Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Introduction

Youths and adults without disabilities have been increasing the regularity of their online connectivity at a rapid pace, as previous research has indicated. The study presented here examined the degree to which transition-aged youths with visual impairments have used the Internet and what outcomes they have achieved following their graduation from high school.

Methods

The authors conducted a secondary analysis of the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS2) database and assessed a nationally representative sample of youths with visual impairments who were making the transition from high school to further education or work. The descriptive analysis showed estimates of Internet use among these youths during three periods (2005, 2007, and 2009). Multilevel longitudinal modeling was used to analyze the change in the prevalence of Internet use as the youths matured and to assess the impact of postsecondary opportunities on online communication.

Results

Across the three waves of data collection, an average of 43% of the transition-aged youths with visual impairments used the Internet regularly for online communication. There was no significant change in the use of the Internet as these young people matured (p = .06). The youths who used the Internet for regular online communication were significantly more likely to be engaged in postsecondary work (p < .01), education or training (p < .01), or volunteering and engaging in community service (p < .01).

Discussion

The study showed that transition-aged youths with visual impairments are not progressing at rates commensurate with their peers without disabilities in the vital area of Internet use. Their best performance, in Wave 5, was 49%; compared to 93% of youths without disabilities in the same year. The positive impact of participation in postsecondary opportunities on the likelihood of online connectivity is demonstrated.

Implications for practitioners

Implications for lifelong success in today's technology-driven society are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Armstrong

H. L.

, & Murray

I. D.

(2010). Adapting advanced information technology network training for adults with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 104, 504–509.

Byerley

S. L.

, & Chambers

M. B.

(2002). Accessibility and usability of Web-based library databases for non-visual users. Library Hi Tech, 20, 169–178.

Crudden

(2002). Employment after vision loss: Results of a collective case study. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96, 615–621.

DeBell

, & Chapman

(2006). Computer and Internet use by students in 2003 (NCES 2006–065). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Douglas

, Corcoran

, & Pavey

(2006). Network 1000. Birmingham, England: Visual Impairment Centre for Teaching and Research, University of Birmingham.

Evans

, & Douglas

(2008). E-learning and blindness: A comparative study of the quality of an e-learning experience. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 102, 77–88.

Fox

(2011). Americans living with disability and their technology profile. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Disability.aspx

Gerber

(2003). The benefits and barriers to computer use for individuals who are visually impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 97, 536–550.

Gerber

, & Kirchner

(2001). Who's surfing? Internet access and computer use by visually impaired youth and adults. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 95, 176–181.

10.

Internet World Stats. (2011). Internet world stats: Usage and population statistics. Bogota, Colombia: Miniwatts Marketing Group. Retrieved from http://www.internetworldstats.com/

11.

Jamieson

(2004). Likert scales: How to (ab)use them. Medical Education, 38, 1217–1218.

12.

Kapperman

, Sticken

, & Heinze

(2002). Survey of the use of assistive technology by Illinois students who are visually impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96, 106–108.

13.

Kaye

H. S.

(2000). Computer and Internet use among people with disabilities (Disability Statistics Report 13). Washington, DC: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.

14.

Kelly

S. M.

(2009). Use of assistive technology by students with visual impairments: Findings from a national survey. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 103, 470–480.

15.

Kelly

S. M.

(2011). Assistive technology use by high school students with visual impairments: A second look at the current problem. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 105, 235–239.

16.

Knight

, Heaven

, & Christie

(2002). Inclusive citizenship: Social equality for disabled people. London: Leonard Cheshire.

17.

Leonard

(2002). Statistics on vision impairment: A resource manual. New York: Lighthouse International.

18.

Luxton

(1990). Training students in adaptive computer technology. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 84, 523–525.

19.

Ommerborn

, & Schuemer

(2001). Using computers in distance study: Results of a survey amongst disabled distance students. Hagen, Germany: FernUniversitöt.

20.

Pastor

, & Reuben

C. A.

(2002). Attention deficit disorder and learning disability: United States, 1997–98 (PHS 2002–1534). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_206.pdf

21.

Pew Internet Project. (2011a). Trend data (teens): Online activities. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Static-Pages/Trend-Data-(Teens)/Online-Activites-Total.aspx

22.

Pew Internet Project. (2011b). Trend data (adults): Online activities. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Trend-Data-(Adults)/Online-Activites-Total.aspx

23.

Pew Internet Project. (2011c). Trend data (teens): Who's online. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Trend-Data-(Teens)/Whos-Online.aspx

24.

Pilling

, Barrett

, & Floyd

(2004). Disabled people and the Internet: Experiences, barriers and opportunities. London: City University.

25.

Raudenbush

, & Bryk

(2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

26.

Raudenbush

, Bryk

, Cheong

Y. F.

, Congdon

, & du Toit

(2004). HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

27.

Rideout

, Foehr

U. G.

, & Roberts

D. F.

(2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8- to 18-year-olds (Report 8010). Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

28.

Roberts

D. F.

, Foehr

U. G.

, & Rideout

(2005). Generation M: Media in the lives of 8–18 year-olds (Report 7251). Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

29.

SRI International. (2011a). NLTS2 database overview. Menlo Park, CA: Author.

30.

SRI International. (2011b). NLTS2 database structure. Menlo Park, CA: Author.

31.

Stockburger

D. W.

(1998). Multivariate statistics: Concepts, models, and applications. Springfield: Missouri State University. Retrieved from http://www.psychstat.missouristate.edu/multibook2/mlt.htm

32.

UN News Service. (2010, February 5). Internet access for visually impaired is focus of UN workshop. Retrieved from http:/www.un.org/apps/news/printnewsAr.asp?nid=33682

33.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Computer and Internet use in the United States: October 2009. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/hhes/computer/publications/2009.html

34.

Williamson

, Schauder

, & Bow

(2000). Information seeking by blind and sight impaired citizens: An ecological study. Information Research, 5(4). Retrieved from http://informationr.net/ir/5-4/paper79.html

35.

Wolffe

K. E.

, & Kelly

S. M.

(2011). Instruction in areas of the Expanded Core Curriculum linked to transition outcomes for students with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 105, 340–349.

Internet Use by Transition-Aged Youths with Visual Impairments in the United States: Assessing the Impact of Postsecondary Predictors

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Implications for practitioners

Get full access to this article

References