Unintended Biases due to Simulated Impairment within Inclusive Mobility Research and Design

Abstract

Simulated impairment refers to requiring persons without impairments to substitute persons with impairments in endeavors related to training, design creation, or usability testing. However, disability voices and research suggest limited effectiveness, greater distancing, and exclusion. Despite this, the simulation of physical limitations, including that of aging, continue to be used under the assumption that physical tasks and usability ratings do not significantly differ in simulation. In this experiment, age- and sex-matched older adults who use and do not use a manual wheelchair (MWC) are instructed to independently perform a self-paced parallel park using an MWC. The total clearance between obstacles required to perform a collision-free trial was recorded. Thirty-eight volunteers were recruited (MWC-user n=15; Simulated Impairment [SI] n=23). Higher clearance was required by the MWC group, suggesting the use of simulated impairment for motor tasks may result in bias. Open-ended questions revealed self-centered viewpoints, supporting literature that raises inclusion concerns regarding views of an “Other” group. Overall, our results support the direct engagement of target populations during early design to appropriately define user perspectives and needs. Designers should work with the community of people who face limitations rather than substituting their voices with those who may not accurately represent all of their consumer needs.

Keywords

Inclusive design Simulative impairment Accessibility

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bennett

Rosner

D.K.

(2019). The Promise of Empathy: Design, Disability, and Knowing the “Other”. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference in Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1-13.

Bertocci

Smalley

Page

Digiovine

(2018). Manual Wheelchair Propulsion on Ramp Slopes Encountered When Boarding Public Transit Buses, Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 14(6), pp. 561-565.

Brown

D.D.

Knowlton

R.G.

Hamill

Schneider

T.L.

Hetzler

R.K.

(1990). Physiological and Biomechanical Differences Between Wheelchair-Dependent and Able-Bodied Subjects During Wheelchair Ergometry. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 60, pp. 179-182.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2022). Persons with a Disability: labor Force Characteristics - 2021. Available at: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/disabl.pdf

Cardoso

Clarkson

P.J.

(2012). Simulation in User-Centered Design: Helping Designers to Empathise with Atypical Users. Journal of Engineering Design, 23(1), pp. 1-22.

Damle

Danford

G.S.

Steinfeld

(2001). Environmental Utility Measure (EUMTM): Difficulty Rating Scale (DRSTM), Acceptability Rating Scale (ARS TM). Center for Inclusive Design & Environmental Access.

Flower

Burns

M.K.

Bottsford-Miller

N.A.

(2007). Meta-Analysis of Disability Simulation Research. Remedial and Special Education, 28(2), pp. 72-79.

Freedman

V.A.

Spillman

B.C.

Andreski

P.M.

Cornman

J.C.

Crimmins

E.M.

Kramarow

Lubitz

Martin

L.G.

Merkin

S.S.

Schoeni

R.F.

Seeman

T.E.

Waidmann

T.A.

(2013) Trends in Late-Life Activity Limitations in the United States: An Update From Five National Surveys. Demography, 50, pp. 661-671.

Gallez

Motte-Baumvol

(2017). Inclusive Mobility or Inclusive Accessibility? A European Perspective. Governing Mobility in Europe: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 56, pp.79-104.

10.

Hallet

(2020). Designing with Extraordinary People: Stories of Creating Accessible Technology for the Five Percent. Proceedings of the 64th HFES Annual Meeting, pp: 981 - 984.

11.

Hart

S. G.

(2006). NASA-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX); 20 Years Later. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting, pp. 904-908.

12.

Horvat

French

Henschen

(1986). A Comparison of the Psychological Characteristics of Male and Female Able-Bodied and Wheelchair Athletes. Paraplegia, 24, pp. 115-122.

13.

Hunter-Zaworski

K. M. U.

Rutenberg

Shurland (2013). Recommendations for the PRIIA: Specifications on the Next Generation of Accessible Passenger Rail Cars. Proceedings of the 2013 Joint Rail Conference, pp. V001T02A015–V001T02A015.

14.

Inclusive Mobility Research Lab (IMRL) (2021). Design Guidelines for Wheeled Mobility Accessibility (Updated 2021). Inclusive Mobility Research Lab. Accessed online at: https://includable.org/aav/index.php

15.

Joint Center for Housing Services of Harvard University (2016). Projections and Implications for Housing a Growing Population: Older Households 2015-2035. Available at jchs.hardvard.edu.

16.

Kattenstroth

Kolankowska

Kalisch

To.

Dinse

H.R.

(2010). Superior Sensory, Motor, and Cognitive Performance in Elderly Individuals with Multi-year Dancing Activities. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 2.

17.

Kaye

H.S.

Taewoon

LaPlante

M.P.

(2000). Mobility Device Use in the United States. Disability Statistics Report (14). US Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.

18.

LaPlante

M.P.

(2003). Demographics of Wheeled Mobility Device Users. 2003 Space Requirements for Wheeled Mobility: International Workshop.

19.

Leo

Goodwin

(2014). Negotiated Meanings of Disability Simulations in an Adapted Physical Activity Course: Learning from Student Reflections. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 31, pp. 144-161.

20.

Leo

Goodwin

(2016). Simulating Others’ Realities: Insiders Reflect on Disability Simulations. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 33, pp. 156-175.

21.

Okoro

C.A.

Hollis

N.D.

Cyrus

A.C.

Griffin-Blake

(2018). Prevalence of Disabilities and Health Care Access by Disability Status and Type Among Adults – United States, 2016. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 67 (23), pp. 882-887.

22.

Nario-Redmond

M.R.

Gospodinov

Cobb

(2017). Crip for a Day: The Unintended Negative Consequences of Disability Simulations. Rehabilitation Psychology, 62(3), pp. 324-333.

23.

National Association for Caregiving (2020) CAREGIVING in the US 2020. Available at: https://www.caregiving.org/caregiving-in-the-us-2020/

24.

Salmen

J.P.S.

(2011) U.S. Accessibility Codes and Standards: Challenges for Universal Design. Universal Design Handbook.

25.

Scullion

(1996). Quasidisability experiences using simulation. British journal of therapy and rehabilitation, 4, 292-293.

26.

Silverman

A.M.

Gwinn

J.D.

Van Boven

(2015). Stumbling in Their Shoes: Disability Simulations Reduce Judged Capabilities of Disabled People. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(4), pp. 464-471.

27.

Tabattanon

Schuler

D’Souza

(2020). Investigating Inclusive Design of Shared Automated Vehicles with Full-Scale Modeling. Proceedings of the 64th Human Factors and Ergonomics Annual Meeting, pp: 965-969.

28.

Tabattanon

Martin

B.J.

(2023, Feb.). Impact of disability incidence and simulation on inclusive mobility design. At the February Education and Research Center: Ergonomics Research Update, Virtual Webinar Series.

29.

White

DeAntonio

Ryan

Colyar

(2021). The Economic Impact of Caregiving. Report prepared for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.