ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2024
Neat Gizmo!/That Looks Scary: Employer Reactions to Assistive Technology.
Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAccommodations are vital for protecting equal access and increasing the employment of people with disabilities. However, the evidence on whether employers are willing or resistant to provide accommodations is mixed. We explore reactions to accommodations specifically associated with Assistive Technologies (AT). While the presence of such a device should reassure hiring managers about the abilities of the candidate to do the job, they also risk raising new questions and uncertainties.
methodsHypothetical job candidates with and without disabilities were presented to participants with hiring experience to examine perceptions of employability, risk, and trust. Several conditions included the candidate describing the use of AT (i.e., an exosuit) and requesting accommodations, with and without extra technical or enthusiastic language to explain the specific device.
resultsQuantitative and qualitative results show that the request for accommodations, in general, is problematic. And while using the exosuit seems to benefit perceptions of trust, it still seems risky and does not categorically improve employability perceptions. Extra language provided by the candidate to explain the device did not improve outcomes but did (in the case of enthusiastic language) make people more open to seeing the positive aspects of the device.
conclusionWhile using an AT is a positive advance for a job candidate with a disability, the perceptual risk and the salience of the disability are both increased. Future work is needed to explore the options for better reassuring hiring managers about such devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37945812What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.