The Professional Counselor | Volume 14, Issue 1 67 Inclusion Criteria and Participants To participate in the study, individuals (a) were at least 18 years of age, (b) had earned a high school diploma or GED, and (c) had a diagnosed disability. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the term disability is defined within the context of a person’s significant limitations to engage in major life activities. Different agencies and organizations such as the World Health Organization and the U.S. Social Security Administration define disability differently (Patel & Brown, 2017). For this study, we categorized disability as (a) physical disability (i.e., mobility-related disability), (b) sensory disability (i.e., seeing- or hearing-related disability), (c) psychiatric/mental disability (e.g., bipolar disorder, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder), or (d) neurodevelopmental disability (e.g., autism spectrum disorder, learning disability, or ADHD). Participants’ disabilities were apparent/visible (i.e., recognizable by others without the person disclosing they have a disability) or hidden (i.e., others are unlikely to know the individual has a disability, so the person must disclose they have a disability for it to be known), and they could identify with one or more disability categories listed above. Ninety individuals provided usable responses. Table 1 details participant demographics. The bulk of the sample, 84.43%, identified as having two (36.66%), three (26.66%), or four (21.11%) nondominant cultural identities out of the six identities the study targeted, while the rest of the sample comprised individuals who noted six (n = 2; 2.22%), five (n = 4; 4.4%), one (n = 7; 7.77%), or no (n = 1; 1.11%) nondominant identities. Of note, a higher percentage of participants with hidden or both apparent and hidden disabilities participated in the qualitative portion of the study compared to those who completed only the quantitative portion (45.5% compared to 41.8% and 33.3% compared to 27.4%, respectively). Similarly, there was a lower response rate from participants who earned a high school diploma or GED (5.6%), completed an associate degree or trade school (7.8%), completed some college (7.8%), or earned a doctoral degree (10%). There was an increase in responses from participants who earned a bachelor’s degree (26.7% compared to 21.9% in the quantitative portion) or a master’s degree (42.2% compared to 35.8%, respectively). Data Analysis We analyzed data for this study using MacQueen et al.’s (1998) framework to create a codebook to promote coder consistency. We established six codes, four of which were definitionally congruent with the AMS subscales (i.e., Helplessness, Minimization, Denial of Personhood, and Otherization; Conover et al., 2017a). While we used Conover et al.’s definitions as the foundation, we utilized Keller and Galgay’s (2010) definitions to add additional nuance. The next code, Other Data, was an a priori code reserved for data that did not fit the AMS subscale codes. After completing the pilot, we added a sixth code, Fortitude/Resilience/Coping, to capture data that demonstrated ways in which participants developed strengths, dealt with adversity and microaggressions, and persevered despite their microaggressive experiences. Identifying PWD’s fortitude/resilience/coping abilities is indicative of a strengths-based framework that promotes inclusion, equity, and higher quality of life. Research has shown that resilience in PWD such as improved well-being, higher social role satisfaction, and lower mental health symptoms are correlated with positive psychological and employment outcomes (Ordway et al., 2020; Norwood et al., 2022). Once this code was established, the Other Data code was used for any data that did not fit the five a priori codes. After the pilot, we added to the codebook definitions for clarity—though no codes were changed. All codes we established had substantial representation in the data and are reported as themes in the results section. The auditor (second author Melissa D. Deroche) gave feedback on the codebook and confirmed the codebook was sound prior to analysis.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDU5MTM1