EUROPEAN
COMMISSION - DGXIII 
Programs
in
Assistive Technology Education
for End-Users in Europe
2.1.
Data structure and presentation.
The data obtained from analysis of the
questionnaires have been divided into separate groups for the purposes
of comparing overall data, European data and organisations which filled
in the three sections of the questionnaire.
The sample is chiefly composed of questionnaires from the European countries
where EUSTAT interest is focused. Nevertheless, a certain number of questionnaires
were sent to high-profile organisations in the field outside Europe, and
the response from these provided some significant examples. Even though
this group is not very large, the examples have been included in the overall
data analysis, but for precision's sake some comparison with the data from
Europe has been made.
The data refer to each of the questions in the questionnaire (except for
some open-ended questions that have been considered separately, in detail)
and are presented both as a number and as a percentage. The bar charts
show the breakdown for each question, namely the number of positive answers
that the various options received (distinguishing between "single"
and "multiple" options, as explained below) and a pie chart with
the percentages related to these options.
A further percentage is also presented with the pie charts, shown in brackets
beside each option: this refers to the frequency of that option with respect
to the total number of questionnaires returned, i.e. the responding organisations.
The pie chart breakdown has been chosen in order to present as accurately
as possible a comparison between one option and another, the factor of
greatest interest in this survey. The percentage given in brackets may
provide a useful picture of just how representative each option is with
reference to the total number of organisations. What's more, these two
methods of data analysis have been used because no limits were put on the
number of positive responses possible for each question (except in one
case).
In this light, the two possible typologies of answer (single and multiple)
have been considered separately, because this characteristic may sometimes
be significant from a qualitative point of view. To calculate percentages,
the two typologies have been added together, so the percentages refer to
the total response to each option of a question, irrespective of whether
a single or multiple answer was called for.
Below are the details of the tables that are presented in Part 2
of this book.
Table 1 contains general data concerning the number of organisations
that the questionnaire was sent to and the number of organisations that
returned the questionnaires, as well as data concerning the countries involved
in the survey and the sections of the questionnaires filled in.
While the number of organisations and the number of questionnaires are
the same for Sections One and Two, this is not true for Section Three,
which was to be completed for each course or seminar described. So in Table
1 the third section of the questionnaire is represented by two main columns,
the first one referring to the number of organisations that sent in the
questionnaire, and the second one the country-by-country breakdown of the
total number of returned third sections.
The columns with percentages show both the amount of questionnaires received
from each country and the total number of returned questionnaires. As to
the completed "third sections", only the overall percentage is
given.
In Table 2 we gathered together all the data related to Sections
1 and 2 from all the questionnaires, examined question by question.
In Table 3 and in Table 3bis only the European data are presented.
The target has been divided into two groups: the first (Table 3) comprises
the organisations that filled in only the first or the first and second
section of the questionnaire; the second group (Table 3bis) is made up
of the organisations that filled in the entire questionnaire.
When reading the data, special attention should be paid to analysis of
this last kind of table, corresponding to the very target of EUSTAT, as
it covers the organisations which are already involved in educational activities
devoted to AT as an instrument for autonomy.
This subdivision has been made in order to support investigation of the
differences between the organisations generically involved in the field
of disability and the elderly, organisations that cover the same area in
educational activities (as defined in Section 2 of the questionnaire),
and finally organisations that carry out training courses and seminars
devoted to AT as an instrument for autonomy.
Analysis of the third section of the questionnaire appears in Table
4, which covers all the data obtained from this section; here again
the data are presented both in number and percentage form. Similarly, the
distinction between single and multiple answers has been kept.
The data in Table 1 have been amended to account for some irregularities
that probably derive from the complex structure of the questionnaire. For
example, some organisations filled in Sections Two or Three without observing
the requested criteria. In these cases, for the purposes of obtaining a
coherent analysis, only the parts that should actually have been filled
in have been considered. In addition, we also found the opposite situation,
namely organisations that should have filled in Section Two or Three of
the questionnaire but failed to do so. In any case, all the organisations
concerned were contacted by phone (unless language barriers made this impossible)
to try and obtain further explanation or were asked to complete the questionnaire.
This attempt proved successful on some occasions, but on others did not.
Once again, the problem may lie in the complexity of the topic itself and,
consequently, in the depth of questions, which demanded considerable effort
on the part of the compiler. Nevertheless, in the analysis of Section Two
we still have some data on the training courses and seminars that cannot
be analysed in further depth: the information was excluded because it was
of scarce statistical relevance, but was considered for the resulting qualitative
summary. In addition, some respondents whose organisations are usually
involved only in training activities for professionals decided to fill
in the whole questionnaire (contrary to the stated rules). We decided in
these cases not to include the data when analysing the Section Three results
because these organisations are not the real target of EUSTAT, but their
descriptions have nonetheless been reported in Chapter 6.
Back to Index
of this Page.
2.2.
General data.
Table 1 contains the total data related
to the dissemination and collection of the questionnaires. There is also
a breakdown for each of the three modes of completion, namely those filled
in only in Section One, in Sections One and Two, and in all three sections.
Analysis of these data reveals that 23.7% of the questionnaires sent out
have been filled in. These come mainly from Italy, Denmark, Portugal, France
and Belgium, which are the nations forming the EUSTAT Consortium and those
with the highest concentration of organisations invited to complete the
questionnaire. The return rate of the other European countries was low,
as indeed was that of non-European countries (although these were not considered
within the real target of EUSTAT, we nevertheless decided to contact some
of the most representative organisations located there).
This uneven distribution of our sample (as already discussed in Section
1.2.3) is the main factor preventing from inferring statistical trends.
Out of the returned questionnaires, 29.4% have been filled in all three
sections, 33.1% in Sections One and Two, and 37.4% only in Section One.
First of all this means that a significant number of organisations claim
to have a concrete involvement in training courses and seminars devoted
to AT as an instrument for autonomy. But over half the organisations are
involved in more general educational activities, as defined in Section
Two (62.5% being the sum of the organisations that completed the whole
questionnaire and those that stopped at Section Two).
If we then consider the overall number of third sections filled
in (remembering that the organisations were asked to complete one third
section for each of their educational activities), the total number is
actually higher: we collected descriptions of 87 training courses or seminars.
In this sense, some organisations such as those in Italy, France and Belgium
(see Table 1) returned more third sections than others: in fact
there were three times as many third sections as organisations that
filled them in.
Another aspect worth point out is the enthusiasm and precision demonstrated
by these organisations in filling in the questionnaire, even the demanding
and complex Section Three. The augers well for the effort put into educational
activities and the importance attributed to them.
A final consideration must be made regarding the apparent interest raised
by the issue of education devoted to autonomy for end-users, since almost
all the organisations declared an interest in the results of this survey
(only 4 negative answers to question 1.6 were received). This suggests
that today the issue is considered crucial by many organisations in the
field.
Back to Index
of this Page.
2.3.
Section One.
2.3.1. What organisations sent in the questionnaire.
Looking at Table 2, which reports the total
data from all the returned questionnaires, we find that (Question 1.1)
the majority of organisations define themselves as providers of "health
or social services" (30%), immediately followed by organisations of
persons with disabilities (29%), and then by other kinds of organisations;
a large proportion falls into the "other" category, which is
made up of: umbrella organisations, information and advice centres, businesses,
etc. A similar breakdown is reflected in the percentages in brackets referring
to the whole number of responding organisations: 40% are health and social
services, 39% organisations of persons with disabilities.
But when we consider the option "user organisations" as a whole,
as the question structure suggests, this obviously leads the table, comprising
nearly half of the sample (47%). In any case, most of the single answers
corresponding to organisations with a single vocation are from health and
social services, while the multiple answers have mostly been provided by
user organisations, i.e. they have more than one single vocation.
Moreover, an interesting comparison can be made between Table 3 (European
questionnaires filled in only in the first two sections) and Table 3bis
(all three sections of the European questionnaires completed): the latter
features a greater number of "organisations of persons with disabilities"
(34% vs. 26%), but fewer "health services". We should also point
out that the percentage of family organisations here is lower. In addition,
the organisations in Table 3bis (those that completed Section Three) seem
to be more focused in nature, as borne out by the greater number of single
answers to Question 1.1, as if their vocation were to a certain point more
clearly defined.
Moving on, general and detailed analysis of Question 1.2 reveals that these
organisations are involved in multiple activities, and seldom carry out
only one (low rate of single answers); this may well reflect a need to
face the issue of disability in a multifaceted way, or, to be more precise,
each organisation working in the field of disability and/or the elderly
feels that involvement in only one of the possible aspects is inadequate.
In any case, looking at the activity categories, we note an overall predominance
of information activities and advice (26%) (something that will be studied
in depth later on) followed by rehabilitation activities (18%). The predominance
of information/advice activities is also reflected in the percentages in
brackets showing the total number of organisations; this reveals that 80%
of organisations are really involved in information and advice activities;
while those involved in rehabilitation activities (54%) fall a long way
behind.
In both cases, the category occupying third place is public awareness,
which points to the importance now attributed to the social context; moreover,
if we sum the two options "public awareness" and "pressure
group activities", considering them in terms of their social value,
the total percentage obtained (see the pie chart in Table 2) is slightly
higher than for the "rehabilitation activity" category.
The single answers in this case related to rehabilitation and information/advice
activities, namely health activities or those mostly addressed to the individual,
where a strong impulse is lacking to consider the problem from a wider,
social viewpoint.
Back to Index
of this Page.
2.3.2.
The organisations and education.
How do educational activities compare to
the other types? One point immediately stands out: looking at the answers
to Question 1.2, we can deduct that only one organisation (belonging to
the non-European sample) is solely dedicated to this kind of activity.
Moreover (Question 1.3), 9% of the sample has never been involved in educational
activities, and the percentage of the total number of organisations in
this case rises to 21%.
In all the other cases, education/training is but one of the activities
carried out (11%), but it is done by 33% of the organisations as a whole.
Education/training activities are mostly
addressed to persons with disabilities (28% answers to question 1.3 in
Table 2), even if the percentage of education addressed to professionals
is just a little lower (25%); 60% of organisations are involved in educational
activities for persons with disabilities, 57% in educational activities
for professionals (see the percentages in brackets in the same diagram).
A significant proportion of education is addressed to personal assistants,
a fact gives first place to educational activities addressed to "end-users"
in general, as defined within the EUSTAT framework (66% in total).
A further surprise comes once more from
examination of Table 3bis, in which by far the most important target for
educational activities is persons with disabilities (34% with respect to
25% of the total data and 24% of the European group in Table 3). A similar
observation can be made about the percentage related to the educational
activities addressed to personal assistants, which is higher in Table 3bis
when compared both to the total data and the data in Table 3. These last
two findings may be partly due to the questionnaire structure itself, which
has been designed with the precise aim of highlighting a special group
of organisations, but also makes it possible to underline the stronger
accent that these organisations (the actual target of EUSTAT) place on
education devoted to autonomy and on the important role of end-users.
The answers to Question 1.4 give rise to another observation: the data
in Table 3bis are organised in such a way as to stress that almost all
the organisations involved in education also choose to carry out educational
activities for independent living or coping better with disability (92%).
This finding differs notably from the total percentages, which indicate
a 67% rate for activities of this kind, and even more so within the two
considered European groups (Table 3 and Table 3bis).
The gap widens going on to Question 1.5, following a trend that is now
foreseeable: in fact, 87% of the same organisations consider in some way
the role played by AT in education for autonomy and/or independent living,
with respect to a total percentage of 56%.
It's also worth taking a look at these last data from another perspective,
namely by comparing the answers to the two questions within the same table.
In this way we can find what percentage of organisations involved in educational
activities devoted to autonomy do not consider the role played by AT important,
an observation of great interest for EUSTAT. At the total data level (Table
2) the 67% of organisations that answer positively to Question 1.4 decreases
to 56% in Question 1.5 - a drop of 11% - while in Table 3, for the 55%
that state they are involved in educational activities devoted to independent
living, the stress on AT decreases to 38% - a drop of 17%. On the contrary,
in Table 3bis, the drop is only 5% (from 92% to 87%). Even if once again
these percentages derive from the special data grouping, in any case we
can find here a suggestion of the greater value and importance attributed
to AT by the organisations that carry out educational activities for autonomy
or better coping with disability.
Back to Index
of this Page.
2.4.
Section Two.
Let's now come to the analysis of data
collected in Section Two of the questionnaire. It is worth recalling that
this section was to be filled in by the organisations carrying out educational
activities in which AT is considered a support for autonomy and/or for
coping better with disability. The objective of this section was thus to
define the typology of these educational activities, to get a clearer idea
of their profile, and bring to light some of their characteristics, as
well as to stress the differences between them.
To define the different typologies of educational activity we have considered,
here is one of the tables to be completed in the questionnaire.
