406 The Professional Counselor | Volume 13, Issue 4 Methodology For this quantitative study, we utilized surveys and online data collection to investigate our three research questions that aligned with the study purpose. Research Question 1: What are the participants’ experiences of ableist microaggressions based on the Ableist Microaggressions Scale (AMS; Conover et al., 2017b) scores and subscale scores? Research Question 2: Do AMS scores and AMS subscales (i.e., Helplessness, Minimization, Denial of Personhood, and Otherization) have a relationship with the type of disability and the visibility of the disability? Research Question 3: Are other nondominant sociocultural identity factors associated with or predictive of AMS scores and AMS subscales? We anticipated participants would report differences in the occurrence and types of ableist microaggressions they experienced based on visibility of disability and disability type and that having nondominant identities would influence the occurrence of ableist microaggressions. More specifically, we expected people with visible disabilities to report higher occurrences of ableist microaggressions than their counterparts and that disability visibility would influence the type of ableist microaggressions. We anticipated variations based on disability type regarding frequency and type of ableist microaggressions. Finally, we expected PWD nondominant sociocultural identities to be associated with the occurrence of ableist microaggressions. Procedures This study was approved by the first author’s IRB. We recruited participants through targeted disability organizations (e.g., Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation, Wisconsin’s Centers for Independent Living, Alabama Department of Rehabilitation Services) and social media platforms, many of which were specifically for PWD (e.g., Blind Pen Pals, VR Professionals, Cerebral Palsy Support, and Spinal Cord Injury Peer Mentor Program Facebook groups). Additionally, we sent email invitations to professional and personal contacts and posted on listservs of various professional organizations that serve PWD. The email invitation and posting included a brief description of the research study; inclusion criteria; an informed consent document; and a URL link to the secure, confidential survey via Qualtrics. To proceed to the study questionnaires, participants had to meet the following criteria: 1) at least 18 years old, 2) have a high school diploma or GED, and 3) have a diagnosed disability. The online survey portal was divided into six parts: informed consent, consent, screening questions, demographics, AMS questions, and two optional open-ended questions regarding their personal microaggression experiences and their interest in participating in future related studies. This study was Section 508 compliant and accessible to participants with disabilities. In total, 254 participants responded to the online survey; 53 participants were excluded because of vastly incomplete or unusable data, resulting in a final sample of 201 participants.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDU5MTM1