnic minority status and employment status among individuals with disabilities?

4. Is income, gender, social security benefits, education and age significantly related to employment status?

Methods

Sample

The KFNEDS was administered by telephonic interviews across the U.S. using randomly selected adults ages 18–64 with a self-reported disability. A sample of households was selected using the random digit dialing (RDD) procedure on both landline and cellular telephones. For the 2015 KFNEDS, a nationally representative sample of 3,013 adults with disabilities was interviewed by trained professional interviewers at the University of New Hampshire Survey Center and Pennsylvania State University Survey Research Center. A team of researchers from both survey centers conducted a secondary analysis of the 2015 KFNEDS dataset to identify the current study’s sample size of 3,013 working-age adults (2015 Kessler Foundation National Employment & Disability Survey: Overview, n.d.).

Survey Design

The study utilized data collected from the 2015 KFNEDS, which contains information on Americans’ experiences with disabilities in finding and maintaining employment from October 17, 2014, through April 23, 2014. In consultation with the Kessler Foundation and an advisory board, multidisciplinary researchers at the University of New Hampshire developed the survey questionnaire. The final version of the survey consisted of 64 items, inclusive of modified disability and employment-related questions from several national surveys such as the American Community Survey (ACS), Canadian Survey on Disability (CDS), and Current Population Survey (CPS) (2015 Kessler Foundation National Employment & Disability Survey: Overview, n.d.).

Since this study sought to investigate AT-WAs and employment among diverse populations with disabilities, AT related workplace accommodations (e.g., a PC, tablet, hearing device, captioning, upper body ergonomic accommodation, and vision software) among primary disability types (e.g., hearing, vision, cognitive, and upper mobility) were collapsed into two categories of (a) general AT accommodations received, or (b) no general AT accommodations received. For the employment status, six subpopulation categories of work-related experiences as defined within the KFNEDS were collapsed into two categories of the criterion variable: looking for work (e.g., working and are looking for work, previously worked and looking for work, never worked and looking for work) and not looking for work (previously worked and not looking for work, are working and not looking, never worked, and not looking). Race/ethnicity consisted of Non-Hispanic Whites, Non-Hispanic Blacks, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Hispanics, Asians, Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders, or other. For the purposes of this analysis, a dichotomous variable was used to represent racial/ethnic minority status consisting of two categories reflecting those who identified as White and those who identified as belonging to any of the other categories.

Data Analysis Strategy

Descriptive statistics were generated to characterize the sample. Pearson’s Chi-square Test was used to analyze dichotomous independent and dependent variables (Connelly, 2019). A logistic regression analysis was used for models containing two or more predictor variables (i.e., racial/ethnic minority models containing two or more predictor variables (i.e., racial/ethnic minority status, AT-WA) and a dichotomous dependent variable (i.e., employment status). Analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25, at a selected significant level of α=0.05.

Results

Table 2 provides descriptive statistics related to the characteristics of all respondents of the KFNEDS sample. Overall, the total sample of 3,013 participants, 1675 (55.6%) were female, and 1338 (44.4%) were male. Slightly over half of the sample (53.2%) had an income of $60k or more, followed by, those with an income of $30k and less at 28%, and the remaining participants reported an income between $30k to $60k (18.6%). Among disability onset, during young age was reported the lowest at 26.3%, while disability onset during adulthood was most frequently reported at 50.1%. Regarding social security, of the total sample, 50.1% had received social security in the last two years, and 49.9% did not. Many participants (60%) had a high school diploma or GED and above; 40% reported less than a high school diploma or GED. In terms of employment status, 57.2% of the sample were currently not working, and 42.8% were currently working. An examination of AT-WA by racial/ethnicity status shows 24.7% of Whites with a disability utilize AT-WA. In comparison, only 9.2% of racial/ethnic minorities were most likely to use AT-WA. The largest age group represented were 55–64 years old, which accounted for 36.3% of the sample; 27.5% were 45–54 years old; 14.3% were 35–44 years old; 11.3% were 25–34 years old, and 8.4% were 18–24 years old.

Table 2.

Demographics and Descriptive Statistics

Nominal Variables	n	(%)
Sex
Female	1675	55.6
Male	1338	44.4
Income
<$30,000	844	28
$30,000 to $60, 000	561	18.6
>$60, 000 or More	1604	53.2
Disability Onset
Young age	792	26.3
Adult	1509	50.1
Received Social Security in the last 2 years
Yes	1509	50.1
No	1504	49.9
Education
Less than High school diploma or GED	1205	40.0
High school diploma or GED and above	1808	60.0
Employment Status
Currently Not Working	1723	57.2
Currently Working	1290	42.8
Assistive Technology
Workplace Usage among
Whites
Yes	744	24.7
No	1495	49.6
Assistive Technology
Workplace Usage among
Racial/Ethnicity Minority
Groups
Yes	276	9.2
No	437	14.5
Categorical Variable	n	%
Age
18–24	253	8.4
25–34	340	11.3
35–44	430	14.3
45–54	830	27.5
55–64	1093	36.3
Do not know	67	2.2
Age
18–24	253	8.4
25–34	340	11.3
35–44	430	14.3
45–54	830	27.5
55–64	1093	36.3

Table 3 displays descriptive statistics profile summarizing the relationships among a broader range of variables investigated through the KFNEDS, including the most functionally limiting disability (i.e., respondents who identified more than one type of disability, where asked were asked about their most limiting disability), general AT-WA usage, and racial/ethnic minority groups. The descriptive profile summary showed racial/ethnic minority status respondents (i.e., non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, or Pacific Islander) have a lower usage percentage of general AT-WAs across their most functionally limiting disabilities. The profile also indicated that respondents who identified cognitive, lower mobility, or upper mobility as their most functionally limiting disability types were more likely to have used general AT-WAs than other identifiable functionally limiting disability types such as hearing or vision.

Table 3.

Descriptive Findings: Comparison of Most Limiting Disability General AT Accommodations Usage Across racial/ethnic minority status

Most Limiting Disability	General AT Accommodation “Yes” or “No”	White		Minority	Total
		n	%	n	%	n
Vision	Yes	35	59.3	24	40.7	N=59
	No	65	69.1	29	30.9	N=94
Hearing	Yes	43	87.8	6	12.2	N=49
	No	154	89.0	19	11.0	N=173
Lower Mobility	Yes	151	67.7	72	32.3	N=223
	No	322	71.7	127	28.3	N=449
Upper Mobility	Yes	127	70.2	54	29.8	N=181
	No	227	72.3	87	27.7	N=314
Cognitive	Yes	226	74.3	78	25.7	N=304
	No	364	77.6	105	22.4	N=469
Other	Yes	121	73.8	43	26.2	N=164
	No	271	77.4	79	22.6	N=350
Missing or Don’t Know	Yes	41	69.5	18	30.5	N=59
	No	92	73.6	33	26.4	N=125
Total	Yes	744	71.6	295	28.4	N=1039

Chi Square Analysis Results

A chi-square analysis addressed research question 1 by investigating the relationship between general AT-WA usage and employment status among individuals with disabilities. The overall sample analysis indicated that among those with no general AT-WAs, 36.4% are looking for work, while 63.6% are not looking for work. Of those who received general AT-WAs, 55.1% are looking for work, while 44.9% are not looking for work. Overall, a higher percentage of individuals with a disability who received AT-WA reported actively looking for work 55.1% compared to 36.4% of individuals with no AT-WA usage, □2 (1, N=3013)= 97.016, P<05.

A second, chi-square analysis addressed research question 2, the relationship between racial/ethnic minority status and general AT-WA usage was examined and found these two factors to be significantly associated □2 (1, N=3013) = 6.074, P<.05. Reports among individuals with no AT-WAs, indicate 75.7% were White while 24.3% were from racial/ethnic minority background. For those that received general AT accommodations, 71.6% were White, while 28.4% were from racial and ethnic minority groups. In short, individuals with a disability who identified as a racial/ethnic minority were not any less likely to be provided with AT-WAs than their White counterparts and are more likely to use AT-WAs when received.

Logistic Regression Analysis Results

A logistic regression analysis addressed research question 3 by investigating the linear relationship between non-White race/ethnicity, AT-WA usage, and employment status, revealing the following results, while holding other variables constant. The OR estimate (OR=2.947, p<.05) suggests that the expected odds of being employed is 2.9 times higher for Whites using AT-WAs compared with otherwise similar minority individuals who used AT-WAs. Additionally, OR findings (OR= 1.447, p<05) suggest that the expected odds of being employed are almost 1.4 times higher for Whites not using AT-WAs than otherwise similar minority individuals who did not use AT-WAs. Lastly, the logistic regression analysis results also indicated that the expected OR estimate (OR=3.083, p<.05).

Research question 4 investigated what factors predict the nature of employment status by individuals with disabilities? A logistic regression analysis investigated the linear relationship between income, gender, social security benefits, education, and age as predictors, with employment as the criterion. The logistic regression analysis indicated the following: individuals with a disability who earn less than 30K a year were less likely (OR=0.413, p<.05) to be working than individuals with a disability who were earning a higher annual income of 60K or above. Males with a disability were more likely (OR=1.448, p<.05) to be currently working than females with a disability. Individuals who received social security benefits within the last two years were less likely (OR=0.88, p <.05) to be currently working. Individuals with a disability who received some college and above were more likely to be currently working compared with those with lower education.

Finally, when examining age and employment results of the logistic regression analysis, individuals between the ages of 18–24 with a disability were more likely (OR=1.511, p <.05) to be currently working compared to persons ages 65 and above with a disability. Individuals between the ages of 25–34 with a disability were more likely (OR=1.639, p <.05) to be currently working compared to the ages of 65 and above with a disability, and individuals between the ages of 35–44 with a disability are more likely (OR=1.449, p <.05) to be currently working compared to persons ages of 65 and above with a disability.

Discussion

Despite evidence about the advantages and increased demand of AT devices in the workplace, PoC with disabilities have not benefited equally from using AT (Ilunga Tshiswaka et al., 2016; Ward-Sutton, 2019; Ward-Sutton et al., 2020). The current study results identified racial/ethnic minority status and AT-WA usage as variables significantly related to employment. In this regard, racial/ethnic minority status and general AT-WA usage have a significant effect on employment status for individuals with disabilities. These findings, in part, corroborate those from previous studies (Anand & Sevak, 2017; Sundar et al., 2018; Ward-Sutton et al., 2020) that identified workplace AT accommodations as a significant predictor of employment success for individuals with a disability. Additionally, findings highlight a greater need for AT-WAs among racial/ethnic minority statuses to help achieve greater success in their employment outcomes.

Employers, rehabilitation counselors, vocational rehabilitation (VR) service providers, and consumers in the field need more knowledge about the importance of providing AT workplace accommodations. In this study, there was a significant association between individuals with disabilities’ general AT accommodation usage and striving to work. The results indicated 55% of individuals who used general AT accommodations were looking for work, while 60% of those who were not looking for work did not use general AT accommodations. Findings also point to a further implication for the underutilization of AT workplace accommodations as a potentially missed employment opportunity, which is unfortunate due to the available technologies and services that have made it easier and less expensive for businesses to employ individuals with disabilities.

To enhance clarity for the reader, we present the following recommendations given the findings of this study under the following two subsections (a) practice and (b) public policy to improve AT-WA usage and delivery for the successful employment of individuals with disabilities from racial/ethnic minority groups.

Implications for practice

In terms of practice, service providers (e.g., rehabilitation counselors and vocational rehabilitation (VR) practitioners) play a critical role in consumers’ needs and are significantly impacted by the availability of resources or lack thereof. Our findings provide three critical recommendations to examine potential inequities in the need for or the receipt of actual AT-WAs:

1. Practitioners should stay up to date on current multicultural training and interventions, research findings, and recommended interventions to meet racial/ethnic minority group needs. For example, they could be made aware of the results of this current study as a starting point. Doing so, could help establish a foundation in which the experience of all consumers’ basic needs is identified and addressed with more attention, focus, and cultural sensitivity during the provision of services.

2. Provide appropriate competencies and services regarding AT workplace accommodations (e.g., utilize AT specialists, assessments, and training). This strategy would help ensure all consumers appropriate access and opportunities for AT workplace accommodations while also enhancing a collaborative relationship for employers and consumers to understand AT reasonable accommodations and options.

3. More practitioners should encourage and increase the number of consumers who might possess the skills and potential to benefit from AT workplace accommodations. Such exposure could positively impact the knowledge and usage within the disability community. Moreover, results of this study could be used to inform key stakeholders (e.g., policy makers, state, and federal funding agencies) about enhancing participation in AT workplace accommodations across racial and ethnic minority groups.

Implications for policy

The following three public policy recommendations emerged from the study findings that authors consider relevant to address specific needs of individuals with disabilities from diverse racial/ethnic populations.

1. Provide equal racial/ethnic minority status representation among public policy makers and other key stakeholders that design or provide judgment on AT-WA matters to ensure fairness among all individuals with disabilities. Such adequate representation will help increase the level of transparency between policy makers and the people of color in the disability community. For example, greater resources and attention need to be directed to increasing AT information access in Spanish. The Hispanic population is estimated to reach 111 million by 2060 (Persons with a Disability: Labor Force Characteristics - 2019). Online availability of AT information in Spanish is limited but crucial to increasing AT utilization among Spanish-speaking people with disabilities. Policy makers can address the cultural and linguistic accessibility of AT information available on state AT program websites by aligning practices with long-standing and more recent policies (e.g., E.O. 13166 and Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) (Secretary & (OCR), 2021) to promote equity and access.

2. Current policies and funding agencies should review the inventory of all funding streams designated for AT workplace accommodations across recent projects, agencies, providers, etc., to identify effective efforts and to recommend dedicated funding or new incentives to increase successful employment outcomes and AT workplace accommodation usage among racial/ethnic minority groups with a disability. Coordinating efforts across state AT programs would support developing a repository of materials for circulation and assist programs as they expand the information available to better match demographic and linguistic needs. Specifically, this will help address a diverse society’s emerging needs and promote social justice by connecting funding resources to communities in need.

3. Public policy makers and stakeholders should consider developing better strategies for knowledge translation and disseminating AT-WA policies (e.g., publishing policies and procedures periodically and coordination of national workshops or trainings) for employers and consumers. Information provided should be easily accessible and recognizable to the general public. This targeted intervention may positively impact the disability community by (1) supporting self-advocacy opportunities, (2) placing a higher value on employers’ participation in staying abreast of current and emerging best practices for AT-WAs as well as helping reduce the experiences of bias and discrimination in the hiring of individuals with disabilities, specifically from diverse populations.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Although this study has several strengths, for example, findings are among the first to illuminate relationships across AT-WAs and employment among racial/ethnic minority populations, some limitations are noted. First, the 2015 KFNEDS utilized a self-report methodology; thus, there is no way to confirm the validity of all responses given nor that all respondents had a concrete understanding of the concepts involved. Secondly, the 2015 KFNEDS used proxy respondents instead of actual respondents for individuals who had difficulty speaking English or speaking on the telephone. Additionally, proxy respondents were used for individuals with severe cognitive impairments or communication difficulties. Lastly, categorical variables from the 2015 KFNEDS were collapsed for conducting data analysis, which impacts the study’s generalizability of findings. Despite these limitations, the findings may be helpful to inform rehabilitation counseling policy makers, practitioners, and future research interested in enhancing minority AT-WA and employment success rates.

Future research should investigate these variables’ role on AT-WAs and employment outcomes to develop more keenly targeted interventions that can be used as trials to improve equity for traditionally marginalized or disadvantaged populations. Additionally, future research would be more beneficial if service providers could systematically collect more complete data on consumers who use AT-WAs. For example, practitioners could consider developing data capture protocols with built-in quality assurance mechanisms to collect and report AT-WA. information more accurately. This would be particularly helpful in the case of individuals who identify with a racial/ethnic minority status, to help eliminate providers’ errors resultant from failure to follow up on issues due to heavy caseload or discontinuity of services. Future research must explore these concepts in-depth through qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods investigations to better understand the gaps and intersections of AT-WA’s service delivery.

Finally, it is worth taking a closer look at employment barriers reported by people with disabilities who have demonstrated an interest in AT-WAs because this group may be more likely to be employed if provided the requested AT-WAs. Many service providers have close connections with the disability community as well as communities of color to address such issues. They can use such linkages to become more engaged in exploring AT-WA usage for increased employment opportunities.

It is important to note that through advancement and technological development in AT-WAs, there is a need for continued educational opportunities (e.g., AT courses offered in accredited counseling programs, AT certificate programs, AT specialist mentors, AT-WA workshops/trainings/conferences, and state-federal funding). Such opportunities can help strengthen the future workforce in its ability to effectively serve culturally diverse persons with disabilities whose employment outcomes can be improved by AT-WAs. Similarly, minority-serving institutions (e.g., Historically Black Colleges and Universities) can provide promising laboratories for replicating and advancing this research to build a base of evidence that speaks to the bottom-line efficacy of the use of AT-WAs in enhancing employment outcomes of racial and ethnic minority populations of persons with disabilities. A stronger evidence base combined with more systematic and intentional knowledge translation strategies will go a long way to improve the standard practice of using AT-WA to bolster employment in underserved, underrepresented minority populations of individuals with disabilities.

Conclusion

This exploratory study represents a first step towards increasing the understanding of AT-WA usage and employment among people with disabilities from culturally diverse populations in the U.S., which is an essential but often neglected area by researchers, service providers, and public policy makers in the rehabilitation field (Grossman et al., 2020; Orellano-Colón, et al., 2018; & Ward-Sutton et al., 2020). Moreover, our findings support the importance of AT-WA usage contributing to successful employment outcomes and the lack of representation across various groups of persons of color with disabilities among those outcomes. Historically, this may be related to technology barriers (e.g., digital divide, racial and disability discrimination). While examining this study’s unique and beginning contribution to this nascent, yet burgeoning literature can help us identify existing inequities, that are often influenced by a complex interplay of variables such as social determinants of health (e.g., low socioeconomic status, subpar education, inadequate health literacy, diminished access to informational resources, high risk neighborhood effect) and the cultural values/identities endemic to these culturally diverse groups. Accordingly, assessing these existing inequities and social determinants can be useful predictors in the adherence of public policies (e.g., including consideration for future revisions to mandates) and practices. Many PoC could benefit from these implications noted for AT-WA services and supports not currently available to them. Without such help, consequently, they will not be able to succeed. Thus, our study and implications lay the groundwork for transformative change across the diversity development in the profession of rehabilitation research, policy, and practice.