The Pennsylvania State University
The Graduate School
Department of Learning and Performance Systems
DEVELOPMENT OF BUSINESS STANDARDS FOR IMPROVING SERVICE
QUALITY FOR CONSUMERS WITH DISABILITIES WITHIN THE U.S. SERVICE
INDUSTRY SECTOR: A MODIFIED DELPHI STUDY
A Dissertation in
Workforce Education and Development
by
Tammy B. Smith
© 2013 Tammy B. Smith
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
December 2013
The dissertation of Tammy B. Smith was reviewed and approved* by the following:
Dr. William J. Rothwell
Professor
Workforce Education & Development
Dissertation Advisor
Chair of Committee
Dr. Susan Cromwell
Associate Professor
Workforce Education & Development
Dr. Wesley Donahue
Associate Professor
Workforce Education & Development
Dr. Andrew Mowen
Associate Professor
Recreation, Park & Tourism Management
Dr. Kyle Peck
Director of Graduate Studies
Department of Learning and Performance Systems
*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School
ii ABSTRACT
Service quality is a known contributing factor to business success (Bhattacharya
& Sankar, 2004; RADAR, 2012). Although service quality has been studied
extensively, little attention has been directed toward examining the attributes of service
quality and service standards that contribute to quality customer service for individuals
with disabilities. In this study, disability inclusion experts and consumers with
disabilities participated in a modified Delphi study to develop service standards for
improving service quality for customers with disabilities. The standards established
serve as a framework for enhancing current business standards in order to develop
universally designed service practices for attracting, serving, and retaining customers of
all abilities. The three-iteration Delphi methodology included two pilot studies.
Measures of statistical and Delphic agreement were established using standards
generated by this study. Each of eight hypotheses was supported and agreement was
evident in both iterations two and three. The Mann-Whitney U test showed some
differences between consumer and disability expert groups on the importance of some of
the standards; however, differences were minimal. Kendall’s W measures indicated
increased levels of agreement across iterations two and three. Krippendorff’s reliability
and Cronbach’s alpha reliability supported the content analysis and reliability of
questionnaires. The results of the study established 134 service standards representing
ten service quality determinants. The standards were summarized according to their
perceived importance resulting in three tiers: (1) essential, (2) critical, and (3) basic
standards. Both a categorical and holistic summary of standards was presented.
iii Additional research is warranted to discern the standards’ contribution to improved
service quality for customers with disabilities. Additionally, it is suggested that the
standards developed through this study be used by service business entities to discern
standards gaps, as well as to develop and implement strategies for closing standard gaps
in order to improve service quality and increase potential business profitability.
iv TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES....................................................................................................viii
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..........................................................................................xi
CHAPTERS
I INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
Problem Statement .............................................................................................. 3
Significance of Study .......................................................................................... 6
Research Questions ............................................................................................. 7
Limitations .......................................................................................................... 8
Definition of Terms ............................................................................................ 8
Assumptions ....................................................................................................... 10
Conceptual Framework ....................................................................................... 11
II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
......................................................... 16
U.S. Economic Market Sectors ........................................................................... 16
The Service Industry ........................................................................................... 17
The Disability Market ......................................................................................... 20
Historical Perspectives of Consumers with Disabilities ..................................... 25
Disability Consumer-related Legislation ............................................................ 29
Service Industry Response to Legislation........................................................... 33
Service Quality and Service Standards ............................................................... 35
Standards Gaps ................................................................................................... 43
v Current Service Standards for Consumers with Disabilities............................44
Accessibility Standards for Customer Service ................................................. 47
Advantages/Disadvantages of Service Standards ............................................. 52
Standards Development Framework................................................................. 58
Research Approaches to Standards Development ............................................ 61
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................. 65
III METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 67
Three-Phase Methodology ............................................................................... 69
IV FINDINGS............................................................................................................ 92
V
Participants ..........................................................................................................................93 Pilot Study One....................................................................................................................98 Iteration One......................................................................................................................103 Inter-­‐coder Reliability....................................................................................................108 Pilot Study Two.................................................................................................................108 Iteration Two.....................................................................................................................113 Iteration Three..................................................................................................................122 SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS....................................133
Summary..............................................................................................................................133 Discussion...........................................................................................................................156 Recommendations ..........................................................................................................160 REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................166 APPENDECIES.........................................................................................................191
vi Appendix A IRB Approval.............................................................................191
Appendix B Participant Recruitment Email....................................................192
Appendix C Pilot Study One Survey .............................................................. 193
Appendix D Development of Business Standards: Iteration One .................. 195
Appendix E Content Analysis Codebook ....................................................... 200
Appendix F Pilot Study Two Survey .............................................................. 202
Appendix G Development of Business Standards: Iteration Two ................. 204
Appendix H Development of Business Standards: Iteration Three ............... 210
Appendix I Sum of Means Scores for All Standards............................................217 Appendix J Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act..........................224 .
vii LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Gaps Model of Service Quality. ................................................................ 12
Figure 1.2: Process for developing business standards in alignment with
individual service quality determinants. .............................................................. 14
Figure 2.1: Population age 65 and over and age 85 and over, slected years 19002008 and projected 2010-2050 ............................................................................. 22
Figure 2.2: Determinants of service quality. ............................................................... 38
Figure 2.3: ARCHSECRET service quality dimensions. ........................................... 41
Figure 3.1: Outline of research methodology. ............................................................ 68
Figure 3.2: Triangulation of research methods. .......................................................... 69
Figure 3.3: Delphi process expert panel sampling strata. ........................................... 81
Figure 3.4: Example of item from iteration one questionnaire. .................................. 85
Figure 3.5: Example of item from iteration two questionnaire. .................................. 87
Figure 3.6: Summary of data analysis......................................................................... 91
Figure 4.1 Disability inclusion areas of expertise represented by disability inclusion
experts..............................................................................................................94
Figure 4.2 Types of service industry experience represented by participants...........96
Figure 4.3 Percentage of experts and consumers by type of disability.....................97
Figure 4.4 Controversial standards-consumer group following iteration two.........119
Figure 4.5 Controversial standards-expert group following iteration two...............120
Figure 5.1 Percentage of standards by service determinant category.......................148
viii LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Service Qualtiy Best Practices and Checklists. .......................................... 45
Table 3.1: Participant Selection Criterion. ................................................................... 80
Table 4.1: Distribution of the Number of Iteration Raw Responses Across Service Determinant Categories................................................................................................ 104 Table 4.2: Number of Redundant Occurrences of Written Standards at Formative Reliability Check................................................................................................................105 Table 4.3: Descriptive Statistics for Experts following Iteration Two......................114 Table 4.4: Descriptive Statistics for Consumers following Iteration Two..............117 Table 4.5: Descriptive Statistics for Experts following Iteration Three...................123 Table 4.6: Descriptive Statistics for Consumers following Iteration Three...........125 Table 4.7: Mann-Whitney U Test Between Expert and Consumer Groups on Standards
where Inter-group Agreement was not Achieved............................................129
Table 5.1: Service Quality Standards-Understanding/Knowing the Customer...........136
Table 5.2: Service Quality Standards-Responsiveness................................................137
Table 5.3: Service Quality Standards-Access and Tangibles..................................... 138
Table 5.4: Service Quality Standards-Reliability........................................................140
Table 5.5: Service Quality Standards-Competence and Credibility............................141
Table 5.6: Service Quality Standards-Communication...............................................142
Table 5.7: Service Quality Standards-Humaneness and Courtesy..............................144
Table 5.8: Service Quality Standards-Security...........................................................145
Table 5.9: Service Quality Standards-Enablement and Empowerment......................145
ix Table 5.10: Service Quality Standards-Equity............................................................147
Table 5.11: Holistic Representation of Service Standards..........................................149
x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation is dedicated to my family, friends, clients and colleagues for
inspiring me to pursue this venture and who offered their support, advice, thoughts, and
inspiration along the way. I thank my husband, Ralph, my best friend and love of my
life, for wholeheartedly offering his hugs, intellect, humor, time and persistent belief in
my abilities. I thank my children, Kevin, Bryan and Rayne, for tolerating my couch
sitting, laptop pecking and half-attentive listening and, more importantly, for providing
comic relief throughout the process. I also thank Kristen and Mindy and their beautiful
families whose stories of raising children, calls and texts to their Dad keeping him out of
my hair, and encouraging words were most appreciated. I would also like to thank my
parents, who inspired my work ethic and love of learning, and who have always
expressed pride in my accomplishments.
To all the many professionals and individuals with disabilities who invested their
time and effort to this research effort, I also offer my appreciation. Without their
enthusiasm and dedication to all phases of this study, this research would not have been
possible. I am grateful to Dr. William Rothwell, my academic advisor and mentor, who
provided his guidance and insight throughout the research process. I also thank Drs.
Andrew Mowen, Susan Cromwell and Wes Donahue who served on my committee, and
Dr. David Gliddon for offering his Delphi expertise and enduring my many phone calls
and emails that led to solidifying the study’s methodology and analysis. And finally, I
would like to thank my good friends, Angie, Deb, Karime, Kim, Mary, Ruth Ann,
Susan, and all of the Zunis who kept me laughing along the way.
xi 1 Chapter 1
Introduction
Over the past several decades, the United States has made significant progress in
protecting the rights of individuals with disabilities. Legislation has supported this
progress through the passage of the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section
508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of
1990 (amended in 2010; Burns & Gordon, 2009). Passage of the ADA was the most
significant legislation because it offered people with disabilities the same rights and
privileges as people without disabilities (Burgdorf, 1991; Feldblum, Barry, & Benfer,
2008). The ADA superseded earlier legislation by extending the rights of people with
disabilities into the private sector. As a result, private businesses are now federally
mandated to provide access and accommodations to individuals with disabilities in the
areas of employment, transportation, communication, and public accommodations
(Department of Justice, 2012).
For the service industry, the impact of the ADA has been significant. No longer
can consumers with disabilities be turned away based upon assumptions about ability,
appearance, communication challenges, strength, and mobility, among others. Provided
that the person meets the eligibility criteria established for other individuals for service
provision, a business must attempt to provide reasonable accommodations to afford the
individual equal opportunity to participate in and/or receive the same services as his or
her non-disabled counterparts (Department of Justice, 2012). The onus for providing
reasonable accommodations rests with the businesses; however, the advantages of not
2 only complying with the law, but going beyond compliance requirements are compelling
(Buhalis, 2012; Franklin, 2012; Howard & Ulferts, 2007).
Incentives for providing service quality to consumers with disabilities is largely
grounded in the sheer size of the disability market (U.S. Census, 2010). Given that
approximately 1 in 5 Americans (20%) in the U.S. is considered to have some type of
disability (U.S. Census, 2010), and that the aging population will largely increase these
numbers (Delloite, 2006; U.S. Census, 2010), it is paramount that businesses embrace
this market and position their businesses to provide quality service in order to remain
competitive in a changing marketplace.
Large corporations such as PepsiCo, Microsoft, Walmart, Prudential, Verizon,
AT&T, Walgreens, L.L. Bean, and others are already demonstrating such initiative.
Through the development of (a) employee resource groups, (b) universally accessible
web sites, (c) accessible management information systems, (d) mandated training and
development on serving customers with disabilities, and (e) active engagement of human
resource professionals in the employment of individuals with disabilities, these
organizations are readying their businesses for a more disability-rich marketplace
(USBLN Annual Conference, 2012). To illustrate the return on investment for such
practices, businesses that simply modify their websites to meet Section 508 electronic
accessibility requirements can expect a 2.4:1 return on investment for their efforts
because their products and services will now be available to a market segment that had
not had previous access (Brinck, 2005). Thus, in an era where economic uncertainty
threatens business sustainability, it makes fiscal sense to maximize customer access to
services, while also avoiding any potential and unnecessary litigation that may arise from
service barriers (Coco, 2010; Department of Justice, 2012). The United States Standards
3 Strategy also acknowledges the need for more service related standards in their Global
Imperatives for Action. More specifically, the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) states “the service industry sector has a significant and rapidly growing presence
in the global economy and workforce. The United States must devote more attention to
understanding the needs of the service industry sector and establishing service standards
initiatives to meet those needs” (ANSI, United States Standards Strategy, 2012, p 5).
Problem Statement
Although the ADA mandates private businesses that offer services to the public to
provide reasonable accommodations to customers with disabilities, what is reasonable is
difficult to interpret. As an example, what constitutes reasonable for one business may be
justifiably unreasonable for another business and vice versa. Additionally, the term
reasonable is further complicated by other qualifying criterion under the law such as
undue burden and undue hardship. Businesses, for example, are required to provide
reasonable accommodations provided that their business does not experience undue
burden or undue hardship as a result. To add to the complexity, what constitutes undue
burden and undue hardship is loosely defined and also widely interpretable.
Although most employees receive some ADA training during their employment,
most training curricula are restricted to disability awareness and sensitivity training
(Kline, 2012; Peterson & Quarstein, 2001). It is this researcher’s experience that most
disability-related training programs lack information and the development of practical
knowledge and skills related to how to provide quality service to customers with
disabilities.
The provision of service quality to customers with disabilities is often left up to
employee to decide what is needed when a customer with a disability attempts to procure
4 services (Collins & Phillips, 2011). And while most employees have good intentions of
providing reasonable accommodations, many employees do not meet the requirements of
the law and/or the service quality expectations of their consumers with disabilities
(Kaufman–Scarborough, 2001). This is often due to the employee’s lack of knowledge
regarding disability, lack of training and/or can be the result of avoiding the consumer
with a disability altogether (Gates & Akabas, 2011; Lennex & Diggins, 2007).
Consequently, consumers with disabilities may receive lesser quality service, resulting in
lower customer satisfaction and, hence, an unwillingness to return for subsequent
services and business transactions (Goodrich & Ramsey, 2012).
The U.S. Access Board, an independent federal agency responsible for
accessibility for people with disabilities, developed the American Disabilities Act
Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) to aid in ADA legislation interpretation. However,
this document is limited to the scoping and technical requirements required for the
physical elements of the business/organization such as facility and business access
(Department of Justice, 2012). In other words, these guidelines do not stipulate
compliance standards for service to customers with disabilities. Moreover, while the U.S.
Access Board has developed primers to assist businesses with provision of reasonable
accommodations to customers (Department of Justice, 2012) and a number of
governmental and private organizations have developed reasonable accommodation
checklists (Matausch & Miesenberger, 2010; Pham, 2011; Rothwell, 2012), this
information does not always find its way into the hands of front-line employees and falls
short of establishing standardized practices. Finally, most of these checklists are
employment and physical accessibility-oriented and none found were based on identified
research or clearly defined procedures.
5 Because there are no business standards established to market to, serve and retain
a customer base of individuals with disabilities, service quality is inconsistent, unreliable,
and varies in degree of quality across the service industry (Brobst, 2011; Kelleher &
McAuliffe, 2012; McKleskey & Waldron, 2011). Recognizing that accommodations are
specific to the individual challenges presented by the disability (Stonesifer & Kim, 2011),
it is admittedly difficult to create one size fits all standards that meet the unique needs
presented by each individual. Businesses can, however, adopt the principles of universal
design (NCSU, 2012) and standardize approaches, processes, policies, and procedures to
create business infrastructures that support the majority of individual consumers with
disabilities. According to North Carolina State University’s Center for Universal Design
(2012), creating universally designed products, services and environments that are usable
by all people “to the greatest extent possible” without the need for specialized design or
adaptation is the principle behind universal design. In Canada, such an approach to
service standards for consumer with disabilities already exists and has been found to
positively influence consumer service quality and experience (Burns & Gordon, 2009;
Lepofsky, 2004).
Therefore, the purpose of the following study was to explore and to develop
standards for providing service quality to consumers with disabilities within the service
industry in the United States under the principles of universal design. These standards
were developed by a Delphi panel of experts with knowledge and expertise in service
quality provision for consumers with disabilities. The standards were developed based on
a need to close a standards gap that currently exists in this area. The outcome was the
development of a broad, non-organization specific set of standards, based upon the
principles of universal design that could be adopted by various organizations within the
6 service industry for improving service quality for their customer base of individuals with
disabilities.
Significance of the Study
In 2012, the United States was recovering from a number of challenges that
affected business viability. An economic recession, business closures and mergers, high
unemployment rates, layoffs and outsourcing, as well as the return of war veterans with
and without service-connected disabilities were offering diverse challenges to servicerelated businesses. As a result, business success was becoming increasingly dependent
upon organizational learning and service innovation (Jimenez-Jimenez & Sanz-Valle,
2011), service quality and brand loyalty (Davis-Sramek, Dorge, Mentzer, & Myers,
2009), as well as creating solutions that differentiated services thereby offering
businesses a competitive edge. For some businesses, the drive to create new products,
add value and/or attract new target market segments was becoming paramount to
business survivability.
With an increased focus on the customer, as evidenced through a number of
recent customer-centric publications (Al-Shammari, 2012; Lyons, Mondragon, Piller, &
Poler, 2012; Tan, Chang, & Chen, 2012), greater attention to service quality for
consumers with disabilities is timely. Additionally, many research studies support service
quality as important for return on investment through repeat business, word-of-mouth
marketing, broader market appeal, increased revenue, and competitive advantage
(Schnieder, Macy, Lee, & Young, 2009).
Given the current size of the disability market, and the impending impact of the
aging population on market size, it is prudent for businesses to develop policies,
procedures, and practices that support service quality to consumers with disabilities. By
developing disability-supportive infrastructures, the service industry will be better
positioned to market to, attract and retain customers with disabilities resulting in greater
brand loyalty, positive word-of-mouth marketing, and higher profits.
The ability to create business practices, policies and procedures that incorporate
standards that inherently support consumers with disabilities improves employee
disability competence and minimizes varying interpretations associated with providing
reasonable accommodations. Finally, incorporating standards that support consumers
with disabilities might also impact positively clientele who do not have disabling
conditions. An unexpected benefit found when businesses began to comply with the
ADA, for example, was higher customer satisfaction among the U.S. population as a
whole (Department of Justice, 2012). This finding lends support that businesses that
adopt service standards aimed to improve service quality to consumers with disabilities
may also improve service quality for all people.
Research Questions
In order to develop service industry standards that support service quality to
consumers with disabilities, the following three research questions were asked.
1.
What standards are important for service industry businesses to adopt to
improve service quality for consumers with disabilities, according to
consumers with disabilities?
2.
What standards are important for service industry businesses to adopt to
improve service quality for consumers with disabilities, according to
disability inclusion experts?
7 8 3.
What standards are important for service industry businesses to adopt to
improve service quality for consumers with disabilities, according to
consumers with disabilities and disability inclusion experts combined?
Limitations
Due to the purposive sampling techniques used in this study, the findings of this
study are limited to consumers with the types of disabilities included in this sample and
may not represent service quality requirements of all consumers who have other types of
disabling conditions and whose disabilities may differ in cause, length and/or severity.
Also, because there was participant attrition across the study’s duration, the results may
not be fully representative of the original sample. Additionally, results from this study
are limited based on the responses of the professional subject matter experts that were
selected, and may not represent what would be true of all disability subject matter experts
in the United States. The resulting standards are also purposely broad for businesses
within the service industry, thus, do not fully represent what may be true for specific
types of services in isolation (e.g., tourism, hospitality, banking, transportation).
Definition of Terms
•
Consumer: an individual who purchases goods and services
(Businessdictionary.com, 2012). Within the context of this study, the terms
consumer and customer are used interchangeably and share the same meaning.
•
Delphi: “a group consensus process which utilizes written responses as opposed to
bringing individuals together” (Delbecq, et al., 1975, p. 83).
•
Disability: With respect to the individual, the term disability
(a) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the
major life activities of such individual;
9 (b) a record of such impairment; or
(c) being regarded as having such an impairment.” (Department of Justice, 2012).
Within the context of this study, disabilities include impairments that are
physical, cognitive, intellectual, and/or psychosocial identified through
individual self-report on the first iteration questionnaire.
•
Expert: An expert is a professional who has acquired
knowledge and skills through study and practice over the years, in a particular
field or subject, to the extent that his or her opinion may be helpful in fact
finding, problem solving, or understanding of a situation
(Businessdictionary.com, 2012). The specific criterion used to define subject
matter experts for this study is outlined in Chapter 3 (Methods). •
Service-quality: “ a measure of how well the service level that is delivered
matches customer expectations. Delivering quality service means conforming to
customer expectations on a consistent basis” (Booms & Bitner, 1981, p. 47).
•
Service Quality Determinant: Service quality determinants are those dimensions
of service that, when expectations are met, assist to achieve service quality
(Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985). In this study, the terms determinants,
attributes, and dimensions are used synonymously.
•
Service-industry: “An industry made up of companies that primarily earn revenue
through providing intangible products and services” (businessdictionary.com,
2012).
•
Standard: A standard is a “recognized unit of comparison by which the
correctness of others can be determined” (ANSI, 2012).
•
10 Standardization: Standardization refers to “the activity of establishing and
recording a limited set of solutions to actual or potential problems directed at
benefits for the party or parties involved, balancing their needs and intending or
expecting that these solutions will be repeatedly or continuously used during a
certain period by a substantial number of parties for whom they are meant” (de
Vries, 1997).
•
Universal Design: Universal design refers to “the design of products, services,
and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible,
without the need for adaptation or specialized design” (NCSU, 2012).
Assumptions
The first assumption of this study is that voluntary standards are needed and
desirable for the service industry. Given that voluntary standards development has shown
promise for performance improvement (Knight, 1995), improvements in regulatory cost
efficiency (Schloz, 2008), and internal performance evaluation processes (Wu & Zhang,
2009), it is assumed that adoption of standards for providing quality service to customers
with disabilities will produce positive outcomes.
The second assumption of this study is that the items in the Delphi questionnaires
were phrased in a manner that were clear and understandable such that all questions were
interpreted accurately. Understanding that vague or ambiguous questions could result in
invalid results; hence, compromising the validity of the findings, this assumption is
critical.
The third assumption of this study is that the procedures and purposive selection
procedures of the consumers and subject matter experts chosen for this study resulted in
disability experts qualified to rate standards for service quality provision of business
11 services to customers with disabilities. Additionally, it is assumed the findings of this
study represent both the combined and collective expertise of both groups. Agreement
among consumers with disabilities and experts combined lends strength to findings, as
the standards will represent agreement between both providers (experts) and recipients
(consumers) of service. Given that the study was conducted online, it is also assumed that
the participants possessed Internet and computer questionnaires proficiency such that
technological barriers did not interfere with the breadth and depth of data collected.
Reasonable accommodations were offered to participants if needed. During the study,
two participants requested to take the offline and provide a hard copy to the researcher.
The researcher then entered the information from the questionnaires verbatim into the
online version.
Fourth, this study assumes that standards implementation will help to close gaps
in service quality. This assumption is supported by a recent study that demonstrated a
correlation between service standards implementation and increased guest satisfaction
(Susskind, Kacmar, & Borchgrevink, 2007). To determine the actual impact of gap
closure through the adoption of standards and implementation, more research is
warranted.
The fifth assumption of this study is that the service quality determinants
identified within the SERVQUAL (Pasasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry, 1985) and
ARCHSECRET (Vaughn & Shiu, 2001) scales are representative of the all service
quality determinants for providing service quality to consumers with disabilities.
The final assumption of this study is that standards categories developed through
the qualitative content analysis performed to design the first iteration questionnaire were
comprehensive and appropriate based on current literature.
Conceptual Framework
12 Infrastructure. The conceptual framework for this study is largely based upon
the Gaps Model of Service Quality developed by Parasuraman, et al. (1985). The Gaps
model suggests that gaps between the translation of management perceptions of
customers’ expectations into service quality specifications (or standards) and service
delivery can negatively impact service quality for the customer. These gaps are
illustrated by gaps 2 and 3 (see Figure 1.1). By developing and adopting standards for
service quality based upon service quality determinants that meet the expectations
consumers with disabilities, it is proposed that the gaps between management perceptions
and service quality specifications (standards) and gaps between service quality
specifications and service delivery could be lessened.
Figure 1.1 Gaps model of service quality (Parasuraman, et al., 1985)
13 Framework. This study utilized inductive methodology based upon naturalistic
inquiry to develop business standards for improving service quality for consumers with
disabilities. Although some studies reviewed utilized quantitative approaches to
standards development, most studies utilized an inductive qualitative approach, followed
by quantitative follow-up procedures. For this study, a triangulation approach was used to
conduct a hybrid Delphi study in order to achieve a level of consensus regarding what
standards would be most helpful in improving service quality for individuals with
disabilities. The Delphi method was first introduced by Helmer and Dalkey (1963) in an
Air Force study developed for the RAND corporation to gain defense community expert
consensus regarding optimal defense strategy (Lindstone & Turoff, 1975). Through the
last several decades, the approach has been systematically modified and has been utilized
for a variety of purposes in a variety of disciplines, including the development of
professional standards. A more detailed discussion of the Delphi approach is included in
Chapter 3 (Methods). To develop the Delphi questionnaire for this study, the researcher
followed guidelines offered by Gable and Wolfe (1993). The process included: (a)
conducting a literature review, (b) developing a list of potential service standard
categories based on a content analysis of literature, (c) performing a judgment review of
the standards categories, (d) developing a pilot instrument and (e) revising the pilot
instrument for final use for the first iteration within the present study.
The groups of interest in this study were consumers with disabilities and disability
subject matter experts. Consumers with disabilities included individuals who are defined
by the ADA to have a disabling condition and have sought and/or participated in services
offered by service-related business entities in the United States. Consumers with
disabilities represented a diversity of disabling conditions to include: physical, cognitive,
hearing, visual, intellectual, and psychological challenges. Disability Subject Matter
14 Experts (SMEs) were individuals who had in-depth knowledge in the areas of disability,
access, and inclusion. Also, SMEs had direct service delivery experience regarding
individuals with disabilities and were reputed in their field as disability and inclusion
experts. Specific criterion for selection of individuals used in this study can be found in
Chapter Three.
During the study, participants were asked to develop standards that aligned with
determinants for service quality derived from the works of Parasuraman (1985; 1988),
and supplemented by service quality components offered by Vaughn & Shiu (2001).
Vaughn & Shiu’s determinants were specific to service quality for consumers with
disabilities. Thus, for each service quality determinant identified, participants were asked
to generate and, later rate the importance of standards that would improve service quality
as related to the service quality determinant. The process for standard generation is
illustrated for three service quality determinants (see Figure 1.2), and the process was
repeated for the remaining service quality determinants revealed through qualitative
analysis after the first round (iteration one).
Figure 1.2. Process for developing business standards in alignment with individual
service quality determinants
Superstructure. The data collected were used to establish business standards.
The process involved an environmental scan, content analysis, and self-administered
15 questionnaires offered through three-iterations during the study. This iterative consensus
building process resulted in several standards clusters organized according to their
perceived importance for improving service quality to consumers with disabilities. Nonparametric, non-inferential statistical procedures were utilized to develop standards
clusters and prioritize the standards in accordance with their perceived level of
importance to improving service quality.
16 Chapter 2
Review of Related Literature
This review of related literature begins with an introduction to the U.S. economy,
the service industry, and the disability market. The sections that follow summarize
literature pertaining to concepts contributing to the development of service standards for
consumers with disabilities within the service industry sector. These concepts include (a)
U.S. economic market sectors, (b) the service industry, (c) the disability market, (d)
historical perspectives on disability, (e) consumer-related legislation and industry
response, (f) the relationship between service standards and service quality, (g) current
service standards for consumers with disabilities, and (h) a framework for standards
development. A review of standards-related methodology is also included. The review
of literature concludes with a brief summary of information learned during the review
process.
U. S. Economic Market Sectors
The U.S. economy has been defined and categorized by many researchers,
entities, and organizations across time (Goldstein, Johnston, Duffy, & Rao, 2002; Ng,
Vargo & Smith, 2012; Quinn, 1992; Rathmell, 1966; Silvestro, Fitzgerald, Johnston, &
Voss, 1992). Today, five market sectors are commonly accepted as representative of the
contemporary U.S. economy. These sectors are identified as the primary, secondary,
tertiary, quaternary, and quinary sectors.
The primary, secondary, and tertiary sectors are based upon Fisher (1939) and
Clark (1940) models of economics. The primary sector includes the harvesting of natural
resources (e.g., mining, agriculture, logging), while the secondary sector pertains to
17 manufacturing (e.g., meat packing, furniture production). The tertiary sector involves
support of both the primary and secondary sectors through service (e.g., banking,
teachers, doctors).
Later theorists (Foote & Hatt, 1953) believed that the Fisher-Clark model was
devoid of economic contributors that had evolved over time, and so later added two
additional sectors, quaternary and quinary. The quaternary sector refers to intellectual or
information-based services (e.g., scientists, IT specialists), while the quinary sector refers
to the highest level of private, non-profit, and government service sector management
(e.g., CEOs, Executive Directors).
Prior to Industrialization, much of the U.S. was involved in the primary sector of
manufacturing. In post-industrialization, the service or tertiary sector has grown and
continues to be the fastest growing sector accounting for over two-thirds of U.S.
economic activity (Reuters, 2012).
The Service Industry
Within the U.S. service industry, the U.S. Standards Industry Classification (SIC)
System, which was later replaced by the North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS), identifies six divisions of business. These include (a) transportation,
communications and utilities, (b) wholesale trade; (c) retail trade; (d) finance, insurance,
and real estate; (e) public administration; and (f) services. The sixth division, services,
encompasses several specific industries as listed below (U.S. Department of
Labor, 2012).
•
Hotels, Rooming Houses, Camps and other Lodging Places
•
Personal Services
•
Business Services
18 •
Automotive Repair, Services, and Parking
•
Miscellaneous Repair Services
•
Motion Pictures
•
Amusement and Recreation Services
•
Health Services
•
Legal Services
•
Educational Services
•
Social Services
•
Museums, Art Galleries, and Botanical and Zoological Gardens
•
Membership Organizations
•
Engineering, Accounting, Research, Management and Related Services
•
Private Households
•
Miscellaneous
Although the service industry is represented by numerous types of services, the
industry is considered largely homogeneous given that each business, regardless of type,
shares a core need for customers. This homogeneous nature of service-related businesses
is also evident in establishing legislative standards. For example, the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 specifies standards related to twelve different segments of the
public/private service industry; however, the ADA has identified the combination of
these 12 entities as public accommodations and has developed standards that apply to
public accommodations as a whole. Similarly, the Accessibility for Ontarians with
Disabilities Act, has developed service standards for 13 categories of businesses that
offer goods and services within the private and public sector, also treating the 13
categories of businesses as a collective whole. Therefore, the treatment of several types
19 of service-related businesses as one industry, on which standards may be developed and
appropriately applied, has precedence in both the U.S. and Canada.
The argument that there is an emergent commonality among service-related
businesses is also found within a study conducted by Parasuraman, Ziethmal, and Berry
(1985). Following interviews with company executives from four distinct types of
service-related businesses, service quality related themes emerged and each theme
remained constant across each type of business. Although, there was some variance
present within specific industries, commonalities across the different types of business
were more prevailing. This finding, coupled with the previous approaches to developing
legislative standards, lends support for developing non-service or organization specific
standards that could be applied to different types of service businesses.
By 2020, the service industry is expected to comprise about 80% of the U.S.
economy. Health care and social assistance are predicted to gain the most jobs (5.6
million), with businesses (3.8 million) and construction (1.8 million) also growing. The
industries projected to lose the most jobs are in the manufacturing and federal
government sectors (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012).
The shift from a goods to service economy (Brodie, Glynn, & Little, 2006; Lusch
& Vargo, 2006) poses some challenges. Product delivery is more complex due to the
intangible nature of service when compared to tangible products. Service, for example, is
not easily monitored and quantified and involves numerous touch points along the
delivery process pathway. However, given that so much of the U.S. economy is
dependent on service delivery, efforts to deliver both a consistent and quality service
brand is imperative to economic viability.
The Disability Market
20 Prevalence of disability. According to the Americans with Disabilities Act,
disability is defined as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or
more major life activities” (Department of Justice, 2012). Disabilities under the ADA
include, but are not limited to, strokes, paralysis, brain injury, psychological disorders,
developmental and intellectual disabilities, and drug and alcohol addiction. According to
the U.S. Census, there are approximately 49.8 million or about 20% of the current U.S.
population with one or more disabilities. This means that approximately 1 in 5 people in
the U.S. are considered to have some type of disabling condition (U.S. Census Bureau,
2010).
While estimates vary, annual discretionary spending power by people with
disabilities is estimated to be in excess of 200 billion dollars (U.S. Department of Labor,
2012), and that number is growing. When businesses think about people with disabilities,
most people think of wheelchair users, people who are deaf and who use sign language,
and those who are blind and read Braille. These disabilities are known as visible
disabilities, as they are readily observable and noticeable by others.
Individuals with visible disabilities constitute less than 29% of all people with
disabilities. The largest proportion (71%) of people include individuals without any
readily visible disabling condition, such as people who have cognitive, psychological,
speech and hearing-related issues (Seinmetz, 2002).
Also, although disability is referred to as a subcomponent of cultural diversity
(Bryan, 2007; Eddey & Robbey, 2005; Henwood & Pope-Davis, 1994; U. S. Department
of Labor, 2012), disability crosses all ages, socioeconomic, ethnic and geographic sectors
of the U.S. population (U. S. Census Bureau, 2010). Disability, however, is different
21 when thinking about characteristics related to other minority groups. Because disability
can be congenital, acquired, or temporary (e.g., broken leg), disability is a fluid and
dynamic condition that is atypical of other diverse groups who are born into their
ethnicity or gender and remain within that group throughout their lives (Donovan, 2012).
Although greater public attention has been directed toward meeting the needs of
underserved minorities, the disability population has often been overlooked or remains a
secondary focus even though the magnitude of this market is unquestionable. In fact,
although recent service industry efforts have largely focused on meeting the needs of the
Hispanic population, the current disability market is three times the size of the Hispanic
market (Donovan, 2012; U.S Census Bureau, 2010) warranting greater attention from the
business community.
Aging population. The growth of the aging population is also expected to have a
significant impact upon the disability market, and will impact the types of services
offered within the service industry, particularly in the areas of healthcare, entertainment,
housing, and technological access. In 2008, the number of people over 65 years of age
grew to 39 million, while the 85 and older population exceeded 5.7 million (see
Figure 2.1).
In 2011, baby boomers (people born between 1946 and 1964) began turning 65.
In 2030, the 65 and older population is projected to be twice the size as it was in 2000,
and will grow from 35 to 72 million people accounting for approximately 20% of the
total U.S. populations (National Service Center for Environmental Publications, 2010).
22 Figure 2.1. Population age 65 and over and age 85 and over, selected years 1900-2008
and projected 2010-2050. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates and
Projections (2010).
After 2030, the population of 65 years and over is expected to stabilize, while the
final phases of the baby boomer population enter the older person market. Those
individuals over the age of 85, however, will continue to grow rapidly to 10 million by
2050 as compared to 5.7 million in 2008. Women will continue to outlive men with an
increased proportion of females to males as age advances. The percentage of aging
populations will vary by state, with larger proportions in Florida, Maine, Pennsylvania,
and West Virginia (Federal Intra-agency Forum on Aging Statistics, 2012).
The effects of aging on disability will compound the future numbers of people
with disabilities in the U.S. Deloitte (2006) found that consumers over the age of 50
experience changes in vision, hearing, and mobility that will affect how they engage with
products and services and, according to the U.S. Census Bureau (2010), the prevalence of
disability at ages over 65 had already surpassed 51.8%.
23 At the same time, people over the age of 65 will not necessarily identify with the
disability sector. Many will want to continue to live very active lives, continuing to
pursue their current and, perhaps, past interests (ProMatura Group, 2007). Court, Farrell,
and Forsyth (2007) predict that by 2015, the baby boomer generation will command
almost 60% of the net U.S. wealth and 40% of spending. In many categories, baby
boomers will represent over 50% of consumption of goods and services. Currently, baby
boomers represent a population of over 77 million people between the ages of 47 and 65
(U.S. Census, 2010) who control approximately 3 trillion dollars of annual spending.
Over the next 20 years, this same cohort group will inherit an estimated $14-20 trillion
which will further empower older Americans to spend money on consumable goods and
services (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012).
The economic power of this population coupled with demand for accessible
services may change the face of the disability sector. The prediction is that the service
industry will have little choice but to become aware of disability and transition from a
perception of disability as a homogeneous population to a population that is defined by a
large group of individuals with different and varying levels of business interests, needs
and desires (Donovan, 2012).
Wounded military personnel. The number of military service personnel who
have become injured during warfare also cannot be ignored. The wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, plus previous wars, have also had a profound effect on the number and
scope of consumers with disabilities in the United States. As of 2008, the total number of
veterans with one or more disabilities was estimated at 5.5 million. It is also estimated
that the number of veterans with a service-connected disability rating is 3.4 million (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2008). Of this number, it is estimated that approximately 600, 000
24 service members have a disability rating that exceeds 70%. The Veterans Administration
(VA) rating schedule is based upon evaluation of the disability that resulted from disease
and/or injury due to an incident during military service. VA ratings are described by a
percentage with the greater percentage reflecting the greater degree of disability (U. S.
Government Printing Office, 2012).
Department of Defense data suggests that approximately one-fifth of all veterans
with disabilities are experiencing significant challenges due to disability. Additionally,
as of February 5, 2013, the combined number of Wounded Warriors resulting from
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), and Operation New
Dawn (OND), was 50,450 people. Traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress
disorder are the most prevailing injuries/illnesses followed by amputations, vision and
hearing loss, and polytrauma (Department of Defense, 2012). The growing number of
newly injured veterans reflects a large emergence of individuals who are novices to
disability and are just learning to negotiate societal barriers to achieve full community
and business engagement.
Friends and family. When considering the disability market, it is also important
to consider the impact of caregivers, family, friends, and colleagues on market potential.
Conservatively, it is estimated that there is a 2 to 1 ratio of friends, family, and colleagues
to every consumer with a disability. Globally, it is estimated that the family and friends
segment includes 1.9 billion consumers who control more than $8.1 trillion in
discretionary income annually (Donovan, 2012). Many researchers report a higher ratio
of 3–5 people to 1 (Darcy & Cameron, 2008; Harris Interactive, 2005; Roy, Samson &
Stafford, 2001). Given these statistics, a consumer with a disability has a strong
influence over a business’s potential income. If the person can access a business and
25 bring along 2–5 of his/her friends, family, etc., the multiplier effect of the consumer with
a disability can be significant. Conversely, if the person with the disability cannot access
a business service, he or she will likely take his/her business elsewhere. Not only can a
business lose a significant number of potential customers, those same customers can help
their business’ competitors obtain business.
Broader market. Products and services that are meant for the disability market
often enhance quality of life for all people. For example, automatic door openers not
only help a person who uses a wheelchair, but also help the mother with a stroller and the
person carrying a large package. Similarly, large text is not only helpful for people who
have visual problems, but is it also is helpful to children learning to read, adults with
literacy issues and people who are learning English as a second language. Incorporating
innovations learned from creating accessible programs and services for people with
disabilities into general business practices improves overall business return on investment
(ROI; Donovan, 2012). Unfortunately, however, much of the service industry is largely
unaware of the economic and organizational benefits of approaching business access
from such a universal perspective (Darcy, Cameron, & Pegg, 2010).
Historical Perspectives of Consumers with Disabilities
When examining the historical foundations of customer service for people with
disabilities, we are met with a history that includes discrimination, institutionalization,
advocacy, and legislation. For much of U.S. history, people with disabilities were
typically perceived as different and not part of society’s mainstream. Thus, the needs of
people with disabilities were largely ignored. When it came to opportunities for work,
independent housing, recreation, marriage, childbearing, shopping, and the like, the needs
of people with disabilities were not societally relevant. Discriminatory practices in
26 business were commonplace and, for most people with disabilities, living in institutional
environments, working in sheltered workshops, and attending separate schools without
regard for the person’s needs, wants, and individual potential was the norm (Johnson &
East, 2011).
According to Clapton and Fitzgerald (2012), our society decided what is
considered the norm, and based upon that norm, decided who belonged and who were the
other people. The further that others deviated from the norm, the further those
individuals were cast to the side, ignored and avoided. From early to contemporary
times, four philosophical and social models of disability have transcended. These include
the religious model, the medical model, the social model, and the rights-based model. In
addition to the four models, the author has proposed a fifth model, the Consumer Model
(Smith, 2012). Each model has contributed to the evolution of the current philosophical
approach to providing quality services to consumers with disabilities. A description of
each of the five models follows.
The religious model. The religious model was grounded in the belief that
disability was a disease (Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1972; Otieno, 2009). Along with this
belief, Eiesland (1994) identified three theological themes that created barriers for people
with disabilities. The first was equating disability with sin, meaning the belief that
disability is a punishment for wrongdoing and/or lack of faith. The second theme was
that that disability is virtuous suffering, which must be endured to purify one’s soul, and
finally, that disability was a case of charity. Eiesland (1994) refers to these themes as
“disabling theology.” Although, this philosophy is quite antiquated, there are still small
segments of our society that uphold these beliefs today.
27 The medical model. The Medical Model of Disability purports that something is
wrong with the body that needs to be fixed. The focus is on abnormalities and inability to
function. While scientific in nature, the medical model advanced the belief that people
with disabilities had limitations and, therefore, people with disabilities could not be
productive workers and positive contributors to society. People became labeled with
pejorative classifications (e.g. retard, schizo, cripple), which, in turn, set these people
apart from the rest of society (Brisenden, 1986). The medical model also perpetuated the
notion that people with disabilities were broken in some way.
The social model. Counter to the medical model of disability, which underscored
the belief that people with disabilities had innate limitations, emerged the social model of
disabilities that theorized that disability was created by limitations imposed from society
(Oliver, 1990). Coined by Oliver, an academic with a disability in 1985, the social model
of disability identifies societal and systems barriers such as negative attitudes and
purposeful or inadvertent exclusion by society (Clapton & Fitzgerald, 2012) as the
problem. This model shifted the limitation from the individual to the society within which
the individual attempted to work and live.
The rights-based model. Probably the most influential historical model affecting
consumer access to business today is the rights-based model. This model claimed that
individuals with disabilities have the same rights as people without disabilities (Funk,
1987). The social-political outcomes of this model are our current legislation (i.e.
Americans with Disabilities Act) that mandates reasonable accommodations for people
with disabilities within employment, government, and private businesses. These rights
have positioned Human Resource and Organization Development (HRD/OD)
professionals to assist businesses with strategically aligning themselves for employing
28 and serving people with disabilities as their customers. Such change efforts have also
created a demand for guidance from HRD/OD consultants who are knowledgeable about
disability law and disability, in general. Additionally, employee training and development
opportunities have increased to help educate and prepare workforces for complying with
legal mandates.
The economic model. The economic model of disability is defined as a person’s
“inability to participate in work” (National Black Disability Coalition, 2012.)
Furthermore, this model proposes that disability is the “limitation of a worker’s repertoire
of productive capabilities, abilities and skills” (Bickenbach, 1993, p. 12). Proponents of
this model view disability as an “economic cost that must be factored into societal
economic policy decisions” (Bickenbach, 1993, p. 13). Thus, the economic model can
really be summarized as the cost of disability to society.
Within this model, it is expected that people with disabilities are largely incapable
of work, but are deserving poor people who need to be cared for by the rest of society.
As a result, this model is largely used by economic policy makers who make decisions on
how to distribute the burden of unemployed people across society. The challenge of the
economic model is balancing the true need to provide assistance to those individuals who
cannot work with the social desirability and dignity of employing those people with
disabilities who are capable of working, as supported by the social model.
The consumer model. Based upon the “rights-based model,” the consumer model
of disability proposes that people with disabilities should have equal rights and access to
products, goods, and services offered by businesses. The consumer model extends the
rights-based model by proposing that businesses, not only are accommodating to people
with disabilities under the requirements of legislation, but that businesses actively seek,
29 market to, welcome and fully engage people with disabilities in all aspects of business
service activities. The consumer model suggests that all business operation (e.g.,
websites, policies and procedures, mission statements, emergency plans, programs and
services) integrate access and inclusion practices. Furthermore, these access and
inclusion practices should be based on established standards that embrace and support the
active engagement of people of all abilities in the diversity of business offerings. The
basis for a consumer-based approach to disability is grounded in the demographic shifts,
disability advocacy, discretionary income, consumer studies, return on investment,
service industry response and gaps in both research and service delivery efforts (Smith,
2012).
While the social model of disability has been adopted by much of society, the
social model purports society is much to blame for barriers to customer service to people
with disabilities. The underlying message is that that correction or remediation of these
societal barriers will result in greater access and inclusion. Resulting from the social
model, legislation has been established in an effort to remove societal barriers, but access
and inclusion of people with disabilities has been narrowly translated by most businesses
meeting minimum standards. The implications are that most businesses view legislation
as a have to rather than a want to and, thus, many businesses are not proactively seeking
methods for attracting and including the disability market in business programs and
services (Smith, 2012).
Disability Consumer-Related Legislation
Standards that provide access to education, employment, business, and services
are the result of government legislation. Due to the efforts of disability advocates and
shifts in disability models, several pieces of federal legislation were enacted that outline
standards affording greater consumer access for people with disabilities. Pertinent
30 legislation includes the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section
508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of
1990 (amended in 2010). A brief description of each piece of legislation follows.
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (ABA). The ABA was created to offer
physical access to federally funded buildings and facilities. “The ABA requires access to
facilities designed, built, altered, or leased with Federal funds. Passed by Congress in
1968, it marks one of the first efforts to ensure access to the built environment. The U.S.
Access Board develops and maintains accessibility guidelines under this law. These
guidelines serve as the basis for the standards used to enforce the law. Four Federal
agencies are responsible for these standards: the Department of Defense, the Department
of Housing and Urban Development, the General Services Administration, and the U.S.
Postal Service” (U.S. Access Board, 2012).
Section 504: Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Section 504 extended the requirements
of the ABA by requiring access to programs offered by federally funded organizations.
More specifically, Section 504 provides that “no qualified individual with a disability
should, only by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from the participation in, be
denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity
receiving Federal financial assistance. Under this law, individuals with disabilities are
defined as “persons with a physical or mental impairment, which substantially limits one
or more major life activities” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2012).
People who have a history of, or who are regarded as having a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, are also covered.
Major life activities include caring for one's self, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking,
31 breathing, working, performing manual tasks, and learning. Some examples of
impairments which may substantially limit major life activities, even with the help of
medication or aids/devices, are: AIDS, alcoholism, blindness or visual impairment,
cancer, deafness or hearing impairment, diabetes, drug addiction, heart disease, and
mental illness” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2012).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In 1975, PL-94-142; the
Education for All Handicapped Children’s Act, was developed to ensure “access to an
appropriate, free public education for all children, regardless of disability (U.S.
Department of Education, 2012).” PL-94-142 was the first legislation that was enacted
that offered children equal access to education. In 1997, the law was amended and
became the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). IDEA is a United States
federal law that governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention,
special education, and related services to children with disabilities. The law provides that
students with disabilities seeking educational services are provided an individualized
evaluation, an Individualized Education Plan (IEP), trained teachers, and a free and
appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. IDEA also provides for an
annual review and works to protects the rights of both children and parents. IDEA is a
proactive law as it requires the identification, location, and evaluation of all children with
disabilities, not just children whose parents seek services (U.S. Department of Education,
2012).
Section 508: Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (amended 1998). The Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 was amended to “require federal agencies to make their electronic and
information technology (EIT) accessible to people with disabilities (Section 508.gov,
2012).” The act was established to minimize information barriers, to offer new
32 opportunities to people with disabilities and to encourage new assistive technology
development. Under the law, federal agencies must provide accessible technology (e.g.,
web sites) to their employees and to the public. Although Section 508 does not mandate
that private businesses comply, the act serves as a model for businesses that wish to
establish accessible technology infrastructures (Section 508.gov, 2012).
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (amended 2010). In 1990, the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was enacted to protect the rights of people with
disabilities within both the public and private sectors (Department of Justice, 2012). The
Americans with Disabilities Act was the first legislation that protected the rights of
people with disabilities within privately funded businesses and organizations and is
probably considered the first comprehensive civil rights act for people with disabilities.
The ADA includes five titles that address an individual’s protection within the areas of
employment, transportation, public accommodations, and communication. Title III
provides for programmatic access for any individual with a disability, as defined by the
ADA, provided that the person with the disability meets the essential eligibility
requirements for participation. In essence, Title III requires that businesses attempt to
provide reasonable accommodations to consumers with disabilities in order that people
with disabilities may fully engage in business programs and services. This means that
both public and private businesses need to provide physical access to programs and
services, but also must provide programmatic access to an eligible customer, provided
that doing so will not cause the business undue hardship as defined by the ADA (U. S.
Department of Justice, 2012).
Service Industry Response to Legislation
33 The service industry’s response to legislation and compliance standards is mixed.
While many businesses have made significant changes to their buildings, facilities and
employment practices, a lot of businesses have avoided compliance completely
(Greenberg, 2012; Mishra, 1995). Numerous businesses have found themselves involved
in unnecessary litigation due to consumer complaints. Some businesses have settled with
plaintiffs out of court and have endured relatively small financial consequences, while
other businesses have paid large sums in sanctions due to legislative non-compliance
(U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2011).
The largest ADA settlement to date involved Verizon, Inc. in 2011. This case
involved Verizon’s failure to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with
disabilities who missed work due to disability-related reasons. Missed work resulted in
chargeable absences that ended in employee termination. Verizon was made to pay a
total $20 million dollars in restitution because they did not offer the employees with
disabilities reasonable accommodations under the ADA (U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, 2011).
Similarly, Sears Roebuck and Company was subjected to a $6.2 million fine in
2009 for terminating employees who became disabled due to injuries sustained at work
and then were unable to return to their former employment position. Under the ADA,
reasonable accommodations were required since the employee now was presented with a
disability (Olsen, 2009). Even with large settlements, many businesses continue to
ignore requirements, viewing compliance as expensive. In addition, some employers end
up resenting people with disabilities (Mishra, 1995) for causing the need for
business changes.
34 Those businesses that have taken steps to comply with the American’s with
Disabilities Act have largely focused on making their buildings and surrounding physical
environments accessible by widening doors, installing ramps, and providing electronic
door openers (Stothers, 2000). Although such changes facilitate wheelchair access, most
people with disabilities do not use wheelchairs. In fact, only 1.5% of people with
disabilities use wheelchairs, while approximately 4.8% use a cane, walker, or crutches to
assist with mobility (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). This means that the largest majority of
people with disabilities may require different types of accommodations.
“Access is more than getting in the door” (Smith, 2010) and, although access to
business services is improving, there remains a void in businesses’ ability to provide for
users that require service accommodations beyond architectural. Programmatic
requirements for compliance under Title III have taken a backseat to architectural
changes because many professionals still view the ADA as a building code (Stein, 2009),
rather than a civil rights law.
Although physical access to buildings has improved and offered some people with
disabilities access to businesses that could not be accessed previously, the access and
usability of business programs and services is still lacking. As a result, many customers
with disabilities are unable to receive quality customer service from service-related
businesses. In an analysis of ADA Settlement Agreements and court documents, (U.S.
Department of Justice, 2012), the largest number of cases that have been litigated are due
to service-related issues. This does not take into account the many cases still pending.
The threat of litigation faced by businesses is underscored by the lack of research
dedicated to what constitutes providing quality services to people with disabilities (Lloyd,
Kameenui, & Chard, 1997).
Service Quality and Service Standards
35 Service quality. According to Booms and Bitner (1981), service quality is the
“measure of how well the service level that is delivered matches customer expectations.
Delivering quality service means conforming to customer expectations on a consistent
basis” (p. 47). Grönroos (1988) posited that there are two types of service quality: (a)
technical quality and (b) functional quality. Technical quality relates to what the
customer actually receives from the provided service, while functional quality refers to
the manner of service delivery. Service quality has also been defined as an interaction
between the customer and various elements of the service organization. These elements
are typically influenced by the physical aspects of the service environment, corporate
image, and interactions between the consumer and organization personnel (Lehtinen &
Lehtinen, 1991).
Numerous researchers (Brown, Churchill, & Peter, 1993; Cronin & Taylor, 1992;
Gorla, Somers, & Wong, 2010; Jemmasi, Strong, & Taylor, 2011; Klaus & Maklan,
2012; Ladhari, Pons, Bresolles, & Zins, 2011; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985)
have undertaken the task to measure service quality within the context of a service
experience.
SERVPREF, for example, is a measurement tool developed by Cronin and Taylor
(1992) that measures service quality from an attitudinal perspective. SERVPREF focuses
on the customer’s perception of the performance and the quality of service provision.
Klaus and Maklan (2012) developed EXQ to measure the customer’s service
experience. More specifically, EXQ measures customer perceptions of service quality
from the perspectives of product experience, outcome focus, moments-of-truth and
peace-of mind.
36 Tools have also been developed to measure service quality with respect to web
sites (Yang, Cai, Zhou, & Zhou, 2005), cultural influences (Tsaur, Lin, & Wu, 2005),
servicescapes (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996), authenticity in service encounters (Grandey,
Fisk, Mattila, Jansen, & Sideman, 2005), customer emotions (Mattila & Enz, 2002),
interpersonal influence (Crosby, Evans, & Cowles, 1990), and gender and affective tone.
The most prevalent and widely applied service quality measurement tool that
emerged from the literature, however, is SERVQUAL. Developed by Parasuraman, Berry
& Zeithaml (1988), SERVQUAL is based upon a Gaps Model of Service Quality
(Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985) and measures the disconfirmation between
customer expectations and customer perceptions of service quality. Although not without
criticism, SERVQUAL has been used across many public, private, non-profit, and
voluntary service sectors.
Prior to the development of SERVQUAL, Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry
(1985) conducted an exploratory study to examine the service quality concept. Focus
group interviews with executives of four major service industry firms and consumers
were performed to determine (a) executive perceptions of the key attributes of service
quality and associated problems, (b) consumer perceptions of the key attributes of service
quality, (c) differences in perceptions between consumers and service marketers, and (d)
whether a model could be developed that embodied consumers perceptions of service
quality that represented both consumer and marketer perceptions. Following 14
interviews with executives and 12 focus group interviews with consumers, qualitative
analysis revealed salience across the executive interviews and across the consumer focus
groups, regardless of type of service business. Results of the study revealed five gaps in
service that affected service quality. These included gaps between (a) consumer
37 expectations and management’s perceptions of those expectations, (b) management’s
perceptions of expectations and the service firms service quality specifications, (c)
service quality specifications and service delivery, (d) actual service delivery and service
communications. The fifth and final gap was between consumers perception of quality
and consumer expectations and was posited as a function of the first four gaps combined.
Consumer focus groups also revealed that, regardless of type of service, there were
similar criteria on which service quality can be based. These criterion fell into 10
categories which were labeled service quality determinants (see Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.2. Determinants of service quality (Parusuraman, Zeithmal, & Berry, 1985).
38 39 Service Quality and Consumers with Disabilities. Even though service quality
measurement tools have been applied to a number of service industry settings, most
studies do not include customers with disabilities as a demographic focus. For example,
a recent large scale study by a well-known customer experience research and consulting
firm that measured and ranked large corporate and Fortune 500 companies according to
their customer experience performance measured many customer-specific demographic
variables; however, no information was collected with respect to customers with
disabilities (Temkin Group, 2012)
This lack of inclusion of consumers with disabilities in past studies has prompted
some primary research in this area, although the research is still significantly limited.
The only service quality measurement tool specifically designed to measure service
quality of consumers with disabilities was developed by Vaughn and Shiu (2001) and is
called ARCHSECRET. Initially designed to measure service quality perceptions of
customers with disabilities in the public service sector, ARCHSECRET may have
promise for applications within other sectors, as well.
To develop ARCHSECRET, the researchers first conducted a qualitative research
study in order to first determine the dimensions of service quality that were perceived as
important to consumers with disabilities, as well as their parents and caregivers. Through
seven structured focus group interviews and a subsequent content analysis of the
interview transcripts, Vaughn and Shiu identified 40 service quality attributes that were
then compared with the service quality determinants established in SERVQUAL. It was
learned that 21 of the 40 attributes were closely aligned with the original 10 service
quality determinants identified through the development of SERVQUAL; however, 19
dimensions were considered unique and were categorized into six service quality
40 variables important to consumers with disabilities that were not included in SERVQUAL,
suggesting that consumers with disabilities may have different expectations regarding
what constitutes a quality service experience. These six additional dimensions included
(a) humaneness, (b) level of service provision, (c) exchange bargaining, (d) enabling and
empowerment, (e) access, and (f) equity.
The second part of the study was to conduct a quantitative confirmatory analysis
of all 40 service quality attributes and to uncover any underlying dimensions. Through a
small scale survey, component analysis, correlational analysis, and a final qualitative
analysis, Vaughn and Shiu reduced the original 40 service quality dimensions or
attributes to ten hypothesized dimensions affecting service quality for individuals with
disabilities within the voluntary service sector. The final ten dimensions were then
operationally defined (see Figure 2.3).
41 ARCHSECRET DIMENSIONS OF SERVICE QUALITY ACCESS 1. The organization is willing to negotiate the terms and conditions of the client’s right to services. 2. The organization ensures accessibility to physical facilities, personnel, equipment, communication materials and the service. 3. The organization makes available information, advice and support on potential funding sources to the clients. RESPONSIVENESS 1. Staff at the organization provide prompt and timely service to clients. 2. The organization constructively handles client complaints. 3. The organization is willing to defend the fight for individual client needs. COMMUNICATION 1. Staff at the organization are polite and courteous with clients. 2. Staff at the organization are willing to listen to individual clients’ point of view. 3. Staff at the organization communicate in a language that is understood by clients. 4. The organization provides complete and accurate information to clients in good time. HUMANENESS 1. Staff at the organization reassure clients in terms of their personal anxieties, concerns and problems. 2. Staff at the organization are sympathetic and considerate towards individual client needs. Staff at the organization respect client confidences and feelings. 3. Staff at the organization respect client privacy. SECURITY 1. Clients of the organization feel safe under the care of the staff 2. The organization maintains accurate and secure client records. ENABLING/EMPOWERMENT 1. The organization creates an environment to enable individual clients to take responsibility for their personal development. 2. The organization provides opportunities and support for clients to attain their personal goals. COMPETENCE 1. The organization is able to deliver the level of service required by clients, with clearly stated terms and conditions. 2. The organization has the requirement number of staff who have the ability to do the job. 3. The organization is able to deliver the full range of series to meet the changing needs of individual clients. RELIABILITY 1. Staff at the organization deliver the appropriate service as promised. 2. The organization provides a dependable service which does not vary over time. 3. The behavior of staff at the organization makes you fell that you can trust them and have confidence in them. EQUITY 1. The organization delivers an equitable service across individual clients as well as groups of clients. TANGIBLES 1.
The organization has a full range of up-­‐to-­‐date physical facilities and equipment.
Figure 2.3. ARCHSECRET service quality dimensions (Vaughn & Shiu, 2001)
42 Service quality’s relationship to service standards. The relationship between
service quality and service standards is also evident. The two main models of service
quality are the Service Quality Model proposed by Grönroos (1993) and the GAP Model
proposed by Parsuramnan, Zeithaml, and Berry (1985).
The Service Quality Model posits that customer expectations depends upon five
determinants (a) market communication, (b) image, (c) word of mouth, (d) customer
needs, and (e) customer learning. Grönroos (1993) contended that the customer
experience depends on technical quality (the experience outcome) and functional quality
(the experience process), as perceived through the image (the person). The service
quality model examines perception gaps based upon customers’ expectations and
experiences.
Conversely, the GAP Model suggests that service quality is influenced by wordof-mouth, personal needs, past experience and external communication to the consumer.
The GAP model originally proposed that service quality depended upon 10 determinants
Parasuraman et al. (1985), but was later reduced to five determinants to include (a)
tangibles, (b) reliability, (c) responsiveness, (d) assurance, and (e) empathy. Grönroos
(1988) later proposed a sixth determinant to the GAPS model called recovery. Recovery
is based on the belief that poor services can be compensated by good services.
The GAP model is a disconfirmation model that looks for gaps between customer
expectations and customer’s perceived experience. Developers of the gap model posit
that there are five potential gaps to service that result in poor perceptions of service
quality. These include (1) a marketing information gap, (2) a standards gap, (3) service
performance gap, (4) communication gap and (5) a customer satisfaction gap, that is
43 dependent on the first four gaps. For purposes of this study, the standards gap is further
explored.
Standards Gaps
According to Parasuraman et al. (1985), a standards gap occurs when a business
management’s perceptions of customer expectations are based upon the wrong service
quality standards. Parasuraman, et al. believe that wrong quality standards can occur for
many reasons. Such reasons may include (a) the business management’s lack of
commitment to service quality, (b) a perception that standards are not feasible, (c) lack of
task standardization and/or, (d) no goal setting. It is also suggested that management’s
lack of awareness can contribute to lack of commitment to develop standards at all.
Unfortunately, many businesses have yet to embrace the disability market for
economic advantage. In the only study found that has attempted to measure return on
investment for implementing disability-accommodating business practices, 254 S&P 500
companies were surveyed on 19 publically observable data points created to measure
return on disability (ROD) investment. Of the 254 companies surveyed, only 26%
mentioned anything related to disability-related business. More striking is that only 8%
of the companies had an observable display of interest in the area of disability, based
upon 19 observable practices, that supported their strategic intent to engage the disability
market (Donovan, 2012).
Flores (2006) provided further insight. A survey of thirty-six lodging managers in
North America resulted in 96% of the respondents indicating that their organizations
offered services for guests with disabilities. While this number seems high, 94% of the
managers responded that they did not keep a record of visits from guests with disabilities.
The lodging managers also expressed an unawareness of the needs of their guests with
disabilities and, thus, did not know what to do to provide accommodations.
44 A study of hospitality managers toward accommodating customers with
disabilities also revealed a lack of business awareness. Although 100% of the managers
surveyed in the study reported that the investment of improved facilities for travelers with
disabilities would be compensated by an increase in travelers, only 20% of the managers
were planning to make improvements during the following year (Open Doors
Organization, 2002). Such data suggests that a general “unawareness” and/or lack of
knowledge by service industry leadership may be a contributing factor to the
standards gap.
Donovan (2012) stated that business has yet to identify disability as an emerging
market. Service to consumers with disabilities is typically the result of legal advice via
risk management efforts to avoid litigation. According to Darcy, Cameron, and Pegg,
(2010), seldom do businesses make a substantial connection between standards related to
providing access and other corporate performance indicators that improve
business performance.
The standards gap may also be due to a lack of service standards as part of
national and international leadership in standards development. Existing standards panels
and committees of both the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and The
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) include many non-service related
and tangible domains such as nanotechnology, healthcare information technology,
identity theft protection, and electric vehicles (ANSI, 2012; ISO, 2012). Currently, no
standards panels were found dedicated to the service industry.
Current Service Standards for Consumers with Disabilities
External to the legislative standards described earlier, a content analysis of
45 existing standards for accessible customer service performed by the researcher revealed
that sixteen entities that have created voluntary standards, “best practices,” or checklists
that support accessible and inclusive business practices. Content analysis results are
summarized in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1
Service Quality Best Practices and Checklists
Emphasis
Responsible
Organization
Date Developed
Technical aids for
persons with disability -Environmental control
systems for daily living
The International Organization
for Standardization
2006
Assistive products for
persons with disability -Classification and
terminology
The International Organization
for Standardization
2006
International
Development
Programs
Checklist for Inclusion:
Including People with
Disabilities in
International
Development Programs
Mobility International USA
sponsored by USAID
Unknown
Employment
Business Strategies that
Work: A Framework for
Disability Inclusion
Department of Labor and Office
of Disability Employment
Policy
2011
Employment
Workplace Disability
Inclusion Assessment
Tool
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
and U.S. Business Leadership
Network
Unknown
Employment,
Transportation,
Public
Accommodations,
Communications
Federal
Buildings/Facilities
Americans with
Disabilities Act
Accessibility Guidelines
U.S. Government
1990 (Amended 2010)
Architectural Barriers
Act of 1968
U.S. Government
1968
Federal Buildings,
Facilities,
Programs
Web Accessibility
Sec. 504: Rehabilitation
Act of 1973
U.S. Government
1973
HTML Writer's Guild
Accessibility Standards
HTML Writer's Guild
1999
Technical Aids
Assistive Products
Product
46 Electronic and
Information
Technology for
Federal Agencies
Employment and
Rehabilitation
Residential
Services
Sec. 508: Rehabilitation
Act
U.S. Government
1998
Disability Service
Standards
National Quality
Standards: Residential
Services for People with
Disabilities
Australian Government
2007
Health Information and Quality
Authority-Ireland
2007
Customer Service
in Business
Customer Service
Standard for the
Accessibility for
Ontarians with
Disabilities Act
Ontario, Canada
2007
Employment and
Customer Service
One-Stop Centers:
Service Accessibility
Checklist
National Center on Workforce
and Disability
2012
Employment
Customer Service
Achieving Quality
Services: A Checklist
for Evaluating Your
Agency
Institute for Community
Inclusion
2002
Higher Education
AHEAD Program
Standards
Association on Higher
Education and Disability
2001
Of those sixteen entities, only one entity, the Ontario Government, has developed
standards for customer service for people with disabilities within the service industry.
These service standards are in response to the 2005 Accessibility for Ontarians with
Disabilities Act (AODA; Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services, 2012); and
outline specific business requirements that promote customer service to consumers with
disabilities. This approach to service delivery is different from the ADA. The ADA
mandates that businesses provide reasonable accommodations to their consumers with
disabilities, but what constitutes reasonable is broadly defined and often left to the
service employee to interpret. Although the ADA and definition of reasonable
accommodation is well intended, this broad approach can lead to consumer complaints
and/or litigation.
47 Currently, there are no agreed upon standards in the U.S. regarding customer
service to people with disabilities within the service sector. The Ontarian standards serve
as the best example of the type of standards that are lacking and, although the Canadian
standards may be perfectly appropriate within the U.S. culture, this is not known at this
time. By developing standards for the U.S., and comparing and contrasting with those
standards already developed in Canada, a better understanding of similarities and
differences can be gleaned.
Accessibility Standards for Customer Service, Ontario Regulation 429/07
Since the 1980s, several laws and requirements existed that addressed
accessibility in Canada. As a result, and similar to the U.S. and the ADA, many
businesses have made progress toward creating more accessible business environments.
Unfortunately, the existing legislation still left many people with disabilities with
difficulties when attempting to access businesses programs and services. Thus, in
response to a large advocacy group of consumers with disabilities, the AODA was
established in 2005. The purpose of this act was two-fold:
(a) “develop, implement and enforce accessibility standards in order to achieve
accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities with respect to goods, services, facilities,
accommodation, employment, buildings, structures and premises on or before January 1,
2025; and
(b) provide for the involvement of persons with disabilities, of the Government of
Ontario and of representatives of industries and of various sectors of the economy in the
development of the accessibility standards” (Ministry of Community and Social
Services, 2007).
48 The Customer Service Standard developed by the Ontario Ministry of Community
and Social Services (2012) is the first standard that was established under the AODA and
encompasses many aspects of accessible customer service within the service industry
sector that bolster businesses so that they are more accessible and inclusive to consumers
with disabling conditions. The Customer Service Standard includes the following:
Definition of disability. The AODA includes disabilities of different severity,
visible and non-visible disabilities and effects of disability that differ across time. Within
the AODA, “disability” means
(a) any degree of physical disability, infirmity, malformation or disfigurement that is
caused by bodily injury, birth defect or illness and, without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, includes diabetes mellitus, epilepsy, a brain injury, any degree of
paralysis, amputation, lack of physical co-ordination, blindness or visual impediment,
deafness or hearing impediment, muteness or speech impediment, or physical reliance
on a guide dog or other animal or on a wheelchair or other remedial appliance or
device,
•
(b) a condition of mental impairment or a developmental disability,
•
(c) a learning disability, or a dysfunction in one or more of the processes involved
in understanding or using symbols or spoken language,
•
(d) a mental disorder, or
•
(e) an injury or disability for which benefits were claimed or received under the
insurance plan established under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997;
(Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services, 2012).”
Disability in Canada is considered a private and personal issue and must be
treated with confidentiality. In most cases, it is not necessary for service providers to ask
49 a person if he or she has a disability and/or the nature of that disability. It is hoped that
by providing more standardized customer service that the needs of most people with
disabilities will be met through a more standardized process. Standards, however, do not
prevent businesses from doing more. Adding to the standards increases businesses
provision of service quality to consumers with disabilities, and enables organizations to
customize their service standards to the specific service offerings and/or the contexts
within which the business operates.
Standards. There are eleven requirements of all service providers covered by the
standard. A summary of the standards require businesses to:
1. Establish policies, practices, and procedures on providing goods or services to
people with disabilities.
2. Set a policy on allowing people to use their own personal assistive devices to
access your goods and use your services and about any other measures your
organization offers (assistive devices, services, or methods) to enable them to
access your goods and use your services.
3. Use reasonable efforts to ensure that your policies, practices, and procedures are
consistent with the core principles of independence, dignity, integration and
equality of opportunity.
4. Communicate with a person with a disability in a manner that takes into account
his or her disability.
5. Train staff, volunteers, contractors and any other people who interact with the
public or other third parties on your behalf on a number of topics as outlined in
the customer service standard.
50 6. Train staff, volunteers, contractors and any other people who are involved in
developing your policies, practices and procedures on the provision of goods or
services on a number of topics as outlined in the customer service standard.
7. Allow people with disabilities to be accompanied by their guide dog or service
animal in those areas of the premises you own or operate that are open to the
public, unless the animal is excluded by another law. If a service animal is
excluded by law, use other measures to provide services to the person with a
disability.
8. Permit people with disabilities who use a support person to bring that person with
them while accessing goods or services in premises open to the public or third
parties.
9. Where admission fees are charged, provide notice ahead of time on what
admission, if any, would be charged for a support person of a person with a
disability.
10. Provide notice when facilities or services that people with disabilities rely on to
access or use your goods or services are temporarily disrupted.
11. Establish a process for people to provide feedback on how you provide goods or
services to people with disabilities and how you will respond to any feedback and
take action on any complaints. Make the information about your feedback process
readily available to the public (Ontario Ministry of Community and Social
Services, 2012).
In addition to the above requirements, service providers with 20 or more employees and
all public sector businesses must also comply with the following three requirements.
51 1. Document in writing all policies, practices and procedures for providing
accessible customer service and meet other document requirements set out in
the standard.
2. Notify customers that documents required under the customer service standard are
available upon request.
3. When giving documents required under the customer service standard to a person
with a disability, provide the information in a format that takes into account the
person’s disability (Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services, 2012).
Compliance parameters. “This Regulation establishes accessibility standards for
customer service and it applies to every designated public sector organization and to
every other person or organization that provides goods or services to members of the
public or other third parties and that has at least one employee in Ontario” (Ontario
Ministry of Community and Social Services, 2012). Essentially, the standards apply to
all public and private organizations that provide goods and services to the public.
Examples of such providers include, but are not limited to:
• Stores, restaurants, hotels, bars, and hair salons;
• Garages, service stations, home renovators, architects, and builders
• Hospitals and health services
• Schools, universities, and colleges
• Organizations that operate public places and amenities, such as recreation centres,
public washrooms, malls, and parks
• Municipal and provincial governments and the programs and facilities that they
run, including social assistance services, public meetings, public transit, libraries,
and employment centres
52 • Provincially regulated utilities
• Travel agencies, tour operators, amusement parks, farmers’ markets, and
travelling
fairs
• Police, ambulance, fire, and court services
• Manufacturers and wholesalers
• Professionals, such as doctors, dentists, chiropractors, physiotherapists, lawyers,
and accountants, whether services are offered to individuals or to businesses
• Consultants, programmers, engineers, and event planners
• Charities and non-profit organizations
• Theatres, stadiums, and conference centres
• Places of worship, such as churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples; and
• Unions and professional associations (Ontario Ministry of Community and Social
Services, 2012).
Advantages and Disadvantages of Standards Development for the Service Industry
There are advantages and disadvantages associated with the development and
compliance of established standards. A discussion of advantages and disadvantages
follows.
Advantages of service standards. There are many advantages to businesses that
choose to develop and adhere to standards. These advantages relate to (a) service quality,
(b) purchasing behavior, (c) customer loyalty, (d) business innovation and economics, (e)
tax savings, and (f) competitive advantage.
Service quality, purchasing behavior, and loyalty. Blind (2003) surveyed 364
service companies in Europe representing small (less than 50 employees), medium (50 to
250 employees) and large (greater than 250 employees) businesses. Businesses
53 represented 15 European member states, with some overrepresentation from Germany
and underrepresentation from southern European countries. Businesses included mostly
business-related services (34%), followed by educational and social services (22%),
manufacturing services (13%), financial (13%), wholesale and retail (9%), and
transportation and communication (7%) respectively. Results of the study found that
standards were of highest importance to highly innovative companies in the area of
quality management. It was also determined that the relationship with the customer and
service quality were most important to these companies and that formal standards had a
very positive effect on service quality.
Standards can also positively contribute to purchasing behavior. In a survey
conducted by Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation (RADAR, 2012), a
national network of disability organizations and people with disabilities, it was found that
most people with disabilities have had to walk away from businesses in the past year due
to lack of business access or poor customer service. Through a survey of 373 people
representing 976 impairments, including 170 wheelchair users, 66% of survey
respondents indicated that they choose to make purchases where they have received good
service quality related to their disability and 58% indicated that the manner in which they
are treated also affects the purchasing behavior of their families and friends (RADAR,
2012). Similarly, Bhattacharya and Sankar (2004) also found positive relationships
between standards for socially responsibility corporate behavior and consumers’
willingness to patronize businesses. Blind (2003) added that standards offer transparency
and quality that bolsters the confidence of consumers. Confidence is particularly
important given the immateriality of service provision.
54 Business innovation and economics. A recent effort to measure return on
disability (ROD), which is similar to return on investment, demonstrates that investment
in the disability market adds economic value (Donovan, 2012). Large companies that
have embraced disability as a viable market opportunity include such enterprises as
Disney, PepsiCo, Bank of America/Merrill Lynch, Wellpoint, SCX Corporation, and
Apple, Inc. (Donavan, 2012). The United States Business Leadership Network also
highlights companies that support consumers and employees with disabilities that include
Ernst & Young, IBM, Procter & Gamble, Merck & Co., Sodexo, KPMG, and AT&T
(United States Business Leadership Network, 2012).
In June 2005, the Department of Trades and Industry (DTI) in Great Britain found
that the standards contributed approximately $4.4 billion to the UK economy annually
and were responsible for a 13% growth in labor productivity. It was concluded that
standards were the key drivers of innovation, foundations for growth and promotion of
market access (Temple et al., 2005). These findings were consistent with Blind’s (2003)
findings that innovative companies were also more likely to find standardization of high
importance to their success.
A similar study, completed in 2006 by the German Institute for Standardization
(DIN) and the German Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Technology, surveyed
707 companies in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. The findings of this study
demonstrated that standards benefited the national economy in excess of $15 billion
dollars annually. The study also found that standards contributed more to economic
growth than licenses and patents. It was suggested that companies that are involved in
standards related work have a competitive advantage over competitors regarding an
ability to adapt to market demands and technological changes. Also, it was found that
55 development costs and research risks were minimized for those companies involved in
standards development. The most surprising finding was that corporate decision-makers
were largely unaware of the organizational value of standards and standards development
(DIN, 2006).
Darcy, Cameron, and Pegg (2010) explored the triple bottom line (TBL) in a
qualitative study that examined the financial incentives of accessible tourism. Using a
review of management information processes, key informant interviews and business
operations, data were collected and analyzed. The study revealed that occupancy levels
of accessible facilities increased 18% across the study’s seven-year period suggesting that
there was a market for accessible provisions and that the size of the market is multiplied
by the number of people that the person with the disability brings to the business. The
multiplier effect was discussed earlier under the Broader Market section of this review.
Tax savings. In addition to potential ROI from implementing accessible business
and program standard practices, the U.S. federal government also offers federal tax
incentives to promote the accessibility of businesses. Three of the most significant tax
incentives follow:
Small business tax credit (Internal Revenue Code Section 44: Disabled Access
Credit). Small businesses with either $1,000,000 or less in revenue or 30 or fewer
full-time employees may take a tax credit of up to $5,000 annually for the cost of
providing reasonable accommodations such as sign language interpreters, readers,
materials in alternative format (such as Braille or large print), the purchase of
adaptive equipment, the modification of existing equipment, or the removal of
architectural barriers.
Work opportunity tax credit (Internal Revenue Code Section 51. Employers who
hire certain targeted low-income groups, including individuals referred from
vocational rehabilitation agencies and individuals receiving Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) may be eligible for an annual tax credit of up to $2,400 for
each qualifying employee who works at least 400 hours during the tax year.
Additionally, a maximum credit of $1,200 may be available for each qualifying
summer youth employee.
56 Architectural/Transportation tax deduction (Internal Revenue Code Section 190
Barrier Removal). This annual deduction of up to $15,000 is available to
businesses of any size for the costs of removing barriers for people with
disabilities, including the following: providing accessible parking spaces, ramps,
and curb cuts; providing wheelchair-accessible telephones, water fountains, and
restrooms; making walkways at least 48 inches wide; and making entrances
accessible (U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission, 2012).
Competitive advantage. Businesses that can influence the content of standards
have a competitive advantage. They have an edge over companies that do not participate
in the process by offering insider knowledge. A survey conducted by the German
Institute on Standardization (DIN; 2006) found that more than 50% of the companies
surveyed had a great influence over the standards developed. Forty-eight percent were
able to get desired standards included, while 46% were able to prevent undesired
standards from inclusion. Standards can also lead to lower transaction costs, positively
affect supplier/client relationships, and promote strategic alliances that help to reduce
costs and increase profits. Beiger and Rinklin (2001) suggested that standards also
increase a company’s power to negotiate business by proposing that other network
partners comply with developed standards.
According to Hamel and Prahald (1996), businesses that seek organizational
competence in areas of future importance have a competitive advantage. They further
contended that competition for the future also involves the establishment of standards that
support the interrelationships of products and services across providers. Given that the
disability market alone holds $220 billion dollars of discretionary spending power (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2012), and that this population is growing with the addition of millions of
baby boomers, developing market-drive customer service standards makes sense. Tuitel
referred to marketing business to consumers with disabilities as handicapitalism (Hicks,
2010). He emphasized that people with disabilities do, in fact, have money and can
57 contribute to the business bottom line.
Business cases. Scandic, Nordic region’s largest hotel chain, adopted a “design
for all” philosophy and practice that has launched the company into a position of success.
While the early impetus was to create “disability friendly” environments and services, the
changes had a much more positive and far-reaching effect. People have a perception of
Scandic as a welcoming hotel chain and often opt to stay at Scandic over their
competitors. Scandic has developed a “standard,” based upon their comprehensive 110point accessibility program. After hiring a disability ambassador in 2004, Scandic has
provided staff training, adapted rooms, and details all of their accessible offerings on
every one of their hotel web sites. The implementation of accessible strategies has
resulted in commercial success for Scandic and serves as model for other businesses who
want to broaden their markets (Travelability, 2012).
Hytte, a provider of self-catering accommodations in England also experienced
positive outcomes following the incorporation of accessibility during the design and
planning stages of new facilities. Occupancy levels increased from 55% to 97%, while
70% of families that stayed on the property included one family member who had a
disability. The changes differentiated the company from other companies in the region,
attracted repeat business and a higher proportion of elderly consumers (Office on
Disability Issues, 2010).
Cheshire Farm, an ice-cream parlor lowered its window sills, produced large print
menus, offered straws to customers and witnessed an increase in customers with
disabilities, repeat business and an unexpected outcome, increased and repeat business
from school groups (Office on Disability Issues, 2010). This last outcome is an example
of how changes in customer access for people with disabilities has a broader market
58 appeal and benefit to businesses that choose to embrace disability.
Disadvantages of service standards. There are also some disadvantages to
developing service standards. Three of these disadvantages are (a) the time that it takes
to develop standards, (b) the cost, and (c) the difficulty of developing standards that are
responsive to a rapidly changing marketplace.
Time consumption and cost. The time and cost to develop standards may be
prohibitive in a lean economy and may be too excessive for smaller companies. For
example, ANSI required $4,000.00 to file an application to be approved as a developer
(ANSI, 2012). Such administrative and financial costs may outweigh the benefits of
standardizing customer service.
Responsiveness. Standardization in a technical or product area may be very
different than standardization of services. The current trend toward providing
individualized, customer-centric services (Al-Shamari, 2012; Hefley, Murphy, Searles, &
Snowden, 2012) is somewhat counter to standardizing service provision. As many
researchers contend, service provision to consumers with disabilities should be
individualized, not based upon groups and stereotypes (Ayres, Douglas, Lowrey, &
Sievers, 2012; Bruce & Parker, 2012; U. S. Department of Justice, 2012).
Additionally, standardization within a rapidly developing service sector may
preclude the business from focusing on superior or alternative approaches that are more
conducive to a rapidly changing and dynamic service offering (Blind, 2003). The
development and adoption of standards takes time and, thus, standards may lag behind
the needs and interests of contemporary needs or desired service practices.
Standards Development Framework
59 Non-governmental standardization in the U.S. began in 1906 with the development
of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). The American National
Standards Institute was developed in 1916 under the name American Engineering
Standards Committee (AESC) and the International Organization for Standardization
(ISO) formed in 1947 to promote standardization across the world to aid in the
international exchange of goods and services. Today, ISO is the world’s largest nongovernmental developer of International Standards, representing 164 countries
(International Standards Organization, 2012).
de Vries (1997) defined standardization as the “activity of establishing and
recording a limited set of solutions to actual or potential problems directed at benefits for
the party or parties involved, balancing their needs and intending and expecting that these
solutions will be repeatedly or continuously used during a certain period by a substantial
number of parties for whom they are meant” (de Vries, 1997, p. 55). According to the
American National Standards Institute’s glossary of terms (ANSI; 2012), a standard is
defined as "a recognized unit of comparison by which the correctness of others can be
determined."
According to ANSI (2012), there are generally four types of standards. They
include
1. Voluntary Standards - standards that are written in an open environment by
professionals from both private and public sectors.
2. De Facto Standards - standards because they are widely used, not because they
were officially approved by some standards organization and government.
The marketplace determines the acceptance of the de facto standard.
60 3. Consortia Standards - standards that are typically agreed upon by professionals
to solve some market-driven problem.
4. Regulatory Standards - standards that are written or adopted by government
agencies (ANSI, 2012).
In the United States, many entities utilize ANSI, IEC, or ISO to develop
standards, but many organizations do not. Most notably, many professional organizations,
certifying bodies, and industries have their own standards related to goods and services
offered. According to Blind (2003), decentralized sector-specific standards in the U.S.
have advantages and disadvantages. The advantages are that the standards developed
specifically for a particular company or service sector can be more applicable to that
sector or the needs of the locale. The disadvantages are that a decentralized approach can
result in multiple solutions that can introduce conflict as to what should or should not be
the common standard. The worst case is when two standards are completely
incompatible. The negative aspects of company or sector-specific standards may
outweigh the benefits, suggesting that a broader approach to standardization may be
warranted. As Blind (2003) noted, the increasing globalization of services requires
consistent standards. The idea is that services that are “cross-compatible” will result in
the highest increase in service quality.
When developing standards, The International Organization for Standardization
(ISO) website offers four principles that must be followed during the standards
development process. These include:
1. Openness: The process should be open to all persons who are directly affected
by the activity in question.
61 2. Balance: The process should have a balance of interests. Participants from
diverse interest categories should be sought with the objective of achieving
balance.
3. Due Process: Any person (organization, government agency, individual, etc.
that has a material interest has a right to participate by
•
Expressing a position and its basis
•
Having the position considered
•
Appealing if adversely affected
4. Consensus: Consensus is achieved when agreement has been reached by
directly and materially affected interest categories. This signifies concurrence of
more than a simple majority, but not necessarily unanimity. Consensus requires
that all objections and viewpoints be considered, and that an effort be made
toward their resolution.
Research Approaches to Standards Development
Across the service industry, much of service standards research has been
conducted within the context of service quality (Bitner, Zeithaml, & Gremler, 2010; Chu
& Wang, 2001; Docking & Dowen, 2009; Gilpin & Kalafatis, 1995; Hernon & Altman,
2010; Ter-Martirosyan & Kwoka, 2010). A few studies have attempted to develop
standards related to consumers with disabilities. Three such studies follow.
The Institute for Community Inclusion (ICI) utilized in-depth, semi-structured
interviews with 19 adults with disabilities who used generic (e.g., One-Stop Career
Centers), or disability specific support systems (e.g., state vocational rehabilitation
services) for seeking employment (Timmons, Schuster, Hamner, & Bose, 2001). Each
interview focused on customers’ positive customer service experiences and perceived
barriers to employment services. Findings of the study resulted in five factors that
62 support the creation of positive and effective agency services. These factors included (a)
agency culture, (b) quality personnel, (c) coordinated services, (d) consumer directedness,
and (e) access to resources. From these elements, a checklist was created for agency
personnel to assess the quality and responsiveness of their agency’s services.
Shaw and Dukes (2001) conducted a study funded by the Association on Higher
Education and Disability (AHEAD) to examine essential service components for the
Offices of Students with Disabilities (OSD). Subjects included 800 disability service
practitioners in North America. Eighty percent were AHEAD members and all subjects
were confirmed as OSD administrators, program coordinators, or institutional contacts.
The researchers and AHEAD Program Standards Task Force collaboratively developed a
questionnaire following guidelines offered by Gable and Wolfe (1993) that included (a) a
literature review, (b) developing a list of service components, (c) performing a judgment
review of components, (d) pilot instrument development and (e) pilot instrument revision
for finalization of instrument for the study. A total of 254 usable questionnaires were
returned. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were employed resulting nine service
standards that included (a) consultation/collaboration/awareness, (b) information
dissemination, (c) faculty/staff awareness, (d) academic adjustments, (e) instructional
interventions, (f) counseling and advocacy, (g) policies and procedures, (h) program
development and evaluation, and (i) training and professional development.
A third study focused on service standards development for customers with
disabilities was initiated in Ontario, Canada. This study was conducted by the Standards
Development Committee developed by the Canadian Ministry to fulfill the requirements
of the AODA. Fifty percent of the committee was comprised of representatives of the
disability community and 50% represented private industry, broader public and non-
63 profit sectors, and the Ontario government ministries. The committee members are
selected through a public recruitment process. Through a qualitative design that
considered economic and business practicalities, the Standards Development Committee
for Accessibility initially drafted the initial Accessible Customer Service Standards. For
each standard, the committee also listed (a) what was to be covered, and (b) an estimated
timeframe for compliance. Once drafted, the proposed standards were made available to
the public for review and feedback. Following public comment, the standards were then
modified and the final list of recommended standards were submitted the Minister of
Community and Social Services for consideration. The Minister then accepted each
recommended standard, in whole or in part, with or without modifications, prior to
adopting the standards as part of AODA (Accessibility Directorate of Ontario, personal
communication, June 13, 2012). The study resulted in eleven customer service access
standards required for businesses under the Canadian Ministry. Each of these standards
was detailed earlier under the Standards section of this literature review.
In addition to the aforementioned studies, a number of studies have developed
standards using Delphi or modified Delphi techniques. Although the following studies are
not disability-related, they support a framework for developing standards using a Delphic
approach.
Walsh (2012) utilized a mixed-methods modified Delphi approach to determining
leadership standards for criminal justice leaders. From an initial panel of 70 criminal
justice experts who were recruited from management and leadership positions in criminal
justice, a final panel of 51 experts was formed. Following a content analysis of
leadership literature, Walsh utilized a Likert-type scale that contained items revealed
64 through content analysis of the literature and an open-ended questionnaire. Following
three iterations of expert panel data analysis, 13 resulting leadership dimensions were
then subjected to quantitative and qualitative measurements to validate findings.
Spearman Rho correlations demonstrated homogeneity among dimension sub-domains
and Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric tests were used to test for differences on leadership
dimensions by expert participant affiliation. Null results were found for non-parametric
tests and the 13 original leadership dimensions were verified as standards for criminal
justice leadership (Walsh, 2012).
Rodriquez (2001) developed standards for assessing the quality of professional
development programs. For this study, three rounds of Delphi questionnaires were used
to gather information from teachers regarding their perspectives on how to measure
professional development. Factor analysis was then employed and reduced data into four
main factors for assessing professional development quality. These factors included (a)
impact on teaching, (b) evaluation and follow-up, (c) worth/accountability, and (d)
motivators of professional development programs.
Schaaf, Stokking, and Verloop (2008) conducted a study to develop content
standards for teacher research skills using a three-round Delphi approach. The initial set
of content standards were developed using a four step process to include: (1) specifying
the domain to be measured, (2) a study of the literature, (3) conducted a study to
determine leading edge teaching tasks, and (4) developed a preliminary set of content
standards related to the tasks found in the third step. Following the development of a
4-point Likert-type questionnaire that outlined the preliminary set of content standards,
twenty-one stakeholders participated in three iterations of Delphi. Stakeholders included
teachers, principles, and administrators from random sample of 115 district schools. For
65 each iteration, participants were asked to rate each standard and provide any suggestions
related to each standard. Content standards were revised accordingly between each round
and the final round achieved a high degree of consensus. A qualitative analysis of
comments and homogeneity analysis (i.e., Homals) determined that the 21 stakeholders
differed in both their perspectives and their preferences in the manner in which they
judged the standards. Although differences in the stakeholder’s perspectives and
preferences were found, the Delphi method was considered effective for establishing
agreed upon teaching content standards.
In addition to the studies mentioned, Delphi or modified Delphi has been used to
develop standards for responding to mental health problems (Hart, Jorm, Kanowski,
Kelly, & Langlands, 2009), selecting, training and evaluating athletic training clinical
instructors (Weidner & Henning, 2004), wound management education (Orsted,
Woodbury, & Stevenson, 2012), teacher competencies (Fong, Ch’ng, Por, & Saada,
2011), and forecasting competency models for innovation leaders (Gliddon, 2006) among
others. Based on the literature reviewed, developing service quality standards through
consensus building Delphi techniques is supported and conceptually sound.
Chapter Summary
This literature review resulted in a number of salient findings. These include the
following: (a) the service industry is a large and growing service sector, (b) a large and
financially viable disability and aging market exists within the U.S., (c) historical trends
regarding consumers with disabilities are well positioned to support societal acceptance
of consumers with disabilities within the service sector, (d) business that engage in
developing standards and attracting the disability market will likely prosper, (e)
businesses are not typically aware of the economic benefit and lack the commitment to
66 develop practices that attract the disability and aging market, (f) no current standards for
providing customer service to individuals with disabilities exists within the U.S., and (g)
the service industry could financially benefit from incorporating standards into their
business strategies.
With respect to research methodology, the methods used to develop service
standards typically comprised a mixed-methods approach, utilizing both qualitative and
quantitative strategies. Three studies were found related to standards development for
customer service to people with disabilities. All other standards development studies
related to standards within other areas of professional service (e.g., leadership). With
exception of one study that used in-depth interviews, all standards development
approaches used a Delphi or modified-Delphi approach to standards development.
67 Chapter 3
Methods
From the review of literature, it is evident that business and industry standards
have been developed through a variety of approaches. For example, some industry
standards have been developed utilizing accepted scientific methods such as Delphi and
survey research. Conversely, other industry standards have been established through the
application of formal and informal strategic processes that have varied within and across
industries.
Given an interest in adopting a rigorous and accepted scientific method for
developing standards within the context of this study, the researcher chose to utilize a
modified Delphi technique in an effort to gain professional consensus regarding the types
of standards that would support service quality for people with disabilities. Delphi was
chosen due to its wide acceptance and use in achieving consensus through the
convergence of subject matter expert opinions on a identified topic (Hsu & Sanford,
2007). More specifically, the intent of this study was to converge the opinions of
disability inclusion experts and consumers with disabilities in order to develop business
standards for improving service quality for consumers with disabilities.
This chapter begins by illustrating the three-phased approach that was undertaken
to complete this study (see Figure 3.1). Additionally, this chapter provides a general
overview of Delphi including characteristics, use of the method for achieving consensus,
number of iterations, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of using Delphi
methodology for social research. Finally, the chapter discusses approaches to data
triangulation, hypotheses, participant selection, survey design, data collection, and
analysis.
ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN •
Determine Research Focus •
Conduct Literature Review •
Select Methodology CONTENT ANALYSIS •
Analyze Current Standards •
Identify Delphi Categories •
Develop Codebook •
Establish Validity and Reliability SELF-­‐ADMINISTERED QUESTIONNAIRE •
Develop Instrument (1st Questionnaire) •
Conduct First Pilot Study •
Refine Instrument (1st Questionnaire) PARTICIPANT SELECTION •
Determine Target Population & Sample •
Identify Sampling Techniques PHASE 1 Plan & Prepare PHASE 2 Delphi PHASE 3 Establish Standards ITERATION ONE •
Qualitative Analysis •
Instrument Development (2nd Questionnaire) •
Second Pilot Study •
Instrument Refinement (2nd Questionnaire) ITERATION TWO •
Qualitative Analysis •
Instrument Design Development (3rd Questionnaire) ITERATION THREE •
Qualitative Analysis •
Quantitative Analysis (Kendall's W, Mann-­‐Whitney U, Chronbach's Alpha) IDENTIFICATION OF STANDARDS •
Present Results •
Discuss Results & Implications •
Offer Conclusion Figure 3.1. Outline of research methodology.
68 Three-Phase Methodology
69 Phase 1: Plan and prepare. To increase the study’s validity and rigor,
triangulation of data collection methods was employed during Phase 1. Triangulation,
first introduced by Denzin (1970), involves the mixing of data collection methods or data
to enhance the understanding of a topic (Olsen, 2004). Triangulation is thought to both
minimize the inherent weaknesses of any single data collection method while also
magnifying any subtleties that may not surface with any one method alone (Gliddon,
2006). Also, if there is similarity across employed methods, greater confidence can be
placed in the results of the study, as it is believed the reliability and validity of the study
are strengthened by the triangulation process (Patton, 1990). For this study, an
environmental scan, content analysis, and self-administered questionnaires were used to
triangulate the data (see Figure 3.2).
Figure 3.2. Triangulation of research methods.
70 Environmental Scan. The first step in triangulation was to complete an
environmental scan. Prior to beginning the study, it was important for the researcher to
gain a greater understanding of the topic under study. More specifically, the first purpose
of the environmental scan was to determine research focus and possible topic. The
second purpose was to gain an understanding of the current disability market, as well as
trends and factors associated with service quality provision. The third purpose was to
utilize the learned information to outline a review of literature and eventually select the
methodology that would be used for this study.
According to Kroon (1995), environmental scanning involves “the study and
interpretation of the political, economic, social and technological events and trends which
influence a business, an industry or even a total market” (p. 76). It can be used to
explain relationships, guide decision-making and enhance planning efforts within
organizations (Costa, 1995; Costa & Teare, 2000). The process can also be used as an
exploratory measure to unearth problems, as well as potential opportunities (Choudbury
& Sampler, 1997).
The researcher for this study participated in a variety of activities between 2005
and 2012 that resulted in identifying current trends in the disability market sector. These
activities included (a) participating in professional conferences on disability and
inclusion, (b) directing a Department of Defense training project that educated civilian
personnel on how to accommodate the needs of wounded warriors who were transitioning
from combat to community environments, (c) participating on disability-related academic
and professional committees, (d) assessing the current needs and developing action plans
for military installations regarding accessibility and inclusion, (e) reading and researching
academic publications and current events, (f) participating in academic dialogue with
disability professionals and academicians, and (g) engaging in conversations with
71 multiple consumers with disabilities who conveyed real-world experiences regarding the
physical and service accessibility of businesses.
In response to noted trends in disability, particularly as it relates to future changes
in the workplace and marketplace, the author engaged in a review of literature to further
validate what was learned during the initial stages of the environmental scan. The
literature review conducted for this study confirmed that the number of people with
disabilities within the U.S. already represents approximately 20% of the current
population, and that this percentage is expected to increase as the baby boomer
population ages. These demographic changes underscored the need for businesses to
embed processes and practices that would support the changing needs and preferences of
future customers. The literature represented an exhaustive body of knowledge on the
topic of disability as a growing market sector, the status of service quality for consumers
with disabilities, and the need for the development of business standards that will provide
a supportive infrastructure to the consumers with disabilities sector. Given that the
disability market is slated to have a profound impact on the services industry, information
garnered from the environmental scan was timely and provided a solid foundation for
additional data collection.
Content analysis. The next step toward triangulation included a qualitative
content analysis. According to Kripendorff (2004), content analysis can be defined as “a
research technique for making replicable and valid inferences from texts (or other
meaningful) matter to the contexts of their use” (Krippendorff, 2004, p. 18).
Accordingly, there are six questions that must be responded to within every content
analysis: (a) What data will be analyzed?, (b) How will the data be defined?, (c) What is
72 the population from which the data will be derived?, (d) In what context is the data to be
analyzed?, (e) What are the analysis parameters?, and (f) What are targets at which the
inferences are directed? (Kripendorff, 2004). Using these questions as a foundation,
content analysis was performed to identify (a) current standards that support providing
service quality to individuals with disabilities, and (b) to develop service quality standard
categories in preparation for the first iteration of the study.
Development of codebook. A codebook was then developed to assist the
researcher with thematic coding of data collected during the Delphi iterations.
Determinants of service quality identified by Parasuraman, Ziethmal, and Berry (1985)
and Vaughan and Shiu (2001) served as the framework for category development and
coding definitions. During validation, categories were refined and/or augmented until
they were determined to be mutually exclusive and/or exhaustive by expert judgers
(Weber, 1990).
Once the service quality determinants for the study were identified, they were
conceptually and, hence, operationally defined. The conceptual and operational
definitions were adapted from the definitions outlined in the service quality determinant
research (Parusuraman, Zeithmal, & Berry, 1985; Vaughn & Shiu, 2001) and validated
by three subject matter experts to ensure face validity. A codebook was then created that
included each service quality determinant’s name, its definition, an example of text that
would be assigned to that category, and the rules for coding (Mayring, 2000). Coding
rules were established to assist coders with distinguishing between service quality
determinants and assignment of textual themes to service quality categories. Two coders
were used to code the data. One coder was the researcher and a second coder, a faculty
73 member with over 30 years of expertise in disability and inclusion, was trained on how to
code the data.
Establishing face validity. The next step was to establish face validity. Face
validity has been defined as a reflection of “the extent to which a measure reflects what it
is intended to measure” (Nunally & Bernstein, 1994) and is typically used in validating
content analysis. Face validity is imperative if conclusions or generalizability are to be
drawn from the service quality standards identified in the study (Busch et al., 2012).
Validity is best achieved by utilizing “multiple classifiers to arrive at an agreed upon
definition of the category” (Busch et al., 2012, p. 9). Multiple classifiers ensure that the
category represents the depth and breath of theoretical concepts within the literature,
minimizing an erroneous representation of a concept or category. To determine face
validity, subject matter experts are often used to judge the accuracy of the presented
categories in their representation of intended concepts (Hardesty & Bearden, 2004). For
purposes of this study, face validity was established through expert judgment of assigned
data to ensure data was accurately assigned given operational definitions of each
category.
Establishing reliability. The next step was to establish reliability. In the case of
this study, two coders were used to code data and, thus, inter-coder reliability needed to
be established. In content analysis, inter-coder agreement is necessary as it measures
“the extent to which the different judges tend to assign exactly the same rating to each
object” (Tinsley & Weiss, 2000, p. 98). While there are many indices to establish intercoder reliability, Krippendorff’s (2004) Alpha reliability was used to measure the
agreement between coders.
Krippendorff’s (2004) is a well-respected alpha reliability coefficient that
74 accounts for sample size and missing data, and can be used for nominal, ordinal, interval,
and ratio variables (Lombard, Snyder-Duch, & Bracken, 2010). Throughout the content
analysis, a coding matrix was maintained by each coder. Following analysis, ReCal 2
(Reliability Calculator for 2 Coders), an online tool for calculating Krippendorff’s Alpha
for nominal data, was used to compute inter-coder reliability.
Development of self-administered questionnaire. The third component of
triangulation conducted for this study data collection via self-administered
questionnaires. Self-administered questionnaires are an integral component of Delphi
methodology allowing for anonymous input from participants. The advantages of using
questionnaires for collecting data is that they are (a) relatively inexpensive, (b) facilitate
data collection, and (c) enable researchers to gather data from geographically dispersed
participants (Farmer & Rojewski, 2001).
The current study utilized Qualtrics software for Delphi questionnaire design and
electronic distribution of questionnaires to selected participants. Qualtrics offers the
flexibility of accessing the questionnaires via laptops and other mobile devices (e.g.,
smartphones, tablets). When a user accesses the questionnaire via a mobile device, the
Qualtrics system will detect the mobile device and automatically revert the questionnaire
to a more easily readable template based upon the detected device (Qualtrics, 2012).
Additionally, Qualtrics meets Section 508 compliance for accessibility to individuals
with disabilities, offering participants maximum access to survey content (Mora, 2012).
Electronically disseminated questionnaires have been found to be quicker and less
expensive to administer than paper questionnaires, and have an advantage of providing
access to unique populations, such as individuals with disabilities (Wright, 2005). Also,
the validity and reliability of results obtained through electronic surveys has been found
75 to be comparable to results obtained through paper surveys (Eysenbach & Wyatt, 2002).
Finally, electronic surveys have been found to have fewer missing responses than paper
administered surveys (Boyer, Olsen, Calatone, & Jackson, 2002), offering more complete
data for analysis.
Electronic data collection, however, requires a certain level of computer
proficiency in order to access the questionnaire and appropriately respond to required
items. Additionally, questionnaires allow for little flexibility and are limited to the
participant’s perception (Babbie, 2012). Aside from these disadvantages, survey research
through use of questionnaires is considered one of the oldest and most accepted forms of
research (Gliddon, 2006) and is deemed appropriate for this study.
Questionnaire design. This study utilized a three-iteration survey design. The
design began with a review of service quality literature (discussed in Chapter 2) that
identified 13 unique determinants of service quality important to meeting customer
expectations based upon research conducted by Vaughn and Shiu (2010) and Pasaruman,
Ziethmal, and Berry (1985). These 13 determinants served as the framework for
developing the categories for the first iteration questionnaire.
The next step was to begin questionnaire construction. According to Babbie
(2009), questionnaires should be constructed with clear instructions, in an easily read
format, with clearly defined and short questions. In the case of this study, it was also
important that the questionnaire be designed to meet accessibility needs of individuals
with disabilities in order to appropriately elicit responses. To achieve these objectives,
each questionnaire for this study was designed in Qualtrics and a link was sent to
participants via email. Qualtrics was chosen as the software platform due to its
compatibility with both Mac OS and Windows operating systems, its compatibility with
76 mobile devices, and its widespread use among researchers. Both questionnaire design
and delivery were checked for Section 508 Accessibility and SCORM compliance prior
to questionnaire distribution. Surveys were electronically administered and returned,
allowing participants to submit their responses online and anonymously; however,
enabling the researcher to know who had and had not responded in the case that a followup email prompt was required to elicit a response.
Babbie (2009) and Delbecq and Gustafson (1975) also recommended that pilot
studies be conducted to pre-test instruments for any ambiguous questions, errors, and/or
to determine aspects that may result in inappropriate or invalid responses. In addition, it
was also important in this study to eliminate any overlap or redundancy regarding service
quality dimensions to be used for developing standards. Therefore, two pilot studies were
conducted. One pilot study was conducted prior to the first iteration and a second pilot
study was conducted prior to the second iteration of the questionnaire.
To conduct the pilot studies, the researcher employed a cognitive interviewing
technique posited by Willis (2005) to uncover any potential problems. A random sample
of 15 participants from the population pool were asked to respond to a series of pilot
study questions and then participated in a follow-up interview process where the
researcher utilized verbal probes to gain a more in-depth understanding of the pilot study
participant’s written response. According to Gliddon (2006), verbal probes offer the
researcher (a) more control during the interview, and (b) ease at eliciting answers from
respondents. Additionally, probes were scripted prior to interviews to keep the interview
structured and so that the same questions could be asked of multiple participants. Pilot
study participant responses were qualitatively aggregated on a per question basis as
77 recommended by Willis (2005). The results were then used to refine the questionnaire for
iterations 1 and 2.
Questionnaires for iterations 2 and 3 were designed to include quantitative
analysis, enabling the researcher to establish levels of inter-rater reliability and levels of
agreement amongst participants. The final iteration included questionnaires that were
identical, but coded separately for disability inclusion experts and consumers with
disabilities. Separately coded questionnaires allowed for testing of differences between
the two expert panels on standards consensus.
All questionnaires were designed with the intent of completion within
approximately 20 minutes and participants were allotted two weeks between iterations to
complete each questionnaire. All participants were presented with and agreed to the
conditions of informed consent prior to participating in the study.
Participant selection. The selection of participants was the final step in Phase 1 of
this study. Participant selection is probably the most important contributing factor to the
validity and reliability of a Delphi study results (Ludwig 1994; Millar, 2001). Thus, the
determination of an appropriate sample size and technique are important aspects for
choosing a methodologically appropriate sample and are discussed below.
Sample size. Unfortunately, there is no formal agreement on the most appropriate
sample size for Delphi methodology (Atkins, Tosen, & Cole, 2005). Reid (1988), for
example, found Delphi studies that ranged from 10 to 1685 participants. Delphi studies
identified through the review of literature used between 21 and 51 experts to develop for
standards, while most Delphi studies use between 15 and 20 participants (Ludwig, 1994).
While there is no specified mechanism for determining the number of individuals
to include in the study (Williams & Webb, 1994), it has been suggested that the sample
78 size may depend upon the nature of covered topic, varying viewpoints, money, and time
(van Zolingen & Laassen, 2003). Ludwig (1994) suggested that the number of
participants are also generally determined by the (a) the minimum number of participants
required to represent the diversity of expert judgments, and (b) the researchers ability to
manage the number of responses received. Also, with respect to sample size, it is
important to consider if more than one panel of experts will be used. For example,
multiple panels in Delphi is an accepted practice if more than one set of stakeholders are
present (Hanafin, 2004). In this study, it was important to engage both disability inclusion
experts (service providers) and consumers with disabilities (service recipients) to develop
standards in order to represent the breadth of stakeholder interests on the topic in
question. Therefore, because this study utilized two expert panels, it was decided that a
total of 80 participants, comprised of two panels with 40 participants each, would
constitute a sample within the range of participants often used in Delphi, while also
allowing for a diversity of opinion across stakeholders.
Sampling technique. Participants for the study were chosen using a nonprobabilistic, purposive, dual-stage stratified sampling technique (Babbie, 1989; Fowler,
1993), coupled with a snowball approach (Patton, 1990. Purposive sampling involves
selecting a sample based upon the researcher’s knowledge of the population and study’s
purpose (Babbie, 2009) and is effective when attempting to identify participants with
specific characteristics, such as disability inclusion experts. Snowball sampling is an
extension of purposive sampling whereby the researcher identifies a few members of a
population that meet the selection criterion, and then relies on those members to suggest
other individuals that they know who may also meet the criterion. Snowball sampling is
particularly effective when trying to locate participants from difficult to reach
79 populations, such as individuals with disabilities (Babbie, 2009). Once participants were
identified through purposive and snowball sampling, the sample was stratified enabling
the researcher to obtain a sample representing a diversity of expertise related to the topic
under study.
Selection of disability inclusion experts. To select participants for the Disability
Inclusion Expert group, the researcher contacted the United States Business Leadership
Network (USBLN). The USBLN is an organization of businesses dedicated to
employment and customer service to individuals with disabilities. USBLN members
range from small to large-size companies within the service industry. Member
companies include such enterprises as Southwest, Wal-Mart, AT&T, Verizon, Microsoft,
Prudential, Sodexo, and similar service-oriented businesses committed to disability
inclusion. Most member companies have a disability inclusion expert identified within
the company whose main responsibility is to oversee and lead strategic initiatives
directed toward integrating employees and consumers with disabilities in business
operations and services. After receiving an initial list of disability inclusion specialists
from USBLN representatives, the researcher contacted each individual to determine (a) if
he or she met the expert criterion, (b) the areas regarding disability and inclusion where
the individual had expertise, (c) whether or not the person was willing to participate in
the study, and (d) if he or she could refer the researcher to additional experts who might
meet the criteria and be willing to participate in this study. From this list of participants,
40 individuals who represented a cross-section of eligible participants were selected to
participate in the study.
Selection of consumers with disabilities. The second group of individuals
selected for this study included 40 consumers with disabilities representing a variety of
disabling conditions to include physical, cognitive, hearing, visual, and intellectual
80 disabilities. Consumers were adults over the age of 25 who lived independently and
purchased goods and services from businesses within the service industry sector at least
once a week. The minimum age of 25 was established because consumer spending
increases sharply after the age of 25, largely in part to increased income (U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 2012). Consumers with disabilities met the definition of an
individual with a disability as defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Specific criterion for participant selection and group assignment are listed in Table 3.1.
Due to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) laws
and confidentiality of disability-related information, the researcher relied on personal
contacts with individuals with disabilities who met the consumer criterion for this study.
Each person contacted by the researcher was asked to identify 2-3 additional individuals
and provide the individuals’ contact information to the researcher. Upon receipt, the
researcher requested the participation of the additionally identified individuals
Table 3.1
Participant Selection Criteria
Disability Inclusion Experts
•
•
•
•
15 or more years of professional/practical
experience directly related to disability
inclusion in the service industry
Published and/or presented on disability
inclusion topics
Minimum B.S. degree in disability-related
field
Award or Honor Recognition by
Disability-related Professional
Organization
Consumers with Disabilities
•
Adult with self-defined disability as
defined by the Americans with Disabilities
Act
Mature Adult (25+ years)
•
•
Weekly consumer of goods and services
Living in a community setting
•
who were also similarly asked for 2-3 referrals. This process continued until the
81 researcher had identified 40 consumers with disabilities who agreed to participate in the
study for all three iterations. All participants met the criterion established for selection.
Sampling stratification. Czinkota and Ronkainene (1997) suggest that experts
selected for Delphi studies should possess vision, understand the topic under study, and
represent as many viewpoints as possible. By stratifying the sample, the researcher was
able to maximize the diversity of opinion based varied expertise of the disability
inclusion experts and variance with disabilities represented by consumers with
disabilities. Sampling strata is illustrated in Figure 3.3.
Sampling Strata
Disability Expert and Consumer Expert Groups: • Architectural access • Accessibility, inclusion and/or disability-­‐related training & development • Service provision to individuals with disabilities • Knowledge of disability characteristics and conditions • Barriers and constraints to inclusive service provision • Marketing to individuals with disabilities • Understanding of Americans with Disabilities Act and other pertinent legislation • Website accessibility • Assistive technology • Adaptive and specially-­‐designed equipment • Program/service modification and adaptation • Disability market • Reasonable accommodations (as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act) • Possess a physical disability • Possess a visual impairment • Possess a hearing loss or impairment • Possess a cognitive disability • Possess an intellectual disability Figure 3.3. Delphi process expert panel sampling strata. At least one participant within
the overall sample had expertise in each area.
Participant incentives. Ludwig (1994) emphasized the importance of participant
motivation to mitigate the potential for low response rates. Thus, each individual in the
study was offered a $50.00 Visa gift card for completing all three Delphi iterations to
extrinsically motivate participants to fulfill their initial agreement to complete all
82 questionnaires. Upon completion of the third iteration, the researcher mailed a gift card to
each participant who completed the study.
Phase 2: Delphi. Phase 2 of the study consisted of three Delphi rounds to reach
a level of consensus among participants. Three rounds were chosen given that three
rounds are often sufficient to reach a maximum level of agreement (Custer, Scarcella, &
Stewart, 1999). First, a general overview of Delphi is discussed, followed by explanations
of each of three iterations.
General overview of Delphi. The Delphi Technique was initially developed by
Dalkey and Helmer (1963). The technique is well suited for a variety of purposes to
include (a) developing program alternatives, (b) exploring underlying assumptions or
information, (c) seeking information, (d) correlating informed judgments, and (e)
educating a group of respondents regarding the interrelated components of a given topic
(Delbeq, Van de Ven & Gustafson, 1975). Although the Delphi technique employs the
use of questionnaires to gather data, Delphi is unique in its approach as it uses multiple
iterations in its data collection methodology in order to achieve consensus (Ludwig,
1994). In the Delphi approach, for example, respondents are asked to respond to multiple
iterations of a questionnaire and to reassess and possibly refine or revise their responses
based upon feedback provided through earlier iterations (Hsu & Sandford, 2007). The
purpose of reassessment and refinement of responses is to move the expert panel toward a
level of agreement on the identified topic. Although Delphi has been successfully used
for a variety of purposes within numerous disciplines, it has advantages and
disadvantages.
83 Advantages. The first advantage to Delphi is the anonymity of the expert panel
members throughout the data collection phase. A concern with achieving group
consensus in the presence of all group members is the potential influence of individual
members. For example, lower status group members may tend to acquiesce to the
opinions of higher status members and dominant group members might overly exert their
opinion, thus influencing the overall opinion of the entire group (Gupta & Clark, 1996;
Zollingen & Klassen, 2003). Because Delphi methodology guarantees the anonymity of
respondents, respondents are freely able to express their opinions based upon their
individual knowledge and expertise, rather than a “cautious institutional position” (Gupta
& Clarke, 1996, p. 186). As such, it is suggested that the participant responses are more
likely to be valid and true than if they were offered in the presence of other group
members (Snyder-Halpern, 2002).
The geographic dispersion of participants also promotes anonymity, as does the
use of electronic administration of Delphi questionnaires. By utilizing individual email
addresses and direct electronic communications with participants, the likelihood of
participants uncovering the identities of other experts is also minimized (Adams, 2001).
Another advantage of Delphi is time for reflection. Because respondents can
complete questionnaires without time constraint and time pressure, respondents have
more opportunity to reflect and contemplate on their opinion before responding (Linstone
& Turoff, 1975). This may, in turn, promote higher quality and more in depth responses,
thus enriching the overall quality of the results (Hanafin, 2004).
Disadvantages. One of the disadvantages of Delphi is potentially low response.
Because participants are asked to respond to multiple questionnaires, low response rates
are magnified by the number of the study’s iterations (Witkin & Altschuld, 1995). For
example, participants may submit the first and second iteration, but fail to submit
84 subsequent iterations resulting in study limitations.
Another disadvantage is time consumption. Delphi also requires more time to
administer than traditional survey designs. Because Delphi requires multiple iterations
and that it is recommended that participants be offered a minimum of two weeks between
iterations, the time to administer Delphi can last outside of two months. Delbecq, et al.,
(1975) and Ludwig (1994), for example, recommend a minimum of 45 days for
administering a Delphi study. Use of electronic administration of surveys, however, can
expedite the Delphi process through faster administration, response transmission, and
analysis (Witkin & Altshculd, 1995).
Another potential drawback of the Delphi technique is the molding of opinions by
the researcher and/or other participants (Hsu & Sandford, 2007). Multiple iterations
threaten the validity of the results if researchers distort feedback to participants (Scheibe,
Skutsch, & Shofer, 1975). Additionally, false feedback offered by participants can
similarly affect negatively the validity of results (Cyphert & Gant, 1971). Thus, it is
critical that researchers are vigilant and implement safeguards to ensure that the results of
the study are not compromised during the Delphi process.
Delphi iterations. To complete Phase 2 of the modified Delphi study, three
iterations were implemented. The process for conducting each of the iterations follows.
Iteration (round) 1. As discussed earlier, a pilot study was completed to validate
and refine the iteration one questionnaire prior to its administration. After drafting
categories based on service quality determinants learned through the review of literature,
content analysis of textual data collected during iteration one was performed to add to
and confirm meanings of service quality determinant categories. The questionnaire
85 developed for iteration one was sent to participants. Participants were asked to develop
business standards that would contribute to each service quality determinant identified on
the questionnaire. For each service quality determinant, a sample standard was offered
to participants to guide appropriate responses (see Figure 3.4).
DETERMINANT 1: Reliability Consistency of performance and dependability Description of Standard Name of Standard Record Keeping Keeps accurate records of customer’s transactions with the organization. (SAMPLE) Figure 3.4. Example of item from iteration one questionnaire.
To analyze the qualitative data from iteration one, the data were treated as
nominal and deductive category application, a content analysis procedure developed by
Mayring (2000), was used. This procedure included the following steps.
1. Determine the definition of each service quality determinant (selection criterion).
2. Create a codebook and coding rules and train coders (Steps 1 & 2 were completed
in Phase 1).
3. Analyze the data using codebook and codebook rules.
4. Meet with coder to discuss analysis results (formative check of reliability).
5. Conduct a summative check of reliability.
6. Conduct inter-rater reliability of coders using Krippendorf’s (2004) alpha
reliability statistic.
Following these steps, the researcher incorporated data collected during iteration one into
a second questionnaire in preparation for iteration two.
86 Iteration (round) Two. The iteration two questionnaires encompassed the data
collected and analyzed from iteration one. A pilot study was also conducted on the
iteration two questionnaires prior to administration.
The independent variable was the overall panel of experts comprised of two
nominal level groups: (1) disability inclusion experts and, (2) consumers with
disabilities. The dependent variable was the standard rating represented by four ordinal
level categories of standards (a) essential (b) critical, (c) basic and, (d) not needed.
A rating scale was developed ranging from 1 to 5 (1=most important; 5=least
important). Expert judgment of standards that were identified in the value of 1 to 1.99
range were considered standards that were essential, standards that were required to meet
the service quality expectations of consumers with disabilities. Standards that received a
value rating between from 2 to 2.99 were considered critical standards, standards that
were required in most situations to meet service quality expectations of consumers with
disabilities. Standards that received a value rating between from 3 to 4.99 were
considered basic standards, standards that were required, but not in all situations to meet
the service quality expectations of consumers with disabilities, but may be offered by
some businesses. Standards that resulted in a value rating of 5 were removed from the
list of standards, as they were considered as not required to meet the service quality
expectations of consumers with disabilities. Data from the iterations 2 and 3 of the
Delphi process were quantitatively analyzed using SPSS v.20.
87 DETERMINANT 1: Reliability
Consistency of performance and dependability
Name of Standard Description Rating Rating Scale Essential
Critical
Standard is
required for
service quality
1
Standard is
required for
service quality in
most situations
2
Basic
Standard is
required for
service quality,
except in some
situations
Not Needed
Standard is not
required for
service quality in
most situations
Standard is not
required for
service quality
4
5
3
Highest Importance Least Importance Figure 3.5. Example Item form Iteration two Questionnaire
Due to the controversial nature of treating ordinal data as continuous (Allen &
Seaman (2007), this study used non-parametric, non-inferential statistical procedures to
analyze the data. Specifically, central tendency was measured using the ratings mean,
median, and mode. Data dispersion was achieved through calculating the variance,
interquartile range, and standard deviation. Kendall’s W coefficient of concordance was
used to measure the level of agreement between disability inclusion expert and consumer
with disabilities groups. Mann-Whitney U was used to measure the differences between
groups and Chronbach’s alpha was used to measure inter-rater reliability.
Iteration (round) Three. The descriptive statistics used in iteration two (described
above) were used to provide recommended ratings for each standard identified in
iteration three. Standards were ranked according to sum of means for each standard
(Stines, 2003). To calculate sum means, rankings from both expert panels were
combined and carried out one decimal place (Gliddon, 2006). The standards were then
88 ranked accordingly. Essential standards included those standards that had a sum mean
total ranging from 2 to 3. Critical standards included those standards that had a sum
mean total ranging from 3.1-5 and basic standards included those standards that were
ranked from 5.1-9. Standards that exceeded values of 9 were eliminated.
Box and whisker plots were used to identify standards with outliers. In instances
where a standard had 4 or more outliers, meaning that 4 or more participants disagreed
with most other participants, an asterisk was placed next to the standard. The asterisk
indicated to participants that more thought might be required prior to rating this standard.
The meaning of the asterisk was defined in the instruction page for iteration three.
Hypotheses. The following eight hypotheses were developed to answer the
research questions posed in Chapter 1 and relate to Delphi iteration #2 and iteration #3.
Iteration #1 was implemented primarily to establish a valid questionnaire to test the null
hypotheses in iterations #2 and #3.
Iteration #2. To test the level of agreement within the group of consumers with
disabilities:
H0: There is no agreement in standards ratings within the group of consumers
with disabilities.
H1: There is agreement in standards ratings within the group of consumers
with disabilities.
To test the level of agreement within disability inclusion experts:
H0: There is no agreement in standards ratings within the group of disability
inclusion experts
H2: There is agreement in standards ratings within the group of
disability inclusion experts.
To test the level of agreement within group of all iteration #2 participants:
89 H0: There is no agreement in standards ratings within the group of all
participants.
H3: There is agreement in standards ratings within the group of all
participants.
Iteration #3. To test the level of agreement within the group of consumers
with disabilities:
H0: There is no agreement in standards ratings within the group of
consumers with disabilities.
H4: There is agreement in standards ratings within the group of consumers
with disabilities.
To test the level of agreement within disability inclusion experts:
H0: There is no agreement in standards ratings within the group of
disability inclusion experts.
H5: There is agreement in standards ratings within the group of
disability inclusion experts.
To test the level of change in agreement within consumer group of participants:
H0: There is no change in level of agreement in standards ratings within the
group of consumers with disabilities between iteration #2 and iteration #3.
H6: There is an increase in the level of agreement in standards ratings
within the group of consumers with disabilities between iteration #2
and iteration #3.
To test the level of change in agreement within the disability inclusion expert group
of participants:
90 H0: There is no change in level of agreement in standards ratings within the
group of disability inclusion experts between iteration #2 and iteration #3.
H7: There is an increase in the level of agreement in standards ratings
within the group disability inclusion experts between iteration #2 and
iteration #3.
To test difference between consumer and expert groups regarding standard ratings:
H0: There is no difference between consumers and experts regarding level of
agreement in standards ratings.
H8: There is a difference between consumers and experts regarding level of
agreement in standards ratings.
Hypotheses 1-7 were tested using Kendall’s W statistic that measured (a) levels of
agreement within the group of disability inclusion experts, (b) levels of agreement within
the group of consumers with disabilities, and (c) the change in level of agreement within
the groups between iterations 2 and 3. Hypothesis 8 was tested using Mann-Whitney U
to determine differences in standards ratings between disability inclusion experts and
consumers with disabilities. Data analysis for all aspects of this study is summarized (see
Figure 3.6).
91 Variable Expert group # of Variables 1 Standard rating 134 Descriptive Central Tendency Dispersion Consensus (Level of agreement WITHIN groups) Controversy (differences BETWEEN groups) Standards Rankings Type Independent States 2 states inclusion expert & consumer Dependent a) 5 states: 1,2,3,4 or 5 (Likert-­‐type scale) b) 4 states: Essential (1), Critical (2), Basic (3-­‐4), Not needed (5) How was it Measured? Frequencies, Bar and Clustered-­‐bar chart Median and Mode Interquartile Range (IQR), Percentiles, box and whisker plots (1) Interquartile range and Median and Mode (2) Kendall Coefficient of Concordance Mann-­‐Whitney U Test Level nominal ordinal Interquartile Range (IQR) based on Q1 and Q3 Mean rankings based on Kendall’s W rankings Intra-­‐group Correlation using Chronbach’s Alpha Inter-­‐coder Correlation using Krippendorf’s Alpha Inter-­‐rater Reliability Inter-­‐coder Reliability What Statistical Programs were Used? SPSS v20.0 ReCal2 Figure 3.6. Summary of data analysis (procedures and statistics)
Note: The methodology for this study was reviewed and is supported by Dr. David G.
Gliddon, Lead Faculty, College of Business and Management, Colorado Technical
University. Dr. Gliddon served as an external methodologist due to his expertise in
Delphi methodology.
92 Chapter 4
Findings
In this chapter, the results of the two pilot studies, followed by the results of each
of the three iterations of the Delphi study are presented. The study was conducted
according to the planned methodology set forth in Chapter 3 (see figure 3.1). This chapter
begins with an overview of the participants selected to participate in the study.
Participants
Using a non-probabilistic, purposive, dual-stage stratified sampling technique,
ninety-five participants were selected to participate in the study based upon the
procedures and criterion described in Chapter 3 (see Table 3.1). From these 95
participants, a total of 15 participants (8 experts and 7 consumers) were randomly
selected from the total pools of experts and consumers to participate in the first and
second pilot studies. The remaining 80 participants (40 experts and 40 consumers) were
selected to participate in the three iteration modified Delphi.
Of the eighty participants sent the first iteration questionnaire, 62 participants (30
experts and 32 consumers) submitted completed questionnaires. Fifty-two participants
(27 experts and 25 consumers) completed the iteration two questionnaire and 48
participants (25 experts and 23 consumers) completed the iteration three questionnaire.
Participant attrition was highest from the first to the second iteration (22%) and lower
from the second to the third iteration (9%). Overall attrition from the first to the third
questionnaire was moderately high (40%). Although all reasons for attrition were not
known, participants who notified the researcher that they were opting to withdraw from
the study reported that they did not have adequate time and/or the study’s timing
93 conflicted with more pressing work or personal issues. Selective attrition (Woundenberg,
1991) did not surface, but could have affected the study’s validity if it had occurred. For
example, if participants who had a specific disability-type (e.g., cognitive) dropped out
after iteration one, that type of disability would not be well represented within the study’s
results.
Disability inclusion expert group. Disability Inclusion experts who completed
all three iterations reported 15 or more years of disability related inclusion experience
with almost half (43%) reporting 30 or more years of experience. Each expert had a
minimum of a Bachelor’s degree in a disability-related field (21%), although most
experts held a Masters degree (65%) and some held a PhD/MD/JD degree (14%). All
experts had presented and published in the area of disability inclusion, and each
participant had been formally honored or recognized for his or her disability–related
expertise by a disability-related professional organization. Disability inclusion experts
also represented a wide variety of areas of expertise. Expertise across various content
areas represented by the disability inclusion experts is illustrated in Figure 4.1.
94 120% 100% Percentage of Paricipants 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Areas of ExperVse Areas of Expertise architectural access accessibility, inclusion, disability-­‐related training & development service provision to individuals with disabilities knowledge of disability-­‐related characteristics and conditions barriers and constraints to inclusive service provision marketing to individuals with disabilities understanding of Americans with Disabilities Act website accessibility assistive technology adaptive/specially-­‐designed equipment program/service modification disability market (people with disabilities) providing accommodations employment Other (please specify) Percentage 46% 96% 82% 75% 71% 50% 68% 25% 43% 18% 61% 50% 54% 61% 25% Figure 4.1 Disability inclusion areas of expertise represented by disability inclusion
experts.
95 In addition to a varied repertoire of disability inclusion expertise, the expert group
also was diverse in its professional experience within the service industry. The service
industries that were most represented included education (57%), followed by recreation
(39%), healthcare (36%), hospitality (29%), and tourism (29%), respectively. The least
represented industries were financial (4%) and utilities (4%). A percentage breakdown of
service industries represented by disability inclusion experts is illustrated in figure 4.2. It
is important to note that the total percentage of services represented exceed 100%
because participants were asked to indicate all services where they had professional
experience. Hence, some participants indicated more than one service area.
Finally, most participants in the expert group reported having some type of
disability (61%). The type of disability most represented in expert group was physical
(36%), followed by hearing (18%), and cognitive (11%), respectively. Again,
participants were asked to indicate all types of disabilities that they had. The types of
disabilities least represented by the expert group included intellectual (4%), and
social/emotional (4%). A percentage breakdown of types of disability represented by the
expert group is illustrated in figure 4.3.
96 70% 60% Percentage of Paricipants 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Service Industry Experience Retail Education Hospitality Tourism Recreation Healthcare Legal Marketing Financial Transportation Communication Utilities Social Services Entertainment Information Technology Repair Other Service Industry Experience Experts (n= 30) 25% 57% 29% 29% 39% 36% 25% 7% 4% 11% 21% 4% 25% 11% 18% 0% 21% Consumers (n=32) 16% 61% 10% 19% 32% 26% 13% 6% 6% 13% 29% 3% 19% 13% 23% 3% 39% Figure 4.2 Types of service industry experience represented by participants. 97 80% Percentage of Paricipants 70% 60% 50% Experts Consumers 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Type of Disability Disability Type physical visual hearing cognitive intellectual developmental social/emotional psychological other Experts (n=30) 36% 7% 18% 11% 4% 7% 4% 7% 4% Consumers (n=32) 74% 1% 3% 16% 6% 10% 3% 10% 19% Figure 4.3 Percentage of experts and consumers by types of disability.
Consumers with disabilities group. Consumers with disabilities for all three
iterations met the initial selection criterion for this group. Each consumer was an adult,
over the age of 25, with a self-reported disability as defined by the Americans with
Disabilities Act. This means that each consumer self-reported that they had an illness or
condition that interfered with one or more “major daily life activities.” Physical disability
was most represented by consumer participants; however, a wide variety of other
disabling conditions were also represented to include visual, hearing, cognitive,
intellectual, developmental, social/emotional, psychological (see figure 4.3). Each
98 consumer purchased goods or services at least once a week and 39% of the consumer
group purchased goods or services at least daily. Each consumer lived independently in
the community (meaning that were not living in an assisted living or long term care
facility).
Similar to disability inclusion experts, consumers with disabilities also
represented experience with a wide variety of service industries. The service industries
most represented by consumers included education (61%), recreation (32%),
communication (29%) and healthcare (26%), respectively. The industries least
represented included utilities (3%) and repair (3%), followed by financial (6%) and
marketing (6%). A percentage breakdown of service industries represented by consumers
with disabilities is also illustrated in figure 4.2.
Similar to the expert group, the type of disability most represented in the
consumer group was physical (74%), followed by other (19%), and cognitive (10%),
respectively. The types of disabilities least represented by the expert group included
hearing (3%), social/emotional (3%) and visual (1%). A percentage breakdown of types
of disability represented by the consumer group is illustrated in figure 4.3. Pilot Study One
Before conducting iteration one, 15 participants were selected to participate in a
pilot study to test the survey instrument. Pilot study participants were randomly selected
from each participant pool (8 experts and 7 consumers) and asked to complete the
iteration one questionnaire, answer 10 follow-up questions and, subsequently, participate
in a cognitive telephone interview to probe verbally and clarify written responses to
99 posed questions. A summary that includes the pilot study questions posed, participant
responses and the researcher response follow for each of the pilot study’s ten questions.
Question 1. What information would you suggest to be added to the introductory
statement regarding the nature of the study? Please specify how the additional
information would help the participant.
Participant response. One person suggested rewording developing service
industry standards to developing standards for the service industry. One person
suggested that service industry also include retail and transportation. One person asked
that there be an explanation as to why the study is being conducted.
Researcher response. Terminology was changed to developing standards for the
service industry. Retail and transportation were added to answer choices. The purpose of
the study was already included, thus no change was made in response that suggestion.
Question 2. Which statements in the introduction of service industry standards
questionnaire could be restated or reworded more clearly for participants? Please identify
the specific statement and how you suggest rewording, if applicable.
Participant response. Two people asked that there be a definition provided for
universal design, as this might not be principle known to all participants. Two people
suggested using a different term than service quality determinants. It was suggested that
a more lay definition be provided and/or two examples of determinants be provided in the
introductory section. One person indicated that the study was not disability-specific.
Researcher response. Since the study was designed from a universal design
perspective, and not intended to be disability-specific, no changes regarding this
comment were made. A definition was added for universal design. The term service
quality determinants was changed to attributes of quality service.
100 Question 3. Which sentences in the questionnaire directions could be more
clearly written? Please identify the specific sentences and how you would suggest that
they be reworded.
Participant response. Three people were concerned that the questionnaire read
too academically and suggested using simpler terms when possible. One person
suggested replacing the term operational definitions with more lay terms such as
definitions of terms used throughout the questionnaire. It was also recommended that the
introduction suggest reading the definitions first and then the entire questionnaire, given
that an understanding of the terms used is needed to understand the questionnaire as a
whole.
Researcher response. The term operational definition was changed to definition
of terms. The introduction was also changed to reflect reading the definitions first and
then reading the questionnaire second.
Question 4. After reading through the directions, did you have any difficulty
understanding how the questionnaire was to be completed? Were there any specific
instructions that you had to read more than once? If so, what needed to be read more
than once?
Participant response. Although four participants indicated that they reread the
questionnaire more than once prior to beginning, all participants indicated that they did
not have any difficulty understanding how the questions should be answered.
Researcher response. None required.
Question 5. Was your understanding of the service industry standards
questionnaire enhanced by the operational definitions? Is there any information that
should be added to the operational standards in the introduction? Which of the
101 operational definitions need to be further clarified?
Participant response. Although most people found that the operational definitions
were helpful, one person indicated that they were still having problems understanding the
term, service quality determinant. Four participants reported having problems with
perceived overlap of the definitions. One person indicating having trouble interpreting the
service quality determinant tangibles. Another participant had difficulties with
distinguishing between equity, enabling/empowering, and reliability categories.
Researcher response. The term service quality determinant was addressed in
question two response.
Question 6. Which service category descriptions were not helpful in writing the
standards in the service industry standards questionnaire? Were you able to understand
the service category by reading the description? What category descriptions were
confusing or required more clarification?
Participant response. One person indicated that some of the service quality
determinants were redundant, thus believed that some of their standards could have been
written under multiple determinants. For example, differentiating between enabling and
empowerment were cited as difficult.
Researcher response. None required. No majority or substantive suggestion was
offered.
Question 7. What difficulties did you have with writing the service industry
standards? Were the standard categories understandable? If not, what did you have
problems understanding? Is there anything that could be more clearly explained?
102 Participant response. Two people expressed having difficulty “pulling the ideas
out of their head.” One person indicated that it was sometimes difficult differentiating
between categories and so they felt like they were being redundant and another person
had difficulty trying to write standards that encompass all types of disabilities.
Researcher response. None required. No majority or substantive suggestion was
offered.
Question 8. Was there any overlap or redundancy in the service quality
determinants presented? Would you suggest combining or separating any service
determinant categories?
Participant response. One person indicated that reliability, competence,
credibility seemed to overlap. Another person indicated that humaneness, credibility,
courtesy overlapped. Another person viewed courtesy and humaneness as similar. Two
other individuals indicated that it seemed that some of the categories could be combined,
but were not specific about combinations. Further verbal probing resulted in perceived
overlap between humaneness and courtesy; credibility and competence; tangibles and
access.
Researcher response. The above categories were combined, resulting in a total of
10 service quality determinant categories. Where categories were combined, the original
category name and description were retained and presented to the participant to preserve
the intent and content of the original service quality determinant.
Question 9. Were there any other issues that interfered with your ability to write
the standards? What could be added that would make it easier to write the
standards? Would you suggest that anything be removed from the questionnaire to make
it easier to write the standards?
103 Participant response. One person indicated that overlap in categories made the
standards difficult to write, while one person suggested offering the participants a list of
standards that could be rated by respondents.
Researcher response. None required. This second suggestion was planned for
iteration two of the study; hence, understood, but could not be accommodated in iteration
one.
Question 10. How long did it take you to complete the service standards (actual
study) portion of the questionnaire?
Participant response. Most people indicated that it took them between 25-30
minutes to complete the study. One person indicated that it took 1.5 hours to complete
and one person indicated that it took 3-4 hours to complete.
Researcher response. None required. The majority of participants completed the
questionnaire for iteration one within the indicated time frame. Given that the pilot study
questions were absent from the actual questionnaire for iteration one, no adjustment to
questionnaire length was required.
Iteration One
Of the potential candidate pool, 40 disability inclusion experts and 40 consumers
with disabilities were selected to participate in the iteration one survey. The participants
chosen for iteration one were selected because they (a) met the participant selection
criteria, (b) stratified across professional work environments within the service industry,
and (c) stratified across areas of expertise related to disability and inclusion.
Iteration one participants were sent a link to the survey via email with a
designated deadline date of two weeks. During the designated two-week time period,
participants were sent three reminders, each approximately 4 days apart. At the
completion of the 2-week period, 30 experts and 32 consumers returned usable
104 questionnaires.
The raw iteration one questionnaire yielded a total of 1,468 raw responses that
were distributed across 10 service quality determinant categories. Table 4.1 illustrates
the distribution of responses across categories.
Table 4.1
Distribution of the Number of Iteration Raw Responses Across Service Determinant
Categories
Service Determinant Category
Understanding/Knowing the Customer
Responsiveness
Access & Tangibles
Reliability
Competence & Credibility
Communication
Security
Humaneness & Courtesy
Enabling & Empowerment
Equity
Number of Raw Responses
150
157
174
124
162
143
138
149
147
124
During the formative check of reliability, the coders discovered numerous entries
that could not qualify as standards for several reasons. These included (a) the standard
was incomplete, (b) what was written was not considered a standard as per the
operational definition and examples offered in the study, or (c) the participant used the
space to state his or her opinion rather than offer a standard. For example, one participant
spoke about her experience at a concert whereby she passed out waiting in line, while
another participant wrote about litigation that occurred resulting from a dispute with a
lifeguard. The coders discovered that many of the standards developed by participants
appeared numerous times within each category. In instances where a standard did not
105 exist as per the operational definition, the item was eliminated. A total of 196 items were
eliminated reducing the number of raw standards from 1,468 to 1,272.
During a second formative reliability check, the coders discovered that numerous
standards had redundant entries (see table 4.2). For each standard where there were
redundancies, the coders extracted the most salient and core elements of each standard
and combined the information to develop one comprehensive standard per redundant
standard. This procedure resulted in a total of 134 standards that were then used for the
summative check of reliability.
Table 4.2
Number of Redundant Occurrences of Written Standards at Formative Reliability Check
Standard Name
Understanding/Knowing Customer
Training
Disability awareness
Hidden disabilities
Models of disability
Exposure to disability
Disability rights
Simulations
Return on investment
Myths & misconceptions
Employee orientation
Disability-appropriate approaches
Professional associations
Disability market
Responsiveness
Approach
Request response
Helping
Complaints
Access problems
Response tracking
Strategic plans
Mission statement
Monitor parking
Problem resolution
Access & tangibles
Legislation
Barriers
Accessible routes
Information technology
Computer technologies
Service environments
Scooters/wheelchairs
Occurrences
26
33
26
2
7
3
7
5
8
6
8
5
6
11
11
9
14
8
6
9
5
2
4
12
8
7
16
5
11
4
106 Maintenance
Website access
Alternatives to physical access
Accessible entrances
Adjacent parking
Service desks
Product placement
Snow/ice removal
Anti-slip surfaces
Coat closets
Transportation
Equipment Maintenance
Product/service access
Attitude
Provision of generic equipment
Reliability
Training consistency
Assessment
Website evaluation
Follow-through
Evaluation & metrics
Access audits
Service consistency
Competence & Credibility
Assistive technology
Accommodations
Ethics
Support materials
Partnership
Human capital
Available accommodations
Inclusive policies and procedures
Employee peer mentoring
Employee incentives
“Go-to” employees
Company culture
Communication
Service animals
Interaction
People-first terminology
Employment
American sign language
Direct communication
Positive language
Accessibility features
Website feedback
Business literature
Malfunction communication
Intercom service
Signage for assistance request
Clear signage
Deaf communication devices
Display racks/shelves
Accessibility symbols
Inclusion/accommodation statement
Service pager
Communication service quality performance
Marketing materials
7
11
6
2
4
7
9
5
7
3
17
7
11
22
7
8
11
17
9
16
17
8
9
13
7
5
11
7
9
7
5
5
7
3
21
25
11
17
7
9
21
9
7
27
6
3
19
7
9
3
7
9
3
7
7
107 Marketing accommodations
Visual representation
Videos/webcasts/webinars
Registration/enrollment
Security
Emergency standards
Contingency plan
Privacy of records/transactions
Currency exchange
Staff identification
Emergency drills
Evacuation policy
Lifting/handling customers
Emergency consultation
Individualized emergency alert
Accessible exits
Safety escorts
Warning signals
Evacuation chair
Humaneness and Courtesy
Referral sources
Patience
Private space
Triggers
Disability etiquette
Referrals
Cleanliness
Priority entrance and seating
Rest areas
Carrying merchandise
Cleaning supplies
Personal property
Respect for personal space
Respect for equipment/service animals
Staggered service offerings
Enabling & empowerment
Customer peer mentoring
Expectations
Personal shopper
Asking
Monitor
Service technology
Customer engagement
Choice
Clarification of expectations
Assumptions
Equity
Service offerings
Response time
Maps of accessible routes
Service practice
Fees
Financial support
10
13
11
13
11
14
13
1
8
11
12
11
3
10
5
2
13
4
8
15
7
4
18
12
7
5
7
9
2
9
11
17
1
5
7
4
9
7
7
11
7
6
22
17
9
9
27
9
4
Inter-coder Reliability
108 Following the summative check of reliability, inter-coder agreement was
measured using Krippendorf’s alpha. Information required for calculating Krippendorf’s
alpha includes (a) the number of coders, (b) level of data, (c) number of categories for
coding, (d) missing data, and (e) the size of the sample being coded. For this study, the
number of observers was two. The data level was nominal. The number of categories
was ten. There was no missing data. The sample included 134 standards.
ReCal2, a online Krippendorf’s Alpha reliability calculator, was used to calculate
inter-coder reliability. In order to determine alpha, the researcher constructed a data
matrix where each coder independently entered data that reflected incidence of each
standard’s assignment to an appropriate service determinant category based upon the
codebook developed for this study (see appendix E). Following matrix construction, the
matrix was uploaded to ReCal2 and alpha was calculated. Krippendorf’s alpha scores
range from 0.0 to 1.0 (Krippendorf, 2004). Inter-coder reliability for the content analysis
was .893, demonstrating an acceptable level of inter-coder reliability for the content
analysis portion of this study.
Pilot Study Two
Before conducting iteration two, the same 15 participants (8 experts and 7
consumers) who were selected to participate in the first pilot study were sent the iteration
two questionnaire. Each pilot study two participant was asked to complete the iteration
two questionnaire, answer 10 follow-up questions and, subsequently, participate in a
cognitive telephone interview to verbally probe and clarify written responses to posed
questions. A summary that includes each pilot study question that was asked, participant
109 responses and the researcher’s response is presented for each of the pilot study’s ten
questions.
Question 1. Which statements in the introduction of service industry standards
questionnaire could be restated or reworded more clearly for participants? Please identify
the specific statement and how you suggest rewording, if applicable.
Participant response. Overall, most respondents believed that the introduction
was clear. One participant suggested removing handicapped from parking terminology
and replace with the term accessible. Another participants suggested reviewing the
acronyms for consistency throughout the introduction.
Researcher response. Acronyms were reviewed and changed for consistency.
The term handicapped was retained because that was the term used in most legislation.
Question 2. What information would you suggest, if any, to be added to the
introductory statement regarding the nature of the study? Please specify how the
additional information would help the participant.
Participant response. Most respondents indicated no changes needed and that the
explanation was clear. One participant suggested that the type of service industry be
specified because it would make a difference if the service was a mom and pop store or a
large establishment. One respondent indicated that it would be difficult to not rank all of
the standards as highly important given expert bias toward assisting customers with
disabilities.
Researcher response. The introduction was changed to indicate that the
standards were meant to be universal and not specific to type of industry and/or type of
disability. This was intended purposely to not narrow the respondents’ perceptions of
importance relative to specific situations or instances in order to develop a broad,
110 universal set of service standards that could be applied across the service industry.
Question 3. Which sentences in the questionnaire directions could be more
clearly written? Please identify the specific sentences and how you would suggest that
they be reworded.
Participant Response. Most participants believed that the directions were clear.
One participant suggested removal of personal shopper, as it was believed that the term
was retail industry specific. Also, two spelling errors were noted.
Researcher response. The two spelling errors were corrected and the term
personal shopper was retained, as it was a core standard component suggested by
numerous participants in iteration one and has application beyond retail (e.g.,
entertainment, finance, repair).
Question 4. After reading through the directions, what did you have difficulty
understanding about how the questionnaire was to be completed? Were there any
specific instructions that you had to read more than once? If so, what needed to be read
more than once?
Participant Response. No difficulties were noted.
Researcher response. None required.
Question 5. How has your understanding of the service industry standard
questionnaire enhanced by the operational definitions? Is there any information that
should be added? Which of the operational definitions need to be further clarified?
Participant response. Most participants found that the operational definitions
were helpful to understanding the questionnaire and that no additional information was
needed. One participant suggested that any clarification should be specific to the
111 organization and not required by this study. Another participant suggested ensuring that
all acronyms were spelled out.
Researcher response. Acronyms that were not common to most people (e.g.,
WC3, WAI, ADAAG) were spelled out.
Question 6. What difficulties did you have with rating the service industry
standards? Was the rating scale understandable? If not, what did you have problems
understanding? Is there anything that could be more clearly explained about the rating
scale?
Participant response. Most participants liked the rating scale and believed that
the scale was well understood. Three participants indicated that they would have
difficulty generalizing the standards across the service industry and found themselves
working hard to rate the standards from a universal perspective. One participant did not
like the not sure rating for the middle rating, but did not specify why nor offered an
alternative rating term. Another participant indicated that certain standards, such as those
that involved employee training, were evident within many of the service determinant
categories. This caused some perception of redundancy even thought the training content
was different within each category.
Researcher response. Because no substantive suggestions were offered, no
revisions were made in response.
Question 7. Which service determinant category descriptions were not helpful in
rating the standards in the service industry standards questionnaire? Were you able to
understand the service determinant category by reading the description? What category
descriptions were confusing or required more clarification?
112 Participant response. Service category descriptions were well understood by
most participants. Again, there was some perception of overlap, although it was noted
that none technically existed. Additionally, one participant believed that there should be
different sets of standards depending on the size and type of industry. It was noted,
however, that creating different sets of standards was not the intent of this study.
Researcher response. None required.
Question 8. Were there any other issues that interfered with your ability to rate
the standards? What could be added that would make it easier to rate the standards?
Would you suggest that anything be removed from the questionnaire to make it easier to
rate the standards?
Participant response. One participant indicated that questions were repeated
from a different perspective, which caused pause in consideration of what was deemed
most important. This participant suggested further consolidating the questions as they
relate to training employees to understand, provide mindful customer service and to
understand the best way to intervene when problems arise covers most situations.
Another participant indicated that there was a need to distinguish between the terms
business, businesses, customer service, business personnel, employees, personnel,
company, etc. The participant suggested adopting one definition for each of the terms
and specifying the term you are referring to within each section.
Researcher response. Consolidation of responses was not appropriate at this
stage of the study and so was not done. Additionally, the terms used in the development
of the standards were varied, but originated from the participant responses to iteration
one. The research methodology did not support the researcher making any content
changes to the standards’ terms and, thus, the terms remained as stated.
113 Question 9. How long did it take you to complete the service standards
questionnaire?
Participant response. Most participants complete the questionnaire within 25-30
minutes. One participant indicated that it took 45 minutes to complete, with distractions.
Researcher response. None required.
Question 10. Additional Comments.
Participant response. Most participants were complimentary and supportive of
the research being conducted. One participant indicated that the submit button did not
appear at the bottom of the questionnaire.
Researcher response. The submit button was checked to ensure that it appeared
for both the consumer group and expert group questionnaires.
Iteration Two
The iteration two questionnaire was developed to offer participants a first attempt
to rate the standards regarding the importance of the standard for providing service
quality to customers with disabilities. Participants were asked to rate each standard
developed during iteration one on a five point rating scale (1=highly important, 5=not
important). Identical questionnaires were sent to all participants who completed iteration
one and each participant was given a total of two weeks to complete the questionnaire.
During the two-week time period, participants who had not completed the questionnaire
were sent reminders. A total of three reminders were sent via email to participants in
order to achieve maximum participation. A total of 27 disability inclusion experts and 25
consumers completed the questionnaire by the deadline date.
For each of the 134 standards, descriptive statistics were calculated to discern
measures of central tendency and standard deviation. To develop the iteration three
114 questionnaire, descriptive statistics were calculated and presented separately for the
group of consumers and the group of disability inclusion experts (see tables 4.3 and 4.4).
Box and whisker plots of standards were also graphed for each of the two groups to (a)
identify standards that had substantial outliers based on measures of central tendency and
inter-quartile range, and (b) to develop a recommended rating for each standard in order
to prepare the iteration three questionnaire. If a box and whisker plot indicated 4 or more
outlier or extreme values (denoted by o and *), the standard was considered a
controversial standard. Controversial standards for each group of participants indicated
that 4 or more of the participants rated the standard 1.5 or more box lengths above the
upper edge of the interquartile range (IQR) as denoted by the box. Controversial
standards for the consumer and expert groups are illustrated in figures 4.4 and 4.5,
respectively.
When preparing the iteration three questionnaire, an asterisk was placed next to
the recommended standard rating for any standard that was identified as controversial.
The asterisk indicated to participants that the standard required greater attention and
consideration. To communicate this meaning to participants, the asterisk was explained
and highlighted in yellow in the instructions for the iteration three questionnaire to
inform participants of the asterisk’s meaning and need for greater attention to the
standard in question.
115 Table 4.3
Descriptive Statistics for Experts following Iteration Two
Standard
U1
U2
U3
U4
U5
U6
U7
U8
U9
U10
U11
U12
U13
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
AT1
AT2
AT3
AT4
AT5
AT6
AT7
AT8
AT9
AT10
AT11
AT12
AT13
AT14
AT15
AT16
AT17
AT18
AT19
AT20
AT21
AT22
REL1
REL2
REL3
REL4
REL5
REL6
REL7
CC1
CC2
CC3
CC4
CC5
CC6
CC7
CC8
CC9
CC10
CC11
CC12
COM1
Mean
2.77
3.19
1.23
2.19
1.54
3.08
1.65
1.65
1.73
1.54
1.73
3.00
1.88
1.85
2.31
2.81
1.65
2.15
1.38
1.32
1.42
1.54
2.04
1.65
1.58
1.42
1.92
2.58
1.35
1.27
1.46
1.62
1.23
1.31
1.46
1.54
1.62
1.46
1.31
1.65
1.54
1.50
1.65
1.27
1.92
1.50
1.35
1.88
1.92
1.54
1.88
1.81
1.69
1.73
1.50
1.62
1.96
1.85
1.81
1.65
2.12
2.65
1.81
1.46
1.69
Median
2.00
3.50
1.00
2.00
1.00
3.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.50
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.50
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.50
1.00
1.00
1.50
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.50
1.50
1.00
2.00
2.00
.150
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.50
Mode
2.00
4.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00*
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00*
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
SD
1.51
1.30
0.51
1.09
0.95
1.16
1.02
0.94
1.12
0.82
0.87
1.10
0.99
0.88
1.12
1.33
0.94
1.08
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.81
0.87
0.85
0.64
0.64
0.94
1.03
0.56
0.68
0.86
0.80
0.59
0.74
0.65
0.76
0.90
0.81
0.74
0.80
0.81
0.65
0.75
0.72
0.74
0.76
0.56
0.86
0.89
0.86
1.03
0.80
0.84
0.92
0.86
0.70
0.99
1.05
0.94
0.75
0.91
1.23
0.75
0.65
0.79
IQR
1.00
2.75
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.75
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.75
2.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.75
1.75
2.50
1.00
0.75
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.75
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.75
2.00
0.75
1.00
COM2
1.81
1.50
COM3
1.35
1.00
COM4
1.27
1.00
COM5
1.62
1.00
COM6
1.35
1.00
COM7
1.96
2.00
COM8
2.85
3.00
COM9
1.23
1.00
COM10
1.58
1.00
COM11
1.88
2.00
COM12
2.23
2.00
COM13
1.69
1.50
COM14
1.46
1.00
COM15
1.65
1.00
COM16
2.19
2.00
COM17
1.92
2.00
COM18
1.88
2.00
COM19
2.88
3.00
COM20
2.35
2.00
COM21
1.81
2.00
COM22
2.00
2.00
COM23
1.62
1.00
COM24
1.69
2.00
COM25
1.65
1.50
S1
2.04
2.00
S2
1.23
1.00
S3
1.58
1.00
S4
1.15
1.00
S5
1.12
1.00
S6
1.12
1.00
S7
3.27
3.00
S8
2.38
2.00
S9
1.58
1.00
S10
2.00
2.00
S11
1.54
1.00
S12
2.46
2.00
S13
1.35
1.00
S14
1.54
1.00
HC1
1.38
1.00
HC2
1.77
2.00
HC3
1.31
1.00
HC4
2.73
3.00
HC5
2.04
2.00
HC6
1.31
1.00
HC7
2.19
2.00
HC8
2.08
2.00
HC9
1.65
1.00
HC10
1.77
2.00
HC11
3.08
3.00
HC12
1.38
1.00
HC13
1.35
1.00
HC14
1.23
1.00
HC15
2.38
2.50
EE1
1.58
1.00
EE2
1.85
2.00
EE3
1.85
2.00
EE4
2.23
2.00
EE5
1.77
1.50
EE6
2.54
2.00
EE7
1.88
2.00
EE8
2.15
2.00
EE9
1.58
1.00
EE10
1.92
2.00
E1
1.35
1.00
E2
1.31
1.00
E3
1.65
1.00
E4
1.27
1.00
E5
1.23
1.00
E6
1.88
1.50
• Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown.
116 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00*
3.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00*
1.00*
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.13
0.63
0.60
0.80
0.56
1.08
1.22
0.43
0.76
0.91
1.11
0.79
0.71
0.89
1.10
0.94
1.07
1.40
1.20
0.94
1.06
0.85
0.68
0.75
1.08
0.51
0.86
0.37
0.33
0.33
1.28
1.13
0.76
0.96
0.95
1.21
0.56
0.99
0.64
0.95
0.55
1.19
0.92
0.62
1.23
0.74
0.80
0.82
1.23
0.64
0.56
0.43
1.24
0.95
0.97
0.88
1.14
0.95
1.17
0.86
1.12
0.95
1.06
0.63
0.55
0.80
0.60
0.65
1.14
1.75
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.75
1.00
1.00
1.75
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.75
1.00
1.00
3.75
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.75
0.75
1.00
0.00
0.75
0.75
2.75
2.75
2.00
1.75
0.75
2.75
0.00
1.75
0.00
1.00
0.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.50
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.75
1.00
1.75
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.75
1.75
0.00
1.00
117 Table 4.4
Descriptive Statistics for Consumers Following Iteration Two
Standard
U1
U2
U3
U4
U5
U6
U7
U8
U9
U10
U11
U12
U13
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
AT1
AT2
AT3
AT4
AT5
AT6
AT7
AT8
AT9
AT10
AT11
AT12
AT13
AT14
AT15
AT16
AT17
AT18
AT19
AT20
AT21
AT22
REL1
REL2
REL3
REL4
REL5
REL6
REL7
CC1
CC2
CC3
CC4
CC5
CC6
CC7
CC8
CC9
CC10
CC11
CC12
COM1
Mean
2.04
2.96
1.71
2.00
1.71
2.29
1.67
1.58
1.88
1.50
1.63
2.88
2.00
1.92
1.79
2.67
1.67
2.83
1.42
1.54
1.42
1.42
1.96
1.75
1.71
1.38
2.04
2.42
1.50
1.38
1.63
1.71
1.42
1.38
1.79
1.67
1.71
1.38
1.25
1.96
1.63
1.46
1.83
1.33
2.33
1.79
1.63
1.67
1.79
1.33
1.75
1.75
1.88
1.58
1.58
1.67
2.00
2.08
1.54
1.54
2.29
2.96
2.08
1.38
1.67
Median
2.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
1.50
2.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.50
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.50
1.50
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
Mode
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00*
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00*
1.00
1.00
1.00
SD
1.16
1.52
1.27
1.35
1.08
1.49
1.20
0.72
1.12
0.93
0.97
1.48
1.251
0.97
1.10
1.63
0.92
1.37
0.88
0.98
0.78
0.97
1.22
0.94
0.99
0.88
1.23
1.21
0.89
0.88
0.92
1.04
0.88
0.88
1.02
1.01
1.04
1.01
0.84
0.99
1.14
0.93
1.24
0.87
1.37
1.22
1.01
0.68
0.88
0.87
0.79
0.85
1.23
1.06
0.97
0.92
1.18
1.21
0.93
0.93
1.20
1.49
1.32
0.88
1.01
IQR
2.25
2.00
0.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.25
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.25
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.25
1.00
1.00
1.25
2.00
1.00
1.25
1.25
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.25
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
COM2
1.79
1.00
COM3
1.71
1.00
COM4
1.46
1.00
COM5
1.63
1.00
COM6
1.58
1.00
COM7
2.04
1.50
COM8
3.13
3.00
COM9
1.58
1.00
COM10
1.50
1.00
COM11
1.88
1.00
COM12
2.08
2.00
COM13
1.71
1.00
COM14
1.75
1.00
COM15
2.00
1.00
COM16
1.83
1.00
COM17
1.67
1.00
COM18
2.00
2.00
COM19
2.96
3.00
COM20
2.42
2.50
COM21
2.08
2.00
COM22
2.04
2.00
COM23
1.79
1.00
COM24
1.63
1.00
COM25
1.58
1.00
S1
1.88
1.00
S2
1.46
1.00
S3
1.63
1.00
S4
1.29
1.00
S5
1.38
1.00
S6
1.42
1.00
S7
2.42
2.00
S8
2.13
1.00
S9
1.88
1.00
S10
1.96
1.50
S11
1.58
1.00
S12
2.88
3.00
S13
1.29
1.00
S14
1.71
1.00
HC1
1.21
1.00
HC2
1.63
1.00
HC3
1.29
1.00
HC4
2.25
2.00
HC5
1.67
1.00
HC6
1.42
1.00
HC7
2.50
2.00
HC8
2.33
1.50
HC9
1.83
2.00
HC10
1.71
1.00
HC11
3.21
3.00
HC12
1.50
1.00
HC13
1.46
1.00
HC14
1.42
1.00
HC15
2.58
2.50
EE1
1.79
1.00
EE2
2.04
2.00
EE3
1.75
1.00
EE4
2.00
1.00
EE5
1.88
2.00
EE6
2.79
3.00
EE7
1.96
2.00
EE8
2.17
2.00
EE9
2.25
2.00
EE10
2.33
2.00
E1
1.58
1.00
E2
1.46
1.00
E3
1.88
1.00
E4
1.79
1.00
E5
1.42
1.00
E6
2.04
1.00
* Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown.
118 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00*
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00*
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00*
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00*
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00*
3.00
1.00
1.00*
1.00
1.00*
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.22
1.04
0.93
1.17
1.06
1.27
1.48
1.02
0.93
1.19
1.21
1.08
1.11
1.35
1.27
1.20
1.25
1.63
1.25
1.14
1.16
1.18
0.97
0.97
1.45
1.02
1.14
0.86
0.88
0.92
1.47
1.45
1.28
1.27
1.77
1.45
0.86
1.16
0.83
0.97
0.74
1.36
0.96
0.88
1.38
1.55
1.05
1.04
1.32
0.93
0.93
0.97
1.28
1.28
1.12
1.07
1.38
1.04
1.29
1.12
1.17
1.33
1.37
0.97
0.93
1.19
1.14
1.02
1.52
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.25
0.25
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.25
1.00
1.00
1.25
2.25
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.25
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.25
1.25
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.25
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.25
0.25
2.00
1.25
1.00
1.25
2.00
1.00
1.00
0.25
2.00
1.00
1.25
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.25
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.25
119 Standard R9 AT15 REL5 S4 S13 HC3 HC14 E5 E6 Standard Description The company monitors appropriate use of handicapped/accessible parking spaces and notify authorities of violations. External access routes are prioritized for ice and snow removal. There is an accessible strategy for obtaining feedback from customers regarding service quality (e.g., focus groups, surveys, interviews, mystery shopper program). When exchanging money with someone who is blind, the company provides a second employee who will observe and concur with the transaction. All auditory signals warning of an emergency will have a visual equivalent and vice versa. A private room/space is provided where customers with disabilities can take care of any disability-­‐related issues/needs. Personnel refrain from removing, touching or handling a customer’s personal equipment and/or service animals without the customer’s prior permission. Businesses charge the same fees for services, even when providing an accommodation, as is charged to all other customers. The company has designated financial support for the inclusion of customers with disabilities in its programs and services. # of Outliers 5 4 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 Figure 4.4 Controversial standards-consumer group following iteration two. X-axis:
standard, Y-axis: rating.
120 Standard U3 AT10 S2 S4 HC6 E4 E5 Standard Description Training is provided on how to interact with and offer inclusive services to customers with disabilities that are not readily visible. Alternatives to physically accessing a service environment to obtain assistance (e.g., email, virtual assistant) are offered. The company has a contingency plan when accessible features (e.g., elevators, doors) are malfunctioning. When exchanging money with someone who is blind, the company provides a second employee who will observe and concur with the transaction. Businesses that are not able to accommodate a customer should provide a “warm hand-­‐off” to an appropriate referral source. All customer service practices followed for individuals without disabilities are also followed when providing customer service to people with varying abilities. Businesses charge the same fees for services, even when providing an accommodation, as is charged to all other customers. # of Outliers 5 4 5 4 5 4 4 Figure 4.5 Controversial standards-expert group following Iteration two. X-axis:
standard, Y-axis: rating.
121 Iteration two hypotheses and levels of agreement. To test the level of
agreement within each group of consumers and to test agreement within the group of
experts, and consumers and experts combined, Kendall’s W, a non-parametric statistic
was calculated using SPSS v.20. Further analysis of Kendall’s W was conducted using
Schmidt’s (1997) interpretation of Kendall’s W. Confidence in ranks of significant
Kendall’s W measures were interpreted as very weak agreement (W > 0.1), weak
agreement (W > 0.2), moderate agreement (W > 0.5), strong agreement (W > 0.6), or
unusually strong agreement (W > 0.7). Outcomes for each of three iteration two
hypotheses follow.
Hypothesis one. The first iteration two hypothesis tested the level of agreement
within the group of consumers with disabilities. H0: There is no agreement in standards
ratings within the group of consumers with disabilities. H1: There is agreement in
standards ratings within the group of consumers with disabilities. For hypothesis one, the
null hypothesis was rejected (W=.213, p<.001). Although significance was reached, this
finding demonstrated a weak level of agreement of standards ratings within the group of
consumers with disabilities.
Hypothesis two. The second iteration two hypothesis tested the level of
agreement within the groups of experts with disabilities. H0: There is no agreement in
standards ratings within groups of disability inclusion experts. H1: There is agreement in
standards ratings within the group of disability inclusion experts. For hypothesis two, the
null hypothesis was rejected (W=.233, p<.001). Although significance was reached, this
finding demonstrated a weak level of agreement of standards ratings within the group of
disability inclusion experts.
122 Hypothesis three. The third iteration two hypothesis tested the level of agreement
within the groups of consumers and disability inclusion experts combined. H0: There is
no agreement in standards ratings within the group of all participants. H1: There is
agreement within the group of all participants. The null hypothesis was rejected (W=.206,
p<.001). Although significance was reached, this finding demonstrated weak agreement
in standards ratings within the groups of consumers and disability inclusion experts
combined.
Although the level of agreement within all groups tested resulted in agreement,
Kendall’s measure of concordance was used again in iteration three to measure
consistency of agreement and any changes in level of agreement that may have occurred
from iteration two to iteration three.
Reliability. Following completion of iteration two, Chronbach’s alpha was
calculated to measure internal consistency of the second questionnaire. For both groups
combined, alpha was .99. The closer that Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is to 1.0, the
greater the internal consistency of the items in the scale. These findings indicated a high
level of internal consistency for the iteration two questionnaire.
Iteration Three
In the third iteration, participants had the opportunity to rate the standards’
importance, with an understanding of iteration two results. The researcher prepared two
versions of the iteration three questionnaire, one for disability inclusion experts and one
for consumers. A single questionnaire was sent to each participant and participants were
again asked to rate the standards using the same 5-point, Likert-type scale developed for
the iteration two questionnaire. Participants were offered two weeks to complete the
iteration three questionnaire and sent three reminders during the two-week period. A
123 total of 48 participants completed the iteration three questionnaire, including 25 disability
inclusion experts and 23 consumers with disabilities.
Descriptive statistics were calculated that included measures of central tendency
(mean, median and mode), standard deviation and interquartile range. Because two
versions of the iteration three questionnaire were prepared, one for experts and one for
consumers, descriptive statistics were calculated and presented separately for each group
(see Tables 4.5 and 4.6). Box and whisker plots were again graphed for each standard to
identify standards that had substantial outliers based on measures of central tendency and
inter-quartile ranges. Box and whisker plots in iteration three indicated no substantial
outliers meaning 4 or more outlier or extreme values (denoted by o and/or * respectively)
for any one of the standards. Additionally, interquartile ranges indicated no large
discrepancies, when compared to the measures of central tendency that would affect the
final standard rankings. These findings were consistent with movement toward
consensus consistent with Delphi methodology.
Table 4.5
Descriptive Statistics for Experts Following Iteration Three
Standard
U1
U2
U3
U4
U5
U6
U7
U8
U9
U10
U11
U12
U13
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
AT1
Mean
1.88
3.00
1.44
2.80
1.16
3.40
2.00
1.24
1.44
1.16
1.36
3.20
1.68
1.76
1.44
1.84
1.44
2.04
1.92
1.76
1.32
1.76
1.48
1.76
Median
2.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
Mode
2.00
3.00
1.00
2.00*
1.00
4.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
SD
0.83
1.12
1.04
0.96
0.47
1.08
1.32
0.66
0.77
0.47
0.86
1.19
0.63
0.60
0.82
1.07
0.87
0.74
0.81
0.78
0.99
0.72
0.77
1.05
IQR
1.00
2.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.50
0.50
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
AT2
AT3
AT4
AT5
AT6
AT7
AT8
AT9
AT10
AT11
AT12
AT13
AT14
AT15
AT16
AT17
AT18
AT19
AT20
AT21
AT22
REL1
REL2
REL3
REL4
REL5
REL6
REL7
CC1
CC2
CC3
CC4
CC5
CC6
CC7
CC8
CC9
CC10
CC11
CC12
COM1
COM2
COM3
COM4
COM5
COM6
COM7
COM8
COM9
COM10
COM11
COM12
COM13
COM14
COM15
COM16
COM17
COM18
COM19
COM20
COM21
COM22
COM23
COM24
COM25
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
124 1.32
1.20
1.40
1.88
1.20
1.28
1.24
1.28
1.56
1.28
1.20
1.20
1.36
1.36
1.24
1.32
1.28
1.24
1.52
1.20
2.00
1.56
1.28
1.56
1.80
1.40
1.28
1.80
1.52
1.32
1.24
1.76
1.92
1.60
1.64
1.56
1.88
2.40
1.92
1.24
1.48
2.56
1.48
1.24
1.40
1.32
1.60
2.12
1.24
1.36
1.76
2.16
1.24
1.36
1.44
2.04
2.20
1.72
3.00
2.36
1.80
1.92
1.32
1.72
1.32
2.20
1.76
1.40
1.56
1.32
1.16
2.80
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00*
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00*
3.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00*
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
0.65
0.71
0.66
0.65
0.74
0.66
0.74
0.92
0.84
0.65
0.82
0.90
0.86
0.83
0.90
0.89
0.72
0.82
0.58
0.76
0.82
0.74
0.92
0.87
0.71
0.89
0.82
0.92
0.69
0.83
0.73
0.81
1.04
0.86
0.92
0.83
1.04
1.08
0.66
0.77
1.00
0.92
0.74
0.96
0.75
0.96
1.05
0.60
0.81
0.72
0.75
0.83
0.86
0.87
0.84
0.82
0.79
0.87
0.76
0.96
0.96
0.90
0.79
0.69
1.04
1.09
0.96
0.91
0.85
0.47
1.12
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.50
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
0.50
2.00
2.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
125 S8
1.60
1.00
S9
1.40
1.00
S10
2.04
2.00
S11
1.32
1.00
S12
2.20
2.00
S13
1.32
1.00
S14
1.28
1.00
HC1
1.36
1.00
HC2
1.84
2.00
HC3
1.60
1.00
HC4
2.44
3.00
HC5
1.48
1.00
HC6
1.32
1.00
HC7
1.60
1.00
HC8
2.20
2.00
HC9
1.44
1.00
HC10
1.80
1.80
HC11
3.08
3.00
HC12
1.24
1.00
HC13
1.16
1.00
HC14
1.20
1.00
HC15
2.00
2.00
EE1
1.64
1.00
EE2
1.56
1.00
EE3
1.92
2.00
EE4
1.72
2.00
EE5
2.00
2.00
EE6
2.04
2.00
EE7
1.84
2.00
EE8
2.32
2.00
EE9
1.76
2.00
EE10
1.36
1.00
E1
1.20
1.00
E2
1.16
1.00
E3
1.36
1.00
E4
1.32
1.00
E5
1.44
1.00
E6
1.40
1.00
• Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown.
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00*
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.04
0.91
0.74
0.75
0.71
0.69
0.74
0.78
1.14
0.76
0.92
0.77
0.69
0.96
0.87
0.92
0.76
0.90
0.66
0.62
0.82
0.87
1.08
0.96
0.95
0.68
0.65
1.06
0.90
0.90
0.88
0.76
0.50
0.47
0.57
0.75
0.82
0.76
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.50
1.00
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
Table 4.6
Descriptive Statistics for Consumers Following Iteration Three
Standard
U1
U2
U3
U4
U5
U6
U7
U8
U9
U10
U11
U12
U13
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
Mean
1.48
1.74
1.17
1.91
1.26
2.65
1.57
1.39
1.65
1.13
1.17
2.48
1.65
2.04
1.52
1.74
1.30
2.35
1.13
1.61
1.17
1.74
1.61
Median
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
Mode
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
SD
0.51
0.45
0.39
1.00
0.62
1.19
0.73
0.50
0.65
0.34
0.39
1.16
0.83
0.78
0.80
1.05
0.56
0.89
0.34
0.58
0.39
0.62
0.72
IQR
1.00
1.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
AT1
AT2
AT3
AT4
AT5
AT6
AT7
AT8
AT9
AT10
AT11
AT12
AT13
AT14
AT15
AT16
AT17
AT18
AT19
AT20
AT21
AT22
REL1
REL2
REL3
REL4
REL5
REL6
REL7
CC1
CC2
CC3
CC4
CC5
CC6
CC7
CC8
CC9
CC10
CC11
CC12
COM1
COM2
COM3
COM4
COM5
COM6
COM7
COM8
COM9
COM10
COM11
COM12
COM13
COM14
COM15
COM16
COM17
COM18
COM19
COM20
COM21
COM22
COM23
COM24
COM25
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
126 1.70
1.17
1.04
1.39
1.61
1.13
1.74
1.09
1.09
1.35
1.04
1.39
1.26
1.22
1.22
1.04
1.57
1.22
1.17
1.26
1.17
1.91
1.35
1.13
1.39
1.39
1.48
1.43
1.57
1.48
1.17
1.26
1.26
1.65
1.83
1.35
1.09
1.96
2.48
1.70
1.17
1.35
2.04
1.22
1.09
1.35
1.22
1.39
1.78
1.13
1.39
1.22
1.91
1.43
1.17
1.13
1.43
1.30
1.96
2.83
1.96
1.78
1.83
1.09
1.04
1.22
1.26
1.13
1.26
1.00
1.04
1.13
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.82
0.39
0.21
0.47
0.50
0.34
1.01
0.42
0.29
0.49
0.21
0.58
0.54
0.42
0.60
0.21
0.59
0.52
0.49
0.54
0.39
1.08
0.57
0.34
0.50
0.58
0.51
0.66
0.66
0.67
0.39
0.45
0.45
0.94
0.72
0.57
0.29
0.77
1.28
0.77
0.49
0.49
0.98
0.52
0.29
0.71
0.42
0.72
0.90
0.34
0.56
0.42
1.00
0.99
0.39
0.34
0.84
0.93
0.77
1.11
0.71
0.60
0.49
0.29
0.21
0.52
0.54
0.34
0.45
0.00
0.21
0.46
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
HC1
HC2
HC3
HC4
HC5
HC6
HC7
HC8
HC9
HC10
HC11
HC12
HC13
HC14
HC15
EE1
EE2
EE3
EE4
EE5
EE6
EE7
EE8
EE9
EE10
E1
E2
E3
E4
E5
E6
•
127 1.61
1.00
1.30
1.00
1.17
1.00
1.61
1.00
1.09
1.00
2.30
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.09
1.00
1.17
1.00
1.26
1.00
1.04
1.00
1.96
2.00
1.26
1.00
1.09
1.00
1.91
2.00
1.35
1.00
1.39
1.00
1.48
1.00
2.83
3.00
1.13
1.00
1.04
1.00
1.09
1.00
1.96
2.00
1.83
2.00
1.78
2.00
1.83
2.00
1.74
2.00
2.17
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.61
2.00
1.74
1.00
1.48
1.00
2.22
2.00
1.22
1.00
1.09
1.00
1.39
1.00
1.17
1.00
1.17
1.00
1.48
1.00
Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown.
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00*
1.00
1.00*
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.89
0.47
0.39
0.89
0.42
0.93
0.00
0.29
0.39
0.54
0.21
0.83
0.45
0.29
1.04
0.65
0.66
0.90
1.07
0.32
0.21
0.29
0.84
0.94
0.74
0.58
0.70
0.79
1.38
0.72
1.21
0.73
0.90
0.60
0.29
0.66
0.39
0.49
0.79
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
Iteration three hypotheses and levels of agreement. Five hypotheses were
considered in iteration three and were tested using non-parametric statistics. Kendall’s W
was used to test (a) the level of agreement within the group of disability inclusion
experts, (b) the level of agreement within the group of consumers with disabilities, (c) the
change in level of agreement of disability inclusion experts from iteration two to iteration
three, and (d) the change in level of agreement of consumers with disabilities from
iteration two to iteration three. For the final hypothesis, the Mann-Whitney U test was
used to determine any differences between the expert and consumer groups on how they
rated the standards.
128 Hypothesis four. The first iteration three hypothesis tested the level of agreement
within the group of consumers with disabilities. H0: There is no agreement in standards
ratings within the group of consumers with disabilities. H1: There is agreement in
standards ratings within the group of consumers with disabilities. For hypothesis four,
the null hypothesis was rejected (W=.516, p<.001). This finding demonstrates that there
was moderate agreement of standards ratings within the group of consumers with
disabilities according to Schmidt’s (1997) interpretation.
Hypothesis five. The second iteration three hypothesis tested the level of
agreement within the group of disability inclusion experts. H0: There is no agreement in
standards ratings within the group of disability inclusion experts. H1: There is agreement
in standards ratings within the group of disability inclusion experts. For hypothesis five,
the null hypothesis was rejected (W=.561, p<.001). This finding demonstrates that there
was a moderate level of agreement of standards ratings within the group of disability
inclusion experts.
Hypothesis six. The third iteration three hypothesis examined changes in the
level of agreement of consumers with disabilities from iteration two to iteration three. H0:
There is no change in level of agreement in standards ratings within the group of
consumers with disabilities between iteration #2 and iteration #3. H1: There is an
increase in the level of agreement in standards ratings within the group of consumers with
disabilities between iteration #2 and iteration #3. For consumers with disabilities in
iteration three, H0 was rejected (W=.516, p<.001). The results indicate a change in
agreement from a low level of agreement in iteration two to a high moderate level of
agreement in iteration three.
Hypothesis seven. The fourth iteration three hypothesis examined changes in the
129 level of agreement of disability inclusion experts from iteration two to iteration three.
H0: There is no change in level of agreement in standards ratings within the group of
disability inclusion experts between iteration #2 and iteration #3. H1: There is an
increase in the level of agreement in standards ratings within the group of disability
inclusion experts between iteration #2 and iteration #3. For disability inclusion experts in
iteration three, H0 was rejected (W=.561, p<.001). The results indicate a change in
agreement from a low level of agreement in iteration two to a moderate level of
agreement in iteration three.
Hypothesis eight. The final iteration three hypothesis tested differences between
the disability inclusion expert and consumers with disabilities groups on standard ratings.
H0: There is no difference between consumers and experts regarding level of agreement
in standards ratings. H1: There is a difference between consumers and experts regarding
level of agreement in standards ratings. For the majority of standards (n=110), there was
no statistically significant difference between consumers with disabilities and disability
inclusion experts. For some standards (n=24), there was a statistically significant
difference between consumers and experts regarding the standard’s importance to service
quality at the p<.05 level. The standards where inter-group agreement was not achieved
are outlined in table 4.7.
Table 4.7
Mann-Whitney U Test Between Expert and Consumer Groups on Standards where
Inter-group Agreement was not Achieved
Standard
U2
U4
U6
U12
R6
AT17
REL4
CC4
Mann-Whitney U
94.0
151.0
180.0
191.0
122.0
194.0
203.0
172.5
Wilcoxon W
274.0
427.0
456.0
467.0
398.0
519.0
479.0
448.5
Z
-4.212
-2.918
-2.286
-2.046
-3.890
-2.333
-1.960
-2.706
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.004
.022
.041
.000
.020
.050
.007
130 CC8
COM11
COM16
COM17
COM 24
S1
S2
S4
S10
S13
HC2
HC3
HC8
HC10
EE8
EE10
195.5
161.0
150.5
78.0
137.5
128.5
209.5
172.5
188.0
218.5
204.0
161.0
121.0
198.5
164.0
119.0
471.5
437.0
426.5
354.0
413.5
404.5
485.5
448.5
464.0
494.5
480.0
437.0
397.0
474.5
440.0
444.0
-2.516
-2.994
-3.083
-4.742
-3.812
-3.592
-2.121
-3.358
-2.221
-2.482
-2.033
-3.369
-3.720
-2.046
-2.689
-3.771
.012
.003
.002
.000
.000
.000
.034
.001
.027
.013
.042
.001
.000
.041
.007
.000
Reliability. Following completion of iteration three, Chronbach’s alpha was again
calculated to measure internal consistency of the third questionnaire. For the group of
disability inclusion experts, alpha was .99. For the group of consumers with disabilities,
alpha was .97. The closer that Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is to 1.0, the greater the
internal consistency of the items in the scale. These findings indicated a high level of
internal consistency for both versions of the iteration three questionnaires.
Answers to Research Questions
During the development of this study, three research questions were posed. The
three questions and corresponding answers follow.
Research question one. What standards are important for service industry
businesses to adopt to improve service quality for consumers with disabilities, according
to consumers with disabilities?
Answer. According to consumers with disabilities, the standards that are
important to adopt include the 134 standards developed in this study represented by ten
service quality determinants and three tiers of importance (i.e., essential, critical, basic).
A significant level of agreement among consumers regarding the importance of the
standards developed in this study was established. It should be noted, however, that
131 consumers placed significantly more importance on two of the standards than did the
expert group. These standards were (a) service personnel assuming the same ability and
competence of a customer with a disability as they do with customers without disabilities,
and (b) having lowered access to storage areas for coats, boots, etc.
Research question two. What standards are important for service industry
businesses to adopt to improve service quality for consumers with disabilities, according
to disability inclusion experts?
Answer. According to disability inclusion experts, the standards that are important
to adopt include the 134 standards developed in this study represented by ten service
quality determinants and three tiers of importance (i.e., essential, critical, basic). A
significant level of agreement among experts regarding the importance of the standards
developed in this study was established. It should be noted, however, that experts placed
significantly more importance on twenty-two of the standards than did the consumer
group. These standards included standards related to (a) disability awareness, (b)
disability rights, (c) models of disability, (d) involvement of people with disabilities in
training programs, (e) business membership to disability-related professional
organizations, (f) response time-tracking, (g) follow-through, (h) provision of support
materials, (i) awareness of inclusive policies and procedures, (j) communication of
accessibility malfunctions, (k) display racks, (l) accessibility symbol on signage, (m)
videos/webcasts/webinars, (n) individualized alerts, (o) emergency planning, (p)
contingency plans, (q) warning signals, currency exchange, (r) patience, (s) privacy, (t)
priority entrance & seating, (u) offering choice and (v) assistance with carrying items.
132 Research question three. What standards are important for service industry
businesses to adopt to improve service quality for consumers with disabilities, according
to consumers with disabilities and disability subject matter experts combined?
Answer. According to disability inclusion experts and consumers with disabilities
combined, the standards that are important to adopt include the 134 standards developed
in this study represented by ten service quality determinants and three tiers of importance
(i.e., essential, critical, basic). A significant level of agreement among experts and
consumers combined offers confidence that the 134 standards developed through this
study are essential, critical, or basic to service quality.
133 Chapter 5
Summary, Discussion and Recommendations
Business standards for improving service quality for customers with disabilities
were developed over the course of one year. Research commenced with a literature
review and environmental scan during the Spring and Summer of 2012. The study’s
methodology was developed during Fall 2012 and institutional review and committee
approval was received in early Spring 2013. Two pilot studies, three iterations of the
Delphi methodology and data analysis were completed across a five-month period
between early Spring and Summer 2013. Final rankings of the standards were completed
during Summer 2013.
The standards were developed in an attempt to fill service quality gaps found in
the literature, as well as offer guidance to businesses that are interested in attracting,
serving and retaining customers with disabilities through improved customer service.
Given the lack of service quality literature pertaining to customers with disabilities, this
research was needed so that businesses can universally design their service policies,
procedures and practices to best serve the growing disability market. By offering
standards that reflect collective agreement and perspectives of disability inclusion experts
and consumers with disabilities, businesses are best able to position their services to
maximize service quality. The diversity of study’s participants related to areas of
inclusion expertise, service industry experience and types of disability also suggest that
the standards developed through this study will help to satisfy the service expectations of
the greatest number of people with the least need for accommodation which is the
primary goal of universal design (NCSU, 2012).
134 Pilot study and iteration one enabled participants to conceptualize and formulate
standards that could serve to stimulate thought and the evaluation of standard content as
to each standard’s importance for offering service quality. Pilot study two helped to
refine and clarify the second and third iteration questionnaire content. The rating scale
served to distinguish standards in terms of their relative importance to service quality and
assisted in data analysis and synthesis.
Delphi agreement was furthered through a combination of qualitative and
quantitative analysis based upon methodology gleaned from studies reviewed in related
literature and as outlined in Chapter Three. Care was taken to follow an established and
rigorous method for performing the content analysis using Mayring’s (2000) deductive
category application procedure and ensuring that inter-coder reliability was acceptable.
Non-parametric statistics, as suggested by Stines (2003), offered the most appropriate
ordinal data analysis and assisted with discerning agreement between and within Delphi
groups.
For both iteration two and iteration three, statistical support for intra-group
agreement was evident. Hypotheses 1–3 were supported following iteration two and
hypotheses 5–8 were supported following iteration three demonstrating both intra- and
inter-group agreement. The Mann-Whitney U test indicated some differences between
participant group ratings of standards, although differences were minimal. Kendall’s W
values demonstrated agreement across iterations two and three, as well as increases in
agreement between iterations two and three. These findings suggest that the Delphi
methodology encouraged agreement as the process proceeded.
Krippendorf’s Alpha and measures of internal consistency provided support for
the strength of the content analysis and the survey instruments. The strength of reliability
135 is likely due to the implementation of pilot study one and two. The feedback received
from the each pilot study served to improve the questionnaire directions, standard
categories, operational definitions, rating scale, and survey length. The use of pilot
studies, as recommended by Gliddon (2006), is supported by this study.
Summary
The development of business standards for improving service quality for
customers with disabilities resulted in 134 standards ranked into three tiers of importance:
(a) essential, (b) critical, and (c) basic. Most standards developed were rated as essential
to service quality (n= 76), followed by critical (n= 54), and basic (n= 4), respectively. A
summary of the standards and tiers will be presented in two formats. First, the standards
will be presented by service quality determinant category and tier rankings. Second, the
standards will be synthesized and then summarized into a more holistic, less
compartmentalized, format. This format will offer businesses a more tangible
understanding of the study’s findings that can be more practically applied to improve
service quality for customers with disabilities.
Summary of standards by service quality determinant. To summarize the
standards developed within each service determinant category, a text summary is
provided, followed by a table that includes each standard and its corresponding
description. Each standard is also listed according to its tier ranking and numerical mean
rank.
Understanding/knowing the customer. For understanding/knowing the
customer, Delphi participants identified 13 service standards that would improve service
quality for customers with disabilities (see table 5.1). Essential standards included a need
to provide employee training during employee orientation that incorporates learning
136 about hidden disabilities, myths and misconceptions, disability-appropriate approaches to
engagement and the return on investment for attracting and retaining people with
disabilities in their business. It was also deemed essential to involve people with
disabilities in the employee orientation to expose employees to people with disabilities.
Critical standards included providing training to every level of management and offering
training regarding disability models and characteristics of various disabling conditions. It
was also suggested that disability simulations be utilized during the training programs
and that business adopt a plan for attracting and retaining customers with disabilities.
Basic standards included training on disability rights and possessing business
membership to professional organizations that address disability and inclusion issues.
Table 5.1
Service Quality Standards: Understanding/Knowing the Customer
Standard
Essential
Employee Orientation
Description
Rank
Inclusive customer service training is provided within new employee orientation.
2.29
Hidden Disabilities
Training is provided on how to interact with and offer inclusive services to
customers with disabilities that are not readily visible.
2.31
Exposure
The company involves people with disabilities in training programs.
2.42
Disability-appropriate approaches
Training is provided on disability-appropriate approaches to engaging customers
with disabilities in programs and services.
2.53
Return on Investment
The company understands of the ROI for attracting and retaining people with
disabilities for their business.
2.63
Myths & Misconceptions
Training is provided regarding common myths and misperceptions of individuals
with disabilities.
3.09
The company has a business plan to attract and retain the disability and aging
market.
3.33
Training
Training regarding serving customers with disabilities is offered to all employees, at
every level of management, and to third parties, who act on behalf of the business.
3.36
Simulations
The company includes disability simulations as part of their customer service
training protocol.
3.57
Models of Disability
Training is provided on the various models of disability (e.g., medical, social).
4.71
Disability Awareness
Training is provided regarding characteristics/types of various disabling conditions.
4.74
Professional Associations
The company has a membership to professional organizations that address disability
and inclusion issues.
5.68
Disability Rights
Training is provided on the history of disability rights.
6.05
Critical
Disability Market
Basic
137 Responsiveness. Participants identified 10 service standards that would help
businesses be more responsive to the needs of customers with disabilities (see table 5.2).
Essential standards included having a mission statement that demonstrates a commitment
to serving people with disabilities, a universally accessible process for receiving and
responding to complaints, and reasonable response time to requests for accommodations.
Critical standards related to tracking response time to requests, resolving problems,
strategic plans that incorporate goals for universal access, approaching and assisting
customers, and monitoring accessible parking areas for possible violations. No basic
standards were identified for this service quality category.
Table 5.2
Service Quality Standards: Responsiveness
Standard
Essential
Mission Statement
Complaints
Request Response
Critical
Response Tracking
Problem Resolution
Strategic Plans
Monitor Parking
Helping
Approach
Access Problems
Description
Rank
Companies should include a commitment to serving customers with disabilities in
their mission statement.
2.49
The company has a universally accessible process (offered in alternative formats)
for receiving and responding to complaints.
2.74
Businesses respond to requests for accommodation within an agreed upon and
"reasonable" time frame.
The company has a system that tracks response time to customer requests.
2.96
3.05
Businesses attempt resolve customer problems/complaints with one
transaction/interaction.
3.09
Strategic plans incorporate goals and objectives for addressing universal access to
business products & services.
3.37
The company monitors appropriate use of handicapped/accessible parking spaces
and notify authorities or violations.
3.50
When observing a customer having difficulty, service personnel approach the
customer and ask if he/she needs assistance.
3.58
Business personnel will approach customers immediately upon arrival to discern
their needs.
3.80
Personnel respond to problems with accessibility to products/services
immediately (or as soon as feasible).
4.39
138 Access and tangibles. The access and tangibles service quality determinant
category produced 22 standards (see table 5.3), the largest number of standards, second to
communication. Essential standards in this category addressed both physical access, as
well as access to service personnel and information. Physical access standards addressed
accessible entrances, service routes, snow and ice removal, transportation, surface
maintenance, service desks, product and service placement, parking and provision of
alternatives to physical access. Personnel access standards addressed the need for
personnel to be approachable and have a positive can do attitude. Information access
standards required that websites meet W3C WAI accessibility compliance standards and
that information technology personnel are apprised of and educated on current access
standards. Critical standards addressed making scooters/wheelchairs and generic adaptive
equipment available, providing employee training on ADA-related legislation, and the
need for any software and technology used by the company, or any third party, to be
accessible and usable individuals with disabilities.
Table 5.3
Service Quality Standards: Access and Tangibles
Standard
Essential
Accessible Entrances
Maintenance
Website Access
Accessible entrances are be clearly marked with signage.
All accessible features of the service environment (e.g., ramps, platform lifts,
automatic doors, public TTYs) are maintained on a regularly scheduled (and as
needed) basis.
All websites, and third party sites that offer services on behalf of the company,
will meet accessibility standards set by W3C WAI standards.
Rank
1.32
1.33
1.37
Accessible Routes
All service routes are accessible, and free of debris and other removable barriers.
Anti-slip Surfaces
All accessible routes are free of slippery surfaces (e.g., loose rugs, wet areas)
Service Environments
All service environments meet compliance standards outlined under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
2.33
Employees demonstrate a positive "can do" attitude when working with any
customer.
2.37
The company has a plan for maintaining all adaptive/specially designed equipment
used in service provision.
2.41
Attitude
Equipment Maintenance
Description
2.24
2.24
139 Service Desks
Barriers
Transportation
Service desks have a lower and clear space for interactions with customers who
use wheelchairs.
2.46
Customer service personnel are trained to recognize and remove service barriers in
the service environment.
2.49
All transportation available to customers includes accessible transportation
options.
Snow/Ice Removal
External access routes are prioritized for snow and ice removal.
Product Placement
Products and services are placed within reach ranges specified in ADAAG.
Adjacent Parking
Service areas are adjacent to handicapped/accessible parking areas.
Product/Service Access
All business products and services can be accessed through multiple channels
(e.g., websites, in-person, email, virtual assistance, telephone, chat/instant
messaging).
Websites
Alternative to Physical Access
Critical
Scooters/Wheelchairs
Legislation
Computer Technologies
Coat Closets
Provision of Generic Equipment
2.56
2.58
2.59
2.78
The company's IT department is educated about the need for accessible websites
and all associated compliance requirements.
2.79
Alternatives to physically accessing a service environment to obtain assistance
(e.g., email, virtual assistant) are offered.
2.91
In large service environments, scooters and wheelchairs are available for
temporary use by customers.
3.02
Employees are educated regarding all applicable laws & legislation (ADA, ABA,
Section 504, HIPAA, etc.)
3.46
All computer technologies, including third party applications used by the business,
are accessible and usable to individuals with disabilities.
3.49
Areas where coats, backpacks, boots, etc. are stored should have lowered areas for
customer access.
3.89
Generic equipment often used by customers with disabilities (e.g., reaching tool
for grasping products, disposable magnifiers, beach wheelchairs) is made
available.
Reliability. To meet customers’ expectations for reliability, participants identified
a total of seven standards (see table 5.4). Essential standards included a need for
companies to conduct on-going disability impact and service quality assessments to
determine service gaps and develop service quality improvement plans. Websites need to
be rigorously evaluated on an on-going basis, and accessible strategies for seeking
service quality feedback from customers need to be established. Finally, when any
changes to policies, procedures, or practices take place that may affect service quality,
employees need to receive training on the changes. Critical standards included following
through on commitments to accommodate customers and a need to offer consistency
across all company locations. No basic standards were identified for offering reliability.
2.5
3.91
140 Table 5.4
Service Quality Standards: Reliability
Standard
Description
Rank
Essential
Assessment
Access Audits
Evaluation & Metrics
Consistency of Training
Business will conduct disability impact and service quality
assessments/evaluations on an on-going basis.
2.41
The business conducts comprehensive accessibility assessments to determine
service gaps and develop accessibility improvement plans.
2.71
There is an accessible strategy for obtaining feedback from customers regarding
service quality (e.g., focus groups, surveys, interviews, mystery shopper
program).
Customer service training is offered on an on-going and consistent basis (and
more often when there are changes in policies, procedures and/or practices that
affect customer service).
Website Evaluation
Websites are consistently and rigorously evaluated for accessibility on an ongoing basis.
Follow-through
Businesses will follow-through with intended actions expressed to customers
regarding accommodation requests.
2.88
2.91
2.95
Critical
Service Consistency
Businesses ensure that customer service practices at one location are consistent
across all of the company's service environments.
Competence and credibility. The competence and credibility category yielded 12
standards (see table 5.5). Essential standards require that personnel from all levels of the
organization receive inclusive customer service training, including training on service
ethics. Standards also require that personnel know how to make accommodations and
modifications to products and services, are aware of policies and procedures related to
inclusive service, and that personnel are aware of and know how to use assistive
technology (e.g., TTY). Critical standards included recruiting and hiring personnel who
have demonstrated competence working with individuals with disabilities, offering peer
mentoring, and having a go to person (or group of individuals) who are knowledgeable
about disability inclusion to lend support to personnel and customers. Critical standards
also included having support materials and resources readily available to employees and
creating an incentive program to reward employees who provide exemplary customer
service. It was also suggested that companies establish partnerships with disability-
3.19
3.37
related organizations to support their inclusive efforts. No basic standards were
141 established.
Table 5.5
Service Quality Standards: Competence and Credibility
Standard
Description
Rank
Essential
Company Culture
Accommodations
Personnel from all levels of the organization receive inclusive customer
service training.
2.41
Personnel know how to make accommodations to products and services for
customers with disabilities.
2.49
Ethics
Training is provided on customer service ethics.
Inclusive Policy & Procedures
Service personnel are aware of policies and procedures related to inclusive
service practice.
2.65
Service personnel are aware of the possible modifications that they can make
within their service area/environment.
2.99
Available Accommodations
2.50
Assistive Technology
Service personnel are aware of and learn how to use assistive technology
(e.g., TTY/TDD, TRS).
Support Materials
Support materials (e.g., examples of common accommodations) are available
to service personnel.
3.02
The business actively recruits and hires customer service employees who
have competence working with individuals who have disabilities.
3.43
3.00
Critical
Human Capital
Partnership
"Go-to" Employees
Employee Peer Mentoring
Employee Incentives
The business has developed partnerships with disability-related organizations
to assist with activities (e.g., assessments, program evaluation, training) that
promote service quality.
The company has a designated "go to" individual (or group of individuals)
knowledgeable about disability inclusion to offer support to customers and
personnel.
Peer mentoring is provided to increase employee knowledge and competence
in serving customers with disabilities.
There is an employee incentive program to reward employees who
demonstrate exemplary customer service to individuals with disabilities.
Communication. Communication was the service determinant category that
resulted in the largest number of standards (see table 5.6). Twenty-five standards,
including 15 essential, 9 critical, and 1 basic standard were established. Essential
standards included standards regarding how personnel communicate with customers both
verbally and in writing, through signage, via websites (including video, webcasts,
webinars), through assistive technology, when customers use service animals, and when
accessible features of service or service environment are not working. Also included was
3.57
3.62
3.84
4.88
142 a desire to see employees with disabilities in the workplace, perhaps to communicate
non-verbally the company’s commitment to inclusion. Critical standards included having
signage that directs a customer with a disability to assistance if needed, communicating
positive language and images in marketing materials, and informing customers of what
types of assistance (e.g., assistive technology, personal assistance) are offered by the
business. The one Basic standard suggested was that companies offer pagers to
customers with disabilities who can then solicit assistance within the service environment
(e.g., store, park) when needed.
Table 5.6
Service Quality Standards: Communication
Standard
Description
Rank
Essential
Employment
Website Feedback
Visual Representation
2.33
All websites include a feedback portal for customer feedback about
website accessibility.
2.37
All images and graphics of customers with disabilities present a positive
and realistic representation of individuals with disabilities.
2.41
Clear Signage
Accessibility signage includes both writing and a graphic.
Direct Communication
Service personnel communicate directly with a customer who has a
disability, rather than their companion or caregiver when feasible.
2.54
The company provides multiple formats for registration or enrollment in
service offerings.
2.54
Registration/Enrollment
Type-Talk Devices
Signage for Assistance Request
People-First
American Sign Language
Business Literature
Videos/Webcasts/Webinars
The business employs individuals with disabilities in professional
positions to demonstrate a commitment to disability and inclusion.
Service desks/kiosks have a TTY/TDD, Instant Messaging (IM
capability), VRS, or other communication option to serve deaf customers
who are physically on- or off-site.
A sign indicating what customers who need assistance should do to
require assistance is posted at or just inside the entrance to the service
environment.
2.53
2.57
2.67
Employees are trained on how to use "person-first" terminology in verbal
and written communications.
2.70
Training is be provided on American Sign Language to communicate to
deaf individuals.
2.75
All business literature is available in alternative formats, (e.g., verbally
stating information, TTY, amplified volume, magnified/enlarged font).
2.75
All customer-related videos, webcasts, webinars, etc. are closedcaptioned and provide audio-description for customers with sensory
problems.
2.76
143 Service Animals
Communicating Malfunctions
Training is provided on how to interact with customers who use service
animals.
2.83
Business will have a mechanism for notifying customers when accessible
features of the business are not working.
2.98
Positive Language
Service personnel use positive, non-paternalistic, language when
communicating with customers.
Display racks/shelves
High display racks or shelves have signage that directs a customer who
needs assistance to personnel who can assist.
3.47
All accessibility-related signage displays the International Symbol of
Accessibility.
3.50
2.99
Critical
Accessibility Symbol
Marketing Materials
Marketing materials include information on a commitment to serving
people of all abilities, a contact person, and multiple contact options for
requesting assistance/accommodation.
3.58
Inclusion/Accommodation
Statement
Entrance to the service environment displays a statement that the
business welcomes individuals of all abilities and information (including
contact information) on how to request assistance, if needed.
Marketing Accommodations
The availability of assistive devices/technology should be displayed in
company literature, websites, and appropriate marketing materials.
3.75
All accessibility features (and accessibility limitations) are prominently
communicated on the company's homepage.
3.90
An outdoor intercom is available for customers who may need assistance
entering a service environment.
4.07
Accessibility Features
Intercom Service
3.68
Communicate Service Quality
Performance
The company measures and publishes their service quality performance
in areas that are accessible to customers with disabilities (e.g., annual
reports, websites).
Interaction
Training is provided to personnel on how to communicate and interact
with individuals with different types of disabilities.
4.60
Service Pager
Customers are offered a universally designed accessible service pager
that they can use to solicit assistance when needed.
5.83
4.32
Basic
Humaneness and courtesy. The service determinant category regarding
humaneness and courtesy yielded a total of 15 standards (see table 5.7). Essential
standards included standards that require respect for personal property, personal space,
privacy, service animals, and equipment. Essential standards also included offering
referrals or warm hand-offs when the company cannot meet the customer’s needs, using
proper disability etiquette and rest areas/private spaces for addressing disability-related
needs. Critical standards included offering patience and assistance with carrying
merchandise when needed, keeping service environments clean and free of debris,
offering priority entrance/seating, staggering service offerings throughout the day and
144 removing or minimizing emotional triggers from service environments. Basic standards
included offering supplies to clean off disability-related equipment (e.g., wheelchairs,
canes) at the entrance to the service environment.
Table 5.7
Service Quality Standards: Humaneness & Courtesy
Standard
Essential
Description
Rank
Personal Space
Service personnel respect a customer's personal space, including any mobility or
assistive equipment utilized by the customer.
2.20
Respect for Equipment/Service
Animals
Personnel refrain from removing, touching or handling a customer's personal
equipment and/or service animals without the customer’s prior permission.
2.29
Personal Property
All customers’ personal property is handled with respect and safely secured, as
appropriate.
2.37
Referral
Businesses that are not able to accommodate a customer should provide a "warm
hand-off" to an appropriate referral source.
2.41
Referral Sources
Service personnel are offered referral sources and instructed on how to offer a
"warm hand-off" when needs cannot be met through accommodation.
2.53
Privacy
A private room/space is provided where customer with disabilities can take care of
any disability-related issues/needs.
2.64
Disability Etiquette
Business personnel use appropriate disability etiquette when interacting with
and/or talking about customers with disabilities.
2.74
Rest Areas
Service areas have benches or areas where a customer with a disability can rest.
2.83
Patience
Service personnel will offer customers the time to communicate their needs and/or
perform desired tasks.
3.07
Carrying Merchandise
Service personnel offer customers assistance with carrying package or large
merchandise.
3.28
Cleanliness
Companies keep service environments, including restrooms, clear of debris and
access barriers.
3.51
Priority Entrance & Seating
Customers with disabilities are offered earlier entrance to events/venues/facilities
to secure a space that is safe and appropriate for service engagement.
3.55
Varying Times
Programs and services are staggered so that they occur at various times throughout
the day.
3.96
Triggers
Service environments are free of potential "triggers" such as loud music and noise,
closed doors, etc.
4.40
Cleaning Supplies
Companies offer supplies to clean off wheelchairs, canes, hands, etc. at the
entrance to the service environment.
5.91
Critical
Basic
Security. The service determinant category for security resulted in 14 standards
(see table 5.8). Essential standards included consulting regularly with local emergencies
preparedness agencies, having evacuation chairs for multiple floor facilities, and having
145 employees practice emergency drills for evacuating people with disabilities, having
multiple accessible exits and having a contingency plan when elevators are not working.
Essential standards also included making sure all staff are wearing staff identification,
having visual, as well as audible emergency warning signals, and employee training on
how to lift/handle customers with disabilities in the case of an emergency. Finally,
essential standards also require that employees abide by all privacy laws (e.g., HIPAA)
secure all business records, and provide a second employee to observe and confirm
transactions between the organization and any customer who is blind. Critical standards
included making sure that the organization has emergency policies and procedures that
include provisions for customers with disabilities and ensuring that employees are trained
on these policies and procedures. Critical standards also require that organizations have
an individualized system (e.g., text alerts) for alerting customers to emergencies and that
organizations with large service environments offer a personal escort service to ensure
that customers reach their cars, bus, ride or service destinations safely.
Table 5.8
Service Quality Standards: Security
Standard
Essential
Emergency Drills
Description
Rank
All business employees participate in practice drills for accommodating and
evacuating customers with disabilities.
2.29
Warning Signals
All auditory signals warning of an emergency will have a visual equivalent,
and vice versa.
2.32
Staff Identification
Staff are clearly delineated by a company uniform, readable name tag (large
print) or some other form of consistent company identification.
2.36
Evacuation Chair
Businesses with service environments on multiple floors have at least one
evacuation-chair that is maintained and available for emergency evacuations, in
addition to other pertinent evacuation supplies/equipment.
2.37
Accessible Exits
Businesses have more than one accessible exit in the case of an emergency.
2.41
Currency Exchange
When exchanging money with someone who is blind, the company provides a
second employee who will observe and concur with the transaction.
2.56
Emergency Consultation
Businesses consult regularly with local emergency preparedness agencies on
safety/evacuation procedures.
2.57
Privacy of Records/Transactions
The business abides by all laws (e.g., HIPAA) when using, sharing, and
securing customer-related information.
2.66
146 Contingency Plan
The company has a contingency plan when accessible features (e.g., elevators,
doors) are malfunctioning.
2.89
Lifting/Handling Customers
Business employees receive training on the appropriate handling and lifting of
customers with disabilities in the case of an emergency.
2.90
Emergency Planning
Training is provided on emergency polices and procedures that
includes alerting, accommodating and/or evacuating customers with
disabilities.
3.46
Individualized
Emergency Alert
The company has an individualized notification system (e.g., textalert) to alert of any emergencies within their service environment.
3.65
Evacuation Policy
The business will establish policies and procedures for evacuating
individuals with disabilities in light of an emergency.
4.40
Safety Escorts
Large service environments offer an escort service to ensure that
customers reach their car, bus, ride, service destination, etc. safely.
4.50
Critical
Enablement and empowerment. The enablement and empowerment service
quality determinant category yielded 10 standards (see table 5.9). No critical or basic
standards were established. Essential standards included setting and clarifying
expectation for service, engaging customers in all aspects of the service process, asking
customers regarding their needs, offering choice of products and services, and ensuring
websites can be manipulated to meet personal preferences or technology needs.
Standards also required service personnel to assume the customer has the ability to
engage in the service, offer customer peer mentors or personal shoppers when needed,
and monitor the customer’s ability to navigate and utilize the service environment.
Table 5.9
Service Quality Standards: Enablement and Empowerment
Standard
Description
Rank
Essential
Clarification of Expectations
Sets Expectations
Customer Engagement
Asking
Customer Peer Mentoring
Service personnel clarify customer expectations of the service prior to service
provision.
3.24
Businesses communicate the expected response time to customer requests for
assistance and ask customers what time frame they need.
3.34
Individuals with disabilities are involved in all phases of the service process,
including policy and procedure development, strategic planning, change
management, marketing, information sharing, etc.
Business personnel always ask the customer if they can assist the customer in
anyway to discern the customers’ need/desire for assistance.
Peer mentoring is offered to customers with disabilities to assist with service
engagement.
3.45
3.46
3.47
147 Assumptions
Personal Shopper
Service Technology
Choice
Monitor
Company personnel assume the same ability and competence from a customer
with a disability as they do from any other customer.
3.58
The business offers a "personal shopper" (upon request) to assist customers with
disabilities throughout the service environment.
3.75
All service technology allows customers to independently increase volume, font
size, contrast, etc. to enable access.
4.04
Businesses present options with respect to products and services to offer
customer choice.
4.06
Service personnel observe customers to discern the customer's ability to navigate
the service environment and/or need for assistance.
4.17
Equity. The final service quality category was equity (see table 5.10). Six
standards were established related to equity and all were considered essential. No
standards were ranked as critical or basic. Essential standards included offering services
in the most integrated setting, in the same time frame, following the same practices and
procedures and charging the same fees as other customers. Additionally, essential
standards required that maps of accessible entrances and routes be offered to customers at
business entrances (in alternative formats) and that financial resources be dedicated to
supporting the inclusion of customers with disabilities in all programs and services.
Table 5.10
Service Quality Standards: Equity
Standard
Description
Rank
Essential
Response Time
Personnel respond to customers with disabilities request for assistance in the same
time frame as offered to other customers.
2.25
Service Offerings
Services are offered in the most integrated setting as possible.
2.42
Service Practice Equity
All customer service practices followed for individuals without disabilities are
also followed when providing customer service to people with varying abilities.
2.49
Equal Fees
Businesses charge the same fees for services, even when providing an
accommodation, as is charged to all other customers.
2.61
Maps of Accessible Routes
Maps of accessible routes are available at business entrances in alternative
formats (e.g., large print, audio).
2.75
Financial Support
The company has designated financial support for the inclusion of customers with
disabilities in its programs and services.
2.88
When evaluating the percentage of standards that were developed and rated for each of
the ten service quality determinants, communication yielded almost one-fifth of the total
148 number of standards developed (19%), followed by access and tangibles (16%). This finding
suggests that a large part of what determines whether a customer with disability receives quality
customer service depends upon the quality of communication between the customer and the
service organization or service personnel. This finding also suggests that access to products,
programs, and services is almost equally important. The implications for the service-related
businesses is that prioritization should be place upon closing standards gaps in communication
and access and tangibles in order have the greatest impact on improving service quality.
Enabling & Empowerment 7% Humanenss & Courtesy 11% Equity 5% Understanding/
Knowing the Customer 10% Responsiveness 8% Access & Tangibles 16% Security 10% Communication 19% Reliability 5% Competence & Credibility 9% Figure 5.1. Percentage of standards by service determinant category.
Summary of standards from holistic perspective. As earlier stated, in an effort to
examine the study’s findings from a more holistic and practical perspective, standards were
grouped into 19 areas of business operations and management. Each standard is presented with
its associated tier ranking and service quality determinant. By presenting the results in such a
way, business leaders are able to discern how the standards fit within everyday business
operations. This approach enables business leaders to better determine standard gaps and plan
appropriate intervention strategies. It is important to note that no accepted research
149 methodology was used to assign the standards to each of the categories. Standards were
assigned based upon thematic similarities noted by the researcher in an effort to offer a more
tangible summary of the results (see table 5.11).
Level of
Importance
Service
Quality
Determinant
Process
Inclusive customer service training is provided within new employee
orientation.
E
U
The company involves people with disabilities in training programs.
E
U
Training regarding serving customers with disabilities is offered to all
employees, at every level of management, and to third parties, who act
on behalf of the business.
C
U
The company includes disability simulations as part of their customer
service training protocol.
C
U
Personnel from all levels of the organization receive inclusive customer
service training.
E
CC
E
U
Training is provided on disability-appropriate approaches to engaging
customers with disabilities in programs and services.
E
U
Training is provided regarding common myths and misperceptions of
individuals with disabilities.
E
U
C
U
Training is provided regarding characteristics/types of various disabling
conditions.
C
U
Training is provided on the history of disability rights.
B
U
Customer service personnel are trained to recognize and remove service
barriers in the service environment.
E
AT
The company's IT department is educated about the need for accessible
websites and all associated compliance requirements.
E
AT
Employees are educated regarding all applicable laws & legislation
(ADA, ABA, Section 504, HIPAA, etc.)
C
AT
E
REL
Table 5.11
Holistic Representation of Service Standards
Standard
Training
Content
Training is provided on how to interact with and offer inclusive services
to customers with disabilities that are not readily visible.
Training is provided on the various models of disability (e.g., medical,
social).
Customer service training is offered on an on-going and consistent basis
(and more often when there are any changes in policies, procedures
and/or practices that affect customer service).
150 Personnel know how to make accommodations to products and services
for customers with disabilities.
E
CC
Training is provided on customer service ethics.
E
CC
Service personnel are aware of policies and procedures related to
inclusive service practice.
E
CC
Service personnel are aware of the possible modifications that they can
make within their service area/environment.
E
CC
Service personnel are aware of and learn how to use assistive
technology (e.g., TTY/TDD, TRS).
E
CC
Employees are trained on how to use "person-first" terminology in
verbal and written communications.
E
COM
Training is provided on American Sign Language to communicate to
deaf individuals.
E
COM
Training is provided on how to interact with customers who use service
animals.
E
COM
Training is provided to personnel on how to communicate and interact
with individuals with different types of disabilities.
C
COM
All business employees participate in practice drills for accommodating
and evacuating customers with disabilities.
E
S
Business employees receive training on the appropriate handling and
lifting of customers with disabilities in the case of an emergency.
E
S
Training is provided on emergency polices and procedures that includes
alerting, accommodating and/or evacuating customers with disabilities.
C
S
The company has a business plan to attract and retain the disability and
aging market.
C
U
The company understands of the ROI for attracting and retaining people
with disabilities for their business.
C
U
The company has membership to professional organizations that address
disability and inclusion issues.
B
U
All service environments meet compliance standards outlined under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
E
AT
There is an accessible strategy for obtaining feedback from customers
regarding service quality (e.g., focus groups, surveys, interviews,
mystery shopper program).
E
REL
The business has developed partnerships with disability-related
organizations to assist with activities (e.g., assessments, program
evaluation, training) that promote service quality.
C
CC
The company has a designated "go to" individual (or group of
individuals) knowledgeable about disability inclusion to offer support to
customers and personnel.
C
CC
Peer mentoring is provided to increase employee knowledge and
competence in serving customers with disabilities.
C
CC
There is an employee incentive program to reward employees who
C
CC
Organization Leadership
151 demonstrate exemplary customer service to individuals with disabilities.
The company measures and publishes their service quality performance
in areas that are accessible to customers with disabilities (e.g., annual
reports, websites).
C
COM
A private room/space is provided where customer with disabilities can
take care of any disability-related issues/needs.
E
HC
Individuals with disabilities are involved in all phases of the service
process, including policy and procedure development, strategic
planning, change management, marketing, information sharing, etc.
E
EE
Peer mentoring is offered to customers with disabilities to assist with
service engagement.
E
EE
Businesses present options with respect to products and services to offer
customer choice.
E
EE
Services are offered in the most integrated setting as possible.
E
E
All customer service practices followed for individuals without
disabilities are also followed when providing customer service to people
with varying abilities.
E
E
Businesses charge the same fees for services, even when providing an
accommodation, as is charged to all other customers.
E
E
Companies should include a commitment to serving customers with
disabilities in their mission statement.
E
R
Strategic plans incorporate goals and objectives for addressing universal
access to business products & services.
C
R
The company has designated financial support for the inclusion of
customers with disabilities in its programs and services.
E
E
All auditory signals warning of an emergency will have a visual
equivalent, and vice versa.
E
S
Staff are clearly delineated by a company uniform, readable name tag
(large print) or some other form of consistent company identification.
E
S
Businesses with service environments on multiple floors have at least
one evacuation-chair that is maintained and available for emergency
evacuations, in addition to other pertinent evacuation
supplies/equipment.
E
S
Businesses have more than one accessible exit in the case of an
emergency.
E
S
Businesses consult regularly with local emergency preparedness
agencies on safety/evacuation procedures.
E
S
The business abides by all laws (e.g., HIPAA) when using, sharing, and
securing customer-related information.
E
S
The company has a contingency plan when accessible features (e.g.,
elevators, doors) are malfunctioning.
E
S
The company has an individualized notification system (e.g., text-alert)
to alert of any emergencies within their service environment.
C
S
The business has policies and procedures for evacuating individuals
C
S
152 with disabilities in light of an emergency.
Large service environments offer an escort service to ensure that
customers reach their car, bus, ride, service destination, etc. safely.
C
S
The company has a universally accessible process (offered in alternative
formats) for receiving and responding to complaints.
E
R
All websites include a feedback portal for customer feedback about
website accessibility.
E
COM
Businesses respond to requests for accommodation within an agreed
upon and "reasonable" time frame.
E
R
The company has a system that tracks response time to customer
requests.
C
R
Alternatives to physically accessing a service environment to obtain
assistance (e.g., email, virtual assistant) are offered.
E
AT
Businesses will follow-through with intended actions expressed to
customers regarding accommodation requests.
C
REL
Personnel respond to customers with disabilities request for assistance in the
same time frame as offered to other customers.
E
E
Businesses attempt to resolve customer problems/complaints with one
transaction/interaction.
C
R
Personnel respond to problems with accessibility to products/services
immediately (or as soon as feasible).
C
R
The company monitors appropriate use of handicapped/accessible
parking spaces and notify authorities or violations.
C
R
Service areas are adjacent to handicapped/accessible parking areas.
E
AT
When observing a customer having difficulty, service personnel
approach the customer and ask if he/she needs assistance.
C
R
Business personnel will approach customers immediately upon arrival
to discern their needs.
C
R
Customers are offered a universally designed accessible service pager
that they can use to solicit assistance when needed.
B
COM
Service personnel offer customers assistance with carrying package or
large merchandise.
C
HC
Businesses communicate the expected response time to customer
requests for assistance and ask customers what time frame they need.
E
EE
Business personnel always ask the customer if they can assist the
customer in anyway to discern the customers’ need/desire for assistance.
E
EE
The business offers a "personal shopper" (upon request) to assist
customers with disabilities throughout the service environment.
E
EE
Customer Feedback
Accommodation Requests
Problem Resolution
Accessible Parking
Offering Assistance
Signage
153 Accessible entrances are be clearly marked with signage.
E
AT
Accessibility signage includes both writing and a graphic
representation.
E
COM
E
COM
High display racks or shelves have signage that directs a customer who
needs assistance to personnel who can assist.
C
COM
All accessibility-related signage displays the International Symbol of
Accessibility.
C
COM
Entrance to the service environment displays a statement that the
business welcomes individuals of all abilities and information
(including contact information) on how to request assistance, if needed.
C
COM
All accessible features of the service environment (e.g., ramps, platform
lifts, automatic doors, public TTYs) are maintained on a regularly
scheduled (and as needed) basis.
E
AT
All service routes are accessible, and free of debris and other removable
barriers.
E
AT
All accessible routes are free of slippery surfaces (e.g., loose rugs, wet
areas).
E
AT
The company has a plan for maintaining all adaptive/specially designed
equipment used in service provision.
E
AT
External access routes are prioritized for snow and ice removal.
E
AT
Companies keep service environments, including restrooms, clear of
debris and access barriers.
C
HC
Companies offer supplies to clean off wheelchairs, canes, hands, etc. at
the entrance to the service environment.
B
HC
All websites, and third party sites that offer services on behalf of the
company, will meet accessibility standards set by W3C WAI standards.
E
AT
All computer technologies, including third party applications used by
the business, are accessible and usable to individuals with disabilities.
C
AT
Websites are consistently and rigorously evaluated for accessibility on
an on-going basis.
E
REL
All accessibility features (and accessibility limitations) are prominently
communicated on the company's homepage.
C
COM
All service technology allows customers to increase independently
volume, font size, contrast, etc. to enable access.
E
EE
Employees demonstrate a positive "can do" attitude when working with
any customer.
E
AT
Service personnel communicate directly with a customer who has a
disability, rather than their companion or caregiver when feasible.
E
COM
A sign indicating what customers who need assistance should do to
request assistance is posted at or just inside the entrance to the service
environment.
Maintenance
Websites and Computer Technology
Service Personnel
154 Service personnel use positive, non-paternalistic, language when
communicating with customers.
E
COM
Service personnel respect a customer's personal space, including any
mobility or assistive equipment utilized by the customer.
E
HC
Personnel refrain from removing, touching or handling a customer's
personal equipment and/or service animals without the customer’s prior
permission.
E
HC
All customers’ personal property is handled with respect and safely
secured, as appropriate.
E
HC
Businesses that are not able to accommodate a customer should provide
a "warm hand-off" to an appropriate referral source.
E
HC
Business personnel use appropriate disability etiquette when interacting
with and/or talking about customers with disabilities.
E
HC
Service personnel will offer customers the time to communicate their
needs and/or perform desired tasks.
C
HC
Service personnel clarify customer expectations of the service prior to
service provision.
E
EE
Company personnel assume the same ability and competence from a
customer with a disability as they do from any other customer.
E
EE
Service personnel observe customers to discern the customer's ability to
navigate the service environment and/or need for assistance.
E
EE
When exchanging money with someone who is blind, the company
provides a second employee who will observe and concur with the
transaction.
E
S
Support materials (e.g., examples of common accommodations) are
available to service personnel.
E
HC
Service personnel are offered referral sources and instructed on how to
offer a "warm hand-off" when needs cannot be met through
accommodation.
E
HC
Service desks have a lower and clear space for interactions with
customers who use wheelchairs.
E
AT
Areas where coats, backpacks, boots, etc. are stored have lowered areas
for customer access.
C
AT
Service desks/kiosks have a TTY/TDD, Instant Messaging (IM
capability), VRS, or other communication option to serve deaf
customers who are physically on- or off-site.
E
COM
Service areas have benches or areas where a customer with a disability
can rest.
E
HC
Products and services are placed within reach ranges specified in
ADAAG.
E
AT
All business products and services can be accessed through multiple
channels (e.g., websites, in-person, email, virtual assistance, telephone,
chat/instant messaging).
E
AT
Resources
Service Provision Areas
Products & Service Access
155 All business literature is available in alternative formats (e.g., verbally
stating information, TTY, amplified volume, magnified/enlarged font).
E
COM
All customer-related videos, webcasts, webinars, etc. are closedcaptioned and provide audio-description for customers with sensory
problems.
E
COM
An outdoor intercom is available for customers who may need
assistance entering a service environment.
C
COM
Business will have a mechanism for notifying customers when
accessible features of the business are not working.
E
COM
Customers with disabilities are offered earlier entrance to
events/venues/facilities to secure a space that is safe and appropriate for
service engagement.
C
HC
Programs and services are staggered so that they occur at various times
throughout the day.
C
HC
Service environments are free of potential "triggers" such as loud music
and noise, closed doors, etc.
C
HC
Maps of accessible routes are available at business entrances in
alternative formats (e.g., large print, audio).
E
E
E
AT
In large service environments, scooters and wheelchairs are available
for temporary use by customers.
C
AT
Generic equipment often used by customers with disabilities (e.g.,
reaching tool for grasping products, disposable magnifiers, beach
wheelchairs) is made available.
C
AT
Business will conduct disability impact and service quality
assessments/evaluations on an on-going basis.
E
REL
The business conducts comprehensive accessibility assessments to
determine service gaps and develop accessibility improvement plans.
E
REL
Businesses ensure that customer service practices at one location are
consistent across all of the company's service environments.
C
REL
The business actively recruits and hires customer service employees
who have competence working with individuals who have disabilities.
C
CC
The business employs individuals with disabilities in professional
positions to demonstrate a commitment to disability and inclusion.
E
COM
All images and graphics of customers with disabilities present a positive
and realistic representation of individuals with disabilities.
E
COM
Marketing materials include information on a commitment to serving
people of all abilities, a contact person, and multiple contact options for
requesting assistance/accommodation.
C
COM
Transportation
All transportation available to customers includes accessible
transportation options.
Equipment
Assessment & Evaluation
Human Capital
Marketing & Advertising
156 The availability of assistive devices/technology should be displayed in
company literature, websites, and appropriate marketing materials.
C
COM
E
COM
Service Registration/Enrollment
The company provides multiple formats for registration or enrollment in
service offerings.
Note: C=essential, E=critical, B=basic. U=understanding/knowing the customer, AT=access and tangibles,
R=responsiveness, REL=reliability, COM=communication, S=security, HC=humaneness and courtesy, EE=enabling
and empowerment, E=equity.
Discussion
There were several observations made throughout and following the results of this
study worth further discussion. First, the fact that so many of the standards were deemed
essential may point to a belief that many businesses currently lack adequate service
standards that promote service quality for customers with disabilities. To exemplify,
numerous individuals contacted the researcher about this study and many commented on
the need for service standards. Many individuals also expressed hope that the standards
produced by this study would be embraced and utilized by businesses. The significant
interest, coupled with the fact that consumers and disability inclusion experts are
typically advocates for change that affects positively people with disabilities, may have
prompted more participants to rate the standards that they developed as of essential
importance.
Secondly, the number of standards originally created by participants resulted in a
significant number of redundant standards. This suggests some level of concordance
across the standards created prior to rating the standards. Moreover, the fact that many
people wrote similar or the same standards offers greater confidence in the validity of
standards established.
Third, the level of agreement among consumers and experts moved from weak to
moderate agreement when examining consumer and expert groups separately and
157 combined. The fact that the agreement level moved from weak to moderate, rather than
to a high level of agreement, is not particularly surprising. Given the diversity of the
participants with respect to service industry experience, expertise, and type of disability,
divergent opinions are expected. Perhaps, if a fourth iteration of the study had been
conducted, the level of agreement may have moved from moderate to high. Also, of
note, were the differences on the importance of some of the standards between the expert
and consumer groups. Although, the level of agreement among all participants combined
was significant, consumers and experts differed on the importance of several standards.
Because the disagreement was distributed across several service quality determinants, it
is difficult to surmise the reason for this disagreement. For example, do the differences
lie in the fact the some of the experts had a disability and some did not? Perhaps, those
experts who did have a disability believed that some standards were more important than
experts who did not have a disability. Further investigation is needed to determine the
reason for discordance.
Fourth, the standards established through this study are somewhat similar to the
service standards established through AODA in Canada (AODA; Ontario Ministry of
Community and Social Services, 2012), although there are many differences, as well. A
comparative analysis of both sets of standards including discussion of the similarities and
differences follows.
Similarities. When comparing the standards developed through this study with
those developed by AODA, several similarities emerged. These similarities related to
industry specification, dignity and respect, equal and integrated service provision, and
overall content.
158 Industry specification. Similar to the standards developed in this study, AODA’s
service standards are also not industry specific. The standards apply to any public
organization that is a provider of goods and services
Dignity and respect. In AODA’s standards, goods and services must be provided
in a manner that preserves the dignity and respect of the individual. This requirement
aligns with those standards that were developed with the humaneness and courtesy
service quality determinant in this study.
Equal and integrated service provision. In AODA’s standards, goods and
services must be integrated within the context of the service environment. This is similar
to the standards developed related to both the equity service quality determinant and the
enabling and empowerment service quality determinant. In this study the term integrated
was not used, but it is implied in the service determinant definition for equity which
requires that the same services provided to people without disabilities are also provided
for people with disabilities. Although it is possible to provide equal, but separate
services, to enable a person with a disability the ability to engage within a service
environment, the standards in this study were developed based upon the principles of
universal design. Universal design, by definition, implies integrated service provision as
a primary objective.
Content. The service standards developed in both instances addressed many of
the same concerns. In both sets of standards, provisions were made for service animals,
equal products and services, fee structures, assistive equipment, disruption of services,
and employee training.
Differences. When comparing the service standards developed for this study to
AODA’s service standards, many differences also surfaced. These differences related to
159 compliance, process, geography, number of employees, notification of standards, and
scope.
Compliance. While the standards developed through this study are not tied to any
federal, state, or local requirement, AODA is an Ontario regulation. Businesses who
choose to create more universally accessible customer service environments would have
to voluntarily adopt the standards established within this study, whereas in Ontario, it is
required.
Process. The process used to develop AODA’s standards was strategic and
involved many individuals and committees. To develop AODA’s service standards,
Standards Development Committees were established through public recruitment and,
subsequent selection by the Minister of Community Services. Representatives include
individuals from the business community, individuals with disabilities, a broader public
sector, and the Ontario Government. The Standards Development Committees propose
standards that may become regulations under the AODA (Ontario Ministry of
Community and Social Services, 2012). In contrast, the standards that were developed
for this study were based on previous standards development research (Rodriguez, 2001;
Schaaf, Stokking, & Verloop, 2008; Walsh, 2012;) and determinants of service quality
(Parusuraman, Zeithmal, & Berry, 1985; Vaughn & Shiu, 2001). This study also used an
accepted research Delphi methodology (Helmer & Dalkey, 1963) to develop and rank the
standards relative to their perceived importance to quality service provision.
Universal design. Although it is not clear what parameters were used for
developing AODA’s standards, the standards developed in this study were based upon
principles of universal design. The intention was to develop standards that would have
160 the broadest impact for the largest number of customers without the need for customers to
request accommodations or specialized assistance.
Number of employees. The AODA service standards required of organizations
depends on the size of the company and whether the company has more or less than 20
employees. The service standards in this study were not established with company size as
a determinant.
Notification of standards. The AODA requires that organizations make the
public aware that documents required by the regulation are available upon request by any
individual. Because the standards developed in this study are voluntary, no documents
indicating compliance are required.
Scope. While the AODA addressed similar service-related issues, the scope of
the AODA service standards was narrow. This finding can have both positive and
negative implications. A narrow set of standards may allow for ease of adoption by
businesses, resulting in more widespread impact for customers with disabilities.
Conversely, adopting a greater number of standards tied to service quality determinants,
as proposed in this study, may better improve customer service.
Recommendations
The service standards established through this study serve as the first known
attempt to develop service standards to improve service quality for customers with
disabilities within the U.S. As a result, several recommendations are offered. These
recommendations are directed to (a) academicians and researchers, (b) government and
policy-makers, (c) corporate/non-profit business leaders, and (d) organization
development professionals.
161 Academicians. For academicians, more research is required to understand better
the relationship between the service standards developed in this study and improved
service quality for consumers with disabilities. First, although a relationship between
standards gaps and service quality exists (Parasuraman et al., 1985), it is not known
whether adoption of the standards developed in this study will directly lead to improved
service quality for individuals with disabilities. Also, given the researcher’s intent to
develop service standards based upon concepts of universal design, it would be important
to examine whether or not adoption of these standards has a broader impact. For
example, would adoption of these standards contribute positively to service quality for all
customers, including those customers with disabilities?
Third, it would be interesting to examine the impact of service standard adoption
on attributes that contribute to business success. For example, is there a relationship
between standards’ adoption and purchasing behavior, brand loyalty, and/or word-ofmouth marketing? Does that relationship extend to family, friends, and/or caregivers? In
other words, what is the ROI of standards’ adoption? To determine the effect of service
standard adoption on service quality and other aspects of business success, more research
is needed.
Finally, it would be helpful to validate the service quality determinants used to
develop the service standards. Although, the service quality determinants used for this
study were based on previous research and validated by participants in this study, more
research is required to determine if the service quality determinants are valid across all
service environments and types of disability. Moreover, because inferential statistics were
not used to validate this study’s service quality determinants, the validity of the
determinants cannot be generalized beyond the participant sample. It is recommended
162 that this study be replicated and/or other studies be conducted to validate that the service
determinants used in this study accurately represent the attributes important for offering
service quality to consumers with disabilities.
Government and policy-makers. For government and policy makers, the
researcher recommends that the standards be used as a basis for further policy
development. Although the standards developed in this study can be used by businesses
via voluntary adoption, further consideration should be extended to examining a need for
developing and/or mandating standards implementation within government and private
businesses. As an example, ANSI might use these standards as a foundation for
initiating discussion and creating strategies to develop universal service standards that
can be adopted by specific service sectors. Moreover, the service standards established in
this study could be used as a foundation to build out standards more specific to service
industry sectors (e.g., transportation, hospitality).
Legislators may also look to the standards to augment and/or amend current
legislation aimed to create equitable service environments for individuals with
disabilities. For example, although the ADA has provided a solid foundation for creating
accessible and equitable service environments, it appears to lack standards that create fair
and equitable service to individuals with disabilities. Evidenced by the standards created
in this study, much of what is deemed as essential and critical to service quality for
individuals with disabilities falls outside of ADA standards. The additional knowledge
created through this study can serve as a basis for further policy development and
examination of current legislation. In addition to the ADA, other legislation aimed to
create fair and equitable practices (e.g., IDEA) could be examined to discern whether
standards related to service quality are included.
163 Business leaders. Within the business community, the standards established by
this study can serve as a framework for improving service quality. Given the relationship
between service quality and purchasing behavior (RADAR, 2012), business leaders
should examine their own policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that current
practices are aligned with those established within this study. If misalignment exists, it is
suggested that businesses modify or amend their standards to ensure that their service
practices meet the needs and expectations of all consumers, including customers with
disabilities.
It is important to note that the standards developed in this study should not replace
current service standards, but be integrated within current service standards of practice to
maximize service quality for people of all abilities. Again, the goal of universal design is
to create universally designed products, services and environments that are usable by all
people “to the greatest extent possible” without the need for specialized design or
adaptation (NCSU, 2012). Thus, it is expected that adoption of the standards developed in
this study will better position businesses to offer optimal service quality to the public at
large. Also, because it is known that customers with disabilities often bring family,
friends, and/or caregivers when purchasing products and services (Darcy, Cameron, &
Pegg, 2010), the adoption of universally designed standards could serve to further
increase a business’ customer base.
It is also recommended that businesses include disability metrics as part of the
customer service quality measurement practices. By offering customers the opportunity
to self-disclose disability and/or type during service quality evaluations, businesses will
be better able to discern if their current service standards are meeting the needs and
expectations of this market sector. A determined by this study, offering customer
feedback through accessible means is considered important to service quality. By
164 collecting and analyzing disability-related feedback, businesses can work to improve and
augment current service practices to meet and exceed customer expectations.
Finally, it is recommended that business leaders partner with other businesses and
organizations dedicated to attracting, serving, and retaining customers with disabilities.
By working with organizations, such as the United States Business Leadership Network
(USBLN), and networking with disability inclusion experts and individuals with
disabilities, businesses can refine their service approaches to maximize service quality,
while ensuring that their current service practices align with contemporary philosophies
and practices through benchmarking.
Organization development professionals. For organization development
professionals, it is recommended that the standards be used as a foundation for
implementing service quality improvement interventions. For example, the 134 standards
established in this study could be used as a basis for performing service quality gap
analyses to assess standard gaps within service-related businesses. Identification of gaps
could point to further intervention strategies such as the development of customer service
strategic plans, strategy implementation, training and development, and change
management interventions within the organizational environment. For organization
development professionals, helping businesses to integrate the service standards
established in this study into current business practices may serve to help businesses
improve their service quality. Priority could be placed on integration of essential
standards first, followed by critical and basic to produce the greatest impact.
The challenge for organization development professionals is to create awareness
of the need for businesses to integrate universally designed service standards. Given that
many companies do not examine customer satisfaction using disability as a metric
165 (Donovan, 2012), and the fact that much of the service industry is not aware of the
economic and organizational benefits of approaching business access from such a
universal perspective (Darcy, Cameron, & Pegg, 2010), many businesses may be reticent
to embrace organization development services and intervention. In order to bolster the
case for organization development services and intervention, organization development
professionals will be challenged to create business case examples exemplifying the ROI
of integrating universally designed standards of practice.
In conclusion, the findings of this study have far-reaching implications for
researchers, policy makers, business leaders, and organization development professionals.
With voluntary standards adoption, standards implementation, and further study, it is
anticipated that the results of this study could be mutually beneficial to businesses and
customers with disabilities alike. Improving service quality by closing standards gaps
may result in both increased service quality for consumers with disabilities and increased
revenue for businesses that opt to capitalize on a growing disability market. By creating
standards of practice that proactively respond to the needs and expectations of all
customers, businesses will be best prepared to attract, serve and retain customers with
and without disabilities, while positioning their businesses for a competitive advantage
and service quality success.
166 REFERENCES
Adams, S. J. (2001). Projecting the next decade in safety management: A Delphi
technique study. Professional Safety, 46(10), 26-29.
Akins, R., Tolson, H., & Cole, B. (2005). Stability of response characteristics of a Delphi
panel: application of bootstrap data expansion. BMC Medical Research
Methodology, 5(1), 37. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-5-37
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, C. A. (2007). Likert scales and data analyses. Quality Progress.
Retrieved from http://asq.org/quality-progress/2007/07/statistics/likert-scales-anddata-analyses.html
Al-Shammari, M. (Ed.). (2011). Customer-Centric Knowledge Management. IGI Global.
Retrieved from http://www.igi-global.com/book/customer-centric-knowledgeWmanagement/51939
American National Standards Institute (ANSI). (2012). United States Standards Strategy
(3rd ed.). Retrieved from
http://www.ansi.org/standards_activities/nss/usss.aspx?menuid=3#.UHLH8RiYN
American National Standards Institute (ANSI). (2012). Standards activities/American
national standards/procedures, guides and forms. Retrieved from http://
www.ansi.org
American National Standards Institute (ANSI, 2012). ANSI Historical Overview.
Retrieved from
http://www.ansi.org/about_ansi/introduction/history.aspx?menuid=1
Ayres, K., Douglas, K., Lowrey, K. A., & Sievers, C. (2012). The question still remains:
What happens when the curricular focus for students with severe disabilities
shifts? A reply to Courtade, Spooner, Browder, and Jimenez. Education and
167 Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47(1), 14-22.
Babakus, E., & Boller, G. W. (1992). An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale.
Journal of Business Research, 24(3), 253-268. doi:10.1016/0148-2963(92)900224
Babbie, E. R. (2009). The Practice of Social Research (12th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Beiger, T., & Rinklin, F. (2001). Services-standardization: Conditions and benefits of
standardized services. Contribution to DIN Conference, Normierundgen
services-standard for global markets. Germany, Berlin.
Bhattacharya, C. B., &, Sankar, S. (2004). When, why and how consumers respond to
corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47(1), 9-24.
Bickenbach, J. E. (1993). Physical disability and social policy. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press. Retrieved from http://www.getcited.org/pub/103149661
Bitner, M. J., Zeithmal, V. A. & Gremler, D. D. (2010). Technology’s impact on the gaps
model of service quality. In P. P. Maglio et al. (Eds.), Handbook of service
science: Research and innovations in the service economy, (pp. 197-218). NY:
Springer Science Business Media.
Blind, K. (2003). Standards in the service sectors: An explorative study. Final report for
DG Enterprise of the European Commission. Karlsruhe: ISI. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.199.7671&rep=rep1&t
ype=pdf
Booms, B. H., & Bitner, M. J. (1981). Marketing strategies and organization structures
for services firms. In J. Donnelly and W. George (Eds.) Marketing of Services
(pp. 47-51). Chicago IL: American Marketing Association.
Boyer, K. K., Olson, J. R., Calantone, R. J., & Jackson, E. C. (2002). Print versus
168 electronic surveys: A comparison of two data collection methodologies. Journal
of Operations Management, 20(4), 357-373.
Brisenden, S. (1986). Independent living and the medical model of disability. Disability,
Handicap & Society, 1(2), 173-178. doi:10.1080/02674648666780171
Brobst, J. L. (2011). Access denied: Improving federal policy on web accessibility.
Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,
48(1), 1–4. doi:10.1002/meet.2011.14504801307
Brodie, R. J., Glynn, M. S., & Little, V. (2006). The service brand and the servicedominant logic: Missing fundamental premise or the need for stronger theory?
Marketing Theory, 6(3), 363-379. doi:10.1177/1470593106066797
Brown, T. J., Churchill Jr., G. A., & Peter, J. P. (1993). Improving the measurement of
service quality. Journal of Retailing, 69(1), 127-139. doi:10.1016/S00224359(05)80006-5
Bruce, S. M., & Parker, A. T. (2012). Young deafblind adults in action: Becoming selfdetermined change agents through advocacy. American Annals of the Deaf,
157(1), 16-26. doi:10.1353/aad.2012.1607
Bryan, W. V. (2007). Multicultural aspects of disabilities: A guide to understanding and
assisting minorities in the rehabilitation process. Springfield, IL: Charles C
Thomas Publisher.
Buhalis, D. (2012). Best practice in accessible tourism: Inclusion, disability, ageing
population and tourism. London, UK: Channel View Publications.
169 Burgdorf, R. L. J. (1991). Americans with disabilities act: Analysis and implications of a
second-generation civil rights statute, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law
Review, 26, 413.
Busch, C., De Maret, P., Flynn, T., Kellum, R., Le, S., Metyers, B. . . . Palmquist, M.
(2012). Content analysis. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University. Retrieved
from http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/guide.cfm?guideid=61.
Burns, K. K., & Gordon, G. L. (2010). Analyzing the impact of disability legislation in
Canada and the United States. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20(4), 205218. doi:10.1177/1044207309344562
Businessdictionary.com (2012). Definition of service industry. Retrieved from
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/service-industry.html
Choudbury, V., & Sampler, J. L. (1997). Information specificity and environmental
scanning: An economic perspective. MIS Quarterly, 21(1), 25-53.
Chu, P. Y., & Wang, H. J. (2001). Benefits, critical process factors, and optimum
strategies of successful ISO 9000 implementation in the public sector: An
empirical examination of public sector services in Taiwan. Public Performance &
Management Review, 25(1), 105-121. doi:10.2307/3381172
Clapton, J., & Fitzgerald, J. (2012). The history of disability: A history of ‘otherness.’
The New Renaissance News, 7(1). Retrieved from http://www.ru.org/humanrights/the-history-of-disability-a-history-of-otherness.html
Clark, C. (1940). The conditions of economic progress. London, England: MacMillan.
Coco, K. J. (2010). Beyond the price tag: An economic analysis of title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy, 20, 58.
170 Costa, J. (1995). An empirically-based review of the concept of environmental scanning.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 7(7), 4.
Costa, J. & Teare, R. (2000). Developing an environmental scanning process in the hotel
sector. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12(3),
156-169.
Collins, G. T., & Phillips, P. J. (2011). Overview of reasonable accommodation and the
shifting emphasis from who is disabled to who can work. Hamline Law Review,
34, 469.
Court, D., Farrell, D., & Forsyth, J. E. (2007) Serving aging baby boomers. McKinsley
Quarterly. Retrieved from
http://www.mckinsey.com/Insights/MGI/Research/Americas/Serving_aging_baby
_boomers
Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination and
extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55–68. doi:10.2307/1252296
Crosby, L. A., Evans, K. R., & Cowles, D. (1990). Relationship quality in services
selling: An interpersonal influence perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54(3), 6881. doi:10.2307/1251817
Cyphert, F. R., & Gant, W. L. (1971). The Delphi technique: A case study. Phi Delta
Kappan, 52, 272-273.
Darcy, S., & Cameron, B. (2008). Accommodating tourism: Hotel accommodation,
accessible tourism and market principles–evidence-based research. Independent
Living: Official Journal of Independent Living Centres Australia, 24(4), 24-28.
171 Darcy, S., Cameron, B., & Pegg, S. (2010). Accessible tourism and sustainability: A
discussion and case study. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(4), 515-537.
doi:10.1080/09669581003690668
Davis-Sramek, B., Droge, C., Mentzer, J., & Myers, M. (2009). Creating commitment
and loyalty behavior among retailers: What are the roles of service quality and
satisfaction? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(4), 440–454.
doi:10.1007/s11747-009-0148-y
De Vries, H. (1997). Standardization: What's in a name? International Journal of
Theoretical and Applied Issues in Specialized Communication, 4(1), 55-83
Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D.H. (1975). Group techniques for
program planning: A guide to nominal group and delphi processes. Glenview, IL:
Foresman.
Deloitte Research (2006). Wealth with wisdom: Serving the needs of aging consumers.
Retrieved from
http://www. deloitte.com/dtt/cda/doc/content/ ca_cb_Aging%20Consumer_april_
06.pdf
Denzin, N. K. (1970). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological
methods. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Eysenbach, G., & Wyatt, J. (2002). Using the Internet for surveys and health research.
Journal of Medical Internet Research, 4(2), e13. doi:10.2196/jmir.4.2.e13
Federal Intra-agency Forum on Aging Statistics. (2012). Number of older Americans.
Retrieved from
http://www.agingstats.gov/agingstatsdotnet/Main_Site/Data/2012_Documents/
Population.aspx
German Institute for Standardization (DIN). (2006). The economic benefits of
172 standardization. Retrieved from
http://www.din.de/cmd?workflowname=dinSearch&languageid=en
Docking, D. S., & Dowen, R. J. (1999). Market interpretation of ISO 9000 registration.
Journal of Financial Research, 22(2), 147-60.
Donovan, R. (2012). The emerging giant. Big is not enough: The global economics of
disabilities. Retrieved from
http://www.thinkbeyondthelabel.com/Blog/file.axd?file=2012%2F5%2FThe+Glo
bal+Economics+of+Disability+2012.pdf
Eddey, G., & Robbey, K. (2005). Considering the culture of disability in cultural
competence education. Academic Medicine, 80(7), 706-712. Retrieved from
http://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Fulltext/2005/07000/Considering_the
_Culture_of_Disability_in_Cultural.19.aspx
Eiesland, N. L. (1994). The disabled God: Toward a liberatory theology of disability.
Nashville, TN: Abingdon. Retrieved from
http://www.getcited.org/pub/103175412
Encyclopaedia Judaica. (1972). (Vol. 4). Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House.
Farmer, E., & Rojewski, J. (2001). Research pathways. Lanham, MD: University Press
of America.
Feldblum, C., Barry, K. M., & Benfer, E. A. (2008). The ADA amendments Act of 2008.
SSRN eLibrary. Retrieved from
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2145409
Fisher, A. G. B. (1939). Production, primary, secondary and tertiary. Economic Record,
15(1), 24-38. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4932.1939.tb01015.x
Flores, M. (2006). Optimization of hotel reception and accommodation service
173 management for guests with disabilities. Review of Disability Studies, 2(2), 5863.
Fong, S. F., Ch’ng, P. E., Por, F. P., & Saada, A. H. A. (2011). The delphi technique: A
methodological tool to determine ICT competency standards. Global Learn Asia
Pacific, 2011(1), 865-874.
Foote, N. N., & Hatt, P. K. (1953). Social mobility and economic advancement. The
American Economic Review, 43, 364-378.
Franklin, B. (2012). Putting the cost of accessibility into perspective. Retrieved from
http://rollamile.com/seminars/putting_the_cost
of_accessibility_into_perspective.pdf
Funk, R., (1987). Disability rights: From castle to class in the context of civil rights. In A.
Gartner and T. Joe (Eds.), Images of the Disabled, Disabling Images. New York:
Praeger.
Gable, R. A., & Wolf, M. B. (1993). Instrument development in the affective domain:
Measuring attitudes and values in corporate and school settings. Boston, MA:
Kluwer Academic.
Gates, L. B., & Akabas, S. H. (2011). Inclusion of people with mental health disabilities
into the workplace: Accommodation as a social process. In I. Z. Schultz and E. S.
Rogers (Eds.), Work Accommodation and Retention in Mental Health (pp. 375–
391). New York, NY: Springer. Retrieved from
http://www.springerlink.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/content/w27t800239174w
35/abstract/
174 Gilpin, S. C., & Kalafatis, S. P. (1995). Book review. The Service Industries Journal,
15(2), 186-202. doi:10.1080/02642069500000020
Gliddon, D. G. (2006). Forecasting a competency model for innovation leaders using a
modified Delphi technique. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pennsylvania
State University, University Park.
Goldstein, S. M., Johnston, R., Duffy, J., & Rao, J. (2002). The service concept: The
missing link in service design research? Journal of Operations Management,
20(2), 121-134. doi:10.1016/S0272-6963(01)00090-0
Goodrich, K., & Ramsey, R. (2012). Are consumers with disabilities receiving the
services they need? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 19(1), 88–97.
doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2011.09.004
Gorla, N., Somers, T. M., & Wong, B. (2010). Organizational impact of system quality,
information quality, and service quality. The Journal of Strategic Information
Systems, 19(3), 207-228. doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2010.05.001
Grandey, A. A., Fisk, G. M., Mattila, A. S., Jansen, K. J., & Sideman, L. A. (2005). Is
“service with a smile” enough? Authenticity of positive displays during service
encounters. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96(1), 3855.
Greenberg, P. (2012, February, 24). Man sues local establishments for not meeting ADA
guidelines. The City Paper. Retrieved from
http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/man-sues-local-establishmentsnot-meeting-ada-guidelines
Grönroos, C. (1988). Service Quality: The six criteria of good perceived service quality.
Review of Business, 9, 10-13.
Grönroos, C. (1993). Strategic Management and Marketing in the Service Sector.
175 Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Gupta, U. G., & Clarke, R. E. (1996). Theory and applications of the Delphi technique: A
bibliography (1975-1994). Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 53(2),
185-211.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1996). Competing for the Future. Watertown, MA:
Harvard Business Press.
Hanafin, S. (2004) Review of Literature on the Delphi Technique. Dublin, Ireland:
Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. Retrieved from
http://www.omc.gov.ie/documents/publications/Delphi_Technique_A_Literature_
Review.pdf
Hardesty, D., & William, O. B. (2004). The use of expert judges in scale development:
Implications for improving face validity of measures of unobservable constructs.
Journal of Business Research, 57, 98-107
Harris Interactive Market Research. (2005). Research among adults with disabilities:
Travel and hospitality. Chicago: Open Doors Organization.
Hart, L. M., Jorm, A. F., Kanowski, L. G., Kelly, C. M., & Langlands, R. L. (2009).
Mental health first aid for indigenous Australians: Using delphi consensus studies
to develop guidelines for culturally appropriate responses to mental health
problems. BMC Psychiatry, 9(1), 47. doi:10.1186/1471-244X-9-47
Hefley, B., Murphy, W., Searles, J., & Snowdon, B. (2012). Circles of customer need: A
contribution to customer-centric service provision in a local community. In L. A.
Macaulay, I. Miles, L. Zhao, J. Wilby, Y. L. Tan, and B. Theodoulidis (Eds.),
Case studies in service innovation, Service science: Research and innovations in
176 the service economy (pp. 151–165). Springer New York. Retrieved from
http://www.springerlink.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/content/r264l14855v53j2
7/abstract/
Helmer, O. (1963). The Delphi method. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Henwood, P. G., & Pope-Davis, D. B. (1994). Disability as cultural diversity:
Counseling the hearing impaired. The Counseling Psychologist, 22, 489-503.
doi:10.1177/0011000094223011
Hernon, P., & Altman, E. (2010). Assessing service quality: Satisfying the expectations of
library customers. Chicago, IL: ALA Editions.
Hicks, M. (2010, October 10). Handicapitalist able to inspire. The Washington Times.
Retrieved from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/19/hickshandicapitalist-able-to-inspire/?page=all
Howard, T. L., & Ulferts, G. W. (2011). The changing workforce and marketplace.
Journal of Diversity Management (JDM), 2(4), 7–10.
Hsu, C., & Sandford, B. (2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus.
Practical Assessment and Research Evaluation, 12(10). Retrieved from
http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?y=12&n=10
International Standards Organization (ISO) (2012). About us. Retrieved from
http://www.iso.org/iso/about.htm
Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and
performance. Journal of Business Research, 64, 408–417.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.09.010
Johnson, H. M., & East, B. (2011). Tear down the walls: The fight against state-
177 sponsored segregation. Retrieved from
http://www.scpronet.com/point/0010/p14.html
Jemmasi, M., Strong, K. C., & Taylor, S. A. (2011). Measuring service quality for
strategic planning and analysis in service firms. Journal of Applied Business
Research (JABR), 10(4), 24-34.
Kaufman–Scarborough, C. (1999). Reasonable access for mobility-disabled persons is
more than widening the door. Journal of Retailing, 75, 479–508.
doi:10.1016/S0022-4359(99)00020-2
Kelleher, J., & McAuliffe, E. (2012). Developing clinical governance in a service for
people with intellectual disabilities: An action research approach. Clinical
Governance: An International Journal, 17(4), 2–26.
Klaus, P., & Maklan, S. (2012). EXQ: A multiple-item scale for assessing service
experience. Journal of Service Management, 23(1), 5-33.
doi:10.1108/09564231211208952
Kline, L. (2012). Disability awareness training and implications for current practice: A
survey of genetic counselors (Unpublished master’s thesis).Brandeis University.
Retrieved from https://bir.brandeis.edu/handle/10192/57
Knight, C. F. (1995). Voluntary environmental standards vs. mandatory environmental
regulations and enforcement in the NAFTA market. Arizona Journal of
International and Comparative Law, 12, 619.
Kroon, J. (1995). General Management (2nd Ed.). South Africa: Pearson.
Kripendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
178 Ladhari, R., Pons, F., Bressolles, G., & Zins, M. (2011). Culture and personal values:
How they influence perceived service quality. Journal of Business Research,
64(9), 951-957. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.11.017
Lehtinen, U., & Lehtinen, J. R. (1991). Two approaches to service quality dimensions.
The Service Industries Journal, 11(3), 287-303. doi:10.1080/02642069100000047
Lennox, N. G., Diggens, J. N., & Ugoni, A. M. (1997). The general practice care of
people with intellectual disability: Barriers and solutions. Journal of Intellectual
Disability Research, 41, 380–390. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.1997.tb00725.x
Lepofsky, D. (2004). The long, arduous road to a barrier: Free Ontario for people with
disabilities: The history of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act—The first chapter.
National Journal of Constitutional Law, 15(2), 125–33.
Levitt, T. (1981). Marketing intangible products and product intangibles. Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 22(2), 37-44.
doi:10.1177/001088048102200209
Linstone, H., & Turoff, M. (1975). The delphi method: Techniques and applications.
Reading: MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
Lloyd, J. W., Kameenui, E. J., Chard, D. J., & Kame’enui, E. J. (1997). Issues in
educating students with disabilities. Florence, KY: Psychology Press.
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. (2010). Practical resources for assessing
and reporting intercoder reliability in content analysis research projects.
Retrieved from http://matthewlombard.com/reliability/
Lovelock, C. H. (1983). Classifying services to gain strategic marketing insights. Journal
of Marketing, 47(3), 9-20. doi:10.2307/1251193
Ludwig, B. G. (1994). Internationalizing extension: An exploration of the
179 characteristics evident in a state university extension system that achieves
internationalization. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH.
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006). Service-dominant logic: reactions, reflections and
refinements. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 281-288. doi:10.1177/1470593106066781
Lyons, A. C., Mondragon, A. E. C., Piller, F., & Poler, R. (2012). Mass customisation: A
strategy for customer-centric enterprises. Customer-Driven Supply Chains (pp.
71–94). London: Springer. Retrieved from
http://rd.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-84628-876-0_4
Mattila, A. S., & Enz, C. A. (2002). The role of emotions in service encounters. Journal
of Service Research, 4, 268-277. doi:10.1177/1094670502004004004
Mattila, A. S., Grandey, A. A., & Fisk, G. M. (2003). The interplay of gender and
affective tone in service encounter satisfaction. Journal of Service Research, 6(2),
136-143. doi:10.1177/1094670503257043
Matausch, K., & Miesenberger, K. (2010). Planning of inclusive and accessible events. In
K. Miesenberger, J. Klaus, W. Zagler, and A. Karshmer (Eds.), Computers
Helping People with Special Needs, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol.
6179, pp. 266–272). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. Retrieved from
http://www.springerlink.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/content/5kx035764u6570
n4/abstract/
Mayring, Philipp (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social
Research, 1(2), 20. Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114fqs0002204.
180 McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. L. (2011). Educational programs for elementary students
with learning disabilities: Can they be both effective and inclusive? Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(1), 48–57. doi:10.1111/j.15405826.2010.00324.x
Millar, G. (2001). The development of indicators for sustainable tourism: A Delphi
study of tourism researchers. Tourism Management, 22, 351-362.
Mishra, J. (1995). The ADA helps--But not much. Public Personnel Management, 24,
429-41.
Mora, M. (2012). Review of three powerful online survey tools. Retrieved from
http://relevantinsights.com/tag/qualtrics
National Black Disability Coalition. (2012). Models of disability. Retrieved from
http://www.blackdisability.org/content/models-disability
National Service Center for Environmental Publications (2010). The federal interagency
forum on aging-related statistics, older Americans 2010: Key indicators of wellbeing. Retrieved from
https://www.agingstats.gov/agingstatsdotnet/Main_Site/Data/2010_Documents/Po
pulation.aspx
Ng, I. C. L., Vargo, S. L., & Smith, L. A. (2012), Reconceptualising Service through a
Service-Dominant Logic (Working Paper No. 2049-4297). Retrieved from
http://www.academia.edu/1270696/Ng_I._C._L._Vargo_S._L._and_Smith_L._A.
_2012_Reconceptualising_Service_through_a_Service-Dominant_Logic
Nunally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
181 Oliver, M. (1990) The individual and social models of disability: People with established
locomotor disabilities in hospitals. Joint Workshop of the Living Options Group
and the Royal College of Physicians. Retrieved from
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/Oliver/in%20soc%20dis.pdf
Olsen, T. (2009). Largest ADA settlement in EEOC history illustrates hazard of
following traditional workers’ compensation practices. Retrieved from
http://shermanhoward.com/NewsAndEvents/View/3B7652F3-5056-9125634599AC8EC71910/
Olsen, W. (2004). Triangulation in social research: qualitative and quantitative methods
can really be mixed. Developments in Sociology, 20, 103–118.
Office of Disability Issues. (2010). 2012 Legacy for disabled people, inclusive and
accessible business. London, England: HM Government Department for
Business Innovation and Skills.
Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services (2012). Accessibility for Ontarians
with Disabilities Act, 2005, Ontario Regulation 429/07, Accessibility Standards
for Customer Service. Retrieved from http://www.elaws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_070429_e.htm
Open Doors Organization (2002). Researching among adults with disabilities: Travel and
hospitality, Chicago, IL: Open Doors Organization and Travel Industry
Association of America.
Otieno, P. A. (2009). Biblical and theological perspectives on disability: Implications on
the rights of persons with disability in Kenya. Disability Studies Quarterly, 29(4).
Retrieved from http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/988
182 Orsted, H. L., Woodbury, M. G., & Stevenson, K. (2012). The wound care instrument:
The process for developing standards for wound management education and
programming. International Wound Journal, 9(3), 264-270. doi:10.1111/j.1742481X.2011.00880.x
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service
quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 4150. doi:10.2307/1251430
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., Zeithaml, V.A. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item
scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing,
64(1), 2-40.
Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Peterson, A., Vernon A., & Quarstein, P. (2001). Disability awareness training for
disability professionals. Disability & Rehabilitation, 23(1), 43–48.
doi:10.1080/09638280150211293
Pham, D. M. (2011). Website accessibility for activity4all. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=grc
sp
ProMatura Group. (2007). Active recreation tops lifestyle desires for older baby boomers,
senior citizens. Retrieved from http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Features/2007/704-13-ActiveRecreation.htm
Quinn, J. B. (1992). The intelligent enterprise a new paradigm. The Executive, 6(4), 4863.
183 Rathmell, J. M. (1966). What is meant by services? Journal of Marketing, 30(4), 32–36.
doi:10.2307/1249496
Reid, N. G. (1988). The Delphi technique: Its contribution to the evaluation of
professional practice. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Professional competence and quality
assurance in the caring professions (pp. 230-262), Beckenham, UK: CroomHelm.
Reuters. (2012). Global economy: U.S. companies add jobs in September. Service sector
expands. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/03/us-usaeconomy-services-idUSBRE8920QD20121003
Rodriguez, A. R. (2001). Developing standards for assessing quality of professional
development programs: An exploratory study. Dissertation. University of
Massachusetts.
Rothwell, W. (Ed.) (2012). Encyclopedia of Human Resource Management, Human
Resources and Employment Forms. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Roy, C., Samson, M., & Stafford, J. (2001). A growth market: Behaviours of tourists with
restricted physical abilities in Canada. Montréal: Kéroul.
Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation (RADAR). (2006). Disabled
customer survey: The walk away. Retrieved from
http://www.efd.org.uk/disability-business-case/resources/research-archive/walkaway
Schaaf, M. F. van der, Stokking, K. M., & Verloop, N. (2008). Developing content
standards for teaching research skills using a delphi method. Retrieved from
http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/fss/2008-0114-201527/UUindex.html
184 Section508.gov. (2012). Guidelines documents on section 508 IT compliance. Retrieved
from http://section508.gov/index.cfm?fuseAction=Policies
doi:10.1177/1094670509336743
Scheibe, M., Skutsch, M., & Schofer, J. (1975). Experiments in Delphi methodology. In
H. A. Linstone, & M. Turoff (Eds.), The Delphi method: Techniques and
applications (pp. 262-287). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Schmidt, R.C. (1997). Managing delphi surveys using nonparametric statistical
techniques. Decision Sciences, 28, 763-774. doi: 10.1111/j.15405915.1997.tb01330.x
Scholz, J. T. (1984). Voluntary compliance and regulatory enforcement. Law & Policy, 6,
385–404. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9930.1984.tb00334.x
Shaw, S., & Dukes, L. L. (2001). Program standards for disability services in higher
education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 14, 81-90.
Silvestro, R., Fitzgerald, L., Johnston, R., & Voss, C. (1992). Towards a classification of
service processes. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 3(3),
62-75. doi:10.1108/09564239210015175
Simcoe, T. (2012). Standard setting committees: Consensus governance for shared
technology platforms. American Economic Review, 102, 305-336.
Smith, T. B. (2012). A consumer model of disability. Unpublished manuscript.
Snyder-Halpern, R. (2002). Indicators of organizational readiness for clinical information
technology/system innovation: A Delphi study. International Journal of Medical
Informatics, 63, 179-204.
Stein, J. (2009). Avoiding ADA lawsuits. Retrieved from
http://www.facilitiesnet.com/ada/article/Avoiding-ADA-Lawsuits--10433
185 Steinmetz, E. (2002). Household economic studies current population reports P70-107
with disabilities: 2002. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability/sipp/disab02/awd02.html
Stines, A. C. (2003). Forecasting the competencies that will define best in class business
to business market managers: An emergent Delphi-hybrid competency
forecasting model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education,
Pennsylvania State University.
Stonesifer, I., & Kim, W. G. (2011). Toward creating a framework to accommodate the
needs of disabled hotel guests. Presented at the Graduate Student Research
Conference in Hospitality and Tourism. Retrieved from
http://scholarworks.umass.edu/gradconf_hospitality/2011/Presentation/39/
Stothers, W. G. (2000). After 10 Years, The ADA is changing the landscape of America.
Retrieved from
http://www.accessiblesociety.org/topics/ada/ada10thannivoped.htm
Susskind, A. M., Kacmar, K. M., & Borchgrevink, C. P. (2007). How organizational
standards and coworker support improve restaurant service. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 48, 370–379.
Tan, T. H., Chang, C. S., & Chen, Y. F. (2012). Developing an intelligent e-restaurant
with a menu recommender for customer-centric service. Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews, IEEE Transactions, 42, 775–787.
Temkin Group. (2012) Temkin Experience Ratings. Retrieved from
http://www.temkingroup.com/research-reports/2012-temkin-experience-rating
186 Temple, P., Blind, K., Jungmittag, A., Spencer, C., Swann, G., & Witt, R. (2005). The
empirical economics of standards. DTI Economics Paper No. 12, London, UK:
Department of Trades and Industry.
Ter-Martirosyan, A., & Kwoka, J. (2010). Incentive regulation, service quality, and
standards in U.S. electricity distribution. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 38,
258–273. doi:10.1007/s11149-010-9126-z
Timmons, J. C., Schuster, J., Hamner, D.,. & Bose, J. (2001). Characteristics of effective
employment services: The consumers’ perspective. Boston, MA: Institute for
Community Inclusion/UAP.
Tinsley, H. E. A., & Weiss, D. J. (2000). Inter-rater reliability and agreement. In H. E. A.
Tinsley & S. D. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and
mathematical modeling, (pp. 95-124)., San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Travelability (2012). Improved accessibility – commercial success for scandic. Retrieved
from http://travability.travel/blogs/scandic.html
Tsaur, S. H., Lin, C. T., & Wu, C. S. (2005). Cultural differences of service quality and
behavioral Intention in tourist hotels. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing,
13(1), 41–63. doi:10.1300/J150v13n01_04
United State Business Leadership Network (USBLN). (2012). Leading practices in
disability inclusion. Washington, DC: U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
U.S. Access Board. (2012). Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, as amended 42 U.S.C. §§
4151 et seq. Retrieved from http://www.access-board.gov/about/laws/aba.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012). Consumer expenditure survey: Age of reference
person, average annual expenditures and characteristics. Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/cex/
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Americans with disabilities: 2010 household
187 economic studies. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70131.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (December 2010). Americans with disabilities: 2005 household
economic studies. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p70117.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Population estimates and projections. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/popest/
U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). American community survey. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/about_the_survey/american_community_survey
U.S. Department of Defense. (2012). Casualty report. Retrieved from
http://www.defense.gov/news/casualty.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Public Law 94-142. Retrieved from
http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2statute%2C
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Civil Rights. (2012). Fact
sheet: Your rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Retrieved from
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/resources/factsheets/504.pdf
U.S. Department of Justice (2012). ADA regulations and technical assistance materials.
Retrieved from http://www.ada.gov/publicat.htm
U.S. Department of Justice (2012). 2010 ADA standards for accessible design. Retrieved
from http://www.ada.gov/2010ADAstandards
188 U.S. Department of Justice Offices of the United States Attorneys, Electronic Reading
Room. (2012). Americans with disabilities act settlement agreements and court
documents. Retrieved from
http://www.justice.gov/crt/foia/readingroom/frequent_requests/ada_settlements/
U. S. Department of Justice (2012). 2010 ADA standards for accessible design. Retrieved
from http://www.ada.gov/2010ADAstandards
U. S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section. (2012).
ADA update: A primer for businesses. Retrieved from
http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/smallbusiness/smallbusprimer2010.htm
U. S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section. (2012).
Enforcing the ADA. Retrieved from http://www.ada.gov/janmar10.htm
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Administration. (2012). U.S.
standard industrial classification system. Retrieved from
http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/sic_manual.html
U.S. Department of Labor. (2012). Standards industrial classification (SIC). Retrieved
from http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/sic_manual.html
U.S. Department of Labor (2012). Diverse perspectives: People with disabilities
fulfilling your business goals. Retrieved from
http://www.dol.gov/odep/pubs/fact/diverse.htm
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2011). Press release: Verizon to pay
$20 million to settle nationwide EEOC disability suit. Retrieved from
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/ne.wsroom/release/7-6-11a.cfm
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2012). Facts about the Americans
with Disabilities Act. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-ada.html
U.S. Government Printing Office. (2012). Electronic code of federal regulations.
189 Retrieved from http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/
Van Zolingen, S., & Klaassen, C. (2003). Selection processes in a Delphi study about
key qualification in senior secondary vocational education. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 70, 317-340.
Vaughan, L., & Shiu, E. (2001). ARCHSECRET: A multi-item scale to measure service
quality within the voluntary sector. International Journal of Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Marketing, 6(2), 131-144. doi:10.1002/nvsm.141
Wakefield, K. L., & Blodgett, J. G. (1996). The effect of the servicescape on customers’
behavioral intentions in leisure service settings. Journal of Services Marketing,
10(6), 45–61. doi:10.1108/08876049610148594
Walsh, E. F. (2010). The development of comprehensive criminal justice leadership
standards: A modified Delphi study approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Phoenix. Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/3467496.pdf
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA:
SAGE.
Weidner, T. G., & Henning, J. M. (2004). Development of standards and criteria for the
selection, training, and evaluation of athletic training approved clinical
instructors. Journal of Athletic Training, 39, 335.
Williams, P. I., & Webb, C. (1994). The Delphi technique: A methodological
discussion. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19, 180-186.
190 Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive Interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Witkin, R., & Altschuld, J. (1995). Planning and conducting needs assessments.
Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage
Woundenberg, F. (1991). An evaluation of Delphi. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 40, 131-50.
Wright, K. B. (2005). Researching Internet-Based Populations: Advantages and
Disadvantages of Online Survey Research, Online Questionnaire Authoring
Software Packages, and Web Survey Services. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 10(3), 23-29. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00259.x
Wu, J. S., & Zhang, I. X. (2009a). The voluntary adoption of internationally recognized
accounting standards and firm internal performance evaluation. The Accounting
Review, 84, 1281-1309. doi:10.2308/accr.2009.84.4.1281
Yang, Z., Cai, S., Zhou, Z., & Zhou, N. (2005). Development and validation of an
instrument to measure user perceived service quality of information presenting
Web portals. Information & Management, 42(4), 575–589.
doi:10.1016/j.im.2004.03.001
Date: From: To: Re: IRB Protocol ID: Follow-­‐up Date: Title of Protocol: 191 APPENDIX A IRB Approval February 06, 2013 The Office for Research Protections -­‐ FWA#: FWA00001534 Philip C. Frum, Compliance Coordinator Tammy B. Smith Determination of Exemption 42282 February 5, 2018 Development of Business Standards for Improving Service Quality for Consumers with Disabilities within the U.S. Service Industry Sector: A Modified Delphi Study The Office for Research Protections (ORP) has received and reviewed the above referenced eSubmission application. It has been determined that your research is exempt from IRB initial and ongoing review, as currently described in the application. You may begin your research. The category within the federal regulations under which your research is exempt is: 45 CFR 46.101(b)(2) Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior, unless: (i) information obtained is recorded in such a manner that human subjects can be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects; and (ii) any disclosure of the human subjects' responses outside the research could reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or reputation. Given that the IRB is not involved in the initial and ongoing review of this research, it is the investigator’s responsibility to review IRB Policy III “Exempt Review Process and Determination” which outlines: What it means to be exempt and how determinations are made What changes to the research protocol are and are not required to be reported to the ORP Ongoing actions post-­‐exemption determination including addressing problems and complaints, reporting closed research to the ORP and research audits What occurs at the time of follow-­‐up Please do not hesitate to contact the Office for Research Protections (ORP) if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you for your continued efforts in protecting human participants in research. This correspondence should be maintained with your research records. 192 APPENDIX B
Participant Recruitment Email
Dear Participant:
My name is Tammy B. Smith and I am a researcher from The Pennsylvania State University in the
Department of Learning and Performance under the advisement of Dr. William J. Rothwell. As part of my
dissertation and doctoral program at Penn State, I am conducting a study titled Development of Business
Standards for Improving Service Quality for Consumers with Disabilities within the U.S. Service
Industry Sector: A Modified Delphi Study.
Given your expertise, I would like to invite you to be a participant in my study.
The purpose of this study is to develop businesses standards for improving the quality of customer service
provided to customers with disabilities. When this study is completed, businesses will have an established
set of standards to guide their efforts in offering greater service and program access to people of all
abilities. The hope is that these standards will better support the customer service needs of most people
with, while also lessening the need to ask for reasonable accommodations.
This study involves three rounds of questionnaires that will be administered over an approximate 3-month
period. The first questionnaire will be establish the standards and the second and third questionnaires will
request that you rank the standard related to each standard’s importance. Each questionnaire will be sent to
you via email and will require approximately 20 minutes to complete. You will be offered 2 weeks to
complete each questionnaire and a total of 2 hours will be required to complete all questionnaires
combined. All responses will be anonymous and confidential. Your participation is also voluntary.
Participants who complete all three iterations of the study will receive a $50.00 gift card in appreciation
their participation.
If you would like to participate in this study, you must verify that you meet each of the criteria for either a
disability inclusion expert and/or a consumer with a disability by completing the attached form and/or
attaching a summary of your qualifications or resume/vita.
Again, if you are interested in participating, please reply to this email within one week and attach either the
accompanying form and/or summary of qualifications/vita.
Thank you for your interest in this study.
Disability Inclusion Experts
•
•
•
•
20 or more years of professional/practical
experience directly related to disability
inclusion
Published and/or presented in disability
inclusion topics
Minimum B.S. degree in disability-related
field
Award or Honor Recognition by
Disability-related Professional
Organization
Warmest regards,
Tammy B. Smith
Consumers with Disabilities
•
Self-defined disability as defined by the
Americans with Disabilities Act
•
Mature Adult (25+ years)
•
•
Weekly consumer of goods and services
Live in the community
193 APPENDIX C
Pilot Study One Survey
Development of Business Standards for Improving Service Quality for Consumers
with Disabilities within the U.S. Service Industry Sector
A Modified Delphi Study
Pilot Study 1 Directions:
Now that you have completed the service industry standards questionnaire, please answer
the following questions. If possible, please provide a 3–4 sentence response per question.
Please understand that your feedback will serve to improve the questionnaire for future
participants. Your feedback will be very helpful!
After Completing this Pilot Survey
Once you have completed and submitted this pilot survey, you will receive a short
telephone follow-up call to discuss any of your responses that may require further
clarification.
NOTE: If you have any questions about this survey, please feel free to contact Tammy
B. Smith (researcher) via email of phone.
Phone: 814.571.7580
Email: [email protected]
Thank you so much for participating in this study!
194 Pilot Study 1
1. Which statements in the introduction of service industry standards questionnaire could be
restated or reworded more clearly for participants?
Please identify the specific statement and how you suggest rewording, if applicable.
2. What information would you suggest to be added to the introductory statement regarding
the nature of the study? Please specify how the additional information would help the
participant.
3. Which sentences in the questionnaire directions could be more clearly written? Please
identify the specific sentences and how you would suggest that they be reworded.
4. After reading through the directions, what did you have difficulty understanding about
how questionnaire was to be completed? Were there any specific instructions that you
had to read more than once? If so, what needed to be read more than once?
5. How has your understanding of the service industry standard questionnaire enhanced by
the operational definitions? Is there any information that should be added? Which of the
operational definitions need to be further clarified?
6. What difficulties did you have with rating the service industry standards? Was the rating
scale understandable? If not, what did you have problems understanding? Is there
anything that could be more clearly explained about the rating scale?
7. Which service category descriptions were not helpful in rating the standards in the
service industry standards questionnaire? Were you able to understand the service
category by reading the description? What category descriptions were confusing or
required more clarification?
8. Was there any overlap or redundancy in the service quality determinants presented?
Would you suggest combining or separating any service determinant categories?
9. Were there any other issues that interfered with your ability to rate the standards? What
could be added that would make it easier to rate the standards? Would you suggest that
anything be removed from the questionnaire to make it easier to rate the standards?
10. How long did it take you to complete the service standards questionnaire?
195 APPENDIX D
Iteration One Questionnaire
SERVICE INDUSTRY STANDARDS FOR PROVIDING SERVICE QUALITY
TO CONSUMERS WITH DISABILITIES: A MODIFIED DELPHI TECHNIQUE
Iteration One Directions:
Your assistance is needed to develop service industry standards for providing service
quality to consumers with disabilities. Given your expertise related to disability, think
about what you would recommend that a business incorporate (as a part of their business
infrastructure) to offer the highest quality customer service to people with disabilities.
The standards do not need to be disability-specific; however, should work to meet the
expectations of customers of all abilities, without the need of the customer to request an
accommodation or specially designed program. The goal of developing these standards
is to offer businesses guidance for how they can improve the universal design of their
businesses’ policies, processes, and procedures to improve the quality of service provided
to people of all abilities.
Please complete the questionnaire following these guidelines.
1. Review the Implied Consent statement. The submission of your responses implies
your consent to participate in this study.
2. Review the entire questionnaire before starting to get a general understanding of the
questionnaire.
3. Review all operational definitions used within the questionnaire.
4. For each service category, generate two or more standards that you believe would
improve service quality for consumers with disabilities. Please be as specific as
possible in your description of the standards.
5. When you complete the questionnaire, please submit your questionnaire through the
email. You will receive a response to inform you that your submission was
successful.
After completing the questionnaire.
When the researcher received all participants’ submissions, the questionnaires will be
qualitatively analyzed. From the analysis, a second questionnaire will be developed. The
second questionnaire will then be sent to you asking that you rate the standards that are
currently being generated by this questionnaire.
NOTE:
The service quality determinants listed in this questionnaire are based upon a literature
review that was completed for this study and a subsequent pilot study. If you have any
questions about this questionnaire, please feel free to contact the researcher,
Tammy B. Smith, at
Phone: 814.571.7580
Email: [email protected]
Thank you so much for participating in this study!
196 Operational Definitions:
Consumer with a Disability:
Within the context of this study, a consumer with a disability is a person with a disability who
purchases goods or services for personal or group consumption. With respect to the individual,
the term disability refers to
(a) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life
activities of such individual;
(b) a record of such impairment; or
(c) being regarded as having such an impairment.
Service Quality:
Service Quality is the measure of how well the service level that is delivered matches customer
expectations.
Service-Quality Determinants:
Service Quality Determinants refer to those dimensions of service that, when expectations are
met, assist to achieve service quality.
Service-industry:
The service-industry comprised of businesses that primarily earn revenue through providing
intangible products and services. Examples of such businesses include, but are not limited to,
financial, health, legal and educational, amusement, recreation, personal, and repair services;
hotels, theatres, restaurants, museums, botanical and zoological parks.
Standard:
A standard is a “recognized unit of comparison by which the correctness of others can be
determined.”
Universal Design:
The term “universal design” refers to the concept of designing all services and service
environments to be accessible and usable to the greatest extent possible by everyone, regardless
of their age, ability, or status in life.
DETERMINANT 1: Reliability
Consistency of performance and dependability
Name of Standard Record Keeping
(SAMPLE)
197 Description of Standard Keeps accurate records of customer’s transactions with the
organization.
DETERMINANT 2: Responsiveness
Willingness or readiness of employees to provide service
Name of Standard Description of Standard Timely Responses
Returns customer calls promptly (usually within a 24 hour period).
to Requests
(SAMPLE)
DETERMINANT 3: Access & Tangibles
Approachability and ease of contact including access to physical facilities, personnel,
products, machines and equipment
Name of Standard Employee Training
(SAMPLE)
Description of Standard Service provision area is near or adjacent to accessible parking
area.
DETERMINANT 4: Humaneness & Courtesy
Willingness to help with concerns and personal anxieties; sympathetic and nonintrusive
response to client needs; respect for client; politeness; consideration and friendliness of
contact personnel
Name of Standard Service Provision
Area
(SAMPLE)
Description of Standard Contact personnel will allow and respect the use of service
animals, as needed by customers.
198 DETERMINANT 5: Communication
Keeping customers informed in language they can understand and listening to them
Name of Standard Service Animals
(SAMPLE)
Description of Standard All service desks or kiosks will be equipped with at least one textto-text communication devices.
DETERMINANT 6: Competence & Credibility
Possessing the required skills, knowledge and attitude to perform the service, including
trustworthiness, believability, honesty
Name of Standard
Service Desks
(SAMPLE)
Description of Standard All service contact personnel will have training on inclusive
concepts and approaches.
DETERMINANT 7: Security
Freedom from danger, risk or doubt
Name of Standard Personnel
(SAMPLE)
Description of Standard Policies and procedures exist for evacuating individuals with
varying abilities in the case of an emergency.
DETERMINANT 8: Understanding/Knowing the Customer
Making the effort to understanding the customer’s needs
Name of Standard Policies &
Procedures
(SAMPLE)
Description of Standard All contact personnel will have training on a variety of disabling
conditions.
199 DETERMINANT 9: Enabling/Empowerment
Enabling clients to take responsibility for personal development; creating opportunities
and support for attainment of personal goals
Name of Standard Personnel
(SAMPLE)
Description of Standard Personnel will always ask customer if any adaptation or
modification of service is needed prior to providing any.
DETERMINANT 10: Equity
Equitable service delivery across individual clients
Name of Standard Programs
(SAMPLE)
Description of Standard The same programs that are offered to customers without
disabilities are also available to people with disabilities.
If you would like to add any service quality determinants that were not listed above,
please list the determinant, a short definition and any corresponding standards.
Add New Determinant (please type here): ______________________________
Short Description: (please type here): __________________________________
Name of Standard Description of Standard Add New Determinant (please type here): ______________________________
Short Description: (please type here): __________________________________
Name of Standard Description of Standard Add New Determinant (please type here): ______________________________
Short Description: (please type here): __________________________________
Name of Standard Description of Standard Service Quality Determinant Categories U: Understanding/ Knowing the Customer 200 APPENDIX E Content Analysis Codebook Definition Examples Coding Rules Making an effort to understand the customer’s needs. Learning the customer’s specific requirements; providing individualized attention; recognizing the regular customer; disability-­‐
related training. Any standards that that involve and understanding of the characteristics and conditions associated with various disabling conditions, types accommodations, adaptation and modification should be included under U. RES: Responsiveness Willingness or readiness of employees to provide service. Also, involves timeliness of service. Mailing a transaction slip immediately; calling a customer back quickly; giving prompt service (e.g., setting up appointments quickly) Distinction should be made between RES and HC. Humaneness/Courtesy is usually a precursor to responsiveness. AT: Access & Tangibles Approachability and ease of contact, including physical access to personnel, products, service machines, and equipment. Access should include access to physical environments, communication and business correspondence, information, service personnel, programs and/or service access to business operations. REL: Reliability Involves consistency of performance and dependability. Also, involves performing the service correctly the first time and honoring promises. Service is easily accessible by telephone; waiting time to receive service is not extensive; convenient hours of operation; convenient location of service facility; appearance and access of personnel; access of tools and equipment used to provide the service; physical representations of the service (e.g., credit card or bank statement, receipts); other customers in the service facilities. Accurate billing; keeping records correctly; performing service at the designated time; following through. Distinction should be made between REL and RES. 201 CC: Competence & Credibility Possession of the required skills and knowledge to perform the service, including trustworthiness, believability, honesty. Involves having the customers’ best interest at heart. COM: Communication Keeping customers informed in language they can understand and listening to them. Means that the company has to adjust its language for different consumers, increasing the level of sophistication with a well-­‐educated customer and speaking simply and plainly with a novice. Freedom from danger, risk or doubt S: Security HC: Humaneness & Courtesy EE: Enabling & Empowerment E: Equity Willingness to help with concerns and personal anxieties; sympathetic and nonintrusive response to client needs; respect for client confidences and feelings. Politeness, respect, consideration, and friendliness of contact personnel (including receptionists and telephone operators, etc.) Enabling clients to take responsibility for personal development; creating opportunities and support for attainment of personal goals Equitable service delivery across individual clients Knowledge and skill of the contact personnel; knowledge and skill of the operational support personnel; research capability of the organization, company name; company reputation; personal characteristics of the contact personnel; the degree of hard sell involved in interactions with the customer. Explanation of the service itself; how much the service will cost; trade-­‐offs between service and cost; assurance that problems will be handled; approaches to marketing; modifications and accommodations for receiving information about services; speaking directly to customer with disability. Standards that specify need for skills/abilities and knowledge are indicative of a need for competence. Distinction should be made between CC and U. Standards that support ethical behavior, reputation, credentials, and recognition should be included under CC. Distinction should be made between COM and AT. Any standards that offer general information and do not specify means of obtaining the information should be included in COM. Physical safety; financial security; confidentiality; emergency and evacuation policies and procedures; warning signals in variety of formats. Standards that relate to policies, procedures, and processes that offer customer safety and emergency response should be included under S. Standards that include efforts to empathize with the consumer challenges should be included under HC. Welcoming the customer, asking how to help, demonstrating patience when customer is communicating; consideration for the consumer’s property; allowing use of service animals; clean and neat appearance of public contact personnel. Asking customers about their needs for accommodation; allowing customers opportunities to participate in programs and services independently and within the least restrictive environment; not making assumptions about abilities. All programs and services provided to customers without disabilities are available and accessible to customers with disabilities (e.g. websites). Distinction should be made between EE and HC. Standards that include opportunities that afford independent access and participation should be included under EE. Standards that include efforts to offer same budgetary, personnel and programmatic commitment to providing service equity should be included under E. 202 APPENDIX F
Pilot Study Two Survey
DEVELOPING SERVICE INDUSTRY STANDARDS FOR PROVIDING
SERVICE QUALITY TO CONSUMERS WITH DISABILITIES: A MODIFIED
DELPHI STUDY
Pilot Study 2 Directions:
Now that you have completed the service industry standards questionnaire, please answer
the following questions. If possible, please provide a 3–4 sentence response per question.
Please understand that your feedback will serve to improve the questionnaire for future
participants. Your feedback will be very helpful!
After Completing this Pilot Survey
Once you have completed and submitted this pilot survey, you will receive a short
telephone follow-up call to discuss any of your responses that may require further
clarification.
NOTE: If you have any questions about this survey, please feel free to contact Tammy
B. Smith (researcher) via email of phone.
Phone: 814.571.7580
Email: [email protected]
Thank you so much for participating in this study!
203 Pilot Study 2
1. Which statements in the introduction of service industry standards questionnaire could be
restated or reworded more clearly for participants? Please identify the specific statement
and how you suggest rewording, if applicable.
2. What information would you suggest to be added to the introductory statement regarding
the nature of the study? Please specify how the additional information would help the
participant.
3. Which sentences in the questionnaire directions could be more clearly written? Please
identify the specific sentences and how you would suggest that they be reworded.
4. After reading through the directions, what did you have difficulty understanding about
how questionnaire was to be completed? Were there any specific instructions that you
had to read more than once? If so, what needed to be read more than once?
5. How has your understanding of the service industry standard questionnaire enhanced by
the operational definitions? Is there any information that should be added? Which of the
operational definitions need to be further clarified?
6. What difficulties did you have with rating the service industry standards? Was the rating
scale understandable? If not, what did you have problems understanding? Is there
anything that could be more clearly explained about the rating scale?
7. Which service category descriptions were not helpful in rating the standards in the
service industry standards questionnaire? Were you able to understand the service
category by reading the description? What category descriptions were confusing or
required more clarification?
8. Were there any other issues that interfered with your ability to rate the standards? What
could be added that would make it easier to rate the standards? Would you suggest that
anything be removed from the questionnaire to make it easier to rate the standards?
9. How long did it take you to complete the service standards questionnaire?
204 APPENDIX G
Iteration Two Questionnaire
SERVICE INDUSTRY STANDARDS FOR PROVIDING SERVICE QUALITY
TO CONSUMERS WITH DISABILITIES: A MODIFIED DELPHI TECHNIQUE
Iteration Two Directions:
Your assistance is needed to rate the standards for providing service quality to consumers
with disabilities. Given your expertise related to disability, think about what you would
recommend that service-oriented businesses incorporate (as a part of their business
infrastructure) to offer the highest quality customer service to people of all abilities.
Ratings should be based upon your professional knowledge and/or experience.
Please complete the questionnaire following these guidelines.
1. Review the entire questionnaire before starting to get a general understanding of the
questionnaire.
2. Review all operational definitions used within the questionnaire.
3. Using the rating scale at the end of each page, rate the standard in terms of its
importance by typing a number from 1 to 5 into the RATING column (1=most
important; 5 = least important). Please remember to save your work as you progress
through the questionnaire.
4. When you complete the questionnaire, please return your questionnaire via email as an
attachment to Tammy B. Smith at [email protected].
After completing the questionnaire.
When the researcher has received all iteration two submissions, the questionnaires will be
quantitatively analyzed. From the analysis, a third questionnaire will be developed. The
third questionnaire will then be sent to you asking that you rate the standards again given
your knowledge of the results from iteration two.
NOTE:
The service quality determinants listed in this questionnaire are based upon a literature
review that was completed for this study and a subsequent pilot study. If you have any
questions about this questionnaire, please feel free to contact the researcher, Tammy B.
Smith, at
Phone: 814.571.7580
Email: [email protected]
Thank you so much for participating in this study!
205 Operational Definitions:
Consumer with a Disability:
Within the context of this study, a consumer with a disability is a person with a disability who
purchases goods or services for personal or group consumption. With respect to the individual,
the term disability refers to
(d) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life
activities of such individual;
(e) a record of such impairment; or
(f) being regarded as having such an impairment.
Service Quality:
Service Quality is the measure of how well the service level that is delivered matches customer
expectations.
Service-Quality Determinants:
Service Quality Determinants refer to those dimensions of service that, when expectations are
met, assist to achieve service quality.
Service-industry:
The service-industry comprised of businesses that primarily earn revenue through providing
intangible products and services. Examples of such businesses include, but are not limited to,
financial, health, legal and educational, amusement, recreation, personal, and repair services;
hotels, theatres, restaurants, museums, botanical and zoological parks.
Standard:
A standard is a “recognized unit of comparison by which the correctness of others can be
determined.”
Universal Design:
The term “universal design” refers to the concept of designing all services and service
environments to be accessible and usable to the greatest extent possible by everyone, regardless
of their age, ability, or status in life.
206 DETERMINANT 3: Access & Tangibles
Approachability and ease of contact including access to physical facilities, personnel,
products, machines and equipment
Name of Standard Description Essential
Standard is
required for
service quality
1
Critical
Standard is
required for
service quality
in most
situations
2
Highest Importance Rating Rating Scale Basic
Not Needed
Standard is
Standard is not Standard is not
required for
required for
required for
service quality, service quality service quality
except in some
in most
situations
situations
3
4
5
Least Importance DETERMINANT 4: Humaneness & Courtesy
Willingness to help with concerns and personal anxieties; sympathetic and nonintrusive
response to client needs; respect for client; politeness; consideration and friendliness of
contact personnel
Name of Standard Essential
Standard is
required for
service quality
1
Description Critical
Standard is
required for
service quality
in most
situations
2
Highest Importance Rating Rating Scale Basic
Not Needed
Standard is
Standard is not Standard is not
required for
required for
required for
service quality, service quality service quality
except in some
in most
situations
situations
3
4
5
Least Importance 207 5: Communication
Keeping customers informed in language they can understand and listening to them
Name of Standard Description Essential
Standard is
required for
service quality
1
Critical
Standard is
required for
service quality
in most
situations
2
Highest Importance Rating Rating Scale Basic
Not Needed
Standard is
Standard is not Standard is not
required for
required for
required for
service quality, service quality service quality
except in some
in most
situations
situations
3
4
5
Least Importance DETERMINANT 6: Competence & Credibility
Possessing the required skills, knowledge and attitude to perform the service, including
trustworthiness, believability, honesty
Name of Standard Essential
Standard is
required for
service quality
1
Description Critical
Standard is
required for
service quality
in most
situations
2
Highest Importance Rating Rating Scale Basic
Not Needed
Standard is
Standard is not Standard is not
required for
required for
required for
service quality, service quality service quality
except in some
in most
situations
situations
3
4
5
Least Importance 208 DETERMINANT 7: Security
Freedom from danger, risk or doubt
Name of Standard Description Essential
Standard is
required for
service quality
1
Critical
Standard is
required for
service quality
in most
situations
2
Highest Importance Rating Rating Scale Basic
Not Needed
Standard is
Standard is not Standard is not
required for
required for
required for
service quality, service quality service quality
except in some
in most
situations
situations
3
4
5
Least Importance DETERMINANT 8: Understanding/Knowing the Customer
Making the effort to understand the customer’s needs
Name of Standard Essential
Standard is
required for
service quality
1
Description Critical
Standard is
required for
service quality
in most
situations
2
Highest Importance Rating Rating Scale Basic
Not Needed
Standard is
Standard is not Standard is not
required for
required for
required for
service quality, service quality service quality
except in some
in most
situations
situations
3
4
5
Least Importance 209 DETERMINANT 9: Enabling/Empowerment
Enabling clients to take responsibility for personal development; creating opportunities
and support for attainment of personal goals
Name of Standard Description Essential
Standard is
required for
service quality
1
Critical
Standard is
required for
service quality
in most
situations
2
Highest Importance Rating Rating Scale Basic
Not Needed
Standard is
Standard is not Standard is not
required for
required for
required for
service quality, service quality service quality
except in some
in most
situations
situations
3
4
5
Least Importance DETERMINANT 10: Equity
Equitable service delivery across individual clients
Name of Standard Essential
Standard is
required for
service quality
1
Description Critical
Standard is
required for
service quality
in most
situations
2
Highest Importance Rating Rating Scale Basic
Not Needed
Standard is
Standard is not Standard is not
required for
required for
required for
service quality, service quality service quality
except in some
in most
situations
situations
3
4
5
Least Importance 210 APPENDIX H
Iteration Three Questionnaire
SERVICE INDUSTRY STANDARDS FOR PROVIDING SERVICE QUALITY
TO CONSUMERS WITH DISABILITIES: A MODIFIED DELPHI TECHNIQUE
Iteration Three Directions:
Your assistance is needed to rate the standards for improving service quality to
consumers with disabilities. Given your expertise related to disability, think about what
you would recommend that businesses incorporate (as a part of their business
infrastructure) to offer the highest quality customer service to people with disabilities.
Ratings should be based upon your professional knowledge and/or experience.
Please complete the questionnaire following these guidelines.
1. Review the entire questionnaire before starting to get a general understanding of the
questionnaire.
2. Review all operational definitions used within the questionnaire.
3. Using the rating scale at the end of each page, rate the standard in terms of its
importance by typing a number from 1 to 5 into the RATING column (1=most
important; 5 = least important). The RECOMMENDED column indicates the average
ratings of experts from the last questionnaire. You may refer to the recommended
rating if you wish as you complete your rating. NOTE: *asterisks indicate standards
where 5 or more participants disagreed with the rating indicating a need for further
thought. Please remember to save your work as you progress through the
questionnaire.
4. When you complete the questionnaire, please return your questionnaire via email as an
attachment to Tammy B. Smith at [email protected].
After completing the questionnaire.
When the researcher has received all iteration three submissions, the questionnaires will
be quantitatively analyzed.
NOTE:
The service quality determinants listed in this questionnaire are based upon a literature
review that was completed for this study and a subsequent pilot study. If you have any
questions about this questionnaire, please feel free to contact the researcher, Tammy B.
Smith, at
Phone: 814.571.7580
Email: [email protected]
Thank you so much for participating in this study!
Operational Definitions:
211 Consumer with a Disability:
Within the context of this study, a consumer with a disability is a person with a disability who
purchases goods or services for personal or group consumption. With respect to the individual,
the term disability refers to
(a) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life
activities of such individual;
(b) a record of such impairment; or
(c) being regarded as having such an impairment.
Service Quality:
Service Quality is the measure of how well the service level that is delivered matches customer
expectations.
Service-Quality Determinants:
Service Quality Determinants refer to those dimensions of service that, when expectations are
met, assist to achieve service quality.
Service-industry:
The service-industry comprised of businesses that primarily earn revenue through providing
intangible products and services. Examples of such businesses include, but are not limited to,
financial, health, legal and educational, amusement, recreation, personal, and repair services;
hotels, theatres, restaurants, museums, botanical and zoological parks.
Standard:
A standard is a “recognized unit of comparison by which the correctness of others can be
determined.”
Universal Design:
The term “universal design” refers to the concept of designing all services and service
environments to be accessible and usable to the greatest extent possible by everyone, regardless
of their age, ability, or status in life.
212 DETERMINANT 1: Reliability
Consistency of performance and dependability
Name of Standard Description Essential
Standard is
required for
service quality
1
Critical
Standard is
required for
service quality
in most
situations
2
Highest Importance Recommended Rating Rating Scale Basic
Not Needed
Standard is
Standard is not Standard is not
required for
required for
required for
service quality, service quality service quality
except in some
in most
situations
situations
3
4
5
Least Importance DETERMINANT 2: Responsiveness
Willingness or readiness of employees to provide service
Name of Standard Essential
Standard is
required for
service quality
1
Description Critical
Standard is
required for
service quality
in most
situations
2
Highest Importance Recommended Rating Rating Scale Basic
Not Needed
Standard is
Standard is not Standard is not
required for
required for
required for
service quality, service quality service quality
except in some
in most
situations
situations
3
4
5
Least Importance 213 DETERMINANT 3: Access & Tangibles
Approachability and ease of contact including access to physical facilities, personnel,
products, machines and equipment
Name of Standard Description Essential
Standard is
required for
service quality
1
Critical
Standard is
required for
service quality
in most
situations
2
Highest Importance Recommended Rating Rating Scale Basic
Not Needed
Standard is
Standard is not Standard is not
required for
required for
required for
service quality, service quality service quality
except in some
in most
situations
situations
3
4
5
Least Importance DETERMINANT 4: Humaneness & Courtesy
Willingness to help with concerns and personal anxieties; sympathetic and nonintrusive
response to client needs; respect for client; politeness; consideration and friendliness of
contact personnel
Name of Standard Essential
Standard is
required for
service quality
1
Description Critical
Standard is
required for
service quality
in most
situations
2
Highest Importance Recommended Rating Rating Scale Basic
Not Needed
Standard is
Standard is not Standard is not
required for
required for
required for
service quality, service quality service quality
except in some
in most
situations
situations
3
4
5
Least Importance 214 DETERMINANT 5: Communication
Keeping customers informed in language they can understand and listening to them
Name of Standard Description Essential
Standard is
required for
service quality
1
Critical
Standard is
required for
service quality
in most
situations
2
Highest Importance Recommended Rating Rating Scale Basic
Not Needed
Standard is
Standard is not Standard is not
required for
required for
required for
service quality, service quality service quality
except in some
in most
situations
situations
3
4
5
Least Importance DETERMINANT 6: Competence & Credibility
Possessing the required skills, knowledge and attitude to perform the service, including
trustworthiness, believability, honesty
Name of Standard Essential
Standard is
required for
service quality
1
Description Critical
Standard is
required for
service quality
in most
situations
2
Highest Importance Recommended Rating Rating Scale Basic
Not Needed
Standard is
Standard is not Standard is not
required for
required for
required for
service quality, service quality service quality
except in some
in most
situations
situations
3
4
5
Least Importance 215 DETERMINANT 7: Security
Freedom from danger, risk or doubt
Name of Standard Description Essential
Standard is
required for
service quality
1
Critical
Standard is
required for
service quality
in most
situations
2
Highest Importance Recommended Rating Rating Scale Basic
Not Needed
Standard is
Standard is not Standard is not
required for
required for
required for
service quality, service quality service quality
except in some
in most
situations
situations
3
4
5
Least Importance DETERMINANT 8: Understanding/Knowing the Customer
Making the effort to understand the customer’s needs
Name of Standard Essential
Standard is
required for
service quality
1
Description Critical
Standard is
required for
service quality
in most
situations
2
Highest Importance Recommended Rating Rating Scale Basic
Not Needed
Standard is
Standard is not Standard is not
required for
required for
required for
service quality, service quality service quality
except in some
in most
situations
situations
3
4
5
Least Importance 216 DETERMINANT 9: Enabling/Empowerment
Enabling clients to take responsibility for personal development; creating opportunities
and support for attainment of personal goals
Name of Standard Description Essential
Standard is
required for
service quality
1
Critical
Standard is
required for
service quality
in most
situations
2
Highest Importance Recommended Rating Rating Scale Basic
Not Needed
Standard is
Standard is not Standard is not
required for
required for
required for
service quality, service quality service quality
except in some
in most
situations
situations
3
4
5
Least Importance DETERMINANT 10: Equity
Equitable service delivery across individual clients
Name of Standard Essential
Standard is
required for
service quality
1
Description Critical
Standard is
required for
service quality
in most
situations
2
Highest Importance Recommended Rating Rating Scale Basic
Not Needed
Standard is
Standard is not Standard is not
required for
required for
required for
service quality, service quality service quality
except in some
in most
situations
situations
3
4
5
Least Importance 217 APPENDIX I
Sum of Mean Scores for All Standards
Variable U1 Training U2 Disability Awareness Hidden Disabilities U3 U4 U5 Models of Disability Exposure U6 Disability Rights U7 Simulations U8 Return on Investment U9 Myths & Misperceptions Employee Orientation Disability-­‐
appropriate approaches Professional Associations U10 U11 U12 U13 Disability Market R1 Approach R2 Request Response R3 Helping R4 Complaints R5 Access Problems R6 Response Tracking Strategic Plans R7 Name Standard Expert Means Consumer Means Sum of Means Training regarding serving customers with disabilities is offered to all employees, at every level of management, and to third parties, who act on behalf of the business. Training is provided regarding characteristics/types of various disabling conditions. Training is provided on how to interact with and offer inclusive services to customers with disabilities that are not readily visible. Training is provided on the various models of disability (e.g., medical, social). The company involves people with disabilities in training programs. Training is provided on the history of disability rights. The company includes disability simulations as part of their customer service training protocol. The company understands of the ROI for attracting and retaining people with disabilities for their business. Training is provided regarding common myths and misperceptions of individuals with disabilities. Inclusive customer service training is provided within new employee orientation. Training is provided on disability-­‐appropriate approaches to engaging customers with disabilities in programs and services. The company has a membership to professional organizations that address disability and inclusion issues. The company has a business plan to attract and retain the disability and aging market. Business personnel will approach customers immediately upon arrival to discern their needs. Businesses respond to requests for accommodation within an agreed upon and "reasonable" time frame. When observing a customer having difficulty, service personnel approach the customer and ask if he/she needs assistance. The company has a universally accessible process (offered in alternative formats) for receiving and responding to complaints. Personnel respond to problems with accessibility to products/services immediately (or as soon as feasible). The company has a system that tracks response time to customer requests. Strategic plans incorporate goals and objectives for addressing universal access to business products & services 1.88 1.48 3.36 3.00 1.74 4.74 1.44 1.17 2.31 2.80 1.91 4.71 1.16 1.26 2.42 3.40 2.65 6.05 2.00 1.57 3.57 1.24 1.39 2.63 1.44 1.65 3.09 1.16 1.13 2.29 1.36 1.17 2.53 3.20 2.48 5.68 1.68 1.65 3.33 1.76 2.04 3.80 1.44 1.52 2.96 1.84 1.74 3.58 1.44 1.30 2.74 2.04 2.35 4.39 1.92 1.13 3.05 1.76 1.61 3.37 218 R8 Mission Statement R9 Monitor Parking R10 Problem Resolution AT1 Legislation AT2 Barriers AT3 Accessible Routes AT4 Websites AT5 Computer Technologies AT6 Service Environments AT7 Scooters/Wheelc
hairs AT8 Maintenance AT9 Website Access AT10 Alternative to Physical Access AT11 AT12 Accessible Entrances Adjacent Parking AT13 Service Desks AT14 AT16 Product Placement Snow/Ice Removal Anti-­‐slip Surfaces AT17 Coat Closets AT18 Transportation AT19 Equipment Maintenance AT15 Companies should include a commitment to serving customers with disabilities in their mission statement. The company monitors appropriate use of handicapped/accessible parking spaces and notify authorities or violations. Businesses attempt resolve customer problems/complaints with one transaction/interaction. Employees are educated regarding all applicable laws & legislation (ADA, ABA, Section 504, HIPAA, etc.) Customer service personnel are trained to recognize and remove service barriers in the service environment. All service routes are accessible, and free of debris and other removable barriers. The company's IT department is educated about the need for accessible websites and all associated compliance requirements. All computer technologies, including third party applications used by the business, are accessible and usable to individuals with disabilities. All service environments meet compliance standards outlined under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In large service environments, scooters and wheelchairs are available for temporary use by customers. All accessible features of the service environment (e.g., ramps, platform lifts, automatic doors, public TTYs) are maintained on a regularly scheduled (and as needed) basis. All websites, and third party sites that offer services on behalf of the company, will meet accessibility standards set by W3C WAI standards. Alternatives to physically accessing a service environment to obtain assistance (e.g., email, virtual assistant) are offered. Accessible entrances are be clearly marked with signage. Service areas are adjacent to handicapped/accessible parking areas. Service desks have a lower and clear space for interactions with customers who use wheelchairs. Products and services are placed within reach ranges specified in ADAAG. External access routes are prioritized for snow and ice removal. All accessible routes are free of slippery surfaces (e.g., loose rugs, wet areas). Areas where coats, backpacks, boots, etc. are stored have lowered areas for customer access. All transportation available to customers includes accessible transportation options. The company has a plan for maintaining all adaptive/specially designed equipment used in service provision. 1.32 1.17 2.49 1.76 1.74 3.50 1.48 1.61 3.09 1.76 1.70 3.46 1.32 1.17 2.49 1.20 1.04 2.24 1.40 1.39 2.79 1.88 1.61 3.49 1.20 1.13 2.33 1.28 1.74 3.02 1.24 1.09 1.33 1.28 1.09 1.37 1.56 1.35 2.91 1.28 1.04 1.32 1.20 1.39 2.59 1.20 1.26 2.46 1.36 1.22 2.58 1.36 1.22 2.56 1.24 1.04 2.24 1.32 1.57 3.89 1.28 1.22 2.50 1.24 1.17 2.41 219 AT20 Product/Service Access AT21 Attitude AT22 Provision of Generic Equipment REL1 Consistency of Training REL2 Assessment REL3 Website Evaluation Follow-­‐through REL4 REL5 Evaluation & Metrics REL6 Access Audits REL7 Service Consistency CC1 Assistive Technology Accommodations CC2 CC3 CC4 Ethics Support Materials CC5 Partnership CC6 Human Capital CC7 Available Accommodations CC8 Inclusive Policy & Procedures Employee Peer Mentoring CC9 CC10 Employee Incentives All business products and services can be accessed through multiple channels (e.g., websites, in-­‐
person, email, virtual assistance, telephone, chat/instant messaging). Employees demonstrate a positive "can do" attitude when working with any customer. Generic equipment often used by customers with disabilities (e.g., reaching tool for grasping products, disposable magnifiers, beach wheelchairs) is made available. Customer service training is offered on an on-­‐going and consistent basis (and more often when there are any changes in policies, procedures and/or practices that affect customer service). Business will conduct disability impact and service quality assessments/evaluations on an on-­‐going basis. Websites are consistently and rigorously evaluated for accessibility on an on-­‐going basis. Businesses will follow-­‐through with intended actions expressed to customers regarding accommodation requests. There is an accessible strategy for obtaining feedback from customers regarding service quality (e.g., focus groups, surveys, interviews, mystery shopper program). The business conducts comprehensive accessibility assessments to determine service gaps and develop accessibility improvement plans. Businesses ensure that customer service practices at one location are consistent across all of the company's service environments. Service personnel are aware of and learn how to use assistive technology (e.g., TTY/TDD, TRS). Personnel know how to make accommodations to products and services for customers with disabilities. Training is provided on customer service ethics. Support materials (e.g., examples of common accommodations) are available to service personnel. The business has developed partnerships with disability-­‐related organizations to assist with activities (e.g., assessments, program evaluation, training) that promote service quality. The business actively recruits and hires customer service employees who have competence working with individuals who have disabilities. Service personnel are aware of the possible modifications that they can make within their service area/environment. Service personnel are aware of policies and procedures related to inclusive service practice. Peer mentoring is provided to increase employee knowledge and competence in serving customers with disabilities. There is an employee incentive program to reward employees who demonstrate exemplary customer service to individuals with disabilities. 1.52 1.26 2.78 1.20 1.17 2.37 2.00 1.91 3.91 1.56 1.35 2.91 1.28 1.13 2.41 1.56 1.39 2.95 1.80 1.39 3.19 1.40 1.48 2.88 1.28 1.43 2.71 1.80 1.57 3.37 1.52 1.48 3.00 1.32 1.17 2.49 1.24 1.76 1.26 1.26 2.50 3.02 1.92 1.65 3.57 1.60 1.83 3.43 1.64 1.35 2.99 1.56 1.09 2.65 1.88 1.96 3.84 2.40 2.48 4.88 220 CC11 "Go-­‐to" Employees CC12 Company Culture COM1 COM2 Service Animals COM3 People-­‐First COM4 Employment COM5 American Sign Language Direct Communication COM6 COM7 Positive Language COM8 Accessibility Features COM9 Website Feedback Business Literature COM10 COM11 Communicating Malfunctions COM12 Intercom Service COM13 Signage for Assistance Request COM14 Clear Signage COM15 Type-­‐Talk Devices COM16 Display racks/shelves COM17 Accessibility Symbol Inclusion/Accom
modation Statement COM18 Interaction The company has a designated "go to" individual (or group of individuals) knowledgeable about disability inclusion to offer support to customers and personnel. Personnel from all levels of the organization receive inclusive customer service training. Training is provided on how to interact with customers who use service animals. Training is provided to personnel on how to communicate and interact with individuals with different types of disabilities. Employees are trained on how to use "person-­‐
first" terminology in verbal and written communications. The business employs individuals with disabilities in professional positions to demonstrate a commitment to disability and inclusion. Training is be provided on American Sign Language to communicate to deaf individuals. Service personnel communicate directly with a customer who has a disability, rather than their companion or caregiver when feasible. Service personnel use positive, non-­‐paternalistic, language when communicating with customers. All accessibility features (and accessibility limitations) are prominently communicated on the company's homepage. All websites include a feedback portal for customer feedback about website accessibility. All business literature is available in alternative formats (e.g., verbally stating information, TTY, amplified volume, magnified/enlarged font). Business will have a mechanism for notifying customers when accessible features of the business are not working. An outdoor intercom is available for customers who may need assistance entering a service environment. A sign indicating what customers who need assistance should do to require assistance is posted at or just inside the entrance to the service environment. Accessibility signage includes both writing and a graphic. Service desks/kiosks have a TTY/TDD, Instant Messaging (IM capability), VRS, or other communication option to serve deaf customers who are physically on-­‐ or off-­‐site. High display racks or shelves have signage that directs a customer who needs assistance to personnel who can assist. All accessibility-­‐related signage displays the International Symbol of Accessibility. Entrance to the service environment displays a statement that the business welcomes individuals of all abilities and information (including contact information) on how to request assistance, if needed. 1.92 1.70 3.62 1.24 1.17 2.41 1.48 1.35 2.83 2.56 2.04 4.60 1.48 1.22 2.70 1.24 1.09 2.33 1.40 1.35 2.75 1.32 1.22 2.54 1.60 1.39 2.99 2.12 1.78 3.90 1.24 1.13 2.37 1.36 1.39 2.75 1.76 1.22 2.98 2.16 1.91 4.07 1.24 1.43 2.67 1.36 1.17 2.53 1.44 1.13 2.57 2.04 1.43 3.47 2.20 1.30 3.50 1.72 1.96 3.68 221 COM19 Service Pager COM20 Communicate Service Quality Performance COM21 Marketing Materials COM22 Marketing Accommodations COM23 Visual Representation COM24 Videos/Webcasts
/Webinars COM25 Registration/Enro
llment Emergency Planning S1 S2 Contingency Plan S3 Privacy of Records/Transact
ions Currency Exchange S4 S5 Staff Identification S6 Emergency Drills S7 Evacuation Policy S8 Lifting/Handling Customers S9 Emergency Consultation S10 Individualized Emergency Alert S11 Accessible Exits S12 Safety Escorts S13 Warning Signals Customers are offered a universally designed accessible service pager that they can use to solicit assistance when needed. The company measures and publishes their service quality performance in areas that are accessible to customers with disabilities (e.g., annual reports, websites). Marketing materials include information on a commitment to serving people of all abilities, a contact person, and multiple contact options for requesting assistance/accommodation. The availability of assistive devices/technology should be displayed in company literature, websites, and appropriate marketing materials. All images and graphics of customers with disabilities present a positive and realistic representation of individuals with disabilities. All customer-­‐related videos, webcasts, webinars, etc. are closed captioned and provide audio-­‐
description for customers with sensory problems. The company provides multiple formats for registration or enrollment in service offerings. Training is provided on emergency polices and procedures that includes alerting, accommodating and/or evacuating customers with disabilities. The company has a contingency plan when accessible features (e.g. elevators, doors) are malfunctioning. The business abides by all laws (e.g., HIPAA) when using, sharing, and securing customer-­‐related information. When exchanging money with someone who is blind, the company provides a second employee who will observe and concur with the transaction. Staff are clearly delineated by a company uniform, readable name tag (large print) or some other form of consistent company identification. All business employees participate in practice drills for accommodating and evacuating customers with disabilities. The business will establish policies and procedures for evacuating individuals with disabilities in light of an emergency. Business employees receive training on the appropriate handling and lifting of customers with disabilities in the case of an emergency. Businesses consult regularly with local emergency preparedness agencies on safety/evacuation procedures. The company has an individualized notification system (e.g., text-­‐alert) to alert of any emergencies within their service environment. Businesses have more than one accessible exit in the case of an emergency. Large service environments offer an escort service to ensure that customers reach their car, bus, ride, service destination, etc. safely. All auditory signals warning of an emergency will have a visual equivalent, and vice versa. 3.00 2.83 5.83 2.36 1.96 4.32 1.80 1.78 3.58 1.92 1.83 3.75 1.32 1.09 2.41 1.72 1.04 2.76 1.32 1.22 2.54 2.20 1.26 3.46 1.76 1.13 2.89 1.40 1.26 2.66 1.56 1.00 2.56 1.32 1.04 2.36 1.16 1.13 2.29 2.80 1.61 4.40 1.60 1.30 2.90 1.40 1.17 2.57 2.04 1.61 3.65 1.32 1.09 2.41 2.20 2.30 4.50 1.32 1.00 2.32 222 S14 Evacuation Chair HC1 Referral Sources HC2 Patience HC3 Privacy HC4 Triggers HC5 Disability Etiquette HC6 Referral HC7 Cleanliness HC8 Priority Entrance & Seating HC9 Rest Areas HC10 HC11 Carrying Merchandise Cleaning Supplies HC12 Personal Property HC13 Personal Space HC14 Respect for Equipment/Servic
e Animals HC15 Varying Times EE1 EE2 Customer Peer Mentoring Expectations EE3 Personal Shopper EE4 Asking Businesses with service environments on multiple floors have at least one evacuation-­‐chair that is maintained and available for emergency evacuations, in addition to other pertinent evacuation supplies/equipment. Service personnel are offered referral sources and instructed on how to offer a "warm hand-­‐off" when needs cannot be met through accommodation. Service personnel will offer customers time to communicate their needs and/or perform desired tasks. A private room/space is provided where customer with disabilities can take care of any disability-­‐
related issues/needs. Service environments are free of potential "triggers" such as loud music and noise, closed doors, etc. Business personnel use appropriate disability etiquette when interacting with and/or talking about customers with disabilities. Businesses that are not able to accommodate a customer should provide a "warm hand-­‐off" to an appropriate referral source. Companies keep service environments, including restrooms, clear of debris and access barriers. Customers with disabilities are offered earlier entrance to events/venues/facilities to secure a space that is safe and appropriate for service engagement. Service areas have benches or areas where a customer with a disability can rest. Service personnel offer customers assistance with carrying package or large merchandise. Companies offer supplies to clean off wheelchairs, canes, hands, etc. at the entrance to the service environment. All customer's personal property is handled with respect and safely secured, as appropriate. Businesses respect a customer's personal space, including any mobility or assistive equipment utilized by the customer. Personnel refrain from removing, touching or handling a customer's personal equipment and/or service animals without the customer’s prior permission. Programs and services are staggered so that they occur at various times throughout the day. Peer mentoring is offered to customers with disabilities to assist with service engagement. Businesses communicate the expected response time to customer requests for assistance and ask customers what time frame they need. The business offers a "personal shopper" (upon request) to assist customers with disabilities throughout the service environment. Business personnel always ask the customer if they can assist the customer in anyway to discern the customer’s need/desire for assistance. 1.28 1.09 2.37 1.36 1.17 2.53 1.84 1.26 3.07 1.60 1.04 2.64 2.44 1.96 4.40 1.48 1.26 2.74 1.32 1.09 2.41 1.60 1.91 3.51 2.20 1.35 3.55 1.44 1.39 2.83 1.80 1.48 3.28 3.08 2.83 5.91 1.24 1.13 2.37 1.16 1.04 2.20 1.20 1.09 2.29 2.00 1.96 3.96 1.64 1.83 3.47 1.56 1.78 3.34 1.92 1.83 3.75 1.72 1.74 3.46 223 EE5 Monitor EE6 Service Technology EE7 Customer Engagement EE8 Choice EE9 EE10 Clarification of Expectations Assumptions E1 Service Offerings E2 Response Time E3 Maps of Accessible Routes E4 Service Practice Equity E5 Equal Fees E6 Financial Support Service personnel observe customers to discern the customer's ability to navigate the service environment and/or need for assistance. All service technology allows customers to independently increase volume, font size, contrast, etc. to enable access. Individuals with disabilities are involved in all phases of the service process, including policy and procedure development, strategic planning, change management, marketing, information sharing, etc. Businesses present options with respect to products and services to offer customer choice. Service personnel clarify customer expectations of the service prior to service provision. Company personnel assume the same ability and competence from a customer with a disability as they do from any other customer. Services are offered in the most integrated setting as possible. Personnel respond to customers with disabilities request for assistance in the same time frame as offered to other customers. Maps of accessible routes are available at business entrances in alternative formats (e.g., large print, audio). All customer service practices followed for individuals without disabilities are also followed when providing customer service to people with varying abilities. Businesses charge the same fees for services, even when providing an accommodation, as is charged to all other customers. The company has designated financial support for the inclusion of customers with disabilities in its programs and services. 2.00 2.17 4.17 2.04 2.00 4.04 1.84 1.61 3.45 2.32 1.74 4.06 1.76 1.48 3.24 1.36 2.22 3.58 1.20 1.22 2.42 1.16 1.09 2.25 1.36 1.39 2.75 1.32 1.17 2.49 1.44 1.17 2.61 1.40 1.48 2.88 224 Appendix J
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005
ONTARIO REGULATION 429/07
ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS FOR CUSTOMER SERVICE
Consolidation Period: From December 14, 2012 to the e-Laws currency date.
Last amendment: O. Reg. 415/12.
This is the English version of a bilingual regulation.
SKIP TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Schedule 1
Schedule 2
Purpose and application
Effective dates
Establishment of policies, practices and procedures
Use of service animals and support persons
Notice of temporary disruptions
Training for staff, etc.
Feedback process for providers of goods or services
Notice of availability of documents
Format of documents
Compliance
Accessibility report
Boards, commissions, authorities and agencies
Broader public sector
CONTENTS
Purpose and application
1. (1) This Regulation establishes accessibility standards for customer service and
it applies to every designated public sector organization and to every other person or
organization that provides goods or services to members of the public or other third
parties and that has at least one employee in Ontario. O. Reg. 429/07, s. 1 (1).
(2) In this Regulation,
“designated public sector organization” means the Legislative Assembly and the
offices of persons appointed on the address of the Assembly, every ministry of the
Government of Ontario, every municipality and every person or organization listed
in Schedule 1 or described in Schedule 2 to this Regulation; (“organisation
désignée du secteur public”)
“provider of goods or services” means a person or organization to whom this
Regulation applies. (“fournisseur de biens ou de services”) O. Reg. 429/07, s. 1
(2).
225 Effective dates
2. The accessibility standards for customer service apply to the designated public
sector organizations on and after January 1, 2010 and to other providers of goods or
services on and after January 1, 2012. O. Reg. 429/07, s. 2.
Establishment of policies, practices, and procedures
3. (1) Every provider of goods or services shall establish policies, practices and
procedures governing the provision of its goods or services to persons with disabilities.
O. Reg. 429/07, s. 3 (1).
(2) The provider shall use reasonable efforts to ensure that its policies, practices,
and procedures are consistent with the following principles:
1. The goods or services must be provided in a manner that respects the dignity
and independence of persons with disabilities.
2. The provision of goods or services to persons with disabilities and others must
be integrated unless an alternate measure is necessary, whether temporarily or
on a permanent basis, to enable a person with a disability to obtain, use or
benefit from the goods or services.
3. Persons with disabilities must be given an opportunity equal to that given to
others to obtain, use and benefit from the goods or services. O. Reg. 429/07,
s. 3 (2).
(3) Without limiting subsections (1) and (2), the policies must deal with the use of
assistive devices by persons with disabilities to obtain, use or benefit from the provider’s
goods or services or the availability, if any, of other measures which enable them to do
so. O. Reg. 429/07, s. 3 (3).
(4) When communicating with a person with a disability, a provider shall do so in
a manner that takes into account the person’s disability. O. Reg. 429/07, s. 3 (4).
(5) Every designated public sector organization and every other provider of goods
or services that has at least 20 employees in Ontario shall prepare one or more documents
describing its policies, practices and procedures and, upon request, shall give a copy of a
document to any person. O. Reg. 429/07, s. 3 (5).
Use of service animals and support persons
4. (1) This section applies if goods or services are provided to members of the
public or other third parties at premises owned or operated by the provider of the goods
or services and if the public or third parties have access to the premises. O. Reg. 429/07,
s. 4 (1).
(2) If a person with a disability is accompanied by a guide dog or other service
animal, the provider of goods or services shall ensure that the person is permitted to enter
the premises with the animal and to keep the animal with him or her unless the animal is
otherwise excluded by law from the premises. O. Reg. 429/07, s. 4 (2).
(3) If a service animal is excluded by law from the premises, the provider of goods
or services shall ensure that other measures are available to enable the person with a
disability to obtain, use or benefit from the provider’s goods or services. O. Reg. 429/07,
s. 4 (3).
226 (4) If a person with a disability is accompanied by a support person, the provider
of goods or services shall ensure that both persons are permitted to enter the premises
together and that the person with a disability is not prevented from having access to the
support person while on the premises. O. Reg. 429/07, s. 4 (4).
(5) The provider of goods or services may require a person with a disability to be
accompanied by a support person when on the premises, but only if a support person is
necessary to protect the health or safety of the person with a disability or the health or
safety of others on the premises. O. Reg. 429/07, s. 4 (5).
(6) If an amount is payable by a person for admission to the premises or in
connection with a person’s presence at the premises, the provider of goods or services
shall ensure that notice is given in advance about the amount, if any, payable in respect of
the support person. O. Reg. 429/07, s. 4 (6).
(7) Every designated public sector organization and every other provider of goods
or services that has at least 20 employees in Ontario shall prepare one or more documents
describing its policies, practices and procedures with respect to the matters governed by
this section and, upon request, shall give a copy of a document to any person. O. Reg.
429/07, s. 4 (7).
(8) In this section,
“guide dog” means a guide dog as defined in section 1 of the Blind Persons’ Rights
Act; (“chien-guide”)
“service animal” means an animal described in subsection (9); (“animal d’assistance”)
“support person” means, in relation to a person with a disability, another person who
accompanies him or her in order to help with communication, mobility, personal
care, or medical needs or with access to goods or services. (“personne de soutien”)
O. Reg. 429/07, s. 4 (8).
(9) For the purposes of this section, an animal is a service animal for a person with
a disability,
(a) if it is readily apparent that the animal is used by the person for reasons
relating to his or her disability; or
(b) if the person provides a letter from a physician or nurse confirming that the
person requires the animal for reasons relating to the disability. O. Reg.
429/07, s. 4 (9).
Notice of temporary disruptions
5. (1) If, in order to obtain, use or benefit from a provider’s goods or services,
persons with disabilities usually use particular facilities or services of the provider and if
there is a temporary disruption in those facilities or services in whole or in part, the
provider shall give notice of the disruption to the public. O. Reg. 429/07, s. 5 (1).
(2) Notice of the disruption must include information about the reason for the
disruption, its anticipated duration and a description of alternative facilities or services, if
any, that are available. O. Reg. 429/07, s. 5 (2).
(3) Notice may be given by posting the information at a conspicuous place on
premises owned or operated by the provider of goods or services, by posting it on the
227 provider’s website, if any, or by such other method as is reasonable in the circumstances.
O. Reg. 429/07, s. 5 (3).
(4) Every designated public sector organization and every other provider of goods
or services that has at least 20 employees in Ontario shall prepare a document that sets
out the steps to be taken in connection with a temporary disruption and, upon request,
shall give a copy of the document to any person. O. Reg. 429/07, s. 5 (4).
Training for staff, etc.
6. (1) Every provider of goods or services shall ensure that the following persons
receive training about the provision of its goods or services to persons with disabilities:
1. Every person who deals with members of the public or other third parties on
behalf of the provider, whether the person does so as an employee, agent,
volunteer or otherwise.
2. Every person who participates in developing the provider’s policies, practices
and procedures governing the provision of goods or services to members of
the public or other third parties. O. Reg. 429/07, s. 6 (1).
(2) The training must include a review of the purposes of the Act and the
requirements of this Regulation and instruction about the following matters:
1. How to interact and communicate with persons with various types of disability.
2. How to interact with persons with disabilities who use an assistive device or
require the assistance of a guide dog or other service animal or the assistance
of a support person.
3. How to use equipment or devices available on the provider’s premises or
otherwise provided by the provider that may help with the provision of goods
or services to a person with a disability.
4. What to do if a person with a particular type of disability is having difficulty
accessing the provider’s goods or services. O. Reg. 429/07, s. 6 (2).
(3) The training must be provided to each person as soon as practicable after he or
she is assigned the applicable duties. O. Reg. 429/07, s. 6 (3).
(4) Training must also be provided on an ongoing basis in connection with
changes to the policies, practices, and procedures governing the provision of goods or
services to persons with disabilities. O. Reg. 429/07, s. 6 (4).
(5) Every designated public sector organization and every other provider of goods
or services that has at least 20 employees in Ontario shall prepare a document describing
its training policy, and the document must include a summary of the contents of the
training and details of when the training is to be provided. O. Reg. 429/07, s. 6 (5).
(6) Every designated public sector organization and every other provider of goods
or services that has at least 20 employees in Ontario shall keep records of the training
provided under this section, including the dates on which the training is provided and the
number of individuals to whom it is provided. O. Reg. 429/07, s. 6 (6).
Feedback process for providers of goods or services
7. (1) Every provider of goods or services shall establish a process for receiving
and responding to feedback about the manner in which it provides goods or services to
228 persons with disabilities and shall make information about the process readily available to
the public. O. Reg. 429/07, s. 7 (1).
(2) The feedback process must permit persons to provide their feedback in person,
by telephone, in writing, or by delivering an electronic text by email or on diskette or
otherwise. O. Reg. 429/07, s. 7 (2).
(3) The feedback process must specify the actions that the provider of goods or
services is required to take if a complaint is received. O. Reg. 429/07, s. 7 (3).
(4) Every designated public sector organization and every other provider of goods
or services that has at least 20 employees in Ontario shall prepare a document describing
its feedback process and, upon request, shall give a copy of the document to any person.
O. Reg. 429/07, s. 7 (4).
Notice of availability of documents
8. (1) Every designated public sector organization and every other provider of
goods or services that has at least 20 employees in Ontario shall notify persons to whom
it provides goods or services that the documents required by this Regulation are available
upon request. O. Reg. 429/07, s. 8 (1).
(2) The notice may be given by posting the information at a conspicuous place on
premises owned or operated by the provider, by posting it on the provider’s website, if
any, or by such other method as is reasonable in the circumstances. O. Reg. 429/07, s. 8
(2).
Format of documents
9. (1) If a provider of goods or services is required by this Regulation to give a
copy of a document to a person with a disability, the provider shall give the person the
document, or the information contained in the document, in a format that takes into
account the person’s disability. O. Reg. 429/07, s. 9 (1).
(2) The provider of goods or services and the person with a disability may agree
upon the format to be used for the document or information. O. Reg. 429/07, s. 9 (2).
Compliance
10. For purposes of paragraph 3 of subsection 21 (3), paragraph 2 of subsection 21
(4), subsection 21 (5) and paragraph 2 of subsection 33 (8) of the Act, Part V
(Compliance) of Ontario Regulation 191/11 applies, with necessary modifications, to
contraventions of this Regulation. O. Reg. 192/11, s. 1.
Accessibility report
11. (1) For the purposes of filing an accessibility report under section 14 of the
Act, section 86.1 of Ontario Regulation 191/11 (Integrated Accessibility Standards) made
under the Act, applies with necessary modifications to the filing of a report with respect
to the accessibility standard for customer service. O. Reg. 415/12, s. 1.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the terms used in section 86.1 of Ontario
Regulation 191/11 that have a defined meaning under that regulation have the same
meaning when applied to the filing of an accessibility report with respect to the
accessibility standard for customer service. O. Reg. 415/12, s. 1.
VITA Tammy B. Smith Education:
The Pennsylvania State University: University Park, PA, 2010-Present.
Major: Ph.D. (ABD) Workforce Education and Development
Specialization: Human Resources/Organization Development
The University of Maryland: College Park, MD, 1995-1996
Major: M.S. Therapeutic Recreation/Disability Studies
The University of Maryland: College Park, MD, 1979-1983
Major: B.S. Therapeutic Recreation/Disability Studies
Emphasis: Medical Rehabilitation
Academic Experience:
Research Associate and Project Director, Wounded Warrior Training, School of Hospitality
Management, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
August 2012-present
Instructor, Director of Internships, Outreach & Engagement, Department of Recreation, Park and
Tourism Management, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
August 1990-2010
Professional Experience:
Managing Partner, Cornerstone-A Miles LeHane Company, Leesburg, VA (2012-present).
Principal, Accessibility Performance, State College, PA (2010-present).
Clinical Specialist, National Rehabilitation Hospital, Washington, D.C. (1986-1989).
Recreational Therapist, Manor Care Largo, Upper Marlboro, MD (1983-1985).
Selected Projects:
Inclusive Recreation for Wounded Warriors: A Professional Training Program for Military
Recreation Management Personnel. Funded by the U.S. Army and Department of Defense
Contract. September 2008-2014. Total funded: $1,737,110. (Role: Co-PI).
Including Customers with Disabilities in MCCS Programs and Services: A Professional Training
Program for U.S. Marine Corps MCCS personnel. U.S. Department of Defense Contract. 20102011; 2012-2013. Total funding: $579,779. (Role: PI).
Selected Publications:
Smith, T. B. (2012). Inclusive Disability Competence. In Lindholm, J., Yarrish, K. K., and
Zaballero, A. G. vol eds., William Rothwell, series ed. The Encyclopedia of Human Resource
Management: HR Forms and Job Aids (pp. 36-38). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Smith, T. B. (2010). Penn State, Department of Defense Team Up to Provide Training on
Inclusive Recreation for Wounded Warriors. In Human Kinetics (Eds.), Inclusive Recreation:
Programs and Services for Diverse Populations (pp. 300-303). Champaign, IL: Author.