The authors explored how persons with disabilities perceived the experience of disability in their everyday lives. The findings suggest that the current models in the literature do not address disability adequately. Instead, disability was described as a multifaceted, complex experience that is integrated into the lives of persons with disabilities. The degree to which integration was possible was influenced by three disability-related factors: (a) the fundamental effects of the disabling condition, (b) others’ perceptions of disability, and (c) the need for and use of resources. Important contextual conditions included the environment, time, and experience. Ultimately, it was the match between how these persons perceived themselves and what was important in their lives, and the influence of the three factors that determined how well they were able to integrate disability into their lives. The findings suggest the need for a conceptual model that reflects the personal experience of disability.
Brandt, E. N., & Pope, A. M. (1997). Enabling America: Assessing the role of rehabilitation science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academy.
2.
Burns, T. J., Batavia, A. I., Smith, Q. W., & DeJong, G. (1990). Primary health care needs of persons with physical disabilities: What are the research and service priorities?Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 71(2), 138-143.
3.
Caron, C. D., & Bowers, B. J. (2000). Methods and application of dimensional analysis: A contribution to concept and knowledge development in nursing. In B. L. Rodgers & K. A. Knafl (Eds.), Concept development in nursing: Foundations, techniques, and applications (2nd ed., pp. 285-319). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
4.
Chermak, G. D. (1990). A global perspective on disability: A review of efforts to increase access and advance social integration for persons with disabilities. International Disability Studies, 12(3), 123-127.
5.
Davidoff, G., Schultz, S., Lieb, T., Andrews, K., Wardner, J., Hayes, C., et al. (1990). Rehospitalization after initial rehabilitation for acute spinal cord injury: Incidence and risk factors. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 71(2), 121-124.
6.
DeJong, G., & Brannon, R. (1998). Trends in services directed to working-age people with physical disabilities. In V. Mor (Ed.), Living in the community with disability: Services needs, uses, and systems (pp. 168-194). New York: Springer.
7.
DeJong, G., Palsbo, S. E., Beatty, P. W., Jones, G. C.Kroll, T. & Neri, M. T. (2002). The organization and financing of health services for persons with disabilities, Millbank Quarterly, 80(2), 261-301.
8.
Department of Health and Human Services, P. H. S. (2000). Healthy people 2010 (Conference ed., Vol. 1). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
9.
Finkelstein, V. (1993). Disability: A social challenge or an administrative responsibility? In M. Oliver (Ed.), Disabling barriers—Enabling environments (pp. 34-43). London: Sage.
10.
Fujiura, G. T. (2001). Emerging trends in disability. Population Today, 29(6), 9-10.
11.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
12.
Hockenberry, J. (1995). Moving violations: War zones, wheelchairs, and declarations of independence. New York: Hyperion.
13.
Hurst, R. (2000). To revise or not to revise?Disability and Society, 15(7), 1083-1087.
14.
Hurst, R. (2003). The international disability rights movement and the ICF. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25(11/12), 572-576.
15.
Imrie, R. (2004). Demystifying disability: Are view of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. Sociology of Health and Illness, 26(3), 287-305.
16.
Kools, S., McCarthy, M., Durham, R., & Robrecht, L. (1996). Dimensional analysis: Broadening the conception of grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 6, 312-330.
17.
Leutz, W., Sciegaj, M., & Capitman, J. (1997). Client-centered case management: A survey of state programs. Journal of Case Management, 6(1), 18-24.
18.
Lutz, B. J., & Bowers, B. J. (2003). Understanding how disability is defined and conceptualized in the literature. Rehabilitation Nursing, 28(3), 74-78.
19.
Mairs, N. (1996). Waist high in the world: Life among the non-disabled. Boston: Beacon.
20.
Marks, D. (1997). Models of disability. Disability and Rehabilitation, 19, 85-91.
21.
Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. London: Oxford University Press.
22.
Morris, J. (Ed.). (1989). Able lives: Women’s experiences of paralysis. London: Women’s Press.
23.
Morris, J. (2001). Impairment and disability: Constructing an ethics of care that promotes human rights. Hypatia, 16(4) 1-16.
24.
Nagi, S. Z. (1965) Some conceptual issues in disability and rehabilitation. In M. B. Sussman (Ed.), Sociology and rehabilitation (pp. 100-113). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
25.
Nagi, S. Z. (1991) Disability concepts revisited: Implications for prevention. In A. M. Pope & A. R. Tarlov (Eds.), Disability in America: Toward a national agenda for prevention (pp. 309-327). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
26.
National Organization on Disability (NOD). (2004, June 25). Landmark disability survey finds pervasive disadvantages. Retrieved July 17, 2004, from http://www.nod.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewPage&pageID=1430&nodeID=1&FeatureID=1422&redirected=1&CFID=2673961&CFTOKEN=88505582
27.
O’Day, B., Palsbo, S. E., Dhont, K. & Scheer, J. (2002). Health plan selection criteria by people with impaired mobility, Medical Care, 40(9), 739-742.
28.
Pope, A. M., & Tarlov, A. R. (Eds.). (1991). Disability in America: Toward a national agenda for prevention. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
29.
Reeve, C. (1998). Still me. New York: Random House.
30.
Robillard, A. B. (1999). Meaning of disability: The lived experience of paralysis. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
31.
Schatzman, L. (1991). Dimensional analysis: Notes on an alternative approach to the grounding of theory in qualitative research. In D. R. Maines (Ed.), Social organization and social process: Essays in honor of Anselm Strauss (pp. 303-314). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
32.
Shalin, D. N. (1986). Pragmatism and social interactionism. American Sociological Review, 51, 9-29.
33.
Tregaskis, C. (2002). Social model theory: The story so far... Disability and Society, 17(4), 457-470.
34.
Ueda, S., & Okawa, Y. (2003). The subjective dimension of functioning and disability: What is it and what is it for?Disability and Rehabilitation, 25(11/12), 596-601.
35.
Verbrugge, L. M., & Jette, A. M. (1994) The disablement process. Social Science & Medicine, 38(1), 1-14.
36.
World Health Organization. (1980). International classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
37.
World Health Organization. (2002). Towards a common language for functioning, disability, and health: ICF. Retrieved August 8, 2003, from http://www3.who.int/icf/beginners/bg.pdf
