Assessing Restaurants for Receptivity: Assessment to Advocacy

1
Assessing Restaurants for Receptivity
Assessment to Advocacy

• David B. Gray, Ph.D.
• Emilie O. Marty, OTD/S
• Rachel Dargatz, OTD/S
• Washington University in St. Louis
• DBTAC Region 7
• October 27, 2009

DBTAC Region VII, James de Jong, PI
2
Objectives Participants will understand

• Features of the physical environment of
  restaurants that affect the participation of
  people with disabilities
• Differences in the importance of features to
  three functionally limited groups mobility,
  vision and hearing
• How the CHEC-Restaurant can be used by advocates
  to assess their local restaurants and develop
  accessibility improvement reports for use by
  proprietors

3
Presentation Components

• Development of the Community Health Environment
  Checklist (CHEC)
• Development of the CHEC-Restaurant (CHEC-R)
• Test of the reliability of the CHEC-R
• Testing the utility of the CHEC-R

(Stark, Hollingsworth, Morgan Gray, 2007)
4
Expected Changes Participation by People With
Disabilities Pre and Post Social Policy Changes
Pre Policy Change
Post Policy Change
Change in Social Policy USA - ADA UN -
Convention on the Rights of People with
Disabilities
People without Disabilities
People with Disabilities
BUT How to establish evidence for change?
5
What is the CHEC?

• Objective assessment tool to evaluate government
  and public areas in the community ADA Titles 2
  3
• Began as a generic tool for use by community
  members interested in making their buildings
  accessible
• Easy to use
• Little training required
• Understandable scoring
• Provides pragmatic solutions to problems
  encountered
• Not a ADAAG assessment
• Not for litigation

6
How was the CHEC developed?
Cognitive mapping

• Research Design
• Qualitative
• Research Methods
• In home interviews
• Cognitive mapping
• Focus groups with Member check

7
15 Key Destinations Sites

• Government Buildings
• Performance Venues
• Large Stores
• Small Stores
• Dining Establishments
• Schools and Libraries
• Religious Facilities
• Self Care Service Providers

• Transportation
• Health Care Providers
• Health Vendors
• Professional Service Providers
• Indoor Leisure
• Outdoor Leisure
• Major Tourist Attractions

8
22 Key Features

• Distances to Enter Building
• Accessible Parking
• Level Surfaces
• Curb Cuts
• Doors at Entrances
• Signage for Accessible Paths to Entrances
• Doors Inside the Building
• Loaner Scooters or Wheelchairs
• Signage for Accessible Elements
• Single Level

• Maneuverable Spaces
• Crowding
• Floor Surfaces
• Counters and Merchandise
• Accessible Places to Sit
• Adequate Lighting
• Accessible Restroom
• Drinking Fountain
• Accessible Phone
• Drive-through Window
• Usability
• Rescue Assistance

9
Features Weights Based on Importance Rankings
by People with Mobility Limitations
10
Key Section Feature Item Rule
11
Glossary Page
Latch Side of the Door
Measure to see if there is at least 18 inches of
clear/unobstructed space on the side of the door
by the handle (note if the object is moveable)
12
Reliability and Utility of the CHEC

• The CHEC is a objective, valid and reliable
  measure of environmental accessibility
• Accessibility can be characterized at the
  Community Level
• Total CHEC Scores on a sample of destination
  sites
• Accessibility can be characterized at the
  Destination/Site Level
• Building site CHEC score

13
(No Transcript)
14
Maximum
15
CHEC Limitations

• Does not allow assessment of the interior site
  specific features
• Does not provide a measure of site personnel
  response to people with disabilities
• The CHEC is a measure of accessibility for
  mobility impairments, BUT
• Not for low-vision/blind or hard of hearing/deaf

16
Development of the CHECs for Specific Sites
Hearing
Mobility
Vision
Restaurants
Restaurants
Restaurants
Doctors Offices
Doctors Offices
Doctors Offices
Exercise Facilities
Houses of Worship
Grocery Stores
Funded by DBTAC Region 7, PI Jim de Jong Contact
Dave Gray graydb_at_wusum.wustl.edu
17
Development of the CHEC-Restaurant

• Emilie O. Marty, OTD/S
• Program in Occupational Therapy
• Washington University in St. Louis

DBTAC Region VII, James de Jong, PI
18
Feature Item Development

• Feature identification - focus Groups (mobility
  limited, low vision and hard of hearing) (N 24)
  
• Identify physical social features of
  restaurant-specific
• Reception area, server signal, acoustics, etc.
• Feature ranking focus Groups (mobility limited,
  low vision and hard of hearing) (N 16)
• Validate identified restaurant features
  performed a ranking study
• Item Development
• Research team developed items based on identified
  restaurant-specific features feature
  descriptions

19
Features Items

• A total of 42 impairment-specific
  restaurant-specific features were developed
• 14 Mobility
• 15 Vision
• 13 Hearing
• A total of 53 items were developed to determine
  the presence or absence of a restaurant-specific
  feature
• 17 Mobility
• 20 Vision
• 16 Hearing

20
Example of Features

• Mobility-Specific
• Undertable space
• Enough space underneath the table for foot
  pedals customer does not have to angle
  wheelchair.
• Vision-Specific
• Signal to get attention of server
• A flag or other physical object is provided at
  the table to get servers attention.
• Hearing-Specific
• Background noise
• Restaurant has a variety of sources of noise
  (e.g., other diners talking loudly, music, open
  kitchen, silverware clanging, server noise, or
  heating/air conditioning units).

21
Weighted Scoring System

• Ranking of Mobility-specific restaurant physical
  features
• social receptivity
• Most important - Service worker training
• Least important - Comment card
• Ranking of Vision-specific restaurant physical
  features
• social receptivity
• Most important - Menu type
• Least important - Staff description of where food
  is on plate
• Ranking of Hearing -specific restaurant physical
  features
• social receptivity
• Most important - Acoustics
• Least important - Detailed bills receipts

22
(No Transcript)
23
Inter-Rater Reliability

• Four raters
• Ten restaurants in the St. Louis area
• Each rater had an assigned date and timeframe in
  which to assess each restaurant
• Inter-rater reliability is 0.89

24
CHEC-Restaurant

• Community Utility and Advocacy

• Rachel Dargatz, OTD/S
• Program in Occupational Therapy
• Washington University in St. Louis

DBTAC Region VII, James de Jong, PI
25
CHEC-R Utility Study

• CHEC-R Training
• Establish inter-rater reliability (r 0.90)
• Assess 10 restaurants
• Send CHEC-R report
• Reassess after 3 months

• CHEC-R Training
• Establish inter-rater reliability (r 0.90)
• Assess 10 restaurants
• Advocate for change speak with manager, write a
  letter, etc.
• Send CHEC-R report
• Reassess after 3 months

• Occupational Therapy Student Group (n 4)

• Community Disability Consultant Group (n 4)

26
Advocacy Training

• Training session for members of the Community
  Advocate Group at Paraquad, Inc.
• Six participants in attendance
• Two veteran members and 4 new members

27
Procedure

• Recruitment occurred during advocate group
  meetings
• Pre-training survey information
• Survey of Participation And Receptivity in
  Community-Advocacy (SPARC-Advocacy)
• Letter writing activity (White, Thomson, Nary,
  1997)
• Post-training assessments currently being
  collected

28
Advocacy Training Agenda

• Legislative Process
• Disability Rights How to tell when your rights
  are being violated
• Personal Communication Advocacy
• Letter Writing

29
CHEC-R Utility Demonstration

• IN PROGRESS

DBTAC Region VII, James de Jong, PI
30
Restaurant 80
Restaurant 7
Restaurant 4
Restaurant 6
31
Restaurant 80
Restaurant 7
Restaurant 4
Restaurant 6